Kaminsky, Howard/ Simon de Cramaud, De substraccione obediencie.
Edited by HOWARD KAMINSKY. Medieval Academy Books, No. 92 (1984).



 [[ Print Edition Page No. i ]] 
Medieval Academy Books No. 92
Simon de Cramaud DE SUBSTRACCIONE OBEDIENCIE

 [[ Print Edition Page No. ii ]] 

 [[ Print Edition Page No. iii ]] 
Simon de Cramaud DE SUBSTRACCIONE OBEDIENCIE
Edited by Howard Kaminsky

THE MEDIEVAL ACADEMY OF AMERICA

Cambridge, Massachusetts

1984


 [[ Print Edition Page No. iv ]] 

The publication of this book was made possible by grants of funds

to The Medieval Academy of America from the Carnegie

Corporation of New York.

Copyright © 1984

By The Medieval Academy of America

Library of Congress Catalog Card Number: 83-62357

ISBN 910956-84-7

Printed in the United States of America


 [[ Print Edition Page No. v ]] 

Contents


 [[ Print Edition Page No. vi ]] 

 [[ Print Edition Page No. vii ]] 

Preface

The belief that Simon de Cramaud was a key figure in the story of how the Great Schism in the Western church came to be ended imposed itself upon me rather slowly, about fifteen years ago, when I was looking through the Libri de Schismate of the Vatican Archives for a quite different reason. Frequent references to “the Patriarch” suggested his leading role in Paris, and a cursory reading of his major treatise led first to grateful appreciation of its clarity and vigor, then to gradual realization of its importance. Others had no doubt read it before but I had the advantage of coming to it by way of Brian Tierney’s Foundations of the Conciliar Theory, so that I could not only recognize the nature of the treatise as an essay in corporatist ecclesiology, but also appreciate how it gave the French union program a depth and inner consistency that had not always been perceived. I could also see the identity of the Paris program to that of the Council of Pisa, and thus bring the subject of Tierney’s work into its proper relationship to Simon’s. At the same time the effort to see the treatise in its historical setting and political function led first to the project of a critical edition with full annotations, then to the study of Simon’s life, career, and political action. The final result, conceived as a single work, has had to be split into two parts, the edition of Simon’s treatise presented here, and a monograph on Simon and French policy in the Great Schism, published by the Rutgers University Press. Each, of course, has been reworked to be independent of the other.

Most of the research for this work was done in the Bibliothèque Nationale and Archives Nationales of Paris, and the Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana and Archivio Segreto Vaticano; like all foreign workers in these institutions, I must be grateful to them for providing gratis all of their ordinary services. The same thanks are due to the Archives Départementales de la Vienne in Poitiers, and to its director, M. François Villard. Other individuals have also provided much help: Professor Gilbert Ouy; Professor Fredric Cheyette, who put both his notes and time at my disposal; Professor Bernard Guenée, who helped me to improve an earlier work on Simon; Dr. R. W. Swanson, who brought ms. L to my notice and further obliged me by engaging in a lengthy correspondence about matters relating to
 [[ Print Edition Page No. viii ]] 
the Schism; Canon José Goñi Gaztambide of Pamplona, who sent me a microfilm of ms. G; Professor Stephan Kuttner, who provided a number of canonistic materials that I could not have gotten otherwise without much effort.

Finally, and above all, I wish to thank Professor Hartmut Hoffmann of Göttingen for assistance in many ways, too many in fact to list in detail; most important, perhaps, was the help he gave me in determining the stemma.

Howard Kaminsky

Miami Beach, Florida


 [[ Print Edition Page No. ix ]] 

Abbreviations


 [[ Print Edition Page No. 1 ]] 

Chapters

INTRODUCTION

§ 1. The Political Context

The Great Schism in the Western church, which broke out in 1378 when the same college of cardinals elected first the Italian Bartolomeo Prignano as Urban VI, then the French Cardinal Robert of Geneva as Clement VII, appears on its surface as the product of the Romans’ passionate determination to get the papacy back from the French, the weakness of the largely French college in submitting to intimidation by the Romans, and the accident that the Italian whom they chose turned out to lack the qualities needed to overcome the crisis of his election. While all these factors were indeed in play as efficient causes, they operated within a historical context that imposed itself on all parties, and here the basic factor was the nature of the Avignon papacy that the Schism eventually brought to an explosive end.1 From 1305 to 1378 Europe’s church had been ruled by a line of seven French popes, residing most of the time in Avignon, appointing 111 French cardinals as against only 23 non-French, maintaining a great and predominantly French court, and catering in most cases to the desires and interests of the French rulers, not only in matters of finance and appointment to benefices, but also in the area of “foreign policy.” Indeed their greatest single undertaking, pursued for a long time and at tremendous cost, was the subjugation of Rome and the papal states in Italy, and it is hard not to see one aspect of this effort as a moment of the French expansionism prominent in the history of the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries. At the same time the Avignon papacy marked an elaboration of papal governance, bringing papal powers of jurisdiction, appointment to benefices, and fiscal exploitation of the clergy to extraordinary heights. One of the consequences of this development was the exaltation of the cardinalate into a princely estate, its members
 [[ Print Edition Page No. 2 ]] 
joining the popes at the head of the governmental system, receiving enormous grants of benefices and a share of the papal revenues, enjoying many other privileges granted by the popes, and developing a princely self-consciousness that manifested itself in their sumptuous way of life and their lordly behavior. Urban V, who tried in vain to transplant his papacy to Rome, 1367-70, and Gregory XI, who repeated this adventure in 1377, may well have been motivated by the desire to free themselves from excessive dependence on the Valois rulers of France, but it is hard to imagine that they looked forward to a reversal of the Avignon system in other respects. The crisis came when Gregory died in Rome on 27 March 1378, leaving the sixteen cardinals in Rome—four of them Northern-French, seven “Limousin,” one Aragonese, four Italians—subject to the pressures of the Roman people and magistrates. Divided by anti-Limousin sentiments within their ranks, and fearing for their lives if they did not elect at least an Italian, they chose the Neapolitan Bartolomeo Prignano, not a cardinal but Archbishop of Bari and longtime official of the Avignon court, in the hope that he would adapt himself to the system he knew well enough. He did not, and so the Schism began.2

Elected on 8 April, Urban VI at first enjoyed all the recognition of a true pope. The cardinals announced his election to all the princes of Europe, they assisted at his coronation, attended his court, sought and accepted the usual favors, and, along with the lesser officials of the papal government in Rome, seemed prepared to function in the usual ways. Urban, however, either would not or could not play the Avignon game of ruling as if he were primus inter pares. Against the cardinals’ no doubt sincere assumption that their magnificence was a wholesome component of the ecclesiastical institution, the new pope demanded a drastic simplification of their style of life and threatened to end the pluralism and absenteeism on which it was based. When they resisted he became angry, addressed them without respect, and at times flew into rages and screamed his omnipotence. Historians today are apt to agree with the cardinals that he was unsuitable, and some go so far as to call him mentally unbalanced.3 The cardinals drew their own conclusions. “Holy Father,”
 [[ Print Edition Page No. 3 ]] 
Robert of Geneva said to him, “you have not treated the cardinals with the honor you should show them, as your predecessors did, but you are diminishing our honor; I tell you in truth: the cardinals will endeavor to diminish your honor too.”4 As early as May they began to withdraw from him; on 9 August in Anagni the thirteen non-Italians (Jean de Lagrange had joined his colleagues after the election) declared that Urban’s election had been invalid because made under duress, and in Fondi on 20 September they elected Robert of Geneva as Clement VII, with the tacit support of three of their Italian colleagues. The legitimacy of their action has been debated ever since, with no conclusive verdict beyond the common-sense one pronounced by Coluccio Salutati in 1397: of course there had been intimidation, “otherwise so many French cardinals would hardly have voted for an Italian,” but on the other hand the cardinals did accept Urban as pope until he began to castigate them and “show himself to be their superior.”5 The Italianized papacy that emerged from the Schism has, to be sure, regarded the two Avignon popes of the Schism as anti-popes, along with at least one of the two Pisan popes, but it has never expressed this judgement in a decree, and if Catholic historians continue to generate arguments pro and con, they merely prove thereby the truth of Noël Valois’s dictum that the question “escapes the judgement of history.”6

We shall see that this condition of permanent indeterminacy was the prime goal of France’s union policy once her political leaders decided to end the Schism; Simon de Cramaud’s program, laid out in the treatise presented here, was a prime instrument of that policy. In 1378-79, however, the Valois princes of France, led by King Charles V and his brother Duke Louis of Anjou, renounced their original adherence to Urban VI and gave full support to the cardinals and Pope Clement VII, whose goal was to depose his rival by force, and who pursued this policy even after initial failures had forced his return to Avignon in May of 1379. His hopes lay with
 [[ Print Edition Page No. 4 ]] 
Louis of Anjou, whom he agreed to enfeoff with a “Kingdom of Adria” carved out of the papal states that Louis would conquer, and whom he later arranged to have adopted by Queen Joanna of Naples (“Sicily”) as her heir. This was a continuation of the earlier Avignon program of conquering Rome and the papal states, in which Clement as cardinal had played an important role, but in the context of the Schism it was presented as the pursuit of union by the via facti or “way of force.” Voices of prelates, religious spirits, and academics who called for a way of judgement, either by arbitration (the via compromissi) or, preferably, by a general council of the whole church (the via concilii generalis), were refuted or disregarded, and the University of Paris where such ideas were especially cultivated was forced into silence at the beginning of the 1380’s. Charles V himself had brought the French church into line behind Clement already in 1379; after his death in 1380 and the succession of the twelve-year-old Charles VI, with power in the hands of the late king’s brothers, Duke Louis of Anjou, Duke Jean of Berry, and Duke Philip of Burgundy, Paris did not waver in its support of the via facti. Louis’s death in South Italy in 1384 merely transferred his claims there to his underage son Louis II, and similar schemes of Italian conquest were revived by Charles VI during his period of direct rule, 1388-92, and were cultivated by the king’s brother Duke Louis of Orléans after that. In any case Clement VII had no other union policy than the via facti, and it is probably fair to say that neither did his successor Benedict XIII, despite his protestations to the contrary.7

While the bare recital of facts gives the impression that the Schism was made by the French and their allies—most notably the Spanish realms and Scotland—it would be more just to think in terms of a sort of collaboration of all Europe’s princes and political communities in the work of schism-making. Just as it is always the labor union that calls a strike, even though management is often responsible as well, so the circumstances of 1378 dictated that the cardinals
 [[ Print Edition Page No. 5 ]] 
and their supporters would be the apparent aggressors, the Urbanists appearing as the defenders of the pope who had, after all, been recognized originally by everybody. While the subsequent alignments were due in good part to genuine convictions or doubts about the events of 1378, the eventual result was that both papacies were weakened by the Great Schism, to the benefit of the secular rulers who by negotiation or unilateral action took over much control of their territorial churches. If, as one historian has put it, “the Great Schism began the destruction of the medieval papacy,”8 it was because this process of reduction of papal control over church revenues and personnel was carried through on both sides for so many years before union was achieved. Conversely, one can explain Europe’s turn from schism-making to unionism as, in very general terms, the natural result of the same process: glut was followed by loss of appetite. Moreover, while a Europe of two or even more papacies was by no means unacceptable to all, most princes, intellectuals, and prelates must always have experienced the Schism as a more or less painful anomaly which threatened the legitimacy of the whole order of civilization. Some laymen even began to wonder about the legitimacy of ordinations, benefice-titles, and the sacraments that assured salvation.9 Concerns of this sort had not been enough to prevent the Schism from beginning and maturing, but they would have been present as a ready-made reason for unionism that could focus other interests pointing the same way. One can, in other words, think of the Great Schism as a positive construction that had its own lifespan determined by its goals and their realization, with forces making for union coming into play as a natural reaction to the stresses of schism. The alternative would be to represent the Schism as a mere catastrophe caused by greedy cardinals and an inept pope, and to suppose that its long duration was due to Europe’s inability to discover the magic formula of conciliarism until thirty years had passed—hardly an explanation at all. For our purposes, at any rate, it is enough to bring the above imaginings down to earth by noting that the Valois princes of France agreed in supporting Clement for
 [[ Print Edition Page No. 6 ]] 
a long time, that they all derived many advantages from having their own pope in their pocket, but that the time inevitably came when they had had enough and were therefore apt to feel the attractions of union.

The princes in question were the Dukes of Berry and Burgundy, the surviving brothers of Charles V, who dominated the political scene up to 1388, who were then relieved of power when Charles VI took direct control of the government, and who came back, this time for good, in August of 1392 when the young king suffered the first attack of the insanity that would destroy his capacity for independent political action. He did have spells of lucidity, and historians usually write as though he directed policy during them, but the evidence suggests the opposite; even when lucid Charles VI was inept and vapid, to the point that references in the sources to “the king” as decision-maker must be understood as mere conventions. If then we find that the return of the dukes in the latter part of 1392 coincided with signs of a reversal of royal policy, from Avignonism and the via facti towards unionism, we must understand the switch as the work of Berry and Burgundy. Both of them had large and important appanages that fully absorbed their interests; as far as they were concerned, the royal government was a source of powers and revenues to enhance their princely estate. Both had received a great deal from Clement VII—appointment of their clients to major benefices, grants of powers of direct nomination to other benefices, grants of many privileges that carried power and prestige—but, as suggested above, they may already have gotten most of what they wanted. In any case neither had an interest in the via facti—quite the reverse: both wanted the peace, above all with England, that would let them exploit their holdings without disturbance. It was in fact during this period of the 1390’s that peace negotiations with the English were pushed to a new intensity, and while these did not absolutely require an end to the Schism, they would certainly have been helped if that issue could have been removed.10 Hence we find that the University of Paris was encouraged to take up the cause of union and to propose “ways” to the royal government; after an extensive survey of its members’ opinions, the university issued a letter on 6 June 1394 in which three ways were recommended: a general council, arbitration, and a double abdication, the via cessionis.
 [[ Print Edition Page No. 7 ]] 
The first two ways were more or less traditional by this time, hence their inclusion, but they were understood as judicial, referring back to the rights and wrongs of 1378; the via cessionis, on the other hand, was based on the principle of non-judgement—hence it was praised the most, “because it avoided scandal and preserved intact the honor of the princes and realms of each side.”11 This was in fact a sine qua non, not only for the French princes but for practically every public personage; “Who would want to be judged to have been schismatic for the past twenty years?” as Archbishop Pedro Tenorio of Toledo would put it in 1397, and as French propaganda put it over and over.12 Common sense suggests that the point was indeed decisive, and that the only solution that had any chance of success was one that would guarantee that—in Simon de Cramaud’s words—“neither side would be schismatic, but there would be one fold and one pastor.”13 In other words, once Berry and Burgundy decided for unionism, the via cessionis was ineluctable.

The implications of this fact were enormous, in both senses of the word, and they became clear when the policy emerged into the full light of day, after the death of Clement VII on 16 September 1394. The dukes had indeed told him of their intentions and had made it clear that they expected him to produce at least some sort of unionist activity, but they evidently hesitated to press him openly.14 No such hesitation would be shown in dealing with his successor, Benedict XIII, who had been elected in the face of the Paris government’s wish, formulated by Simon de Cramaud in the royal council, that an election be deferred until ways to exploit the new situation might be explored. Benedict at once sent Paris assurances of his readiness to work for union—he had indeed sworn an oath both before and after his election that he would undertake everything necessary to attain union, including abdication if the cardinals should deem that necessary—but he had his own, properly papalist ideas about the office he held, and he did not shrink from pointing out that as bad as schism was, there was something still worse, “to adore
 [[ Print Edition Page No. 8 ]] 
an idol on earth,” namely a new pope who would not be in the legitimate line.15 And while he would frequently declare his readiness to abdicate if necessary, he always presented this possibility as the final step in consummation of what he called a juridical way or a via iusticie, in which the question of legitimacy would be fully discussed by the two contenders or their proctors; everything suggests that he intended the discussion to go in his favor, or hoped to escalate the verbal conflict into an actual one and carry through the via facti.16 It was unfortunate for him that affairs at the Paris end of the axis were being handled by the Duke of Berry’s chief ecclesiastical client, Simon de Cramaud, not only a trained canonist but also a veteran politician who had put in time at the papal court as well as in the councils of Berry and the king; shrewd and knowledgeable in matters of practical politics, he seems also to have grasped from the first how directly the Paris principle of non-judgement contradicted everything that Benedict stood for. For if there was to be a double abdication without judgement, then Europe would never know which papacy had been the true one, and if Europe could get along without that knowledge, then it did not matter which papacy had been legitimate—a notion that pointed towards others still worse and that no papalist could accept. Nor for that matter could a papalist accept the proposition that union would have to be achieved by a program dictated by the secular powers in their own interests, with the two papal contenders—one of whom was the true pope—slated to play roles fixed in advance. All of these difficulties could be mitigated if not actually resolved, provided that the contenders freely agreed to abdicate; in that case they could legitimate each other’s side and habilitate each other’s cardinals so that the new election would be made by true electors. But while the via cessionis was originally and repeatedly presented as supposing voluntary abdication, those who knew Benedict XIII knew that he would not comply, and as for the Urbanist contender, Boniface IX, there was no reason to think that he would consider any abdication but that of his rival. Simon de Cramaud at least understood from the first that the via cessionis would have to include the likelihood of a coerced abdication, and it would not have taken him long to realize that coercion sounded more fruitful than it in fact could be: the
 [[ Print Edition Page No. 9 ]] 
contenders would have to be deposed.17 Later on he would use the formula cessio seu eieccio,18 and that was what the via cessionis really meant—as, for example, at the Council of Pisa, which met to implement the via cessionis and in fact did so by deposing both contenders—under Simon de Cramaud’s presidency.

First, however, the via cessionis had to become the official policy of the French government.19 Assuming that Berry and Burgundy had already agreed on it, we can suppose that Simon de Cramaud provided the practical scenario, perhaps in association with Burgundy’s chancellor and chief clerical client, Bishop Jean Canart of Arras. Benedict XIII had sent envoys to ask for a royal embassy to Avignon, so that pope and crown could work together for union; the request would be met by an embassy at the highest level, consisting of the royal uncles of Berry and Burgundy, and the royal brother of Orléans, but the dukes would be instructed on the basis of counsel to be given by an assembly of the prelates of the realm. This was the First Paris Council, attended by 109 prelates, proctors of corporations, and other personages, meeting from 2 February to 18 February as the clerical estate of the realm, summoned by the crown, meeting in the royal palace, presided over by Simon de Cramaud as representative of the royal council, working with an agenda prepared by Simon, who handled it in ways that he devised. We see him at the Council working closely with Jean Canart, but also taking care to draw the University of Paris into his machine by associating with himself the theologian Gilles Deschamps and the canonist Pierre Leroy, both of whom spoke unambiguously for the via cessionis as the only possible way to union and as, therefore, obligatory. Simon’s own arguments in this sense are published in this volume (Appendix IV); one notes his insistence on compulsion by the secular powers. What actually went on at the Council is less clear, but it would seem that Simon staged a sort of prefabricated debate that made the desirability of the via cessionis seem all but inevitable, that he did not allow free discussion from the floor, and that in the end the prelates were allowed to vote for one or another prepared
 [[ Print Edition Page No. 10 ]] 
statement, one written by Simon and abridged for the purpose by Jean Canart, the other written by Benedict’s supporter Bishop Elie de Lestrange of Saintes, who urged only that Benedict’s program should be followed if at all possible, and if not, that the dukes should try gently to bring him around. Simon’s text provided that the via cessionis should be presented to Benedict as royal policy, that he should be told that the crown would work for it no matter what he decided, and that the French princes should work with princes of the other obedience to impose cession on the Roman contender. Simon said that 87 had voted for his text, 20 for Elie’s; this “counsel” was reported by him to the royal council and was accepted by “the king”—it remained only for Simon to draft the instructions for the ducal embassy according to his own statement at the Council, with summary notices of points made by others to the same effect.

The dukes were in Avignon from 22 May 1395 to 10 July, along with representatives of the University of Paris and various other personages—Jean Canart was the chief clerical politician.20 There was much talk, with Benedict refusing to accept the Paris program without a discussion of how it was to be implemented, and the dukes refusing to discuss anything at all. Eventually Benedict issued bulls stating that he would pursue all “juridical” ways to union, preferring specifically a meeting between the two popes (via convencionis) at which the issues of legitimacy would be discussed, with arbitration (via compromissi) as a last resort. The dukes, meanwhile, insisted that the cardinals take a stand for or against the Paris program, and all but one of them declared their adherence to it, in the face of Benedict’s prohibitions. This was perhaps the true function of the embassy, along with the more official one of formally declaring the via cessionis to the pope, thereby putting him on notice of his obligation to embrace it—and in the event, recording his refusal. On this basis the Paris leaders could proceed to bring their initiative to the attention of Europe’s princes, by means of a series of diplomatic missions in 1395 and 1396—Simon led the one to King Richard II of England, without immediate success, and then the one to the kings of Spain, especially Henry III of Castile, who agreed to support the French program. No other embassy achieved so clear a result, but all of them must be considered as political actions in their own right, establishing the public entity of the via cessionis at the highest levels of European discourse. The via was of course presented in its
 [[ Print Edition Page No. 11 ]] 
attractive voluntary form, and as such gathered a number of testimonials of approval which could then be cited, with no doubt deliberate sophistry, as approval of the Paris program tout court. At the same time Richard II was moving closer to France for political reasons, and finally, in early November of 1396, he married Charles VI’s seven-year-old daughter Isabelle and, among other things, agreed to join the French in pursuing the via cessionis. The upshot was perhaps the greatest single success the program achieved: a joint embassy from Kings Charles VI of France, Richard II of England, and Henry III of Castile would go to both papal contenders and summon them to accept the via cessionis, with perhaps threats of some sort of action if they refused. The embassy did proceed as planned, in the summer of 1397, and set a deadline for compliance at Candlemas (2 February) of 1398. At the same time Wenceslas IV of Bohemia and the Empire was prevailed upon to send his own envoy to both popes. Here and elsewhere, little or nothing was done in the unambiguous and coercive style that Simon’s project called for; what was achieved was essentially the fact of action and public awareness of it. Suddenly the whole world was talking cession and taking it for granted that an end had to be put to the Schism; the rulers of both obediences were visibly collaborating in the action; the papal contenders were exhibited to public opinion as problematical figures who had it in their power to unify the church by simple acts of renunciation.

It was in these circumstances that Simon wrote his treatise De substraccione obediencie. The sequence of developments leading up to it, however, was rather complex. Subtraction of obedience seems to have made its first appearance in our context as a threat to back up the Valois dukes’ demand that Clement VII accept the via cessionis: it was uttered to this effect by the Duke of Burgundy, for example, in 1393.21 What it meant was that the royal government would prevent the pope from collating to French benefices and imposing financial exactions on the French clergy; “obedience” was understood in a reified sense, as the concrete rights and revenues in question, and it could therefore be subtracted without denying the pope’s legitimacy in other respects. According to papalist ecclesiology, of course, it could not, and subtraction of obedience drew on an alternative ecclesiology, that which had been formulated in association with Gallicanism in the thirteenth century and had been
 [[ Print Edition Page No. 12 ]] 
cultivated continuously at the University of Paris ever since.22 Originating as a reaction to extensions of papal powers that had diminished the powers of the bishops in their dioceses—papal fiscal exactions, reservations of benefices to papal collation, papal privileges of immunity and exemption from episcopal jurisdiction granted to monasteries and chapters—and amplified by the parallel reaction of the University of Paris to papal interference on behalf of professors belonging to the mendicant orders, the Gallican ecclesiology asserted that Christ himself had founded the episcopate in the persons of the twelve apostles and had founded the order of parish priests in the persons of the seventy-two disciples (Luke 10.1); since the priests and bishops had their rights from Christ, the pope might not infringe them. In this view the extensions of papal power in the thirteenth century, and then above all by the Avignon popes of the fourteenth, were usurpations. The French prelates, who bore the full brunt of the novelties, could compare their condition with that of other territorial churches, notably the English, and see that they were the most grievously exploited of all.23 Of course only some prelates felt strongly enough about the matter to work for reform, but doctrinaire Gallicanism flourished among the professors of the University of Paris, especially in the Faculty of Theology, and these saw the crisis of the Schism as their golden opportunity. Here the intrinsic anti-papalism of the via cessionis found its resonance, inasmuch as the subtraction of obedience used as a threat to make the recalcitrant pope resign was in fact the establishment of the Liberties of the Gallican Church, and it might be hoped that the Liberties once instituted would become permanent. In the vocabulary of the time, this sort of subtraction was called partial subtraction, particular subtraction, or subtraction of partial or particular obedience; it was above all the University of Paris’s program, maintained variously within, alongside, or against the political formation constructed and led by Simon de Cramaud.24 On 21 March 1396, right after Simon had left Paris for Spain, the university took the offensive by issuing an appeal from Benedict XIII to a future pope, because of Benedict’s
 [[ Print Edition Page No. 13 ]] 
refusal to accept cession and his threats of reprisals against the cessionists. Then the university pressed for a Second Paris Council of the French clergy, which indeed met in August and September, to consider precisely the university’s proposal that partial subtraction be implemented. Duke Louis of Orléans presided; there was a formal debate between the university spokesmen and the pope’s supporters, and then the prelates voted—to what effect we do not know, since the duke collected the ballots but did not announce the results.25 Recalling that an inter-obedience embassy to both popes was being planned at this time, we can guess that subtraction still had to be kept in reserve as a threat, it could not be pronounced as a policy. This did not prevent the university from continuing to press the government to consider its proposals, and we read of debates before the royal council in early 1397, with preparatory treatises produced—as we shall see—in the last part of 1396.

At the same time Benedict and his supporters were generating their own propaganda, attacking the via cessionis itself, in its non-juridical Paris form, and developing the case for a via iusticie or way of judgement by reviewing once again the events of 1378. The reactionary thrust came to the fore even at the time of the Second Paris Council, when Pierre d’Ailly, for example, attacked the via cessionis and charged that the First Paris Council’s alleged decision for that via had been somehow fraudulent.26 All this occurred when not only Simon de Cramaud but also the Dukes of Berry and Burgundy were away from Paris, where the dominant influence was consequently exercised by Louis of Orléans, perhaps already moving towards his future role as Benedict’s supporter against his uncles. In any case it is clear that Simon’s whole enterprise was in danger of collapsing, and this is the impression we get too from his later account, at the Third Paris Council of 1398, of how he came to write his treatise. “When I returned from Spain,” he stated (this would have been at the end of September 1396—Berry and Burgundy had been in Paris since the beginning of the month), “the Lord Chancellor ordered some members of the royal council, and me, that I write about subtraction, and so I did.” Or, a different report of the same statement: “After I came back from the King of Castile, I found that the King of France had ordained that certain clerics should examine whether the via cessionis was juridical. Seeing this
 [[ Print Edition Page No. 14 ]] 
I began to dispute a question, whether subtraction might be made from the pope in case he would not accept the via cessionis.27 The second report is obviously clearer than the first, whose syntactical anomalies probably conceal an ellipsis, and we can guess that when Simon arrived in Paris he found the reaction in full swing to the point that Benedict’s repudiation of the via cessionis was actually being considered seriously, with a full-scale debate to come, and that Simon inserted himself into the tractate war on the basis of the power position created by the presence of Berry and Burgundy. In the later redactions of his treatise he would write that he had composed it “at the king’s command,” which can be understood as an order that he would have himself obtained from the royal council. At any rate, his position was strong enough to let him ignore the debate over the via cessionis and move directly to the issue of subtraction—we recall that early November would see the alliance between Charles VI and Richard II, and the plans for the joint embassy to the two popes, and that the diplomatic action in this sense proceeded with increasing amplitude throughout 1397. It seems clear that whatever provoked Simon to write, he came to conceive of his treatise as the program for the next escalation of his policy, in connection with the diplomatic action just mentioned, and in preparation for the rejection of cession that he must have foreseen would come from both papal contenders. Hence his decision to treat two questions. First, “whether the kings and realms of both obediences can canonically subtract or entirely deny obedience to Boniface and Benedict if these two refuse to renounce the papacy”—a question that presupposed the canonically obligatory character of the via cessionis, which was established in the treatise by much the same arguments that Simon had used at the First Paris Council, and in this oblique way met the claim that cession was not “juridical.” Then, foreseeing that progress towards union after the anticipated papal refusals would depend in the first place on France, he raised his second question: “Supposing that one of the obediences has been
 [[ Print Edition Page No. 15 ]] 
more diligent in seeking out the better via, and has solemnly requested its pastor to accept the via cessionis, and he has refused to accept it . . .—can it in this case also canonically subtract obedience?” The answer to both questions was of course yes, and while Simon would later claim that he had merely raised arguments pro and con, “for the sake of disputation,”28 the treatise was in fact conceived as a determination.

Reserving the substance of the work for analysis below, we need note here only those traits that show its relationship to the context of political action. Addressed in the first place to the public opinion of French political society, the treatise originally began with the scriptural “Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation” (Luke 11.17; in Decretum 25. q. 2, c. 4), a simple reference to the Schism. But soon after, Simon replaced this with Psalm 2.10’s “Be wise now therefore, O ye kings!” (in Decretum 23. q. 4, c. 41) and went on to argue that kings might legitimately use force to compel what was required for the salvation of souls. It would seem that he now wanted to direct his work more specifically to the secular powers of both obediences, an intention also suggested by the redactional change at three points from “king” to “kings” (lines 592, 1160, 1789) in contexts urging the kings to use their coercive power. The changes are not great, to be sure, and it is clear enough from even the early redactions that Simon had Europe in mind—for example in the remarkably non-partisan account of the events of 1378 (2354-84)—but we may suppose that having begun to write in the circumstances described above, he then came to appreciate the practical utility of the work in the context of the diplomatic action planned for 1397. We know that he sent copies of the treatise to King Charles III of Navarre, King Richard II, and at least one personage in Avignon, and it may have been Simon himself who brought copies to princes of the Empire and to King Wenceslas IV of Bohemia in the summer of 1397. As Pierre Ravat would complain in 1398, copies had by that time been sent “pretty much everywhere.”29 As far as France was concerned, the treatise may have helped shape public opinion to ensure that after the two contenders
 [[ Print Edition Page No. 16 ]] 
had failed to take cessionist action by Candlemas of 1398, France would indeed move to impose the sanction of subtraction of obedience. In any case the Third Paris Council, convoked by letters issued in March, and meeting from May to August of 1398, not only fulfilled the program of the treatise by voting for subtraction, but in a certain sense produced the treatise’s scenario in the formal debate pro and con. Much of the argument on both sides corresponded closely to what had been said in the treatise, and the subtraction ordinance of 27 July 1398 that resulted from the Council included much of the treatise’s argument and wording. After this, of course, the treatise itself lost its topicality, but Simon used it as a repertory of components for other works that he put together in the following years.30

Finally, and most important of all, the political function of De substraccione obediencie was to cast the escalation of the via cessionis onto the path of total subtraction rather than partial. The latter is indeed referred to as “the means advised by the University of Paris” (2110), and is described perfunctorily as a possible alternative if total subtraction is deemed unsuitable—but the passage was obviously put in pro forma. For total subtraction was not, as the term might imply, the completion of partial, but rather its opposite. While partial subtraction aimed at instituting the Gallican Liberties as a curtailment of the powers of an otherwise papal pope, total subtraction was based on the premise that the pope who refused to accept the only way of uniting the church, the via cessionis, was therefore a promoter of schism, a schismatic, and therefore a heretic in the formal canonistic sense; as such he had no right to his papacy and was entitled to no obedience. The aim of total subtraction was, simply, reunification of the church under a single pope, a restoration of the status quo ante, with no ulterior aim of reform. Simon de Cramaud knew all about Gallicanism and could use its language well enough for political effect (see e.g. 1325-75), but he seems to have had no personal interest in it or in any other doctrine based on discontent with the existing system. More to the point, perhaps,
 [[ Print Edition Page No. 17 ]] 
partial subtraction was too Gallican a scheme to suit the political requirements of a program based on the collaboration of the princes of Europe, and even as a tactical measure it had little to recommend it: there was no reason to think that it would lead the popes to abdicate, and the papal powers of censure and excommunication that it left untouched, available for reprisals, could not be blocked by the canonically dubious recourse of an appeal. Total subtraction solved these problems, for its argument that a heretical pope had lost his papal rights thereby made the canonical case for his deposition. Already implicit as we have seen in the Paris form of the via cessionis, deposition obviously lay at the end of total subtraction, and if Simon did not come right out and say so in his treatise (he would later), there are indications enough that he had it in mind: e.g., the “pena deposicionis” in 1961, the “acrius procedendum” and “pocius procedendum” in 1889 and 1901, and the “ulterius ad alia viriliter procedendum” in 2103. The redactional history of the treatise makes this impression even clearer, as for example in 2704, where the statement that an incorrigible pope “would incur heresy” replaced the original’s “would indeed be judged” (and cf. the effect of the twice-added “forte” in 763 and 771). It is in the later redactions, furthermore, that we find substantial insertions specifying the heretical status of the reluctant popes and noting the canonical penalties for heresy, including “deposition, deprivation of all property, coercion by armed force and delivery to the secular court,” the last to be followed by “fire and burning to death, according to the divine law” (1205-1313).

At the same time, Simon knew that he could not simply ignore the Gallican sentiment of the University of Paris that favored partial subtraction. The passage referred to above shows at least this awareness, which evidently prompted a few insertions in the later redactions, catering to the university: 146, 1283, 1128 (app. crit.). Those university leaders who worked with him at the First Paris Council, Pierre Leroy and Gilles Deschamps, and who would stay with him at the Third and indeed to the end, were both Gallicans; both clearly distanced themselves from the anti-Gallican implication of the argument that the contending popes were heretics, even while defending total subtraction in other terms.31 The more prestigious leaders, the theologians Pierre d’Ailly and Jean Gerson, who never joined Simon’s coalition, still argued for the Gallican Liberties even while
 [[ Print Edition Page No. 18 ]] 
defending Benedict XIII against the thrust of total subtraction—perhaps indeed their defense of the pope was tied to their commitment to reform, in the sense laid out above.32 As for the coalition, its inner contradictions came out and were reconciled in practice at the Third Paris Council, when the University of Paris declared that it supported total subtraction while at the same time insisting on adding partial subtraction to it, and the prelates who voted in a large majority for total subtraction saw to it that the arrangements governing the status of the subtracted Gallican church would include the Gallican Liberties in the matter of collations to benefices and cancellation of the fiscal rights of the Apostolic Camera.33 The cardinals, all but one of whom agreed to support the subtraction at that time, had argued for recognition of papal provisions still outstanding (they themselves held many of them) and for maintenance of the fiscal rights of the Camera (in which they shared), and while Simon had explored these possibilities in his treatise, and in his speech at the Council, he had also explored the Gallican solutions; in the end he accepted the latter, no doubt because he had to. If the ruthlessness of his political program reminds us of Guillaume de Nogaret dealing with Boniface VIII, an example certainly in Simon’s mind,34 his flexibility in practice suggests an even more radically functionalist style of thought, animated by the careerist’s cult of personal success and the politician’s acceptance of anything that worked. The mentality behind the action is not revealed to us by any writings of a personal nature, but it can be inferred from the way he acted and the way he developed his theory.

Simon’s readiness to incorporate the Gallican program of partial subtraction into his own structure of total was matched by his willingness to extend the latter into a plan for a general council of both obediences. His treatise had simply rejected a conciliar solution, which had in most cases been presented by its proponents as a way of judgement between the contenders, and at the Third Paris Council he had referred at first merely to action by a concert of the secular rulers, notably the kings of France, England, and Bohemia,
 [[ Print Edition Page No. 19 ]] 
along with Spain. But after he had come to realize that something more regular and solid was required, he broached the conciliar scheme in his ballot at the Council: each realm would send princes and prelates to meet and act in conjunction with the cardinals of both colleges; this council would demand that the papal contenders abdicate, and it could depose them if they refused; election of a new pope could follow at once. On 20 June 1398 he presented the plan to the Council itself, with the approval of the royal government, and specified how the French church would constitute its delegation.35 After France’s subtraction of total obedience from Pope Benedict XIII, 27 July 1398, the new conciliar plan was described in letters to foreign governments that called upon these to follow France in subtracting obedience—the first step.36 Developed strictly out of the policy of via cessionis implemented by subtraction of total obedience, Simon’s conciliarism could nevertheless pick up the prestige of the earlier via concilii generalis, whose terminology and canonistic foundation it shared, even while eschewing all ideas of judgement. It also eschewed all ideas of a conciliar reform of the church beyond the goal of unification. It was in fact the program for what would become the Council of Pisa and, arguably if less obviously, for the single indubitable success of the Council of Constance.

The Third Paris Council meeting from 22 May to 8 August 1398, with several intermissions, consummated the French stage of the via cessionis and opened the way to its European development which would lead to the Council of Pisa in 1409. The clergy’s insistence that the status of the French church during total subtraction be based on the Gallican Liberties of partial subtraction was gratified, after much political negotiation that lasted even into the beginning of 1399, but the subtraction was indeed total.37 The subtraction ordinance of 27 July 1398, publicly read out on 1 August, incorporated a long review of all the action for union since the death of Clement VII, noted Benedict XIII’s rejection of the via cessionis,
 [[ Print Edition Page No. 20 ]] 
observed that popes who kept the church in division were schismatics and comparable to heretics in this regard, and declared that no obedience should be given to a pope who commanded what would subvert the status of the universal church; therefore, the ordinance concluded, the French crown, church, and realm withdrew from total obedience to its pope, Benedict XIII.38 Simon de Cramaud, who either drafted or provided material for the ordinance,39 would later claim correctly that it had not passed formal sentence upon the pope—this would be the task of a future council;40 but in this matter too, the ordinance’s line of argument corresponded to his doctrine. The total subtraction and the plan for a representative general council could now be advanced as a paradigm and program for Europe to follow, as already noted.

The immediate results were not encouraging, in fact the reverse, as Richard II of England was deposed in 1399 and Wenceslas IV was declared deposed by the Western Electors in 1400 (he retained recognition as Emperor in most of the eastern lands, and remained King of Bohemia); these had been the two pillars of cessionist foreign policy. Benedict XIII, moreover, not only eluded capture but fortified the papal palace in Avignon and defended it successfully against siege by the cardinals and French forces. Producing no evident results abroad, the revolutionary policy of subtraction became vulnerable to its many opponents at home, led by Duke Louis of Orléans, who in just these years was moving to build up his own bases of
 [[ Print Edition Page No. 21 ]] 
power in opposition to the Burgundian interest. Louis persuaded Benedict to declare his readiness to make concessions and indeed to accept the via cessionis, so that those who invoked the formula of conditional subtraction pronounced at the Third Paris Council—but not in the subtraction ordinance!—could argue that subtraction had fulfilled its purpose and obedience could now be restored; and so it was, for about two and a half years in 1403-06. Benedict failed to live up to his promises, however, and the new surge of opinion against him was facilitated by a change in the political balance among the dukes: Philip the Bold of Burgundy died in 1404, and Jean of Berry allied himself with Louis of Orléans (Simon de Cramaud promptly followed suit and became an Orléans councillor). Duke Jean the Fearless who succeeded his father in the Burgundian conglomerate remained a strong supporter of the via cessionis, while Louis of Orléans seems to have let his ties with Berry moderate his defense of Benedict and his hopes for a via facti.41 So it was that a Fourth Paris Council, meeting from November 1406 to January 1407, with Simon presiding in the decisive stages, voted to reinstate the subtraction, this time as partial, with requests for royal ordinances to give permanent validity to the suppression of papal fiscal exactions and collationary powers. The way was open for a new European drive, this time with excellent chances of success since opinion on the Urbanist side had now veered to support of the via cessionis.42

The marks of this change are clear enough. Pope Boniface IX had never for a moment considered any solution to the Schism other than his rival’s submission, but after his death in 1404 the new pope, Innocent VII, had to swear an oath to do everything in his power, even abdicate, in order to reunite the church; the cardinals who met in conclave after Innocent’s death in late 1406 swore similar oaths, as did their new pope Gregory XII after his election. Gregory, moreover, displayed real enthusiasm for the via cessionis—without a trial of rights, hence in the French version—and his messages in this sense went to Benedict XIII and to the French government; their arrival in Paris came during the last stages of the Fourth Paris Council and evoked a decision to hold the Gallican ordinances in abeyance while a massive embassy would go to both popes to help implement their
 [[ Print Edition Page No. 22 ]] 
respective abdications. Simon de Cramaud was to lead the embassy in association with the Orléans client Pierre Fresnel, Bishop of Meaux. Since the two popes had already begun negotiations on their own, the embassy could at first do little more than tell Benedict that this time he would have to accept the via cessionis without his usual tricky evasions, and then go on to arrange the transport needed to bring Gregory to a place of meeting. But Benedict had already begun his tricks, urging Gregory to join him in a via convencionis with discussion of rights, with abdication of the one or the other coming only at the end—in short a joint papal initiative that would respect the papacy’s integrity, rather than mere obedience to the secular powers’ interest in a non-judicial solution.43 The role of the French embassy had to change in consequence; some members fell away but Simon kept a hard core together who resolved to work with the Urbanist cardinals for the French version of the via cessionis even against the two popes (the Avignon cardinals could be counted on in any case). It was this line of action that would lead to the desertion of Gregory by his cardinals, 11 May 1408, their fusion with a group of Benedict’s cardinals, and, finally, a declaration by this new union on 29 June to “pursue the union of the church . . . by the way of abdication of both papal contenders, . . . and if they refuse or are contumacious we will take other measures by deliberation of a general council.” Members of the French embassy, above all Simon de Cramaud, were involved in all these stages.44 The Council of Pisa in 1409 would be the direct result.

But why had the Urbanist papacy given up its intransigent assertion of its own exclusive right? A conditio sine qua non must have been the whole course of French action proclaiming the unique acceptability of the via cessionis, going on to provide the model of subtraction, and constantly pursuing a European diplomacy that brought its program and ideas to the attention of all decision makers. But this was not enough, and, as already noted, the original project of a union of secular powers to impose abdication on both popes had in fact failed. The Urbanist papacy, however, provided the remedy. From the very first, after the secession of the French cardinals and the French officials who made up the whole apparatus of papal government, this papacy had become a possession of the great families of the Neapolitan nobility, called in by Urban VI (his
 [[ Print Edition Page No. 23 ]] 
mother was a Brancacci) to fill the vacuum.45 After Louis II of Anjou’s armies had conquered Naples in 1387 these families had nothing but the papacy for themselves and they moved into it en masse. The Perrino Tomacelli who succeeded Urban VI in 1389 as Boniface IX was one of them, and by the time of his death in 1404 five of the ten cardinals were his relatives, three more belonged to other Neapolitan clans. Perhaps it was this very thrust that led to a reaction, for the next pope, Innocent VII, was not a Neapolitan (although a South Italian) and was unfavorable to the Tomacelli; his election involved, however, the oath already described to pursue union even by abdication, and an even stronger commitment to the via cessionis was made in the election of Gregory XII, a Venetian. Decisive forces in the Urbanist papacy had, obviously, come to the conclusion that union under the French program would be good for them. It is not hard to guess why. The French program by its nature renounced any claim to continue the Avignon tradition of French popes residing in France; a new united papacy would certainly be Italian and there would certainly be places in it, in rank, for all cardinals and officials of the Urbanist papacy. At the same time the extremely restricted financial resources of the Urbanist papacy would give way to the relatively vast revenues generated by the Avignon apparatus. Even though the Schism itself had diminished these and the Councils of Pisa and Constance would diminish them further, so that the new papacy after Constance would enjoy only a third of what the Avignon popes had had before the Schism,46 this was still much more than what the Urbanist popes had taken in. Finally, there is no reason to believe that less calculable factors like the ideal of unity, the integrity of papal authority, the prestige of a united papacy, were not also in play, in one way or another.

The key leader in this reorientation of Urbanist policy was Cardinal Baldassare Cossa, originally a Tomacelli protégé and then an autonomous power from 1403 on, as papal legate ruling Bologna. In 1405 he caused Petrus de Ancharano, a noted Ferraran jurist, to write a treatise on union in which—among many other points—the French insistence on avoiding a discussion of legitimacy was taken
 [[ Print Edition Page No. 24 ]] 
over; as Boniface Ferrer would later comment, in a discussion mentioning Ancharano by name, the Italian jurists were accustomed to obeying tyrants and to selling their opinions.47 Cossa, in any case, began systematically to accumulate his Bolognese revenues in a private account with the Medici bank in Florence, other Neapolitans did the same, and when the time was ripe, a few days before the Council of Pisa, Cossa withdrew 42,000 florins from his account to help finance the enterprise. Others prominent in this juncture were the members of the Brancacci family who held cardinalcies and other offices in both papacies. Since the Council of Pisa would choose a Cossa ally as the new pope, Alexander V, and since he would quickly be succeeded by Cossa himself, as John XXIII, this whole Neapolitan response to the openings created by the French push must be given due recognition as a major political action; in more sober terms, it was the medium in which the theory developed in Simon’s treatise could find its practical success.

The Council of Pisa, summoned to meet on 25 March 1409, began without Simon, who was busy at home organizing support for it and trying to frustrate Benedict XIII’s counter-moves, but he arrived on 24 April and assumed the presidency. The smooth course of the public proceedings, commented on by modern scholars, can best be attributed to Simon’s manipulative skill, which indeed we see at work here using just the techniques he had used to manage the Paris Councils in earlier years.48 He was also the one who read out the decree deposing both papal contenders as schismatics, heretics, contumacious scandalizers of the church—the theory of deposition was exactly that which he had worked out in his treatise and there is no need to imagine any other source,49 although by this
 [[ Print Edition Page No. 25 ]] 
time there were better-known Italian professionals to make the same case. When it came time to consider how to elect the new pope Simon also intervened, not only declaring the official French position of disinterest but also manipulating a vote that implemented it, refusing to ask for arrangements to compensate for the French cardinals’ numerical inferiority in the combined college.

If the new pope, Alexander V, would soon die, and if his successor, John XXIII, would prove unable to secure universal acceptance, the Pisan solution cannot be therefore written off as merely the addition of a third pope to the two original ones. For one thing the overwhelming majority of Europe’s polities supported the Pisan line, either at first or in the next couple of years. Then too, as far as France was concerned the Schism was over; she was now with the majority that included England, almost all of Germany and East-Central Europe, and most of Italy. Finally, the Council of Constance which did end the Schism more or less definitely (there were Benedictine holdouts in Spain and South France, and there was Hussite Bohemia) would not have happened without the preliminary solution imposed at Pisa. Constance too deposed Benedict XIII and John XXIII, and would have deposed Gregory XII if he had not had the shrewdness to abdicate on condition that he be allowed to “summon” the council. In other words the Schism was ended pretty much in the way Simon had intended as early as 1395, in accord with the theory he had developed in the De substraccione, as amplified by his conciliar scheme of 1398. The extraordinary interest of modern scholars in the Councils of Pisa and Constance has been due to the ideas of church reform and constitutional conciliarism emerging in connection with them and transcending their context of strictly political action. Simon’s treatise was part of that context and aimed no higher than was necessary, although it had its own profundities as the work of a politician and careerist—the man who now claims our attention.


 [[ Print Edition Page No. 26 ]] 

§ 2. Simon de Cramaud

The first known appearance of Simon de Cramaud’s name identifies him in 1370 as a younger son in a Limousin family of petty nobility, vassals of the viscounts of Rochechouart; his father had died and the eldest son Pierre, a knight, held the family property.50 We encounter Simon next in 1375 as a doctor of canon law of the University of Orléans, in April receiving papal collation to a canonry and prebend in the cathedral of Rheims, and then in June getting a canonry and semiprebend, with the office of scolasticus, in the cathedral of Orléans, this too by direct papal provision of the best sort; in the latter text he is identified as “licensed in laws,” and required to give up benefices that he had previously held—one in Oviedo and a chaplaincy in Meaux. In 1376, however, he appears as maître des requêtes of the royal palace, and it must have been at about this time that he held a professorship in the Faculty of Canon Law at the University of Paris. The bare data suggest, first, that Simon had brains and the personal qualities making for worldly success, and second, that he enjoyed the patronage of a very powerful person—almost certainly Duke Jean of Berry, whose function in this capacity is attested explicitly in documents from 1381 on, and whom Simon followed loyally and closely until the duke’s death in 1416.51 Pierre de Cramaud had taken part in the reconquest of Limousin and Poitou from 1369 on, under the duke’s overlordship, and we can imagine this connection as perhaps the background for the duke’s interest in Simon, who was presumably already at the University of Orléans; it would have been the duke, then, who got Simon the student benefices noted above, and who, on Simon’s graduation, obtained the more splendid ones from Pope Gregory XI, but who soon afterwards changed his plans and decided to move Simon to Paris as one of his men in the royal government, with a professional base at the University of Paris. That, at any rate, was the way careers were made in the later Middle Ages generally, and in Valois France in particular. If Simon was thirty at the time of his doctorate, a more or less normal age, he would have been born about 1345—a much
 [[ Print Edition Page No. 27 ]] 
earlier date would make his active last years all but superhuman (he died in 1423), and a later one would make him rather too young to be a Paris professor in a higher faculty—even with ducal and papal backing.

All we know of Simon’s functions at the University of Paris is related to that body’s formal declaration of adherence to Clement VII in the first part of 1379; he was among other things the Law Faculty’s envoy carrying its benefice-roll to the pope, who duly rewarded him with yet another canonry. Some remarks in his treatise and other works might be taken as implying that their author was among those whose adherence was nothing more than obedience to a royal command;52 for the rest we can say only that there is no known evidence to suggest that Simon’s public actions were determined by ideals of scholarship, theory, or religion—or indeed any other ideals beyond the functional ones of political, personal, and familial loyalty. At the same time there is no evidence that his works were written by anyone but himself, and they show a clear, powerful mind capable of using its legal training to develop a corporatist ecclesiology that stood at the height of its time even while it served its author’s political purpose; the next section will show this in some detail. Careerist would be the word that best characterizes the pattern of his thought and action, and careerism was the common denominator of his multiple roles—in the academy, in the royal government, in the church, and—as we shall see—in the direct service of Berry. The goal of careerism in that period was estate, a concept that cannot be neatly defined in modern terms; for if it included “status” defined in terms of prestige or honor, it also carried a sense of normative right under the law, which our modern notion of legal equality has no room for.53 On the one hand estate was the condition resulting from the total of one’s wealth, powers, privileges, offices, and rights, also one’s noble blood if one had it; on the other hand this estate was itself the object of a property-right and as such shared in the claim of property to be maintained under the law. Thus, for example, a nobleman might ask for a royal grant “to maintain his estate,” and a businessman could justly make enough profit to ensure the same end. As far as Simon de Cramaud was concerned, we can best make sense out of his strivings by putting aside a disjunctive
 [[ Print Edition Page No. 28 ]] 
definition of roles—prelate, public official, professor, land-lord, and the like—and thinking of him as playing the game of estate, in which points could be scored in all these capacities and many more besides. These considerations will perhaps become more obviously significant as we follow him further in his life; they are introduced here to suggest that the events of his career provide one important access to the mentality responsible for his treatise.

It was no doubt Berry who secured the renewal of Simon’s appointment as maître des requêtes in 1380, after the death of Charles VI, and it may have been at this time that Simon began sitting in the royal council—the embodiment of the dukes’ joint governance of the realm. But one effect of the new situation was to give Berry back his former royal lieutenancy in Languedoc, and he used Simon there from 1381 to 1383 as a member of his government; along the way he secured for his client the bishoprics of Agen (1382) and then Béziers (1383). Then he called Simon north to function in the Paris government once more, and to accompany Berry as ducal councillor when needed—until March 1385, when he chose Simon as the chief clerical member of a royal embassy to Hungary, with the mission of making a proxy marriage between the heiress of that realm and the young Duke Louis of Touraine, the brother of Charles VI. The embassy itself succeeded, and only the intervention by force of Sigismund of Luxemburg, to get the Hungarian princess for himself, undid its work. Simon, however, had had his moment and of course his European trip; when he came back the duke made him ducal chancellor and had him transferred by the pope from the bishopric of Béziers to that of Poitiers, 24 November 1385. The young graduate in laws of ten years before had evidently proved his worth in all the places and jobs that his patron had put him into, and now held one of the top positions in the Berry machine, a massive apparatus which was centered in the duke’s appanage, including Berry, Auvergne, Limousin, and Poitou, and reaching out to Paris and Avignon, with the enormous profits and powers that were added by the royal lieutenancy in Languedoc. By this time too, Simon must have been rich: his royal and ducal offices must have brought in thousands of livres a year, his prebends and bishoprics had substantial revenues, and there must have been many gifts or other windfalls.54


 [[ Print Edition Page No. 29 ]] 

Already in 1383, when still bishop of Béziers, Simon had moved to consolidate his estate by bringing his family up alongside him, literally as well as figuratively, so that the petty nobles living in the shadow of Rochechouart would become important lords of Poitou.55 Renaud de Montléon, Berry’s maître d’hôtel and longtime servitor, was the head of an old Poitevin baronial family that had fallen on hard times, most recently because Renaud had been captured by the English and owed his captors the usual ruinous ransom. His properties, including the main family castle of Touffou, a fief of the episcopal lordship of Chauvigny, were heavily burdened with annuities (rentes). Perhaps Simon already knew that he would be moving into the bishopric of Poitiers; in any case he seized the chance to arrange a marriage between his nephew Jean, Pierre’s son and the sole hope of the male Cramaud line, and Renaud’s daughter Orable: the monetary dispositions, apart from whatever Simon may have paid as a simple inducement, included a dower for Orable, a handsome wedding-gift, and the purchase of several annuities on Touffou and elsewhere. The marriage-contract, negotiated by Simon on Jean’s behalf, provided for a dowry to consist of certain properties Renaud promised to turn over to the couple, a small part at once and the rest after his death; should he or his executors fail to fulfill the contract, there would be a penalty of 4,000 livres, half to go to the crown. This may have seemed unproblematical at the time, since Orable’s only sibling was a younger sister, but Renaud’s wife was pregnant and later in 1383 gave birth to a son, Renaud II; when Renaud I died in 1385, the family refused to give Jean and Orable the important properties they had been promised. The Montléons were no match for Simon, however, who was now bishop of Poitiers and, as we have seen, a very big man in the Berry machine: he used his money to acquire more rights to the heritage; he used his episcopal authority to get an annuity held on Touffou by a collegiate church; he used his position as feudal lord of Touffou for similar purposes; he used his familiarity with government to involve the law courts on his side; and he used his own henchmen and his colleagues in Berry’s service to mobilize so much power that the Montléons had to give in. Thus in 1387 they agreed to transfer Touffou to Jean and Orable in exchange for cancellation of all other obligations; Parlement in Paris registered the accord on 3 August 1387, and on
 [[ Print Edition Page No. 30 ]] 
14 January 1388 a royal letter, witnessed by Berry, confirmed the whole arrangement and granted Touffou to Jean and Orable as their heritage.

During the same period Simon spent a lot of money on other acquisitions as well, some in his own name but others in the name of Pierre or Jean, with Simon to have the usufruct during his lifetime. Money was also poured into the restoration and improvement of Touffou, and the redemption of annuities weighing on it. Later on, in the 1390’s, Simon bought important new properties in the region around Loudun. He also acquired a house in Paris, by a combination of tricks, cash, and mere power that reminds us of the Touffou affair; this time it was only a widow who was browbeaten, not as previously a widow and two orphans. Putting all these together, on the basis of minimal estimates, we see Simon spending at least 15,000 livres on properties for himself and his family in the fifteen years following 1383.56 It took a lot of work, there was endless difficulty in the law courts over many if not most of the purchases, but the result was evidently worth it: mere money had been converted into lands, the mere client of Berry had become the de facto head of an important noble family, and the estate hitherto consisting of offices and emoluments had been given a solid foundation of property, family power, and lordship. The construction itself was well suited to the times, marked as these were by a crisis of seigneurial revenues and the extensive destruction of the petty nobility:57 a family of petty nobility had become more or less grand, it had a broad economic base consisting of widely diversified properties, and its economy was bolstered by continuous access to the revenues of church and state. One might object that there was not much else that Simon could have done with his 15,000 livres, and the point would be well taken if we were trying to make a case for his prudence or his family love, but we are not; it is enough to point to what he did and to understand how his behavior was more or less dictated by the structure of his world, reproduced in his mentality. The individuating factors would have been his talent and ambition, both extraordinarily high, and perhaps the delicacy of his moral sentiment, evidently rather low. In any case he had launched himself
 [[ Print Edition Page No. 31 ]] 
on a path that had to be followed to the end; for most of what he had achieved depended on the power and favor radiating from his patron, whose support he could best continue to assure by keeping active and eager.

Before picking up the story of Simon’s ambition, however, it will be useful to dwell a bit on some other aspects of his Poitevin program. Neither his brother Pierre nor his nephew Jean showed much competence in life, rather the reverse,58 and it would be odd if Simon had not been aware of their mediocrity from the first; we must assume, therefore, that he knew how important his own power was in guaranteeing the stability of the new Cramaud family position. At the same time the demands of his careerism led him to think of moving up and therefore out—out of the bishopric of Poitiers among other things. Did he already envisage returning there at the end of his career, as he in fact did? One thing certain is that he took care to impress his mark on his see, not only by the diligent performance of his duty to keep the church in repair, to improve the episcopal properties, and to maintain the various rights of the see by appropriate legal action,59 but also by undertaking a major revision of the fiscal relationship between bishop and chapter. As in many other dioceses the two parties were in endless conflict over the division of episcopal revenues which they had originally shared; in the case of Poitiers the division had been sanctioned by a bull of Pope Clement V, 4 August 1307, confirming the bishop’s obligation to pay 600 livres a year to the chapter in place of judicial rights that the chapter had given up. One bishop after another refused to pay and had to be sued. Simon seems to have resolved to settle the matter even before his installation as bishop,60 for on that occasion, when asked to swear that he would observe the “Clementine” privilege, he refused the definite formula presented by the chapter and swore only: “Clementinam vero juro in quantum de jure teneor ad jurandum”; then he had a notarized record made of the episode.61 Next he raised money by selling off episcopal timber and relinquished a number of episcopal rights in order to establish a yearly income for the chapter that would meet its claims; the arrangement, satisfactory to
 [[ Print Edition Page No. 32 ]] 
both parties, was approved by Pope Clement VII on 22 April 1389. But then Simon claimed his own reward, getting the pope’s approval on 25 April 1390 to reobligate the bishop’s judicial revenues to the extent of 100 livres a year, to pay the chapter for four yearly masses in the cathedral, the beneficiaries to be Simon, his parents, the Duke of Berry, and Clement VII. Whatever we may think of this action, it had the effect of keeping alive the sense of Simon’s episcopal presence (in the right company), not least because, as Simon foresaw, succeeding bishops refused to pay and had to be sued. We shall see other examples of his attention to Poitiers after he left it, for the same purpose, and we note that the cartulary of the bishopric known as the “Grand Gauthier,” begun by Bishop Gauthier de Bruges (1278-1306) and hardly kept up at all by the bishops after about 1310, was more or less taken over by Simon, who was responsible for twenty entries from 1387 to 1421, after which there is only one entry, in 1506.62 All of which suggests that Simon saw himself linked to the see of Poitiers by enduring ties of both interest and sentiment, ties that would survive his departure.

Two of Simon’s predecessors as Berry’s chancellor had moved on to become cardinals, a third had become chancellor of France; Berry, apparently, saw only advantages in extending the estate of his clients. In 1390, however, when Simon wanted to move, the duke’s power had been curtailed by his exclusion from the Paris government, exercised directly from 1388 to 1392 by Charles VI. Berry even lost his lieutenancy in Languedoc. But Clement VII was still obliging, and when Berry asked him to promote Simon to the archbishopric of Sens, due to become vacant, the pope agreed in early July 1390. Unfortunately Charles VI had his own candidate for the see, and letters were sent to Simon and Berry to order them not to interfere. While it is not clear whether Simon got the letters and ignored them, or suborned the dispatch-rider into not delivering them, or was perhaps not made aware of them at all—still there was much suspicion of impropriety, and there was a judicial inquiry that could have been disastrous; why it was not can only be guessed.63 In any case Simon’s collation to Sens was cancelled. On 17 March 1391,
 [[ Print Edition Page No. 33 ]] 
however, Clement made Simon Patriarch of Alexandria, with the administration of the see of Avignon, and we find him there for over a year, his ducal chancellorship given up. It is hard to imagine that this period of service in the papal curia was originally thought of as anything but a preliminary to promotion to the cardinalate, Simon’s ambition being one of the constants in our story; that the promotion did not take place suggests that it was blocked, and we can believe Martin of Alpartil, who tells us that the chief personage responsible was Cardinal Pedro de Luna, the future Pope Benedict XIII.64 The crucial decision may have been made by 19 September 1391, when Clement shifted Simon from the see of Avignon to that of Carcassonne; although Simon remained in Avignon for almost a year afterwards, serving the papacy, it was probably because he had no place else to go. He did get a papal commission sometime during this period to “reform what needs to be reformed” in the church of Poitiers, and we may guess that he used it inter alia to keep his hand in the Poitevin center of his family’s estate.65

When Berry and Burgundy returned to power, after Charles VI’s madness in August 1392, Simon de Cramaud was not far behind—we find him in Paris from October onwards.66 His role in the dukes’ discreet but definite shift to a union policy can only be guessed; perhaps the safest formulation would be that as Berry’s councillor he was supposed to advise his patron, that his advice in matters of church policy might have been especially valued, and that he had his own reasons to see the Avignon adventure as no longer worth its price. The same might perhaps be said, mutatis mutandis, about his opposite number in Burgundy’s retinue, Bishop Jean Canart of Arras. Leaving safety behind, we can go on to guess that while Berry would have himself appreciated the advantages of peace in the church, and with England, Simon might have been the one to lay out the strategy of the via cessionis. At the same time Berry seems to have felt a strong loyalty to Clement VII, and Simon could hardly have set himself against that. What it comes down to is that from the latter part of 1392 on, the University of Paris and others were permitted to agitate for union, the royal council entertained the question, and there was much talk in Paris about not only union but the via cessionis in 1393, with Cardinal Pedro de Luna
 [[ Print Edition Page No. 34 ]] 
himself, in Paris as Clement’s envoy, speaking in favor of a more active policy.67 In the latter part of 1393 the royal council even informed the bishops of “the king’s” intention to work for union by the via cessionis.68 And in January 1394 a university delegation to the royal government was told, by Berry, that it should work to find some honorable way of ending the Schism; at the end of the month members of the royal council were appointed to work with the university in the matter.69 Simon was not one of them, for sometime after early January he had gone to Avignon, perhaps merely to transact the personal business that we know he took care of there—he bought two properties in the Loudun lordship from Duchess Marie of Anjou—but perhaps also to bring Clement the news of what was going on in Paris.70 Clement’s reaction was to send agents to meet the unionist challenge with counter-propaganda and bribery—Simon himself received a valuable privilege of collating to eight benefices that had been granted on 20 November 1391 but was only issued now, 19 May 1394.71 And yet in 1406 Simon could say, “I knew Clement and . . . I think that if he had lived one year longer we would now have peace in the church. I can say with certainty that he charged me in writing to tell my lord of Berry that he was fully prepared to renounce the papacy for the good of church union.”72 In the event Berry and with him the royal government changed course and began to discourage the university, to the point that the masters called for a cessation of classes in August 1394. This was the situation when the news of Clement’s death on 16 September reached the royal council, on the 22d, and we have already seen how Simon de Cramaud at once took the lead in laying the foundations
 [[ Print Edition Page No. 35 ]] 
of a unionist policy. We must suppose that everything had been worked out previously, that the fluctuations in the government’s dealings with the University of Paris were matters of tactics and timing, and that there was a solid Berry-Burgundy understanding that union would in fact be pursued, and by the via cessionis. Also that Simon de Cramaud had stood very close to the center of policy-making.

His work as a leader in the policy of cession and subtraction has already been outlined; it seems to have taken up most of his time, although he continued to keep an eye out for likely properties and to buy them from time to time. After subtraction had been adopted, 27 July 1398, he had to manage the conflicts between the cardinals and the Gallican church, to keep up the flow of propaganda (based on his treatise), and to go himself on embassies to West-German diets.73 As his policy lost momentum, with the increasingly evident reluctance of anyone to follow the French lead—even Henry III of Castile fell away after the death of Pedro Tenorio, Archbishop of Toledo, in 1399—he was driven to desperate expedients, inflating the ambiguous encouragement that he got from the Germans into promises of support, and in 1401 moving towards a plan, originally proposed by his opponents, for a council of the Avignon obedience to determine further measures. But in vain: Duke Louis of Orléans, who for the past few years had been building up a strong anti-Burgundian power position, made himself the champion of Benedict XIII, and it seems that his uncles were simply unable or unwilling to bring the intra-family tensions to a head over the matter of church union. In 1402 we find little evidence of Simon at work in Paris, and it may well be that he had found it prudent to leave the capital; it was a time when he could think of his own affairs and his future in Poitou. Thus in October he carried through an extremely important foundation in the cathedral of Poitiers, endowing a music-master and six choirboys as a permanent and integral component of the chapter’s structure—one of the first such foundations in France; the lands, tithes, and rentes that he gave the chapter for the purpose must have cost him between 500 and 1,000 livres.74 At the same
 [[ Print Edition Page No. 36 ]] 
time he would probably have begun planning for his tomb in the cathedral; for the elaborate structure of alabaster and marble, with a statue of himself standing over it and a gisant on top, which was finished in 1405, must have been commissioned some years earlier.75 It was in 1402 also that he arranged a good marriage for his grandniece Mathea de Pressac (daughter of Jean de Cramaud’s sister Jeanne), at a cost to himself of 1,200 gold écus for the dowry—this too was a Poitevin affair.76 There was indeed little scope for public action, and we can only speculate about Simon’s train of thought as he saw the inexorable movement of opinion back towards Benedict XIII, and then, on 30 May 1403, saw the king decree formal restoration of obedience. The one thing he could be sure of was that the new policy would lead nowhere, inasmuch as Benedict would never abdicate and the Valois family were too involved in their own feuds to promote a serious reprise of the via facti. At least Benedict’s renewed authority allowed him to confirm Simon’s Poitiers foundation of 1402, on 23 January 1404.

The situation indeed changed rather quickly. The death of Duke Philip of Burgundy in 1404 freed the Duke of Berry from an alliance based more on the mutuality of brotherly confidence than on his own geo-political and familial interests, all of which drew him to the south. We may add that Philip’s successor, Jean the Fearless, did not attract affection. On 1 December 1405, after civil war between Orléans and Burgundy had been happily averted, Berry allied himself with Orléans and Queen Isabelle, evidently against Jean the Fearless; Simon de Cramaud, as much a Berry client as ever, became a councillor of Orléans with a pension of 2,000 livres a year, on 11 December.77 His own affairs continued to claim much of his time, and we must imagine the ambiance of travel, provincial residence, family arrangements, local sociability, and the like, that would have surrounded the completion and final dedication of his tomb in Poitiers cathedral sometime in 1405, the erection and endowment of a major commemorative foundation in the Cramauds’ old home church of Biennac in 1405 and 1406, another such foundation in nearby St. Junien in 1406, and other lesser actions of the same sort, like his gift
 [[ Print Edition Page No. 37 ]] 
of a missal to Limoges cathedral on 26 December 1405.78 Simon would have been about sixty years old at this time, and would have drawn his own conclusions from the fact that the twenty-year-old marriage between Jean and Orable had produced no children, and that Renaud II of Montléon had celebrated his twentieth birthday by demanding his family seat of Touffou back from the barren couple.79 It would be a long time before he got it, but perhaps the writing was already visible on the wall. In any case, Simon’s decision to invest in the kind of estate provided by ecclesiastical foundations, readily explainable on several grounds, can be usefully kept in mind as we return to the story of his public career, whose finest moments were yet to come but which would abruptly lapse into a final stage of narrowed horizons, illness, and aged frailty. Meanwhile, since the Berry-Orléans alliance had ended the political constellation within which Orléans’s pro-Benedict policy made sense, the way was open for a return to cession and subtraction, in other words a return of Simon de Cramaud to political action in Paris.

The course of events in the matter of union policy from 1406 on has already been touched; it is reviewed here in relation to Simon’s political action.80 It begins, to be sure, with the University of Paris playing an unusually active and independent role, to the point that Simon appears at first as only a collaborator, his main sphere of public action apparently lying in the ordinary politics generated by the tensions among the dukes. Here he had his obligations to Berry and now also to Orléans, whom he accompanied on a campaign in Guienne in the autumn of 1406. Meanwhile the University of Paris had persuaded the royal government to call a Fourth Paris Council to meet in the first part of November, to consider the university’s request for a renewal of total subtraction. Simon was not present at first and, as we might expect, the Council was not firmly programmed; he arrived in time for the debate, which covered all the old issues of Gallicanism and papalism. At the end of the debate, however, on 20 December, Simon assumed the presidency, most likely at the government’s order, and at once began to bring order out of confusion, crystallizing the vote by preparing “schedules” (cedule) on the points at issue that the prelates could vote either for
 [[ Print Edition Page No. 38 ]] 
or against. This time it was the university that demanded total subtraction, Simon and the government that favored partial, probably because the unionist scenario now included a general council of the whole church as its consummation: it would be there, rather than in Paris, that the popes could most fittingly be branded as schismatics and then deposed. Simon accordingly managed the vote so that it favored partial subtraction. At the same time, in contrast to the proceedings of 1398, the Gallican liberties were declared to be permanent, guaranteed as such by royal ordinances, and this was no doubt the matter closest to the university’s heart. It was in mid-January, right after all this had been accomplished, that the letters arrived in which Pope Gregory XII summoned all to join in implementing the via cessionis on both sides. All hopes were now pinned to the massive embassy, described in the preceding section, that Simon de Cramaud would lead to both popes.81 We have already noted its results; beginning at the end of March 1407 with high hopes for easy success, it ended in the summer of 1408 with the fusion of the two colleges and the call for a general council to meet at Pisa. But perhaps Simon’s hopes were not so high even at first, for he must have known what the event would prove, namely that Benedict had not given up his sense of papal supremacy in order to become the docile instrument of French policy, and even Simon’s first interview with Benedict in May of 1407 showed clearly enough that there was no meeting of the minds. In fact there is good reason to believe what the French later charged, that Benedict had persuaded Gregory of the iniquities of simple double abdication on the Paris model, and that there was collusion between the two to frustrate any solution that did not proceed from their own agreement—Benedict’s old plan of a via convencionis, a via iusticie, and perhaps at the end a via compromissi.82 Here we must guess what the sources naturally ignore, namely that Simon the politician recognized these dispositions from the first—there was plenty of evidence of recalcitrance on both sides—and understood that nothing would happen unless he made it happen, by negotiating, politicking,
 [[ Print Edition Page No. 39 ]] 
pressuring, promising, scheming, and perhaps even, as hostile voices would allege, by bribing.83

The same can be said of his role at the Council of Pisa,84 which we have already noted—here too his work can be sensed, beneath the smooth surface of the more or less official acta which his method of management by “schedules” made so smooth. Unlike many others, he understood perfectly that the French program of the via cessionis could not be directed to any other goal but its declared one, union without judgement, and that French designs on the papacy no less than Gallican hopes of reform could not be allowed to get in the way. Robert Hallam, Bishop of Salisbury and head of the English delegation, seems to have appreciated Simon’s contribution when he asked the fathers to thank him for all he had done to make the Council possible.85 We can imagine that when Simon asked the new Pope Alexander V, the day after his election, to make him Archbishop of Rheims, it was with a sense of claiming only his just desserts.

His new eminence certainly amplified his estate—the archbishop of Rheims was the prelate who crowned the kings of France, and ranked as a duke and peer of the realm—but his main concern on his return from Pisa was the political situation in France, drifting rapidly into civil war.86 Duke Louis of Orléans had been murdered on 23 November 1407 by agents of Jean the Fearless, and Berry rightly or wrongly tried to avoid the outright break that this crime made inevitable; Simon was his chief agent in the Paris government working to this effect. Thus Simon did not make his formal entry into Rheims until 15 December 1409, and while he immediately took control of affairs he did so through his officials; he returned to Paris almost at once. There his role was modified by Berry’s final recognition of necessity: on 15 April 1410 Berry joined his son-in-law Count Bernard of Armagnac, along with other princes of the south and west, to take up the Orléans cause on behalf of Louis’s heir Charles, who then married Armagnac’s daughter. The Armagnacs
 [[ Print Edition Page No. 40 ]] 
and Burgundians mobilized their armies, the Paris government was in between, and Simon found himself in mid-September in the strange role of the crown’s envoy to his patron Berry, trying to avert war. The Peace of Bicêtre, on 2 November 1410, provided for peace and a neutral (actually bipartisan) government, in which Simon was a leader. But the arrangement collapsed in the summer of 1411, when Charles of Orléans demanded that Jean the Fearless be punished for Louis’s assassination, and when Jean took up the diffidacio on 13 August. Paris was taken over by the Burgundians, and Simon’s role there was over. In mid-August he moved to Rheims.

He had found time even in 1410 for a trip to Loudun and Poitiers to take care of his affairs and provide for the purchase of more property,87 and we shall see that he had definite plans to return home for good in the near future. Meanwhile, however, Rheims was there to provide the challenges and opportunities that were his natural environment. He had begun at once, in September 1409, to arrange a complicated agreement with the heirs of his dead predecessor, Guy de Roye, who had left a large sum of money to establish a library and, above all, to endow a “Collège de Reims” for students from that region at the University of Paris. Simon agreed to implement the bequest on condition that he get 2,000 livres for himself as archbishop and 5,500 for necessary repairs and replacement of inventory; 5,000 would finance the college, 1,200 would go for the library, and 2,000 would remain for Guy’s chief heir Mathieu. Of course nothing could be done as long as Simon had to work in the Paris government, and the 5,000 for the college were deposited in the treasure of Notre Dame in Paris. At the same time Simon entered the lists against the chief archdeacon of Rheims, Cardinal Amadeo di Saluzzo, who had the right to a yearly pension of 1,115 gold francs from the archiepiscopal revenues—this by virtue of an earlier composition, similar to the Poitiers case we have already noticed, in which the archdeacon had given up rights of jurisdiction and advowson. As early as August 1409 Simon had ordered his officials to demand that dignitaries of the see take oaths of fealty and homage to him in his capacity as archbishop, and had ordered the confiscation of the benefices of those not swearing, one of whom
 [[ Print Edition Page No. 41 ]] 
was Amadeo. The result was of course one of the protracted lawsuits that Simon lived by; the decision eventually went against him, but with the result that he took the Guy de Roye money from Notre Dame on 29 July 1411—as we have seen, his role in Paris was now over—and sent it to the papal curia to be used, not for the establishment of a college but for settling his case with Amadeo. Simon’s accumulated debt of more than 6,000 francs was all but discharged—400 francs still remained—but of course the pension itself remained in force, to plague his successors. As for the college, Simon claimed that he had provided the agreed-upon yearly income in the form of revenues and rentes from a whole package of ecclesiastical properties; Mathieu de Roye, however, charged that in fact nothing had been provided and it was all a fraud. We are reminded of the Touffou affair and the case of the Poitiers chapter and its “Clementine” privilege, and perhaps the main impression to be retained would be that of an inveterate manipulator ready to use whatever means would achieve his goals—precisely the sort of man to shape the via cessionis into its coercive form, to put together the canonistic arguments for deposing as heretics two perfectly orthodox popes, and then to bring it all off after fifteen years of relentless effort.

And yet—it is Simon’s charm that there is often an “and yet” in his doings—his tenure of Rheims was by no means disadvantageous to the see. He not only carried through the library project but improved on it by having a separate building built for it, and by making important gifts of his own. The College of Rheims was somehow founded anyway. Archiepiscopal rights were not only routinely pursued in the law courts, as they perhaps would have been in any case by the legal staff, but were pursued with a diligence that earned commendation later on. And when Simon found a thirteenth-century canon Guillaume de Cramaud in the cathedral’s necrology, he claimed him for a kinsman and endowed commemorative masses to follow the day after those that Guillaume had endowed. There were also important gifts of vestments, jewels, and ornaments. When the time came for him to leave, at the end of December 1412, he could feel that he had done well. His heart, however, was elsewhere, and that was why he left: he attended John XXIII’s Council of Rome and arranged to have himself made a cardinal, finally, and to exchange Rheims for Poitiers. Both were done on 14 April 1413, and on 12 May Simon was formally named Cardinal Priest of San Lorenzo in Lucina, with the more familiar appellation of “Cardinal
 [[ Print Edition Page No. 42 ]] 
of Rheims.”88 Poitiers was held as a commendatory see. Remaining in Rome long enough to lose books and other possessions when the city was taken by Ladislas of Naples, 8 June, he then went directly to Poitiers. It is something of a shock to realize that he must have been about sixty-eight years old, with ten years of life to come, and even more surprising to find that there were still public duties for him to discharge in his usual energetic style.

Some of these duties were related to the Council of Constance, which Simon wanted to think of as simply the continuation of Pisa, but which turned into something else.89 In 1414 he wrote a work addressed to the Emperor Sigismund, urging him to reject the claims of Gregory and Benedict, and to recognize the papacy of John XXIII. In February/March 1415 he prepared to attend the Council, but decided not to after learning of John XXIII’s flight from Constance on 20 March; uninterested in the big issues debated after that, he remained away until the Council took up the deposition of Benedict XIII and the election of a new pope. He was there from 28 March 1417 to January 1418, contributing not only his vote to the papal election of 11 November 1417 but also a short treatise advocating the electoral scheme that would in fact be followed. Otherwise his public actions were not important; Berry had died in 1416, Paris was turbulent and in 1418 was occupied by the Burgundians, and Simon’s sphere of action was restricted to his home base of Poitou.

Here there was much to occupy him.90 Renaud II of Montléon and a band of his kinsmen and clients occupied Touffou in December 1417—Simon had not yet returned from Constance—and expelled Jean and eventually Orable; it took a great deal of legal action and no doubt influence to get Renaud out in 1419. He at once began a lawsuit to reverse the agreement of 1387 that had disinherited him, and Simon could perhaps foresee Renaud’s eventual success—it would come in 1429. But he would not have cared too much, for Touffou was meaningless without a Cramaud dynasty to hold it. We have noted Jean’s failure in this regard, and it would seem that he disappointed his uncle in other ways as well, to the point that Simon revised the original family compact and took over full proprietorship
 [[ Print Edition Page No. 43 ]] 
of the properties that had been bought with his money in the names of Pierre and Jean. Perhaps at about this time he tried to provide for an heir by arranging with a grand-nephew Pierre Tison (son of Jean’s sister Jeanne) to bear the arms and name of Cramaud, with Simon providing funds to create the appropriate “estate.” But Pierre died young and Simon made no other such efforts. Instead he concentrated on getting as much revenue as he could from the benefices that a papal privilege had allowed him to accumulate, as a cardinal, and he poured what money he had left into chantries and other commemorations. Some of these have already been noted; there were a good many more, the most important of them being a foundation of 2 July 1421 to provide monthly commemorations for himself at the high altar of Poitiers cathedral, along with responsories for his soul in front of his tomb in the choir, with the music-master and choristers taking part—the whole endowment cost about 1,000 livres. All in all, by the time of his death on 19 January 1423, he had established a massive prayer-industry at altars all over France, producing not only the expected benefits for his soul but also the continuing entity of an “estate” that would have a destiny of its own. In the same spirit he made a will that restricted Jean de Cramaud’s full inheritance to only a few properties; the rest would be his only for his lifetime, after which they would pass to the bishops of Poitiers. There were other dispositions in the will—for the funeral, for still more commemorative foundations, for some other relatives—but Jean was particularly provoked by the ones mentioned, and he kept after Simon even on the latter’s deathbed, to get him to change the will in Jean’s favor. As far as we know he did not, but Jean kept the bishops of Poitiers out of their rights and succeeded in passing on the disputed properties to his own heirs, so that traces of a Cramaud presence—all of them due uniquely to Simon’s original accumulation—continue to appear for many years. His tomb, destroyed by the Protestants in 1562, also managed to generate an afterlife of estate, inasmuch as the commemorative services continued to be performed at its site, and we are told that even into the nineteenth century the choirboys of the cathedral, after their ordinary chants, moved to the site of Simon’s tomb and finished their tour by saying, “Dieu fasse grâce à M. de Cramaud!” And the carved inscription of 1405 recording the erection of his tomb and of the choirboy foundation may still be seen in the choir of the cathedral.


 [[ Print Edition Page No. 44 ]] 

§ 3. The Argument of the Treatise

The political function of Simon de Cramaud’s De substraccione obediencie was to influence what counted as public opinion at the time in favor of total subtraction of obedience, which involved the repudiation of papal authority by the political community for the purpose of ending the Schism. As a university-trained canonist, Simon naturally used the form of a questio, which called for the canvassing of all possibilities and all possibly relevant authorities; the principles of scholastic literary composition did not encourage economy. The same can be said for the principles of legal composition followed by jurists and practicing lawyers: arguments were multiplied and texts were cited with every conceivable rationale that might relate them to the point being made. It is all the more striking, then, that Simon’s treatise moves as purposefully as it does, never losing its grip on the reader but rather carrying him inexorably on to the subversive conclusion. The politician, used to speaking to the point in meetings of councils, tended to compose his arguments as straight lines leading clearly to the desired ends, a project that required considerable profundity to make the lines straight, since what was at issue was nothing less than the composition of authority and power in the church. With all parties insisting that their pope was the true one, the argument whose point of departure lay in the facts of the Schism had to move to validate subtraction of obedience even from an unquestioned single pope, so that the actual situation could appear as a special case within this frame.

That Simon could even entertain such a project was due to the existence of a canonistic communis opinio developed over the preceding two centuries, which defined precisely the nature and limits of the papal plenitudo potestatis as a legal quality. Brian Tierney’s Foundations of the Conciliar Theory shows how the canonists worked in this sense by virtue primarily of their concern to define the rights and interests of the particular church corporations—cathedral churches, collegiate churches, monasteries. Each such corporation, conceived of in terms of Roman law, had its legal status—its interests, rights, powers, properties, and structures. The bishop or other head of a church corporation was obligated to preserve its status, which came down to the welfare of the corporation, its supreme interest. Its head was the “procurator” of its status, not its owner or discretionary ruler, and if the head was delinquent, the corporation had both the right and legal capacity to safeguard its
 [[ Print Edition Page No. 45 ]] 
status against him. Similarly, the whole Roman church had its status, the status universalis ecclesie, which the pope was obligated to preserve. Clear enough in Decretist writings, in which “the necessity to preserve the status ecclesiae was always presented as imposing a limit on papal authority,”91 this criterion was formulated even more categorically by the decretalists, and Simon could cite Innocent IV and Hostiensis, as transmitted by Johannes Andreae, for the principle, “If the pope should command anything that would presumably disturb the status of the church, or that would give rise to other evils too, then he should not be obeyed.”92 Simon’s most profound line of argument was based on this position, for he could claim that the contending popes’ respective claims to exercise the papal office in fact perpetuated the Schism, therefore should not be acknowledged by obedience. The question of legitimacy, which pope was the true one, a question deemed all-important by each papal contender but excluded from consideration by the French program, was thereby pushed aside. At the end of his treatise Simon could make the point tersely by remarking that St. Peter himself would be obliged to abdicate in a similar schism, and could be coerced by subtraction if he refused.

The canonistic communis opinio also drew on a theological tradition, explored by Ludwig Buisson in his Potestas und Caritas. Die päpstliche Gewalt im Spätmittelalter. The key concept here was caritas in the obligatory sense given it most influentially by St. Augustine; for this Christian duty was superior to all legal constructions, including the papal plenitudo potestatis. Scandalum, the offense against caritas, was something not even a pope might cause. This consensus too figured as a base on which Simon’s argument rested: “Even a true and undoubted pope is not to be obeyed but rather resisted if he does anything that notoriously scandalizes the church or works to the peril and subversion of souls.”93 Persistence in their claims by the two rival popes of course did just that—insofar as “the church” was defined as the totality of Western Christendom rather than, in papalist terms, as the body in solidarity with the true pope;
 [[ Print Edition Page No. 46 ]] 
and Simon’s whole treatise depended on just this former definition. It is noteworthy that while Tierney does not explore the caritasscandalum line of development, and Buisson does nothing with the corporatist tradition based on status ecclesie,94 Simon embraced both with no sense that they were anything but complementary and indeed largely coincident. He could therefore cite the example of scandal given by Pierre Bertrand, which was also an example of damage to the church’s status—the case of a pope who would alienate church property by giving it to his relatives. It was in this context that Simon cited the glossa ordinaria on Dist. 40, c. 6, v. “Si papa,” in which the canon’s statement, that a pope’s immunity to earthly judgement does not apply if he is a heretic, is amplified by the assertion that a pope can be judged for any crime in which he persists, if it is notorious and if it scandalizes the church.95 The rationale here was that persistence in such a crime was contumacy, and “contumacy is heresy.”96 The sense of damage to the status ecclesie lurks behind this gloss insofar as a criminal pope would not only scandalize the church but also damage it, by the scandal itself but also in other ways. More significantly, the corporatist tradition dealing with status allowed the canonists to develop ideas about just how the church could act to judge its delinquent head.97 Tierney sees conciliar theory as the canonists’ answer, and Simon de Cramaud would see it so too when the need was thrust upon him in 1398, as noted above, but in the treatise he opted for action by the secular powers within the church, a solution no doubt suggested to
 [[ Print Edition Page No. 47 ]] 
him by his experience of the facts of public life in France, where the church had already come under royal lordship to a significant degree.98

It would require a more expert knowledge of late-medieval canon law than the present writer has to assess the quality of Simon’s work with the tradition, and to determine the influences on his thought. The treatise itself provides one key by its incessant citation of the standard repertories—the glossa ordinaria on the Decretum and Decretals, the commentaries of the Archdeacon, Johannes Andreae, Henricus de Bohic, and others—and we can suppose, generally, that Simon must have been au courant of the canonist works that the Schism itself had generated, and that he must have retained even in the years of his political career a good deal of what he had learned as a student at Orléans and what he had professed, however briefly, at Paris. We note also that he referred more than once to Philip the Fair’s “subtraction” from Boniface VIII, and that manuscripts of the works produced in that controversy were being read and copied in Simon’s time; perhaps he had even read the work of Guillaume de Nogaret, who had developed canonistic arguments to show that Boniface was a heretic, that since his heresy was notorious he was de jure no longer pope, that he was therefore deprived of all papal power and was subject to deposition by a general council to be convened by the king of France—all of which is more or less identical to the argument of Simon’s treatise.99 At the same time we may observe that in the years from 1392 on, the University of Paris’s theologians expressed quite savage views pointing in the same direction. Jean Gerson argued in December 1392 that a pope who refused to resign for the common good was guilty of mortal sin; John of Moravia, a student in theology, preached—according to Simon—that both popes should be killed; the University of Paris letter of 6 June 1394 asserted that a pope refusing to accept one of its three ways of union was a schismatic and heretic who merited death.100 Other such statements could be cited, and Simon must have been familiar with all of them; perhaps they too guided him in his
 [[ Print Edition Page No. 48 ]] 
work with the canonistic tradition. It would however be a mistake to let such speculation about possible influences blur the picture of Simon as a bold, masterful publicist, in full control of both his intentions and his resources. While we are most interested in the subtractionist argumentation of Parts 2 and 3, we must nevertheless approach them by way of Part 1, which is nothing less than a full compendium of the high-papalist case against subtraction. Here too there were sources and influences; the point would be that Simon indeed opened his mind to them and presented the contrary case in all of its strength, omitting no significant argument that had been or would be advanced by Benedict XIII’s partisans. The man who wrote Part 1 and then went on to oppose and refute it was obviously aware of the full ecclesiological profundity of the issue between the two positions, and if the main thrust of the treatise seems subversively anti-papalist we must bear its political purpose in mind; the later refutations of Part 1 in the marginalia of ms. A (reproduced in Appendix I), which insist that the purpose of subtraction and the via cessionis is precisely to restore the full height of papal authority, allow us at least to imagine the conservative prelate beneath the radical politician.

The general principles at the bottom of the treatise’s argument have already been outlined in the above discussion of the canonistic communis opinio, status ecclesie, scandalum, and the doctrine of contumacy as heresy. Theologians tended to shy away from this last notion and some fourteenth-century authors rejected the gloss as “false,” the equivalence as only “metaphorical.”101 Simon naturally followed the affirmative tradition, above all in his insistence on the special case in which persistence in schism was formal heresy. While
 [[ Print Edition Page No. 49 ]] 
the canonistic authority here was too venerable to be rejected out of hand,102 this sort of heresy could seem to lack the full import of doctrinal heresy.103 Simon, however, insisted on a full equivalence in the legal sense, so that he could develop his argument for total subtraction as a canonistic remedy against a heretical pope—namely a pope who rejected the via cessionis and thereby convicted himself as a schismatic because he was keeping the church in schism.

The application of all this to the two contenders in the Schism was developed on the basis chiefly of two canons, Si duo forte contra fas (Dist. 79, c. 8), and Nisi cum pridem (X 1. 9. 10). The first, a rescript of the Emperor Honorius in 420, provided that in case of a conflict leading to the election of two men as pope, neither should remain in office, but there should be a new election. There were reasons in the canon and the glosses on it to suggest that it might well not be applicable to the Great Schism, especially after almost twenty years,104 but Simon brushed these aside and insisted that the canon still applied, because Johannes Teutonicus had interpreted it as meaning that “if scandal be feared then both elections are to be quashed,” and because there were canons saying that keeping a benefice unjustly was equivalent to getting it unjustly. Si duo had been Simon’s big gun already at the First Paris Council of 1395, precisely because it was the clearest possible validation of the French program of terminating both papacies without judgement between them, and that was why he clung to it in his treatise. At the same time he evidently felt the need to bring the argument down to particulars, and here he relied on Nisi cum pridem, a decretal of Innocent III providing that a bishop might refuse an appointment if the people of the diocese were maliciously set against him, and
 [[ Print Edition Page No. 50 ]] 
that he might be allowed to resign his see if necessary to avoid a grave scandal. Innocent IV had then commented that to avoid scandal a bishop might not only be allowed to resign but forced to do so, if the welfare of the church in question could be preserved under another—for “public utility is preferred to private.” At this point in the treatise we see the cutting edge of corporatist ecclesiology, which saw no crucial difference between the status of a particular church and that of the universal church, and regarded the head in each case as fundamentally the “procurator” of that status; hence Simon could simply take the canon law of episcopal benefice-right and apply it to the papacy.105 We may observe that this nullification of the peculiar status of the papacy corresponded to the actual homogenization of all rights as property rights that was fundamental to late-medieval thought. Again and again, for example, we find Simon (and his contemporaries) using phrases like “have a right to the papacy,” “possess” the papacy, “to keep that part of the papacy which he possesses,” to enjoy “peaceful possession” of the papacy—the quoted words here being technical terms in the law governing benefice rights.106

It is revealing to see that in his treatise and several times thereafter, Simon misquoted the glossa ordinaria on Dist. 15, c. 2, which stated that the pope could not “destroy statutes of councils about the articles of faith”; Simon’s version was that “in matters of faith or matters which concern the status of the universal church, the pope is subject to a council.”107 There were in fact other canons and glosses claiming the superiority of a general council to the pope, and not only in matters of faith—it was a generally accepted idea no matter how this or that author might modify it;108 Simon did not have to misquote the gloss in question. That he did so suggests how strongly his mind was working to generate his desired image of a
 [[ Print Edition Page No. 51 ]] 
papacy subject to the universal church. For it was this doctrine that justified disregarding the question of legitimacy, and noting that from the viewpoint of the universal church—which could be presented imaginatively as the unity of both obediences—“it is clearer today that both are schismatics than has ever been clear about one of them; . . . this is undoubtedly clearer to the universal church than which of them is the true pope and which the intruder.” It was the mere existence of two papacies that was scandalizing the church and damaging her status, and these effects justified not only coerced abdication and subtraction of obedience, but also deposition. The only sound counter-argument had to begin by rejecting this sense of the subordination of pope to church, and it was duly developed by Benedict’s chief spokesman, Pierre Ravat, speaking against Simon’s treatise at the Third Paris Council. Agreeing with Simon’s basic canons, but putting the point in an opposite sense, Ravat said that “in those things that are not against the general estate of the church, or natural or divine law, the Roman pontiff is to be obeyed,” and “it is certain that the papacy is not lost except by infidelity alone.”109 Here Ravat noted his own and others’ rejection of the glossa ordinaria on Si papa.110 But the main point was put in a refutation of Simon’s reference to the canon Ego N. (X 2. 24. 4), which prescribed the bishops’ oath to be faithful to St. Peter, the Holy Roman church, and the pope, textually in that order; Simon argued in the treatise that the oath to the church was therefore primary, that to the pope was of subordinate force. Ravat advanced the papalist doctrine—he made strong use of Augustinus of Ancona—that the oath to the church was an oath to the pope, inasmuch as the head of a church represented its body—“the term ‘Roman church’ in the oath means the pope.” It was with the same ecclesiological apparatus that he also refuted the Gallicanism of partial subtraction, for according to Augustinus of Ancona the bishops had no independent position vis-à-vis the pope, who “personally or by commission could do all the things in a bishop’s diocese that the bishop could do, or a priest in his parish, and still more.”111 Each of the opposed views had its
 [[ Print Edition Page No. 52 ]] 
authorities and rationalities, one chose as one listed, and Simon’s treatise allowed those making the anti-papalist choice to believe that they were right.

Alongside the argumentation based on the corporatist ecclesiology of the canon lawyers, which we have just outlined, Simon’s treatise developed one other line of thought of basic importance, namely that it was up to the kings of Europe to implement the via cessionis and enforce it on the popes. This also had a corporatist dimension, inasmuch as it presupposed the definition of the church militant as the congregation of the faithful, including the laity as well as the clergy.112 The princes who were the leaders and representatives of the laity were therefore in the church, a view that went back to the ideas in vogue before the eleventh-century reform, and that allowed Simon access to all the canons of the early ages that registered the role of secular power in the church. The most programmatic, one used lavishly for their own purposes by Wyclif, the Hussites, and other reformers of the time, was Isidore of Seville’s Principes seculi (23. q. 5, c. 20): “The princes of this world sometimes hold the highest offices of power within the church in order to . . . command by the terror of discipline what priests are unable to accomplish by the word of teaching. . . . Let the princes of this world know that they must render an account to God for the church whose protection they have taken over from Christ.” It was true, as Ravat for example argued, that both old and newer canon law normally supposed that secular intervention in the church would have been requested by prelates and would therefore be in harmony with the church’s liberty,113 but Simon found canons that allowed for action even without a request, and also argued that in the special case of the papacy there could be no judicial recourse because the pope had no ordinary superior (the conciliar theme is notably absent at this point). “While one may proceed judicially against him who has a superior, by going before his judge, one has to proceed by direct action [de facto] against those who seek to usurp the papacy against the sacred canons.”114 Hence Simon’s technique was to apply to the kings all the canons that spoke about action by ecclesiastical judges, to interpret traditional formulas of dualism, like Duo sunt
 [[ Print Edition Page No. 53 ]] 
and Innocent III’s sun-and-moon figure, as allowing the secular powers to act when the spiritual ones were not “well ordered,” and by the same token to apply to the kings a number of Roman-law provisions for judicial action that had found their way into the canon law as analogues to ecclesiastical judicial practice.115 Similarly the examples of history, some of them taken into the canon law, that showed Roman emperors exercising their powers within the church and against popes were applied to the kings without hesitation; for if the kings did not have the special qualities of Roman emperors vis-à-vis the papacy, they were nevertheless emperors in their realms, as contemporary formulas put it, and, like the emperors, were exemplars of the “public powers” that had the mission of safeguarding the public welfare.116 Much in this obviously depends on the more or less implicit assumptions governing the thinking of Frenchmen about such matters—no other polity generated the same sense of its omnicompetence and that of its kings—and it may be said that Simon’s treatise developed its European perspective of a concert of public powers to end the Schism by projecting the French image onto Europe at large.

Neither the conciliar ideas in the treatise, which derived Benedict’s obligation to abdicate from, inter alia, the decisions taken at the First Paris Council and a subsequent council of prelates of Castile, nor the explicit provision for a representative general council to implement the via cessionis, which Simon would advance at the Third Paris Council, carried any burden of conciliarism in the deeper sense, as a program for reform of the church and the church’s constitution. But it would be a mistake to draw too sharp a contrast between the constitutional conciliarism of Constance and Simon’s depositionary conciliarism which provided the program for the Council of Pisa. Both were erected on the same foundation, the corporatist ecclesiology of the canonists, and it is therefore all the more instructive to see how narrowly political were the aims of Simon’s extremely broad and even masterful deployment of the basic
 [[ Print Edition Page No. 54 ]] 
canonistic tradition. What has been said elsewhere in this introduction about Simon’s mentality as a careerist and politician is probably enough, along with a reference to his politician’s sense of practicality, to explain why his conception of the universal church as a community capable of political action came down to the idea of a concert of Europe’s kings and other public powers. The next century would show that history was on his side, even though modern historians often find more to excite their interest in the theories of constitutional conciliarism.

At the same time we may remark that while Simon was essentially a politician and careerist, he was also an uncommonly bright one, with an education and perhaps intellectual interests that had familiarized him not only with canon and Roman law, but also with a good deal of historical literature and the more fashionable belleslettres of his time. In the present treatise he referred to John of Salisbury’s Policraticus and the chronicles of Martin of Troppau and Bernard Guy, as well as several other non-canonistic works. In other works we find these and more—the Speculum historiale of Vincent of Beauvais, Boccaccio’s De casibus virorum illustrium, the chronicle composed by Hélinand de Froidmont, etc.117 When he wrote to the Archbishop of Canterbury he could cite many cases of collaboration in the past between the French and the English, ranging from Alcuin to Thomas Becket and including the French gift of a whole new dynasty in 1066.118 When he wrote to King Henry III of Castile he adorned his work similarly with references to the orthodoxy of the Visigothic kings of Spain as praised by Isidore of Seville, the progress of the Goths in civilization according to Guido and St. Jerome, the wisdom of the Spaniard Seneca, the glories of Galicia in resisting the Saracens, and so on and on.119 Most of his works are also studded with more or less usual references to classical authors, and it would take a special study to determine how deep his learning
 [[ Print Edition Page No. 55 ]] 
went; the point here is that he had it available for display. A reference to Joachite prophecies currently circulating fits in with the picture, and so does a reference to Jean de Meun’s Roman de la Rose in a context of praise for the University of Paris—here it is hard to avoid the guess that Simon had followed at least some of the “débat” about that poem in Parisian literary circles at the turn of the century, and that the reference in question was his way of scoring culture points.120 But maybe it was more. Lacking any direct evidence for his personal life we cannot say whether he appreciated literature or merely used it, we can only observe that the former possibility, postulating the figure of a careerist and politician who was also a cultivated intellectual, would not have been anomalous, nor would it have been irreconcilable with Simon’s worldly ambition and practical ruthlessness in getting what he wanted.

§ 4. The Present Edition

Eleven manuscript copies of the De substraccione obediencie are known to the present editor. None provide a title; the one supplied here is more or less conventional and agrees with Simon’s own statements about the origin of the work, quoted above. I list the manuscripts and the sigla I give them:

  • A  Paris, BN, ms. lat. 14644, fols. 83r-103r
  • B  Paris, BN, ms. lat. 14644, fols. 277r-304r
  • C  Paris, BN, ms. lat. 1475, fols. 93r-128r
  • D  Paris, BN, ms. lat. 1480A, pp. 699-853
  • E  Paris, AN, J 518, fols. 227r-266r
  • F  Oxford, Bodleian Library, Balliol College ms. 165b, fols. 1r-52r
  • G  Pamplona, Bibl. Catedr. cód. 3, fols. 1r-47v
  • H  Rome, ASV, Arm. 54, t. 33, fols. 7r-36v
  • J  Rome, ASV, Arm. 54, t. 26, fols. 72r-117v
  • K  Rome, ASV, Arm. 54, t. 21, fols. 112r-185v
  • L  Basel, Universitätsbibliothek, ms. A. V. 15, fols. 95r-153r

 [[ Print Edition Page No. 56 ]] 

A preliminary analysis showed two major redactional groups, the early CJ and the probably final EHKL, with GF preliminary to EHKL, B somewhere in the middle, and A apparently representing a very early text systematically improved by collation of a late one. D is a late copy of E, and F is a contemporary copy of G. A number of indications in the manuscripts as well as the substance of the treatise suggest that the work grew as its author added newly remembered or discovered authorities to more or less appropriate places in the margins of one or more manuscripts in his own possession; in some cases no doubt such additions were written on slips; from time to time a new copy would have been made incorporating such additions, but it would probably be wrong to imagine Simon de Cramaud and his secretaries throwing away any old exemplars. In any case all of this activity took place in a rather short time—between late 1396 when Simon wrote the treatise and mid-1398 when the Third Paris Council fulfilled the treatise’s program of subtraction of obedience and thereby made the treatise as such obsolete. Within this period there was only one major redactional jump, from the CJ version to what would become the final version for propaganda abroad, FG/EHKL; the changes have been discussed in § 1 above and dated to perhaps early 1397. But Simon seems to have been so continuously involved with his work that no copy in his possession was safe from written or dictated additions, some of which of course were destined to sterility. The following stemma and its subsequent set of proofs will make all this clearer:

Figure 1

 [[ Print Edition Page No. 57 ]] 

The arrows indicate contamination; C′ and C″ indicate C before and after fol. 111v (see line 1720 of this edition).

The main lines of the stemma correspond to the groupings exemplified below on the basis of fairly decisive variants (D is omitted, as a copy of E, F as a copy of G):

C′J:ABEGHKL 134 forte] om. C′J
BC′J:AEGHKL 630-31 fortalicia] fortalissima BC′J
861 contra] unum foll. BJ; verum foll. C′
ABC′J:EGHKL 897 negligere] quippe foll. ABC′J
918 possunt] nec debent foll. ABC′J
928 malicia] contumacia ABC′J
ABC′GJ:EHKL 207-08 iiio . . . Gen.] om. EHKL
397 possit] tr. ABC′GJ
ABC′EGJL:HK 57 mortales] mortalitates HK
659 retinere] remanere HK
ABCGHJK:EL 555 non enim] om. EL
1164-65 eodem modo] om. EL
1628-29 (see apparatus)
2466 advertenda] attendenda EL

Many more such examples could be cited, along with references to the redactional variations (as distinct from purely textual variants) that lead to the same major groupings. The case for a three-branched stemma rests on the lack of clearly erroneous readings common to ABCJ or AEGHKL.

The case for the contamination of B by u is based on a number of otherwise anomalous ACJ:BEGHKL divisions. Two cases even reveal the contaminator at work. At 1260 B’s scribe began to copy his normal exemplar b, whose reading was similar to that of CJ; then he crossed out this beginning and introduced a large chunk of material absent in CJ but present in AEGHKL. Again, at 1224-26 B includes a paragraph present in all mss. except ACJ; but whereas in EGHKL the passage appears properly integrated after the last sentence of the preceding paragraph, in B it appears in the middle of that sentence. While these two examples might suggest that the contamination was redactional, consisting of the incorporation of marginalia, there are enough other cases to make us suppose that it was textual—that B’s scribe had two mss. available for his work. For example:

113 quia] om. BEGHKL
937 eleccione] contencione A; concertacione CJ
1042 sumus] om. ACJ

 [[ Print Edition Page No. 58 ]] 

The contamination of c by w at 142-400 is an inference from a number of ABG:C′EHJKL divisions in these lines. For example:

142 quilibet] alius foll. ABG
319 bene] om. C′EHJKL
339 recte] om. C′EHJKL
361 quod] om. ABG
387 minoribus. Sed] C′EHJKL insert a long passage; see apparatus.

The contamination of A by L is inferred from seventeen cases in which these agree against the rest, in defiance of stemmatic relationships. Thus:

823 ordinem] ea BCEGHJK
892 ipsum] eum L, A (in marg.: aliter ipsum)
1478 probatum] declaratum A; declaratum et probatum L
2242 remedium] om. AL
2460 pro] contra AL

The contamination may also account for about a half-dozen cases in which A agrees with C″EHKL against BC′GJ:

316 Sit] si BCGJ
1380 qui] quod BCGJ
1393 De] supra de BCGJ
2155 alibi . . . propositum] om. BGJ
2195-96 deo . . . audivit a] om. BGJ
2282 novem] octo BGJ

That the contamination in fact went in this direction seems likely from the circumstances of A’s origin—see the description below—and also from the variants at 892 cited above (and cf. the apparatus at 856); the next case might seem to point in the other direction but there are several passages where the scribe of L indulged in similar pleonasms, perhaps the result of over-eager copying coupled with a reluctance to delete (cf. 987 in the apparatus).

As for C’s switch of exemplars, we note that from line 1720 the regular association of C with A, B, and J is replaced by the following groups:

BJ:ACEGHKL 2562 regnicole] regni (then blank) BJ
ABJ:CEGHKL 1702 quod] nos foll. ABJ
2019 alios] nos ABJ
ABGJ:CEHKL 1720-21 et iste non est papa] om. CEHKL
ABEGJL:CHK 1733 narrant] om. CHK
ABEGJKL:CH 2853 qui] quicunque CH

 [[ Print Edition Page No. 59 ]] 

No stemma explains every grouping, and ours fails to account for, e.g., one BH, two AHK’s, three CGJ’s, etc.; but there are not many such. Moreover, our stemma like all others postulates the minimal number of lost copies needed to account for the surviving ones known to the editor; in our case we can be sure that there were a good many more.

The summary that follows is intended only to describe those features of each manuscript that may relate to the establishment of the text. Except for D, all are written in a hand contemporary with the treatise, namely one or another variety of French Gothic. E and G, both official copies, on parchment, are in the bastarda of the French royal chancery, rather lightly abbreviated; F seems similar but less formal, and some folios of C are of this sort. A, B, and L are in cursive hands, normally abbreviated, and the same can be said of H, J, and K, which however are also characteristic of the “libri de schismate.” All but E, G, and a few folios of C are on paper. Several copies have letters or numbers indicating the sequence of arguments; useless for our purpose, they are ignored here and replaced in the text by a new set provided by the present editor.

A: Its codex, once the property of St. Victor in Paris, is a compilation of Schism material from 1378 through to the Council of Constance, including the acta of the Third Paris Council apparently in the hand of their author Guillaume de Longueil, who also wrote the text of A, at least from fol. 88v on. The text up to there, consisting of the introduction and part 1, has very elaborate marginalia refuting the anti-subtractionist arguments of part 1 (their text is in Appendix I below); these are in the hand of Simon de Plumetot, a University of Paris compiler and collector, but their content shows them to have been composed by Simon de Cramaud, during or right after the Third Paris Council. I owe the identification of the hands of Longueil and Plumetot to Professor Gilbert Ouy; see now his “Simon de Plumetot (1371-1443) et sa bibliothèque,” Miscellanea codicologica F. Masai dicata, ed. P. Cockshaw et al., 2 (Ghent, 1979), p. 374. A’s exemplar may thus have been one of Simon’s working copies (cf. apparatus, at 2149-55, 2465), a guess bolstered by the fact that A combines an early version of the text with some of the later redactional additions (taken perhaps from L or its exemplar). The style of A, on the other hand, is the work of someone who cared more about literary charm than Simon did: there is no revision, but certain omissions and frequent transpositions of word-order suggest such care, since they are generally for the better.


 [[ Print Edition Page No. 60 ]] 

B: It is in the same codex that contains A and seems also to have been copied from an exemplar in or close to Simon’s own collection. A number of extra or deviant passages (e.g., 720, 1062, 1262-70, 1283-85, 1306) are obviously authoritative and must have come from the author. The data for B’s contamination discussed above point in the same direction.

C: Its codex is one of a group (BN, mss. lat. 1462, 1469, 1470, 1471, 1472, 1475, 1479, 1480, 1481) designated in the catalogue as containing “tractatus de schismate” and originally put together at the court of Benedict XIII (like the comparable “libri de schismate” now in the Vatican archives). According to Léopold Delisle, Le Cabinet de manuscrits de la Bibliothèque Impériale, 1 (Paris, 1860), 486 ff., esp. 506 f., these codices passed from Benedict’s successor Clement VIII to the Cardinal de Foix, who also received Clement’s submission to Martin V; the cardinal gave them to his Collège de Foix in Toulouse, and from there Colbert brought them to Paris. C begins as a copy of the earliest version, in a single hand, with many more or less substantial glosses in part 2 showing either sympathy with the treatise or a neutral desire to amplify or criticize its battery of legal references (see Appendix II); but several glosses go counter to the treatise, and there are some hostile comments in a different hand. On fol. 111r a new hand takes over; on fol. 111v we see the first sign of C’s switch of exemplars; another hand begins on fol. 112r, where the glosses peter out; most of fol. 113r is blank, as are 113v, 114rv; the treatise resumes on fol. 115r in a different hand and in two columns instead of one; on fol. 121r there is a reversion to one column, and several more changes of hand occur before the end. Perhaps a codicologist will put it all together; meanwhile we surmise that C was begun in Paris, finished in Avignon, perhaps by or for someone whose own move represented a decision to support Benedict XIII. Since the glosses seem to be in the same hand(s) as the text, and at one point (799) seem to pass into the text, we can guess that the copying was done by a self-confident canonist who glossed as he went along.

D: Its codex and the sequel (BN, ms. lat. 1480A2) are a seventeenth-century copy of AN, J 518, which contains our E. D is therefore not collated.

E: It is part of a well-written, handsomely decorated parchment codex containing a number of Simon de Cramaud’s works, plus many documents of the history of the Schism and of France’s union program (e.g., copies of all the ballots of the Third Paris Council).
 [[ Print Edition Page No. 61 ]] 
The codex ends with the University of Toulouse’s anti-subtractionist letter of 1402, together with Simon’s lengthy glosses refuting it and written, as we know, immediately on receipt of the letter (Valois, 3: 266 n. 2; the author of the anonymous passage quoted there is Simon). The volume was probably prepared at Simon’s order and from materials in his possession, as a politically motivated documentation of his causa for deposit in the royal archive. The hand is a good one of the royal chancery type but the scribe was not accurate. Simon’s continued interest in his text may be seen in the passage at 2661, unique to E.

F: The ms. is now in England but its codex was probably bought in Cologne—perhaps F had originally been sent to that region; see R. A. B. Mynors, Catalogue of the Manuscripts of Balliol College, Oxford (Oxford, 1963), where the codex is dated to the early fifteenth century and its hands are identified as all or mostly French. Cf. E. F. Jacob, Essays in the Conciliar Epoch (2d ed.; Manchester, 1953), p. 69 n. 2. F has been collated but is in principle omitted from the apparatus because it was copied from G; the proof follows:

At 116-20, 1074-80, 1123-28, 1183-86, 1188-89, F has in its text all the material that was added to G as marginalia. So do EHKL, except for 116-20, but F’s dependence is still closer. Thus where at 415 G omits “auctoritas” but leaves a blank space, F keeps the blank even while supplying a conjectural “totus.” At 655 G has “fiat” by mistake; F has “fiat” with the correct “faciat” written above. At 1105 F has skipped the length of a G-line (from one “phariseorum” to another) and added it in the margin. At 1188-89 G’s exemplar evidently had the reading, “eadem racione qui papatum retinet contra sacros canones,” as do ABCJ, and G’s scribe copied it, but it happened to begin a new page (fol. 20v); G marginator, coming to a similar set of words in the preceding passage at the bottom of fol. 20r, must have supposed that the quoted phrase had been omitted, for he wrote an equivalent in the margin of G at that point: “eadem racione qui contra sacros canones papatum vult retinere.” This marginal version, not the textual one, passed into w, for it is the form found in EHKL; F, however, has both forms of the same phrase, one evidently incorporated from G’s margin, the other from G’s text. This would seem decisive, along with the fact that F always agrees with G against the others, repeating, for example, all of G’s critical omissions—237, 369, 382, 1288, 1552, 1880, 1918, 1986, 2370-71, 2773, 2779—as well as G’s other variants.

G: Written in a fine hand on parchment by a careful scribe, with spaces left for decorated initials, and bound as a codex in itself, G was evidently intended as a presentation copy; its presence in
 [[ Print Edition Page No. 62 ]] 
Pamplona indicates that it was sent to King Charles III of Navarre—see J. Arraiza, “Simón de Cramaud, su embajada a Navarra, y su tratado . . . ,” Principe de Viana, 18 (1957), 508 f. But before leaving Simon’s household it served as a model for at least one other copy to be sent abroad (F); its text moreover was destined to become standard—along with its marginal additions and some other new material it passed into EHKL. Since G has a number of mistakes that do not appear in EHKL (see the recension of F above), it cannot have been their ancestor; but its marginalia must have been duplicated in or from its exemplar v.

H: Like its close relative K, H is a copy in the “libri de schismate” of an exemplar of the final redaction, perhaps one of those sent to Avignon by Simon. It is textually of little value to us except in the occasional correction of E. For the “libri de schismate,” a many-volume collection of copies of Schism materials made by Cardinal Martin de Salva and Pierre Ravat, chiefly in the 1390’s, see Michael Seidlmayer, “Die spanischen ‘Libri de Schismate’ des Vatikanischen Archivs,” Spanische Forschungen der Görresgesellschaft, Reihe I, 8 (1940), 199-262; and idem, Die Anfänge des grossen abendländischen Schismas (Münster, 1940), pp. 195-205. H presents much of the last part of the treatise in a disordered sequence, as noted in the apparatus.

J: Another “libri de schismate” copy but of the early redaction and hence valuable. It is glossed heavily in the hand of Pierre Ravat and “corrected” by reference to y, which Ravat seems to have regarded as a more authentic version. So too Martin de Salva designated the J text merely as “allegaciones alicuius canoniste” and noted (fol. 72r): “de isto tractatu videtur extractus tractatus Patriarche, qui incipit Nunc reges intelligite”—a confusion due to the fact that J (like C) has a different beginning. A similar note by Salva at the end (fol. 118r) refers to another ms. of “Nunc reges” which is neither H nor K—perhaps it was the now lost y. In any case J’s contamination or correction by y poses no editorial problems, for the new material was added in a distinctive hand and often marked as such.

K: A “libri de schismate” copy similar to H but generally more accurate. There is a list of “dubia” following the treatise, fols. 187r-189r; their numbering corresponds to the paragraph numbers in J, not those of K.

L: The codex is a miscellany with only a few items relevant to the Schism—an anti-cessionist tractate by Petrus de Muris, Konrad
 [[ Print Edition Page No. 63 ]] 
of Gelnhausen’s Epistola concordie, Salutati’s letter of 20 August 1397 to Margrave Jobst of Moravia, and Simon’s treatise; the other items range over the whole span of the later Middle Ages. The scribe of L or L’s exemplar may have referred to another exemplar at least once: at 100 where all the other known texts have “revocacionibus,” L has “renunciacionibus alias et melius revocacionibus”—cf. also the cases cited above for AL contamination. An additional authority unique in L at 1260 was evidently a marginal note in L’s exemplar, and a long addition at 1128 must have had a similar origin—one supposes that Simon had used L’s exemplar for recording his new ideas. Whether the same may be said about the more than three dozen cases where L alone has the full or correct form of reference to authorities may be doubted: one does not imagine Simon’s memory suddenly improving, nor his taking time out from his affairs to look things up, and it would seem more likely that a knowledgeable scribe introduced the improvements—a guess supported by the case at 2806-07 where a title from the Sext appears in L right after the chapter and must then be eliminated further on where all the other mss. have it: this seems like the work of a scribe adding as he moved along. Finally, on fols. 90r-94v of L’s codex there is a contemporary compendium of the treatise’s contents.

When A. E. Housman wrote that textual criticism is “the science of discovering error in texts and the art of removing it,”121 he was not thinking of a text of legalistic propaganda built up by spasmodically accumulated authorities and written by a man who could complacently remark that “We Paris canonists do not study the art of fine discourse, nor do we strive for the eloquence of orators and literary men.”122 What has been said about our treatise in the foregoing sections is enough to show that scribal errors (almost all of which can be discovered and removed with little science and less art) constitute a very minor portion of the variations among the manuscripts that might be of interest to us. It was Simon de Cramaud himself, scribbling on the margins of several copies (or dictating
 [[ Print Edition Page No. 64 ]] 
to a secretary), who created variations, and these are therefore all authentic; at the same time even the “errors” in succeeding copies were almost all unimportant alternations—of the ergo/igitur sort—or omissions that did not affect the substance or Latinity of the text and were therefore approved at least passively by Simon as he ordered such copies made and sent out. The editor of such a work cannot then use methods devised for the purpose of restoring the pure text of a poet. On the other hand he cannot simply ignore modern criteria and, like the great editors of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, print one manuscript’s text with opportune collations or emendations. Bearing in mind the nature of the treatise, and presuming that those interested in it will be chiefly historians of politics and canonistic theory, the present editor has aimed at producing a text that can qualify as authentic, that embodies the redactional development of the work, and that can commend itself as readable.

Authenticity for our purpose is taken to mean the author’s acknowledgement of a text, by publishing it or sending it out. Other definitions would be possible but not suited to the present case. Thus (1) a single stable original or even archetype probably did not exist and there would be no point in trying to construct one; (2) the author’s working copies—any or all of a, b, c, u, v, w, x—were probably in service together at various times in the year of the treatise’s growth and distribution; (3) a reconstruction of an indubitably early text—say a, b, or u—would relegate to the apparatus a large body of authentic and only slightly less early material that the author himself wanted to be published (in G/EHKL). One practical solution would have been to print the text of G, which Simon probably sent to Navarre, but the excellence of G’s text does not make up for its lack of passages in the latest stage of the treatise’s redaction. The decision therefore has been to print essentially the text of E, which Simon ordered for deposit in the royal archive; E’s many scribal errors have been removed by reference to HKL in order to obtain wx, and by reference to G in order to correct w by v; other patent errors are removed by reference to A, B, or CJ. The passages added in E, EHKL, EGHKL, and sometimes A/B,EGHKL, have been distinguished by indentations in most cases. The apparatus notes these and other changes, and includes a few additions found only in L.

Our definition of authenticity imposes a certain attitude to error, namely that scribal (or perhaps authorial) deviations in the final
 [[ Print Edition Page No. 65 ]] 
redaction are not to be rejected if they make sense and conform to decent Latin usage; only a few such deviations failed to qualify. But there are some cases in which E and others have a bad text owing to mistaken incorporation or location of what must have been marginalia or additions on loose slips; these have been corrected according to logic. Thus at 387, in the context of arguments against subtraction, CEHJKL incorporate a passage refuting one such argument; it must have been a marginal note for the author’s use which the scribe of w put into his text by mistake. At 501-05 there is a paragraph located here only in the margin of A; the actual text of all mss. including A locates it elsewhere (at 638), but since the order of refutations in part 3 agrees with the location in A-margin, this must have been what the author intended. Again, at 2464-2520 only BJ have a sensible order of paragraphs, the others all mess it up; therefore the BJ order is followed.

The late-medieval spelling has not been classicized but it has been normalized in both the text and the apparatus to eliminate confusion, most notably between “c” and “s.” Thus “consilium” has been changed to “concilium” where appropriate, “cedacio” to “sedacio,” “senseo” to “censeo”—even in the face of all the mss. The many errors in references to authorities have been corrected in the text, either silently when only numbers are involved, or in square brackets for additions or alternatives (the latter signalled by “!”); however mistakes that seem to have stemmatic value are noted in the apparatus. Square brackets are used for all editorial supplements; words added to the text as emendations are in angle brackets. Paragraphing, parentheses, and punctuation are added according to sense, not necessarily in accord with E, because Simon’s run-on style has seemed to require it. Quotation marks have been used to mark passages taken from a source, even when there has been some alteration of the wording; they have not been used for actual paraphrase. The principles of the apparatus are explained below; the reader is assured that the original collation was undiscriminatingly total. Here as elsewhere, the non-philological intention of the edition may be kept in mind.

The annotations and indices have been prepared with especial seriousness. The frequent practice of annotating a reference by merely giving its location in a printed edition is pretty much useless; here the texts of the cited authorities have been given or summarized, since otherwise few readers would know what Simon was talking about in many cases, or how sound his argument is, how he
 [[ Print Edition Page No. 66 ]] 
could have developed it differently. Accurate and honestly applied quotations need no special annotation, but false or tendentious ones do, and passages like “pro quo videtur casus in capitulo Non liceat pape” must obviously be supplied with the text or a summary of the canon—otherwise the conscientious reader would have to look it up himself, perhaps on his next visit to a major library. The notes provide such material, also the usual historical explanations; they do not cover the canons merely listed in chunks taken over by Simon from Bohic, Andreae, the Archdeacon, and the like, since he merely borrowed the titles. As for identification of legal references by modern numbers, the indices can be used in lieu of footnotes. The indices will also allow the student of Schism literature to readily compare Simon’s battery of authorities with those of other treatises.

The Apparatus

1. In principle the apparatus includes only variants of substantive importance or interest, or variants common to a group of mss. and hence possibly significant in determining stemmatic relations. Excluded in principle are substantively unimportant variants in only one ms., most variations in the citation of legal authorities, and evident mistakes in only one ms. These principles are modified from time to time, according to circumstance; for example a useless or erroneous variant in a stemmatically important ms. (like J, for example) may be noted, while a comparable variant in, say, H will almost never be. Exceptions are also made in cases of linguistic interest.

2. The apparatus does not include indications of how words are abbreviated, exactly how insertions have been made, errors corrected, etc. A number of scribes used ambiguous endings or other abbreviations, but these have usually been resolved one way or another without notice in the apparatus; in the few cases when it has seemed useful to note that a word has been abbreviated, the actual letters are given, followed simply by a period.

3. The following abbreviations are used:

  • codd.—  codices: the consensus of the manuscripts
  • corr.—  corrected: when used alone, it means the noted variant has been corrected to the reading in the text.
  • foll.—  follows in
  • om.—  omitted by
  • tr.—  transposed by
  • vv.—  vice versa: reversal of word order

 [[ Print Edition Page No. 67 ]] 

4. The order of mss. is alphabetical, but when there is reason to note something about one ms. in a series, it is put at the end, separated from the others by a comma. Thus, e.g., “quid] quod AC,B(corr.)” means that ABC all have “quod,” but that B has corrected it to “quid.”


 [[ Print Edition Page No. 68 ]] 

Outline of the Text

The numbers refer to the line numbers in the edition.

Introduction 1-156
Historical sketch 1-110
Author’s identity and purpose 111-147
Definition of the questions 148-156
Part 1: Proof of the contrary 157-638
Quod non licet 160-505
Quod non decet 506-554
Quod non expedit 555-638
Part 2: For subtraction 639-2116
Suppositions 641-906
Theses 907-1174
Schism and heresy 1175-1313
Subtract revenues 1314-1414
Fraternal correction 1415-1558
Benedict must obey council of his obedience 1559-1754
Decet and expedit 1755-1952
One side should subtract even without the other 1953-2114
Part 3: Reply to contrary arguments 2117-2885
Vs. Quod non licet 2117-2743
Vs. council, arbitration 2240-2520
Vs. Quod non decet 2744-2773
Vs. Quod non expedit 2774-2885
Final paragraph 2886-2902

 [[ Print Edition Page No. 69 ]] 

[De substraccione obediencie]

[E 227r] “Nunc reges intelligite” etc., ut in psalmo [2.10]. Quod
intelligitur ut nunc, quando ecclesia est in tanta tribulacione, ut
dicit Augustinus, in epistola ad Vincencium; et scribitur in c.
Non invenitur, xxiii. q. iv.1 Quia

“omne regnum in se divisum non stabit, et omnis sciencia et lex5
adversum se divisa destruetur” (c. Si ea, xxv. q. ii.);

nec vos hominum vaniloquia retardent, dicencium quod per-
secucionem facit” vestra regalis potencia, “dum vel ea que com-
mittuntur reprimit, vel animarum salutem requirit. Errant huiusmodi
fabulatores rumoris. Non persequitur nisi qui ad malum10
cogit”; “malum autem est scisma esse; et per” vestras “potestates
huiusmodi opprimi debere homines, et canonice scripture auc-
toritas et paternarum nos regularum veritas docet” (xxiii. q. v.,
Non vos).

Et ille “versutus hostis qui mille habet modos nocendi, nec ig-
15 noramus astuciam eius, conatur namque a principio ruine sue uni-
tatem ecclesie rescindere, caritatem vulnerare, sanctorum operum
dulcedinem invidie felle inficere, et omnibus modis humanum genus
evertere et perturbare—dolet enim satis et erubescit, caritatem quam
in celo nequit habere, homines constantes ex lutea materia in terra tenere20
2—tantum invaluit quod ecclesia dei iam per decem et no-
vem annos in scismate stetit.3 Ytalia, Hungaria, Almania, Anglia, et
alie naciones multe tenuerunt Bartholomeum, quem Urbanum VIm
nominaverunt, et post mortem eius Bonifacium qui stat nunc in
Roma, fuisse et esse verum papam.4 Regnum Francie, Scocie, et25
Arragonie, Navarre, Hyspanie, collegium antiquorum cardinalium
qui fuerunt in utraque eleccione, si prima sic dici debeat, [E 227v]
et multe alie naciones, dominum Clementem VIIm, et post eius mortem
 [[ Print Edition Page No. 70 ]] 
dominum Benedictum, qui nunc stat in Avinione.5 Et super
30 hoc dubietas talis exorta, quod maiores clerici fuerunt et adhuc sunt
in opinionibus diversis. Ex quo nos reputamus ipsos scismaticos et
adherentes intruso et per consequens excommunicatos a canone, per
c. i. [Quod a predecessore], De scismaticis;6 et: “perpetuo anathe-
mate a liminibus ecclesie sancte dei separatos, sicut invasores et
35 destructores tocius cristianitatis, et ab omni ecclesiastico gradu in
quo prius fuerant depositos vel deponendos, et cum impiis qui non
resurgent in iudicio reputatos. Et quod cuncta elementa debent eis
esse contraria, et omnium sanctorum quiescencium merita illos de-
bent confundere, et in hac vita super eos apertam vindictam osten-
dere”;40 et per consequens eos esse et fuisse “in potestate dyaboli sicut
pecus” in potestate domini sui, per decretum concilii generalis, In
nomine
domini, ibi cum dicit “quod si quis quasi per sedicionem
vel presumpcionem etc. electus seu intronizatus fuerit etc., cui si
quis adheserit etc.,” sic quod “nisi per satisfaccionem reconciliati
45 fuerint, ipsis ianua regni celestis clausa erit.” Ut ponit Iheronimus
in c. Nichil, in fine, xi. q. iii., et in c. Audi denique, cum glosa
Iohannis, eadem causa et questione.7

Et ipsi idem dicunt de nobis, dicentes quod secundo electus “non
fuit secundus sed nullus,” per c. Factus est Cornelius, vii. q. i. Et
50 nos “indignacionem dei incurrimus cum illis qui scisma faciunt
et relicto suo episcopo, alium sibi foris pseudoepiscopum constitu-
erunt.” Unde dominus sic indignatur quod nos “in direpcionem et
perdicionem dedisse” videatur. Et licet cum ipsis “eundem patrem,
eundem filium, eundem spiritum sanctum credamus, hoc tamen nos
55 adiuvare non potest,” sicut scribitur de Dathan et Abiron, quos terra
absorbuit vivos (vii. q. i., Denique).8 Cuius occasione orte sunt inter
cristianos guerre mortales in pluribus locis; homines occisi, depre-
dati; raptus, adulteria, incendia, et mala infinita secuta. Et quando
in regnis et partibus ipsorum nos reperiunt, de ecclesiis ipsorum,60
quando aliud malum facere non possunt, ignominiose nos proiciunt,
credentes mortaliter peccare indubie, per c. Sacris, Quod metus
causa
[De hiis que vi metusve causa fiunt!], si nobiscum communi-
cent in divinis vel aliis.9 Et nos idem de ipsis.


 [[ Print Edition Page No. 71 ]] 

Et ita ecclesia militans, “que Cristi corpus est, et in duo vel plura
dividi non potest,” ut dicit Augustinus in c. Scisma, xxiii. [E 228r]65
q. i.,10 stat sic lamentabiliter lacerata. Et mala et inconveniencia que
ex ista divisione oriuntur et sunt oriri disposita, nisi deus advertat,
non possent enumerari. “Unde oportet, quantum fragilitati nostre
conceditur, ut omnes aditus nocendi eius versucie premuniamus, ne
mors intret per portas nostras,” iuxta consilium canonis Visis, xvi.70
q. ii. Et “oportet nos humiliari sub manu potentis dei, ut liberet nos
in tempore tribulacionis, nam dyabolus non cessat circuire, querens
quem devoret” (scribitur in c. Nulli, iii. q. i.), et “ponere nos murum
pro defensione domus Israel,” iuxta illud Ezechielis [13.5] quod
transsumptive habetur xliii. di., Sit rector, et omnes clamare ut in-
habitemus75 in unum, iuxta illud, “Clama ne cesses” etc. [ibid.; Isa. 58.1].

“Illi vero non habitant in unum qui fratrum se solacio substra-
hunt, aut quod deterius est, fratribus insidias aut laqueos ponunt,”
iii. q. i., Nulli. Et qui non potest aliud, saltim clamet, iuxta l. i. [Cum80
aliter], ff. Ad Syllanum [De senatusconsulto Silaniano!],11 et preci-
pue reges, de quibus Ysidorus ait, quod “sive augeatur pax in eccle-
sia, scilicet per principes fideles, sive solvatur, ille ab eis racionem
exiget qui eorum potestati suam ecclesiam credidit committendam,”
in c. Principes, xxiii. q. v. Quod est bene durum verbum, quia85
“iudicium durissimum fiet hiis qui presunt, exiguo fiet misericordia,
et potentes potenter tormenta sustinebunt,” Sap. vi. [6-7]. Et “illa

vox domini” terribilis: “Auferetur a vobis regnum” etc. [Matt. 21.43],
in c. Si de rebus, xxiii. q. vii. Et propter talia, contra ipsos excitat
dominus populos ad rebelliones, sediciones, et talia, ut pulcre deducit90
Ambrosius, c. Remittuntur, eadem causa et questione [q. v.!].12

Quod advertentes, reges et maxime Francie, quia cause arduitas

 [[ Print Edition Page No. 72 ]] 
et dubii probabilitas hoc exposcunt, iuxta consilium canonis, “senio-
ribus” regnorum “congregatis et interrogatis” (facilius namque in-
venitur95 quod a pluribus queritur, quia verus repromissor ait [Matt.
18.19], “Si duo ex vobis vel tres in unum convenerint super terram
in nomine meo, de omni re quacunque pecierint fiet illis a patre
meo,” xx. di., c. finali [De quibus]), invenerunt quod via cessionis
seu renunciacionis amborum contendencium de papatu, cum certis
100 precedentibus revocacionibus processuum et confirmacionibus pro-
mocionum, et statim in forma iuris sequente eleccione futuri
[E 228v] unici et indubitati pastoris, ut hoc in consultacione super
hoc habita clarius declaratur, est ad delendum penitus scisma et
uniendum ecclesiam melior et brevior, et in omnibus, stante casu
105 sicut est, conveniencior.13 Et quia ipsi vel alter ipsorum, requisiti
solempniter, istam non acceptant viam,14 dubitatur apud multos qua-
liter contra non acceptantes vel non acceptantem sit procedendum.
Et inter ceteros modos est tactum per multos, quod ipsis ambobus
vel uni non acceptanti esset per ambas obediencias, vel per partem
110 illius qui refutaret, penitus obediencia substrahenda.15

Et quia “ille non solum est proditor veritatis qui mendacium
asserit, sed eciam ille qui libere veritatem non pronunciat” (xi. q.
iii., Nolite timere; et c. Quisquis metu), et quia “iura provident ne
veritas occultetur” (Extra, De confirmacione utili, Cum dilecta; et
115 xiiii. q. i., Quod debetur),16 ego

Symon de Cramaudo lemovicensis diocesis, nuper inter decre-
torum doctores Parisius minimus, et nunc sicut deo placuit pa-
triarcha alexandrinus et administrator ecclesie carcassonensis, de
mandato regis Francie domini mei naturalis, de cuius concilio
120 sum quamvis immeritus iam pridem retentus,17

per dei graciam non mee salutis immemor, libenter ad sedacionem

 [[ Print Edition Page No. 73 ]] 
proprie consciencie et ad dandum occasionem aliis investigandi veritatem
(quia ut dicit Philosophus, 2o Methaphisice, eciam ex falso
scriptis commendabor, quia per ipsa aliis materiam investigande
veritatis preparabo, ut notat Iohannes Andree in fine glose sue Libri125
sexti),18 proposui iura aliqua ad memoriam videre volencium in materia
reducere, et dicta doctorum,

malens aliena verecunde dicere quam mea imprudenter inge-
rere,” cum Iheronimo in principio epistole ad Paulum, in pro-
logo biblie,19130

reservans in veri investigacione cuilibet liberum iudicium. Sic tamen
quod preferatur pars que pociori racione iuvatur, ut faciunt acha-
demici, de quibus Salisberensis, libro viio, in prohemio.20 Nec mi-
retur aliquis si inveniantur in processu dicciones “forte,” “fortassis,”
“forsitan,” quia ut dicit idem Salisberiensis, talia demonstrant acha-
135 demicum temperamentum, et fuerunt achademici magis temperati
quam alii philosophi, qui veriti sunt temere diffinire et in falsum
precipitare, ut dicit idem Salisberiensis, libro viio, ca. 2o.21

Nec intendo aliquid per dei graciam temere in materia asserere
seu pertinaciter defendere, nec in iniuriam domini Benedicti eciam140
aliquid dicere, sed solum pro unione ecclesie sic lamentabiliter la-
cerate. [E 229r] Cui ego et quilibet catholicus sum prius quam pape
iuratus, iuxta c. Ego N., De iure iurando;22 et istud placeat haberi
pro repetito in quolibet dicendorum. Sed correccioni sancte romane
ecclesie quicquid dicam submitto,145

et matris mee universitatis parisiensis et cuiuscunque clarius vi-
dentis.

Ut igitur veniam ad materiam, quero aliqua. Et primo quero,
numquid reges et regna superius declarata tam obediencie Bonifacii
 [[ Print Edition Page No. 74 ]] 
150quam obediencie domini Benedicti, ipsis ambobus nolentibus renun-
ciare, possint obedienciam canonice substrahere seu penitus dene-
gare. Secundo quero utrum supposito quod una obediencia super
inquisicione vie melioris maiorem diligenciam fecerit, et suum pas-
torem de acceptando viam cessionis solempniter requisiverit, sibi
155 non acceptanti in casu quo alter contendens ad istam venire vellet,
possit eciam obedienciam substrahere canonice.

[Part 1: Proof of the Contrary]

Et probabo primo quod neutrum istorum facere “licet secundum
equitatem, decet secundum honestatem, expedit propter ecclesie utilitatem.”23

[Quod non licet]

160[1] Pro primo, quod non licet, supponitur quod quelibet pars est
fixe determinata, una quod Bonifacius est verus successor Petri et
vicarius Ihesu Cristi, et per consequens caput et princeps ecclesie
militantis; alia eciam quod dominus Benedictus est verus successor
et vicarius Ihesu Cristi, caput et princeps ecclesie militantis. Tunc
165 arguitur sic: “Non licet membra a capite discedere,” sed papa est
caput ecclesie militantis et nos membra, ergo non licet partibus Bo-
nifacium papam vel tenentibus Benedictum papam ipsis quoquomodo
obedienciam substrahere. Maior probatur per c. Cum non
liceat, De prescripcionibus,
et c. i. [Non decet], xii. di., ubi dicitur
170 quod non licet membra etc.24

Minor probatur per dictum Ambrosii in c. Beati Petrus et Pau-
lus,
ii. q. vii., ubi dicit quod non sine causa deus ordinavit quod
beati Petrus et Paulus reciperent martirium in Roma, sed “ut ibi
esset caput sanctitatis ubi antea fuerat caput supersticionis.” Et per175
dictum Augustini in c. Puto, ibi cum dicit de Petro, “quis enim
nesciat illum apostolatus principatum cuilibet episcopatui preferen-
dum” etc. Et per Iheronimum in c. Hec est fides, xxiiii. q. i., ubi

 [[ Print Edition Page No. 75 ]] 
Iheronimus pape: [E 229v] “Hec est fides, beatissime pater, in qua
si minus perite aut parum forte caute aliquid positum est, emendari
a te cupimus, qui Petri sedem tenes et fidem” etc. Et per Karolum180
Magnum, qui sanctus apud multos reputatur, dicentem quod pape
est obediendum, “licet velit aliquid vix ferendum,” in c. In me-
moriam,
xix. di. Et per canonem concilii calcedonensis, in quo sic
scribitur:25 “Si quis episcopus petitur infamis, liberam habet licen-
ciam appellandi ad summum antistitem quem habemus, Petrum185
petram refrigerii, et ipsi soli libera potestate, loco dei, sit ius discer-
nendi episcopi criminati infamiam, secundum claves a domino sibi
datas.” “Et Cirillus” alexandrine urbis episcopus et olim primus pa-
triarcha, “in Libro thesaurorum,26 ubi tractat illud Mathei xvio, Tu
es Petrus, etc., et porte inferi non prevalebunt, dicit: Secundum190
autem hanc promissionem, ecclesia apostolica Petri ab omni seduccione
et heretica circumvencione immaculata manet, et super omnes
primatum ecclesiarum et populorum in suis pontificibus plenam
auctoritatem obtinet.” Quod recitat Petrus Bertrandi olim cardinalis,
in prohemio Sexti.27 Et in concilio sardicensi idem, de quo habetur195
in c. Si episcopus, ii. q. vi. Et ista sanctorum doctorum dicta deberent
claudere os illorum qui dicunt quod canonibus ampliantibus
potestatem pape, per romanos pontifices factis, non est adhibenda
magna fides, quia in facto proprio.28 Et quod ipsi fideles sint membra
militantis ecclesie probat Apostolus, prime ad Corinth. xii. capitulo200
[12], et deducit pulcre Cardinalis, in c. Fundamenta, De eleccione.29

[2] Item potestatem et principatum habet papa a deo et non ab
hominibus, ut apparet per ea que dicunt Innocencius et Iohannes
Andree in c. Licet ex suscepto, De foro competenti, ubi dicunt30
quod deus creator celi et terre rexit mundum per se ipsum aliquo205
tempore, sine ministerio alterius, ut ab Adam usque ad Noe (Gen.
iiio cap., ibi: “mulieri quoque dicit,” et ibi: “Ade vero dicit” [3.16-
17]. Et Gen. iiiio, qualiter per se ipsum Cain, Lamech, et quosdam
alios [4.15, 24]), et sic, mundo gubernato per ipsum deum usque ad

 [[ Print Edition Page No. 76 ]] 
210Noe, cepit deus creaturas suas regere per ministros, de quo apparet
quod fuit rector populi, ex eo quod sibi dominus gubernacionem
arche commisit, Gen. iiiio et vo capitulo [6.18-7.5!]. Item dominus
in Noe et filiis suis rectoriam et legem dedit, Gen. ixo [1-17], et licet
non legatur fuisse sacerdos, officium tamen exercuit sacerdotis, Gen.215
viiio [20]: Et edificavit autem Noe altare domino. Et in eius locum
successerunt patriarche, iudices, et sacerdotes, qui prefuerunt regi-
mini populi usque ad Cristum,31 inter quos semper preerat et pre-
sidebat unus [E 230r] summus sacerdos, ut ponit Magister in Historia
scolastica,
in Deuteronomio, in titulo De appellacione ad summum
220 sacerdotem, et titulo sequenti.32 Et Ihesus Cristus qui fuit dominus
iudex noster, et dominus legifer noster, <ut> scribitur Isa. xxxiiio ca-
pitulo [22], vicarium suum constituit Petrum et successores suos,
quando dedit eis claves regni celorum, et quando dixit ei, Pasce oves
meas [John 21.17].33 Et ob hoc reprehenduntur, et non sine causa,
225 illi qui dicunt quod canonibus factis per papam quo ad hoc non est
fides adhibenda, etc.; quia habent fundamentum a iure divino. Et
ob hoc sic dicentes penam sacrilegii incurrunt, ut dicunt Iohannes Andree et Hostiensis
in c. Licet ex suscepto, allegato.34

Unde qui romane ecclesie privilegium ab ipso summo ecclesia-
rum230 capite traditum auferre conatur, hic procul dubio in heresim
labitur. Fidem quippe violat qui adversus illam agit que est mater
fidei. “Unde et ipse sanctus Ambrosius se in omnibus sequi magis-
tram sanctam romanam ecclesiam profitetur,” in c. i. [Omnes sive],
xxii. di. Et alibi: “Sancta romana ecclesia non ab apostolis sed ab
235 ipso domino et salvatore nostro obtinuit primatum” (in c. Sacro-
sancta,
eadem di.). Ergo non potest auferri seu denegari per ho-
minem potestas pape, iuxta illud [Matt. 19.6]: Quod deus coniunxit
homo non separet; quia minor non potest tollere factum superioris,
in c. Cum inferior, De maioritate et obediencia.35

240Ex quibus infero correlarie, quod illi qui dicunt quod romanus
pontifex non est primas et superior in ecclesia militanti errant, et si
pertinaciter asserunt sunt heretici. Ponit hoc expresse glossator De-
creti, in c. Nulli fas, xix. di.,36 et Iohannes Andree in c. Generali,
De eleccione,
Libro sexto.37 Et beatus Thomas in libro suo Contra

 [[ Print Edition Page No. 77 ]] 
Gentiles, titulo de potestate episcoporum, hoc pulcre deducit, dicens245
quod senciens contrarium errat.38 Et frater Hastensis in titulo de
papa et patriarchis.39 Et prior Sancti Eligii, super diccione “unio”
seu “unitas,” dicit quod iste est unus error Grecorum, negare vide-
licet quod successor Petri est caput et princeps ecclesie militantis.
Et ibi loquitur de differencia inter thyaram pape et mitram episc-
oporum.40250 Et facit quod notat Archidiaconus in c. Denique, vii.
q. i., dicens quod tales peccant contra articulum “et in unam sanc-
tam ecclesiam” etc.41

Item probatur quia “dubius in fide infidelis est,” in c. i. [Dubius
in fide
], De hereticis, “eciam in tenui articulo.”42 Jac. 2o [10] scribi-
255 tur, “qui totam legem observaverit, si offendit in uno, omnium fac-
tus est reus,” scilicet quantum ad vitam eternam.

Item nonne naturalis instinctus seu racio proveniens nobis a deo
hoc clare nobis suadet, quod in quacunque [E 230v] pluralitate or-
dinata, debet esse unus superior et cetera subiecta, ut ponit expresse260
Philosophus in Politicis?43 Quanto magis in pluralitate et congrega-
cione fidelium, que est ipsa ecclesia militans, et cuius finis est in-
gressus et acquisicio regni celestis, ut dictum est. Item nonne in
ecclesia triumphanti est unus rex regum et dominus dominancium,
ad cuius exemplum, quantum est nobis possibile, nos regere debe-
265 mus? Omnia enim naturaliter attendunt ad suum principium, et in
signum huius habet homo staturam rectam, ut scilicet ad deum et
bona celestia continue respiciat et attendat, iuxta illud Ysa. li. [1]:
“Attendite ad petram unde excisi estis.” Unde dicit Philosophus,
primo Metheorum, quod tota regio elementorum contignatur lacioni270
astrorum, ut omnis eius virtus inde gubernetur.44 Et inde dicunt iura
quod ars imitatur naturam in quantum potest, l. i. [Filiosfamilias],
ff. De adopcionibus, et in § Minorem natu, Instit., eodem titulo.45

Item vidi aliquos scribentes, qui dicunt quod Petrus non exercuit
maioritatem aliquam inter apostolos, et pro eo dicitur quod eius275
successores non sunt nec fuerunt maiores aliorum episcoporum.46 Et
tamen fatentur gerarchiam ecclesie militantis, videlicet maioritatem
 [[ Print Edition Page No. 78 ]] 
patriarcharum, primatum, archiepiscoporum, etc.; et tamen isti sunt
omnes loco apostolorum—in c. Cleros et clericos, xxi. di.47—et pro
280 bono regiminis est maioritas inter eos. Quanto magis fuit expediens
et necessarium “quod unus preesset ecclesie militanti in remedium
scismatis” et divisionis, iuxta dictum Iheronimi in c. Legimus, xciii.
di. Nonne in hiis que sunt fidei esset possibile quod unus patriarcha
vel primas unum statueret in patria sibi subiecta, et alter eciam in
285 alia aliter ordinaret, quia ad diversitatem corporum etc. (in c. Quia
diversitatem, De concessione prebendarum
);48 sicut visum est de
Grecis, postquam de facto se substraxerunt ab obediencia romani
pontificis? Et ita istorum error esset destruccio fidei, et per conse-
quens ecclesie militantis.

290Nec valet quod dicunt: licet nos dicamus quod apes et grues
unam secuntur, non tamen omnes apes secuntur unam, sed nec om-
nes grues aliam, sed quelibet congregacio suam.49 Sed nichil ad pro-
positum, quia ecclesia militans nichil aliud est quam congregacio
fidelium (ut in c. Fundamenta, De eleccione; in c. Legimus, xciii.
295 di., circa medium; et in c. Ecclesiam, De consecracione, di. i.),50 in
qua debet esse unus episcopus vicarius scilicet Ihesu Cristi (in c.
Loquitur, xxiiii. q. i.).51 Item, “leges fiunt cum promulgantur, et
firmantur cum moribus utencium comprobantur,” in c. Denique
Leges!], iv. di. Modo [E 231r] etsi ex divina scriptura, secundum
300 eos, hoc clare concludi non possit,52 tamen ita receptum est per patres
nostros quasi a mille annis citra. Nonne imperium transtulit de Gre-
cis in Germanos, regem Francie deposuit (in c. Venerabilem, De
eleccione
; in c. Alius, xv. q. vi.)?53 Et iura per summos pontifices
condita sunt; et “consuetudo est optima legum interpres,” etc., De
305 consuetudine, Cum dilectus. Item, nonne Foca cesar, contra patriar-
cham constantinopolitanum qui primum de facto se scribebat, or-
dinavit quod inposterum subesset romano pontifici, ut ponit Marti-
nus in cronica sua?54 Dicamus ergo de talibus cum Iheronimo, quod
ipsi excedunt “terminos quos posuerunt patres eorum”; dicens ul-
terius310 quod “veteres scrutans hystorias, non invenit ecclesiam dei
scidisse, nec in domo domini populum seduxisse, preter eos qui in

 [[ Print Edition Page No. 79 ]] 
sacerdocio positi sunt.” “Tales enim vertuntur in laqueum tortuo-
sum, in omnibus locis ponentes scandalum” (in c. Transferunt, xxiiii.
q. iii.). Et contra tales loquitur Apostolus [Rom. 12.3]: “Non plus
sapere quam sapere oporteat, sed ad sobrietatem”; ut transsumptive315
habetur in c. Sit rector, xliii. di. Et utinam talia scripta combure-
rentur! Et ille cui ista non sufficient, videat Armachanum, in libro
viio De questionibus Armenorum, qui per sacram scripturam hoc
summe bene deducit.55

Ex quo infero correlarie, quod via per aliquos tacta, quod duo320
concertantes de papatu remanerent prout sunt donec unus ipsorum
moreretur, et tunc ille qui superesset eligeretur, est via pessima et
tanquam talis ab omnibus cristifidelibus reicienda. Apparet, quia in
ecclesia militanti, que est unum corpus, non debent esse duo capita,
quia hoc videre esset monstruosum et scandalosum; et prohibetur325
fieri in uno episcopatu, et qui contrarium facit excommunicatus est:
in c. Quoniam in plerisque, De officio [iudicis] ordinarii. Quanto
magis in episcopatu romano, cuius episcopus est principalis et maior
vicarius Ihesu Cristi, et non potest esse nisi unus, nam ille qui vero
superadditur non est secundus sed nullus.56 Et vere scandalum est330
hodie magnum, sed per illam adhuc esset maius, quia diceretur quod
propter conservacionem vane pompe duorum hominum, fides nostra
esset contaminata, et ecclesia, in qua non debet esse macula neque
ruga, in perpetuum maculata. Et esset via ad semper habendum
duos, et ideo tanquam exemplo perniciosa est ab omnibus reicienda,335
per l. Si quis aliquid ex metallo, [E 231v] in § Si quis [Qui!] abor-
cionis,
[ff De penis,] ubi dans poculum amatorium eciam ad bonum
finem iubetur occidi;57 et facit c. Mulier, xv. q. i.58 Et ex pacto eligere
superviventem esset recte contra naturam papalis eleccionis, que de-
bet esse “pura, sincera, et gratuita,” ab omni necessitate et paccione340
seclusa; quia “non est eleccio ubi libertas amittitur eligendi” (in c.

 [[ Print Edition Page No. 80 ]] 
In nomine domini, xxiii. di., et in c. Ubi [periculum] maius, § Ce-
terum
). Et postquam non potest esse nisi unus, clarum est quod una
pars vel forsan ambe, ut infra lacius dicetur, careret vero pastore.
345 Ex quo possent sequi infinita pericula animarum, et involvere cri-
stifideles in tali laberinto propter unum vanum honorem mundanum,
in quo presidens “plus meroribus afficitur quam honoribus gaudet”
(in c. Nervi, xiii. di.). Et Salisberiensis in Policraticon, libro viiio,
pulcre hoc narrat, quando loquitur de scismate.59 Eciam non esset
350 forsan bene catholicum; ymo istam viam prosequentes forsan debent
reputari suspecti in fide, quia ex levi articulo in hiis que sunt fidei,
quis redditur suspectus de heresi, ut in l. ii. [Omnes], C. De hereticis;
et notat hoc Henricus in c. i. [Dubius in fide], De hereticis, in anti-
quis.60

355Nunc redeamus ad propositum.

[3] Item, non valet ut videtur si dicatur quod papa in scandalum
et destruccionem retinet papatum; quia sacra scriptura docet obe-
dire principibus “eciam discolis,” I. Petri ii. c. [19]: “Hec est enim
gracia, si propter dei conscienciam sustinet quis tristiciam pacienter
360 et iniuste.” Et propter hoc dicit lex civilis quod lex quantumcunque
dura tenenda est, et pro racione sufficit quod ita scriptum est:
l. Prospexit, ff. Qui et a quibus.

[4] Item, licet in malo notorio pocius esset recognoscendus papa
celestis,61 tamen in facto dubio, secundum quod est casus presens ut
365 probabo, nunquam est obediencia substrahenda, ut dicit Augustinus
in libro Contra Manicheos, et habetur xxiii. q. i., Quid culpatur, in
fine.62 Quod casus presens sit dubius—videlicet, an via cessionis sit
pro sedacione scismatis melior—apparet per dictum Cypriani mar-
tiris, “Quam periculosum sit in divinis rebus, ut quis cedat iuri suo
370 et potestati, scriptura sacra declarat,” in c. Quam periculosum, vii.
q. i. Et facit nota Innocencii posita in c. Licet de vitanda, que dicit,

 [[ Print Edition Page No. 81 ]] 
loquens de papa formaliter, quod non debet cogi renunciare iuri
suo.63

[5] Item, eciam quia iam una notabilis pars cristianitatis dicit
aliam esse meliorem, videlicet concilii generalis, et videtur reicere375
istam, si videatur [E 232r] epistola oxoniensis.64 Item, sunt multi
magni iuxta papam qui tenent quod alie sunt multe vie aperte ad
sedacionem scismatis, que prieo debent temptari quam veniatur ad
istam; et dicunt quod iuramentum factum in ingressu conclavis non
aliter dominum nostrum astringit.65 Ex quibus redditur iste articulus380
bene dubius, quia sola opinio doctorum relevat litigatorem quan-
doque ab expensis, iuxta l. Qui solidum, in § Eciam, ff. De legatis,
2o.66

[6] Item, videtur quod non liceat sibi substrahere obedienciam
alia racione, quia quociens potest haberi remedium ordinarium, non385
debet haberi recursus ad extraordinarium, in l. In cause [cognicione],
2o responso, ff. De minoribus. Sed in casu nostro potest provideri
per remedium ordinarium, ut probabo; ergo minus iuste petitur a
domino nostro quod propter sedacionem scandali cedat; et per con-
sequens non licet substrahere obedienciam si non cedat. Facit quod390
pulcre notat Accursius in l. i. [Post acciones], § Per hanc, ff. De rei
vendicacione,
ubi dicit quod nunquam extraordinarium remedium
quod est de iure introductum in subsidium concurrit cum ordinario;
et ita intelligit l. Quedam, in principio, ff. De edendo.67 Et in ter-
minis nostris est casus in § Pro gravi quoque scandalo, ibi cum dicit,395
si aliter sedari non possit.68

Et quod per ordinarium remedium provideri possit, apparet:
quia dominus noster offert quod eligantur valentes viri deum ti-
mentes ab utraque parte, et illi videant quis habet ius in papatu, vel
dominus noster vel Bonifacius.69 Et vidi in scripturis aliquibus, que400
dicebantur scripta domini mei Pampilonensis, quod dominus noster
intelligit quod huiusmodi compromissum haberet vim concilii ge-
neralis.70 Et tunc oporteret quod illi eligerentur de consensu amba-
rum
 [[ Print Edition Page No. 82 ]] 
obedienciarum, nam alias non ligaret eorum dictum vel sen-
tencia405 reges et prelatos obedientes domino nostro; quia “res inter
alios acta” etc.71 (Et videtur casus in racione in l. Si dictum, in § In
compromisso
[Si compromisero!], ff. De eviccionibus.72 Et facit quod
notat Bernardus in capitulo finali [Si venditori], De empcione et
vendicione.
)73 Et tunc non dubium quod esset concilium generale,
410 et per consequens remedium ita ordinarium quod non potest esse
magis. Primo quia concilium generale de iure [E 232v] ut videtur
habet cognicionem istius discordie, ut ponit Iohannes glosator De-
creti in c. Si duo [forte] contra fas,74 et in c. Sicut, xv. di., in fine,
ubi dicit quod in hiis que concernunt fidem et statum universalis
415 ecclesie, papa subest concilio, quia “auctoritas orbis maior est urbe,”
in c. Legimus, xciii. di.75 Item, haberent sic electi cognicionem istius
cause ex submissione parcium, quia verus papa, et multo magis in-
trusus, possunt bene se submittere (in c. Nos si incompetenter, ii.
q. vii.), eciam usque ad privacionem papatus, ut ibi dicit glosator,
420 et clarius in c. In synodo, lxiii. di.76

[7] Item, quomodo dicemus nos quod domino nostro debeat sub-
strahi obediencia, qui sepe et publice, ut asseritur, dicit quod dum
tamen conveniat cum adversario, eciam si deberet remanere sine
beneficio pauper presbiter, faceret pacem in ecclesia?77 Quid autem
425 refert, quid de equipollentibus fiat? Nichil, iuxta notam Iohannis
Andree in c. i. [De Quodvultdeo], De iudiciis, et l. Si mater, C. De
institucionibus et substitucionibus sub condicione factis.
78 Et satis
est quod aliquid sit certum, licet non nominatum: ff. [De rebus cre-
ditis,
] si certum petetur, in l. Cum quid mutuum, etc.

430[8] Item, ut videtur firmiter tenendum, incole regni, clerici et
laici, tenent in consciencia quod dominus noster est verus papa, et
per consequens quod substrahere obedienciam sibi esset male fac-
tum; ergo rex non debet ordinare quod domino nostro obediencia
substrahatur—per c. Literas, in § Porro, De restitucione spolii, et
435 per c. Per tuas, De symonia, et c. Inquisicioni, De sentencia ex-
communicacionis.
Ubi dicunt textus, quod quis non debet per superiorem
cogi ad faciendum contra conscienciam, nec subditi de-
bent
 [[ Print Edition Page No. 83 ]] 
in hoc obedire suis superioribus, eciam supposito quod
consciencia sit erronea, si non potest deponere scrupulum.79 “Et Ihe-
ronimus dicit quod consciencia est dux anime; et secundum Da-
440 mascenum, iiiio libro, c. xiiii., est lex intellectus nostri, id est anime
humane. Et ideo consciencia eciam erronea ligat voluntatem ab ea
discordantem quandiu durat.” Ut ponit Henricus in c. Per tuas,
l. ii., De symonia.80

[9] Item, quod non liceat procedere per istam viam, scilicet445
substraccionis: non esset sedacio scismatis. Si nos dicimus eleccionem
vel nominacionem Bartholomei pro eo non tenuisse quia non fuit
facta libere: nonne eadem racione diceret mundus, non valuit re-
nunciacio quia coacti renunciaverunt? [E 233r] Et inde diceretur de
illo qui eligeretur, per quamlibet obedienciam que tenet suum esse450
verum papam: Ille vero qui superadditur “non est secundus sed
nullus”—in c. Factus est Cornelius, vii. q. i.; quia metus subversionis
status etc., Quod metus causa [De hiis quae vi metusve causa fiunt!],
c. 2o [Abbas], per Hostiensem,81 et c. Cum dilectus, per Bernardum.82
Et licet quis inciderit in metum propter culpam, si tamen timeat455
verisimiliter de processu iniurioso et violento, excusatur: ff. Quod
metus causa,
l. Nec, § Providere [Proinde!]; De [sentencia et re]
iudicata, Pastoralis, in Clementinis.

[10] Item, non valet si dicatur: Si sibi obediatur, semper durabit
scisma. Quia “non est qui sibi dicat, Cur ita facis?”—in c. Si papa,460
xl. di., et nullus potest ipsum iudicare, nec habet iudicem nisi deum—
in c. Nemo, ix. q. ult. [iii.], et capitulo sequenti [Aliorum hominum],
et c. Cuncta per mundum, et c. Per principalem, eadem causa et
questione. Ymo est in hoc relinquendus sue consciencie, quia non est
qui potest ipsum iudicare, ut notat expresse Archidiaconus in c.465
Denique, iiii. di., per c. Nunc autem, xxi. di., c. Nulli fas, xix. di.83
Et facit c. Si inimicus, xciii. di., ubi beatus Petrus: quod omnibus
fidelibus debet esse inimicus qui aliquid facit contra papam, “et
multo nequior est hostis quam illi qui foris sunt, et evidenter sunt
inimici; hic enim per amiciciarum speciem que inimica sunt gerit,470
et ecclesiam dispergit et vastat.” Quod fortiter videtur facere contra

 [[ Print Edition Page No. 84 ]] 
illos qui consulunt quod pape obediencia substrahatur. Et facit c.
Qui cathedram, eadem distinccione, ubi Cyprianus: “Qui cathe-
dram Petri, super quam ecclesia fundata est, deserit, in ecclesia <se>
475 esse non confidat.”

[11] Item, quod non licet: Non valet quod aliqui dicunt, quod
saltim in procuracionibus et vacacionibus beneficiorum, que sunt
mere exacciones indebite, et in collacionibus beneficiorum, deberet
sibi obediencia substrahi. Quia ista licent sibi, qui de iure est supra480
ius (in c. Proposuit, De concessione prebendarum),84 nec est qui sibi
dicat, Cur ita facis?—ut est dictum—sic quod pro libito voluntatis
potest super beneficiis et viris ecclesiasticis onera, qualia sibi placent,
imponere, ut expresse ponit Henricus in c. Significasti, De eleccione,
in antiquis, et Hostiensis in c. finali [Mandato nostro], De symonia.85
485 Ergo nec in talibus est sibi obediencia substrahenda, quia “nemini
facit iniuriam qui utitur iure suo.”86

Et quo ad collacionem beneficiorum videtur casus pro isto in
c. i. [Si duobus], Ut lite pendente, in Clementinis, in fine.87

[12] Item, supposito quod rex hoc ordinaret, videlicet quod
490 [E 233v] nullus obediret pape, et papa preciperet contrarium, sem-
per esset magis obediendum pape, ut notat Innocencius in c. Cum
parati, De appellacionibus.
88 Et probatur per c. Cum inferior, De
maioritate et obediencia
;89 per l. Ille a quo, § Tempestivum, ff. Ad
[senatusconsultum] trebellianum.

495[13] Item, licet hoc fieret ad utilitatem ecclesie militantis per
regem, tamen non valeret nec astringeret viros ecclesiasticos, quia
rex in talibus habet “necessitatem obediendi, et non auctoritatem
imperandi,” per c. Ecclesia Sancte Marie, De constitucionibus; et
facit c. Que in ecclesiarum, eodem titulo, et c. Bene quidem, xcvi.
500 di.90

[14] Item, nunquam est recedendum a prelati obediencia quan-
diu toleratur ab ecclesia, viii. q. iv., Nonne, et § Hinc eciam, xvii.
di., v. “episcopi vero” etc. Quia melior est obediencia etc., viii.
q. i., Sciendum. Et “peccatum paganitatis incurrit, qui sedi apos-
tolice505 obedire contempnit,” lxxxi. di., Si qui sunt.91


 [[ Print Edition Page No. 85 ]] 

[Quod non decet]

Item non decet regiam maiestatem regum qui et eorum prede-
cessores obediverunt domino nostro, sibi obedienciam substrahere,
per raciones que secuntur. [1-a] Primo, si de iure non licet hoc facere,
per consequens non decet, quia “nichil tam proprium imperii quam
legibus vivere,” in l. Ex imperfecto, C. De testamentis, et l. Digna510
vox, C. De legibus. Et iurisconsultus: “Non puto verecundie nec
dignitati nec pietati convenire, quicquam non iure facere”—in
l. penultima [Creditores], ff. Ad legem iuliam de vi privata.92

[1-b] Item, rex et pater suus felicis memorie tenuerunt indubi-
tanter dominum Clementem predecessorem domini nostri (si sic debeat515
appellari: quia Iohannes de Bracho in repertorio suo super dic-
cione “papa” dicit quod non; et bene, quia honor debitus creatori
non debetur creature)93 veros esse et fuisse summos pontifices [sic].
Nunc perseverancia in bonum multum approbatur, iuxta illud,
“Beatus qui perseveraverit usque in finem,” vii. q. i., Suggestum520
[cf. Matt. 10.22], specialiter in bono proposito conservando, xvi.
q. i., Vos autem. Et variacio multum reprobatur, iuxta illud, “Qui
ponit manum ad aratrum et respicit retro non est aptus regno dei,”
in c. Magne, De voto [Luke 9.62], et facit Clementina Cum illusio,
De renunciacione.
94 Ergo non decet tantum regem reprobare quod525
semel sic sollempniter approbavit—per regulam iuris, “Quod semel
placuit” etc.,95 et per l. Generaliter, C. De non numerata pecunia,
ibi quando dicit “quod quis propria voce dilucide confessus est”
etc.96 Et facit optime c. Dilectissimi, viii. q. ii., ibi cum dicit: “Iudicari
namque a vobis ultra non debet semel prelatus, sed tanto a530
principio subtiliter iudicandus est, quanto postmodum iudicandus
non est.”

[2] Item non decet propter conservanciam fame et boni nominis
regii, quia diceretur: Si esset de regno suo vel parentela sua, [E 234r]
non ita rigide procederet rex contra eum, sicut nec fecit contra535
Clementem predecessorem suum. Item: Vult habere papam de reg-
no suo.97 Et “qui famam negligit crudelis est,” xii. q. i., Nolo. Et
scribitur Ecclesiastici xlio [15], “Curam habe de bono nomine.” Et

 [[ Print Edition Page No. 86 ]] 
“gravior est amissio fame quam oculorum”—in l. Infamia, C. De
540 decurionibus, libro xo; De procuratoribus, Querelam, per Hostie-
nsem.98

[3] Item pater regis, Karolus felicis memorie, nunquam processit
ad substraccionem obediencie pape Clementis, nec ceteri reges, ex-
cepto rege Portugalie, qui semel fuit determinatus pro Clemente et
545 post, ipso dimisso, adhesit Bartholomeo.99 Et ceteri reges Francie,
precipue tempore scismatum, nunquam ad substraccionem obedien-
cie illius quem papam tenuerunt processerunt. Ymo ut dicunt hys-
torie, illi qui habuerunt regem Francie pro se semper obtinuerunt;
ut de Alexandro IIIo et de Sergio narrat inter ceteros Martinus, in
550 cronica sua.100 Attendat ergo rex illud quod ad propositum dicit
Iheronimus: In nobilitate, dicit, appetendum quod nobiles quadam
necessitate astringuntur ne a predecessorum probitate degenerent.101
Et Cassiodorus: Sicut indigna posteritas laudes antiqui generis ab-
negat, ita preclara egregie de patribus dicta confirmat.102

[Quod non expedit]

555Item quod non expediat videtur. Non enim omnia que licent
expediunt, iuxta verbum Apostoli [1 Cor. 6.12] quod habetur transsumptive
xi. q. i., Aliud. Istud autem, et si liceret, videtur tamen
summe non expedire, propter raciones que secuntur.

[1] Primo, si substrahatur sibi obediencia, recedet et latitabit
560 alicubi, ut verisimiliter dubitant multi, et tunc excommunicabit re-
gem, et forsan iuste per predicta. Et facit c. ii. [Si quis venerit], De
maioritate et obediencia,
quia “qui non obedierit principi morte
moriatur”; et “sive iuste sive iniuste,” postquam ipsum pastorem
tenemus, “ipsius sentencia timenda est”—xi. q. iii., Sentencia pas-
toris.
565 Et Augustinus: “Nichil sic debet formidare cristianus quam
separari a corpore Cristi; qui enim separatur a corpore Cristi non
est membrum eius, et si non est membrum eius, non vegetatur spiritu
eius. Si quis autem, inquit Apostolus [Rom. 8.9], spiritum Cristi
non habet, hic non est eius”—xi. q. iii., Nichil. Et excommunicacio

 [[ Print Edition Page No. 87 ]] 
efficitur mortalis cum contempnitur—De sentencia excommunicacionis,570
[E 234v] Cum medicinalis, Libro sexto. “Et ubi est incolu-
mitas obediencie, ibi sana forma doctrine,” in c. Miramur, lxi. di.

[2] Item sunt multi casus in quibus solus papa potest dispensare,
et de quibus absolucio est sibi de iure reservata, qui enumerantur
in c. Deus qui, De penitenciis et remissionibus, per Henricum,103 et575
in c. Quod translacionem, De officio legati,104 et in Speculo, titulo
De legato, § Nunc videndum.105 Item, maiores cause sunt per sedem
apostolicam decidende—xvii. di., c. Multis, et in c. Maiores, De
baptismo.
Nunc, obediencia sibi substracta, non esset qui super hiis
posset remedium apponere; ergo non expedit obedienciam sibi sub- 580
strahere, et “debet inspici, quod evenire potest”—in l. Si quis do-
mum,
in § i. [Hic], ff. Locati, et in c. i. [Alia quidem], De procura-
toribus.
106

[3] Item laici, qui “clericis oppido sunt infesti” (in c. Clericis
[laicos], De immunitate ecclesiarum, Libro sexto), ecclesia stante585
sine capite, magis libere impedirent ecclesiam in iuribus suis, et ad
bona ecclesie manum apponerent. Et ita quilibet dei ecclesiam la-
ceraret, insurgerent errores et hereses; et propter hoc, ut dicit Ihe-
ronimus, voluit deus quod unus preesset, “ne unusquisque ad se
trahens ecclesiam dei laceraret” etc., in c. Legimus, xciii. di., superius590 allegato.

[4] Item si substraheretur per reges obediencia istis ambobus, vel
per unam partem suo, ea racione qua non obediretur eis, eadem
racione nec obediretur episcopis creatis per ipsos, et ceteris prelatis
vel curatis et beneficiatis; quia clarum est quod ordinati per papam595
reprobatum eciam tanquam reprobi sunt abiciendi, per c. i. [Quod
a predecessore
], De scismaticis et ordinatis ab eis, et c. Ordinacio-
nes,
ix. q. i.107 Et si dicatur: Non, quia ambo reputantur veri summi
pontifices, quilibet in obediencia sua; sed quia nolunt acceptare viam
que videtur melior et conveniencior pro habendo pacem in ecclesia,600
percepcio bonorum crucifixi eis substrahitur, etc.: non valet, quia et
si substraccio obediencie fiat ad istum finem, opinio communis habebit
contrarium, et dicetur quod hoc fit quia nunquam fuerunt veri
 [[ Print Edition Page No. 88 ]] 
summi pontifices. Et ita saltim de facto orietur una infamia et unum
605 scandalum contra prelatos et promotos per utrumque, et erunt in-
fames infamia facti, que non potest aboleri—iuxta l. Honori, ff. De
obsequiis
etc.108 Et erunt viri ecclesiastici opprobrium hominum et
abieccio [E 235r] plebis, et per consequens posset esse destruccio
ztotalis ecclesie.

610[5] Item si substraheretur obediencia, infiniti magistri in theolo-
gia, doctores in diversis facultatibus, et alii viri ecclesiastici, qui
electi in sortem dei debent habere beneficia ecclesie (in c. Cum
secundum, De prebendis
), et iam obtinuerunt gracias expectativas
ab utroque, privarentur graciis suis, quod generaret scandalum mag-
num.615 Et prelati vel forsan principes seculares distribuerent beneficia
ecclesiastica. Ex quibus sequerentur inconveniencia: suis nepotulis,
parentibus, et servitoribus beneficia conferrent, retropositis valenti-
bus clericis; quia ut dicit Hostiensis in c. Grave, De prebendis, tales
consueverunt “committere curam mille animarum nepotulo cui non
620 committerent duo pira.”109 Et illi qui reciperent a laicis non haberent
institucionem canonicam, et per consequens dampnabiliter tenerent,
nec facerent fructus suos, per regulam iuris, “Beneficium ecclesias-
ticum” etc.110 Et facit quod pulcre notat Henricus in c. Nisi cum
pridem, De renunciacione,
quo ad hoc.111

625[6] Item alia innumerabilia inconveniencia sequerentur, et pro
tanto iura vacacionem romane ecclesie reputant periculosissimam—
in c. Ubi [periculum] maius, et in c. Quamvis [Quam sit!], De elec-
cione,
Libro sexto.

[7] Item per hoc non haberetur unio ecclesie, quia quilibet ip-
sorum630 habet de patrimonio ecclesie magnas villas, castra, et fortalicia,
et forsan de proprio, in quibus se retraherent, et non renun-
ciabunt, et tenebunt sic ecclesiam involutam. Non ergo est
procedendum ad substraccionem obediencie, que utique facta non
prodesset et multum noceret: per predicta, per l. Ad probacionem,
635 et l. Neque natales, C. De probacionibus, in quibus dicitur quod
quis non debet admitti ad faciendum quod factum non prodesset.

[8] Item non expedit quod equa lance procedatur contra verum
papam et contra intrusum.


 [[ Print Edition Page No. 89 ]] 

[Part 2: For Subtraction]

Videtur contrarium, videlicet quod substrahere obedienciam
ambobus concertantibus licet, decet, et expedit.640

Pro cuius evidencia [E 235v] suppono aliqua. Primo, quod la-
mentabilis divisio que hodie prochdolor est in ecclesia dei, in sub-
versionem status universalis ecclesie et infinitarum periculum ani-
marum, est ita evidens et manifesta quod fere nichil potest esse
magis notorium; ymo est notorium facti permanentis taliter quod645
non potest aliqua tergiversacione celari.

Et quod vehemens est presumpcio contra ambos concertantes,
quod ipsi tenuerunt ita diu ecclesiam in isto lamentabili statu,
et adhuc tenent, ut presint non ut prosint, “querentes que sua
sunt. Et quid est sua querere? Temporalia commoda sequi, lucris650
inhiare, honores ab hominibus appetere”—ut dicit Augustinus
in c. Sunt in ecclesia, viii. q. i. Et quod istis cessantibus cessabit
eciam scisma, et acceptabunt concertantes libencius viam pacis.

Item, hoc supposito arguitur sic: Vero pape et indubitato, si
faciat aliquid quod notorie scandalizet ecclesiam vel inducat peri-
655 culum et subversionem animarum, non est obediendum, ymo de
facto resistendum. Ergo multo magis istis duobus concertantibus112

(quorum quilibet magis vult ecclesiam sic laceratam et trunca-
tam penes se retinere quam sub alio integram esse. Ex quo clare
se ostendunt veros patres non esse, per c. Afferte, De presumpcionibus.113660
Et per hoc nedum scandalizant ecclesiam, ymo ip-
sam
 [[ Print Edition Page No. 90 ]] 
penitus destruunt. Et videat quilibet sane mentis si filius
patri volenti matrem truncare per frusta obedire deberet!)

qui papatum retinere nituntur in maximum scandalum ecclesie uni-
665 versalis, in subversionem et periculum innumerabilium animarum,
si non velint acceptare viam cessionis, que sola penitus eradicativa
scismatis reputatur, ut infra dicam.

Maior probatur sic per dictum Leonis pape sic dicentis: “Si nos,
qui aliena debemus corrigere peccata, peiora committimus, certe
670 non veritatis discipuli sed, quod dolenter dicimus, erimus pre ceteris
erroris magistri.” Et ob hoc ad reprehensionem Ludovici Augusti ad [[671]]
correccionem se reddidit paratum—in c. Nos si incompetenter, ii.
q. vii.114 Et per dictum Gregorii sic dicentis: “Si ea destruerem que
antecessores mei statuerunt, non constructor sed eversor esse iuste
675 comprobarer”—in c. Si ea, xxv. q. ii. Et per dictum Sixti pape, qui
de se ipso dicit quod “aliter non licet sibi in papatu presidere, nisi
omnes [E 236r] conatus suos ei cause in qua universalis ecclesie salus
infestatur impendat”—in c. Memor sum, xxiv. q. i. Et inde est quod
duo testes ad ipsum condempnandum sufficiunt, licet in aliis prelatis
680 secus; quia faciendo aliquid precipue quod ad destruccionem eccle-
sie tendit, ipse peior est omnibus aliis, “et ideo sine spe venie con-
dempnandus est ut dyabolus—De penitencia, di. ii., Principium,
ut notat Iohannes glosator Decreti in c. Presul, ii. q. iv.115

Et ob hoc dicunt doctores quod in talibus papa non habet po-
685 testatem contra deum, per c. Sunt quidam, xxv. q. i., ut ponunt
Hostiensis et Henricus post eum in c. Proposuit, De concessione
prebende
;116 et idem Hostiensis, Iohannes Andree, et Henricus post
eos, in c. Magne, De voto.117 Quod probatur per dictum Pauli, II.
ad Corinthios, ultimo capitulo [10.8], ubi dicit quod potestas apos-
tolica690 est ad edificacionem, non ad destruccionem; et facit quod dicit
Petrus Bertrandi, olim cardinalis, in Clementinam Ne Romani, De

 [[ Print Edition Page No. 91 ]] 
eleccione, ubi dicit quod si papa faciat aliquid quod scandalizet
ecclesiam, et ponit exemplum quod si vellet dare patrimonium totum
vel partem notabilem ecclesie parentibus suis, quod resistendum
esset sibi in facie, sicut Paulus resistit Petro, ii. q. vii., Paulus [Gal.695
2.11].118 Quanto magis in casu nostro, pro quo videtur ca-
sus in capitulo Non liceat pape, xii. q. ii.,119 et facit quod notat Iohannes
glosator Decreti in c. Si papa, xl. di., ubi dicit quod papa sic scan-
dalizans ecclesiam, eciam monitus desistere, si non desistat est cen-
sendus hereticus, quia contumacia est heresis—lxxxi. di., Si qui sunt.120700
Nec hoc in aliquo debet offendere reges et dominos temporales qui
non recognoscunt superiorem,121 quia Cristus dixit apostolis, Reges
dominantur, vos autem non sic, Mat. xxo [25 f.]. Et beatus Bernardus
ad Eugenium papam, in fine quarti libri: “Consideres romanam
ecclesiam, cui actore deo prees, omnium ecclesiarum matrem esse,705
non dominam; te vero non dominum episcoporum sed unum ex
ipsis” etc.122

Et istud notanter pono, quia vidi aliquos maioribus assistentes,
qui provocabant dominos dicendo quod hoc facere esset appe-
rire viam rebellandi regibus.123710

Minor apparet manifeste, quia si hoc est licitum in papa indu-
bitato, multo magis in istis duobus concertantibus, qui scilicet pa-
patum retinere nituntur in scandalum ecclesie universalis et subver-
sionem status ecclesie et periculum fidelium animarum.124 Quia
clarum est, quod si nos [E 236v] semper obediamus nostro ut pape,715
et alii Bonifacio, ecclesia nedum enormiter scandalizatur, ymo la-
ceratur et penitus destruitur. Et facit optime quod notat Iohannes
Andree in Novella, in c. Inquisicioni, De sentencia excommunica-
cionis,
super verbo “mortale,” ubi formaliter ponit quod “si papa
preciperet aliquid ex quo presumeretur status ecclesie perturbari,720

 [[ Print Edition Page No. 92 ]] 
vel exinde alia mala eciam ventura, tunc non debet sibi obediri—
ymo qui sibi obedit peccat, quia futura mala debent precaveri, et
non debet papa iuvari ad illa committenda.” Et recitat Innocencium
qui fuit papa, et Hostiensem qui fuit cardinalis, et allegant c. Magne,
725 De voto, et c. Proposuit, De clerico excommunicato ministran-
te.
125

(Nam si licet in uno casu particulari vero pape, quando est ve-
hemens presumpcio de turbacione ecclesie et malis venturis etc.,
ut est dictum, obedienciam substrahere, quare non nunc, eadem
730 racione, istis ambobus concertantibus? Quia clarum est vel sal-
tem presumpcio est bene vehemens, quod si quilibet obediat suo
ecclesia semper remanebit in scismate, et verisimiliter si quilibet
substrahat obedienciam suo, tedio affecti venient cicius ad viam
pacis.)

735Et per locum a maiori: Autentica, Multo magis, C. De episcopis et
clericis.
126 Et facit, quia non est idem iudicium de dubitato et indubitato,
quia dubius de statu suo non potest testari, in l. De statu,
ff. De testamento [Qui testamenta facere possunt!], et in l. i. [Si
incertus
], ff. De legatis, 3o.127 Et ille de cuius iurisdiccione dubitatur
740 non debet de ea se intromittere, in c. Cum contingat, De rescriptis.
Et licet quelibet pars dicat quod de suo non dubitat, tamen forsan
nulla parcium est de suo ita secura sicut esset si unus pacifice presideret,
nec esse debet, ut per sequencia apparebit.

Ex istis infero quod neuter concertancium debet se reddere ita
745 securum de iure suo, quod stante casu sicut est non habeat proba-
biliter dubitare. Probatur per dictum Apostoli sic dicentis [1 Cor.
10.27-28]: “Si qui infidelium vocant vos ad cenam, quicquid vobis
appositum fuerit comedite, nichil interrogantes.” Et sequitur quod
facit ad propositum: “Si quis vobis dixerit, hoc ydolis immolatum
750 est, nolite comedere”—ecce quod ad dictum unius Apostolus credere

 [[ Print Edition Page No. 93 ]] 
iubet! (i. q. iv., in § finali [Notandum]).128 Et facit c. Preterea, ii.,
De sponsalibus; l. Item veniunt, § A quo autem [denunciatum!], ff.
De hereditatis peticione; [ff.] De administracione [et periculo] tu-
torum,
[E 237r] l. Quidam decedens, § Ex quo.129 Et facit l. Si fun-
dum,
C. De rei vendicacione. Que iura probant quod dictum unius755
probabiliter loquentis debet hominem reddere dubium. Quanto ma-
gis in casu nostro, in quo cristianitas est divisa, et maiores clerici in
opinionibus diversi: pro certo, pars que de iure suo non dubitat
“innititur prudencie sue,” contra dictum Apostoli, c. Ne innitaris
etc., De constitucionibus.130 Et per ista apparet intellectus verus ad760
dictum Iohannis glosatoris Decreti, xxiiii. q. i., in summa [§ Quod
autem
], ubi dicit quod si duo sunt electi ad papatum et quilibet
credit habere ecclesiam penes se, forte neuter est scismaticus:131 quia
nunquam hoc intellexit in casu tali sicut nunc. Quod apparet per
ipsummet, qui dicit quod ubi sunt duo electi et de eorum eleccione765
oritur scandalum notabile, neuter debet remanere—in c. finali [Si
forte
], lxiii. di.132 Ex quo sequitur quod illi qui contra canones volunt
papatum retinere non excusantur a scismate, ut infra lacius dicetur.
Intellexit ergo Iohannes, quando duo sunt electi ad papatum, et de
eleccione dubitatur a principio, sed quilibet credit habere ius, neuter770
forte est scismaticus; sed ubi vident quod scandalum est maximum
pro eleccione ipsorum, tunc talis credencia forsan ipsos non excusat,
per predicta.

Item supponitur quod ad sedacionem huius scismatis et pacem
ecclesie totis viribus procurandam, reges sunt astricti sub pena peccati775
mortalis, et in quantum homines privati et in quantum reges—
per dictum Augustini sic dicentis: “Scribitur in psalmo, ‘Nunc reges
intelligite’ ” etc., et sequitur, “ ‘Servite domino in timore’ ” etc. [[778]]
“Quomodo reges servient in timore, nisi ea que contra dominum
iussa fuerint religiosa severitate prohibendo atque plectendo? Aliter780
enim servit quia homo est, aliter eciam quia rex est. Quia homo est,
servit vivendo fideliter; quia rex est, servit leges iusta precipientes
et contraria prohibentes convenienti vigore sanxiendo.” Et hoc dicit

 [[ Print Edition Page No. 94 ]] 
Augustinus proprie loquendo de materia scismatis, xxiii. q. iv., Si
785 ecclesia, in fine.133 Unde in quantum homines, tenentur ut probatur
per auctoritates que secuntur. Primo per auctoritatem sacre scrip-
ture. Scribitur enim Proverbiorum xxiii. [11]: “Erue eos qui ducuntur
ad mortem et qui trahuntur ad interitum deliberare ne cesses.”
Et ad Romanos [E 237v] primo [32]: “Digni sunt morte non solum
790 qui faciunt sed qui facientibus consenciunt”; notatur in glosa: “Con-
sentire est tacere cum possis arguere.” Et Proverbiorum xxiii. [cf. v.
14]: Qui potuit hominem liberare a morte et non liberavit, eum
occidit.134 Et lxxxvi. di., Pasce fame morientem.135 Et Augustinus:
“Qui desinit obviare cum potest, consentit”—xxiii. q. iii., in c. finali
795 [Ostendit]; et in c. Non in ferenda (et c. sequenti [Qui potest ob-
viare
], eadem causa et questione), ubi Ambrosius: “Qui non repellit
a socio iniuriam si potest, pariter est in vicio sicut ille qui facit.” Et
alibi: “Mortem languentibus probatur infligere qui hanc cum potest
non excludit”—in c. i. [§ 1 (Providendum)!], lxxxiii. di. Ex quibus
800 sequitur quod reges qui possunt pacificare ecclesiam et sedare scis-
ma, si non faciunt gravissime peccant. Quia idem est de quocunque
qui non facit ad sedacionem scismatis quod potest—ut dicit Iohannes
Monachus in simili, in c. Dilecto, De sentencia excommunicacionis,
in Sexto; et clarius in c. Cum quis, eodem titulo;136 et Hostiensis,
805 Hastensis, et alii quos recitat Henricus in c. Quante, De sentencia
excommunicacionis,
ubi dicunt quod ille qui non repellit iniuriam
vicini vel proximi cum potest graviter deum offendit, qui precipit
[Mark 12.33], “diligere proximum sicut se ipsum” etc.137

Item probatur per aliam racionem. Reges de iure canonico et
810 divino habent potestatem ambos concertantes compellere ad viam
pacis; ergo si non faciant, mortaliter peccant. Maior probatur per

 [[ Print Edition Page No. 95 ]] 
dictum Augustini supradictum, et alibi sic dicentis: “Mirantur autem
quia commoventur potestates cristiane contra dissipatores ecclesie;
si non moverentur, quomodo racionem redderent de imperio suo?
Intendat caritas vestra quid dicam: hoc pertinet ad reges seculi cristianos,815
ut temporibus suis pacatam velint esse matrem suam eccle-
siam, unde spiritualiter nati sunt”—xxiii. q. iiii., Quando. Quia sicut
deus factor celi et terre ordinavit ad stabilitatem firmamenti solem
et lunam, ita ad stabilitatem ecclesie militantis ordinavit sacerdota-
lem dignitatem et regalem potestatem: in c. Solite, De maioritate820
et obediencia,138 et in c. Duo sunt “quibus mundus regitur, videlicet
auctoritas sacra pontificum et regalis potestas”—xcvi. di. Et in Au-
tentica, Quomodo oporteat episcopos et ceteros clericos ad ordinem
produci, Coll. i.139 Et licet regalis potestas sit minor respectu sacer-
dotalis bene ordinate, utitur tamen mucrone suo intra ecclesiam,825
“ad laudem bonorum, vindictam malefactorum”—Prima Petri 2o
[E 238r] vel 3o c. [2.14]; Extra, De homicidio, Postulasti; et De usuris,
Post miserabilem.
140 Et merito, quia ecclesia militans nichil aliud est
quam congregacio fidelium in via militans,141 quia mundus, caro,
demonia diversa movent prelia, ut finaliter veniat ad triumphantem830
in patria, ut superius est dictum; que per decreta sanctorum patrum
et iura per ora principum divinitus promulgata (viii. di., Quo iure)
debet regi, regulari, et disponi; que decreta, canones, et iura parum
fuisset condere, nisi eciam fuissent ordinati qui ea tuerentur—in
l. ii. [Necessarium], § Post originem, ff. De origine iuris.142835

Item probatur hoc, quia reges secundum iura antiqua iudicabant
clericos delinquentes—in c. Si quis cum clerico, xi. q. i., et in c.
Filiis, xvi. q. vii., et notatur in c. Qualiter, De iudiciis.143 Et adhuc
hodie possunt iudicare, quando ecclesiastica potestas deficit, ut notat
Iohannes in c. Principes, xxiii. q. v.144 Quod probat clarissime beatus840

 [[ Print Edition Page No. 96 ]] 
Ysidorus dicens: “Principes seculi nonnunquam intra ecclesiam po-
testatis adepte culmina tenent, ut per eandem potestatem discipli-
nam ecclesiasticam muniant. Ceterum intra ecclesiam potestates ne-
cessarie non essent, nisi ut quod non prevalent sacerdotes efficere
845 per doctrine sermonem, potestates hoc imperent per discipline ter-
rorem. Sepe per regnum terrenum celeste regnum proficit, ut qui
intra ecclesiam positi contra fidem et disciplinam agunt, rigore prin-
cipum conterantur. Ipsamque disciplinam quam ecclesie utilitas
exercere non prevalet, cervicibus superborum potestas principalis
850 imponat, et ut veneracionem mereantur virtutem potestatis imperciantur.
Cognoscant principes seculi deo se debere esse racionem
reddituros propter ecclesiam, quam Cristo tuendam accipiunt. Nam
sive augeatur pax et disciplina ecclesie per fideles principes, sive
solvatur, ille ab eis racionem exiget qui eorum potestati ecclesiam
855 suam tradidit committendam.” Audiant ergo reges, quomodo canon
ipsos alloquitur!

Et Augustinus de talibus dicit: Multa eciam cum invitis benigna
quadam asperitate plectendi sunt agenda, quorum pocius utilitati
quam voluntati consulendum est.” “Facite eciam vos !”—in capitulo
860 Non vos, xxiii. q. v.;145 et facit c. De Liguribus, eadem causa et
questione.146 Et licet loquantur illa capitula de illis qui contra epis-
copum erigunt altare et faciunt scisma etc., [E 238v] tamen ecclesia
stante in casu in quo est, idem videtur in ambobus concertantibus
nolentibus acceptare viam canonicam et viam pacis, ut clarius os-
tendetur.865

Item minor probatur per ea que notant doctores Bernardus et

 [[ Print Edition Page No. 97 ]] 
Hostiensis in c. i. [Quia quesitum], De officio [et potestate iudicis]
delegati, et Henricus, di. iia, c. Sicut dignum. Ubi dicunt quod
negligencia crassa iudicis in providendo, ubi providere tenetur, est
grave peccatum, per c. Quicquid invisibilis, i. q. i., et c. Quante,870
De sentencia excommunicacionis. Et idem dicunt doctores in c.
Quante allegato, et probatur quia sentenciam excommunicacionis
incurrit, ut in predicto capitulo, et potest eciam per negligenciam
excommunicari—in c. Administratores, xxiii. q. v.147 Et tamen ex-
communicacio “non debet ferri nisi pro mortali”—in c. Nemo episcoporum,875
xi. q. iii. Et facit optime quod dicit Augustinus in 2o libro
Contra Parmenianum, in c. Ita plane, xxiii. q. iv., et quod idem
dicit in libro psalmorum, de quo habetur in c. Duo ista, eadem
causa et questione.148

Ex quibus infero correlarie, quod reges eciam non requisiti debent880
totis viribus ad pacem ecclesie laborare, alias non excusantur a
peccato. Istud correlarium ultra predicta probatur sic: “Qui certus
est, certiorari non debet”—in lege i. [Si res vendita], ff. De accio-
nibus empti,
et in regula iuris, “Eum qui certus est,”149 et in c.
Volumus, lxxxix. di.150 Et facit quod dicunt doctores: Bernardus primo,885
in c. Cum non ab homine, De iudiciis; et Iohannes, lxxxi. di.,
Presbiter, glosa ultima; frater Iohannes in Summa confessorum,
titulo De sentencia excommunicacionis, q. xxv., versu xi., in fine;
et Innocencius, De sentencia excommunicacionis, Ut fame; et Io-
hannes Andree in c. preallegato Cum non ab homine: dicentes quod890
iudex secularis, si videat clericum in flagranti delicto, sine metu
excommunicacionis potest ipsum capere, eciam non requisitus per
episcopum.151 Quorum opinionem credo verissimam, quia in casu
illo non est suasio dyabolica que requiritur ad hoc ut c. Si quis
suadente
locum habeat.152 Et facit c. Cum voluntate, De sentencia895
excommunicacionis;153 et facit c. Error, lxxxiii. di., ubi “error cui
non resistitur approbatur,” et sequitur: “Negligere cum possis dis-
turbare perversos nichil aliud est quam fovere, nec caret” etc. Et
Gregorius: “Consentire videtur erranti qui ad ea que corrigi possunt
debite non occurrit,” in c. Consentire, eadem distinccione. Et videtur900

 [[ Print Edition Page No. 98 ]] 
casus in c. Sicut dignum, De homicidio.154 Unde Augustinus:
“Si duo in una domo simul habitent, quam certissime sciremus rui-
turam, nobisque pronunciantibus [E 239r] nollent credere atque in
ea manere persisterent, si inde eos possemus eruere invitos, et non
905 faceremus, non immerito crudeles iudicaremur,” in c. Ipsa pietas,
xxiii. q. iv.

Istis ergo suppositis, debent reges et tenentur diligenter inqui-
rere, quid in isto vix solubili dubio sit agendum, et servare ordinem
per canonem traditum—videlicet “primo recurrere ad scripta novi
910 et veteris testamenti, secundo ad canones apostolorum vel concilio-
rum, tercio ad decreta et decretalia romanorum pontificum, postea
ad scripta sanctorum patrum latinorum, ultimo ad exempla sancto-
rum. Et si nec sic veritas possit haberi, congregandi sunt sapientes,
et quid sit agendum dominus revelabit”—secundum Huguccionem
915 et Archidiaconum, qui hoc notant in c. De quibus, xx. di.155 Hiis
ergo sic premissis, arguitur sic: Secundum scripta veteris et novi
testamenti, decreta conciliorum et summorum pontificum, reges non
possunt sine offensa dei scisma tolerare; ergo possunt et debent am-
bobus concertantibus, viam pacis eis consulte et digeste oblatam non
920 acceptantibus, obedienciam substrahere.

Maior probatur per premissa. Minor probatur per l. Cui iuris-
diccio
, De iurisdiccione omnium iudicum: cui iurisdiccio concessa
est, et omnia sine quibus; et l. Ad rem, et l. Ad legatum, ff. De
procuratoribus.
Et facit l. Oracio, ff. De sponsalibus, quia idem est
925 iudicium de via et termino.156 Et facit optime illud quod notant
doctores in c. Cum non ab homine, De iudiciis, ubi dicunt quod si
pena debeat infligi pro contumacia, est procedendum primo ad sus-
pensionem, et crescente malicia ad ulteriora: xxxiv. di., Quorundam,
et lxxiv. di., Honoratus, et ibi per Iohannem in summa, et lxxxi.
930 di., c. i. [Apostolus Paulus], glosa finali, et Archidiaconum, ii. q. v.,
Presbiter si a plebe.157

Item secundum scripta novi testamenti et patrum decreta, neu-
ter istorum debet in papatu remanere; ergo licet regibus eis obe-
dienciam
 [[ Print Edition Page No. 99 ]] 
substrahere. Maior probatur per dictum salvatoris, quod scribitur
Mat. xxo [26-27], qui dicit apostolis concertantibus de maioritate:935
Qui voluerit esse inter vos maior, fiat sicut minor, etc. Per
quod dat nobis intelligere quod ubi ex eleccione duorum nascitur
grave scandalum, ut in casu nostro, ambo debent fieri sicut minores,
et ita non remanere in dignitate de qua queritur. Pro quo dictum
Augustini [E 239v] in libro De doctrina cristiana, qui dicit quod ubi940
oritur inter cristianos tanta dubietas et ita probabilis, quod maior
pars est in una opinione et sanior in alia, quod ambe opiniones sunt
equalis auctoritatis (ex quo clare apparet ut videtur quod de duobus
nunc concertantibus de papatu, unus non debet magis remanere
quam alius), in c. In canonicis, xix. di.158945

Et per decretum sanctorum patrum, quando duo eliguntur ad
papatum, quorum eleccio forte est contra fas, id est, probabiliter
dubitatur cuius eleccio est canonica et cuius non, quia verbum “for-
te” denotat dubitacionem iuris et facti, neuter debet remanere—in
c. Si duo [forte] contra fas, lxxix. di.159950

Unde narrat beatus Ysidorus in Libro de conciliis, quod cum
Honorius imperator quoddam scisma sedasset, duobus conten-
dentibus de papatu, ecclesia requisivit eum facere legem per
quam precluderetur omnibus ambicio in papatu. Et tunc fecit
istam, que canonizata est; et debet formaliter hodie practicari.160955

Et specialiter quando ex dubitacione eleccionum oritur notabile
scandalum, ut expresse ponit Iohannes glosator Decreti, lxiii. di., in
c. finali [Si forte].161

Minor apparet per predicta, quia reges ex debito officii tenentur
providere, etc., et substraccio obediencie est provisio canonica, ut960
est dictum. Et facit quia ubi contra illum qui haberet superiorem
procederetur iudicialiter coram iudice suo, est procedendum de fac-
to contra illos qui contra sacros canones papatum usurpare nituntur,
ut ponit textus in
§ Patet, iii. q. i., et facit c. Licet de vitanda, in fine.162965


 [[ Print Edition Page No. 100 ]] 

Item ubi requiritur quod unus habeat ius sicut in casu nostro, et
duo concurrunt de quorum iure est incertitudo talis quod non potest
bene apparere quis eorum habeat verum ius, concursu se impediunt
sic quod neuter debet habere: in l. Si fuerit, ff. De rebus dubiis, et
970 l. Si quis de pluribus, eodem titulo, et l. Duo sunt Ticii, ff. De
testamentaria tutela.
163 Et notat hoc Speculum plene in titulo de
locato [De emphyteusi!], § Nunc aliqua, versu lixo et versiculo lxiio.164
Et facit c. ii. [In eleccionibus], De eleccione, Libro sexto, ubi notat
Iohannes Monachus quod incertitudo vel perplexitas viciat eleccionem.165
975 Et racionabiliter hoc legum latores decreverunt, quia melius
est quod neuter habeat quam quod ille haberet propter incertitu-
dinem qui alias ius non haberet. Et quod ecclesie militanti in se sit
incertum quis duorum concertancium habet ius, apparet per [E 240r]
diversitatem opinionum illorum qui scripserunt ab utraque parte,
980 quibus opinionibus diversis est cristianitas lamentabiliter divisa, ut
est dictum.

Nec est qui super hoc iudicet. Quia concilium non: quia nota-
biliter maior pars cristianitatis, specialiter episcoporum, fixe
tenuit illum de Roma, quem nos dicimus intrusum, et adhuc tenet, et sunt
985 per eum omnes fere promoti, et sic de statu ipsorum agitur, et per
consequens non debent esse iudices. Ymo pocius debent reputari
pars quam cardinales antiqui qui interfuerunt ambabus eleccioni-
bus, quos tamen repellit Iohannes glosator Decreti a iudicando in
hac causa ex isto capite, in c. Si duo [forte] contra fas,166 cuius
990 opinionem irrevocabiliter amplectuntur illi qui obediunt Bonifacio.
Et idem dicendum est de illis qui obediunt Benedicto, ita quod non
iudicabunt. Et ita nec concilium nec cardinales in hoc casu iudica-
bunt. Et minus compromissarii, propter raciones que inferius tan-
gentur. Item, licet nobis non deficiat ius, deficeret tamen probacio
995 iuris, quia pars adversa testimonium dominorum cardinalium ad-
mittere non vult, qui eleccionibus—si una sic dici debeat—interfue-
runt.
 [[ Print Edition Page No. 101 ]] 
Et propter multa alia, que causa brevitatis scribere obmitto,
dubium huius scismatis est ita involutum et ita respectu tocius ec-
clesie militantis incertum, quod per predicta ut videtur, neuter debet
remanere. Et per ista clare apparet quod Gracianus, in § Hoc autem1000
quod immediate sequitur c. Si duo [forte] contra fas, nunquam
voluit loqui de casu ita dubio et ita probabili.167 Sed verum est quod
si clare appareret quod unus esset intrusus per apostasiam et im-
pressionem, et alter canonice electus, tunc forma capituli Si quis
pecunia locum haberet, et que ibidem dicit Gracianus.1681005

Sed statim ero reprehensus: Tu clare confessus es, et pars tota
que obedivit Clementi et nunc obedit Benedicto, quod Clemens fuit,
et Benedictus nunc est, verus pontifex et vicarius Ihesu Cristi, et sibi
fixe adhesisti tanquam tali iam per decem et novem annos; non ergo
nunc licet dicere quod eleccio sit contra fas. Sed ego respondeo sic:1010
Multa per pacienciam tolerantur que, cum veniunt in discussionem
per quam melius videtur veritas, minime tolerantur, in c. Cum iam
dudum, De prebendis.
169 Sic quod licet tenuerim quod est dictum,
tamen si nunc materia discussa, videam in materia incertitudinem
respectu tocius ecclesie talem, que non potest [E 240v] bene venire1015
in lucem, et scandalum nephandissimum in tota cristianitate ortum
propter duas elecciones, licet michi dicere quod proprie locum habet
c. Si duo [forte] contra fas, et predicta, “nec debet hoc reprehen-
sibile iudicari,” per c. Non debet, De consanguinitate et affinita-
te.
170 Nec sequitur: isti sunt ambo electi contra fas, ergo promoti per1020
eos non habent ius—quia Barbarius Philippus et c. Consultacioni-
bus
, De iure patronatus, forsitan eos excusat.171 Et si cum bona
consciencia obedivi meo usque nunc, quando video illa de quibus
est dictum, possum sibi obedienciam substrahere; sicut dictum est
de marito qui adhesit uxori, credens nullum subesse impedimentum,1025
longo tempore, et tamen quando ad eius noticiam devenit impedi-
mentum canonicum, non debet reddere debitum—in c. Literas, et
c. Inquisicioni, superius allegatis.


 [[ Print Edition Page No. 102 ]] 

Et si dicatur, in decem et novem annis potuistis bene cicius
1030 percipere, dico cum Augustino, in libro De civitate dei, quod si
tempus opportunum expectavi, bene feci;172 ut infra dicetur.

Item supposito quod unius istorum eleccio non sit contra fas,
ymo iusta, sancta, et canonica: nichilominus secundum canonicas
sancciones et dicta sanctorum doctorum, propter maliciam plebis
1035 vel propter sedacionem gravis scandali, verus papa cogitur et debet
cedere; ergo sibi non cedenti licet obedienciam substrahere. Maior
probatur per capitulum Nisi cum pridem, De renunciacione,
§ Propter maliciam et § Pro gravi quoque scandalo—quod papam
astringit, quia racio capituli nititur iure divino, quo non dubium
1040 papa ligatur, per c. Sunt quidam, xxv. q. i.173 Et per Augustinum
contra Cresconium grammaticum, dicentem: “Neque enim episcopi
propter nos sumus, sed propter eos quibus verbum et sacramentum
domini comministramus, ut eorum sine scandalo sese necessitas ha-
bet, ita vel esse vel non esse debemus quod non propter nos sed
1045 propter alios sumus. Deinde nonnulli sancta humilitate viri prediti
propter quedam in se offendicula, quibus pie religioseque moveban-
tur, episcopatus officium non solum sine culpa, verum cum laude,
deposuerunt.”174 Item, Libro gestorum, libro xo: “Pro pace Cristi esse
episcopi debemus vel non esse”; et subdit: “Quid, dubitamus redemptori
1050 nostro sacrificium istud humilitatis offerre? An non ille de
celis in membra humana descendit, ut membra eius essemus, et nos,
ne membra eius crudeli [E 241r] divisione lanientur, de cathedris
descendere formidamus? Propter nos sufficit quod cristiani fideles
et obedientes simus; hoc ergo semper simus. Episcopi autem propter
1055 populos cristianos ordinamur; quid ergo cristianis populis ad cristia-
nam pacem prodest, hoc de nostro episcopatu faciamus.” Et subdit,
c. xi.: “Si servi utiles sumus, cur domino eternis lucris pro nostris
temporalibus sublimitatibus invidemus? Episcopalis dignitas fruc-
tuosior
 [[ Print Edition Page No. 103 ]] 
nobis erit si gregem deposita magis collegerit quam retenta
disperserit.” Et infra: “Nam qua fronte in futuro seculo promissum1060
a Cristo sperabimus honorem, si cristianam in hoc seculo noster
honor impedit unitatem?”175 Ex quibus sequi videtur clare quod
papa pro unione ecclesie iuri suo tenetur cedere. Et facit quod notat
Iohannes glosator Decreti in c. Quam sit, xviii. q. ii., ubi dicit quod
papa quando tenetur cedere debet hoc facere, “quia cum teneatur1065
de aliis iusticiam facere, multo forcius de se ipso,” per l. Alcius, ff.
Si servitus vendicetur.176

Minor probatur per primam racionem istius partis, ubi dicitur
quod vero pape in hiis pro quibus scandalizatur universalis ecclesia,
et que sunt in subversionem et periculum animarum, non est obediendum1070
etc. Ymo in talibus est papa celestis recognoscendus, ut
notat Henricus post alios in c. Proposuit, De concessione prebende,
et in c. Magne, De voto.177

Et per dictum Augustini super psalmo, “Deus iudicium,” ibi:
Suscipiant montes pacem” etc. [71.3], ubi ad literam sic dicit:1075
“Excellentes quippe in ecclesia paci debent vigilanti intencione
consulere, ne propter suos honores superbe agendo scismata faciant,
unitatis compage dirrupta. Colles autem eis obediendo ita
subsequantur, ut eis Cristum anteponant, ne maiorum vana auc-
toritate seducti se a Cristi unitate dirrumpant.”1781080

Item videtur clarissime quod de iure divino et canonico, propter
sedacionem tanti scandali, verus papa tenetur cedere; quia cum
scandalo dato nichil penitus est faciendum, ut dicunt doctores theo-
logie, specialiter beatus Thomas, in titulo De scandalo;179 et de ta-
libus veraciter dicitur: “Ve illi per quem scandalum venit” etc. [Matt.1085

 [[ Print Edition Page No. 104 ]] 
18.7]. Nunc videamus si scandalum presens est datum vel acceptum.
Et multi non reputant dubium quin sit scandalum datum. Nonne
domini cardinales, postquam nominaverunt, ut asseritur per im-
pressionem, Bartholomeum, scripserunt multis quod ipsi canonice
1090 elegerant? Nonne fuerunt cum [E 241v] eo per longum tempus,
exhibuerunt reverenciam, supplicaverunt pro beneficiis, etc., ut mul-
ti dicunt? Et licet ista non tribuant ius in papatu illi qui per im-
pressionem est nominatus, tamen dant occasionem scandalo, quia
“scandalum est factum vel dictum minus rectum, occasionem prebens
1095 proximo ruine,” ut ponit Henricus in c. Cum ex iniuncto, De
novi operis nunciacione
—et recitat Iheronimum, et beatum Thomam
ubi supra.180 Et qui non removet scandalum cum potest, trans-
gressor est ewangelii, ut ponit beatus Bernardus in sermone.181

Et propter sedacionem scandali sunt omnia obmittenda que possunt
1100 obmitti sine peccato mortali, in c. Cum ex iniuncto. Ergo pa-
patus est propter hoc dimittendus, qui deo teste bene potest dimitti
sine peccato mortali—in c. primo [Quoniam aliqui curiose], De re-
nunciacione,
in Sexto.182 Nec est appetendus per aliquem ut presit,
sed ut prosit—c. Qui episcopatum, viii. q. i. Nec potest dici quod
1105 istud sit scandalum Phariseorum in dubio ita probabili; et scandalum
Phariseorum erat in hiis que sunt fidei, in quibus “utilius scandalum
nasci permittitur quam veritas relinquatur.”183 In casu tamen nostro,
ubi solum agitur de presidencia certe persone, nedum pro scandalo
colorato et probabili, ymo et pro mera malicia—quando homines
1110 sunt fortiter obstinati contra prelatum, et salus ecclesie potest esse
tuta per alium—prelatus ut videtur potest cogi cedere, ut in c. alle-
gato Nisi cum pridem, in § Propter maliciam, et § Hoc [Non!]
autem, et c. Mutaciones, vii. q. i.184 Et racio: quia omnis pontifex
qui ex hominibus eligitur, propter homines est, non propter se, ut
1115 dicit Apostolus [Heb. 5.1], etc. Et ad verum, scandalum non potest
esse maius; et tamen qui scandalizat unum de pusillis, expedit ei ut
demergatur in profundum, etc. [Matt. 18.6]—in c. Cum ex iniuncto
allegato. Ubi Henricus recitans beatum Thomam dicit quod illi qui

 [[ Print Edition Page No. 105 ]] 
sunt in causa magni scandali et non cedunt quando possunt, peccant
mortaliter.185 Et ita qui talibus obedit talibus favet, et hoc faciendo1120
ut videtur participat cum ipsis in crimine criminoso, ut infra lacius
dicetur.

Et Augustinus, De verbis domini, sermone xvi., ad propositum
sic dicit: Duobus modis te non maculat malus—si non consencias
et si redarguas; et circa finem [E 242r] dicit sic: Exit ille liber in1125
conspectu dei, cui neque sua peccata deus imputat, quia non
fecit, neque aliena, quia non approbavit, neque negligenciam,
quia non tacuit, neque superbiam, quia in unitate permansit.186

Item papa qui tenetur cedere pro sedacione scandali et non cedit
requisitus, hoc faciendo violat canones super iure divino fundatos,1130
et mortaliter deum offendit, ut ponit textus in c. Violatores cano-
num,
xxv. q. i.: “Quoniam blasphemare spiritum sanctum non in-
congrue videntur, qui contra eosdem sacros canones aliquid proterve
agunt, aut facere volentibus sponte consenciunt“—ut ibidem. Et in
c. Quia per ambiciones, lxiv. di., unde “tam de catholice sinceritatis1135
ruina quam de tradicionum preiudiciis paternarum, non sine per-
petue sunt dampnacionis interitu racionem reddituri”—ut ibidem.
Et hoc videtur dicere Innocencius in summa, De consuetudine;187
et Archidiaconus in c. Violatores allegato;188 et Iohannes Andree189
et Iohannes Monachus in c. Generali, De eleccione, Libro sexto.1901140
Et maxime in casu presenti, ubi tantum scandalum sequitur et pe-
riculum animarum,

in quo illi de quibus agitur offendunt canones, volendo retinere
papatum contra sacros canones;


 [[ Print Edition Page No. 106 ]] 

1145quicquid dicatur, videtur quod hoc faciant per cupiditatem et am-
bicionem, in quo casu loquitur Innocencius ubi supra. Et notabiliter
facit quod notat Iohannes glosator Decreti in c. Sacerdotes, ii.
q. vii., ubi dicit quod subditi possunt recedere ab obediencia prelati
qui non servat canones.191 Et idem Huguccio in c. Si qui sunt, lxxxi.
1150 di.;192 et facit optime c. Sane, ii., xvi. q. ult. [vii.],193 et quod notat
Archidiaconus in c. Dominus deus noster, xxiii. q. ii. [Quid culpatur,
xxiii. q. i.!], ubi dicit quod minus canonice volenti retinere imperium
non est obediendum a subditis.194 Et istud precipue est intelligen-
dum, quod illis qui contra canones nituntur retinere papatum non
1155 est obediendum, per predicta. Et nedum contra canones continentes
preceptum, sed consilium reverencie vel diffinicionem, ut notat Ber-
nardus in c. Ad aures, De etate et qualitate, et habetur in c. Dudum,
De eleccione,
per Henricum.195

Ergo non est eis obediendum, ymo est penitus eis substrahenda
1160 obediencia per reges, qui alias eodem modo peccarent mortaliter
sicut ipsi, ut ponit c. Violatores allegatum, ibi cum dicit, “aut facere
volentibus sponte consenciunt.”196 [E 242v] Et facit c. Nuper, De
sentencia excommunicacionis,
et c. Si concubine, eodem titulo, et
iura que dicunt quod illi qui participant in crimine criminoso eodem
1165 modo puniuntur sicut et crimen committentes.197 Et facit c. i. [Quia
quesitum
], De officio [et potestatis iudicis] delegati, ubi “agentes et
consencientes pari pena puniuntur” etc. Ymo gravius offendunt re-
ges, quia consensus auctoritatis seu defensionis magis offendit quam
faciens, xxiv. q. iii., Qui aliorum, et xi. q. iii., Qui consentit, et
1170 specialiter in gravioribus, ut ponunt Bernardus et Hostiensis, in dicto
c. i., et Henricus in c. Sicut dignum.198 Attendant ergo reges, “et
inter ipsas adversancium voluntatum procellas, regulas veterum nul-
latenus custodire cessent”—in c. Quia per ambiciones, in fine, lxiv.
di.

1175Item taliter papatum retinere volentes contra sacros canones veri
scismatici sunt, ut videtur dicere Innocencius in c. i. [Super eo vero],
De sentencia excommunicacionis, ubi dicit quod scismatici sunt qui

 [[ Print Edition Page No. 107 ]] 
constituciones ecclesie non servant, et per hoc ecclesiam dividunt.199
Et idem ponit Huguccio in c. Quia per ambiciones, lxiv. di., superius
allegato, super verbo “tradicionum,” ubi dicit quod qui transgrediuntur1180
tradiciones paternas, illas obmittendo et scisma faciendo,
etc.200

Et Gauffredus: “Scisma est illicita dissencio illorum inter quos
unitas esse debet”—in Summa, titulo De scismaticis—sicut vere
est contendere de primatu sic scandalose, per c. Multi sacerdotes,1185
xl. di.201

Et probatur hoc quia eadem racione qua quis dicitur scismaticus
quando se intrudit in papatu contra sacros canones, eadem racione
qui contra sacros canones papatum vult retinere, per c. Sepe con-
tingit, De restitucione spoliatorum,
ubi textus, quod idem est male1190
intrare et male retinere. Et facit quia ista tria equiparantur, eccle-
siam “invadere aut iniuste possidere, aut iniqua vel iniusta defen-
sione perdurare” velle, in c. Indigne, xii. q. ii.202

Ergo non est eis obediendum, ymo de facto resistendum (per c.
Non vos, et c. De Liguribus, xxiii. q. v., et in § Patet, iii. q. i.,1195
superius allegato),203 et acrius contra ipsos procedendum, ut videtur.
Quod dolenter dico et scribo; quia ille cui obedio est talis quem vidi,
quem amavi, quem credidi, quem dilexi, et per dei graciam taliter
se habebunt quod non oportebit amplius loqui.204 Et c. Nisi cum
pridem
loquitur de precepto, quia lex vel canon loquitur de precepto,1200
licet non exprimatur quando est racio evidens [E 243r] que cogit
sic intelligere (ut in casu nostro), ut ponit Archidiaconus in c. De-
nique
Hec etsi legibus!], in fine iv. di., ubi habes quod facere sic
dampnabiliter contra sacros canones est pena deposicionis.205

Et ex supradictis inferunt scolastici aliqui, et forsan non male,1205

 [[ Print Edition Page No. 108 ]] 
quod licet Bonifacius et sibi adherentes semper a principio scis-
matis dixerunt quod Benedictus cum sibi adherentibus est scis-
maticus, et dominus Benedictus et pars sua idem dixerunt de
Bonifacio et suis, et verum est de uno ipsorum: tamen hodie
1210 constat magis clare quod ipsi ambo sunt scismatici quam un-
quam apparuerit de ipsorum altero. Probatur hoc, quia luce
clarius est, ut videtur per predicta, quod ipsi ambo pro sedacione
scandali prochdolor hodie in ecclesia vigentis, tenentur cedere;
quod si non faciunt, solempniter requisiti, veri scismatici sunt,
1215 ut est dictum. Et istud sine dubio magis est clarum ecclesie
universali quam sit clarum quis ipsorum est verus papa et quis intrusus.

Item videtur per predicta quod nedum sunt scismatici, ymo
heretici, quia “scisma non potest esse sine heresi,” ut notat Iohannes,
1220 xxiv. q. i., in summa,206 et probat Iheronimus in c. Inter heresim et
scisma,
xxiv. q. iii., ibi cum dicit: “Ceterum nullum est scisma nisi
sibi aliquam heresim confingat, ut recte ab ecclesia discessisse vi-
deatur.”

Ubi Archidiaconus: “Qui in scismate perseverat, iam heresim
1225 confingit, per c. Denique, vii. q. i.”; et in fine glose dicit: “Nota
tamen quod si scismaticus perseverat, hereticus est.”207

Ut sit sensus, quod istorum opinio qui dicunt se ad cessionem non

 [[ Print Edition Page No. 109 ]] 
teneri pro unione et pace ecclesie, et tenent sic ecclesiam divisam
in scismate, est heretica; quia heresis est proprie eleccio opinionis
per quam ecclesia dividitur, vel per quam quis ab unitate segregatur.1230
Unde Iheronimus: “Heresis grece ab eleccione dicitur, quod
scilicet sibi eam unusquisque eligat opinionem quam putat esse me-
liorem.” Et Augustinus pulcre et bene ad propositum: “Hereticus
est qui alicuius temporalis commodi, et maxime glorie principatusque
sui gracia, falsas ac novas opiniones vel gignit vel sequitur.” Et1235
ista omnia habentur in c. Heresis et c. Hereticus, xxiv. q. iii. Et
intellige, precipue quando ecclesia universalis propter talem opinio-
nem remanet in scismate, in quo casu videtur proprie habere locum

illud quod notat Iohannes glosator Decreti in c. Si papa, ubi
dicit [E 243v] quod contumacia vel obstinacio in papa est heresis,1240
ut superius est dictum,208 per illud

quod sequitur, I. Regum xvo capitulo [22-23], et in c. Si qui sunt,
lxxxi. di.: “Peccatum ariolandi est non obedire, et quasi scelus ydo-
latrie non acquiescere.” Et sequitur: “Peccatum paganitatis incurrit
si quis dum cristianum se esse asserit, sedi apostolice obedire contempnit.”1245
Sedi apostolice: id est: canonibus, qui “instinctu sancti
spiritus et dono dictati sunt” per veros et indubitatos summos pon-
tifices, dampnabiliter resistit—in c. Violatores, xxv. q. i.209

Et Ysidorus: Hereticus est qui sanctorum patrum tradiciones
superbe contempnit, et unitatem ecclesie per hoc scindit—quod1250
recitat Archidiaconus in c. Inter heresim allegato.210

Et ymaginantur multi quod sine comparacione magis ledunt eccle-
siam isti duo propter eorum duram opinionem quam faceret unus
qui teneret unam proposicionem hereticam, qui sine dubio, si per-
tinax esset, ut verus hereticus haberetur. Et propter hoc, non sine1255
causa illi qui occasione papatus faciunt scisma vocantur non solum
heretici sed heresiarche, in c. i. [Quod a predecessore], De scisma-
ticis

 [[ Print Edition Page No. 110 ]] 
[et ordinatis ab eis]. Ex quibus clare sequitur quod in hoc non
est eis obediendum.

1260Ex quibus videntur clare inferenda que secuntur:

1260-1313 Primo, quod ille qui credit se esse verum papam, et tamen
in veritate non est, sed intrusus, et longo tempore tenet se in
credencia sua, propter quod tenet ecclesiam in scismate iam
antiquato, non excusatur a scismate vel heresi propter talem
1265 credenciam. Apparet, quia concilium lateranense de quo loqui-
tur c. i., De scismaticis, allegatum, vocabat concertantes de pa-
patu cum Alexandro tercio nedum scismaticos vel hereticos, ymo
heresiarchas—id est, summos hereticorum. Et tamen forsan credebat
quilibet ipsorum habere papatum suo tempore penes se.
1270 Et facit, quia in dubiis pocius tales debent dimittere papatum,
per c. Significasti, De homicidio, et regulam iuris, “In dubiis”
etc.,211 quam sic ecclesiam dei destruere.

Item secundo: Quod duo concertantes, si in refutacione vie
cessionis perseverant publice vel occulte, sunt tanquam heretici
1275 excommunicati per c. Ad abolendam, De hereticis.212 Et iste est
casus in quo papa incidit in canonem late sentencie, ut notat
Iohannes glosator Decreti in c. Achacius, xxiv. q. i., [E 244r] et

 [[ Print Edition Page No. 111 ]] 
per consequens non potest excommunicare aliquem, vel aliam
sentenciam ferre, ut notat idem glosator, xxiv. q. i., in summa.213
Et quod dicit in fine illius glose, “nisi forte in duobus electis ad1280
papatum” etc., et in c. Didicimus, eadem causa et questione—
intellige ut supra satis dixi.214

Et ob hoc dicunt multi quod universitas parisiensis vel alii
prosequentes viam cessionis non habent dubitare processus
domini Benedicti vel Bonifacii.2151285

Item inferunt aliqui unum, quod utinam dominus Benedic-
tus advertat, quem semper, in quantum humana fragilitas nosse
sinit, credidi esse bonum et probum: quod ipsi ambo viam ces-
sionis pertinaciter refutantes, vel acceptare plus debito differen-
tes (sicut dicimus de illo qui remanet in excommunicacione plus1290
quam per annum, qui eo ipso est de heresi suspectus; et si per
aliud maius tempus perseveraverit, est hereticus censendus—ut
notant doctores in c. Excommunicamus, De hereticis;216 quia per
tale tempus arguitur perseverancia vel pertinacia in scismate,
que est heresis, etc.), incurrunt vel merentur penas que secuntur:1295
Primo, sentenciam excommunicacionis ipso facto, ut est dictum;
merentur deposicionem, rerum omnium ablacionem, militarem
persecucionem, et curie seculari tradicionem secundum canones,
et secundum legem divinam ignem et cremacionem—quod ultimum
probatur ex verbis domini dicentis, Iohannis xvo [6], “Si1300
quis in me non manserit, mittetur foras et arescet, et colligent
eum et in ignem mittent” etc. Notat hoc Hostiensis in Summa,

 [[ Print Edition Page No. 112 ]] 
De hereticis, § Qua pena, et Henricus in c. Ad abolendam, De
hereticis,
allegato.217 Et hoc forsan volebat dicere de Moravia,
1305 qui predicabat tempore Clementis quod ambo mactarentur.218
Nec turbentur duo concertantes contra sic scribentes, quia “rea-
tus omnem honorem excludit”—in l. i. [Quicunque], C. Ubi se-
natores vel clarissimi
; et notat hoc Iohannes expresse de papa
in c. Achacius allegato. Sed habeant in se “cautelam que debet
1310 esse prepositorum, in qua totum racio agat et nichil furor sibi
vendicet, nec aliquid agant priusquam concitata ad tranquilli-
tatem mens redeat,” iuxta consilium Gregorii, de quo habetur
in c. Illa, xi. q. iii.

Item videtur adhuc quod licet eis obedienciam substrahere, quia
1315 lex canonizata habet quod “illi non debent nomine ecclesie aliquid
possidere, qui nolunt in pace colere pacis auctorem.” Nec possunt
de regibus in hoc casu eis substrahentibus dicere, “Quid michi et
regi?”—in c. Quo [E 244v] iure, viii. di.219 Et merito, quia “utilius
esurienti panis tollitur, si de cibo securus iusticiam negligat, quam
1320 esurienti panis frangitur, ut iniusticie deditus acquiescat”—et sunt
verba Augustini in c. Non omnis, v. q. v., et alibi dirigentis verba
sua Vincencio donatiste, in c. Nimium, xxiii. q. iv. “Nec quia co-
guntur reprehendant, sed quo coguntur attendant,” in c. Ipsa pietas,
xxiii. q. iv.—et sunt verba Augustini ad Bonifacium papam.220

1325Item quod liceat eis substrahere obedienciam, precipue quan-
tum ad ea que recipiunt ab ecclesia contra disposicionem iuris, ut
de beneficiis vacantibus primam annatam—que tamen debet in uti-
litatem
 [[ Print Edition Page No. 113 ]] 
beneficii converti, vel futuro successori reservari, ut in c.
Presenti, De officio ordinarii, in Sexto—et iuribus communibus in
procuracionibus, “que pro visitacione debentur” (in c. Cum ex officii,1330
De prescripcionibus etc.), et similibus.221 Facit, quia licet ro-
mana ecclesia sit aliarum ecclesiarum mater, non tamen domina,
sicut dicit beatus Bernardus ad Eugenium papam, in fine quarti
libri: “Consideres sanctam romanam ecclesiam, cui auctore deo prees,
omnium ecclesiarum matrem esse non dominam, te vero non dominum1335
episcoporum sed unum ex ipsis, porro fratrem diligencium
deum” etc.222 Et facit illud Mat. xxo [25-26]: Reges autem dominan-
tur, vos autem non sic. Et illud: “Episcopi sacerdotes se esse sciant,
non dominos”—et illud Petri: “Neque ut dominantes in clero, sed
ut forma facti gregis ex animo” [1 Pet. 5.2]: in c. Esto subiectus,1340
xcv. di. Nam “quando culpa non exigit, omnes secundum racionem
humilitatis pares sumus”—in c. De Constantinopolitana, xxii. di.
Et quod papa non sit dominus aliorum est argumentum vii. q. i., Mutaciones,
in principio, “ad dominacionem” etc.223

Multa autem in libris ibi precedentibus beatus Bernardus dicit1345
de potestate pape;224 et beatus Thomas. “Quamvis enim res ecclesie
eius sint sicut principalis dispensatoris, non tamen ut domini seu
possessoris”; “et ideo si recipit pro aliqua re spirituali pecuniam, non
caret vicio symonie, secundum Thomam.” Et ista recitat Archidia-
conus in c. Non decet, xii. di.225 Et doctores in c. Quia plerique et1350
c. Que in ecclesiarum, De constitucionibus, dicunt quod si aliquis
princeps fecerit constitucionem contra ius naturale, puta quod dominia
de uno in alium transferantur sine iusta causa, talis constitucio
nec in foro anime nec civili conservanda est: quod recitat Archidia-
conus in c. Ius civile, i. di.226 Et idem tenet Henricus per c. Si1355
quando, De rescriptis, et per c. Imperiali, cum sequenti [Nec damp-
nosa
], xxv. q. ii. Et notant hoc Accursius et Odofredus, C. De

 [[ Print Edition Page No. 114 ]] 
[E 245r] precibus imperatori offerendis, in l. Quociens. Et Innocen-
cius et Compostellanus, De constitucionibus, Que in ecclesiarum;
1360 et Henricus in c. Ex parte, ii., De officio delegati.227 Ymo forsan
papa qui gravat in exaccionibus ecclesias tenetur ad restitucionem
et ad tantundem, ut “paciatur legem quam ipse tulit”—in c. Pro-
curaciones,
in fine, De censibus, iuxta notata Hostiensis in c. Quia
plerique, De immunitate ecclesiarum.
228 Et sentencia propter hoc
1365 per ipsum lata non est timenda, ut notat Iohannes glosator Decreti
in c. Sentencia pastoris, xi. q. iii., et in c. i. [Omnes leges], prima
di.229 Unde licet papa habeat plenitudinem quantum ad omnia bona
ecclesiastica temporalia et spiritualia, non tamen habet illam ut do-
minus sed ut minister et dispensator domini principalis.230 Et ideo
1370 dispensacio talium bonorum ab eo non debet fieri, nisi in illis de
quibus verisimiliter apparet quod dominus principalis consensum
adhiberet, ut “potestas sub racione restringatur”—xi. q. iii., Illa. Pro
isto facit c. Quia cognovimus, x. q. iii., ibi cum dicit quod illi qui
recipiunt ab ecclesia ultra quam sacri canones ab antiquo permittunt,1375
“pocius merentur exactores quam pontifices nominari.”

Unde quilibet ea que agit tenetur agere secundum iudicium
recte racionis, et si sic fiat, faciens virtuose agit et meretur. Et qui-
cunque agit contra iudicium recte racionis peccat. Hec Henricus in
iv. distinccione quam ponit in c. Cum ad monasterium, De statu
1380 monachorum.231 Et est recitare Iohannem Monachum, qui hoc ponit
in extravaganti, quod est precipue intelligendum de papa, per c.
Homo cristianus, xl. di.232 Et si in papa indubitato hoc locum haberet,
quanto magis in istis duobus concertantibus, qui ita sunt respectu
ecclesie militantis dubitati, et de quibus verisimiliter creditur quod
1385 propter talem lanam tenent nos sic involutos. Et quia sunt contra
pacem ecclesie, debent et dignitate nudari et propria substancia
privari—in c. Qui contra pacem, xxiv. q. i.233 “Et prelatus non debet
querere predam in subditis, sed eis preesse ut prosit, xciii. di., Dia-
coni,
versu Nunc autem. Et dicitur ad electum: Rectorem posuerunt
1390 te, noli extolli, sed esto in illis quasi unus ex ipsis, curam eorum

 [[ Print Edition Page No. 115 ]] 
habe—Ecclesiastici xxxii. [1-2]. Et ita maioritas habet certum ordi-
nem ad subditos, cuius excessus parit tyrannidem, et eius neglectus
cohercitacionem, et discrecio rectum ordinem [E 245v]—De officio
custodis,
c. i. [Custos ecclesie].” Et ista habentur per Iohannem Monachum
in summa super rubrica De maioritate et obediencia, in1395
Sexto.234 Ergo licet eis in hoc obedienciam substrahere, per iura in
racione precedenti immediate superius lacius allegata,

que dicunt quod illi qui notorie violat canones non est obedien-
dum, etc.

Item, qui propter contumaciam vel alias excommunicatur, si1400
sentenciam excommunicacionis sustineat per annum, dicitur de fide
suspectus, ut dicunt Hostiensis et post eum Henricus et alii, in c.
Excommunicamus, De hereticis, per c. Gravem, De penis.235 Quod
est intelligendum, sive sentencia sit iusta sive iniusta, id est, si pro-
babiliter dubitetur de ea; ut notatur in simili in c. Si celebrat, De1405
clerico excommunicato ministrante, ubi dicunt quod sive sentencia
sit iusta sive iniusta, celebrans tamen incurrit penam illius capituli,
ut ponit Henricus ibidem.236 Quanto magis illi qui tenuerunt in isto
scismate iam ecclesiam per decem et novem annos, et in casu ita
probabili et ita dubio, in quo maiores clerici sunt in opinionibus1410
diversi, unus excommunicat alium, anathematizat cum adherenti-
bus, etc., et de sentencia non curatur, etc. Ergo nedum licet talibus
obedienciam substrahere, ymo est necessarium, sub pena suspicionis
et fautorie—in c. finali [Absolutos], De hereticis.237

Item adhuc videtur quod licet regibus ambobus substrahere obedienciam1415
alia racione. Scribitur enim Mat. xviiio [15-17]: “Si pec-
caverit in te frater tuus, etc. Et si non audierit, dic ecclesie. Et si [[1417]]
non te audierit, sit tibi tanquam ethnicus et publicanus,” etc. Et ista
auctoritas secundum Hostiensem—quem recitat Henricus in c. In
omni, De testibus
238 (et idem Hastensis, libro iio, titulo De correccione1420

 [[ Print Edition Page No. 116 ]] 
fraterna)—est sub precepto in quantum est actus caritativus, [[1421]]
nedum illis ad quos spectat ex officio corrigere, ymo omnibus, per
c. Tam sacerdotes, xxiv. q. iii., ubi dicitur quod “tam sacerdotes
quam reliqui fideles omnes summam debent habere curam de illis
1425 qui pereunt, quatenus eorum correccione aut corrigantur de pec-
catis, aut si incorrigibiles sint, separentur ab ecclesia.” “Et probatur
eciam per legem naturalem, que dicit: hoc facias aliis quod tibi vis
fieri. Debes autem velle quod alius te corrigat quando peccas, ut
emendes; igitur et tu debes hoc aliis facere. Secundo per legem
1430 moysaicam, Deut. xxii. [1]: non preteribis bovem aut ovem errantem,
sed reduces. Ergo fratrem errantem tenetur quis corripere, quod est
ad deum reducere. Tercio per legem ewangelicam, Mat. xviii. [15-
17]: si [E 246r] peccaverit in te frater tuus—et non dicit ‘subditus’;
et subdit: lucratus es fratrem tuum. Quia ergo omnes sumus fratres,
1435 omnes tenemur nos invicem corrigere, quando contingit aliquem
peccare.” Et facit quod dicitur “Ecclesiastici xvii. [12]: unicuique
mandavit deus de proximo suo.”

Ergo si reges et domini utriusque obediencie supplicaverint et requisiverint
cum humilitate et mansuetudine, quilibet suum, quod
1440 viam istam velint acceptare, vel aliam eque bonam si posset reperiri
(si pro non!), et videntes se non posse proficere cum ipsis, dixerint
ecclesie, id est cardinalibus, qui forsan in hoc satis representant ec-
clesiam—iuxta notata per Petrum Bertrandi in prohemio Sexti libri,
ibi cum dicit quod in eleccione romani pontificis, universalem ecclesiam
1445 representant239—et in regimine ecclesie sunt sibi coadiutores
(in c. Fundamenta, De eleccione),240 et dixerint eciam prelatis reg-
norum quorum consilium habuerunt super isto, et si videant se pro-
ficere non posse: quid restat? Illud quod in fine auctoritatis dicitur,
videlicet quod debent ipsos habere tanquam ethnicos et publicanos,
1450 et ita obedienciam sibi substrahere, iuxta illud quod dicitur omnibus,
ad Ephes. v. [11]: “Nolite communicare operibus infructuosis tene-
brarum, magis autem redarguite.” Nec valet si dicatur, preceptum
est affirmativum, quod non ligat nisi pro loco et tempore necessita-
tis.241
 [[ Print Edition Page No. 117 ]] 
Ubi unquam fuit magis locus necessitatis huius correccionis
novit deus!1455

Et videamus si illa sex que doctores notant242 concurrunt hodie
ad propositum in personis regum. Dicunt quod ex parte corripientis,
ad hoc quod astringantur sub precepto servare ordinem ewangelii—
ibi cum dicit, “si peccaverit” etc.—debent concurrere tria. Primo,
certa peccati cognicio, propter quod dicitur Eccli. xi. [7]: “Priusquam1460
interroges, non vituperes quemquam, et cum interrogaveris,
corripe iuste.” Secundum est mansuetudo in corripiendo, quia cor-
ripiens cum ira magis ad peius provocat quam corripiat. Ideo dicitur
in psalmo [89.10], “superveniet mansuetudo et corripiemur.” Ter-
cium est quod in alio non sit tanta aptitudo ad corripiendum. Et si1465
ista tria hodie in regibus, principibus, et maioribus prelatis habeant
locum, videat quilibet!

Ex parte vero illorum de quorum correccione agitur, debent
concurrere alia tria. Primum, quod sit spes de correccione; secun-
dum, [E 246v] quod peccatum sit mortale, non veniale; tercium,1470
quod non sit spes quod habeant maiorem opportunitatem temporis
ad corrigendum. Et ista tria hodie et eciam clarissime concurrunt.
Nonne est verisimile quod isti duo concertantes sic diu nos teneant
involutos propter obedienciam que datur eis, ex qua ipsi habent bona
crucifixi in maxima habundancia, ditant se et suos? Qua obediencia1475
substracta, cessabit affectus et libido dominandi, et inducentur ita
ad cessionem et pacem et unionem ecclesie, etc. Secundo, quod sit
peccatum mortale; et illud vere satis est superius probatum; et probat
beatus Bernardus, qui dicit in sermone: Qui non removet scandalum
cum potest, transgressor est ewangelii.243 Et beatus Thomas, quem1480
recitat Henricus in c. Cum ex iniuncto, De novi operis nunciacione:
“Qui non obmittit propter gravis scandali sedacionem illa que pos-
sunt obmitti sine peccato mortali”—sicut est dimittere papatum, in
c. unico [primo!; Quoniam aliqui curiosi], De renunciacione, in Sex-
to—“mortaliter peccat.”244 Item, ubi unquam potest esse maior opportunitas1485

 [[ Print Edition Page No. 118 ]] 
quam nunc, quando sancto spiritu corda hominum visi-
tante, omnes clamant pro pace ecclesie et pro via cessionis amborum?

Ex quibus clarissime potest concludi, quod reges, principes, et
maiores prelati, qui servaverunt formam ewangelii, ibi cum dicitur,
1490 “si peccaverit” etc., istos concertantes summando et requirendo dul-
citer et amicabiliter, et postmodum dixerunt cardinalibus et prelatis,
habendo consilium cum ipsis, etc., tenentur sub precepto substrahere
obedienciam. Nec valet si dicatur quod predicta auctoritas non ha-
bet locum de subiecto ad superiorem; quia falsum est, specialiter in
1495 tanto casu et quoad papam, sicut dicimus de Paulo, qui Petrum
reprehendit [Gal. 2.11], etc.; quod intelligit Gracianus de reprehen-
sione in quantum est actus caritativus, in c. Paulus, ii. q. vii.245 Et licet
Iohannes Andree in c. Proposuit dicat quod ista auctoritas non
habet locum in papa, saltim quando dicitur “dic ecclesie” etc.: in
1500 casu tamen nostro, in quo deus ita notorie offenditur, habet locum
secundum eum, qui dicit quod in tali casu cessat potestas papalis et
est recognoscendus papa celestis, ut ponit in c. Proposuit, in fine
glose.246 Et taceant illi qui volunt movere reges, dicendo quod hoc dicere
esset aperire viam rebellionibus, quia subiecti possent dicere:
1505 Rex noster facit [E 247r] sic, moneamus eum quod desistat, et si nolit
desistere, monitus, dicamus ecclesie; et si nec sic proficiamus cum
eo, habeamus eum sicut ethnicum et publicanum. Quia ista nichil
ad propositum, iuxta dictum salvatoris [Matt. 20.25-26]: Reges do-
minantur, vos autem non sic. Et papa non est dominus ecclesie sed
1510 dispensator, ut supra satis probatum est. Ymo Gregorius magnus
vocavit se, et post eum sui successores, non sine causa, ser-
vum servorum dei, ut ponit Martinus in cronica sua.247

Item si dicamus, sicut verum est, ut opinantur multi, quod ad
reges spectat ex debito officii istos concertantes reducere ad pacem
1515 et unionem ecclesie, quia deus ad stabilitatem ecclesie ipsos ordi-
navit (et ob hoc dicit Ysidorus quod “intra ecclesiam potestatis adep-
te
 [[ Print Edition Page No. 119 ]] 
culmina tenent,” “ut regnum celeste per regnum terrenum pro-
ficiat,” in c. Principes seculi, etc.), tunc clarissimum est quod illud
“si peccaverit” etc. quoad ipsos est sub precepto, et peccant non
observando mortaliter, ut notat Innocencius in c. Novit, De iudiciis,1520
glosa iia, et Cardinalis, De religiosis domibus, c. unico [Religionum
diversitatem
], Libro sexto—quos recitat Henricus in c. In omni, De
testibus.
248 Et facit c. Ita plane et c. Duo ista, xxiii. q. iv. Dicamus
ergo quod sive loquamur de correccione in quantum est actus caritativus,
sive loquamur de correccione in quantum est actus iusticie,1525
licet regibus—et nedum licet, ymo tenentur—obedienciam substra-
here per predicta. Et si dicatur quod reges, si competat eis ex debito
officii, non possunt ipsos corripere nisi convictos, per c. Nos in quem-
quam,
ii. q. i.,249 et isti non sunt convicti, etc.: dico quod attento
notorio iuris et facti, alia conviccio non est necessaria, per c. Evidencia1530
patrati sceleris, De accusacionibus, per Henricum post alios,
et c. De manifesta, ii. q. i.250 Et specialiter quia in casu presenti non
est superior coram quo possit fieri processus, iuxta c. Licet de vitan-
da
, in fine, De eleccione.251

Item in casu presenti sic arduo debemus ut videtur nos regere1535
per exempla patrum qui sacros canones ediderunt (per c. De quibus,
xx. di., superius allegatum), quia “non potuerunt omnes articuli le-
gibus comprehendi,” sed “de similibus ad similia est proceden-
dum.”252 Nunc ad propositum: contra magnates de quibus non potest
faciliter haberi quod iuris est, introduxerunt patres predicti remedium1540
cessacionis et interdicti. Unde canonici possunt contra prela-
tum, ut cicius veniat ad illud quod iuris est, uti remedio cessacionis,
et hoc quandoque concessum est [E 247v] eis ex privilegio, consue-
tudine, vel alias—iuxta c. [Irrefragabili, §] Si canonici, De officio
ordinarii.253 Et idem: interdicitur terra principis propter factum1545
suum, in c. Alma mater, et iuribus communibus. Ergo videtur quod

 [[ Print Edition Page No. 120 ]] 
ad exemplum istud debemus cessare a prestacionibus et obediencia
consueta, ad finem quod isti concertantes cicius veniant ad viam
pacis. Unde eciam contra illos qui quandoque propter ambicionem
1550 vel alias tenebant ecclesiam involutam sine pastore, ordinavit eccle-
sia quod talibus victualia substraherentur et includerentur in loco
stricto, etc., in c. Ubi [periculum] maius, De eleccione, in Sexto.254
Et ita videtur quod reges qui contra turbantes pacem ecclesie habent
canonicam potestatem, ut supra satis probatum est, possunt ad sub-
straccionem1555 obediencie procedere, et ad peius, etc. Nec est curan-
dum quid fiat in ista materia, sed quare fiat, ut notat pulcre Iohannes
glosator Decreti in c. Ipsa pietas, xxiii. q. iv., per l. Verum, ff. De
furtis,
quia causa faciendi inspicitur.255

Item concilium episcoporum qui obediunt Benedicto vel illorum
1560 qui obediunt Bonifacio faciunt concilium generale respectu
utriusque256—ut sit sensus, quod si episcopi vel maior pars ipsorum
qui obediunt Benedicto, congregati canonice in concilio, decerne-
rent ipsum cedere debere, ipse cedere teneretur, quia in hoc concilio
generali subest, ut dicit Iohannes glosator Decreti in c. Sicut, xv. di.
1565 Ubi dicit quod in hiis que sunt fidei, vel que concernunt statum
universalis ecclesie, papa subest concilio, quia “auctoritas orbis maior
est urbe,” ut dicit Iheronimus in c. Legimus, xciii. di.257 Nec est
curandum de aliis qui sibi non obediunt; ymo secundum nos sunt
excommunicati et scismatici, ita quod potestas concilii residet in
1570 nobis licet simus pauciores—per c. Gratum, De postulacione pre-
latorum,
et c. Bone, i., De eleccione, ubi textus, quod quando maior
pars amittit ius eligendi, pauciores habent ius illud, etc.258 Et facit
quod notat Petrus Bertrandi in Clementina Ne Romani, ubi dicit
quod si omnes cardinales essent mortui, omnes episcopi eligerent
1575 papam.259 Illi tamen qui sibi non obediunt, in eius eleccione ius non
haberent. Ergo si prelati regni Francie et regni Hyspanie, congregati
ad nutum regum, licet separatim, qui faciunt sine dubio maiorem
partem obediencie domini Benedicti, decreverunt papam cedere de-
bere, eorum ordinacio, tanquam a suo iudice dicta,260 ipsum astringit

 [[ Print Edition Page No. 121 ]] 
taliter, [E 248r] quod si eciam in casu refutacionis ipsi dicant obedienciam1580
sibi debere substrahi, vel magis rigorose contra ipsum pro-
cedi debere, reges debent hoc execucioni demandare, per l. Qui
restituere,
ff. De rei vendicacione.261 Et facit c. Nolite, xi. q. iii., ubi
dicit Crisostomus: “Sicut sacerdos debitor est, ut veritatem quam
audivit a deo predicet libere, sic laicus debitor est, ut veritatem1585
quam audivit a sacerdotibus, probatam quidem scripturis, defendat
fiducialiter; quod si non fecerit, prodit veritatem.”

Et si consideretur quomodo concilia generalia fuerunt hactenus
celebrata, istud concilium deberet censeri nedum concilium gene-
rale, ymo concilium generale bene solempne. Papa Benedictus requisivit1590
regem,262 quod vellet sibi dare consilium super modo haben-
di pacem et unionem in ecclesia dei et sedacionem huius scismatis.
Rex, attenta arduitate negocii, consultus deliberavit vocare omnes
prelatos regni sui, ut consulcius posset videre in hac materia quid
agendum. Et scripsit hoc pape Benedicto, qui per literas suas rescripsit1595
regi, quod bene placebat sibi, et precepit prelatis regni re-
sidentibus in Avinione, quod ipsi venirent ad mandatum regis. In
quo concilio fuerunt duo patriarche, qui in regno tenent ecclesias
in commendam, sex archiepiscopi, et quadraginta et ultra episcopi,
abbates, notabiles magistri in theologia et doctores diversorum studiorum,1600
usque ad numerum centum et decem personarum. Et cum
hoc rex voluit quod universitas parisiensis super hoc quantum ma-
turius posset videret. In qua et isti omnes, valde paucis exceptis—si
qui sint—convenerunt in hoc, quod via cessionis amborum concer-
tancium est via sola per quam radicitus potest deleri scisma et haberi1605
pax et unio in ecclesia dei. Et quod ita erat per regem pape consu-
lenda, et si Benedictus ipsam renueret, esset per regem omnibus viis
quibus fieri posset canonice ad effectum deducenda.263 Et in ista
conclusione fuerunt omnes domini cardinales in Avinione, qui erant
in numero viginti vel viginti duorum, uno excepto, post multas discussiones1610

 [[ Print Edition Page No. 122 ]] 
et deliberaciones vicibus repetitis super hoc habitas; quam
deliberacionem significaverunt nunciis regis super hoc solempniter
missis.264 Et rex postmodum conclusionem istius concilii intimavit
regi Castelle, non ut predictus rex Castelle [E 248v] istam sequeretur,
1615 nisi in quantum videret ipsam fore racionabilem. Et in presencia
dicti regis Castelle racionibus et motivis facientibus pro ista conclu-
sione solempniter et ad longum recitatis per ambassiatores solempnes
regis Francie,265 in presencia nunciorum pape et multorum solemp-
nium prelatorum, magistrorum, doctorum, et baronum regni Castelle,
1620 ipse rex, habitis super hoc pluribus consiliis et deliberacionibus,
conclusit in effectu eodem modo ut videtur quo fuerat conclusum
in concilio Francie. Et de hoc eciam certificavit rex Francie reges
Arragonie et Navarre, qui solempniter et publice omnia ista audi-
verunt, et idem eciam fecit regi Scocie; qui omnes sunt de obediencia
1625 Benedicti.266 Et per hoc, postquam ipsi, sic summati ad videndum
qualiter canonice posset fieri unio in ecclesia, ad hoc debite attendere
contempnunt,

(adverte quod reges Navarre et Scocie sunt in eadem conclusione
determinati)267

1630tota potestas remanet in duobus regibus predictis Francie et Hys-
panie forsan, sicut dicimus de cardinalibus in c. Ubi [periculum]
maius,268 et de canonicis, etc. Sed tamen regnum Francie et Hyspanie
habent multo maiorem partem episcoporum et prelatorum,
ymo bene duas partes istius obediencie. Videat ergo quilibet, si causa
1635 ista unionis ecclesie fuerit in obediencia nostra precipue bene ge-
neraliter consulta! Et sic concilium tale bene meretur dici generale.

Sed restat respondere ad duo. Primum est, quod prelati tocius
obediencie non fuerunt simul congregati, et ita videntur pocius ista
concilia particularia quam concilium generale, per c. In Genesi, De

 [[ Print Edition Page No. 123 ]] 
eleccione.269 Et racio: quia si fuissent omnes simul congregati in1640
unum, tacta fuissent forsan per alios venientes motiva talia, que
aliam conclusionem recipere suasissent, per l. Si in tres, ff. De ar-
bitris.
270 Item, quia papa qui pars est in causa ista non fuit vocatus
neque auditus, nec huiusmodi conclusioni auctoritatem prebuit, quod
erat necesse.1645

Ad primum respondetur, quod multa fuerunt hactenus in eccle-
sia dei concilia generalia, et quorum statuta habent vim concilii
generalis, in quibus non fuerunt tot sicut in concilio Francie super
hoc Parisius celebrato, ubi fuerunt centum et decem persone, et
universitas parisiensis que habet bene ducentos tam magistros in1650
theologia quam doctores decretorum, bacallarios solempnes in theo-
logia, licenciatos in decretis et in legibus, et in aliis [E 249r] facul-
tatibus eciam magistros. Et si obstante iusto impedimento, videlicet
distancia locorum, diversitate regnorum—quia hodie scissum est
imperium271—non potuerunt illi de Hyspania nobiscum convenire,1655
nobis tamen et motivis nostris solempniter auditis, et cum rege suo
solempniter in magno numero prelatorum et clericorum congregatis,
sic convenerunt nobiscum: non video quod hoc impediat effectum
concilii generalis—per c. Si quis iusto, De eleccione, Libro sexto,
ubi permissum est iusto impedimento detento declarare votum suum1660
eciam singulariter per nuncium, et habet vim eleccionis canonice.
Et facit quare statuta conciliorum habent maiorem vim et auctori-
tatem quam alia, certe quia plurium sentenciis sunt comprobata, ut
in iuribus communibus,272 et quia “verus repromissor dicit quod ubi
duo vel tres” etc. [Matt. 18.19]—in c. De quibus, xx. di. Nunc ad1665
habendum istam conclusionem fuerunt congregaciones non una so-
lum sed diverse, et multo plurium personarum quam si in Roma vel
in Avinione fuisset concilium convocatum, quia plures fuerunt pre-
sentes in regnis suis, qui non exivissent regna ita longe. Et ita clare
apparet, quod non est idem sicut de opinionibus singularibus, de1670

 [[ Print Edition Page No. 124 ]] 
quibus loquitur c. In Genesi, sed sunt solempnissimi tractatus in
communi. De quibus potest dici quod “ibi salus ubi consilia multa”;
et: “dissipantur cogitaciones ubi non est concilium; ubi vero consi-
liarii sunt plures confirmantur” (Prov. xxivo [24.6, 15.22]). Et in c.
1675 Prudenciam, De officio delegati, et c. Ex frequentibus, De senten-
cia excommunicacionis,
in Clementinis: et illud “est integrum iu-
dicium quod plurimorum sentenciis confirmatur,” ut ibi.

Et postmodum adhesit nobis expresse rex Anglie, non sine magna
maturitate, ut verisimiliter credendum est.273 Et domini electores
1680 imperii valde solempniter requisiverunt Bonifacium, quod vellet re-
cipere viam pacis, et quid ipse responderit sciant ipsi—et ego qui
vidi responsiones suas in scriptis, et testificor quod pessime, non
tanquam pastor sed sicut mercenarius.274 Ex quibus videtur claris-
sime concludendum, quod si domini electores et ceteri prelati Alamanie
1685 conveniant nobiscum in via cessionis, quod ipsi suum et nos
nostrum, utique facientes maiorem partem utriusque obediencie,
poterimus compellere ad cedendum per substraccionem obediencie,
per predicta.

Nec obstat illud quod dicitur supra: Benedictus non fuit vocatus,
1690 etc. Quia in facto ita notorio non est necessaria evocacio, [E 249v]
per c. Evidencia, De accusacionibus, et ibi Henricus post alios.275 Et
tamen ut videtur uterque, Benedictus primo et Bonifacius secundo,
sunt satis auditi, quia dominus Benedictus ita fuit solempniter re-
quisitus et humiliter sicut fieri potuit, quod vellet acceptare istam
1695 viam, sed noluit. Et per regem Francie, et per regem Hyspanie, et
per collegium cardinalium, et noluit, sed solum obtulit viam con-
vencionis amborum, in qua simpliciter non remansit, sed obtulit
viam compromissi, etc. Que in suis responsionibus utique non suf-
ficientibus, ut nobis Gallicis et Hyspanis videtur, videntur lacius con-
tineri.2761700 Et Bonifacius solempnissime pro parte sua requisitus,
quod vellet aliquam viam pacis acceptare, nullam voluit acceptare,
ymo nec aperire, nisi quod reduceremur ad obedienciam suam.277

 [[ Print Edition Page No. 125 ]] 
Et deus scit quod ante staremus sic usque in finem seculi, quam sibi
obediremus—et causas nolo hic inserere, causa brevitatis. Ex quo
clarissime apparet, quod amplius non sunt vocandi.1705

Item nec in isto concilio est eorum auctoritas necessaria, quia in
causa propria nullus debet dare auctoritatem, sicut dicimus de tutore
pupilli qui contra ipsum agit, ut in § finali [Si autem], Instit., De
auctoritate tutorum,
et in l. finali [Cum non solum], in § Necessi-
tate,
C. De bonis que liberis, ubi hoc notatur.278 Et hoc clare suadet1710
racio iuxta illa, Ne quis in causa sua ius sibi dicat, Codice, in rubro
et nigro.279 Sed statim opponetur contra me de § Hinc eciam, xvii.
di., ubi licet in causa propria pape, concilium debuit vocari per
eum.280 Sed solutum est, ut videtur, quoniam rex Francie, domino
Benedicto certificato, sciente, et ratum habente, vocavit concilium1715
prelatorum regni sui; et rex Hyspanie, presentibus nunciis suis et
consencientibus ut credo, eciam vocavit prelatos regni sui super isto
negocio. Item si hec non sufficiant, dicamus quod in causa ista, uti-
que causa fidei ut videtur, non est necessarium quod auctoritate
pape convocetur.281 Et licet non sit ex fide dicere, Iste est papa et1720
iste non est papa, tamen ex fide est quod unum debemus habere, ut
supra satis probatum est.

Et reperiuntur concilia multa fuisse vocata sine auctoritate pape,
ut probat c. Canones, xv. di.;282 et inferius lacius dicetur. Et specia-
liter quando sunt duo contendentes, sicut fuit factum tempore Alexandri1725
secundi, ubi Henricus imperator in Mantua concilium solemp-
niter celebravit, anno domini octingentesimo lxviiio [E 250r] vel
lxixo.283 Et de Symacho et Laurencio adversario suo, legitur quod
potencia Theodorici regis hanc altercacionem compressit, fecitque
ambos contendentes convenire apud Ravennam, ut eius iudicium1730
subirent, anno domini quingentesimo primo.284 Et de Benedicto IX.
et eius adversario, qui ambo fuerunt per imperatorem expulsi, et
Clemens secundus electus in papam, ut narrant Martinus et Bernar-
dus Guidonis in cronicis suis.285 Et idem narrat Iheronimus de Honorio.286
 [[ Print Edition Page No. 126 ]] 
1735Et facit quia Symachus—in § Hinc eciam—non tenebat nec
ita diu tenuerat ecclesiam in scismate, sed erat tunc temporis unicus
papa et indubitatus, qui accusabatur de heresi per calumpniam; ut
ponit Iohannes glosator Decreti, ibidem.287 Non ergo mirum si sibi
erat deferendum, licet sibimet, quando habuit competitorem, non
1740 fuit delatum: ymo Theodoricus ipsos ambos fecit venire Ravennam,
ut est dictum. Et imperatormet respondit episcopis, quod placebat
sibi deferre pape, “dummodo venerandi provisione concilii pax in
civitate romana daretur.”288

Per quod evidenter apparet quod ubi sunt duo qui ita diu te-
nuerunt1745 ecclesiam in scismate, quod reges sine ipsis pro pace ecclesie
possunt, per consilium prelatorum, canonice providere. Et in nego-
cio communi expediendo secundum necessitatem et utilitatem, sicut
in isto, semper tenet opinio maioris partis: “x. q. ii., Hoc ius porrec-
tum; De eleccione, Quia propter
; et in c. Quod sicut; et in c. Venerabilem; [[1749]]
1750 et De hiis que fiunt a maiori parte capituli, c. primo
[Cum in cunctis], et finali [Ex parte tua]; et ff. Ad municipalem,
l. Quod maior—secundum Innocencium, Hostiensem, Compostella-
num, et Iohannem Andree,” in c. Cum omnes, De constitucioni-
bus.
289

1755Item decet quod reges pro pace ecclesie habenda ipsis ambobus
obedienciam substrahant, quia ut dicit Cassiodorus, Decet regalis
apicis curam generalitatis custodire concordiam; quoniam ad lau-
dem regnantis trahitur si ab omnibus pax ametur.290 Et nichil est
quod sic principem predicet, sicut quietus populus et concors senatus,
1760 et tota res publica morum honestate vestita. Item, nichil est quod
sic deceat principem sicut attendere ad “vera dei dogmata et ho-
nestatem sacerdotum.” Et si principes ad hoc diligenter advertant,
“magna eis a deo dona dabuntur, et illa que nunc sunt firma ha-
bebunt, et que nunquam habuerunt acquirent”—in Autentica, Quomodo
1765 oporteat episcopos, etc., collacione prima. [E 250v] Unde Ius-
tinianus in Autentica, Ut divine iussiones, circa principium,
collacione viii.: “Nostre serenitatis sollicitudo remediis invigilat sub-
iectorum,
 [[ Print Edition Page No. 127 ]] 
nec cessamus inquirere si quid sit in nostra re publica
corrigendum. Ideo namque voluntarios labores appetimus, ut quie-
tem aliis preparemus.” Et alibi in Autentica, Ut iudices sine quoquo1770
suffragio, collacione ii.: “Omnes nobis dies ac noctes <contingit> cum
omni lugubracione et cogitacione degere semper volentibus, ut ali-
quid utile et placens deo a nobis collatoribus prebeatur. Non in vano
vigilias ducimus, sed in huiusmodi eas expendimus consilia provo-
cantes, et noctibus sub equalitate dierum utentes, ut tam subiecti1775
sub omni quiete consistant, sollicitudine liberati, nobis in nosmet
ipsos pro omnibus cogitacionem suscipientibus,” etc. Quid est quod
magis deceat bonos reges, quam in magnis tribulacionibus bonum
remedium apponere?—iuxta illud Gregorii in Moralibus: Sicut flatus
premitur ut crescat, sic virtuosus tribulacionibus comprimitur ut virtus1780
eius augeatur.291 Et Augustinus in libro De vera innocencia: Ne-
cesse est ut veniat magnus medicus, quando magnus ubique iacet
infirmus. Unde in ista ecclesia militanti, que non est nisi congregacio
fidelium cristianorum, quanto est maior tribulacio, tanto est magis
milicia que fortiter resistit commendanda, quia mundus, caro, demonia1785
diversa movent prelia.292 Et Seneca in epistola lxv.: A magno,
inquit, de rebus magnis iudicandum est.293 Et Tullius in libro De
officiis:
Magnanimitas est virtus difficilium aggressiva.294 Et talem
debent habere reges, alias nomen regis habere non merentur—in c.
Scelus quod Lotharius, ii. q. i.2951790

Item expedit substrahere obedienciam, et alias providere ad [[1795]]
sedacionem huius lamentabilis scismatis, propter communem utilita-
tem, que semper est preferenda, et maior utilitas minori (et hoc
importat istud verbum “expedit” ut notant Hostiensis, Iohannes An-
dree, et Henricus post eos, in c. Magne, De voto,296 et per c. Bone,1795
i., De postulacione prelatorum):297 si considerentur scandala, mala
irreparabilia, que occasione huius scismatis iam per decem et novem
annos evenerunt, periculum subversionis tocius fidei cristiane—si
consideremus preterita, et disponamus presencia, et prevideamus

 [[ Print Edition Page No. 128 ]] 
1800futura, iuxta doctrinam Senece, [E 251r] quam ponit Archidiaconus
in c. Quando [Qui!] episcopus, xxiii. di.298 Nonne legitur in Gestis
Romanorum
quod propter ambicionem papatus—quia Nicholaus
tunc cardinalis et electus in papam contra alium electum non potuit
obtinere—fuit introducta lex Machometi?299 Ante, videlicet tempore
1805 Iheronimi, “Gallie, Britannie, Affrica, Persis, et Oriens India et om-
nes barbare naciones, unum predicabant Cristum, unam observa-
bant regulam veritatis”—in c. Legimus, circa medium, xciii. di.
Nonne eciam scisma Grecorum propter libidinem dominandi eciam
habuit ortum? Nam patriarcha constantinopolitanus primum se scribebat,
1810 et romanus pontifex a Foca cesare impetravit quod constan-
tinopolitanus sibi subesset, ut narrat Martinus in cronica sua.300 Ne
igitur pereant anime infinite, de cetero corruat fides Cristi, et ecclesia
radicitus destruatur, expedit pacem ecclesie inquirere et prosequi
per omnes vias; et reges, qui ex debito officii sunt astricti ad inquirendum
1815 et prosequendum pacem ecclesie et habent de hoc in tremendo
iudicio reddere racionem, ut est dictum, habent diligenter
perpendere per quales vias poterunt istos ambos concertantes ad viam
pacis consultam inducere. Et in hoc est ipsorum iudicis officium
latissimum, iuxta l. i. [Ius dicentis], ff. De iurisdiccione omnium
1820 iudicum.301

Et facit quod notat Archidiaconus in c. Quia res, xi. q. i., in
ultima columpna, ubi hoc pulcre dicit, videlicet quod iudex debet
uti remedio per quod verisimiliter partes tedio affecte cicius veniant
ad viam pacis, iuxta c. ii. [Ex literis vestris], De dolo et contumacia,
1825 ibi cum dicit “tedio affecti” etc.302 Dicit eciam in pagina secunda
quod ubi iudex videt partes non curantes venire ad viam pacis, sed
pocius ad facta prosilire, potest fructus rei de qua agitur ad manum
suam ponere vel sequestrare. Et ita intelligitur l. Equissimum, ff.
De usufructu;303 et magis proprie: “quod si duo contendunt de beneficio,
1830 quorum nullus fuit possessor pacificus, fructus poterunt sequestrari
quousque concertacio sopiatur, maxime ubi possessor vi-
ciose
 [[ Print Edition Page No. 129 ]] 
intravit,” sicut nos dicimus de Bonifacio et pars adversa dicit
de Benedicto; “quia tales non debent gaudere commodo possessionis,
ff. De probacionibus, in l. Si quis liberum (et facit Extra, De re-
scriptis,
in c. Cum contingat), et dictum beneficium non duos ministros1835
sed unum debet habere. Nec est mirum, [E 251v] nam iudex
videns quod duo dicunt se ius habere in dignitate, quilibet insoli-
dum, in qua ius non potest creari a possessione, sed canonica insti-
tucione—ff. De decurionibus, l. Herennius—que quidem dignitas
duos sponsos habere non debet, fructus ad conservandum futuro1840
possunt iudicis officio sequestrari.”304 Et hoc credit Archidiaconus
indubitatum in causa beneficiali, ut ponit ibidem, per iura multa
que ad propositum illud allegat.305 Et quanto magis in casu nostro,
in quo est ita solempniter conclusum quod ambo concertantes te-
nentur ad cessionem, et ita sentenciam videntur habuisse contra se!
1845 Est ergo locus sequestracioni per Clementinam unicam [Ad com-
pescendas
], De sequestracione.306 Et est verum quod neuter concertancium
possedit pacifice usque nunc. Et si iura non loquantur for-
maliter in papatu, tamen in casu isto ita arduo et ita inaudito,
debemus procedere de similibus ad similia,307 et habere oculum ad1850
iura que ad casum nostrum magis appropinquant; ut supra in ali-
quibus racionibus inductis pro ista parte lacius est deductum. Et
facit quod notat Archidiaconus in c. Quia res, xi. q. i., ubi dicit quod
ubi “iudex non potest facere quod ius precepit, debet providere ut
potest,” et “quando missio in possessionem cessat, debet fieri quod1855
est sibi simile et vicinius,” ut ponit ibidem in principio ultime co-
lumpne.308

Item expedit ut videtur summe obedienciam substrahere am-
bobus concertantibus alia racione. Nos videmus clarissime quod
quandiu permittentur sic vivere, quilibet ipsorum reputabit se fixe1860
papam et utetur vel abutetur papatu, sicut iam fecerunt per decem
et novem annos; ex quo sequitur perpetuacio scismatis, subversio
fidei, et destruccio ecclesie, ut est dictum. Et si fructus ecclesie ipsis
totaliter substrahantur et obediencia denegetur, venient ad viam

 [[ Print Edition Page No. 130 ]] 
1865cessionis per quam, supposita practica de qua superius est facta
mencio—et infra eciam lacius dicetur—habebimus pacem nunc. Et
si per raciones que supra pro parte contraria fuerunt allegate possit
dici quod substrahere obedienciam malum esset, audiamus quid in
concilio toletano super hoc ecclesia alias ordinavit:309 “Duo mala licet
1870 cautissime omnino sint precavenda, tamen si periculi necessitas unum
ex hiis temperare compulerit, illud debemus re[E 252r]solvere quod
minori nexu noscitur obligare. Quid autem levius ex hiis, quidve
gravius sit, pure racionis acumine investigemus.” Quia autem isti sic
concertantes “que mundi sunt iubent,” nos “obedire trepidamus et
1875 non obedire formidamus; ne aut obedientes deum in suis preceptis
deseramus, aut rursus non obedientes deum in electo superiore con-
tempnamus.” “Est tamen quod ad destruendas dyaboli versucias
subtiliter fiat, ut cum mens inter minora et maxima peccata constringitur,
minora semper eligantur, quia et si quis murorum undique
1880 ambitu ne fugiat clauditur, ibi se in fugam precipitat ubi brevior
murus ingeritur”—ut in c. Duo mala, et in c. Nervi, ubi sic loquitur
beatus Gregorius, xiii. di.310

Cum ergo ut dictum est, per obedienciam veniat verisimiliter
destruccio totalis ecclesie, et per inobedienciam reparacio, debemus
1885 obedienciam substrahere, per predicta. Et in hoc est unum adver-
tendum, quod aliqui bene prudenter tetigerunt, videlicet quod ad
finem quod mala que per obedienciam sunt venire disposita et per
inobedienciam possent evenire <evitarentur?>, esset ex nunc contra
ipsos acrius procedendum. Quod satis videntur probare alique raciones
1890 pro ista parte superius inducte, ille videlicet que fangunt quod
ipsi sunt scismatici et heretici. Sed hoc non obstante, videtur pocius
expedire primo substraccio fructuum.311 Scribitur enim: “Argue, ob-
secra”
 [[ Print Edition Page No. 131 ]] 
etc. [2 Tim. 4.2]; et quia “melius est de misericordia quam
de crudelitate reddere racionem”—in c. Alligant; et sive plectendo
sive ignoscendo, hoc solum bene agitur ut vita hominum corrigatur.1895
Et facit quod notant Bernardus et Hostiensis in c. Cum non ab
homine, et Henricus post eos—ubi dicunt quod ubi aliquis delin-
quens reperitur corrigibilis propter penam sibi inflictam, statur in
illo gradu pene et ulterius non proceditur, etc.312 Fateor tamen quod
si per substraccionem obediencie non corrigerent se ipsos, quod tunc1900
sine magna dilacione esset pocius providendum.

Item videtur summe expedire quod ipsis ambobus substrahatur
collacio beneficiorum et precipue maiorum, quia illa est clare fomes
et nutrimentum scismatis. Ponunt in prelaturis prelatos sibi propi-
cios, et aliquos qui licet ante promocionem essent bone voluntatis,1905
mutantur propter memoriam beneficii accepti;313 quia “humani
[E 252v] moris est illum vereri cuius iudicio quis erigitur”—in c.
Visis, xvi. q. ii. Unde si Clemens vixisset, qui fere omnes prelatos
sue obediencie creaverat, multi forsan non ita pure loquerentur in
materia; quia homines sumus, et favor multum impedit humanum1910
iudicium. Dantur beneficia et gracie expectative precipue, racione
quarum tales gracias habentes nollent quod obediencia substrahe-
retur. Quid dicam plus? “Utilius videtur negocia tali expediri com-
pendio, quam per quandam exactam subtilitatem longo dispendio
prorogari; presertim cum nonnulla pro utilitate communi, contra1915
iuris asperitatem ex equitatis mansuetudine, tolerari noscuntur”—in
c. Abbate sane, De sentencia et re iudicata, Libro sexto, circa finem,
et in l. Ita vulneratus, in fine, ff. Ad legem aquiliam.314Quid
faciet ecclesie medicina, salutem omnium in eterna caritate inquirens,”
inter ipsos duos “tanquam inter freneticos et letargicos estuans?1920
Nunquid contempnere, nunquid deficere vel debet vel potest?
Utrisque forsan molesta que neutris est inimica. Frenetici nolunt

 [[ Print Edition Page No. 132 ]] 
ligari, letargici nolunt excitari, sed vere diligencia caritatis freneti-
cum ligare et letargicum stimulare, ambos amore. Ambo offenduntur
1925 sed ambo diliguntur; ambo molestati quandiu egri sunt indig-
nantur, sed ambo sanati gratulantur”—ut accedat quod scribitur in
c. Quid faciet, xxiii. q. iv., quod nobis et ipsis concedat ille qui sine
fine vivit et regnat. Amen.

Item in regibus et principibus diligencia est valde laudabilis et
1930 salutifera, et negligencia dampnabilis et mortifera. Unde Iheronimus:
“Illud non ociose obmittendum est, quod uno peccante ira dei
super omnem populum venit. Hoc autem accidit quando illi qui
populo presunt erga delinquentes benivoli videri volunt, et verentur
peccancium linguas, ne forte de eis male loquantur; nolunt complere
1935 quod scriptum est,” etc. Sequitur: “Et dum parcunt uni, universe
ecclesie moliuntur interitum. Que ista bonitas, que ista misericordia
est, uni parcere et omnes in discrimen adducere? Polluitur enim ex
uno peccatore populus, sicut ex una ove morbida totus grex infici-
tur.” In c. Sed illud, xlv. di.315 Et “negligentes rectores multam sepius
1940 nutriunt pestilenciam dum dissimulant [E 253r] adhibere medici-
nam”—lxxxvi. di., Inferiorum. Item, “turpis est iactura que per
negligenciam accidit,” ut dicunt Seneca et Hostiensis, in c. Licet,
De supplenda negligencia prelatorum.
316 Et qui melius “vigilat me-
liorem suam condicionem facit, quia ius civile vigilantibus scriptum
1945 est”—in l. Pupillus, ff. de hiis Que in fraudem creditorum.

Item negligencia illius qui magis specifice et solempniter est
summatus et requisitus exigit eciam sceleriorem [!] penam. Unde
negligencia post admonicionem aggravatur quantum ad culpam et
quantum ad penam—in c. Indigne, xii. q. ii., cum glosa Iohannis.317

 [[ Print Edition Page No. 133 ]] 
Dicamus ergo cum Gregorio: “Evigila! Et excitatus saltim exquire1950
quod usque nunc pressus ignavia distulisti!”—ut ista habentur in c.
Si custos, xxvii. q. i.

Ex quibus infero correlarie quod quelibet pars que requisivit
suum solempniter debet sibi non acceptanti viam pacis obedienciam
substrahere, eciam alia hoc non faciente. Probatur per predicta. Quia1955
si ambo dampnabiliter contra canones tenent ecclesiam involutam
et scisma faciunt, eadem racione et ipsorum quilibet. Et facit ad
hoc, argumentum l. Que de tota, ff. De rei vendicacione.318 Item
probatur hoc quia postquam requisitus hoc renuit, crimen quod deposicionem
exigit committit; quia sic in tanto casu dampnabiliter1960
venire contra canones est sub pena deposicionis—in c. Denique
Hec etsi legibus!], iv. di.319 Et sic non est amplius necessaria que-
cunque admonicio, ut notat Iohannes glosator Decreti expresse in c.
Indigne, xii. q. ii.,320 et idem Archidiaconus in c. Forte, xxiii. q. iv.,
per c. Dictum, lxxxi. di.321 Item tenetur in hoc quilibet “facere quod1965
potest,” alias graviter peccat, ut satis est superius probatum, et facit
c. Faciat homo quod potest, xxii. q. ii. Nec curemus si alii non
faciant, quia non debemus “communicare peccatis alienis”—lxxviii.
di., Quid est, et lxxxiii. di., Quid enim.

Item quelibet obediencia magis astringitur laborare cum suo,1970
quia maiorem habet opportunitatem, et verisimilius est quod magis
proficiet; “quia dum is qui displicet ad intercedendum mittitur, irati
animus ad deteriora provocatur”—xlix. di., in principio [§ Ecce]. Et
ista sunt duo de illis que debent concurrere ad hoc quod preceptum
illud affirmativum, “Si peccaverit in te frater tuus” etc., liget; ut1975
notat Henricus post alios in c. In omni, Extra, De testibus.322

[E 253v] Item licet ambe partes per raciones superius tactas pos-
sint et debeant ambobus obedienciam substrahere, ut videtur, illa
tamen pars cuius papa reputatus est magis contumax plus eciam

 [[ Print Edition Page No. 134 ]] 
1980tenetur sibi obedienciam substrahere. “Nam contumacia accumulat
penam”—in l. Relegati, ff. De penis; et facit c. Homo cristianus,
xl. di.323 Nunc pro certo ille ut videtur est in maiori contumacia qui
nullam viam offert nisi unam impossibilem, videlicet quod nos re-
ducamur ad obedienciam suam, quam ille qui offert viam convencionis
1985 et compromissi—licet insufficientes, et merito, reputentur. Sed
pars adversa statim replicabit de iuramento facto per nostrum in
ingressu conclavis.324 Quid dicam? Nescio, nisi quod deus ambos
reducat ad viam pacis!

Et per ista satis apparet quod uni parcium licet obedienciam
1990 substrahere, eciam alia non substrahente. Sed dico quod decet ista
fieri, et expedit.325

Item: Decet quod rex vel reges qui super hoc sunt requisiti,
videlicet super substraccione in toto vel in parte, hoc faciant. Quia
requisicio talis constitueret eos in mora taliter, quod de interitu fidelium
1995 animarum, que huius occasione illaqueate pereunt et peri-
bunt, nisi deus advertat, tenerentur; iuxta dicta doctorum: Accursii
primo in l. Mora, ff. De usuris; Martini, Petri de Bellapertica, et
aliorum—quos recitat Henricus in c. Nulla, De concessione preben-
darum,
in ultima glosa, per l. primam [Pretor ait], in § Rectissime,
2000 ff. De vi et de vi armata.326 Nec hoc faciendo potest dici quod fuerit
nimis credulus, quia qui consilium sapiencium respuit reprobus est—
lxxxiv. di., c. i. [Pervenit ad nos]. Et raciones superius inducte ad
hoc quod deceat ambobus obedienciam substrahere eciam probant
quod decet eciam uni.

2005Item expedit pro bono pacis et unionis ecclesie quod reges qui

 [[ Print Edition Page No. 135 ]] 
solempniter requisiverunt suum, substrahant sibi obedienciam, eciam
aliis hoc non facientibus, per raciones que secuntur.

Primo, quod si nos expectemus illos de alia obediencia, qui for-
san sunt in materia tepidi et negligentes, et ipsi tunc expectarent
nos, nunquam esset finis, et ita staremus vagando in preiudicium2010
ecclesie, ymo pocius destruccionem totalem. Et tamen iura prohi-
bent ne hoc fiat in preiudicium unius ecclesie particularis, vel unius [[2012]]
persone singularis, iuxta c. unicum [Perpetuo], De postulacione, Libro
sexto, et l. Diffamari, C. De ingenuis manu[E 254r]missis.327
Quanto minus debet hoc fieri in casu nostro, iudicet discretus.2015

Item debemus verisimiliter credere, quod postquam reges unius
obediencie vel unus ipsorum incipiet apponere manum ad reme-
dium per substraccionem obediencie et alias, alii omnes eciam con-
similiter hoc facient. Non quod teneantur alios sequi, sed quia bene,
iuste, et canonice videbunt quod alii procedunt. Unde Gregorius:2020
“Ego minores meos, quos ab illicitis prohibeo, in bono imitari pa-
ratus sum. Stultus est enim qui in eo se ipsum maiorem estimat, ut
bona que viderit facere contempnat”—in c. De constantinopoli-
tana,
xxii. di.

Item, hoc faciendo, videlicet quod potest ad sedacionem scismatis,2025
mundus est quoad deum et homines ab omni labe; et si hoc
non faciat, remanet in contagio scismatis non modicum labefactus,
iuxta illud, “Nil conscire sibi, nulla pallescere culpa,” De penitencia,
di. iii., Ille rex, per Iohannem.328

Item postquam sunt duo contendentes, quos tenemur inducere2030
ad viam pacis mature consultam, expedit laborare sine dilacione et
cum uno et cum alio. Et si non laboretur cum uno expedit tamen [[2032]]
laborare cum alio, quia si habeamus consensum unius, iam habebimus
dimidiam pacem, et tunc remanebit totum pondus scismatis
super humeros non acceptantis. Et facilius reduceretur unus quam2035

 [[ Print Edition Page No. 136 ]] 
ambo, et essent remedia faciliora, etc. Unde Augustinus: “Si duo
aliqui in una domo simul habitent, quam certe scimus ruituram,”
et “unus illorum nobis diceret, Quomodo intrastis eruere nos? Ego
vere me ipsum trucidabo. Alter autem nec exire quidem nec inde
2040 erui vult, sed neque necare se audet. Quid eligeremus? Ambos ruine
opprimendos relinquere? An uno saltem per nostra opera liberato,
alterum non nostra culpa sed sua pocius interire?” Et sequitur: “Nemo
tam infelix est qui non quid fieri in talibus rebus oporteat facillime
iudicet, quod si plures essent in domo ruitura, et inde saltim unus
2045 posset liberari, dolor esset de mortuis et de unius salute saltim con-
solaremur.” In c. Ipsa pietas, xxiii. q. iv. Et si hoc facere pro salute
temporali et brevi racio compellit, quanto magis “pro vita adipis-
cenda et pena eterna vitanda” hoc facere debemus, ut ibidem. Et
sic manifeste [E 254v] concluditur quod per substraccionem obediencie
2050 vel alias debet una parcium laborare cum suo, ut veniat ad
viam pacis, eciam altera hoc non faciente, per predicta.

Item aliqui dicunt quod pro bono unionis assequende probant
raciones tue, quod obediencia sit substrahenda: Nunc supposito quod
noster vellet renunciare, altero renunciante—quia aliter ista via nec
2055 est consulta nec deliberata. Si alter cedere nolit, non habebis unio-
nem; et ita substrahere obedienciam uni de nullo operaretur, nec
debet fieri quod factum non prodesset, et “frustra expectatur eventus
cuius nullus sequitur effectus”—in l. Aliquando, in fine, ff. Ad
[senatusconsultum] velleyanum.329 Per predicta apparet satis responsio
2060 ad istud; sed adhuc dico, quod qui teneret se in ista
generalitate esset perpetuacio scismatis, quia sicut nos dicimus, Non
substrahamus obedienciam nostro quia per hoc non haberemus unio-
nem—ita diceret pars adversa, et ita semper sic staremus. Et posset
dicere noster, Non stat per me, vadatis ad alium; et idem alter; et
2065 ita per maliciam ipsorum possent nos involvere sicut iam stetimus
per decem et novem annos. Et tamen maliciis talibus est obvian-
dum—in l. In fundo, ff. De rei vendicacione.330 Et “ecclesia non
debet in suis actibus fraudem admittere”—in c. Per tuas, De do-
nacionibus.

 [[ Print Edition Page No. 137 ]] 
Bene tamen fateor, quod si deus vellet quod omnes reges
unanimiter procederent in ista materia ad substraccionem obediencie2070
et alia remedia canonica, melius esset; sed hoc non videtur fore
expectandum, attento quod aliqui sunt qui, licet sollempniter sint
super hoc per regem Francie excitati, sunt tamen tepidi, ut in ra-
cionibus aliis superius lacius declaratis.

Item si sunt scismatici et heretici, ut supra videtur clare2075
probatum fuisse, clarum est quod si et alii reges obedirent qui-
libet suo, rex tamen catholicus quicunque non debet expectare
alios reges ad substraccionem obediencie vel alia remedia apponenda,
quia factum aliorum a labe fautorie non excusaret,
iuxta illud, “Non minus ardebunt qui cum multis ardebunt”—ii.2080
q. i., Multi.

Item dicunt multi: Pars illa que substraheret suo, alia non fa-
ciente, remaneret acephala et sine capite, et sic contingerent damp-
na et inconveniencia que ex vacacione sedis apostolice contingere
consueverunt, iuxta c. Ubi [periculum] maius, et c. Quamvis [Quam2085
sit!], De eleccione, Libro sexto. Sed ad istud [E 255r] potest sic dici:
Hic concurrunt duo inconveniencia. Primum est quod qui non ap-
poneret remedium ad sedacionem huius scismatis, quod iam duravit
ita diu, non sine maximo periculo fidelium animarum, istud scisma
semper durabit et ecclesia totaliter destruetur. Secundum est illud2090
de quo supra tactum est. Nunc videamus quid sancti doctores in tali
casu decreverunt faciendum; et videtur pocius eligendum minus
inconveniens, iuxta c. Nervi, superius lacius allegatum, xiii. di. Nunc
consideret quilibet quod est minus inconveniens, vel sic stare sicut
stamus sine remedio, vel stare aliquandiu sine papa.2095

Item, vel ille cui substrahetur obediencia acceptabit hanc viam
cessionis, et tunc habemus propositum, quia tunc habebimus dimi-
diam pacem; et statim habito consensu suo, sibi obediet pars sua

 [[ Print Edition Page No. 138 ]] 
donec ambo renunciaverint, et ita erit tuta ab omni labe scismatis,
2100 ut est dictum. Vel propter substraccionem obediencie non veniet
ad viam pacis, sed stabit in opinione sua. Et tunc dicunt multi, quod
non esset simpliciter in substraccione obediencie remanendum, sed
ulterius ad alia viriliter procedendum, ut superius est lacius dictum,
donec haberetur consensus suus eciam coactus, ut infra in responsionibus
2105 lacius declarabitur.

Item est alia pars cristianitatis que neutri concertancium iam
per decem et novem annos obedivit;331 tamen bene vivunt et forsan
magis expediret non habere aliquem quam habere duos in tali scis-
mate.

2110Et si predicta non sufficiant, teneatur modus opinatus per uni-
versitatem parisiensem, videlicet quod collaciones beneficiorum,
exacciones procuracionum, prime annate beneficiorum vacancium,
etc., que sunt contra disposicionem iuris communis, ipsis ambobus
substrahantur primo, vel uni ipsorum, et demum aliter procedatur.

2115Et qui vellet sequi partem istam, restat respondere ad raciones
in contrarium.332

[Part 3: Reply to the Contrary Arguments]

[Against arguments quod non licet]

[1, 2] Ad primas duas raciones, videlicet quod a papa tanquam
a capite non est recedendum, nec potestas sibi a deo data est quoquo-
modo substrahenda, apparet solucio clara per racionem primam supra
2120 in secunda parte positam, in qua probatur quod pape vero et
indubitato, facienti aliquid de quo notorie ecclesia scandalizetur,
non est obediendum, ymo pocius de facto resistendum. Et ista res-
ponsio adhuc fortificatur sic: ponitur exemplum per Petrum Ber-
trandi, si papa vellet totum patrimonium ecclesie [E 255v] vel partem
2125 notabilem dare parentibus suis.333 Et Iohannes glosator Decreti,
de quocunque peccato gravi de quo ecclesia scandalizaretur dicens:

 [[ Print Edition Page No. 139 ]] 
quod de tali, si monitus non se correxerit, potest accusari.334 Quod
est intelligendum civiliter, videlicet quod si sit notorium, potest sine
accusacione puniri, per c. Evidencia patrati sceleris, De accusacionibus.
Et istud fuit alias practicatum in persona pape, sicut invenitur2130
de Iohanne XII. in cronicis;335 et Oquam in Dialogo suo fortiter
probat quod hoc fuit canonice factum.336

Nunc consideremus casum nostrum. Isti duo concertantes qui
sic lamentabiliter tenent nos in scismate: Vel neuter debet remanere,
per c. Si duo forte contra fas, quod fortiter facit qui videt Ysidorum2135
in Libro suo de conciliis, ubi narrat quomodo Honorius ad reques-
tam ecclesie, ne ecclesia per ambicionem destrueretur, ordinavit
quod si contingeret duos eligi, quorum eleccio esset dubia probabi-
liter, id est forte contra fas, neuter debet remanere.337 Vel tenetur
ille qui habet ius in papatu, pro sedacione tam gravis scandali, secundum2140
deum papatui renunciare; et quia nescitur quis est ille,
tenentur ambo, ne magis videantur appetere pompam temporalem
quam gloriam eternam. Nunc videamus: Secundum deum ipsi de-
bent dimittere papatum, ut satis est probatum superius. Nolunt. Cui
obediemus, ipsis vel deo? Indubitanter deo, quia “sicut potestas maior2145
minori preponitur ad obediendum, sic deus hominibus”—viii. di.,
Que contra, et xi. q. iii., Si dominus, et c. Non semper, et c. sequenti
[Iulianus]. Unde Augustinus: “Scribitur in psalmo, Nunc reges in-
telligite” etc. Et sequitur: “Servite domino in timore.” “Quomodo
ergo reges servient in timore nisi ea que contra deum iussa fuerint2150
religiosa severitate prohibendo? Aliter enim servit quia homo est, et aliter
eciam quia rex est. Quia homo est servit vivendo fideliter; quia
rex est, servando leges iusta precipientes et contraria prohibentes
convenienti vigore sanxiendo”—xxiii. q. iv., Si ecclesia, in fine

(alibi est allegatum, sed non ad istud propositum).3382155

Serviant ergo reges domino in timore et abiciant a nobis iugum

 [[ Print Edition Page No. 140 ]] 
ipsorum, quoniam papalis potestas non est ad destruccionem sed ad
edificacionem, ut dicit Apostolus [2 Cor. 10.8], ubi supra.339

[3] Item non obstat tercia racio, cum dicitur quod dominus precepit
2160 obedire principibus eciam [E 256r] discolis, etc., et pro tanto
lex quantumcunque dura tenenda. Nam ad hoc respondet Iheroni-
mus in epistola ad Ephesios, alias Si dominus, ubi dicit sic: “Si
dominus iubet ea que non sunt adversa sanctis scripturis, subiciatur
domino suo servus. Si vero contrarium precipit, magis obediat spiritus
2165 quam corporis domino. Et infra: Si bonum est quod precipit
imperator, iubentis exequere voluntatem; si malum est, responde:
Oportet deo magis obedire quam hominibus.” Et idem in c. Non
semper,
et c. Iulianus, et c. sequenti [Qui omnipotentem]. Nunc ad
propositum. Istorum concertancium quilibet precipit ut sibi obediatur
2170 tanquam pape; deus autem ordinavit quod non esset nisi unus,
ut supra est satis probatum, et quod ubi duo eligerentur, quod neuter
remaneret, et quod verus pastor propter maliciam plebis et propter
grave scandalum cedere teneretur. Et verum est dicere quod deus
ista precipit,340 quia pro bono regiminis ecclesie iura per ora principum
2175 promulgavit, in l. finali [Sepe quidam], C. De prescripcione
xxx vel xl annorum,
341 et melius in c. Violatores, xxv. q. i., ibi cum
dicit, “Et a sancto spiritu cuius dono dictati sunt” etc.342 Dicamus
ergo eis cum Iheronimo, Oportet obedire deo, etc.

[4] Item non obstat quarta racio, ubi dicitur quod in dubiis est
2180 semper obediendum, per c. Quid culpatur, etc. Pro quo suppono
illud quod dicit legislator: “Nichil inter homines sic est indubitatum
ut non possit, licet aliquid sit valde iustissimum, tamen suscipere
quandam sollicitam dubitacionem”—in Autentica, De tabellionibus,
circa medium, § Non fingant, coll. iv. Et propter hoc docent sacri
2185 canones et leges, quod in re dubia habeatur consilium seniorum, et

 [[ Print Edition Page No. 141 ]] 
quod maior pars decreverit, illud sine dubio sit tenendum—in c. De
quibus,
xx. di., et in c. In canonicis scripturis, xix. di.; in l. Quod
maior,
ff. Ad municipalem.343 Ex quo sequitur quod reges qui super
hoc solempni concilio in regnis suis congregato invenerunt per maio-
rem partem concilii quod ad viam cessionis acceptandam tenentur2190
isti duo concertantes tanquam utiliorem et meliorem, et quod ad
istam habendam expedit obedienciam substrahere, debent hoc sine
dubio execucioni demandare. Quia ut dicit Iohannes Crisostomus in
c. Nolite, xi. q. iii.: “Sicut sacerdos debitor est, ut veritatem quam
audivit a deo predicet libere, sic laicus debitor est, ut veritatem2195
quam audivit a sacerdotibus, probatam quidem scripturis, defendat
fiducialiter; quod si [E 256v] non fecerit prodit veritatem.” “Quid
autem iniquius est quam sapiencioribus et doctoribus non credere?
Sed in hanc insipienciam cadunt qui, cum ad cognoscendum veri-
tatem aliquo impediuntur obscuro, non ad perfectas voces, non ad2200
apostolicas literas, nec ad evangelicas auctoritates, sed ad semetipsos
recurrunt, et ideo magistri erroris existunt”—in c. Quid autem, xxiv.
q. iii.

[5] Nec obstat quod dicitur de epistola oxoniensis studii. Quia
nuda cessio nisi bene practicata non sufficeret ad sedacionem scismatis2205
(ut ipsi dicunt, respondendo ad epistolam universitatis parisiensis,
que epistola solum loquitur de cessione, et non fit in eadem
mencio de practica),344 sed practicata per modum deliberatum per
prelatos Francie345 sufficit melius ad sedacionem scismatis, non du-
bium, quam quecunque alia, ut infra lacius declarabitur.2210

Practicetur ergo via cessionis sic: Conveniant ambo concertantes
in uno loco medio et bene tuto, sicut Ianue, et in isto cum suis
cardinalibus et ipsis ibidem simul convenientibus, revocent, quilibet
eorum, processus quos fecerunt unus contra alium et eis adherentes,

 [[ Print Edition Page No. 142 ]] 
2215et absolvant se adinvicem modo quo fieri poterit meliori. Et post-
modum confirment collaciones beneficiorum, promociones hinc et
inde factas, ita tamen quod ubi sunt duo episcopi ad unam eccle-
siam, ille remaneat episcopus qui civitatem possidet, assignata alteri
pensione super proventibus episcopatus, de tanta summa sicut porcio
2220 quam alter tenet; potest sibi valere donec futurus pontifex sibi aliter
providerit. Et si nichil possidet in episcopatu, nichil eciam recipiet,
sed expectet provisionem pape futuri. Et idem in aliis beneficiis. De
cardinalibus autem sunt tituli quinquaginta et unus, ut narrat Mar-
tinus in cronica sua,346 et in ambobus collegiis non sunt tot cardinales.
2225 Illi qui sunt duo ordinati ad unum titulum, remaneant in titulo qui
primo fuerunt cardinales, et alteri assignetur unus alius titulus, et si
non sint tituli episcopales, fiant episcopales, vel diaconales, et sic de
aliis. Et per istum modum remanebunt consciencie omnium cristia-
norum bene pacificate, quia non dubium quod papa bene potest
2230 renunciare papatui, ut in c. primo [Quoniam aliqui curiosi], De
renunciacione,
347 et cardinales post renunciacionem bene eligere pa-
pam. Et ego credo quod domini oxonienses nunquam, [E 257r] tempore quo
fecerunt istam epistolam, audiverant istam practicam. Et [[2233]]
ad verum, eciam in epistola sua ipsi fatentur quod verus pastor, qui
2235 videt quod aliter bono modo non potest sedari istud scandalum,
debet pocius cedere quam in isto scandalo remanere, ne magis videatur
gloriam temporalem appetere quam eternam. Et rex Anglie
deliberavit unionem ecclesie prosequi per viam cessionis, motus cre-
do principaliter per racionem predictam.348

2240[6] Item non obstat alia racio, in qua dicitur quod ubi habet
locum ordinarium remedium, non est recurrendum ad extraordi-
narium remedium. Quia supposito quod concilium generale deberet
discernere que istarum eleccionum est canonica, hoc ut videtur fieri
non potest—et propter difficultatem que est in aggressu huius vie,

 [[ Print Edition Page No. 143 ]] 
et propter eciam maiorem difficultatem que est in progressu. Primo,2245
ad nutum Bonifacii nos non congregaremur; et minus illi qui obe-
diunt Bonifacio congregarentur ad nutum Benedicti; et ita verum
esset dicere quod non esset concilium sed conventiculum—per c.
Multis, et c. Nec licuit, et c. Synodum, xvii. di.349 Et ponatur quod
ipsi ambo concordent quod concilium convocetur: quis presidebit?2250
Aut ambo, et tunc erunt duo capita, ut videtur, aut alter ipsorum,
et hoc nunquam concordaretur, quia nos nec vellemus habere Bo-
nifacium presidentem, nec ipsi Benedictum.

Item ad nutum imperatoris, vel pocius regis Romanorum, nos
nunquam iremus, quia iam se fecit partem, nec unquam voluit audire2255
dominos cardinales antiquos, quamvis sepissime requisitus.350
Sub tali congregari non esset bene securum, iuxta c. Pastoralis, De
sentencia et re iudicata,
in Clementinis—ibi cum dicit quod “talia
iure timentur, de more vitantur, hoc refugit racio, hoc abhorret
natura.” Ymo nec cum salvo conductu in dominio inimici, etc. Et si
2260 videantur bene historie quando imperatores congregaverunt concilia
super sedacione scismatum, non invenitur quod et ita formaliter
partes se reddidissent pro uno sicut nunc. Item, hodie scissum est
imperium, et reges nostri se reputant imperatores in regno suo, nec
recognoscunt superiorem, nec in hoc deferrent regi Romanorum, ne2265
suis dignitatibus in aliquo detraherent.351

Et si dicatur, cardinales congregabunt, [E 257v] sicut superius
est tactum, respondetur: Quales cardinales essent illi? Vel nostri, vel
adversarii? Ad mandatum illorum Bonifacii non iremus, nec ipsi
ad mandatum nostrorum. Et nos dicimus quod ipsi sunt excommunicati,2270
et nedum ipsi—ymo omnes prelati facti per Urbanum et
Bonifacium; et ipsi idem dicunt de nobis. Quomodo ergo valeret
sentencia in isto turbine sic lata, quia sentencia lata per excommunicatum
 [[ Print Edition Page No. 144 ]] 
non valet—in c. Ad probandum, De sentencia et re iudi-
cata.
2275

Item, si dicatur: Reges omnes ordinabunt quod prelati congregentur
in uno certo loco—hoc non est facile fieri propter turbaciones
que hodie sunt in cristianitate et fuerunt a longo tempore. Quomodo
venirent Ungari, qui hodie prochdolor sunt in tali desolacione? Et
2280 tamen in regno ipsorum sunt multi notabiles prelati.352 Qualiter ve-
nirent de aliis partibus multum longinquis? Si poneremus nos in ista
materia: stetimus per decem et novem annos353 in isto scismate, et
erimus tantundem et ultra vel forsan perpetuo, quando esset con-
cordatum de loco ubi fieret congregacio! Nos autem non iremus in
2285 obediencia Bonifacii per raciones supra tactas, et alii utique non
venirent in obediencia Benedicti, eadem racione. Et per ista videtur
via concilii difficilis, ymo et difficillima, in aggressu.

In progressu autem videtur fieri non posse. Nonne “omnis sus-
picio pocius est repellenda quam approbanda”?—vi. q. i., Oves—et
2290 ob hoc illi qui sunt iudices debent esse tales quod “in causarum
processibus nichil sibi vendicet odium, nichil favor usurpet,” “sed
stateram in manibus gestent, lancem appendant equo libramine,”
etc.—in c. Cum eterni, De sentencia et re iudicata, in Sexto. Item,
nonne illi qui sunt affectati verisimiliter magis ad unam partem
2295 quam ad aliam repelluntur a testimonio? Sicut dicimus de illo qui
fuit advocatus vel procurator in causa principali, qui non potest esse
testis in causa appellacionis, licet aliter causa in nullo ipsum tangat;
quia “uterque reputat se vituperatum si amittit et honoratum si
lucretur causam, et ideo tanquam suspecti repelluntur”—in c. Romana,
2300 De testibus, Libro sexto, cum glosa Iohannis Monachi super
verbo “in testes.”354 Et ideo tales merito repelluntur ad hoc quod non
 [[ Print Edition Page No. 145 ]] 
iudicent, quia favor est una de quattuor causis que [E 258r] iudicium
humanum pervertunt—in c. Quattuor modis, xi. q. iii.355 Et deus
scit si in casu nostro pars que lucraretur reputaret se honoratam, et
illa que perderet vituperatam!2305

Item in causa Benedicti certe nos omnes sibi adherentes, et spe-
cialiter prelati promoti per ipsum et predecessorem suum, et doc-
tores et magistri qui obtinuerunt pinguia beneficia ab ipsis: quia ex
iusticia sua vel iniusticia accidit nobis commodum magnum vel in-
commodum; et per hoc causa videtur propria nostra, per c. Biduum,2310
in fine, ii. q. vi. Verbi gracia, si Bonifacius reportaret pro se senten-
ciam concilii generalis, certe de iure omnes ordinaciones facte per
Benedictum essent irrite vel irritande—ut in c. Ordinaciones, su-
perius allegato—et ita fuit factum in concilio lateranensi tempore
Alexandri tercii, ut apparet in c. i. [Quod a predecessore], De scis- 2315
maticis.356 Et idem invenitur regulariter quandocunque per viam
discussionis, duobus concertantibus, fuit scisma sedatum. Et idem
esset de adherentibus Bonifacio si Benedictus obtinuerit pro se sen-
tenciam. Et si dicatur: Non, ymo futurus pontifex omnia confirma-
ret; hoc non obstante, labes infamie facti remaneret et non posset2320
aboleri—per l. Honori, ff. De obsequiis a liberis prestandis.357

Item, nonne reges et principes et prelati obediencie Benedicti,
visis scripturis domini Iohannis de Liniano iteratis et aliorum qui
pro parte Urbani scripserunt,358 et omnibus mature et digeste rimatis,
determinaverunt se fixe pro parte Clementis et Benedicti? Et in ista2325
steterunt fixe iam per decem et fere novem annos, et sunt in ista
opinione ita firmati sicut homines possunt esse. Et idem reges, pre-
lati, et principes qui obediunt Bonifacio. Ad quid ergo congregaren-
tur partes iste, ut de causa in qua sunt partes iudicarent? Non debet
fieri, ut videtur, quia nemo est iudex ydoneus in causa propria—C.2330

 [[ Print Edition Page No. 146 ]] 
Ne quis in causa sua propria ius sibi dicat, in rubro et in nigro.359
Item nonne est verisimile ex preteritis iam, et ex opinione fixa quam
ita diu tenuerunt, quod eciam in futurum perseverabunt, quod una
pars non flecteretur per aliam sed quelibet vellet fixe stare in opinione,
2335 et sic recederent [E 258v] sine conclusione, et esset error no-
vissimus peior priore?

Item non valet si dicatur: Non, quia quod diceret maior pars
haberet vim sentencie. Quo supposito, causa est iam decisa, quia
Bonifacius habet maiorem partem prelatorum, computatis episcopis
2340 Ytalie, ubi fuerunt tot creati episcopi hactenus—vel pocius episco-
pelli—ut domini ytalici in illis que per concilia tractarentur facilius
obtinerent, ut audivi. Et omnes isti per predicta censentur pars for-
mata contra Benedictum. Non ergo prudenter ageremus nec esset
iustum si eorum ordinacioni nos submitteremus. Ymo per hoc pars
2345 quam indubitanter credimus habere ius succumberet. Item dicere-
mus, et forsan bene, quod pars nostra licet minor in numero prela-
torum, sanior tamen est, et per consequens maior; quia maior pars
est que maiori racione et pietate nititur—ix. di., Sana quippe; et lxi.
di., Nullus; et xxxi. di., Nicena; et xix. di., In canonicis; et Extra,
2350 De testibus, In nostra. Et hoc notat Iohannes glosator Decreti in c.
Multi sacerdotes, xl. di.,360 et Henricus post alios in c. Cum omnes,
De constitucionibus.
361 Et ita dum crederemus evitare inconveniens
scismatis, forsan incideremus in maius.

Item non valet si dicatur: Deus non permittet errare concilium,
2355 etc. Quia ego hoc fateor in illis que sunt fidei, sed dicere “Iste est
papa et iste non est papa” non est fidei. Et sic in talibus ecclesia
militans fallit et fallitur—in c. A nobis, De sentencia excommuni-
cacionis
362—et precipue quando subsunt cause propter quas huma-
num iudicium quasi naturaliter pervertitur—sicut sunt ille de quibus
2360 superius facta est mencio. Item multa dicuntur pro parte Bonifacii
que facti sunt, et pro parte Benedicti multa alia que in facto con-
sistunt. Et in talibus ecclesia militans potest veritatem probabiliter
ignorare—in c. i. [Licet romanus pontifex], De constitucionibus, in
Sexto.363 Verbi gracia, pro parte domini Benedicti asseritur impressio

 [[ Print Edition Page No. 147 ]] 
notoria, et omnes domini cardinales deponunt, in eleccione Urbani2365
impressionem notoriam intervenisse.364 Pro parte vero Urbani dice-
batur quod antequam intrarent conclave, domini cardinales erant
deliberati eligere Ytalicum, et in eum direxerant vota sua.365 Quo-
modo posset hoc probari nisi per cardinales, et cetera [E 259r] que
fiebant, ipsis solis existentibus in conclavi? Et tamen cardinales antiqui2370
sunt iam fere omnes mortui,366 et per consequens non possunt
amplius loqui. Et pars Bonifacii dicit quod si viverent, vel illi qui
vivunt, debent a testificando repelli, quia pars sunt; et nos dicimus
contrarium, et forsan bene, per l. Consensu, C. De repudiis.367 Si
ipsi starent fixi in ista opinione et nos in nostra, quis iudicaret?2375
Nullus. Et si ipsi admitterent adhuc cardinales, non proficeret ad
causam, quia mortui sunt. Sed nos statim dicemus quod quando
moriebantur in periculum animarum suarum asseruerunt Clemen-
tem fuisse canonice electum, et Urbanum per impressionem fuisse nominatum.
Vere ego audivi quod pars Bonifacii habet instrumenta,2380
quomodo cardinales aliqui deposuerunt in morte Urba-
num canonice fuisse electum. Et ego scio quod nos habemus vel
habere debemus multa instrumenta de directo contraria.368 Quid fiet
in talibus?

Quia quod dixi de cardinalibus, quod mortui sunt, idem de testibus2385
per quos potuisset forsan probari veritas. Unde recordor de uno
bene notabili, qui fuerat socius et valde amicus Urbani dum erat
archiepiscopus acherontinus et post barrensis et regebat cancellariam
in Avinione, et ille habebat ibidem officium bene notabile et erat
magne reputacionis: et vocabatur Poncius Beraldi.369 Qui narravit2390
michi fortiter iurans hoc esse verum, quod ille qui post fuit nomi-
natus Urbanus, et ipse, erant simul in ecclesia beati Petri quando
domini cardinales intraverunt conclave Rome pro eleccione futuri
pontificis post mortem Gregorii; et erat ibi tumultus popularium

 [[ Print Edition Page No. 148 ]] 
2395armatorum vociferancium et percuciencium ad hostia. Et tunc ar-
chiepiscopus barrensis, qui satis cito fuit nominatus Urbanus, dixit
predicto Poncio: “Vide Ponci quales modi servantur! Vere quicun-
que fuerit electus in isto tumultu non erit papa, nec ego vellem sibi
obedire, nec deberet facere quicunque bonus catholicus.” Si essent
2400 multi tales testes, congregato concilio, bene facerent ad propositum!
Sed scio quod ille mortuus est; et testis est michi deus quod non
mencior, ymo predicta audivi ab eo.

Item si dicatur: Faciat quelibet diocesis vel quelibet provincia
unum valentem virum, omni suspicione carentem, pro se procuratorem,
2405 et ita congregentur de consensu regum in aliquo loco securo,
forsan in patria que isto scismate durante neutri [E 259v] obedivit;
et illi cognoscant quis istorum habet ius, et stetur sentencie ipsorum;
hoc bene potest fieri per c. Scriptum est, cum glosa Innocencii, De
eleccione
370—adhuc istud videtur fieri non posse. Quia aut isti erunt
2410 in pari numero, id est tot pro parte Benedicti quot pro parte Boni-
facii, et tunc, attenta fixa opinione cuiuslibet obediencie, verisimile
est quod res remanebit sine exitu; aut erunt in numero impari, et
tunc nos non vellemus, nec esset iustum, quod ipsi essent plures
quam nos, nec eciam ipsi vellent de nobis. Et si veniretur ad hoc,
2415 quelibet provincia vel diocesis vellet mittere procuratorem suum, et
illi de parte Bonifacii habent plures provincias seu plures dioceses
quam nos, licet nostra obediencia preponderet, ut dicimus, per ra-
ciones que infra tangentur. Item, si in hiis que facti sunt, ecclesia
tota posset errare, quanto magis procuratores tales, si qui essent in
2420 minori numero, nec ad sentenciam ipsorum sedaretur scandalum.
Ymo pars que succumberet diceret, et forsan iuste: “Habuit senten-
ciam contra se, ergo non est papa: non sequitur!” Et forsan de per-
sonis non esset satis leviter concordatum.

Item recipere viam quamcunque nisi penitus eradicativam scis-
matis et sedativam scandali non est provisio competens. Nunc vi-
deamus:
 [[ Print Edition Page No. 149 ]] 
Si pars Benedicti haberet sentenciam concilii generalis pro
se, et pars Bonifacii contra se, oporteret facere unum de duobus. Vel
omnes ordinaciones factas per Bonifacium irritas decernere, sicut
alias semper fuit factum: probatur de Stephano lxxxixo papa371—hic
tam a Gallia quam Ytalia episcoporum synodum Rome congregavit,2430
in qua omnia a Constantino ordinata exordinavit, preter baptismum
et crisma, decernente synodo ut episcopi ab illo consecrati ad gra-
dum quem ante consecracionem habebant redirent, et si digni iu-
dicarentur, iterum electi, consecrarentur. Presbiteri vero aut dyaconi
ab illo consecrati similiter ad priorem gradum redirent, et ipsi si2435
digni essent consecrarentur, sed alciorem gradum vel ordinem nun-
quam attenderent. Et idem quandocunque legitur scisma fuisse
sedatum per viam discussionis. Advertat deus, et homines, si talia
hodie temptarentur, si esset sedacio scandali—ymo vere maius scan-
dalum! [E 260r] Ego testificor de me ipso, quod propter raciones2440
predictas et multas alias, si sentencia concilii veniret contra Bene-
dictum, ego recalcitrarem quantum in me esset; et iuste secundum
me, quia “eterni tribunal iudicis” etc. “nec dampnabis eum cum
iudicabitur illi.”372 Et ita credo quod facerent alii.

Vel per concilium generale esset dictum, quod per eos omnia2445
confirmarentur; et adhuc esset scandalum maximum, ymo irrepa-
rabile, quia omnes prelati mundi et beneficiati fere sunt promoti
per unum vel alium, et pars que haberet sentenciam contra se saltim
incurreret infamiam indelebilem, et forsan contra deum et iusticiam,
per predicta. Quia laici, qui “clericis oppido sunt infesti,”3732450
dicerent: Prelati nostri non sunt prelati, et deceperunt nos iam per
decem et octo annos,374 et facta per ipsos non valuerunt. Aperiretur
via guerris et scandalis. Nonne Bonifacius dispensavit cum rege An-
glie et filia regis Francie, quia erant in gradu prohibito?375 Pone ergo

 [[ Print Edition Page No. 150 ]] 
2455quod de isto matrimonio venerunt filii, sicut per dei graciam ve-
nient: filiis viventibus, moritur rex; per sentenciam concilii generalis
est dictum, sicut est possibile, Bonifacium non habuisse ius in papatu.
Illi ad quos successio regni Anglie deberet venire filiis legitimis non
existentibus—nonne possent dicere: Nos succedemus quia vos non
2460 estis habiles. Nec potuit eciam ille qui habuit sentenciam pro se in
papatu vobiscum dispensare, eciam si dispensaverit in preiudicium
nostrum, quia eo ipso quod regnum fuit sine legitimis heredibus, ius
est nobis acquisitum. Et sic in talibus infinitis.

[E 261r] Item si dicatur. Recipiamus viam compromissi quam
2465 Benedictus offert—ista primo non valeret. [E 260v] Pro quo sunt duo
advertenda. Primo, quod sola eleccio cardinalium vel duarum par-
cium ipsorum tribuit ius in papatu—in c. Ubi [periculum] maius,
De eleccione,
Libro sexto, et in c. Licet de vitanda, De eleccione,
in antiquis. Item, quod compromissum est quando illi “qui nullam
2470 potestatem habent, de consensu litigancium in iudices eliguntur, in
quod compromittitur ut eorum sentencie stetur”—in c. A iudicibus,
ii. q. vi.376

Et talium sentencia non tribueret ius in papatu illi qui ante non
habebat, quia sentencia non tribuit novum ius sed declarat antiquum,
2475 per l. Sicut, in § Sed si queritur, ff. Si servitus vendicetur,
per l. Et ex diverso, in § Ubi, ff. De rei vendicacione.377 Et pro tanto
dicit Innocencius quod propter tale arbitrium non potest haberi ca-
nonica
 [[ Print Edition Page No. 151 ]] 
institucio in beneficiis, nec ius unius potest transferri in alium,
et allegat c. Super eo, De transaccionibus, et c. Ex frequentibus,
De institucionibus
; et ponit hoc in c. Nisi essent, De prebendis, in2480
prima glosa.378 Item in tali compromisso oporteret quod compromissarii
essent in numero impari, alias “res sine exitu futura esset,
propter naturalem [E 261r] hominis facilitatem ad dissencien-
dum”—ff. De [receptis] arbitris, l. Item si unus, § Si in duos; et in
c. i. [Sane], De arbitris.379 Et maxime in causa ista, quia quilibet2485
concertancium poneret tales compromissarios de quibus plene confideret
quod essent bene pro sua iusticia fixi. Nunc videamus si
Bonifacius vellet quod maior pars compromissariorum esset de obe-
diencia Benedicti, vel econtra! Credo quod non. Quia hoc esset po-
nere iusticiam quam dicit se habere in manibus adversariorum. Et2490
per hoc satis concluditur quod via ista penitus nichil valet.

[E 260r] Item quia in preiudicium obediencie que sentenciam
haberet contra se, nisi esset recepta de consensu suo, eciam non
valeret, ut videtur per l. Si dictum, in § In compromisso [Si com-
promisero
!], ff. De eviccionibus. Facit quia res inter alios acta, etc.3802495
Ponatur ergo quod ambe obediencie consenciunt quod eligantur cer-
ti compromissarii. Nonne difficultates que sunt in progressu concilii
generalis, superius tacte, sunt eciam in via compromissi? Indubitan-
ter sic; et multo maiores, quia adhuc sentencia aliquorum compro-
missariorum in modico numero non esset tante auctoritatis sicut2500
concilii generalis, quia illa est melior sentencia [E 260v] que plurium
sentenciis comprobatur, ut superius est dictum.381

De via facti non est multum loquendum, quia illa videtur omnino
dampnabilis, per c. Nisi cum pridem, in § Propter maliciam
plebis,
etc., ubi pocius prelatus cogitur cedere quam procedatur ad2505
effusionem sanguinis humani,382 eciam contra illos qui propter ma-
liciam meram vero prelato resistunt, quando ecclesie salus potest sub
alio esse tuta—ut dicit Gracianus, et bene, in § Quod autem [Hoc
 [[ Print Edition Page No. 152 ]] 
tunc!], vii. q. i.383 Item Cristus noluit quod pro vicariatu suo obti-
nendo 2510 fierent incendia, raptus, et homicidia, quando dicit apostolis:
Reges dominantur, vos autem non sic—Mat. xx. [25-26]. Et pro tanto
docet constitucio ecclesie cicius dimittere pallium quam sevire in
sanguinem humanum, in c. Suscepimus, De homicidio.384 Item,
“bellum geritur ut pax acquiratur,” ut dicit Augustinus, et habetur
2515 in c. Noli, xxiii. q. i. Nunc videamus: Si nos moveremus guerram
Bonifacio, verisimiliter illi qui sibi obediunt eciam moverent guer-
ram nostro, et ita esset cristianitas magis involuta quam sit nunc.
Et propter hoc dicit Augustinus, “non potest esse salubris correccio
nisi cum ille corripitur qui non habet sociam multitudinem,” in c.
2520 Non potest, xxiii. q. iv.

[E 261r] Et per ista satis apparet, ut videtur, quod proprie sumus
in terminis capituli Nisi cum pridem, in § Pro gravi quoque scan-
dalo, De renunciacione,
ut dicamus quod pro sedacione huius gravissimi
scandali ambo concertantes tenentur cedere, quia scandalum
2525 predictum aliter sedari non potest.385 Et vere ut videtur non bene potest
aliter sedari. Sed si videretur quod posset sedari, sed non
leviter et commode, adhuc est dicendum quod ambo concertantes
cedere tenentur; quia textus, quando dicit “si aliter sedari non pos-
sit,” est intelligendus: si non posset sedari commode—per l. Nepos
2530 Proculo, ff. De verborum significacione.386 Et facit quod dicit Ac-
cursius in l. ii. [Vis], ff. Quod metus causa, ibi cum dicit, “cui resisti
non potest,” quando dicit: “Subaudi, commode.”387 Et quod notat
Innocencius in c. Accedens, De concessione prebende.388 Et quod
notat Iohannes Monachus in c. Cupientes, De eleccione, super verbo
2535commode.”389 Item, quando pinguius providetur ecclesie per re-
medium extraordinarium, tunc obmisso ordinario est extraordina-
rium amplectendum, ut notat Iohannes Monachus in c. Cupientes,
in § Gracia, De eleccione, supra allegato.390 Et merito, specialiter in
casu nostro, ubi de utilitate ita publica, pro qua semper est certan-
dum,2540 agitur; etc.

[7] Item non obstat racio in qua dicitur quod dominus Benedictus
obtulit in effectu viam cessionis, quia dicit quod dum tamen con-
veniat
 [[ Print Edition Page No. 153 ]] 
cum adversario, eciam si deberet remanere pauper presbiter
sine beneficio, ipse faciet pacem in ecclesia.391 Utinam hoc dixisset
patruis regis et fratri, quando fuerunt ad eum, et tradidisset super2545
hoc bullam, sicut fecit de aliis responsionibus suis; et si noluisset
expresse et nominatim acceptasse viam cessionis, saltim stetisset
[E 261v] in terminis istis. Sed magis clare aperuit mentem suam offe-
rendo viam compromissi et reprobando viam cessionis tanquam non
iuridicam, et alias a summis pontificibus in casu simili refutatam.2550
Et in fine unius bulle sue dixit quod si ipsis congregatis per viam
compromissi non posset haberi pax in ecclesia, quod tunc ipse ape-
riret alias vias iuridicas.392 Ex quibus simul combinatis infertur quod
ipse viam cessionis acceptare non vult, sed per verba generalia
transire, et retinere quandiu vixerit partem papatus quam possidet—ita2555
quod postquam ita clare aperuit mentem suam, de via cessionis
per ipsum amplectenda sperare non debemus, quia in incertis, et
non in certis, locus est coniecturis, in l. Continuus, in § ii., ff. [[2558]]
De verborum obligacionibus.393

[8] Item non obstat racio in qua dicitur quod reges non debent2560
ordinare quod obediencia substrahatur istis ambobus concertantibus,
quia forsan regnicole non haberent conscienciam hoc faciendi, et
per consequens non deberent in hoc regibus obedire, etc. Pro quo
sciendum quod ad reges spectat in ista magna tribulacione ecclesie
ipsos ambos concertantes ducere ad viam pacis, et in ipsos nolentes2565
viam pacis acceptare, possunt et debent sevire et ipsos cohercere, ut
veniant ad viam pacis, ut supra probatum est. Et probatur adhuc
per dictum Augustini sic dicentis: “Nabugodonosor decrevit, qui-
cunque dixerit blasphemiam in deum Sidrac, Midrac, et Abdenago,
in interitu erit et domus eorum in dispersione.” Et sequitur: “Ecce,2570
quomodo rex alienigena sevit, ne blasphemaretur deus Israhel, qui
potuit tres pueros de igne liberare! Et nolunt ut seviant reges cris-
tiani, quia Cristus exsufflatur, a quo non tres pueri sed orbis terrarum
cum piis regibus a Gehennarum igne liberatur. Quomodo igitur re-
ges
 [[ Print Edition Page No. 154 ]] 
2575non moverentur, qui non tres pueros <attendunt> de flamma li-
beratos, sed se ipsos de flamma Gehenne, quando vident Cristum
exsufflari? Nam videte qualia” hodie “fiunt et qualia” hodie “patimur
per istos concertantes: “Occidunt animas, sempiternas mortes
faciunt” etc.—in c. Quando, xxiii. q. iv.394 Et istam potestatem ha-
bent2580 a deo, ut supra satis est probatum. Hoc ergo supposito, reges
non habent considerare consciencias singulorum, sed solum quod
cum bona intencione [E 262r] et ad finem pacis procedant. Et subiecti
in hoc debent ipsis omnes obedire, et si habent remorsum con-
sciencie, illi qui habent debent ipsum deponere vel talem con-
scienciam2585 captivare, et obedire regibus—iuxta illud Apostoli, II. ad
Corinthios, x. [5]: “Captivantes omnem intellectum in obsequium
Cristi”; ut ponit Hastensis, libro ii., in titulo De bonitate et malicia
interioris actus.
395 Et si velint sequi suam conscienciam erroneam,
nichilominus reges compellent eos suis ordinacionibus obedire, iuxta
2590 notata in c. Inquisicioni, allegato.396 Quia ista duo stant simul: iudex
compellet me ad faciendum aliquid iuste, et tamen consciencia dic-
tabit michi contrarium, ut in c. Literas, allegato.397

[9] Item non obstat racio in qua dicitur: Qua racione dicimus
eleccionem Urbani non tenuisse, quia non fuit facta libere, etc. Pro
2595 quo sciendum quod aliqua sunt, que de sui natura et de iure requi-
runt libertatem et que debent omnino fieri libere, sicut est eligere
papam vel episcopum. Nam non dubium quod ibi “cessat eleccio
ubi libertas amittitur eligendi,” in c. Ubi maius periculum [!], §
Ceterum, De eleccione, in Sexto; et in c. In nomine domini, xxiii.
2600 di., ibi cum dicitur quod eleccio debet esse “pura, sincera, et gra-
tuita”—quod intellige verum de eleccione persone que debet assumi
in papam. Sed ad eligendum illum debent de iure compelli cardi-
nales, per substraccionem victualium et per inclusionem in concla-
vi—in c. Ubi [periculum] maius, allegato. Et racio: quia ad ea que
2605 sunt pacis et unionis, licet ista debeant a bonis hominibus inquiri et
prosequi (iuxta illud [Luke 2.14], “Et in terra pax hominibus bone
voluntatis”): tamen ad ista qui libere non attendit compelli debet,

 [[ Print Edition Page No. 155 ]] 
sicut in casu nostro. Unde si inter prelatum et subditos sit dissensio
que proveniat propter maliciam subditorum, non de levi sedabilis,
prelatus hoc videns et quod salus ecclesie potest esse tuta in manus2610
alterius debet cedere, et si non velit debet ad hoc cogi. Item, si inter
prelatum et subditos sit grave scandalum quod aliter commode, ut
supra dictum est, sedari non possit, prelatus debet liberaliter cedere,
et si nolit debet ad hoc cogi, per c. Nisi cum pridem, in § Propter
maliciam,
et in § Pro gravi quoque scandalo, De renunciacione,2615
cum opinione Innocencii, qui hoc expresse ponit ibidem, “quia uti-
litas publica debet preferri private.”398

Et quod dixi de prelato qui cogitur [E 262v] cedere, intelligo
quod reges debent in casu nostro, ubi est tantum scandalum et ita
grave, et possunt ad cedendum ambos compellere, ut satis supra2620
probatum est. Et adhuc clare probatur per dictum Augustini sic
dicentis: “Cur eciam hoc fieri non potest, ut per ordinatas et legiti-
mas potestates, de sedibus que illicite usurpantur vel ad dei iniuriam
retinentur, pius expellat impium et iustus iniustum” etc.—in c. Qui peccat,
xxiii. q. iv. Et alibi: “Putas neminem cogi ad iusticiam debere,2625
cum legas patremfamilias dixisse, Quoscunque inveneritis co-
gite intrare? Et ipsum Saulum, postea Paulum, ad veritatem cog-
noscendam et tenendam magna violencia Cristi cogentis esse
compulsum?” Unde “nimium sunt inquieti qui per ordinatas potes-
tates a deo cohiberi atque corrigi” nolunt—in c. Nimium, xxiii.2630
q. iv. Dicant ergo reges ambobus concertantibus cum Augustino
illud quod sequitur: “Non ideo vobis displiceamus quia revocamus
errantes et querimus perditos; melius enim facimus voluntatem do-
mini monentis ut vos ad eius ovile redire cogamus, quam consen-
ciamus voluntati errancium, ut perire vos permittamus.” Hoc Augustinus2635
in c. Displicet, xxiii. q. iv. Unde “ecclesia non solum invitat
sed eciam cogit ad bonum,” ut ibidem.

Ex quibus clare concluditur quod licet eleccio que non est facta
libere sed per impressionem vel compulsionem non valeat, cessio
tamen istorum duorum concertancium facta per compulsionem et2640
potenciam regum erit iusta et canonica; nec poterunt de hoc con-
queri,
 [[ Print Edition Page No. 156 ]] 
quia iusta causa subest propter quam hoc fieri debet—per
l. Si mulier, in principio, ff. Quod metus causa.399 Nec amissio status
in hoc casu aliquid facit, quia ut ponit Innocencius ubi supra, fiet
2645 eis bona recompensacio status,400 si non reddant se nimis contumaces.
Si non sit equivalens, sufficit modica compensacio, per l. Item si
verberatum, in § Ubi, ff. De rei vendicacione.401 Nec habent con-
queri de processu iniurioso quando primo proceditur ad substrac-
cionem obediencie quam ad graviora, ut patet per predicta. Et facit
2650 quod dicit Augustinus in c. Vides, xxiii. q. vi., ubi dicit quod ipse
quandoque fuit opinionis quod nullus debet cogi ad bonum; raciones
tamen dicencium contrarium fuerunt sibi demonstracio. Et dicit
exemplum [E 263r] de civitate sua, cuius incole erant pessimi here-
tici, et tamen propter coaccionem quam habuerunt ab imperatoribus
2655 fuerunt optimi cristiani, iuxta illud [Prov. 9.9]: “Da occasionem sa-
pienti et sapiencior erit.”402 Et sic fiet per dei graciam in istis duobus;
nam substracta obediencia, sapienciores fient, etc.

Et casus expressus quod scismatici debent cogi, in c. Ipsa pietas,
xxiii. q. iv., ubi Augustinus de talibus: “Nec quia coguntur reprehendant
2660 sed quo coguntur attendant.”

Nec valet quod aliqui false adinvenire nituntur, quod auc-
toritates et iura predicta non locuntur in papa; per c. Sicut,
xcvi. di., ibi cum dicit, “non tamen contra religionem ulla-
tenus excedentes”; ubi glosa: “vel eciam si scisma faceret,”
2665 etc. In quo casu papa forcius est puniendus quam alii, ymo
sine misericordia sicut dyabolus, ut supra dictum est.403

[10] Item non obstat alia racio, in qua dicitur quod nullus est qui
possit dicere pape, Cur ita facis? Quia hoc intelligitur: nisi faciat
aliquid quod notorie scandalizet ecclesiam et de quo deus notorie
2670 offendatur, quia tunc est recognoscendus papa celestis et obedien-
dum deo, ut est dictum.404 Et facit c. Non liceat pape, xii. q. ii., ubi
pape alienanti res ecclesie potest resisti, etc.405 Quanto magis in casu

 [[ Print Edition Page No. 157 ]] 
nostro precipue, ubi ambo concertantes volunt retinere papatum,
quilibet contra opinionem collegii suorum cardinalium.406 Unde di-
cunt aliqui quod iura que locuntur de obediencia papali semper2675
exprimunt quod sedi apostolice est obediendum, et ecclesie romane;
et istud importat quod pape est obediendum quando in arduis regit
se per consilium fratrum. Et pro hoc facit quod notat Iohannes
Monachus in c. Super eo, De hereticis, in Sexto, ubi dicit quod decet
papam non facere aliquid in arduis sine consilio fratrum, et quod
2680 aliter facta per papam quandoque fuerunt revocata.407 Et dicunt
doctores quod domini cardinales sic cum papa sunt uniti, quod re- [[2682]]
putantur membra sua, et ob hoc non iurant sibi obedienciam, ymo
videntur esse unum corpus cum eo. Ex quo inferunt quod in arduis
nichil debet facere papa nisi cum consilio ipsorum, et allegant c. In2685
Genesi, De eleccione; c. Quociens, De purgacione canonica; [Pervenit,]
De excessibus prelatorum. Et hoc ponit Henricus post alios
in c. Antiqua, De privilegiis, in secunda distinccione.408 Et clarum
est quod quando prelati iurant, iurant primo obedire ecclesie ro-
mane, et secundo pape—in c. [E 263v] Ego N., De iureiurando.4092690
Et hoc satis plene deducit cardinalis Ebredunensis in illis que scripsit
volens probare quod presens questio non est per concilium generale
decidenda.410 Unde valde durum esset dicere quod uni vel duobus,
qui propter opinionem suam singularem contra opinionem fratrum
suorum cardinalium ecclesiam totam destruerent, esset necessario2695
obediendum.

Item quando dicitur, Nullus iudicabit papam, etc.: Audivi ali-
quos dominos theologos qui satis aperte dicebant quod c. Nemo et
similia fuerunt facta per papam, etc.411 Verum est quod nullus pa-
pam iudicabit, nisi in casu heresis, vel nisi faceret talia, que notorie2700
ecclesiam scandalizarent vel inducerent subversionem et periculum
animarum. Nam tunc non esset sibi obediendum, et si esset incorrigibilis
eciam

incurreret heresim,


 [[ Print Edition Page No. 158 ]] 

2705ut supra lacius est deductum. Vel aliter: Nullus iudicat papam; ve-
rum est—papam indubitatum et pacificum. Sed quando sunt duo
concertantes, quorum quilibet vult papatum retinere, nec volunt
propter sedacionem gravis scandali renunciare, ut tenentur, tunc si
nullus eos iudicaret, semper remaneremus in isto statu et veniremus
2710 ad peius. Et in casu isto sunt iam per predecessores iudicati, sic quod
non restat nisi facere iuris execucionem contra eos; sicut dicimus de
Symacho qui iudicavit successorem, in c. Non liceat, allegato.412 Et
iura contra ipsos exequi spectat ad reges, ut supra satis evidenter est
probatum. Et facit quia “qui male sedet in cathedra, de sacerdocio
2715 crimen acquirit non dignitatem,” sicut fit quando sic scandalose
concertatur de primatu, ut dicit Crisostomus in c. Multi sacerdotes,
xl. di.413 Et Salisberiensis, in Policraticon, consilio Bruti consulit esse
utendum contra duos concertantes de papatu et facientes scisma; et
pulcre contra eos invehit, libro viii., titulo Consilio Bruti, etc. Et ibi
2720 videas, nam eius dicta causa brevitatis inserere pretermitto.414

[11] Item non obstat racio alia, in qua dicitur quod nec in collacionibus
beneficiorum, nec in indiccionibus vel exaccionibus aliis,
est sibi obediencia deneganda; quia per racionem que superius facta
fuit in contrarium, satis videtur fuisse solutum.415 Et facit c. Non
2725 liceat pape, ubi quando bona ecclesie contra iuris disposicionem
dissipat, est licitum sibi resistere et non obedire.416

[12] [E 264r] Item non obstat alia racio, in qua dicitur quod licet
reges ordinarent quod ambobus obediencia substraheretur, si papa
preciperet contrarium, sibi pocius esset obediendum. Quia licet verum
2730 sit dicere quod papa maior est quam aliquis rex, in casu tamen
isto videtur magis fore obediendum regi quam pape. Quia faciendo
ea que sibi facere licent et expediunt pro pace et unione ecclesie,
sunt dei ministri, et qui eis in hoc obedit, pocius deo obedit quam

 [[ Print Edition Page No. 159 ]] 
ipsis. Unde ad Romanos, xiii. [4], scribitur: “Dei enim minister est
vindex in iram ei qui male agit.” Et facit c. Qui resistit, xi. q. iii.4172735

[13] Item eodem modo respondetur ad racionem immediate se-
quentem. Nam quicquid sit de aliis casibus, in isto possunt et debent
reges providere, ut supra clare est ostensum.

[14] Item non obstat c. Nonne et § Hinc eciam; nam iam satis
superius est solutum.418 Et verum est quod ante sentenciam non est2740
ab obediencia prelati recedendum, nisi fiat auctoritate illius qui po-
test hoc canonice precipere, sicut sunt reges in casu presenti, ut apparet satis
per predicta.

[Against arguments quod non decet]

[1] Item non obstat prima racio in qua dicitur quod postquam
patres regum et ipsi obediverunt aliqui Clementi, alii vero Urbano,2745
et postmodum Benedicto et Bonifacio. Quia licet ipsi tenuerint et
adhuc teneant fixe quilibet suum, et ipsis obediverint, nunc quando
vident quod scisma ita diu lamentabiliter durat et quod isti non
curant de inquirendo et prosequendo pacem: si ad hoc quod cicius
ad pacem inclinentur ipsis substrahant obedienciam, non est indecens2750
neque inhonestum. Pro quo: Quia “alma mater ecclesia plurimum
nonnulla racionabiliter ordinat, et consulte, que suadente sub-
iectorum utilitate postmodum consulcius ac racionabilius revocat, in
meliusve commutat”—in c. Alma mater, De sentencia excommunicacionis.
Et imperator pocius eligit se corrigere quam quod ab2755
aliis corrigatur, in § i., in Autentica, De nupciis.419

[2] Item non obstat eciam alia racio, quia postquam cum since-
ritate cordis et ad finem pacis reges hoc faciunt, vel rex hoc facit,
“non habet curare quid os loquencium mala loquatur, dum tamen
non recedat a tramite veritatis”—in c. Magne, De voto. Unde Au-
gustinus,2760
 [[ Print Edition Page No. 160 ]] 
gustinus, in libro De civitate dei: Si propterea quisque obiurgandum
corripiendumque [E 264v] male agentibus parcit, quia tempus opportunius
inquirit, non est hoc occasio cupiditatis sed consilium ca-
ritatis.420

2765[3] Item non obstat alia racio, quia reges non debent se regere
exemplo sed legibus, quia pro certo nunquam legitur quod fuerit
scisma simile, nec temporibus retroactis romanus pontifex solebat
sic dare prelaturas. Nunc vero omnes prelati et de una obediencia
et de alia, fere, sunt creati per istos, et per consequens quasi partes
2770 formate, et per consequens scisma magis radicatum quam unquam.
Et nos bene legimus quod quandoque ecclesia stante in scismate, illi
quibus rex Francie obedivit obtinuerunt, sed quod istud semper fuerit
verum, ego nescio nec credo.

[Against arguments quod non expedit]

[1] Item non obstat prima racio per quam probatur quod non
2775 expedit sibi substrahere obedienciam, quia procederet ad fulminandum
sentencias, etc. Quia reges qui substrahunt obedienciam ad hoc
quod ponant unionem in ecclesia et pacem, non habent eum timere,
quia non debet respici in ista materia quid fiat sed causa propter
quam fit, ut dicit Iohannes glosator Decreti, proprie in materia scis-
matis,2780 in c. Ipsa pietas, xxiii. q. iv.421 Et facit quod ipse Iohannes
glosator ponit in c. Quodcunque ligaveris, xxiv. q. i.—quod papa
quoad deum nullius potestatis vim exercet, nec est excommunicatus
quoad deum ille quem ipse excommunicat sine causa iusta,422 iuxta
illud Psalmiste [36.33]: “Nec dampnabis eum cum iudicabitur illi.”
2785 Et propter hoc in hoc casu non dicitur sentencia contempni. Nam
“contemptor dicitur ille qui sine causa contra canones aliquid facit,”
ut notat Archidiaconus in c. Si quis erga, ii. q. vii.423 Et facit, quod
a iudicio illius qui accusatur accusantes sunt absoluti, quia accusatus

 [[ Print Edition Page No. 161 ]] 
inimicus est, ut notat idem Archidiaconus, in c. Metropolitanum,
eadem causa et questione.4242790

[2] Item non obstat alia racio, quia de casibus de quibus solus
papa potest absolvere posset quilibet episcopus propter istam neces-
sitatem absolvere, quia “necessitas non habet legem”—in c. Consilium,
in fine, De observancia ieiuniorum; in c. Remissionem, i.
q. i.425 Et videtur casus in racione in c. De cetero, De sentencia2795
excommunicacionis.426 Vel videtur esse alia bona provisio. Nam maior
penitenciarius, cuius potestas durat eciam sede vacante—ut in Cle-
mentina Ne Romani, De eleccione427—posset suum officium exer-
cere donec haberemus papam pacificum et indubitatum. Et in maio-
ribus causis posset [E 265r] provideri per archiepiscopos et concilia2800
provincialia. Vel si “de terra ipsius ecclesie defendenda, vel eius
aliqua parte, vel aliud tam grande et tam eminens periculum immineret,
quod omnibus et singulis cardinalibus presentibus concor-
diter videretur illi celeriter occurrendum,” tunc domini cardinales
possent super hoc providere, quia in talibus habent potestatem canonicam,2805
per c. Ubi [periculum] maius, in § Idem quoque cardinales,
De eleccione, in Sexto. In provisionibus vero episcopatuum et
aliarum maiorum dignitatum, servarentur iura antiqua.428 Per que
apparet quod substraccio obediencie maiorem sine comparacione
potest afferre utilitatem, quia per ipsam possumus verisimiliter venire2810
ad unionem et pacem ecclesie, quam pariat incommoditatem.429 Et
sic magis videtur expedire ad ipsam procedere quam non procedere.
Camerarius autem pape, qui erat camerarius tempore pape mortui,
eciam illa que spectant ad cameram administrabit, sicut potest sede
vacante, per Clementinam Ne Romani.4302815

Et quod dixi de substraccione quoad ambos est idem de ipsorum
quolibet, quia ubi eadem racio, ibi idem ius.

[3, 4] Item non obstant due raciones que dicunt quod si obe-
diencia substraheretur, laici ponerent manus ad bona ecclesie et ipsa
occuparent; et, eadem racione qua ipsis non obediretur, ita nec episcopis2820

 [[ Print Edition Page No. 162 ]] 
et archiepiscopis et aliis prelatis creatis per ipsos, et ita esset
destruccio totalis ecclesie. Pro quo advertendum, quod in aliquibus
partibus cristianitatis, verbi gracia hic in Hanonia et in aliquibus
aliis locis, determinaverunt se neutri obedire donec haberemus in
2825 ecclesia unum solum et indubitatum, et ita fecerunt iam per decem
et novem annos, vel fere.431 Et licet secundum me male fecerint,
quia non obediverunt nostro, tamen in maiori libertate vivunt quam
illi qui obediunt Bonifacio vel illi qui obediunt Benedicto. Et nunc
quando videmus quod aliter non possumus habere unionem, per
2830 raciones superius tactas, licet, decet, et expedit facere sicut et ipsi
fecerunt et faciunt; et licet ipsi neutri obediant, obediunt tamen
episcopis suis. Nec sequitur: Substrahitur obediencia pape, quia
propter sedacionem gravissimi scandali nunc prochdolor in ecclesia
existentis non vult renunciare sicut quilibet bonus pastor debet fa-
cere—ergo2835 non obedietur episcopis creatis per eum, qui sunt veri et
pacifici episcopi quilibet in episcopatu suo. Pro certo qui bene con-
siderat, sine comparacione maius inconveniens est sic in scismate
stare quam [E 265v] per substraccionem obediencie et alias unionem
et pacem ecclesie procurare, et per consequens est eligibilius, per
2840 dictum Gregorii in c. Duo mala, et c. Nervi, xiii. di.; nec est adversa
fortuna speranda, per l. Inter stipulantem, § Sacram, ff.
De verborum obligacionibus.

[5] Item non obstat alia racio, in qua dicitur quod per hoc frustrarentur
suis graciis multi valentes viri qui ab utroque impetrave-
runt2845 literas expectativas, etc. Quia eciam si non substrahatur obe-
diencia, iam frustrati sunt multi notabiles clerici. Verbi gracia,
universitas parisiensis, que vere tanquam lucerna fulgoris decorat et
illuminat ecclesiam dei, que nunquam voluit facere rotulum,432 ut
tolleret quamcunque occasionem tepiditatis in prosecucione unionis
2850 suppositis suis. Et deus scit quod illa alma universitas pre ceteris
collegiis mundi, cum vera animi sinceritate, prosecuta est indefesse
unionem ecclesie et adhuc continue prosequitur, nec per dei graciam

 [[ Print Edition Page No. 163 ]] 
cessabit, sciens quod qui perseveraverit usque in finem, hic salvus
erit, etc. Si igitur veniretur ad substraccionem obediencie, expediret
quod per medium regum, prelati darent unum bonum ordinem in2855
conferendo beneficia,433 taliter quod valentes clerici primo loco be-
neficia haberent, et gradatim illi qui scirent, vellent, et possent ecclesie
proficere promoverentur, iuxta c. Super inordinata, De prebendis.434
Et per hoc cessarent omnia. Et quia in brevi per dei graciam
habebimus unum verum unicum et indubitatum pastorem, et pro2860
bono publico quis eciam quandoque privatur re sua propria, per l.
Ita [Item si!] verberatum, in fine, et per l. Lucius435—quanto magis
debet privari iure quod habet ad rem, non in re, sicut sunt expectantes.436
Et si dicatur: Gracie iam facte habent decretum quod papa
decrevit irritum et inane “si secus a quoquam” etc.437—raciones supra2865
allegate, per quas probatum est quod pro bono pacis et unionis
ecclesie licet, decet, et expedit ipsis ambobus concertantibus obe-
dienciam substrahere, satis solvunt ad istud, una cum regula catho-
niana, quia res venit ad casum a quo incipere non potuit, etc.438

[6] Item non obstat alia racio, in qua dicitur quod innumerabilia2870
inconveniencia sequerentur, quia sine dubio maiora sequerentur si
ecclesia sic remaneret lacerata, quod absit, ut superius est magis
[E 266r] declaratum.

[7] Item non obstat quod dicitur, quod per hoc non haberetur
unio, etc.—quia raciones alique superius allegate satis probant quod2875
si per substraccionem obediencie non corrigerent se, esset aliter pro-
cedendum.

[8] Item non obstat quando dicitur, quod non expedit quod equa
lance procedatur contra verum papam et contra intrusum; quia mul-
ti dicunt quod si beatus Petrus viveret hodie, et divisio esset similis2880
in ecclesia sicut est, que posset sedari ipso cedente, ipse deberet cogi

 [[ Print Edition Page No. 164 ]] 
cedere per substraccionem obediencie et alias, ut est dictum. Nonne
legimus de beato Clemente successore suo, quod propter scandalum
quod de eleccione sua erat inter fratres, renunciavit papatui?—in c.
2885 Si Petrus, viii. q. i.439

Et quia multi sunt qui non habent Policraticon, hic in fine feci
inserere ipsius dicta loquentis de duobus concertantibus de papatu;
ut de illis que michi in materia occurrerunt “nichil penitus ignoretur
—iuxta § i., Instit., De testamentis. (Sed causa brevitatis omi-
si.)4402890 Et Augustinus ad propositum sic loquitur: “Ideo divina pro-
videncia multos diversi erroris hereticos esse permittit, ut cum
interrogant nos ea que nescimus, sic discuciamus pigriciam, ut di-
vinas scripturas capiamus. Propterea Apostolus ait, Ut probati ma-
nifesti fiant”—xxiv. q. ultima [iii.], in fine [Ideo divina]. Et vere,
2895 sicut dixi a principio, ista solum ad memoriam videre volencium
reduco, ut melius veritas possit haberi. Nec ex presumpcione, odio,
vel favore, teste deo, aliquid scripsi. Et si de meo aliquid posuerim,
vel iura vel dicta doctorum minus bene allegaverim, suppleat legens
benivolus, et mee imbecillitati fraternaliter parcat. Quia si unum
2900 pedem haberem in fovea et alium extra, adhuc addiscere vellem,
iuxta dictum iurisconsulti in 1. Apud Iulianum, ff.
De fideicommissariis libertatibus.441


 [[ Print Edition Page No. 165 ]] 

Annotations

The notes that follow are keyed to the footnote numbers in the edition above. In addition to the works listed at the beginning of this volume, the following printed sources are cited:

* * *

 [1] Augustine’s text (23. q. 4, c. 41), cited only in the later redactions, is addressed to the problem: “Non invenitur exemplum in evangelicis et apostolicis litteris, aliquid petitum a regibus terrae pro ecclesia contra inimicos ecclesiae.” He explains: “Sed nondum inplebatur illa prophetia: ‘Et nunc reges intelligite, erudimini, qui iudicatis terram.’ ” In Christian times, “nunc illud inpletur.”

 [2] “Versutus hostis . . . in terra tenere,” in Decretum 16. q. 2, c. 1.

 [3] Since Clement VII was elected 20 September 1378, the nineteenth year of the Schism ran from September 1396 to September 1397. See Valois, 3: 109 n. 3, 138 n. 4.

 [4] Urban VI was elected pope 8 April 1378; he died 15 October 1389. Boniface IX was elected 2 November 1389 and died 1 October 1404.

 [5] Pope Clement VII died 16 September 1394; Benedict XIII was elected 28 September 1394 and died 29 November 1422 (or 23 May 1423; Valois, 4: 452).


 [[ Print Edition Page No. 167 ]] 

 [6] For the gist of the canon see below, n. 107. It also provided “Si quis autem contraire praesumpserit, excommunicationi se noverit subiacere.”

 [7] Most of the preceding dozen or so lines are adapted by Simon from In nomine domini (Dist. 23, c. 1), the decree on papal elections promulgated by Pope Nicholas II at the Lateran council of 14 April 1059. The relevant passages read: “Quod si quis . . . per seditionem, vel praesumptionem, aut quolibet ingenio electus, aut etiam ordinatus, seu inthronizatus fuerit: auctoritate divina . . . perpetuo anathemate . . . a liminibus sanctae Dei Ecclesiae separatus abiiciatur, sicut Antichristus, invasor, et destructor totius Christianitatis . . . [et] ab omni ecclesiastico gradu in quocunque fuerat prius . . . deponatur: cui quisquis adhaeserit . . . pari sententia sit mancipatus. Quisquis autem huius nostrae decretalis sententiae temerator extiterit, . . . perpetuo anathemate, atque excommunicatione damnetur, et cum impiis, qui non resurgent in iudicio, reputetur . . . et cuncta elementa sint ei contraria, et omnium sanctorum quiescentium merita illum confundant, et in hac vita super eum apertam vindictam ostendant.” The passage “nisi per satisfaccionem . . . ,” is attributed to St. Jerome in an addendum to 11. q. 3, c. 33 (Nihil). And the passage “in potestate diaboli . . .” is from § His auctoritatibus, after 24. q. 1, c. 37, via the glossa ordinaria, v. “Satanae,” 11. q. 3, c. 21 (Audi denique): “Satanae dicitur trahi, quia diabolus in eo habet potestatem quasi in pecore suo.”

 [8] Denique (7. q. 1, c. 9) is Cyprian’s assertion of the absolute need to obey one’s bishop. It includes the passages quoted here, and also the proof from the case of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram (Num. 16), who rejected the sacerdotal distinction of Moses and Aaron on the grounds that “all the congregation are holy.” Even though, as the canon notes, they invoked the same God and law as the rest, God caused the earth to swallow them up alive.

 [9] Sacris (X 1. 40. 5) refers to those who communicate with the excommunicated as incurring mortal sin.

 [10] The canon is in fact a letter of Pope Pelagius, although some of Augustine’s dicta are quoted in it elsewhere.

 [11] The passage to which Simon refers (Digest 29. 5. 1. § 28) supports his phrase, but his wording is much closer to that of the glossa ordinaria on X 5. 39. 47 (Quantae), v. “interpretans”: “ita videtur peccare omnia [sic], qui non defendit alium si potest, 23. q. 3. Non inferenda, et c. ult., et si non possit aliter defendere, saltem defendat clamore, FF. Ad Silla. L. 1. § Hoc autem.

 [12] Ambrose in fact wrote: “Puniuntur peccata etiam per populos, sicut legimus, quia saepe ab alienigenis, dei iussu excitatis propter divinae maiestatis offensam, subactus est populus Iudeorum.”

 [13] The reference is to the First Paris Council, discussed above in the Introduction, § 1. The “consultacio” was in fact Simon’s formulation of the majority opinion (Appendix V, No. 1b). Simon’s use of the plurals, “reges” and “regna,” is designed to cover the action of King Henry III of Castile; see below, n. 265.


 [[ Print Edition Page No. 168 ]] 

 [14] Benedict XIII was formally presented with the decision of the First Paris Council on 1 June 1395 by an embassy of the Dukes of Berry, Burgundy, and Orléans; he refused to accept the via cessionis. Simon’s ambiguous language here shows that he was writing before a similar request was made to Boniface IX, September 1397, by a joint embassy from the kings of England, France, and Castile; he refused. But King Richard II of England had agreed in August 1396 to send a mission to both popes urging abdication; the mission aborted but he was supposed to have at least sent the popes letters to that effect. In October 1396, when meeting with King Charles VI, he agreed to the joint mission that finally took shape a year later. Simon no doubt had these events in mind. (Valois, 3:44-67, 108, 119-23; SdeC, pp. 138-45, 153-56, 208 f.)

 [15] The modes of subtraction are discussed above, Introduction, § 1.

 [16] Although all the mss. give the reference as 14. q. 2, the only Quod debetur is 14. q. 1, c. 2, and it deals with the morality of collecting debts; it seems quite unrelated to Simon’s point.

 [17] See the Introduction, above, for the circumstances under which Simon began this treatise.

 [18] Johannes Andreae’s “excusatio,” in his glossa ordinaria on the Sext, last paragraph, v. “anno quarto”: “quinimo etiam ex falsis scriptis secundum Philos. 2. Metaphy. commendabor: quia per ipsa veritatis investigandae materiam aliis praeparavi.”

 [19] The “Epistola LIII. Sancti Hieronymi ad Paulinum presbyterum” commonly appeared as a prologue to the Vulgate; the text is in Biblia Sacra iuxta Latinam vulgatam versionem, 1: Librum Genesis, ed. H. Quentin (Rome, 1926). In contrast to Simon’s quotation, the text (p. 5) reads, “discere” and “sua impudenter.”

 [20] John of Salisbury, Policraticus, bk. 7, Prologue (ed. Webb, 2:93): “. . . Achademicorum more investigandi animo quam pervicacia contendendi sic constet esse proposita ut in examinationem veri suum cuique iudicium liberum reservetur et inutilis scribentium censeatur auctoritas ubi sententia potior refragatur.”

 [21] Ibid., bk. 7, ch. 2 (2:99): “. . . ut, cum apud scriptores in locis non passim dubiis verba quodammodo ambigua, qualia sunt haec: si forte, fortasse, et forsitan, proferuntur, Achademico dicantur usi temperamento, eo quod temperatiores aliis Achademici fuerint, qui omnem veriti sunt temerariae diffinitionis subire notam et praecipitium falsitatis.”

 [22] X 2. 24. 4: “Ego N. episcopus . . . fidelis ero sancto Petro, sanctaeque Romanae ecclesiae, dominoque meo papae C. eiusque successoribus canonice intrantibus.”

 [23] For the wording see X 3. 34. 7 (c. Magne).

 [24] The canon reads, “Non decet a capite membra discedere,” and is so cited by Simon below, at n. 225; Friedberg does note, however, that some editions give “licet.”


 [[ Print Edition Page No. 169 ]] 

 [25] See below, n. 27.

 [26] See below, n. 27.

 [27] Pierre Bertrand’s Apparatus on the Sext, BN ms. lat. 4085, fol. 6v, col. 1, has both the preceding authorities, in sequence and as cited by Simon (i.e., the canon of the Council of Chalcedon and the text from Cyril of Alexandria). The identification of Cyril as “bishop of Alexandria and formerly first of the patriarchs” was added by Simon, his titular successor in that see.

 [28] See note 34 below and the text at n. 411. The canon Si episcopus defines the appellate jurisdiction of the Roman bishop vis-à-vis other bishops; since it was decreed by a council (a.d. 343), it could not be regarded as pope-decreed papalism, nor could the two preceding authorities.

 [29] 1 Cor. 12.12, “corpus unum est et membra habet multa; . . . ita et Christus.” For Fundamenta see below, n. 50; this “Cardinalis” would have been Johannes Monachus (Dictionnaire de droit canonique, s.v. “Cardinalis”), whose gloss here has been unavailable.

 [30] See below, n. 34.

 [31] Hostiensis, followed by Johannes Andreae, has: “in hac autem vicaria successerunt patriarchae, iudices, reges, sacerdotes, et alii, qui pro tempore rectores fuerunt [Andreae: fuerunt in regimine] populi iudaeorum, et sic duravit usque ad Christum, qui fuit naturalis dominus et rex noster.” Simon has left out “reges”—cf. n. 33 below.

 [32] Petrus Comestor, Historia scolastica, MPL, 198:1253: “Quod si contingeret judices . . . ambigere de sententia aliqua, ascenderent ad summum sacerdotem, et quod ille judicaret fieret.”

 [33] Hostiensis and Johannes Andreae continue the passage quoted above, n. 31: “. . . et rex noster. Unde Psal., Deus iudicium tuum regi da etc., et Esaiae xxxiii, Dominus iudex noster, dominus legifer noster, dominus rex noster. Ipse vero dominus noster Iesus Christus vicarium sibi constituit beatum Petrum et successores suos . . .” (etc. as in text). Note that Simon has left out “rex noster.”

 [34] Virtually all of this paragraph has come, condensed and paraphrased, from Johannes Andreae, Commentaria, II, 21r, on Licet ex suscepto (X 2. 2. 10), v. “imperio,” a more or less literal copy of Hostiensis, loc. cit., who had worked up what Innocent IV had written. The context is a discussion of papal authority to supply secular judges’ or rulers’ defects of justice. Andreae gives Hostiensis’s formulation of an extreme position: “Tu vero dicas, quod vacantibus regnis, et principatibus quibuscunque, et ubicunque etiam iudex saecularis negligens est in iustitia reddenda, papa non solum de potestatis plenitudine, sed etiam de iure et consuetudine potest, et debet iustitiam reddere.” He then mentions the views of Innocent and Hostiensis on this, refers to several cases in which the principle applies, and adds, more or less in the words of Hostiensis: “Sed ad hoc [sic] quae de his casibus dicuntur, opponit sic Innocentius: Dicet aliquis, quamvis non sine poena sacrilegii, haec sibi pro se summi pontifices statuerunt; unde non est his tanta fides adhibenda.”
 [[ Print Edition Page No. 170 ]] 
Innocent had written “culpa” instead of “poena” but the quote is otherwise true. Innocent here is also the source of the discussion of God, Adam, and Noah, above.

 [35] X 1. 33. 16: “Cum inferior superiorem solvere nequeat, vel ligare; sed superior inferiorem liget regulariter, et absolvat. . . .” Simon’s “tollere factum” refers to this.

 [36] Nulli fas (Dist. 19, c. 5) states: “Sit ergo ruinae suae dolore prostratus, quisquis apostolicis voluerit contraire decretis.” The gl. ord., v. “prostratus”: “Hic videtur, quod omnis, qui non obedit statutis Romanae sedis sit haereticus. . . . Sed intelligas, quod hic dicitur, quod qui dicit Romanam ecclesiam non esse caput, nec posse condere canones, iste est haereticus. . . . Sed si quis alias transgreditur eius mandata, non propterea est haereticus. . . .”

 [37] Johannes Andreae, gl. ord. on Sext 1. 6. 13 (c. Generali), v. “inhibemus”: “Dic . . . quod qui transgreditur canonem, credens Romanam ecclesiam non habere potestatem condendi canones: de tali transgressione punitur, ut haereticus. 19. di. Nulli fas.

 [38] Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra Gentiles, IV, lxxvi, ed. C. Pera (Rome, 1961), 3:384, § 4110.

 [39] The Franciscan Astesano’s Summa de casibus conscientiae has not been available.

 [40] Not checked; the Prior of St. Eligius was Pierre Bersuire.

 [41] Archdeacon, Rosarium, fol. 186r: on 7. q. 1, c. 9 (Denique), v. “adiuvare” (cf. above, n. 8): “id est, quo ad vitam aeternam . . . , quia scismatici hunc articulum non credunt, scil., ‘Unam sanctam ecclesiam,’ et de talibus dicitur, quod qui in uno offendit, factus est omnium reus, de. poe. di. 5. Fratres isti tales, et si fidem erga Deum videantur habere, non erga Dei ecclesiam. . . . Et in hoc omnes haeretici et scismatici peccant, quia quamvis omnes alios articulos teneant, si tamen sacramento unitatis discordant, et unitatem ecclesiae scindere conantur.” See also below, n. 207.

 [42] Gl. ord. on X 5. 7. 1 (c. Dubius in fide), v. “in fide,” adds the “eciam” passage with a reference to Codex 1. 5. 2; see n. 60 below.

 [43] Aristotle, Politicorum liber primus, the “antiqua” translation, in Sancti Thomae Aquinatis . . . opera omnia, 21 (Parma, 1866; repr., New York, 1949), 375: “Quandocumque [sic, for “quaecumque”] enim ex pluribus constituta sunt, et fiunt unum aliquod commune, sive ex conjunctis, sive ex divisis, in omnibus videtur principans et subjectum. Et hoc ex omnium natura inest animatis.”

 [44] Aristotle, Meteorologicorum liber primus, trans. in Th. Aquin. opp. om., 19 (Parma, 1865; repr., New York, 1949), 302: “Est autem ex necessitate continuus iste mundus superioribus lationibus, ut omnis ipsius virtus gubernetur inde.”

 [45] Dig. 1. 7. 1: “Filiosfamilias non solum natura, verum et adoptiones faciunt.” Institutes 1. 11, § 4: “Minorem natu non posse maiorem adoptare placet: adoptio enim naturam imitatur et pro monstro est, ut maior sit filius quam pater.”


 [[ Print Edition Page No. 171 ]] 

 [46] For the fourteenth-century development of these episcopalist ideas see Wilks, Problem of Sovereignty, pp. 338 ff.; see also the Introduction, n. 22, above.

 [47] The canon (Dist. 21, c. 1; from Isidore’s Etymologies) discusses the church hierarchy, including the rank of patriarch, who “primum, id est, apostolicum retinet locum,” and that of archbishop, who “tenet . . . vicem apostolicam.” In the preceding § Inter eos, Gratian writes: “maiorum et minorum sacerdotum discretio in novo testamento ab ipso Christo sumpsit exordium, qui duodecim apostolos tanquam maiores sacerdotes, et lxxii discipulos quasi minores sacerdotes instituit. Petrum vero quasi in summum sacerdotem elegit.”

 [48] X 3. 8. 5: “Quia diversitatem corporum diversitas saepe sequitur animorum.”

 [49] See Decretum 7. q. 1, c. 41 (In apibus).

 [50] Given the importance of this definition of the ecclesia militans (see the Introduction, n. 112; cf. infra at n. 141), its forced relationship to the cited authorities is remarkable. Fundamenta (Sext 1. 6. 17) includes the remark, “Ne . . . ecclesia in congregatione et pastura fidelium temporalibus careret auxiliis. . . .” Legimus (Dist. 93, c. 24) is perhaps to the point in its “Nec altera Romanae urbis ecclesia, altera totius orbis existimanda est.” Ecclesiam (De cons. Dist. 1, c. 28) strikes from another angle: “Ecclesiam, in qua mortuorum cadavera infidelium sepeliuntur, sanctificare non licet.”

 [51] Cyprian, in Loquitur (24. q. 1, c. 18), refers to Peter’s primacy, “super unum edificat [Dominus] ecclesiam,” and then to the unity of the episcopacy, “episcopatus unus est, cuius singularis in solidum pars tenetur.” He does not say that there must be one bishop as vicar of Christ.

 [52] The rejection of the divine (i.e., scriptural) origin of papal primacy, especially in its coercive, juridical components, appears in Marsilius of Padua, Defensor pacis, II, ch. 18 ff., esp. ch. 29—ed. R. Scholz (Hannover, 1933), pp. 575 ff. It was also argued by John Wyclif, e.g., in Opera minora, ed. J. Loserth (London, 1913), p. 262, and of course by John Hus. See Scholz’s introduction, p. xlviii, for the intense interest in Marsilius’s work in Paris, in Simon’s day; and see SdeC, p. 119.

 [53] Venerabilem (X 1. 6. 34) has Innocent III’s statement that the apostolic see “Romanum imperium . . . a Graecis transtulit in Germanos” in the person of Charlemagne. Alius (15. q. 6, c. 3) tells how Pope Zacharias “regem Francorum . . . a regno deposuit, et Pippinum . . . substituit.” When this latter papalist argument was actually used by an opponent of subtraction, in 1406, its alleged insult to the monarchy caused a scandal: Valois, 3:460.

 [54] Martini Oppaviensis Chronicon (MGH, SS. 21; Hannover, 1872), 422, “Bonifacius IV. . . . optinuit ab augusto Foca imperatore, ut ecclesia beati Petri apostoli caput esset omnium ecclesiarum, quia Constantinopolitana primam omnium ecclesiarum se scribebat.”

 [55] Not checked.

 [56] See Decretum 7. q. 1, c. 5, as cited below, lines 451-52.


 [[ Print Edition Page No. 172 ]] 

 [57] Dig. 48. 19. 38. § 5: “Qui abortionis aut amatorium poculum dant, etsi dolo non faciant, tamen quia mali exempli res est . . . , si eo mulier aut homo perierit, summo supplicio adficiuntur.”

 [58] Mulier is Augustine’s comment on Lev. 20.16, which reads: “If a woman approach unto any beast, and lie down thereto, thou shalt kill the woman, and the beast.” Augustine asks: why kill the beast, “cum sit irrationabile, nec ullo modo capax legis est?” Because “pecora . . . tali flagitio contaminata indignam refricant facti memoriam.”

 [59] John of Salisbury, Policraticus, bk. 8, ch. 23 (ed. Webb, 2:399-411). The whole chapter is a condemnation of those who fight to secure church offices, in particular the papacy, and whose interest in having them is to secure wealth, power, and honors; such men are contrasted with the “antiqui” who “primas cathedras carcere peius et cruce fugiebant.” For (pp. 409 ff.) the papacy was only toil, grief, and care to a conscientious pope. See also below, n. 414.

 [60] Bohic, V, 128, on c. Dubius in fide, ii, refers to the Codex, as Simon indicates, where the relevant passage (1. 5. 2) classifies as heretics those “qui vel levi argumento iudicio catholicae religionis et tramite detecti fuerint deviare.” Henricus distinguishes between suspicion and conviction, for which latter the “argumentum” (cf. Simon’s “articulum” from the gl. ord.; above, n. 42) can indeed be light, in matters of faith, but the proof must be substantial.

 [61] See below, n. 177.

 [62] The canon (23. q. 1, c. 4) states: “vir iustus . . . etiam sub rege, homine sacrilego, recte potest illo iubente bellare, si . . . quod sibi iubetur vel non esse contra dei preceptum, certum est, vel utrum sit, certum non est.”

 [63] Licet (X 1. 6. 6; see below, n. 162) prescribed that no one might become pope if elected by less than a two-thirds majority, and that automatic excommunication would be incurred by such a one “si . . . noluerit abstinere.” Innocent IV’s comment on “noluerit” (printed “voluerit”): “id est, si se immiscuerit, vel, id est, monitus non renunciaverit; sed prius dictum magis placet, quia nemo cogitur renunciare alicui rei, in qua se credit ius habere, et nemini facit iniuriam qui ius suum prosequitur.”

 [64] The University of Oxford’s letter of 17 March 1396 rejecting the French démarche in favor of the via cessionis is in Bulaeus, 4:776-85. A better edition is by Gilbert Ouy: “Gerson et l’Angleterre” in Humanism in France, ed. A. Levi (Manchester, 1970), pp. 56-73. See Valois, 3:75 ff., and Swanson, pp. 112 f.

 [65] The oath sworn by the cardinals on entering the conclave that elected Benedict obliged each of them, if elected pope, to pursue all ways of union including the via cessionis, if this way should be advised by a majority of the cardinals. See Valois, 3:14, for the text, 3:51, n. 2, for Benedict’s supporters’ interpretations of the oath—these are what Simon here refers to: they put the via cessionis last among possible ways.

 [66] Digest 31. 1. 78. § 2; I find nothing to the point.


 [[ Print Edition Page No. 173 ]] 

 [67] The text of L. In causae cognitione (Dig. 4. 4. 16) states: “Nam si communi auxilio et mero iure munitus sit, non debet ei tribui extraordinarium auxilium.” The gl. ord. of Accursius on a preceding passage, v. “competere,” notes: “Alibi autem extraordinarium cum ordinario bene concurrit, ut patet infra, De rei vindicatione, L. i [Post actiones], § Per hanc [Dig. 6. 1. 1. § 2].” And in the gloss on this law, v. “vindicare posse,” Accursius notes the principle of L. In causae cogn., but also notes qualifications thereto: “Sed huic responsioni est contra supra De edenda, L. Quaedam [Dig. 2. 13. 9], ubi extraordinarium, quod est de iure communi, non competit cum ordinario. Sed ibi in subsidium illud extraordinarium datur.” Simon has built up his dossier from these cross-references and has twisted the formulations to suit his purpose by replacing the “competit” of the latter gloss with the ambiguous “concurrit” of the former, and by using “nunquam” instead of “non.” All of which fits in with his program at this time, for he indeed regarded the via cessionis and the general council as mutually contradictory. Hence his refutation of the present argument for the council (below, at n. 390) does not exploit the distinction made by Accursius and argue from these Roman-law texts that the extraordinary remedy of the via cessionis might be combined with the council, in the way he would later advocate, and which indeed would be pursued at Pisa and Constance.

 [68] X 1. 9. 10 (c. Nisi cum pridem), § Non autem: “Pro gravi quoque scandalo evitando (cum aliter sedari non potest) licet episcopo petere cessionem ne plus temporalem honorem, quam aeternam videatur affectare salutem.”

 [69] The proposal for union that Benedict XIII offered the royal dukes on 20 June 1395 combined the via convencionis (a meeting of the contenders) and the via compromissi (arbitration), the last with the proviso referred to by Simon, that each contender would choose an equal number of “personas deum timentes” to judge the case. SdeC, pp. 141-44; see the text in Bulaeus, 4:748 f.; cf. Thes. nov., 2:1138 f.

 [70] The Cardinal of Pamplona, Martin de Salva, was Benedict’s closest associate and the only cardinal to stay with him against the French program. He was said to have written the text referred to above, n. 69 (see Ampl. coll., 7:504), but the scripta Simon refers to were the “Allegaciones domini Pampilonensis,” in BN, ms. lat. 1475, fols. 33r-53r (see Valois, 3:50), where the work is accompanied by very extensive critical glosses, whose anonymous author was Simon de Cramaud (see Appendix V, No. 11). On fol. 35v Simon refutes the assertion that the via compromissi offered by Benedict would have the force of a general council.

 [71] Codex 7. 60, rubric: “Res inter alios acta aliis non noceat.” It is quoted in gl. ord., X 2. 27. 25, v. “res.”

 [72] Dig. 21. 2. 56. § 1: “Si compromisero, et contra me data fuerit sententia: nulla mihi actio de evictione danda est adversus venditorem. Nulla enim necessitate cogente id feci.” See the next note.

 [73] Bernardus, gl. ord. on X 3. 17. 7 (c. Si venditori), v. “institutum”: the
 [[ Print Edition Page No. 174 ]] 
canon deals with the extent of a seller’s responsibility for defending the buyer against eviction from the purchased property; the gloss comments: “Item si emptor compromittit in arbitrum, et contrariam sententiam reportaverit, venditor non tenetur. FF. de eviccionibus, Si dictum, § Si compromisero.

 [74] For the canon see below, n. 159. The gl. ord., v. “contra fas”: “Sed quis erit judex de hoc, an electio sit contra fas? Non ipsi cardinales: quia si sic, essent judices in proprio facto. . . . Dic istud c. locum habere, quando neuter est electus a duabus partibus. Vel dic, quod concilium convocabitur.”

 [75] Gl. ord. on Dist. 15, c. 2, v. “praesumit”: “Videtur ergo, quod papa non potest destruere statuta concilii: quia orbis maior est urbe. 93. di., Legimus, circa medium. Unde requirit papa consensum concilii, 19. di., Anastasius. Arguitur contra, 17. di., § Hinc etiam, et extra De eleccione, Significasti, ubi dicitur, concilium non potest papae legem imponere, et 35. q. 9, Veniam. Sed intellige, quod hic dicitur, circa articulos fidei, 25. q. 1, Sunt quidam.” See also below, n. 257, and above, Introduction, n. 107.

 [76] Nos si incompetenter, 2. q. 7, c. 41, is a letter (ca. 855) from Pope Leo IV to the Emperor Lewis II: “Nos, si incompetenter aliquid egimus, . . . vestro, ac missorum vestrorum cuncta volumus emendare iudicio: quoniam si nos, qui aliena debemus corrigere peccata, peiora committimus . . .” (see below, at n. 114, for the rest). The gloss on “aliena” reads: “Hic papa se subiicit aliorum iudicio: quod facere potest, ut FF. de iur. om. iud., Est receptum. Non tamen eum possunt deponere, 2. q. 3, Nemo. Secundum Huguccionem possunt: quia et seipsum potest deponere, ut 21. di., Nunc autem.” The canon In synodo (Dist. 63, c. 23) is Pope Leo VIII’s grant to Otto I of the right to elect and invest all bishops in Italy, including the pope (it was a forgery). The gl. ord., v. “apostolicam,” reads: “Sed nunquid papa posset ei potestatem dare, ut deponeret ipsum? Sic in haeresi, et de consensu cardinalium. Immo in omnibus se potest subiicere ei, ut 2. q. 7, Nos si [incompetenter].”

 [77] For comparable statements see Valois, 3:88 f, and SdeC, p. 53.

 [78] Johannes Andreae, Commentaria, II, 2v (c. De Quodvultdeo, v. “communicet”): “Per haec verba, Nullus Titio communicet, feratur excommunicatio . . . ; et hoc concedatur ubi apparet, quod iudex hoc intendit, et talis erat, qui excommunicare poterat. Et tunc procedat, quod dicitur, non referre quid ex aequipollentibus fiat.” For the same maxim see also gl. ord. to Codex 6. 25. 3 (L. Si mater), v. “sua causa.”

 [79] Since these validations of conscience against legality come in for important consideration further on (below, lines 717 ff., 1022 ff., 2580 ff.), it will be useful to quote them here. For the text of Inquisitioni (X 5. 39. 44) I quote the summary heading: “Si coniunx scit pro certo impedimentum matrimonii, non debet reddere debitum, sed potius excommunicationem pati. Si autem hoc credat ex causa probabili et discreta, potest reddere debitum, non autem exigere. Sed si ex levi et temeraria causa, deposita conscientia potest reddere et exigere.” The text of § Porro, c. Litteras (X 2. 13. 13), has a similar validation of conscience in the face of legal sanctions, in regard to
 [[ Print Edition Page No. 175 ]] 
the impediment of consanguinity: “cum mulier, quae consanguinitatis habet notitiam, . . . non possit huiusmodi viro sine mortali peccato carnaliter commisceri . . . cum illa contra deum non debeat in hoc iudici obedire, sed potius excommunicationem humiliter sustinere. . . .” Per tuas (X 5. 3. 35) discusses the case of a cleric ordained by a bishop whom he subsequently believed to be simoniac; the pope decrees: “respondemus ut idem in ordine sic suscepto secure ministret, sed contra conscientiam ad superiores ordines non ascendat . . . , licet ex eo, quod conscientiam nimis habuerit scrupulosam, in difficultatem huiusmodi sit collapsus: quam utique non evadet, nisi deponat errorem.”

 [80] Bohic on De simonia, c. Per tuas, ii (X 5. 3. 32; edit. Lyons, 1520, V, 14v). The context is a discussion of under what conditions statements against an accused party are to be believed or not. Hostiensis is cited for, inter alia, the principles “quod si [consciencia] deponi non potest modis omnibus est sequenda,” and “quod in [in]differentibus potest unusquisque prout sibi placuerit suam conscientiam informare.” Henricus continues: “hec omnia ex isto c. colligi possunt secundum Hosti. et Jo. An. post eum. Et Hieronimus dicit . . . [as quoted by Simon] . . . quamdiu durat.”

 [81] Hostiensis, Commentaria (Venice, 1581), on X 1. 40. 2; § 9: “Metus autem non excusat, nisi sit probabilis. . . . Et dicitur probabilis quando talis est, qui caderet in constantem virum. . . . Puta, dominus minatur captionem, status subversionem. . . .” He goes on to give verses quoted more fully in gl. ord. on X 1. 40. 6, additio: “Quis autem metus excusare possit, patet per hunc versum Hostiensis: ‘Excusat carcer, status, et mors, verbera, stuprum. / Excusare metus hos posse puta, quia necis.’ ”

 [82] Gl. ord. on X 1. 40. 6, v. “metum mortis.” The text of the canon disallows certain excuses: “Non obstante violentia . . . cum neque metum mortis neque cruciatum corporis contineret.” The gloss notes: “Non solum in duobus istis, sed etiam in pluribus aliis casibus excusat metus, quandoque metus verborum, . . . quandoque metus status, vel honoris. . . . Et not. quod secundum canones, sive vi, sive metu, sive dolo aliquis renunciat rei suae, subvenitur ei contra omnem possessorem.”

 [83] The paragraph up to this point seems to have been cobbled together rather badly. The main point is made twice, and the “cur ita facis” passage comes from the gl. ord. on X 1. 7. 3, v. “veri dei vicem,” not from Si papa, which however does state that the pope “a nemine est iudicandus,” which is also said in Nemo and in Cuncta per mundum. Aliorum hominum adds that the pope is judged only by God, while Per principalem asserts only the pope’s jurisdiction over all clerics. The Archdeacon has nothing to the point on Denique; Nunc autem does say “prima sedes non iudicabitur a quoquam,” and Nulli fas says no one may transgress the precepts of the apostolic see.

 [84] Proposuit (X 3. 8. 4) not only pronounces the principle “secundum plenitudinem potestatis de iure possumus supra ius dispensare,” but applies it to the matter of collations: the pope (Innocent III) says he could confirm even an (illegal) investiture with a future vacancy, although in the canon he
 [[ Print Edition Page No. 176 ]] 
merely confirms a papal conferral of an actually vacant benefice, against the will of the local canons.

 [85] Bohic, I, 37, on c. Significasti, is more restrictive than Simon says; thus: “Salva in omnibus authoritate papae, qui onus, quod non est contra legem naturalem, vel divinam, potest imponere, et exigere indistincte . . . pro libito voluntatis . . . ,” without incurring canonical simony. Henricus then cites Hostiensis, “infra, De simo. cap. ult.”—no doubt the source of Simon’s reference. Hostiensis’s commentary here (X 5. 3. 46, v. “sufficit”) turns on the distinction between what is simoniacal because prohibited, and what is prohibited because simoniacal. In the former case, “papa potest dispensare, et declarare sicut placet constitutionem suam et ex ea dependentia.”

 [86] The exact words quoted by Simon appear in Hostiensis’s gloss on X 3. 39. 23 (c. Procurationes), § 8; cf. Innocent IV’s formulation, above, n. 63, and cf. Dig. 50. 17. 55: “Nullus videtur dolo facere, qui suo iure utitur.”

 [87] Clem. 2. 5. 1 (c. Si duobus), after a complex discussion of collationary rights: “Salva tamen in praemissis omnibus Romani pontificis potestate, ad quem ecclesiarum, personatuum, dignitatum, aliorumque beneficiorum ecclesiasticorum plena et libera dispositio ex suae potestatis plenitudine noscitur pertinere.”

 [88] Innocent IV first argues (on X 2. 28. 19, c. Cum parati) that in certain cases, as when a bishop is summoned to council by his archbishop and by the king, he can give priority to the king as a matter of honorific deference. Nevertheless, Innocent goes on, “si archiepiscopus ei mandaret, non obstante praeceptione regia debet obedire archiepiscopo, cum sit de eius iurisdictione, et non regis, et magis est obediendum spiritui quam carni.” And finally, “Papae autem semper est obediendum, nulla praeceptione obstante, tam ratione honoris quam iurisdictionis.”

 [89] See above, n. 35. The present application of the canon presupposes that the king is inferior to the pope in the same sense that a prelate is.

 [90] Quae in ecclesiarum (X 1. 2. 7) nullifies a “constitutio” of the “cives” of Treviso, to the effect that in case of need they may alienate property which they hold from the church. Cf. Simon’s peculiar use of the canon via the glosses thereon, below, at n. 226. Bene quidem (Dist. 96, c. 1) is summed up by Gratian: “De rebus ecclesiasticis disponendis laicis nulla facultas relinquitur.”

 [91] Nonne states: “Quicunque clericorum ab episcopo suo ante sententiae tempus pro dubia suspicione discesserit, manifestam in eum manere censuram. . . .” In Hinc etiam Theodoric sought to commit the case of Pope Symmachus to a council of bishops: “episcopi vero . . . dixerunt” that the pope was immune from human judgement (see n. 280 below). Both Sciendum and Si qui sunt invoke the biblical identification of disobedience with soothsaying and idolatry (1 Kings 15.22-23; including, “melior est . . . obediencia quam victime”), and so does Illud (X 1. 33. 5), cited in another version of this paragraph (below, line 638, apparatus). See also below, lines 1243 ff.

 [92] Dig. 48. 7. 7, where the phrase begins, “Non puto autem nec verecundiae
 [[ Print Edition Page No. 177 ]] 
nec dignitati nec pietati tuae;” the emphasized words are omitted by Simon, as the last two of them are also by Hostiensis in his quotation of the passage (on X 3. 34. 7), also cited as “L. penult.” Perhaps Simon took the reference from him.

 [93] “Iohannes de Bracho” was no doubt a mistake for Petrus de Braco, author of a repertorium iuris canonici in the middle of the fourteenth century; it was a reworking of a repertory by Johannes Calderinus: see Johann Friedrich von Schulte, Die Geschichte der Quellen und Literatur des canonischen Rechts von Gratian bis auf die Gegenwart, 3 vols. (Stuttgart, 1875-80), 2:249 f., 262. A text of Petrus’s repertory in Vat. lat. 2362, reads (fol. 256v): “Papa. Quod papa non debet se vocare universalem: X[C]IX. Di., c. penultimo. Et secundum hoc non debet vocari dominus noster.” It is hard to see why Simon chose to put the point here in his treatise; perhaps it was a marginal note mistakenly incorporated into the text (cf. line 387 above, in apparatus).

 [94] Clem. 1. 4. 1: “Cum illusio et variatio in personis ecclesiasticis maxime sint vitandae. . . .”

 [95] Sext 5. 12, De regulis iuris, No. 21: “Quod semel placuit amplius displicere non potest.”

 [96] Codex 4. 30. 13: “Nimis enim indignum esse iudicamus, ut quod sua quisque voce dilucide protestatus est, id in eundem casum infirmare, testimonioque proprio resistere.”

 [97] See Valois, 3:97.

 [98] Hostiensis, on X 1. 38. 2, defines causae graves (§ 8) and includes infamia, giving both the quoted phrase and the reference to the Codex (10. 32. 8): “Infamia . . . non etiam amissionis oculorum casus quaesitum adimit honorem.”

 [99] Valois, 2:207-09; the switch was part of Portugal’s resistance to Castile, and was consummated with the Battle of Aljubarrota, August 1385.

 [100] Martinus Oppaviensis, Chronicon, p. 430, re Sergius III: “Hic Sergius diaconus per papam Formosum a papatu reprobatus, tandem papa factus ad Francos se contulit, quorum auxilio Christoforum invasorem papatus incarcerans Romam ingressus papatum optinuit.” And p. 437, re Alexander III: “Hic, cum . . . patrimonium beati Petri . . . per imperium et scismaticos occupatum fuisset, in Franciam transiit, . . . [et ad Urbem rediens] . . . , rex Guillelmus . . . eum debito honore prosequutus est.”

 [101] Not found.

 [102] Not found.

 [103] Bohic, V, 238 (c. Deus qui), where there is in fact an enumeration of reserved cases, which need not be reproduced here. Cf. Brian Tierney, Origins of Papal Infallibility, 1150-1350: A Study on the Concepts of Infallibility, Sovereignty and Tradition in the Middle Ages (Leiden, 1972), p. 23 n. 2.

 [104] X 1. 30. 4, gl. ord., v. “reservata”—a long list of cases reserved to the pope.

 [105] Guillelmus Durantis, Speculum juris, 1:45-52 (De legato, § Nunc
 [[ Print Edition Page No. 178 ]] 
videndum [recte: Nunc ostendendum]), enumerates 89 attributes or powers belonging uniquely to the pope and therefore not to be comprised in a general delegation of power to a legate; they would have to be delegated specifically (p. 51). Many of the 89 concern dispensations and absolutions.

 [106] Dig. 19. 2. 9. § 1; the quoted formulation is taken not from the law but from the gl. ord., v. “prospicere debuit.” The canon Alia quidem (X 1. 38. 1) exemplifies caution—the pope rejects the credentials of a procurator not mandated in due legal form; cf. the gl. ord., v. “praemonuit,” for a sharper formulation: “exempla praesentium nos cavere praemonent in futurum.”

 [107] Quod a praedecessore (X 5. 8. 1) was a decree of Alexander III in the Third Lateran Council (1179), directed against his rivals in the schism of his day: “ordinationes ab Octaviano et Guidone haeresiarchis factas, et ab ordinatis ab eis, irritas esse censemus, adiicientes ut qui dignitates ecclesiasticas seu beneficia per dictos schismaticos acceperunt, careant impetratis.” Ordinationes (9. q. 1, c. 5), a decree of Urban II in the Council of Piacenza (1095), nullifies ordinations made by heresiarchs and those who have seized bishoprics. Those previously ordained by true bishops who became schismatic may keep their orders if they return to the church; “amodo vero quicumque a predictis scismaticis sanctae Romanae ecclesiae adversariis se ordinari permiserit, nullatenus hac venia dignus habeatur.”

 [108] Dig. 37. 15. 2: “licet enim verbis edicti non habeantur infames ita condemnati, re tamen ipsa et opinione hominum non effugiunt infamiae notam.”

 [109] Hostiensis, on X 3. 5. 29 (§ 4): “sicut dicit beatus B. episcopus committit tali, scilicet nepotulo, duo milia animarum de facili, cui non libenter committeret duo pira.” Note that the context has to do with abuses by prelates, not by princes.

 [110] Sext 5. 12, De regulis iuris, No. 1: “Beneficium ecclesiasticum non potest licite sine institutione canonica obtineri.”

 [111] Bohic, I, 72 f. (c. Nisi cum pridem): Those without valid canonical title to their benefices should not make the revenues their own, but convert them to the utility of the church; if they do not, they are bound to make restitution.

 [111a] Innocent IV’s commentary on In literis (X 2. 13. 5), § 3: “Sed quaero quid facient subditi debitores . . . violenti possessoris? Respon. non respondebunt de iuribus pertinentibus ad dignitatem, quam violenter possidet, nec potest conqueri hic violentus praelatus de eis, qui spoliaverunt eum non reddendo sibi debitam obedientiam, . . . quia huiusmodi violenta possessio non extenditur, nisi ad ea, de quibus fuit in possessione.” But, and this is probably the passage Simon had in mind: “Alii . . . dicunt quod subditi et debitores dignitatis debent respondere malaefidei possessori dignitatis de omnibus debitis, non obstante exceptione de iniqua possessione praelati.” Innocent goes on to discuss the objections to this last view, and then the other side again.


 [[ Print Edition Page No. 179 ]] 

 [112] The following passage, only in EHKL, disrupts both the syntax and the argument; it must have been incorporated from a note, without revision.

 [113] X 2. 23. 2. The story of the judgement of Solomon, 1 Kings 3.24-27.

 [114] See above, n. 76.

 [115] Gl. ord. on 2. q. 4, c. 2, v. “praesul.” The canon states: “Praesul non damnabitur nisi cum lxxii testibus.” The gloss: “Id est, cardinalis episcopus. Sed nunquid contra papam duplicabuntur testes? Non, immo duo sufficiunt: et in hoc est deterioris conditionis: quia ipse sine comparatione aliorum creatus est maior: et ideo sine spe veniae condemnandus est, ut diabolus. De poenit., di. 2, Principium.

 [116] Bohic, III, 409 (c. Proposuit): “In primo casu [scil., de lege divina seu evangelica] hoc solum tene quod in omnibus potest dispensare, dummodo sua dispensatio non sit contra fidem. secundum Vincen. nec nutriat peccatum mortale, nec inducat subversionem fidei, nec periculum animarum. Nam in talibus nullam habet contra Deum potestatem, sic intellige. 25. q. 1. Sunt quidam. 16. di. Sicut sancti. secundum Host. hic. . . .” Hostiensis writes, on X 3. 8. 4 (c. Proposuit), v. “dispensare”: “Non potest tamen contra universalem statum ecclesiae dispensare, 24. q. 1, Memor sum, et 25. q. 2, Si ea destruerem. Quod intelligo in fidei subversionem.” Cf. below, n. 173.

 [117] Bohic, III, 522 (c. Magnae): The question is what things are permitted to the pope; Henry cites Hostiensis (“omnia . . . dummodo non faciat contra fidem . . . et . . . non offendat deum per peccatum mortale”) and goes on to cite Johannes Andreae.

 [118] Pierre Bertrand, Apparatus (unabridged version) on Ne Romani, Clem. 1. 3. 2 (ms. 195, Catholic University, Washington, D.C.; fol. 152va): “Unde si papa vellet totum thesaurum ecclesie dare parentibus suis, aut ecclesiam Sancti Petri destruere et facere palacium parentibus suis, aut eis dare patrimonium beati Petri, quod non licet, vel aliquid huiusmodi—non esset permittendum, sed esset ei resistendum et non obediendum, sine omni ipsius deposicione.” The mention of Paul’s resisting Peter comes a few lines earlier.

 [119] 12. q. 2, c. 20: “Non liceat papae predium ecclesiae alienare aliquo modo pro aliqua necessitate. . . . Liceat etiam quibuslibet ecclesiasticis personis contradicere, et cum fructibus alienata reposcere.”

 [120] Gl. ord. on Dist. 40, c. 6 (Si papa), v. “a fide devius.” The canon states that the pope “a nemine est iudicandus, nisi deprehendatur a fide devius.” The gloss: “Sed quare non potest accusari de alio crimine? Ponamus quod notorium sit crimen eius . . . : quare non accusatur vel de crimine simoniae, vel adulterii: etiam cum admonetur, incorrigibilis est, et scandalizatur ecclesia per factum eius? Certe credo, quod si notorium est crimen eius, quandocumque, et inde scandalizatur ecclesia, et incorrigibilis sit: quod inde possit accusari. Nam contumacia dicitur haeresis, ut 81. dist., Si qui [sunt] presbyteri, et contumax dicitur infidelis, ut 38. dist., Nullus. . . .” See Tierney, Foundations, pp. 57 ff., for the background of these ideas, and pp. 251 f. for the full text of the gloss; cf. n. 246a below, and Introduction, n. 101, above.


 [[ Print Edition Page No. 180 ]] 

 [121] Innocent III’s decretal Per venerabilem (X 4. 17. 13) had defined the sovereignty of the king of France vis-à-vis the emperor in the words, “rex superiorem in temporalibus minime recognoscit;” see below, at n. 351, for an explicit statement of the point. More interesting at this time is the recognition that some of the “domini temporales” were also practically sovereign; cf. M. H. Keen, The Laws of War in the Late Middle Ages (London, 1965), pp. 77, 108 f.

 [122] Bernard of Clairvaux, Tractatus de consideratione, ed. J. Leclercq, S. Bernardi Opera, 3 (Rome, 1963), 465 f. The original differs only slightly from Simon’s quote; cf. below, at n. 222.

 [123] This remark appears only in the latest redaction of the treatise (mss. EHKL) and may reflect arguments actually advanced by opponents of subtraction which then came to the surface at the Third Paris Council in May and June of 1398, as reported by Pierre Plaoul in his speech of 7 June: “Dicunt enim, quod subtrahere obedientiam D. N. Papae, esset dare occasionem subditis, seu popularibus, non obedire Principibus, seu eorum Dominis temporalibus”—in BduC, p. 73. Plaoul’s refutation begins with the texts adduced by Simon just above: Matt. 20 and St. Bernard.

 [124] For these canonistic formulations of the supreme interest of the church see Tierney, Foundations; Yves Congar, “‘Status ecclesiae,’” Studia Gratiana, 15 (1972), 3-31. And above, n. 116.

 [125] Johannes Andreae, Commentaria, V, 145r (c. Inquisitioni, v. “mortale”): “Secundum Innocentium si praeciperet alias iniustum, licet non mortale, puta quod det mihi libros suos, parere non tenetur. . . . Sed quid si papa, qui superiorem non habet, iniustum praecipiat? Potest dici, quod si de spiritualibus, vel ecclesiasticis personis aliquid praecipit, semper est obediendum . . . , nisi id quod praecipit saperet haeresim, 40. di. Si papa, vel nisi ex iniusto praecepto praesumeretur statum ecclesiae perturbari, vel ex inde alia mala esse ventura, tunc enim peccaret obediendo, cum futura mala praecavere debeat, non iuvare ad illa committenda, secundum Innocentium. Ad quod Hostiensis allegat dec. De clerico excommunicato ministrante, Proposuit, in fine, De voto, Magne.” Cf. above, n. 79.

 [126] Codex, 1. 3. post 19: L. Eum (19) grants priests the right to have their wives living with them to whom they were married before ordination, “neque enim clericis incompetenter adiunctae sunt, quae dignos sacerdotio viros sui conversatione fecerunt.” The text from the Authentica which follows in the medieval Codex reads: “Multo magis ergo cessant eorum coniugia.” Simon has cited this as an example of argument “a maiori”—the logic of “multo magis,” or “all the more.”

 [127] Dig. 28. 1. 15 (De statu): “De statu suo dubitantes . . . testamentum facere non possunt.” Gl. ord., v. “de statu,” cites the example of L. i. De legatis, ii[i] (Dig. 32. 1. 1).

 [128] The passage quoted from 1 Cor. 10.27-28 is in Decretum 1. q. 4, §
 [[ Print Edition Page No. 181 ]] 
Notandum. The gl. ord. v. “dixerit” states: “Argument. quod ad dictum unius statim aliquis teneatur et possit credere.” See below, n. 129.

 [129] All of these authorities come from the gl. ord. on X 1. 3. 24 (Cum contingat), v. “nihil omnino scivisti,” a long discussion of what sorts of information a judge can or must take into account. It includes: “Vel dic, quod qualiscunque notificatio sufficit . . . ut iudex non debeat dici dubius. 1. q. 4. c. Turbatur, versi. ‘Si quis vobis dixerit hoc idolis’ etc. Infra. . . .” The Romanlaw texts cited by Simon now follow.

 [130] The canon (X 1. 2. 5) begins by quoting “Ne innitaris prudentiae tuae”—not from the Apostle (but cf. Rom. 12.16), but from Prov. 3.5. It goes on: “Prudentiae suae innititur, qui ea quae sibi agenda vel dicenda videntur, patrum decretis praeponit.”

 [131] Gl. ord. on 24. q. 1, § Quod autem (i.e., the “summa”—Gratian’s introduction), v. “qui vero”: “omnis haereticus est excommunicatus, . . . et ideo non potest alios excommunicare . . . , quia nulla est sententia, quam tulit. . . . Eadem dic et de schismatico, maxime cum schisma non potest esse sine haeresi, nisi forte in summo pontifice, ut si duo crearentur, et uterque crederet ecclesiam apud se esse.”

 [132] The canon (Dist. 63, c. 36) deals with episcopal elections: “Si forte . . . vota eligentium in duas se diviserint partes, is metropolitano iudicio alteri praeferatur, qui maioribus et studiis iuvatur et meritis; tantum ut nullus invitis et non petentibus ordinetur, ne civitas episcopum non optatum aut contemnat, aut oderit.” The gl. ord., v. “tantum ut nullus”: “Quasi dicat: Si timetur scandalum, tunc utriusque electio cassabitur, ut 79. di., Si duo.

 [133] Si ecclesia (23. q. 4, c. 42) speaks not so much of schism as of, in Gratian’s words, “Malos ecclesia iuste persequitur.” Cf. lines 1 ff., above, for another “Nunc reges” quote.

 [134] The whole passage, “Scribitur enim Prov. . . . eum occidit,” is taken from Bohic; see below, n. 137.

 [135] In Dist. 86, c. 21: “Quisquis enim pascendo hominem servare poteris, si non paveris, occidisti.”

 [136] I find nothing to the point in Johannes Monachus’s gloss on c. Dilecto (Paris, BN, ms. lat. 16901, fol. 109r). In his gloss on Cum quis (ms. lat. 16901, fol. 114r; also ms. lat. 4069, fol. 78r) he puts the issue, “ubi prohibere possum inieccionem et non prohibeo”—and pronounces the principle: “videtur participare criminose in crimine, factum eius nomine gestum approbando.” There is nothing more positive.

 [137] Bohic, V, 289 f. (c. Quantae), cites Hostiensis and others (but not Hastensis/Astesano); Simon’s summary of what he says is accurate; cf. below, at n. 147.

 [138] In Solitae (X 1. 33. 6) Innocent III states: “Ad firmamentum igitur coeli, hoc est, universalis ecclesiae, fecit deus duo magna luminaria, id est, duas instituit dignitates, quae sunt pontificalis auctoritas et regalis potestas.”


 [[ Print Edition Page No. 182 ]] 

 [139] Autentica, Coll. 1, title 6, Preface (Novella 6): “Maxima quidem in hominibus sunt dona dei a superna collata clementia sacerdotium et imperium. . . . Ideoque nihil sic erit studiosum imperatoribus, sicut sacerdotum honestas. . . . Nos igitur maximam habemus sollicitudinem circa vera dei dogmata et circa sacerdotum honestatem, quam illis obtinentibus credimus quia per eam maxima nobis dona dabuntur a deo, et ea, quae sunt, firma habebimus, et quae nondum hactenus venerunt, adquirimus.”

 [140] Postulasti (X 5. 12. 21) sanctions recourse by a bishop to the royal sword to force payment of tithes, and quotes the passage from 1 Pet. 2.14. Post miserabilem (X 5. 19. 12) orders that Jews be compelled by the secular powers to give back the interest that Christians have paid them.

 [141] See n. 50 above.

 [142] Dig. 1. 2. 2. § 13: “Parum est enim ius in civitate esse, nisi sint qui iura reddere possint.” Cf. Sext 1. 6. 3: “quia parum est iura condere, nisi sit, qui eadem tueatur.” In Quo iure (Dist. 8, c. 1) Augustine states: “ipsa iura humana per imperatores et reges saeculi Deus distribuit generi humano.”

 [143] Si quis cum clerico, an imperial law, provides that a civil action against a cleric should be brought first before the bishop; “sin autem noluerit episcopus litem dirimere, tunc ad civiles iudices disceptatio causae perveniat.” Filiis, a canon of the Fourth Council of Toledo (633), states: “Filiis, vel nepotibus, ac honestioribus propinquis eius, qui construxit vel ditavit ecclesiam, licitum sit hanc habere sollertiam, ut, si sacerdotem aliquid ex collatis rebus defraudare previderint, . . . episcopo vel iudici corrigenda denuncient.” And, “Si autem metropolitanus talia gerat, regis hec auribus intimare non differant.” Qualiter et quando requires prelates to satisfy lay demands that clerics be brought to justice, “ne pro defectu iustitiae, clerici trahantur a laicis ad iudicium saeculare: quod omnino fieri prohibemus.” The gl. ord., v. “prohibemus”: “Puto illud verum . . . licet iura antiqua contrarium innuere videantur.”

 [144] Gl. ord. on 23. q. 5, c. 20 (Principes), v. “intra ecclesiam”: “Laici habent iurisdictionem multipliciter intra ecclesiam. Quandoque in personis ipsis, cum sint incorrigibiles. . . . Item cum schisma faciunt clerici. . . . Item et ubicunque ecclesiastica potestas deficit.” The text of the canon follows below.

 [145] Cf. lines 7-14, above.

 [146] In the canon (23. q. 5, c. 43) Pope Pelagius I writes to the imperial officer Narses: “De Liguribus . . . episcopis quid dicam? quos ydonea est excellentia vestra . . . reprimere. . . . Nolite ergo dubitare huiuscemodi homines principali vel iudiciali auctoritate conprimere, quia regulae patrum hoc specialiter constituerunt, ut, si qua ecclesiastici officii persona cui subiectus est restiterit, vel seorsum collegerit, aut aliud altare erexerit, seu scisma fecerit, iste excommunicetur atque dampnetur. Quod si forte et hoc contempserit . . . per potestates publicas obprimatur. . . .” And, “agnoscitur, ut facientes scissuras in sancta ecclesia non solum exiliis, sed etiam proscriptione
 [[ Print Edition Page No. 183 ]] 
rerum et dura custodia per publicas potestates debeant coherceri.” Later on, in his glosses against the Toulouse letter, 1402 (AN, J 518, fol. 549v), Simon did much more with this text.

 [147] Bohic, V, 147 (c. Sicut dignum, di. 2), is the source for all these canonistic references, including Bernardus and Hostiensis.

 [148] In both canons Augustine insists on the duty of the authorities to punish evil.

 [149] Dig. 19. 1. 1: “neque certiorari debuit, qui non ignoravit”; the actual words Simon quotes are from a gloss here by Bartolus. Sext 5. 12, De regulis iuris, No. 31: “Eum qui certus est certiorari ulterius non oportet.”

 [150] In Volumus Gregory the Great tells a subdeacon, that if the latter’s bishop does not appoint a vicedominus and a maior domus, the clergy should take counsel and elect men to the posts. It is the gl. ord., v. “clerus,” that makes Simon’s point: “Quod si praelatus non vult vel negligit facere ea, quae debet, debent suppleri per subditos, . . . et videtur quod in talibus non sit necessaria admonitio.”

 [151] Bohic, II, fol. 86v (edit. of 1520), § 1 (c. Cum non ab homine), is the source for all these authorities: “Si queris utrum clerici malefactores possint per clericos seu laycos pro suis maleficiis capi sine pena excommunicationis . . . , sine mandato sui iudicis ecclesiastici: . . . tunc dicit hic Bernardus quod clerici comprehensi in ipso facinore possunt detineri per xx. horas ad hoc ut notorium fiat crimen ipsorum; et idem notat Johannes, 81. dist., Presbyter, glossa penultima; . . . et frater Johannes in Summa confessorum, titulo de sentencia excommunicationis, q. 35 post hec, versu 11 in fine. Item possunt detineri si timeatur de fuga ipsorum . . . , secundum Innocentium, infra, De sententia excommunicationis, Ut fame, . . . et Joannem Andree. . . .”

 [152] The canon states: “Si quis suadente diabolo . . . in clericum . . . violentas manus iniecerit, anathematis vinculo subiaceat.” Simon is careful to note that it does not apply to his program, because Bohic’s commentary on c. Cum non ab homine, which he knew (see above, n. 151, and below, n. 157), argues in the opposite sense on the main point, following Hostiensis and citing Si quis suadente (II, 182 f.) “credo . . . quod nullus clericus non superior, vel laicus . . . potest sine mandato sive authoritate sui iudicis eccles. in clericum manus inijcere quoquo modo, et stabo illi regulae 17. q. 4. Si quis suadente, nisi inveniam eam per alium canonem authoritatis similis revocatam.”

 [153] X 5. 39. 54: “excommunicationis sententiam non incurrit, qui excommunicato, in his quae . . . ad salutem animae pertinent, in locutione participat.”

 [154] X 5. 12. 6, § Illi etiam: “qui potuit hominem liberare a morte, et non liberavit, eum occidit, . . . nec caret scrupulo societatis occultae, qui manifesto facinori desinit obviare.” The last clauses come from Error, cited just above.

 [155] Archdeacon, Rosarium, fol. 23v (Dist. 20, c. 3, v. “apostolorum”), is in fact the source for the whole passage above, from “primo recurrere” to
 [[ Print Edition Page No. 184 ]] 
“dominus revelabit,” almost verbally. It is the Archdeacon who notes that the whole list (cf. the canon) is “secundum Huguccionem”; cf. Tierney, Papal Infallibility (cited above, n. 103), p. 25.

 [156] Dig. 2. 1. 2: “Cui iurisdictio data est, ea quoque concessa esse videntur, sine quibus iurisdictio explicari non potuit.” The gl. ord., v. “non potuit,” cites many other texts to support the principle, including L. Ad rem and L. Ad legatum (Dig. 3. 3. 56, 62). It also discusses the converse—a prohibition of something implies prohibition of what will cause it—and cites several texts, ending with L. Oracio.

 [157] All of this—“quod notant doctores”—is taken from Bohic, II, 182 (c. Cum non ab homine). After citing the opinion of “quidam . . . magister meus,” that a criminous cleric could be seized and restrained by a secular judge even without the church’s request, Henricus comments: “Sed securius est tenere glossam quam etiam sequitur Hostiensis hic: si pena incipit a contumacia, tunc primo debet suspendi; postmodum crescente contumacia excommunicari debet; deinde deponi; et ultimo tradi curie seculari—ut 23. q. 4, Si forte [recte: Forte], et 34. di. Quorundam, 74. di., Honoratus; de quo vide ibi per Johannem, et 81. di., c. 1, glossa finali, et in d. c. Si forte, et per Archidiaconum, 2. q. 5, Presbyter si a plebe.” The gloss followed here by Hostiensis and Henricus de Bohic is the gl. ord. on Honoratus, v. “adhuc,” which contains the order of sanctions as given and also some of the cited authorities. But neither the gl. ord. nor Henricus supports Simon’s argument for secular action without authorization or request by the church; note too the shift from the correct “contumacia” to “malicia” in Simon’s redactions (see apparatus).

 [158] In canonicis (Dist. 19, c. 6) is in fact the passage referred to from Augustine, who is discussing how to discriminate between the values of canonical decretals: those accepted by all churches are to be preferred to those accepted only by some, and likewise as between more and weightier churches vs. fewer and less authoritative ones. “Si autem alias invenerit a pluribus, alias a gravioribus haberi, . . . equalis . . . auctoritatis eas habendas puto.”

 [159] Since this canon is central in Simon’s argument it will be useful to quote it: “Si duo forte contra fas temeritate concertantium fuerint ordinati, nullum ex eis futurum sacerdotem permittimus, sed illum solum in sede apostolica permansurum censemus, quem ex numero clericorum nova ordinatione divinum iudicium et universitatis consensus eligerit.” It was a decree of the emperor Honorius, not of the “sanctorum patrum”—see the following text and apparatus here, and see below, at n. 337.

 [160] Decretales Pseudo-Isidorianae, ed. P. Hinschius (Leipzig, 1863), pp. 554 f. There is a letter from Pope Boniface asking the emperor Honorius for a regulation of disputed papal elections, and then Honorius’s rescript containing the “Si duo forte” passage that Gratian took up into his Decretum.

 [161] See above, n. 132.

 [162] In Patet (after 3. q. 1, c. 6) Gratian states that a bishop, etc. who has been despoiled of his see is to be reinstated before the question of rightful
 [[ Print Edition Page No. 185 ]] 
title may be brought before a court. But there are authorities to the contrary, namely those stating that anyone ejected on the grounds that his election was viciosa cannot insist on restitution before judgement. Thus Dist. 79, c. 9, commands that one who has acquired the papal see illegally be simply expelled. Gratian explains: “Sed hoc in eo tantum casu intelligitur, quo apostolica sedes per violentiam occupatur, quo casu iudex non invenitur, cuius officio ille apostaticus possit excludi.” Licet (X 1. 6. 6) prescribes the two-thirds majority needed to elect a pope, with automatic excommunication for violators, and concludes by noting that this rule does not touch the rules of other churches, “in quibus debet maioris et sanioris partis sententia praevalere, quia quod in eis dubium venerit superioris poterit iudicio diffiniri. In Romana vero ecclesia speciale aliquid constituitur, quia non poterit ad superiorem recursus haberi.”

 [163] Dig. 34. 5. 10 (Si fuerit): “in ambiguis rebus humaniorem sententiam sequi oportet.” But cf. Dig. 34. 5. 27 (Si quis): “Si quis de pluribus unum manumitti voluerit nec appareat, de quo manumittendo testator sensit, nulli eorum fideicommissa competit libertas.” And Dig. 26. 2. 30 (Duo sunt Titii): If there is doubt about which of two men named Titius has been named tutor by a testator, then “neuter est tutor.”

 [164] Guillelmus Durantis, Speculum juris, II, 273 ff. (De Emphyteusi, § Nunc aliqua), an extremely long and dense discussion, under 199 subdivisions. The two referred to by Simon (59, 62; pp. 285 f.) do indeed discuss the nullifying effect of uncertainty, much as in the texts cited above, n. 163.

 [165] The text (Sext 1. 6. 2) states: “in electionibus . . . vota conditionalia, alternativa, vel incerta penitus reprobamus.” Johannes Monachus notes, v. “conditionalia” (BN, ms. lat. 16901, fols. 10v-11r; 4069, fols. 8v-9r): “unde propter perplexitatem non valet,” and, “votum debet esse certum.”

 [166] See above, n. 74.

 [167] Decretum Dist. 79, c. 8; followed by: “Gratian. Hoc autem capitulum non de eo intelligendum est, qui, uno per apostasiam ordinato, a cardinalibus et religiosis clericis apostolicae sedi intronizatur, etiamsi ille apostaticus ita cathedram B. Petri violenter tenuerit, ut canonica electio intra Urbem fieri non valeat.”

 [168] Gratian’s dictum is that quoted in the preceding note; it introduces Si quis pecunia (Dist. 79, c. 9), which states: “Si quis pecunia, vel gratia humana, vel populari, seu militari tumultu sine concordi et canonica electione . . . fuerit apostolicae sedi inthronizatus, non apostolicus sed apostaticus habeatur.”

 [169] X 3. 5. 18: “Cum multa per patientiam tolerentur, quae si deducta fuerint in iudicium, exigente iustitia non debeant tolerari.” Simon’s paraphrase, avoiding the words “iudicium” and “iustitia,” seems tendentious rather than casual.

 [170] X 4. 14. 8: “Non debet reprehensibile iudicari, si secundum varietatem temporum, statuta quandoque varientur humana, praesertim cum urgens necessitas vel evidens utilitas id exposcit.”


 [[ Print Edition Page No. 186 ]] 

 [171] In Barbarius Philippus (Dig. 1. 14. 3) it is said that the official acts of a praetor who was subsequently found to have been a slave remained valid. Consultationibus (X 3. 38. 19) considers the case of a cleric who had been presented to a church by one who possessed the right of patronage but afterwards lost it by judicial decree: the cleric is not to be removed. But: “Si vero non possidebat, sed tantum credebatur esse patronus, cum non esset, poterit ab eadem ecclesia [clericus] removeri.” This last explains why Simon has written “forsitan.” Hostiensis’s comment on this canon cites Barbarius.

 [172] Not found; cf. below, at n. 420.

 [173] Nisi cum pridem (X 1. 9. 10) defines the conditions under which a bishop may resign; among them (§ 5): “Propter malitiam autem plebis cogitur interdum praelatus ab ipsius regimine declinare, quando plebs adeo durae cervicis existit, ut proficere nequeat apud ipsam.” And (§ 6): “Pro gravi quoque scandalo evitando” (see above, n. 68). Sunt quidam (see n. 116 above for its use by the decretalists) asserts the pope’s right to make new laws, except: “ubi vero aperte dominus, vel eius apostoli, et eos sequentes sancti patres sententialiter aliquid diffinierunt, ibi non novam legem Romanus pontifex dare, sed potius quod praedicatum est usque ad animam et sanguinem confirmare debet. Si enim quod docuerunt apostoli et prophetae destruere . . . niteretur, non sententiam dare, sed magis errare convinceretur.”

 [174] Contra Cresconium Grammaticum 2. 11. 13, in Sancti Aureli Augustini scripta contra Donatistas, 2, ed. M. Petschenig (Corpus Scriptorum ecclesiasticorum Latinorum, 52; Vienna, 1909), 371. It may be significant that this and the following texts of Augustine were cited together in Cardinal Giffoni’s anti-cessionist treatise of early 1395, to establish Boniface’s obligation to resign. Simon would probably have read this work. See Clément Schmitt, “La position du cardinal Léonard de Giffoni, O.F.M., dans le conflit du Grand Schisme d’Occident,” Archivum Franciscanum historicum, 50 (1957), 313.

 [175] All but the first of the quotations are in a letter to the tribune Marcellinus, inserted in Gesta cum Emerito Donatistarum Episcopo, § 5, Aug. Scr. contra Don., 3, ed. Petschenig (CSEL, 53; Vienna, 1910), 185-90; the first quotation is from Augustine’s comment.

 [176] Gl. ord. on 18. q. 2, c. 5 (Quam sit), v. “ad ordinandum”: “Sed quid si monachus sit factus papa invito abbate, debetne redire? Sic, et ipsemet compellet se redire: quia cum teneatur de aliis iustitiam facere, multo fortius de se ipso, FF. Si ser. vendic., L. Altius.

 [177] Bohic, III, 409 (c. Proposuit): “Dicit etiam Hostiensis hic quod semper in dubio obediendum est Papae, ubi conscientia non repugnat. 23. q. 1. Quid culpatur. Sed si certum sit, quod illud quod praecipit sit peccatum mortale, tunc recognoscendus est Papa celestis. 11. q. 3. Julianus. et ca. Qui resistit.” See above, n. 116, and below, n. 246; also Buisson, pp. 125 ff., 187.

 [178] Sancti Aurelii Augustini Ennarrationes in Psalmos (Corpus Christianorum,
 [[ Print Edition Page No. 187 ]] 
series Latina, 39; Turnhout, 1956), 974. Simon’s “maiorum” replaces the original’s “malorum montium, quoniam videntur excellere.”

 [179] Sancti Thomae Aquinatis . . . Summa theologica, II, ii, in Opera omnia, 3 (Parma, 1853; repr. New York, 1948), 161-67: “Quaestio 43, De scandalo,” in 8 articles. Thomas speaks not of scandalum datum/acceptum, as Simon does, but of activum/passivum. In art. 4 he writes that scandalum activum is a peccatum mortale in certain cases: “sive quia committit actum peccati mortalis, sive quia contemnit salutem proximi; ut si pro ea conservanda non praetermittat aliquis facere quod sibi libuerit.” In art. 7, “Utrum bona spiritualia sint propter scandalum dimittenda,” he notes that the question does not apply to scandalum activum: “quia cum scandalum activum sit dictum vel factum minus rectum, nihil est cum scandalo activo faciendum.” See Buisson, pp. 174 ff.; also n. 180, below.

 [180] Bohic, V, 205 (c. Cum ex iniuncto), does have the definition of scandal just as Simon quotes it; Henricus notes that he takes it from the gl. ord. on Matt. 18, and cites Jerome and Thomas (Summa theol., II, ii, q. 43, art. 1; cf. n. 179 above). See also below, at n. 244.

 [181] Not found.

 [182] Sext 1. 7. 1—Boniface VIII’s decree validating Pope Celestine V’s abdication as based on that pope’s valid decree: “Quoniam aliqui curiosi . . . in dubitationem . . . , an Romanus pontifex . . . renuntiare valeat papatui . . . deducere minus provide videbantur: Coelestinus papa . . . , deliberatione habita cum suis fratribus . . . cardinalibus . . . , de nostro et ipsorum omnium concordi consilio et assensu . . . decrevit, Romanum pontificem posse libere resignare. Nos . . . statutum huiusmodi . . . inter constitutiones alias ad perpetuam rei memoriam . . . duximus redigendum.”

 [183] The Pharisees are scandalized in Matt. 15.12 by Jesus’ saying, “Non quod intrat in os coinquinat hominem.” Jesus then replies, “Sinite eos.” Bede’s reference to this in his comment on Mark 9.41 is taken as a regula iuris, X 5. 41. 3: “Qui scandalizaverit: Utilius . . .” etc., as in Simon’s quote. (The same “utilius” passage is quoted as Gregory’s, in the University of Paris’s letter of 26 August 1395—AN, J 518, fol. 33r.) As for Simon’s “in hiis que sunt fidei,” cf. gl. ord. v. “veritas,” which defines it as “bonae vitae; haec nunquam omittenda est propter scandalum”—as opposed to the veritas iustitiae et disciplinae, which may sometimes be given up.

 [184] These canons applied to prelates whose abdication in the public interest was permissible or could be imposed by superior ecclesiastical authority (see above, notes 68, 173, and below, notes 223, 382, 398); Simon simply applied them to the pope.

 [185] Cf. above, n. 180, and below, n. 244. Thomas’s doctrine in its integrity is not so simple as Simon makes it out. In arts. 7 & 8 Thomas argues that neither spiritual bona necessary to salvation, nor temporal bona of the church or respublica, are to be given up because of scandal. Even private property need not always be given up: edit. cit. (above, n. 179), p. 167.


 [[ Print Edition Page No. 188 ]] 

 [186] No. 16 of the sermons once grouped as “de verbis domini” is No. lxxxii in Migne’s edition, MPL, 38:506 ff. Although it deals with the duty of fraternal correction, I do not find the passages quoted by Simon—neither in it, nor in the old Nos. 15 & 17, nor at the end of the last item in the group (col. 713).

 [186a] The reference is to the University of Paris’s letter of 6 June 1394, drafted by Nicholas de Clamanges and representing the ideas of him, Pierre d’Ailly, Gilles Deschamps, and others. See SdeC, pp. 58 f. In giving arguments for the via cessionis the letter notes that it avoids scandal, and goes on: “domini voce quicquid fratrem scandalizat a nobis expellere precipimur, eciam si pes fuerit, manus, aut oculus.” This is not in context an argument for subtraction of obedience, as Simon would have it. (I use the text in AN, J 518, fol. 2v.) The “aliqui ut fertur” were Clamanges and d’Ailly, who became supporters of Benedict XIII and opposed the Paris via cessionis and subtraction of obedience.

 [187] Innocent IV, on the title De consuetudine (X 1. 4), § 9: “Item nonne peccatum est violare statuta, et decre. 25. q. 1. Violatores. et in multis eiusdem q. fateor peccatum esse, ubi venio contra ius cupiditate, vel sine causa, vel in casu non concesso, sed ubi venio contra legem vel canonem authoritate consuetudinis legitime introductae, secus.”

 [188] Archdeacon, Rosarium, fol. 326r (25. q. 1, c. Violatores, v. “damnantur”): “dic ergo quod non obedire vel venire contra canones ex certa scientia, mortale peccatum est.”

 [189] Johannes Andreae, Commentaria, VI, 26v (c. Generali, v. “percipere”): “qui non facit quod debet videtur facere quod non debet, . . . negligentia voluntati comparatur, de hoc 11. q. 3, c. ult. in fine; iustum est igitur tales punire saevere, 23. q. 3, Iustum, 25. q. 1, Violatores. Et qui resistere tenetur et id non facit, punitur ut faciens.”

 [190] Johannes Monachus on c. Generali, v. “non opponunt” (BN, ms. lat. 16901, fol. 17v): “nota quod quilibet de ecclesia debet se opponere cum videt ius etc. sue ecclesie deperire, 2. q. 7, Sicut, et c. Quapropter, et alias non debet interea beneficium ipsius ecclesie percipere pro qua non vult laborare.” And, v. “inhibemus”: “nota ergo quod qui facit contrarium transgressor est canonis, quia qui transgreditur canonem preceptum vel prohibicionem continentem, transgressor canonis appellatur. . . . Sed que est pena transgressionis canonis? Dic quod si transgreditur canonem credens ecclesiam Romanam non habere potestatem condendi canones, de tali transgressione punitur ut hereticus, 19. di., Nulli fas.” See above, notes 36, 83.

 [191] Gl. ord. on 2. q. 7, c. 8 (Sacerdotes), v. “agant”: “Si praelati sunt haeretici, vel excommunicati, vel non servant canones, vel simoniaci, vel notorii fornicatores, tunc potest recedi ab eis ante sententiam, 19. di. Nulli; 16. q. ult., Sane; 32. di. Nullus.

 [192] Huguccio’s gloss has not been available.

 [193] Sane has two parts; the second reads: “Cum Dioscorus manus impositionem accepisset, recesserunt multitudines populorum, dicentes, quia nisi
 [[ Print Edition Page No. 189 ]] 
secundum quod sanctorum continent apostolorum canones fiat, non recipietur episcopus. Principes enim inthronizaverant eum.”

 [194] Archdeacon, Rosarium, fol. 302v (23. q. 1, c. Quid culpatur, v. “legitimo”): “arguitur quod non sit obediendum ei qui non est legitime consecutus imperium.”

 [195] I find nothing to the point in Dudum or in the comment thereon by Bohic, I, 45 ff. The reference may be directly to the gl. ord. on X 1. 14. 7, c. Ad aures, v. “consilio.” The canon is a papal letter to a physician, some of whose patients have died: “Verum quia ad sacros ordines desideras promoveri, super eo nos consulere voluisti. Tibi breviter respondemus, quod si super praemissis conscientia tua te remordeat, ad maiores ordines de nostro consilio non ascendas.” The gloss: “hoc est consilium reverentiae, cui obediendum est. . . . Secus in consilio perfectionis.”

 [196] Quoted in the preceding paragraph.

 [197] Nuper (X 5. 39. 29) does remark, “cum facientem et consentientem par poena constringat”; its own argument, that a layman who imprisons a cleric is to be excommunicated, goes against Simon’s. Si concubinae (X 5. 39. 55) makes the point about participation, as Simon states it.

 [198] Bohic (edit. 1520) V, 27v, c. Sicut dignum, § 2: “In . . . casu . . . auctoritatis seu defensionis, magis peccat consentiens defendendo et auctoritatem prestando quam faciens et magis puniendus est. 24. q. 3, Qui aliorum, et 11. q. 3, Qui consentit. secundum Bernardum ibi, quod verum secundum Hostiensem ibi in gravioribus, puta heresi et similibus: si in civilibus sive minoribus criminibus habet locum par pena.”

 [199] Innocent IV’s commentary on Super eo (X 5. 39. 1) lists the cases in which maior excommunicatio is inflicted by the law itself; the third case: “schismatici, scil. qui divisi sunt ab unitate ecclesiae ipsiusque constitutiones non servant.”

 [200] Huguccio’s gloss has not been available.

 [201] The canon (Dist. 40, c. 12) states: “Quicumque desideraverat primatum in terra, inveniet confusionem in celo.” Simon modified the passage from Goffredus, Summa . . . super titulis Decretalium (Lyons, 1519), fol. 208r (on X 5. 13), by replacing his “discessio” with “dissencio”; Goffredus goes on: “vel scisma est illicitus ab unitate vel universitate discessus.”

 [202] Saepe contingit (X 2. 13. 18) states: “non multum intersit quoad periculum animae, iniuste detinere, ac invadere alienum”—and this “non obstante iuris civilis rigore,” which might not provide a remedy against one who has bought an unjustly acquired property. Indigne (12. q. 2, c. 21) states: “Indigne ad altare dei properare permittitur, qui res ecclesiasticas audet invadere, aut iniuste possidere, aut iniqua vel iniusta defensione in eis perdurat.”

 [203] Above, at notes 145, 146, 162.

 [204] Such evidence as we have for Simon’s feelings about Benedict XIII goes contrary to what he says here; see also below, lines 1286-88.

 [205] Nisi cum pridem (X 1. 9. 10) discusses the permissible grounds for a
 [[ Print Edition Page No. 190 ]] 
bishop’s resignation; among them are conscientia criminis, grave scandalum, irregularitas personae (cf. the other references to it in this treatise). Simon is arguing that these are compulsory grounds: Nisi is not a consilium but a preceptum. Gratian writes in § Hec etsi legibus, after c. Denique, “Decretum [alias: praeceptum] . . . necessitatem facit, exhortatio autem liberam voluntatem excitat.” The Archdeacon, Rosarium, fol. 7v, comments: “tunc tantum de consilio loquitur, quando id in ea [scriptura] exprimitur, vel cum alia ratio evidens non cogit sic intelligere, non enim que sic exhortentur etc.” (He also makes the equation: “decretum, id est praeceptum.”) Simon’s understanding of this text seems to transpose its application, but not to distort its sense.

 [206] See above, n. 131.

 [207] Archdeacon, Rosarium, fol. 324r (24. q. 3, c. 26). The canonistic context is important: In v. “ceterum”: “versi. hic vult dicere quod si perseverat iam haeresim fingit. 7. q. 1. Denique. Johannes, de scismate in quo perduretur.” And in v. “confingat”: “id est, dicat aliquid quare non debet obedire ecclesiae Romanae, et dicit Raymundus, cum omne scisma intendat sibi constituere ecclesiam, et universalem ecclesiam impugnare, vix vel nunquam potest esse sine haeresi.” And finally: “dicitur haeresis, quia peccat in illo articulo fidei, ‘Unam sanctam catholicam ecclesiam,’ secundum Raymundum, qui hanc totam glossam sequitur et bene. Nota tamen quod si scismaticus perseverat haereticus est, ut no. supra e. q. 1. Didicimus, in glossa 2.”

 [208] See above, n. 120.

 [209] The text of Violatores (25. q. 1, c. 5) states: “Violatores canonum voluntarii . . . a sancto spiritu, instinctu cuius ac dono dictati sunt, damnantur, quoniam blasphemare . . . videntur” (cf. n. 187, above, and below, at n. 342). The gl. ord., v. “blasphemare,” notes: “Immo eo ipso videtur excommunicatus et haereticus, ut 19. dist., Nulli.” The significance of “sedi apostolice: id est canonibus,” which may be Simon’s own gloss, is implicit in the gl. ord. on Nulli, for which see above, n. 36.

 [210] See above, n. 207; cf. apparatus here.

 [211] Significasti (X 5. 12. 18) deals with the case of a priest who may have inflicted a mortal blow in defending his church; if it is not clear that his blow was the mortal one, “in hoc dubio tamquam homicida debet haberi sacerdos; et si forte homicida non sit, a sacerdotali officio abstinere debet, cum in hoc casu cessare sit tutius quam temere celebrare.” The gl. ord., v. “in hoc dubio,” notes: “in dubiis etiam viam debemus eligere tutiorem, ut hic dicitur, et infra De regulis iuris, c. 2.” This last refers to X 5. 41. 2: “Dubia in meliorem partem interpretari debent.”

 [212] That is, the canon (X 5. 7. 9) excommunicates heretics as such.

 [213] Gl. ord. on 24. q. 1, c. 1 (Achatius), v. “in haeresim.” In the text of the canon, Pope Gelasius stated that he could condemn Achatius without synodal authority because Achatius’s error was old, and already condemned by law: “Factus sum itaque executor veteris constituti, non promulgator novi. Quicumque enim in haeresim semel damnatam labitur, eius damnatione
 [[ Print Edition Page No. 191 ]] 
seipsum involvit.” The gloss: “hic est casus, in quo papa papam potest ligare, in quo papa in canonem latae sententiae incidit; ne huic obviat regula illa: quia par parem solvere vel ligare non potest, extra De electione, Innotuit. Quia si papa haereticus est, in eo quod haereticus est, est minor quolibet catholico, 12. q. 1, Scimus. Quia lex factum notat etiam sine sententia, FF. De ritu nuptiarum, L. Palam, § ultimo.” For the gloss on 24. q. 1, “in summa,” see above, n. 131.

 [214] The canon (24. q. 1, c. 31) states: “Didicimus omnes omnino haereticos et schismaticos nihil habere potestatis ac iuris.” The gl. ord., v. “nihil habere,” states: “omnis schismaticus si perseverat, est haereticus, nisi in summo pontifice.” Simon’s “ut supra satis dixi” refers to his argument above, at n. 131.

 [215] The University of Paris’s program of “partial” subtraction exposed members of the university to papal reprisals, which the university sought to nullify by an appeal to a future pope (perhaps in late 1395, certainly by 21 March 1396). Benedict XIII declared the appeal null (30 May), and the university renewed it (3 August). Simon’s justification of total subtraction was that a schismatic-heretical pope had lost his capacity to exercise the papal office; hence the university need not worry. This passage appears only in the later redactions and points to Simon’s alliance with the university in 1398; see the Introduction, above, pp. 16-18.

 [216] See below, n. 235.

 [217] Bohic, V, 130 ff. (c. Ad abolendam), §§ 19 ff., is the source for the whole preceding passage: the modes of pena, the quotation from John 15.6, and the reference to Hostiensis, in whose Summa aurea the list of penalties does appear, at the point noted by Simon (col. 1537).

 [218] Johannes de Moravia is identified by Valois, 2:422 (cf. 3:297, 386, 521), as a master from Moravia who was with Cardinal Pedro de Luna in Paris (from March 1393). In 1394 he was elected procurator of the English-German Nation at the University of Paris, where he was a senior master of arts, studying theology: Auctarium chartularii Universitatis Parisiensis, 1, ed. H. Denifle et al. (Paris, 1894), 616, 686, 687. His savage opinion, for which Simon is the only source, changed when Pedro de Luna became Benedict XIII and Johannes followed him in opposing cession. Along with Pierre d’Ailly he appears on a “rotulus principalis familiarium domini nostri papae Benedicti,” of 13 October 1394: CUP 4:2. On 5 November 1395 a meeting of the English Nation decided (Auctarium, 1:712 f.) not to let him proceed to the licence in theology, “quia ipse suspectus erat ab universitate in facto unionis ecclesie, et eciam quod laborasset contra intencionem universitatis in eodem facto, scilicet contra viam cessionis utriusque parcium contendencium.” In fact he was not allowed to profess until after the first subtraction of obedience had been ended (Auctarium, 1:864 n. 2).

 [219] The canon (Dist. 8, c. 1) is from Augustine: “Quo iure defendis villas ecclesiae, divino, an humano? . . . Nonne iure humano? . . . manifeste preceperunt imperatores, eos, qui . . . usurpant nomen Christianum, nec volunt
 [[ Print Edition Page No. 192 ]] 
in pace colere pacis auctorem, nihil nomine ecclesiae audeant possidere. . . . Noli dicere, quid mihi et regi? Quid tibi ergo et possessioni? Per iura regum possidentur possessiones.”

 [220] Rather to Count Boniface of Africa.

 [221] The canon, by Boniface VIII (Sext 1. 16. 9), is of course more general: “prohibemus . . . ne episcopi, [etc.] . . . , vacantibus . . . ecclesiis [etc.] . . . sibi subiectis . . . , eorundem bona . . . in ipsis inventa, sive vacationis ipsorum tempore obvenientia, quae in utilitatem eorundem expendi, vel futuris debent successoribus fideliter reservari, occupare . . . praesumant.” For “iura communia” see below, n. 428.

 [222] Bernard of Clairvaux, De consideratione (above, n. 122); but the quoted passage is simply lifted by Simon from the Archdeacon’s commentary on Non decet, cited below.

 [223] This sentence is quoted from the Archdeacon on Non decet (below). It refers to the opening passage of c. Mutationes: “Mutationes episcoporum scitote communi utilitate atque necessitate fieri licere, sed non propria cuiusquam voluntate aut dominatione.”

 [224] A quote from the Archdeacon’s commentary (below), which the printed text gives in a different form: “Multa . . . ipse Bartholomeus Brixiensis dicit de potestate.” The reference would thus be to the glossa ordinaria on the Decretum, in its revision by Bartholomeus.

 [225] Archdeacon, Rosarium, fol. 15r (Dist. 12, c. 1): “Unde dicebat Thomas quod papa potest incurrere vitium simoniae sicut alius homo. . . . Quamvis enim res ecclesiae sint eius, ut principalis dispensatoris: non tamen sunt eius, ut domini et possessoris [the authorities here are Innocent and Hostiensis, not Thomas; see below, n. 226]. Et ideo, si receperit pro aliqua re spirituali pecuniam de redditibus alicuius ecclesiae, non careret vitio simoniae: et similiter posset simoniam committere recipiendo pecuniam ab aliquo laico, non de bonis ecclesiae, secundum Thomam.”

 [226] Archdeacon, Rosarium, fol. 5r (Dist. 1, c. 8: Ius civile): the doctors are Hostiensis and, especially, Innocent IV. Cf. below, nn. 227, 228, and above, n. 90.

 [227] Bohic, I, 110 (c. Ex parte, ii): “Si rescriptum sit concessum contra ius naturale vel gentium: ut quia princeps mandat mihi auferri rem meam . . . [et si] conceditur sine causa rationabili, . . . tunc non valet ut tollat ipsum ius naturale vel gentium. Sed tamen quantum ad observantiam debet servari [according to cited authorities]. . . . Sed ego Henricus credo, quod tale rescriptum non valet etiam quantum ad observantiam: ut supra. de rescriptis, Si quando, et in d. L. Rescripta: ut notant Accursius et Odo, C. de precibus imperatoris offerendis, L. Quoties. Et Innocentius et Compostellanus. supra De constitutionibus, Quae in ecclesiarum. Et Archidiaconus. 50. di. . . .” The canon Nec dampnosa is taken from the Codex: “Nec dampnosa fisco, nec iuri contraria postulari oportet.” In Imperiali Gregory the Great refers approvingly
 [[ Print Edition Page No. 193 ]] 
to this. Cf. Archdeacon on Per principalem, 9. q. 3, c. 21 (Rosarium, fol. 200v).

 [228] The maxim “ut paciatur . . . ” is quoted by Innocent III in Cum omnes, De constitutionibus (X 1. 2. 6): “Patere legem quam tu ipse tuleris.” Procurationes (X 3. 39. 23) is Innocent III’s decree that anyone exacting a procuration in excess of what was due, “et quod accepit reddat, et ecclesiae, quam taliter aggravavit, tantundem impendat.” In Quia plerique (X 3. 49. 8) Innocent III, prohibiting excessive exactions by prelates, decrees that anyone who has violated the canon “et sic extorta restituat, et tantundem cogatur pauperibus elargiri.” Hostiensis, gl. in v. “pauperibus,” notes the discrepancy between these two penalties: “Contra, quia debet dari ecclesiae laesae, supra, De censibus, Procurationes, in fine.”

 [229] The canon (11. q. 3, c. 1): “Sententia pastoris, sive iusta, sive iniusta fuerit, timenda est.” Gl. ord., v. “timenda est”: “Nisi in duobus casibus, scilicet cum sententia est post appellationem lata, et cum continet intolerabilem errorem. . . . Tertium casum apponunt quidam, cum pro indebitis exactionibus aliquis excommunicatur. . . . ” Omnes leges (Dist. 1, c. 1) states that divine law may permit what human law prohibits.

 [230] For the same idea in similar words, see John of Paris, Tractatus de regia potestate et papali, ed. Fritz Bleienstein in Johannes Quidort von Paris, Über königliche und päpstliche Gewalt (Stuttgart, 1969), pp. 92 f. (cap. VI). If this derivation is valid, then Simon’s “dominus principalis” may be understood according to John of Paris’s location of “dominium verum” over church property in the ecclesiastical “communitas” (p. 94). This was also the view of most canonists by John’s time. See the discussions by Tierney, Foundations, pp. 118 f., 137, 142, 167 ff., and by Wilks, Problem of Sovereignty, passim, esp. p. 480 n. 4, where the affinity is noted between this doctrine of dominion and the idea of deposing a pope.

 [231] Bohic, III, 527 (Cum ad monasterium, iv), makes the cited statement in a discussion of the pope’s power to dispense.

 [232] Johannes Monachus, on the “extravagans” of Boniface VIII, c. Rem non novam (Extrav. commun. 2. 3. 1): “Si [papa] supra ius dispensat, hoc debet esse cum ratio postulat.” For this and some examples of how Pierre Leroy and Simon de Cramaud used Monachus on this point, see V. Martin, Les origines du Gallicanisme, 1 (Paris, 1939), 346 f.

 [233] In 24. q. 1, c. 32: “Qui contra pacem ecclesiae sunt, si dignitatem aut cingulum militiae [alias: aut militiam] habent, nudentur eis. Si autem . . . nobiles sunt, suarum substantiarum proscriptionem patiantur.”

 [234] Johannes Monachus, Apparatus, BN, ms. lat. 16901, fol. 46r, has the quoted passage exactly, except for the “rectum” before “ordinem.”

 [235] Bohic, V, 136 f. (c. Excommunicamus), includes the references to Hostiensis and c. Gravem.

 [236] Bohic, V, 192-95, esp. § 9 (Si celebrat).

 [237] X 5. 7. 16: “Absolutos se noverint a debito fidelitatis hominii, et totius obsequii, quicunque lapsis manifeste in haeresim . . . tenebantur astricti.”


 [[ Print Edition Page No. 194 ]] 

 [238] Bohic, II, 251 f. (c. In omni), is the source for virtually everything in this paragraph. It is a discussion of whether the evangelical “Si peccaverit . . . ” pertains to all Christians, and whether it is a counsel or a precept. After citing canonists who argued that it was a precept only for prelates, a counsel for others, he continues: “Sed contrarium, scilicet quod sit praeceptum omnibus, videtur tenere Hostiensis hic dicens, quod correctio charitativa . . . et denuntiatio ecclesiae facienda ad quemlibet pertinet Christianum, coerctio vero ad ecclesiasticum, id est ad illum tantum, qui iurisdictionem habet.” He follows this with: “Hoc etiam tenet Huguccio in c. alleg. Si peccaverit. arg. 2. q. 7. Quapropter 24. q. 3. Tam sacerdotes. Ubi dicitur quod tam sacerdotes . . . ” etc. as in Simon’s text, below, up to “separentur ab ecclesia.” Simon’s subsequent passage, “Et probatur . . . aliquem peccare,” is also in Bohic, attributed to Astensis. Finally, the citation of Ecclus. 17 is in Bohic, p. 252, § 7. On p. 252, § 6, Bohic himself states: “et hoc, scilicet quod est praeceptum omnibus, credo verius.”

 [239] Pierre Bertrand, Apparatus, BN, ms. lat. 4085, fol. 6v, col. 1: “Si Petrus mortuus fuisset antequam Rome sedem elegisset, ad primitivam totam ecclesiam, vel de eius consensu ad solos apostolos quasi suffraganeos, pertinuisset eleccio successoris Petri. Sed postquam Rome resedit, de iure communi et ad patriarchas racione universalis ecclesie, et ad clerum Romanum racione appropriacionis, spectat eleccio, ut videtur. Sed quia difficile erat patriarchas convocare, nec erat tutum simplicibus canonicis tantum negocium committere, papa loco patriarcharum et canonicorum Romanorum, cardinales instituit, qui ipsum eligerent, concurrente tamen in hoc consensu ecclesie generalis.”

 [240] Sext 1. 6. 17: the passage on the cardinals includes: “qui sibi [scil., pape] in executione officii sacerdotis coadjutores assistunt.” Simon has substituted “in regimine ecclesie,” but this was not an arbitrary change; see Tierney, Foundations, pp. 187 ff.

 [241] This objection comes from Bohic, II, 251. § 4 (In omni); see also the next note.

 [242] Ibid., p. 251, § 5, for the “illa sex. . . . ” Bohic states that when the six conditions are all present, then correction is a “praeceptum affirmativum, quod obligat ad executionem sui tempore necessitatis.”

 [243] Note found.

 [244] Bohic, V, 206, § 3 (Cum ex iniuncto), quotes Thomas Aquinas, Summa theol. (II, ii), q. 43, art. 2, on the duty to resign; cf. above, n. 180. For the rest see above, nn. 182, 185.

 [245] The canon, from St. Jerome (2. q. 7, c. 33): “Paulus Petrum reprehendit, quod non auderet, nisi se non inparem sciret.” Gratian comments: “Hoc non de officio ecclesiasticae dignitatis, sed de puritate vitae et sanctitate conversationis intelligitur.” Gratian does however allow elsewhere for caritative accusation of superiors, in Sed aliud, after c. 54.

 [246] Johannes Andreae, Commentaria, III, 50v (c. Proposuit, v. “fidei” in glosa): “de hoc dabat Host. regulam, quod papa sui ipsius tantum [sic] habet
 [[ Print Edition Page No. 195 ]] 
potestatem, quod quicquid dicat, vel agat, accusari, vel damnari non potest ab homine, nisi de haeresi, 40. Di., Si papa. Potest tamen moneri in secreto et palam: si palam peccat mortaliter. Nam velit, nolit, subiacet evangelicae veritati quo ad monitionem faciendam, quae cuilibet data est, 2. q. 1, Si peccaverit. Sed quo ad id quod ibi dicitur, ‘Dic ecclesiae,’ non subiacet nisi in haeresi. Si igitur sit impoenitens, dicendum est ecclesiae, id est deo orando, quod ipsum inspiret, et ecclesiae triumphanti, ut oret pro ipso. Alii tamen, et si imperator, et totus clerus, et totus populus conveniant, ipsum non poterunt iudicare: caveat tamen sibi, quia anima sua in manibus suis, et sibi terribilius iudicium imminet, et intolerabilior cruciatus, 9. q. 3, Nemo, et c. Aliorum. In subditis, quod tantam habet potestatem, quod eius praecepto est obediendum, etiam si dubium sit, an sit mortale, dummodo vinci possit conscientia: quod si certum est, recognosci debet papa caelestis, 11. q. 3, Iulianus, et ecclesia triumphans, que non fallit.” See n. 177 above.

 [246a] For the first part of the gl. ord. on Si papa, v. “a fide devius,” see n. 120 above. The gloss continues (after “nullus”): “Hic tamen specialiter fit mentio de haeresi, ideo quia et si occulta esset haeresis, de illa potest accusari, sed de alio occulto crimine non posset. Item nunquid potest denuntiari crimen Papae secundum regulam istam, Si peccaverit in te frater tuus? . . . dico quod non potest denuntiari crimen de ipso, nisi inde posset accusari, nam inutilis esset denuntiatio.”

 [247] Martinus, Chronicon, p. 422, on Gregory I: “Hic primus pontificum servus servorum Dei se scripsit.”

 [248] Bohic, II, 251 f. (In omni; cf. above, nn. 238, 241, 242), § 1, gives these glosses of Innocentius and Cardinalis (i.e., Johannes Monachus) as authorities for the view that caritative correction is a counsel for non-prelates, a precept for prelates. Simon can use these authorities because he has just argued, on the basis of the Isidorean canon Principes seculi, that kings have power within the church—i.e., they are indeed prelates. Henricus subsequently, § 10, discusses correction as an act of justice: it too is a precept for prelates. (The canons 23. q. 4, cc. 6, 35, which Simon cites just below, are also from Bohic, § 1.) Note that Novit (X 2. 1. 13) was Innocent III’s claim of right to judge the King of France’s behavior to the King of England, ratione peccati; for the doctrine and the later canonistic restriction of it, which Simon exploits to make a point opposite to Innocent III’s, see John A. Watt, The Theory of Papal Monarchy in the Thirteenth Century (New York, 1965), index, v.Novit.

 [249] The canon reads: “Nos in quemquam sententiam ferre non possumus, nisi aut convictum, aut sponte confessum.”

 [250] The canon (X 5. 1. 9): “Evidentia patrati sceleris non indiget clamore accusationis.” Both the rubric and the gl. ord. refer to such a scelus as “notorium.” Bohic, V, 86 (Evidentia): “Si queritur utrum notorium relevet ab onere accusandi, inquirendi et denuntiandi, proponendi seu probandi . . .”—the answer is yes, in most cases when the scelus “est notorium in loco ubi agitur, et iudici coram quo agitur.” The canon De [or In] manifesta (2. q.
 [[ Print Edition Page No. 196 ]] 
1, c. 17) says witnesses are not needed when the crime is manifest to many; the title is more general: “Ordinem iudiciarium manifesta non desiderat causa.”

 [251] See above, n. 162.

 [252] Dig. 1. 3. 12, & gl. ord. thereon.

 [253] The canon (X 1. 31. 13) has a section, “si canonici absque manifesta et rationabili causa (maxime in contemptu episcopi) cessaverint a divinis, episcopus, si voluerit, nihilominus celebret.” The gl. ord., v. “cessaverint a divinis,” notes: “Videtur quod soli canonici possunt subiicere ecclesiam interdicto cum subest causa,” and, “credo, si capitulum de consuetudine hoc habet, bene potest ecclesiam supponere interdicto.” Earlier the canon refers to “excessus . . . canonicorum . . . qui consueverunt corrigi per capitulum,” and the gl. ord., v. “per capitulum,” emphasizes that this may be a right derived from local custom. Simon has squeezed all this into a right of the canons to coerce their bishop. (Note that the citation has had to be corrected; as it stands it would refer to Sext 1. 16. 2, and L has so identified it.)

 [254] Sext 1. 6. 3: “talibus” refers to the cardinals.

 [255] Gl. ord. on 23. q. 4, c. 24, v. “sed quare”: Augustine had written, in the canon, that heretics and schismatics who were “compelled to enter” (Luke 14.23) the church should not complain: “non quia coguntur, reprehendant, sed quo coguntur, attendant.” The gloss reads: “quasi diceret non est considerandum, quod fiat: sed qua de causa fiat”; it cites L. Verum (Dig. 47. 2. 39), which states: “Verum est, si meretricem alienam ancillam rapuit quis vel celavit, furtum non esse, nec enim factum quaeritur, sed causa faciendi. Causa autem faciendi libido fuit, non furtum.”

 [256] This equation of a general council with a council of bishops, for canonistic purposes, may be contrasted with Simon’s later political definition of a general council as also including abbots, canons, and princes (in June 1398; see Valois, 3:163 n. 3). Cf. his argument for the “general” quality of the First Paris Council, February 1395, in which bishops were a minority: below, lines 1588-1746.

 [257] For the gloss see above, n. 75, and cf. the marginal comment in ms. C at this point, in Appendix II. For the canonistic equivalence between “status ecclesie” and “statuta conciliorum” see Tierney, Foundations, pp. 50-53, and cf. n. 116 above.

 [258] Gratum (X 1. 5. 2): “ut intelligens eos . . . eligendi privilegium amisisse, quia . . . abuterentur temere potestate, ac ideo ad alios licet pauciores numero, quantum tamen ad hoc pertinet, consilio saniores, eligendi vel postulandi devolutam esse licentiam.” Bonae (X 1. 6. 23): “frustra legis auxilium invocat, qui committit in legem: unde nec ab eis posse obiici videbatur, quod idem esset a paucioribus . . . electus, cum ipsi . . . reddiderint se indignos.”

 [259] Pierre Bertrand does not say this, but rather (Cath. Univ. ms. 195, fol. 151rb): “Sed quid si nullus [scil., cardinalium] superest, quod deus avertat? Dicunt quidam quod clerus Romanus eligat, pro quibus facit XXIII. di., In nomine domini. Alii dicunt quod congregandum est concilium, LXV. di., c.
 [[ Print Edition Page No. 197 ]] 
ii. et iii. Primum tamen est levius et commodius, et ideo amplectendum est propter periculum more. . . . De ista materia plenius vide quod notatur in dicto capitulo Ubi, Pe. Ber.” This gloss closely follows Hostiensis; see the quotation in Tierney, Foundations, p. 152. Cf. above, n. 239.

 [260] A reference to the First Paris Council of the French church, February 1395, and the Castilian cortes of Segovia, called by King Henry III in August 1396. See above, n. 13; below, n. 265.

 [261] Dig. 6. 1. 68: “Qui restituere iussus, iudici non paret . . . , manu militari officio iudicis ab eo possessio transfertur.”

 [262] See Valois, 3:20 ff., and the Introduction, § 1, above, for what follows about the First Paris Council.

 [263] Simon reports the First Paris Council’s decision which he himself drew up: Appendix V, 1b.

 [264] Valois, 3:44-51, 58, for the embassy of the royal dukes to Avignon, and their pressure on the cardinals. The one cardinal who refused to accept the French program was Martin de Salva.

 [265] Simon de Cramaud headed this embassy. What follows refers to the cortes of Segovia, August 1396. See Valois, 3:83, 109 f.; SdeC, pp. 156-58; Ehrle, Alpartil, pp. 511 f.

 [266] The certification to Aragon and Navarre was accomplished by Simon’s embassy in 1396; that to Scotland is unknown to me.

 [267] King Martin of Aragon never accepted the French program, but remained loyal to his countryman and in-law Benedict XIII. Both Navarre and Scotland accepted the via cessionis by the autumn of 1397 (Valois, 3:123; Lehoux, 2:377), evidently after Simon had completed this treatise, and indeed after he had sent a copy of it (ms. G) to Navarre: the note about their acceptance was first added in the margin of the EHKL exemplar.

 [268] Ubi maius (Sext 1. 6. 3) provides that if any cardinals do not enter the conclave, or leave it too soon, without good excuse, the rest can make the election without them. Simon’s reference to “duas partes” (i.e., two thirds) just below pursues the analogy.

 [269] X 1. 6. 55: one reason for invalidating an election is: “Nec etiam electio communiter celebrata, quoniam licet in eundem G. singulariter singuli consensissent, non tamen debuit subsequi singularis electio, sed communis.” The canon also gives reasons similar to the one Simon gives just below: because the issue “tractatum non extitit nec discussum; nec zeli ad zelum, nec meriti ad meritum collatio facta fuerit.”

 [270] Dig. 4. 8. 17. § 7: “Celsus . . . scribit, Si in tres fuerit compromissum sufficere quidem duorum consensum, si praesens fuerit et tertius; alioquin . . . non valere, quia . . . potuit praesentia eius trahere eos in eius sententiam.”

 [271] For the full import of this phrase see below, at n. 351.

 [272] For the principle assumed here, see Tierney, Foundations, pp. 48 ff.: statutes of the pope alone were not as authoritative as those of the pope in council. The iura communia were the canons (see n. 428 below).

 [273] See n. 14 above.


 [[ Print Edition Page No. 198 ]] 

 [274] Valois, 3:125, refers this passage to a mission resulting from French efforts at the Frankfurt Diet of May 1397; in that case the date of this treatise would have to be set back to late 1397 (the passage appears even in the mss. of the earliest redactions). But cf. Valois, 3:80-82: the electors in question could have been the archbishops of Mainz, Cologne, and Trier, and their action would have been the result of the French embassy that worked in the Empire and Hungary from April to August 1396. This seems more likely, even though the text neither of their request to Boniface nor of his response is known to survive. The language of this passage—the subjunctives of the “et quid ipse” clauses, and the form of the “et ego”—suggests that Simon first wrote before he knew the Roman pope’s response, then added his own comment after he had learned of it.

 [275] Bohic, V, 86 (Evidencia); the point is not made as simply as in Simon’s argument. Cf. n. 250 above.

 [276] Valois, 3:44 ff., 109 ff., 58, for the requests, respectively, by the kings of France and Castile (“Spain”) and by the cardinals. For Benedict’s successive responses to the dukes see ibid., pp. 47 f. and the Introduction, § 1, above. See also below, n. 392.

 [277] Valois, 3:81, 91 f.

 [278] Institutes 1. 21: “Si autem inter tutorem pupillumve iudicium agendum sit, quia ipse tutor in rem suam auctor esse non potest, . . . curator in locum eius datur.” The gloss on Codex 6. 60. 11 (Cum non solum), v. “necessitate,” discusses the conditions under which a father’s consent may be compelled or dispensed with, in cases where a son wishes to claim property against his father’s will.

 [279] Codex 3. 5; the quoted phrase is the title or rubric (in rubro et nigro) of title 5.

 [280] After Dist. 17, c. 6: “Hinc etiam cum auctoritas Theodorici regis . . . sacerdotes convenire praecepisset, ut sanctum concilium iudicaret de iis, quae . . . papae Symmacho . . . dicebantur impingi, Liguriae, et Aemiliae, seu Venetiarum episcopi suggesserunt ipsum, qui dicebatur impetitus, debere synodum convocare, scientes quia eius sedi . . . conciliorum . . . auctoritas singularem in ecclesiis tradidit potestatem.”

 [281] See above, at n. 257.

 [282] The canon (Dist. 15, c. 1) summarizes the work of the big four councils (Nicaea, Constantinople, Ephesus, Chalcedon) and in each case notes the emperor under whom it was held; there is no mention of a pope one way or another.

 [283] Cf. Martinus, Chronicon, p. 434, on the schism between Alexander II and Cadulus: “Deinde Alexander papa ad rogatum Henrici imperatoris descendit in Lonbardiam, et in Mantua sollempniter celebrato concilio, pacificatis omnibus ad urbem est reversus.” The actual date was 1064, the entry in the chronicle begins with 1063; one comes close by correcting “octingentesimo” to “millesimo.” For this and the following episodes, see Johannes
 [[ Print Edition Page No. 199 ]] 
Haller, Das Papsttum. Idee und Wirklichkeit, rev. ed. (Esslingen am Neckar, 1962; repr. Rowohlt, 1965), 2:247; 1:174-79; 2:203 f.

 [284] Martinus, Chronicon, p. 420: “501. . . . Sub contencione ordinatus est uno die cum Laurencio Symachus, . . . et facto Ravenne iudicio coram Theodorico rege, electus est Symachus et confirmatus.”

 [285] Ibid., p. 433: “duobus de papatu altercantibus . . . , Henricus imperator contra duos Romam accedit et eis canonica et imperiali censura depositis, Syndigerum . . . , qui et Clemens II. est dictus, in papatum per vim substituit.” The events took place in Sutri, 20 December 1046, and three days later in Rome. Clement II had been Bishop Swidger of Bamberg. Martin’s chronicle here and above fully covers what Simon writes; Bernard’s Flores chronicorum has not been available.

 [286] The reference cannot be to St. Jerome’s chronicle, which ends in 378, before any Honorius. But Jerome’s name was sometimes attached to the Liber pontificalis (see, e.g., Duchesne’s edition, 2:xxvii), and perhaps to other chronicles using but going beyond his own work. Thus the story in question may be that of the Emperor Honorius’s action of February/March 419, when he summoned councils of Italian bishops to settle the contest between two papal claimants, Boniface and Eulalius: Lib. pont., 1:227 f.

 [287] Gl. ord. on § Hinc etiam, Dist. 17, after c. 6, v. “immunis”: “sed cum appareret calumnia accusantis . . .”

 [288] Simon conflates the episode noted above, n. 284, with that in the part of § Hinc etiam; from which the quoted words are taken.

 [289] The argument and quoted authorities come directly from Bohic, I, 6 ff. (Cum omnes), § § 8, 9: “Si queris . . . quando aliquid est commune pluribus ut universis vel ut collegio, tunc aut queris de iis que sunt facienda de necessitate vel utilitate . . . aut de aliis. Si primo modo, valet quod fit per partem ad necessitatem. vel utilitatem ecclesie, vel collegii.” The authorities follow. Bohic, however, continues: “Hic secus si pars faceret contra id quod esset necessarium vel utile ecclesiae vel collegio, ut si deliberaret sine causa rationabili non eligere infra tempus iuris.” Cf. below, n. 361.

 [290] Not found.

 [291] Not found.

 [292] Not found.

 [293] Not found.

 [294] Not found.

 [295] The canon (2. q. 1, c. 21): “Scelus, quod Lotharius rex (si tamen rex veraciter dici possit, qui nullo salubri regimine corporis appetitus refraenat) . . .”

 [296] Bohic, III, 522 (Magnae), § 7: “Semper salva perversione iustitiae, dummodo id liceat, minori utilitati maior est praeferenda, ut ex significatione huius verbi ‘expedit’ ex praedictis iuribus colligi potest . . . [etc.] secundum Hostiensem cuius est ista distinctio in effectu. Et idem Ioannes Andreae post eum.” The emphasized words are an exact quotation of Hostiensis
 [[ Print Edition Page No. 200 ]] 
on this same canon, a discussion of the question “Cum igitur secundum praedictum modum omnia sic liceant papae et sic deceant, nunquid et omnia fieri expediunt? . . . In hoc membro talem trado regulam, quod . . . semper salva . . .”—etc. as in Bohic.

 [297] Bohic, I, 35 (Bonae, i), § 7, applies the principle of public utility to the question of remedying defect of a judge.

 [298] Archdeacon, Rosarium, fol. 28r: “Prudentia: secundum Senecam . . . qui prudens est praesentia ordinat, futura praevidet, praeterita recordatur.”

 [299] I have not found the source of this story. It is not in the Liber pontificalis, which was sometimes referred to as the “gesta Romanorum pontificum.” An analogous story, however, is related by Thomas of Tuscany—Thomae Tusci gesta imperatorum et pontificum, ed. E. Ehrenfeuchter (MGH, SS, 22; Hannover, 1872), 493. The Arabs at first had no law, but “invento, . . . ut . . . quidam ferunt, quodam clerico, qui ab ecclesia turbatus abscesserat, eo quod in ea non fuerat assecutus honorem, quo dignum se esse credebat, . . . ab ipso [Maumet] edoctus est de novo et veteri testamento.” This is a variant of the common legend that a monk named Sergius taught Mohammed the Christian religion; usually identified as a Nestorian, he was also sometimes called a Nicholaite, and given the name Nicholas: James Kritzeck, Peter the Venerable and Islam (Princeton, 1964), pp. 129 f.; cf. Appendix III below. The legend does not call Sergius-Nicholas a cardinal elected to the papacy.

 [300] See above, n. 54.

 [301] Dig. 2. 1. 1: “Ius dicentis officium latissimum est, nam et bonorum possessionem dare potest, et in possessionem mittere, pupillis non habentibus tutores constituere, iudices litigantibus dare.”

 [302] Archdeacon, Rosarium, fol. 213r (Quia res): “[quando] agitur de beneficio, in hoc casu non habet locum missio in possessionem; . . . si vero est causa in qua posset procedi ad missionem in possessionem, tunc cum illa sit via ordinaria, . . . illa regulariter est servanda . . . ; intuitu tamen religionis, vel alia iusta causa, iudex potest ad sequestrationem procedere, Extra De dolo et contumacia, c. 2.” And: “tam missio quam sequestratio fit ut reus tedio affectus cogatur stare iuri.” The cited canon (X 2. 14. 2) relates a case in which this was done.

 [303] Rosarium, fol. 212r: “si praeses videat aliquos ad arma vel rixam venire, quos potest sua iurisdictione compescere—FF. De usufr. L. Aequissimum—debet dicere, recipio rem contentiosam in manu mea, et rem custodiri faciam, et coram me veniatis ius vestrum prosecuturi.”

 [304] Ibid., fol. 212v, col. 2: the quotations are more or less exact, but in the last clause “futuro” replaces “victori.”

 [305] Ibid., fol. 213r, col. 1: “debet fieri sequestratio, . . . et hoc credo indubitatum in beneficiali causa, ubi ante possessionem illius pacificam, apparet controversia.”

 [306] Clem. 2. 6. 1: “diffinimus ut una contra possessorem diffinitiva sententia . . . apud sedem apostolicam . . . promulgata, beneficium ipsum . . .
 [[ Print Edition Page No. 201 ]] 
(dum tamen triennio pacifice antea ab eo possessum non fuerit) per loci ordinarium . . . sequestretur.” Note Simon’s play with “sententia” and his following reference to pacifica possessio in its technical sense as a three-year term, after which one’s right in a benefice was incontestable.

 [307] See above, at n. 252.

 [308] Archdeacon, Rosarium, fol. 213r (foot of col. 1, top of col. 2).

 [309] Duo mala (Dist. 13, c. 1) is a decree of the eighth Council of Toledo, 653.

 [310] Nervi (Dist. 13, c. 2) has, after “constringitur,” “si omnino nullus sine peccato aditus patet.”

 [310a] Cum beatus (Dist. 45, c. 8) cites 2 Tim. 4.2 and goes on to argue that prelates should not use harsh punishments against men of rank. In Forte (23. q. 4, c. 11) Augustine distinguishes between Christian tolerance and the duty of a church magistrate: “si iudex es, . . . coherce, corripe, excommunica, degrada.” The gl. ord. has, “Coercere, admonendo, suspendendo,” on which the Archdeacon (Rosarium, fol. 305r) comments: “aliis verbis utitur Apostolus dicens, argue, increpa, obsecra . . . , sed hoc locum habet in occultis peccatis et iudicio divino . . . et quod dicit intellige . . . de tali crimine quod semel commissum non sufficit ad depositionem: alioquin pro crimine probato statim deponi posset, 81. di. Dictum.” And cf. his comment (ibid., fol. 58rv) on Cum beatus. The removal of these references from the later redactions of the treatise perhaps attests to Simon’s effort to improve this rather ambivalent paragraph, in which partial subtraction is patched into the argument for total; cf. L’s variants just below.

 [311] See the Introduction, § 1, above, for the relationship between partial and total subtraction. And cf. below, at n. 332.

 [312] Bohic, II, 182 f. (Cum non ab homine), § 4: “Unde ex quo apparet corrigibilis non procedetur contra ipsum, ultra poenam a iure introductam; imo . . . ibi statur, . . . secundum Bernardum et Hostiensem.” He is not talking about a pope.

 [313] Johannes de Moravia (n. 218 above) was one such; another was Pierre d’Ailly, to whom Clement had given a canonry and whom Benedict XIII had made his “familiaris” in October 1394. Benedict gave him more, including the bishopric of Cambrai, in early 1397. D’Ailly had favored the via cessionis but refused to accept it in Simon’s coercive form. Simon refers to the change in a work of ca. 1400 (Appendix V, 11) BN, ms. lat. 1475, fol. 36v, where he sets forth the view that the action of the cardinals in 1378 gave scandal to the church, and then comments: “et in ista opinione erat fortiter firmatus tempore Clementis Magister Petrus de Alliaco, magister in theologia tunc, et nunc episcopus Cameracensis.” See Valois, 3:25 f., 131. Note (against Valois, 3:32) that d’Ailly at one point spoke against a coercive via cessionis at the First Paris Council, February 1395: see the texts in Ehrle, Alpartil, pp. 470-74, and Ehrle’s comments, pp. 469 f. And see the Introduction at n. 26, above.

 [314] Dig. 9. 2. 51: “Multa autem iure civili contra rationem disputandi pro
 [[ Print Edition Page No. 202 ]] 
utilitate communi recepta esse . . . probari potest.” The gl. ord., v. “disputandi”: “id est contra rigorem iuris.”

 [315] Sed illud says that priests should denounce sinful acts; Simon adapts it by replacing “sacerdotes” with “illi” (qui populo presunt), and by omitting what deals with specifically priestly duties. Cf. ms. C’s recourse to the original, in the apparatus.

 [316] Hostiensis on X 1. 10. 3 quotes the phrase as Seneca’s.

 [317] The phrase about “negligencia” is Simon’s inference from c. 21, Indigne, § Debet tamen, and the gl. ord., v. “admonitio” (below, n. 320). For the added sentence in mss. AJ (apparatus), see above, n. 202; cf. below, n. 325.

 [318] The “argumentum” preceding Dig. 6. 1. 76 is ascribed to Bartolus; it states: “Quod iuris est de toto, quo ad totum, idem de parte quo ad partem.”

 [319] See above, n. 205.

 [320] Gl. ord. on 12. q. 2, c. 2, v. “admonitio”: “arguitur quod admonitio semper praecedat vindictam, . . . sed ubicumque agetur ad depositionem, non praecedat admonitio, extra De accu., Qualiter. Ad quid enim admoneretur tunc, cum sufficit ad depositionem quod homo semel deliquerit.”

 [321] See above, n. 310a.

 [322] See above, n. 242.

 [323] “Homo Christianus fortiter cadit in peccatum . . . aut propter magnitudinem peccati, aut propter altitudinem dignitatis.” For the present relevance of this, see above, at n. 232 (Johannes Monachus), and cf. gl. ord., v. “cadit”: some say circumstances of dignity etc. aggravate a sin, others say only contempt aggravates.

 [324] See above, n. 65.

 [325] In the early redactions there followed here the same paragraph already given above, lines 1946-52, plus a sentence given in the apparatus thereto; see the apparatus there and here. Thus the arguments about “negligencia” there applied to the kings were here repeated for the popes, with a special applicability to Benedict—perhaps in order to counter the point made in his favor immediately above. Still surviving in J, with fragments in AB, the repetition was dropped in the exemplar of C″GEHKL.

 [326] Bohic, III, 408 (Nulla), § 20: the glossator Martinus (“doctor iuris civilis antiquus”) had held that a “morosus”—someone who did not act as required within a set time—was not responsible for losses or damages resulting from his inaction. Henricus goes on: “sed Johannes et alii doctores iuris civilis communiter reprehendunt Martinum, dicentes quod imo indistincte de interitu tenetur morosus, ut FF. De leg. i., L. Cum res. § ultimo; De vi et vi armata, L. i, § Rectissime; et Si cer. pet., L. Quod te; ubi est glossa ipsorum quae potissime hoc dicit. Petrus vero de Bella Pertica et Cinus post eum sic distinguunt. Et credo quod bene. . . .” “FF. De usuris, L. Mora,” mentioned here by Henricus, states (§ 5): “si fideiussor solus moram fecerit, non tenetur, sicuti si Stichum promissum occiderit”; the gl. ord. by Accursius, v. “non tenetur”: “sed utiliter sic, scilicet de interitu.”


 [[ Print Edition Page No. 203 ]] 

 [327] Sext 1. 5. 1 (Perpetuo) prohibits vague formulas of choosing bishops that leave it uncertain whether an election or a postulation has taken place. Codex 7. 14. 5 (Defamari): Someone has requested action against a defamer who refuses to make his accusation in court; “unde constat merito rectorem provinciae . . . sententiam dedisse, ne de cetero inquietudinem sustineres.”

 [328] Gl. ord. on De pen., Dist. 3, c. 25, v. “conscientiam”: “conscientia dupliciter accipitur: quandoque enim dicitur conscientia delicti, . . . quandoque dicitur morsus peccati, ut hic, et secundum quod dicit Horatius: ‘Nihil conscire sibi, nulla pallescere culpa.’ ” Note the shift in context from the internal “morsus” to Simon’s “quoad deum et homines,” “in contagio.”

 [329] Dig. 16. 1. 13; the quoted phrase seems to come from a comment by Bartolus added to the text (col. 1595 in the 1612 Lyons edition): “Frustra expectatur conditio, cuius eventus nihil operatur.”

 [330] Dig. 6. 1. 38, “Neque malitiis indulgendum est”; the context has to do with compensation for buildings put up on property bought from someone who had not had title to it.

 [331] See below, at n. 431.

 [332] The sentence means that one who accepts the argument of Part 2 must reply to the contrary arguments in Part 1; Simon often uses the conditional qui-construction (e.g., above, lines 2087-88). His reason for saying this at all was probably that he wanted to preserve the form of a disputation without an overt determination; see the Introduction, at n. 28.

 [333] See above, n. 118.

 [334] See above, n. 120.

 [335] The case of Pope John XII, deposed in 963, appears in Martinus, Chronicon, p. 431, “Hic erat venator et totus lubricus, adeo quod etiam publice feminas tenebat. . . . Hic cum frequenter per imperatorem et clerum de sua correctione fuisset monitus, non correctus, presente imperatore de papatu destitutus” (my emphasis). Cf. Haller, Das Papsttum (cited above, n. 283), 2:155 ff.

 [336] For William of Ockham’s theory about the legal right of the emperor to punish all criminals, including the pope, and his reference to Otto I’s deposition of John XII, see Georges de Lagarde, La naissance de l’esprit laïque au déclin du moyen âge, rev. ed., 5 (Paris, 1963), 233.

 [337] See above, notes 159, 160.

 [338] Above, at n. 133.

 [339] Above, lines 688-90.

 [340] I.e., even though Si duo was a letter of the Emperor Honorius, and Nisi cum pridem was a letter of Innocent III.

 [341] Codex 7. 39. 9. The law suspends the period of prescription in certain cases to allow parties to recover their rights; it implies the supreme legislative authority of the prince, but does not formulate the principle “iura per ora principum. . . .”

 [342] See above, n. 209.

 [343] De quibus prescribes that when a question cannot be answered from
 [[ Print Edition Page No. 204 ]] 
scripture and other usual sources of authority “seniores provinciae congrega.” For In canonicis see above, n. 158: it does not in fact accept the maior pars without qualifications. L. Quod maior says, “Quod maior pars curiae effecit, pro eo habetur, ac si omnes egerint.” Cf. above, at n. 289.

 [344] For the Oxford letter of 17 March 1396 see above, n. 64. For the University of Paris letter of 26 August 1395 see Valois, 3:70, and Swanson, p. 95 (he dates it the 25th).

 [345] A reference to the practica cessionis sanctioned by the First Paris Council (Valois, 3:40 f.) and included in the official account of the Council’s decisions which Simon formulated; see Appendix V, 1c, below. He may also have been the author of a later version of the practica (Thes. nov., 2:1150 f.), the gist of which he had incorporated in the royal ordinance of 27 July 1398 proclaiming subtraction of obedience: Ordonnances, 8:258 ff. His summary in the present treatise is closer in wording to these later texts than to the original one, but there are minor differences even so.

 [345a] C. 1 de Parochiis is Si episcopus (X 3. 29. 1), which discusses in detail the division of an episcopatus to accommodate a bishop converted from Donatism and returning to share his subjects with the Catholic incumbent. The canon, cited only in L, may have been brought to Simon’s attention in Benedict XIII’s practica, which mentioned it; the text was made known in Paris at Easter of 1397 (see Thes. nov., 2:1141).

 [346] Martinus, Chronicon, p. 407—a detailed list.

 [347] See above, n. 182.

 [348] See above, n. 14 and n. 273. The concession referred to here (“ipsi fatentur . . .”) appears on pp. 65 f. of the edition by Ouy, cited above, n. 64.

 [349] The gist of these canons (Dist. 17, cc. 5, 4, 1) is given by their titles: “Absque Romani pontificis auctoritate congregari sinodus non debet” (c. 1), and “Non est concilium, sed conventiculum, quod sine sedis apostolicae auctoritate celebratur” (c. 5, in which “conciliabulum” also appears).

 [350] See Valois, 3:82, for King Wenceslas’s resistance to the French embassy in the summer of 1396; for the cardinales antiqui see below, n. 366; for Wenceslas’s refusal to consider their justification, see Valois, 1:268.

 [351] Simon here pronounces the usual formulas of the sovereign status of the French realm and its kings. For “rex imperator in regno suo” and “nullum recognoscens superiorem” see e.g. Jean Rivière, Le problème de l’église et de l’état au temps de Philippe le Bel (Paris, 1926), pp. 424-30; cf. n. 121 above. Insofar as Simon had anything more specific in mind when he wrote “scissum est imperium,” it would have been the origin of France by an “equal division” of the Carolingian empire. Thus, e.g., the Disputacio inter clericum et militem, ed. Norma Erickson, Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 111 (1967), 300: according to the “register” of Charlemagne, “regnum Francorum . . . imperii portio est, pari divisione ab eo disiecta, et equali dignitate et auctoritate.” Thus France was born sovereign.

 [352] The desolation of Hungary was current news—the disaster suffered by Western chivalry, led by King Sigismund of Hungary, at the Battle of
 [[ Print Edition Page No. 205 ]] 
Nicopolis, 25 September 1396. The “multi notabiles prelati” may be a recollection of Simon’s own trip to Hungary as a royal ambassador in 1385; see the Introduction, § 2.

 [353] See below, n. 374.

 [354] Johannes Monachus, Apparatus, BN, ms. lat. 16901, fol. 56v, has the quoted words exactly; the preceding part of the sentence summarizes the canon itself.

 [355] The canon gives the four causes of perversion as timor, cupiditas, odium, and amor.

 [356] See n. 107 above.

 [357] See n. 108 above.

 [358] The early Schism-tractates by John of Lignano, Baldus de Ubaldis, and others for Urban and by Pierre Flandrin, Pierre Ameilh, and others for Clement and the cardinals are discussed systematically by Michael Seidlmayer, Die Anfänge des grossen abendländischen Schismas (Münster, 1940), pp. 121 ff.; cf. below, n. 410. And see Ullmann, Origins (cited above, in the Introduction, n. 2), pp. 143 ff. & passim.

 [359] See n. 279 above.

 [360] Gl. ord. on Dist. 40, c. 12 (Multi sacerdotes), v. “in honore.” The canon states: “non qui maior fuerit in honore, ille est iustior: sed qui fuerit iustior, ille maior.” The gloss: “Et est hic argumentum quod illa pars, quae iustiori rationi innititur, maior dicitur, licet sit minor.” The gloss then cites Nicena, In canonicis, In nostra. Of the others, Sana is only generally relevant: “Sana quippe ratio etiam exemplis anteponenda est.” But Nullus invitis (Dist. 61, c. 13), while not itself to the point, has an important gloss. The canon states that before a bishop is elected from outside, the clergy of the city must all have been disqualified. Gl. ord., v. “civitatis,” says: “Sed quid si maior pars eligit extraneum, et minor eligit de gremio suo? Videtur quod hic praevalebit electio paucorum.” It goes on to question the arguments for this solution, but then states: “Dico tenere electionem minoris partis, cum eligunt secundum formam canonum de suo gremio.” See also n. 158 above; cf. Henricus de Bohic for other canonists’ views on this interesting matter (on c. In nostra: II, 261).

 [361] Bohic, I, 6 ff. (Cum omnes), presents the arguments pro and con, as noted above, n. 289, where Simon uses Bohic for the opposite purpose.

 [362] X 5. 39. 28 (Innocent III): “respondemus, quod iudicium Dei veritati, quae non fallit nec fallitur, semper innititur: iudicium autem ecclesiae nonnunquam opinionem sequitur, quam et fallere saepe contingit, et falli.”

 [363] Sext 1. 2. 1, in which Boniface VIII writes that when the pope makes a new decree it is understood as revoking prior ones, but not necessarily as derogating from special or local customs and statutes, which, “quum sint facti et in facto consistant, potest [papa] probabiliter ignorare.”

 [364] The cardinals’ declaration on 9 August 1378 that Urban VI’s election had been invalid (Ampl. coll., 7:434) was based on the assertion of “impressio,” which theme appeared in all subsequent Avignon propaganda. The
 [[ Print Edition Page No. 206 ]] 
formal depositions of the cardinals regarding the election are printed in L. Gayet’s Le grand schisme d’Occident, 2 vols. (Florence, 1889).

 [365] According to Valois, 1:21-35, these Urbanist claims were probably true, the divisions among the cardinals (especially “Limousin” vs. “French”) preventing agreement on a French candidate; but Trexler (see above, Introduction, n. 2), p. 508, observes that the circumstances of intimidation may well have had an effect here too.

 [366] Sixteen cardinals, including four Italians, had been in the conclave where Urban VI was elected. Subsequently one Italian was removed by failing health, and the French cardinal Jean de Lagrange returned to join his colleagues; hence at the election of Clement VII there were also sixteen cardinals. Thus there were in effect seventeen cardinales antiqui—for the six cardinals who had stayed in Avignon had no special knowledge of the events. Seven of the seventeen were alive in 1396: Pedro de Luna (now Benedict XIII), Jean de Lagrange, Guillaume d’Aigrefeuille, Pierre Gerard du Puy, Pierre de Vergne, Guy de Malesset, Pietro Corsini.

 [367] L. Consensu (Codex 5. 17. 8) permits a wife in certain cases to terminate the marriage by giving a writ of divorce (libellus repudii) and establishing her grounds at law—“et causas dissidii legibus comprobare.” Hence, evidently, she can testify in the case to which she is a party.

 [368] For the Avignonese instrumenta see Valois, 2:360, 426. Since none of the cardinales antiqui renounced Clement, it is not clear what the Roman instrumenta could have been; perhaps mere assertions by cardinals appointed after the Schism had begun.

 [369] See Valois, indices, s.v., and for Poncius’s deposition, corresponding to what follows, ibid., 1:13, 34 (the text in Gayet, op. cit.).

 [370] Scriptum est (X 1. 6. 40) provides that in a disputed election the parties may by mutual consent set up a new electoral body consisting not only of the ordinary electors (the canons) but also of other clerics, “per se ipsos sive per alios.” The majority of this body would then prevail. Innocent IV’s commentary, v. “praepositi,” defines the authority of such co-opted clerics: “Isti enim etsi alias ius non haberent in electione, quia utraque pars consensit quod admitterentur, suffragium praestabunt voces eorum.” Also, v. “per alios”: the “others” would not have functioned as arbiters (compromissarii), “sed procuratores fuerunt, quibus aliqui vota sua commiserant, quod licet, quando ex iusta causa aliquis electioni interesse non potest.” Furthermore, “unus si loco plurium admittitur, tantum potest vox eius, quam si omnes voces suas dedissent.”

 [371] Reference is to Stephen III (who in modern lists appears as the 95th pope, not the 89th as stated here) and the Easter synod of 769 at Rome, which acted against the deposed Pope Constantine II. The account in the Liber pontificalis, 1:476, may have been Simon’s source, although his summary, while exact, does not repeat the wording of this text. The account in Mansi, 12:719 f., does not contain enough to have been Simon’s source.


 [[ Print Edition Page No. 207 ]] 

 [372] Sext 2. 14. 1: “Cum aeterni tribunal iudicis illum reum non habeat, quem iniuste iudex condemnat, testante propheta, ‘Nec damnabit eum cum iudicabitur illi’ [Ps. 36.33].”

 [373] Sext 3. 23. 3; cf. 2. q. 7, cc. 5, 14; see above, line 584.

 [374] Here and above, line 2282, apparatus, some mss. give the duration of the Schism as eighteen years, others as nineteen; elsewhere in the treatise it is always nineteen. Cf. n. 3 above.

 [375] See Valois, 3:102 f.: the proxy marriage between Richard II and Isabelle of France was celebrated 12 March 1396 by Simon de Cramaud in Paris, on the basis of a dispensation by the bishop of Paris, empowered thereto by Benedict XIII’s chief penitentiary. But the marriage in person, celebrated 4 November 1396, was authorized by a dispensation from Boniface IX (Valois, 3:108, n. 5).

 [376] The quoted words come from Gratian’s comment “Quod de arbitris,” just after the canon A iudicibus (2. q. 6, c. 33).

 [377] Neither of these laws seems relevant to Simon’s argument.

 [378] Nisi essent (X 3. 5. 21) deals with a disputed election to the office of prior; both contenders and the chapter agreed to an arbitration. The eventual installation of the winner was, according to Innocent IV’s commentary, “cum esset canonice electus. Per arbitrium enim non posset habere canonicam institutionem. inf. de instit., c. 3, sup. de transact., Super eo. Nec posset ius unius in alium transferre.”

 [379] Sane (X 1. 43. 1) provides for an odd number of arbiters; the gl. ord., v. “unus eligatur aut tres,” quotes the Digest as here.

 [380] See nn. 71-73 above.

 [381] See above, at n. 272.

 [382] X 1. 9. 10, Nisi cum pridem: § Propter maliciam plebis “cogitur interdum praelatus ab ipsius regimine declinare”; § Non autem: “cum oves convertuntur in lupos . . . sunt tamen pro tempore utiliter tolerandi, quia sanguinem elicit qui nimis emungit.”

 [383] Hoc tunc [alias Hoc etiam] comes after 7. q. 1, c. 48: prelates are not to resign under adversity “quando nec specialiter praelatus quaeritur, nec per alios tuta potest esse ecclesiae salus”; cf. § 3. Cum autem, ibid.: “quando vero omnium subditorum est obstinata malitia, nec prodest eis praelatorum praesentia, tunc etiam corpore licet ab eis recedere.”

 [384] X 5. 12. 10: “expediebat potius post tunicam relinquere pallium, . . . quam . . . tam acriter in alios exardescere,” the last words referring to deeds of violence and homicide by clerics in defense of property against robbers. The “pallium” metaphor refers to Matt. 5.40.

 [385] See n. 68 above.

 [386] Dig. 50. 16. 125: a promise to give a dowry “cum commodum erit” is interpreted as equivalent to “cum salva dignitate mea potero” or “cum sine incommodo meo potero.”

 [387] Dig. 4. 2. 2: “Vis autem est maioris rei impetus, qui repelli non potest.”
 [[ Print Edition Page No. 208 ]] 
The gl. ord. (Accursius), v. “non potest”: “Et not. quod non definitur hic vis prout hoc titulo accipitur: ut pro compulsiva: quia resisti potest, licet cum periculo. . . . Vel subaudi, commode.”

 [388] Innocent IV on Accedens (X 3. 8. 14): a promise to provide a cleric with a benefice when possible must be understood as limited—for example, if the cleric is not a priest and the vacancy in question requires a priest. “Nam cum dicat, ‘cum potero,’ intelligitur recte, . . . et de iure, . . . et honeste, . . . et commode: FF. De ver. sig., Nepos Proculo.

 [389] The text (Sext 1. 6. 16. § Caeterum) imposes penalties on electors of bishops, etc., who do not present the election to the elect “infra octo dies postquam commode poterunt.” Johannes Monachus, Apparatus, BN, ms. lat. 16901, fol. 25r (ms. lat. 4069, fol. 21v compared): “commode: et ita olim debebant presentare postquam commode possunt, hodie adduntur [alias admittitur] infra [ultra] isti octo dies.”

 [390] In his gloss on Sext 1. 6. 16, v. “a gratia,” Johannes Monachus, Apparatus, BN, ms. lat. 16901, fol. 28r (& ms. lat. 4069, fol. 24v), imagines the case of someone seeking to have actions against him revoked: “hoc casu agens habebit duas vias, sicut viam directe peticionis in libello, . . . et viam implorandi iudicis officium. Et ingressa via una, non videtur recursus ad aliam, prima pendente.” He notes the opinions pro and con and makes distinctions; in the case of two ways to the same end, one “principalis” and the other “subsidiaria”: “aut pinguius non subvenitur per subsidiariam beneficio iuris datam, et tunc ordinarium remedium habet locum . . . ; aut pinguius subvenitur per subsidiariam, et hoc dupliciter: aut ambe principales, et tunc eciam subsidiaria potest primo proponi . . . , aut una principalis et alia non, et tunc ambe possunt concurrere et in processu una potest premitti, et hoc casu pinguius subvenitur preveniendo in tempore. . . . Constat enim quod in revocacione attemptatorum est via ordinaria per peticionem in libello . . . et est via extraordinaria per iudicis officium.”

 [391] See n. 77 above.

 [392] In his first written response to the dukes, 20 June 1395 (n. 276 above), Benedict wrote that “dicta via cessionis pro sedandis schismatibus nec a iure statuta, nec a sanctis patribus in dei ecclesia in simili casu practicata: quinimo . . . ut non conveniens aliquando repulsa”—the text in Bulaeus, 4:748v. Later in the same bull (p. 749) he promised that if the meeting and arbitration between the two contenders did not end the Schism, then before the meeting broke up, “offerimus nos eo casu aperire et prosequi cum effectu viam seu vias rationabiles, honestas et juridicas, per . . . quas . . . finis . . . imponatur schismati.”

 [393] Dig. 45. 1. 137. § 2, concludes with “in eo quod . . . finitum est, nullus est coniecturae locus”; Bartolus summarizes: “ubi est certum, coniecturae non est locus.”

 [394] In the original (23. q. 4, c. 39) the last sentence reads: “Nam videte, qualia faciunt, et qualia patiuntur: occidunt animas, affliguntur in corpore:
 [[ Print Edition Page No. 209 ]] 
sempiternas mortes faciunt et temporales se perpeti conqueruntur.” Augustine’s reference was to the “heretics” and “schismatics” of his day.

 [395] See n. 80 above; immediately after the passage quoted there, Henricus de Bohic writes: “Et si velis scire utrum conscientia erronea liget ad errorem deponendum vel ad faciendum quod dictat utrum peccatum excuset: et utrum plus liget quam preceptum divinum vel preceptum prelati dictans contrarium: vide per Aste[nsem], libro ii, titulo De bonitate et malicia interioris actus, ar. v, vi, et vii.”

 [396] See nn. 79, 125, above.

 [397] Above, n. 79.

 [398] For Nisi cum pridem (X 1. 9. 10) see above, nn. 173, 382; cf. n. 68. Innocent IV writes in his commentary, § 4: “Nos dicimus, quod si solus episcopus quaeritur [scil., by anticlerical persecutors], vel alius praelatus, vel praedicator, vel etiam socius: si autem est alius per quem esse possit tuta salus ecclesiae vel populi, cedat, si vult, et etiam si nollet, si periculum est destructionis ecclesiae, vel magni scandali et periculi, et in temporalibus et in spiritualibus, assignabit ei superior bonum concambium suae praelaturae vel dignitatis, . . . et argu. ad hoc: quia publica utilitas praefertur privatae.”

 [399] The edict of the title was “Quod metus causa gestum erit, ratum non habebo” (Dig. 4. 2. 1). Si mulier (Dig. 4. 2. 21) defines an exception; as the argument preceding the law states: “Si metus fuerit iustus, haec actio cessat. . . . Vel sic: promissio facta metu iuste illato non rescinditur. Bart.”

 [400] See above, n. 398.

 [401] Dig. 6. 1. 15. § 2: “Item si forte ager fuit, qui petitus est, et militibus adsignatus est, modico honoris gratia possessori dato: an hoc restituere debeat?” I find no § Ubi.

 [402] Cf. the text, 23. q. 6, c. 3: “Mea primitus sententia erat, neminem ad unitatem Christi esse cogendum. . . . Sed haec opinio mea non contradicentium verbis, sed demonstrantium superabatur exemplis” (my emphasis). After giving the example of his city, converted from Donatism “timore legum imperialium,” he alludes to others and notes the aptness of the passage “Da sapienti” etc.—which in context applies as well to him as to the former heretics.

 [403] This passage, appearing only in ms. E, seems designed either to exploit a text only now recalled, or to counter a new anti-subtractionist argument citing Sicut quamvis (Dist. 96, c. 15), which states: “Nam qualescumque pontifices sint, etsi errore humanitus accidente, non tamen contra religionem ullatenus excedentes, nullatenus videantur a saeculari potestate posse percelli.” The gl. ord. on “non tamen . . .”: “Nam in eo casu posset a quocunque redargui. 40. dist. Si papa. vel etiam si schisma faceret. 23. q. 5. De Liguribus. Et plures casus, in quibus laici habent iurisdictionem super clericos, dixi 23. q. 5. Principes.” See notes 115, 144, above.

 [404] Above, nn. 117, 177.

 [405] Above, n. 119.


 [[ Print Edition Page No. 210 ]] 

 [406] All but one of Benedict’s cardinals had declared for the French program during the ducal embassy of May-June 1395 (Valois, 3:49 f.). I know of no such stand by Boniface’s cardinals at this time (cf. ibid., p. 122).

 [407] Johannes Monachus, Apparatus, BN, ms. lat. 16901, fol. 92r (and ms. lat. 4069, fol. 64r) on Sext 5. 2. 4, v. “de fratrum nostrorum consilio”: “Quero an hec sint verba voluntatis, congruencie, decencie, vel necessitatis. Scio quod Celestinus papa V multas abbacias, episcopatus, et superiores dignitates contulit sine fratrum consilio, et coram successore fuit iste articulus in dubium revocatus. Et dixi tunc decere ut quod papa mandat in suo canone ab aliis observari, illud non negligat. Mandat enim quod episcopi, abbates, et superiores saltem ardua suarum ecclesiarum ordinent de consilio fratrum suorum, alias non teneat quod agitur. . . . Scio quod dicte collaciones fuerunt cassate presertim quia cetus cardinalium erat in [hac] possessione, quod ardua negocia erant de eorum consilio tractanda et terminanda. . . . Et licet princeps solutus sit legibus, secundum legem ipsum vivere deceat.” This passage is quoted and discussed in Tierney, Foundations, pp. 181, 186 ff.

 [408] Bohic, V, 217 (Antiqua), does discuss the fact that the cardinals do not as cardinals swear an oath to the pope, for they are his limbs; the cardinal bishops swear but only as bishops. He goes on: “Et est efficax argumentum quod papa parum aut nihil decet [sic] facere sine consilio fratrum suorum.” He cites the three canons given here, including Pervenit, left out by Simon or his secretary.

 [408a] The Archdeacon’s gloss on Sext 1. 16. 8 (Quamvis) has not been available.

 [409] See n. 22 above.

 [410] The canonist Pierre d’Ameilh, cardinal of Embrun and one of those who elected Clement VII, wrote his treatise, Contra petentes concilium generale, in the second half of 1379; the text is edited by Bliemetzrieder, Literarische Polemik (cited above, Introduction, n. 7), pp. 91-111. One of the manuscript copies is that in AN, J 518, a codex that Simon seems to have had made (see the recension of E, Introduction § 4, above). The passage from Ameilh’s treatise referred to here is part of a section asserting the special authority of the cardinalate (pp. 108-11): “Plus dico quod papa et domini cardinales ita sunt in Romana ecclesia, quod eciam ipsi sunt eadem Romana ecclesia que claves accepit. . . . Immo quodam modo appellacione ecclesie communius intelligitur collegium quam prelatus.” He goes on to quote Ego N. and other canons, and cites Hostiensis as support.

 [411] See above, n. 34, and the text there and at n. 28. V. Martin, Les origines du Gallicanisme, 1 (Paris, 1939), 343 ff., discusses the movement of ideas in Paris among both canonists and theologians rejecting the thesis of c. Nemo, that the pope was not subject to judgement on earth.

 [412] The text above, n. 119; note that it was promulgated in a council.

 [413] The canon comes from Pseudo-Chrysostom’s Opus imperfectum in Mattheum; cf. above, nn. 201, 360.

 [414] John of Salisbury, Policraticus, bk. 8, ch. 23 (ed. Webb, 2:403) cf.
 [[ Print Edition Page No. 211 ]] 
above, n. 59. The context of bk. 8 is a discussion of tyranny and the permissibility of tyrannicide. Those who fight for church offices and use the powers of their office for their own profit are tyrants (p. 401), and their contests create schism, which is not clearly distinct from heresy (p. 403). John’s words link the civil and ecclesiastical phenomena: “Quid perniciosius . . . bello civili? Nichil plane, praeter rabiem scismaticorum aut hereticam pestem.” Hence he can recommend the drastic consilium Bruti—not to take sides and thereby contribute to civil war, but to let the contenders fight it out in person. “Conveniant ergo . . . in Licaonia insula . . . et sine orbis et urbis periculo vincat alteruter duillorum.” The loser would be either drowned or confined for life in the monastery of La Cava (used indeed for such a purpose in 1100 and 1121), at the pleasure of the victor, who himself, however, as the more violent one, would be shipped off to a lifetime of labor in the quarries or mines. If these details are not given by Simon at this point (or below, lines 2886-90), it is hardly “causa brevitatis,” but probably because his purpose did not yet call for much detail about the escalation of coercion after subtraction. Although Simon had a correct knowledge of this “consilium Bruti”—he gave it correctly in letters of 1401 (Thes. nov., 2:1239; ASV, Arm. 54, t. 21, fol. 257v)—his mind tended to cut through its delicacy and focus on its practical brutality: in a work of 1400, BN, ms. lat. 1475, fol. 36v, he summed up the plan as providing that the loser be killed, the winner drowned; in 1406 he said much the same (BduC, p. 217′). If this was his own working idea of the plan, his reticence here is understandable.

 [415] See above, lines 1355 ff., 1902 ff., 2110 ff.

 [416] Above, n. 119.

 [417] In the canon Augustine writes of the duty to resist improper orders: “Ipsos humanarum legum gradus adverte. . . . Nec hinc debet minor irasci, si maior prelatus est. . . . Si aliquid ipse consul iubeat et aliud iubeat imperator, si vel aliud imperator et aliud deus, quid iudicatis? Maior potestas deus.”

 [418] Hinc eciam in particular is taken care of at lines 1712 ff., above.

 [419] Novellae, 22, Praefatio: “Non enim erubescimus, si quid melius etiam horum quae ipsi prius diximus adinveniamus, hoc sancire et competentem prioribus imponere correctionem nec ab aliis expectare corrigi legem.”

 [420] Not found.

 [421] See n. 255 above.

 [422] Gl. ord. on 24. q. 1, c. 6, v. “facit ecclesia.” The text of the canon discusses the Petrine privilege, “Quodcunque ligaveris super terram erit ligatum et in coelo. Si hoc Petro tantum dictum est, non hoc facit ecclesia.” The gloss: “Sed nonne prius erat ligatus apud deum? . . . Et ita videtur quod nulla potestas Petro collata sit, vel ecclesiae per hoc ‘Quodcunque’ etc., nam nullius potestatis vim exercet, . . . sed tantum ostendit ligatum esse, vel solutum. . . . Dic quod quoad ecclesiam triumphantem nullius potestatis vim exercet, . . . sed tamen habet aliam potestatem, qua ligat quoad ecclesiam militantem: unde quandoque eum ligat, quamvis iniuste.” Cf. gl. ord. on 24.
 [[ Print Edition Page No. 212 ]] 
q. 1, c. 5 (Manet), v. “aequitate”: “Argum. quod sententia iniuste lata non tenet. . . . Sed hoc dicitur de sententia, qua quis ligatur quoad deum, non quoad ecclesiam.”

 [423] Archdeacon, Rosarium, fol. 153v (Si quis erga): “Contemptor dicitur ex contemptu quis facere contra canones quando sine causa facit contra, ut notatur infra, e. q. 7. c. Metropolitanum.

 [424] Ibid., fol. 158r: “Tria sunt quibus episcopi specialiter praeeminent, praeceptum, iudicium, sacramentum. Ab his tribus quandoque absolvuntur subiecti, . . . : a iudicio, ut quando deponitur: solvitur etiam a iudicio eius, qui eum accusat et qui appellat, quia accusatus inimicus et suspectus habetur” (my emphasis).

 [425] Constilium provides that those requiring permission to eat meat during a fast because of illness should be indulged, “cum non subiaceat legi necessitas.” It is Gratian’s § Sed notandum, after Remissionem, which provides that sacraments performed by unworthy priests can be regarded as valid in the case of sacraments necessary to salvation, “quia . . . necessitas non habet legem.”

 [426] The title of De cetero (X 5. 39. 11) reads: “Excommunicatum pro percussione clerici absolvit episcopus, si sine periculo papam adire nequit; debet tamen sibi mandare, quod adeat papam impedimento cessante.”

 [427] Clem. 1. 3. 2: “Eo tamen proviso, quod si eiusdem [Romanae] ecclesiae camerarium, aut maiorem, vel aliquos alios ex poenitentiariis (quorum officium per obitum eiusdem pontificis nolumus expirare) . . .”

 [428] The “iura antiqua” here applied to provisions to benefices were evidently identical to the “iura communia” applied above (at n. 221) to the matter of procurations, annates, etc. In general the ius commune of the church was canon law, in distinction to privileges or to particular uses of papal plenitude of power: see Francis Oakley, The Political Thought of Pierre d’Ailly (New Haven, 1964), p. 173; also Wilks, Problem of Sovereignty, index, s. v. “Law, Common.” But as used in fourteenth-century Paris the two phrases had a sharper, Gallican import: they referred to the canon law as it had been before the papal usurpations of recent times, i.e., before Boniface VIII and his Avignon successors. Thus we read that the Paris Council of February 1399 decreed “quod . . . ecclesie istius regni remaneant in pristina libertate, in qua erant ante Bonifacium [VIII] vel in primitiva ecclesia”—ALKG, 7:42 f. The idea is developed by Pierre Leroy in his speech of 31 May 1398 at the Third Paris Council (ASV, Arm. 54, t. 21, fol. 198r): “Eleccio episcoporum in primitiva ecclesia spectabat collegiis et capitulis, confirmacio archiepiscopis et patriarchis, institucio in aliis beneficiis episcopis et prelatis aliis et suis patronis. Et hoc habetur a Cristo et fuit servatum per mille et ccc. annos; sed postmodum summi pontifices usurpaverunt . . . ; postmodum totum usurpaverunt, sicut videmus in procuracionibus et decimis.” The conceptualization in terms of law appears, e.g., in the ballot cast by the bishop of Viviers at the Third Paris Council (AN, J 518, fol. 478rv): “attento
 [[ Print Edition Page No. 213 ]] 
statu ecclesiarum istius regni et modo regendi hactenus observato per Romanos pontifices a modico tempore citra, . . . necessarium esse videtur . . . quod circa provisionem ecclesiarum cathedralium et monasteriorum, et collacionem beneficiorum, visitaciones et procuraciones . . . [etc.], servaretur disposicio iuris communis et antiqua ecclesiarum consuetudo.”

 [429] For the political background of this whole paragraph, which offers mutually contradictory solutions to the problem—one Gallican, the other based on a continuation of papal governance sede vacante—see SdeC, pp. 213 ff.

 [430] See n. 427 above.

 [431] Although Albert of Bavaria, regent of Hainaut, at first recognized Clement VII, he and his land later switched to neutrality: see Valois, 2:291, n. 4.

 [432] The “nunquam” covers only the pontificate of Benedict XIII, and this passage seems to be the only explicit source for the university’s refusal to submit a roll; see Valois, 3:23, n. 5.

 [433] This provision for “a good order” modifies the reliance on the iura antiqua above, which provided for elections or collations by the ordinary electors or collators. For the scheme in practice see Valois, 3:305 ff.; and cf. Kaminsky, “The Politics of France’s Subtraction,” (cited above, Introduction, n. 30), pp. 385 ff.

 [434] X 3. 5. 35: “Cum autem illi sint in ecclesiis idonei reputandi, qui servire possunt et volunt in ipsis . . .”

 [435] Dig. 6. 1. 15 (for which see above, n. 401). The gl. ord., v. “assignatus,” refers to L. Lucius, De evicc. (Dig. 21. 2. 11), which deals with such a case: the heir of a man who had paid part of the price for lands subsequently “ex praecepto principali partim distractas, partim veteranis in praemia adsignatas” is still liable to pay the balance.

 [436] A holder of an expectative grace had only ius ad rem, a right to have his claim legally considered; actual right in the benefice (ius in re) was acquired only by collation and institution. See SdeC, pp. 238-41.

 [437] A papal grace of provision made motu proprio included the formula “decernentes prout est irritum et inane si secus super hec a quoquam quavis auctoritate . . . attemptatum forsan est hactenus, vel contigerit imposterum attemptari” (e.g., ASV, Reg. Aven. 198, fol. 188v), along with other formulas canceling in advance any action that would interfere with the effect of the grace.

 [438] The last clauses cast the matter into legal language—cf. e.g., gl. ord. on X 3. 38. 19, v. “removeri”: “licet ad eum casum deveniat, a quo incipere non potuit.” For the regula Catoniana see Dig. 34. 7. 1; it provided that a legacy that would have been invalid if the testator had died right after making it would still be invalid no matter when he died. Thus, in the present context, the expectative graces, with their inhibitory clauses, would have been invalid if the pope had been deprived of his power right after issuing them;
 [[ Print Edition Page No. 214 ]] 
therefore they would be invalidated retroactively as soon as subtraction was decreed. See SdeC, pp. 238-42, for the complications in practice when the subtraction was being arranged.

 [439] Si Petrus merely states that Peter made Clement his successor. It is the gl. ord., v. “aut ligandi,” which Simon has in mind: “Videns autem Clemens, quod hoc esset perniciosum exemplo, quod aliquis sibi eligeret successorem, renuntiavit papatui,” and was later re-elected.

 [440] The insertion seems never to have been made; hence the “sed . . . omisi” added in the final redaction; see n. 414 above.

 [441] Dig. 40. 5. 20: “Nam ego [scil. Pomponius] discendi cupiditate, quam solam vivendi rationem optimam in octavum et septuagesimum annum aetatis duxi: memor sum eius sententiae, qui dixisse fertur: . . . Etsi alterum pedem in tumulo haberem, non pigeret aliquid addiscere.” Simon was about 52 years old when he invoked this example.

Endnotes

Footnotes

 [1] This and the other subjects of the present introduction are treated in detail, with full references to the scholarly literature, in SdeC. For what follows immediately see Bernard Guillemain, La cour pontificale d’Avignon 1309-1376. Étude d’une société (1962; repr. Paris, 1966), pp. 181-211, 454; G. Mollat, The Popes at Avignon, 1305-1378, trans. Janet Love (London, 1963), pp. 305-10; Y. Renouard, The Avignon Papacy 1305-1403, trans. Denis Bethell (London, 1970), pp. 37 ff.

 [2] Valois, 1:8-55; W. Ullmann, The Origins of the Great Schism (London, 1948); Richard Trexler, “Rome on the Eve of the Great Schism,” Speculum, 42 (1967), 489-509. Trexler’s new evidence of intimidation seems decisive.

 [3] For the differing views of Urban and the cardinals see Edith Pasztor, “La Curia Romana all’inizio dello Scisma d’Occidente,” Genèse et débuts du Grand Schisme d’Occident (Colloques internationaux du Centre national de la recherche scientifique, 586; Paris, 1980), 31-43. For the rest, O. Přerovský, L’Elezione di Urbano VI e l’insorgere dello scisma d’occidente (Miscellanea della Società Romana di storia patria, 22; Rome, 1960), 63, 87, 188; Ullmann, op. cit. (repr. 1972), preface—Urban was “megalomaniac and insane.”

 [4] Cited in Ullmann, op. cit., p. 48.

 [5] Thes. nov., 2:1156.

 [6] Valois, 1:82; K. A. Fink, “Zur Beurteilung des grossen abendländischen Schismas,” Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte, 73 (1962), 338.

 [7] SdeC, index, “via facti”; Valois, 3:371; see Valois, 1, passim. The various conciliar proposals in the first years of the Schism are analyzed by Michael Seidlmayer, Die Anfänge des grossen abendländischen Schismas (Münster, 1940), esp. pp. 172-93, and cf. Valois, 4:494; both emphasize that the conciliar idea at this point aimed at judging between the two contenders. Franz Bliemetzrieder, Literarische Polemik zu Beginn des grossen abendländischen Schismas (Vienna, 1910), publishes the important early anti-conciliar treatises of the French cardinals Pierre Flandrin and Pierre Ameilh; cf. Ullmann, Origins, passim.

 [8] G. Holmes, Europe: Hierarchy and Revolt 1320-1450 (London, 1975), p. 174.

 [9] For sentiment in favor of multiple papacies, or indifference to the whole matter, see SdeC, pp. 6 ff., 32, 269. For the rest see Salutati’s letter to Jobst of Moravia in Thes. nov., 2:1160 f.; Jean Gerson, Oeuvres complètes, ed. P. Glorieux, 6 (Paris, 1965), 29-34; Honoré Bouvet, “Somnium super materia scismatis,” ed. I. Arnold, L’apparicion Maistre Jehan de Meun et le Somnium super materia scismatis d’Honoré Bonet (Paris, 1926), p. 109 (for Bonet/Bouvet see SdeC, p. 37 n. 22).

 [10] J. J. N. Palmer, England, France and Christendom, 1377-99 (London, 1972), pp. 1-25 & passim.

 [11] The text in Bulaeus, 4:687-96.

 [12] SdeC, pp. 36-38; for Tenorio’s statement, ibid., p. 157, and José Goñi Gaztambide, “La embajada de Simón de Cramaud a Castilla en 1396,” Hispania Sacra, 15 (1962), 175.

 [13] Glosses on the Allegations of Martin de Salva (Appendix V, No. 11), fol. 48v: “et neutra pars erit scismatica,” “luce clarius esset quod neutra pars esset scismatica, sed esset unum ovile et unus pastor.”

 [14] SdeC, pp. 54-65.

 [15] Benedict’s instructions to his envoys to Paris, in ALKG 6:153-57.

 [16] Haller, PKR, pp. 524-35; Valois, 3:52-63; SdeC, pp. 258-60, 276.

 [17] His statement for the First Paris Council (Appendix IV) suggests such a realization, which is more explicit in his major treatise; see § 3 below, also SdeC, index, “Deposition of popes.”

 [18] Appendix V, No. 10, ms. 2, fol. 221r.

 [19] SdeC, pp. 113-38, for the events summarized below; and see Appendix V, No. 1.

 [20] SdeC, pp. 138-61, 208-11, and Valois, 3, passim, for what follows.

 [21] SdeC, pp. 60 f., 146 f.

 [22] Y. Congar, “Aspects ecclésiologiques de la querelle entre mendiants et séculiers dans la seconde moitié du XIIIe siècle et le début du XIVe,” Archives d’histoire doctrinale et littéraire du moyen âge, 28 (1961), 35-151; V. Martin, Les origines du Gallicanisme, 1 (Paris, 1939), 29-239; SdeC, pp. 147 f., 179; and see below.

 [23] Haller, PKR, pp. 205 ff., 465 ff.

 [24] SdeC, pp. 146, 151, and passim.

 [25] Valois, 3:104 ff.; Haller, PKR, p. 223; SdeC, pp. 161-67.

 [26] The text in Ehrle, Alpartil, pp. 476-80; see SdeC, pp. 167-71.

 [27] The first report appears in the acta of the Third Paris Council published in BduC, p. 25: “cum regressus sum ab Hispania, per dominum cancellarium fuit iniunctum aliquibus de consilio et michi, ut scriberem super substraccione, et ita feci” (I take it direct from BN, ms. lat. 14644, fol. 60r). The second report is in ASV, Arm. 54, t. 21, fol. 194r: “postquam veni de rege Castelle, repperi quod rex Francie ordinaverat quod certi clerici examinarent, an via cessionis iuridica esset. Quo viso incepi disputare unam questionem, an posset fieri subtraccio pape, casu quo viam cessionis non acceptaret.”

 [28] The two reports as in the preceding note: (1) “Nec elegi opinionem aliquam, sed solum pro utraque parte argui, ut apparet”; (2) “Et argui [ms.: arguo] pro et contra, causa disputacionis non causa decisionis, sed disputavi predictam questionem.” See n. 332 to the treatise, and see SdeC, pp. 171-77.

 [29] BduC, p. 53; ASV, Arm. 54, t. 21, fol. 25v; SdeC, pp. 207 f.

 [30] Appendix V, Nos. 10, 12, etc. For the Third Paris Council see SdeC, pp. 212-41, also H. Kaminsky, “The Politics of France’s Subtraction of Obedience from Pope Benedict XIII, 27 July, 1398,” Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 115 (1971), 366-97. The text of the subtraction ordinance of 27 July 1398 is in Ordonnances, 8:258-68; cf. Valois, 3:183 n. 2 for other printings and surviving mss. The guess in Haller, PKR, pp. 238 f., that Simon had a hand in drafting the ordinance seems likely; in any case Simon’s ideas and words are in it.

 [31] SdeC, pp. 124, 165, 215 f., 219, 221, 265.

 [32] See e.g. d’Ailly’s “Tractatus de materia concilii generalis,” ed. F. Oakley, The Political Thought of Pierre d’Ailly (New Haven, 1964), pp. 259 ff., which includes material taken in chunks from Gerson’s “De concilio unius obedientiae,” ed. Glorieux, Oeuvres, 6:51 ff.

 [33] SdeC, pp. 216, 228-42.

 [34] SdeC, pp. 179 f.; see also below.

 [35] SdeC, pp. 223 f.

 [36] The message to Richard II of England in Valois, 3:292; for the message to Florence see Appendix V, No. 9; that to Milan in AN, J 516 A, No. 23; see SdeC, p. 246.

 [37] See SdeC, pp. 229 ff., for texts and discussion of the political relationship between partial and total subtraction, the latter valuable here chiefly because it canceled the pope’s power to punish the subtracters effectively.

 [38] Ordonnances, 8:258-68. The key formulations are in the artfully stylized canonistic phrases: “Comperto . . . quod illi vere scismata faciunt, qui contra canonicas constituciones aliquid proterve agunt, per id ecclesiam dividentes, ymo et qui . . . falsas ac novas opiniones vel gignunt vel secuntur, veri heretici sunt, et qui scindunt ecclesiam, eadem racione scismatici; quod insuper pape eciam unico et indubitato precipienti . . . aliquid quo ecclesie universalis turbacio, subversio vel destruccio sequi verisimiliter timeretur . . . obediendum non est.” And: “ab obediencia totali ipsius Benedicti . . . recedimus.” (This and the substance of n. 40 below remedy some imprecisions in SdeC, pp. 232, 243.)

 [39] The relationship between the text of the ordinance and Simon’s speeches at the Council as well as his treatise is obvious at once.

 [40] In his refutation of the Toulouse letter of 1402 (Appendix V, No. 15), AN, J 518, fol. 513r: “Et quamvis notorie ipse scisma foverit et nutriverit, et scissuras in partes sibi obedientes fecerit, . . . nichilominus tamen ad condempnacionem super istis criminibus contra ipsum non processimus, credentes quod ad condempnacionem formalem non habet iudicem competentem nisi consilium ecclesie sibi obedientis.” Simon’s advocacy of a council of the Avignon obedience was due to the political needs of the moment (SdeC, pp. 248-53).

 [41] SdeC, pp. 244-61.

 [42] SdeC, pp. 263-69, for the Fourth Paris Council; and see below, at notes 45-49.

 [43] SdeC, pp. 272-76; see in general Valois, 3:325-616, and 4, ch. 1.

 [44] Ampl. coll., 7:798-803; SdeC, p. 279.

 [45] The following summary is based on two articles by Arnold Esch: “Das Papsttum unter der Herrschaft der Neapolitaner,” Festschrift für Hermann Heimpel, 2 (Göttingen, 1972), 713-800, and “Simonie-Geschäft in Rom 1400,” Vierteljahrschrift für Sozial- und Wirtschaftsgeschichte, 61 (1974), 433-57; I add my own speculations. See SdeC, pp. 269-72, for more references.

 [46] See SdeC, p. 12, for references.

 [47] For the works of Ancharano and others see Swanson, pp. 150-55; also idem, “The Problem of the Cardinalate in the Great Schism,” in B. Tierney & P. Linehan, eds., Authority and Power: Studies on Medieval Law and Government (Walter Ullmann Festschrift; Cambridge, 1980), pp. 226 f. For Ferrer’s comments in his treatise of 1411, see Ampl. coll., 7:1467-69.

 [48] SdeC, pp. 281-85, for this and the following discussion of Pisa.

 [49] The text of the decree, which I take from Ampl. coll., 7:1096-98, is stylized as one huge sentence including much noise, which my compressed quotation omits: “Sancta et universalis synodus universalem ecclesiam repraesentans decernit et declarat omnia crimina deducta contra Petrum de Luna et Angelum Corrario fuisse vera atque notoria, ipsosque fuisse et esse notorios schismaticos necnon notorios haereticos et a fide devios, universalem ecclesiam notorie scandalisantes, et ex his se reddidisse omni honore et dignitate etiam papali indignos, ipsosque ne praesint a Deo et sacris canonibus fore ipso facto abjectos et privatos, ac etiam ab ecclesia praecisos; et nichilominus ipsos Petrum et Angelum per hanc definitivam sententiam [synodus] privat, abjicit et praescindit, ecclesiamque vacare Romanam ad cautelam insuper decernendo.” Cf. the text of the subtraction ordinance of 1398, above, n. 38; see SdeC, pp. 282 f., for an English translation and comment.

 [50] For this and what follows see SdeC, pp. 66-107 (with a Cramaud genealogy on p. 361), a newer version of Kaminsky, “The Early Career of Simon de Cramaud,” Speculum, 49 (1974), 499-534.

 [51] SdeC, index, “Cramaud, Simon de: . . . tie to duke of Berry,” and esp. p. 303 for evidence that the tie lasted to the very end of the duke’s life; cf. also Plate III.

 [52] SdeC, p. 27, for some examples.

 [53] I know of no systematic study of late-medieval estate; see the discussion and references in SdeC, pp. 66-68; also the index, “Estate.”

 [54] Some details in SdeC, pp. 83 f.

 [55] SdeC, pp. 85-93, for what follows in this paragraph.

 [56] SdeC, Appendix Three, for an itemized list and a map of Simon’s acquisitions.

 [57] Guy Bois, “Noblesse et crise des revenus seigneuriaux en France aux XIVe et XVe siècles,” in La noblesse au moyen âge, ed. P. Contamine (Paris, 1976), pp. 226 ff.

 [58] SdeC, pp. 72, 307-10, 320 f.

 [59] SdeC, pp. 96-98.

 [60] SdeC, pp. 98-101, for the whole episode as follows.

 [61] The original in Poitiers, Archives Départementales de la Vienne, G 1, No. 16; for the oath the chapter desired see ADV, G 182, fols. 2v-3r, in the “Livre rouge.”

 [62] L.-F.-X. Rédet, ed., Cartulaire de l’évêché de Poitiers (Archives historiques du Poitou, 10; Poitiers, 1881), 166-85 (entries from 1312 to 1364), 185-254 (Simon’s entries from 1387 to 1421, except for two entries by others), 254-56 (the last entry, 1506).

 [63] SdeC, pp. 102 f.

 [64] Ehrle, Alpartil, pp. 16 f., 118; SdeC, pp. 104 f.

 [65] ASV, Reg. Aven. 270, fol. 626v; see SdeC, p. 106.

 [66] SdeC, p. 106.

 [67] Valois, 2:391-430; Haller, PKR, pp. 524-35; SdeC, pp. 50-53, 63.

 [68] Bishop Bernard Alamant of Condom noted his receipt of such a letter from the crown (on 5 November 1393) and wrote a treatise in response. Details and key passages in SdeC, pp. 53 f.; see also Valois, 2:405 f.

 [69] RSD, 2:96-98; Bulaeus, 4:687; SdeC, pp. 56 f.; cf. CUP, 3, No. 1676.

 [70] Simon was in Paris 2 January 1394 (AN, X 1A 1477, fol. 397r), but left for Avignon soon after; by 28 January, the day when the appointments were made, he was in Avignon (AN, JJ 147, fol. 4v).

 [71] ASV, Reg. Aven. 269, fol. 593v (“issued” is my understanding of “expedita”); for the bribery in general see RSD, 2:130-32 (“non sine donis uberioribus aulicos et servientes regios induxerunt”); see SdeC, pp. 50-64.

 [72] BduC, p. 216. Later Simon and others would recall 1394 as a time when the royal government was unambiguously pressing Clement VII to end the Schism—e.g., Ampl. coll., 7:713; Ordonannces, 8:259; cf. CUP, 3:631-33. See Valois, 2:407-30; SdeC, pp. 60-62.

 [73] SdeC, pp. 244-57, for what follows in this paragraph.

 [74] Simon’s music foundation of 10 October 1402, his most lasting achievement, is described in BN, ms. lat. 18377, pp. 195-98, and in a number of other places as well, including a still extant plaque in the cathedral choir and an original parchment in ADV, G 258. See SdeC, p. 314.

 [75] See SdeC, p. 304, for references, and Plate I for a drawing of the tomb by Gaignières, ca. 1700, after the statues had been destroyed by the Huguenots in 1562; the rest of the tomb was destroyed in the French Revolution.

 [76] AN, X 1A 9190, fols. 173r-174r; SdeC, p. 310.

 [77] For context and references see Lehoux, 3:25, 62, 69; original records survive in BN, ms. fr. 27405 (P.O. 921), group No. 20357, items 2-4.

 [78] SdeC, pp. 313-15.

 [79] SdeC, pp. 320-22.

 [80] SdeC, pp. 260-69, for what follows. For Simon’s work with his “schedules” (below) see Thes. nov., 2:1307-10; Bulaeus, 5:137-41; Valois, 3:481 f.

 [81] SdeC, pp. 272-81, for what follows.

 [82] Valois, 3:536 ff.; Simon’s deposition at Pisa, 1 June 1409, in J. Vincke, “Acta concilii Pisani,” Römische Quartalschrift, 46 (1938), 256; Ampl. coll., 7:768 f.; cf. Haller, PKR, p. 294, for a contrary view.

 [83] French manipulation is alleged throughout in the “Heidelberg Postil” of 1408, by Konrad von Soest and Job Vener, DRTA, 6:398-417.

 [84] SdeC, pp. 281-85.

 [85] Ampl. coll., 7:1085.

 [86] SdeC, pp. 287-99 for what follows; the political action is treated best in Lehoux, 3:108-15, 144-70, 192-232.

 [87] Poitiers, Archives Départementales de la Vienne, G 257; Paris, BN, ms. lat. 18378, pp. 543-51.

 [88] K. Eubel, Hierarchia catholica medii aevi, 1 (2d ed.; Münster, 1913), 33, 399; but cf. Gallia Christiana, 9:134, and SdeC, p. 300 n. 40.

 [89] SdeC, pp. 301-03, for Simon and the Council of Constance.

 [90] SdeC, pp. 304-23, for this last segment of Simon’s life.

 [91] Tierney, Foundations, p. 51; cf. Yves Congar, “‘Status Ecclesiae’,” Studia Gratiana, 15 (1972), 30 f.

 [92] The text of the treatise, at n. 125. References to the treatise in the following discussion will not be footnoted if they can be readily located. There is an English translation of the treatise in SdeC, pp. 331-56, and an analysis of it on pp. 178-206.

 [93] The passage is part of the series of suppositions at the beginning of Part 2.

 [94] Buisson seems not to appreciate the full import of the term. Thus, after citing Innocent IV’s sentence justifying disobedience to a pope whose command was likely “to disturb the status ecclesie” (the passage relayed by Simon as in n. 92 above), Buisson comments, “In der Wendung ‘statum ecclesie perturbari’ ist im Geist der Zeit eine schwere strukturelle Veränderung der Kirche zu verstehen” (Buisson, p. 262). In fact, as explained above, the meaning was much more general—including, in Congar’s terms (as cited in n. 91 above), “le bien général, la santé, la prosperité et la paix de l’Eglise.”

 [95] See n. 120 to the treatise; cf. Buisson, pp. 183-87.

 [96] The equivalence must be understood in legal terms: a heretic was one who persisted in an officially condemned error, so that he was condemned not for his error but for his contumacy. As John Hus put it, referring to the Archdeacon, Huguccio, and Innocent IV, “maior excommunicacio propter solam contumaciam est ferenda”—in Super IV Sententiarum, ed. V. Flajšhans (Prague, 1904), p. 612. The glossa ordinaria makes the equivalence convertible, presumably because contumacy in any case presupposed a rejection of the church’s judicial authority.

 [97] Tierney, Foundations, pp. 96 ff., 132 ff., and passim; cf. Buisson, p. 184.

 [98] SdeC, pp. 117-19, 191-98, 227 f., with references to the literature.

 [99] For Nogaret see Richard Scholz, Die Publizistik zur Zeit Philipps des Schönen und Bonifaz’ VIII. (Stuttgart, 1903), pp. 363-75; cf. Jean Rivière, Le problème de l’église et de l’état au temps de Philippe le Bel (Paris, 1926), p. 126. Examples of Simon’s references to the episode appear in AN, J 518, fol. 508v, and BduC, p. 217′ (where the word “subtraction” is used); see SdeC, p. 179, for texts.

 [100] SdeC, pp. 55, 58 f., 180.

 [101] Pierre de la Palu, in his Tractatus de potestate pape of 1317, written in defense of papalism against Parisian episcopalist ideas, wrote, “falsa est glossa in predicto capitulo, Si papa, dicens quod de quocumque alio crimine notorio papa, si est incorrigibilis, potest accusari et amoveri, quia contumacia est heresis, et contumax dicitur infidelis. Quia hoc est non proprie sed solum metaphorice, sicut et simonia dicitur heresis”; the passage is quoted here as taken over one year later by Guillaume de Peyre de Godin: W. D. McCready, ed., The Theory of Papal Monarchy in the Fourteenth Century. Guillaume de Pierre Godin. Tractatus de causa immediata ecclesiastice potestatis (Studies and Texts, 56; Toronto, 1982), 155. Pierre Bertrand picked the passage up in his apparatus on the Sext and Clementines, whence it was quoted by Benedict XIII’s chief apologist Pierre Ravat in his marginalia on a copy of Simon’s De substraccione: ms. J in the present edition, fol. 104v. Ravat used the same citation in his speech at the Third Paris Council: BduC, p. 7, ASV, Arm. 54, t. 21, fol. 221v; see SdeC, pp. 200 f.

 [102] The treatise, at notes 206, 207, 208.

 [103] Even Simon’s ally in subtraction, the Gallican Pierre Leroy, refused to associate himself with this position; see BduC, p. 208; cf. Simon’s insistence that the heresy of schism was even more damaging than that of doctrine, in the treatise just after n. 210. In his “Epistola de scismate” of 1383/84 Gerard Groote remarked, “Iuriste loquuntur promiscue de heresi et de scismate,” and noted his own reservations, “Michi videtur quod scisma est magis facti, heresis est magis in mente divisio et discessus”—in Georgette Epiney-Burgard, Gerard Groote et les débuts de la dévotion moderne (Wiesbaden, 1970), p. 178 n. 27.

 [104] Gratian had noted that Si duo did not apply when only one of the elections was irregular; the glossa ordinaria required a preliminary judgement of irregularity by a general council; for examples of the canon used against the via cessionis see the treatise, Part 1, at n. 74, also the papalist work in ASV, Arm. 54, t. 20, fol. 187r, where the regularity of Clement’s election is insisted upon.

 [105] See Tierney, Foundations, pp. 142-49, 184-90, for the canonistic tradition in this sense; see the treatise at notes 63, 132, 307, 421. The bishop as procurator of the public utility of his church is discussed by Tierney, Foundations, pp. 96-131; Simon used the word in his speech of 1406, BduC, p. 120.

 [106] The treatise, passim; see SdeC, pp. 8-11, 187-89.

 [107] The treatise at notes 75 and 257; see the marginal note in ms. C at this point, in Appendix II; SdeC, p. 190 n. 33.

 [108] Tierney, Foundations, p. 53 n. 1. Even Pierre Ravat, who held that a council could judge the pope only in matters pertaining to the faith or sacraments, in another context said, “If the king wants the pope to be judged or proceedings to be taken against him, let the king work to convoke a general council!” (BduC, p. 54; ASV, Arm. 54, t. 21, fol. 221v). See SdeC, p. 202.

 [109] ASV, Arm. 54, t. 21, fol. 221v; see SdeC, pp. 199 f.

 [110] See n. 101 above.

 [111] ASV, Arm. 54, t. 21, fol. 232v; BduC, p. 51; cf. notes 22, 410 to the treatise, and see the texts and references in SdeC, p. 201. In his treatise cited above, n. 101, Guillaume de Peyre de Godin wrote (p. 295), “de potentia absoluta posset papa ecclesiam regere per episcopos legatos annuales missos ad tempus ad provincias et dioceses.”

 [112] See the treatise, at notes 50 and 141, for Simon’s “ecclesia militans nichil aliud est quam congregacio fidelium,” the latter case in a context justifying royal intervention; cf. SdeC, p. 192; Tierney, Foundations, pp. 41 ff., 134-41, 203.

 [113] BduC, p. 54.

 [114] The treatise, at notes 162, 251.

 [115] The treatise, lines 1814-57. In 1406 Simon argued that the Paris councils of the clergy, summoned by the king and meeting under royal presidency, enabled the king to exercise jurisdiction in ecclesiastical matters; see the texts in SdeC, pp. 117, 193 f.

 [116] See the treatise at n. 351, and see Simon’s glosses on the Toulouse letter (Appendix V, No. 15), AN, J 518, fol. 549v, for the formulation that those making a schism were to be coerced “per publicas potestates”—the text is quoted from Decretum, 23. q. 5, c. 43, a letter of Pope Pelagius I (556-61); see SdeC, pp. 191-98.

 [117] Paris, BN, ms. lat. 1475 (see Appendix V, No. 11), fol. 49r (Martinus, Vincencius, Bernardus Guidonis), fol. 34r (“Bocacius in libro suo de casu virorum illustrium,” re Pope John XII); Hélinand is cited in the letter to the Archbishop of Canterbury, Thes. nov., 2:1244 (Appendix V, No. 12).

 [118] Thes. nov., 2:1242 ff.—e.g., “de Anglia inter ceteros Albinum seu Alcuinum in Franciam venisse legimus, qui . . . Carolum magnum in omnibus artibus liberalibus instruxit.”

 [119] BN, ms. lat. 1573 (Appendix V, No. 16); e.g., fol. 34r: “Fugiat vestra magestas . . . verborum lenocinia . . . et sui Yspani Senece sequens consilium. . . .” And, fol. 35r: “Gallicia, in quo homines sic fuisse virtuosi leguntur, quod nec tunc Visigothi nec eciam postea Sarraceni eos sibi subicere potuerunt.”

 [120] “Et Johachim de scismate tunc futuro scribens sic dicit . . .”—ibid., fol. 33v. In the glosses listed in Appendix V, No. 11, fol. 52r, Simon praised the University of Paris for its long-standing defense of the faith against schism and heresy, “Unde viriliter reprehendit Johannem papam XXII errantem in materia de visione beata, et multos alios; de quorum aliquibus ponit exemplum Johannes de Magduno in libro suo de rosa, quando loquitur de illis qui conabantur facere secundum evangelium etc., ubi . . . universitatem commendat.”

 [121] A. E. Housman, Selected Prose (Cambridge, 1961), p. 131.

 [122] In the glosses against the Toulouse letter, AN, J 518, fol. 554v (addressing the king): “Et si rethorice hec venusta non sint exornata gravitate et politi sermonis nitore decorata, sed inclinato stilo deducta per planum, non curet vestra Maiestas Regia. Nam communiter nos canoniste Parisius artem ornate loquendi non discimus, neque facundie rethorum oratorumque operam damus.”

 [1260-1313]  Ex . . . q. iii.] om. C(with marginal counterpart), J(added) /

Variants

 1-4 Nunc . . . Quia] om. CJ / 1 etc.] om. B /

 1-4  ut in psalmo . . . xxiii. q. iv.] om. A /

 7-14  nec . . . Non vos] om. CJ /

 9-10  huiusmodi] huius ABG /

 10  fabulatores rumoris] vv. AB(& orig.) /

 12  opprimi] reprimi L /

 20  nequit] nequivit CHJ(& orig.) /

 20  constantes] constanter ACGJ,B(corr.) /

 20-21  in terra tenere] om. A; in terra CJ,G(corr.); in terra habet E; in terra habere HKL /

 21  invaluit] involvit A; invalescit HK /

 25-26  Scocie . . . Hyspanie] Yspanie, et Arragonie, Navarre, Scocie E /

 28-29  eius mortem] vv. L

 31  nos reputamus ipsos] reputavimus eos B /

 36  prius] primo E /

 40  esse et fuisse] vv. HK /

 41  pecus] petrus JK /

 42  domini] xxiii di. foll. L /

 42  dicit] dicitur L /

 43  etc. cui] et eciam cui ABCGJ /

 54  nos] om. EH /

 56-57  inter . . . mortales] guerre m. inter cr. ABCGJ /

 57  mortales] mortalitates HK /

 58  mala] multa alia A; multa mala BCGJ /

 59  reperiunt] respiciunt C /

 63  aliis] alias L

 67  advertat] avertat CJ /

 69  omnes] omnis J /

 69  nocendi] incendi H /

 69  premuniamus] prenunciamus A; corr. to premuniatur J /

 70  canonis] c. AHJK /

 71  potentis] potenti ABHJK /

 72  tempore] die H /

 73  quem] quos ACGJ /

 75  transsumptive] transsumptum ACGJ /

 75  Sit] si ACEJKL; sic G /

 76-78  iuxta . . . unum] om. C /

 80  (2d) i.] iiiam codd. /

 82  de quibus Ysidorus ait] quibus per prophetam [propheciam CJ] divinitus dictum est, Nunc reges, etc., ut in principio [psalmo CJ], quod intelligitur ut nunc, quando ecclesia est in tanta tribulacione, ut dicit Augustinus in epistola ad Vincencium, et scribitur in c. Non invenitur, xxiii. q. iv, et Ysidorus ACJ; quibus per prophetam divinitus dictum est, Nunc reges intelligite etc. Quia ut dicit Ysidorus B; quia ut dicit Ysidorus G /

 83  scilicet] sancta B /

 84  credidit] tradidit A /

 87  potentes potenter] potentes B; vv. CJ; potenter G /

 88  Auferetur] aufertur HK /

 90  talia] alia L /

 90-91  deducit] deduxit E

 96  convenerint] conveniunt GJ; convenerunt L /

 99  certis] ceteris CHJK /

 100  revocacionibus] renunciacionibus alias et melius revocacionibus L /

 101  sequente] sequentis BCJ /

 101  eleccione] eleccionem J /

 103  clarius] lacius AG /

 103  penitus] om. C /

 104  uniendum] uniendam CEJ /

 106  istam] ista A /

 106  viam] om. ABCJ /

 108  ceteros] certos CEHJL /

 108  tactum] tractatum J /

 109  vel per] vel AHK /

 111  veritatis] cristianitatis J /

 112  veritatem] voluntatem J,C(corr.) /

 113  quia] om. BEHKL,G(with a blank space) /

 113  provident] above this prohibent B /

 114  utili] utili vel inutili L /

 116-20  Symon . . . retentus] om. ABCJ; in marg. inter doctores decretorum Parisius iam pridem minimus, nunc vero sicut deo placuit patriarcha alexandrinus et administrator ecclesie carcassonensis G /

 116  Cramaudo] Crama(n)do H; Cramado K

 122-23  veritatem] cristianitatem J /

 124  scriptis] scripto B /

 124  quia] qui G /

 124-25  investigande veritatis] investigandi veritatem A; inv. cristianitatis J /

 126-27  materia] materiam A /

 128-30  malens . . . biblie] om. ACJ /

 128  aliena] alia HK /

 128  verecunde] verecundia E; verecunda HKL /

 131  cuilibet] cuiusque A; cuique B; cuicunque CGJ /

 131  iudicium] arbitrium A /

 134  forte] om. CJ /

 134  fortassis] fortasse A /

 137  temere] temerarie ABCG /

 139  temere in materia] temere A; in ma. tem. BCGJ /

 140  in] om. BEHK /

 142  quilibet] alius foll. ABG /

 143  placeat] placebit B /

 146-47  et matris . . . videntis] om. ABCGJ /

 148  igitur] clarius foll. L /

 148  quero aliqua] ponam difficultates que sunt in via consilii generalis et compromissi et facti et reduccionis, et demum veniam ad viam cessionis E; vv. G

 151  obedienciam canonice] vv. J; obedienciam K /

 153  melioris] om. A /

 157  probabo primo] primo probo K /

 158-59  utilitatem] unitatem B /

 160  quod non licet] om. A /

 163-64  alia . . . militantis] om. A,K(corr.) /

 163  successor] Petri foll. BL /

 176  principatum] principem L /

 177  per] per beatum A

 184  petitur] impetitur B /

 186  petram] om. L /

 186  et] ut A /

 186  sit ius] sicius corr. to cicius B /

 187  criminati] terminati E,K(?) /

 187  infamiam] infamia J /

 190  prevalebunt] prevalebunt etc A; prevalebunt adversus eam C /

 191-92  seduccione] sedicione L /

 193  primatum] primates ACJ /

 193  plenam] om. EHKL /

 194  auctoritatem obtinet] auctoritatem AG; habet auctoritatem B /

 195  Sexti] Libri sexti G /

 196  sanctorum doctorum dicta] sanc. dic. doc. A,L(corr.); dic. sanc. doc. K,C(dicta inserted) /

 196-97  deberent] debent ABG /

 198  romanos pontifices] -umcem L /

 199  ipsi] Cristi G /

 205  deus] om. C /

 205  rexit] regit EHKL /

 207-08  iiio . . . Gen.] om. EHKL

 211  gubernacionem] gubernaciones B /

 218  ponit] om. C /

 221  dominus] om. B /

 221  Isa.] so L; om. others (ABC with blank space) /

 222  suum] om. AG /

 222  et] et vicarios J /

 223  eis] potestatem et foll. L /

 225-26  non est fides] fides non est B /

 227  ob hoc] om. B /

 227-28  Ioh. An. et Host.] H. et I. A. B /

 230  traditum] tradito ABCGJ /

 237  pape] om. G /

 238  factum] effectum A /

 241  primas et] om. A

 247  Eligii] Egidii J /

 249  est] non est BCEGHJKL /

 252  q. i.] di. codd. /

 253  etc.] catholicam C /

 254  quia] quod BCEJL /

 256  si] sed C; et J /

 256  offendit] offenderit J /

 258  Item nonne] unde B(corr.) /

 258  nonne] racione C /

 258  instinctus] instructus EGH /

 261  Quanto] quantum AC /

 264  et] om. CEHJK /

 266  attendunt] tendunt C; accedunt L /

 266  suum] sui E /

 267  huius] eius BCJ /

 267  staturam] stateram BCEGHJKL /

 267  et] et ad L /

 270  contignatur] continuatur A; contingatur B(corr.); continguatur G; contingitur HK; contiguatur J /

 274  vidi] video B; videmus G /

 275  eius] om. C

 279  xxi. di.] so L; om. others /

 291  sed] sicut B /

 292  aliam] om. B /

 292  congregacio] fidelium foll. CJ /

 292-94  Sed . . . fidelium] om. CEHJKL /

 294  ut] om. AB /

 294-95  xciii. di., circa medium] circa medium xciii. di. BGJL /

 297  xxiiii. q. i.] etc BCEJ; etc xxiiii. q. i G; om. HK /

 297  et] om. CEHJKL /

 299  di.] et in c. Leges, e. di. foll. L /

 302  regem] reges CJ /

 308  Iheronimo] romano CJ /

 311  preter eos qui] preter eum qui eos C; propter eum qui eos J(corr.)

 315  transsumptive] transsumptum A; om. EHKL /

 316  Sit] si BCGJ /

 316  Sit rector, xliii. di.] Transferunt, xxiv. q. iii EHKL /

 317  sufficient] sufficiant CL; sufficiunt EH; sufficiat J /

 319  bene] om. CEHJKL /

 321  concertantes] contemptantes A; contendentes E /

 323  tanquam] om. B /

 323  reicienda] eicienda B /

 323  quia] quod E /

 325  videre esset] videretur esse J /

 325  et scandalosum] om. L /

 328  episcopus] episcopatus CJ /

 334  maculata] foret foll. B /

 334  ad semper habendum] semper habendi L /

 335  exemplo] exempli BCEGHJKL /

 337  ff. De penis] so L; om. others (in marg. B) /

 337  poculum] pocionem vel poculum A /

 338  finem] fratrem A /

 338  c.] ad casum C /

 339  superviventem] supervenientem BEGHJK,C(corr.) /

 339  recte] om. CEHJKL /

 340  paccione] coaccione B /

 341  amittitur] adimeretur B; adimitur CJL; admittitur EG /

 341  eligendi] eligendum G

 342  maius] De eleccione Libro sexto foll. L /

 342-43  § Ceterum] et in c. Ceterum eodem titulo L /

 348  Policraticon] Policraticum BCJ /

 349  Eciam] etc BCEGHJKL /

 349  esset] esse B /

 350  ymo] qui follows, inserted in C /

 350  prosequentes] prosequuntur CJ /

 351  articulo] arbitrio C /

 352  ut] om. CEHJKL /

 355  Nunc . . . propositum] at end of preceding paragraph, codd. /

 357  destruccionem] ecclesie foll. BG /

 359  tristiciam] tristis CJ /

 360  dicit] after civilis B; om. CEGHJKL /

 360  quod] et HK /

 361  tenenda est] tenenda ACEGHK; teneatur J /

 361  quod] om. ABG /

 363  notorio] notorie B; notorium CJ /

 363-64  papa celestis] om. E /

 369  in divinis rebus] om. G /

 369  divinis] dominiis E /

 371  vitanda] evitanda BCEGHKL; De eleccione foll. L

 374  iam] om. E /

 377  multe] ambe C /

 377  aperte] apte CGJKL /

 379  ingressu] ingressum AE; regressu C,J(corr.) /

 380  quibus] quo B /

 381  doctorum] doctoris C /

 382  § Eciam] om. G /

 387  minoribus. Sed] minoribus. Pro solucione istius nota quod pulcre dicit Iohannes Monachus in c. Cupientes, De eleccione, in Sexto, in § Gracia, ubi dicit quod quando pinguius subvenitur [invenitur E] per extraordinarium, tunc potest recursus haberi ad ipsum, etc. Sed CEHJKL /

 391  notat Accursius] notatur BCEGHJK /

 397  Et quod] quod possit ABCGJ; et HK /

 397  ordinarium] extraordinarium A /

 397  possit] tr. ABCGJ /

 399  habet ius] ius habeat A /

 400  Bonifacius] dominus Bonifacius A /

 400  Et] ut CEHJKL /

 400  scripturis] scriptis ABCJK

 404  non] om. CJ /

 404  eorum] eos CJ; om. E /

 405  quia res] om. CJ /

 406  acta] om. B /

 415  auctoritas] om. with blank space G /

 415  orbis] urbis E /

 415  urbe] orbe E(corr.) /

 420  et clarius . . . di.] om. ABC,G(with marginal note-sign),J(corr.) /

 422  dicit] dixit BCGJKL /

 423  cum] con L /

 425  iuxta notam] regulam CJ; om. EHKL /

 428  nominatum] nominatim ABJ /

 432  obedienciam sibi] vv. AC /

 432  esset] est C /

 436-37  per superiorem] om. L

 441  c. xiiii.] om. A; § iiiio B; t.o § iiii CJ; c. iiii EGHKL /

 441  nostri] noster CGJ,B(corr. from nostri) /

 445  quod] om. B /

 445  liceat] licet AB /

 446  non] quia non A /

 448  valuit] valeret A /

 450  quamlibet] quemlibet J /

 450  que] qui CEGJL /

 451  verum] om. L /

 455  tamen] om. CJ /

 459  dicatur] quod foll. L /

 462  sequenti] sequenti et sequenti GJ /

 465  potest] possit BGHKL,J(corr.) /

 465  ipsum] eum ABCHJKL /

 466  c. Nulli] et c. Nulli BJ

 474  Petri] sancti Petri CJ /

 475  confidat] etc foll. BCEGJKL /

 477  et . . . beneficiorum] om. L /

 479  qui de iure] de iure quia A; quia de iure B; que de iure CJ /

 487-88  Et . . . fine] om. ABCG,J(added) /

 501-05  Item . . . Si qui sunt] in margin for insertion, A; tr. BCEGHJKL (cf. infra, line 638, apparatus, v. “intrusum,” also lines 2739-43); Ymo . . . spoliatorum (infra, line 638, apparatus, v. “intrusum”) added in margin of A

 511  iurisconsultus] senatusconsultus C /

 512  quicquam] quam quid A; quicquid BCJ /

 512  iure] iuris AEGHJK (some abbreviations ambiguous) /

 517  papa] papali B; pape EGHK /

 518  veros . . . pontifices] so codd. (B writes “summum pon.” above; G has a marginal mark) /

 519  Nunc] modo A /

 519  in] om. L /

 519  approbatur] approbat L /

 527  etc.] om. ABCJ /

 529-30  Iudicari] iudicare BCEGHJK /

 533  conservanciam] conservacionem B /

 533  fame] bone fame A /

 534  suo] om. CJ

 542  pater regis Karolus] Kar. pat. reg. CJ /

 548  semper] om. L /

 551  appetendum] ad petendum BCEGHJKL /

 552  astringuntur] so codd. /

 554  confirmat] declarat L /

 555  Non enim] om. EL /

 556  expediunt] non expediunt E /

 556-57  transsumptive] transsumptum A,G(?) /

 559  recedet] et recedet E /

 562  obedierit] obedient J /

 563  moriatur] morietur ABC; morientur J /

 565  sic debet] sic debes AGK; ita debet B; debes E /

 567-68  spiritu] spiritus ABEGHKL /

 568  eius] sanctus and in margin vel eius A

 574  sibi] ei B /

 576  legati] so L; delegati others /

 577  cause] casus L /

 578  decidende] decidendi L /

 579  hiis] istis ABCJ /

 589  quod] ut L /

 590-91  superius allegato] om. B /

 592  reges] regem ABCJ /

 593-94  eis . . . obediretur] om. CG,F(with fieret inserted after qua) /

 596  reprobatum] reprobum CJ /

 601  substrahitur] substrahatur J /

 602-03  habebit] habebitur in A; haberet L /

 603  dicetur] diceretur L /

 603  veri] om. E

 604  orietur] oriretur L /

 607  erunt] erunt tunc A /

 611  alii] aliquando E /

 614  generaret] posset generare CJ /

 616  nepotulis] nepotibus B /

 629  per] pro E /

 630-31  fortalicia] fortalissima CJ,B(corr.) /

 631  retraherent] retrahent A; traherent E /

 633  que] quia CJ /

 637  equa lance] equaliter H /

 638  intrusum] after this all codd. have a slightly different version of the paragraph printed above, lines 501-05, from A’s margin; it follows here: Item nunquam est recedendum a prelati obediencia quandiu toleratur ab ecclesia (viii. q. iii [iiii L (correctly!)], Nonne, et xxi [xvii!] di., Hinc eciam), quia melior est obediencia quam victime (viii. q. i, Sciendum, et c. Illud, De maioritate et obediencia), et peccatum ariolandi et peccatum [om. A] paganitatis incurrit, qui cristianum se asserit et sedi [sedis ABCJ] apostolice obedire [obedienciam ABJ; obediencie C] contempnit—lxxxi. di., Si qui sunt, etc. (The order of refutations, below, lines 2739-43, shows that it belongs above rather than here.) Then another paragraph follows here in B: Ymo intruso et iniuste papatum detinenti non est substrahenda obediencia, ut videtur dicere Innocencius in simili, in c. [In] litteris, De restitucione spoliatorum.n111a This is also in A’s margin, along with the preceding paragraph, for insertion above, but it is not taken into the present text because it is neither refuted nor referred to in the last part of the treatise—cf. also n. 111a—and it appears only in AB /

 642  dei] om. HKL /

 647-53  Et . . . pacis] om. ABC,J(added) /

 648  ipsi . . . diu] ita ipsi diu tenuerunt JK /

 655  faciat] fiat G /

 656  de] om. H /

 658-63  quorum . . . deberet] om. ABCGJ /

 659  retinere] remanere HK

 663  frusta] frustra codd. /

 664  scandalum] dampnum H /

 666  velint] vellent J /

 667  dicam] Et facit quia licet ad convincendum alios prelatos requirantur multi testes, ad convincendum papam non nisi duo, quia quando est malus notorie, et sine spe venie, condempnandus est ut dyabolus, ii. q. v, Presbyter foll. CJ (C notes correctly in its margin “Ymo est ii. q. iv, c. Presul”), cf. infra, lines 678-83 and apparatus /

 668  sic per] per A /

 670  quod] quid ABC /

 670  dolenter] dolentes BCEJL /

 671   (2d) ad] et ad A /

 672  reddidit] reddit CEGHJK /

 675  comprobarer] reprobarer A /

 676  ipso] om. A /

 677  salus] status A /

 678-83  Et inde . . . ii. q. iv.] om. CJ (cf. supra, line 667) /

 680  precipue] om. A /

 683  Iohannes glosator] glosa A /

 684  non] nullam ABCJ /

 685  q. i.] et in c. Si ea, eadem causa et questione foll. ACJ /

 689  ultimo capitulo] om. AC

 692  aliquid quod] notorie foll. CJ /

 693-94  totum] om. E /

 696-97  Quanto . . . ii.] Pro quo . . . Quanto magis . . . CJ /

 699  eciam] etc CEGJL,K(inserted); et H /

 702  superiorem] om. E /

 702  Reges] reges gencium AG,B(added) /

 705  actore] auctore L /

 708-10  Et . . . regibus] om. ABCG,J(added) /

 711  est] esset L /

 715  quod] om. ACJ /

 717-26  Et facit . . . ministrante] Et facit quod dicit Iohannes Andree post Innocencium et Hostiensem in c. Inquisicioni, De sentencia excommunicacionis, ubi dicunt quod quando est vehemens presumpcio quod per obedienciam factam pape turbaretur status ecclesie, vel alia mala essent ventura, peccaret qui sibi obediret CJ /

 719  mortale] om. EHKL /

 720  aliquid] iniustum, sicut videtur proprie in terminis nostris—nonne est bene iniustum quod quilibet istorum contendencium velit plus sic stare sicut sunt, quam ecclesiam unitam et pacificam esse sub alio, videat quilibet!—et precipere quod ipsis in hoc obediatur eciam bene videtur iniustum, et certum est quod status ecclesie ex hoc turbatur, et infinita verisimiliter sunt ex hoc mala ventura foll. B /

 721  debet] deberet B /

 727-34  Nam . . . pacis] om. ABCJ /

 735  Et] om. CJ /

 736  quia] quod B /

 736-37  indubitato] de indubitato ACJ /

 742  suo] statu foll. L /

 742-43  presideret] possideret et presideret L /

 746  dubitare] disputare A /

 747  qui] quis ABCJ /

 747  vocant] vocat AB; vocavit CJ /

 750  ecce] om. CJ /

 750  credere] cedere E

 751  i. q. iv. . . . finali] om. ACJ; elsewhere (before “ecce”) in B. A marginal note in C, to “comedere,” reads, “Ut hoc habetur i. q. iv., § fi., verbo ‘si quis dixerit’ et ibi not. glosa” /

 751  ii.] le second BK,J(le secuns); l. ii E; le iio H /

 757  nostro] om. C /

 758  suo] om. J /

 763  forte] om. ABCGJ /

 764  casu tali] vv. BCJ /

 770  sed] si CJ /

 771  forte] om. ABCJ /

 775 procurandam] procurandum ACGJ /

 778 (2d) etc.] om. ABCJ /

 779  reges] reges domino C /

 779  dominum] deum A /

 782  iusta] iuxta AEH; iustas B /

 783  contraria] contrarias B /

 783  sanxiendo] senciendo BCEGHJKL

 785  Unde] unde homines B /

 787  eos] nos B /

 787-88  ducuntur] dicuntur B /

 790  faciunt] ea foll. C /

 790  notatur in] ubi ABCJ; notat in E /

 795-96  et in . . . Ambrosius] Et Ambrosius in libro De officiis, et habetur in c. Non in ferenda, eadem causa et questione, dicit sic C (with text from “Qui potest obviare” included in a marginal note) /

 797  sicut] et foll. C /

 798  mortem] enim foll. C /

 799  lxxxiii. di.] Et Innocencius, Negligere quippe cum possis perversos perturbare nichil aliud est quam fovere, nec caret scrupulo etc., in allegata distinccione, c. Error. Quod dictum intelligitur non solum de prelato sed de quolibet alio, ut notat glosa in dicto c. Error, et in c. i in fine glose, eadem distinccione. Et idem glosa in c. finali, xxiii. q. iii., c. finali. Sed in c. Non in ferenda videtur tenere quod solum habet locum in illo qui potestatem habet super delinquentem foll. C /

 799  quibus] quo E /

 801  si] et B /

 801  est] est eciam CJ /

 801  quocunque] alio foll. CJ /

 802  quod] quid AC /

 810  ambos] om. C

 812  sic] om. CJ /

 812  dicentis] super Io. foll. C /

 814  suo] deo suo A; suo deo CJ(& orig.) /

 818-19  ad . . . ordinavit] om. A /

 818  stabilitatem . . . ordinavit] partly crossed out in C, and written above: firmamentum celi, hoc est ecclesie universalis, fecit deus (and continued in margin) duo magna luminaria, id est duas instituit dignitates, que sunt pontificalis auctoritas, regalis potestas /

 822  auctoritas] auctoritate C; auctoritates E /

 822  di.] di. omni ad verum E /

 823  oporteat] oportet ABEGHKL /

 823  ordinem] ea BCEGHJK /

 824  produci] perduci G /

 825  bene] unde E /

 827  vel . . . Postulasti] in c. Postulasti, Extra de homicidio L /

 829  militans] militancium L /

 830  diversa] adversa C /

 830  ut finaliter] et finaliter BC /

 830  veniat] veniunt B; veniant ACGHJK /

 831  que] et B /

 832  viii. di., Quo iure] om. ABCJ /

 833  debet] debent B /

 833  que] quia CJ /

 836  iudicabant] iudicabunt B /

 838  notatur] notata AB; notetur qualiter C; notat E; notantur H; notata sunt J /

 840  beatus] om. B

 841  nonnunquam] nunquam L /

 843  muniant] minuant L /

 845  potestates hoc imperent] potestas hoc imperet A /

 848  conterantur] concertantur B /

 849  potestas] potestatis BEGHKL /

 850  imponat] om. E /

 850  mereantur] merentur ABJ /

 850-51  imperciantur] imperciuntur A; imparciantur E,K(corr.) /

 856  alloquitur] Non vos hominum etc ut in principio huius libri allegatur, xxiii. q. v., Non vos foll. A; Non vos hominum vaniloquia retardent, dicencium quod persecucionem facietis, dum vel ea que committuntur reprimitis, vel animarum salutem requiritis. Errant huiusmodi rumoris fabulatores. Non persequitur nisi qui ad malum cogit, qui vero malum vel factum iam punit, vel prohibet ne fiat, non persequitur iste sed diligit. Et ibidem: Malum autem scisma esse, et per exteras potestates huiusmodi comprimi debere homines, et canonice scripture auctoritas et paternarum nos regularum veritas docet. foll. BCJ(with BJ agreeing in a few errors) /

 857  Et Augustinus] so, corr. to Et infra ibidem Augustinus C /

 858  plectendi] plectendis ABCJ(& orig.) /

 859  Facite eciam vos] facit then blank A; Et infra, Facite ergo vos quod scientes intencionem cristianitatis vestre, hortamur, et date operam ut talia fieri ultra non liceat C /

 861  contra] unum foll. BJ; verum foll. C

 868  dignum] de homic. foll. BCJL /

 869  ubi providere] nulla provide A /

 869  est] et est A /

 875  ferri] fieri BCEHJL /

 879  questione] Facit eciam ad predicta § Yconomum, in fine, in Autentica, De non alienando, coll. ii foll. C /

 884  Eum] cum BCJ /

 884  qui certus est] quis est certus B /

 891  flagranti] fragranti ABCJ; fraganti EGHKL /

 892  ipsum] eum L,A(in margin: aliter ipsum) /

 896  lxxxiii. . . . error] om. L /

 897  Negligere] quippe foll. ABCJ

 908  solubili] insolubili ACJ /

 908  servare] servat C /

 911  decretalia] decretales A /

 913  si nec sic] si nec ACL; sic nec B; si sic nec J /

 918  possunt] nec debent foll. ABCJ /

 919  consulte] consulere J /

 922  De] ff. De L /

 922-23  cui . . . legatum] et l. legatum C /

 923  omnia] ea A /

 928  malicia] contumacia ABCJ(& orig.) /

 928  Quorundam] quondam ABCGJ /

 929  in summa] om. ABCJ

 934-35  quod scribitur] om. A /

 935  de] in B /

 936  esse inter vos] inter vos esse ACKL /

 936  sicut] om. B /

 937  eleccione] contencione A; concertacione CJ /

 940  doctrina] vita L /

 943  apparet] patet A /

 943  ut videtur] om. A /

 943  de duobus] duobus CJ /

 947  id est] et A /

 949  denotat] notat J /

 949  dubitacionem] dubietatem L /

 951-55  Unde . . . practicari] om. ABCGJ /

 955  canonizata] canonica HK /

 961  superiorem] seniorem B /

 963  sacros] om. A /

 964  ut] et BCJ /

 964  vitanda] evitanda BCEGHJKL /

 964-65  in fine] de elec. in fine L

 971  plene] om. A /

 972  versiculo] om. A /

 975  legum] legis AL /

 975  decreverunt] decernunt G /

 976  est] om. C,J(corr.) /

 976  haberet] habeat L /

 977  qui] quia C /

 978  quis] quid C /

 978  concertancium] in certancium C /

 982  Quia concilium] concilium A /

 985  ipsorum] episcoporum CJ /

 986  pocius] om. B /

 987  qui] fuerunt et foll. L /

 987  ambabus] in L /

 988  repellit] om. G /

 989  fas] lxxix. di.