Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Situation of Dominican political thought and activities in France and England Brill, Barrie Alfred 1968

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1968_A8 B75.pdf [ 12.4MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0104572.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0104572-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0104572-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0104572-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0104572-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0104572-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0104572-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0104572-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0104572.ris

Full Text

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  advanced  Library  agree  this  degree  shall  that  at  make  thesis  the  it  in  University  freely  permission  for  may  be  granted  tatives.  It  is  understood  financial  gain  Department  of  by  not  May  2nd,  the  that  be  1968  fulfilment  British  available  Head  allowed  Columbia  for  of  my  of  the  Columbia,  reference  copying  copying  History  The U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h V a n c o u v e r 8, C a n a d a  Date  of  extensive  purposes  shall  partial  of  this  Department  or  without  requirements  for  I  the  agree  and  study.  thesis  or  publication  my w r i t t e n  by  of  that  I  an  further  for  scholarly  his  represen-  this  thesis  permission.  for  THESIS ABSTRACT  Chairman:  Father T. J. Hanrahan.  Title:  The S i t u a t i o n o£ Dominican P o l i t i c a l Thought and A c t i v i t i e s i n France and England.  Examiners:  T h i s t h e s i s i n v e s t i g a t e s the p o l i t i c a l thought and a c t i v i t i e s of the  F r e n c h and E n g l i s h Dominicans. I t began h i s t o r i c a l l y w i t h a q u e s t i o n c o n c e r n i n g the n a t u r e of the  work of John of P a r i s .  Can h i s De p o t e s t a t e r e g i a e t p a p a l i be d e s c r i b e d  as a f u n d a m e n t a l l y t h e o l o g i c a l and p h i l o s o p h i c a l e x p o s i t i o n ?  Such a  d e s c r i p t i o n would seem t o i m p l y a p a r t i a l s e p a r a t i o n from the p o l i t i c a l s i t u a t i o n i n w h i c h he wrote and would see h i s t r e a t i s e i n r e l a t i o n t o the  v a s t mass of the t h e o l o g i c a l l i t e r a t u r e of the day.  I n order to t e s t  t h i s i t would be s e n s i b l e t o u n d e r t a k e a comparative study and to t r y t o see the s i t u a t i o n of John of P a r i s and o t h e r Dominicans t o d i s c e r n the e f f e c t s of t h i s s i t u a t i o n on t h e i r thought. To u n d e r s t a n d the major i s s u e s of m e d i e v a l p o l i t i c a l  thought, the  p r e l i m i n a r y c h a p t e r g i v e s a b r i e f account of the development thought.  of t h i s  The i n f l u e n c e w h i c h the Order of P r e a c h e r s e x e r t e d on i t s  members cannot be n e g l e c t e d .  The h e a r t of t h i s t h e s i s i s found i n two  r a t h e r l e n g t h y c h a p t e r s d e a l i n g w i t h the thought and a c t i v i t i e s of the  members of the Dominican Order i n b o t h F r a n c e and E n g l a n d . The r e s u l t of t h i s e x a m i n a t i o n p l a c e d the p o l i t i c a l w r i t i n g s of  the  Dominicans i n F r a n c e -- of w h i c h John of P a r i s i s the major  i n a p o s i t i o n a p a r t from t h a t of t h e i r o t h e r t h e o l o g i c a l and works. the  example--  philosophical  I n E n g l a n d , the p h i l o s o p h i c a l and t h e o l o g i c a l p r o d u c t i o n s of  Dominicans a r e s i m i l a r t o those w h i c h were produced by the Dominicans  i n F r a n c e except i n one major r e s p e c t , t h a t of t r e a t i s e s d e a l i n g w i t h political  thought.  The c o n c l u s i o n of t h i s t h e s i s i s t h a t the t o t a l s i t u a t i o n i n w h i c h these men  found themselves must be taken i n t o a c c o u n t i n any attempt t o  u n d e r s t a n d t h e i r thought.  I n v i e w of t h i s i t i s e v i d e n t t h a t L e c l e r c q ' s  v i e w must be m o d i f i e d t o the e x t e n t t h a t the p o l i t i c a l s i t u a t i o n i n which John of P a r i s w r o t e e x p l a i n s i n p a r t the f a c t t h a t he w r o t e a t r e a t i s e dealing with p o l i t i c a l a f f a i r s .  The De p o t e s t a t e r e g i a e t p a p a l i  cannot  be r e g a r d e d merely as a t h e o l o g i c a l and p h i l o s o p h i c a l e x p o s i t i o n 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 l i k e t o e x p r e s s my g r a t i t u d e t o F a t h e r Hanrahan who has d i r e c t e d my Graduate work i n M e d i e v a l H i s t o r y . patience,  and a s s i s t a n c e h a s . c o n t r i b u t e d  H i s understanding,  more t o t h i s work t h a n I w i l l  ever be a b l e t o acknowledge. I would a l s o l i k e t o e x p r e s s my g r a t i t u d e t o t h e S t a f f o f t h e L i b r a r y of t h e U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia who were a b l e t o f i n d many s c a r c e works f o r me.  I would a l s o l i k e t o thank t h e S t a f f o f t h e L i b r a r i e s o f  the U n i v e r s i t y o f Washington and t h e U n i v e r s i t y o f C a l i f o r n i a , B e r k e l e y , who made my v i s i t s t o those i n s t i t u t i o n s so e n j o y a b l e .  INTRODUCTION T h i s t h e s i s had i t s o r i g i n i n an i n v e s t i g a t i o n o f t h e p o l i t i c a l thought o f t h e F r e n c h Dominican, John o f P a r i s . t r e a t i s e was t h e De p o t e s t a t e  H i s major  political  r e g i a e t p a p a l i w h i c h was w r i t t e n  during  the l a s t s t a g e s o f t h e c o n f l i c t between B o n i f a c e V I I I and P h i l i p I V . The modern e d i t o r o f t h e t r e a t i s e , Dom J e a n L e c l e r c q , O.S.B., d e n i e s t h a t t h e De_ p o t e s t a t e  r e g i a e t p a p a l i i s merely p o l e m i c and argues  that i t i s a serious  attempt t o s o l v e b a s i c t h e o l o g i c a l and p h i l o -  s o p h i c a l issues."-  Such a judgement o f t h e t r e a t i s e o f John o f P a r i s  tends t o i g n o r e t h e p o l i t i c a l s i t u a t i o n i n which ±'he Dominican was writing.  Leclercq  f u l l y r e a l i z e s t h a t John o f P a r i s s i g n e d t h e  appeal f o r a c o u n c i l against  t h e pope and he a l s o acknowledges  t h a t many o f t h e arguments developed i n t h e De p o t e s t a t e  regia et  p a p a l i echo t h e charges made by P h i l i p IV and h i s m i n i s t e r s the p o n t i f f .  I n s p i t e o f these f a c t s , L e c l e r c q  than an e x e r c i s e  i n polemic.  against  i n s i s t s that the  t r e a t i s e i s p r i m a r i l y a t h e o l o g i c a l and p h i l o s o p h i c a l rather  the fact  exposition  The i n v e s t i g a t i o n o f t h e p o l i t i c a l  thought o f t h e F r e n c h and E n g l i s h Dominicans and t h e s i t u a t i o n i n which they were w o r k i n g w i l l o f f e r another i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f t h e work o f John of P a r i s . I n b o t h F r a n c e and England r e l a t i o n s w i t h t h e Papacy were d i s rupted involved  by t h e i s s u a n c e o f C l e r i c i s l a i c o s by B o n i f a c e V I I I .  This b u l l  t h e i s s u e o f c l e r i c a l t a x a t i o n w h i c h was concerned w i t h t h e  r e l a t i o n s h i p between t h e t e m p o r a l and s p i r i t u a l powers.  I n France,  P h i l i p IV r e a c t e d  t o t h e b u l l i n a most v i g o r o u s way.  Edward I a l s o  r e g a r d e d C l e r i c i s l a i c o s as a t h r e a t but h i s s o l u t i o n t o t h e problem posed by t h e b u l l was v e r y d i f f e r e n t from t h a t o f P h i l i p I V . I t was d u r i n g t h i s c o n f l i c t t h a t J o h n o f P a r i s composed h i s t r a c t , t h e De p o t e s t a t e r e g i a e t p a p a l i .  Since t h e c o n f l i c t posed t h e same  problem i n b o t h England and P r a n c e , i t might seem l o g i c a l t o assume t h a t s i m i l a r t r e a t i s e s d i s c u s s i n g p o l i t i c a l thought would be w r i t t e n i n England,  But no t r e a t i s e s s i m i l a r to t h a t o f John o f P a r i s were  w r i t t e n during the c o n f l i c t i n England.  I t would seem t h a t t h e  d i f f e r e n t n a t u r e o f t h e c o n f l i c t i n t h e two kingdoms e x p l a i n s , i n p a r t , at l e a s t , t h e f a c t t h a t one f i n d s a number o f t r e a t i s e s d e a l i n g w i t h p o l i t i c a l thought w r i t t e n i n F r a n c e d u r i n g t h e c o n f l i c t , w h i l e , a t t h e same t i m e ,  i n a roughly  s i m i l a r c o n f l i c t , no l i t e r a t u r e o f t h i s k i n d  can be found i n E n g l a n d . J o h n o f P a r i s r e v e a l e d h i m s e l f t o be f u l l y c o n v e r s a n t w i t h t h e p o l i t i c a l l i t e r a t u r e of the period. o f t h e most v i g o r o u s  provinces  T h i s Dominican was w o r k i n g i n one  of the Order.  The Dominican p r o v i n c e o f  England d i d n o t have t o bow t o F r a n c e s i n c e i t produced many i m p o r t a n t scholars. volved  I n England, as e l s e w h e r e , t h e Dominican f r i a r s became i n -  i n secular a c t i v i t i e s .  One might t h i n k t h a t t h e s e men who were  d i r e c t l y i n v o l v e d i n t h e s e c u l a r w o r l d would g i v e a t h e o r e t i c a l j u s t i f i c a t i o n f o r t h e i r s e c u l a r a c t i v i t i e s i n t h e i r s c h o l a s t i c works. I f a Dominican s c h o l a r wished t o d i s c u s s p o l i t i c a l m a t t e r s , he was g i v e n an adequate o p p o r t u n i t y  i n h i s t h e o l o g i c a l s t u d i e s when he  composed a Commentary on t h e Sentences o f P e t e r Lombard. A q u i n a s i n h i s Commentary on t h e Sentences p r o v i d e d  Thomas  one o f t h e most im-  p o r t a n t passages on t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p between t h e t e m p o r a l and s p i r i t u a l  powers t o be found i n t h e corpus o f h i s work.  N a t u r a l l y , one wonders  whether o t h e r Dominicans would emulate t h e i r c o n f r e r e and use t h e i r Commentaries on t h e Sentences as a v e h i c l e f o r p o l i t i c a l  discussion.  When t h e works o f i n d i v i d u a l Dominican a u t h o r s i n England a r e i n v e s t i g a t e d , one f i n d s l i t t l e p o l i t i c a l comment i n them. T h e r e f o r e , i t c a n be s a i d t h a t Dominican p o l i t i c a l thought d i d n o t e x i s t i n a vacuum n o r was i t something t h a t was n e c e s s a r i l y d i f f u s e d throughout the  e n t i r e Order.  I t becomes apparent t h a t a d i s c u s s i o n o f p o l i t i c a l  thought by a Dominican a u t h o r was u s u a l l y o c c a s i o n e d by t h e s p e c i f i c s i t u a t i o n w i t h i n w h i c h he was w o r k i n g . of  F u r t h e r m o r e , i t seems t h a t many  t h e elements c o n t a i n e d i n t h e p o l i t i c a l thought o f Dominican a u t h o r s  was c o n d i t i o n e d by t h e i n f l u e n c e o f t h e s t r u c t u r e o f t h e quasi-democrat i c Order o f w h i c h t h e y were members. I n o r d e r t o u n d e r s t a n d t h e p o l i t i c a l thought o f t h e Dominicans, i t i s n e c e s s a r y t o have some c o n c e p t i o n o f t h e main f e a t u r e s o f m e d i e v a l p o l i t i c a l thought as w e l l as t h e n a t u r e o f t h e m e d i e v a l s t a t e .  A dis-  cussion of these r e l a t e d subjects c o n s t i t u t e s the f i r s t chapter of the thesis. of the  The second c h a p t e r d e s c r i b e s t h e main f e a t u r e s o f t h e s t r u c t u r e  t h e Order o f P r e a c h e r s , i t s e d u c a t i o n a l o r g a n i z a t i o n , and f i n a l l y , a t t i t u d e o f t h e g o v e r n i n g b o d i e s o f t h e Order t o t h e s e c u l a r  t i e s u n d e r t a k e n by some Dominican f r i a r s .  activi-  I n t h e t h i r d c h a p t e r , we  t u r n t o F r a n c e where t h e c o n f l i c t between B o n i f a c e V I I I and P h i l i p I V i s p r e s e n t e d i n some d e t a i l , a l o n g w i t h an e x a m i n a t i o n o f t h e r o l e p l a y e d by t h e F r e n c h Dominicans i n t h i s c r i s i s w h i c h p r o v i d e s t h e n e c e s s a r y background t o t h e s c h o l a r l y work o f J o h n o f P a r i s .  The  fourth chapter of the t h e s i s includes a d e t a i l e d examination of the c o n f l i c t over C l e r i c i s l a i c o s i n England t o g e t h e r w i t h m a t e r i a l which  i l l u s t r a t e s t h e p o l i t i c a l a c t i v i t i e s o f t h e E n g l i s h Dominicans i n t h e p e r i o d from 1250 u n t i l 1350 and an i n v e s t i g a t i o n o f t h e s c h o l a r l y works of some E n g l i s h Dominicans i n o r d e r t o a s c e r t a i n t h e n a t u r e o f t h e i r p o l i t i c a l thought.  I n the conclusion,  some t e n t a t i v e judgements F r e n c h and E n g l i s h  an attempt w i l l be made t o draw  c o n c e r n i n g t h e p o l i t i c a l thought o f t h e  Dominicans.  CHAPTER I  THE DEVELOPMENT OF MEDIEVAL POLITICAL THOUGHT The major problem which f a c e d any m e d i e v a l p o l i t i c a l t h e o r i s t t h e o l o g i a n , p h i l o s o p h e r , o r l e g i s t - was t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p between t h e t e m p o r a l and s p i r i t u a l powers.  The t h e o r i e s advanced c o n c e r n i n g  this  c r u c i a l r e l a t i o n s h i p v a r i e d b u t t h e t h e o r i s t s u s u a l l y addressed them1 selves to s i m i l a r questions. 1350  i scrucial.  The p e r i o d from about 1250 u n t i l about  I n t h i s p e r i o d , many o f t h e t r a d i t i o n a l p o l i t i c a l  d o c t r i n e s were m o d i f i e d i n t h e l i g h t o f developments i n Canon law, Roman law and p h i l o s o p h y .  T h i s p e r i o d b e g i n s w i t h t h e death o f t h e  Emperor F r e d e r i c k I I , t h e S t u p o r mundi, i n 1250. I n t h i s l a s t s t r u g g l e w i t h t h e Empire, t h e Papcy had emerged v i c t o r i o u s .  great  With  the death o f F r e d e r i c k , t h e p r o b l e m o f t h e Empire and i t s r e l a t i o n s w i t h t h e Papcy was brought t o a c o n c l u s i o n e x c e p t f o r a b r i e f 2 v e r s y between Pope John X X I I and Lewis o f B a v a r i a .  contro-  But w h i l e t h e  Papcy had won a v i c t o r y over t h e Empire, i t met w i t h d e f e a t  during  the p o n t i f i c a t e o f B o n i f a c e V I I I i n a d i s p u t e w i t h P h i l i p IV o f France and Edward I o f E n g l a n d . In t h i s c h a p t e r ,  t h e r e w i l l be t h r e e major d i v i s i o n s :  (1)  B a s i c P o l i t i c a l Issues o f t h e M i d d l e Ages.  (2)  The Development o f Canon Law, Roman Law and A r i s t o t e l i a n Philosophy.  (3)  The Development o f t h e S t a t e .  -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, Pope Gelasius I 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 w i l l answer for kings themselves to the Lord at the divine judgement. Indeed, you know, most clement son that, although you take precedence over a l l mankind in dignity, nevertheless you bow your head faithfully to those who control spiritual matters and seek from them the means of your salvation, 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 w i l l . ^ 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-  N o n e t h e l e s s , G e l a s i u s r e a l i z e d t h a t t h e two powers o r a u t h o r i t i e s c o u l d n o t a v o i d r e l a t i o n s w i t h one a n o t h e r and t h a t they were mutually  dependent upon one a n o t h e r .  A t the same t i m e , G e l a s i u s  also  c l e a r l y s t a t e d the p r i n c i p l e t h a t t h e s p i r i t u a l a u t h o r i t y was s u p e r i o r t o the t e m p o r a l . The  d u a l i s t conception  o f Pope G e l a s i u s became one o f t h e c o r n e r -  stones of medieval p o l i t i c a l theory.  However, the G e l a s i a n  was t o be s i g n i f i c a n t l y a l t e r e d i n subsequent p e r i o d s . century,  an e s s e n t i a l change had o c c u r r e d .  doctrine  By the n i n t h  In h i s introduction to  the De I n s t i t u t i o n e R e g i a , w r i t t e n about 830 f o r a son of L o u i s the P i o u s , Bishop Jonas o f O r l e a n s p r e f a c e d two  h i s c i t a t i o n o f the G e l a s i a n  power concept w i t h t h i s e x p l a n a t i o n w h i c h w e l l i l l u s t r a t e s the  change w h i c h had o c c u r r e d :  " A l l t h e f a i t h f u l must know t h a t t h e  U n i v e r s a l Church i s t h e Body o f C h r i s t , t h a t the same C h r i s t i s i t s head and t h a t t h e r e a r e i n i t p r i n c i p a l l y two d i s t i n g u i s h e d p e r s o n s , namely t h e p r i e s t l y and the k i n g l y  • Jonas o f O r l e a n s then  quotes t h e words o f t h e l e t t e r of G e l a s i u s t o t h e Emperor  Anastasius.  W h i l e i n t h e G e l a s i a n c o n c e p t , t h e w o r l d had been r u l e d by two powers or a u t h o r i t i e s , by t h e C a r o l i n g i a n p e r i o d , t h i s r e l a t i v e l y n e u t r a l concept of the w o r l d has been superceded by a concept of t h e Church as the Body o f C h r i s t .  The Church, as t h e Body o f C h r i s t , h a s become an  i n s t i t u t i o n i n w h i c h b o t h t h e s p i r i t u a l and t e m p o r a l powers f u n c t i o n . ^ Thus, the Empire and kingdoms were i n c o r p o r a t e d  i n t o t h e Church and  d i d n o t stand b e s i d e the Church as i n t h e o r i g i n a l ' concept of G e l a s i u s . Generally,  t h i s conception  of C h r i s t i a n u n i t y w h i c h had e v o l v e d  during  the C a r o l i n g i a n p e r i o d remained dominant u n t i l t h e p o n t i f i c a t e o f Gregory V I I .  -8-  C e r t a i n l y a f a c t o r which c o n t r i b u t e d t o the d i f f i c u l t y of p r o p e r l y o r d e r i n g the two powers was t h e c o n c e p t i o n  of k i n g s h i p w h i c h h a d e v o l v e d  d u r i n g t h e p e r i o d from Charlemagne u n t i l t h a t o f Gregory V I I . The t e m p o r a l power had a c q u i r e d a q u a s i - s a c e r d o t a l c h a r a c t e r which tended t o obscure any sharp d i s t i n c t i o n between i t s e l f and t h e s p i r i t u a l . From t h e p o n t i f i c a t e of Gregory V I I , t h e r e was a d i s t i n c t change. The p o n t i f f s , from Gregory V I I t o Innocent I I I , tended t o v i e w r u l e r s l e s s and l e s s a s f u n c t i o n a r i e s of t h e Church and more and more as the l e a d e r s o f people and t h e h o l d e r s of t e r r i t o r i e s . ^ *  When t h e s a c r a - ,  1  m e n t a l system o f t h e Church was f i n a l l y s e t t l e d i n t h e t w e l f t h and t h i r t e e n t h c e n t u r i e s , r o y a l c o n s e c r a t i o n was n o t t o be found amongst the sacraments.  The q u a s i - s a c e r d o t a l c h a r a c t e r o f k i n g s and emperors  had been i n t i m a t e l y connected w i t h c o n s e c r a t i o n .  I t was the c e n t r a l -  i z e d Church of t h e Pope i n Rome w h i c h attempted t o e r a d i c a t e t h e s p i r i t u a l n a t u r e of r o y a l c o n s e c r a t i o n .  As f a r a s t h e Papacy was 11  c o n c e r n e d , r o y a l c o n s e c r a t i o n had l o s t i t s s p i r i t u a l Gregory V I I ' s own thought c o n c e r n i n g  significance.  t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p between  the two powers i s w e l l i l l u s t r a t e d by h i s l e t t e r t o Bishop Hermann of Metz: 'Thou a r t P e t e r and upon t h i s r o c k I w i l l b u i l d my Church, and t h e g a t e s o f h e l l w i l l n o t p r e v a i l a g a i n s t i t ; and I w i l l g i v e t o you t h e keys o f the Kingdom of Heaven; and whatsoever thou s h a l t ~ b i n d on e a r t h s h a l l be bound i n heaven, and whats o e v e r thou s h a l t l o o s e on e a r t h s h a l l be l o o s e d i n heaven' (Matth. 16: 18, 1 9 ) . A r e k i n g s e x cepted h e r e ? Or a r e t h e y not o f t h e sheep w h i c h the Son o f God committed t o S t . P e t e r . ^  -y-  F o r G r e g o r y , r u l e r s were under the Pope.  He c o n c e i v e d of h i s own  o f f i c e as t h a t of the p a s t o r of the f l o c k of C h r i s t .  In order to  p r o t e c t t h i s f l o c k , he was p r e p a r e d t o t a k e any measure w h i c h were necessary.  I n the D i c t a t u s Papae, he c l a i m e d the power t o depose an  13 emperor and t o a b s o l v e s u b j e c t s from t h e i r f e a l t y t o an o v e r l o r d . Gregory never c l a i m e d t o be the t e m p o r a l r u l e r of the w o r l d .  The  powers a c c o r d e d t o him were t o be used f o r r e f o r m and f o r the p r o t e c t i o n of the w e l f a r e of C h r i s t i a n s .  Thus, he had the power t o depose  an emperor or a k i n g -- a power w h i c h might;be needed t o p r e s e r v e the w e l f a r e of C h r i s t i a n s . ^ I n the G r e g o r i a n p e r i o d , the term C h r i s t i a n i t a s , t h a t i s , 15 Christendom, appears.  The term was o f t e n used by Gregory i n h i s  l e t t e r s and c o n t i n u e d t o be used ..in the p a p a l chancery a f t e r h i s death.  The term i s i m p o r t a n t s i n c e " I t s i g n i f i e s the C h r i s t i a n  people and p e o p l e s as d i s t i n c t from the Church as the s u p e r n a t u r a l Body of C h r i s t and from the Church as the ' c o r p o r a t i o n ' of the clergy."  Indeed, the b e g i n n i n g of the concept of the Church as a  c l e r i c a l c o r p o r a t i o n i s . c l o s e l y a l l i e d t o the reappearance of the  17 i d e a of C h r i s t e n d o m .  The c o n c e p t i o n of the Church was  changing  s i n c e i t was now not o n l y the Body of C h r i s t but a l s o a c l e r i c a l corporation.  These developments i n the G r e g o r i a n and p o s t - G r e g o r i a n  p e r i o d were s i g n i f i c a n t s i n c e t h e y a l l o w e d the q u e s t i o n of the r e l a t i o n s h i p of the two powers t o reappear i n a much c l e a r e r form. I n the C a r o l i n g i a n c o n c e p t i o n o f C h r i s t i a n u n i t y , b o t h the t e m p o r a l and s p i r i t u a l powers had f u n c t i o n e d w i t h i n t h e Church.  With  the appearance of the i d e a of C h r i s t e n d o m , the two powers no l o n g e r  -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. period.  The situation certainly began to change in the Gregorian 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 o f Canon law, Roman l a w and A r i s t o t e l i a n  Philosophy.  At t h e b e g i n n i n g o f t h e t w e l f t h c e n t u r y , e c c l e s i a s t i c a l law was a w h o l l y u n o r g a n i z e d body o f m a t e r i a l c o n s i s t i n g o f t h e canons o f v a r i o u s c o u n c i l s , p a p a l l e t t e r s and p a p a l decrees w h i c h were g a t h e r e d into l o c a l or p r i v a t e c o l l e c t i o n s .  However, Canon l a w was o r g a n i z e d i n  the C o n c o r d i a d i s c o r d a n t i u m canonum o r Decretum o f G r a t i a n , about 1140, i n t o a coherent body o f law.  I t seems p r o b a b l e t h a t t h e r e v i t a l i z a t i o n  o f Roman law, w h i c h o c c u r r e d i n t h e l a t e e l e v e n t h and e a r l y  twelfth  c e n t u r i e s , prompted the c a n o n i s t s t o w i e l d t h e i r own l a w i n t o a system 18 comparable i n scope t o Roman law.  G r a t i a n ' s work was q u i c k l y adopted  as a u n i v e r s a l l y a c c e p t a b l e code o f e c c l e s i a s t i c a l law. emphasizing  The Decretum,  t h e r o l e o f t h e pope as supreme judge and l e g i s l a t o r i n 19  the Church, promoted t h e c e n t r a l i z a t i o n o f t h e Church under t h e pope. I t i s s i g n i f i c a n t t h a t w i t h i n two o r t h r e e g e n e r a t i o n s , a u n i v e r s a l e c c l e s i a s t i c a l l a w and a u n i v e r s a l s e c u l a r law appeared i n t h e e a r l y t w e l f t h century.  Both laws were s t u d i e d c a r e f u l l y and m e t h o d i c a l l y i n  o r d e r t o e x p l a i n c o n t r a d i c t i o n s and o t h e r  difficulties.  The Decretum o f G r a t i a n c o n t a i n e d many t e x t s w h i c h p r o v i d e d t h e c a n o n i s t s w i t h ample o p p o r t u n i t i e s t o d i s c u s s t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p o f t h e t e m p o r a l and s p i r i t u a l powers.  Many statements  o f G e l a s i u s I were  i n c o r p o r a t e d i n t o t h e Decretum i n c l u d i n g t h e c e l e b r a t e d Duo sunt 20 passage.  Subsequent c a n o n i s t d i s c u s s i o n o f t h e problem o f the two  powers i s w e l l i l l u s t r a t e d by t h e v a r i o u s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s o f D. 96 c. 6 (The emperor s h o u l d n o t usurp t h e r i g h t s o f t h e P o n t i f f , n o r s h o u l d t h e 21 P o n t i f f usurp  t h e r i g h t s o f t h e emperor).  Two eminent c a n o n i s t s o f  the l a t e t w e l f t h c e n t u r y a t Bologna, Huguccio and A l a n u s ,  presented  t h e i r commentaries on t h i s t e x t w h i c h r e v e a l e d t h e two major t r e n d s i n  -12-  c a n o n i s t thought c o n c e r n i n g  t h e q u e s t i o n o f t h e two powers.  Huguccio, i n h i s commentary on D. 96 c. 6, s t a t e d t h a t u n t i l t h e coming o f C h r i s t t h e two powers were n o t s e p a r a t e d b u t were j o i n e d i n one person.  However, C h r i s t h i m s e l f s e p a r a t e d  r i g h t s o f emperor and p o n t i f f .  t h e o f f i c e s and t h e  The r e a s o n f o r t h e s e p a r a t i o n o r t h e  c r e a t i o n o f t h e two o f f i c e s , a c c o r d i n g t o Huguccio, was t h a t " I f t h e emperor o r t h e p o n t i f f h e l d a l l o f f i c e s he would e a s i l y grow proud b u t now s i n c e each needs t h e o t h e r and sees t h a t he i s n o t f u l l y  self-  22 s u f f i c i e n t he i s made humble  Huguccio went on t o s t a t e t h a t  each o f t h e powers was d i r e c t l y d e r i v e d from and i n s t i t u t e d by God. Thus, t h e two powers were independent a l t h o u g h , were m u t u a l l y dependent upon one another.  a t t h e same time,  they  In t h i s sense, Huguccio can  r e a l l y be c o n s i d e r e d as f o l l o w i n g t h e d u a l i s t t r a d i t i o n o f G e l a s i u s . Alanus c l e a r l y represented i n c a n o n i s t thought.  another t r a d i t i o n w h i c h was d e v e l o p i n g  He s t a t e d t h a t t h e pope h e l d b o t h swords and  went on t o argue t h a t : A g a i n i f t h e emperor was n o t s u b j e c t t o t h e pope i n t e m p o r a l i t i e s he c o u l d n o t s i n a g a i n s t t h e church i n t e m p o r a l i t i e s . Again the church i s o n l y one body and so i t s h a l l have o n l y one head or i t w i l l become a m o n s t e r . ^ A l a n u s saw few r e s t r i c t i o n s w h i c h c o u l d impede t h e e x e r c i s e o f p a p a l  24 power i n t e m p o r a l a f f a i r s .  The o n l y c o n c e s s i o n w h i c h he was w i l l i n g  t o make t o t h e i n h e r e n t d u a l i s m o f t h e t e x t upon w h i c h he was commenting was  t h a t t h e pope h i m s e l f c o u l d n o t h o l d b o t h swords and thus  with secular rulers e n t i r e l y . century,  Thus, a t t h e b e g i n n i n g  dispense  of the t h i r t e e n t h  t h e r e were two t r a d i t i o n s i n c a n o n i s t thought -- d u a l i s m i n a  m o d i f i e d G e l a s i a n sense and t h e m o n i s t o r t h e o c r a t i c v i e w w h i c h  envisaged  the s p i r i t u a l power i n a way w h i c h made t e m p o r a l r u l e r s w h o l l y dependent  -13-  upon the papacy. In the t h i r t e e n t h c e n t u r y , c a n o n i s t thought c o n c e r n i n g the two powers was developed more f u l l y p a r t i c u l a r l y by Innocent I I I and Innocent IV.  Innocent I I I i n t e r v e n e d i n t e m p o r a l a f f a i r s on many  o c c a s i o n s b u t the p r o f e s s e d r e a s o n f o r h i s a c t i o n was never t h a t he p o s s e s s e d supreme t e m p o r a l j u r i s d i c t i o n as p o n t i f f . always found a n o t h e r j u s t i f i c a t i o n f o r h i s a c t i o n . 1204,  Innocent I I I For i n s t a n c e , i n  Innocent I I I i n t e r v e n e d i n a d i s p u t e w h i c h had b r o k e n out between  P h i l i p Augustus o f France and John o f England o v e r Normandy.  Innocent  attempted to mediate i n t h i s d i s p u t e w h i c h o s t e n s i b l y e r u p t e d o v e r the f e u d a l r e l a t i o n s h i p between the two monarchs.  In the d e c r e t a l N o v i t ,  the pope c l e a r l y s t a t e d h i s p o s i t i o n :  [ i . e . the pope]  "For we  do not  i n t e n d t o judge c o n c e r n i n g f e u d a l m a t t e r s .... b u t to s e t t l e m a t t e r s r e l a t e d to s i n ...."  Innocent I I I d e c l a r e d t h a t P h i l i p Augustus  was  p u r s u i n g a s i n f u l p a t h , a p a t h w h i c h had l e d to the o u t b r e a k o f war. I t was c l e a r l y the onerous burden o f the pope to p r e s e r v e and t o defend the peace of Christendom.  In a d d i t i o n , the case i n v o l v e d a b r e a c h o f  a solemn o a t h w h i c h was a l s o a m a t t e r w h i c h c l e a r l y f e l l under the j u r i s d i c t i o n o f the Church.  In such a s i t u a t i o n , Innocent I I I f e l t  t h a t he p o s s e s s e d the r i g h t to i n t e r v e n e . The d e c r e t a l Per v e n e r a b i l e m o f Innocent I I I was  the outcome o f a  p e t i t i o n o f Count W i l l i a m o f M o n t p e l l i e r i n 1202 to the pope f o r the l e g i t i m i z a t i o n o f the c h i l d r e n born o f h i s m i s t r e s s .  W h i l e the pope  c l e a r l y p o s s e s s e d the r i g h t to l e g i t i m i z e c h i l d r e n so t h a t they c o u l d become c l e r i c s , the c e n t r a l i s s u e a t s t a k e was  that W i l l i a m of  M o n t p e l l i e r d e s i r e d the l e g i t i m i z a t i o n o f h i s b a s t a r d sons so t h a t they c o u l d become h i s h e i r s i n the t e m p o r a l sphere.  Shortly before this  -14-  request,  Innocent I I I had l e g i t i m i z e d two i l l e g i t i m a t e sons of  Philip  Augustus. Innocent I I I r e f u s e d the r e q u e s t o f W i l l i a m o f M o n t p e l l i e r a l t h o u g h he p o i n t e d out t h a t the papacy possessed request.  the power to g r a n t such a  The p o p e ' s r e a s o n f o r t h i s r e f u s a l was t h a t w h i l e the k i n g  o f France had no t e m p o r a l s u p e r i o r , W i l l i a m o f M o n t p e l l i e r had a superior in temporalities, h i s request. possessed  the k i n g o f F r a n c e , to whom he s h o u l d make  In Per v e n e r a b i l e m ,  Innocent I I I s t a t e d t h a t he  c o n s i d e r a b l e powers w i t h i n the p u r e l y t e m p o r a l sphere  powers w h i c h he d i d not choose to e x e r c i s e the same d e c r e t a l ,  --  i n t h i s p a r t i c u l a r case.  In  Innocent s t e a d f a s t l y m a i n t a i n e d t h a t the pope c o u l d  a c t as the supreme judge i n a l l cases whether s p i r i t u a l o r t e m p o r a l , p a r t i c u l a r l y when t h e r e were d i f f i c u l t i e s o r a m b i g u i t i e s .  The j u d g e -  ment o f the pope was to be a c c e p t e d by a l l under p a i n o f excommuni-  ?8 cation. Of c o u r s e v a r i o u s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s can be p l a c e d upon Innocent t h e o r e t i c a l j u s t i f i c a t i o n f o r h i s i n t e r v e n t i o n i n t o temporal Centainly,  Ill's  affairs,  Innocent I l l ' s d e c r e t a l s p r o v i d e d a f i r m f o u n d a t i o n f o r  extensive papal i n t e r v e n t i o n i n temporal a f f a i r s . he i n t e r v e n e d ,  Nevertheless,  when .  Innocent u s u a l l y chose a b a s i s upon w h i c h the d i s p u t i n g  29 p a r t i e s were l i k e l y to a c c e p t . and the thought o f Innocent I I I ,  In any assessment o f the  pontificate  i t s h o u l d be remembered t h a t he  always  e n v i s a g e d two powers w i t h i n C h r i s t e n d o m , w h i l e , a t the same t i m e , he m a i n t a i n e d t h a t the pope was p l a c e d at the head o f b o t h o r d e r s s i n c e he had i n h e r i t e d the power o f C h r i s t who had been b o t h p r i e s t and k i n g . Innocent I l l ' s i n t e r v e n t i o n i n t o the temporal sphere was u s u a l l y c o u p l e d w i t h s u b t l e r e s e r v a t i o n s and q u a l i f i c a t i o n s w h i c h were o f t e n  disregarded  by the canonists who used h i s l e g i s l a t i o n as the basis f o r t h e i r own thought. The canonists placed various i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s upon the thought and the claims of Innocent I I I .  The renowned canonist Sinibaldus F i e s c h i ,  who became Innocent IV, has often been presented as an upholder of papal  30 absolutism i n temporal a f f a i r s .  However, recent research has shown  that Innocent IV tended to f o l l o w the reservations of Innocent I I I i n  31 h i s a c t i v i t i e s as p o n t i f f and i n h i s 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 t r a d i t i o n i n canonist thought which had been most c l e a r l y ennunciated by Alanus at the beginning of the century. the pope ought not to r e t a i n both swords.  He too f e l t that  Secular r u l e r s wielded the  temporal sword i n order to perform those sordid tasks of p o l i t i c a l coercion which were necessary and which the c l e r g y could not perform. This concept of the "separation" of the powers was a h i g h l y d i s t o r t e d form of dualism -- i n f a c t , the d u a l i s t p o s i t i o n was interpreted i n such a way as i t ceased to e x i s t i n a v i a b l e form i n the thought of Hostiensis. Thus, by the mid-thirteenth century, two t r a d i t i o n s coexisted i n canonist thought.  These t r a d i t i o n s were to p e r s i s t .  The f i r s t t r a d i t i o n  was that of dualism which recognized that there were two separate powers or orders i n society.  These were at once separate and yet at the same  time mutually dependent.  The s p i r i t u a l power was recognized as superior  to the temporal i n some respects. the monist or theocratic p o s i t i o n . two powers or orders i n society.  Along side t h i s t r a d i t i o n , developed I t too recognized that there were However, recognizing that the s p i r i t u a l  was superior, i t r e - i n t e r p r e t e d the r e l a t i o n s h i p s between the two powers  -16-  i n such a way t h a t the s p i r i t u a l c o m p l e t e l y dominated t h e temporal power. The o n l y c o n c e s s i o n t o d u a l i s m i n t h i s t r a d i t i o n was t h e r e c o g n i t i o n t h a t t h e pope c o u l d n o t h o l d b o t h swords a t the same time.  Neverthe-  l e s s , i n t h i s view, temporal r u l e r s e x i s t e d o n l y a t the s u f f e r a n c e o f the papacy. In t h e l a s t h a l f o f t h e t h i r t e e n t h c e n t u r y , c a n o n i s t  thought  c o n c e r n i n g t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p between t h e two powers c o u l d draw upon two traditions.  In g e n e r a l , i t was d u a l i s t when f a c e d w i t h a p a r t i c u l a r  p r a c t i c a l problem.  However, when t h e b a l a n c e o f the two powers was  s e r i o u s l y t h r e a t e n e d , the c a n o n i s t s and popes o f t e n y i e l d e d t o the t e m p t a t i o n o f f r a m i n g an answer i n monist and t h e o c r a t i c terms. d u a l i s t c o n c e p t i o n had o r i g i n a l l y been developed  The  i n o r d e r t o curb  i m p e r i a l p r e t e n s i o n s , however, temporal c l a i m s based upon another f o u n d a t i o n were v e r y d i f f i c u l t t o combat w i t h d u a l i s t arguments.  On  the whole, t h e t h e o c r a t i c o r m o n i s t p o s i t i o n was used by t h e c a n o n i s t s o n l y t o combat s e r i o u s t h r e a t s t o t h e b a l a n c e o f t h e two powers and t h i s p o s i t i o n was o n l y a momentary a b e r r a t i o n -- a r e a c t i o n t o a d e f i n i t e 32 threat. The  study o f Roman law p r o v i d e d the s t r o n g e s t t h e o r e t i c a l b a s i s  f o r r o y a l c l a i m s i n much the same way as t h e s t u d y o f canon law p r o v i d e d the t h e o r e t i c a l b a s i s f o r p a p a l c l a i m s . ceased  A l t h o u g h Roman law had never  t o be s t u d i e d d u r i n g t h e e a r l i e r M i d d l e Ages, the s c i e n t i f i c  study  o f the law o n l y began when a v i r t u a l l y complete t e x t o f t h e D i g e s t was r e c o v e r e d a t P i s a and when I r n e r i u s began t o t e a c h Roman law a t Bologna 33 i n 1084.  The study o f the Corpus I u r i s C i v i l i s r e v e a l e d a r u l e r who  powers appeared as c o n c e s s i o n s g r a n t e d by a c o m p l e t e l y s o v e r e i g n r u l e r . p o s s e s s e d v a s t l e g i s l a t i v e powers. In J u s t i n i a n ' s t e x t s , c l e r i c a l  34  The  l e g a l conception  o f Roman l a w f a c i l i t a t e d t h e development whereby  t h e o r i s t s began t o v i e w t h e Church as w e l l as kingdoms and t h e empire 35 i n terms o f law.  The Church and p o l i t i c a l e n t i t i e s were  t o be thought o f as i n s t i t u t i o n s whose p e r s o n n e l and  j u r i d i c a l powers.  beginning  had s p e c i f i c r i g h t s  Thus, Roman l a w c o n t r i b u t e d t o t h e p r o c e s s by  w h i c h r i g h t s and d u t i e s were c l a r i f i e d and t h e i r r e l a t i o n s were d e f i n e d i n l e g a l terms. The most d i f f i c u l t problem which f a c e d t h e l e g i s t s was t h a t t h e Corpus I u r i s C i v i l i s was dominated by t h e i d e a o f t h e Empire. d i f f i c u l t t o a p p l y t h e maxims o f Roman law t o the p o l i t i c a l which e x i s t e d a p a r t from t h e Empire. t h i s p r o b l e m f o r the l e g i s t s .  organizations  I t was t h e c a n o n i s t s who s o l v e d  In t h e d e c r e t a l P e r v e n e r a b i l e m ,  Innocent I I I had s t a t e d t h a t "the k i n g in temporalities."  I t was  [of F r a n c e ] r e c o g n i z e s  no s u p e r i o r  T h i s l e d t h e l e g i s t s o f t h e t h i r t e e n t h and  f o u r t e e n t h c e n t u r i e s t o develop t h e axiom Rex s u p e r i o r e m non recognoscens e s t imperator  i n regno suo, t h a t i s , a k i n g who does n o t r e c o g n i z e 37  s u p e r i o r i s emperor i n h i s kingdom. was  a  The q u e s t i o n o f whether a k i n g  independent o f t h e Empire d i d n o t m a t t e r s i n c e i f t h e r u l e r was  recognized  as "emperor i n h i s kingdom" then t h e n o t i o n s o f Roman l a w  a p p l i e d t o h i m e q u a l l y as w e l l as t o t h e Emperor h i m s e l f . With the recovery  o f t h e works o f A r i s t o t l e i n t h e t h i r t e e n t h c e n t u r y ,  an e n t i r e l y new element was added t o p o l i t i c a l d i s c u s s i o n .  The f i r s t  complete L a t i n t r a n s l a t i o n o f t h e P o l i t i c s o f A r i s t o t l e had been com38 p l e t e d by t h e Dominican, W i l l i a m o f Moerbeke, about 1260. t h a t t h e ideas o f t h e l e g i s t s and c a n o n i s t s h e l p e d of t h e p h i l o s o p h e r s  I t seems  t o p r e p a r e t h e minds  f o r t h e r e c e p t i o n o f the i d e a s found i n A r i s t o t l e  w h i c h f a c i l i t a t e d t h e r a p i d i n c o r p o r a t i o n o f these i d e a s i n t o m e d i e v a l  -18-  thought. The nature,  P o l i t i c s o f A r i s t o t l e s t a t e d unequivocal)Ty t h a t man was, by a s o c i a l and p o l i t i c a l a n i m a l w h i l e t h e c o n c e p t i o n  o f t h e work  c o u l d be s a i d t o be t h a t the community o r s t a t e was a human i n s t i t u t i o n w h i c h c o u l d s a t i s f y a l l the s o c i a l needs o f m a n k i n d . ^ A r i s t o t l e ' s P o l i t i c s was w h o l l y t o the A u g u s t i n i a n  secular.  The s p i r i t o f  T h i s was i n sharp c o n t r a s t  v i e w o f t h e s t a t e w h i c h had p r e v a i l e d up t o t h i s  time.  For A u g u s t i n e , t h e s t a t e had been n e c e s s i t a t e d by the s i n f u l n a t u r e o f man.  However, f o r A r i s t o t l e , t h e community o r s t a t e e v o l v e d  of man's n a t u r e ,  because  i t was n a t u r a l and good i n i t s e l f and i t was n o t the  result of sin. The  dangers i n h e r e n t w i t h i n A r i s t o t e l i a n works was r e c o g n i z e d by  the papacy i t s e l f .  This r e c o g n i t i o n w i t h c e r t a i n q u a l i f i c a t i o n s can  be seen i n Gregory IX's p r o h i b i t i o n o f the use o f the n a t u r a l works o f A r i s t o t l e i n 1231.  In t h i s p r o h i b i t i o n , Gregory IX s t a t e d t h a t " t h e s e  are s a i d t o c o n t a i n b o t h u s e f u l and u s e l e s s m a t e r i a l " and he d i r e c t e d the s c h o l a r s a t P a r i s i n "examining these books i n a manner w h i c h i s c o n v e n i e n t , s u b t l e and p r u d e n t , y o u may c u t out c o m p l e t e l y  that which  you may f i n d t h e r e w h i c h i s e r r o n e o u s , scandalous o r o f f e n s i v e t o r e a d e r s and  t h a t w h i c h i s suspect h a v i n g been c o m p l e t e l y  be s t u d i e d w i t h o u t d e l a y o r o f f e n c e . T h e  removed, t h e r e s t may  pope's a t t i t u d e towards  A r i s t o t l e ' s t r e a t i s e s on n a t u r e was c h a r a c t e r i s t i c o f t h e v i e w t a k e n by the e c c l e s i a s t i c a l a u t h o r i t i e s on a l l t h e works o f A r i s t o t l e . a r e c o g n i t i o n t h a t t h e A r i s t o t e l i a n works c o n t a i n e d be s t u d i e d , b u t , a t t h e same time,  There was  m a t e r i a l w h i c h must  t h i s study must be d i r e c t e d .  In many ways, the work o f Thomas Aquinas marks t h e c u l m i n a t i o n o f the e f f o r t made by m e d i e v a l s c h o l a r s t o b u i l d a p h i l o s o p h y  based upon  -19-  A r i s t o t e l i a n ideas.  Aquinas f e l t t h a t t h e r e might be many forms o f  t r u t h , and because they were t r u t h , t h e s e v a r i o u s forms were u l t i m a t e l y reconcilable.  Aquinas acknowledged t h a t each o f the forms o f t r u t h  might have an unequal degree of v a l i d i t y but t h a t a l l t h e v a r i e d forms had t o be t a k e n i n t o account. A r i s t o t e l i a n i n content  Thus, Thomist p h i l o s o p h y  was n o t m e r e l y  s i n c e the s y n t h e s i s produced by Aquinas i n -  c l u d e d n o t o n l y A r i s t o t e l i a n i d e a s but a l s o P l a t o n i c , n e o - P l a t o n i c  and  42 C h r i s t i a n i d e a s as w e l l .  The Thomist s y n t h e s i s embodied a  C h r i s t i a n i z e d A r i s t o t l e w h i c h was l e s s s e c u l a r i n s p i r i t and was d i r e c t e d t o s e r v i n g t h e needs o f a C h r i s t i a n s o c i e t y .  firmly  However, i t was  A r i s t o t l e h i m s e l f , r a t h e r than the C h r i s t i a n i z e d A r i s t o t l e o f A q u i n a s , who was r e a d and s t u d i e d by the s t u d e n t s universities.  and the masters o f the  -20-  (3)  The Development o f t h e M e d i e v a l S t a t e .  The t w e l f t h and t h i r t e e n t h c e n t u r i e s w i t n e s s e d t h e development o f what can be c a l l e d n a t i o n a l s t a t e s .  There were many r u l e r s i n Europe  who r e c o g n i z e d no t e m p o r a l s u p e r i o r and who c o n s i d e r e d t h e i r p o s i t i o n as t h a t o f an "emperor i n h i s own r e a l m . "  D u r i n g t h e same p e r i o d , f e e l i n g s  of n a t i o n a l i s m were b e i n g e x p r e s s e d i n many o f t h e independent kingdoms of Europe.  There was no L a t i n word f o r t h e s t a t e i n t h e M i d d l e Ages  w h i c h c o r r e s p o n d s t o t h e contemporary  sense o f t h e s t a t e as a g e o g r a p h i c  ^3 and p o l i t i c a l u n i t .  W h i l e h i s t o r i a n s have o f t e n used t h e term " s t a t e "  w i t h r e f e r e n c e t o t h e p o l i t i c a l e n t i t i e s o f t h e l a t e M i d d l e Ages, a fundamental q u e s t i o n remains t o be answered, nature of the medieval state?  t h a t i s , what was t h e  Our d i s c u s s i o n o f t h i s problem w i l l be  l i m i t e d t o t h e kingdoms o f F r a n c e and England. Modern t h e o r i s t s a r e unanimous i n r e q u i r i n g t h r e e p r e r e q u i s i t e s for  t h e contemporary  s t a t e : a t e r r i t o r y , a p o p u l a t i o n and a governmental  44 system.  C e r t a i n l y , i t i s obvious that t h e p o l i t i c a l e n t i t i e s o f t h e  l a t e r M i d d l e Ages such as England and France f u l f i l l t h e s e b a s i c r e q u i r e ments . G e n e r a l l y , t h e t w e l f t h c e n t u r y had r e c o g n i z e d spheres o f i n f l u e n c e r a t h e r t h a n a d e f i n i t e boundary  to the state.  The power o f t h e k i n g  tended t o weaken as i t extended out from t h e s e a t o f government.  How-  e v e r , by t h e t h i r t e e n t h c e n t u r y , t h e power o f t h e government o f t h e k i n g was thought t o extend t o a p r e c i s e boundary w i t h o u t d i m i n i s h i n g i n strength.  -21-  I n b o t h England and  F r a n c e , the r o y a l government g r a d u a l l y  increased  i t s c o n t r o l over the p e o p l e w i t h i n i t s t e r r i t o r y d u r i n g t h e t w e l f t h and thirteenth centuries.  W h i l e l o c a l u n i t s were t o l e r a t e d and  allowed  a  s h a r e i n t h e government, the c e n t r a l government of the monarch was n i z e d as the dominant power w i t h i n t h e realm. to recognize  t h a t t h e i r power was  recog-  L o c a l u n i t s were f o r c e d  h e l d o n l y at the a c q u i e s c e n c e of  the  46 c e n t r a l government.  A n o t h e r f e a t u r e of the c e n t r a l governments of  F r a n c e and E n g l a n d was  the i n c r e a s e i n the number o f p a i d governmental  officials.  As the governments extended t h e i r r i g h t s , t h e r e was  an i n c r e a s e i n the amount of b u s i n e s s w h i c h they had  usually  to undertake.  In  b o t h F r a n c e and E n g l a n d , l o c a l n o t a b l e s were used t o p e r f o r m v a r i o u s governmental f u n c t i o n s i n t h e i r l o c a l i t i e s w i t h o u t pay. i n c r e a s e d number of p a i d o f f i c i a l s and  T o g e t h e r , the  the use of l o c a l n o t a b l e s  to  p e r f o r m t h e b u s i n e s s of government l i k e l y c o n t r i b u t e d t o t h e p r e s t i g e o f  47 the c e n t r a l government. a p p e a l s from s u b o r d i n a t e  R o y a l c o u r t s met  more f r e q u e n t l y and welcomed  c o u r t s e x t e n d i n g the k i n g ' s power and  authority  i n t o e v e r y c o r n e r o f the r e a l m . The E n g l i s h and  F r e n c h l a w y e r s developed i d e a s w h i c h s u p p o r t e d  p r a c t i c e s of t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e governments. d e f i n i t e s u p e r i o r i n the kingdom, who  The  supervised  i d e a t h a t t h e r e was the work of  the a  local  48 governments, appeared i n England e a r l i e r t h a n i n F r a n c e . of K e n i l w o r t h had and  stated:  The  " . . . the k i n g , and h i s l e g i t i m a t e  i n s t r u c t i o n s , must be f u l l y obeyed by each and  every man,  Dictum orders  great  and  49 s m a l l , i n the r e a l m . " the p r i n c e has  Much e a r l i e r , G l a n v i l l e had  the f o r c e of l a w . " " ^  s t a t e d "what  pleases  I n t h e same passage, G l a n v i l l e a l s o  a s s e r t e d t h a t laws c o u l d be made, i n d o u b t f u l c a s e s , by the k i n g w i t h the a d v i c e of h i s magnates.  A t the end of the t h i r t e e n t h c e n t u r y ,  the  F r e n c h l e g i s t Beaumanoir w r o t e : lishments  "...  the k i n g may  make such  estab-  as p l e a s e him f o r t h e common w e l f a r e , and t h o s e w h i c h he  e s t a b l i s h e s ought t o be o b e y e d . C l e a r l y ,  by t h e end of the t h i r t e e n t h  c e n t u r y , t h e k i n g s of F r a n c e and England were not o n l y a c t i n g as supreme a u t h o r i t i e s w i t h i n t h e i r realms but were r e c o g n i z e d the t r e a t i s e s of the  the  as such i n  lawyers.  By the m i d - t h i r t e e n t h c e n t u r y , t h e governments of b o t h England  and  52 F r a n c e j u s t i f i e d t a x a t i o n on the grounds of n e c e s s i t a s . n e c e s s i t a s meant more t h a n p u b l i c need and c a l l e d r a i s o n d'etat. k i n g had  i n c l u d e d what l a t e r would be  I n an emergency, i t was  the r i g h t , and,  according  generally f e l t that  the  t o some t h e o r i s t s , the d u t y , t o  r i d e the l i m i t s upon h i s power s e t by custom and preserve  As a c o n c e p t ,  and t o p r o t e c t the kingdom.  over-  t r a d i t i o n i n order  to  I n f a c t , b o t h Edward I and P h i l i p  a t t h e end o f the t h i r t e e n t h c e n t u r y , used the maxim d e r i v e d from Roman law, quod omnes t a n g i t (what touches a l l ) , i n o r d e r t o j u s t i f y  their  53 a c t i o n s i n t h e f a c e of a grave emergency. concept t h a t whenever the s t a t e was  T h i s maxim e x p r e s s e d  threatened,  the  t h a t i s , a case o f  n e c e s s i t a s e x i s t e d , t h e n a l l t h e members of the kingdom, b o t h c l e r g y  and  l a i t y , s h o u l d d i s c u s s the m a t t e r i n common and c o n t r i b u t e from t h e i r goods t o g e t h e r . dom.  I t was  T h i s concept s t r e s s e d the c o r p o r a t e n a t u r e  of the k i n g -  employed s u c c e s s f u l l y by b o t h Edward I and P h i l i p IV i n  o r d e r t o o b t a i n revenue from the c l e r g y of t h e i r kingdoms.  By t h e  end  of t h e t h i r t e e n t h c e n t u r y , t h e r u l e r s and t h e i r a d v i s e r s b o t h i n F r a n c e and England had d e v e l o p e d t h e concept of n e c e s s i t a s t o the p o i n t where i t was  c l o s e l y a k i n t o the s e c u l a r n o t a t i o n of r a i s o n d ' e t a t .  The  development of t h e c o r p o r a t e n a t u r e of the s t a t e was  intimately  54 l i n k e d w i t h t h e development of n a t i o n a l i s m .  U n t i l the m i d - t h i r t e e n t h  IV,  c e n t u r y , a t l e a s t , n a t i o n a l i s m had been r e g a r d e d w i t h s u s p i c i o n by l a y and ecclesiastical rulers alike.  The development  of nationalism threatened  b o t h C h r i s t e n d o m and t h e Empire w i t h r e g i o n a l p a r t i c u l a r i s m . the growth o f c e n t r a l i z e d governments  However,  i n c o u n t r i e s such as England and  F r a n c e tended t o reduce t h e d i f f e r e n c e s between t h e c o n s t i t u e n t a r e a s and i n c r e a s e d t h e d i f f e r e n c e s between c o u n t r i e s . I n f a c t , by 1300, t h e governments  o f England and F r a n c e were a c t i v e l y  promoting t h e n a t i o n a l i s t i c f e e l i n g s o f t h e i r people.  During h i s struggle  w i t h F r a n c e , Edward I t o l d t h e magnates t h a t t h e K i n g o f France "has s e t out t o e r a d i c a t e t h e E n g l i s h language w h o l l y from t h e land.""*^ ments o f t h e k i n g were echoed by t h e c h r o n i c l e r s .  The s e n t i -  For instance, a f t e r the  s e i z u r e o f Gascony by P h i l i p I V , Edward I demanded heavy t a x e s from every person i n the realm.  The c h r o n i c l e r L a n g t b f t d e s c r i b e d  t h e need f o r t a x a -  t i o n w i t h t h e f o l l o w i n g words: England i s now much p o o r e r t h a n i t was. N e v e r t h e l e s s ought e v e r y one p r a y t o God That o u r k i n g Edward be q u i t e s u c c e s s f u l , And t h a t he may by o u r a i d s r e c o v e r h i s r i g h t . I f he were overcome, as may God not w i l l him t o be, The c h u r c h o f England would be reduced t o such an i l l condition, That n e i t h e r c l e r k n o r layman would f i n d wherewith to l i v e .  The proud Frenchman would b r i n g us so l o w , And cause us t o be honoured no more t h a n dogs. One may seek money, money comes and goes; Then i t i s b e t t e r w o r t h t o g i v e i t as l o n g as one has i t , Than t o l i v e l i k e a c a i t i f f i n s u f f e r i n g so extreme.57 Langtoft's  statement p r o b a b l y e x p r e s s e s t h e f e e l i n g s o f many Englishmen  at t h i s time. I n F r a n c e , t h e government a p p e a l e d q u i t e o p e n l y t o t h e f o r c e s o f  nationalism.  Repeated efforts were made, on the part of the government,  -24-  t o p o r t r a y B o n i f a c e V I I I as a n t i - F r e n c h and as a h e r e t i c . h e l d a t P a r i s i n June, 1303,  I n the assembly  G u i l l a u m e de P l a s i a n , one of the c h i e f  a d v i s e r s o f P h i l i p IV, accused the Pope of s t a t i n g t h a t "he h i m s e l f would r a t h e r be a dog or an ass o r any b r u t e a n i m a l , r a t h e r t h a n a Frenchman," w h i c h , as P l a s i a n adds i n v o l v e d h e r e s y s i n c e "he would not say i f he 58 b e l i e v e d t h a t t h e French had a s o u l . " However, u t t e r a n c e s  of n a t i o n a l i s t i c s e n t i m e n t s were by no means  l i m i t e d t o t h e m i n i s t e r s of the F r e n c h k i n g . C o u r t r a i i n 1302,  A f t e r the d e f e a t  at  a c e r t a i n F r e n c h c l e r i c d e l i v e r e d a p a t r i o t i c sermon 59  on the t e x t I Machabees 3: 19-22.  The  c l e r i c , whose name remains  un-  known, began h i s sermon by e x a l t i n g the h o l y c h a r a c t e r of the r o y a l house of F r a n c e .  The  they s i r e d new  F r e n c h k i n g s were s a i n t s s i n c e they p r o t e c t e d t h e Church; s a i n t s ; and t h e y were a b l e t o work m i r a c l e s , t h a t i s , they  could heal s c r o f u l a .  These arguments were d e s i g n e d t o p r o v e t h e  eousness of t h e F r e n c h cause a g a i n s t t h e Flemmings. d y n a s t y was  not l i k e l y t o wage an u n j u s t war.  After a l l ,  As the sermon  righta holy  progressed,  v i r t u a l l y a l l goodness and t h e w e l f a r e of Christendom i t s e l f was  t i e d to  a French v i c t o r y : The peace of t h e k i n g i s the peace of t h e kingdom; the peace of t h e kingdom i s the peace of t h e Church, knowledge, v i r t u e and j u s t i c e , and i t a i d s the a c q u i s i t i o n of the H o l y L a n d . " The c l e r i c has t i e d the s e c u l a r p o l i c y of the k i n g of F r a n c e t o the most 0  c h e r i s h e d programs of t h e papacy. straightforward  He has no d i f f i c u l t y i n making t h i s  conclusion:  T h e r e f o r e , he, who wages war a g a i n s t t h e k i n g [of F r a n c e ] , works a g a i n s t t h e whole Church, a g a i n s t C a t h o l i c d o c t r i n e , a g a i n s t h o l i n e s s and j u s t i c e , and a g a i n s t the H o l y Land. 61-  I t i s i n t e r e s t i n g t o n o t e t h a t G u i l l a u m e de Nogaret, one of t h e c h i e f l e g a l a d v i s e r s o f P h i l i p IV and the i n s t i g a t o r o f the A n a g n i  incident,  s i m i l a r l y i d e n t i f i e d t h e i n t e r e s t s o f t h e French s t a t e w i t h t h e i n t e r e s t s of  the Church.  He defended h i s a c t i o n s a g a i n s t B o n i f a c e V I I I on t h e  grounds t h a t they were done t o defend the F r e n c h kingdom, w h i c h , as he c l a i m e d , was an i n t e g r a l p a r t o f t h e Church.  The w e l f a r e o f each p a r t  of t h e Church was v i t a l t o the w e l f a r e of t h e whole Church i n t h e mind of  Nogaret. A l t h o u g h t h e m e d i e v a l kingdoms, such as France and E n g l a n d , appear  to be f r a g i l e c r e a t i o n s when compared t o t h e modern s t a t e , the power they p o s s e s s e d was r e a l enough t o a l a r m B o n i f a c e V I I I , and, i n d e e d a determined monarch such as P h i l i p IV o r Edward I was a b l e t o w i t h s t a n d any blow d e l i v e r e d by t h e papacy.  Such monarchs demanded, and, i n t h e  f i n a l a n a l y s i s , r e c e i v e d the l o y a l t y o f a l l t h e i r s u b j e c t s . s u p e r i o r i t y o f t h e government o f the k i n g was  Once t h e  r e c o g n i z e d by t h e Church,  t h e s e governments had no f u r t h e r q u a r r e l w i t h t h e Church. ments were f u r t h e r s t r e n g t h e n e d by t h e development  Lay govern-  of p a t r i o t i s m or  nationalism.  Thus, by 1300, many o f the p o l i t i c a l e n t i t i e s o f Europe  may  states.  be c a l l e d  CHAPTER I I  :THE .•• INSTITUTIONAL STRUCTURE AND EDUCATIONAL ORGANIZATION OF THE DOMINICAN ORDER  The s i g n i f i c a n c e o f t h e p o l i t i c a l a c t i v i t i e s and t h e s c h o l a s t i c p r o d u c t i o n s o f t h e members o f t h e Dominican Order cannot be f u l l y a p p r e c i a t e d w i t h o u t some u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f t h e i n s t i t u t i o n a l s t r u c t u r e and e d u c a t i o n a l o r g a n i z a t i o n w i t h i n w h i c h they worked.  A key t o o b t a i n i n g  t h i s knowledge can be found i n t h e name o f t h e Order i t s e l f —- t h e Order of Preachers. saved s o u l s .  P r e a c h i n g was t h e means by w h i c h t h e Dominican  friar  T h i s f a c t was n o t e d i n t h e i n t r o d u c t i o n t o t h e c o n s t i t u -  t i o n s o f t h e Order w h i c h s t a t e d t h a t " . . . i t i s r e c o g n i z e d t h a t from i t s f o u n d a t i o n our Order was e s t a b l i s h e d p a r t i c u l a r l y f o r p r e a c h i n g and t h e salvation of souls . . .  P r e a c h i n g was an onerous t a s k w h i c h c o u l d  n o t be u n d e r t a k e n by anyone w i t h o u t c a r e f u l t r a i n i n g .  The f i f t h m a s t e r -  g e n e r a l , Humbert de Romans, i n h i s Super C o n s t i t u t i o n e s F r a t r u m P r a e d i c a t b r u m r e c o g n i z e d t h i s f a c t when he w r o t e ". . . s t u d y i s n o t t h e end o f t h e Order, b u t i t i s e x c e e d i n g l y n e c e s s a r y f o r i t s s t a t e d ends, namely, t h e work o f p r e a c h i n g and t h e s a l v a t i o n o f s o u l s , f o r w i t h o u t s t u d y n e i t h e r can be r e a c h e d . . . ."^  Therefore, while study, p a r t i c u -  l a r l y o f t h e o l o g y , was n o t an end o f t h e Dominican Order, i t f a c i l i t a t e d t h e s u c c e s s f u l accomplishment o f t h e d u a l purposes o f t h e O r d e r — p r e a c h i n g and t h e s a l v a t i o n o f s o u l s . I n t h i s c h a p t e r , t h e r e w i l l be t h r e e major d i v i s i o n s :  (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 w i l l be discussed in.a general way. ^  (1) The I n s t i t u t i o n a l S t r u c t u r e of t h e Dominican Order.:  S t . D o m i n i c , t h e founder o f t h e Order of P r e a c h e r s , was a . s t u d e n t , a p r i e s t , a canon and a member o f a c h a p t e r w h i c h had adopted t h e A u g u s t i n i a n R u l e and t h e d i s c i p l i n e o f Premontre.  The one d i s t i n g u i s h i n g  f e a t u r e o f t h i s f u t u r e s a i n t was h i s d e s i r e t o l a b o r f o r t h e s a l v a t i o n o f souls.  T h i s consuming d e s i r e l e d him from h i s n a t i v e S p a i n t o t h e s o u t h  o f F r a n c e , i n Languedoc, where he.worked t o c o n v e r t t h e A l b i g e n s i a n heretics.  I t was h e r e , from 1205 u n t i l about 1207, t h a t he l a b o u r e d and  g r a d u a l l y was j o i n e d by a group o f companions.  T h i s s m a l l group went t o  Toulouse t o s t u d y i n o r d e r t o become more e f f i c i e n t i n t h e i r t a s k o f s a v i n g t h e s o u l s o f men.  Innocent I I I asked Dominic to.choose a r u l e f o r  h i s group w h i c h s h o u l d be p r e s e n t e d f o r a p p r o v a l by t h e papacy. When c o n f r o n t e d w i t h t h i s t a s k , Dominic had t o b e a r i n mind t h a t the F o u r t h L a t e r a n C o u n c i l had d e c r e e d t h a t no new o r d e r s s h o u l d be a l l o w e d and t h a t a l l new b o d i e s s h o u l d choose one o f t h e r u l e s w h i c h were a l r e a d y i n existence."*  N a t u r a l l y , D o m i n i c , h i m s e l f an A u g u s t i n i a n canon, took  t h e s o - c a l l e d R u l e o f S t . A u g u s t i n e as t h e b a s i s f o r h i s O r d e r , a d d i n g t o i t t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n s w h i c h were c h i e f l y drawn from t h e observance o f Premontre.-* I n o r i g i n t h e n , t h e Order was a c a n o n i c a l i n s t i t u t i o n .  The  Order  of P r e a c h e r s was c o n f i r m e d as such by H o n o r i u s I I I on December 16,  1216.  On the same day, i n a n o t h e r b u l l , t h e p o n t i f f d e s c r i b e d t h e Dominicans as champions o f t h e f a i t h and l i g h t s of t h e w o r l d . ^  The Dominican  was v e r y d i f f e r e n t from the q u a s i - m o n a s t i c canon o f Premontre.  friar  Whereas  t h e P r a e m o n s t r a t e n s i a n canon b e l o n g s t o a p a r t i c u l a r abbey and has t h e c u r e of s o u l s i n a p a r t i c u l a r p a r i s h , t h e Dominican f r i a r b e l o n g s t o t h e  whole Order and t h e whole w o r l d .  I t . i s true that t h e f r i a r belongs t o a  p a r t i c u l a r house and p r o v i n c e b u t h e . i s under no vow t o s t a y . a t a p a r t i c u l a r p l a c e and w i l l move when he i s d i r e c t e d by h i s s u p e r i o r s . D o m i n i c , a t f i r s t , b r o k e w i t h e s t a b l i s h e d m o n a s t i c t r a d i t i o n by r e n o u n c i n g t h e p o s s e s s i o n o f p r o p e r t y a l t h o u g h t h e use o f revenues der i v e d from p r o p e r t y was r e t a i n e d .  The f i r s t g e n e r a l c h a p t e r h e l d a t  B o l o g n a i n 1220 d e c r e e d t h a t even t h e s e revenues s h o u l d be r e l i n q u i s h e d . Q  The Order adopted t h e i d e a l o f a b s o l u t e m a t e r i a l p o v e r t y .  The.admini-  s t r a t i v e a u t h o r i t i e s and t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n s o f t h e Order p r o v i d e d a b a l a n c e w h i c h d i r e c t e d t h e i n s t i t u t i o n so t h a t i t c o u l d pursue I t s p r i mary aims o f p r e a c h i n g and t h e s a l v a t i o n o f s o u l s w i t h as f e w . h i n d r a n c e s as p o s s i b l e . The f r i a r s to  o f t h e Dominican Order were canons who l i v e d . a c c o r d i n g  the Rule o f S t . Augustine.  The R u l e o f S t . A u g u s t i n e was supplemented  by t h e c O n s t i t u t i o n e s , t h a t i s , c o n s t i t u t i o n s , w h i c h were d i r e c t l y conc e r n e d w i t h . such m a t t e r s as t h e d a i l y l i f e o f t h e i n d i v i d u a l f r i a r as w e l l as t h e government o f t h e e n t i r e O r d e r . the  y  P r o v i s i o n was made so t h a t  c o n s t i t u t i o n s c o u l d be a l t e r e d — any m o d i f i c a t i o n , d e l e t i o n o r  a d d i t i o n which.was approved b y . t h r e e s u c c e s s i v e a n n u a l g e n e r a l - c h a p t e r s was i n c o r p o r a t e d i n t o t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n s . * ^ The Dominican Order was d i v i d e d i n t o provinces'. t o f a c i l i t a t e I t s administration.  The e n t i r e Order was governed by a g e n e r a l - c h a p t e r  w h i c h s u p e r v i s e d t h e work o f t h e m a s t e r - g e n e r a l w h i l e e a c h . p r o v i n c e was governed by a p r o v i n c i a l c h a p t e r w h i c h d i r e c t e d t h e p r o v i n c i a l p r i o r . The c h a p t e r s met a n n u a l l y and each k e p t r e c o r d s w h i c h have been c a l l e d acta.^  The a c t a r e p r e s e n t t h e f i n a l d e c i s i o n s reached by t h e s e b o d i e s  and, c o n s e q u e n t l y , t h e r e i s no i n d i c a t i o n o f t h e d i s c u s s i o n s w h i c h  preceded t h e l e g i s l a t i o n .  The c o - e x i s t e n c e o f t h e s e two types o f  documents, t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n s and t h e a c t a , enable s; t h e h i s t o r i a n t o t r a c e t h e c o n s t a n t p r e o c c u p a t i o n s o f t h o s e a u t h o r i t i e s who  controlled  t h e Order and a l l o w s . h i m t o t e s t one t y p e o f document a g a i n s t t h e o t h e r . The Dominican  Order was  a s e l f - g o v e r n i n g body w h i c h was s u b j e c t  o n l y t o t h e a u t h o r i t y o f the pope. who was  It.was r u l e d by a m a s t e r - g e n e r a l  chosen by a g e n e r a l c h a p t e r composed.of t h e r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s o f  each p r o v i n c e , o f t h e Order. z a t i o n and was  Each p r o v i n c e had a c o r r e s p o n d i n g o r g a n i -  d i r e c t e d by a p r o v i n c i a l p r i o r who was  e l e c t e d i n the  p r o v i n c i a l c h a p t e r i n w h i c h members from every convent i n the p r o v i n c e were represented.  The i n d i v i d u a l convent was  t h e f r i a r s o f t h a t convent. Order was  governed by a p r i o r e l e c t e d by  Perhaps t h e most s i g n i f i c a n t f e a t u r e o f the  t h e e l e c t i v e system by which t h o s e who  every l e v e l were p l a c e d i n t h e i r p o s i t i o n s .  governed.the  Furthermore, t h e i r tenure i n  o f f i c e , w i t h the e x c e p t i o n o f t h e m a s t e r - g e n e r a l , was f i c number of y e a r s .  Order a t  l i m i t e d to a s p e c i -  A f t e r t h e f r i a r had s e r v e d h i s term i n o f f i c e ,  r e t u r n e d t o h i s former d u t i e s .  E a c h . o f f i c e r o f the Order was  he  answerable  f o r h i s . a c t i o n s . t o the c h a p t e r w h i c h . e l e c t e d him or t o t h e c h a p t e r above him.  B o t h t h e s e b o d i e s c o u l d and d i d p u n i s h o r depose t h o s e o f f i c e r s  whose work was n o t judged t o be  satisfactory.  Many f e a t u r e s o f the Dominican  Order a r e s t r i k i n g , p a r t i c u l a r l y t h e  q u a s i - d e m o c r a t i c n a t u r e o f t h e s t r u c t u r e o f t h e Order.-^ i n t h e Dominican chapters.  Order was e l e c t e d . a n d was  T h i s was  Every s u p e r i o r  r e s p o n s i b l e to the elected  i n s h a r p c o n t r a s t t o the o l d e r r e l i g i o u s o r d e r s .  Furthermore, the c h a p t e r s formed the b a s i s of t h e a u t h o r i t y i n t h e Order w h i c h d i d n o t f i l t e r down throughout t h e s t r u c t u r e o f t h e Order but r a t h e r a u t h o r i t y moved upwards t h r o u g h t h e r a n k s o f t h e Order.  -31-  The b a s i s o f the Order was t h e . c o n v e n t i n w h i c h the p r i o r was t e d by t h e f r i a r s and was r e s p o n s i b l e t o them f o r h i s a c t i o n s .  The.next  l e v e l o f the.government o f t h e Order was t h e p r o v i n c i a l c h a p t e r . body e l e c t e d the p r o v i n c i a l p r i o r .  elec-  This  The p r o v i n c i a l c h a p t e r was n o t a p p o i n t e d  by the g e n e r a l c h a p t e r o r t h e m a s t e r - g e n e r a l but r a t h e r t h o s e a t t e n d i n g i t were e l e c t e d by each o f t h e convents o f the p r o v i n c e .  Those a t t e n -  ding the p r o v i n c i a l chapter also elected the representatives of the province who were t o a t t e n d the g e n e r a l c h a p t e r o f t h e Order.  I n t h i s way,  i n t h e Order.moved upwards through t h e r a n k s o f the f r i a r s .  authority  The g e n e r a l  c h a p t e r . o f t h e Order s u p e r v i s e d t h e work o f t h e m a s t e r - g e n e r a l and e l e c t e d new m a s t e r s - g e n e r a l when t h e o f f i c e became v a c a n t .  The g e n e r a l c h a p t e r  o f t h e Order was p r i m a r i l y a l e g i s l a t i v e body w h i l e the p r o v i n c i a l c h a p t e r tended to-be more concerned w i t h d i s c i p l i n e .  Thus, w i t h i n the Dominican  Order t h e r e were d e f i n i t e f e a t u r e s w h i c h may be d e s c r i b e d as d e m o c r a t i c as w e l l as a d i v i s i o n o f power between t h e v a r i o u s a d m i n i s t r a t i v e b o d i e s of the Order.  These f e a t u r e s d i s t i n g u i s h e d the Dominican Order from t h e  older r e l i g i o u s orders. The Dominican Order p o s s e s s e d a h i g h l y e f f i c i e n t o r g a n i z a t i o n .  The  Order was never d i v i d e d b y . c o n t r o v e r s y i n the same way as t h e F r a n c i s c a n s d u r i n g t h e M i d d l e Ages.  Each f r i a r , upon e n t e r i n g t h e O r d e r , promised 1 3  obedience t o the m a s t e r - g e n e r a l .  The somewhat d r y l e g a l i s t i c e x p r e s s i o n s  of t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n s l e f t no doubt as t o t h e powers a c c o r d e d t o each o f f i c e r o f t h e Order.  The Order had a d e f i n i t e purpose and e v e r y t h i n g  i n c l u d e d i n t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n s was d i r e c t e d t o t h e f u l f i l l m e n t o f t h a t purpose.  .-32?  (2) The E d u c a t i o n a l O r g a n i z a t i o n of the Dominican Order I t has a l r e a d y been i n d i c a t e d t h a t s t u d y was e s s e n t i a l t o the Dominican Order i f i t was t o f u l f i l l s a l v a t i o n of s o u l s .  i t s d u a l purposes,  p r e a c h i n g and t h e  For t h i s reason, i t i s necessary to i n v e s t i g a t e the  p l a c e which s t u d y and l e a r n i n g o c c u p i e d i n t h e Order.  That s t u d y and  l e a r n i n g were e s s e n t i a l t o o l s f o r the p r e a c h e r s was r e c o g n i z e d b y one o f the most d i s t i n g u i s h e d E n g l i s h Dominicans o f t h e t h i r t e e n t h c e n t u r y , Robert K i l w a r d b y .  K i l w a r d b y s t a t e d t h a t "The c h a p t e r s ,  conferences,  t r a c t a t e s and s t u d i e s o f t h i s Order i n t e n d t o do n o t h i n g o t h e r than t o prepare men f o r t h e s a l v a t i o n o f s o u l s , and, once prepared and t r a i n e d i n l i f e and knowledge, t o a s s i g n them t o t h e c o n v e r s i o n o f s i n n e r s . " - ^ The p u r s u i t o f s t u d y and l e a r n i n g c o n d i t i o n e d many a s p e c t s o f Dominican The  life.  i n t e l l e c t u a l tendency o f t h e Order can be seen a t t h e moment o f  i t s foundation.  B e f o r e t h e Order had been o r g a n i z e d , Dominic and h i s  f o l l o w e r s attended the l e c t u r e s of Alexander  Stavensby a t T o u l o u s e .  L a t e r , t h e Dominican f r i a r was a common s i g h t i n t h e u n i v e r s i t y towns o f Europe.  When Dominic, i n one o f h i s l a s t o f f i c i a l  f r i a r s to England,  a c t s , sent t h i r t e e n  these men chose Oxford as t h e s i t e o f t h e f i r s t  Dominican convent i n England.''-' The Dominican Order was founded a t a time when t h e r e was a g r e a t need for to  education.  The lower c l e r g y was p o o r l y educated  and t h e Papacy wished  see t h e e x t e n t i o n o f sound o f t h e o l o g i c a l t r a i n i n g t o t h i s l e v e l .  It  has been e s t i m a t e d t h a t a t t h e b e g i n n i n g o f t h e t h i r t e e n t h c e n t u r y t h e r e were no more than a dozen persons who possessed  a Master's  t h e o l o g y o u t s i d e t h e s c h o o l s which possessed a t h e o l o g i c a l The L a t e r a n C o u n c i l s o f 1179 and 1215 had attempted for  degree i n faculty.^  t o p r o v i d e a remedy  t h e i g n o r a n c e o f t h e lower c l e r g y b y o r d e r i n g t h e e s t a b l i s h m e n t o f  -33-  t h e o l o g i c a l s c h o o l s f o r the c l e r g y . '  Nonetheless, t h i s project  s i n c e t h e r e were not enough p r o p e r l y t r a i n e d men p o s i t i o n s even i f the v a r i o u s churches and  failed  a v a i l a b l e to f i l l  c a t h e d r a l c h a p t e r s had  w i l l i n g t o e s t a b l i s h the proper f a c i l i t i e s .  these been  I t seems t h a t the e s t a b l i s h -  ment o f the Dominican Order p a r t i a l l y overcame t h i s g r e a t need.  (a) Dominican L e g i s l a t i o n R e g a r d i n g The study.  Studies  C o n s t i t u t i o n s of the Dominican Order made adequate p r o v i s i o n f o r The  a c t a of the g e n e r a l  c h a p t e r s and the p r o v i n c i a l c h a p t e r s  i n d i c a t e t h a t the g o v e r n i n g b o d i e s of the Order were c o n s t a n t l y attempting  t o r e g u l a t e and The  to promote s t u d i e s w i t h i n the O r d e r .  b a s i s of the e d u c a t i o n a l  the c o n v e n t .  The  system w i t h i n the Dominican Order  was  c o n s t i t u t i o n s of the Order s t a t e d t h a t no convent c o u l d  be e s t a b l i s h e d w i t h o u t a d o c t o r or l e c t o r i n t h e o l o g y . 1 8  The  undertaken i n Dominican convents were d e s i g n e d to p r o v i d e  the average  f r i a r w i t h a r u d i m e n t a r y knowledge of t h e o l o g y . l was  Holy S c r i p t u r e .  studies  The b a s i s f o r s t u d i e s  y  A l l f r i a r s of the convent were r e q u i r e d t o be  present  20 a t the l e c t u r e s and  c o u l d o n l y be excused f o r an u r g e n t r e a s o n .  l e c t u r e s g i v e n i n Dominican convents were not i n t e n d e d  I n t h i s way,  w i s h e d to  the Dominican convents c o u l d p r o v i d e the means by  which the lower c l e r g y c o u l d o b t a i n a b e t t e r  education.  S p e c i a l p r i v i l e g e s were g r a n t e d t o the l e c t o r s and Order t o f a c i l i t a t e l e a r n i n g .  The  the s t u d e n t s i n the  c o n s t i t u t i o n of the Order d i r e c t e d t h a t  the D i v i n e O f f i c e s h o u l d be conducted " b r i s k l y and lose t h e i r devotion  The  s o l e l y f o r the  b e n e f i t of the f r i a r s a l o n e s i n c e t h e y were,open to a l l who attend.21  u  or impede t h e i r s t u d i e s . "  Order, took the p l a c e of manual l a b o u r and  2 2  s h o r t l y l e s t the  friars  Study, i n the Dominican  the i n v o l v e d l i t u r g y w h i c h  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 f r i a r s .  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 Summa 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 s o u l s . ^ 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 a l l 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 London in 1335, the provincial priors 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 dispensation from the master-general, -~3  suspicion soon gave way.  Nevertheless, this attitude of  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 k i n d . "  32  In 1259, the general chapter  ordered each province to open schools of arts where the young friar might receive training.33  i  n  the general chapter of 1261, this regulation was  finally confirmed when i t was decreed " . . . that the younger and easily taught friars should be instructed in logic."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 promising friar was the studium naturalium or philosophiae.  The friar would  -36.-  likely spend two years at such a s c h o o l .  Of course, this study of  36  natural philosophy for two years was merely to prepare the friar for the most important study of a l l - - theology. No student could attend a studium theologiae unless he had studied natural philosophy for at least two y e a r s . study was the Sentences of Peter Lombard.  The basis for theological  37  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  of study would be shortened to only two years.  Often the period  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 i t 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 testimony 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 a l l friars attend the schools each day and hear the  lectures there, otherwise, i f they without reasonable cause and special licence of the prior or his vicar should happen to be absent, on that day, they w i l l be deprived of wine and food. And i f 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 v i s i t o r s . Furthermore, the students, who are found to be notably negligent or incapable by the provincial 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 support of a studium generale was a great financial burden and i t 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 g e n e r a l e O n 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 theological problems. Aquinas had systematically utilized Aristotle in his work in a way which made i t necessary for every serious student to pay attention to his approach. Nevertheless, his teaching on many questions was not f u l l y understood with the result that some of his followers f e l l 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 somewhat hastily and condemned two hundred and nineteen propositions taught at Paris on March 7, 1277, before the pontiff had reached a final decision. 45 of the two hundred and nineteen propositions contained in this decree, 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'Archbishop 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 o f f i c i a l condemnations, the Dominican Order soon r a l l i e d 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, i t 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, i t 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 f u l l 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 i t 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 Curia since the Order would likely desire the removal of Kilwardby from his position of power in E n g l a n d . I f 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 condemnation. 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  i  n  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 w i l l and strictly enjoin that a l l lectors and sub-lectors lecture and determine questions according 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 province might sell their books with two exceptions — the Bible and the works of Thomas Aquinas.58  i t 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 P a r i s . T h e 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 b i b l i c a l 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 A t t i t u d e s of t h e A u t h o r i t i e s of t h e Dominican Order to Secular A c t i v i t i e s . A l t h o u g h the Dominican f r i a r was supposed t o devote h i m s e l f  to  p r e a c h i n g and t h e s a l v a t i o n of s o u l s , the f r i a r s were o f t e n drawn i n t o o t h e r f i e l d s of a c t i v i t y .  The Dominicans were p a r t i c u l a r l y u s e f u l  for  d i p l o m a t i c n e g o t i a t i o n s s i n c e t h e t r a i n i n g w h i c h many of them had r e c e i v e d would e q u i p them f o r u n d e r t a k i n g c o n s u l t a t i o n s .  The f r i a r was  f r e e of f a m i l y t i e s , e p i s c o p a l j u r i s d i c t i o n and t h e vow of  stability.  F u r t h e r m o r e , many f r i a r s had s t u d i e d i n t h e f o r e i g n houses o f  the  Order thus coming i n t o c o n t a c t w i t h o t h e r movements of thought and customs w h i c h made them much l e s s p a r o c h i a l i n t h e i r o u t l o o k . Order of P r e a c h e r s , by s u b s t i t u t i n g  The  l e a r n i n g f o r manual l a b o u r ,  pro-  duced many l e a r n e d and prudent men. whose a d v i c e and a i d was sought  by  b i s h o p s , k i n g s and popes. The Order i t s e l f d i d not l o o k f a v o r a b l y on t h e s e c u l a r o f many of t h e f r i a r s .  activities  Demands f o r t h e s e r v i c e s of the f r i a r s  in-  c r e a s e d which c o n s t i t u t e d a d i r e c t t h r e a t t o the f u l f i l l m e n t of b a s i c m i s s i o n of t h e O r d e r .  Furthermore,  such s e c u l a r  the  activities,  such as the u n d e r t a k i n g of d i p l o m a t i c n e g o t i a t i o n s , endangered t h e Order i n o t h e r ways.  First,  u s u a l l y t h e b e s t f r i a r s were c h o s e n ,  p a r t i c u l a r l y t h o s e who had been w e l l e d u c a t e d .  I n t h i s way,  the  Order l o s t some of i t s b e s t s c h o l a r s f o r s h o r t p e r i o d s of t i m e , a n d , i n some c a s e s , p e r m a n e n t l y .  Secondly,  s i n c e each f r i a r who undertook  such a c t i v i t i e s had a companion o r s o c i u s , t h e Order l o s t t h e of at l e a s t two f r i a r s .  services  The a u t h o r i t i e s o f t h e Order r i g h t l y thought  t h a t t h e i n t e r e s t s of t h e Order and t h e Church would be b e t t e r  served  -43.-  if  t h e f r i a r s o c c u p i e d themselves w i t h t h e p r i m a r y t a s k s t o which t h e  Order had d e d i c a t e d i t s e l f r a t h e r t h a n u n d e r t a k i n g o t h e r T h i s a t t i t u d e was r e f l e c t e d general chapters.  tasks.  i n t h e l e g i s l a t i o n i s s u e d by t h e  The c o n s t i t u t i o n s o f t h e Order a l l o w e d  superiors 66  t o g r a n t d i s p e n s a t i o n s i f t h e s e were c o n s i d e r e d a b s o l u t e l y I n t h i s way, f r i a r s c o u l d be r e l e a s e d t o u n d e r t a k e o t h e r  necessary.  duties.  Humbert de Romans, i n h i s commentary on t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n s of t h e O r d e r , l i s t e d t h e t h i n g s w h i c h impeded the w e l f a r e of s o u l s . "The second  impediment  He s t a t e d  that  i s v e x a t i o u s employments, such as i n q u i s i t i o n s ,  v i s i t a t i o n s , and v i o l e n t c o r r e c t i o n s , t h e e x a c t i o n s of l a s t w i l l s ,  the  d e c i s i o n s of a r b i t r a t o r s , as a r e s u l t of which t h e d e v o t i o n of men f o r 67  the f r i a r s i s f r e q u e n t l y d i s t u r b e d . " The g e n e r a l c h a p t e r of 1239 o r d e r e d t h a t "The f r i a r s s h o u l d not f r e q u e n t t h e c o u r t s of k i n g s o r p r i n c e s w i t h o u t g r e a t n e c e s s i t y o r f o r t h e f r u i t of s o u l s , nor s h o u l d t h e y u n d e r t a k e t o be a r b i t e r s , nor s h o u l d t h e y be concerned w i t h w i l l s ,  nor s h o u l d t h e y a c t  as  68 executors."  I n 1268, the f r i a r s were i n s t r u c t e d t o a v o i d , as 69  as p o s s i b l e , t h e u n d e r t a k i n g of embassies. 1285 o r d e r e d t h e f r i a r s not t o a s s i s t ral affairs."^  far  The g e n e r a l c h a p t e r o f  b i s h o p s " i n a d m i n i s t e r i n g tempo-  I n 1287, the g e n e r a l c h a p t e r once a g a i n t o o k a  s t r o n g s t a n d a g a i n s t t h e s e c u l a r a c t i v i t i e s of t h e f r i a r s . stated: We s t r i c t l y p r o h i b i t any f r i a r t o e n t e r i n t o c o u n s e l s c o n c e r n i n g m a r r i a g e o r indeed t o conduct any g r e a t and arduous s e c u l a r n e g o t i a t i o n s w i t h o u t the s p e c i a l l i c e n c e of h i s p r o v i n c i a l p r i o r o r v i c a r and whoever d i s o b e y s t h i s d i r e c t i o n , l e t h i m be s e v e r e l y punished by the p r i o r s and v i s i t o r s . ^ 7  The a c t a  Nevertheless,  in spite of these directions, Dominican friars con-  tinued to be occupied in secular activities. very serious negotiations for various rulers.  Some friars undertook In a subsequent  chapter it w i l l be shown that, in England, the Dominican Order and the monarchy were united by very intimate bonds.  72  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 w i l l 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 . a n d 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 w i l l be presented, in some detail, in the next chapter of the thesis.'*'  -46-  (1)  The Causes arid t h e Course o f t h e C o n f l i c t between B o n i f a c e V I I I and P h i l i p T V  The u n d e r l y i n g cause o f t h e c o n f l i c t between B o n i f a c e V I I I and P h i l i p I V was n a t i o n a l s o v e r e i g n t y . 2 England  developed  The c o n f l i c t i n b o t h France and  over t h e q u e s t i o n o f whether t h e k i n g had t h e r i g h t t o  demand t a x e s from h i s c l e r g y d u r i n g a n a t i o n a l emergency. a d i s p u t e over c l e r i c a l t a x a t i o n soon developed  3  What began as  into a bitter  conflict  not o n l y on a p e r s o n a l l e v e l b u t a l s o on a t h e o r e t i c a l l e v e l . B e f o r e 1296, c l e r i c a l t a x a t i o n was s u b j e c t t o two canons embodied i n t h e D e c r e t a l s o f Gregory I X . Canon 19 o f t h e T h i r d L a t e r a n C o u n c i l o f 1179 had s t a t e d : . . . T h e r e f o r e , we s t r i c t l y p r o h i b i t o t h e r t a x e s t o be l e v i e d , upon p a i n o f excommunication, except when t h e b i s h o p s and c l e r g y c o n s i d e r t h e n e c e s s i t y or advantage t o be.so g r e a t t h a t t h e y , w i t h o u t any p r e s s u r e w h a t e v e r , t h i n k t h a t a s u b s i d y s h o u l d be g r a n t e d by t h e Church t o p r o v i d e f o r t h e s e common advantages o r n e c e s s i t i e s when t h e r e s o u r c e s o f t h e l a i t y do n o t s u f f i c e . ' * T a x a t i o n o f t h e c l e r g y was n o t p r o h i b i t e d b u t t h e taxes had t o be l e v i e d by t h e c l e r g y f r e e l y when they c o n s i d e r e d t h e n e c e s s i t y g r e a t enough to warrant  a s u b s i d y on t h e i r p a r t .  R u l e r s , who attempted  t a x e s upon t h e c l e r g y were, by such an a c t , excommunicated.  t o impose However,  subsequent e x p e r i e n c e showed t h a t t h e l o c a l c l e r g y were n o t i n a s u f f i c i e n t l y strong position to refuse lay rulers.  Thus, i n 1215, canon 46  o f t h e F o u r t h L a t e r a n C o u n c i l added t h e c o n d i t i o n t h a t on q u e s t i o n s o f t a x a t i o n " . . . t h e Roman P o n t i f f s h o u l d be c o n s u l t e d beforehand  since  i t i s h i s t a s k t o p r o v i d e f o r t h e common advantage."5 However, t h e c a n o n i c a l s o l u t i o n t o t h e problem o f c l e r i c a l t a x a t i o n was m o d i f i e d by t h e p r a c t i c e s w h i c h 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 c l e r i -  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.  1 0  This bull differed from existing ecclesiastical legislation  on the question of taxation in several significant w a y s . F i r s t , 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 o f f i c i a l s , Clericis laicos specifically mentioned kings and emperors.I  3  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 e x c o m m u n i c a t i o n . T h u s , Clericis laicos inflicted penalties 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 ordinance which  prohibited the export of precious metals, jewels, plate and a l l other forms of wealth from France.^ This action placed Boniface in a d i f f i 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 i t was addressed.- 1  important questions as to its interpretation.  6  The bull also raised 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 c i r -  cumstances under which the pope would agree to a grant?  Finally, what  was the local clergy to do i f delay in granting a subsidy would likely place the whole country in danger? In order to answer these v i t a l 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 d i d n o t s t a t e p r e c i s e l y t h a t monetary a i d c o u l d n o t be extended by e c c l e s i a s t i c s f o r your needs and f o r t h e defence o f your kingdom by t h e same c l e r i c s , b u t we d i r e c t e d t h a t i t c o u l d n o t be made w i t h o u t our s p e c i a l l i c e n c e . . . .-*8  N e v e r t h e l e s s , as t h e d i s p u t e c o n t i n u e d , B o n i f a c e r e t r e a t e d from h i s position.  On February  t h e pope t o b e . a l l o w e d  7, 1297, a f t e r t h e French b i s h o p s had appealed t o t o g i v e a . t e n t h o f t h e i r revenues t o t h e k i n g ,  B o n i f a c e V I I I made t h e f i r s t major c o n c e s s i o n .  I n t h e b u l l Romana mater  e c c l e s i a , t h e pope s t a t e d t h a t i n a d e s p e r a t e emergency, when t h e r e was n o t t i m e t o c o n s u l t t h e papacy, t h e c l e r g y c o u l d pay a s u b s i d y t o t h e k i n g w i t h o u t f i r s t o b t a i n i n g p a p a l consent.-*-  9  F i n a l l y , on J u l y 3 1 , 1297,  i n t h e b u l l E t s i de s t a t u , B o n i f a c e V I I I c a p i t u l a t e d  completely:  We add, moreover, t o t h i s o u r d e c l a r a t i o n t h a t , i f a dangerous emergency s h o u l d t h r e a t e n t h e aforesaid k i n g or h i s successors w i t h regard to the g e n e r a l o r p a r t i c u l a r defence o f t h e same kingdom, t h i s c o n s t i t u t i o n [ i . e . C l e r i c i s l a i c o s ] s h a l l by no means extend t o a case o f such n e c e s s i t y . Indeed, t h e same k i n g and h i s s u c c e s s o r s a r e a b l e t o demand and t o . r e c e i v e from t h e p r e l a t e s and e c c l e s i a s t i c a l persons o f t h e s a i d kingdom a s u b s i d y o r c o n t r i b u t i o n f o r such d e f e n c e , and t h e s a i d p r e l a t e s and persons a r e h e l d and a r e a b l e t o p r e s e n t i t t o t h e o f t mentioned k i n g and h i s s u c c e s s o r s under t h e name o f a quota o r under any o t h e r name, even when t h e Roman p o n t i f f has n o t been c o n s u l t e d and n o t w i t h s t a n d i n g t h e above mentioned r e g u l a t i o n o r any exemption o r o t h e r p r i v i l e g e , i n whatever form o f words i t i s framed, o b t a i n e d from t h e a p o s t o l i c s e e ; and t h a t t h e d e c l a r a t i o n o f above-mentioned n e c e s s i t y i s l e f t to the consciences of the k i n g and h i s s u c c e s s o r s . . . . 2 0  W i t h t h e s e words, B o n i f a c e V I I I a s s e n t e d t o t h e p r i n c i p l e t h a t o n l y t h e k i n g c o u l d d e c i d e when a s t a t e o f n e c e s s i t y e x i s t e d and, c o n s e q u e n t l y , whether t h e pope s h o u l d be c o n s u l t e d c o n c e r n i n g c l e r i c a l t a x a t i o n .  Thus,  i n l i t t l e more than a y e a r , P h i l i p I V had won an easy v i c t o r y over t h e pope.  The.reasons f o r t h e c a p i t u l a t i o n o f B o n i f a c e V I I I on t h i s q u e s t i o n are not d i f f i c u l t t o f i n d .  The c o n f l i c t w i t h France and England  over  the q u e s t i o n o f c l e r i c a l t a x a t i o n c o n s t i t u t e d o n l y one o f t h e problems which faced the p o n t i f f .  I n I t a l y , t h e pope was c o n f r o n t e d w i t h t h e  o p p o s i t i o n o f t h e p o w e r f u l Colonna f a m i l y who r e s e n t e d t h e f a v o u r s w h i c h B o n i f a c e showered upon h i s own r e l a t i v e s .  Two members o f t h e Colonna  f a m i l y were c a r d i n a l s . I n t h e summer o f 1297, an open breach developed between B o n i f a c e V I I I 9-1  and t h e Colonna f a m i l y . w h i c h accused  The Colonna i s s u e d a s e r i e s o f m a n i f e s t o s  t h e p o n t i f f o f h e r e s y and simony and d e c l a r e d t h a t t h e  r e s i g n a t i o n o f C e l e s t i n e V, t h e p r e d e c e s s o r o f B o n i f a c e , had been i n v a l i d . The Colonna were j o i n e d i n t h i s a t t a c k by t h e S p i r i t u a l F r a n c i s c a n s who were r e l u c t a n t t o accept t h e f a c t o f t h e r e s i g n a t i o n o f C e l e s t i n e V t h e o n l y p o n t i f f who had sympathized  with their ideals.  —  Boniface VIII  was a l s o engaged i n a war i n S i c i l y a t t h i s time w h i c h s e v e r e l y d e p l e t e d the reserves of the papal t r e a s u r y .  2 3  The s e r i o u s n e s s o f t h e s i t u a t i o n  i n I t a l y was used by P i e r r e F l o t t e , an a d v i s o r o f P h i l i p I V when he j o u r n e y e d t o t h e C u r i a b e f o r e t h e i s s u a n c e o f E t s i de s t a t u .  F l o t t e met  w i t h t h e r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s o f t h e Colonna f a c t i o n w h i l e rumours s p r e a d t h a t t h e French government might s u p p o r t t h e Colonna i n t h e i r b i d t o o b t a i n a g e n e r a l c o u n c i l . t o judge t h e p o p e . ^  The s p e c t r e o f an a l l i a n c e between  t h e Colonna f a m i l y and t h e F r e n c h s e e m s t o have f i n a l l y f o r c e d B o n i f a c e t o concede t o t h e demands o f t h e F r e n c h . A f t e r t h e i s s u a n c e o f t h e b u l l E t s i de s t a t u , r e l a t i o n s between B o n i f a c e V I I I and P h i l i p I V appeared t o become more c o r d i a l . 11, 1297, t h e c a n o n i z a t i o n o f S a i n t L o u i s was announced —  On August  an a c t i o n  w h i c h was c l e a r l y i n t e n d e d t o show good f a i t h on t h e p a r t o f t h e Papacy.  I n the meantime, P h i l i p IV h a i suspended t h e o r d i n a n c e p r o h i b i t i n g the 9c e x p o r t of b u l l i o n and o t h e r  forms o f w e a l t h from F r a n c e .  Gradually,  J  the f o r t u n e s o f t h e pope began t o r e v i v e as the e f f o r t s of p a p a l d i p l o macy were rewarded w i t h some s u c c e s s .  I n 1300,  Boniface.VIII declared  a  J u b i l e e t o c e l e b r a t e the c e n t e n n i a l of the Church w h i l e t h e pope g r a n t e d a f u l l pardon of a l l s i n s o f t h e p i l g r i m s who o f Rome, i n p e n i t e n c e ,  d u r i n g the y e a r .  2 6  v i s i t e d t h e seven b a s i l i c a s  The  thousands of p i l g r i m s  v i s i t e d Rome d u r i n g t h e J u b i l e e c e r t a i n l y l i f t e d  the s p i r i t s o f  who  the  pontiff• W h i l e , o s t e n s i b l y , the r e l a t i o n s between France and c o r d i a l , u n d e r c u r r e n t s of s t r e s s remained.  t h e Papacy were  I t seems t h a t P h i l i p  a f t e r a c h i e v i n g an easy v i c t o r y , thought t h a t he c o u l d p r e s s u r e Papacy i n t o s u b m i s s i o n on any  o c c a s i o n . ^ H o w e v e r , the f i r s t  IV, the  flagrant  abuse.of c l e r i c a l p r i v i l e g e s a f t e r the d i s p u t e over c l e r i c a l t a x a t i o n occurred  i n 1301  when P h i l i p IV o r d e r e d the a r r e s t of B e r n a r d S a i s s e t , 28  b i s h o p o f P a m i e r s , on charges of t r e a s o n , h e r e s y and S a i s s e t was and  t a k e n t o P a r i s , put on t r i a l b e f o r e  blasphemy.  the k i n g , d e c l a r e d  guilty  thrown i n t o p r i s o n . These a c t i o n s c l e a r l y d e f i e d t h e c a n o n i c a l p r i n c i p l e t h a t a b i s h o p  c o u l d o n l y be judged by the pope.  P h i l i p s e n t an account of h i s  p r o c e e d i n g t o the pope demanding the a p p r o v a l  o f the condemnation of  29  Saisset.  Included  i n the a l l e g e d o f f e n c e s  t h a t he had  "blasphemed God  h o l y l o r d Pope B o n i f a c e was d e f l e c t Boniface  and men  and had  of S a i s s e t was  the charge  o f t e n s t a t e d t h a t the most  the d e v i l i n c a r n a t e . "  u  T h i s charge d i d n o t  from the c e n t r a l i s s u e a t s t a k e i n t h i s m a t t e r .  Pope approved the a c t i o n s of the k i n g , he was  c l e a r l y admitting  P h i l i p p o s s e s s e d u n l i m i t e d power over t h e French e p i s c o p a t e .  I f the that  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 a l l papal privileges which had been granted to France.  The  bull Ausculta f i l i had been discussed in the College of Cardinals and 32 was sent to Philip TV personally.  Certainly, i t was not the intention  of the pope to claim new powers for the papacy in the bull but i t contained 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 i t  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-  f o r b i d h i s b i s h o p s t o a t t e n d t h e proposed c o u n c i l a t Rome w h i c h was t o b e h e l d i n November .-> 3  p r e l a t e s should attend.  B o n i f a c e . s t e a d f a s t l y m a i n t a i n e d t h a t t h e French When t h e c o u n c i l f i n a l l y met, o n l y t h i r t y - f i v e  b i s h o p s a t t e n d e d — l e s s t h a n h a l f o f t h e French e p i s c o p a t e . c o u l d d e r i v e l i t t l e s a t i s f a c t i o n from t h i s  Boniface  3 6  response.  D u r i n g t h e c o u n c i l , B o n i f a c e i s s u e d t h e b u l l Unam s a n c t a m . ^  This  3  b u l l made no r e f e r e n c e t o t h e p o l i t i c a l c r i s i s , i n s t e a d , i t p r e s e n t e d a s e r i e s o f t h e o l o g i c a l assumptions r e l a t i n g t o t h e n a t u r e o f t h e c h u r c h and t h e r o l e o f t h e p o n t i f f w i t h i n i t . a f o r m a l , dogmatic d e f i n i t i o n : that i t i s wholly necessary  "Moreover, we d e c l a r e , s t a t e and d e f i n e  f o r t h e s a l v a t i o n o f every human c r e a t u r e t o  be s u b j e c t t o t h e Roman P o n t i f f . " to  merely  The f i n a l statement c o n s t i t u t e d  3 8  These words, i n t h e i r c o n t e x t , seem  r e f e r t o t h e s p i r i t u a l s u p e r i o r i t y o f t h e pope i n Christendom.  They were based.on a c a r e f u l l y developed  t h e o l o g i c a l argument w h i c h con-  t a i n e d S c r i p t u r a l q u o t a t i o n s , and passages from S t . B e r n a r d and 39 Hugh o f S t . V i c t o r t o mention o n l y t h e most i m p o r t a n t s o u r c e s .  In his  d i s c u s s i o n o f Church u n i t y , B o n i f a c e d e a l t w i t h t h e q u e s t i o n o f t h e s u b o r d i n a t i o n o f t h e . t e m p o r a l power t o t h e s p i r i t u a l power i n s o m e . d e t a i l . The imagery o f t h e two swords was employed and B o n i f a c e drew t h e c o n c l u s i o n t h a t . "the t e m p o r a l a u t h o r i t y ought t o be s u b j e c t . t o t h e s p i r i t u a l . " ^ T h i s c o n c l u s i o n , w h i c h had l o n g been r e c o g n i z e d by t h e o l o g i a n s and t h e p r e d e c e s s o r s o f B o n i f a c e V I I I as v a l i d , had n e v e r been e x p r e s s e d so p l a i n l y by an.occupant o f t h e p a p a l  throne.  A f t e r . Uriam•:sarictam, t h e r e was l i t t l e ,  i f any, hope f o r a compromise  between B o n i f a c e V I I I and P h i l i p IV.. The k i n g and h i s a d v i s o r s took t h e v i e w t h a t B o n i f a c e was making new temporal c l a i m s f o r t h e papacy. Whether o r n o t t h i s was t h e i n t e n t o f t h e pope remains a m a t t e r o f doubt,  -54-  but, i n . a l l j u s t i c e , . i t has to be admitted that the French court had some justification for its thinking when i t is remembered that the bull was issued at the height of a serious p o l i t i c a l c o n t r o v e r s y T h e 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 i s , were they independent from the j u r i s 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 p o l i t i c a l theorists. The controversy between Boniface VIII and Philip TV inspired a large number of p o l i t i c a l treatises supporting either the papal position or that of the French k i n g . ^ 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 t r a i n e d i n law and were w e l l a c q u a i n t e d w i t h t h e  problems o f a d m i n i s t r a t i o n .  The p o l i t i c a l l i t e r a t u r e produced by such  men seems t o have been more c r i t i c a l o f t h e papacy.and l e s s r e s t r i c t e d by a u t h o r i t y than any o f t h e l i t e r a t u r e produced i n t h e e a r l i e r . c o n f l i c t s between the two powers.  I n . f a c t , t h i s d i s p u t e r e a l l y marks t h e appear-  ance o f t h e p r o f e s s i o n a l l y t r a i n e d layman i n t o t h e arena o f p o l i t i c a l discussion.**"* P r o b a b l y t h e most thorough p r e s e n t a t i o n  of papal claims  during the  c o n f l i c t was developed i n t h e De e c c l e s i a s t i c a p o t e s t a t e w r i t t e n by Aegidius was  Romanus or G i l e s o f Rome, about t h e y e a r 1301,  issued."*-'  Uriam sanctam  Giles o f Rome developed a s o p h i s t i c a t e d  In his treatise,  p o l i t i c a l philosophy  before  which was i n s p i r e d more by Augustine's n o t i o n o f t h e  s t a t e than by t h a t o f A r i s t o t l e . * * ' 6  The  f i r s t p a r t o f t h e De e c c l e s i a s t i c a p o t e s t a t e p r e s e n t e d a g e n e r a l  argument f o r p a p a l supremacy.  The s p i r i t u a l power which was v e s t e d i n  the pope was unique and supreme. i t y o r power was i n h e r e n t  According  t o G i l e s o f Rome, t h i s  author-  i n t h e o f f i c e o f p o n t i f f and thus was n o t  dependent-upon t h e p e r s o n a l  q u a l i t i e s o f t h e man who h e l d i t . G i l e s o f  Rome argued t h a t t h e s p i r i t u a l a u t h o r i t y had t h e power t o i n s t i t u t e t h e temporal a u t h o r i t y and t o judge i t Hugh o f St .. V i c t o r i n . h i s book De Sacramentis Fidei Christianae..Part  I I , chap. 4 s t a t e s  that  the s p i r i t u a l power can e s t a b l i s h t h e e a r t h l y power and can judge i t i f i t has n o t been good. Therefore,  t h e prophecy o f Jeremias i s v e r i f i e d  as a p p l i e d t o t h e Church:  'Lo, I have s e t thee  t h i s day over t h e n a t i o n s j and over kingdoms, t o r o o t up and p u l l down, and t o waste and t o destroy, Not  and t o b u i l d and t o p l a n t  (Jeremias  1:10)!^  o n l y d i d t h e s p i r i t u a l a u t h o r i t y p o s s e s s t h e power t o i n s t i t u t e and  to judge t h e temporal a u t h o r i t y , b u t the.temporal a u t h o r i t y was  -So-  s u b o r d i n a t e d . t o t h e s p i r i t u a l s i n c e t h i s f o l l o w e d t h e law o f n a t u r e w h i c h r e v e a l e d t h a t t h e h i g h e r everywhere governs and c o n t r o l s t h e lower.  G i l e s o f Rome t h e n . p o i n t e d o u t : So, on t h e o t h e r hand, i t . i s n e c e s s a r y t h a t t h e s e be o r d e r e d , f o r , as we mentioned, t h a t w h i c h I s from God must be o r d e r e d ; however, they would n o t be o r d e r e d u n l e s s one sword was s u b j e c t e d t o t h e o t h e r and u n l e s s one was under t h e o t h e r ; because, as D i o n y s i u s s a i d , t h e l a w o f d i v i n i t y w h i c h God gave t o a l l c r e a t e d t h i n g s r e q u i r e s t h i s : . . . t h a t a l l s h o u l d n o t be i m m e d i a t e l y s u b j e c t e d t o t h e h i g h e s t , b u t t h e lowest t h r o u g h t h e i n t e r m e d i a t e and t h e lower t h r o u g h t h e h i g h e r . T h e r e f o r e , t h e t e m p o r a l sword as i n f e r i o r i s t o be s u b j e c t e d t h r o u g h the s p i r i t u a l sword as t h r o u g h t h e h i g h e r , and one i s o r d e r e d under t h e o t h e r as i n f e r i o r t o s u p e r i o r . But some might say t h a t k i n g s and p r i n c e s ought t o be s u b j e c t e d s p i r i t u a l l y and n o t t e m p o r a l l y , and a c c o r d i n g l y t h a t t h i s d o c t r i n e ought t o be unders t o o d t o mean t h a t k i n g s and p r i n c e s a r e s p i r i t u a l l y b u t n o t t e m p o r a l l y under t h e church'. . . . . B u t those who speak i n t h i s way have n o t grasped t h e f o r c e o f t h e argument. F o r , i f k i n g s and p r i n c e s were o n l y s u b j e c t t o t h e c h u r c h . s p i r i t u a l l y , one sword would n o t be under t h e o t h e r , t e m p o r a l i t i e s would n o t be under s p i r i t u a l i t i e s , t h e r e would be no o r d e r i n t h e powers, t h e l o w e s t would n o t be s u b j e c t e d t o the h i g h e s t t h r o u g h t h e i n t e r m e d i a t e . I f , however, they a r e o r d e r e d t h e t e m p o r a l sword ought t o be under t h e s p i r i t u a l , kingdoms ought t o e x i s t under the v i c a r o f C h r i s t , and de j u r e , a l t h o u g h some may a c t d i f f e r e n t l y de f a c t o , t h e v i c a r o f C h r i s t must have dominion o v e r t e m p o r a l i t i e s t h e m s e l v e s . ^  Thus, a l l l e g i t i m a t e p o l i t i c a l power was s u b j e c t t o t h e a u t h o r i t y o f the pope. I n t h e second p a r t o f t h e De e c c l e s i a s t i c a p o t e s t a t e , G i l e s o f Rome d e v e l o p e d t h e concept o f dominium w h i c h , f o r him, i n c l u d e d n o t o n l y t h e ownership o f p r o p e r t y b u t a l s o t h e e x e r c i s e o f p o l i t i c a l a u t h o r i t y T h i s was t h e most o r i g i n a l p a r t o f t h e t r e a t i s e . Rome s t a t e d t h a t : T h e r e f o r e , t h e r e w i l l be t h i s o r d e r : t h a t t h e power o f t h e supreme p o n t i f f governs s o u l s ,  Giles of  souls ought.to.govern.bodies by right or such a body w i l l be badly ordered with regard to that part which does not obey the soul, mind or reason. However, temporal things serve our bodies. I t follows.that the p r i e s t l y power, which governs souls, rules bodies and temporal t h i n g s . ^ Giles of Rome used A r i s t o t l e to prove that the legitimacy of the means employed depended upon the ends which, i t served.-'-'-  Thus dominium,that  i s , the ownership of property or the exercise of p o l i t i c a l power, was only legitimate when serving human ends which are s p i r i t u a l ends i n their highest form.  Consequently, man must subordinate his p o l i t i c a l  power and h i s property to s p i r i t u a l ends i n 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 d i r e c t the temporal sphere since the Church and the pope serve.the highest human ends. The f i n a l part of the t r e a t i s e 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 d i s t i n c t and that they.should remain so.  Nonetheless, the  Church has the right to intervene in.temporal a f f a i r s i n 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 t o . i t by the Church.-'  3  Giles of Rome claimed v i r t u a l l y a complete power  for the pope who could act i n b o t h . s p i r i t u a l and temporal a f f a i r s .  Even  a cursory study of the De e c c l e s i a s t i c a potestate of Giles of Rome indicates.that he was a supporter .of the monist or theocratic position.  -58-  G e n e r a l l y , t h e t r a c t s produced  t o s u p p o r t t h e p o s i t i o n o f P h i l i p IV  were s h o r t e x e r c i s e s i n p o l e m i c r a t h e r than s y s t e m a t i c t r e a t i s e s i n p o l i t i c a l philosophy.  A c h a r a c t e r i s t i c r o y a l i s t t r a c t produced d u r i n g  t h e c o n t r o v e r s y between B o n i f a c e V I I I and P h i l i p IV was Antequam e s s e n t clerici.54-  T h i s t r e a t i s e was d r a f t e d . i n t h e form o f an answer t o t h e  bull Clericis laicos;  I t was once suggested t h a t P h i l i p IV h i m s e l f was  t h e a u t h o r o f t h e t r a c t and t h a t i t was a r o y a l r e p l y t o C l e r i c i s which was d e l i v e r e d t o t h e p o n t i f f . 5 5  laicos  However, modern r e s e a r c h has  i n d i c a t e d t h a t P i e r r e F l o t t e , an a d v i s o r o f P h i l i p I V , was t h e author o f the t r e a t i s e . 5 6  C e r t a i n l y , i t was never sent t o t h e pope.  The t r a c t . b e g i n s w i t h t h e words " B e f o r e t h e r e were c l e r i c s t h e K i n g of  France had custody o f h i s Kingdom . . . .•"57  The a u t h o r o f t h i s  t r e a t i s e t h e n d i s c u s s e d t h e n a t u r e o f t h e Church w h i c h , as he p o i n t e d o u t , was composed o f l a i t y as w e l l as c l e r i c s . 5 8 ' The author agreed t h a t c e r t a i n l i b e r t i e s .of t h e c l e r g y were n e c e s s a r y b u t t h a t t h e s e l i b e r t i e s c o u l d n o t be a l l o w e d t o s t a n d i n t h e way o f t h o s e t h i n g s which were n e c 59 e s s a r y f o r t h e good government and f o r t h e defence o f t h e kingdom. far of  As  as t h e a u t h o r o f t h i s t r a c t was concerned, any r e f u s a l on t h e p a r t t h e c l e r g y t o g r a n t a s u b s i d y t o t h e k i n g d u r i n g an emergency was n o t  a c l e r i c a l p r i v i l e g e b u t amounted t o t h e c l e r g y a b u s i n g t h e i r p o s i t i o n within society.  The most s i g n i f i c a n t f e a t u r e o f t h i s t r a c t was t h e f a c t  t h a t t h e author t r e a t e d t h e c l e r g y - a s c i t i z e n s o f t h e s t a t e . of  As c i t i z e n s  t h e s t a t e , i t was t h e duty o f t h e c l e r g y t o c o n t r i b u t e t o the g e n e r a l  w e l f a r e of the realm.  The a u t h o r o f Antequam e s s e n t c l e r i c i d i d n o t  r e c o g n i z e any p e c u l i a r r i g h t s o r p r i v i l e g e s ' . f o r f i r s t and f o r e m o s t , c i t i z e n s o f t h e s t a t e .  c l e r i c s -— they were,  The most i m p o r t a n t t r e a t i s e  p r o d u c e d . d u r i n g t h i s c o n f l i c t which s u p p o r t e d t h e p o s i t i o n o f t h e k i n g  -59-  was  I  the De potestate r e g i a e t . p a p a l i of John of P a r i s .  -60-  2.  John of Paris, O.P., and his Contribution to Medieval P o l i t i c a l 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 p o l i t i c a l affairs.  The names of  Thomas Aquinas, Tholemy of Lucca, Hervaeus Natalis, and Peter de la Palu immediately come to mind as Dominican p o l i t i c a l t h e o r i s t s . ^ (a) John of Paris:  Biographical Details and Literary Activity.  Very l i t t l e 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 l i f e 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 censure.  On the f i r s t 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 f e l l 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, i f 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 7 (b) The P o l i t i c a l Thought in the Commentary on the as the other controversial work, the De confessionibus audiendis. Sentences of John of Paris.  ft  Quidort's Commentary on the Sentences of Peter Lombard seems to have been written at Paris between 1292 and 1296.^  While such  -62-  J  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 Commentaries often provided the student with the opportunity to discuss political matters i f 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 78 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 paral80 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 dis84 cussion.  From this examination, i t 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, i t  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 i t 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 p o l i t i c a l 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 p o l i t i c a l aspects of Aquinas'  Commentary on the Sentences are of great importance.  John of Paris,  on the other hand, did not discuss p o l i t i c a l matters in his Commentary in the same direct manner as Aquinas, although the ideas which he expressed 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, i t 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 be88 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 c r i t i c i z e the pope nor should they 90 give the impression that they supported the imperial cause.  Thus,  i t 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 immediately suggest itself to him.  On the other hand, Quidort s 1  91 Commentary on the Sentences was written between 1292 and 1296.  It  w i l l be remembered that Clericis laicos was not issued until February, 1296, and thus the p o l i t i c a l 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 c r i t i c a l juncture.  For this reason,  i t seems likely that Quidort was willing to dismiss the p o l i t i c a l aspects of the Commentary of Aquinas when he employed it in the preparation of his own work. Nevertheless, a more likely solution to this problem of why Quidort failed to discuss p o l i t i c a l 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 i f the use made of the power was e v i l , then Quidort argued, that in both cases, 94 the domination is bad.  On the other hand, i f 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 domi95 nation was in accordance with natural law. 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, i f i t is something to which nature is inclined as to do good to one's neighbor; negatively, i f 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 c l o t h e d . y7  John of Paris was able to conclude that ". . . domination is according to natural law, not positively, because nature did not establish i t , 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 a l l licet things, not only in a l l 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 P o l i t i c a l 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 l i s t of the Parisian Dominicans who supported Philip IV's appeal for a council against Boniface VIII.^  Never-  theless, i t 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, i f 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 ex9 position rather than an exercise in polemic. In the proemium of the JDe potestate regia et papali, John of Paris stated that "Occasionally i t happens that wishing to avoid a certain error, one f a l l s into the opposite error . . . . holds the middle ground between two contrary e r r o r s . " ^  and  faith  Quidort pro-  fessed to steer a course between the error of the Waldensians 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 i t 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 f i r s t examined the nature and the origin of royal power and then that of the spiritual power. powers.  Finally, he investigated the relationship between the two 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-  by one man . . . . "  14  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 i s , by  nature, a social and p o l i t i c a l animal since man requires certain necessities which cannot be provided i f he lived alone while, at the same time, man possesses the power of speech which would be 16  completely redundant i f he were intended to live alone.  John of  Paris immediately recognized that i f each man in society pursued his private profit without regard for society as a whole, then society would disintegrate.  Consequently, i t 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 p o l i t i c a l authority in c i v i l society has a purely natural origin, he also demonstrated that this authority possessed a moral purpose.  The end of c i v i l 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 i n c l i -  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 l i f e .  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 l i f e — the f i r s t was a temporal end which was to lead a virtuous l i f e while the second was a spiritual end which directed men to their supernatural 22  end, that i s , eternal l i f e . men to this higher end.  There must be some authority to direct  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 divine grace, 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. priesthood in the following way:  He defined the  "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 i t superior to the temporal power in a l l 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 a l l 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 a l l things but rather the superior ruled the inferior only in so far as i t 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 i t could simply imply the 32 direction of a lesser authority by one greater. It w i l l be remembered that John of Paris defined the spiritual power in such a way as to restrict i t 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 s t r i c t l y spiritual authority and that they do not have a temporal jurisdiction. If the Church was to retain its unity, i t had to have one ruler. However, for Quidort the supreme pontiff or maximus sacerdos differed s  from other prelates only in the geographic area over which he had power: However, i t is clear that although peoples are divided into various dioceses and cities in which bishops rule in spirituali t i e s , however, there is one church of a l l the faithful and one Christian people. And for that reason, as in any diocese 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 Quidort s thoughts on this question were f  -73-  far removed from those of Giles of Rome or even those of his fellow 36 Dominican, Thomas Aquinas. Elsewhere in his treatise, John of Paris further refined his restriction of papal power.  The pope was "the supreme head not only of  clerics but generally of a l l 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 ecclesi38 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, i f 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, i f any, to the exercise of papal power in temporal affairs.  One of the major  problems which faced a l l medieval p o l i t i c a l 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 i t 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, inasmuch 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 f u l l force of his logic becomes apparent. Quidort argued that i f the king f e l l into sin in his o f f i c i a l acts as ruler then he was outside the jurisdiction of the spiritual authority, however, i f 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 p o l i t i c a l order but not the personal l i f e 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 i f the powers were separated the temporal ruler and the spiritual ruler would need one another and this mutual dependence would foster charity while i f 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-  W h i l e Q u i d o r t d e n i e d t h a t t h e s p i r i t u a l power h a d a n y a u t h o r i t y i n t h e t e m p o r a l s p h e r e , he r e a l i z e d to The  a r g u e t h a t t h e two pope c o u l d  that  i t would  direct be  p o w e r s w e r e c o m p l e t e l y s e p a r a t e d f r o m one  indirectly affect  the temporal order.  Quidort  absurd another. carefully  o u t l i n e d the procedure which the s p i r i t u a l a u t h o r i t y should f o l l o w i f a temporal r u l e r  s i n n e d as a  Christian:  W i t h r e g a r d t o t h e power o f c o r r e c t i o n o r e c c l e s i a s t i c a l c e n s u r e , l e t i t be known t h a t i t i s d i r e c t l y only s p i r i t u a l , since i n the e x t e r n a l f o r u m i t i s a b l e t o i m p o s e no p e n a l t y e x c e p t a s p i r i t u a l one, u n l e s s under a c o n d i t i o n or per a c c i d e n s . Indeed, a l though t h e e c c l e s i a s t i c a l judge has t o l e a d men t o w a r d God a n d t o l e a d t h e m f r o m s i n a n d c o r r e c t t h e m , h o w e v e r , he h a s t o do t h i s i n t h e manner g i v e n h i m b y God, w h i c h i s s e p a r a t i o n f r o m t h e s a c r a m e n t s and f r o m t h e c o m m u n i t y o f t h e f a i t h f u l a n d b y t h o s e means w h i c h p e r t a i n t o e c c l e s i a s t i c a l c e n s u r e ; and I s a y u n l e s s u n d e r a c o n d i t i o n , n a m e l y i f he w i s h e s t o r e p e n t and t o a c c e p t a p e c u n i a r y penance. F o r the e c c l e s i a s t i c a l judge i s n o t a b l e t o impose, by r e a s o n o f a f a u l t , c o r p o r a l o r p e c u n i a r y p e n a l t i e s as a s e c u l a r j u d g e c a n , b u t o n l y i f he [ t h e s i n n e r ] i s w i l l i n g t o a c c e p t t h e m ; f o r i f he d o e s n o t w i s h t o a c c e p t them, t h e e c c l e s i a s t i c a l judge w i l l compel him by excommunication o r b y a n o t h e r s p i r i t u a l p e n a l t y w h i c h he i s a b l e t o i n t r o d u c e , n o r c a n he go f a r t h e r . Besides I say per a c c i d e n s f o r i f the p r i n c e i s a h e r e t i c and i n c o r r i g i b l e a n d c o n t e m p t u ous o f e c c l e s i a s t i c a l c e n s u r e , t h e pope, by e x c o m m u n i c a t i n g a l l who o b e y h i m Q t h e p r i n c e ] as t h e i r l o r d , and so t h e p e o p l e t h e m s e l v e s w o u l d d e p o s e h i m a n d t h e pope w o u l d d e p o s e him per a c c i d e n s . ^ T h i s was  t h e p r o c e d u r e w h i c h t h e p o p e was  prince committing a s p i r i t u a l crime. excommunicated,  a n d f i n a l l y , due  The  t o f o l l o w i n the event of ruler  was  a  t o be w a r n e d , t h e n  t o t h e a c t i o n s t a k e n by t h e s p i r i t u a l  power, t h e people themselves would  l i k e l y depose t h e i r r u l e r .  Thus,  the spiritual power only achieved this change in the temporal sphere indirectly.  It w i l l 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 i t is apparent that ecclesiastical censure is wholly spiritual, namely excommunication, suspension, interdict, nor does the church have the power to do any47 thing more except indirectly and per accidens . . . . "  Even in the  area in which the spiritual power could act, that i s , when the tempor a l ruler sinned as a Christian, i t 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 i f 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 i f 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 p o l i t i c a l 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 selfsufficient and perfect, possessing an end of its own.  A l l that he  would concede to the traditional superiority of the spiritual power was that i t 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 judicially 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 subordination 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 temporal rulers, he had to face the fact that he was also subject to a similar power which could be exercised by temporal princes i f he did not properly perform his duties as pontiff.  -78-  (3) The Dominican Order and i t s R o l e i n t h e C o n f l i c t between B o n i f a c e V I I I and P h i l i p I V . The v i o l e n t c o n f l i c t between B o n i f a c e V I I I and P h i l i p IV c e r t a i n l y placed  t h e members o f t h e v a r i o u s r e l i g i o u s o r d e r s i n F r a n c e i n a most  difficult position.  I t was v i r t u a l l y i m p o s s i b l e  and k i n g a t t h e same t i m e .  t o p l e a s e both pope  I f t h e r e l i g i o u s acceded t o t h e k i n g ' s de-  mands f o r a s u b s i d y b e f o r e t h e i s s u a n c e o f E t s i de s t a t u prescribed  i n t h e b u l l C l e r i c i s l a i c o s were i n c u r r e d .  hand, i f they r e f u s e d and  a  the penalties  On t h e o t h e r  t o accede t o t h e demands o f t h e k i n g , t h e k i n g  t h e p e o p l e o f t h e d i s t r i c t might c o n c l u d e t h a t they were b e i n g d i s -  l o y a l to the s t a t e .  C l e a r l y , events f o r c e d members o f t h e r e l i g i o u s  o r d e r s i n F r a n c e t o make d i f f i c u l t m o r a l d e c i s i o n s . The  b u l l Unam sanetarn was regarded by P h i l i p I V as a d i r e c t a t t a c k  on F r a n c e .  The F r e n c h k i n g took immediate a c t i o n and arranged t o h o l d  a c o u n c i l t o judge t h e pope. the s i g n a t u r e s  R o y a l o f f i c i a l s were d i r e c t e d t o o b t a i n  o f t h e c l e r g y i n F r a n c e on a p p e a l s f o r t h i s c o u n c i l .  Once a g a i n , t h e c l e r g y i n F r a n c e were f o r c e d t o t a k e a s t a n d i n t h e conflict.  We have a l r e a d y  seen t h a t t h e Dominican, J o h n o f P a r i s , f e l t  t h a t he was f r e e t o w r i t e a t r e a t i s e a t t h e h e i g h t o f t h i s w h i c h d e a l t w i t h t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p o f pope and k i n g . prisals.  conflict  He s u f f e r e d no r e -  However, s e v e r a l s i g n i f i c a n t q u e s t i o n s remain t o be answered.  These q u e s t i o n s a r e r e l a t e d t o t h e o f f i c i a l a t t i t u d e o f t h e Dominican Order d u r i n g t h i s c o n f l i c t and t h e a t t i t u d e s o f t h e Dominican h i e r archy i n France i t s e l f .  A d i s c u s s i o n o f t h e a t t i t u d e s o f t h e Dominicans  i n t h i s c r i s i s w i l l contribute to a f u l l e r understanding of the p o s i t i o n s t a k e n by t h e c l e r g y i n F r a n c e a t t h i s t i m e .  T h e r e f o r e , we w i l l  t u r n our a t t e n t i o n t o t h e s e q u e s t i o n s .  (a)  The O f f i c i a l A t t i t u d e o f t h e Dominican O r d e r .  The o f f i c i a l a t t i t u d e o f t h e g o v e r n i n g b o d i e s o f t h e Dominican Order can be gleaned from t h e A c t a o f t h e g e n e r a l c h a p t e r s and from t h e e n c y c l i c a l l e t t e r s o f t h e m a s t e r s - g e n e r a l . The e n c y c l i c a l l e t t e r s o f t h e m a s t e r s - g e n e r a l were i s s u e d a t t h e g e n e r a l c h a p t e r s . T h e A c t a of t h e g e n e r a l c h a p t e r s embody t h e f i n a l d e c i s i o n s reached by t h e c e n t r a l governmental body o f t h e Order.5"-  The e n c y c l i c a l l e t t e r s a r e im-  p o r t a n t s i n c e t h e y r e v e a l t h e p r e o c c u p a t i o n s o f t h e m a s t e r - g e n e r a l who r u l e d the e n t i r e Order.  Both t h e a c t a and t h e e n c y c l i c a l l e t t e r s were  c o p i e d by t h e f r i a r s who a t t e n d e d t h e g e n e r a l c h a p t e r s and t h e s e were c a r r i e d back w i t h them t o t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e p r o v i n c e s . 5 2  T  n  t h i s way,  t h e a t t i t u d e s and t h e d e c i s i o n s o f t h e c e n t r a l governmental machinery of t h e Dominican Order were d i r e c t e d t o each p r o v i n c e o f t h e O r d e r . I n 1296  a  t h e g e n e r a l c h a p t e r o f t h e Dominican Order, w h i c h was h e l d  a t S t r a s b o u r g , p o i n t e d o u t t h e dangers w h i c h c o u l d a f f l i c t t h e Order i f t h e f r i a r s took p a r t i n d i p l o m a t i c n e g o t i a t i o n s .  R e v e a l i n g much w o r l d l y  wisdom, t h e f r i a r s were c a u t i o n e d a g a i n s t u n d e r t a k i n g such a c t i v i t i e s w i t h t h e f o l l o w i n g words: With the undertaking of secular negotiations f o r g r e a t c o u n t s and p r i n c e s , dangers t h r e a t e n our Order and persons from i t , s i n c e , when t h e f a v o r o f one p a r t y i s g a i n e d , i t provokes t h e enmity o f t h e o t h e r . We w i l l and s t r i c t l y e n j o i n t h e p r i o r s and a l l . f r i a r s t h a t by no means a r e t h e y t o assume t o u n d e r t a k e such o d i o u s and dangerous n e g o t i a t i o n s ; nor a r e t h e p r o v i n c i a l o r c o n v e n t u a l p r i o r s t o g i v e l i c e n c e s , i n any way, f o r u n d e r t a k i n g such n e g o t i a t i o n s . 53 C l e a r l y , t h e g e n e r a l c h a p t e r was determined t o do as much as p o s s i b l e  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 Venice in 1297.  By this time,  the conflict over Clericis laicos between Boniface VIII and Philip IV and Edward I had broken out.  It w i l l 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 a l l 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 a l l 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 Treviso, 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, Saint Peter, 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, i t 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 between the pope and the kings of France and England. were moderate.  Their statements  The general chapters and the masters-general urged a l l  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 a l l . This was not a gallant stand in the conflict but i t was probably the  -82-  b e s t p o s i t i o n w h i c h t h e r u l i n g h i e r a r c h y o f t h e Dominican o r d e r c o u l d t a k e when a l l a s p e c t s o f t h e problem w h i c h c o n f r o n t e d them a r e considered.  C e r t a i n l y , i t cannot be s a i d t h a t t h e c e n t r a l h i e r a r c h y o f  t h e Order was d i s l o y a l t o B o n i f a c e V I I I ,  (b)  The A t t i t u d e o f t h e Dominican A u t h o r i t i e s i n France,  I t i s a d i f f i c u l t . t a s k , i n d e e d , t o t r a c e , w i t h any a s s u r a n c e , t h e a t t i t u d e s o f t h e Dominican h i e r a r c h y i n t h e P r o v i n c e o f F r a n c e d u r i n g the c o n f l i c t .  The r e a s o n f o r t h i s i s t h a t t h e a c t a o f t h e p r o v i n c i a l  c h a p t e r s o f t h i s p r o v i n c e have been l o s t .  These documents would have  g i v e n some i n d i c a t i o n , a t l e a s t , o f t h e o f f i c i a l a t t i t u d e t a k e n by t h e Dominican Order i n t h e P r o v i n c e o f France d u r i n g t h e d i s p u t e .  Therefore,  t h e h i s t o r i a n i s f o r c e d t o t u r n t o the i n c i d e n t a l r e f e r e n c e s which can be gleaned from o t h e r s o u r c e s .  The o n l y p r o v i n c i a l o f the P r o v i n c e o f  F r a n c e mentioned i n c o n n e c t i o n w i t h the c o n f l i c t was Raymund Romain who became p r o v i n c i a l i n 1302.58 Perhaps,  the f r i a r who was i n t h e most d i f f i c u l t p o s i t i o n d u r i n g  t h e c o n f l i c t was N i c h o l a s de F r e a u v i l l e , t h e c o n f e s s o r o f P h i l i p I V . He became c o n f e s s o r t o t h e k i n g i n 1295 and h e l d t h e o f f i c e d u r i n g the next t r o u b l e d decade. easy one t o f i l l  The o f f i c e o f t h e r o y a l c o n f e s s o r was n o t an  i n this period.  A p p a r e n t l y , the c o n f e s s o r had a s u f f i c i e n t h o l d on t h e c o n s c i e n c e o f r o y a l master t o be c o n s i d e r e d a t h r e a t .  He was accused o f t r e a s o n  t h e charge l a i d a g a i n s t him was t h a t he had d e l i v e r e d t h e d e c i s i o n s o f the Royal C o u n c i l to the F l e m i n g s .  6 0  P h i l i p IV d i d not b e l i e v e the  charge and t h e c o n f e s s o r was s u b s e q u e n t l y  a b l e t o prove h i s i n n o c e n c e .  —  A t any r a t e , F r e a u v i l l e remained i n o f f i c e as r o y a l c o n f e s s o r .  The  m o t i v e f o r t h i s charge o f t r e a s o n seems t o l a y i n t h e f a c t t h a t t h e conf e s s o r d i d n o t w h o l l y s u b s c r i b e t o the p o l i c i e s o f F l o t e and Nogaret and thus he became an o b s t a c l e t o t h e i r p l a n s , * *  1  T o g e t h e r w i t h R o b e r t , Duke o f Burgundy, t h e c o n f e s s o r urged P h i l i p I V t o a l l o w some o f the French  clergy to attend the c o u n c i l i n  Rome w h i c h B o n i f a c e V I I I had summoned i n o r d e r t o d i s c u s s t h e s t a t e o f the Church i n F r a n c e . h i g h l y regarded  6 2  N e v e r t h e l e s s , N i c h o l a s de F r e a u v i l l e was n o t  at the papal court.  Apparently, Boniface V I I I d i d not  t h i n k t h a t t h e c o n f e s s o r was e x e r c i s i n g h i s o f f i c e p r o p e r l y . 13, 1303,  On A p r i l  t h e C a r d i n a l J o h n Lemoine, then p a p a l l e g a t e i n F r a n c e , was i n -  s t r u c t e d t o o r d e r t h e c o n f e s s o r t o t r a v e l t o Rome w i t h i n t h r e e months t o answer f o r h i s conduct b e f o r e t h e pope h i m s e l f . d i d n o t appear b e f o r e t h e pope.  6 3  N i c h o l a s de F r e a u v i l l e  On June 26, 1303, he s i g n e d t h e a p p e a l  64 f o r a c o u n c i l a t t h e Dominican convent o f S a i n t - J a c q u e s  i n Paris.  I t might be argued t h a t B o n i f a c e V I I I was c o r r e c t i n h i s a t t i t u d e w i t h r e g a r d t o P h i l i p IV's c o n f e s s o r , p a r t i c u l a r l y i n v i e w o f t h e f a c t t h a t he l a t e r was w i l l i n g t o s i g n t h e a p p e a l f o r t h e c o u n c i l .  Neverthe-  l e s s , i n a l l j u s t i c e , i t would have been i m p o s s i b l e f o r t h e c o n f e s s o r not t o a f f i x h i s s i g n a t u r e t o t h e a p p e a l and s t i l l r e t a i n h i s o f f i c e as confessor.  P e r h a p s , N i c h o l a s de F r e a u v i l l e f e l t t h a t he was o f more s e r -  v i c e t o t h e papacy as c o n f e s s o r where he might be a b l e t o temper some o f the judgements o f t h e r o y a l a d v i s e r s .  After a l l ,  t h e c o n f e s s o r had p e r -  formed some s m a l l s e r v i c e s f o r t h e papacy i n t h e p a s t j p o s s i b l y , he hoped t h a t he would be a b l e t o p e r f o r m even g r e a t e r s e r v i c e s i n t h e f u t u r e . I n the f i n a l a n a l y s i s , t h e p o s i t i o n he took d u r i n g t h e c o n f l i c t d i d n o t hinder h i s e c c l e s i a s t i c a l career.  I n 1305,  a f t e r t h e death o f  B o n i f a c e V I I I , he became a c a r d i n a l . ^ The  p r o v i n c i a l of the P r o v i n c e o f F r a n c e , Raymund Romain, h a r d l y  took a n o b l e p o s i t i o n d u r i n g the c o n f l i c t .  He a f f i x e d h i s s i g n a t u r e t o  the a p p e a l f o r the c o u n c i l a t S a i n t - J a c q u e s . s i g n i n g the a p p e a l and  But r a t h e r t h a n m e r e l y  6 6  s a y i n g n o t h i n g more, he proceeded to send a  l e t t e r throughout the p r o v i n c e j u s t i f y i n g h i s a c t i o n . . On J u l y 16,  1303,  l e s s t h a n a month a f t e r s i g n i n g the a p p e a l , he d i r e c t e d t h i s l e t t e r to the f r i a r s of h i s p r o v i n c e .  I n the l e t t e r , he p o i n t e d t o the f a c t t h a t  many i l l u s t r i o u s persons had  thought t h a t i t was  appeals.  a d v i s a b l e to s i g n such  H i s l e t t e r ended w i t h t h e s e words w h i c h were a v i r t u a l  invita-  t i o n f o r the f r i a r s of h i s p r o v i n c e t o submit t o the w i s h e s o f the k i n g : "That, at any r a t e , I have urged you t o show d i s c r e t i o n and s h o u l d a c t a f t e r mature c o n s i d e r a t i o n l e s t you  that  s h o u l d i n c u r the  you dis-  p l e a s u r e o f our l o r d k i n g nor s h o u l d you r i g h t l y be a b l e t o h o l d back f o r some r e a s o n or a n o t h e r . Why  6 7  d i d the p r o v i n c i a l i s s u e t h i s l e t t e r ?  There i s no d i r e c t e v i -  dence but i t seems l i k e l y t h a t the p r o v i n c i a l had been r e q u e s t e d i t by t h e r o y a l government.  This hypothesis  t o send  i s based upon the f a c t t h a t  up u n t i l the t i m e the p r o v i n c i a l i s s u e d t h i s l e t t e r , no Dominican convent other than Saint-Jacques  i n P a r i s had  I f t h e r o y a l government had  s i g n e d an a p p e a l f o r t h e c o u n c i l . ^ 6  thought t h a t i t was  c i a l to send t h i s l e t t e r , i t c e r t a i n l y had  advisable f o r the p r o v i n -  the d e s i r e d r e s u l t s i n c e many  Dominican houses s i g n e d a p p e a l s s h o r t l y a f t e r the l e t t e r was Thus, i t seems r e a s o n a b l e was  issued.  6 y  to b e l i e v e t h a t the a c t i o n of the p r o v i n c i a l  suggested t o him by t h e government.  C e r t a i n l y , the Dominicans were  not a l o n e i n s i g n i n g the a p p e a l s f o r the c o u n c i l . ^ 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 c l e r i c a l assembly.71 to judge the pope.  Plasian suggested that a council should be held  In this view, he was supported by the king and by  Guillaume Nogaret.72  After listening to the satiric and crude oratory  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 i t 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 a l l the friars at Saint-  -86-  Jacques signed the appeal for a c o u n c i l . H o w e v e r , recent research has indicated that i t is likely that some friars refused to sign the document.  It has been shown that in obtaining the appeal for the council,  there were, in some cases, three documents; of those who adhered to the appeal; who were opposed;  second, a provisional l i s t of those  third, the final l i s t of those who supported the ap-  peal for a council.75 vent in Paris.  f i r s t , a provisional l i s t  These lists have survived for the Franciscan con-  It seems likely that similar lists would be made for the  Dominican convent of Saint-Jacques and i f they were, the f r i s t two l i s t s 76  have been lost.'" the case.  There are several reasons for believing that this was  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 f u l f i l l e d , 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 78  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 considerable number of the Dominicans at Saint Jacques refused to sign the appeal.  The document itself stated that many illustrious persons of the  realm had signed appeals for the council. the friars of Saint-Jacques stated:  At the end of the document,  -87-  I n l i k e manner they a p p e a l f u l l y and l i k e t h e s e o t h e r s and under the same q u a l i f i c a t i o n s and the same words, s a v i n g the obedience and r e v e r e n c e o f t h e i r Order and the honor o f the Church of Rome and the t r u t h of t h e C a t h o l i c f a i t h ; p l a c i n g thems e l v e s and what i s t h e i r s t a t e under the p r o t e c t i o n of t h e a f o r e s a i d s a c r e d C o u n c i l w h i c h w i l l be assembled and of the a f o r e s a i d t r u e and l e g i t i m a t e supreme p o n t i f f not w i t h d r a w i n g from the abovementioned a p p e a l s but r a t h e r a d h e r e i n g t o them, ''8  Thus, t h e f r i a r s of S a i n t - J a c q u e s , t o m a i n t a i n t h a t they were s t i l l t h a t t h e y f e l t t h a t i t was  w h i l e s i g n i n g the a p p e a l , l o y a l to the Church,  attempted  The v e r y f a c t  n e c e s s a r y t o make such a c o n d i t i o n would seem  t o i n d i c a t e t h a t they f e a r e d t h a t some might r e g a r d the a c t as On J u l y 26,  1303,  disloyal.  the r o y a l agents were at the Dominican convent of 82  Langes w h i c h s i g n e d the a p p e a l on the same day. *" 0  The  f r i a r s o f t h i s con-  v e n t added t h e f o l l o w i n g c o n d i t i o n t o the a p p e a l b e f o r e a f f i x i n g  their  s i g n a t u r e s t o the document: We, however, induced by the aforementioned cons i d e r a t i o n s and c a u s e s , t h i n k i n g the c o n v o c a t i o n and assembly of t h i s c o u n c i l t o be u s e f u l , n e c e s s a r y , s a l u t a r y and p r o f i t a b l e t o the f a i t h and t h e H o l y Church of God, a s s e n t t o the c o n v o c a t i o n and assembly of the same c o u n c i l but p r o t e s t exp r e s s l y t h a t we, i n no way, i n t e n d to j o i n one p a r t y about t h i s but s a v i n g the honor and r e v e r ence i n a l l t h i n g s o f the A p o s t o l i c See and the o b e d i e n c e owed t o t h e h o l y Roman Church w h i c h we c o n f e s s i s the head and i s t o be obeyed, s a v i n g a l s o the s t a t e o f our Order and t h e obedience t o our s u p e r i o r s , i n s o f a r as a c c o r d i n g t o God, we are a b l e to do, we adhere to the a f o r e s a i d p r o v o c a t i o n and a p p e a l s . These words d i d not a l t e r t h e f a c t t h a t the f r i a r s had  submitted  to  the  w i l l of the k i n g . A c t s o f open d e f i a n c e were v e r y few.  On J u l y 28, 1303,  Amaury I I ,  v i s c o u n t o f Narbonne and Denys de Sens bore the documents f o r the a p p e a l t o the Dominican convent o f M o n t p e l l i e r ,  The  r e p o r t 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 w i l l 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 a l l but three of the friars remained steadfast and refused to affix their signatures 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 refused 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. A l l the other houses signed the appeals for a c o u n c i l . ^ There were several reasons why the Dominicans generally supported Philip IV*s bid for a council.  F i r s t , 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 Mendicant Orders and the secular clergy.  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 a l l 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  POLITICAL DISPUTES AND  IV  THE DOMINICANS IN ENGLAND  I n g e n e r a l , r e l a t i o n s between England and the papacy were c o r d i a l i n t h e p e r i o d from 1250 u n t i l 1350.  Henry I I I e s t a b l i s h e d e x c e e d i n g l y c l o s e  t i e s w i t h t h e papacy - l i k e l y c l o s e r t h a n t h o s e of any o t h e r E n g l i s h k i n g . I n f a c t , many o f t h e problems o f t h i s k i n g were p a r t i a l l y a t t r i b u t a b l e t o h i s close a l l i a n c e w i t h the papacy.  1  A f t e r t h e death of Henry I I I , A n g l o -  p a p a l r e l a t i o n s c o n t i n u e d t o be r e l a t i v e l y c l o s e .  D u r i n g the r e i g n o f  Edward I , the o n l y r e a l l y s e r i o u s c r i s i s w h i c h d i s r u p t e d t h e r e l a t i o n s between E n g l a n d and t h e papacy o c c u r r e d . the b u l l C l e r i c i s l a i c o s .  T h i s c r i s i s was provoked by  B e f o r e t h e i s s u a n c e of C l e r i c i s  laicos,  Edward I had e n j o y e d f a i r l y c o r d i a l r e l a t i o n s w i t h t h e papacy a l t h o u g h he tended t o s t a n d more a l o o f from t h e papacy t h a n h i s f a t h e r had done. A f t e r t h e d i s p u t e over C l e r i c i s l a i c o s , A n g l o - p a p a l r e l a t i o n s r e t u r n e d t o t h e i r former degree of harmony.  D u r i n g t h e r e i g n of Edward I I and the  e a r l y y e a r s o f t h a t o f Edward I I I , t h e E n g l i s h k i n g s and p o n t i f f s enjoyed 2 harmonious  r e l a t i o n s w i t h one a n o t h e r .  The o n l y s i g n i f i c a n t n o t e o f  d i s c o r d i n t h e p e r i o d from 1250 u n t i l 1350 a r o s e over t h e q u e s t i o n of c l e r i c a l t a x a t i o n and the b u l l C l e r i c i s l a i c o s . Our a t t e n t i o n w i l l thus be d i r e c t e d t o t h i s d i s p u t e .  I n t h i s c h a p t e r , t h e r e w i l l be t h r e e major  divisions: (1)  The C o n f l i c t o v e r C l e r i c i s l a i c o s i n England.  (2)  The P o l i t i c a l A c t i v i t i e s o f the E n g l i s h  Dominicans.  (3)  The P o l i t i c a l Thought o f t h e E n g l i s h Dominicans.  S i n c e t h e p r o v i s i o n s o f t h e b u l l C l e r i c i s l a i c o s have a l r e a d y been d e a l t w i t h f u l l y i n the preceding  chapter,  our d i s c u s s i o n w i l l be l i m i t e d t o a  3 d e s c r i p t i o n o f t h e c r i s i s i n England.  -92-  (1)  The C o n f l i c t o v e r C l e r i c i s l a i c o s i n England  A l t h o u g h C l e r i c i s l a i c o s was  i s s u e d by B o n i f a c e V I I I i n 1296  f o r the  whole Church, events i n England seemed t o have c o n t r i b u t e d to t h e p r o m u l g a t i o n o f the b u l l ,  I n 1294, Edward I had demanded a h a l f o f c l e r i c a l  incomes i n h i s d e s p e r a t e s e a r c h f o r revenue i n o r d e r t o f i n a n c e h i s war a g a i n s t France.  Edward t h r e a t e n e d t o o u t l a w t h o s e c l e r i c s who r e f u s e d  t o g r a n t him t h i s s u b s i d y . agreed t o t h e g r a n t .  T h i s t h r e a t worked s i n c e t h e c l e r g y  finally  I n t h e same y e a r , t h e k i n g s e i z e d the c r u s a d i n g  t e n t h s which had been d e p o s i t e d i n the churches and m o n a s t e r i e s of 4 England.  A t t h i s t i m e , t h e b i s h o p s had agreed t o t h e r o y a l demands  w h i l e the l o w e r c l e r g y r e s i s t e d as they had done on s i m i l a r o c c a s i o n s i n 1269 and 1283.~*  On t h o s e o c c a s i o n s , t h e l o w e r c l e r g y had argued  from  Canon law t h a t the papacy s h o u l d be c o n s u l t e d b e f o r e they c o u l d agree t o t h e r o y a l demands.  I t seems l i k e l y t h a t they employed the same a r g u -  ments i n 1294. However, as i n t h e p a s t , the b i s h o p s s u p p o r t e d t h e k i n g and w i t h t h e a d d i t i o n a l t h r e a t of o u t l a w r y h a n g i n g over them, t h e lower c l e r g y agreed t o the t a x . I n 1295, Edward I a g a i n made a s i m i l a r demand on the r e s o u r c e s o f 6 the c l e r g y .  At t h i s t i m e , Edward was  w i t h a r e v o l t i n Wales.  f a c e d w i t h t h e war i n France and  The k i n g p l e a d e d w i t h the c l e r g y , on t h e b a s i s  o f t h e common danger, t o g r a n t a h a l f o f t h e i r revenues t o him.  The  c l e r g y r e f u s e d t o g r a n t more t h a n a t e n t h w h i c h the k i n g f i n a l l y  agreed  to accept.  A t the same t i m e , t h e c l e r g y promised t h a t , i f t h e war  had  not ended by the next y e a r , they would g r a n t t h e k i n g an a d d i t i o n a l tenth.^  But i n t h e meantime, C l e r i c i s l a i c o s was  i s s u e d which  establi-  shed an e n t i r e l y new b a s i s f o r t h e r e l a t i o n s between t h e k i n g and h i s  -93-  c l e r g y with regard  to t a x a t i o n .  I t w i l l be remembered t h a t t h e main p r o v i s i o n s o f C l e r i c i s l a i c o s p r o h i b i t e d c l e r i c a l t a x a t i o n w i t h o u t t h e consent o f t h e p o n t i f f .  Fur-  thermore, t h e p e n a l t i e s o f t h e b u l l were d i r e c t e d not o n l y a g a i n s t  those  who demanded s u b s i d i e s from t h e c l e r g y b u t a l s o a g a i n s t t h o s e who t o pay them.  agreed  C l e a r l y , the b u l l p l a c e d t h e c l e r g y i n a d i f f i c u l t p o s i t i o n .  I t seems t h a t events i n England a c t e d as a spur t o t h e p o n t i f f t o i s s u e the b u l l a s i d e from t h e f a c t t h a t i t was timed t o h i n d e r F r a n c e and England - a war w h i c h h i n d e r e d  t h e war between  the p o n t i f f ' s cherished  dreams  f o r a Crusade.  I n t h e b u l l i t s e l f t h e r e were s t a t e m e n t s w h i c h seemed t o  r e f e r to recent  events i n England.  C l e r i c i s l a i c o s s t a t e d that the l a i t y  demand from t h e c l e r g y " . . . a h a l f , t e n t h , t w e n t i e t h o r o t h e r from t h e i r revenues o r goods . . . " w e a l t h and t h e t h i n g s d e p o s i t e d  and t h a t " . . .  portion  they a r r e s t t h e  i n h o l y b u i l d i n g s and t h e goods o f  8 ecclesiastics . . . "  These seem t o be c l e a r r e f e r e n c e s  to the a c t i v i t i e s  of Edward I i n 1294 when he demanded a h a l f o f c l e r i c a l incomes and when he s e i z e d t h e c r u s a d i n g  t e n t h s w h i c h had been c o l l e c t e d and were  i n t h e churches and m o n a s t e r i e s o f E n g l a n d . cates i n h i s c h r o n i c l e that Boniface 9  deposited  W a l t e r o f Hemingburgh i n d i -  V I I I was moved t o i s s u e  Clericis  l a i c o s by t h e s e e v e n t s . I n t h e f a c e o f t h e o p p o s i t i o n o f t h e F r e n c h monarch, B o n i f a c e wrote s e v e r a l l e t t e r s  VIII  t o t h e F r e n c h c l e r g y and P h i l i p IV w h i c h c l a r i f i e d  the p r o v i s i o n s o f t h e b u l l . " ^  Boniface  argued t h a t C l e r i c i s l a i c o s was  not meant t o endanger F r a n c e and t h a t i f a s t a t e o f n e c e s s i t y e x i s t e d , the l o c a l c l e r g y c o u l d g i v e a g r a n t t o t h e k i n g f r e e l y i f they thought t h a t t h e need e x i s t e d .  Boniface  s t e a d f a s t l y m a i n t a i n e d t h a t he w i s h e d  -.94=  to enforce  t h e r e c o g n i t i o n o f a much abused c l e r i c a l immunity.  Neverthe-  l e s s , he f i n a l l y s u r r e n d e r e d and i n t h e b u l l E t s i de s t a t u he acknowledged t h a t t h e F r e n c h k i n g h i m s e l f c o u l d j u d g e whether, i n a g i v e n  situation,  t h e r e was t h e n e c e s s i t y t o w a r r a n t a c l e r i c a l g r a n t . There c a n be l i t t l e doubt t h a t t h e s e l e t t e r s w h i c h were sent t o F r a n c e had i n f l u e n c e i n England s i n c e they e x p r e s s e d t h e o f f i c i a l p a p a l i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f t h e bull."*'"'" S i m i l a r l e t t e r s were n o t d i r e c t e d t o England.  Edward I a c t e d d i f f e r e n t l y from P h i l i p IV i n h i s s t r u g g l e w i t h  t h e papacy over C l e r i c i s l a i c o s . vigorous  Edward d i d n o t respond t o t h e b u l l w i t h  a c t i o n s d i r e c t e d a g a i n s t t h e papacy n o r would he a l l o w h i s c l e r g y  t o w r i t e t o Rome f o r p e r m i s s i o n simply ignored  t o grant taxes t o t h e k i n g .  the fact of C l e r i c i s laicos.  Edward  As f a r as Edward was con-  c e r n e d , t h e c l e r g y were members o f t h e community o f t h e r e a l m , and as s u c h , they had t o c o n t r i b u t e t o t h e common needs o f t h e kingdom i n t h e same manner as t h e l a i t y .  I n Edward's mind, t h e papacy c o u l d n o t r e l e a s e 12  t h e E n g l i s h c l e r g y from t h e s e o b l i g a t i o n s . i n a t e r r i b l e m o r a l dilemma.  Thus t h e c l e r g y were p l a c e d  I f they agreed t o t h e e x a c t i o n s o f t h e k i n g ,  they would i n c u r a s e n t e n c e o f excommunication w h i l e i f they f a i l e d t o agree t o t h e r o y a l demands, t h e y would be l i a b l e t o t h e punishments w h i c h the k i n g c o u l d  inflict.  C l e r i c i s l a i c o s was i s s u e d i n F e b r u a r y , 1296, and i n November o f that year the Parliament  o f Bury S t . Edmunds was h e l d .  At this p a r l i a -  ment, Edward I reminded t h e c l e r g y o f t h e i r promise o f t h e y e a r 13 and r e q u e s t e d a f i f t h o f t h e i r revenues.  before  The c l e r g y postponed t h e i r  f i n a l d e c i s i o n and A r c h b i s h o p W i n c h e l s e y e x p l a i n e d t h e d e l a y t o Edward I . The  chronicler Langtoft  i n c o l o r f u l terms:  describes  t h i s meeting o f t h e k i n g and a r c h b i s h o p  " S i r c l e r k , " says t h e k i n g , " t h o u h a s t spoken f o l l y . P r o m i s e i s debt due, i f f a i t h be not f o r g o t t e n . But l e t me see thee possessed of t h e b u l l , As w e l l as a l l t h e o t h e r s , by the Son o f Mary! You w i l l not be a b l e t o escape t h i s a i d . " " S i r e , " says t h e b i s h o p , " v e r y w i l l i n g l y To t h e e , as t o our l o r d , we a r e w i l l i n g a l l to give a i d By l e a v e o f t h e pope, i f t h o u w i l t send By one o f t h y c l e r k s w i t h our messenger, Who s h a l l be a b l e t o s t a t e they c o n d i t i o n and o u r s . And a c c o r d i n g t o t h e message w h i c h t h e pope s h a l l send us back, We w i l l a i d v o l u n t a r i l y a c c o r d i n g t o our capabilities." " S i r c l e r k , " r e p l i e s the k i n g " I have no need Of t h y s e n d i n g t o c o n s u l t the pope. But i f thou d e s i r e t o have r e s p i t e i n t h i s c a s e , Cause when t h o u w i l t t h y c l e r k s to assemble, T a l k w i t h them o f t h e promise, t a l k of i t heartily; A f t e r S t . H i l l a r y ' s day come t o Westminster, To p e r f o r m t h e promise w i t h o u t more t a l k i n g of i t . " 1  4  At t h i s p a r l i a m e n t , Edward had been d i s a p p o i n t e d by t h e a c t i o n s o f t h e c l e r g y whose a i d he d e s p e r a t e l y r e q u i r e d . a g r a n t and now laicos.  The c l e r g y had promised  him  they r e f u s e d t o f u l f i l l t h e i r p r o m i s e because o f C l e r i c i s  He g r a n t e d them t i m e t o c o n s i d e r t h e i r a c t i o n but he r e f u s e d t o  a l l o w them t o w r i t e t o the p o n t i f f  f o r p e r m i s s i o n to grant the subsidy.  I n t h e p a s t , t h e c l e r g y had y i e l d e d t o p r e s s u r e .  Therefore, to place  some p r e s s u r e on t h e c l e r g y , t h e k i n g o r d e r e d t h e b a r n s o f the c l e r g y sealed.*^  N e v e r t h e l e s s , t h e k i n g g r a n t e d c o n c e s s i o n s and was w i l l i n g t o  a l l o w t h e c l e r g y t o have t i m e t o c o n s i d e r t h e i r On November 27, 1296, W i n c h e l s e y  position.  summoned a c o n v o c a t i o n o f the 16  c l e r g y t o be h e l d on January  13, 1297,  a t S t . P a u l ' s , London.  Winchelsey  realized  t h a t Edward r e q u i r e d s u b s i d i e s from the c l e r g y and he a l s o  realized  t h a t the c l e r g y had promised  to give a i d to the k i n g .  Neverthe-  l e s s , the c l e r i c s were bound by the laws o f the Church more than by  their  l o y a l t y to the k i n g .  At t h i s c o n v o c a t i o n , W i n c h e l s e y urged the p r e l a t e s  t o c o n s i d e r the p r o b l e m of f i n d i n g " ...  some s u i t a b l e m i d d l e p a t h b e t -  ween the t w i n dangers, namely t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n of the supreme p o n t i f f and the o v e r t h r o w o f the whole r e a l m . T h e  c l e r g y c o u l d f i n d no  way  out of t h e i r d i f f i c u l t y s i n c e the k i n g would not a l l o w them t o w r i t e t o the opoe.  Therefore,  they r e f u s e d t o pay  the k i n g a g r a n t .  Edward I 18  responded by o u t l a w i n g undertaking  t h e c l e r g y and by s e i z i n g t h e i r l a y f e e s .  While  t h e s e a c t i o n s , Edward l e t i t be known t h a t the c l e r g y c o u l d  escape t h e s e p e n a l t i e s and o b t a i n the p r o t e c t i o n o f the k i n g upon a 19 ment of a f i f t h of t h e i r goods. produced almost immediate r e s u l t s .  pay-  These a c t i o n s on t h e p a r t of the k i n g A few weeks a f t e r t h e  convocation,  many members o f the c l e r g y t o o k advantage of the o p p o r t u n i t y t o o b t a i n r o y a l p r o t e c t i o n and t o redeem t h e i r l a n d s . who  submitted  many of those  t o the k i n g f e l t t h a t by t h e i r a c t i o n s they had 20  a s e n t e n c e of excommunication. p o s i t i o n and  Nevertheless,  incurred  W i n c h e l s e y remained s t e a d f a s t i n h i s  r e f u s e d t o submit t o the w i l l of the k i n g .  On F e b r u a r y 10, 1297,  a t the c o n s e c r a t i o n of John of Monmouth t o  the see of L l a n d a f f , W i n c h e l s e y r e v i e w e d the d e c i s i o n s w h i c h had made a t t h e c o n v o c a t i o n  and p u b l i c l y excommunicated a l l t h o s e who 21  violated Clericis laicos. the p a r t of b o t h laymen and  T h i s was  been had  a v a i n e f f o r t s i n c e v i o l a t i o n s on  c l e r i c s continued.  Therefore,  Winchelsey  d i r e c t e d t h a t C l e r i c i s l a i c o s s h o u l d be r e p u b l i s h e d by the b i s h o p s 22 throughout E n g l a n d . As the c r i s i s o v e r c l e r i c a l t a x a t i o n was r e a c h i n g a c l i m a x , Edward I summoned a s t r i c t l y l a y p a r l i a m e n t w h i c h met at 23 S a l i s b u r y on F e b r u a r y 24, 1297.  A l t h o u g h the l a y magnates were not  a b l e t o agree w i t h t h e k i n g on the q u e s t i o n o f t h e i r s e r v i c e  overseas,  they f u l l y endorsed the a c t i o n s w h i c h he was  undertaking against the  24 clergy.  A f t e r t h i s p a r l i a m e n t , the k i n g took even more s t r i n g e n t 25  measures a g a i n s t the c l e r g y .  The c l e r g y were t o l d t h a t i f they d i d  not redeem t h e i r l a n d s and seek r o y a l p r o t e c t i o n by E a s t e r , then  their  moveables would be s e i z e d and then s o l d w i t h the revenues o b t a i n e d b e i n g turned over to the t r e a s u r y . S h o r t l y a f t e r t h e p a r l i a m e n t a t S a l i s b u r y , Winchelsey 27 k i n g and s t r o n g l y rebuked him.  W h i l e Winchelsey  met w i t h the  was w i l l i n g to f a c e  the w r a t h o f t h e k i n g and t o r e p u b l i s h C l e r i c i s l a i c o s , t h i s d i d not s o l v e the problem f a c i n g the c l e r g y .  A l t h o u g h many members o f t h e c l e r g y  d i d not ask f o r the k i n g ' s p r o t e c t i o n , Edward's p r a c t i c a l measures had 28 b r o k e n t h e ranks o f the c l e r g y .  Although the convocation of  January  1297, had f a i l e d t o f i n d a s o l u t i o n t o the problem f a c e d by t h e c l e r g y , Winchelsey  summoned another c o n v o c a t i o n on February 29  at S t . P a u l ' s , London, on March 26, 1297. Winchelsey  26, 1297,  At t h i s  convocation,  d i d not f o r c e h i s o p i n i o n s on t h e o t h e r c l e r i c s but  them t o f o l l o w t h e d i c t a t e s of t h e i r c o n s c i e n c e s .  t o convene  Winchelsey  allowed himself,  however, remained adamant and r e f u s e d t o pay a g r a n t t o t h e k i n g s i n c e , i n h i s mind, t h e problem was  e s s e n t i a l l y m o r a l and l e g a l .  At t h e  end  o f the c o n v o c a t i o n , i n h i s address t o t h e c l e r g y , t h e a r c h b i s h o p s t a t e d : I l e a v e you as a group and i n d i v i d u a l l y t o your own c o n s c i e n c e s . But my c o n s c i e n c e does not p e r m i t me t o g i v e money e i t h e r f o r t h e p r o t e c t i o n o f the k i n g o r f o r a n o t h e r p r e t e x t . 3 0 31 Only t h r e e o r f o u r b i s h o p s f o l l o w e d t h e example o f t h e Nevertheless, Winchelsey  archbishop.  i n d i c a t e d a t the c o n v o c a t i o n t h a t he would not  p e r s o n a l l y p u n i s h t h o s e c l e r i c s who  y i e l d e d and i t seems t h a t i n t h e  n e x t few months most o f t h e c l e r i c s took advantage o f t h i s o p p o r t u n i t y  and sought t h e p r o t e c t i o n o f t h e k i n g .  32  I t w i l l be remembered t h a t a t t h e p a r l i a m e n t h e l d a t S a l i s b u r y , some o f t h e barons l e f t t h e meeting i n o p p o s i t i o n t o t h e k i n g .  I n March and  33 April,  Edward f o r c e d l o a n s on w o o l and c o r n .  r e s i s t e d t h e s e measures and they f i n a l l y  Some o f t h e magnates  decided to hold a b a r o n i a l 34  p a r l i a m e n t i n t h e f o r e s t o f Wye i n t h e March o f Wales. t h i s meeting a r e not known b u t i t i s l i k e l y  The d e t a i l s o f  t h a t i t prompted t h e k i n g t o  attempt a r e c o n c i l i a t i o n w i t h t h e d i s a f f e c t e d members o f t h e realm.  At  t h i s t i m e , Edward was p l a n n i n g h i s e x p e d i t i o n t o F l a n d e r s and he must have f e l t t h a t i t was n e c e s s a r y t o end t h e p o s s i b i l i t y o f any c o a l i t i o n between t h e magnates and t h e c l e r g y .  On May 15, he summoned t h e m i l i t a r y 35  might o f t h e r e a l m t o come t o London by J u l y 7, 1297.  When t h e f o r c e s  had g a t h e r e d , t h e m a r s h a l , Roger B i g o t , and t h e c o n s t a b l e , Humphrey o f 36 Bohun, r e f u s e d t o s e r v e overseas  and r e f u s e d t o draw up t h e army l i s t s .  Edward was f o r c e d t o a p p o i n t new men t o t h e s e p o s i t i o n s .  This a c t i o n  p r o b a b l y i n d i c a t e d t o t h e k i n g t h e e x t e n t o f t h e o p p o s i t i o n w h i c h was growing  a g a i n s t him.  On J u l y 11, 1297, Edward o r d e r e d t h a t a l l t h e l a n d s and goods o f 37 Winchelsey for  s h o u l d be r e s t o r e d t o him.  t h e k i n g t o do.  T h i s was not a d i f f i c u l t t h i n g  Edward had wanted a s u b s i d y and he had o b t a i n e d i t .  To be r e c o n c i l e d w i t h Winchelsey  would be a s m a l l p r i c e t o pay f o r u n i t y . 38  On J u l y 14, 1297, t h e f o r m a l r e c o n c i l i a t i o n t o o k p l a c e a t In  theory, Winchelsey  Westminster.  had emerged from t h e d i s p u t e as v i c t o r , however,  i n p r a c t i c e , Edward had been a b l e t o a c h i e v e h i s ends.  I n t h i s way, t h e  f i r s t s t a g e o f t h e d i s p u t e over C l e r i c i s l a i c o s ended.  Edward had been  a b l e t o p r e v e n t any u n i o n between t h e c l e r g y and t h o s e elements o f t h e l a i t y who opposed him.  A second 1297.  s t a g e o f t h e c o n f l i c t can be s a i d t o have begun i n August,  At t h e time o f t h e r e c o n c i l i a t i o n between the a r c h b i s h o p and  k i n g , t h e magnates had asked Edward t o observe t h e c h a r t e r s  the  faithfully.  Edward r e p l i e d t h a t he would c o n f i r m Magna C a r t a and the C h a r t e r o f t h e F o r e s t s i f t h e l a i t y would g r a n t him an e i g h t h and i f the c l e r g y would 39 a l s o make a g r a n t t o him.  On J u l y 16, 1297, W i n c h e l s e y  summoned a 40  c o n v o c a t i o n o f t h e c l e r g y t o meet on August 10, a t New  Temple, London.  By t h i s t i m e , B o n i f a c e V I I I ' s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f C l e r i c i s l a i c o s was in  known  England.^* When t h e c o n v o c a t i o n assembled, the c l e r i c s i m m e d i a t e l y d i s c u s s e d  the m a t t e r o f g i v i n g a g r a n t t o the k i n g . t i o n s was  The r e s u l t o f t h e s e d e l i b e r a -  t h a t t h e c l e r g y f e l t t h a t they c o u l d not c o n t r i b u t e a s u b s i d y  t o the k i n g w i t h o u t f i r s t s e e k i n g p a p a l p e r m i s s i o n .  Once a g a i n , Edward  r e f u s e d t o a l l o w them t o ask f o r p a p a l p e r m i s s i o n n o r would he a l l o w them to i s s u e sentences o f excommunication a g a i n s t t h o s e who had v i o l a t e d 42 c l e r i c a l immunities or C l e r i c i s l a i c o s . In t h e i r stand, the c l e r g y were l i k e l y s t r e n g t h e n e d not o n l y by t h e example o f W i n c h e l s e y but a l s o 43 by the f a c t t h a t t h e y now  enjoyed a degree of s u p p o r t by t h e l a i t y .  Edward began a t once t o e x e r t p r e s s u r e upon t h e c l e r g y by s t a t i n g t h a t he would s e i z e t h e i r c o r n and goods.  From e x p e r i e n c e , he had l e a r n e d  t h a t t h e s e measures would l i k e l y be enough t o break down most o f t h e c l e r i c a l r e s i s t a n c e t o h i s demand f o r a g r a n t . 44 A t t h e end o f A u g u s t , Edward l e f t England f o r F l a n d e r s . seems t h a t the k i n g was d u r i n g h i s absence.  It  c o n f i d e n t t h a t no problems would a r i s e i n England  The regency c o n t i n u e d t o f o l l o w t h e p o l i c i e s o f t h e  k i n g and summoned a p a r l i a m e n t t o meet on September 30, 1297.  On  September 21, t h e magnates h e l d t h e i r own  "parliament"  a t Northampton.^  I t i s not known whether the c l e r g y were r e p r e s e n t e d a t t h i s g a t h e r i n g i s i t known what t r a n s p i r e d a t t h i s meeting.  Professor Wilkinson  suggested t h a t t h e terms of the De T a l l a g i o non  5  nor  has  Concedendo were d r a f t e d  46 a t t h i s meeting.  T h i s document made s p e c i a l r e f e r e n c e  t o the  liberties  47 o f the c l e r g y .  C e r t a i n l y , t h e r e was  a r e m a r k a b l e change i n the  tudes of the magnates s i n c e the p a r l i a m e n t w h i c h had been h e l d  atti-  at  S a l i s b u r y i n the p r e c e d i n g F e b r u a r y . T h i s change i n the a t t i t u d e of the magnates was  also reflected i n  t h e i r a c t i v i t i e s at the p a r l i a m e n t h e l d on September 30, 1297.  When t h e  news of the b a t t l e of S t i r l i n g reached the p a r l i a m e n t ,  t h e regency 48  f o r c e d t o y i e l d and  Charters.  agreed t o the c o n f i r m a t i o n  of the  was  W i n c h e l s e y a c t e d as m e d i a t o r between the regency and t h e magnates  who  were opposed t o the p o l i c i e s of Edward.  10,  1297,  I t was  t h a t the f i n a l d e t a i l s of the c o n f i r m a t i o n  worked out and  not u n t i l October  of the c h a r t e r s were 49  t h e s e were a c c e p t e d by Edward on November 5,  On October 15, 1297, v o c a t i o n a t t h e New  1297.  W i n c h e l s e y summoned t h e c l e r g y t o meet i n con-  Temple, London, on November 5, t o d i s c u s s  the p o s i -  t i o n w h i c h the c l e r g y s h o u l d t a k e i n the f a c e of the S c o t t i s h i n v a s i o n . ^ 5  At t h i s c o n v o c a t i o n , the c l e r g y g r a n t e d a t e n t h t o the k i n g .  I t seems  l i k e l y t h a t t h e c l e r g y were w i l l i n g t o make t h i s g r a n t because the was  about t o c o n f i r m t h e charters. "'" 5  Nevertheless,  king  when W i n c h e l s e y  w r o t e t o B o n i f a c e V I I I t o j u s t i f y h i s a c t i o n , he based h i s argument on 52 the s e r i o u s t h r e a t w h i c h the S c o t t i s h i n v a s i o n posed t o England. I n 1298,  Edward d i d not ask f o r a g r a n t from the c l e r g y but  asked  t h e c o n v o c a t i o n of the c l e r g y t o promise to agree t o a g r a n t i f the made such a l e v y n e c e s s a r y .  The  c l e r g y r e p l i e d t h a t they c o u l d  not  war  promise to a i d the king i n the future without the permission of the Pope. By the middle of 1298, the f i r s t two stages of the c o n f l i c t over C l e r i c i s l a i c o s had ended.  In the f i r s t stage of the c o n f l i c t , 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 l a y  support f o r h i s a c t i o n s .  Nevertheless, i n the second stage of the con-  f l i c t , the l a i t y and the c l e r g y were slowly becoming united i n the face of the exactions by the king.  In t h i s way, C l e r i c i s l a i c o s became u l t i -  mately entwined w i t h the confirmation of the charters and the great constitutional  c r i s i s which marred the l a s t years of the r e i g n of Edward I.  In the years 1298 and 1299 the c o n f l i c t over C l e r i c i s l a i c o s i n England abated.  In March, 1300, Edward met a parliament at London and  was faced w i t h the A r t i c u l i super Cartas which provided f o r the c l o s e r 54  observance of the charters and f o r t h e i r p u b l i c a t i o n .  In r e t u r n f o r  t h i s guarantee of t h e i r l i b e r t i e s , the magnates promised a twentieth while the clergy made no promise of a g r a n t . N e v e r t h e l e s s , there seems to have been no problem at t h i s time.  From midsummer u n t i l October,  Edward was engaged i n h i s campaign against Scotland.  I t was during t h i s  campaign that Winchelsey had to present the king with the papal l e t t e r s i n which Boniface V I I I claimed Scotland as a papal f i e f . " ^ This c l a i m by the papacy was a diplomatic blunder which f a i l e d to recognize the n a t i o n a l i s t i c f e e l i n g s which the S c o t t i s h war had fostered i n England.  Edward summoned a parliament to meet w i t h him at L i n c o l n i n  January, 1301."^  This meeting was a p a r t i c u l a r l y stormy one with com-  p l a i n t s about the v i o l a t i o n of the charters and complaints about the conduct of some of the king's m i n i s t e r s . Twelve p e t i t i o n s were presented to the king i n the name of the community of the realm.  These p e t i t i o n s  included c h a r a c t e r i s t i c grievances  w h i c h asked t h a t t h e c h a r t e r s  should  be f u l l y obeyed and t h a t t h o s e who had v i o l a t e d them s h o u l d be p u n i s h e d . The  l a i t y i n f o r m e d t h e k i n g t h a t they were w i l l i n g t o g r a n t a f i f t e e n t h  t o h i m i n p l a c e o f t h e t w e n t i e t h w h i c h they had promised h i m t h e p r e v i o u s y e a r i f he would a c c e p t t h e p e t i t i o n s .  The f i n a l p e t i t i o n was  a l s o p r e s e n t e d i n t h e name o f t h e whole r e a l m b u t i t was, i n r e a l i t y , o n l y concerned w i t h t h e c l e r g y .  I t stated that the prelates of the  Church c o u l d n o t c o n t r i b u t e t o t h e k i n g a g a i n s t t h e p a p a l p r o h i b i t i o n , 58 that i s , C l e r i c i s l a i c o s . but t h e l a s t .  Edward gave h i s a s s e n t t o a l l t h e p e t i t i o n s  A n o t e appended t o t h e l a s t p e t i t i o n s t a t e s t h a t t h e mag-  n a t e s approved o f i t b u t t h e k i n g would n o t a c c e p t i t . I t seems l i k e l y t h a t t h e t w e l f t h p e t i t i o n p r e s e n t e d a t L i n c o l n embodies t h e c l e r g y ' s answer t o a r o y a l r e q u e s t f o r a g r a n t from t h e i r 59 goods. One c h r o n i c l e r mentions t h a t t h e k i n g had demanded a f i f t e e n t h of t h e s p i r i t u a l i t i e s o f c l e r g y a t t h i s p a r l i a m e n t - a g r a n t w h i c h t h e c l e r g y c o u l d n o t agree t o w i t h o u t v i o l a t i n g t h e p r o v i s i o n s o f C l e r i c i s 60 laicos. and  The p a r l i a m e n t  o f L i n c o l n b r o u g h t t h e q u a r r e l between t h e l a i t y  t h e k i n g t o a c o n c l u s i o n b u t i t l e f t t h e c l e r i c a l problem u n s o l v e d .  W i n c h e l s e y had succeeded i n o b t a i n i n g c o n s i d e r a b l e p o s i t i o n o f t h e c l e r g y a f t e r 1297.  Nevertheless,  l a y support f o r t h e when Edward a c c e p t e d  the demands o f t h e l a i t y a t L i n c p l n and r e f u s e d t o a c c e p t t h e p e t i t i o n of t h e c l e r g y , W i n c h e l s e y and t h e c l e r g y were once a g a i n i s o l a t e d .  The  c l e r g y had f a i l e d t o o b t a i n t h e consent o f t h e k i n g t o t h e p r i n c i p l e expressed i n C l e r i c i s  laicos.  I n t h e f a l l o f t h e y e a r 1301,  the c o l l e c t i o n of the f i f t e e n t h  v o t e d by t h e l a i t y a t L i n c o l n was begun.  Edward argued t h a t he had t h e  r i g h t t o c o l l e c t i t from t h e t e m p o r a l i t i e s o f t h e c l e r g y as w e l l .  The  problem f a c e d by t h e c l e r g y was t h a t Edward i n s i s t e d t h a t he c o u l d l e v y the f i f t e e n t h on a l l t h e i r t e m p o r a l i t i e s i n c l u d i n g those annexed t o 61 spiritualities.  The c l e r g y d i d n o t o b j e c t t o p a y i n g  t h e f i f t e e n t h on  t h e i r t e m p o r a l i t i e s , t h a t i s , on t h e i r l a y f e e s , b u t they had never p a i d a l a y s u b s i d y oh t h e i r t e m p o r a l i t i e s annexed t o s p i r i t u a l i t i e s . Therefore,  the clergy objected to t h i s p r a c t i c e .  In a convocation permission  h e l d i n December, 1302, i t was d e c i d e d  that  s h o u l d be sought b e f o r e they agreed t o pay th:Ls t a x .  papal Edward,  f o r t h e f i r s t t i m e , d i d n o t p r e v e n t t h e c l e r g y from s e e k i n g p a p a l p e r 62 mission f o r t h i s grant.  I n t h e end, t h e k i n g t h r e a t e n e d  when no answer was i m m e d i a t e l y f o r t h c o m i n g paid the tax.  the clergy  from t h e papacy and t h e c l e r g y  Edward was a b l e t o succeed i n o b t a i n i n g t h e grant  the c l e r g y b u t he was c o m p e l l e d t o use t h r e a t s . l a i c o s was s t i l l a h i n d r a n c e t o t h e k i n g a l t h o u g h  In principle,  from  Clericis  he was a b l e t o o v e r r i d e  i t i n practice. C l e r i c i s l a i c o s was n o t t o p r o v e a h i n d r a n c e much l o n g e r .  The b u l l  was r e v o k e d by Clement V on F e b r u a r y 1, 1306, i n t h e d e c r e e P a s t o r a l i s cura.  According  t o t h i s d e c r e e , c l e r i c a l t a x a t i o n was t o be governed by 63  the c a n o n i c a l p r i n c i p l e s  l a i d down by t h e L a t e r a n C o u n c i l s .  With t h i s  l e g i s l a t i o n , t h e c o n f l i c t over C l e r i c i s l a i c o s can be s a i d t o have come t o an end.  The k i n g s o f F r a n c e and England had been a b l e t o overcome  C l e r i c i s - l a i c o s and t h e i r a c t i o n s c o n t r i b u t e d t o i t s r e v o c a t i o n . The. c o n f l i c t o v e r C l e r i c i s l a i c o s was t h e most important  dispute to  erupt between t h e papacy and t h e F r e n c h and E n g l i s h k i n g s i n t h e p e r i o d 1250  u n t i l 1350. I n t h i s d i s p u t e , t h e F r e n c h and E n g l i s h Dominicans  played a r e l a t i v e l y important wrote an i m p o r t a n t  role.  The F r e n c h D o m i n i c a n , John o f P a r i s  t r e a t i s e w h i c h d e a l t w i t h t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p between  -10.4r  the s p i r i t u a l and t e m p o r a l powers.  I n E n g l a n d , t h e r e i s no e v i d e n c e of  t r a c t s of t h i s n a t u r e b e i n g w r i t t e n d u r i n g t h e d i s p u t e .  Nevertheless, i n  t h e i r s c h o l a s t i c p u r s u i t s , t h e E n g l i s h Dominicans would be g i v e n the o p p o r t u n i t y t o e x p r e s s themselves on such q u e s t i o n s i f they were so inclined. The remainder of t h i s t h e s i s i n v o l v e s an i n v e s t i g a t i o n o f two f u n d a m e n t a l problems r e l a t i n g t o t h e Dominican Order i n England.  The e x t a n t  s o u r c e s p r o v i d e t h e h i s t o r i a n w i t h ample o p p o r t u n i t y t o i n v e s t i g a t e t h e p o l i t i c a l a c t i v i t i e s o f t h e E n g l i s h Dominicans. f i r s t problem.  This c o n s t i t u t e s the  The second problem w h i c h w i l l r e c e i v e c o n s i d e r a t i o n i s  i n v o l v e d w i t h . t h e p o l i t i c a l thought o f the E n g l i s h Dominicans.  Several  w r i t e r s have been chosen and t h e i r s c h o l a s t i c works have been i n v e s t i g a t e d i n o r d e r t o a s c e r t a i n whether t h e y developed a p o l i t i c a l t h o u g h t . d i s c u s s i o n w i l l be l i m i t e d t o t h e p e r i o d from 1250 u n t i l  1350.  The  -I05-'  (2) Soon  The P o l i t i c a l A c t i v i t i e s of the E n g l i s h Dominicans a f t e r the e s t a b l i s h m e n t of the Order of P r e a c h e r s i n  E n g l a n d , members of the Order began t o p l a y a r e l a t i v e l y i m p o r t a n t role i n secular a f f a i r s .  I n 1256, Henry I I I chose the Dominican,  John of D a r l i n g t o n , as h i s p e r s o n a l c o n f e s s o r .  T h i s appointment  began a one hundred and f o r t y - f o u r y e a r p e r i o d d u r i n g w h i c h Domincan f r i a r s undertook the onerous burden of g u i d i n g the r o y a l c o n s c i e n c e . ^ The o f f i c e o f c o n f e s s o r gave t h e Dominican f r i a r the o p p o r t u n i t y t o influence p o l i t i c a l a f f a i r s .  However, Dominican a c t i v i t y i n s e c u l a r  a f f a i r s was not l i m i t e d t o the o f f i c e of c o n f e s s o r .  Individual  f r i a r s were employed from t i m e t o time by the k i n g as m i n i s t e r s , a d v i s e r s and d i p l o m a t i c envoys. In 1233, the Dominican f r i a r Robert Bacon b o l d l y a s s e r t e d i n a sermon preached b e f o r e t h e k i n g t h a t Henry I I I s h o u l d r i d h i m s e l f of h i s P o i t e v i n r e l a t i o n s and a d v i s e r s , i n p a r t i c u l a r , B i s h o p P e t e r of 65 Winchester. much of the  The f r i a r argued t h a t i t was these men who d i s c o r d between the k i n g and h i s b a r o n s .  caused  Three y e a r s  l a t e r , an unnamed f r i a r of W i n c h e s t e r preached b e f o r e the k i n g and n o b l e s and was a b l e t o prompt the k i n g ' s b r o t h e r , R i c h a r d , as w e l l as G i l b e r t , the e a r l m a r s h a l , and some of the o t h e r magnates t o t a k e the cross.^  I n 1234, the f i r s t r e c o r d of a Dominican u n d e r t a k i n g a r o y a l  commission a p p e a r s .  On May  7, 1234, the Dominican f r i a r , W a l t e r ,  p r i o r of B r i s t o l , was empowered t o r e c e i v e , i n the presence of the b i s h o p of L l a n d a f f and the abbots of T i n t e r n and Neath, the o a t h of Humbert de Burgh,  These a c t i v i t i e s were p r o b a b l y r e l a t e d t o  H u b e r t ' s r e c o n c i l i a t i o n w i t h the K i n g .  The p r i o r was i n s t r u c t e d t o  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-i s t i c secular activities undertaken by members of the Order of Preachers in England, i t 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 authorities 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 w i l l 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 convocation and announce this prohibition to the c l e r i c s . ^  When the  convocation met, the clergy were warned by the representative of the king of this prohibition.^*" present at this convocation.  Two Dominicans and two lawyers were also 72 One account states that ". . . they  urged the clerics with arguments to demonstrate that i t was licet for them to give aid to their king in a time of war notwithstanding the 73 apostolic constitution . . ..' 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,  i t 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 disregarding the b u l l .  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 law.  The friars based their practice on their doubts concerning On August 22, 1297, Winchelsey wrote to the Provincial Prior  of the Dominicans stating that the friars were exceeding their p r i v i 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 i f . i t 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 p o l i t i c a l 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 f i r s t 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 D a r l i n g t o n became c o n f e s s o r and a member of t h e r o y a l c o u n c i l he was p r o b a b l y of E n g l a n d .  one o f t h e b e s t known members of t h e Dominican P r o v i n c e  He had h e l p t e d p r e p a r e the Concordantiae  magnae o r 78  Concordantiae  A n g l i c a e a t P a r i s between 1250 and 1252.  I t seems  l i k e l y t h a t D a r l i n g t o n came t o t h e n o t i c e o f t h e k i n g as a r e s u l t of his  a c t i v i t i e s as a p r o t e c t o r o f t h e Jews.  I n 1255, t h e body of a 79  young boy was found i n the w e l l of a Jew l i v i n g i n L i n c o l n .  A wave  of i n d i g n a t i o n swept over E n g l a n d as t h e r e s u l t of t h i s murder of a young C h r i s t i a n boy by t h e Jews.  The boy became known as L i t t l e S a i n t  Hugh of L i n c o l n i n t h e p o p u l a r mind. were p e r s e c u t e d  Throughout E n g l a n d , t h e Jews  as a r e s u l t of t h e t r a g e d y a t L i n c o l n .  I n London, the  M e n d i c a n t s attempted t o p r o t e c t t h e Jews from t h e rage of t h e p e o p l e . Angered by the i n t e r v e n t i o n o f t h e M e n d i c a n t s , t h e p o p u l a t i o n to g i v e alms o r food t o t h e f r i a r s .  refused  A t t h i s t i m e , John of D a r l i n g t o n  was the p r i o r of H o l b o r n p r i o r y i n London and he used h i s i n f l u e n c e t o procure  the pardon o f one of t h e Jews who had been condemned f o r t h e 80  murder o f Hugh o f L i n c o l n . B e f o r e D a r l i n g t o n was made c o n f e s s o r , o t h e r Dominicans had served Henry I I I i n v a r i o u s ways.  I n T 2 3 9 , t h e Dominican, John of S t . G i l e s , 81 had become a member of t h e r o y a l c o u n c i l . I n 1250, Henry I I I had o b t a i n e d p e r m i s s i o n from Innocent IV t o a l l o w t h e Dominicans who r e s i d e d 82 a t h i s c o u r t the r i g h t t o accompany h i m on h o r s e b a c k . reason,  Whatever t h e  whether f o r h i s l e a r n i n g o r f o r h i s a t t e m p t s t o h e l p the Jews,  D a r l i n g t o n became the r o y a l c o n f e s s o r and a c o u n c i l l o r i n 1256.  -i-i-i-  D u r i n g the c r i s i s o f 1258, D a r l i n g t o n p l a y e d an i m p o r t a n t r o l e a s a supporter  of the k i n g .  He served  on t h e C o u n c i l o f t h e T w e n t y r f o u r  as one of t h e r o y a l nominees and t h u s had a hand i n f r a m i n g the  83 P r o v i s i o n s of Oxford.  On J u l y 4, 1263, he was a member of t h e  committee a p p o i n t e d by t h e k i n g t o meet w i t h t h e barons c o n c e r n i n g t h e  84 observance o f t h e P r o v i s i o n s of O x f o r d . I n 1261, D a r l i n g t o n had once a g a i n been e l e c t e d as p r i o r t o H o l b o r n —  an a c t i o n w h i c h p o s s i b l y can be seen as an attempt on t h e p a r t o f t h e  85 Dominican a u t h o r i t i e s i n England t o r e c l a i m h i s s e r v i c e s f o r t h e Order. Nevertheless,  h i s retirement  from the c o u r t was not t o be permanent.  A f t e r a b r i e f d e p a r t u r e back i n t o the s e c u l a r w o r l d once a g a i n r e t i r e d t o H o l b o r n .  i n 1263,  Darlington  On September 11, 1265, about a month  a f t e r the b a t t l e o f Evesham, Henry I I I once a g a i n d e s i r e d t h e s e r v i c e s o f Darlington.  The k i n g wrote t o Robert K i l w a r d b y ,  Dominicans, requesting c o u r t . T h e  the p r o v i n c i a l o f t h e  t h a t D a r l i n g t o n should be a l l o w e d  to return t o  k i n g t o l d K i l w a r d b y t h a t D a r l i n g t o n had endeared h i m s e l f  t o the r o y a l f a m i l y and t o t h e n o b i l i t y a l i k e and t h a t he had demonstrated h i s wisdom and f o r e s i g h t i n t h e conduct o f t h e a f f a i r s o f s t a t e . III  Henry  s t a t e d t h a t D a r l i n g t o n had been a f a i t h f u l f r i e n d t o h i m throughout  many t r o u b l e d t i m e s i n the past, and t h a t such a man would be needed i n the  future. Once a g a i n D a r l i n g t o n r e t u r n e d  o f f i c e of c o n f e s s o r .  t o t h e a f f a i r s o f s t a t e and t o h i s  I t seems l i k e l y t h a t D a r l i n g t o n was e x t r e m e l y  u s e f u l i n the e v e n t s a f t e r Evesham s i n c e he was f u l l y v e r s e d  i n the  e v e n t s w h i c h l e d up t o the b a t t l e and, i f t h e k i n g ' s t e s t i m o n y can be b e l i e v e d , he was on good terms w i t h the b a r o n s .  I n the l a s t y e a r s o f  -ilZ-  Henry I l l ' s r e i g n , D a r l i n g t o n seems t o have c o n t i n u e d t o a c t as r o y a l confessor. who  D u r i n g t h i s p e r i o d , D a r l i n g t o n o f t e n a c t e d as a  mediator  o b t a i n e d pardons and exemptions from the k i n g f o r those who  sought  87 his assistance.  Palmer has s t a t e d t h a t D a r l i n g t o n c o n t i n u e d t o h o l d 88  t h i s o f f i c e d u r i n g the e a r l y y e a r s of Edward I's r e i g n . I n 1274,  the C o u n c i l of Lyons had d e c l a r e d t h a t t e n t h s s h o u l d  be  l e v i e d on a l l e c c l e s i a s t i c a l b e n e f i c e s and f o u n d a t i o n s f o r a p e r i o d of s i x y e a r s i n o r d e r t o f i n a n c e a new  Crusade f o r the r e c o v e r y of the  Holy  , 89 Land. T h i s measure was t o e x e r t an i n f l u e n c e on the subsequent c a r e e r of D a r l i n t o n . On September 20, 1274, D a r l i n g t o n was a p p o i n t e d c o l l e c t o r 90 o f the c r u s a d i n g t e n t h s i n E n g l a n d .  On March 1, 1275, Edward I 91  g r a n t e d a s a f e conduct t o the f r i a r f o r a p e r i o d of s i x y e a r s .  The  k i n g soon found t h a t the c o l l e c t i o n of the c r u s a d i n g t e n t h gave him  an  a d d i t i o n a l source from w h i c h t o borrow.  was  On June 9, 1276,  a b l e t o borrow 2,000 marks from the c o l l e c t i o n s '. . . f o r the e x p e d i t i n g of h i s own  Edward I  of the c r u s a d i n g t e n t h 92  affairs ..."  Darlington  i n v o l v e d i n the s u p e r v i s i o n of the c o l l e c t i o n of the c r u s a d i n g  was  tenths  f o r a p e r i o d of n i n e y e a r s . In 1278,  Edward I a p p o i n t e d D a r l i n g t o n t o an embassy w h i c h 93  sent t o Rome t o d i s c u s s the k i n g ' s p r o p o s a l s f o r a Crusade. as D a r l i n g t o n r e t u r n e d t o E n g l a n d , he was c o l l e c t i o n of the c r u s a d i n g t e n t h s .  was As  soon  once a g a i n o c c u p i e d w i t h the  On F e b r u a r y  8, 1279,  Darlington  94 was  appointed Archbishop  styled  of D u b l i n .  On A p r i l 23, D a r l i n g t o n ,  the " A r c h b i s h o p - e l e c t of D u b l i n " , was  granted a  now  safe-conduct  96 on the next day95 the t e m p o r a l i t i e s of the see of D u b l i n were r e s t o r e d . f o r two y e a r s . On A p r i l 27, D a r l i n t o n swore f e a l t y t o the 97k i n g and The new A r c h b i s h o p was not c o n s e c r a t e d u n t i l August 27, 1279.  Even a f t e r h i s c o n s e c r a t i o n , h i s d u t i e s . a s c o l l e c t o r o f the c r u sading tenth kept Darlington i n Englandi  I n 1283,  y e a r s as c o l l e c t o r , D a r l i n g t o n r e q u e s t e d onerous d u t i e s as c o l l e c t o r . granted  and D a r l i n g t o n was  after serving nine  the pope t o . r e l i e v e him o f h i s  On October 11, 1283,  papal permission  a b l e t o r e l i n q u i s h h i s o f f i c e as c o l l e c t o r . 8 y  I t seems t h a t i t took D a r l i n g t o n some time b e f o r e he was h i s a f f a i r s in.England  was  and he d i e d on March 29, 1284,  able to  terminate  b e f o r e he was  able  99 t o embark f o r I r e l a n d . D a r l i n g t o n was  an e x c e p t i o n a l r o y a l c o n f e s s o r .  range o f the^ a c t i v i t i e s u n d e r t a k e n by him  Nevertheless,  clearly illustrates  v a r i o u s t y p e s o f a c t i v i t i e s w h i c h many o f h i s s u c c e s s o r s undertook.  t o u n d e r t a k e was  confessor  t o a c t as the p e r s o n a l envoy o f  k i n g , i n any d i f f i c u l t n e g o t i a t i o n s D a r l i n g t o n was f a c t t h a t he r e t a i n e d t h e o f f i c e o f r o y a l c o n f e s s o r p e r i o d t h a n was  (c)  e x c e p t i o n a l i n the  f o r a much l o n g e r  The  varied.career.  E n g l i s h Dominicans as R o y a l  Envoys  a l r e a d y become apparent t h a t on many o c c a s i o n s  k i n g employed members o f t h e Dominican Order.as envoys and ambassadors.  The  c o n f e s s o r o f t h e k i n g was  t h e mind of h i s r o y a l master and Nevertheless,  conduct.royal  the  u s u a l l y the custom and a l s o t h a t he r e c e i v e d a b i s h o p r i c  a t the end of h i s l o n g and  ments.  the  The most u s u a l form o f a c t i v i t y w h i c h the r o y a l c o n f e s s o r  would be r e q u e s t e d  I t has  as  the  affairs.  W i l l i a m Hothum who  was  the E n g l i s h personal  a t r u s t e d s e r v a n t who  c o u l d be t r u s t e d w i t h d i f f i c u l t  knew assign-  the E n g l i s h r u l e r s o f t e n engaged o t h e r f r i a r s The  outstanding  example o f such a f r i a r  to  was  engaged.in.promoting the diplomacy of Edward I  f o r a p e r i o d o f s i x t e e n y e a r s between 1282  and 1298.  This  friar  p l a y e d a l e a d i n g r o l e i n two of the most d i f f i c u l t d i p l o m a t i c problems o f the r e i g n : the S c o t t i s h s u c c e s s i o n and the peace w i t h F r a n c e . Hothum had s t u d i e d a t S a i n t - J a c q u e s i n P a r i s and would have been remembered f o r h i s s c h o l a s t i c c a r e e r even i f he had not e n t e r e d the secular world.  2  T r i v e t s t a t e d t h a t Hothum  „ was  pleasing i n conversation  p l a c i d i n manner, h o n e s t l y r e l i g i o u s and p l e a s i n g t o the eyes of a l l  men.  H i s t r a i n i n g and h i s manner a d m i r a b l y s u i t e d the t a s k s which he would have t o undertake  f o r Edward I .  I t seems t h a t Hothum*s s c h o l a s t i c c a r e e r a t P a r i s was  interrupted 4  by the demands p l a c e d upon him by h i s Order and by h i s k i n g .  In  1282,  the g e n e r a l c h a p t e r of the Dominican Order removed the p r o v i n c i a l of England  from o f f i c e .  5  W i l l i a m c f Hothum was  e l e c t e d by the p r o v i n c i a l  c h a p t e r of England t o the o f f i c e of p r o v i n c i a l .  Shortly after his  r e t u r n t o E n g l a n d , Hothum accompanied the k i n g t o N o r t h Wales and undertook an unimportant m i s s i o n f o r him d u r i n g the month of October,  1282.  N o t h i n g more i s known of Hothum's s e c u l a r a c t i v i t i e s u n t i l January  23,  1286, when he w i t n e s s e d a g r a n t made t o E l e a n o r , the mother of the 7 king.  The f a c t t h a t Hothum's s i g n a t u r e appears on t h i s document a l o n g  w i t h r o y a l and e p i s c o p a l s i g n a t u r e s would seem t o i n d i c a t e t h a t he  was  already a f a m i l i a r f i g u r e i n court c i r c l e s . I n 1286,  the g e n e r a l c h a p t e r of the Dominican Order r e l e a s e d Hothum  from h i s o f f i c e as p r o v i n c i a l and a s s i g n e d him t o t e a c h a t S a i n t - J a c q u e s g in Paris.  The P a r i s house of s t u d i e s had e x p e r i e n c e d v e r y s e r i o u s  d i s t u r b a n c e s amongst the s t u d e n t s .  A p p a r e n t l y the f o r e i g n s t u d e n t s  were b e i n g t r e a t e d u n f a i r l y by the F r e n c h a u t h o r i t i e s of the Order c o n t r o l l e d the house of s t u d i e s . t h a t a man  Perhaps, the g e n e r a l c h a p t e r  who  felt  of Hothum's s t a t u r e would be a b l e t o calm the p a s s i o n s w h i c h  -1-15-  had at  developed  d u r i n g the d i s p u t e .  Hothum d i d not take up h i s p o s i t i o n  P a r i s and h i s c h a i r remained vacant  at P a r i s .  impeding  the p r o g r e s s of s t u d i e s  In 1288, the g e n e r a l chapter s t r o n g l y censured  Hothum,  10 e n t r u s t i n g h i s punishment t o the m a s t e r - g e n e r a l  of the Order.  The most l i k e l y e x p l a n a t i o n f o r Hothum's absence was t h a t he was c o n s t a n t l y employed w i t h the k i n g ' s b u s i n e s s . of  In November o r December  1288, Edward I p a i d the expenses o f Hothum and h i s s o c i u s who were  travelling 1286,  t o B a r c e l o n a t o v i s i t the Dominicans t h e r e .  1 1  In January,  Hothum was engaged w i t h c o u r t b u s i n e s s and i n March, 1289, he was  a l s o i n v o l v e d w i t h the k i n g ' s a f f a i r s . t h a t he was absent  T h e r e f o r e , i t seems l i k e l y  from P a r i s because o f some a c t i v i t i e s which he may  have been asked t o undertake  d u r i n g the p e r i o d .  Although he was  censured by the g e n e r a l c h a p t e r , i t d i d not a f f e c t h i s subsequent c a r e e r w i t h i n the Order  s i n c e he was once a g a i n e l e c t e d as p r o v i n c i a l of England  12 i n 1290. him  However, Hothum's involvement  t o n e g l e c t h i s d u t i e s as a f r i a r .  i n the s e c u l a r w o r l d  T h e r e f o r e , the a u t h o r i t i e s of  the Order of Preachers were p r o b a b l y j u s t i f i e d i n t h e i r view w i t h which they regarded a l l s e c u l a r In  unfavourable  appointments.  1289, w h i l e accompanying Edward i n Gascony, Hothum was  to h i s f i r s t major d i p l o m a t i c m i s s i o n .  caused  appointed  With Otho de Grandison, he was  empowered t o meet w i t h Pope N i c h o l a s IV t o secure a d i s p e n s a t i o n f o r the k i n g ' s son so t h a t he c o u l d marry Margaret  of Scotland, to discuss  Edward's p l a n s f o r a Crusade and t o n e g o t i a t e c o n c e r n i n g the a r r e a r s 13 i n t h e annual left  t r i b u t e t o Rome.  the p a p a l c o u r t t o undertake  Upon a r r i v a l  a t the C u r i a , Grandison  some b u s i n e s s i n A p u l i a l e a v i n g Hothum  as the s o l e r e p r e s e n t a t i v e o f the k i n g .  A f t e r obtaining favourable  r e p l i e s t o the k i n g ' s r e q u e s t s , Hothum l e f t the C u r i a and r e t u r n e d t o 15 England.  W h i l e i n Rome, N i c h o l a s IV had d i s c u s s e d the s t a t e of the  Church i n England w i t h Hothum, and, i n p a r t i c u l a r , t h e q u e s t i o n o f t h e 16 i n f r i n g e m e n t of e c c l e s i a s t i c a l l i b e r t i e s by t h e k i n g . S h o r t l y a f t e r h i s r e t u r n t o E n g l a n d , Hothum was a p p o i n t e d  bishop  17 of L l a n d a f f by N i c h o l a s IV.  Hothum r e f u s e d t h e honour a r g u i n g t h a t  he was i g n o r a n t o f t h e Welsh language and t h a t he had been r e c e n t l y appointed  t h e p r i o r p r o v i n c i a l of t h e Dominican Order i n E n g l a n d .  On  A p r i l 27, 1291, t h e pope waived these o b j e c t i o n s and ordered Hothum t o 1 8  accept the b i s h o p r i c .  N e v e r t h e l e s s , Hothum r e f u s e d .  W h i l e Hothum was a t t e m p t i n g t o govern the Order i n E n g l a n d and was adamantly r e f u s i n g t h e b i s h o p r i c of L l a n d a f f , he became i n v o l v e d w i t h t h e c o m p l i c a t e d q u e s t i o n of the S c o t t i s h s u c c e s s i o n .  With the e x t i n c t i o n  of t h e S c o t t i s h r o y a l f a m i l y i n 1290, the r e g e n t s of the c o u n t r y appealed vacant  t o Edward I t o s e t t l e the q u e s t i o n of the s u c c e s s i o n t o the  throne.  On May 10, 1291, Edward met a p a r l i a m e n t a t Norham  composed o f t h e magnates o f b o t h realms as w e l l as those c l e r i c s and o t h e r 19 i n d i v i d u a l s who were v e r s e d i n canon law and c i v i l l a w .  The c h i e f  j u s t i c e , Roger Barbazon, d e l i v e r e d an a d d r e s s t o t h e g a t h e r i n g i n F r e n c h w h i c h c l a i m e d t h a t Edward was the o v e r l o r d of S c o t l a n d and s h o u l d be r e c o g n i z e d as such by t h e r i v a l c l a i m a n t s t o t h e throne o f S c o t l a n d . A p p a r e n t l y t h i s address had been w r i t t e n by Hothum who a t t e n d e d meeting.  this  Hothum r e a l i s e d t h a t Edward would have t o have t h i s c l a i m  r e c o g n i z e d a t the o u t s e t . c h o i c e i n the m a t t e r  The S c o t t i s h n o b l e s and p r e l a t e s had l i t t l e  s i n c e Edward had t a k e n the a d d i t i o n a l p r e c a u t i o n of 21 t i v e s r e f u s e d t o acknowledge h i s c l a i m s as o v e r l o r d . m o b i l i z i n g h i s army w h i c h c o u l d be employed i f t h e S c o t t i s h r e p r e s e n t a -  -117-  D u r i n g the n e g o t i a t i o n s w h i c h extended i n t o the next y e a r , Hothum and h i s s o c i u s , W i l l i a m Manchester, took p a r t i n a l l the i m p o r t a n t 22 m e e t i n g s w h i c h h e a r d the c l a i m s of the r i v a l c l a i m a n t s .  Hothum was  a l s o p r e s e n t a t the m e e t i n g w h i c h d e c l a r e d t h a t the law o f s u c c e s s i o n s h o u l d f o l l o w the law of p r i m o g e n i t u r e w h i c h meant t h a t B a l l i o l 23  could  take the S c o t t i s h t h r o n e . A l t h o u g h Hotham had p l a y e d a f a i r l y i m p o r t a n t r o l e d u r i n g the n e g o t i a t i o n s over the S c o t t i s h s u c c e s s i o n , he was t o p l a y a much g r e a t e r r o l e i n c o n c l u d i n g the peace between F r a n c e and England d u r i n g 1297 1298. are  and  The causes and the course of the war between F r a n c e and England 24  w e l l known and do not need t o be r e p e a t e d h e r e .  The one  w h i c h s h o u l d be mentioned was t h a t Edward I chose two f r i a r s  t o repu-  d i a t e h i s t r e a t y w i t h P h i l i p and t o d e c l a r e war a g a i n s t F r a n c e . f r i a r s were Hugh of M a n c h e s t e r , a\  The  former Dominican p r o v i n c i a l , and 25  W i l l i a m Gainsborough, a former F r a n c i s c a n p r o v i n c i a l . employed Mendicant f r i a r s  fact  Edward p r o b a b l y  t o undertake t h i s d i f f i c u l t task since t h e i r  s t a t u s would g i v e them a c e r t a i n degree of immunity w h i c h o t h e r envoys would not p o s s e s s .  N o n e t h e l e s s , when the two f r i a r s  arrived at Calais,  they were a r r e s t e d by the count of A r t o i s and were i m p r i s o n e d f o r a 26 week b e f o r e t h e y were a l l o w e d t o proceed t o P a r i s . The c h r o n i c l e r L a n g t o f t has l e f t a remarkable account of the c o n f r o n t a t i o n of the f r i a r s w i t h P h i l i p IV.  Manchester reproached P h i l i p  for  b r e a k i n g h i s word and d e c l a r e d t h a t when Edward r e c o v e r e d Gascony 27 he would h o l d i t "of God A l m i g h t y . " At the end of h i s d i s c o u r s e , Manchester r e q u e s t e d a s a f e - c o n d u c t f o r h i m s e l f and h i s companion w h i c h 28 was g r a n t e d . who  I n t h i s way,  a Dominican f r i a r was one of the envoys  r e p u d i a t e d Edward's a l l e g i a n c e t o P h i l i p IV and thus had a hand i n  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 a l l 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 w i l l hear what the Lord God w i l l 30 speak to me, for he w i l l 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 a l l Hothum's s k i l l 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 media34 tor between the two kings.  Finally a peace was made at Tournai on  January 31, 1298, and i t was decided at that time to refer the dispute to Boniface V I I I .  3 5  -119-  Hothum was t h e l e a d e r o f t h e . E n g l i s h d e l e g a t i o n w h i c h was s e n t t o Rome i n J u n e , 1298, t o a c c e p t t h e f i n a l award o f t h e p o p e .  3 6  . This  event marked t h e c o n c l u s i o n o f the peace and t h e end o f Hothum's d i p l o matic career.  W h i l e r e t u r n i n g t o E n g l a n d , Hothum f e l l s i c k . a n d  a t D i j o n on August 27, 1 2 9 8 .  died  3 7  T r i v e t s t a t e s t h a t Hothum was t h e . l e a d i n g f i g u r e I n a r r a n g i n g t h e t r u c e between Edward and P h i l i p . ^ 3  A d d i t i o n a l d e t a i l s a r e p r o v i d e d by  Hemingburgh who asserts-!, t h a t when an impasse was reached r e g a r d i n g t h e t r u c e , Hothum was a b l e t o p r e v a i l upon P h i l i p I V who had known t h e f r i a r on  when he r e s i d e d i n P a r i s . not i m p o r t a n t .  Whether t h e s e d e t a i l s a r e c o r r e c t o r n o t i s  They s t a n d as a t e s t i m o n y  t o Hothum's d i p l o m a t i c  skill.  Hothum was a f i n e example o f a.Dominican a c t i n g as a d i p l o m a t i c envoy.  The range o f h i s . a c t i v i t i e s i s t y p i c a l o f t h e t y p e s o f under-  t a k i n g s which.some o f t h e Dominican f r i a r s c a r r i e d o u t ^ f o r t h e i r r o y a l masters. diplomat.  I n h i s a c t i v i t i e s , Hothum r e v e a l e d h i m s e l f as a suave A t t h e same t i m e , he r e v e a l e d t h a t he had a s t r o n g w i l l and  r e f u s e d t o u n d e r t a k e t h e b i s h o p r i c o f L l a n d a f f even a f t e r t h e pope, p l e a d e d for  him t o a c c e p t t h e honour. P e r h a p s , he f e l t t h a t he c o u l d  more as a d i p l o m a t archbishopric,of  accomplish  t h a n as a b i s h o p a l t h o u g h he f i n a l l y a c c e p t e d t h e Dublin. (d)  R e b e l Dominicans  One might b e g i n t o t h i n k t h a t the.Dominicans were c o n s t a n t l y i n t h e s e r v i c e o f t h e government o f t h e k i n g .  On some o c c a s i o n s , c e r t a i n mem-  b e r s o f t h e Dominican Order s t o o d up a g a i n s t t h e e s t a b l i s h e d a u t h o r i t i e s . Perhaps the.most c e l e b r a t e d example o f s u c h . a c t i v i t i e s undertaken by a Dominican f r i a r t o o k p l a c e d u r i n g t h e c a p t i v i t y o f Edward I I  when a Dominican f r i a r , Thomas Dunhead, undertook t o f r e e the k i n g . s h o u l d be remembered t h a t Edward I I had been one  of the  E n g l i s h r o y a l p a t r o n s of the D o m i n i c a n Order and l i k e l y  It  greatest some  friars  40 were s i n c e r e l y d i s t r e s s e d by h i s a b d i c a t i o n . I n 1325, business.  Dunhead was  According  sent by.the k i n g t o the c u r i a on  secret  t o one a c c o u n t , Dunhead was  sent t o the pope by 41 Edward I I t o o b t a i n a d i v o r c e f o r the k i n g from Queen I s a b e l l a . A l t h o u g h Dunhead f a i l e d t o o b t a i n t h e d i v o r c e , the pope was impressed by Edward's messenger and a p p o i n t e d  Dunhead to the o f f i c e of p a p a l  chap-  42 lain. his  S h o r t l y t h e r e a f t e r , Dunhead r e t u r n e d t o England but soon made  p o s i t i o n untenable.  Edward I I wrote t o the pope on March 8,  i n f o r m i n g the p o n t i f f of Dunhead's a c t i v i t i e s  when he had  1326,  returned  to  43 England.  The  f r i a r was  now  accustomed t o r i d e on h o r s e b a c k , t o e a t  f l e s h - m e a t and t o keep company w i t h s e c u l a r s — p r o h i b i t e d by the Dominican r u l e . by the k i n g , Dunhead had  a l l t h e s e t h i n g s were  When q u e s t i o n e d  about these a c t i o n s  r e p l i e d t h a t h i s appointment as p a p a l  f r e e d him f r o m h i s r u l e and from obedience t o h i s s u p e r i o r s . ordered letter  the f r i a r t o submit t o the Dominican a u t h o r i t i e s but i n d i c a t e d t h a t Dunhead had  fled  abroad and was  now  chaplain Edward  the  king's  masquerading  as a. r o y a l envoy. On J u l y 23, 1326, him  the pope wrote t o Dominican p r o v i n c i a l commanding  " t o keep under obedience and c o r r e c t Thomas Dunhevid of h i s  whom the pope has made p a p a l c h a p l a i n , and who 44 f r e e d from the observance of the r u l e , " runaway f r i a r had been apprehended Dunhead was  considers himself  I t would appear t h a t  by the a u t h o r i t i e s .  order, thereby the  Nevertheless  soon f r e e of a l l r e s t r a i n t s and a f t e r the a b d i c a t i o n  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 i t 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.^  Nevertheless, the conspiracy was discovered and the  5  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 i t " . ^  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 r e l i 49 gious.  The plot failed but i t 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 a l l 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 a l l sheriffs and bailiffs to arrest Robert de Kenynton and Benedict de Offord, friars of the Order of Preachers, who, as the king understands from Thomas d e J o r z , 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 f r i a r , 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 a l l , the Dominican  f r i a r , 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 a l l 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 representative system in which the superiors of the Order were elected and in which a l l legislation was framed by representatives of the f r i a r s . After the establishment of the Order in England in 1221, Dominican friars were soon in positions of influence from which they could contribute 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 archbishops 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 i t existed in the Dominican Order and the form which i t ultimately took in both convocation and parliament.  -124-  N o n e t h e l e s s , B a r k e r f i n a l l y was  f o r c e d t o admit t h a t " D i r e c t i n f l u e n c e  55 can h a r d l y be proved .  More c o n v i n c i n g  s i n c e B a r k e r completed h i s r e s e a r c h i n f l u e n c e of Roman law and  s u g g e s t i o n s have appeared  over a h a l f - c e n t u r y ago  such as  the  c a n o n i c a l p r o c e d u r e s upon the development  of r e p r e s e n t a t i v e i n s t i t u t i o n s d u r i n g the t h i r t e e n t h c e n t u r y  through-  56 out Europe.  I t seems t h a t the most w h i c h can be c l a i m e d  f o r the  concept of the Dominican i n f l u e n c e upon the development of E n g l i s h r e p r e s e n t a t i v e i n s t i t u t i o n s i s t h a t the Dominican Order o n l y augmented those f o r c e s w h i c h were a l r e a d y c o n t r i b u t i n g t o the development of t h e s e 57 institutions.  -125-  (3) The P o l i t i c a l Thought o f t h e E n g l i s h  Dominicans  I n o r d e r t o a s c e r t a i n t h e p o l i t i c a l thought o f t h e E n g l i s h Dominicans, i t i s n e c e s s a r y t o s t u d y t h e i r l i t e r a r y p r o d u c t i o n s . Most o f t h e s e works can o n l y be s t u d i e d i n m a n u s c r i p t o r i n  58 imperfect early editions.  One would t h i n k t h a t t h e i n v o l v e m e n t  of many members o f t h e Dominican Order would l e a d some o f t h e f r i a r s , a t l e a s t , t o compose p o l i t i c a l t r e a t i s e s o f one k i n d or  another.  The d i s p u t e o v e r C l e r i c i s l a i c o s i n England d i d  n o t r e s u l t i n a growing body o f p o l i t i c a l l i t e r a t u r e i n E n g l a n d . In  f a c t , no p o l i t i c a l t r e a t i s e s comparable t o t h a t o f t h e F r e n c h  Dominican, John o f P a r i s , c o u l d be found composed by any member of t h e Dominican Order i n England. T h i s f a c t o f i t s e l f does n o t n e c e s s a r i l y mean t h a t t h e E n g l i s h Dominicans  d i d n o t have a p o l i t i c a l thought.  I t w i l l be  remembered t h a t one o f t h e most s i g n i f i c a n t d i s c u s s i o n s o f p o l i t i c a l thought t o be found i n t h e works o f Thomas Aquinas was embodied a t t h e end o f t h e second book o f h i s Commentary on t h e Sentences o f P e t e r Lombard.  Many members o f t h e E n g l i s h  were a u t h o r s o f Commentaries on t h e Sentences. the  Dominicans  I n t h i s chapter,  Commentaries o f E o b e r t K i l w a r d b y , Thomas S u t t o n , Robert H o l c o t  and N i c h o l a s T r i v e t w i l l be i n v e s t i g a t e d i n o r d e r t o a s c e r t a i n whether t h e s e d i s t i n g u i s h e d members o f t h e Dominican Order i n England emulated t h e example o f t h e i r c o n f r e r e Aquinas and t u r n e d t o a d i s c u s s i o n o f p o l i t i c a l m a t t e r s a t t h e end o f t h e second book o f t h e i r Commentaries on t h e Sentences o f P e t e r Lombard.  -126-  Another E n g l i s h Dominican a u t h o r , who  composed a t r e a t i s e  w h i c h appeared t o be o f i n t e r e s t i n any i n v e s t i g a t i o n o f t h e p o l i t i c a l thought o f t h e E n g l i s h Dominicans, was J o h n Bromyard. Bromyard composed a work e n t i t l e d T r a c t a t u s j u r i s c i v i l i s e t c a n o n i c i ad moralem materiam a p p l i c a t i secundum brdiriem a l p h a b e t i 60 w h i c h was d e s i g n e d as a handbook f o r p r e a c h e r s .  (a) Robert K i l w a r d b y .  The f i r s t Dominican whose Commentary on t h e Sentences w i l l 61 be i n v e s t i a g e d i s Robert K i l w a r d b y .  Kilwardby, probably the  most d i s t i n g u i s h e d E n g l i s h Dominican o f t h e t h i r t e e n t h c e n t u r y , was a l r e a d y w e l l e d u c a t e d b e f o r e he e n t e r e d t h e Order o f Preachers.  He began h i s s c h o l a r l y c a r e e r a t P a r i s where he  t a u g h t as a r e g e n t master f o r s e v e r a l y e a r s a f t e r he had r e c e i v e d h i s M a s t e r o f A r t s degree.  Dates r e l a t i n g t o h i s e a r l y  career  a r e l a r g e l y c o n j e c t u r a l , t h e e a r l i e s t c e r t a i n date i s 1261 when he became t h e p r o v i n c i a l p r i o r o f the Dominican Order i n England.  I t seems l i k e t h a t he had begun h i s s c h o l a r l y c a r e e r i n  P a r i s about 1231 and was t e a c h i n g as a r e g e n t m a s t e r i n A r t s from about 1237 u n t i l  1245.  6 2  K i l w a r d b y e n t e r e d t h e Dominican Order about 1245 and embarked on a new s t a g e i n h i s s c h o l a r l y c a r e e r .  Before  e n t e r i n g t h e Dominican O r d e r , K i l w a r d b y had composed c h i e f l y works d e a l i n g w i t h grammar and l o g i c , however, once he was f r i a r he devoted h i m s e l f f u l l y t o t h e s t u d y o f t h e o l o g y . o n l y work composed a f t e r he e n t e r e d t h e Order o f P r e a c h e r s w h i c h was n o t d i r e c t l y r e l a t e d t o t h e o l o g y was the De o r t u  a The  -127-  scientiarum which dealt with the divisions and the inter63 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, Archbishop of Canterbury, and, at the very end of his l i f e , 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 s t i l l 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-  w h i c h p r e v a i l e d n o t o n l y i n t h e Dominican Order b u t a l s o i n t h e U n i v e r s i t y o f O x f o r d , b) h i s pronounced o p p o s i t i o n t o t h e o r i g i n a l and e c l e t i c t h e o r i e s o f Henry o f Ghent, and c) h i s championship 69 o f t h e cause o f S t . Thomas . . . ."  Other h i s t o r i a n s have  agreed w i t h t h i s judgement o f t h e p l a c e o f Thomas o f S u t t o n i n the h i s t o r y o f m e d i a e v a l  philosophy.^  S u t t o n was o r d a i n e d as a deacon by B i s h o p W a l t e r G i f f o r d o f 71 Y o r k on September 20, 1274.  S u t t o n seems t o have been a f e l l o w  o f Merton C o l l e g e , O x f o r d , b e f o r e he e n t e r e d t h e Dominican Order.  T h i s s u p p o s i t i o n i s based upon t h e f a c t t h a t i n M e r t o n  C o l l e g e MS 138 on f o l . 1 5 4 i s found a Q u o d l i b e t e n t i t l e d De V  Deo c r e a t o r e w r i t t e n by " m a g i s t r i Thome de S u t t o n , s o c i i domus 72 de M e r t o n , postmodum o r d i n i s p r a e d i c a t o r u m . "  When he r e c e i v e d  t h e d i a c o n a t e , S u t t o n was a l r e a d y a member o f t h e Order o f P r e a c h e r s and was c e r t a i n l y r e s i d e n t a t t h e O x f o r d convent o f 73 t h e Order by 1282. I n 1290, he i s r e p o r t e d t o have a c t e d as the respondent t o R i c h a r d o f H e t h e r i n g t o n i n t h e u n i v e r s i t y 74 disputations of that year. S u t t o n was a master i n t h e o l o g y by 1299 o r 1300 when he a t t e n d e d t h e v e s p e r i e s o f W i l l i a m Macclesfield.^  5  On October 1 1 , 1300, he was l i c e n s e d t o hear  confessions i n the diocese o f L i n c o l n . A f t e r  this  date,  l i t t l e i s knownof S u t t o n ' s a c t i v i t i e s a l t h o u g h i n d i c a t i o n s i n h i s work show t h a t he was s t i l l w r i t i n g i n 1311 and may have been a c t i v e as l a t e as 1 3 1 5 . ^ The number o f t h e works a s c r i b e d t o S u t t o n i n d i c a t e s 78 t h a t he l e d a p r o d u c t i v e s c h o l a r l y c a r e e r . include four quodlibeta  H i s works  and t h i r t y - f i v e q u a e s t i o n e s o r d i n a r i e .  -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 discussed in the universities. Sutton's Commentary on the Sentences of Peter Lombard was directed against the positions taken by Robert Cowton. 81 work was apparently written between 1313 and.1315.  This  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 i n a manner similar to that of Aquinas.  Unfortunately Sutton's Commentary on the Sentences did  not cover every aspect raised by Peter Lombard. Commentary on  Sutton's  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 i n 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 a l r e a d y a p e r s o n o f some i m p o r t a n c e a t the O x f o r d convent s i n c e he r e c e i v e d t h e r o y a l alms i n November o f t h a t •84 year.  He i n c e p t e d as a M a s t e r o f T h e o l o g y about 1303 and was 85 r e g e n t m a s t e r a t Oxford from 1303 u n t i l about 1307. I t appears t h a t T r i v e t s t u d i e d a t P a r i s between 1307  and  86 1314.  D u r i n g t h i s t i m e , O x f o r d was  the scene o f a s e r i o u s  d i s p u t e between t h e f r i a r s and t h e u n i v e r s i t y  authorities.  T r i v e t ' s name does n o t appear i n any o f t h e documents r e l a t i n g to t h i s dispute.  A p p a r e n t l y he r e t u r n e d t o O x f o r d s h o r t l y  b e f o r e t h e d i s p u t e ended and a c t e d as a r e g e n t master f o r a 86 second t i m e .  P e r h a p s , t h e a u t h o r i t i e s o f the Dominican Order  thought t h a t a man  o f T r i v e t ' s s t a t u r e would promote the i n t e r e s t s  o f t h e Order a t t h e u n i v e r s i t y .  T r i v e t was once a g a i n i n E n g l a n d  a t the end o f t h e y e a r 1314 when h i s name o c c u r s i n a document r e l a t i n g t o t h e O x f o r d convent w h i l e i n the e a r l y months o f t h e n e x t y e a r h i s s i g n a t u r e appears w i t h t h o s e o f the o t h e r r e g e n t m a s t e r s i n t h e o l o g y i n a document condemning a number o f e r 88 roneous and h e r e t i c a l a r t i c l e s . I t seems t h a t T r i v e t l e f t O x f o r d s h o r t l y a f t e r 1315 and i t i s known t h a t he was the l e c 89 t o r i n t h e London convent i n 1324.  T r i v e t was s t i l l a l i v e t e n  years l a t e r . The range o f T r i v e t ' s l i t e r a r y a c t i v i t y i s enormous.  He  w r o t e s i x q u o l l b e t a o f w h i c h t h e f i r s t f i v e can be d a t e d be91 tween 1303 and 1307. H i s Commentary on the Sentences o f P e t e r Lombard was w r i t t e n sometime b e f o r e . 1 3 0 3 . T r i v e t a l s o 92 w r o t e a Commentary on the R u l e o f S t . A u g u s t i n e . He seems t o  -131-  have had a knowledge o f Hebrew, as can be seen i n h i s Commentary 93 on t h e Psalms.  He was a l s o t h e a u t h o r o f commentaries  on 94  v a r i o u s books o f t h e B i b l e i n c l u d i n g G e n e s i s and Exodus.  Never-  t h e l e s s , T r i v e t ' s fame r e s t s w i t h h i s c h r o n i c l e s and h i s  com-  m e n t a r i e s on t h e works o f s e v e r a l c l a s s i c a l and p s e u d o - c l a s s i c a l authors i n c l u d i n g B o e t h i u s , the pseudo-Boethius, L i v y , and J u v e n a l . ^  Seneca  5  T r i v e t ' s Commentary on t h e Sentences c l o s e l y f o l l o w s t h e t e x t o f P e t e r Lombard.  I n f a c t , T r i v e t ' s Commentary i n c l u d e s  s h o r t passages t a k e n e n t i r e l y from Lombard v e r b a t i m w h i c h s e r v e 96 as g u i d e s .  T h i s segment o f t h e work o f Lombard i s d i s c u s s e d  and t h e n T r i v e t c i t e s a n o t h e r p o r t i o n o f Lombard's t e x t and f o l l o w s t h e same p r o c e d u r e .  When one t u r n s t o t h e second book  of t h e Commentary, i t appears t h a t T r i v e t ' s Commentary i s i n 97 complete, s t o p p i n g a t d i s t i n c t i o n 30, cap. 9.  There i s , how-  ever, every reason to b e l i e v e that the p a r t i c u l a r manuscript w h i c h was u t i l i z e d f o r t h e purposes o f t h i s s t u d y i s i n c o m p l e t e . The f i r s t r e a s o n f o r t h i s i s t h a t o v e r a f o l i o i s l e f t b l a n k between t h e end o f book two and t h e b e g i n n i n g o f book t h r e e  —  a p r a c t i c e n o t f o l l o w e d by t h e s c r i b e elsewhere i n t h e manu98 script.  S e c o n d l y , t h e e x p l i c i t o f t h i s m a n u s c r i p t does n o t 99  agree w i t h t h a t p r o v i d e d by S t e g m u l l e r .  A l t h o u g h t h e manu-  s c r i p t i s incomplete, the f a c t that Trivet c a r e f u l l y  followed  Lombard throughout h i s Commentary would seem t o a l l o w one t o c o n j e c t u r e t h a t i f a complete m a n u s c r i p t were s t u d i e d , Book I I , d i s t i n c t i o n 44, would be t r e a t e d i n a manner q u i t e s i m i l a r t o  -132-  t h a t o f Lombard.  S i n c e t h e r e i s no i n d i c a t i o n of any  interest  i n p o l i t i c a l thought i n h i s o t h e r w o r k s , t h i s s u p p o s i t i o n i s further  strengthened. (d) Robert H o l c o t .  Robert H o l c o t e n t e r e d the Dominican Order b e f o r e March 22, 1322, when he was of L i n c o l n .  l i c e n s e d to hear c o n f e s s i o n s i n the d i o c e s e  He was  1  O x f o r d and was  s e n t t o s t u d y a t the Dominican convent  r e s i d e n t a t O x f o r d from about 1326  until  of  about  2 1334.  He r e c e i v e d h i s master's  degree i n t h e o l o g y about  1332  3 and was  a r e g e n t master a t O x f o r d u n t i l 1334.  that' H o l c o t may  I t i s possible  have been s e n t from O x f o r d t o Cambridge t o  undertake a second regency a t t h a t u n i v e r s i t y s i n c e he i s desc r i b e d i n two m a n u s c r i p t s o f h i s commentary on Wisdom as a d o c t o r of Cambridge.  He was  c e r t a i n l y a t the Dominican.convent  of Northampton by 1343 and he p r o b a b l y d i e d i n 1349 Black Death.  during the  5  H o l c o t was on the Sentences  a p r o l i f i c writer.  He completed h i s Q u e s t i o n e s  o f P e t e r Lombard about.1332 and was  a l s o the  a u t h o r of s i x q u o d l i b e t a . ^ N e v e r t h e l e s s , H o l c o t ' s s c h o l a s t i c r e p u t a t i o n r e s t s on h i s commentaries on t h r e e books of t h e O l d Testament, Wisdom, E c c l e s i a s t i c u s and the Twelve Minor In  Prophets.  these works on the S c r i p t u r e s , H o l c o t makes s e v e r a l comments  r e l a t e d to p o l i t i c a l  thought.  S m a l l e y has i n v e s t i g a t e d t h e commentary on Wisdom and found t h a t H o l c o t u t i l i z e d  has  t h e De r e g i m i n e p r i n c i p u m o f G i l e s o f  -133-  Rome as w e l l as t h e E n g l i s h C o r o n a t i o n Oath o f 1308 and S t , 8 A l b e r t ' s Commentary on the P o l i t i c s o f A r i s t o t l e .  Therefore,  i t w o u l d appear t h a t Hothum was i n t e r e s t e d i n p o l i t i c a l thought and had some knowledge o f t h e p o l i t i c a l t r e a t i s e s w h i c h were important at t h i s time.  I n h i s commentary on Wisdom, H o l c o t  i  s t a t e d t h a t p r e l a t e s who have charge o f the s o c i a l o r d e r have a duty t o p r e a c h about s p e c i f i c m a t t e r s p a r t i c u l a r l y when bad 9  r e p o r t s o r r e b e l l i o n made such an a c t i o n n e c e s s a r y .  Smalley  s u g g e s t s t h a t H o l c o t may have had t h e e v e n t s o f 1327 i n mind when he w r o t e t h i s p o r t i o n o f h i s  commentary."^  A s i m i l a r use o f p o l i t i c a l i d e a s o c c u r s i n H o l c o t ' s Q u e s t i o n e s on the S e n t e n c e s . * * second book o f t h e S e n t e n c e s ,  I n the f i r s t q u e s t i o n of  the  H o l c o t asks "Whether t h e C r e a t o r 12  o f the human r a c e governs t h a t r a c e p r o p e r l y . "  Holcot d i s -  cusses such q u e s t i o n s as whether God i s a j u s t j u d g e , p o i n t i n g out i n h i s d i s c u s s i o n t h a t God o f t e n a c c e p t s one p e r s o n and 13 rejects  a n o t h e r w i t h o u t any m e r i t o r d e m e r i t on t h e i r p a r t .  I n t h e t h i r d b o o k , i n the course o f h i s d i s c u s s i o n , H o l c o t compares and c o n t r a s t s t h e vows  o f a r e l i g i o u s and the o a t h o f  f e a l t y o f a layman, a n a l y s i n g t h e f o r c e o f  each."^  I n h i s s c h o l a s t i c w o r k s , H o l c o t i s r e v e a l e d as an a u t h o r who i s f a m i l i a r w i t h many o f t h e b a s i c i d e a s and concepts mediaeval p o l i t i c a l thought.  of  He o f t e n employs examples i n h i s  d i s c u s s i o n o f t h e o l o g i c a l works which a r e p o l i t i c a l i n n a t u r e . However, he never l a u n c h e s i n t o a d i s c u s s i o n of such fundamental i s s u e s as t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p o f t h e two powers.  H o l c o t possesed  -134-  the b a s i c knowledge t o form a t r e a t i s e such as t h e De p o t e s t a t e r e g i a e t p a p a l i o f J o h n . o f P a r i s b u t seemed t o l a c k t h e i n c l i n a t i o n o r t h e m o t i v e t o produce such a work.  (e) John Bromyard.  The l a s t E n g l i s h Dominican whose t r e a t i s e s w i l l be i n v e s t i g a t e d i s John Bromyard. known.  Few d e t a i l s o f h i s l i f e a r e  I t seems t h a t Bromyard may have s t u d i e d a t Oxford."''  5  He was g r a n t e d a l i c e n s e t o . h e a r c o n f e s s i o n s i n H e r e f o r d d i o c e s e on F e b r u a r y 1, 1327. d i e d by 1352."'"^  Emden s t a t e s t h a t he p r o b a b l y  No o t h e r d e t a i l s o f h i s l i f e a r e known.  Bromyard was t h e a u t h o r o f t h r e e works.  The f i r s t work, w h i c h  w i l l be i n v e s t i g a t e d i n some d e t a i l , was t h e T r a c t a t u s j u r i s c i v i l i s e t c a n o n i c i ad moralem m a t e r i a m . a p p l i c a t i secundum ordinem 18 alphabetic  Bromyard was a l s o t h e a u t h o r o f a work e n t i t l e d  t h e Summa P r a e d i c a n t i u m w h i c h was an expanded v e r s i o n o f t h e T r a c t a t u s , as w e l l as t h e a u t h o r o f a c o l l e c t i o n o f D i s t i n c t i o n e s , 19 t h a t i s , n o t e s f o r sermons. Bromyard's T r a c t a t u s i s a r a t h e r c u r i o u s work.  The main  s o u r c e s w h i c h were u t i l i z e d by t h e a u t h o r i n t h i s work were t h e S c r i p t u r e s and.the Canon Law. knowledge o f t h e C i v i l l a w .  The a u t h o r a l s o d i s p l a y e d some  The T r a c t a t u s was d e s i g n e d t o o f f e r  i d e a s f o r t h e c o m p o s i t i o n o f sermons.  The work has a d e t a i l e d 20  t a b l e o f contents to f a c i l i t a t e i t s use. I n t h e c o u r s e o f h i s d i s c u s s i o n , Bromyard employed many examples t o i l l u s t r a t e h i s e s s e n t i a l l y t h e o l o g i c a l p o i n t s from h i s thorough u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f p o l i t i c a l t h o u g h t .  drawn  F o r example,  -135-  i n h i s d i s c u s s i o n o f " b e n i g n i t y " l e d Bromyard from t h e b a s i c t h e o l o g i c a l concept o f God's g e n e r o s i t y i n becoming man  and  d y i n g f o r men t o a b a s i c a l l y p o l i t i c a l d i s c u s s i o n of t h e advantages, o f a n a t i v e - b o r n  and h e r i d i t a r y form o f k i n g s h i p  as  21 opposed t o e l e c t i v e k i n g s h i p .  That t h i s d i s c u s s i o n has a  p o l i t i c a l as w e l l as t h e o l o g i c a l i n t e r e s t i s i n d i c a t e d by t h e r e f e r e n c e made t o i t i n t h e i n d e x o f t h e work: "A n a t i v e -  22 b o r n k i n g i s more u s e f u l " .  I n h i s d i s c u s s i o n o f t h e Empire  as an example o f e l e c t i v e k i n g s h i p , Bromyard s t a t e s : "And so d u r i n g a vacancy o f t h e Empire, s p o l i a t o r s dominate t h e f a i t h -  23 f u l and we l o o s e c i t i e s and o t h e r t h i n g s  . . . ."  The f a c t  t h a t Bromyard employs t h e f i r s t p e r s o n p l u r a l i s i n t e r e s t i n g . E i t h e r Bromyard w r o t e t h e T r a c t a t u s w h i l e l i v i n g i n t h e Empire or he was b o r r o w i n g from a n o t h e r s o u r c e f o r t h i s d i s c u s s i o n . The l a t t e r a l t e r n a t i v e seems most l i k e l y s i n c e no e v i d e n c e has come t o l i g h t w h i c h would i n d i c a t e t h a t he l i v e d i n t h e Empire a t any t i m e d u r i n g h i s c a r e e r . E l s e w h e r e i n t h e t r e a t i s e , Bromyard d i s c u s s e s power and p o v e r t y  of t h e pope.  the h o l i n e s s ,  I n t h i s s e c t i o n of t h e t r e a t i s e ,  Bromyard remarked t h a t t h e Church would be h o l i e r i f i t p o s s e s s ed fewer c a r d i n a l s and i f t h e s e were drawn from t h e whole  25 w o r l d and approved by t h e i r h o l i n e s s and knowledge. l i k e Holcot,  employed p o l i t i c a l examples t o i l l u s t r a t e h i s  theological discussion.  Bromyard's d i s c u s s i o n r e v e a l s t h a t he  was much more i n t e r e s t e d i n pure p o l i t i c a l t h e o r y Nevertheless, political  Bromyard,  h i s Tractatus  treatise.  i s f a r from b e i n g  t h a n was  Holcot.  a comprehensive  -136-  T h i s s u r v e y o f a few o f t h e b e t t e r known E n g l i s h Dominican t h e o l o g i a n s demonstrates t h a t , t h e E n g l i s h Dominicans were a c t i v e l y engaged i n a l l t h e major t h e o l o g i c a l d i s c u s s i o n s o f t h e i r time.  T h e i r l i t e r a r y p r o d u c t i o n s are. s i m i l a r i n n a t u r e  to t h o s e produced by t h e Dominicans o f t h e P r o v i n c e o f F r a n c e i n almost a l l r e s p e c t s . duced Commentaries  The Dominicans o f b o t h p r o v i n c e s p r o -  on t h e S e n t e n c e s , defences o f Thomas A q u i n a s ,  sermons, s c r i p t u r a l commentaries and p r e a c h i n g a i d s .  But t h e  E n g l i s h Dominicans d i d n o t emulate t h e i r c o n t i n e n t a l b r e t h r e n i n one s i g n i f i c a n t t y p e o f l i t e r a t u r e . p o l i t i c a l treatises  They d i d n o t w r i t e  i n any way comparable t o t h a t o f John o f  P a r i s ' " o r ' o t h e r Dominicans who worked and w r o t e a t P a r i s .  CONCLUSION It w i l l be remembered that Leclercq, although recognizing the p o l i t i c a l 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 p o l i t i c a l thought?  The answer to this problem would seem to be found in the differences 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 p o l i t i c a l structure and attitudes in the two kingdoms.  In both countries the  friars of the Order of Preachers were involved in relatively significant p o l i t i c a l activities.  Nevertheless, the spur to translate this into  p o l i t i c a l thought was not felt in England in the same way as i t was in France. The University of Paris.occupied a very different position in relation to p o l i t i c a l l i f e 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 i f i t i s . t o be fully understood. The Order i t s e l f , to which they belonged, the universities in which . they worked, the p o l i t i c a l 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 v o l s . , 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 . ,  SA  Studia Anselmiana  TRHS  Transactions of the Royal Historical Society.  Rerum Britannicarum medii aevi scriptores  - J.H-U-  NOTES FOR THE INTRODUCTION Dom Jean Leclercq, O.S.B., Jean de Paris et V_ ecclesiologie du x i i j e siecle (Paris: J . .Vrin, 1942), pp. 23-24.  NOTES FOR CHAPTER I John A. Watt, The Theory of Papal Monarchy in the Thirteenth Century (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. 1  For a general discussion of the dispute between Pope John XXII and Lewis of Bavaria see G. Mollat, The Popes at Avignon, 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. 2  Gaines Post, Studies in Medieval Legal Thought: Public Law and the State, 1100-1322 (Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1964), pp. 496-497. 3  4 Letter of Pope Gelasius to the Emperor Anastasius (494 A.D.), Migne, PL, v o l . 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, f i l i clementissime, quod licet praesideas humano generi dignitate, rerum tamen praesulibus divinarum devotus colia submittis, 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 i l l o s 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, v o l . CVI, c o l . 285: "Sciendum omnibus fidelibus est quia universalis Ecclesia corpus est Christi et ejus caput idem est Christus, et in ea duae principaliter exstant eximiae personae, sacerdotalis videlicet et regalis . . . "  = 142-  Hincmar of Rheims also cited the Gelasian letter to Anastasius and i t 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), v o l . I, pp. 253-257 and Georges de Lagarde, La naissance de 1*Esprit Lai'"que (3rd ed.; Louvain and Paris: Nauwelaerts, 1956), v o l . I, p. 36 and p. 41, nn. 35-36. This idea has been recognized by many historians, for instance, see Carlyle, A History of Mediaeval Political Theory, v o l . I, p. 255. 7  8 For this conception of Church-State relations see Gerhart B. Ladner, "Aspects of Mediaeval Thought on Church and State," Review of Politics, v o l . 9 (1947), p. 408 and Ladner's article "The Concepts of Ecclesia and Christianitas and their Relation to the Idea of Papal Plenitudo Potestatis from Gregqry VII to Boniface VIII," Miscellenea Historicae Pontificae, v o l . XVIII (1954), p. 50. F.. Kern, Kingship and Law in the Middle Ages, trans. S. B. Chrimes (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1939), p. 54. y  "•0 Ladner, "Aspects of Mediaeval Thought on Church and State," Review of Politics, v o l . 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 f i r s t steps towards a differentiation between the consecration of a bishop and that of the emperor were being made. The ruler was anointed with ordinary o i l 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, l i b . v i i i , 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 t i b i 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 f i l i u s Dei beato Petro commisit?" Further on in this letter, Gregory cites the letter of Gelasius to Anastasius, editio c i t . , p. 553. For a translation of the f u l l 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,. l i b . i i , no. 55a, ed. Caspar, pp. 201-208. The relevant sections are: XII. Quod i l l i 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, v o l . XVIII (1954), pp. 51-52. 16 Ladner, "Aspects of Mediaeval Thought on Church and State," Review of Politics, v o l . 9 (1947), p. 412. 1? Jean Leclercq, Jean de Paris et 1* ecclesiologie du XIII 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, v o l . XVIII (1954), pp. 53-54. e  18 Ernst H. Kantorowicz, "Kingship under the Impact of Scientific Jurisprudence", M. Clagett, G. Post and R. Reynolds, eds., TwelfthCentury Europe and the Foundations of Modern Society (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1961), p. 90. Brian Tierney, The Crisis of Church and State, 1050-1300 (Englewood C l i f f s , New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1964), p. 98. 1 9  Watt, The Theory of Papal Monarchy, pp. 9-11, points out that Gratian had incorporated about a>.hundred canons from the o f f i c i a l 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 i f 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 VII s f i r s t letter to Hermann of Metz. In fact, Gratian's citation 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 dealing 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. 2 0  1  D. 96, c. 6 (Nec imperator iura Pontificis, nec Pontifex iura regia usurpet), Corpus Iuris Canonici, ed. Friedberg, v o l . 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 relationship of the two powers in clear perspective. 2 1  -144-  Huguccio, Commentary on D. 96, c. 6 (ca. 1189-1191), ed. G. Catlano, Impero, Regni e Sacerdozio nel Pensiero di Uguccio da Pisa (Milan, 1959), pp. 64-67, trans. Tierney, The Crisis of Church and State, pp. 122-123. 2 2  Alanus, Commentary on D. 96, c. 6 (ca. 1202), ed. A.M..Stickler, "Alanus Anglicus als Verteidiger des monarchischen Papsttums," Salesianum, v o l . 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. 2 3  24 Alanus was an extremist whose view of papal power was such that i t could operate directly in the temporal sphere in a fashion which destroyed any real distinction between the two powers. For this reason, most canonists 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, v o l . II, col. 243: "Non enim intendimus iudicare de feudo, . . . sed discernere de peccato . . . .." 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, v o l . II, cols. 714-716. 2 6  27 x, 4, 17, 1.3 (Per venerabilem), Corpus Iuris Canonici, ed. Friedberg, v o l . II, c o l . 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 himself to our jurisdiction and he did." X, 4, 17, 13 (Per venerabilem), Corpus Iuris Canonici, ed.. Friedberg, v o l . 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 c i v i l e , in quibus quum aliquid fuerit d i f f i c i l e , vel ambiguum, ad iudicium est sedis apostolicae recurrendum, cuius sententiam qui superbiens contempserit 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 a i t : 'nescitis, quoniam angelos iudicabitis, quanto magis saecularia? (I. Cor. 6:3)" This text when translated states: "Three kinds of judgment are distinguished: the f i r s t between blood and blood by which c i v i l crimes are known; the last between leper and leper by which ecclesiastical crimes are known; and a middle kind between cause 2 8  1  -145-  and cause which refers to both ecclesiastical and c i v i l causes; in these matters whenever anything difficult or ambiguous has arisen, reference is to be made io the apostolic see, and should anyone f a i l to obey its sentence due to arrogance he shall be condemned to death 'to remove the evil from Israel (Judges 20:13),' that is, he w i l l be separated from the community of the faithful, as i f 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 i t should be exercised. 2 y  Tierney, The Crisis of Church and State, p. 130.  30 Carlyle, A History of Mediaeval Political Theory in the West, v o l . 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. 3 2  On these points see Watt, The Theory of Papal Monarchy, pp. 142-144.  M. H. Keen, "The Political Thought of the Fourteenth-Century Civilians , 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 f i r s t to lecture on a l l parts of the Digest. T. D. Dougherty, "Irnerius", New Catholic Encyclopedia (New York: McGrawH i l l , 1967),vol. VII, p. 658 states that Irnerius founded his school of jurisprudence at Bologna in 1084. 3 3  ,r  Mcllwain, The Growth of Political Thought in the West, p. 224, and Tierney, The Crisis of Church and State, p. 98. 3 4  35 Mcllwain, The Growth of Political Thought in the West, p. 225. x , 4, 17, 13 (Per venerabilem), Corpus Iuris Canonici, ed. Friedberg, v o l . II, c o l . 715: " . . . rex ipse superiorem in temporalibus minime recognoscat . . . ." 3 6  -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 relevant 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), v o l . I, pp. 143-144: ". . . quedam u t i l i a et i n u t i l i a continere dicantur, . . . mandamus, quatinus libros ipsos examinantes sicut convenit subtiliter et prudenter, que i b i erronea seu scandali vel offendiculi legentibus inveneritis i l l a t i v a , 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. ^ J . R. Strayer, "Laicization of French and English Society in the Thirteenth Century," Speculum, v o l . XV (1940), p. 81. 5  46 The Quo Warranto proceedings of Edward I were certainly designed to ascertain the rights of the king and to investigate a l l local p r i v i l eges. In general, the local power had to recognize that they held their power from the king, who could, i f 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, v o l . XV (1940), pp. 78-79. 4" J . R. Strayer, "Laicization of French and English Society in the Thirteenth Century," Speculum, v o l . XV (1940), pp. 80-81. 7  4 J . R. Strayer, "Laicization of French and English Society in the Thirteenth Century," Speculum, v o l . XV (1940), p. 82. 8  -147-  ^ Statutes of the Realm, v o l . I, p. 12: . . . atque ab universis et singulis majoribus et minoribus ipsius regni hominibus, ipsi domino Regi et mandatis ac preceptis suis l i c i t i s plene obediatur . . . ." 11  50 The treatise on the laws and customs of the realm of England commonly 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, v o l . XV (1940), p. 83, n. 1: " . . . i l [ l i rois] peut fere teus establissements comme i l l i plest pour le commun pourfit, et ce q u ' i l establist doit estre tenu." 52 On the concept of necessitas see F . M . Powicke, "Reflections on the Medieval State," TRHS, 4th series,, v o l . 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, particularly 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, v o l . 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 Abbot 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, v o l . XV (1940), p. 84. 56 Parliamentary Writs, v o l . 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), v o l . 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 i l fust utrae, cum ne voyl Deus k ' i l sayt, Le eglise de Engleterre s i mai mene serrayt, L i 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 s i 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, s i 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 l a t i n , v o l . I (1945), pp. 165-172. The text I Machabees 3: 19-22 i s : "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 w i l l fight for our laws: and the Lord himself w i l l 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 l a t i n , v o l . I (1945), p. 170: "Pax regis est pax regni; pax regni est pax ecclesiae, scientiae, virtutis et iustitiae, et est acquisitio Terrae Sanctae." Leclercq, "Un sermon prononce pendant la guerre de Flandre sous Phillipe le Bel," Revue du moyen age l a t i n , v o l . I (1945), p. 170: "igitur qui contra regem invehitur, laborat contra totam ecclesiam, contra doctrinam catholicam, contra sanctitatem et iustitiam et Terram Sanctam." 6 1  Dupuy, Histoire, Actes et Preuves, p. 243: "Item quod cum ad conservationem 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 Catholic Church, 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. 6 2  -149-  NOTES FOR CHAPTER I I "Die C o n s t i t u t i o n e n des P r e d i g e r - O r d e n s vom J a h r e 1228," ed. H. D e n i f l e , ALKG, v o l . I, p. 194: ". . . ordo n o s t e r s p e c i a l i t e r ob p r e d i c a t i o n e m e t animarum s a l u t e m ab i n i t i o n o s c a t u r i n s t i t u t u s fuisse . . . . T h i s statement remained i n subsequent e d i t i o n s o f the c o n s t i t u t i o n s of the Order. See "Die C o n s t i t u t i o n e n c d e s P r e d i g e r o r d e n s i n der R e d a c t i o n Raimunds von P e n a f o r t , " ed. H. D e n i f l e , ALKG, v o l . V, p. 534; and, "The C o n s t i t u t i o n e s o f the O r d e r ' o f P r e a c h e r s , 1359-1363," ed. G.R. G a l b r a i t h , i n The C o n s t i t u t i o n o f the Dominican Order, pp. 203-204. 11  o  B. Humberti de Romanis, Opera de v i t a r e g u l a r i , ed. J . J . B e r t h i e r (Rome, 1888; r e p r i n t e d Rome: M a r i e t t i , 1956), v o l . I I , p. 41: ". . . s t u d i u m non e s t f i n i s O r d i n i s , sed summe n e c e s s a r i u m e s t ad f i n e s p r a e d i c t o s , s c i l i c e t ad p r a e d i c a t i o n e s , e t animarum s a l u t e m operandum, q u i a s i n e s t u d i o neutram possemus . . . ." The b e s t p r e s e n t a t i o n o f the d e t a i l s of the i n s t i t u t i o n a l s t r u c t u r e o f the Dominican Order i s t o be found i n G.R. G a l b r a i t h , The C o n s t i t u t i o n o f the Dominican Order. Of use a l s o i s E. B a r k e r , The Dominican Order and C o n v o c a t i o n ( O x f o r d : C l a r e n d o n P r e s s , 1913). Some o f the c o n c l u s i o n s r e a c h e d by B a r k e r s h o u l d be r e c e i v e d w i t h g r e a t caution. A s h o r t i n t r o d u c t i o n i s p r o v i d e d i n D a v i d Knowles, The R e l i g i o u s Orders i n England (Cambridge: U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1962), v o l . I , pp. 146-162. The b e s t account o f the e d u c a t i o n a l o r g a n i z a t i o n i s t o be found i n C. Douais, E s s a i sur 1 ' o r g a n i s a t i o n des etudes dans 1_' Ordre des F r e r e s P r e c h e u r s ( P a r i s and T o u l o u s e : Alphonse P i c a r d , 1884). For d e t a i l s r e l a t i n g t o England see A.G. L i t t l e , " E d u c a t i o n a l O r g a n i s a t i o n of the Mendicant F r i a r s i n E n g l a n d , " TRHS, n.s. v o l . V I I I (1894), pp. 49-70. 4  Knowles, The R e l i g i o u s Orders i n England, v o l . I, p.  148.  5 For a d i s c u s s i o n o f the o r i g i n s of the c o n s t i t u t i o n s o f the Dominican Order see G a l b r a i t h , The C o n s t i t u t i o n o f the Dominican Order, pp. 8-21; and, E. B a r k e r , The Dominican Order and C o n v o c a t i o n , pp. 11-25. P o t t h a s t , Regesta, no. 5403. The t e x t o f the b u l l can be found i n Monumenta Diplomat i c a S_. Dom i n i c i , ed. V.J. K o u d e l k a and R.J. L o e n e r t z (MOPH, v o l . XXV; Santa S a b i n a , Rome: I n s t i t u t u m H i s t o r i c u m F r a t r u m P r a e d i c a t o r u m , 1966), pp. 71-76.  -150-  P o t t h a s t , Regesta, no. 5402. The t e x t of the b u l l can be found i n Monumenta H i s t o r i c a S_. P. N. D o m i n i c i , ed. M. -H. Laurent (MOTH, v o l . XV; Santa S a b i n a , Rome: I n s t i t u t u m H i s t o r i c u m Fratrum P r a e d i c a t o r u m , 1933), p. 88: " . . . f u t u r o s p u g i l e s f i d e i e t v e r a mundi l u m i n a , confirmamus ordinem tuum . . . ." 1  Q  A c t a C a p i t u l o r u m Generalium O r d i n i s P r a e d i c a t o r u m , ed. R e i c h e r t , v o l . I, p. 1: " . . . o r d i n a t u m e s t . ne p o s s e s s i o n e s v e l r e d d i t u s de cetero tenerent f r a t r e s n o s t r i . . . . I t seems l i k e l y t h a t t h i s was done because o f the example s e t by the F r a n c i s c a n s . 11  No copy o f the c o n s t i t u t i o n s o f 1221 which were p r e p a r e d under the d i r e c t i o n o f St. Dominic h i m s e l f have s u r v i v e d . There i s a copy o f those o f the y e a r 1228 w h i c h has been e d i t e d by H. D e n i f l e . See "Die C o n s t i t u t i o n e n des P r e d i g e r - O r d e n s vom J a h r e 1228," ed. D e n i f l e , ALKG, v o l . I , pp. 165-227. The v e r s i o n o f 1256 has a l s o been e d i t e d . See "Die C o n s t i t u t i o n e n des P r e d i g e r o r d e n s i n der R e d a c t i o n Raimunds von P e n a f o r t , " ed. D e n i f l e , ALKG, v o l . V, pp. 530-564. Another v e r s i o n f r o m the p e r i o d 1358-1363 has been e d i t e d by G.R. G a l b r a i t h and i t forms an appendix t o h e r book, The C o n s t i t u t i o n o f the Dominican Order, see pp. 203-253. 9  1° "Die C o n s t i t u t i o n e n des P r e d i g e r - O r d e n s vom Jahre 1228," ed. D e n i f l e , ALKG, v o l . I , p. 194; and, "Die C o n s t i t u t i o n e n des P r e d i g e r o r d e n s i n der R e d a c t i o n Raimunds von P e n a f o r t , " ed. D e n i f l e , ALKG, v o l . V, p. 534; and "The C o n s t i t u t i o n e s o f the Order o f P r e a c h e r s , 1358-1363," ed. G.R. G a l b r a i t h i n The C o n s t i t u t i o n o f the Dominican Order, p. 204. 11 The a c t a o f the g e n e r a l c h a p t e r s appear t o be complete f o r the p e r i o d from 1220 u n t i l 1378 except f o r the e a r l i e s t c h a p t e r s . See A c t a C a p i t u l o r u m G e n e r a l i u m O r d i n i s P r a e d i c a t o r u m , ed. B.M. R e i c h e r t (MOPH, v o l s . 3-4; Rome: T y p o g r a p h i a P o l y g l o t t a , 1898-1899, 2 v o l s . ) The a c t a o f the p r o v i n c i a l c h a p t e r s have not f a r e d as w e l l . None have s u r v i v e d f o r the E n g l i s h p r o v i n c e . There i s a f i n e s e r i e s f o r the Provence o f Provence as w e l l as a somewhat more f r a g m e n t a r y s e r i e s f o r the p r o v i n c e s o f Rome and S p a i n . See A c t a C a p i t u l o r u m P r o v i n c i a l i u m O r d i n i s F r a t r u m P r a e d i c a t o r u m : Premiere P r o v i n c e de Provence, P r o v i n c e Romaine, P r o v i n c e d'Espagne, 1238-1302, ed. C. Douais (Toulouse: L i b r a i r i e Edouard P r i v a t , 1894); and A c t a C a p i t u l o r u m P r o v i n e i a l i u m P r o v i n c i a e Romanae (1243-1344), ed. T. K a e p p e l i and A. Dondaine (MOPH, v o l . XX; Santa S a b i n a , Rome: I n s t i t u t u m H i s t o r i c u m F r a t r u m P r a e d i c a t o r u m , 1941). 12  The d e m o c r a t i c f e a t u r e s of the o r g a n i z a t i o n o f the Dominican Order has been n o t e d by many h i s t o r i a n s . See B a r k e r , The Dominican Order and C o n v o c a t i o n , p. 17: When d i s c u s s i n g the n a t u r e of the o r g a n i z a t i o n o f the Dominican Order, Barker a s k s : "What are the g e n e r a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f t h i s o r g a n i z a t i o n ? In the f i r s t p l a c e i t i s democratic. I f Cluny i s ' m o n a r c h i c a l ' , i f C i t e a u x (and we may add Premontre, i n many r e s p e c t s m o d e l l e d on C i t e a u x ) i s ' a r i s t o c r a t i c a l ' , we may c a l l the f r i a r s d e m o c r a t i c . There i s no speech i n t h e i r o r g a n i z a t i o n o f abbots or o f p a t e r n a l a u t h o r i t y from above; a u t h o r i t y  -151-  s p r i n g s from the g e n e r a l body, and the o f f i c i a l s a r e r a t h e r s e r v a n t s o f the body than i t s l o r d s . " G a l b r a i t h , The C o n s t i t u t i o n o f t h e Dominican Order, p. 30, s t a t e s : " I t remained f o r St. Dominic t o c r e a t e a democ r a t i c , c e n t r a l i z e d , and h i g h l y o r g a n i z e d body, w h i c h was an Order, and not a c o l l e c t i o n o f h o u s e s . " D a v i d Knowles s t a t e s t h a t a p p l y i n g t h e term d e m o c r a t i c t o t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n o f the Order might be m i s l e a d i n g . See D. Knowles, The R e l i g i o u s Orders i n England, v o l . I , p. 155: " I n e f f e c t , however, t h e Dominican government was i n e v e r y p a r t e l e c t e d and r e p r e s e n t a t i v e , n o t o n l y because a l l t h e s u p e r i o r s o f t h e o r d e r were e l e c t e d , d i r e c t l y o r i n d i r e c t l y , by the body o f t h e f r i a r s , and h e l d o f f i c e a t the d i s c r e t i o n o f e l e c t e d b o a r d s , b u t a l s o because t h e supreme l e g i s l a t i v e and e x e c u t i v e power i n each p r o v i n c e and i n the whole order was, f o r a s h o r t , r e g u l a r l y r e c u r r i n g p e r i o d , v e s t e d i n s m a l l b o d i e s o f men o f whom the m a j o r i t y had been r e c e n t l y e l e c t e d ad hoc by t h e i r f e l l o w s and were i n a few days t o be merged once more w i t h t h e g r e a t body o f f r i a r s i n p r i v a t e p l a c e . " C l e a r l y , i f an e l e c t i v e system and r e s p o n s i b i l i t y o f t h e e x e c u t i v e t o t h e e l e c t e d members c a n be equated w i t h democracy then t h e Dominican Order i s d e m o c r a t i c i n structure,. "Die C o n s t i t u t i o n e n des P r e d i g e r - O r d e n s vom J a h r e 1228," Ed. D e n i f l e , ALKG, v o l . I , p. 202. 1 3  F r a t r i s J o h a n n i s Pecham, " T r a c t a t u s c o n t r a F r a t r e m Robertum K i l w a r d b y , O.P.," ed. F. Tocco i n T r a c t a t u s t r e s de p a u p e r a t e , ed. C L . K i n s f o r d , A.G. L i t t l e , F. Tocco (Aberdeen: T y p i s Academic i s , 1910), p. 128: " N i h i l enim a l i u d i n t e n d u n t c a p i t u l a c o n s u l t a t i o n e s e t t r a c t a t u s ac s t u d i a o r d i n i s h u j u s , quam personas p r e p a r a r e e t i n s a l u t e m animarum h a b i l i t a r e e t p r e p a r a t a s atque v i t a e t s c i e n t i a h a b i l i t a t a s ad peccatorum conversionem d e s t i n a r e . " Portions of Kilwardby's l e t t e r are i n c o r p o r a t e d i n t o t h e answer g i v e n t o i t by Pecham. 15 T r i Y g t , A n n a l e s , p. 209. On t h e f o u n d a t i o n a t O x f o r d , see C.G.R. Palmer, "The F r i a r - P r e a c h e r s , o r B l a c k f r i a r s , o f Oxford," 'The R e l i q u a r y , v o l . X X I I I (1882-1883), pp. 145-146. 1^ P. Mandonnet, "La c r i s e s c o l a i r e au debut du x i i i siecle et l a f o n d a t i o n de l ' O r d r e des F r e r e s - P r e c h e u r s , " RHE, v o l . XV (1914), p. 48. At t h e end o f t h e c e n t u r y , Mandonnet e s t i m a t e s t h a t t h e Dominican Order would have a t l e a s t 1500 s c h o l a r s . The f a c t t h a t each Dominican p r i o r y had t o have a l e c t o r a t t h e time when i t was founded and t h a t t h e c o u r s e s g i v e n i n t h e convent would be open t o those o f t h e d i s t r i c t who were i n t e r e s t e d meant t h a t t h e Dominican Order had a p r o f o u n d i n f l u e n c e upon the lower c l e r g y . e  For a d i s c u s s i o n o f the l e g i s l a t i o n o f the Lateran Councils o f .1179 and 1215, see P. Mandonnet, "La c r i s e s c o l a i r e au debut du x i i i s i e c l e e t l a f o n d a t i o n de l ' O r d r e des F r e r e s - P r e c h e u r s , " RHE, v o l . XV (1914), p. 48, and L.E. B o y l e , "The C o n s t i t u t i o n Cum ex eo o f B o n i f a c e V I I I , " MS, v o l . XXIV (1962), pp. 264-265. The t e x t s o f t h e s e c o u n c i l s r e l a t i n g t o e d u c a t i o n c a n be found most c o n v e n i e n t l y i n C h a r t u l a r i u m U n i v e r s i t a t i s P a r i s i e n s i s , ed. D e n i f l e - C h a t e l a i n , v o l . I , p. 10 and pp. 81-82. The T h i r d L a t e r a n C o u n c i l ..had decreed t h a t a grammar master s h o u l d be a p p o i n t e d i n every c a t h e d r a l i n o r d e r t o p r o v i d e f o r t h e i 7  e  -152-  elementary education o f c l e r i c s . The F o u r t h L a t e r a n C o u n c i l decreed t h a t i n a d d i t i o n t o the grammar master o r d e r e d by the e a r l i e r C o u n c i l , m e t r o p o l i t a n churches should a l s o p o s s e s s a t h e o l o g i a n who c o u l d i n s t r u c t p r i e s t s and o t h e r c l e r i c s i n t h e s c r i p t u r e s and p r e p a r e them f o r p a s t o r a l work. The c o n s t i t u t i o n Cum ex eo_ of B o n i f a c e V I I I decreed t h a t d i s p e n s a t i o n s f o r s t u d i e s f o r the p e r o c h i a l c l e r g y s h o u l d be made i n o r d e r t o a l l o w them t o a t t e n d the u n i v e r s i t i e s . •I  Q  "Die C o n s t i t u t i o n e n des P r e d i g e r - O r d e n s vom J a h r e 1228," ed. D e n i f l e , ALKG, v o l . I , p. 221: "Conventus c i t r a numerum duodenarium e t s i n e l i c e n t i a g e n e r a l i s c a p i t u l i e t s i n e p r i o r e e t d o c t o r e non mittatur." 19 L i t t l e , " E d u c a t i o n a l O r g a n i s a t i o n o f the Mendicant F r i a r s i n E n g l a n d , " TRHS, n.s., v o l . V I I I (1894), p.50; and W i l l i a m A. Hinnebusch, "The E a r l y E n g l i s h F r i a r s P r e a c h e r s (Santa Sabina, Rome: I n s t i t u t u m H i s t o r i c u m F r a t r u m P r a e d i c a t o r u m , 1951), p. 337. D o u a i s , E s s a i sur 1 ' o r g a n i s a t i o n F r e r e s P r e c h e u r s , pp. 12, 27, 68. 2 0  des etudes dans l ' O r d r e des  21 Bede J a r r e t t , The E n g l i s h Dominicans (London: Burns Oates, 1921), p. 63; and Hinnebusch, The E a r l y E n g l i s h F r i a r s P r e a c h e r s , p.337. One o f the c o m p l a i n t s o f the O x f o r d Dominicans i n t h e i r d i s p u t e w i t h t h e U n i v e r s i t y i n 1311 was t h a t t h e s e c u l a r masters p r e v e n t e d s t u d e n t s from a t t e n d i n g t h e l e c t u r e s d e l i v e r e d i n the Dominican s c h o o l s . On t h i s p o i n t see "The F r i a r s P r e a c h e r s v. the U n i v e r s i t y , " ed. H. R a s h d a l l , C o l l e c t a n a e I I , OHS, v o l . X V I (1890), p. 220. "Die C o n s t i t u t i o n e n des P r e d i g e r - O r d e n s vom J a h r e 1228," ed. D e n i f l e , ALKG, v o l . I , p. 197: "Hore omens i n e c c l e s i a b r e v i t e r e t s u c c i n c t e t a l i t e r d i c a n t u r , ne f r a t r e s devotionem a m i t t a n t e t eorum studium minime i m p e d i a t u r . " 2 2  9 o  A c t a C a p i t u l o r u m G e n e r a l i u m O r d i n i s P r a e d i c a t o r u m , ed. R e i c h e r t , v o l . I , p.99: "Quod s i non possunt i n v e n i r i l e c t o r e s s u f f i c i e n t e s ad p u b l i c e legendum. saltern p r o v i d e a t u r de a l i q u i b u s q u i l e g a n t p r i v a t a s l e c t i o n e s . v e l h y s t o r i a s . v e l summam de c a s i b u s . v e l a l i q u i d huiusmodi. ne f r a t r e s s i n t o c i o s i . " The H i s t o r i e s r e f e r t o P e t e r Comestor's H i s t o r i a s c o l a s t i c a w h i l e t h e Summa o f Cases was a work o f Raymond o f P e n n a f o r t v a r i o u s l y e n t i t l e d Summa de c a s i b u s , Summa de p o e n i t e n t i a e t m a t r i m o n i o , Summa casuum p o e n i t e n t i a e . F o r t h e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n o f these works, see Hinnebusch. The E a r l y E n g l i s h F r i a r s P r e a c h e r s , p.335, n. 16. ^ "Die C o n s t i t u t i o n e n des P r e d i g e r - O r d e n s vom J a h r e 1228," ed. D e n i f l e , ALKG, v o l . I , p. 194. "Die C o n s t i t u t i o n e n des P r e d i g e r - O r d e n s vom Jahre 1228," ed. D e n i f l e , ALKG, v o l . I , p. 218. In- 1259, the f i r s t attempt was made t o o r g a n i z e s t u d i e s w i t h i n the Order. F i v e Dominican m a s t e r s , i n c l u d i n g Thomas Aquinas, A l b e r t  -153-  the Great and P e t e r o f T a r e n t a i s e , drew up a body o f s t a t u t e s to r e g u l a t e s t u d i e s which were a c c e p t e d by the g e n e r a l c h a p t e r o f 1259. See A c t a C a p i t u l o r u m Generalium O r d i n i s P r a e d i c a t o r u m , ed. R e i c h e r t , v o l . I , pp. 99-100. T h i s program was f u l l y implemented by the g e n e r a l c h a p t e r o f 1274. See A c t a C a p i t u l o r u m G e n e r a l i u m O r d i n i s P r a e d i c a t o r u m , ed. R e i c h e r t , v o l . I , pp. 174-176. Further regulations were made i n 1305 and 1325 w h i c h r e g u l a t e d s t u d i e s . See A c t a C a p i t u l o r u m G e n e r a l i u m O r d i n i s P r a e d i c a t o r u m , ed. R e i c h e r t , v o l . I I , pp. 11-14, pp. 157-158. I t seems l i k e l y t h a t s c h o o l s were c r e a t e d f o r each type o f s t u d y i n each v i s i t a t i o n o f the P r o v i n c e o f England. On t h i s p o i n t see L i t t l e , " E d u c a t i o n a l O r g a n i z a t i o n o f the Mendicant F r i a r s i n England," TRHS, n.s., v o l . V I I I (1894), p. 55; and, A c t a C a p i t u l o r u m Generalium O r d i n i s P r a e d i c a t o r u m , ed. R e i c h e r t , v o l . I, pp. 129-130. On the o r g a n i z a t i o n o f v i s i t a t i o n s see A.G. L i t t l e , "The A d m i n i s t r a t i v e D i v i s i o n s of the Mendicant Orders i n England," EHR, v o l . XXXIV (1919), pp. 206-208. 2 7  ^ A c t a C a p i t u l o r u m G e n e r a l i u m O r d i n i s P r a e d i c a t o r u m , ed. R e i c h e r t , V o l . I I , p. 229: " . . . s i n g u l i priores provinciales i n suis p r o v i n c i i s et v i c a r i i eorum g e n e r a l e s e t d i f f i n i t o r e s c a p i t u l o r u m p r o v i n c i a l i u m p r o v i d e a n t de s t u d i i s t h e o l o g i e , p h i l o s p h i e n a t u r a l i s e t a r c i u m taliter. ..." See a l s o Douais, E s s a i sur l ' o r g a n i s a t i o n des e t u d i e s dans 1'Ordre des F r e r e s P r e c h e u r s , pp. 53-54; and J a r r e t t , The E n g l i s h Dominicans, p. 50. J a r r e t t s t a t e s t h a t t h i s l e g i s l a t i o n merely r e g u l a r i z e d the e x i s t i n g p r a c t i c e . A c t a C a p i t u l o r u m G e n e r a l i u m O r d i n i s P r a e d i c a t o r u m , ed. R e i c h e r t , I I , pp. 10-11.  2 y  vol.  30 Douais, E s s a i sur 1 ' o r g a n i s a t i o n des e t u d i e s dans 1'Ordre F r e r e s P r e c h e u r s , p. 69. T h i s system seems t o have developed i n provinces. There i s e v i d e n c e t o i n d i c a t e t h a t i t a l s o developed England. See L i t t l e , " E d u c a t i o n a l O r g a n i s a t i o n o f the Mendicant i n England," TRHS, n.s. v o l . V I I I (1894), p. 51.  des most in Friars  "Die C o n s t i t u t i o n e n des P r e d i g e r - O r d e n s vom J a h r e 1228," ed. D e n i f l e , AKLG, v o l . I , p. 222: "In l i b r i s g e n t i l i u m et philosophorum non s t u d e a n t , e t s i ad horam i n s p i c i a n t . S e c u l a r e s s c i e n c i a s non a d d i s c a n t , nec e t i a m a r t e s quas l i b e r a l e s v o c a n t , n i s i a l i q u a n d o c i r c a aliquos magister o r d i n i s v e l capitulum generale v o l u e r i t a l i t e r d i s p e n s a r e ; sed tantum l i b r o s t h e o l o g i c o s tam juvenes quam a l i i l e g a n t . it 3 1  B. Humberti de Romanis, "Expos i t i o Regulae B. August i n i , " i n Opera de V i t a R e g u l a r i , ed. B e r t h i e r , v o l . I, p. 435: "Primis nullatenus est permittendum quod studeant i n t a l i b u s ; s e c u n d i s e s t concedendum a l i q u i d , sed cum d i s c r e t i o n e e t r a r o ; t e r t i i s v e r o laxandae sunt habenae c i r c a studium h u j u s m o d i . " 3 2  33 A c t a C a p i t u l o r u m Generalium O r d i n i s P r a e d i c a t o r u m , ed. R e i c h e r t , v o l . I, p. 99: "Quod o r d i n e t u r i n p r o v i n c i i s que i n d i g u e r i n t . a l i q u o d studium arcium. v e l a l i q u a . u b i invenes i n s t r u a n t u r . " That i s , "That  -154-  t h e r e be e s t a b l i s h e d i n t h e p r o v i n c e s w h i c h r e q u i r e i t some s c h o o l o r a r t s o r some p l a c e where t h e young can be i n s t r u c t e d . " A c t a C a p i t u l o r u m Generalium O r d i n i s P r a e d i c a t o r u m , ed. R e i c h e r t , v o l . I , p. 109: " . . . quod f r a t r e s i u n i o r e s e t d o c i b i l e s i n logicalibus instruantur." 3  4  35 Douais, E s s a i s u r 1 ' o r g a n i s a t i o n des e t u d i e s dans 1'Ordre des F r e r e s P r e c h e u r s , p. 59. vol.  36 A c t a C a p i t u l o r u m G e n e r a l i u m O r d i n i s P r a e d i c a t o r u m , ed. R e i c h e r t , I I , pp. 12-13.  vol.  37 A c t a C a p i t u l o r u m G e n e r a l i u m O r d i n i s P r a e d i c a t o r u m , ed. R e i c h e r t , I I , p. 12. 38  A c t a C a p i t u l o r u m Generalium O r d i n i s P r a e d i c a t o r u m , ed. R e i c h e r t , v o l . I , p. 244; and, Douais, E s s a i s u r 1 ' o r g a n i s a t i o n des e t u d i e s dans 1'Ordre des F r e r e s P r e c h e u r s , p. 128. 39  A c t a C a p i t u l o r u m Generalium O r d i n i s P r a e d i c a t o r u m , ed. R e i c h e r t , v o l . I I , p. 13: " N u l l u s autem m i t t a t u r ad studium g e n e r a l e s i v e i n sua p r o v i n c i a s i v e e x t r a , n i s i ordine premisso i n l o g i c a l i b u s et n a t u r a l i b u s s u f f i c i e n t e r p r o f e c e r i t e t saltern duobus a n n i s i n a l i q u o p a r t i c u l a r i studio sentencias a u d i e r i t , et testimonio l e c t o r i s et c u r s o r i s et m a g i s t r i studencium de eo spes multum p r o b a b i l i s h a b e a t u r , quod ad l e c t o r i s o f f i c i u m ydoneus s i t f u t u r u s . In i p s i s v e r o s t u d i i s g e n e r a l i b u s , m a g i s t e r studencium semel ad partem, n i s i l e g i t i m u m impedimentum o c c u r r a t , d i s p u t e t omni septimana p e r totum annum. I p s i autem p r i n c i p a l e s l e c t o r e s saltern usque ad festum s a n c t i I o h a n n i s suum c o n t i n u a r e studium t e n e a n t u r . Communes.,,autem f r a t r e s s i n g u l i s diebus ad s c o l a s v e n i a n t e t i b i l e c t i o n e s a u d i a n t , a l i a s i l i a d i e a v i n o v e l a p i t a n c i a s i n e d i s p e n s a c i o n e a b s t i n e a n t , s i eos s i n e causa r a c i o n a b i l i e t l i c e n c i a s p e c i a l i p r i o r i s v e l e i u s v i c a r i i deesse c o n t i n g a t . Priores autem, q u i has penas non f e c e r i n t o b s e r v a r i , ad easdem f a c i e n d a s obligentur, a l i t e r visitatorum testimonio i n capitulo p r o v i n c i a l i contra eos a c r i t e r p r o c e d a t u r . Studentes i n s u p e r , q u i i n a c t i b u s s c o l a s t i c i s i n v e n t i f u e r i n t n o t a b i l i t e r n e g l i g e n t e s seu i n s u f f i c i e n t e s p e r p r i o r e m p r o v i n c i a l e m a s t u d i i s a b s o l v a n t u r e t i n a l i i s o f f i c i i s occupentur. vol.  ^ Acta Capitulorum Generalium O r d i n i s Praedicatorum, ed..Reichert, I , p. 110.  vol.  A c t a C a p i t u l o r u m G e n e r a l ium O r d i n i s P r a e d i c a t o r u m , ed. R e i c h e r t , I , pp. 34-35, 38, 41.  A c t a C a p i t u l o r u m Generalium O r d i n i s P r a e d i c a t o r u m , ed. R e i c h e r t , v o l . I , pp. 110-111. Simon o f H i n t o n was a l l o w e d t o r e t u r n t o England i n 1262. See A c t a C a p i t u l o r u m Generalium O r d i n i s P r a e d i c a t o r u m , ed. R e i c h e r t , v o l . I , p. 117. 4 2  ^3 A c t a C a p i t u l o r u m G e n e r a l i u m O r d i n i s P r a e d i c a t o r u m , ed. R e i c h e r t , v o l . I I , p. 340. I t i s i n t e r e s t i n g t o n o t e t h a t the m a s t e r - g e n e r a l , B e r e n g a r i u s , i n a l e t t e r dated 1314, spoke o f Cambridge on e q u a l terms  -155-  w i t h O x f o r d and P a r i s as s t u d i a g e n e r a l i a w i t h i n t h e Order. Hinnebusch, The E a r l y E n g l i s h F r i a r s P r e a c h e r s , p. 340.  See  **** F . J . Roensch, E a r l y Thomist i c School (Dubuque, Iowa: The P r i o r y P r e s s , 1964), p. 12. The r e s u l t s o f t h e i n q u i r y have been l o s t . vol.  C h a r t u l a r i u m U n i v e r s i t a t i s P a r i s i e n s i s , ed. D e n i f l e - C h a t e l a i n , I , pp. 543-558.  vol.  ^ C h a r t u l a r i u m U n i v e r s i t a t i s P a r i s i e n s i s , ed. D e n i f l e - C h a t e l a i n , I , pp. 543-558.  vol.  4? C h a r t u l a r i u m U n i v e r s i t a t i s P a r i s i e n s i s , ed. D e n i f l e - C h a t e l a i n , I , pp. 558-560.  48 A l t h o u g h t h e name o f Aquinas does n o t appear i n t h e condemnations, he i s mentioned i n t h e p r i v a t e correspondence o f A r c h b i s h o p Pecham, t h e s u c c e s s o r o f K i l w a r d b y , who r e - i s s u e d t h e condemnation i n 1284. See R e g i s t r u m E p i s t o l a r u m F r a t r i s J o h a n n i s Peckham, A r c h i e p i s c o p i C a n t u a r i e n s i s , ed. C T . M a r t i n (London: RS, 1885), v o l . I l l , p. 864 , (December 7, 1284), and p. 870 (January 1, 1285). AO  For a f a i r l y f u l l account o f t h e p h i l s o p h i c a l reasons u n d e r l y i n g the condemnations o f P a r i s and O x f o r d , see D.A. C a l l u s , The Condemnation o f S t . Thomas a t O x f o r d (2nd. ed. ; London: B l a c k f r i a r s P u b l i c a t i o n s , 1955); and, Roensch, E a r l y T h o m i s t i c S c h o o l , pp. 170-189. 5° D i a l o g u s i n t e r magistrum e t d i s c i p l u m de Imperatorum e t P o n t i f i c u s p o t e s t a t e , P.I., l i b . i i , c. 22, f o i . 1 3 ; c. 24, f o i . 1 4 (Lugduni, 1495), c i t e d by C a l l u s , The Condemnation o f S t . Thomas a t O x f o r d , pp. 12-13: " . . . a c r i t e r r e p r e h e n d i t s c r i b e n s e i e p i s t o l a m i n qua m a n i f e s t s a s s e r u i t quod v e r i t a t e s damnaverat." v  F  A c t a C a p i t u l o r u m Generalium O r d i n i s P r a e d i c a t o r u m , ed. R e i c h e r t , I , p. 199.  5 1  vol.  52 A c t a C a p i t u l o r u m Generalium O r d i n i s P r a e d i c a t o r u m , ed; R e i c h e r t , v o l . I , p. 199: " . . . q u i i n scandalum o r d i n i s d e t r a x e r u n t de s c r i p t i s v e n e r a b i l i s p a t r i s f r a t r i s Thome de Aquino." 53 Hinnebusch,  The E a r l y E n g l i s h F r i a r s P r e a c h e r s , pp. 345-346.  54 E.M. F. Sommer-Seckendorff, S t u d i e s i n t h e L i f e o f Robert K i l w a r d b y (Santa S a b i n a , Rome: I n s t i t u t u m H i s t o r i c u m F r a t r u m P r a e d i c a t o r u m , 1937), p. 143.  vol.  A c t a C a p i t u l o r u m Generalium O r d i n i s P r a e d i c a t o r u m , ed. R e i c h e r t , I , p. 204..  vol.  A c t a C a p i t u l o r u m Generalium O r d i n i s P r a e d i c a t o r u m , ed. R e i c h e r t , I, p. 235.  5 5  -156-  ^ A c t a C a p i t u l o r u m Generalium O r d i n i s P r a e d i c a t o r u m , ed. R e i c h e r t , v o l . I I , p. 38: "Volumus e t d i s t r i c t e iniungimus l e c t o r i b u s e t s u b l e c t o r i b u s u n i v e r s i s , quod l e g a n t et determinent secundum d o c t r i n a m et opera v e n e r a b i l i s d o c t o r i s f r a t r i s Thome de Aquino, e t i n eadem s c o l a r e s suos i n f o r m e n t , et s t u d e n t e s i n ea cum d i l i g e n c i a s t u d e r e teneantur." 58 Acta C a p i t u l o r u m Generalium O r d i n i s P r a e d i c a t o r u m ,  vol.  I I , pp. 39-40.  ed. R e i c h e r t ,  59 For a d e t a i l e d d i s c u s s i o n of the Dominican l e g i s l a t i o n and the a t t i t u d e s o f the Order to Thomas Aquinas, see Maur Burbach, " E a r l y Dominican and F r a n c i s c a n L e g i s l a t i o n r e g a r d i n g S t . Thomas," MS, v o l . IV  (1942), pp. 139-158.  6° Hinnebusch, The E a r l y E n g l i s h F r i a r s P r e a c h e r s , p. 347; Roensch, E a r l y T h o m i s t i c S c h o o l , pp. 182-183.  and,  61 For a g e n e r a l d i s c u s s i o n o f t h i s l i t e r a t u r e see R. C r e y t e n s , "Autour de l a l i t t e r a t u r e des C o r r e c t o i r e s , " AFP, v o l . X I I (1942), pp. 313-330. I t seems t h a t Robert O r f o r d was the author of the C o r r e c t o r i u m c o r r u p t o r i i "Sciendum." On t h i s i d e n t i f i c a t i o n see Roensch, E a r l y T h o m i s t i c S c h o o l , pp. 42-43; Hinnebusch, The E a r l y E n g l i s h F r i a r s P r e a c h e r s , pp. 391-396; G i l s o n , C h r i s t i a n P h i l o s o p h y , p.. 335; and, D.L. Douie, A r c h b i s h o p Pecham ( O x f o r d : Clarendon P r e s s , 1952), p. 281. R i c h a r d K n a p w e l l was l i k e l y the author of the C o r r e c t o r i u m c o r r u p t o r i i "Quare." See Roensch, E a r l y T h o m i s t i c S c h o o l , p. 40. The C o r r e c t o r i u m c o r r u p t o r i i "Quaestione" seems t o have been the work o f an E n g l i s h Dominican. See Le C o r r e c t o r i u m C o r r u p t o r i i "Quaestione," ed. J.P. M u l l e r (Rome: SA, v o l . XXXV, 1954), " I n t r o d u c t i o n , " p. x x v i . The C o r r e c t o r i u m c o r r u p t o r i i " C i r c a " was w r i t t e n by the French Dominican John o f P a r i s . See Hinnebusch, E a r l y E n g l i s h F r i a r s P r e a c h e r s , p.348. The f i n a l answer to the t r e a t i s e of W i l l i a m de l a Mare was composed by the Bolognese Dominican, Robert P r i m a d i z z i , e n t i t l e d C o r r e c t o r i u m " A p o l o g e t i c u m V e r i t a t i s . " See Hinnebusch, The E a r l y E n g l i s h F r i a r s P r e a c h e r s , p. 348. See Burbach, " E a r l y Dominican and F r a n c i s c a n L e g i s l a t i o n r e g a r d i n g St. Thomas," MS, v o l . IV (1942), pp. 147-149. 6 2  On the development o f the b i b l i c a l concordances by the Dominicans, see Hinnebusch, The E a r l y E n g l i s h F r i a r s P r e a c h e r s , pp. 298-300. 6 3  64 See G.R. Owst, L i t e r a t u r e and the P u l p i t i n M e d i e v a l England (Cambridge: U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1933), chap. 5, "The P r e a c h i n g o f S a t i r e and C o m p l a i n t , " pp. 210-470. T h i s work g i v e s an adequate account of the types of comments which might be made by the m e d i e v a l preacher i n h i s sermons. 65 Hinnebusch, The E a r l y E n g l i s h F r i a r s P r e a c h e r s , p. 422, n . 5 . 66 "Die C o n s t i t u t i o n e n des Prediger-Ordens vom J a h r e 1228," ed. D e n i f l e , AKLG, v o l . I, p. 194: " . . . i n conventu suo p r e l a t u s d i s p e n s a n d i cum f r a t r i b u s habeat p o t e s t a t e m , cum s i b i a l i q u a n d o  -157-  v i d e b i t u r e x p e d i r e , i n h i i s p r e c i p u e , que studium, v e l p r e d i c a t i o n e m , v e l animarum f r u c t u m v i d e b u n t u r impedire . . . ." That i s , "... whenever i t seems e x p e d i e n t , the p r e l a t e has the power o f d i s p e n s i n g the b r e t h r e n i n h i s convent, e s p e c i a l l y i n whatever seems to h i n d e r study, o r p r e a c h i n g o r the w e l f a r e of s o u l s . . . ." 67 Humberti de Romanis, E x p o s i t i o super c o n s t i t u t i o n e s Fratrum P r a e d i c a t o r u m i n Opera de V i t a R e g u l a r i , ed. B e r t h i e r , v o l . I I , p. 36: "Secundum e s t o f f i c i o o d i o s a , u t sunt i n q u i s i t i o n e s , v i s t a t i o n e s e t c o r r e c t i o n e s v i o l e n t i a e , e x a c t i o n e s testamentorum, a r b i t r o r u m s e n t e n t i a e , ex quibus c o n t u r b a t u r f r e q u e n t e r hominum d e v o t i o ad f r a t r e s . " 68 A c t a C a p i t u l o r u m Generalium O r d i n i s P r a e d i c a t o r u m , ed. R e i c h e r t , v o l . I, p. 12: "Item. Ne f r a t r e s c u r i a s regum v e l p r i n c i p u m absque magna n e c e s s i t a t e seu f r u c t u animarum f r e q u e n t e n t . nec a r b i t r i u m i n se s u s c i p i a n t . nec t e s t a m e n t i s i n t e r s i n t . nec eorum e x e c u t o r e s f i a n t . "  vol.  A c t a C a p i t u l o r u m Generalium I , p. 143.  vol.  ^ A c t a C a p i t u l o r u m Generalium O r d i n i s P r a e d i c a t o r u m , ed. R e i c h e r t , I , p. 229: "... i n rebus t e m p o r a l i b u s d i s p e n s a n d i s . "  6 y  O r d i n i s Praedicatorum,  ed. R e i c h e r t ,  71 A c t a C a p i t u l o r u m Generalium O r d i n i s P r a e d i c a t o r u m , ed. R e i c h e r t , v o l . I, p. 239: "Item. Prohibemus d i s t r i c t e , ne a l i q u i s f r a t e r de c e t e r o i n t r o m i t t a t se de m a t r i m o n i i s c o n s i l i a n d i s . aut p e r t r a c t a n d i s , seu eciam magnis e t a r d u i s n e g o c i i s s e c u l a r i u m . s i n e p r i o r i s p r o v i n c i a l i s . v e l e i u s v i c a r i i . l i c e n c i a s p e c i a l i . et q u i c o n t r a f e c e r i n t . per p r i o r e s et v i s t a t o r e s s e v e r i u s puniantur. 7 2  See Chapter  IV below, pp. iOS~ 12-4.  -158-  NOTES FOR CHAPTER III 1  See C h a p t e r 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. I l l , pt. II, pp. 127-173. 4 X, 3, 49, c. 4, Corpus Iuris Canonici, ed. Friedberg, vol. II, col. 655: "Quocirca sub anathematis districtione f i e r i de cetero talia severius prohibemus, n i s i episcopus e t 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." X, 3, 49, c. 7, Corpus Iuris Canonici, ed. Friedberg, v o l . II, col. 656: ". . .. Romanus Pontifex prius consultatur, cuius interest communibus utilitatatibus providere . . . . " 5  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. 6  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. 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 annates 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 9  -159-  Th e t e x t o f C l e r i c i s l a i c o s can be found i n Dupuy, H i s t o i r e , A c t e s e t P r e u v e s , pp. 14-15; the L i b e r S e x t u s , 3, 23, c. 3, Corpus I u r i s C a n o n i c i , ed. F r i e d b e r g , v o l . I I , c o l s . 1062-1063; as w e l l as i n Les R e g i s t r e s de B o n i f a c e V I I I , ed. G. D i g a r d , M. Faucon, A. Thomas, and R. F a w t i e r (4 v o l s . ; P a r i s : E. de B o c c a r d , 1904-1939), no. 1567. P o t t h a s t , R e g e s t a , no. 24294. I have used the t e x t found i n Reg. Boniface V I I I . H There i s a thorough d i s c u s s i o n o f C l e r i c i s l a i c o s i n Edmund J . Smyth, "The P l a c e o f C l e r i c i s l a i c o s i n the r e i g n o f Edward I " (Toronto: Ph.D., 1953), pp. 141-148. Smyth r e l i e s h e a v i l y on C. J . H e f e l e and H. L e c l e r c q , H i s t o i r e des C o n c i l e s ( P a r i s , L e t o u z e y , 1914), v o l . V I , p t . I , pp. 357-377. 12 C l e r i c i s l a i c o s , Reg. B o n i f a c e V I I I , no. 1567: "Nos i g i t u r t a l i b u s i n i q u i s a c t i b u s o b v i a r e v i o l e n t e s , de f r a t r e m nostrorum c o n s i l i o , a p o s t o l i c a a u c t o r i a t a t e s t a t u i m u s quod quicunque p r e l a t i e c c l e s i a s t i c e q u e persone r e l i g i o s e v e l s e c u l a r e s , quorumcunque ordinum, c o n d i t i o n i s seu statuum, c o l l e c t a s v e l t a l i a s , decimam, v i c e s i m a m , seu centesimam suorum et e c c l e s i a r u m proventuum v e l bonorum l a i c i s s o l v e r i n t v e l p r o m i s e r i n t v e l se s o l u t u r o s c o n s e n s e r i n t a u t quamvis a l i a m q u a n t i t a t e m , p o r t i o n e m aut quotam ipsorum proventuum v e l bonorum, e x t i m a t i o n i s v e l v a l o r i s i p s o r e m , sub a d j u t o r i i , m u t u i , s u b v e n t i o n i s , s u b s i d i i v e l d o n i nomine, seu q u o v i s a l i o t i t u l o , modo v e l q u e s i t o c o l e r e , absque a u c t o r i t a t e s e d i s ejusdem . . . ." t h a t i s , "We t h e r e f o r e , w i s h i n g t o p r e v e n t such w i c k e d a c t i o n s , s t a t e , on the a d v i c e o f our b r e t h r e n and w i t h a p o s t o l i c a u t h o r i t y , t h a t any p r e l a t e s or e c c l e s i a s t i c a l p e r s o n s , r e l i g i o u s or s e c u l a r , o f whatever o r d e r s , c o n d i t i o n or s t a n d i n g , who s h a l l pay or promise or u n d e r t a k e t o pay t o the l a i t y c o l l e c t i o n s or t a x e s f o r a t e n t h , t w e n t i e t h or hundredth o f t h e i r own c h u r c h e s , r e n t s or goods, or any o t h e r q u a n t i t y , p o r t i o n or f r a c t i o n o f the same goods a t v a l u e or a t t h e i r own e s t i m a t e under the name o f a i d , l o a n , r e l i e f , s u b s i d y or g i f t , or by any o t h e r t i t l e , means or p r e t e x t , w i t h o u t the a u t h o r i t y o f the same see . . . ." H e f e l e - L e c l e r c q , H i s t o i r e des C o n c i l e s , v o l . V I , p t . I , p. 361 - s t a t e s t h a t i t extended t o f r e e g i f t s . 13 C l e r i c i s l a i c o s , Reg. B o n i f a c e V I I I , no. 1567: " . . . necnon i m p e r a t o r e s , r e g e s seu p r i n c i p e s , duces, comites v e l b a r o n e s , p o t e s t a t e s , captanei, o f f i c i a l e s v e l rectores . . . qui t a l i a imposuerint, exegerint v e l r e c e p e r i n t a u t edes s a c r a s d e p o s i t a e c c l e s i a r u m v e l e c c l e s i a s t i c a r u m personarum u b i l i b e t a r e s t a v e r i n t , s a s i v e r i n t seu occupare p r e s u m p s e r i t , v e l a r e s t a r i , s a s i r i a u t o c c u p a r i mandaverint a u t o c c u p a t a , s a s i t a seu a r e s t a t a r e c e p e r i n t , necnon omnes q u i s c i e n t e r p r e d i c t i s d e d e r i n t a u x i l i u m , c o n c i l i u m v e l favorem, p u b l i c e v e l o c u l t e , eo i p s o s e n t e n t i a m excommunicationis i n c u r r a n t . " T h i s passage may be t r a n s l a t e d as ". . . and a l s o emperors, k i n g s or p r i n c e s , dukes, counts or b a r o n s , powers, c a p t a i n s , o f f i c i a l s or r e c t o r s . . . who s h a l l impose, demand or r e c e i v e such t a x e s or the w e a l t h and the t h i n g s d e p o s i t e d i n h o l y b u i l d i n g s , take p o s s e s s i o n o f or a r r e s t , s e i z e , or presume t o take p o s s e s s i o n o f e c c l e s i a s t i c a l persons or command the p o s s e s s i o n , s e i z u r e or a r r e s t o f them or r e c e i v e them when t a k e n , s e i z e d or a r r e s t e d , and a l s o a l l who, i n t h e abovementioned m a t t e r s , k n o w i n g l y gave a i d , c o u n s e l or s u p p o r t , openly or s e c r e t l y , by t h a t a c t , they i n c u r a sentence o f excommunication."  -160-  Clericis laicos, Reg. Boniface VIII, no. 1567: ". . . et si prelati et personi ecclesiastici solverint vel predicti l a i c i 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. I l l , pt. I I , 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), v o l . I , p. 151. 1 Clericis laicos, Reg. Boniface VIII, no. 1567. The f i r s t words of the bull indicate its tone: "Clericis laicos infestos opido tradit antiquitas, quod et presentium experiments tempore manifeste declarant . . . . " , that i s , "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 a l l periods of history. On these points see Hefele-Leclercq, Histoire des Conciles, v o l . VI, pt. I , p. 359. 6  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 i l l o 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 Cistercians, 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 f i e r i 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, v o l . VI, pt. I , p. 376 and Edgard Boutaric, La France sous Philippe le Bel (Paris: Henry Plon, 1861), p. 97. 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 d i c t i regni petere ac recipere pro hujusmodi defensione subsidium vel 2 0  -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. I l l , pt. II, pp. 137-139 and Hefele-Leclercq, Histoire des Conciles, vol. VI, pt. I, pp. 378-382. 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 p o l i t i c a l 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. 2 2  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 S i c i l y , 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 v i t a l i f 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. I l l , 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 a l l vacant bishoprics and a l l 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, v o l . I l l , pt. I I , 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, H i s t o i r e A c t e s 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 i s , the pope returned to the position outlined in Clericis laicos, Reg. Boniface VIII, no. 4422, Potthast, Regesta, no. 25096; Ausculta f i l i , 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 f i l i , 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 f i l i see Langlois, Histoire de France, ed. Lavisse, v o l . I l l , pt. I I , pp. 147-148 and Hefele-Leclercq, Histoire des Conciles, vol. VI, pt. I , pp. 398-404 Ausculta f i l i , Reg. Boniface VIII, no. 4424: "Quare, f i l i carissime, nemo t i b i suadeat, quod superiorem non habeas et non subsis summo jerarche ecclesiastice jerarchie, nam desipit qui sic sapit . . . •" J J  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 b u l l , 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, l i t t l e or no greeting. Let your great foolishness know that in temporalities we are not subject to anyone."  -163-  3 5  Tierney, The Crisis of Church and State, p. 182.  o/: There is a complete l i s t 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 Extravagantes Communes, 1 , 8 (De maioritate et obedientia), c. 1, Corpus Iuris Canonici, ed. Friedberg, v o l . I I , 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, v o l . VI, pt. I, pp. 425-430 and in Riviere, Le Probleme de l'Eglise et de l ' E t a t , 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 h i e , ' 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, i l l e vero ab ecclesia exercendus, i l l e 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 Gospel 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 i t was the Apostles who spoke, and the Lord did not say i t was too many, but that i t 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, i t did state quite plainly the existing relationship between the temporal and spiritual powers. It was issued during a c r i t i c a l period — a time when the French were likely to view the bull as a p o l i t i c a l manoeuvre and not to accept i t for what i t was,  -164-  merely a theological statement of the nature of the church and the pope's role within i t . 42 For a discussion of the Anagni incident see Langlois, Histoire de France, ed. Lavisse, v o l . . I l l , pt. II, pp. 158-166. The p o l i t i c a l 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, v o l . V, pp. 374440; 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 P o l i t i c a l Thought in the West, pp. 238-272. 4 3  Sabine, A History of Political Theory, p. 266 and E . Lewis, Medieval P o l i t i c a l Ideas (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1954), vol. II, p. 528. 4 4  45 This work has been edited by Richard Scholz. A l l 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 ' E t a t , pp. 394-404. 4 6  Sabine, A History o|_ P o l i t i c a l Theory, p. 276.  Aegidius Romanus, De ecclesiastica Potestate, ed. R. Scholz, L i b . I , cap. i v , pp. 11-12: "Hugo de Sancto Victore in libro De Sacramentis Fidei Christiane, parte secunda, capitulo quarto a i t , quod spiritualis potestas terrenam potestatem et instituere habet, et iudicare, s i bona non fuerit. Igitur de ecclesia et de potestate ecclesiastica verificatur i l l u d vaticinium Ieremie: 'Ecce constitui te hodie super gentes et regna, ut evellas et destruas et disperdas et dissipes, edifices et plantes.'" 4 7  48 Aegidium Romanus, D§_ ecclesiastica potestate, ed. R. Scholz, L i b . I , cap. i v , p. 13: "Sic autem oportet hec ordinata esse, quia, ut tangebamus, que sunt a Deo oportet ordinata esse; non essent autem ordinata, n i s i unus gladius reduceretur per alterum et n i s i 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 s i 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 s p i r i t u a l i , oportet sub vicario Christis regna existere; et de iure, licet aliqui de facto contrarie agant, oportet Christi vicarium super ipsis temporalibus habere dominium." 4 9  Tierney, The Crisis of Church and State, p. 193  50 Aegidius Romanus, De_ ecclesiastica potestate, ed. R. Scholz, Lib. I I , cap. i v , 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 P o l i t i c a l Theory, p. 275. 52 Giles of Rome thought that there could be no lawful ownership of property or exercise of p o l i t i c a l 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, L i b . I I , cap. v i i i , 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 f i l l i u s ecclesie, quam a patre tuo carnali et per ipsum et quia es f i l i u s eius." When translated, this passage states: "Therefore, i t follows that you ought to acknowledge that your inheritance and a l l your lordship and a l l 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, L i b . I l l , cap. 1, pp. 145-146: "Non est ergo ex impotencia spiritualis g l a d i i , 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, n i s i casus immineat, non se intromittat per se ipsum et immediate de parvis. Est itaque plenitudo potestatis in spirituali gladio, ut s i expediat, de temporalibus iudicet. Si ergo a c i v i l i iudice appelletur ad papam, et s i hoc non sit secondum ius distinccionis f o r i , erit secundum ius plenitudinis potestatis." This text states: "Therefore, i t is not from weakness in the spiritual sword that i t is not able to attend to temporal affairs, rather the material sword was added to i t on account of its excellency. Since the spiritual sword is so excellent and such perfect things are committed to i t , and so that i t might attend to them more freely, a second sword was added to i t ; however, this union did not diminish its jurisdiction or its plenitude of power in any way, but i t was done because i t is fitting that what is set up for great matters should not concern i t s e l f immediately with  -166-  unimportant things unless a particular case arises. And so, the plentitude of power is in the spiritual sword and i f i t is expedient i t may judge concerning temporal matters. Therefore, i f there is an appeal from a c i v i l judge to the pope, although this is not in accordance with the law of the separation of courts, i t w i l l be in accordance with the law of the plenitude of power. 5 4 The text of Antequam essent c l e r i c i is found in Dupuy, Histoire, Actes et Preuves, pp. 2 1 - 2 3 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 P o l i t i c a l Ideas, v o l . I I , p. 5 2 9 and M. J . Wilks, The Problem of Sovereignty in the Later Middle Ages (Cambridge University Press, 1 9 6 3 ) , p. 5 4 9 5 7 Antequam essent c l e r i c i , Dupuy, Histoire, Actes et Preuves, p. 2 1 : "Antequam essent c l e r i c i , Rex Franciae habebat custodiam Regni sui . . . . : 5 8 Antequam essent c l e r i c i , Dupuy, "Sancta mater Ecclesia, sponsa Christi, etiam ex l a i c i s . . . . " , that i s , "The Christ, not only is composed of clerics  Histoire, Actes et Preuves, p. 2 1 : non solum est ex c l e r i c i s , sed holy mother Church, the bride of but also of laity . . . . "  -'^ Antequam essent c l e r i c i , Dupuy, Histoire, Actes et Preuves, pp. 2 1 - 2 2 : "Et quia turpis est pars quae suo non congruit universo, et membrum inutile, et quasi paralyticum, quod corpore suo subsidium ferre recusat, quicunque sive c l e r i c i , sive l a i c i , sive nobiles, sive ignobiles, qui capiti suo, vel corpori, hoc est domino Regi et regno . . . auxilium ferre recusant, semetipsos partes inconguas, et membra i n u t i l i a , et quasi paralytica demonstrant." In translation this passage states: "And so i t 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 l a i t y , noble or ignoble, those who refuse to provide aid to their head or body, that i s , 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 a l l 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 i i - i v ) . Hervaeus Natalis was a Parisian theologian whose De_ potestate papae, written in 1 3 1 8 , 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. F . Lajard, "Jean de Paris," HLF, v o l . XXV ( 1 8 6 9 ) , pp. 2 4 4 - 2 4 7 . 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 6 1  -167-  the Faculty of Arts in 1 2 9 0 . n. 1 . 6 2  See also, Leclercq, Jean de Paris, p. 7 ,  Leclercq, Jean de Paris, p. 7 , n. 3 .  63 On this point see P.-M. Schaff, "Jean Quidort," DTC, vol. 8 , col. 8 4 0 ; A. Forest, F. Van Steenberghen, and M. de Gandillac, Le mouvement doctrinal du x i au xiv siecle, vol. 1 3 of the Histoire de 1'eglise depuis les origines jusqu'a nos j ours, ed. A. Fliche and V. Martin (Paris: Bloud & Gay, 1 9 5 6 ) , p. 3 8 6 , n. 2 ; and Frederick J . Roensch, Early Thomistic School (Dubuque, Iowa: The Priory Press, 1 9 6 4 ) , p. 9 9 . e  e  64 Leclercq, Jean de Paris, p. 7 ; and Riviere, Le_ probleme de 1'eglise et de l'etat, p. 1 4 8 . 65 E . Gilson, History of Christian Philosophy in the Middle Ages (London: Sheed and Ward, 1 9 5 5 ) , pp. 4 1 3 - 4 1 4 . 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 f u l l agreement with the Thomist position. On this point see Gilson, Christian Philosophy, pp. 4 1 3 - 4 1 4 ; 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, 1 9 5 9 ) , pp. 3 3 - 5 0 ; and finally, Marc F . Griesbach, "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, Department of History, University of Toronto, 1 9 5 6 ) , pp. 2 6 - 5 2 . 67 On this incident see P. Glorieux, "Un memoire j u s t i f i c a t i f de Bernard de T r i l i a , " RSPT, v o l . 1 7 ( 1 9 2 8 ) , pp. 4 0 5 - 4 2 6 and RSPT, vol. 1 8 ( 1 9 2 9 ) , pp. 2 3 - 5 9 and P. Glorieux, "Bernard de Trilia? ou Jean de Paris?" RSPT, vol. 1 9 ( 1 9 3 0 ) , pp. 4 6 9 - 4 7 4 . . Glorieux has shown that this defence should be attributed to John of Paris and not to Bernard of T r i l l i a as had been previously believed. At this time Quidort was a baccalarius sententiarius, see Glorieux, "Bernard de Trilia? ou Jean de Paris?" RSPT, vol. 1 9 ( 1 9 3 0 ) , p. 4 7 3 . 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, 1 9 3 6 ) , v o l . I, p. 4 7 7 and A. G. L i t t l e and F . Pelster, Oxford Theology and Theologians, 1 2 8 2 - 1 3 0 2 (Oxford Historical Society, vol. 9 6 ; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1934),  pp.  33-34.  68  Gilson, Christian Philosophy, p. 7 3 9 , n. 6 9 and P. Glorieux, Repertoire des maitres en theologie de Paris au x i i i siecle (Paris: J . Vrin, 1 9 3 3 ) , v o l . I, p. 1 8 9 . e  69 Roensch, Early Thomistic School, p. 1 0 0 and Glorieux, Repertoire, v o l . I , p. 1 8 9 . The bishops were those of Paris, Bourges, Orleans and Amiens.  -168-  70 A short notice inserted in a l i s t of Dominican masters at Paris refers to Quidort: "Fr. Iohannes Parisiensis, licentiatus anno domini MCCCIV. Hie o b i i t . i n 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 1 ordre 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), v o l . II, p. 120, no. 656. 1  71 Leclercq, Jean de Paris, p. 7. 72 Gilson, Christian Philosophy, p. 413 The De_ potestate regia et papali has been edited by Jean Leclercq and forms an appendix, pp. 171-260, of his Jean de Paris. A l l 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. Meersseman (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 i t 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 l i s t of the works of John of Paris, see Glorieux, Repertoire, v o l . I , pp. 189-193 and Roensch, Early Thomistic School, pp. 101-103. 7 3  This work has been edited as Le_ Correctorium Corruptorii "Circa" de Jean Quidort de Paris, ed. J . - P . Muller (Rome: SA, 12-13, 1941). 7 4  ^ 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, v o l . I , p. 189, where the date proposed is 1284-1286. 78 Thomas Aquinas, Commentum in L i b . II Sententiarum (Opera Omnia, vol. VIII; Paris: Ludovicum Vives, 1873), dist. 44. For an excellent discussion of the p o l i t i c a l 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. I I , dist. 44, quest. 1: "Utrum potentia dominandi sit a solo Deo." 8° See Thomas Aquinas, Commentum in L i b . 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 a l l prelacyis 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 L i b . 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. I I , 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. 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. 8 2  83  John of Paris, Commentaire sur les Sentences, ed. Muller, Bk. II, dist. 44, quest. 3: "Utrum r e l i g i o s i teneantur obedire praelatis in omnibus." (Whether the religious are bound to obey prelates in a l l things.). 84 Thomas Aquinas, Commentum in L i b . II Sententiarum, dist. 44, quest. 2, art. 3: "Utrum r e l i g i o s i professi teneantur obedire praelatis suis in omnibus." (Whether the professed religious are bound to obey their prelates in a l l things.) Both Quidort and Aquinas employed the same authorities in their discussion: f i r s t , the Scriptural text, Colossians 3:20; secondly, St. Benedict, Regula, cap. l x v i i i ; and finally: St. Bernard, De praecepto et dispensatione, cap. v. See Peter Lombard, Sententiarum, Migne, PL, v o l . CXCII, Bk. II dist. 44, cols. 756-758. 8 5  Thomas Aquinas, Commentum in L i b . 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. 8 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. also Eschmann, "St. Thomas Aquinas on the Two Powers," MS, vol. XX (1958), p. 190. y  See  While Muller has suggested that Quidort's Commentary was written between 1292 and 1296, he states that i t was most likely written between 1292 and 1294. If this is correct, then i t would have been completed before Clericis laicos was issued. See John of Paris, Commentaire sur les Sentences, ed. Muller, vol. I , p. xxx. y l  Leclercq, Jean de Paris, pp. 85, 97, 149, 152, 162, 163, 165. Leclercq states that Quidort was a faithful follower of Aquinas in his p o l i t i c a l philosophy. Marc F. Griesbach, "John of Paris as a Representative 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 l i k i n g . He has proved that, although Quidort employs Thomistic texts in his work, he cannot be said to be a faithful follower of Thomas Aquinas. 9 2  93 John of Paris, Commentaire sur les Sentences, ed. Muller, Bk. I I , 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 i f the power to rule or domination is taken in its essential meaning then i t 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. I I , 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. I I , dist. 44, quest. 2. John of Paris, Commentaire sur les Sentences, ed... Muller, Bk. I I , dist. 44, quest. 2: "Positive, ad quod natura-inclinat, sicut bene facere 9 7  -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." John of Paris, Commentaire sur les Sentences, ed. Muller, Bk. II, dist. 44, quest. 3. 9 9  -172-  /  i  John of Paris, Commentaire sur les Sentences, ed. Muller, Bk, II, dist. 44, quest. 3: "Duplex est obedientia: una sufficiens et necessaria, a l i a abundans et perfecta. Obedientia abundanti obedit subditus praelato in omnibus l i c i t i s , 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 i s , "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. Richard Scholz cited by Marc F . Griesbach, "John of Paris as a Representative of Thomistic P o l i t i c a l Philosophy," An Etienne Gilson Tribute, ed. Charles J . O'Neil (Milwaukee, The Marquette University Press, 1959), p. 35. 5  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 s i 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, F a l l , 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 i s , those who believed 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 V e r i t a s medium ponit^ quod scilicet prelatis ecclesie non repugnat habere dominium in temporalibus et iurisdictionem, contra primam opinionem erroneanu Nec tamen eis debetur per se ratione status sui et ratione qua sunt v i c a r i i Christi et Apostolorum successores. Sed eis convenire potest habere t a l i a ex concessione vel permissione principum s i ab eis ex devotione aliquid huiusmodi collatum fuerit vel s i habuerint aliunde." When translated, this passage states: "Therefore between such contrary opinions, the f i r s t of which everyone considers erroneous, I think that truth holds the middle ground, namely that i t is not improper for prelates of the church to have lordship and jurisdiction over temporalities, and this is against the f i r s t 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 i t can be suitable for them to have such things by the concession or permission of princes or i f 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), l i b . I, cap. i , p. 3: ". . . rex est qui unius multitudinem civitatis vel provinciae, et propter bonum commune, regit . . . . " that i s , , , . 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 distinguished from an imperfect multitude such as a domestic multitude which cannot provide a l l the things necessary for l i f e , that i s , i t 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, i t was government by one which must be distinguished from aristocracy, that i s , government by the few and by the best, and from polycracy which is government by the people through plebiscites. For these refinements see the De potestate regia et papali, ed. Leclercq, cap. i , p. 176, 11. 28-36. 11  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 ' i u r i gentium derivatum." 1 5  -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 t a l i multitudini que s i b i sufficiat ad vitam, cuiusmodi non est communitas domus vel v i c i 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 p o l i t i c a l or c i v i l animal as is said in the f i r s t book of the P o l i t i c s , 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; i t is necessary for man that he live in a multitude of a kind which is sufficient to maintain l i f e ; a community of a household or of a street is not of this nature, but a city or kingdom i s , for in a single household or street not everything which is necessary in the way of food or clothing or defence is found but i t 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 i t is self-sufficient and can provide a l l that is necessary for the maintenance of l i f e . Aquinas had expressed a similar view, see the De regimine principum, ed. Mathis, L i b . 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 n i s i ad bonum commune ordinetur per aliquem unum cui sit cura de bono communi . . . . " However, any multitude in which each one seeks his own good w i l l be dissipated and scattered abroad unless i t 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. i i , p. 178, 1. 16: " . . . vivere secundum virtutem . . . . " See also n. 96 below. 19 John of Paris, De potestate regia et papali. ed. Leclercq, cap. x v i i , p. 225, 11. 31-34: ". . . ut dicit Philosophus in Ethicis quod intentio legislatoris est homines facere bonos et inducere ad virtutem, et in P o l i t i c i s 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. x v i i , p. 225, 1. 6: In this passage the prince is described as ". . . i u s t i t i a animata et custos i u s t i . . . . "  -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. i i , 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 i t 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 l i f e , 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. i i , p. 178, 11. 23-27: "Sed quia vitam eternam non consequitur homo per virtutem humanam sed divinam, secundum i l l u d Apostoli Ad Romanos: Gratia Dei vita eterna, ideo perducere ad ilium finem non est humani regis sed d i v i n i . Ad ilium igitur regem pertinet huiusmodi regimen qui non solum est homo sed etiam Deus, scilicet Iesus Christus. . . . " That i s , "But since man does not reach eternal l i f e 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. i i , 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. x i i , 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 d i r i g i t illud ad quod pertinet inferior f i n i s . " 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. v p. 184, 11. 15-16: "Nec tamen s i principe maior est sacerdos dignitate et simpliciter oportet .quod sit maior eo in omnibus." That i s , "However, if the priest is simply greater in dignity than the prince, it does not follow that he is greater in a l l 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 i l l o derivatur; sed se habet sicut protestas patrisfamilies ad potestatem magistri militum quarum una ab a l i a 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 i t or being derived from i t as the power of a proconsul is related to the emperor who is greater than him in a l l things since the power of the former is derived from the latter; but i t 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 s p i r i t u a l i , scilicet in temporalibus, nec quoad hoc est ei subiecta in aliquo quia ab i l i a 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 translated, 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 i t is not subjected to the spiritual in any way since i t 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 a l l things but only in those in which the supreme power has subordinated i t to the greater." 31 John of Paris, De potestate regia et papali, ed. Leclercq, cap. x v i i , 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 i s , "And so i t 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. . . . " 9  \  -177-  -> John of Paris, De potestate regia et papali, ed. Leclercq, cap, x v i i , p. 227, 11. 4-13: "Amplius deficit quia ars i l i a 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, s i pigmentarius 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 principem 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 i t by means of its authority or by instituting i t , but i t rules only by directing i t , 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 pharmacist himself, rather there is someone superior to both in whom is the whole c i v i l order, for example, a king or lord of the state, and i f the pharmacist does not prepare the drugs as the doctor directs, the superior has to institute or remove him, so in this proposition, a l l 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, i i i , p, 179, 11. 34-35. 34 John of Paris, De potestate regia et papali, ed. Leclercq, cap. x i i i , p. 211, 11. 26-29. 35 John of Paris, De potestate regia et papali, ed. Leclercq, cap. i i i , 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 i l l o , sic in tota ecclesia et toto populo christiano est unus summus scilicet papa romanus • . . ." Quidort expressed a similar, view in the disputed question, De_ confessionibus audiendis (Quaestio disputata Parisius de potestate papae), ed. Ludwig H&dl, p. 37, 11. 3-9:; "Nam cum sit multiplex communitas hominum, scilicet v i c i in qua communicant quasi homines unius ministerii vel o f f i c i i , civitatis in qua communicant homines diversorum officiorum, provinciae in qua communicant homines unilinguae, regni in qua communicant 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, archiepiscopus 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 occupations are united, provinces in which men of one tongue are united, kingdoms in which men of diverse tongues are united under one p o l i t i c a l regime, the world in which a l l mankind is included, the priest or  -178  -  p r i e s t o f the p a r i s h possesses j u r i s d i c t i o n i n a hamlet, a bishop i n a c i t y and i t s e n v i r o n s , a r c h b i s h o p s i n a p r o v i n c e , p r i m a t e s o r p a t r i a r c h s i n a kingdom, the pope i n the w o r l d . " 36 A q u i n a s had s t a t e d t h a t the pope h e l d the apex of both.powers. See Thomas Squinas,. Commentum i n L i b . I I S e n t e n t i a r u m ( P a r i s : V i v e s , 1873), d i s t . 44, e x p o s i t i o t e x t u s ; " . . . s i c u t i n papam, q u i u t r i u s q u e p o t e s t a t i s apicem t e n e t .. . . ." 37  -" J o h n o f P a r i s , De p o t e s t a t e r e g i a e t p a p a l i ed. L e c l e r c q , cap. v i , p. 189, 11. 30-33: ". • . supremum caput non solum c l e r i c o r u m sed g e n e r a l i t e r omnium f i d e l i u m . . . tanquam g e n e r a l i s i n f o r m a t o r f i d e i e t morum . . . ." a  3 J o h n of P a r i s , De p o t e s t a t e r e g i a e t p a p a l i ed. L e c l e r c q , cap, v i , p. 187, 11. 32-34: "Non i g i t u r s o l u s papa dominus e s t , sed d i s p e n s a t o r g e n e r a l i s , et e p i s c o p u s v e l abbas d i s p e n s a t o r s p e c i a l i s et immediatus, communitas autem verum dominium habet i n b o n i s . " When t r a n s l a t e d , t h i s passage s t a t e s : " T h e r e f o r e , the pope a l o n e i s not l o r d , but r a t h e r he i s the g e n e r a l manager, and the b i s h o p s o r abbots a r e p a r t i c u l a r and immediate managers, however, the community has the t r u e l o r d s h i p i n goods, 8  3  39  J o h n o f P a r i s , De p o t e s t a t e r e g i a e t p a p a l i ed, L e c l e r c q , cap, v i , p, 188, 11, 18-23; " E t s i c u t e t i a m monasterium p o s s e t agere ad d e p o s i t i o n e m a b b a t i s v e l e c c l e s i a p a r t i c u l a r i s ad d e s p o s i t i o n e m e p i s c o p i s i a p p a r e r e t quod d i s s i p a r e t bona m o n a s t e r i i v e l e c c l e s i e et quod i n f i d e l i t e r e t non pro bono communi sed p r i v a t e ea d e t r a h e r e t , i t e m s i a p p a r e r e t quod papa bona e c c l e s i a r u m i n f i d e l i t e r d e t r a h e r e t non ad bonum commune c u i s u p e r i n t e n d e r e t e n e t u r cum s i t summus e p i s c o p u s , d e p o n i p o s s e t s i admonitus non c o r r i g e r e t u r , , » ," When t r a n s l a t e d , t h i s passage s t a t e s : " J u s t as a monastery i s a b l e t o move to depose an abbot o r a p a r t i c u l a r church to depose a b i s h o p i f i t appears t h a t they have squandered the goods of t h e monastery o r church and t h a t f a i t h l e s s l y they have used them not f o r the common good but r a t h e r f o r t h e p r i v a t e good, i f i t s h o u l d appear t h a t t h e pope f a i t h l e s s l y used e c c l e s i a s t i c a l goods and not f o r the common good w h i c h he i s h e l d to s u p e r i n t e n d s i n c e he i s the h i g h e s t b i s h o p , he c o u l d be deposed i f he were admonished and d i d not c o r r e c t h i s ways . . . ," a  ^O J o h n o f P a r i s , De_ p o t e s t a t e r e g i a et p a p a l i , ed, L e c l e r c q , cap, x x v , p, 258, 11, 5-10: "Quod v e r o d i c i t u r i n p r i n c i p a l i argumento quod papatus e s t summa v i r t u s c r e a t a e t s i c non p o t e s t a u f e r r i , r e s pondeo; l i c e t s i t summa v i r t u s c r e a t a i n persona, tamen e s t e i e q u a l i s v e l maior i n c o l l e g i o s i v e i n t o t a e c c l e s i a , V e l p o t e s t d i c i quod p o t e s t d e p o n i a c o l l e g i o v e l magis a g e n e r a l i c o n c i l i o a u c t o r i t a t e d i v i n a c u i u s consensus s u p p o n i t u r et p r e s u m i t u r ad eum deponendum u b i m a n i f e s t e apparet scandalum et i n c o r r i g i l i t a s i p s i u s p r e s i d e n t i s . " When t r a n s l a t e d , t h i s passage s t a t e s : "Indeed, what i s s a i d i n t h e p r i n c i p a l argument i s t h a t the papacy i s the h i g h e s t c r e a t e d power and so i t cannot be t a k e n away, I r e s p o n d : g r a n t e d t h a t i t i s the h i g h e s t c r e a t e d power h e l d by one p e r s o n , n e v e r t h e l e s s , t h e r e i s one e q u a l to i t o r even g r e a t e r i n the C o l l e g e (of C a r d i n a l s ) o r i n the whole c h u r c h . Or i t 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 i t is manifestly.apparent that he is a scandal and is incorrigible i t can govern him and i t 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. x v i i , p. 226, 11. 1-5: "Sic papa non instituit regem, sed uterque est a Deo institutus suo modo nec ipsum d i r i g i t per se ut rex est, sed per accidens in quantum convenit regem fidelem esse,.in.quo a papa i n s t i t u i tur de fide et non de regimine. Unde subicitur< pape i hiis in quibus subicit eum ei potestas suprema, scilicet in spiritualibus tantam." j  n  John of Paris,. De Potestate regia et papali,. ed. Leclercq, cap. x i i i , 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 n i s i 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, s i non possunt vel non audent, possunt invocare auxilium ecclesie que, requisita a paribus in subsidium i u r i s , 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 f i r s t , and i f 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 j u r i s 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, i f they cannot correct him or dare not, are able to i n 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 cap. x, p. 196, 11. 16-27.  papali, ed. Leclercq,  John of Paris, De potestate regia et papali, ed. Leclercq, cap. x i i i , p. 214, 11. 1-18: "De potestate vero correctionis seu censure eeelesiastice sciendum est quod-non est n i s i spiritualis directe, quia  -180-  riullam penam i n foro e x t e r i o r i potest imponere n i s i s p i r i t u a l e m , n i s i sub conditione et per accidens. Quamvis enim e c c l e s i a s t i c u s iudex habeat i n Deum reducere et a peccato retrahere et c o r r i g e r e , hoc tamen non habet n i s i secundum viam a Deo e i datam que est separando a sacramentis et p a r t i c i patione f i d e l i u m et huiusmodi que ad censuram e c c l e s i a s t i c a m p e r t i n e n t ; et dico n i s i sub conditione, s c i l i c e t s i quis penitere y e l i t et penitentiam pecuniariam acceptare. Non enim potest e c c l e s i a s t i c u s iudex r a t i o n e d e l i c t i imponere penam corporalem v e l pecuniariam sicut, facet iudex secul a r i s , sed solum s i i l l e v e l i t earn acceptare; s i enim non v u l t earn acceptare compellet eum iudex e c c l e s i a s t i c u s per excommunicationem v e l per aliam s p i r i t u a l e m penam que est ultima quam potest infeirre nec u l t r a pot e s t a l i u d facere. Dico etiam per accidens quia s i esset princeps heret i c u s et i n c o r r i g i b i l i s et contemptor e c c l e s i a s t i c e censure posset papa a l i q u i d facere i n populo ut i l l e p r i v a r e t u r honore s e c u l a r i et deponeretur a populo, et hoc faceret papa i n crimine e c c l e s i a s t i c o cuius c o g n i t i o ad papam p e r t i n e t , excommunicando omnes q u i e i ut domino obedirent, et s i c populus ipsum deponeret et papa per accidens. j 47 John of P a r i s , De_ potestate r e g i a et p a p a l i , edi L e c l e r c q , cap. x x i i , p. 216, 11. 5-7: ". . . apparet quod tota cerisura e c c l e s i a s t i c a est s p i r i t u a l i s , s c i l i c e t excommunicando, suspendendo, interdicendo, nec a l i q u i d u l t r a potest e c c l e s i a n i s i i n d i r e c t e et per accidens . . ." ^ John of P a r i s , De potestate r e g i a et p a p a l i , ed; L e c l e r c q , cap. x i i i , p. 215, 11. 17-24: " S i vero i n s p i r i t u a l i b u s Idelinquat papa, b e n e f i c i a symoniace conferendo, e c c l e s i a s dissipando, privando personas e c c l e s i a s t i c a s et c a p i t u l a i u r i b u s s u i s , v e l male sentiendo v e l docendo c i r c a ea que ad fidem v e l bonos mores p e r t i n e n t , tunc primo monendus esset a c a r d i n a l i b u s q u i sunt loco t o t i u s c l e r i . Et s i ^ i n c o r r i g i b i l i s esset nec possent per se amovere scandalum de e c c l e s i a , tunc i n subsidium i u r i s haberent supplicando invocare brachium seculare. Et tunc imperator r e q u i s i t u s a c a r d i n a l i b u s , cum s i t membrum e c c l e s i e , deberet procedere contra ipsum ad eius depositionem." When t r a n s l a t e d , t h i s passage states: " I f however, the pope i s delinquent i n s p i r i t u a l matters, by conferring benefices simoniacally, by destroying churches, by depriving e c c l e s i a s t i c a l persons and chapters of t h e i r r i g h t s , or by teaching and d e c l a r i n g wrongly about matters which p e r t a i n to the f a i t h and goo.d morals, then he should be f i r s t warned by the c a r d i n a l s who act i n the place of the whole c l e r g y . And i f he i s i n c o r r i g i b l e and they, by themselves, could not remove the scandal from the church, then they would have the r i g h t to invoke, by s u p p l i c a t i o n , the secular arm to give a i d to the r i g h t . And then the emperor, since he i s a member of the church, requested by the c a r d i n a l s , ought to proceed against him to secure h i s d e p o s i t i o n . I  John of P a r i s , De potestate r e g i a et p a p a l i , edJ L e c l e r c q , cap. x x i i , p. 250, 11. 30-33; "Princeps vero v i o l e n t i a m g a l d i i pape posset r e p e l l e r e per gladium suum cum moderamine, nec i n hoc ageret contra papam ut papa e s t , sed contra hostem suum et hostem r e i publice . . . ." 4 9  The e n c y c l i c a l l e t t e r s of the masters-general haye been edited as L i t t e r a e Encyclicae Magistrorum Generalium, ed. B. M. Reichert, 0.' P. (MOPH, v o l . V; Rome: Typographia P o l y g l o t t a , 1900). !  -181-  51 G. R. G a l b r a i t h , The C o n s t i t u t i o n of t h e Dominican O r d e r , 1216 to 1360 ( M a n c h e s t e r : Manchester U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1 9 2 5 ) , p . 4 . The A c t a o f t h e G e n e r a l Cahpters have been e d i t e d : A c t a C a p i t u l o r u m G e n e r a l i u m O r d i n i s P r a e d i c a t o r u m ab anno 1220 usque ad anno 1303, e d , B, M, R e i c h e r t , 0 , P , (MOPH, v o l . I l l ; Rome: T y p o g r a p h i a P o l y g l o t t a , . 1898) c o n s t i t u t e s , t h e f i r s t volume of t h e A c t a ; and,. A c t a C a p i l u l o r u m G e n e r a l i u m O r d i n i s P r a e d i c a t o r u m ab anno 1304 usque ad anno 137 8 , e d . B. M. R e i c h e r t , 0 . P . (MOPH, v o l . I V ; Rome: T y p o g r a p h i a P o l y g l o t t a , 1899) c o n s t i t u t e s the second volume of t h e A c t a . 52 G a l b r a i t h , The C o n s t i t u t i o n of t h e Dominican O r d e r , p . 7 1 . The d e t a i l s o f t h e i n s t i t u t i o n a l s t r u c t u r e of t h e Dominican Order have been d e a l t w i t h i n t h e second c h a p t e r of. t h i s t h e s i s , see above, p p . . 53 A c t a C a p i t u l o r u m G e n e r a l i u m , e d . R e i c h e r t , v o l . I, p . 280, 1 1 . 3 - 9 : "Cum ex t r a c t a t u negociorum s e c u l a r i u m e t maxime comitum e t p r i n c i p i u m p e r i c u l a imminent n o s t r o o r d i n i et p e r s o n i s . ex eo quod, dum f a v o r u n i u s p a r t i s q u e r i t u r . a l t e r i u s odium p r o v o c a t u r . volumus et d i s t r i c t e iniumgimus p r i o r i b u s et f r a t r i b u s u n i v e r s i s . quod huiusmodi n e g o c i a o d i o s a e t p e r i c u l o s a ad tractandum nequaquam assumant,, nec p r i o r e s p r o v i n c i a l e s nec c o n v e n t u a l e s a l i q u a t e n u s dent l i c e n c i a m . h u i u s m o d i negocia assumendi." 54 A c t a C a p i t u l o r u m G e n e r a l i u m e d . R e i c h e r t , v o l . I, p . 2 8 4 , 1 1 . 1 4 - 1 8 : " . . . i n p r e d i c a c i o n i b u s p u b l i c i s et a l i a s , cum f u e r i t o p o r tunum. p r e d i c e n t . doceant e t c o n s t a n t e r a s s e r a n t . dominum B o n i f a c i u m e s s e verum papam. successorem P e t r i , et v i c a r i u m I h e s u C h r i s t i . " a  55 A c t a C a p i t u l o r u m G e n e r a l i u m , e d . R e i c h e r t , v o l I, p . 2 8 5 , 1 . 1 6 . A t t h e G e n e r a l C h a p t e r h e l d at Bologna i n 1302, the f r i a r s were once a g a i n i n s t r u c t e d to p r a y f o r t h e pope and f o r t h e w e l f a r e of t h e c h u r c h . Each p r i e s t was i n s t r u c t e d t o c e l e b r a t e s i x masses and each c o n v e n t was t o have s i x masses f o r t h e purpose a l s o . I n 1303, the f r i a r s were a g a i n g i v e n t h e same i n s t r u c t i o n . On t h i s a c t i v i t y s e e , A c t a C a p i t u l o r u m G e n e r a l i u m e d . R e i c h e r t , p . 3 1 6 , 1 1 . 2 2 - 2 4 and p 3 2 3 , 11. 23-25. 3  a  L i t t e r a e Encyclicae Magistrorum Generalium, e d . R e i c h e r t , p . 169, 1 1 . 4 - 9 : " S a n c t i s s i m u m patrem et nostram dominum B o n i f a c i u m , d i v i n a p r o v d e n c i a summum p o n t i f i c e m , tanquam verum C h r i s t i i n t e r r i s v i c a r i u m ac b e a t i P e t r i v e r t i c i s a p o s t o l o r u m successorum l e g i t t i m u m , p r e c e t e r i s h o n o r a t e , q u i d q u i d e i u s d i g n i t a t i v e l s t a t u i per q u o s l i b e t a t t e m p t a r e t u r v e l s u a d e r e t u r c o n t r a r i u m , tamquam v a n i l o q u i u m e t s a c r i legum d e t e s t a n t e s . " J  a  5 L i t t e r a e Encyclicae Magistrorum Generalium, e d . R e i c h e r t , p . 177, 1 1 . 2 9 - 3 3 ; "Cum v e r o de s a n c t i s s i m o p a t r e ac domino summo p o n t i f i c e v o b i s loquendum f u e r i t i n p u b l i c o v e l p r i v a t o , s i c habere vos o p o r t e t , ut c o n v e n i t , l a b i a c i r c u m c i s a , quod n i c h i l p e n i t u s i n v e n i a t u r i n e i s , quod a v e r i t a t e d e v i e t , ab e q u i t a t e d e c l i n e t , i r r e v e r e n c i a m sonet v e l i p s i u s non r e d o l e a t s a n c t a t a t e m . " 7  58  Raymund Romain became P r o v i n c i a l i n 1302 and was a b s o l v e d by t h e g e n e r a l c h a p t e r h e l d i n 1 3 0 6 . B e f o r e becoming P r o v i n c i a l , 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, v o l . XVIII, pp.. 18-19 and p. 85; also Stephanus de Salaniaco et Bernardus Guidonis, De_ Quatuor in quibus Deus Praedicatorum Ordinem insignivit ed. Thomas Kaeppeli, O.P. (Santa Sabina, Rome: Institutum Historicum Fratrum Praedicatorum, 1949), MOPH, vol, XXII, p. 131. Unfortunately, no evidence is available which indicates 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. a  59 On Nicholas de Freauville, see Stephanus de Salaniaco et Bernardus Guidonis, De quatuor in quibus Deus praedicatorum ordinem insignivit, ed. Kaeppeli, MOPH, v o l . 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. 6 0  Quetif-Echard, S0P v o l . I, p. 555. a  6^ Mortier, Histoire des Maitres Generaux de l'Ordre des Freres Precheurs, v o l . II, p. 407. 62 Mortier, Histoire des Maitres Generaux de l'Ordre des Freres Precheurs, v o l . II, pp. 407-408. 63 p r processus, Potthast, Regesta, no. 25230; see also,. QuetifEchard, SOP, v o l . I, p. 555; Dupuy, Histoire, Actes et Preuves, p. 99 e  ^ Dondaine, "Documents pour servir a l'histoire de la Province de France: L'appel au concile (1303)," AFP, v o l . XXII (1952,)p. 404. His name is fourth on the l i s t . 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, v o l . XXII, p. 52. 66 Dondaine, "Documents pour servir a l'histoire de la Province de France; L'appel au concile (1303)," AFP, v o l . XXII (1952), p. 409. His name is ninety-seventh on the l i s t . 67 The.letter of the Provincial, Raymund Romain is found in Dupuy, Histoire, Actes et Preuves, pp. 153-154: "Quod utique vestrae discretion! 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 i t  -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, v o l . XXII (1952), pp. 381-439. 69 i n the month following the issue of the letter of the Provincial, nine convents signed the appeal. 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 Cistercians 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. Therefore, the signature of a particular person on the appeals does not necessarily mean that he was in favour of the royal position, i t means that he did not have the courage to stand against the king. 7  0  "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. Documents relatifs aux l£tats Gene'raux et Assemblees reunis sous Philippe.le Bel, ed. Picot, p. 47. 7 2  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. 7 3  74 On this point, see Mortier, Histoire des Maitres Generaux de l'Ordre des Freres Prgcheurs, v o l . II, pp. 412-413. He also stated that a l l 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, v o l . XXII (1952), pp. 385-386. 76 Dondaine, "Documents pour servir a l'histoire de la Province de France: L'appel au concile (1303)," AFP, v o l . XXII, (1952), pp. 385-386, Dondaine, "Documents pour servir a l'histoire de la Province de France: L'appel au concile (1303)," AFP, v o l , XXII (1952), pp. 384-385. 7 7  78 Dondaine, "Documents pour servir a l'histoire de la Province de France: L'appel au concile (1303)," AFP, v o l . XXII (1952), p. 386. 79 Dondaine, "Documents pour servir a l'histoire de la Province de France: L'appel au concile (1303)," AFP, v o l . 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 f r i a r . 80 Dondaine, "Documents pour servir a l'histoire de la Province de France: L'appel au concile (1303)," AFP, v o l . 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, v o l . XXII (1952), p. 411: "Et ex habundanti ex eisdem et sub eisdem modis et verbis similiter appellarunt, slava sui ordinis obedientia reverentiaque et honore ecclesie Romane ac fidei catholice veritate, supponentes se et sua et statum suum protectioni d i c t i sacri congregandi c o n c i l i i , 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, v o l . XXII (1952), P. 416: "Nos autem, premissis considerationibus et causis inducti, convocationem et congregationem ipsius c o n c i l i i reputantes utilem, necessariam et salubrem ac expedientem fidei negocio et ecclesie sancte Dei, eiusdem convocationi et congregationi c o n c i l i i 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, v o l . XXII (1952), pp. 430-431: "• • • quod non consentirent nec adhererent predictis convocationi et congregationi et appellationi n i s i 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 i t seems that his invitation was ignored. See Mortier, Histoire des Maitres Generaux de l'Ordre des Freres Precheurs, v o l . II, pp. 154-155. 85 Dondaine, "Documents pour servir a l'histoire de la Province de France: L'appel au concile (1303)," AFP, v o l . XXII (1952), pp. 430-433. 86 Dondaine, "Documents pour servir a l'histoire de la Province de France: L'appel au concile (1303)," AFP, v o l . 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. L i t t l e , 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 a l l 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 i t but they, had to give a quarter of a l l offerings and legacies received to the priest of the parish.  -186-  NOTES : TO : CHAPTER•IV The papacy had a c t e d . a s t h e p r o t e c t o r o f Henry I I I d u r i n g h i s m i n o r i t y . The k i n g n e v e r f o r g o t the f a v o u r s w h i c h had been extended t o him a t t h i s t i m e . H i s r e l a t i o n s w i t h t h e papacy were always v e r y c l o s e . He a c c e p t e d the crown of S i c i l y f o r h i s son, Edmund, a l l o w i n g h i m s e l f t o be d r a w h i i h t o t h e p a p a l p l a n s . f o r o u s t i n g the Hohenstaufen d y n a s t y from s o u t h e r n I t a l y . Henry I I I agreed to.assume t h e debts w h i c h the papacy had i n c u r r e d i n i t s s t r u g g l e w i t h the Hohenstaufen. When he was u n a b l e t o meet h i s commitments, Henry I I I was f o r c e d t o t u r n t o the b a r o n s . The r e s u l t was t h a t they s e i z e d power and r u l e d England through a b a r o n i a l c o u n c i l . A l t h o u g h t h e papacy r e a l i z e d t h a t i t would be u n a b l e t o o b t a i n the S i c i l i a n t h r o n e f o r an E n g l i s h p r i n c e , i t c o n t i n u e d t o s u p p o r t Henry d u r i n g t h i s c r i s i s . A f t e r the d e a t h o f M o n t f o r t , the p a p a l l e g a t e , C a r d i n a l Ottobuono, was a b l e t o use h i s i n f l u e n c e . t o a i d . i n t h e task of p a c i f y i n g England. 1  W. A. P a n t i n , The E n g l i s h Curch• in•:the F o u r t e e n t h Century (Cambridge: U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1955), pp. 76-87. The S t a t u t e s of P r o v i s o r s (1351) and Praemunire (1353) were i s s u e d a t the end o f the p e r i o d under d i s c u s s i o n . They s h o u l d n o t be r e g a r d e d as d i r e c t a t t a c k s on p a p a l a u t h o r i t y . I n f a c t , a t t h i s t i m e , as P a n t i n p o i n t s o u t , t h e c h r o n i c l e r s p a i d l i t t l e a t t e n t i o n t o them. The r e i s s u e s of t h e s e s t a t u t e s i n 1365, 1390 and 1393 were o f much g r e a t e r s i g n i f i c a n c e . The S t a t u t e , o f P r o v i s o r s was aimed a t p a p a l p r o v i s i o n s where the o r d i n a r y e c c l e s i a s t i c a l p a t r o n s or e l e c t o r s might n o t d a r e t o a p p o i n t t o a vacancy when f a c e d w i t h a p a p a l nominee. The k i n g h i m s e l f was g i v e n the r i g h t t o f i l l t h e vacancy. The S t a t u t e of Praemunire s t a t e d t h a t cases w h i c h c o u l d be l o o k e d a f t e r i n r o y a l c o u r t s s h o u l d n o t be t a k e n t o f o r e i g n c o u r t s ( i . e . the Roman C u r i a ) t h e r e b y c u t t i n g o f f a p p e a l s t o Rome. The k i n g was p l a c e d i n a p o s i t i o n so t h a t he c o u l d p r e v e n t t h e pope from i n t e r f e r i n g w i t h the Church i n England. O f t e n , the k i n g suspended t h e s e S t a t u t e s and a l l o w e d the pope t o p r o v i d e the r o y a l nominee. However, i f the.papacy s h o u l d p r o v e d i f f i c u l t , t h e n the k i n g c o u l d i n v o k e the s t a t u t e s and a p p o i n t t o t h e v a c a n c y . 2  3 For t h e p r o v i s i o n s of t h e b u l l C l e r i c i s l a i c o s see Chapter I I I above, pp. 4£ 4^. 4 On t h e events o f 1294, see E . J . Smyth, S-J., "The P l a c e o f C l e r i c i s l a i c o s i n the R e i g n o f Edward I " ( u n p u b l i s h e d Ph. D. d i s s e r t a t i o n U n i v e r s i t y . o f T o r o n t o , 1953), c h a p t . V I , pp. 126-133; and, T.J. Hanrahan, C. S.B., "Edward I I . a n d t h e Papacy" ( u n p u b l i s h e d M a s t e r * s d i s s e r t a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y o f T o r o n t o , 1954), p. 11. These two s t u d i e s a r e fundamental i f one i s t o a c q u i r e an a d e q u a t e . u n d e r s t a n d i n g of the s t r u g g l e over C l e r i c i s l a i c o s i n England.  x  -187-  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 ". . . a u t apud edes sacras deposita ecclesiarum vel ecclesiasticarum personarum ubilibet arestaverint . . . ." 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 s o l l i c i t e 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 a l l 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. y  10 See Chapt. I l l above, pp. 4f -  .  Hanrahan, "Edward II.and the Papacy," p. 15; Smyth, "The Place of Clericis laicos in the Reign of Edward I , " p p . 144-145 and pp. 183-184:. Smyth states that i t seems that Winchelsey had the text of the bull Coram i l l o 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 i l l o fatemur see Reg. Boniface• VTII,. no. 2333. The justification in the letter of Winchelsey closely follows the text of the papal b u l l . 1 1  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. I The Chronicle of Pierre de Langtoft, vol. II, pp. 270-273: 4  "Sir clers," dit le rays, "tu as parl£ folye. Promesse est dette due, s i fay ne sait ublye. Mes ke jo te vays de [la] bulle saysye^  -188-  A u s i n t t u z l e s a l t r e s , par l e f i z Marye! Ke p u r r y e z de c e s t e a i d e e s t r e d e f u b l y e ! " " S i r e , " d i s t l i e r c e v e s k e , "mult t r e v o l u n t e r A t a y , cum a.seygnur, volumes t u z a i d e r Par conge de l a pape, s i t u . v o l s maunder P a r un de t e s c l e r s o f n o s t r e n e s s a g e r , Ke t o u n e s t a t e t n o s t r e p o r r o u n t . m o u s t r e r , E t soulom co.ke l e pape nus f r a remaunder, Voloums souloum nos eses v o l u n t e r s a i d e r . " " S i r e c l e r s , " r e d i s t l y r a y s , " j o n ' a i pas mester De co ke t u me dais.. l e pape c o u n s a y l l e r . Me>s s i t u voes r e s p i t en co kas a y e r , Fa quant t u v o d r a s t e s c l e r s a s s e m b l e r , En p a r l e z du promesse, en p a r l e z ent d e q u e r ; Apres l e s a y n t H y l l e r e venez a Westmouster, P a r f o u r n i r l a promesse saunz p l u s en p a r l e r . " 1 5  p.  F i b r e s H i s t o r i a r u m , ed. H. R. L u a r d , (London: RS, 1 8 9 0 ) , v o l . I l l ,  289. 16 Reg. W i n c h e l s e y , pp. 144-147; C o t t o n , H i s t o r i a •: A n g l i c a n a , p.  315.  I ? C o t t o n , H i s t o r i a A n g l i c a n a , p. 317: ". . . a l i q u a v i a i d o n e a media i n t e r duo p e r i c u l a , v i d e l i c e t . c o n s t i t u t i o n i s summi p o n t i f i c i s , e t s u b v e r s i o n i s t o t i u s r e g n i . . . ." 18 C o t t o n , H i s t o r i a • A h g l i c a n a j pp.  318-320.  19 C a l . P a t . R o l l s , 1292-1301, p. 237: ". . . g r a n t e d a f i f t h . . . f o r the d e f e n c e o f themselves and t h e i r churches and t o . r e s i s t t h e m a c h i n a t i o n s and i n v a s i o n s of enemies who, l a n d i n g i n some p a r t s o f the r e a l m , have burned churches ( e t c . ) and are p r e p a r i n g t o i n v a d e t h e r e a l m a g a i n . . . ." The l e t t e r s o f p r o t e c t i o n m a k e . i t appear t h a t the c l e r g y were m e r e l y c o n t r i b u t i n g t o the d e f e n c e o f the r e a l m . There was no m e n t i o n of o u t l a w r y . 20 For i n s t a n c e , . t h e abbot o f S t . A l b a n s thought t h a t he had i n c u r r e d a s e n t e n c e o f excommunication by s u b m i t t i n g . See, G e s t a Abbatum M O n a s t e r i i S a n c t i A l b a n i , ed. H. T. R i l e y (London: RS, 1 8 6 7 ) , v o l . I I , pp.  26-27. 21 C o t t o n , H i s t o r i a A h g l i c a n a j p. 22 Reg. W i n c h e l s e y , pp.  320.  154-159.  23 C o t t o n , H i s t o r i a A h g l i c a n a , p.  320.  C a l . P a t . R o l l s , 1292-1301, pp. 239-240. A l s o see H. R o t h w e l l , C o n f i r m a t i o n . o f the C h a r t e r s , 1297,".EHR, v o l . LX (1945), p. 24.  2 4  "The  RS,  A n n a l e s de D u n s t a p l i a , i n A n n a l e s M o n a s t i c i , ed. H.R. 1866), v o l . I l l , p. 405.  L u a r d (London:  -189-  26 Arinales de W i g o r n i a i n . A n r i a l e s M o n a s t i c i , ; e d . (London: RS, 1869), v o l . I V , p. 530.  H. R. L u a r d  C o t t o n , H i s t o r i a A n g l i c a n a , p. 322'. C o t t o n m e r e l y s t a t e s t h a t the a r c h b i s h o p was u n a b l e t o r e c e i v e any s a t i s f a c t i o n from t h e k i n g . The a u t h o r o f MS N o f t h e F l O t e s H i s t o r i a r u m when d i s c u s s i n g t h i s meeting r e f e r s t o W i n c h e l s e y as t h e "riOvus Thomas." -See F i b r e s H i s t o r i a r u m , v o l . I l l , p. 292. 2 7  28 C o t t o n , H i s t o r i a A n g l i c a n a , • p: 321.' C o t t o n r e l a t e s t h a t many of t h e c l e r g y d i d n o t bend under t h e p r e s s u r e s e x e r t e d by t h e k i n g . 2 9  Reg. W i n c h e l s e y , pp. 162-163.  ^ Arinales.•'de W i g o r n i a : i n Anriales M o n a s t i c i , v o l . I V , p. 531: " U n i v e r s o e t s i n g u l o s p r o p r i i s c o n s c i e n t i i s vos d i m i t t o . Sed mea c o n s c i e n t i a p r o r e g i s p r o t e c t i o n e v e l a l i o c o l o r e d a r e pecuniam non p e r m i t t i t . " A l s o see C o t t o n , H i s t o r i a A n g l i c a n a , p. 323. 3  A c c o r d i n g t o Rose Graham o n l y t h e b i s h o p s o f L l a n d a f f and S t . Asaph as w e l l as t h e abbots o f a few B e n e d i c t i n e m o n a s t e r i e s f o l l o w e d W i n c h e l s e y and r e f u s e d t o seek t h e p r o t e c t i o n o f t h e k i n g . See Reg. W i n c h e l s e y , ed. Rose Graham, " I n t r o d u c t i o n " , p. x i . I t seems t h a t O l i v e r S u t t o n , b i s h o p o f L i n c o l n , d i d n o t submit t o t h e k i n g . See Hemingburgh, :Chronicon, v o l . I I , p. 119. 3 1  3 2  C o t t o n , H i s t o r i a A n g l i c a n a ; p. 323.  3 W i l l e l m i R i s h a n g e r , C h r o n i c a • e t A r i n a l e s , ed. H. T. R i l e y (London: RS, 1865), p. 169: N i c h o l a i T r i v e t i , A n r i a l e s , ed. Thomas Hog (London: E n g l i s h H i s t o r i c a l S o c i e t y , 1845) , p. 354; F i b r e s H i s t o r i a r u m , v o l . I l l , p. 101. 3  34 F i b r e s H i s t o r i a r u m , v o l . I l l , p. 101. R o t h w e l l , "The C o n f i r m a t i o n ( 1 9 4 5 ) , p. 25. 3 5  o f t h e C h a r t e r s , 1297," EHR, v o l . LX  C o t t o n , H i s t o r i a A n g l i c a n a , p. 325; R i s h a n g e r , C h r o n i c a e t A r i n a l e s , p. 173. C a l . C l o s e R o l l s , 1296-1302, p. 42. The o f f i c i a l w r i t s t a t e d t h a t t h i s f a v o u r was g r a n t e d by t h e k i n g a t t h e i n s t a n c e o f t h e c l e r g y . However, Hemingburgh s t a t e s t h a t t h e magnates urged t h i s c o u r s e o f a c t i o n on t h e k i n g . See Hemingburgh, C h r o n i c o n , v o l . I I , pp. 122-123. 3 7  3 8  F i b r e s / H i s t o r i a r u m , v o l . I l l , pp. 101-102, p. 295.  3 y  C o t t o n , Historia A n g l i c a n a j  4 0  Reg. W i n c h e l s e y , pp. 179-180.  p. 327.-  -190-  41 The letter Sanctam Romanum Ecclesiam of the French clergy to the pope and Boniface VIII's answer, Coram i l l o fatemur, are found in Winchelsey's Register.immediately before the summons to the.convocation of August 1 0 , 1 2 9 6 . See:Reg; Wihchelsey,-pp. 1 7 4 - 1 7 9 . 42 Cotton, Historia Anglicana,•p. 3 3 5 . Smyth, "The Place of Clericis laicos in the Reign of Edward I,"  4 3  p. 1 7 5 . 44 Flores Historiarum,.vol. I l l , p. 103 and p. 2 9 6 ; Cotton, Historia Anglicanaj p. 3 3 6 . 45 v . H. Galbraith, "The St. Edmundsbury Chronicle,  EHR, vol.  1296-1301,"  L V I I I . ( 1 9 4 3 ) , p. 6 7 .  46 B. Wilkinson, Constitutional History of Medieval England (London: Longmans, 1 9 4 8 ) , vol. I, p. 2 0 4 . 47 Hemingburgh, Chronicon, vol. II, p. 1 5 2 . 48 Cotton, Historia Ahglicana, pp.  337-338.  49 Flores Historiarum, vol. I l l , p. 1 0 3 ; "The St. Edmundsbury Chronicle,". EHR, .-vol. L V I I I . ( 1 9 4 3 ) , p. 6 7 ; and, Rothwell, "The Confirmation of the Charters, 1 2 9 7 , " EHR, vol. LX ( 1 9 4 5 ) , p. 1 8 1 .  Reg; Winchelsey, pp. 1 9 8 - 2 0 0 .  5 0  51 Trivet, Annales, p. 3 6 8 ; Rishanger, Chronica•et Annales, p. 1 8 2 . 52 Reg. Winchelsey, December 1 7 , 1 2 9 7 .  pp. 5 2 8 - 5 3 1 .  The letter bears the date  ;  -* Reg. Winchelsey, 3  5 4  pp..536-538.  Statutes of the Realm, vol. I, pp. 1 3 6 - 1 4 1 .  -*5 Annales de Wigornia in Annales Monastici, vol. IV, p. 5 4 4 . 56 Reg. Winchelsey, pp.  569-573-.  57 "The St. Edmundsbury Chronicle, 1 2 9 6 - 1 3 0 1 , " EHR, vol. LVIII ( 1 9 4 3 ) , p. 7 7 . 58 Parliamentary Writs, vol. I, pp.  104-105.  59 For the details to support this opinion, see Hanrahan,"Edward II and the Papacy," pp. 2 5 - 3 7 . Rishanger, Chronica - et - A n n a l e s p . 4 6 2 . Following this notice in the chronicle is the text of Clericis laicos dated 1 3 0 0 . There must have been a re-issue of the b u l l . 6 0  -191-  61  T e m p o r a l i t i e s which.were h e l d by c l e r i c s under t h e same c o n d i t i o n s as l a y v a s s a l s were known:as l a y f e e s . T e m p o r a l i t i e s . a n n e x e d . t o spirit u a l i t i e s were lands a c q u i r e d by t h e . c l e r g y through d o n a t i o n , w i l l o r . purchase and were i n c l u d e d i n the assessment o f N i c h o l a s IV i n 1291. On these p o i n t s see Hanrahan, "Edward II.and the Papacy," pp. 22-24. 62 Hanrahan, "Edward I I and the Papacy,".pp. 52-53.  col.  Clem., 3, 15, c. 1, Corpus I u r i s C a r i o n i c i , ed. F r i e d b e r g , v o l . T I , 1178.  vol.  C. F. R. Palmer, "The King's XXII.(1890), p. 115.  6  6  3  4  C o n f e s s o r s , " The A n t i q u a r y ,  6S  M a t t h a e i P a r i s i e n s i s , C h r o n i c a M a j o r a , ed. H. R. Luard RS, 1875), v o l . I l l , pp. 244-255. 66 T r i v e t , A n n a l e s ,  (London:  p. 221.  6 7  C a l . C l o s e R o l l s , 1231-1234, p. 419.  6 8  See Chapter  I I I above, pp.  7 3 - 82 .  C a l . P a t . R o l l s , 1292-1301, - p. 244.. The f u l l t e x t can be found i n C o u n c i l s and Synods w i t h o t h e r Documents r e l a t i n g to the E n g l i s h Church, ed. F. M. Powicke and C. R. Cheney ( O x f o r d : Clarendon P r e s s , 1964), v o l . I I , . p t . i i , pp. 1164-1165. 6 9  C a l . P a t . / R o l l s , 1292-1301, p. 244. The f u l l t e x t i s . i n C o u n c i l s and Synods, ed. Powicke and Cheney, v o l . I I , p t . i i , p. 1165. 7  7  7  0  1 Annales de W i g o r n i a 2  i n Annales M o n a s t i c i , v o l . IV, p. 531.  F l o r e s H i s t o r i a r u m , v o l . I l l , p. 100.  F i b r e s H i s t o r i a r u m , v o l . I l l , p. 100: " . . . i n s i s t u n t argumentis p r o b a r e clerum i p s i r e g i i n tempore b e l l i , non o b s t a t e c o n s t i t u t i o n e a p o s t o l i c a . . . posse l i c i t e s u b v e n i r e . . . ." 7 3  "The S t . Edmundsbury C h r o n i c l e , 1296-1301," EHR, v o l . L V I I I (1943), p. 66. 7  4  75 Reg. Winchelsey, pp. 533-534. For a d i s c u s s i o n o f t h e . d e t a i l s o f t h i s p e t i t i o n see Rose Graham, E n g l i s h E c c l e s i a s t i c a l Studies'• (London: SPCK, 1929), pp. 302-316. 76  Reg. Winchelsey, pp. 187-189.. Winchelsey was a c t i n g f o r the bishops and the c l e r g y o f h i s P r o v i n c e . S i m i l a r l e t t e r s were sent t o t h e F r a n c i s c a n s , Augustinians and C a r m e l i t e s . See Reg; Winchelsey, p. 189. 7  M. P a r i s , C h r o n i c a Ma.jora, v o l . 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 f u l l account in Maclnerny, A History of •:the Irish Dominicans, pp. 301-306. 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. 8 0  81  M. Paris, Chronica Majora, vol. I l l , p. 627. 8 2  Potthast, Regesta, no. 13965.  Stubbs, Select Charters, p. 379, and, Annales de Burton in Arinales Monastici, yol. I, pp. 446-453. 8 3  8 4  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. 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. 8 6  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 l i f e of Roger.de Tingewik from being put on assizes, juries, or.recognitions, and from being made sheriff, etc., against his w i l l . 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 a l l refer to pardons for alleged murderers in the year 1266. These charges were probably made during the period of the baronial revolt. 8 7  Palmer, "The King's Confessors,"The Antiquary, vol. XXII (1890), p. 115. This somehow seems unlikely although Darlington was s t i l l employed by the new king on various diplomatic missions. 8 8  Hefele-Leclercq, Histoire des Conciles, vol. VI, pt. i , pp. 168-169. 8 9  9 0  Cal. of Papal Registers, vol. I , p. 449.  -193-  9 1  9  Cal. Pat.:Rolls, 1272-1281, p. 82.  2 Cal; Pat; Rolls^ 1272-1281, p. 147.  9 3  Cal; of Papal Registers j-. vol. I , p. 445.  9 4  Cal. of Papal Registers, v o l . I, p. 457.  Cal; Pat. Rolls, 1272-1281, p. 307; Cal. State Papers, Ireland, 1252-1284, p. 305. 9 5  9 6  Cal. State Papers, Ireland, 1252-1284, pp. 306-307.  97 98  Maclnerny, A History of the Irish Dominicans, p. 358. Cal. of Papal Registers^ v o l . I, p. 469.  99 Maclnerny, A History of the Irish Dominicans, p. 373.  -194-  For a d i s c u s s i o n of the o t h e r Dominican c o n f e s s o r s i n the p e r i o d from 1254-1350 see P a l m e r , "The K i n g ' s C o n f e s s o r s , " The A n t i q u a r y , v o l . X X I I ( 1 8 9 0 ) , p p . 114-120,. pp. 159-161. See a l s o R. D. C l a r k e , "Some S e c u l a r A c t i v i t i e s of the E n g l i s h Dominicans d u r i n g the Reigns of Edward I , Edward I I , and Edward I I I " ( u n p u b l i s h e d M . A . d i s s e r t a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y o f London, 1 9 3 0 ) , pp. 8 - 6 0 . 2 On the s c h o l a s t i c c a r e e r o f Hothum see H i n n e b u s c h , The E a r l y E n g l i s h F r i a r s P r e a c h e r s , pp. 3 8 6 - 3 8 9 ; . a n d , Roensch, E a r l y T h o m i s t i c S c h o o l , p p . 28-34. 3 T r i v e t , A n n a l e s , p . 364: " E r a t autem jocundus i n v e r b i s , i n a f f a t u p l a c i d u s , r e l i g i o n i s h o n e s t a e , i n omnium o c u l i s g r a t i o s u s . . . "  4 Hothum was l e c t u r i n g at S a i n t - J a c q u e s , P a r i s , u n t i l 1282. See M a c l n e r n y , A H i s t o r y of the I r i s h D o m i n i c a n s , p . 387; a n d , Roensch, E a r l y T h o m i s t i c S c h o o l , p . 29. A c t a Capitulorum Generalium O r d i n i s Praedicatorum, I , p . 220. 5  vol.  ed.  Reichert,  M a c l n e r n y , A H i s t o r y o f t h e I r i s h D o m i n i c a n s , pp. 388-390: and, C. F . R. P a l m e r , "The P r o v i n c i a l s o f the F r i a r - P r e a c h e r s , o r B l a c k F r i a r s , o f E n g l a n d , " A r c h a e o l o g i c a l J o u r n a l , v o l . XXXV ( 1 8 7 8 ) , p . 140. C a l . P a t . R o l l s , 1281-1292, p . 218. I t s h o u l d be n o t e d t h a t Roensch, E a r l y T h o m i s t i c S c h o o l , p . 29, i n c o r r e c t l y dates t h i s document. He c i t e s i t f o r t h e y e a r 1283. g A c t a Capitulorum Generalium O r d i n i s P r a e d i c a t o r u m , e d . R e i c h e r t , v o l . I , p . 242: " A b s o l v i m u s p r i o r e m p r o v i n c i a l e m A n g l i e G. de Odone et assignamus eum c o n v e n t u i P a r i s i e n s i . ad legendum." 7  9 T h i s i s the o p i n i o n o f M a c l n e r n y , A H i s t o r y of t h e I r i s h Dominicans, p . 421 and t h a t o f H i n n e b u s c h , The E a r l y E n g l i s h F r i a r s P r e a c h e r s , p . 422. See a l s o Bede J a r r e t t , The E n g l i s h Dominicans (London: Burns Oates and Washbourne, 1 9 2 1 ) , pp. 73-74. J a r r e t t s u g g e s t s t h a t t h i s move on t h e p a r t o f the Dominican a u t h o r i t i e s to remove Hothum from the o f f i c e of p r o v i n c i a l was d e s i g n e d to p l a c a t e Pecham whom Hothum had s t e a d f a s t l y r e s i s t e d d u r i n g the a r c h b i s h o p ' s attempts to r e - i s s u e the condemnation of Kilwardby at Oxford. vol.  ^ A c t a Capitulorum Generalium O r d i n i s Praedicatorum, I , p . 246.  ed.  Reichert,  L i t t l e and P e l s t e r , O x f o r d Theology and T h e o l o g i a n s , pp. 85-86. The d e s t i n a t i o n i s c i t e d as " B a r c i n a " w h i c h L i t t l e i n t e r p r e t s as B a r c e l o n a . 12 P a l m e r , "The P r o v i n c i a l s of the F r i a r - P r e a c h e r s , o r B l a c k F r i a r s , o f E n g l a n d . " ' A r c h a e o l o g i c a l J o u r n a l , v o l . XXXV ( 1 8 7 8 ) , p . 142 13 M a c l n e r n y , A H i s t o r y of the I r i s h D o m i n i c a n s , p . 425-426.  -195-  14 M a c l n e r n y , A H i s t o r y o f t h e I r i s h Dominicans, p. 427 C a l . o f P a p a l R e g i s t e r s , v o l . I , p. 504. C a l . o f P a p a l R e g i s t e r s , v o l . I , p. 526 1 7  September 20, 1290: C a l . o f P a p a l R e g i s t e r s , v o l . I , p. 519.  18 C a l . o f P a p a l R e g i s t e r s , v o l . I , p. 535 19 Hemmingburgh, C h r o n i c o n , v o l . I I , pp. 31-32. 20 Hemingburgh, C h r o n i c o n , v o l . I I , p. 33: " I s t a p e t i t i o p r o p o s i t a f u i t i n G a l l i c o p e r p r a e d i c t u m m i l i t e m i n p r a e s e n t i a r e g i s e t magnatum u t r i u s q u e r e g n i , e t earn p r a e o r d i n a v i t f r a t e r W i l l e l m u s de Hothom tunc p r i o r p r o v i n c i a l i s fratrum Praedicatorum Angliae . . . " 21 M a c l n e r n y , A H i s t o r y o f t h e I r i s h Dominicans, p. 443. 22 H i n n e b u s c h , The E a r l y E n g l i s h F r i a r s P r e a c h e r s , p.484; and, C l a r k e , "Some S e c u l a r A c t i v i t i e s o f t h e E n g l i s h Dominicans," p. 175.  23  Rishanger, Chronica  e t A n n a l e s , pp. 254-255, 260.  24 See M. P o w i c k e , The T h i r t e e n t h Century (2nd, ed.; O x f o r d : don P r e s s , 1962), pp. 644-653. 25 The C h r o n i c l e o f P i e r r e de L a n g t o f t , ed. T. W r i g h t , v o l . pp. 204 - 207. 26 The C h r o n i c l e o f P i e r r e de L a n g t o f t , ed. T. W r i g h t , v o l . pp. 206-207. 27 The C h r o n i c l e o f P i e r r e de L a n g t o f t , ed. T. W r i g h t , v o l . pp. 206-211.  Claren-  II,  II,  II,  28  The C h r o n i c l e o f P i e r r e de L a n g t o f t , ed. T. W r i g h t , v o l . I I , pp. 210-211. 29 M a c l n e r n y , A H i s t o r y o f t h e I r i s h Dominicans, p. 450  30 Psalms 85:8: "Audiam q u i d i n me l o q u a t u r Dominus, quoniam l o q u e t u r i n plebam suam." An account o f t h e sermon i s g i v e n i n Hemingburgh, C h r o n i c o n , v o l . I I , pp. 66-68. 31 A f u l l account o f t h i s appointment i s g i v e n i n M a c l n e r n y , A H i s t o r y o f t h e I r i s h Dominicans , pp. 452-459. Hothum stepped down as p r o v i n c i a l when he was a p p o i n t e d t o t h e a r c h b i s h o p r i c o f D u b l i n . On t h i s p o i n t s e e , Palmer, "The P r o v i n c i a l s o f t h e F r i a r - P r e a c h e r s , o r B l a c k F r i a r s , o f E n g l a n d , " A r c h a e o l o g i c a l J o u r n a l , v o l . XXXV (1878), p. 144.  32  T r i v e t , A n n a l e s , p. 364.  -196-  33 Thomas Rymer, Foedera (London: 1713), v o l . I I , p. 795 34 M a c l n e r n y , A H i s t o r y o f t h e I r i s h Dominicans, p. 466; and Hinnebusch, The E a r l y E n g l i s h F r i a r s P r e a c h e r s , p. 486. 35 Rymer, F o e d e r a , v o l . I I , p. 808. C a l . P a t . R o l l s , 1292-1301, pp. 329, 331-332; and, C a l . C l o s e R o l l s . 1296-1302, pp. 198-199. 37 P a l m e r , "The P r o v i n c i a l s o f t h e F r i a r - P r e a c h e r s , o r B l a c k F r i a r s , of E n g l a n d , " A r c h a e o l o g i c a l . J o u r n a l , v o l . XXXV (1878), p. 143 38 T r i v e t , A n n a l e s , p. 364. 39 Hemingburgh, C h r o n i c o n , v o l . I I , p. 160. 40 For i n s t a n c e , see C. F. R. Palmer, "The F r i a r - P r e a c h e r s , o r B l a c k f r i a r s , o f K i n g ' s L a n g l e y , " The R e l i q u a r y , v o l . X I X (1878), pp. -37-42, f o r t h e g i f t s showered on t h i s convent w h i c h became t h e b u r i a l p l a c e o f P i e r s Gaveston, t h e f a v o r i t e o f t h e k i n g , and, u l t i m a t e l y , t h a t o f t h e king himself. 41 A n n a l e s P a u l i n i , i n C h r o n i c l e s o f Edward I and Edward I I , ed. W. Stubbs (London; RS, 1882), v o l . I , p. 337. 42 C a l . o f P a p a l R e g i s t e r s , v o l . I I , p. 479. 43 For a d i s c u s s i o n o f t h i s l e t t e r c o n t a i n e d i n F a t h e r Palmer's unp u b l i s h e d t r a n s c r i p t s , see C l a r k e , " S e c u l a r A c t i v i t i e s o f t h e E n g l i s h Dominicans," pp. 191-192. 44 C a l . o f P a p a l R e g i s t e r s , v o l . I I , p. 253. 45 A n n a l e s P a u l i n i i n C h r o n i c l e s o f Edward I and Edward I I , v o l . I , p. 337: "Optimus p r a e d i c a t o r e t facundus . . . " 4 6  C a l . P a t . R o l l s , 1327-1330, pp. 156-157.  47 T h i s i s mentioned i n a l e t t e r from John Walewyn t o t h e c h a n c e l l o r . Walewyn was i n charge o f t h e c a s t l e a t t h i s t i m e . F o r t h e l e t t e r see F. Tanquerey, "The C o n s p i r a c y o f Thomas Dunheved, 1327," EHR, v o l . XXXI (1916), pp. 119-120. 48 A n n a l e s P a u l i n i i n C h r o n i c l e s o f Edward I and Edward I I , v o l . I , p. 337, and, C a l . C l o s e R o l l s , 1327-1330, p. 146 49 On t h i s p o i n t see C l a r k e , "Some S e c u l a r A c t i v i t i e s o f t h e E n g l i s h Dominicans," pp. 199-200. J a r r e t t , The E n g l i s h Dominicans, p. 133, n o t e s a t l e a s t 23 r o y a l w r i t s i s s u e d between 1240 and 1538 f o r t h e c a p t u r e o f vagabond f r i a r s .  -197-  51  Pat.  F o r i n s t a n c e see C a l . P a t . R o l l s , . 1 3 0 1 - 1 3 0 7 , R o l l s . 1307-1313. p. 182 52 53  Cal.  p. 123; and, C a l .  P a t . R o l l s , 1301-1307, p. 123.  Owst, L i t e r a t u r e and t h e P u l p i t i n M e d i e v a l England, pp. 210-470.  54  F o r t h i s i d e a s e e , E r n e s t B a r k e r , The Dominican Order and Convocat i o n : A Study o f R e p r e s e n t a t i o n i n t h e Church d u r i n g t h e T h i r t e e n t h Century ( O x f o r d : C l a r e n d o n P r e s s , 1913). See a l s o , H.P. Tunmore, "The Dominican Order and P a r l i a m e n t , " C a t h o l i c H i s t o r i c a l Review, v o l . XXVI (1941), pp. 479-489. 5 5  B a r k e r , The Dominican Order and C o n v o c a t i o n , p. 75.  5 6  P o s t ,