Medieval Academy Books

No. 92

Simon de Cramaud
DE SUBSTRACCIONE OBEDIENCIE
 Simon de Cramaud
DE SUBSTRACCIONE OBEDIENCIE

Edited by
Howard Kaminsky

THE MEDIEVAL ACADEMY OF AMERICA

Cambridge, Massachusetts
1984
 Contents

Preface vii
Abbreviations ix
Introduction 1
§ 1. The Political Context 1
§ 2. Simon de Cramaud 26
§ 3. The Argument of the Treatise 44
§ 4. The Present Edition 55
Outline of the Text 68
Text 69
Annotations 165
Appendices
I. The Marginalia in A 215
II. The Marginalia in C 222
III. The Marginalia in F 228
IV. Simon de Cramaud: Pro via cessionis 230
V. The Works of Simon de Cramaud 233
Indices to the Text
I. Alphabetical List of Canons 239
II. Numerical List of Canons 244
III. Alphabetical List of Roman Laws 248
IV. Proper Names 250
 Preface

T h e 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 Libti de Schismate of the Vatican Ar-
chives for a quite different reason. Frequent references to "the Pa-
triarch" 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 Condliar 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 Bibliotheque
Nationale and Archives Nationales of Paris, and the Biblioteca Apos-
tolica Vaticana and Archivio Segreto Vaticano; like all foreign work-
ers 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 Departementales de la Vienne in Poitiers, and to its direc-
tor, M. Francois 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 Guenee,
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

vii
viii Preface

the Schism; Canon Jose Goni 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 other-
wise without much effort.
Finally, and above all, I wish to thank Professor Hartmut Hoff-
mann of Gottingen 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
 Abbreviations

ALKG, 5, 6, 7 Archiv fur Literatur- und Kirchengeschichte des

Mittelalters, ed. F. Ehrle & H. Denifle, 5, 6, 7
(Berlin, 1889, 1892, 1900)
Ampl. coll., 7 Veterum scriptorum et monumentorum histori-
corum, dogmaticorum, moralium amplissima
collectio, ed. E. Martene & U. Durand, 7 (Paris,
1724)
AN Archives Nationales, Paris
ASV Archivio Segreto Vaticano
BduC H. Bourgeois du Chastenet, Nouvelle histoire du
Concile de Constance, ou Von fait voir combien
la France a contribute a Vextinction du Schisme
(Paris, 1718), Preuves
BN Bibliotheque Nationale, Paris
Buisson L. Buisson, Potestas und Caritas. Die papstliche
Gewalt im Spfitmittelalter (Forschungen zur
kirchlichen Rechtsgeschichte und zum Kirchen-
recht, 2; Cologne, 1958)
Bulaeus, 4, 5, 6 C. E. du Boulay [Bulaeus], Historia Vniversitatis
Parisiensis, 4, 5, 6 (Paris, 1668, 1670, 1673)
CUP, 3 Chartularium Vniversitatis Parisiensis, ed. H. De-
nifle & E. Chatelain, 3 (Paris, 1894)
DRTA, 6 Deutsche Reichstagsakten, 6, ed. J. Weizsacker
(Berlin, 1886)
Ehrle, Alpartil F. Ehrle, ed., Martin de Alpartils Chronica acti-
tatorum temporibus domini Benedicti XIII., 1
(Quellen und Forschungen aus dem Gebiete der
Geschichte, 12; Paderborn, 1906)
Haller, FKfl Johannes Haller, Papsttum und Kirchenreform, 1
(Berlin, 1903)
Lehoux, 1, 2, 3, 4 Francoise Lehoux, Jean de France, Due de Berri,
sa vie, son action politique (1340-1416), 4 vols.
(Paris, 1966, 1966, 1968, 1968)
Mansi, 12, 26 J. D. Mansi, ed., Sacrorum condliorum nova et
amplissima collectio, 12, 26 (Florence, 1766,
1784)
MPL, 38, 198 J. P. Migne, ed., Patrologiae cursus completus, Se-
ries Latina, 38, 198 (Paris, 1845, 1855)

ix
 Abbreviations

Ordonnances, 6, 7, 8, 9 Ordonnances des roys de France de la troisieme

race, ed. D. F. Secousse, 6, 7, 8, 9 (Paris, 1745,
1749, 1750, 1755)
RSD, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 Chronique du Religieux de Saint Denys contenant
le rdgne de Charles VI., de 1380 d 1422, ed. L.
Bellaguet, 6 vols. (Paris, 1839, 1840, 1841, 1842,
1844, 1852)
Howard Kaminsky, Simon de Cramaud and the
Great Schism (New Brunswick, N.J., 1983)
Swanson R. N. Swanson, Universities, Academics and the
Great Schism (Cambridge Studies in Medieval
Life and Thought, 3rd ser., 12; Cambridge, 1979)
Thes. nov., 2 Thesaurus novus anecdotorum, ed. E. Martene &
U. Durand, 2 (Paris, 1717)
Tierney, Foundations Brian Tierney, Foundations of the Conciliar The-
ory: The Contribution of the Medieval Canon-
ists from Gratian to the Great Schism (Cam-
bridge Studies in Medieval Life and Thought,
new ser., 4; Cambridge, 1955)
Valois, 1, 2, 3, 4 Noel Valois, La France et le Grand Schisme d'Oc-
ddent, 4 vols. (Paris, 1896, 1896, 1901, 1902)
Wilks, Problem of Michael Wilks, The Problem of Sovereignty in the
Sovereignty Later Middle Ages: The Papal Monarchy with
Augustinus Triumphus and the Publicists
(Cambridge Studies in Medieval Life and
Thought, new ser., 9; Cambridge, 1963)
 INTRODUCTION

§ 1. The Political Context

T h e Great Schism in the Western church, which broke out in 1378
when the same college of cardinals elected first the Italian Bartolo-
meo 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 im-
posed 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 Avi-
gnon, 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 undertak-
ing, pursued for a long time and at tremendous cost, was the sub-
jugation 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, appoint-
ment to benefices, and fiscal exploitation of the clergy to extraor-
dinary heights. One of the consequences of this development was
the exaltation of the cardinalate into a princely estate, its members

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 pontificate d'Avignon 1309-1376. Etude d'une
soci6t6 (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 Introduction

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 develop-
ing a princely self-consciousness that manifested itself in their sump-
tuous 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, sev-
en "Limousin," one Aragonese, four Italians—subject to the pres-
sures of the Roman people and magistrates. Divided by anti-Limou-
sin sentiments within their ranks, and fearing for their lives if they
did not elect at least an Italian, they chose the Neapolitan Bartolo-
meo Prignano, not a cardinal but Archbishop of Bari and longtime
official of the Avignon court, in the hope that he would adapt him-
self 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 with-
out respect, and at times flew into rages and screamed his omnip-
otence. Historians today are apt to agree with the cardinals that he
was unsuitable, and some go so far as to call him mentally unbal-
anced.3 The cardinals drew their own conclusions. "Holy Father,"

* 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.
* For the differing views of Urban and the cardinals see Edith Pasztor, "La Curia
Romana all'inizio dello Scisma d'Occidente," Genise et debuts du Grand Schisme
 The Political Context 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 elec-
tion) 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 Noel 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 lead-
ers 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

d'Occident (Colloques internationaux du Centre national de la recherche scienti-

fique, 586; Paris, 1980), 31-43. For the rest, O. Pferovsky, L'Elezione di Urbano VI
e Vinsorgere dello sdsma d'occidente (Miscellanea della Sodetd Romana di storia
patria, 22; Rome, 1960), 63, 87, 188; Ullmann, op. dt. (repr. 1972), preface—Urban
was "megalomaniac and insane."
4
Cited in Ullmann, op. dt., p. 48.
8
Thes. nov., 2:1156.
•Valois, 1:82; K. A. Fink, "Zur Beurteilung des grossen abendlandischen Schis-
mas," Zeitschrift fur Kirchengeschichte, 73 (1962), 338.
 4 Introduction

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 Clem-
ent 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 Orleans 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 con-
trary.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 com-
munities in the work of schism-making. Just as it is always the labor
union that calls a strike, even though management is often respon-
sible as well, so the circumstances of 1378 dictated that the cardinals

1
SdeC, index, "via facti"; Valois, 3.371; see Valois, 1, passim. The various con-
ciliar proposals in the first years of the Schism are analyzed by Michael Seidlmayer,
Die AnfQnge des grossen abendl&ndischen Schismas (Miinster, 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 abendl&ndischen Schismas (Vienna, 1910), publishes the im-
portant early anti-conciliar treatises of the French cardinals Pierre Flandrin and
Pierre Ameilh; cf. Ullmann, Origins, passim.
 The Political Context 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 align-
ments 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 be-
cause 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 ap-
petite. 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 legit-
imacy 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 life-
span determined by its goals and their realization, with forces mak-
ing 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

8
G. Holmes, Europe: Hierarchy and Revolt 1320-1450 (London, 1975), p. 174.
8
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. noo., 2:1160 f.; Jean Gerson, Oeuvres completes, ed. P. Glorieux, 6 (Paris, 1965),
29-34; Honore Bouvet, "Somnium super materia scismatis," ed. I. Arnold, L'appari-
don Maistre Jehan de Meun et le Somnium super materia scismatis d'Honore'Bonet
(Paris, 1926), p. 109 (for Bonet/Bouvet see SdeC, p. 37 n. 22).
6 Introduction

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 at-
tractions 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 in-
dependent political action. He did have spells of lucidity, and his-
torians 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 Avi-
gnonism and the viafacti 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 pow-
ers 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 ben-
efices, 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 cessio-

10
J. J. N. Palmer, England, France and Christendom, 1377-99 (London, 1972),
pp. 1-25 & passim.
 The Political Context 7

nis. 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 gov-
ernment's wish, formulated by Simon de Cramaud in the royal coun-
cil, that an election be deferred until ways to exploit the new situa-
tion 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

11
The text in Bulaeus, 4:687-96.
12
SdeC, pp. 36-38; for Tenorio's statement, ibid., p. 157, and Jose Goni Gaztam-
bide, "La embajada de Simon de Cramaud a Castilla en 1396," Hispanic Sacra, 15
(1962), 175.
"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."
"SdeC, pp. 54-65.
8 Introduction

an idol on earth," namely a new pope who would not be in the

legitimate line.15 And while he would frequently declare his readi-
ness 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 sug-
gests 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 eccle-
siastical 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 knowl-
edgeable 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 nev-
er 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 con-
tenders 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 vol-
untary 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

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.
 The Political Context 9

contenders would have to be deposed.17 Later on he would use the

formula cessio sett eieccio,1* 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 Bur-
gundy'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 Orleans, 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 cor-
porations, 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 pre-
pared 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 cessio-
nis 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

17
His statement for the First Paris Council (Appendix IV) suggests such a real-
ization, which is more explicit in his major treatise; see § 3 below, also SdeC, index,
"Deposition of popes."
"Appendix V, No. 10, ms. 2, fol. 221r.
19
SdeC, pp. 113-38, for the events summarized below; and see Appendix V,
No. 1.
10 Introduction

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 obli-
gation 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

*>SdeC, pp. 138-61, 208-11, and Valois, 3, passim, for what follows.
 The Political Context 11

attractive voluntary form, and as such gathered a number of testi-

monials of approval which could then be cited, with no doubt de-
liberate 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 problem-
atical 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 ces-
sionis: 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 eccle-
siology, 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

« SdeC, pp. 60 f., 146 f.

12 Introduction

cultivated continuously at the University of Paris ever since.22 Orig-

inating as a reaction to extensions of papal powers that had dimin-
ished the powers of the bishops in their dioceses—papal fiscal exac-
tions, 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 ter-
ritorial 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
Gailicanism 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 sub-
traction, 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

** Y. Congar, "Aspects ecclesiologiques de la querelle entre mendiants et seculiers

dans la seconde moitie du XOIe siecle et le debut du XlVe," Archives d'histoire
doctrinale et litte'raire du moyen dge, 28 (1961), 35-151; V. Martin, Les origines du
Gallicanisme, 1 (Paris, 1939), 29-239; SdeC, pp. 147 f., 179; and see below.
» Haller, PKR, pp. 205 ff., 465 ff.
14
SdeC, pp. 146, 151, and passim.
 The Political Context 13

refusal to accept cession and his threats of reprisals against the ces-
sionists. 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 Orleans presided; there was a for-
mal debate between the university spokesmen and the pope's sup-
porters, and then the prelates voted—to what effect we do not know,
since the duke collected the ballots but did not announce the re-
sults.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 Bur-
gundy were away from Paris, where the dominant influence was
consequently exercised by Louis of Orleans, 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 ac-
count, 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 Chan-
cellor 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

" Valois, 3:104 ff.; Haller, PKR, p. 223; SdeC, pp. 161-67.
« The text in Ehrle, Alpartil, pp. 476-80; see SdeC, pp. 167-71.
 14 Introduction

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 com-
posed 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 sub-
traction—we recall that early November would see the alliance be-
tween Charles VI and Richard II, and the plans for the joint embassy
to the two popes, and that the diplomatic action in this sense pro-
ceeded 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 con-
nection with the diplomatic action just mentioned, and in prepara-
tion 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

" T h e 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 iniunc-
tum aliquibus de consilio et michi, ut scriberem super substraccione, et ita fed" (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 ordi-
naverat quod certi cierici examinarent, an via cessionis iuridica esset. Quo viso incepi
disputare unam questionem, an posset fieri subtraccio pape, casu quo viam cessionis
non acceptaret."
 The Political Context 15

more diligent in seeking out the better via, and has solemnly re-
quested its pastor to accept the via cessionis, and he has refused to
accept it ...—can it in this case also canonically subtract obedi-
ence?" 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 des-
olation" (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 sec-
ular 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 every-
where."29 As far as France was concerned, the treatise may have
helped shape public opinion to ensure that after the two contenders

"The two reports as in the preceding note: (1) "Nee 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.
» BduC, p. 53; ASV, Arm. 54, t. 21, fol. 25v; SdeC, pp. 207 f.
 16 Introduction

had failed to take cessionist action by Candlemas of 1398, France

would indeed move to impose the sanction of subtraction of obe-
dience. 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 correspond-
ed 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 ces-
sionis 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 alter-
native 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 op-
posite. 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,

80
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.
 The Political Context 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 depo-
sition. 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 redac-
tions, furthermore, that we find substantial insertions specifying the
heretical status of the reluctant popes and noting the canonical pen-
alties 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 aware-
ness, which evidently prompted a few insertions in the later redac-
tions, 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 ar-
gument that the contending popes were heretics, even while defend-
ing 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

" SdeC, pp. 124, 165, 215 f., 219, 221, 265.
18 Introduction

defending Benedict XIII against the thrust of total subtraction—

perhaps indeed their defense of the pope was tied to their commit-
ment 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 car-
dinals, 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 men-
tality 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 will-
ingness 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 Coun-
cil he had referred at first merely to action by a concert of the
secular rulers, notably the kings of France, England, and Bohemia,

M
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.
43
SdeC, pp. 216, 228-42.
34
SdeC, pp. 179 f.; see also below.
 The Political Context 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 delega-
tion.35 After France's subtraction of total obedience from Pope Ben-
edict 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 Con-
stance.
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 or-
dinance of 27 July 1398, publicly read out on 1 August, incorpo-
rated a long review of all the action for union since the death of
Clement VII, noted Benedict XIH's rejection of the via cessionis,

» SdeC, pp. 223 f.

86
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 can-
celed the pope's power to punish the subtracters effectively.
 20 Introduction

observed that popes who kept the church in division were schis-
matics 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 or-
dinance concluded, the French crown, church, and realm withdrew
from total obedience to its pope, Benedict XIII.38 Simon de Cra-
maud, 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 forti-
fied the papal palace in Avignon and defended it successfully against
siege by the cardinals and French forces. Producing no evident re-
sults abroad, the revolutionary policy of subtraction became vulner-
able to its many opponents at home, led by Duke Louis of Orleans,
who in just these years was moving to build up his own bases of

38
Ordonnances, 8:258-68. The key formulations are in the artfully stylized can-
onistic 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 im-
precisions 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).
 The Political Context 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 Orleans (Simon de Cra-
maud promptly followed suit and became an Orleans councillor).
Duke Jean the Fearless who succeeded his father in the Burgundian
conglomerate remained a strong supporter of the via cessionis, while
Louis of Orleans 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, more-
over, 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

41
SdeC, pp. 244-61.
4i
SdeC, pp. 263-69, for the Fourth Paris Council; and see below, at notes
45-49.
22 Introduction

respective abdications. Simon de Cramaud was to lead the embassy

in association with the Orleans 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 cessio-
nis 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 deliber-
ation of a general council." Members of the French embassy, above
all Simon de Cramaud, were involved in all these stages.44 The Coun-
cil of Pisa in 1409 would be the direct result.
But why had the Urbanist papacy given up its intransigent as-
sertion 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 car-
dinals 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

43
SdeC, pp. 272-76; see in general Valois, 3:325-616, and 4, ch. 1.
** Ampl. coll., 7:798-803; SdeC, p. 279.
 The Political Context 23

mother was a Brancacci) to fill the vacuum.45 After Louis II of An-

jou's armies had conquered Naples in 1387 these families had noth-
ing 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 reac-
tion, 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 resid-
ing 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 Avi-
gnon 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 Car-
dinal Baldassare Cossa, originally a Tomacelli protege 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
45
The following summary is based on two articles by Arnold Esch: "Das Papst-
tum unter der Herrschaft der Neapolitaner," Festschrift fur Hermann Heimpel, 2
(Gottingen, 1972), 713-800, and "Simonie-Geschaft in Rom 1400," Vierteljahrschrift
fur Sozial- und Wirtschaftsgeschichie, 61 (1974), 433-57; I add my own speculations.
See SdeC, pp. 269-72, for more references.
46
See SdeC, p. 12, for references.
24 Introduction

over; as Boniface Ferrer would later comment, in a discussion men-

tioning 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 pri-
vate 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 ar-
rived 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, her-
etics, contumacious scandalizers of the church—the theory of de-
position 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

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 decla-
rat 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
 The Political Context 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 car-
dinals' numerical inferiority in the combined college.
If the new pope, Alexander V, would soon die, and if his suc-
cessor, John XXIII, would prove unable to secure universal accep-
tance, 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 Ben-
edictine holdouts in Spain and South France, and there was Hussite
Bohemia) would not have happened without the preliminary solu-
tion 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 "sum-
mon" 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 po-
litical 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.

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 ni-
chilominus ipsos Petrum et Angelum per hanc definitivam sententiam [synodus] pri-
vat, abjicit et praescindit, ecclesiamque vacare Romanam ad cautelam insuper de-
cernendo." Cf. the text of the subtraction ordinance of 1398, above, n. 38; see SdeC,
pp. 282 f., for an English translation and comment.
26 Introduction

§ 2. Simon de Cramaud
1 he 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 thefamily property.50 We encounter
Simon next in 1375 as a doctor of canon law of the University of
Orleans, 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 Or-
leans, 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 chap-
laincy in Meaux. In 1376, however, he appears as maitre des reque-
tes 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
Orleans; 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

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.
 Simon de Cramaud 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 trea-
tise 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 deter-
mined 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 pat-
tern of his thought and action, and careerism was the common de-
nominator of his multiple roles—in the academy, in the royal gov-
ernment, 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

52
SdeC, p. 27, for some examples.
53
1 know of no systematic study of late-medieval estate; see the discussion and
references in SdeC, pp. 66-68; also the index, "Estate."
28 Introduction

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 ap-
pointment as maitre des requetes 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
Beziers (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 Sig-
ismund 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 Beziers to that of Poitiers, 24 November 1385. The young grad-
uate 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 ap-
paratus 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 substan-
tial revenues, and there must have been many gifts or other wind-
falls.54

54
Some details in SdeC, pp. 83 f.
 Simon de Cramaud 29

Already in 1383, when still bishop of Beziers, 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 Montleon, Berry's maitre d'hotel 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 an-
nuities (rentes). Perhaps Simon already knew that he would be mov-
ing 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 Montleons
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 epis-
copal 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 Montleons
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

55
SdeC, pp. 85-93, for what follows in this paragraph.
SO Introduction

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 life-
time. 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. H e 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 togeth-
er, on the basis of minimal estimates, we see Simon spending at least
15,000 limes on properties for himself and his family in the fifteen
years following 1383. 56 It took a lot of work, there was endless dif-
ficulty 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 prop-
erty, 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 pru-
dence 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

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 XlVe et
XVe siecles," in La noblesse au moyen age, ed. P. Contamine (Paris, 1976), pp.
226 ff.
 Simon de Cramaud 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 pro-
gram. 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 appro-
priate 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 re-
fused 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

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 Departementales de la Vienne, G 1, No. 16;
for the oath the chapter desired see ADV, G 182, fols. 2v-3r, in the "Livre rouge."
32 Introduction

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 limes 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,

62
L.-F.-X. Redet, ed, Cartulaire de Ye~vec\i6 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.
 Simon de Cramaud 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 be-
hind—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 enter-
tained the question, and there was much talk in Paris about not only
union but the via cessionis in 1393, with Cardinal Pedro de Luna

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.
34 Introduction

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 brib-
ery—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 foun-

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.
m
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.
 Simon de Cramaud 35

dations of a unionist policy. We must suppose that everything had

been worked out previously, that the fluctuations in the govern-
ment's dealings with the University of Paris were matters of tactics
and timing, and that there was a solid Berry-Burgundy understand-
ing 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 Orleans,
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 impor-
tant foundation in the cathedral of Poitiers, endowing a music-mas-
ter 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

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.
36 Introduction

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 grand-
niece Mathea de Pressac (daughter of Jean de Cramaud's sister
Jeanne), at a cost to himself of 1,200 gold &cus 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 resto-
ration 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 foun-
dation 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
Orleans and Burgundy had been happily averted, Berry allied him-
self with Orleans and Queen Isabelle, evidently against Jean the
Fearless; Simon de Cramaud, as much a Berry client as ever, became
a councillor of Orleans with a pension of 2,000 limes 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 Poi-
tiers 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
75
See SdeC, p. 304, for references, and Plate I for a drawing of the tomb by
Gaignieres, 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. jr. 27405 (P.O. 921), group No. 20357, items 2-4.
 Simon de Cramaud 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 Montleon 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-Orleans alliance had ended the political constellation within
which Orleans'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 Si-
mon'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 Orleans, whom he accompanied on a cam-
paign 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 uni-
versity'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

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.
38 Introduction

or against. This time it was the university that demanded total sub-
traction, 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 per-
manent, 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 imple-
menting 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 agree-
ment—Benedict's old plan of a via convendonis, 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 rec-
ognized these dispositions from the first—there was plenty of evi-
dence of recalcitrance on both sides—and understood that nothing
would happen unless he made it happen, by negotiating, politicking,

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," R&mische Quartalschrift, 46 (1938), 256; Ampl. coll., 7:768 f.; cf.
Haller, PKR, p. 294, for a contrary view.
 Simon de Cramaud 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 oth-
ers, 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 pa-
pacy 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 archbish-
op 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 Orleans 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 Orleans cause on behalf of Louis's
heir Charles, who then married Armagnac's daughter. The Arma-

83
French manipulation is alleged throughout in the "Heidelberg Postil" of 1408,
by Konrad von Soest and Job Vener, DRTA, 6:398-417.
M
SdeC, pp. 281-85.
115
Ampl. coll., 7:1085.
86
SdeC, pp. 287-99 for what follows; the political action is treated best in Le-
houx, 3:108-15, 144-70, 192-232.
40 Introduction

gnacs and Burgundians mobilized their armies, the Paris govern-

ment 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 Bicetre, 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 Orleans 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 nat-
ural environment. He had begun at once, in September 1409, to
arrange a complicated agreement with the heirs of his dead pre-
decessor, Guy de Roye, who had left a large sum of money to es-
tablish a library and, above all, to endow a "College 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 replace-
ment 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 Mat-
hieu. 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 depos-
ited 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 of-
ficials 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

87
Poitiers, Archives Departementales de la Vienne, G 257; Paris, BN, ms. lat.
18378, pp. 543-51.
 Simon de Cramaud 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 establish-
ment 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 re-
mained 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 "Clemen-
tine" 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 disadvanta-
geous 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 rou-
tinely 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 thir-
teenth-century canon Guillaume de Cramaud in the cathedral's ne-
crology, he claimed him for a kinsman and endowed commemora-
tive 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 else-
where, 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
42 Introduction

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 XXIIFs 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 Montleon
and a band of his kinsmen and clients occupied Touffou in Decem-
ber 1417—Simon had not yet returned from Constance—and ex-
pelled 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

88
K. Eubel, Hierarchia catholica medii aevi, 1 (2d ed.; Munster, 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.
 Simon de Cramaud 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 con-
centrated 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 foun-
dation of 2 July 1421 to provide monthly commemorations for him-
self 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
limes. 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 Cra-
maud'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 funer-
al, for still more commemorative foundations, for some other rela-
tives—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 orig-
inal 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 contin-
ued to be performed at its site, and we are told that even into the
nineteenth century the choirboys of the cathedral, after their ordi-
nary chants, moved to the site of Simon's tomb and finished their
tour by saying, "Dieu fasse grace a 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.
44 Introduction

§ 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, Si-
mon 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 compo-
sition 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 re-
quired 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 pre-
ceding 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—ca-
thedral churches, collegiate churches, monasteries. Each such cor-
poration, conceived of in terms of Roman law, hadits 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 su-
preme 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
 The Argument of the Treatise 45

status against him. Similarly, the whole Roman church had its sta-
tus, 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 prin-
ciple, "If the pope should command anything that would presum-
ably 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 acknowl-
edged 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 there-
by 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 tra-
dition, explored by Ludwig Buisson in his Potestas und Caritas. Die
pd'pstliche Gewalt im Spdtmittelalter. The key concept here was
caritas in the obligatory sense given it most influentially by St. Au-
gustine; 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;

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.
46 Introduction

and Simon's whole treatise depended on just this former definition.

It is noteworthy that while Tierney does not explore the caritas-
scandalum 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 in-
deed 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 alien-
ate 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 Cra-
maud 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

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 Veranderung 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 general, la sante, la prosperite 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. Flajshans (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.
 The Argument of the Treatise 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 can-
on 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 An-
dreae, Henricus de Bohic, and others—and we can suppose, gener-
ally, 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 Orleans 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 manu-
scripts 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." 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 di-
rection. 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

06
SdeC, pp. 117-19, 191-98, 227 f., with references to the literature.
89
For Nogaret see Richard Scholz, Die Publizistik zur Zeit Philipps des Sch&nen
und Bonifaz' VIII. (Stuttgart, 1903), pp. 363-75; cf. Jean Riviere, Le probUme de
VGglise et de I'etat 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.
 48 Introduction

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 in-
tentions and his resources. While we are most interested in the sub-
tractionist 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 XIIFs 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 subver-
sively 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

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 substracdone: 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.
 The Argument of the Treatise 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

102
The treatise, at notes 206, 207, 208.
103
Even Simon's ally in subtraction, the Gallican Pierre Leroy, refused to asso-
ciate 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 de'buts de la devotion 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.
 50 Introduction

that he might be allowed to resign his see if necessary to avoid a

grave scandal. Innocent IV had then commented that to avoid scan-
dal 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 ho-
mogenization 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 there-
after, 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
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.
 The Argument of the Treatise 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 pre-
sented 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 ordi-
naria 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-
a-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

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."
52 Introduction

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 ecclesiol-
ogy 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 repre-
sentatives 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 pro-
grammatic, 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 some-
times 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 nor-
mally 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
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 interven-
tion; cf. SdeC, p. 192; Tierney, Foundations, pp. 41 ff., 134-41, 203.
113
BduC, p. 54.
114
The treatise, at notes 162, 251.
 The Argument of the Treatise 53

and Innocent Ill's sun-and-moon figure, as allowing the secular pow-

ers 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 pro-
visions 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-a-vis the papacy, they were nevertheless emperors in their realms,
as contemporary formulas put it, and, like the emperors, were exem-
plars 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 Bene-
dict's obligation to abdicate from, inter alia, the decisions taken at
the First Paris Council and a subsequent council of prelates of Cas-
tile, 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 deep-
er 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 ba-

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 Decre-
tum, 23. q, 5, c. 43, a letter of Pope Pelagius I (556-61); see SdeC, pp. 191-98.
54 Introduction

sic canonistic tradition. What has been said elsewhere in this intro-
duction about Simon's mentality as a careerist and politician is prob-
ably 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 mod-
ern 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 essen-
tially 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 belles-
lettres 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 chron-
icle composed by Helinand de Froidmont, etc.117 When he wrote to
the Archbishop of Canterbury he could cite many cases of collab-
oration 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 ortho-
doxy 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
'"Paris, BN, ms. lat. 1475 (see Appendix V, No. 11), fol. 49r (Martinus, Vincen-
cius, Bernardus Guidonis), fol. 34r ("Bocacius in libro suo de casu virorum illustrium,"
re Pope John XII); Helinand 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 nee tune Visigothi nee
eciam postea Sarraceni eos sibi subicere potuerunt."
 The Present Edition 55

went; the point here is that he had it available for display. A refer-
ence 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 "debat" 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 state-
ments about the origin of the work, quoted above. I list the manu-
scripts 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. lr-52r
G Pamplona, Bibl. Catedr. c6d. 3, fols. lr-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, Universitatsbibliothek, ms. A. V. 15, fols. 95r-153r

120 "jr t johachim de scismate tune 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.,
u b i . . . universitatem commendat."
 Introduction

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 re-
membered 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 ad-
ditions, but it would probably be wrong to imagine Simon de Cra-
maud 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:
 The Present Edition 57

The arrows indicate contamination; C and C" indicate C before

and after fol. l l l v (see line 1720 of this edition).
The main lines of the stemma correspond to the groupings exem-
plified 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. CJ
BC'J.AEGHKL 630-31 fortalicia] fortalissima BC'J
861 contra] unum foil. BJ; verum foil. C
ABC'J:EGHKL 897 negligere] quippe foil. ABC'J
918 possunt] nee debent foil. ABC'J
928 malicia] contumacia ABC'J
ABC'GJ:EHKL 207-08 iii° . .. 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
ABC] 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
58 Introduction

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 foil. 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 re-
lationships. Thus:
823 ordinem] ea BCEGHJK
892 ipsum] eum L, A (in marg.: aliter ipsumj
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 BCGJ:
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 / is replaced by the following
groups:
BJ.ACEGHKL 2562 regnicole] regni (then blank) BJ
ABJ:CEGHKL 1702 quod] nos foil. 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
 The Present Edition 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 min-
imal 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 se-
quence 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 com-
pilation 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, con-
sisting 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 bibliotheque," 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 exem-
plar). 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.
60 Introduction

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. lot. 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 Leopold Delisle, he
Cabinet de manuscrits de la Bibliothdque Imp&riale, 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 College 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. l l l r a new hand takes over; on fol. l l l v 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 seven-
teenth-century copy of AN, J 518, which contains our E. D is there-
fore 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).
 The Present Edition 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 Si-
mon). 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 fif-
teenth 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 ABC],
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 omis-
sions—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
62 Introduction

Pamplona indicates that it was sent to King Charles III of Navarre—

see J. Arraiza, "Simon 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 dupli-
cated in or from its exemplar v.
H: Like its close relative K, H is a copy in the "libri de schis-
mate" 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 Car-
dinal Martin de Salva and Pierre Ravat, chiefly in the 1390's, see
Michael Seidlmayer, "Die spanischen 'Libri de Schismate' des Va-
tikanischen Archivs," Spanische Forschungen der Gorresgesell-
schaft, Reihe I, 8 (1940), 199-262; and idem, Die Anfange des
grossen abendldndischen Schismas (Miinster, 1940), pp. 195-205.
H presents much of the last part of the treatise in a disordered
sequence, as noted in the apparatus.
/; 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 re-
garded as a more authentic version. So too Martin de Salva desig-
nated the J text merely as "allegaciones alicuius canoniste" and
noted (fol. 72r): "de isto tractatu videtur extractus tractatus Patriar-
che, 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 / ,
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
 The Present Edition 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 mem-
ory 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 spasmod-
ically 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 fore-
going 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 Cra-
maud himself, scribbling on the margins of several copies (or dic-

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."
64 Introduction

tating 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 or-
dered 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 ac-
knowledgement 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 indu-
bitably 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 prac-
tical 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 vox, and by reference to G in order to correct to 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 appa-
ratus 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
 The Present Edition 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 mar-
ginalia or additions on loose slips; these have been corrected accor-
ding to logic. Thus at 387, in the context of arguments against sub-
traction, 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 para-
graph 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; there-
fore 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 "se-
dacio," "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. Para-
graphing, 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 al-
teration of the wording; they have not been used for actual para-
phrase. 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 summa-
rized, since otherwise few readers would know what Simon was
talking about in many cases, or how sound his argument is, how he
66 Introduction

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 pro-
vide 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 bor-
rowed 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 substan-
tive 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 /, for exam-
ple) 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 correct-
ed, etc. A number of scribes used ambiguous endings or other ab-
breviations, 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.
foil.—follows in
om.—omitted by
tr.—transposed by
w.—vice versa: reversal of word order
 The Present Edition 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, sepa-
rated from the others by a comma. Thus, e.g., "quid] quod
AC,B(corr.)" means that ABC all have "quod," but that B has cor-
rected it to "quid."
 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

68
 [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 lex 5
adversum se divisa destruetur" (c. Si ea, xxv. q. ii.);
"nee vos hominum vaniloquia retardent, dicencium quod per-
secucionem facit" vestra regalis potencia, "dum vel ea que com-
mittuntur reprimit, vel animarum salutem requirit. Errant huius-
modi fabulatores rumoris. Non persequitur nisi qui ad malum 10
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, nee 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 20
tenere"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, quern Urbanum Vim
nominaverunt, et post mortem eius Bonifacium qui stat nunc in
Roma, fuisse et esse verum papam.4 Regnum Francie, Scocie, et 25
Arragonie, Navarre, Hyspanie, collegium antiquorum cardinalium
qui fuerunt in utraque eleccione, si prima sic dici debeat, [E 227v]
et multe alie naciones, dominum Clementem Vllm, et post eius

1-4 Nunc . . . Quia] om. CJ / 1 etc.] om. B / 1-4 ut in psalmo . . . xxiii. q. iv.] om.
A I 7-14 nee . . . Non vos] om. CJ / 9-10 huiusmodi] huius ABG / 10 fabulatores
rumoris] w. AB(ir orig.) / 12 opprimi] reprimi L / 20 nequit] nequivit CHJ(ir orig.)
I 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 I 25-26 Scocie . . . Hyspanie] Yspanie, et Arragonie, Navarre, Scocie E / 28-29
eius mortem] w. L
69
 70 De substraccione obediencie

mortem 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 scismaticisf 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-
40 dere"; 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.

31 nos reputamus ipsos] reputavimus eos B / 36 prius] primo

E I 40 esse et fuisse] w. HK / 41 pecus] petrus JK / 42 domini] xxiii di. foil. L
I 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
 De substraccione obediencie 71

Et ita ecclesia militans, "que Cristi corpus est, et in duo vel plura
dividi non potest," ut dicit Augustinus in c. Scisma, xxiiii. [£ 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
quern 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- 75
habitemus 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. L, Nulli. Et qui non potest aliud, saltim clamet, iuxta 1. i. [Cum 80
aliter], ff. Ad Syllanum [De senatusconsulto Silaniano\\,n 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, quia 85
"iudicium durissimum fiet hiis qui presunt, exiguo Set misericordia,
et potentes potenter tormenta sustinebunt," Sap. vi. [6-7]. Et "ilia
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 de- 90
ducit Ambrosius, c. Remittuntur, eadem causa et questione [q. v.!].12
Quod advertentes, reges et maxime Francie, quia cause arduitas

67 advertat] avertat CJ / 69 omnes] omnis 7 / 6 9 nocendi] incendi H / 69 pre-

muniamus] prenunciamus A; corr. to premuniatur / / 70 canonis] c. AHJK / 71
potentis] potenti ABHJK / 72 tempore] die H / 73 quem] quos ACGJ / 75 trans-
sumptive] transsumptum ACGJ / 75 Sit] si ACEJKL; sic G / 76-78 iuxta . . . unum]
om. C I 80 (2d) i.] iii"11 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; w. CJ; potenter G / 88 Auferetur] aufertur
HK I 90 talia] alia L / 90-91 deducit] deduxit E
 72 De substraccione obediencie

et dubii probabilitas hoc exposcunt, iuxta consilium canonis, "senio-

ribus" regnorum "congregatis et interrogatis" (facilius namque in-
95 venitur 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 statirn 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

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 I 103 clarius] lacius AG / 103 penitus] om. C / 104 uniendum] uniendam CEJ /
106 istam] ista A / 106 viam] om. ABC] / 108 ceteros] certos CEHJL / 108 tactum]
tractatum./ / 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
 De substraccione obediencie 73

proprie consciencie et ad dandum occasionem aliis investigandi ve-

ritatem (quia ut dicit Philosophus, 2° Methaphisice, eciam ex falso
scriptis commendabor, quia per ipsa aliis materiam investigande
veritatis preparabo, ut notat Iohannes Andree in fine glose sue Libri 125
sexti),18 proposui iura aliqua ad memoriam videre volencium in ma-
teria reducere, et dicta doctorum,
"malens aliena verecunde dicere quam mea imprudenter inge-
rere," cum Iheronimo in principio epistole ad Paulum, in pro-
logo biblie,19 130
reservans in veri investigacione cuilibet liberum iudicium. Sic tamen
quod preferatur pars que pociori racione iuvatur, ut faciunt acha-
demici, de quibus Salisberiensis, libro vii°, in prohemio.20 Nee 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 vii°, ca. 20.21
Nee intendo aliquid per dei graciam temere in materia asserere
seu pertinaciter defendere, nee in iniuriam domini Benedicti eciam 140
aliquid dicere, sed solum pro unione ecclesie sic lamentabiliter la-
cerate. [E 229r] Cui ego et quilibet catholieus 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 tarn obediencie Bonifacii

122-23 veritatem] cristianitatem / /

124 scriptis] scripto B / 124 quia] qui G / 124-25 investigande veritatis] investigandi
veritatem A; inv. cristianitatis / / 126-27 materia] materiam A / 128-30 malens . . .
biblie] om. AC] / 128 aliena] alia HK / 128 verecunde] verecundia E; verecunda
HKL 1131 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 foil. ABG / 143 placeat] placebit B / 146-47 et matris . . . videntis]
om. ABCGJ I 148 igitur] clarius foil. 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\ w. G
 74 De substraccione obediencie

150 quam 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 uti-
litatem."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. Tune
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 quoquo-
modo 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 per
175 dictum Augustini in c. Puto, ibi cum dicit de Petro, "quis enim
nesciat ilium apostolatus principatum cuilibet episcopatui preferen-
dum" etc. Et per Iheronimum in c. Hec est fides, xxiiii. q. i., ubi

151 obedienciam canonice] w. J; obedienciam

K I 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.)
I 163 successor] Petri foil. BL / 176 principatum] principem L / 177 per] per
beatum A
 De substraccione obediencie 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 Karolum 180
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 quern habemus, Petrum 185
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 xvi°, Tu
es Petrus, etc., et porte inferi non prevalebunt, dicit: Secundum 190
autem hanc promissionem, ecclesia apostolica Petri ab omni seduc-
cione 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 habetur 195
in c. Si episcopus, ii. q. vi. Et ista sanctorum doctorum dicta debe-
rent 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. capitulo 200
[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 fcro competenti, ubi dicunt30
quod deus creator celi et terre rexit rnundum per se ipsum aliquo 205
tempore, sine ministerio alterius, ut ab Adam usque ad Noe (Gen.
iii° cap., ibi: "mulieri quoque dicit," et ibi: "Ade vero dicit" [3.16-
17]. Et Gen. iiii°, qualiter per se ipsum Cain, Lamech, et quosdam
alios [4.15, 24]), et sic, mundo gubernato per ipsum deum usque ad

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 I 190 prevalebunt] prevalebunt etc A; prevalebunt adversus earn C / 191-92 se-
duccione] 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] sane. die. doc. A,L(corr.); die. sane. doc.
K,Cfdicta inserted) / 196-97 deberent] debent ABG / 198 romanos pontifices] -urn
-cem L / 199 ipsi] Cristi G / 205 deus] om. C / 205 rexit] regit EHKL / 207-08 iii°
. . . Gen.] om. EHKL
 76 De substraccione obediencie

210 Noe, cepit deus creaturas suas regere per ministros, de quo apparet
quod fuit rector populi, ex eo quod sibi dominus gubernacionem
arche commisit, Gen. iiii° et v° capitulo [6.18-7.5!]. Item dominus in
Noe et filiis suis rectoriam et legem dedit, Gen. ix° [1-17], et licet
non legatur fuisse sacerdos, officium tamen exercuit sacerdotis, Gen.
215 viii° [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 sequent!.32 Et Ihesus Cristus qui fuit dominus
iudex noster, et dominus legifer noster, (ut) scribitur Isa. xxxiii0 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-
230 rum capite traditum auferre conatur, hie proeul 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
240 Ex 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

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 I 222 et] et vicarios J / 223 eis] potestatem et foil. 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
 De substraccione obediencie 77

Gentiles, titulo de potestate episcoporum, hoc pulcre deducit, dicens 245

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 epis- 250
coporum.40 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. 2° [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 [£ 230v] pluralitate or-
dinata, debet esse unus superior et cetera subiecta, ut ponit expresse 260
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 lacioni 270
astrorum, ut omnis eius virtus inde gubernetur.44 Et inde dicunt iura
quod ars imitatur naturam in quantum potest, 1. 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 eius 275
successores non sunt nee fuerunt maiores aliorum episcoporum.46 Et
tamen fatentur gerarchiam ecclesie militantis, videlicet maioritatem

247 Eligii] Egidii / / 249 est] non est BCEGHJKL / 252 q. i.] di.
codd. I 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
 78 De substraccione obediencie

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.
290 Nee valet quod dicunt: licet nos dicamus quod apes et grues
unam secuntur, non tamen omnes apes secuntur unam, sed nee 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-
310 terius quod "veteres scrutans hystorias, non invenit ecclesiam dei
scidisse, nee in domo domini populum seduxisse, preter eos qui in

279 xxi. di.] so L; om. others / 291 sed] sicut B /

292 aliam] om. B / 292 congregacio] fidelium foil. 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. L] etc BCEJ; etc xxiiii. q. i G; om. HK / 297 et] om.
CEHJKL I 299 di.] et in c. Leges, e. di. foil. L / 302 regem] reges CJ / 308
Iheronimo] romano CJ / 311 preter eos qui] preter eum qui eos C; propter eum qui
eos J(corr.)
 De substraccione obediencie 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 transsumptive 315
habetur in c. Sit rector, xliii. di. Et utinam talia scripta combure-
rentur! Et ille cui ista non sufficient, videat Armachanum, in libro
vii° De questionibus Armenorum, qui per sacram scripturam hoc
summe bene deducit.55
Ex quo infero correlarie, quod via per aliquos tacta, quod duo 320
concertantes de papatu remanerent prout sunt donee unus ipsorum
moreretur, et tune 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 prohibetur 325
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 est 330
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 1. 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 paccione 340
seclusa; quia "non est eleccio ubi libertas amittitur eligendi" (in c.

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 I 325 videre esset] videretur esse J / 325 et scandalosum] om. L / 328
episcopus] episcopatus CJ / 334 maculata] foret foil. B / 334 ad semper haben-
dum] 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
 80 De substraccione obediencie

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 cris-
tifideles 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 viii°,
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 1. ii. [Omnes], C. De hereticis;
et notat hoc Henricus in c. i. [Dubius in fide], De hereticis, in anti-
quis.60
355 Nunc 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:
1. 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. L, 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,

342 maius] De
eleccione Libro sexto foil. L / 342-43 § Ceterum] et in c. Ceterum eodem titulo
L I 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 foil. BG / 359
tristiciam] tristis CJ / 360 dicit] after civilis B; om. CEGHJKL / 360 quod] et HK
I 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
I 369 divinis] dominiis £ / 371 vitanda] evitanda BCEGHKL; De eleccione foil. L
 De substraccione obediencie 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 reicere 375
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 primo debent temptari quam veniatur ad
istam; et dicunt quod iuramentum factum in ingressu conclavis non
aliter dominum nostrum astringit.65 Ex quibus redditur iste articulus 380
bene dubius, quia sola opinio doctorum relevat litigatorem quan-
doque ab expensis, iuxta 1. Qui solidum, in § Eciam, ff. De legatis,
2<>66

[6] Item, videtur quod non liceat sibi substrahere obedienciam

alia racione, quia quociens potest haberi remedium ordinarium, non 385
debet haberi recursus ad extraordinarium, in 1. In cause [cognicione],
2° responso, ff. De minoribus. Sed in casu nostro potest provided
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 quod 390
pulcre notat Accursius in 1. 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 1. Quedam, in principio, ff. De edendo.67 Et in ter-
minis nostris est casus in § Pro gram quoque scandalo, ibi cum dicit, 395
si aliter sedari non possit.68
Et quod per ordinarium remedium provided 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, que 400
dicebantur scripta domini mei Pampilonensis, quod dominus noster
intelligit quod huiusmodi compromissum haberet vim concilii ge-
neralis.70 Et tune oporteret quod illi eligerentur de consensu amba-

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, tune
potest recursus haberi ad ipsum, etc. Sed CEHJKL / 391 notat Accursius] notatur
BCEGHJK I 397 Et quod] quod possit ABCGJ; et HK / 397 ordinarium] extraor-
dinarium A / 397 possit] tr. ABCGJ / 399 habet ius] ius habeat A / 400 Bonifacius]
dominus Bonifacius A / 400 Et] ut CEHJKL / 400 scripturis] scriptis ABCJK
 82 De substraccione obediencie

rum obedienciarum, nam alias non ligaret eorum dictum vel sen-
405 tencia reges et prelatos obedientes domino nostro; quia "res inter
alios acta" etc.71 (Et videtur casus in racione in 1. Si dictum, in § In
compromisso [Si compromiserol], ff. De eviccionibus.12 Et facit quod
notat Bernardus in capitulo finali [Si venditori], De empcione et
vendicione.)™ Et tune 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
[71 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 1. Si mater, C. De
institucionibus et substitucionibus sub condicione factis.16 Et satis
est quod aliquid sit certum, licet non nominatum: ff. [De rebus cre-
ditis,] si certum petetur, in 1. 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 su-
periorem cogi ad faciendum contra conscienciam, nee subditi de-

404
non] om. CJ / 404 eorum] eos CJ; om. E / 405 quia res] om. CJ / 406 acta] om. B
I 415 auctoritas] om. with blank space G / 415 orbis] urbis E / 415 urbe] orbe E(corr.)
I 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] vo. AC / 432 esset] est C / 436-
37 per superiorem] om. L
 De substraccione obediencie 83

bent 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, iiii° 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,
1. ii., De symonia.80
[9] Item, quod non liceat procedere per istam viam, scilicet 445
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 esse 450
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 fiuntl],
c. 2° [Abbas], per Hostiensem,81 et c. Cum dilectus, per Bernardum.82
Et licet quis incident in metum propter culpam, si tamen timeat 455
verisimiliter de processu iniurioso et violento, excusatur: ff. Quod
metus causa, 1. Nee, § Providere [Proindel]; De [sentencia et re]
iudicata, Pastoralis, in Clementinis.
[101 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, nee 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; hie enim per amiciciarum speciem que inimica sunt gerit, 470
et ecclesiam dispergit et vastat." Quod fortiter videtur facere contra

441 c. xiiii.] om. A; § iiii° B; t.° § iiii CJ; c. iiii EGHKL

I 441 nostri] noster CGJ,B(corr. from nostri,) / 445 quod] om. B / 445 liceat] licet
AB I 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
foil. L I 462 sequenti] sequenti et sequenti GJ / 465 potest] possit BGHKL,J(corr.)
I 465 ipsum] eum ABCHJKL / 466 c. Nulli] et c. Nulli BJ
 84 De substraccione obediencie

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 supra
480 ius (in c. Proposuit, De concessione prebendarum) ,84 nee 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.*5
485 Ergo nee 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.8* Et probatur per c. Cum inferior, De
maioritate et obediencia;89 per 1. Me a quo, § Tempestivum, ff. Ad
[senatusconsultum] trebellianum.
495 [13] Item, licet hoc fieret ad utilitatem ecclesie militantis per
regem, tamen non valeret nee 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-
505 tolice obedire contempnit," lxxxi. di., Si qui sunt.m

474 Petri] sancti Petri

CJ I 475 confidat] etc foil. BCEGJKL / 477 et . . . beneficiorum] om. L / 479
qui de iure] de iure quia A; quia de iure B; que de iure CJ / 487-88 E t . . . fine] om.
ABCGJ(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
 De substraccione obediencie 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 tarn proprium imperii quam
legibus vivere," in 1. Ex imperfecto, C. De testamentis, et 1. Digna 510
vox, C. De legibus. Et iurisconsultus: "Non puto verecundie nee
dignitati nee pietati convenire, quicquam non iure facere"—in
1. penultima [Creditores], ff. Ad legem iuliam de vi privata?2
[1-b] Item, rex et pater suus felicis memorie tenuerunt indubi-
tanter dominum Clementem predecessorem domini nostri (si sic de- 515
beat 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., Suggestum 520
[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 quod 525
semel sic sollempniter approbavit—per regulam iuris, "Quod semel
placuit" etc.,95 et per 1. 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: "Iu-
dicari namque a vobis ultra non debet semel prelatus, sed tanto a 530
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 nee fecit contra 535
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 xli° [15], "Curam habe de bono nomine." Et

511 iurisconsultus] senatusconsultus C / 512 quicquam] quam quid A; quicquid BCJ

I 512 iure] iuris AEGHJK (some abbreviations ambiguous) / 517 papa] papali B;
pape EGHK / 518 veros . . . pontifices] so codd. (B writes "summum port." above;
G has a marginal mark) / 519 Nunc] modo A / 519 in] om. L / 519 approbatur]
approbat L / 527 etc.] om. ABC] / 529-30 Iudicari] iudicare BCEGHJK / 533
conservanciam] conservacionem B / 533 fame] bone fame A / 534 suo] om. CJ
 86 De substraccione obediencie

"gravior est amissio fame quam oculorum"—in 1. Infamia, C. De

540 decurionibus, libro x°; De procuratoribus, Querelam, per Hostien-
sem.98
[3] Item pater regis, Karolus felicis memorie, nunquam processit
ad substraccionem obediencie pape Clementis, nee ceteri reges, ex-
cepto rege Portugalie, qui semel fuit determinatus pro Clemente et
545 post, ipso dimisso, adhesit Bartholomeo." Et ceteri reges Francie,
precipue tempore scismatum, nunquam ad substraccionem obedien-
cie illius quern papam tenuerunt processerunt. Ymo ut dicunt hys-
torie, ill! qui habuerunt regem Francie pro se semper obtinuerunt;
ut de Alexandro IIP 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]
555 Item quod non expediat videtur. Non enim omnia que licent
expediunt, iuxta verbum Apostoli [1 Cor. 6.12] quod habetur trans-
sumptive 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 tune 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-
565 toris. 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 spi-
ritu eius. Si quis autem, inquit Apostolus [Rom. 8.9], spiritum Cristi
non habet, hie non est eius"—xi. q. iii., Nichil. Et excommunicacio

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
 De substraccione obediencie 87

efficitur mortalis cum contempnitur—De sentencia excommunica- 570

cionis, [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 et 575
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 1. Si quis do-
mum, in § i. [Hie], 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 stante 585
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., su- 590
perius allegato.
[4] Item si substraheretur per reges obediencia istis ambobus, vel
per unam partem suo, ea racione qua non obediretur eis, eadem
racione nee obediretur episcopis creatis per ipsos, et ceteris prelatis
vel curatis et beneficiatis; quia clarum est quod ordinati per papam 595
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 ha-
bebit contrarium, et dicetur quod hoc fit quia nunquam fuerunt veri

574 sibi] ei B / 576 legati] so L; delegati others / 577 cause] casus L / 578
decidende] decidendi L / 579 hiis] istis ABC] / 589 quod] ut L / 590-91 superius
allegato] om. B / 592 reges] regem ABCJ / 593-94 eis . . . obediretur] om. CG,F(tvith
fieret inserted after qua) / 596 reprobatum] reprobum CJ / 601 substrahitur] sub-
strahatur J / 602-03 habebit] habebitur in A; haberet L / 603 dicetur] diceretur L /
603 veri] om. E
 88 De substraccione obediencie

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 1. Honori, ff. De
obsequiis etc.108 Et erunt viri ecclesiastici opprobrium hominum et
abieccio [E 235r] plebis, et per consequens posset esse destruccio
totalis 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-
615 num. 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,
nee 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-
630 sorum habet de patrimonio ecclesie magnas villas, castra, et forta-
licia, 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 1. Ad probacionem,
635 et 1. 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.

604 orietur] oriretur L / 607 erunt] erunt tune 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
 De substraccione obediencie 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 quod 645
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, lucris 650
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 presump- 660
cionibus.na Et per hoc nedum scandalizant ecclesiam, ymo ip-

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. Mud, De maioritate et obediencia), et peccatum ariolandi et peccatum
[om. A] paganitatis incurrit, qui cristianum se asserit et sedi [sedis ABC]] apostolice
obedire [obedienciam AB]; 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 pa-
patum detinenti non est substrahenda obediencia, ut videtur dicere Innocencius in
simili, in c. [In] litteris, De restitucione spoliatorum.JIJ° 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. Ilia—and it appears only in AB / 642 dei] om. HKL / 647-53
Et . . . pacis] om. ABCJ(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
 90 De substraccione obediencie

sam 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 cpmmittimus, certe
670 non veritatis discipuli sed, quod dolenter dicimus, erimus pre ceteris
erroris magistri." Et ob hoc ad reprehensionem Ludovici Augusti ad
correccionem se reddidit paratum—in c. Nos si incompetenter, ii.
q. vii.11"1 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 [£ 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
Hostierisis 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.11"1 Quod probatur per dictum Pauli, II.
ad Corinthios, ultimo capitulo [10.8], ubi dicit quod potestas apos-
690 tolica est ad edificacionem, non ad destruccionem; et facit quod dicit
Petrus Bertrandi, olim cardinalis, in Clementinam Ne Romani, De

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 foil.
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 com-
probarer] 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
foil. AC] I 689 ultimo capitulo] om. AC
 De substraccione obediencie 91

eleccione, ubi dicit quod si papa faciat aliquid quod scandalizet

ecclesiam, et ponit exemplum quod si vellet dare patrimonium to-
tum vel partem notabilem ecclesie parentibus suis, quod resistendum
esset sibi in facie, sicut Paulus resistit Petro, ii. q. vii., Paulus [Gal. 695
2. II]. 118 Quanto magis in casu nostro, pro quo videtur casus in ca-
pitulo 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.lZ0 700
Nee 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. xx° [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.123 710
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

692 aliquid quod] notorie foil.

CJ I 693-94 totum] om. E / 696-97 Quanto . . . ii.] Pro quo . . . Quanto magis . . .
CJ I 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.
ABCGJ(added) / 711 est] esset L / 715 quod] om. ACJ / 717-26 Et facit.. . minis-
trante] 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
 92 De substraccione obediencie

vel exinde alia mala eciam ventura, tune non debet sibi obediri—
ymo qui sibi obedit peccat, quia futura mala debent precaveri, et
non debet papa iuvari ad ilia committenda." Et recitat Innocencium
qui fuit papa, et Hostiensem qui fuit cardinalis, et allegant c. Mag-
725 ne, De voto, et c. Proposuit, De clerico excommunicato ministran-
te.125
(Nam si licet in uno casu particular! 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-
tern 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.)
735 Et per locum a maiori: Autentica, Multo magis, C. De episcopis et
clericis.™ Et facit, quia non est idem iudicium de dubitato et in-
dubitato, quia dubius de statu suo non potest testari, in 1. De statu,
ff. De testamento [Qui testamenta facere possunt\\, et in 1. i. [Si
incertus], ff. De legatis, 3°.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 pre-
sideret, nee 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

unitam et pacificam esse sub alio, videat quilibett—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 foil. B / 721 debet]
deberet B / 727-34 Nam . . . pacis] om. ABCJ / 735 Et] om. CJ / 736 quia] quod B
/ 736-37 indubitato] de indubitato AC] / 742 suo] statu foil. L / 742-43 pre-
sideret] possideret et presideret L / 746 dubitare] disputare A / 747 qui] quis ABCJ
I 147 vocant] vocat AB; vocavit CJ / 750 ecce] om. CJ / 750 credere] cedere E
 De substraccione obediencie 93

iubet! (i. q. iv., in § finali [Notandum]).128 Et facit c. Preterea, ii.,

De sponsalibus; 1. Item veniunt, § A quo autem [denunciatuml], ff.
De hereditatis peticione; [ff.] De administracione [et periculo] tu-
torum, [E 237r] 1. Quidam decedens, § Ex quo.129 Et facit 1. Si fun-
dum, C. De rei vendicacione. Que iura probant quod dictum unius 755
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.iao Et per ista apparet intellectus verus ad 760
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 eleccione 765
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, neuter 770
forte est scismaticus; sed ubi vident quod scandalum est maximum
pro eleccione ipsorurn, tune 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 pec- 775
cati 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.
"Quomodo reges servient in timore, nisi ea que contra dominum
iussa fuerint religiosa severitate prohibendo atque plectendo? Aliter 780
enim servit quia homo est, aliter eciam quia rex est. Quia homo est,
servit vivendo fldeliter; quia rex est, servit leges iusta precipientes
et contraria prohibentes convenienti vigore sanxiendo." Et hoc dicit

751 i. q. i v . . . . 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" I 751 ii.] le second BK,J(\e secunsj; 1. ii E; le ii° H / 757 nostro] om. C /
758 suo] om. 7 / 7 6 3 forte] om. ABCGJ / 764 casu tali] w. BCJ / 770 sed] si CJ /
111 forte] om. ABCJ / 775 procurandam] procurandum ACGJ / 778 (2d) etc.] om.
ABCJ I 779 reges] reges domino C / 779 dominum] deum A / 782 iusta] iuxta AEH;
iustas B I 783 contraria] contrarias B / 783 sanxiendo] senciendo BCEGHJKL
 94 De substraccione obediencie

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 xxiiii. [11]: "Erue eos qui ducun-
tur 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

785
Unde] unde homines B / 787 eos] nos B / 787-88 ducuntur] dicuntur B / 790 faciunt]
ea foil. C I 790 notatur in] ubi ABCJ; notat in £ / 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) I 797 sicut] et foil. C / 798 mortem] enim foil. C / 799 lxxxiii. di.]
Et Innocencius, Negligere quippe cum possis perversos perturbare nichil aliud est
quam fovere, nee 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 foil. C / 799 quibus] quo E / 801 si] et B /
801 est] est eciam CJ / 801 quocunque] alio foil. CJ / 802 quod] quid AC / 810
ambos] om. C
 De substraccione obediencie 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 cris- 815
tianos, 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 maioritate 820
et obediencia,158 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
product, 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 2°
[E 238r] vel 3° 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 triumphantem 830
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
1. ii. [Necessarium], § Post originem, ff. De origine iuris.142 835
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 beatus 840

812 sic] om. CJ / 812 dicentis] super Io. foil. C / 814 suo]
deo suo A; suo deo CJ(ir 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
I 830 veniat] veniunt B; veniant ACGHJK / 831 que] et B / 832 viii. di., Quo iure]
om. ABC] I 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
I 840 beatus] om. B
 96 De substraccione obediencie

Ysidorus dicens: "Principes seculi nonnunquam intra ecclesiam po-

testatis adepte culmina tenent, lit 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 imper-
ciantur. 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 ilia 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-
865 tendetur.
Item minor probatur per ea que notant doctores Bernardus et

841 nonnunquam] nunquam L / 843 muniant] minuant L /

845 potestates hoc imperent] potestas hoc imperet A / 848 conterantur] concertantur
B I 849 potestas] potestatis BEGHKL / 850 imponat] om. E / 850 mereantur] me-
rentur 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 foil. A; Non vos hominum vaniloquia retardent, dicencium quod persecu-
cionem 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. foil. BCJ(toith BJ agreeing in a few errors) / 857 Et
Augustinus] so, corr. to Et infra ibidem Augustinus C / 858 plectendi] plectendis
ABCJ(ir 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 foil. BJ; verum foil. C
 De substraccione obediencie 97

Hostiensis in c. i. [Quia quesitum], De offido [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 epis- 875
coporum, xi. q. iii. Et facit optime quod dicit Augustinus in 2° 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 de- 880
bent 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 pri- 885
mo, 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 quod 890
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 sentencia 895
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, nee caret" etc. Et
Gregorius: "Consentire videtur erranti qui ad ea que corrigi possunt
debite non occurrit," in c. Consentire, eadem distinccione. Et vi- 900

868 dignum]
de homic. foil. 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 foil. 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 foil. ABCJ
 98 De substraccione obediencie

detur 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 nee 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 ara-
bobus concertantibus, viam pacis eis consulte et digeste oblatam non
920 acceptantibus, obedienciam substrahere.
Maior probatur per premissa. Minor probatur per 1. Cui iuris-
diccio, De iurisdiccione omnium iudicum: cui iurisdiccio concessa
est, et omnia sine quibus; et 1. Ad rem, et 1. Ad legatum, ff. De
procuratoribus. Et facit 1. 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 diciint 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-

908 solubili] insolubili AC] / 908 servare] servat

C / 911 decretalia] decretales A / 913 si nee sic] si nee ACL; sic nee B; si sic nee J
I 918 possunt] nee debent foil. ABC] / 919 consulte] consulere / / 922 De] ff.
De L / 922-23 cui . . . legaturn] et 1. legatum C / 923 omnia] ea A / 928 malicia]
contumacia ABCJ(ir orig.) / 928 Quorundam] quondam ABCGJ / 929 in summa]
om. ABC]
 De substraccione obediencie 99

dienciam substrahere. Maior probatur per dictum salvatoris, quod

scribitur Mat. xx° [26-27], qui dicit apostolis concertantibus de maio- 935
ritate: 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 [£ 239v] in libro De doctrina cristiana, qui dicit quod ubi 940
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.158 945
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.159 950
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 tune fecit
istam, que canonizata est; et debet formaliter hodie practicari.160 955
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, ut 960
est dictum. Et facit quia ubi contra ilium 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.162 965

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
1940 doctrina] vita L / 943 apparet] patet A / 943 ut videtur] om. A / 943 de duobus]
duobus CJ I 947 id est] et A / 949 denotat] notat / / 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 I 964-65 in fine] de elec. in fine L
 100 De substraccione obediencie

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 1. Si fuerit, ff. De rebus dubiis, et
970 1. Si quis de pluribus, eodem titulo, et 1. Duo sunt Ticii, ff. De
testamentaria tutela.163 Et notat hoc Speculum plene in titulo de
locato [De emphyteusi)], § Nunc aliqua, versu lix° et versiculo lxii0.164
Et facit c. ii. [In eleccionibus], De eleccione, Libro sexto, ubi notat
Iohannes Monachus quod incertitudo vel perplexitas viciat eleccio-
975 nem.165 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.
Nee est qui super hoc iudicet. Quia concilium non: quia nota-
biliter maior pars cristianitatis, specialiter episcoporum, fixe tenuit
ilium de Roma, quern 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 nee concilium nee 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-

971 plene] om. A / 972 versiculo]

om. A I 975 legum] legis AL / 975 decreverunt] decernunt G / 976 est] om. C,J(corr.)
I 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
I 986 pocius] om. B / 987 qui] fuerunt et foil. L / 987 ambabus] in L / 988
repellit] om. G / 989 fas] lxxix. di. foil. L / 991 idem dicendum est] idem est
dicendum B; inde est dicendum C / 991 Benedicto] Bonifacio et inde est dicendum
de illis qui obediunt Benedicto C / 992 iudicabunt] fere . . . repellit (as above, lines
985-88, but without the variants; the passage is crossed out and labeled "vacat")
foil. L I 994 nobis] om. CJ
 De substraccione obediencie 101

runt. 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 autem 1000
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, tune forma capituli Si quis
pecunia locum haberet, et que ibidem dicit Gracianus.168 1005
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 venire 1015
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, "nee debet hoc reprehen-
sibile iudicari," per c. Non debet, De consanguinitate et affinita-
te™ Nee sequitur: isti sunt ambo electi contra fas, ergo promoti per 1020
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 ilia 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.

999 quod] om. J / 999 per] om. C / 1005 pecunia]

lxxix. di. foil. L I 1007 nunc] tune B / 1014 in materia] om. A / 1015 bene
venire] w. CG / 1015 venire] vivere BE / 1020 sunt ambo] w. C; duo sunt J / 1021
Barbarius Philippus] so L; barbarus phil(us) others / 1021 Philippus] de offlcio
pretorum foil. L / 1021-22 Consultacionibus] consultacioni A; concertacioni
BEGKL,C(corr.); concertacionibus J / 1022 De iure patr.] de ap. li. vi. L / 1023 meo]
in eo G,C(corr.) / 1025 credens] dicens et credens L / 1027 debet] debent E
 102 De substraccione obediencie

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 x°: "Pro pace Cristi esse
episcopi debemus vel non esse"; et subdit: "Quid, dubitamus re-
1050 demptori 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-

1029-
31 Et si . . . dicetur] om. ABC,J(added) / 1029 in decem et novem] a iudice novem
E; in xix G / 1031 ut] ut supra dictum est et E / 1036 licet . . . substrahere] debet
obediencia substrahi L / 1039 quia] qui G / 1039 nititur] innititur ABCJ / 1039 iure]
iuri ABCJ / 1040 Et per] et per totum unde C / 1042 sumus] om. AJ,C(added) /
1043 eorum sine] w. CJ / 1043 sese] si ABC / 1043 necessitas] necessitatis CGJ /
1044 vel esse] esse E / 1045 Deinde] denique C(i? orig.) / 1045 prediti] predicti
BCEGHJK I 1048 libro x°] titulo x BJ,C(deleted with insertion: cum Emerito c. iiii;
/ 1050 istud] istius B(ir orig.) / 1050 offerre] offerte G / 1054 simus . . . simus] sumus
. . . sumus CJ I 1054 Episcopi] ipsi B / 1055 quid ergo] quod enim A; quis ergo B /
1056 pacem] fidem et pacem L / 1057 sumus] simus E / 1058 dignitas] dignitatis BG
 De substraccione obediencie 10S

tuosior nobis erit si gregem deposita magis collegerit quam retenta

disperserit." Et infra: "Nam qua fronte in futuro seculo promissum 1060
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 teneatur 1065
de aliis iusticiam facere, multo forcius de se ipso," per 1. Aldus, ff.
Si servitus vendicetur.116
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 obe- 1070
diendum 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 fa-
ciant, unitatis compage dirrupta. Colles autem eis obediendo ita
subsequantur, ut eis Cristum anteponant, ne maiorum vana auc-
toritate seducti se a Cristi unitate dirrumpant." 178 1080
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 quern scandalum venit" etc. [Matt. 1085

1059 gregem] grege Cristi A; gregem Cristi Cfir orig.); gregem ubi J / 1059
deposita] deposicio L / 1059 collegerit] collegeretur B / 1060 disperserit] dispergit
ABJ,C(corr.) / 1062 unitatem] Et per predicta apparet solucio clara ad capitulum
Quam periculosum, vii. q. i, quia non est periculosum, ymo valde salubre, sue cathedre
renunciare pro bono unionis, que est causa iustissima. Sed renunciare iuri nature vel
primogeniture propter ingluviem gule fuit nee immeritorio periculosum renuncianti,
ut ibidem foil. B / 1063 ecclesie] dei foil. L / 1063 tenetur cedere] w. EHKL / 1068
racionem] par tern CJ / 1069 pro] in CJ / 1074-80 Et per dictum . . . dirrumpant]
om. C,G(added in margin), J(added) / 1074 Deus iudicium ibi] om. B / 1075 Sus-
cipiant] suscipient EL / 1075 pacem] om. A / 1075 ubi . . . dicit] sic dicentem B /
1076 paci] pacis B / 1077 ne] nee B / 1077 scismata] om. A / 1078 eis obediendo ita]
id est subditi ita eos obediendo B / 1078 eis] eos BEHJK / 1079 maiorum vana]
maiorum moncium bona B; viciorum vana H / 1079 vana] viva £ / 1080 Cristi
unitate] cristianite [/] J
 104 De substraccione obediencie

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 pre-
1095 bens proximo ruine," ut ponit Henricus in c. Cum ex iniuncto, De
novi operis nunciacione—et recitat Iheronimum, et beatum Trio-
mam 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 pos-
1100 sunt 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 Nee est appetendus per aliquem ut presit,
sed ut prosit—c. Qui episcopatum, viii. q. i. Nee 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

1093-94 scandalo . . . occasionem] om. L / 1096

recitat] recitant B; crossed out C / 1096 Iheronimum] Iheronimus BEGJ; beatus
Iheronimus C / 1096-97 beatum Thomam] beatus Thomas BCEJ / 1098 sermone]
lxv° foil. L I 1106 erat] om. CJ / 1108 solum] magis foil. CJ / 1109 ymo et] ymo
eciam A / 1109 mera] nostra ACJ,B(corr.) / 1111 prelatus] papa AB; papam CJ;
prelatus igitur E / 1114 hominibus] omnibus C / 1117 profundum] profundis A;
maris foil. C / 1117 in c ] ut in c. CJ / 1118 beatum] beatus BCJ
 De substraccione obediencie 105

sunt in causa magni scandali et non cedunt quando possunt, peccant

mortaliter.185 Et ita qui talibus obedit talibus fa vet, et hoc faciendo 1120
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 in 1125
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 "tarn de catholice sinceritatis 1135
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.190 1140
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;

1119 cedunt]
cedant ABEGHJKL / 1120 et hoc] hoc BCEGHJKL / 1121 videtur] et foil.
BCJ I 1123-28 Et Augustinus . .. permansit] om. BC,AGJ(added) / 1123-24 ad
propositum sic dicit] om. A / 1125 sic] om. A / 1125 Exit] hec sit HJK / 1128
permansit] Ex quo sequitur quod obedienciam talibus debemus denegare, quia scan-
dalizantem nos eciam si fuerit oculus, pes, vel manus, a nobis proicere voce domini
et expellere iubemur—ut dixerunt et bene illi qui primam epistolam universitatis
matris mee fecerunt, quorum tamen aliqui ut fertur aliter hodie palliare nituntur.186"
Unde canon: Quibus prodesse non potest correccio, non parcat abscissio. Ab ipsa enim
Veritate precipimur ut si nos oculus aut pes aut dextra scandalizaverit, a compage
corporis aufferatur, quia melius est hiis carere quam cum ipsis in eterna ire supplicia,
xxiiii. q. iii., Illud sane foil. L / 1129 scandali] scismatis scandali C / 1132
sanctum] om. E / 1135 sinceritatis] securitatis A; sinceritate E / 1137 sunt] om. L /
1143-44 in quo . . . canones] om. BCJ
 106 De substraccione obediencie

1145 quicquid 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.
1175 Item 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

1147 notat] facit CJ / 1150 ult] vii L / 1153

istud] per hoc A / 1154 illis] illi ABCJ / 1159 est penitus eis] eis est penitus A; penitus
est eis BHK; est eis penitus C / 1160 reges] regem A / 1160 peccarent] peccaret A /
1161 Violatores] om. A / 1164 illi qui] om. CJ / 1164 criminoso] criminose B / 1164-
65 eodem modo] om. EL / 1165-67 sicut .. . puniuntur] om. A / 1165 facit] eciam
foil. ABCGJ I 1169 Qui . . . iii.] om. A / 1171 i.] i allegato BCJ / 1175 taliter
papatum] papatum talem B
 De substraccione obediencie 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 transgre- 1180
diuntur 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 sacer- 1185
dotes, 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 male 1190
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 quern vidi,
quern amavi, quern credidi, quern 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 precep- 1200
to, 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 legibusl], 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

1178 constituciones] sancciones A / 1179 lxiv. di.] om.

A; di. B / 1180-81 tradicionum . . . transgrediuntur] om. C / 1183-86 Et Gauffredus
. . . di.] om. ABCJ,G(added) / 1188-89 eadem . . . retinere] eadem racione qui pa-
patum retinet contra sacros canones ABCJ,G(with the other added in margin) / 1191
male retinere] retinere A / 1193 velle] om. ABCGJ / 1196 ipsos] eos BCJ / 1196 ut]
om. C I 1197 quia] et quia ACJ / 1197 quern vidi] om. ABCJ / 1198 quern amavi
quern credidi] om. L / 1199 habebunt] habebit ABCJL / 1200-01 quia . . . precepto]
om. A I 1203 in fine] om. A / 1204 sacros] om. A / 1205-17 Et ex supradictis . . .
quis intrusus] Ex hoc inferunt aliqui quod licet a principio scismatis unus contenden-
cium dixerit alterum et sibi adherentes scismaticos, et econtra, tamen hodie magis
constat quod ipsi ambo sunt scismatici, quam unquam apparuerit de iure alicuius
istorum. Quia ambo pro tanti scandali sedacione cedere tenentur, quod si non faciunt,
 JOS De substraccione obediencie

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. Hi., 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

requisiti solempniter, vere scismatici sunt, ut est dictum, et hoc magis ecclesie uni-
versali constat quam quod alter eorum ius habeat et alter intrusus sit A; Ex quibus
inferunt scolastici aliqui, et forsan non male, quod licet nos dixerimus Urbanum et
Bonifacium fuisse et esse scismaticos, et pars ipsis obediens tenuerit Clementem et
Benedictum fuisse et esse eciam scismaticos, pro eo quia quilibet dicit de adversario
suo quod intrudit se in papatu; tamen hodie verum est dicere quod ambo concertantes
sunt magis evidenter scismatici quam ipsorum aliquis hactenus dici potuerit. Probatur
hoc quia quilibet ipsorum, propter opiniones clericorum diversas et multitudinem
adherencium, maiorem colorem licet non excusabilem, ut infra dicetur, dicendi se
papam habuit, quam hodie ipsi ambo habent in retinendo papatum. Nam luce clarius
est, ut videtur per predicta, quod pro sedacione scandali nunc prochdolor in ecclesia
existentis, ipsi ambo tenentur cedere iuri quod se ambo pretendunt habere in papatu,
maxime quando sunt super hoc solempniter requisiti B; om. CJ(added) / 1210 constat
magis clare] constat magis clamare J(corr.); magis clamare constat K / 1212 ipsi] om.
JK,H(corr.) / 1218 videtur] videmus E / 1220 probat Iheronimus] different hand
alters to: hoc dicit Iher. in epistolam ad Galat., et habetur C; probat hoc Iheron. L /
1222 sibi] sit B; om. J / 1222-23 confingat . . . videatur] tr. B / 1224-26 Ubi . . . est]
om. AJ,C(with marginal counterpart) / 1226 est] ut notatur in c. Didicimus, eadem
causa et q. prima, confingat ut recte ab ecclesia discessisse videatur foil. B
 De substraccione obediencie 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 segrega- 1230
tur. Unde Iheronimus: "Heresis grece ab eleccione dicitur, quod
scilicet sibi earn unusquisque eligat opinionem quam putat esse rae-
liorem." Et Augustinus pulcre et bene ad propositum: "Hereticus
est qui alicuius temporalis commodi, et maxime glorie principatus-
que sui gracia, falsas ac novas opiniones vel gignit vel sequitur." Et 1235
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 [£ 243v] quod contumacia vel obstinacio in papa est heresis, 1240
ut superius est dictum,208 per illud
quod sequitur, I. Regum xv° 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 con- 1245
tempnit." 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—quod 1250
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 sine 1255
causa illi qui occasione papatus faciunt scisma vocantur non solum
heretici sed heresiarche, in c. i. [Quod a predecessore], De scisma-

1230 quis] om. B / 1230 unitate] ecclesia seu unitate A / 1231 dicitur] dei B / 1233
ad propositum] om. L / 1234-35 glorie principatusque] principatus L / 1235 ac] et
CJ I 1236 iii.] iiii BJ,C(corr.) / 1239-41 illud . . . illud] om. ABCJ / 1242 sequitur]
habere locum quod sequitur foil. B / 1245 si quis] is qui A / 1245 esse] om. J /
1245 sedi apostolice] om. J / 1249-51 Et Ysidorus . . . allegato] om. ACJ / 1249
patrum] oppiniones et foil. L / 1250 unitatem .. . hoc] se ab unitate ecclesie B
I 1254 sine dubio si] si sine dubio AB / 1254 si] om. CJ(added) / 1255 Et] om. CJ
 110 De substraccione obediencie

ticis [et ordinatis ab eis]. Ex quibus clare sequitur quod in hoc non
est eis obediendum.
1260 Ex quibus videntur clare inferenda que secuntur:
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 cre-
debat 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

1258 hoc] hoc casu C / 1260 Ex . . . secuntur] Item ex predictis videtur adhuc quod
licet eis obedienciam substrahere clare inferendum B("adhuc ... substrahere" crossed
out; cf. infra, line 1314) / 1260-1313 Ex . . . q. iii.] om. C(with marginal counter-
part), J(added) / 1260 videntur clare] vv. A] / 1260 secuntur] (marked to follow
"obediendum," line 1259) et videtur casus in c. Anastasius, xix. di., ubi eo quod papa
communicaverat Fotino qui communicaverat Achacio, multi se ab eius obediencia
abigerunt foil. L / 1261 se] om. BEGHJKL / 1261 verum] om. BEGHJKL /
1261 papam] papa EG / 1262-64 intrusus . . . antiquato] contra canones sacros tenet
vel tenere nititur papatum B / 1264-65 a scismate . . . credenciam] propter talem
credenciam a scismate vel heresi quando perseverat B / 1265-70 Apparet . . . papa-
tum] Et satis patet, quia in dubiis debet pocius papatum dimittere, in cuius dimissione
nullum est periculum, quam sub periculo scismatis et heresis ipsum papatum velle
retinere B / 1265 lateranense] om. A / 1266 allegatum] om. AEL / 1266 vocabat]
om. A I 1268 id . . . hereticorum] om. A / 1268-69 credebat] credebant EGK; om.
J I 1269 suo . . . se] penes se suo tempore HJK / 1270 dubiis] dubio AEL / 1270
pocius] om. A / 1270 debent] deberent A / 1271 et] per foil. B; de J / 1271
regulam] reg. J / 1272 etc.] om. A; tucior B / 1272 quam . . . destruere] om. AB /
1273-74 Item .. . occulte] Et videtur inferendum quod si duo concertantes in refu-
tacione acceptacionis vie cessionis perseverent B / 1273 Quod] sequitur quod A /
1276-82 ut notat . . . dixi] et per consequens non potest excommunicare aliquem vel
aliam sentenciam f erre, precipue contra eos qui prosecuntur viam cessionis pro bono
unionis ecclesie, ut notat Iohannes glosator Decreti, xxiv, q. i, in summa, et in c.
Achacius, eodem titulo B
 De substraccione obediencie 111

per consequens non potest excommunicare aliquem, vel aliam

sentenciam ferre, ut notat idem glosator, xxiv. q. L, in summa.213
Et quod dicit in fine illius glose, "nisi forte in duobus electis ad 1280
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.215 1285
Item inferunt aliqui unum, quod utinam dominus Benedic-
tus advertat, quern 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 plus 1290
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 hereticisf16 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 ul-
timum probatur ex verbis domini dicentis, Iohannis xv° [6], "Si 1300
quis in me non manserit, mittetur foras et arescet, et colligent
eum et in ignem mittent" etc. Notat hoc Hostiensis in Summa,

1278 aliam] aliquam A / 1280 forte] om. A / 1282 satis]

om. A I 1283-85 Et . . . Bonifacii] om. A; et per consequens secura est universitas
Parisiensis, qui pure prosequitur unionis viam, et eius supposita etc. Et quia verum
est quod opinio Augustini habet expresse, ut apparet per predicta, quod ipsi ambo
debent cedere, et qui contra Augustinum in casu fidei et statu [/] universalis ecclesie
tenet pertinaciter, ut hereticus est puniendus, quia contra doctorem approbatum per
ecclesiam B / 1284 processus] sentencias J / 1286 aliqui] om. A; multi B / 1287
semper] aliter/oW. A / 1288 sinit] sit A; scit £; cinit L '/ 1288 credidi] credendum
B; credi E / 1288 esse . . . probum] bonum A; probum et bonum B; bonum et probum
G / 1288-96 ipsi... excommunicacionis] contra ipsos viam cessionis ita pertinaciter
refutantes secundum canones proceditur per excommunicacionem quam incurrunt
B I 1290 dicimus] diximus HJK / 1297 merentur] per B / 1297 rerum omnium] w.
AB I 1298 secundum canones] om. B / 1299 ignem] per ignem B / 1299-1300 quod
. . . dicentis] domino dicente A / 1299-1300 ultimum] om. B / 1301-02 mittetur . . .
hoc] foras mittetur etc. et in ignem mittet [/] et ardet. Ut notat B / 1301-02 et arescet
. . . eum] om. L / 1302 in Summa] infra B
 112 De substraccione obediencie

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
Nee turbentur duo concertantes contra sic scribentes, quia "rea-
tus omnem honorem excludit"—in 1. 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, nee aliquid agant priusquam concitata ad tranquilli-
tatem mens redeat," iuxta consilium Gregorii, de quo habetur
in c. Ilia, 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." Nee 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. "Nee quia co-
guntur reprehendant, sed quo coguntur attendant," in c. Ipsa pietas,
xxiii. q. iv.—et sunt verba Augustini ad Bonifacium papam.220
1325 Item 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-

1303 De hereticis] eodem titulo B;

allegata et foil. J / 1303-04 De hereticis] om. J / 1304 allegato] om. B / 1304
forsan] forsitan HJK / 1304 volebat] voluit B / 1304 dicere] quidam tempore Cle-
mentis nunc autem familiarissimus domino Benedicto, I[ohannes] foil. A / 1305
q u i . . . Clementis] qui dicti Clementis tempore predicabat A; quando dicebat tempore
Clementis B; tempore Clementis E / 1305 mactarentur] immolarentur A / 1306
turbentur] turbetur B / 1306 duo concertantes] domini contendentes A; papa B /
1306 sic] om. B / 1306 quia] sed si verum, dicat cur cederet eum [/; cur non cederet?],
si autem male, testimonium perhibeat de malo. Et consideret quod ille qui loquitur
non ex se ipso loquitur, sed recitat dicta doctorum, et quod B / 1308 expresse de
papa] om. B / 1309 habeant] habent HJK / 1309-13 Sed habeant... q. iii.] om. B /
1310 totum] tota HJK / 1310 furor sibi] w. A; sibi H; furoris sibi J / 1311 vendicet]
vendicat H / 1314 obedienciam substrahere] obediencia substraheretur E / 1316
auctorem] actorem AC / 1317 in . . . eis] eis in hoc casu CJ / 1322 Vincencio donatiste]
Innoc. donastice BCEGL; Inno. donatiste HJK / 1322-24 Nee . . . q. iv.] om. EGHKL
11322 quia] quod BJ,C(corr. to quoniam} / 1323 quo] quod BJ,C(corr.) / 1327 debet]
debent EGHKL
 De substraccione obediencie 113

litatem 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 of- 1330
ficii, 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 do- 1335
minum episcoporum sed unum ex ipsis, porro fratrem diligencium
deum" etc.222 Et facit illud Mat. xx° [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 dicit 1345
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 et 1350
c. Que in ecclesiarum, De constitucianibus, dicunt quod si aliquis
princeps fecerit constitucionem contra ius naturale, puta quod do-
minia de uno in alium transferantur sine iusta causa, talis constitucio
nee in foro anime nee civili conservanda est: quod recitat Archidia-
conus in c. Ius civile, i. di.226 Et idem tenet Henricus per c. Si 1355
quando, De rescriptis, et per c. Imperiali, cum sequenti [Nee damp-
nosa], xxv. q. ii. Et notant hoc Accursius et Odofredus, C. De

1329 iuribus] iure or iuris ABCGJ / 1330 Cum ex] so L; om. others
I 1333 beatus] om. C / 1334 sanctam] om. A / 1334 auctore] actore E / 1335 te] tu
E I 1335-36 dominum] omnium foil. E / 1337 Reges autem] reges gencium
A(ir orig.) / 1340 facti gregis] sancti Gregorii £ / 1342 pares] patres C(corr. to
equalesj / 1343 quod] quia E / 1343-44 vii. q. i., Mutaciones] v. q. i., Mucronis codd.
I 1345 in libris ibi] ibi in libris CJ / 1345 beatus] scilicet beatus BEGHJKL; sed
beatus C / 1349 Thomam] dictum Thomam C / 1352-53 dominia] do'um L / 1353
in] ad L / 1353 transferantur] transferatur L / 1353 talis constitucio] om. B; non valet
foil. L I 1354 anime nee civili] anime nee in civili C; civili nee in anime K /
1354 conservanda] servanda BL; causa servanda C / 1356 cum sequenti] cause J /
1357 ii.] i codd.
 114 De substraccione obediencie

[E 245r] precibus imperatori offerendis, in 1. 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., Ilia. Pro
isto facit c. Quia cognovimus, x. q. iii., ibi cum dicit quod illi qui
recipiunt ab ecclesia ultra quam sacri canones ab antiquo permit-
1375 tunt, "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

1360 ii.] le second BEG; le ii KL / 1362-63 Procuraciones] con-

stituciones J / 1363 Hostiensis] hoc B; om. CJ; per Hostiensem L / 1365 ipsum] hoc
C; eura J / 1373 Quia] om. codd.(C corr.) / 1374-75 permittunt] promittunt C /
1376 Unde] item B; inde E / 1376 quilibet] qui agit foil. E / 1380 qui] quod
BCGJ I 1381 extravaganti] Super cathedram foil. L / 1382 haberet] habeat
ABCJL I 1386 debent et] debent ex £ / 1388 ut prosit] ut presit B; non ut presit
EGHK; non ut presit foil. L / 1389 Rectorem] rectoris CEHJK / 1389 posuerunt]
proposuerunt CJ
 De substraccione obediencie 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 Mo-
nachum in summa super rubrica De maioritate et obediencia, in 1395
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 excommunicatiir, si 1400
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, De 1405
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 opinionibus 1410
diversi, unus excommunicat alium, anathematizat cum adherenti-
bus, etc., et de sentencia non cyratur, 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 obe- 1415
dienciam alia racione. Scribitur enim Mat. xviii° [15-17]: "Si pec-
caverit in te frater tuus, etc. Et si non audierit, die ecclesie. Et si
non te audierit, sit tibi tanquam ethnicus et publicanus," etc. Et ista
auctoritas secundum Hostiensem—quern recitat Henricus in c. In
omni, De testibus238 (et idem Hastensis, libro ii°, titulo De correc- 1420
1392 neglectus] intellectus C / 1393 De] supra de BCGJ / 1394-
95 Monachum] Monachi E / 1395-96 in Sexto] om. ABCGJ / 1398-99 que . . . etc]
om. ABCJ(added) / 1408 qui] om. E / 1411 diversi] om. B; diversis EGHKL / 1411
alium] alius EGHKL / 1412 et de . . . etc.] om. J / 1412 licet] om. CJ / 1412 talibus]
sibi L / 1414 fautorie] scismatis foil. B / 1414 finali] ut officium ABGHJKL,C(corr.
to § fi.;; officium E I 1417 (1st) Et] om. B / 1417 non audierit] te non audierit ABJ;
non audierit te C / 1417-18 die ecclesie . . . audierit] om. C / 1418 non te] te non A;
sic te non B; sic non te CJ / 1418 tanquam] quasi CJ / 1418 ethnicus] eunuchus
BCJL; eunichus E; euneus GH; heunicus K / 1419 secundum . .. Henricus] quam
recitat Hostiensis secundum Henricum B / 1419 quern] quam codd. / 1420 Hastensis]
Astensis /
 116 De substraccione obediencie

done fraterna)—est sub precepto in quantum est actus caritativus,

nedum illis ad quos spectat ex officio corrigere, ymo omnibus, per
c. Tarn sacerdotes, xxiv. q. iii., ubi dicitur quod "tarn 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 ec-
1445 clesiam 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." Nee valet si dicatur, preceptum
est affirmativum, quod non ligat nisi pro loco et tempore necessita-

1421 (1st) est] et CEH / 1425 pereunt] peccant B / 1427 hoc] hec GL /
1427 aliis] alii BGHJ,E(corr.) / 1427 quod] que EGL / 1429 igitur] ergo A / 1429
aliis] alicuique BCJ / 1431 quis] om. BCEGHJKL / 1431 corripere] corrigere A /
1438-39 et requisiverint] om. L / 1439 suum] suam B / 1439 quod] per A; quod per
B I 1444-45 quod in . . . et in] om. B / 1444 universalem] romanam J / 1445 sunt]
om. CJ I 1447 si] sic ABCJ / 1449 ethnicos] eunuchos BJK; heunuchos C; eunicos
EG; eunucos H
 De substraccione obediencie 117

tis.241 Ubi unquam fuit magis locus necessitatis huius correccionis—

novit deus! 1455
Et videamus si ilia 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]: "Prius- 1460
quam 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 si 1465
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 obediencia 1475
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, quern 1480
recitat Henricus in c. Cum ex iniuncto, De novi opens nunciacione:
"Qui non obmittit propter gravis scandali sedacionem ilia 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 op- 1485

1454 fuit magis] vv. AL / 1454 locus] magis foil. EGHJKL / 1454 neces-
sitatis] necessitas GHKL / 1454 correccionis] creacionis G / 1456 hodie] om. A / 1460
certa] om. B; circa CJ / 1462 corripe] corrige A / 1464 superveniet] supervenit BCL
I 1466 principibus] presentibus ABC] / 1471 non] om. E / 1471 habeant] habeat G
/ 1472 hodie et eciam] hodie AH; hodie eciam BJ; eciam hodie C / 1475 ditant] dicant
(?)EHK I 1475 Qua] quia EK / 1475 obediencia] habundancia L / 1476 inducentur
ita] w. ABCJ I 1477 et pacem] ad pacem C£; pacem L / 1478 et illud] illud AC /
1478 probatum] declaratum A; declaratum et probatum L / 1479 beatus] om. G /
1479 sermone] suo foil. C / 1480 cum] qui E / 1483-84 obmitti . . . De] om. B
 118 De substraccione obediencie

portunitas 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. Nee 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 "die 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 nee 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, servum ser-
vorum 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-

1488
potest] videtur ABCJ / 1497-1503 Et licet .. . glose] om. A / 1499-1503 in casu . . .
glose] tamen secundum eum in hoc casu, in quo ita notorie deus offenditur, recog-
noscendus est papa celestis, secundum eum ibidem etc., De concessione prebende,
Proposuit BCJ / 1503 glose] Et Iohannes glosator Decreti expresse dicit ut videtur,
quod papa in casu de quo notorie scandalizatur ecclesia, sicut potest accusari, sic
eciam subest denunciacioni ewangelice, "Si peccaverit" etc., in c. Si papa, xl. di.2<6°
foil. L I 1503 movere] monere (?)AB / 1503-04 hoc dicere] hoc B / 1504 esset]
est L I 1504 rebellionibus] rebelliones E; rebellionis L / 1504 quia] quod C / 1507
sicut] om. B I 1507 ethnicum] eunuchum BCHJK; eunichum EG / 1515 quia] quo-
niam CJ
 De substraccione obediencie 119

te culmina tenent," "ut regnum celeste per regnum terrenum pro-

ficiat," in c. Principes seculi, etc.), tune 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 ca-
ritativus, 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. Evi- 1530
dencia patrati sceleris, De accusacionibus, per Henricum post alios,
et c. De manifesto,, 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 regere 1535
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 reme- 1540
dium 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 ojficio
ordinarii.25* Et idem: interdicitur terra principis propter factum 1545
suum, in c. Alma mater, et iuribus communibus. Ergo videtur quod

1517-18 regnum celeste . . . seculi] om. B / 1518 etc.] sepius allegato A;

xxiii. q. v. L / 1519-20 non . .. mortaliter] mortaliter non observando AB / 1523-24
xxiii quod] om. C / 1524-25 caritativus] iusticie A / 1524-25 caritativus . . . actus]
om. EH I 1525 loquamur de correccione] om. AC / 1525 iusticie] caritativus AJ(corr.)
11528 corripere] corrigere A / 1528 convictos] convinctos or coniunctos EGK / 1529
convicti] convincti or coniuncti BEGJK / 1530 conviccio] convinccio or coniunccio
EG] I 1533-34 vitanda] evitanda BEGHKL / 1535 sic arduo] om. A; sic arguo E /
1536 sacros] om. E / 1537 superius] om. AK / 1538-39 sed . . . procedendum] om. B
I 1540 predicti] antedicti B / 1541 et] om. E / 1542 veniat] veniant B / 1542 uti] uti
de E I 1542 cessacionis] cessionis E / 1545 ordinarii] Ii. vi. foil. L / 1546 mater] De
sen. ex., Ii. vi. foil. L / 1546 iuribus] aliis foil. L
 120 De substraccione obediencie

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-
1555 straccionem obediencie procedere, et ad peius, etc. Nee 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 1. 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 Nee 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

1552 stricto] secreto

A / 1552 maius] om. G / 1553 habent] om. B / 1556 quare] queritur C / 1556 pulcre]
plane C / 1558 inspicitur] quare etc foil. A / 1561 pars] om. B / 1561 ipsorum]
episcoporum J / 1565 dicit] dixit E / 1566 papa] om. A / 1566-67 quia . . . in]
generali A / 1566 orbis] urbis GJ,C(corr.) / 1571 L] le premier BCJ; 1. primo H; in
primo KL / 1572 amittit] admittit BCEGHJ,L(corr.) / 1572 habent ius] habent EHKL
I 1572 etc.] om. G / 1573 Romani] De elecc. foil. L / 1576 haberent] habent L
I 1577 regum] om. CJ / 1577 maiorem] om. C
 De substraccione obediencie 121

taliter, [E 248r] quod si eciam in casu refutacionis ipsi dicant obe- 1580
dienciam sibi debere substrahi, vel magis rigorose contra ipsum pro-
cedi debere, reges debent hoc execucioni demandare, per 1. 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 veritatem 1585
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 censed nedum concilium gene-
rale, ymo concilium generate bene solempne. Papa Benedictus re- 1590
quisivit 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 re- 1595
scripsit 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 stu- 1600
diorum, 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 haberi 1605
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 dis- 1610

1580 quod si] ecclesia quod C /

1580 ipsi] si ipsi C / 1581 sibi] ipsi A / 1585-86 a deo . . . audivit] om. B / 1588
consideretur] consideremus A / 1589 deberet] debet B / 1590 ymo .. . generale] ymo
concilium C; om. E / 1590 Papa] nam papa A / 1591 vellet sibi dare] daret sibi J /
1592 sedacionem] sedacione AB / 1593 Rex] vero foil. A / 1593 negocii] tanti
negocii B / 1593 vocare] vocari C / 1595 pape] om. A / 1599 commendam] com-
menda AB / 1600-01 magistri . . . personarum] om. A / 1601 cum] om. B / 1603
posset] fieri foil. ABC] / 1606 ita] recta E; ista L,H(corr.) / 1608 fieri posset] vv.
EHKL I 1609 cardinales] existentes foil. ABC] / 1610-11 discussiones] discenciones B
 122 De substraccione obediencie

cussiones 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 Cas-
1620 telle, 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 obedien-
1625 cia Benedicti.266 Et per hoc, postquam ipsi, sic summati ad videndum
qualiter canonice posset fieri unio in ecclesia, ad hoc debite atten-
dere contempnunt,
(adverte quod reges Navarre et Scocie sunt in eadem conclusione
determinati)267
1630 tota potestas remanet in duobus regibus predictis Francie et Hys-
panie forsan, sicut dicimus de cardinalibus in c. Ubi [periculum]
mains,268 et de canonicis, etc. Sed tamen regnum Francie et Hys-
panie 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

1612 significaverunt] denunciaverunt L / 1612 super hoc] om. A / 1617

solempnes] om. CJ / 1618 in presencia] om. B / 1620 super hoc] om. B / 1621 quo]
quod B I 1621 conclusum] om. EGHKL / 1622 reges] regem AB; regi CJ / 1623
Navarre] regem Navarre B / 1625 per] pro B / 1625 sic] sunt K,H(corr.) / 1626
posset] potest EL / 1626-27 attendere] contendere ABG / 1628-29 adverte . . . de-
terminati] om. ABCGJ; EL have it after "debite" / 1628 adverte] averte E / 1628
Navarre et Scocie] Scocie et Navarre HK / 1630 Francie] scilicet Francie CJ / 1631
forsan] om. A / 1631 sicut] sic B; om. C / 1631 dicimus] om. C / 1632 maius] sepius
allegato foil. A / 1632 Francie] om. B / 1632-33 et Hyspanie] om. C / 1633
habent] habet C / 1634 duas] ad duas L / 1635 unionis] unius CJ / 1636 sic] si ABCG
I 1636 meretur] mereretur L / 1639 quam] generalia seu foil. L
 De substraccione obediencie 123

eleccione.269 Et racio: quia si fuissent omnes simul congregati in 1640

unum, tacta fuissent forsan per alios venientes motiva talia, que
aliam conclusionem recipere suasissent, per 1. Si in tres, ff. De ar-
bitris.210 Item, quia papa qui pars est in causa ista non fuit vocatus
neque auditus, nee huiusmodi conelusioni auetoritatem 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 tarn magistros in 1650
theologia quam doctores decretorum, bacallarios solempnes in theo-
logia, licenciatos in decretis et in legibus, et in aliis [£ 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 suum 1660
eciam singulariter per nuncium, et habet vim eleccionis canonice.
Et facit quare statuta conciliorum habent maiorem vim et auetori-
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 ad 1665
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, de 1670

1641 p e r . . .
motiva] .x. annos motiva venientes C / 1641 talia] om. CJ / 1641 que] cum C / 1642
conclusionem] illam foil. A; quam ipsam foil. CJ / 1642 suasissent] persua-
sissent A / 1643 qui] om. ABCJ / 1643 non] qui non A / 1645 necesse] necesse quia /
etc A; necessario E / 1650 tarn] om. BCJ / 1651 quam] quod A; om. BCJ / 1651
bacallarios] bachalariorum EGK; bacall. H; bachallarii L / 1654 diversitate] diversitas
BCEJ; diversitatis HKL / 1657 et clericorum] om. CJ / 1658 sic] si ABGHJK; se C
I 1658 hoc] om. EHKL / 1661 eciam] esse CJ / 1662 quare] qualiter AC; quia E /
1663 plurium] plurimum C / 1663 sunt] om. C / 1664 communibus] om. C; quibus
J I 1665 Nunc] nunc autem A / 1666 istam] om. B / 1670 est] esset E / 1670
singularibus] secularibus A
 124 De substraccione obediencie

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 conflrmantur" (Prov. xxiv° [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 Ala-
1685 manie 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.
Nee 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-
1700 tineri.276 Et Bonifacius solempnissime pro parte sua requisitus,
quod vellet aliquam viam pacis acceptare, nullam voluit acceptare,
ymo nee aperire, nisi quod reduceremur ad obedienciam suam.277

1674 confirmantur] confirmatur A / 1675 Prudenciam

.. . c ] om. L I 1677 quod] quam C / 1677 sentenciis] consiliis K / 1678 expresse]
om. A 11681 sciant] sciunt AB / 1687 cedendum] cedandum CG / 1691 ibi Henricus]
idem Hosti. alias Hen. C; ibi per Henricum EL / 1692-93 primo . . . Benedictus] om.
J I 1693 sunt] fuerunt C / 1693 dominus] om. C / 1693 ita fuit] vv. BCJ / 1693 fuit
solempniter] vv. L / 1694-95 istam viam] vv. BL; viam C / 1695 sed noluit] deleted
in L I 1695 Et] om. L / 1697 amborum] ipsorum amborum L / 1699 videtur] om.
BEG I 1699 videntur] om. ACHJK / 1700 solempnissime] om. L / 1702 quod] nos
foil. ABJ
 De substraccione obediencie 125

Et deus scit quod ante staremus sic usque in finem seculi, quam sibi
obediremus—et causas nolo hie inserere, causa brevitatis. Ex quo
clarissime apparet, quod amplius non sunt vocandi. 1705
Item nee 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 1. finali [Cum non solum], in § Necessi-
tate, C. De bonis que liberis, ubi hoc notatur.278 Et hoc clare suadet 1710
racio iuxta ilia, 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 concilium 1715
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 et 1720
iste non est papa, tamen ex fide est quod unum debemus habere, ut
supra satis probatum est.
Et reperiuntur concilia multa f uisse 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 Ale- 1725
xandri secundi, ubi Henricus imperator in Mantua concilium solemp-
niter celebravit, anno domini octingentesimo lxviii0 [E 250r] vel
lxix°.283 Et de Symacho et Laurencio adversario suo, legitur quod
potencia Theodorici regis hanc altercacionem compressit, fecitque
ambos contendentes con venire apud Ravennam, ut eius iudicium 1730
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 Ho-

1703 quam] quod G / 1704 quo] quibus C / 1705 apparet] patet B

I 1706 nee] om. A / 1712 nigro] in nigro ABC] / 1712 opponetur] opponitur J /
1716 suis] om. J / 1720-21 et iste non est papa] om. CEHKL / 1724 probat] probatum
J I 1726 Henricus] om. C / 1727-28 octingentesimo . . . lxix°] octuagesimo octavo vel
sexagesimo nono C; octingentesimo nono vel octavo E; octingentesimo octavo vel
sexagesimo nono HK; octingentesimo sexagesimo nono vel octavo L / 1729 fecitque]
fecit quod J / 1730 convenire] conveniri JL / 1730 eius] scicius / / 1731 de] om. L
I 1733 narrant] om. CHK / 1734 Guidonis] Gui. BEGHJK; et Guil. C / 1734-35
Honorio] honore EG
 126 De substraccione obediencie

1735 norio.286 Et facit quia Symachus—in § Hinc eciam—non tenebat nee

ita diu tenuerat ecclesiam in scismate, sed erat tune 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-
1745 nuerunt 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. Ve-
1750 nerabilem; et De hiis que fiunt a maiori parte capituli, c. primo
[Cum in cunctis], et finali [Ex parte tua]; et ff. Ad municipalem,
1. Quod maior—secundum Innocencium, Hostiensem, Compostella-
num, et Iohannem Andree," in c. Cum omnes, De constitucioni-
bus.289
1755 Item 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 sena-
1760 tus, 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 ilia que nunc sunt firma ha-
bebunt, et que nunquam habuerunt acquirent"—in Autentica, Quo-
1765 modo 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-

1737 papa] om. J / 1738 ergo] om. ABJ / 1738 mirum] miror
ABJ I 1742 provisione] provisionem BJ / 1745 sine] super B / 1749 (2d) in] om. BJ
I 1756 Decet] om. A / 1757 apicis] auctoritas B; apici L / 1757 generalitatis] gene-
raliter CHK / 1758 omnibus] hominibus L / 1759 principem] principes B / 1761
deceat] doceat CEH / 1761 attendere] antecedere BJ / 1762 sacerdotum] sacerdotis
A / 1764-66 Quomodo . . . Autentica] om. J / 1765 oporteat] oportet BL / 1765
episcopos etc.] episcopi et ceteri clerici L / 1767 remediis invigilat] w. CEHKL
 De substraccione obediencie 127

iectorum, nee cessamus inquirere si quid sit in nostra re publica

corrigendum. Ideo namque voluntaries labores appetimus, ut quie-
tem aliis preparemus." Et alibi in Autentica, Ut indices sine quoquo 1770
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 tarn subiecti 1775
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 vir- 1780
tus 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, de- 1785
monia 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.295 1790
Item expedit substrahere obedienciam, et alias providere ad se-
dacionem 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):291 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

1772 et cogitacione] om. L / 1774 eas] es C / 1774 expendimus] impendimus A /

1778 bonum] om. A / 1780 premitur] premittitur B / 1780 crescat] quiescat A / 1783
ecclesia] om. K,CH(corr.) / 1787 rebus] om. E / 1788 virtus] om. CHK / 1788 talem]
tales CEGHK / 1789 reges] regem / / 1789 habere non] non C / 1793 semper] om.
B I 1794-95 Hostiensis, Iohannes Andree] Io. An. et Hosti. C; Io. An. Host. HKL /
1794 Iohannes] et Iohannes E / 1795 (1«) et] et eciam E / 1795 (2d) et] om. BEGHK
I 1796 i.] le premier CEGHKL / 1796 scandala] om. JL / 1796 mala] magna CK;
magna et H / 1798 periculum] pericula A / 1798 subversionis . . . cristiane] tocius
subv. fid. cris. A; tocius fid. cris. subv. CHK
 128 De substraccione obediencie

1800 futura, 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
tune 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 scri-
1810 bebat, 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 eccle-
sia radicitus destruatur, expedit pacem ecclesie inquirere et prosequi
per omnes vias; et reges, qui ex debito officii sunt astricti ad inqui-
1815 rendum et prosequendum pacem ecclesie et habent de hoc in tre-
mendo 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 1. 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 affect!" 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 1. Equissimum, ff.
De usufructu;303 et magis proprie: "quod si duo contendunt de be-
1830 neficio, quorum nullus fuit possessor pacificus, fructus poterunt se-
questrari quousque concertacio sopiatur, maxime ubi possessor vi-

1804 Ante] ante hoc B / 1812-13

ecclesia] eciam CHK / 1813 inquirere] perquirere A / 1813 prosequi] persequi A /
1815 ecclesie] et utilitatem foil. CHK / 1815-16 in tremendo] merendo / / 1817
quales] quas ABGJ / 1817 poterunt] opportunas E; habebunt L / 1817 concertantes]
concordare et L / 1818 pacis] om. L / 1818 iudicis] om. ABGJ; iudicio E / 1821
Quia] sed quia BCEGHJK / 1823 veniant] venient CK; venienti H / 1825 ibi] ubi
CHK I 1825 cum] ubi A / 1825 affecti] affectati ABGJ / 1825 in] quod in CHK /
1827 ad facta prosilire] prosilire ad facta ABJ / 1830-31 sequestrari] sequestrare C
 De substraccione obediencie 129

ciose intravit," sicut nos dicimus de Bonifacio et pars adversa dicit

de Benedicto; "quia tales non debent gaudere commodo possessionis,
ff. De probacionibus, in 1. Si quis liberum (et facit Extra, De re-
scriptis, in c. Cum contingat), et dictum beneficium non duos mi- 1835
nistros sed unum debet habere. Nee 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, 1. Herennius—que quidem dignitas
duos sponsos habere non debet, fructus ad conservandum futuro 1840
possunt iudicis officio sequestrari."304 Et hoc credit Archidiaconus
indubitatum in causa beneh'ciali, 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 concer-
tancium 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 ad 1850
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 quod 1855
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 fixe 1860
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

1833 commodo] quomodo G / 1841 possunt .. . officio] successori iudicis offlcio pos-
sunt L I 1842 causa] casu G / 1844 ita] om. CHK / 1845 contra se] om. ABJ / 1846
sequestracioni] sequestracionis BCEGHJKL / 1846 unicam] unam BCEHJK / 1847-
48 concertancium] contendencium A; changed to de concertantibus C / 1848 pos-
sedit] papatum foil. A / 1848 si] sic licet A; sic B,J(corr.) / 1848 loquantur]
loquuntur B / 1849 ita arduo] om. E / 1849 ita . . . ita] tarn . .. tarn B / 1854 precepit]
precipit HJ / 1856 et] ut CHK / 1856 vicinius] dicimus H / 1860 permittentur]
permitteretur L / 1863 ipsis] concertantibus foil. L
 130 De substraccione obediencie

1865 cessionis 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[£ 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 con-
stringitur, minora semper eligantur, quia et si quis murorum undi-
1880 que 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 ra-
1890 ciones 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-

1866 dicetur] dicemus A

/ 1870 necessitas] necessitatis BEGJ; necessitat K,H(corr.) / 1871 temperare] com-
parare L / 1872 obligare] obligari ABJ (and Friedberg, vs. edit. Romana) / 1873
acumine] acumen B / 1874-75 trepidamus et non obedire] om. C / 1875 ne] nee J
I 1875 aut] autem BJ / 1876 superiore] nostro foil. B; superiori J / 1877 Est] et
A,L(corr.) / 1877 tamen] est L / 1877 destruendas] deflendas J / 1878-79 et maxima
. . . minora] om. J / 1878-79 constringitur] confringitur C / 1879 eligantur] alligantur
J I 1880 ne] nee J / 1880 ibi se] om.'(with blank) G / 1883 ergo] quo BJ / 1883
veniat] eveniat A; inveniat BJ / 1884 totalis] tocius CHK / 1885 unum] bene foil. B
I 1886 prudenter] prudentes A / 1888 nunc] tune C / 1889 acrius] arcius B /
1890 que tangunt] om. A / 1891 heretici] xlv. di., Cum beatus, et vide quid dicit
Archidiaconus, xxiii. q. iv., Forte3"" foil. ABJ / 1892 Scribitur enim] nam scribitur
A; scribitur BJ / 1892 Argue] increpa foil. L
 De substraccione obediencie 1S1

secra" 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 tune 1900
sine magna dilacione esset pocius providendum.
Item videtur summe expedire quod ipsis ambobus substrahatur
collacio beneficiorum et precipue maiorum, quia ilia 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 beneflcii accepti;313 quia "humani
[E 252v] mods est ilium 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 humanum 1910
iudicium. Dantur benen'cia 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, contra 1915
iuris asperitatem ex equitatis mansuetudine, tolerari noscuntur"—in
c. Abbate sane, De sentencia et re iudicata, Libro sexto, circa finem,
et in 1. Ita vulneratus, in fine, ff. Ad legem aquiliam.314 "Quid'
faciet ecclesie medicina, salutem omnium in eterna caritate inqui-
rens," inter ipsos duos "tanquam inter freneticos et letargicos es- 1920
tuans? Nunquid contempnere, nunquid deficere vel debet vel po-
test? Utrisque forsan molesta que neutris est inimica. Frenetici nolunt

1893 etc.] xlv. di., Cum

beatus L / 1894 Alligant] xxvi. q. vii foil. L / 1897 homine] De iudiciis foil. L / 1898
reperitur] invenitur B / 1900 quod] pro AB / 1901 dilacione] dileccionem K / 1904
Ponunt] enim foil. A / 1906 accepti] acceptati HK / 1907 vereri] ven-
erari B; veriti. J; videri K / 1907 quis erigitur] quis nunc erigitur nunc deprimitur
C / 1909 sue obediencie] w. CHK / 1911 precipue] om. C / 1918 et in 1. . . . fine]
om. G 11918 Quid] quam BJ / 1919 omnium] omni ABHJ / 1919 in eterna] materna
A(ir orig.) / 1919-20 inquirens] coinquirens C; conquirens orig. / 1920 ipsos] istos J
I 1920 letargicos] littigiosos B(corr.) / 1921 Nunquid . . . nunquid] nunquam . . .
nunquam BJ / 1921-22 debet vel potest] vv. ACHK / 1922 Utrisque] utriusque HK
I 1922 forsan molesta] necesse est molestum C(cf. orig.) / 1922 que] om. L / 1922
 132 De substraccione obediencie

ligari, letargici nolunt excitari, sed vere diligencia caritatis freneti-

cum ligare et letargicum stimulare, ambos amore. Ambo offendun-
1925 tur 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 Iheroni-
mus: "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 1. 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

neutris] ventris CH; ventus E / 1922 Freneticij nam frenetici C(ir orig.) / 1922-23
nolunt. .. nolunt] volunt. .. volunt B / 1923 excitari] ligari B / 1923 vere] perseveret
C; perseverat L(£r orig.) / 1924 amore] amare ACL(ir orig.); amborum K / 1925
molestati] molestari AC({? Friedberg, vs. edit. Romana) / 1927 Quid] qui codd. /
1930-31 Iheronimus] Gregorius C / 1931- obmittendum] obiciendum B; obicendum
(!)J I 1931 uno] viro H / 1932 omnem] omnes H / 1932 populum] om. HK / 1932
illi] sacerdotes illi C; sacerdotes orig. / 1933 volunt] nolunt BEGHJKL / 1933 veren-
tur] verentes CH]K(£r orig.) / 1935 est etc. Sequitur] est etc. et sequitur BJ; est,
potestatem etc. Et iterum, Aufferte malum de vobis ipsis etc. Sequitur infra C(cf.
orig.) I 1936 Que ista] que est ista C / 1937 discrimen] discrimine L / 1937 Polluitur]
polluuntur By / 1938 totus] om. HK / 1940 dum] dum austeriorem C(i? orig.) / 1941
turpis] temporis J / 1942 dicunt] dicit ABJ / 1947 exigit] exegit E; egit H / 1947
sceleriorem] so, for celeriorem ABEGHJKL; scilenciorem C / 1949 Iohannis] Et illud
capitulum eciam bene facit ad hoc quod ista tria equiparentur, invadere, male deti-
 De substraccione obediencie 133

Dicamus ergo cum Gregorio: "Evigila! Et excitatus saltim exquire 1950

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. Quia 1955
si ambo dampnabiliter contra canones tenent ecclesiam involutam
et scisma faciunt, eadem racione et ipsorum quilibet. Et facit ad
hoc, argumentum 1. Que de tota, ff. De rex vendicacione.318 Item
probatur hoc quia postquam requisitus hoc renuit, crimen quod de-
posicionem exigit committit; quia sic in tanto casu dampnabiliter 1960
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 quod 1965
potest," alias graviter peccat, ut satis est superius probatum, et facit
c. Faciat homo quod potest, xxii. q. ii. Nee 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 afh'rmativum, "Si peccaverit in te frater tuus" etc., liget; ut 1975
notat Henricus post alios in c. In omni, Extra, De testibus.a22
[E 253v] Item licet ambe partes per raciones superius tactas pos-
sint et debeant ambobus obedienciam substrahere, ut videtur, ilia
tamen pars cuius papa reputatus est magis contumax plus eciam

nere, vel iniusta defensione in eis perdurare foil. AJ; cf. infra, apparatus, line
1991 I 1950-52 Dicamus . . . q. i.] om. B; cf. infra, apparatus, line 1991 / 1950
exquire] om. A; exequere G / 1951 ignavia] in anima / / 1951 ut] et CHK / 1951
ista] ita E; om. HK / 1958 argumentum] in argumentum ABJ; om. CEHKL; iii. arm
G / 1959-60 deposicionem] disposicionem HK,C(corr.) / 1961 venire] veniret ABJ /
1961 est] et ABJ / 1966 est] om. J / 1967 quod potest] om. A / 1969 Quid . . . Quid]
quis . .. quis codd. / 1972 proficiet] proficient CEG; proficiant HKL / 1972 quia]
quod CEGKL,H(corr.) / 1972 is] hiis CEHJK,L(corr.); his G / 1972 displicet] displi-
cent GJ I 1972 intercedendum] interdicendum EGL / 1972 irati] induratus B; in-
durati J / 1975 liget] om. BJ / 1976 In omni] so L; In nomine domini others
 134 De substraccione obediencie

1980 tenetur sibi obedienciam substrahere. "Nam contumacia accumulat

penam"—in 1. 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 conven-
1985 cionis 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 fi-
1995 delium animarum, que huius occasione illaqueate pereunt et peri-
bunt, nisi deus advertat, tenerentur; iuxta dicta doctorum: Accursii
primo in 1. Mora, ff. De usuris; Martini, Petri de Bellapertica, et
aliorum—quos recitat Henricus in c. Nulla, De concessione preben-
darum, in ultima glosa, per 1. primam [Pretor ait], in § Rectissime,
2000 ff. De vi et de vi armata?26 Nee 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.
2005 Item expedit pro bono pacis et unionis ecclesie quod reges qui

1980
tenetur] debetur J / 1984 viam] unam J / 1985 et merito] merito B; non immerito L
I 1986 replicabit] replicavit HK / 1986 facto] om. G / 1989 uni parcium] vituperium
E I 1990 decet ista] decet ita B; ita decet J / 1991 expedit] Primo ut dictum est
negligencia illius qui sollempnius et magis specifice summatus et requisitus est exigit
eciam sceleriorem penam. Unde negligencia post admonicionem aggravatur quantum
ad culpam et penam, ut c. Indigne, xii. q. ii., in glosa Iohannis foil. A; Primo, negli-
gencia illius qui magis specifice et solempniter est summatus et requisitus exigit eciam
sceleriorem penam foil. B ("specifice . . . eciam" crossed out); Primo,
negligencia .. . Iohannis (as above, lines 1946-49). Et illud . . . perdurare (as in
apparatus, line 1949). Dicamus . . . xxvii. q. i. (as above, lines 1950-52) (With vari-
ants: cum glosa-in glosa, cum Gregorio-nostro Gregorio, ignavia-in anima) foil.
J; J's text here is added to K / 1992 sunt] om. CEHKL / 1996 advertat] avertat
L / 2000 fuerit] fuerunt E / 2001 credulus] crudeles E / 2001 sapiencium] pruden-
cium L I 2004 decet] deceat A / 2004 eciam uni] uni A; quod unus BJ / 2005 Item]
item quod J / 2005 unionis] unione L
 De substraccione obediencie 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 tune expectarent
nos, nunquam esset finis, et ita staremus vagando in preiudicium 2010
ecclesie, ymo pocius destruccionem totalem. Et tamen iura prohi-
bent ne hoc fiat in preiudicium unius ecclesie particularis, vel unius
persone singularis, iuxta c. unicum [Perpetuo], De postulacione, Li-
bro sexto, et 1. 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 scis- 2025
matis, 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., Me rex, per Iohannem.328
Item postquam sunt duo contendentes, quos tenemur inducere 2030
ad viam pacis mature consul tarn, expedit laborare sine dilacione et
cum uno et cum alio. Et si non laboretur cum uno expedit tamen
laborare cum alio, quia si habeamus consensum unius, iam habebi-
mus dimidiam pacem, et tune remanebit totum pondus scismatis
super humeros non acceptantis. Et facilius reduceretur unus quam 2035

2010 staremus] faciemus J / 2012 (1*) unius]

huius J I 2012 particularis] partly deleted in J / 2013-14 Libro] in BJ / 2017 unus]
maior pars A; maior BJ; unius HK / 2019 alios] nos AB] / 2019 sed] patet AB / 2020
iuste . . . quod] videbunt quod iuste et canonice A / 2021 minores] minor BJ / 2021
imitari] immutari G / 2022 Stultus] stultum BCEGHJKL / 2022 ipsum maiorem]
ipsum A; primum BJ(ir orig.) / 2023 viderit] videret ABJ; viderent L / 2023 in] om.
BJ I 2028 conscire sibi] conscire est BCJK; conferre est EG,H(corr.); est foil. L
I 2030 tenemur] tenemus BG / 2030 inducere] indicere HK / 2032 (1") uno] suo ABJ
I 2033 si habeamus] haberemus H; si habemus K / 2033-34 habebimus] habemus B
I 2034 dimidiam pacem] dimidiam partem pacem E; dimidiam partem H / 2034
remanebit] remaneret A; remanet B / 2035 humeros non acceptantis] homines J /
2035 reduceretur] reducetur CK; reducitur H
 136 De substraccione obediencie

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 nee exire quidem nee inde
2040 erui vult, sed neque necare se audet. Quid eligeremus? Ambos ruine
opprimendos relinquere? An uno saltern per nostra opera liberato,
alterum non nostra culpa sed sua pocius interire?" Et sequitur: "Nemo
tarn 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 obe-
2050 diencie 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 nee
2055 est consulta nee deliberata. Si alter cedere nolit, non habebis unio-
nem; et ita substrahere obedienciam uni de nullo operaretur, nee
debet fieri quod factum non prodesset, et "frustra expectatur even-
tus cuius nullus sequitur effectus"—in 1. Aliquando, in fine, ff. Ad
[senatusconsultum] velleyanum.329 Per predicta apparet satis res-
2060 ponsio ad istud; sed adhuc dico, quod qui teneret se in ista gen-
eralitate 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 1. In fundo, ff. De rei vendicacione™ Et "ecclesia non
debet in suis actibus fraudem admittere"—in c. Per tuas, De do-

2040 Ambos] utrum ambos ABJ /

2041 An] aut A / 2042 interire] introire By / 2044 unus] tuus J / 2047 pro vita]
prohibita J / 2047 vita] eterna foil. orig. / 2052 unionis] ecclesie foil. B /
2054 noster] om. B / 2054 renunciante] non renunciante C / 2054-55 ista . . . est]
nee est ista via nee est A; nee ista via nee est B(corr.) / 2055 alter] aliter E / 2056
nullo] nichilo A / 2057-58 eventus] adventus BCEGHJK / 2061 dicimus] diceremus
A / 2067 Et] si CHK / 2068-69 donacionibus] so L; decimis others
 De substraccione obediencie 1S7

nacionibus. Bene tamen fateor, quod si deus vellet quod omnes reges
unanimiter procederent in ista materia ad substraccionem obedien- 2070
cie 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 clare 2075
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 ap-
ponenda, quia factum aliorum a labe fautorie non excusaret,
iuxta illud, "Non minus ardebunt qui cum multis ardebunt"— 2080
ii. q. i., Multi.
Item dicunt multi: Pars ilia 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] mains, et c. Quamvis [Quam 2085
sit\\, De eleccione, Libro sexto. Sed ad istud [E 255r] potest sic dici:
Hie 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 illud 2090
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 tune habemus propositum, quia tune habebimus dimi-
diam pacem; et statim habito consensu suo, sibi obediet pars sua

2069 Bene] et
bene BJ / 2071 et] et ad BCJ / 2075-81 Item . . . Multi] om. ABJ(added) / 2075-
76 clare . .. fuisse] fuisse clare probatum J / 2076 si et] et si G; si H / 2078-79
apponenda] opponenda JK / 2079 aliorum] illorum E / 2079 non] eum non CHJK /
2081 Multi] om. L / 2083 sic] si CG; si non HK / 2085-87 iuxta . . . concurrunt] om.
J I 2086 Libro] in AB; in libro G / 2087 quod] om. B / 2088 iam] om. J / 2089
maximo] magno CHK; om. J / 2090 durabit] duraret A / 2090 destruetur] destrue-
retur A / 2092 eligendum] eligere BJ; eligerunt (!)HK / 2093 lacius allegatum] alle-
gatum A; w. CHK I 2096 substrahetur] substrahitur A / 2096 hanc] per hanc BJ /
2097 habemus] habebimus A
 138 De substraccione obediencie

donee 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 tune dicunt multi, quod
non esset simpliciter in substraccione obediencie remanendum, sed
ulterius ad alia viriliter procedendum, ut superius est lacius dictum,
donee haberetur consensus suus eciam coactus, ut infra in responsio-
2105 nibus 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.
2110 Et 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.
2115 Et 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, nee potestas sibi a deo data est quoquo-
modo substrahenda, apparet solucio clara per racionem primam su-
2120 pra 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 par-
2125 tem notabilem dare parentibus suis.333 Et Iohannes glosator Decreti,
de quocunque peccato gravi de quo ecclesia scandalizaretur dicens:

2100 ut est dictum] om. L / 2101 dicunt multi] multi

dicerent C; multi K,H(corr.) / 2103 viriliter] verisimiliter A / 2104 haberetur] ha-
beatur L / 2104-05 responsionibus] racionibus CEHKL / 2105 declarabitur] decla-
ratur L / 2106 alia] aliqua A / 2107 obedivit] obediunt E / 2115 partem] pacem A
/ 2115 ad] et ad G / 2118 sibi a deo] a deo sibi AJL / 2121 scandalizetur] scandali-
zaretur CEHKL I 2126 scandalizaretur] scandalizetur A; scandalizatur EL
 De substraccione obediencie 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 accusacio-
nibus. Et istud fuit alias practicatum in persona pape, sicut invenitur 2130
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 Ysidorum 2135
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 tarn gravis scandali, se- 2140
cundum 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 maior 2145
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 fuerint 2150
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).338 2155
Serviant ergo reges domino in timore et abiciant a nobis iugum

2130
invenitur] loquitur ABJ / 2131 XII.] XXII L / 2131 Oquam] Olzam H; Okam K /
2135 forte] om. BCEGHJKL / 2135 videt Ysidorum] videlicet Ysidorus J / 2140
gravis] gravi BCGHJK / 2143 gloriam] vitam A / 2144 satis est] w. CHK / 2145
obediemus] debemus H / 2145 Indubitanter deo] om. C / 2147 Que] qui BCEGHJKL
I 2147 et c. Non semper] om. C / 2149-55 Et sequitur . . . istud propositum] Ut
supra, huius tractatus folio v°, 2* pagina, in principio, Quomodo servient reges in
timore? ut ibi etc. A(cf. supra, lines 779-83; in A's codex it is the sixth folio, first
page, at end) / 2150 deum] dominum E; domini L / 2150 fuerint] fuerunt BCJK;
sunt H I 2151-52 et aliter . . . fideliter] vivendo fideliter et aliter eciam CEHKL /
2152-53 Quia homo . . . rex est] om. G / 2155 alibi] om. E / 2155 alibi... propositum]
om. BGJ
 140 De substraccione dbediencie

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 pre-
2160 cepit obedire principibus eciam [E 256r] discolis, etc., et pro tanto
lex quantumcunque dura tenenda. Nam ad hog respondet Iheroni-
mus in epistola ad Ephesios, alias Si dominus, ubi dicit sic: "Si
dominus iubet ea que non sunt ad versa sanctis scripturis, subiciatur
domino suo servus. Si vero contrarium precipit, magis obediat spi-
2165 ritus 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 obedia-
2170 tur 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 prin-
2175 cipum promulgavit, in 1. 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

2159-60 precepit] precipit J / 2160 obedire] obediencie EH / 2161 quantumcunque]

quamcunque AH / 2162 alias] in c. allegato ABJ; in c. L / 2162 Si dominus ubi] si
domino ut CHK; si domino (corr.) xi. q. iii. L / 2162 sic] ita B; om. CHJK / 2164
contrarium] contraria A / 2164 precipit] precepit CE; percepit K / 2164-65 spiritus]
spiritum BJ; spiritui EL / 2165 corporis] corpus CHK / 2165 infra] ita EL / 2165
precipit] precepit CEK / 2166 imperator] imperatoris A / 2166 exequere] exequi L
/ 2166 responde] respondere AHK; om. J / 2171 est satis] w. CHKL / 2171 est] et
E I 2171 ubi duo] nisi duo B; ibi dico C; duo ibi H; ibi dio K / 2173 verum] bonum
J I 2173 est dicere] om. C; dicere HK / 2174 precipit] precepit L / 2177 a sancto
spiritu] sancto spiritui L / 2178 ergo] igitur CHK / 2182 iustissimum] iniustissimum
H I 2184 docent] docet J / 2184 sacri] satis J / 2185 habeatur] habetur CHK / 2185
seniorum] saniorum C
 De substraccione obediencie 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 1. Quod
maior, ff. Ad municipalem.™ 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 tenentur 2190
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 veritatem 2195
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 ad 2200
apostolicas literas, nee ad evangelieas auetoritates, sed ad semetipsos
recurrunt, et ideo magistri erroris existunt"—in c. Quid autem, xxiv.
q. iii.
[5] Nee obstat quod dicitur de epistola oxoniensis studii. Quia
nuda cessio nisi bene practicata non sufficeret ad sedacionem scis- 2205
matis (ut ipsi dicunt, respondendo ad epistolam universitatis pari-
siensis, 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,

2187 et . . . xix. di.] om. C / 2189 invenerunt] invenerint E

I 2194 q. iii.] et supra dictum est foil. A / 2194 sacerdos] sacerdotes B; sacerdos
ut H I 2195 a deo] om. L / 2195-96 deo . . . audivit a] om. BGJ / 2197 prodit] perdit
AH I 2197 Quid] quis BEGHJK / 2198 iniquius] iniquus HJ / 2198 non] que BJ /
2199 insipienciam] iniusticiam A / 2200 perfectas] propheticas orig. / 2202 erroris]
errorum A / 2202 existunt] existant / / 2203 q. iii.] from here to line 2464, the
sequence in H is chaotic / 2204 nee] non AH / 2204 oxoniensis] exoniensis CEGHJL
I 2204 Quia] verum est quod foil. A; verum foil. J,B(corr.)\ ad verum foil. L / 2205
nisi] ubi B / 2206 ipsi] ibi ABJ / 2206-07 parisiensis] om. J / 2207 fit] ibi foil. ABJ
I 2207 eadem] ea L / 2211 ambo] ergo ambo BJ / 2212 isto] loco foil. B / 2213 et]
om. A I 2213 simul] om. A / 2213 revocent] revocet C / 2214 adherentes] adheren-
tibus CEGHKL
 142 De substraccione obediencie

2215 et 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 donee 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,34'7 et cardinales post renunciacionem bene eligere pa-
pam. Et ego credo quod domini oxonienses nunquam, [E 257r] tem-
pore quo fecerunt istam epistolam, audiverant istam practicam. Et
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 vi-
deatur 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,

2215 adinvicem] invicem A / 2215 fieri] om.

L I 2216 promociones] om. A / 2216 et] om. L / 2218 remaneat] remaneret B\
remanet J / 2221 providerit] facit c. i. De parochiis3^ foil. L / 2221 recipiet]
recipiat ABJ / 2223 autem] om. BH / 2225 duo] om. JH / 2225 remaneant] remaneat
A / 2226 fuerunt cardinales] fuit cardinalis A / 2226 alius] alter B / 2227 episcopales
vel] vel E / 2230 primo] so L; unico others / 2231 renunciacione] Libro sexto foil.
AL J 2232 domini] om. C / 2232 oxonienses] exonienses CEGHK / 2232-33
tempore quo] tempore quod B; suo tempore quando C / 2233 (l!l) istam] suam A /
2236 remanere] manere C / 2236-37 videatur] videantur BCEGHJK / 2237 tem-
poralem] humanam ABGJ / 2237 temporalem appetere] vv. CHK / 2242 remedium]
om. AL I 2243 est] sit J / 2244 aggressu] ingressu CE; egressu J
 De substraccione obediencie 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. Nee licuit, et c. Synodum, xvii. di.349 Et ponatur quod
ipsi ambo concordent quod concilium convocetur: quis presidebit? 2250
Aut ambo, et tune erunt duo capita, ut videtur, aut alter ipsorum,
et hoc nunquam concordaretur, quia nos nee vellemus habere Bo-
nifacium presidentem, nee ipsi Benedictum.
Item ad nutum imperatoris, vel pocius regis Romanorum, nos
nunquam iremus, quia iam se fecit partem, nee unquam voluit au- 2255
dire 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 nee 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, nee
recognoscunt superiorem, nee in hoc deterrent regi Romanorum, ne 2265
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, nee ipsi
ad mandatum nostrorum. Et nos dicimus quod ipsi sunt excommu- 2270
nicati, 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 excommu-

2245 eciam
maiorem] om. C / 2245 progressu] ingressu C(corr.) / 2246 non] om. C; non antea E
I 2246 congregaremur] congregamur B / 2247 congregarentur] om. J / 2252 nos nee]
w. A; nos non H; non / / 2255 se fecit] w. BJ / 2256 dominos] om. A / 2256
antiquos] om. L / 2258 quod talia] alia BJ / 2260 dominio] domo A; domino EL /
2262 invenitur] invenietur A; inveniretur BGJ / 2262 et] om. AB / 2263 reddidissent]
rediissent J / 2263 nunc] quare etc. foil. A / 2265 recognoscunt] cognoscunt A
/ 2265 nee] et B / 2265 deterrent] deferunt ABJ / 2265 ne] ne in A; nee EH / 2266
in aliquo] aliqualiter A / 2266 detraherent] om. H / 2270 quod ipsi sunt] om. E /
2271 prelati facti] episcopi ordinati A / 2271 Urbanum et] om. B / 2272 valeret] valet
CEGKL I 2273 sentencia . . . quia] om. CEHKL / 2273-74 excommunicatum] com-
munitatem A
 144 De substraccione obediencie

nicatum non valet—in c. Ad probandum, De sentencia et re iudi-

2275 cata.
Item, si dicatur: Reges omnes ordinabunt quod prelati congre-
gentur 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. Ro-
2300 mana, De testibus, Libro sexto, cum glosa Iohannis Monachi super
verbo "in testes."354 Et ideo tales merito repelluntur ad hoc quod non

2276 si dicatur] om. A / 2276 Reges] om. E / 2276-77 congregentur]

congregabuntur vel congregentur BCEGHK; congregabuntur J / 2277 est] est hodie
CHK I 2277 turbaciones] tribulaciones A / 2280 tamen] om. J / 2282 per] iam per
J I 2282 novem] octo BGJ / 2284 autem] om. BJ / 2284 in] ad J / 2285 obediencia]
obedienciam H / 2285 tactas] dictas L / 2287 concilii] generalis foil. E / 2287
et] om.r CJ I 2287 difficillima] dificilissima L / 2287 aggressu] ingressu C; egressu E
1 2289 pocius] tr. C / 2289 repellenda] reprobanda A / 2289 quam] pocius quam C
/ 2289 approbanda] reprobanda CEHKL / 2292 lancem] lanceam CEHK; lances /
/ 2292 appendant] appendentes A; apprehendant K / 2294 partem] tr. J / 2295
aliam] partem foil. J / 2296 esse] se BJ / 2298 si . . . et] sive admittis est B; si
admittit vel J / 2300 Libro sexto] hoc B; om. CEHK; libro then blank G; hoc sexto
J I 2301 verbo] om. J / 2301 ideo] idem CEGHKL /.2301 merito] om. A / 2301-
02 quod non iudicent] ut non sint iudices A; quod nos iudicent B
 De substraccione obediencie 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
ilia 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
rnaticis.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 posset 2320
aboleri—per 1. 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 ista 2325
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

2305 vituperatum]
oneratum CEHL,K(corr.); etc foil. J,K(inserted) / 2306 Item] certe foil. A
I 2306 certe] tr. A; om. C,B(corr.) / 2306 nos] non BJ / 2306 omnes] om. J / 2307
prelati] om. C / 2310 propria nostra] w. J / 2313 vel] et L / 2313 ut] om. AC / 2316
quandocunque] quando A / 2318 obtinuerit] obtineret A / 2320 labes] remaneret
labes BJ / 2320 facti remaneret et] om. A; facti et BJ / 2321 a liberis prestandis] om.
BCEGHJKL I 2322 et principes] principes BHJL / 2323 domini] om. H / 2323
iteratis] om. A / 2325 determinaverunt] declaraverunt A / 2326 steterunt] fuerunt B
I 2326 iam . . . fere] fere per decem et A / 2326 fere] om. B / 2327 ita] om. EK /
2327 firmati] firmitati EGK / 2327 possunt] possent AL / 2327 esse] om. J / 2327
idem] idem econtra A / 2328 et principes] principes CGHK / 2330 ydoneus] proprius
A / 2330-31 propria . . . sua] om. E / 2330 propria] sua A
 146 De substraccione obediencie

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 opi-
2335 nione, et sic recederent [£ 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 nee 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 riostra 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?61 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-
cacionis362—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

2331 sua] om. L / 2331

propria . . . dicat] om. A / 2331 ius . . . dicat] om. L / 2332 nonne] non B / 2335
esset] om. A / 2337 Non quia] quia B / 2337 quod] si L / 2338 est] esset et est E /
2341 concilia] negocia L / 2341 tractarentur] tractaverunt E / 2347 est] om.
BCEGHJKL I 2349 Nicena] in cena CEHK / 2353 maius] magis BJ / 2356 et . . .
papa] om. J / 2357-58 et fallitur . . . cause] om. B / 2359 ille] illi J / 2360 facta est]
w. BJ I 2361 facti] facta CH / 2364 domini] om. B; dicti domini E
 De substraccione obediencie 147

notoria, et omnes domini cardinales deponunt, in eleccione Urbani 2365

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 anti- 2370
qui 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 1. 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 in- 2380
strumenta, 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 tes- 2385
tibus 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 narravit 2390
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

2365 Urbani]
domini Urbani E / 2367 antequam intrarent] antea intraverunt J / 2367 conclave]
in conclavi A; conclavim J / 2368 direxerant] duxerant C; direxerunt E / 2370
conclavi] conclave ABCEGHK / 2370-71 antiqui] om. G / 2371 omnes] om. B /
2372 vel] et A / 2374 C] om. BCEGHJK / 2374 Si] et si CHK / 2376 admitterent
adhuc] w. AC; admitterent ad hunc B / 2378 periculum] periculo ABHJ / 2378
suarum] om. C / 2378 asseruerunt] asserebant AL; dicebant C; et E; om. HK / 2379
fuisse canonice electum] canonice fuisse electum C / 2379 electum] om. EL / 2379-
80 fuisse nominatum] om. A / 2380-81 instrumenta] om. A / 2386 forsan] forsitan J
I 2387 erat] esset A / 2390 Qui] qui quidem A / 2391 hoc esse verum] om. A / 2393
conclave] conclavem J / 2393 futuri] summi J / 2394 popularium] popularis popu-
lorum C
 148 De substraccione obediencie

2395 armatorum vociferancium et percuciencium ad hostia. Et tune 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, nee ego vellem sibi
obedire, nee 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 procura-
2405 torem, 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™—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 tune, attenta fixa opinione cuiuslibet obediencie, verisimile
est quod res remanebit sine exitu; aut erunt in numero impari, et
tune nos non vellemus, nee esset iustum, quod ipsi essent plures
quam nos, nee 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, nee 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-
2425 matis et sedativam scandali non est provisio competens. Nunc vi-

2395 et percuciencium] om. EL / 2396 fuit nominatus] post nominatus

fuit A / 2396 dixit] dicit J / 2397 Ponci] Poncii BEGHJKL / 2397 Vere] vide vere
E / 2398 fuerit] erit ABJ / 2398 sibi] sic B / 2399 deberet] hoc foil. AB] / 2400
facerent] faceret J / 2401 michi deus] om. E / 2404 carentem] om. ABJ / 2404 pro
se] maiorem ABJ / 2405 securo] secreto L / 2408 hoc] et istud L / 2409 istud] om.
AC I 2415 vel] om. CEGHKL / 2416 parte Bonifacii] Bonifacio C; parte J / 2417
dicimus] diximus et dicemus A; diximus L / 2418 que infra tangentur] infrascriptas
A / 2418 Item] om. L / 2419 posset] possit L / 2419 tales] om. L / 2421 pars] forsan
pars A / 2421 forsan iuste] forte iuste videtur L / 2421 Habuit] non habuit CEGHJK
I 2422 non sequitur] nee sequitur J / 2423 satis] om. A
 De substraccione obediencie 149

deamus: 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 lxxxix0 papa371—hie
tarn 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 quern 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 si 2435
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 raciones 2440
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. "nee dampnabis eum cum
iudicabitur illi."372 Et ita credo quod facerent alii.
Vel per concilium generale esset dictum, quod per eos omnia 2445
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 iusti-
ciam, per predicta. Quia laici, qui "clericis oppido sunt infesti,"373 2450
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

2429 semper] om. A / 2429

lxxxix0] Ixxxxix /; lxxix di K; lxxxi L / 2433 ante] hanc foil. ABJ / 2433 habebant]
habuerant A; habeant / / 2433 redirent] rediretur / / 2434 vero] om. A / 2434 aut]
autem et A; et CE / 2436 essent] quidem foil. BJ / 2437 attenderent] ascenderent
AHJ I 2439 maius] magis C / 2441 si sentencia] raciones sentenciam / / 2441 concilii]
om. A I 2442 me] medium / / 2443 quia] quia cum AC / 2443 tribunal] om. EL;
tribunalis HJK / 2443 iudicis] iudicio HK / 2443 nee] nam L / 2443 dampnabis]
dampnabit A(ir orig.) / 2445 Vel] aut A; nisi B; om. E / 2445 generale] om. A /
2445 dictum] approbatum ABJ / 2447 quia] quod J / 2447 mundi] nedum J / 2447
promoti] om. J / 2448 sentenciam] om. A / 2449-50 iusticiam] racionem A / 2450
per predicta] etc. L / 2452 octo] novem G; ix HL / 2452 Aperiretur] aperietur AL /
2453 guerris] generis L / 2453 scandalis] scandali L
 150 De substraccione obediencie

2455 quod 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.
Mi ad quos successio regni Anglie deberet venire filiis legitimis non
existentibus—nonne possent dicere: Nos succedemus quia vos non
2460 estis habiles. Nee 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. [£ 260v] Pro quo sunt duo
advertenda. Primo, quod sola eleccio cardinalium vel duarum par-
cium ipsorum tribuit ius in papatu—in c. Ubi [periculum] mains,
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 anti-
2475 quum, per 1. Sicut, in § Sed si queritur, ff. Si servitus vendicetur,
per 1. Et ex diverso, in § Ubi, ff. De rei vendicacione?11 Et pro tanto
dicit Innocencius quod propter tale arbitrium non potest haberi ca-

2455 venerunt] veniant A;

veniunt BJ / 2459 Nos] non BJ / 2459 succedemus] succedetis J / 2460 pro] contra
AL I 2461 vobiscum] nobiscum BCEGHKL / 2464-2520 Item si dicatur . . . xxiii. q.
iv.] the order here follows BJ which alone make logical sense, J deviates slightly:
Pro quo . . . nichil valet (2465-91); Item . . . valeret (2464-65), quia in preiudicium
. . . xxiii. q. iv. (2492-2520). In all the others the order is: Item quia in preiudicium
. . . xxiii. q. iv. (2492-2520); Pro quo . .. nichil valet (2465-91); Item si dicatur .. .
non valeret (2464-65); with some variants intended to supply sense. J's "corrector"
thought J was defective and indicated insertion of the whole passage in the majority
order, as written on fol. 147r of ASV, Arm. 54, t. 27; it has no significant variants.
I 2465 primo non] non A; per predicta non CEGHKL / 2465 valeret] valet ACEGHKL;
ut supra dictum est. Facit quia non potest ista via habere locum nisi consentirent
ambo contendentes et adherentes, potissime principes et cardinales, quorum omnium
plurimi contradicunt, ut clare et notorie constat. Aliam reprobacionem vide infra, hoc
libro, in literis regis Hyspanie ad regem Arragonum, ut est dictum foil. A (this
letter, of 10 September 1397—see Valois, 3:137, is not in A's codex; cf. supra,
apparatus, lines 2149-55) / 2466 advertenda] attendenda EL / 2470 de] cum BJ /
2470 litigancium] om. B / 2473 ante] antea J / 2474 novum] om. J / 2474-75
antiquum] om. C / 2475-76 per . . . vendicacione] order varies A
 De substraccione obediencie 151

nonica institucio in beneficiis, nee 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, in 2480
prima glosa.378 Item in tali compromisso oporteret quod compro-
missarii essent in numero impari, alias "res sine exitu futura esset,
propter naturalem [E 261r] hominis facilitatem ad dissencien-
dum"—ff. De [receptis] arbitris, 1. Item si unus, § Si in duos; et in
c. i. [Sane], De arbitris.379 Et maxime in causa ista, quia quilibet 2485
concertancium poneret tales compromissarios de quibus plene con-
fideret 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. Et 2490
per hoc satis concluditur quod via ista penitus nichil valet.
[£ 260r] Item quia in preiudicium obediencie que sentenciam
haberet contra se, nisi esset recepta de consensu suo, eciam non
valeret, ut videtur per 1. Si dictum, in § In compromisso [Si com-
promisero% ff. De eviccionibus. Facit quia res inter alios acta, etc.380 2495
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 sicut 2500
concilii generalis, quia ilia est melior sentencia [£ 260v] que plurium
sentenciis comprobatur, ut superius est dictum.381
De via facti non est multum loquendum, quia ilia videtur om-
nino dampnabilis, per c. Nisi cum pridem, in § Propter maliciam
plebis, etc., ubi pocius prelatus cogitur cedere quam procedatur ad 2505
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

2478 ius unius

potest] potest ius unius ABJ / 2481 oporteret] oportet CEHK / 2481-82 compromis-
sarii] compromissores J / 2483 facilitatem] facultatem A / 2486-87 confideret] con-
staret C; consideret L / 2492 Item] nee per viam compromissi foil. A; om. J /
2493 contra se] om. A / 2493 eciam] et B / 2494 ut videtur] et videtur B; om. J /
2495 Facit] et facit B / 2496 consenciunt] consenciant L / 2498 eciam] om. L / 2499
sic] sicut A / 2502 comprobatur] confirmatur et comprobatur L / 2502 dictum] tactum
L I 2503 loquendum] curandum L / 2503-04 videtur omnino] est multum L / 2505
etc.] etc. de renunc. L / 2505 quam] quod foil. ABJ / 2507 ecclesie salus] w.
ABJ
 152 De substraccione obediencie

tunc\\, vii. q. i.383 Item Cristus noluit quod pro vicariatu suo obti-
2510 nendo 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.*84 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 gra-
vissimi 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 1. Nepos
2530 Proculo, ff. De verborum significacione.386 Et facit quod dicit Ac-
cursius in 1. 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
2535 "commode."389 Item, quando pinguius providetur ecclesie per re-
medium extraordinarium, tune 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-
2540 dum, agitur; etc.
[7] Item non obstat racio in qua dicitur quod dominus Benedictus
obtulit in effectu viam cessionis, quia dicit quod dum tamen con-

2509 Cristus] deus H / 2516 illi] eciam illi A / 2516 eciam] om. ABC / 2523-
24 gravissimi] gravis C / 2525-26 bene potest] w. AE / 2526 posset] aliter foil.
C I 2528 cedere tenentur] w. J / 2529 posset] possit BL / 2531 ibi] ubi AJ / 2532
quando dicit] om. C / 2535 commode] om. CEGHK / 2535 providetur] provideretur
A / 2537 amplectendum] complectendum J / 2539 ita] om. C / 2540 etc.] quare etc.
A; om. L
 De substraccione obediencie 153

veniat 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 super 2545
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 tune 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— 2555
ita 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 1. Continuus, in § ii., ff. De
verborum obligacionibus.393
[8] Item non obstat racio in qua dicitur quod reges non debent 2560
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 nolentes 2565
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-

2543 presbiter] clericus s. presbiter E / 2544 faciet] faceret AL; faceret

corr. to pacem H; om. C / 2544 pacem] tr. H / 2544 in ecclesia] poneret foil.
CH; om. J I 2548 istis] suis C / 2551 dixit] dicit BEH / 2551 ipsis] illis J / 2552
posset] possit CEGHKL / 2557 ipsum] non foil. L / 2557 sperare] spectare L / 2557
in] om. B / 2558 (1*) in] om. ABCEHJKL / 2562 regnicole] regni then blank BJ /
2563 deberent] haberent G / 2564 sciendum] est foil. J / 2565 in] om. BL / 2566
sevire] secure foil. L / 2566 ipsos] om. B / 2569 Midrac] om. BCEGHJKL / 2571
blasphemaretur] blasphemetur ABJ / 2572 de] ab L / 2572 nolunt] noluit CG
 154 De substraccione obediencie

2575 ges non 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 "pati-
mur" per istos concertantes: "Occidunt animas, sempiternas mortes
faciunt" etc.—in c. Quando, xxiii. q. iv.394 Et istam potestatem ha-
2580 bent 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 sub-
iecti in hoc debent ipsis omnes obedire, et si habent remorsum con-
sciencie, illi qui habent debent ipsum deponere vel talem con-
2585 scienciam 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.™5 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 ilium 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,

2575 attendunt] so orig.; om. codd. / 2575 de] a L / 2577-78 patimur] paciuntur
J I 2582-83 subiecti] om. BJ / 2583 ipsis] ipsi A / 2588 velint] velit ABCEGHKL /
2592 ut] et ABCEGHJK / 2593 dicitur] pro foil. A; quod foil. BJ / 2594 etc.] eadem
racione diceretur quod non valuit cessio quia non fuit facta libere BJ / 2595 et de
iure] om. L / 2597 quod] om. J / 2598 amittitur] adimitur ABK; admittitur GHJ /
2599 De eleccione in Sexto] om. BCEGHJKL / 2599-2600 xxiii. di.] om. BCEGHJK
I 2601 intellige] intelligo / / 2602 de iure] om. CJ / 2607 qui] que ABEHJK
 De substraccione obediencie 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 manus 2610
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 gram 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 supra 2620
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 de- 2625
bere, 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 Au- 2635
gustinus 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 et 2640
potenciam regum erit iusta et canonica; nee poterunt de hoc con-

2608 prelatum] prelatos ACEGHJKL / 2609 sedabilis] sedabilem A] /

2612 prelatum et] prelatos et eis L / 2612 subditos] subditum BJ / 2616 ibidem] om.
J I 2618-2738 cogitur .. . ostensum] B is missing (fol. SOOv blank, fol. 301rv missing)
I 2620 ambos] omnes concertantes J / 2620 supra] om. CJ / 2624 expellat] compellat
A / 2626 inveneritis] invenietis A; inveniretis J / 2628 et tenendam] om. C I 2628
esse] ipsum esse L / 2628 Cristi] om. J / 2628 cogentis] cogente EL / 2629 nimium]
nimirum CEGHKL / 2635 Hoc] hec A / 2639 vel] et A
 156 De substraccione obediencie

queri, quia iusta causa subest propter quam hoc fieri debet—per
1. Si mulier, in principio, ff. Quod metus causa.399 Nee amissio status
in hoc casu aliquid facit, quia ut ponit Innocencius ubi supra, net
2645 eis bona recompensacio status,400 si non reddant se nimis contumaces.
Si non sit equivalens, sufficit modica compensacio, per 1. Item si
verberatum, in § Ubi, ff. De rei vendicacione.401 Nee 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: "Nee quia coguntur re-
2660 prehendant sed quo coguntur attendant."
Nee 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 tune 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

2643 amissio] admissio

CEGHJKL I 2643 status] statu L / 2645 recompensacio] compensacio L / 2646 Si]
et si L / 2646 sit] fit A / 2646 Item si] Ita ACEGHJK / 2652 dicencium] sibi foil. A
I 2652 dicit] dat J / 2658-60 Et casus . . . attendant] om. AJ(added) / 2659-60
reprehendant] reprehenduntur CEGHJK; reprehendantur L / 2660 quo] quod
EGL I 2660 quo coguntur] quo cogantur HJKL / 2660 attendant] attendat L / 2661-
66 Nee . . . est] so E; om. others / 2670 offendatur] offenditur CHJK / 2670 quia] et
CEH
 De substraccione obediencie 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 semper 2675
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-
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. In 2685
Genesi, De eleccione; c. Quociens, De purgacione canonica; [Per-
venit,] 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. [£ 263v] Ego N., De iureiurando.409 2690
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 necessario 2695
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 notorie 2700
ecclesiam scandalizarent vel inducerent subversionem et periculum
animarum. Nam tune non esset sibi obediendum, et si esset incorri-
gibilis eciam
incurreret heresim,

2673 ubi] om. E / 2674 collegii] om. A / 2678 pro] per J / 2681 Et] unde J
I 2682 sic] om. HJ / 2682 (2d) quod] et CHK / 2686 De purgacione canonica] so L;
om. others / 2687 De excessibus prelatorum] om. L / 2688 distinccione] Et facit quod
notat Archidiaconus in c. Quamvis, De orficio ordinarii408" foil. L / 2691 plene]
plane J / 2692 presens] ista CHK / 2695 necessario] notorio / / 2699 Verum est] vel
verum est A; vel aliter J / 2700 casu] causa CHK / 2700 nisi] om. A; ubi / / 2700
notorie] om. J / 2701 inducerent] induceret J / 2702-03 incorrigibilis] corrigibilis A
/ 2703 eciam] om. J / 2704 incurreret heresim] bene iudicaretur AJ
 158 De substraccione obediencie

2705 ut 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, nee volunt
propter sedacionem gravis scandali renunciare, ut tenentur, tune 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 nee in colla-
cionibus beneficiorum, nee 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 ve-
2730 rum 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

2705 lacius]
satis A / 2706 pacificum] pontificum (!)J / 2706 quando] quomodo J / 2708 tune]
eciam ACEGHKL / 2709 semper] om. J / 2709 et veniremus] veniremus J / 2710
Et in] ut in E / 2710 per] om. L / 2712 successorem] successores Ay / 2713 ipsos] eos
GJ I 2713 spectat] expectat HJK / 2714 de] a J / 2716 Crisostomus] Augustinus
Crisostomus J / 2717 Policraticon] Policraticum AJ / 2717 consulit] changed to
censuit C / 2718 duos] om. E / 2720 inserere pretermitto] dicere obmitto L / 2721-
22 collacionibus] collacione L / 2722 nee] om. E / 2722 indiccionibus] diccionibus
AJ; iuridiccionibus C / 2723 sibi] om. A / 2723 deneganda] substrahenda L / 2725
ubi] nisi / / 2727 licet] non licet A; om. CHK / 2728 ordinarent] ordinare A / 2728
substraheretur] denegetur A; substrahetur J / 2729-30 verum sit] vv. AE / 2732 licent]
liceret £ / 2733 qui] quia J / 2733 pocius deo] w. AGJ
 De substraccione obediencie 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. Hi.**17 2735
[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 est 2740
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 inde- 2750
cens neque inhonestum. Pro quo: Quia "alma mater ecclesia pluri-
mum nonnulla racionabiliter ordinat, et consulte, que suadente sub-
iectorum utilitate postmodum consulcius ac racionabilius revocat, in
meliusve commutat"—in c. Alma mater, De sentencia excommu-
nicacionis. Et imperator pocius eligit se corrigere quam quod ab 2755
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- 2760

2734 Dei] deus EL / 2735

vindex] iudex / / 2735 male] malum AJ / 2735 agit] egit J / 2736-38 Item . . .
ostensum] om. C / 2738 reges] alii reges L / 2739 obstat] obstant B / 2741 ab] om.
B I 2741 prelati] om. L / 2742-43 ut apparet satis] om. A / 2746 postmodum] post
CHK I 2746 Quia] qui B / 2746 tenuerint] tenuerunt ABCEHK / 2747 ipsis] ipsi
HJK I 27'47 obediverint] obediverunt BCEGHJK / 27'47 nunc quando] om. L / 2748
lamentabiliter] lamentabilem B / 2750 substrahant] substrahent / / 2751 neque] atque
G / 2751 Pro quo] om. B / 2751-52 plurimum] quamplurimum C / 2753 ac] et CHK
I 2753 revocat] om. EL / 2754 meliusve] melius vel C / 2754 commutat] commutatur
C; committat L / 2754-55 excommunicacionis] in VI foil. L / 2755 eligit] elegit A /
2755 quod] om. CK / 2756 nupciis] col. iiii (and two illegible words) foil. L / 2759
quid] quod ABJ
 160 De substraccione obediencie

gustinus, in libro De civitate dei: Si propterea quisque obiurgandum

corripiendumque [E 264v] male agentibus parcit, quia tempus op-
portunius 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, nee 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 fue-
rit verum, ego nescio nee 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 fulminan-
dum 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-
2780 matis, 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, nee est excommunicatus
quoad deum ille quern ipse excommunicat sine causa iusta,422 iuxta
illud Psalmiste [36.33]: "Nee 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

2762 corripiendumque] corrigendumque A / 2762 quia]

et B I 2762-63 opportunius] opportunum CHK; opportunus EG / 2763 hoc] hec
ABEK; om. CGH / 2766 exemplo] exemplis ABGJ / 2766 nunquam] non C(inserted);
om. H(corr.) / 2767 retroactis] recitatis C / 2767 solebat] solet ACEGHKL / 2770
formate] formati A / 2772-73 semper fuerit] vv. J / 2772-73 fuerit] fuit B / 2772-
73 fuerit verum] sic verum fuerit E / 2773 ego] om. G / 2773 nescio] nee scio J /
2773 nee credo] etc. foil. A; om. E / 2775 procederet] procedet ABJ / 2775-76
fulminandum] fulminandas C / 2778 respici] inspici L / 2779 proprie] om. G / 2781
q. i.] ubi dicit foil. J / 2782 vim] om. AJ / 2782 exercet] exerceret A; obtinet
seu exercet L / 2784 Nee] om. J / 2785 Et] nee / / 2785 contempni] contemptui
CEGKL I 2785 Nam] non G / 2787-89 in c Archidiaconus] om. C(corr.) / 2787
quod] quia C
 De substraccione obediencie 161

inimicus est, ut notat idem Archidiaconus, in c. Metropolitanum,

eadem causa et questioned24 2790
[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. Consi-
lium, in fine, De observancia ieiuniorum-, in c. Remissionem, i.
q. i.425 Et videtur casus in racione in c. De cetero, De sentencia 2795
excommunicacionis.426 Vel videtur esse alia bona provisio. Nam maior
penitenciarius, cuius potestas durat eciam sede vacante—ut in Cle-
mentina Ne Romani, De eleccione421—posset suum officium exer-
cere donee haberemus papam pacificum et indubitatum. Et in maio-
ribus causis posset [£ 265r] provided per archiepiscopos et concilia 2800
provincialia. Vel si "de terra ipsius ecclesie defendenda, vel eius
aliqua parte, vel aliud tarn grande et tarn eminens periculum im-
mineret, quod omnibus et singulis cardinalibus presentibus concor-
diter videretur illi celeriter occurrendum," tune domini cardinales
possent super hoc providere, quia in talibus habent potestatem ca- 2805
nonicam, per c. Ubi [periculum] maius, in § Idem quoque cardi-
nales, 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 venire 2810
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 ilia que spectant ad cameram administrabit, sicut potest sede
vacante, per Clementinam Ne Romani.4™ 2815
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 nee epis- 2820

2789 idem] ibidem CEHKL / 2792 propter] preter E / 2801 ecclesie]

om. BK I 2801-02 eius aliqua] w. CHK / 2802 aliqua parte] w. J / 2802-03 im-
mineret] imminere B / 2804 illi] om. C / 2805 in] tune in B / 2806 maius] de elecc.
foil. L I 2807 De eleccione] tr. L / 2807 in Sexto] om. EL / 2808 servarentur]
servarent J / 2810 potest] habet A / 2810 utilitatem] vilitatem E / 2811 pariat] paria
E; parvam H; pariam K / 2812 expedire]. om. CEHKL / 2812 ad] per B / 2813
autem] vero L / 2813 tempore] om. L / 2814 spectant] expectant HJ / 2816 est] et
CH I 2819 manus] manum J / 2820 obediretur] obeditur A / 2820-21 episcopis et]
episcopis vel A; episcopis nee BCL,J(corr.)
 162 De substraccione obediencie

copis et archiepiscopis et aliis prelatis creatis per ipsos, et ita esset

destruccio totalis ecclesie. Pro quo advertendum, quod in aliquibus
partibus cristianitatis, verbi gracia hie in Hanonia et in aliquibus
aliis locis, determinaverunt se neutri obedire donee 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. Nee sequitur: Substrahitur obediencia pape, quia
propter sedacionem gravissimi scandali nunc prochdolor in ecclesia
existentis non vult renunciare sicut quilibet bonus pastor debet fa-
2835 cere—ergo 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.; nee est ad versa
fortuna speranda, per 1. Inter stipulantem, § Sacram, ff. De ver-
borum obligacionibus.
[5] Item non obstat alia racio, in qua dicitur quod per hoc frus-
trarentur suis graciis multi valentes viri qui ab utroque impetrave-
2845 runt 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 ilia alma universitas pre ceteris
collegiis mundi, cum vera animi sinceritate, prosecuta est indefesse
unionem ecclesie et adhuc continue prosequitur, nee per dei graciam

2822 totalis] talis / / 2823 Hanonia]

anonia or anovia BCEGHKL; anania J / 2824 locis] terris C / 2824 determinaverunt]
determinaverant J / 2825 indubitatum] papam foil. C / 2825 fecerunt] steterunt
J I 2827 quia] quod L / 2829 habere] facere nee habere L / 2830 et ipsi] ipsi ABJ
I 2835 qui] quia L / 2838 et alias] vel alias EL / 2840 et c ] et in c J / 2841-42 Inter
.. . obligacionibus] om. B,J(added) / 2843-44 frustrarentur] substraherentur A; frus-
traretur B; substraheretur J / 2844 suis] a suis C / 2846 frustrati sunt] sunt substracti
C / 2849 unionis] unius G / 2851 indefesse] in defenso C; indeffe H / 2852 continue]
cotidie B; om. J
 De substraccione obediencie 163

cessabit, sciens quod qui perseveraverit usque in finem, hie salvus

erit, etc. Si igitur veniretur ad substraccionem obediencie, expediret
quod per medium regum, prelati darent unum bonum ordinem in 2855
conferendo beneficia,433 taliter quod valentes clerici primo loco be-
neficia haberent, et gradatim illi qui scirent, vellent, et possent ec-
clesie proficere promoverentur, iuxta c. Super inordinata, De pre-
bendis434 Et per hoc cessarent omnia. Et quia in brevi per dei graciam
habebimus unum verum unicum et indubitatum pastorem, et pro 2860
bono publico quis eciam quandoque privatur re sua propria, per 1.
Ita [Item si\] verberatum, in fine, et per 1. Lucius4*5—quanto magis
debet privari iure quod habet ad rem, non in re, sicut sunt expec-
tantes.436 Et si dicatur: Gracie iam facte habent decretum quod papa
decrevit irritum et inane "si secus a quoquam" etc.437—raciones su- 2865
pra 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 innumerabilia 2870
inconveniencia sequerentur, quia sine dubio maiora sequerentur si
ecclesia sic remaneret lacerata, quod absit, ut superius est magis
[£ 266r] declaratum.
[7] Item non obstat quod dicitur, quod per hoc non haberetur
unio, etc.—quia raciones alique superius allegate satis probant quod 2875
si per substraccionem obediencie non corrigerent se, esset aliter pro-
cedendum.
[81 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 similis 2880
in ecclesia sicut est, que posset sedari ipso cedente, ipse deberet cogi

2853 qui] quicunque C,H("cunque" added) / 2853 perseveraverit]

perseveraverint J / 2853 hie] om. C / 2854 obediencie] optime J / 2855 prelati]
omnes foil. ABGJ / 2856 taliter] talem J / 2856 loco] om. L / 2857-58 ecclesie]
ecclesiam B / 2859 Et per] per / / 2860 habebimus] haberemus J / 2861 propria]
publica G / 2862 Ita] Item si L(corr.!) / 2862 in fine . .. Lucius] in § Item si forte,
ff. De rei ven., ff. De emt., L. Lucius, in fine L / 2863-64 expectantes] spectantes C;
expectaciones H / 2867 ambobus] om. C / 2868 una] om. C / 2869 etc.] om. BCHK
I 2870 alia] om. L / 2872 lacerata] desolata et lacerata L / 2874 quod dicitur quod]
cum dicitur A; cum dicitur quod BGJ / 2874 dicitur] dicunt L / 2875 quod] quia C
/ 2876 corrigerent] contingerent E; corrigeret contingeret L / 2876 esset] esse EL /
2878 quod non] non A / 2879 procedatur .. . intrusum] contra intrusum procedatur
C; procedatur contra intrusum HK / 2881 sicut est] om. C
 164 De substraccione obediencie

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, hie in fine feci
inserere ipsius dicta loquentis de duobus concertantibus de papatu;
ut de illis que michi in materia occurrerunt "nichil penitus ignore-
tur"—iuxta § i., Instit, De te'stamentis. (Sed causa brevitatis omi-
2890 si.)440 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 raa-
nifesti riant"—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. Nee 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 fideicommis-
sariis libertatibus.441

2883 legimus] longius /

/ 2886 non] om. L / 2886 Policraticon] Policraticum ABHJ; Policratum EGL / 2886
feci] om. CEHK / 2886-87 feci inserere] w. B / 2887 ipsius] sua L / 2888-89
ignoretur] glorietur C / 2889-90 Sed . . . omisi] om. ABGJ / 2891 esse] se B / 2892
interrogant] interrogat EHKL / 2893 ait] dicit E / 2899 benivolus] benivolens CHK
I 2899 mee] me J / 2900 addiscere] dicerem B
 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. Canon Law
Corpus iuris canonici, ed. Emil Friedberg, 2 vols. Leipzig, 1879-81
Decretum Gratiani .. . una cum glossis. Lyons, 1613
Decretales D. Gregorii Papae IX. . . . una cum glossis. Lyons, 1613
Liber sextus decretalium D. Bonifacii Papae VIII., dementis Papae V.
Constitutiones, Extravagantes turn viginti D. Ioannis Papae XXII.
turn communes. Lyons, 1613
2. Roman Law
Corpus iuris civilis, 1, Institutiones, ed. Paul Krueger, Digesta, ed. Theo-
dor Mommsen, 14th ed. Berlin, 1922
, 2, Codex Iustinianus, ed. P. Krueger, 9th ed. Berlin, 1915
, 3, Novellae, ed. Rudolf Schoell & Wilhelm Kroll, 4th ed. Berlin,
1912
Digestum: Corpus iuris civilis Iustiniani, 3 vols. Lyons, 1612 (with glossa
ordinaria)
Codex: The Venice edition, 1488, repr. in Corpus glossatorum juris ci-
vilis, 10. Accursii Glossa in Codicem. Turin, 1968
Volumen (Institutiones; Novellae [Authenticum]; Codex, 10-12): The
Venice edition, 1489, repr. CGJC, 11. Accursii Glossa in Volumen.
Turin, 1969
3. Commentators on the Canon Law
Goffredus: Summa perutilis . . . do. Goffredi de Trano super titulis De-
cretalium. Lyons, 1519; repr. 1968
(Archdeacon): Guidonis a Baiiso [Baisio] Archidiaconi Bononiensis iuris
utriusque peritissimi, Rosarium, seu in Decretorum volumen com-
mentaria. Venice, 1601
Guillelmus Durantis: Guillelmi Durandi Episcopi Mimatensis I.U.D.,
Speculum juris. Basel, 1574 (2 vols. in one)
Henricus de Bohic: Henrici Boich Lugdunensis I.U.D. clarissimi, in
Quinque decretalium libros commentaria. Venice, 1576 (5 bks. in 1
vol.). All references to Bohic are to this edition unless otherwise in-
dicated.
: Primum (-Tertium) volumen ... distinctionum ... Henrici Bou-
hic . . . in . . . Libros decretalium. Lyons, 1620 (5 bks.; 3 tomes in 1
vol.)
Hostiensis: Henrici de Segusio, Cardinalis Hostiensis . . . in primum
165
166 Annotations
(sextum) Decretalium librum commentaria. Venice, 1581; repr. Tu-
rin, 1965 (2 vols.)
-: Henrici de Segusio, Cardinalis Hostiensis Summa aurea. Venice,
1574; repr. Turin, 1963
Innocent IV: Innocentii IIII. ... in Quinque libros decretalium ... com-
mentaria. Frankfurt, 1570; repr. 1968
Johannes Andreae: Johannis Andreae . .. in primum (sextum) Decre-
talium librum novella commentaria. Venice, 1581 (5 vols.); repr.
Turin, 1963 (4 vols.)
4. Other Sources
Ioannis Saresberiensis . . . Politicratid ... libri VIII., ed. C. Webb. Ox-
ford, 1909; repr. 1965 (2 vols.)
Le Liber pontificalis, ed. L. Duchesne, 2 vols., Bibliotheque des Ecoles
francaises d'Athdnes et de Rome, 2nd ser., 3,1-2. Paris, 1886, 1892
Martini Oppaviensis Chronicon pontificum et imperatorum, ed. L. Wei-
land, Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Scriptorum, 22. Hannover,
1872

Reference is also made below to the following manuscript sources:

Johannes Monachus: Apparatus in Librum sextum. Paris, BN, ms. lot. 16901;
ms. lat. 4069
Petrus Bertrandi: Apparatus super sextum librum Decretalium et supra
Constituciones .. . dementis Pape. V. et Iohannis Tape XXII. BN, ms.
lat. 4085. [the abridged version]
: The same, unabridged: Catholic University (Washington, D.C.),
ms. 195

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 apos-
tolicis litteris, aliquid petitum a regibus terrae pro ecclesia contra inimicos
ecclesiae." He explains: "Sed nondum inplebatur ilia prophetia: 'Et nunc
reges intelligite, erudimini, qui iudicatis terrain.'" 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).
 Annotations 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: auc-
toritate divina . . . perpetuo anathemate . . . a liminibus sanctae Dei Ecclesiae
separatus abiiciatur, sicut Antichristus, invasor, et destructor totius Christia-
nitatis . . . [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 ilium confundant, et in hac vita
super eum apertam vindictam ostendant." The passage "nisi per satisfaccio-
nem .. . ," 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 con-
gregation 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 excom-
municated as incurring mortal sin.
10
The canon is in fact a letter of Pope Pelagius, although some of Au-
gustine'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, saltern 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 maies-
tatis 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. lb). 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.
168 Annotations
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, Bur-
gundy, and Orleans; he refused to accept the via cessionis. Simon's ambig-
uous 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 ma-
teriam aliis praeparavi."
19
The "Epistola LIII. Sancti Hieronymi ad Paulinum presbyterum" com-
monly 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 libe-
rum reservetur et inutilis scribentium censeatur auctoritas ubi sententia po-
tior 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, for-
tasse, et forsitan, proferuntur, Achademico dicantur usi temperamento, eo
quod temperatiores aliis Achademici fuerint, qui omnem veriti sunt teme-
rariae 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."
 Annotations 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-a-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. "Cardina-
lis"), 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 con-
tingeret 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 be-
atum 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 adhiben-
170 Annotations

d a . " Innocent h a d written " c u l p a " instead of " p o e n a " b u t t h e quote is oth-
erwise true. Innocent here is also t h e source of t h e discussion of God, Adam,
and Noah, above.
35
X 1. 3 3 . 16: " C u m inferior superiorem solvere nequeat, vel ligare; sed
superior inferiorem liget regulariter, et absolvat. . . . " Simon's "tollere fac-
t u m " refers to this.
36
Nulli fas (Dist. 19, c. 5) states: "Sit ergo ruinae suae dolore prostratus,
quisquis apostolicis voluerit contraire decretis." T h e gl. ord., v. "prostratus":
" H i e videtur, q u o d omnis, q u i n o n obedit statutis R o m a n a e sedis sit haere-
ticus. . . . Sed intelligas, q u o d h i e dicitur, q u o d q u i dicit R o m a n a m ecclesiam
non esse caput, n e e posse condere canones, iste est haereticus. . . . Sed si quis
alias transgreditur eius m a n d a t a , n o n propterea est haereticus. . . . "
37
Johannes Andreae, gl. ord. on Sext 1. 6. 13 (c. Generali), v. "inhibe-
mus": "Die . . . quod qui transgreditur canonem, credens Romanam eccle-
siam 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. "ad-
iuvare" (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 con-
stituta 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 guber-
netur 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."
 Annotations 171
46
F o r the fourteenth-century development of these episcopalist ideas see
Wilks, Problem of Sovereignty, p p . 338 ff.; see also the Introduction, n. 22,
above.
47
T h e canon (Dist. 2 1 , c. 1; from Isidore's Etymologies) discusses the
church hierarchy, including the rank of patriarch, w h o " p r i m u m , id est,
apostolicum retinet locum," and that of archbishop, who "tenet . . . vicem
apostolicam." In the preceding § Inter eos, Gratian writes: " m a i o r u m et
m i n o r u m sacerdotum discretio in novo testamento a b ipso Christo sumpsit
exordium, q u i duodecim apostolos t a n q u a m maiores sacerdotes, et lxxii dis-
cipulos quasi minores sacerdotes instituit. P e t r u m vero quasi in s u m m u m
sacerdotem elegit."
48
X 3. 8. 5: " Q u i a diversitatem corporum diversitas saepe sequitur ani-
morum."
49
See D e c r e t u m 7. q. 1, c. 41 (In apibus).
50
Given t h e 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, " N e . . . ecclesia in congregatione et pastura fidelium temporalibus
careret auxiliis. . . . " Legimus (Dist. 93, c. 24) is perhaps to t h e point in its
" N e e altera R o m a n a e urbis ecclesia, altera totius orbis existimanda est." Ec-
clesiam (De cons. Dist. 1, c. 28) strikes from another angle: "Ecclesiam, in
q u a m o r t u o r u m cadavera infidelium sepeliuntur, sanctificare non licet."
51
Cyprian, in Loquitur (24. q. 1, c. 18), refers to Peter's primacy, "super
u n u m edificat [Dominus] ecclesiam," a n d then to the unity of the episcopacy,
"episcopatus unus est, cuius singularis in solidum pars tenetur." H e does not
say that there must b e 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 pads, 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 Ill'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 pri-
mam omnium ecclesiarum se scribebat."
55
Not checked.
56
See Decretum 7. q. 1, c. 5, as cited below, lines 451-52.
172 Annotations
57
Dig. 48. 19. 38. § 5: " Q u i abortionis aut amatorium poculum dant, etsi
dolo non faciant, tamen quia mali exempli res e s t . . . , si eo mulier aut homo
perierit, summo supplicio adficiuntur."
58
Mulier is Augustine's comment on Lev. 20.16, which reads: "If a wom-
an approach unto any beast, and lie down thereto, thou shalt kill the woman,
and the beast." Augustine asks: why kill the beast, " c u m sit irrationabile, nee
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, a n d whose interest in having them is to
secure wealth, power, a n d honors; such m e n 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 sub-
stantial.
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 im-
miscuerit, 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
demarche 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 support-
ers' 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.
 Annotations 173
67
T h e text of L. In causae cognitione (Dig. 4. 4. 16) states: " N a m si
c o m m u n i auxilio et m e r o iure munitus sit, non debet ei tribui extraordina-
r i u m auxilium." T h e gl. ord. of Accursius on a preceding passage, v. " c o m -
p e t e r e , " notes: "Alibi a u t e m extraordinarium c u m ordinario b e n e 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., b u t also notes qualifications thereto: "Sed
huic responsioni est contra supra De edenda, L. Quaedam [Dig. 2. 13. 9],
ubi extraordinarium, quod est d e iure c o m m u n i , non competit c u m ordinario.
Sed ibi in subsidium illud extraordinarium d a t u r . " Simon has built u p his
dossier from these cross-references a n d has twisted the formulations to suit
his purpose b y replacing the " c o m p e t i t " of t h e latter gloss with t h e ambig-
uous " c o n c u r r i t " of t h e former, a n d b y using " n u n q u a m " instead of " n o n . "
All of which fits in with his p r o g r a m at this time, for h e indeed regarded the
via cessionis a n d the general council as mutually contradictory. H e n c e his
refutation of the present a r g u m e n t for the council (below, at n. 390) does
not exploit the distinction m a d e b y Accursius a n d argue from these Roman-
law texts that t h e extraordinary r e m e d y of t h e via cessionis might b e com-
bined with the council, in the w a y h e would later advocate, a n d which indeed
would b e pursued at Pisa a n d 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 cessio-
nem ne plus temporalem honorem, quam aeternam videatur affectare salu-
tem.
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 Pam-
pilonensis," 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 senten-
tia: 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
174 Annotations

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. . . . Die istud c. locum habere, quando
neuter est electus a duabus partibus. Vel die, 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., Le-
gimus, circa medium. Unde requirit papa consensum concilii, 19. di., Anas-
tasius. Arguitur contra, 17. di., § Hinc etiam, et extra De eleccione, Signi-
ficasti, ubi dicitur, concilium non potest papae legem imponere, et 35. q. 9,
Veniam. Sed intellige, quod hie dicitur, circa articulos fidei, 25. q. 1, Sunt
quidam." See also below, n. 257, and above, Introduction, n. 107.
16
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: "Hie 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. "com-
municet"): "Per haec verba, Nullus Titio communicet, feratur excommuni-
catio . . . ; et hoc concedatur ubi apparet, quod iudex hoc intendit, et talis
erat, qui excommunicare poterat. Et tune procedat, quod dicitur, non referre
quid ex aequipoUentibus 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 im-
portant 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
 Annotations 175

the impediment of consanguinity: "cum mulier, quae consanguinitatis habet

notitiam, . . . non possit huiusmodi viro sine mortali peccato carnaliter com-
misceri . . . cum ilia 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 de-
ponat errorem."
80
Bohic on De simonia, c. Per tuas, ii (X 5. 3 . 3 2 ; edit. Lyons, 1520, V,
14v). T h e context is a discussion of u n d e r w h a t conditions statements against
an accused p a r t y a r e to b e believed or not. Hostiensis is cited for, inter alia,
the principles " q u o d si [consciencia] deponi n o n potest modis omnibus est
s e q u e n d a , " a n d " q u o d in [m]differentibus potest unusquisque prout sibi pla-
cuerit 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 career, 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 prindpalem 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
 176 Annotations

merely confirms a papal conferral of an actually vacant benefice, against the

will of t h e local canons.
85
Bohic, I, 37, on c. Significasti, is m o r e restrictive than Simon says; thus:
"Salva in omnibus authoritate papae, q u i onus, quod non est contra legem
naturalem, vel divinam, potest imponere, et exigere indistincte . . . p r o libito
voluntatis . . . , " without incurring canonical simony. Henricus then cites
Hostiensis, "infra, D e simo.-cap. ult."—no doubt t h e source of Simon's ref-
erence. Hostiensis's c o m m e n t a r y here (X 5. 3. 46, v. "sufficit") turns on t h e
distinction b e t w e e n w h a t is simoniacal because prohibited, a n d w h a t is pro-
hibited because simoniacal. In the former case, " p a p a potest dispensare, et
declarare sicut placet constitutionem suam et ex ea d e p e n d e n t i a . "
86
T h e exact words quoted b y Simon a p p e a r 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, q u i suo iure utitur."
87
Clem. 2. 5. 1 (c. Si duobus), after a complex discussion of collationary
rights: "Salva t a m e n in praemissis o m n i b u s R o m a n i pontificis potestate, a d
quern ecclesiarum, personatuum, dignitatum, aliorumque beneficiorum ec-
clesiasticorum 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, tarn
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 relin-
quitur."
91
Nonne states: "Quicunque clericorum ab episcopo suo ante sententiae
tempus pro dubia suspicione discesserit, manifestam in eum manere censu-
ram. . . . " In Hinc etiam Theodoric sought to commit the case of Pope Sym-
machus 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 nee vere-
 Annotations 177

cundiae nee dignitati nee 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 cen-
tury; it was a reworking of a repertory by Johannes Calderinus: see Johann
Friedrich von Schulte, Die Geschichte der Quellen und Literatur des ca-
nonischen 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. . . . "
^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, testi-
monioque proprio resistere."
97
See Valois, 3:97.
98
Hostiensis, o n X 1. 3 8 . 2 , defines c a u s a e g r a v e s ( § 8 ) a n d i n c l u d e s
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: "Hie Sergius
diaconus per papam Formosum a papatu reprobatus, tandem papa factus ad
Francos se contulit, quorum auxilio Christoforum invasorem papatus incar-
cerans Romam ingressus papatum optinuit." And p. 437, re Alexander III:
"Hie, 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
178 Annotations

videndum [rede: 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.
loe £)jg 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 fu-
turum."
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 or-
dinatis ab eis, irritas esse censemus, adiicientes ut qui dignitates ecclesiasticas
seu beneficia per dictos schismaticos acceperunt, careant impetratis." Ordi-
nationes (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 per-
miserit, 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 com-
mittit tali, scilicet nepotulo, duo milia animarum de facili, cui non libenter
committeret duo pira." Note that the context has to do with abuses by prel-
ates, 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.
au
Innocent IV's commentary on In literis (X 2. 13. 5), § 3: "Sed quaero
quid facient subditi debitores . . . violenti possessoris? Respon. non respon-
debunt de iuribus pertinentibus ad dignitatem, quam violenter possidet, nee
potest conqueri hie 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 om-
nibus debitis, non obstante exceptione de iniqua possessione praelati." Inno-
cent goes on to discuss the objections to this last view, and then the other
side again.
 Annotations 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 Ixxii 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 cre-
atus 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 [soil., de lege divina seu
evangelica] hoc solum tene quod in omnibus potest dispensare, dummodo
sua dispensatio non sit contra fidem. secundum Vincen. nee nutriat peeeatum
mortale, nee inducat subversionem fidei, nee periculum animarum. Nam in
talibus nullam habet contra Deum potestatem, sic intellige. 25. q. 1. Sunt
quidam. 16. di. Sicut sancti. secundum Host. hie. . . . " Hostiensis writes, on
X 3. 8. 4 (c. Proposuit), v. "dispensare": "Non potest tamen contra univer-
salem 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 peeeatum 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 patri-
monium beati Petri, quod non licet, vel aliquid huiusmodi—non esset per-
mittendum, 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 per-
sonis 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 aeeusari de alio erimine? Ponamus quod
notorium sit crimen eius . . . : quare non accusatur vel de erimine simoniae,
vel adulterii: etiam cum admonetur, incorrigibilis est, et scandalizatur eccle-
sia per factum eius? Certe credo, quod si notorium est crimen eius, quan-
documque, et inde scandalizatur ecclesia, et incorrigibilis sit: quod inde possit
aeeusari. Nam contumacia dicitur haeresis, ut 81. dist., Si qui [sunt] presby-
teri, et contumax dicitur infidelis, ut 38. dist., Nullus...." See Tierney, Foun-
dations, 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.
180 Annotations

121
Innocent Ill's decretal Per venerabilem (X 4. 17. 13) had defined the
sovereignty of the king of France vis-a-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 recog-
nition 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 sub-
traction 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 occa-
sionem subditis, seu popularibus, non obedire Principibus, seu eorum Do-
minis 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 Gratia-
na, 15 (1972), 3-31. And above, n. 116.
125
Johannes Andreae, Commentaria, V, 145r (c. Inquisitioni, v. "mor-
tale"): "Secundum Innocentium si praeciperet alias iniustum, licet non mor-
tale, puta quod det mihi libros suos, parere non tenetur. . . . Sed quid si papa,
qui superiorem non habet, iniustum praecipiat? Potest dici, quod si de spi-
ritualibus, 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, tune enim peccaret obediendo, cum futura mala praecavere
debeat, non iuvare ad ilia 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, "ne-
que 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, §
 Annotations 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 in-
formation a judge can or must take into account. It includes: "Vel die, quod
qualiscunque notiheatio sufheit . . . ut iudex non debeat dici dubius. 1. q. 4.
c. Turbatur, versi. 'Si quis vobis dixerit hoc idolis' etc. Infra...." The Roman-
law 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 die 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, tune 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
1 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: "vi-
detur participare criminose in crimine, factum eius nomine gestum appro-
bando." 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."
182 Annotations
139
Autentica, Coll. 1, title 6, Preface (Novella 6): "Maxima quidem in
hominibus sunt dona dei a superna collata dementia sacerdotium et impe-
r i u m . . . . 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 earn 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 humane"
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 epis-
copus litem dirimere, tune 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 eccle-
siam, 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 ho-
mines principali vel iudiciali auctoritate conprimere, quia regulae patrum
hoc specialiter constituerunt, ut, si qua ecclesiastici ofheii persona cui subiec-
tus est restiterit, vel seorsum collegerit, aut aliud altare erexerit, seu scisma
fecerit, iste excommunicetur atque dampnetur. Quod si forte et hoc con-
tempserit . . . per potestates publicas obprimatur. . . . " And, "agnoscitur, ut
f acientes scissuras in sancta ecclesia non solum exiliis, sed etiam proscriptione
 Annotations 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 j n 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: . . . tune dicit hie 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 . . . vio-
lentas 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 inijeere quoquo modo, et stabo illi regulae 17. q. 4. Si
quis suadente, nisi inveniam earn per alium canonem authoritatis similis
revocatam."
153
X 5. 39. 54: "excommunicationis sententiam non incurrit, qui excom-
municato, in his quae . . . ad salutem animae pertinent, in locutione parti-
cipat."
!54
X 5. 12. 6, § Illi etiam: "qui potuit hominem liberare a morte, et non
liberavit, eum occidit,... nee 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
184 Annotations

"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 j)jg £. 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 hie: si pena incipit a
contumacia, tune 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 ca-
nonical 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 ilium solum in sede
apostolica permansurum censemus, quern ex numero clericorum nova ordi-
natione 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 con-
taining 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
 Annotations 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 ex-
pelled. Gratian explains: "Sed hoc in eo tantum casu intelligitur, quo apos-
tolica sedes per violentiam occupatur, quo casu iudex non invenitur, cuius
ofn'cio ille apostaticus possit excludi." Licet ( X L 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 praeva-
lere, quia quod in eis dubium venerit superioris poterit iudicio diffiniri. In
Romana vero ecclesia speciale aliquid constituitur, quia non poterit ad su-
periorem recursus haberi."
163 r_)ig 34 5 io (Si fuerit): "in ambiguis rebus humaniorem sententiam
sequi oportet." But cf. Dig. 34. 5. 27 (Si quis): "Si quis de pluribus unum
manumitti voluerit nee 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 subdivi-
sions. 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. lOv-llr; 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 habe-
atur.
169
X 3. 5. 18: "Cum multa per patientiam tolerentur, quae si deducta
fuerint in iudicium, exigente iustitia non debeant tolerari." Simon's para-
phrase, avoiding the words "iudicium" and "iustitia," seems tendentious rath-
er 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."
186 Annotations
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 co-
gitur 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 Roma-
nus 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 convincere-
tur."
174
Contra Cresconium Grammaticum 2. 11. 13, in Sancti Aureli Au-
gustini 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 obliga-
tion to resign. Simon would probably have read this work. See Clement
Schmitt, "La position du cardinal Leonard 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 Mar-
cellinus, 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 hie 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,
tune 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 Chris-
 Annotations 187

tianorum, series Latina, 39; Turnhout, 1956), 974. Simon's "maiorum" re-
places the original's "maiorum 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 conser-
vanda non praetermittat aliquis facere quod sibi libuerit." In art. 7, "Utrum
bona spiritualia sint propter scandalum dimittenda," he notes that the ques-
tion does not apply to scandalum activum: "quia cum scandalum activum
sit dictum vel factum minus rectum, nihil est cum scandalo activo facien-
dum." 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 ha-
bita 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 per-
petuam 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 ius-
titiae et disdplinae, which may sometimes be given up.
184
These canons applied to prelates whose abdication in the public in-
terest 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.
 188 Annotations
186
N o . 16 of t h e sermons once grouped as " d e verbis d o m i n i " is N o .
lxxxii in Migne's edition, MPL, 38:506 ff. Although it deals with t h e d u t y of
fraternal correction, I d o not find t h e passages q u o t e d b y Simon—neither in
it, n o r in t h e old Nos. 15 & 17, n o r at t h e e n d of t h e last item in t h e group
(col. 713).
lsea Tjjg reference is to t h e University of Paris's letter of 6 J u n e 1394,
drafted b y Nicholas d e Clamanges a n d representing t h e ideas of h i m , Pierre
d'Ailly, Gilles Deschamps, a n d others. See SdeC, p p . 5 8 f. In giving argu-
ments for t h e via cessionis t h e letter notes that it avoids scandal, a n d goes
on: " d o m i n i voce q u i c q u i d fratrem scandalizat a nobis expellere precipimur,
eciam si pes fuerit, manus, a u t oculus." This is not in context a n a r g u m e n t
for subtraction of obedience, as Simon would have it. (I use t h e text in A N ,
J 5 1 8 , fol. 2v.) T h e "aliqui u t fertur" w e r e Clamanges a n d d'Ailly, w h o
b e c a m e supporters of Benedict XIII a n d opposed t h e Paris via cessionis a n d
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 eius-
dem 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. "damnan-
tur"): "die ergo quod non obedire vel venire contra canones ex certa scientia,
mortale peccatum est."
189
Johannes Andreae, Commentaria, VI, 26v (c. Generali, v. "percipe-
re"): "qui non facit quod debet videtur facere quod non debet, . . . negligen-
tia 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 con-
tinentem, transgressor canonis appellatur. . . . Sed que est pena transgressionis
canonis? Die 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, tune 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 impo-
sitionem accepisset, recesserunt multitudines populorum, dicentes, quia nisi
 Annotations 189

secundum quod sanctorum continent apostolorum canones fiat, non recipi-

etur episcopus. Principes enim inthronizaverant eum."
194
Archdeacon, Rosarium, fol. 302v (23. q. 1, c. Quid culpatur, v. "le-
gitimo"): "arguitur quod non sit obediendum ei qui non est legitime conse-
cutus imperium."
195
1 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 pro-
moveri, 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 obe-
diendum 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 aucto-
ritatem prestando quam faciens et magis puniendus est. 24. q. 3, Qui alio-
rum, et 11. q. 3, Qui consentit. secundum Bernardum ibi, quod verum
secundum Hostiensem ibi in gravioribus, puta heresi et similibus: si in civi-
libus 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 prima-
tum 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 pe-
riculum animae, iniuste detinere, ac invadere alienum"—and this "non ob-
stante 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 per-
durat."
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
 190 Annotations

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 volun-
tatem excitat." The Archdeacon, Rosarium, fol. 7v, comments: "tune 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 con-
text is important: In v. "ceterum": "versi. hie vult dicere quod si perseverat
iam haeresim fingit. 7. q. 1. Denique. Johannes, de scismate in quo perdu-
retur." And in v. "confingat": "id est, dicat aliquid quare non debet obedire
ecclesiae Romanae, et dicit Raymundus, cum omne scisma intendat sibi con-
stituere 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 Raymun-
dum, qui hanc totam glossam sequitur et bene. Nota tamen quod si scisma-
ticus perseverat haereticus est, ut no. supra e. q. 1. Dididmus, 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 excommuni-
catus 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 hie 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
 Annotations 191

seipsum involvit." The gloss: "hie est casus, in quo papa papam potest ligare,
in quo papa in canonem latae sententiae incidit; ne huic obviat regula ilia:
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 pon-
tifice." 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 aholendam), §§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 Ben-
edict 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 contenden-
cium." 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, nee vo-
 192 Annotations

lunt in pace colere pacis auctorem, nihil n o m i n e ecclesiae audeant posside-

r e . . . . Noli dicere, quid mihi et regi? Quid tibi ergo et possessioni? Per iura
r e g u m possidentur possessiones."
220
Rather to Count Boniface of Africa.
221
T h e canon, b y Boniface VIII (Sext 1. 16. 9), is of course m o r e general:
" p r o h i b e m u s . . . n e episcopi, [etc.]. .., vacantibus . . . ecclesiis [etc.]. . . sibi
subiectis . . . . e o r u n d e m b o n a . . . in ipsis inventa, sive vacationis ipsorum
tempore obvenientia, quae in utilitatem eorundem expendi, vel futuris de-
bent successoribus fideliter reservari, occupare . . . praesumant." For "iura
communia" see below, n. 428.
222
Bernard of Clairvaux, De consideratione (above, n. 122); but the quot-
ed 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 cuius-
quam voluntate aut dominatione."
224
A quote from the Archdeacon's commentary (below), which the print-
ed 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 si-
militer 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, . . . tune 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 re-
scriptum 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. E t Archidiaconus. 50. d i . . . . " T h e
canon Nee dampnosa is taken from the Codex: "Nee dampnosa fisco, nee
iuri contraria postulari oportet." In Imperiali Gregory the Great refers ap-
 Annotations 193

provingly to this. Cf. Archdeacon on Per principalem, 9. q. 3, c. 21 (Rosa-

rium, 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." Pro-
curationes (X 3. 39. 23) is Innocent Ill'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 HI, prohibiting excessive exactions by prelates, decrees that any-
one 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 intolera-
bilem 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, XJber konigliche und pdpstliche 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 Sover-
eignty, 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. lot. 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."
 194 Annotations
238
Bohic, II, 251 f. (c. In omni), isthe 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 om-
nibus, videtur tenere Hostiensis hie dicens, quod correctio charitativa . . . et
denuntiatio ecclesiae facienda ad quemlibet pertinet Christianum, coerctio
vero ad ecclesiasticum, id est ad ilium 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. Tarn sacerdotes. Ubi dicitur quod tarn
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, perti-
nuisset eleccio successoris Petri. Sed postquam Rome resedit, de iure com-
muni et ad patriarchas racione universalis ecclesie, et ad clerum Romanum
racione appropriacionis, spectat eleccio, ut videtur. Sed quia difficile erat
patriarchas convocare, nee erat tutum simplicibus canonicis tantum nego-
cium 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 sub-
stituted "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 "ilia 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
Not found.
244
Bohic, V, 206, § 3 (Cum ex iniuncto), quotes Thomas Aquinas, Sum-
ma 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 repre-
hendit, 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 cari-
tative 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
 Annotations 195

potestatem, quod quicquid dicat, vel agat, accusari, vel damnari non potest
ab homine, nisi de haeresi, 40. DL, 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, 'Die 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 po-
terunt 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 con-
scientia: quod si certum est, recognosci debet papa caelestis, 11. q. 3, Iulia-
nus, et ecclesia triumphans, que non fallit." See n. 177 above.
246a p o r thg £jrs|- p ar j- of j-jjg gi orci o n si papa, v. "a fide devius," see n.
120 above. The gloss continues (after "nullus"): "Hie tamen specialiter fit
mentio de haeresi, ideo quia et si occulta esset haeresis, de ilia potest accusari,
sed de alio occulto crimine non posset. Item nunquid potest denuntiari cri-
men 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: "Hie 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 au-
thorities 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 Prindpes seculi, that kings have
power within the church—i.e., they are indeed prelates. Henricus subse-
quently, § 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 Ill'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 Ill'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.
 196 Annotations

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
T h e canon (X 1. 3 1 . 13) has a section, "si canonici absque manifesta
et rationabili causa ( m a x i m e in c o n t e m p t u episcopi) cessaverint a divinis,
episcopus, si voluerit, nihilominus celebret." T h e gl. ord., v. "cessaverint a
divinis," notes: " V i d e t u r q u o d soli canonici possunt subiicere ecclesiam in-
terdicto 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, repre-
hendant, 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, nee 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 can-
onistic 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 ami-
sisse, quia . . . abuterentur temere potestate, ac ideo ad alios licet pauciores
numero, quantum tamen ad hoc pertinet, consilio saniores, eligendi vel pos-
tulandi devolutam esse licentiam." Bonae (X 1. 6. 23): "frustra legis auxilium
invocat, qui committit in legem: unde nee 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 [sdl., 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.
 Annotations 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 mi-
litari officio iudicis ab eo possessio transfertur."
262
See Valois, 3:20 ff., a n d t h e Introduction, § 1, above, for w h a t follows
about the First Paris Council.
263
Simon reports the First Paris Council's decision which he himself drew
up: Appendix V, lb.
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 re-
mained 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: "Nee etiam electio
communiter celebrata, quoniam licet in eundem G. singulariter singuli con-
sensissent, 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 nee discussum; nee zeli ad zelum, nee 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.
 198 Annotations
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 succes-
sive 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 agen-
dum 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. "ne-
cessitate," 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 des-
cendit in Lonbardiam, et in Mantua sollempniter celebrato concilio, pacifi-
catis omnibus ad urbem est reversus." The actual date was 1064, the entry
in the chronicle begins with 1063; one comes close by correcting "octingen-
tesimo" to "millesimo." For this and the following episodes, see Johannes
 Annotations 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 Theo-
dorico rege, electus est Symachus et confirmatus."
285
Ibid., p. 433: "duobus de papatu altercantibus . . . , Henricus impe-
rator contra duos Romam accedit et eis canonica et imperiali censura depo-
sitis, 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, tune aut queris de iis que sunt facienda de ne-
cessitate 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: "Hie secus si pars faceret contra id quod esset
necessarium vel utile ecclesiae vel collegio, ut si deliberaret sine causa ratio-
nabili 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 significa-
tione huius verbi 'expedit' ex praedictis iuribus colligi potest ... [etc.] se-
cundum Hostiensem cuius est ista distinctio in effectu. Et idem Ioannes An-
dreae post eum." The emphasized words are an exact quotation of Hostiensis
200 Annotations

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
1 have not found the source of this story. It is not in the Liber pon-
tificalis, which was sometimes referred to as the "gesta Romanorum ponti-
ficum." An analogous story, however, is related by Thomas of Tuscany—
Thomae Tusd gesta imperatorum et pontificum, ed. E. Ehrenfeuchter
(MGH, SS, 22; Hannover, 1872), 493. The Arabs at first had no law, but
"invento, . . . u t . . . 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 be-
neficio, in hoc casu non habet locum missio in possessionem; . . . si vero est
causa in qua posset procedi ad missionem in possessionem, tune cum ilia sit
via ordinaria,.. . ilia 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. Aequis-
simum—debet dicere, recipio rem contentiosam in manu mea, et rem cus-
todiri 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 in-
dubitatum in beneficiali causa, ubi ante possessionem illius pacificam, apparet
controversial'
306
Clem. 2. 6. 1: "diffinimus ut una contra possessorem diffinitiva sen-
tentia . . . apud sedem apostolicam . . . promulgata, beneficium ipsum . . .
 Annotations 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 tune, 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
202 Annotations

utilitate communi recepta esse . . . probari potest." The gl. ord., v. "dispu-
tandi": "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 orig-
inal, 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, In-
digne, § Debet tamen, and the gl. ord., v. "admonitio" (below, n. 320). For
the added sentence in mss. A] (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 admone-
retur tune, 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 mag-
nitudinem peccati, aut propter altitudinem dignitatis." For the present rel-
evance 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 al-
ready given above, lines 1946-52, plus a sentence given in the apparatus
thereto; see the apparatus there and here. Thus the arguments about "ne-
gligencia" 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 result-
ing 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 b e n e . . . . " "FF. De usuris, L. Mora,"
mentioned here by Henricus, states (§ 5): "si ndeiussor solus moram fecerit,
non tenetur, sicuti si Stichum promissum occiderit"; the gl. ord. by Accursius,
v. "non tenetur": "sed utiliter sic, scilicet de interitu."
 Annotations 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, . . . quan-
doque dicitur morsus peccati, ut hie, 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 con-
ditional qm-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, "Hie erat venator et totus lubricus, adeo quod etiam
publice feminas tenebat. . . . Hie 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 I'esprit
la'ique au d£clin du moyen age, 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
204 Annotations

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, lc, 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 sum-
mary in the present treatise is closer in wording to these later texts than to
the original one, but there are minor differences even so.
3454
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 auc-
toritate celebratur" (c. 5, in which "conciliabulum" also appears).
350
See Valois, 3:82, for King Wenceslas's resistance to the French em-
bassy 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 "nul-
lum recognoscens superiorem" see e.g. Jean Riviere, Le problime de Ye"glise
et de l'6tat 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 Char-
lemagne, "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
 Annotations 205

Nicopolis, 25 September 1396. The "multi notabiles prelati" may be a recol-

lection 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 Seidl-
mayer, Die Anfdnge des grossen abendldndischen Schismas (Miinster, 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 hie argumentum quod ilia pars, quae
iustiori rationi innititur, maior dicitur, licet sit minor." The gloss then cites
Nicena, In canonids, In nostra. Of the others, Sana is only generally rele-
vant: "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
hie 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 nee fallitur, semper innititur: iudicium autem ecclesiae non-
nunquam opinionem sequitur, quam et fallere saepe contingit, et falii. **
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 "im-
pressio," which theme appeared in all subsequent Avignon propaganda. The
206 Annotations

formal depositions of the cardinals regarding the election are printed in L.

Gayet's he 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, Intro-
duction, 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 fail-
ing 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 ter-
minate the marriage by giving a writ of divorce (libellus repudii) and estab-
lishing 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 appoint-
ed 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.).
ai0
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 (compromis-
sarii), "sed procuratores fuerunt, quibus aliqui vota sua commiserant, quod
licet, quando ex iusta causa aliquis electioni interesse non potest." Further-
more, "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 sum-
mary, 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.
 Annotations 207
372
Sext 2. 14. 1: "Cum aeterni tribunal iudicis ilium reum non habeat,
quern iniuste iudex condemnat, testante propheta, 'Nee 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 Isa-
belle 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 (Va-
lois, 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.
a78
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. Nee 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 tune [alias Hoc etiam] comes after 7. q. 1, c. 48: prelates are not
to resign under adversity "quando nee specialiter praelatus quaeritur, nee
per alios tuta potest esse ecclesiae salus"; cf. § 3. Cum autem, ibid.: "quando
vero omnium subditorum est obstinata malitia, nee prodest eis praelatorum
praesentia, tune 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."
 208 Annotations

The gl. ord. (Accursius), v. "non potest": "Et not. quod non definitur hie 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 ad-
mittitur] infra [ultra] isti octo dies."
390
In his gloss on Sext 1. 6. 16, v. "a gratia," Johannes Monachus, Ap-
paratus, 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 implo-
randi 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 tune ordinarium remedium habet locum . . . ; aut pinguius sub-
venitur per subsidiariam, et hoc dupliciter: aut ambe principales, et tune
eciam subsidiaria potest primo proponi . . . , aut una principalis et alia non,
et tune 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 nee a iure
statuta, nee 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:
 Annotations 209

sempiternas mortes faciunt et temporales se perpeti conqueruntur." Augus-

tine'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 contra-
rium: 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 quern 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 ces-
sat. . . . 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 de-
beat?" 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 contradicen-
tium verbis, sed demonstrantium superabatur exemplis" (my emphasis). Af-
ter 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 percel-
li." 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 Ligu-
ribus. 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.
210 Annotations
406
All but one of Benedict's cardinals had declared for the French pro-
gram 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 con-
tulit sine fratrum consilio, et coram successore fuit iste articulus in dubium
revocatus. Et dixi tune decere ut quod papa mandat in suo canone ab aliis
observari, illud non negligat. Mandat enim quod episcopi, abbates, et supe-
riores saltern 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 ne-
gocia 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
generate, 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.
 Annotations 211

above, n. 59. The context of bk. 8 is a discussion of tyranny and the permis-
sibility 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 ci-
vili? 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 sub-
traction. Although Simon had a correct knowledge of this "consilium Bru-
ti"—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. . . . Nee hinc debet minor irasci,
si maior prelatus est. . . . Si aliquid ipse consul iubeat et aliud iubeat impe-
rator, 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 nee 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 li-
gatum 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 so-
lutum. . . . Die 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.
212 Annotations

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 habe-
tur" (my emphasis).
425
Consilium provides that those requiring permission to eat meat during
a fast because of illness should be indulged, "cum non subiaceat legi neces-
sitas." 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 offi-
cium per obi turn eiusdem pontificis nolumus expirare) . . . "
428
The "iura antiqua" here applied to provisions to benefices were evi-
dently 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 Sover-
eignty, 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 Coun-
cil of February 1399 decreed "quod . . . ecclesie istius regni remaneant in
pristina libertate, in qua erant ante Bonifacium [VIII] vel in primitiva eccle-
sia"—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... ; post-
modum 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
 Annotations 213

statu ecclesiarum istius regni et modo regendi hactenus observato per Ro-
manos pontifices a modico tempore citra, . . . necessarium esse videtur . . .
quod circa provisionem ecclesiarum cathedralium et monasteriorum, et col-
lacionem beneficiorum, visitaciones et procuraciones . . . [eic], 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 adsig-
natas" 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;
214 Annotations

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 ae-
tatis 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.
 Appendix I
The Marginalia in A

In ms. A, the first part of the treatise, giving arguments against subtrac-
tion, is accompanied by marginal refutations of considerable bulk, written
in Simon's style and reproducing for the most part authorities and arguments
found in Parts 2 and 3. It is clear from the disposition of the material on the
pages that the marginalia existed in A's exemplar, which may well have been
one of Simon de Cramaud's working copies, perhaps the one he used for his
speeches and responses at the Third Paris Council, May-July 1398, and for
propaganda immediately after. The marginalia themselves refer to the Coun-
cil and mention that the Schism has lasted twenty years (as vs. the figures of
nineteen or even eighteen in the treatise). A's exemplar, moreover, was in a
codex that also contained a copy of the letter sent by King Henry III of
Castile to King Martin of Aragon, 10 September 1397, refuting Benedict
XIII 's via compromissi (see apparatus to line 2465); the text of A alone refers
to this letter, which was also made much of by Simon at the Third Paris
Council (his speech in BduC, Preuves, p. 28; Mansi, 26, col. 858; ASV, Arm.
54, t. 21, fols. 191v, 196r). The discussion of A in the Introduction, § 4, also
bears on its political importance. All in all, then, A and its marginalia rep-
resent an important moment in the history of the De substraccione: its use
by Simon de Cramaud as a guide, program, and theoretical justification in
connection with the Third Paris Council, which in fact led to the subtraction
of obedience advocated in the treatise.

fol. 84r, to lines 164-70: Solummodo non recedit a capite qui Cristo vero
capiti obediendo non obedit pape precipienti quid iniustum, nee negatur
quin papa sit capud ecclesie licet secundarium (c. ii. [i.!], xxii. di.), quod
morte vel heresi vel cessione, etc. deficit cotidie. Cristus autem capud est
primarium et indeficiens, iuxta illud "Ego vobiscum sum" etc., et illud "Non
relinquam vos orphanos" etc. Unde pape volenti alienare patrimonium ec-
clesie resistendum esset (xi. q. ii., Non liceat); notat Petrus Bertrandi in Clem.
Ne Romani, De eleccione, et glosa c. Si papa, xl. di. Unde si papa precipit
aliquid unde turbetur status ecclesie, vel dubitatur ne turbetur, non est obe-
diendum, secundum Innocencium, De inquisicione [Inquisicionil], De sen-
tencia excommunicacionis; nam contra statum ecclesie non potest. Notat
idem Innocencius, c. Quanto, De consuetudine-, not. glosa c. ii., xxv. q. i.;

215
 216 Appendix I

facit c. Si ea, xxv. q. ii. Modo ad propositum, non est obedire pape qui sic
faciendo scisma facit et nutrit, est obedire deo et tollere occasionem nutriendi
scisma et destruendi statum ecclesie; quare etc. Facit viii. di., Que contra;
xi. q. iii., Si dominus et c. Qui resistit, cum similibus [?]. Preterea faciendo
substraccionem non querimus recessum a capite secundario quod est papa:
ymo, sit ad hoc ut habeatur hoc capud, quod quandiu sic stamus qualibet
parte obstinati habere non possumus; quare etc.
fol. 84r, to lines 180-83: Hoc verum ubi non pendet status fidei vel universalis
ecclesie. Vel die, hoc verum ubi propter bonum ecclesie fit aliquid, scilicet
lex vel constitucio que tamen esset alicui vel aliquibus onerosa, quia tune
ferendum est ab eo vel ab eis quamvis durum. Secus si a me voluntarie vult
tollere rem meam sine causa, quia non teneor obedire. Nota. c. Que in
ecclesiarum, De constitucionibus; De immunitate ecclesiarum, c. Quia ple-
rique. Quia contra ius et equitatem naturalem esset. Si enim preciperet regi
quod filiam suam daret uni aut alteri, non oporteret obedire. Talia enim sunt
extra officium pape; ideo non oportet ea ferre vel tolerare. Sic igitur istud
non probat quod per hoc oporteat tolerare istud scisma, quod preiudicat
nedum bonis temporalibus sed anime et saluti. Facit quod notat Archidia-
conus, vii. q. L, Quia frater, ubi notat quod clerici non tenentur obedire suo
prelato nisi in duobus casibus, scilieet quantum tangit cultum divinum vel
utilitatem ecclesie, dicens ibi quod clerici deberent semper illud capitulum
habere in bursa sua. Facit eciam quod idem notat, c. Preceptis, xii. di., super
verbo "salubriter"; notat glosa, xi. q. iii., in summa, circa finem. Et quo ad
illam differenciam de qua supra, si papa aliquid prohibet per constitucionem
vel sine constitucione: facit nota Innocencii, c. Quanto, De consuetudine.
fol. 84r, to lines 202-03: Verum est, sed non ad destruccionem—ymo ad
edificacionem, secundum Apostolum, II. Corinth., circa finem.- Unde ad Ga-
lat. v, "Portabit iudicium qui vos conturbat, quicunque sit ille." Nee posse
destruere vel malum facere est posse vel potestas, et hoc patet in illo quod
solet dici de ilia auctoritate, "Quodcunque ligaveris": clave non errante, etc.
Facit c. Manet, xxiiii. q. i. Potestas enim est de genere bonorum; facit c.
Faciat homo, xxii. q. ii. Et non debet hec potestas trahi ad iniquum dispen-
dium: lege finali, C. Pro empto. Nee fuit de mente Cristi committentis dare
potestatem circa iniquum vel malum vel peccatum, iuxta 1. Si pro curione,
ff. De condi. debt.
fol. 84v, to lines 229-31: Ad hoc tendunt illi qui laborant pro unione, quod
non auferatur sed reformetur et reparetur hoc privilegium. Sed hoc impe-
diunt huiusmodi contendentes et viam cessionis impedientes per quam cer-
tissime potest hec unio et hoc privilegium reparari et conservari. Ideo sic
impedientes pocius labuntur in heresim qui propter propria commoda hoc
facere pretermittunt.
fol. 84v, to lines 252-53: Hunc articulum videntur offendere de papatu
contendentes, qui tarn diu et tarn obstinate, et tociens moniti, unitatem sancte
 The Marginalia in A 217

apostolice ecclesie procurare non curant, vel pocius dare, cum per cessionem
hoc sit in sua potestate. Divisionem tamen ecclesie sustinent obstinate, sed
illi qui unionem ecclesie prosecuntur, amplectentes viam cessionis per quam
clare et cito unio sancte et apostolice ecclesie potest obtineri, huic articulo
devote obsecuntur, et devocione ac fervore fidei prosecuntur effectum huius
vie, ut possit ille fidei articulus deduci ad effectum quo ad omnes.
fol. 85r, to lines 259-61: Ad hoc tendunt omnes qui viam cessionis prose-
cuntur, nam istis temporibus stare firmiter in obediencia alterius contenden-
cium de papatu est impedire et retardare ne unicus superior habeatur, quod
clare deducitur ex textu et racione c. Si duo contra fas, Ixxix. di.
fol. 85r, to lines 276-77: Huiusmodi ierarchie reformacio et reparacio cum
omni devocione et diligencia expetitur, sed nolunt qui viam cessionis impe-
diunt. Unde si quelibet obediencia stet fixa in obediencia sui pape, scisma
firmatur omnino, sicut de Grecia est visum. Sed per viam cessionis ad pacem
omnia et debitum ordinem reducuntur indubie.
fol. 85r, to lines 301-02: Circa ista possent aliqua diffuse dici, sed in quantum
tangit factum ecclesiastice unionis, non oportet respondere, quia de auctori-
tate pape vel potestate unici vicarii Ihesu Cristi non agitur, nee est cuius
intencio contradicere eius potestati, sed earn pocius fovere. Nam per scisma
quod habemus, multipliciter contempnitur hec potestas.
fol. 85v, to line 324: Ad tollendum hec duo capita tendunt, qui viam cessionis
amplectuntur; sed ea fovent qui impediunt istam viam.
fol. 86r, to lines 357-58: Non debet obedire in eo in quo sunt discoli, sicut
esset in casu nostro, quia scisma foveretur. Nam magis oportet obedire deo
quam hominibus—xi. q. iii., c. Si dominus, cum similibus. Item quando hoc
faciendo esset periculum vel gravamen status ecclesie, non oportet obedire,
per ilia que primo dixi. Item ilia auctoritas primi Petri, 2° c, loquitur de
principibus qui erant infideles, quibus apostolus dicebat in temporalibus obe-
diri licet discolis, etc., et sic non est ad propositum.
fol. 86r, to line 367: Quamdiu remanet tale dubium forte non liceret, sed
advertendum est quod super hoc dubio servatum est illud quod dicit canon,
scilicet quod in dubio primo sunt congregandi seniores, etc.—c. De quibus,
xx. di.; c. In canonids, xix. di. Et est repertum cum tali solemnitate sicut
deus scit, et tociens, quod via cessionis est melior, ymo sola. Restat igitur
quod a principibus post concilium sacerdotum exequenda, ut c. Nolite, xi.
q. iii.: "Sicut sacerdos debitor est" etc., ut ibi. Item dici potest quod attenta
involucione et difficultate dubii de iure alterutrius, de cuius decisione non
habet aliquis fiduciam nee causam hoc sperandi, cessio est necessaria pro
salubri remedio et pro tollendo scandalo, et hoc est ita notum et clarum, ymo
satis notorium cuilibet bene intuenti, quod non debet hoc dubium reputari,
et sic cessat argumentum.
218 Appendix I

fol. 86r, to lines 371-73: Scilicet sub certo modo et indubitato. Hie autem,
licet aliqui credant certum, si queritur in obediencia alterutrius, remanserunt
tamen, et ipsimet sciunt quod habendo respectum ad ecclesiam universalem,
est incertum, nee ipsimet hoc ignorant. Sic non obstat ilia nota.
fol. 86r, to line 376: Dicitur ibi in effectu quod cessio araborum non sufficeret
nisi aliud diceretur. Et hoc est verum, nee est contra intencionem parisiensis
universitatis de via cessionis; que licet in epistola non intersit practica, tamen
quicunque sane intelligens debuit supplere ut sit sensus, quod via cessionis
practicata eo modo quo fuit alias advisatum, ut sic habeat ingressum, pro-
gressum, et egressum effectualem, quod importat provisionem unius indu-
bitati pastoris, est melior, etc. Et hoc sic intelligendo non impugnatur in
epistola oxoniensi, nee per aliquem alium ut creditur posset racionabiliter
impugnari concordia de oxoniensi ad parisiensem. Vide infra, parte ultima
tractatus G. Ornacensis prepositi.
fol. 86v, to lines 410-11: Ex allegatis pro substraccione apparet difficultas,
ymo impossibilitas huius remedii quod ordinarium dicunt. Ex quibus apparet
quod huic remedio, omnibus attentis, locus non est, et sic non obstat. Item
quando pinguius providetur ecclesie per extraordinarium, sicut in casu nos-
tro, rebus circumstancionatis ut sunt, tune non est ordinarium remedium
capiendum. Notat glosa c. Cupientes, § Denique, De elecdone, super verbo
"a gracia," in fine.
fol. 86v, to lines 422-24: Non obstat, quia ad eius requestam pro parte regis
nunciis seu legatis solemnissimis missis, eum de via cessionis requirentibus,
hoc non dixit, nee eciam cuiquam bullam aut certificacionem competentem
tradidit, sed sub bulla earn quasi non iuridicam refutavit. Et sic nulla erat
spes quod per earn procederet. Preterea, sic loqui, "faciam pacem" etc., nimis
generale et confuse dictum est, et sophisma videtur ad papatum semper
retinendum et ad differendum ecclesie unionem, et nos verbis pagare. Pre-
terea quis princeps sub tali generalitate vellet exponere se et sua ad laboran-
dum per hanc viam, de cuius effectum nichil bonum potest presumi?
fol. 86v, to lines 436-39: Hec racio non obstat, quia stat quod aliquis sin-
gularis habet conscienciam de aliquo, et tamen iudex ad quern spectat in illo
casu providere ad illud compellet eundem, et tamen sancte et iuste, iuxta c.
Inquisicioni, De sentencia excommunicacionis; De restitucione spoliato-
rum, Litteras. Sed est verum ibi quod in hoc casu nostro non debent aliqui
singulares ita esse obstinati quin ad dictum sapientum deponant scrupulum
si habeant, quia in facto alieno non possunt esse ita certi quod debeant in
tali obstinacione permanere. Et si qui essent, non debet propter eos obmitti
quin hoc fiat. Et bona intencione fit, scilicet ad finem pacis habende; debent
igitur remorsum deponere si habeant. Facit 2* ad Cor. 4°: "Captivantes om-
nem intellectum in obsequium Cristi," sicut notat Astensis, libro ii°, titulo De
bonitate et malicia interioris actus. Quod autem maxime hoc tempore in
 The Marginalia in A 219

defectu ecclesie et in casu tante necessitatis spectet [!] providere, alibi ple-
nissime est probatum.
fol. 86v, to lines 446-49: Licet per metum eleccio facta non valeat, tamen
potest fieri de iure coaccio ut papa unicus habeatur, ut in c. Ubi mains et
Clem. Ne Romani, § Porro. Coaccio autem ad viam cessionis fit ad haben-
dum unicum seu unionem in ecclesia, que aliter videtur haberi non posse,
quare etc. Item ad tollendum scandalum, ex quo potest ecclesie salus in manu
alterius procurari, debet prelatus cedere iuxta c. Nisi cum pridem, iuxta
verba Augustini, et alia ad id . . . [sic]; quod si non faciat debet cogi, ut notat
Innocencius in dicto c. Nisi. Cum racio in iure divino fundata est, et sic
papam attingit, quare etc.? Ad hoc xxiii. q. iiii., Qui peccat. Et alibi: "Putas
neminem cogi debere ad iusticiam?" c. Nimium, xxiii. q. iiii.; c. Displicet,
eadem causa et questione. Item multum subest inferendi metum vel coac-
cionem ad cedendurn, et sic non debet conqueri qui cogitur, 1. Si mulier, ff.
Quod metus causa. Facit [Ipsa] pietas per totum, xxiii. q. iiii. Facit illud:
"Da occasionem sapienti et sapiencior erit." Et quod predicta habeant locum
in papa patet per c. Sicut, xcvi. di., cum glosa.
fol. 87r, to lines 459 ff.: Hoc non procedit ubi notorie offendit ecclesiam vel
statum ecclesie; ymo eciam in alienacione rei ecclesie posset sibi dici, "Cur
ita facis?"—ut c. Cum non liceat, sepius allegatum. Item hoc non procedit
ubi contra consilium fratrum, scilicet cardinalium, aliquid facit voluntarie,
maxime in arduis: notat glosa, c. Super eo, De hereticis, in Sexto; et Henricus,
c. Antiqua, De pritnlegiis, di. ii. Item si hoc procederet in papa indubitato
unico, tamen aliud est in papa dubitato, quando scilicet duo volunt sic reti-
nere papatum, de quorum quolibet est dubium probabile toti mundo, et circa
ilia que faciunt ad tollendum hoc dubium. Quia hoc econtra [?] potest dici,
prius esse declarandum an sit papa. Item illud quod dicitur, "Cur ita facis?"
etc., non reperitur dictum de papa sed de deo, lob ix° c, § Quamvis, De
penitencia, di. iii., licet aliquociens similitudinarie per aliquos doctores in-
ducatur de papa. Sed non artat talis argumentacio quod oporteat habere
locum in persona pape, qui sepe fallit et fallitur, per iura supradicta.
fol. 87r, to lines 489-92: Ymo dicendum est contrarium, quia in hoc pape
non esset obediendum, ut supra dictum fuit. Quod autem in ista racione
dicitur procedit in duobus (precipientibus) aliqua de se licita [ms.: -tis] et
que spectant ad officium precipientis: tune magis pape obediendum esset
quam regi; sed non tangit casum nostrum, quia unus licitum, alter illicitum
preciperet, quare etc.
fol. 87r, to lines 501-02 (?): Sibi opponeretur, ultra hie scripta, quod non
licet in hoc declaracionem facere, quia tangit papam, de quo nullus debet
iudicare, ix. q. iii., Nemo; lxxix. di., Eieccionem, cum similibus videtur obsta-
re. Quia aliud est se informare ad sui certificacionem et avisamentum, quid
agendum in aliquo negocio pro salute sua et pro consciencia, et illud sequi
220 Appendix I

quod per consilium reperitur esse faciendum, sibi ipsi consulendo—sicut est
factum per regem et prelatos in istis conciliis, concludendo eciam pro sub-
straccione, ne coinquinemur in seismate; et hoc licet, ar. De rescriptis, c.
Cum contingat, in fine. Et aliud per modum iurisdiccionis et auctoritatis
decernere papam esse privandum et similia; quia non licet, ut c. Nemo
allegato. Sed maxime procedit hoc in casu scismatis: ar. illius quod notat glosa
c. Cum non liceat, De prescripcionibus, in principio.
fol. 87r, to lines 501-03: Verum potest esse de unico; hie autem de origine
agitur et sic viciosus ortus occidit obedienciam ubi fovemus eum in seismate
et status retencione, cum scandalo ecclesie et ad impedimentum et tardaci-
onem unionis optate. Item aliud est recedere ab obediencia alicuius prelati
tanquam indigni propter aliquid peccatum non transcendens personam, ut
homicidium et similia, ut generaliter quando per eum alii non coinquinantur.
Ex illo sic procedit c. Nonne, et non licet ante sentenciam. Sed aliud est
quando eontinuando obedienciam faveo in seismate et sic in eo quod malus
est, scilicet in retinendo papatum. Quia sic obediendo male f acio. Ut in simili
notat Hostiensis, c. Tua nobis, De decimis, § Pretextu, de illo qui solvit iura
parrochialia curato suo quern scit symoniacum, quia non tenetur. Facit quia
in seismate non habet locum c. Nonne, notat glosa, c. Cum non liceat, De
prescripcionibus. Ideo tune debeo eum statim fugere sicut lupum. Item c.
Nonne loquitur quando pro dubia suspicione aliquis recedit a prelato, ut ibi
dicit textus. Secus si pro certa aut vehementi suspicione aut manifesta, sicut
est in casu nostro, prout ex factis constitit et notorie constat, maxime in casu
tangente heresim vel statum tocius ecclesie, sicut sumus. Item si ageretur hie
de correlariis que possunt inferri contra dampnatum, ut quod bona sint con-
fiscata et similia, hab(er)et locum contrarium; sed hie agitur de substraccione
que fit ex causa respectu ad ilium qui facit, scilicet quia sine preiudicio salutis
anime non potest cum tali communicare, sicut dicimus quod heretico eciam
ante sentenciam non est favendum—c. Adversus, De hereticis—quia cum eo
inquinaremur et foveremus in malo, licet in aliis non habebo eum pro con-
dempnato ante sentenciam—c. Cum secundum, De hereticis, in Sexto. Sed
in casu nostro non possum obedire in aliquo ut pape quin faveam scismati
in casu quo sumus, attenta diuturnitate scismatis et obstinacione contenden-
cium; et sic in fide offenderem articulum "Unam sanctam" etc. Item licet de
papa suspecto de aliqua heresi non liceat recedere ante sentenciam, etc., iuxta
§ Hinc eciam, aliter verum est in aliis: sed in illo de quo suspectus est, non
debeo favere aut communicare cum eo, iuxta c. Si adversus, allegato. Et sicut
Paulus restitit, etc. In casu autem nostro, sibi obediendo in aliquo commu-
nicaremus cum eo in eo in quo suspectus est, scilicet in seismate fovendo.
Item in contrario.apparet quod quo ad ecclesiam et homines, ille Symachus
papa repertus est immunis ab impositis; ideo soli deo, quia secretum, relin-
quebatur causa sua, ut ibi; nee debuerunt clerici ab eo recedere qui non
apparebat culpabilis nee suspectus, sed solum erat accusatus. Hie autem secus,
 The Marginalia in A 221

quia suspectum et obstinatum se ostendit manifeste, quod ex relacione fac-

torum declaratum fuit in concilio satis ad plenum.
fol. 87r, to "Ymo intruso .. ." (see apparatus to line 638): Hoc potest pro-
cedere ubi salva consciencia ei obedire potest, quia factum suum non con-
taminat sibi obedientes. Secus in casu nostro, attento scismate in quo sumus
et eius duracione et aliis considerandis, quia salva consciencia amplius obe-
dire non possemus. Nee est voluntarie adinventum, sed cum bonis racionibus
et pluribus communicatis consiliis prelatorum ecclesie gallicane reperitur ita
esse. Nee est simile quando aliqui privati vel sine tanto consilio voluntarie
recederent a prelato tolerato, quod non licet secundum opinionem Innocencii
hie allegatam. Facit c. De quibus, xx. di. Et quo ad personam privatam vel
singularem, non est scandalum tale si obediret, nee ita fovetur scisma, sicut
esset per obedienciam regni vel patrie.
fol. 87v, to lines 514 ff.: Licet autem a principio forsitan bene fuerit actum,
attenta testificacione cardinalium, tamen ex quo nunc videmus per spacium
viginti [ms.: xx"] annorum non profuisse, nee spes est de reduccione unius
obediencie ad aliam, non est in hoc statu diucius insistendum si caritatem
aliquam habeamus. Nam et alma mater ecclesia nonnulla racionabiliter or-
dinat, que postmodum revocat vel commutat in melius, etc.—c. Alma mater,
De sentenda excommunicacionis, in Sexto. Et imperator eligit se pocius
corrigi quam ab aliis corrigatur—Autentica De nupciis, § i., coll. iiii. Facit
dictum Augustini, De civitate dei libro: Si propterea quisque male agentibus
parcit, quia tempus opportunius inquirit, non est hec accio cupiditatis sed
consilium caritatis.
fol. 87v, to line 533: Non obstat, quia rex hoc faciendo non recedit a tramite
veritatis et procedit bono zelo. Ideo non curandum quid os loquatur loquen-
cium iniqua—c. Magne, De voto.
fol. 87v, to lines 545-47: Sic eciam nunquam fuit scisma simile, ut quod
haberet tale dubium et ita involutum. Et ultra in casu nostro iam sunt quasi
omnes promoti prelati per alter(utr)um, et sic sunt pars formata. Quis de
hoc iudicaret inter partes? Multe sunt circumstancie quibus ostenditur scisma
hoc esse aliis plurimum difficile [sic]. Item non oportet arguere exemplis sed
legibus—1. Non exemplis, C. De probacionibus; 1. Nemo, C. De sentenda
et intellecto omnium iudicum.
 Appendix' II
The Marginalia in C

As indicated above, p. 60, C contains marginal glosses that in some

cases develop the argument in the text, in other cases refute it. A selection
of the more interesting passages is offered here.

fol. 102v, to lines 654-57: Prima racio pro substraccione: quia non est obe-
diendum ubi est notorie scandalum ecclesie, periculum et subversio anima-
rum. [then, added later:] Ergo nee Simoni de Cremaut, qui adhuc peior est
quia [ms.: quam] hie falsa dicat contra papam.
fol. 103r, to lines 698-700: Ilia glosa dicit sic ad contextum . .. [the gloss is
quoted; see note 120, above]. Unde hec glosa tria requirit: criminis notorie-
tatem, persone incorrigibilitatem, et ecclesie scandalum; et tune dicit quod
potest attemptari.
fol. 103r, to line 701: Hie videtur facere differenciam inter papam et dominos
temporales, quasi innuat quod non esset idem in ipsis, et quod non tarn
faciliter essent etc. Videtur tamen glosa contraria in c. Si papa allegato, ubi
dicit sic ad contextum: "Sed pro quo peccato potest imperator deponi? Pro
quolibet si est incorrigibilis. Unde deponitur si est minus utilis. xv. q. vi.,
Alius." Ex quo patet quod peius est in dominio temporali; nam quod im-
perator inutilis deponitur, ut dicit glosa, sed papa inutilis non, ut eciam textus
in c. Si papa, in principio ibi, "reprehenditur inutilis et remissus"; secundo
quia in papa requiruntur tria secundum glosam dicti c. Si papa, et est dictum
supra in margine. Sed in imperatore non requiruntur tot, ut patet per glosam
allegatam.
fol. 103v, to line 751 ("Preterea"): ... et facit quod notatur in c. Cum
contingat... in fine prime glose, ubi videtur dicere quod quelibet notificacio
sufficit ut iudex dicatur dubius.
Ibid., line 756 ("dubium"): Contra tamen facit xi. q. iii., Non solum, ubi non
solum reus est qui falsum de aliquo profert, sed qui aurem cito criminibus
prebet. Quia non est malum facile credendum, lxxxvi. di., Si quid, maxime
per iudicem, ut ibi notatur....
fol. 104r, to line 766 ("remanere"): Sed advertendum, quia ilia glosa iuncta
cum textu videtur velle ante recepcionem alterius electorum. Dicit enim
textus sic.
222
 The Marginalia in C 223

fol. 104v, to lines 787-99: Ne contempnas cum senuerit mater tua—Prov.

xxiii. Unde Gregorius: Consentire videtur erranti qui ad resecanda que corrigi
debent non occurrit, in c. Consentire, lxxxiii. di.; facit xi. q. iii., Qui consen-
tit. Unde Anacletus papa: Tam sacerdotes quam reliqui fideles omnes debent
habere curam de hiis qui pereunt, quatenus eorum redargucione aut corri-
gantur a peccatis, aut si incorrigibiles apparuerint, separarentur. [Then, on
"cesses"] Si dixeris vires non suppetunt, qui inspector est cordis ipse intelligit
[etc. Proy. 24.12]. . . . [Then, v. "Pasce"] Quisquis enim pascendo hominem
servare poteris, si non paveris occidisti. [Then, v. "facit"] Et Anastasius etc.:
Qui potest obviare et perturbare perversos et non facit, nichil aliud est quam
favere impietati eorum, nee caret scrupulo societatis occulte qui manifesto
etc., in c. Qui potest, xxiii. q. iii.; facit eciam bene Preterea, xxiii. q. viii.. ..
fol. 104v, to line 805 ("Quante"): Et ibi glosa bona que tenet quod prelati
et iudices etc. tenentur repellere iniuriam etc. si possunt etc. . ..
fol. 105r, to lines 812-17: Loquitur contra scismaticos ut patet ex principio
illius, ubi dicit quando vult deus citare potestates et adversus hereticos et
adversus scismaticos, adversus dissipatores ecclesie etc.
fol. 105r, to line 836 ("iura antiqua"): id est, secundum legem Iustiniani.
[Then line 837, "delinquentes"] Nisi esset crimen ecclesiasticum, quia tune
secundum canonem ab episcopo suo iudicantur, aliis iudicibus nullam com-
munionem in hiis causis habentibus, ut ibi.
fol. 105r, to lines 836-38: Idem notat glosa in c. Filiis hie allegato, ubi ad •
regem recurritur contra metropolitanum secundum glosam cum iudex eccle-
siasticus desit. Ad idem glosa in c. Nee licuit, xvii. di., . . . ubi dicit sic ad
contextum: "Habes hoc quod ubicunque defficit ecclesiastica potestas, semper
recurritur ad brachium seculare. . . . "
fol. 105r, to lines 857-59: Ad hoc facit textus loquens de scismatico, sic
dicens: "Si enim permanserit turbas faciens et sediciones ecclesie, per extra-
neam potestatem tanquam sediciosum comprimi," in c. Non vos, circa me-
dium, hie allegato.
fol. 105v, to lines 861-79: [a number of glosses summing up or quoting in
full the cited canons.]
fol. 107r, to lines 1064-67: Glosa ibi dicit sic ad contextum, super verbo "ad
ordinandum": "Sed quid si monachus factus sit papa invito abbate? Debet
redire; sic et ipsemet compellet se redire, quia cum teneatur de aliis etc."
fol. 107r, to lines 1099-1102: Propter scandalum sunt prelati criminosi et
infames removendi, quia scandalum est populo dei tales personas super se
positas habere, quas ultramodum viciosas esse constat. 1. di., c. De hiis vero.
fol. 109r, to lines 1200-01 ('precepto"): Et satis probat verbum cogitur ibi
positum.
 224 Appendix II

fol. 109r, to line 1220 ("summa"): E. q. [24. q. i.], c. Non afferamus, ubi
dicit "quod omne scisma habet heresim annexam, maxirae ex quo perseverat.
Unde non est differencia nisi sit circa principium" etc.
fol. 109r, to lines 1222-23 ("xndeatur"): Et ibi notat glosa quod non est
differencia nisi sicut inter disposicionem et habitam. Primo enim dicitur
scisma, sed cum post tempus pertinaciter adheserit secte sue, dicitur heresis.
Vel aliter, quod omnis hereticus est scismaticus, sed non econtra, et sic est
ilia differencia que inter genus et speciem.
fol. 109r, to line 1259 ("obediendum"): Nam prelatis hereticis non est obe-
diendum, ut notat glosa 2. q. 7, Sacerdotes, et probatur ibi in textu, eciam
ante sentenciam: ibi, "nisi a fide erraverint," et nota 24. q. 1, in summa. Ymo
est ab eis discedendum si in iam dampnatam heresim inciderunt, iuxta c.
Sane cum glosa 16. q. ult, et est speciale in tribus casibus quod ante senten-
ciam deposicionis recedatur, de quibus casibus heresis est unus, ut notatur 8.
q. 4, c. Nonne. Nee eciam dominis temporalibus, ut notat glosa 11. q. 3,
lulianus, et facit 15. q. 6, Nos sanctorum, et c. Iuratos, et textus expressus
in c. Absolutos, De hereticis, et quod ibi notatur. Nee eciam pape, ut pro-
batur 40. di., Si papa, ibi: "nisi a fide sit devius." Ymo potest ab eo recedi si
incidit in dampnatam heresim eciam ante sentenciam, iuxta c. Anastasius,
19. di., et quod ibi notatur in prima glosa. Nam minor est quocunque ca-
tholico in eo quod hereticus est: nota 24. q. 1, Achacius, lo. i. [le premier?].
Nee eciam patri, natn filiusfamilie liberatur a potestate patris si sit hereticus
. pater, eciam antequam per ecclesiam sit declaratum, in c. ii., § finali, cum
glosa Io. An., De hereticis, Libro sexto.
fol. 109v, to lines 1314-18: Licet male faciat in hoc, propter hoc non debet
denegari prelato obediencia, sed debet prelatus cogi per superiorem: nota.
glosa, 95. di., Esto subiectus, super verbo "deseratur."
fol. 109v, to ca. line 1335: Libertatem namque quam sibi maiores conservare
desiderant, minoribus suis conservare debent, in c. Prohibemus, De censibus.
fol. 109v, to line 1372 ("Ilia"): Ubi dicitur, "Ilia prepositorum sollicitudo
laudabilis est utilis [?; et?] ilia cauthela laudabilis, in qua totum racio agit et
furor sibi nil vendicat; restringenda est sub racione potestas" etc.
fol. 108r, to lines 1411-12 ("unus ... curatur"): Sed sentencia intrusi nullo
modo ligat. Et sic propter illam non debet dici suspectus in fide, nee de hoc
apud ipsum deum [?] et suam obedienciam est dubium, et si secus esset, nos
essemus pariter suspecti, et maxime domini cardinales qui per processum
intrusi sunt anathematizati etc. et sic heretici etc. Unde non militat dicta
racio.
fol. 108r, to line 1422 ("omnibus"): Eciam in subditis, ut prelatos correccione
caritatis corrigant, ut patet per sanctum Thomam, iia. iie. q. 33, et 2. q. 7,
per totum [?], licet glosa videatur contra, 2. q. 1, Si peccaverit; Hug. tamen
 The Marginalia in C 225

pro, ut ibi. Secundum quod ad omnes videtur opinio Bernardi in c. Novit,

De iudiciis, et videtur Innoc. in c. In omni, De testibus, ubi glosa aliter dicit;
et Ioh. Mon. in c. i., De religiosis domibus, Libro sexto.
fol. 108v, to line 1495 ("papam"): Pro hac opinione videtur glosa 9. q. 3, c.
Nemo, ibi: Item cum papa peccat etc.
Ibid., line 1499 ("in papa"): Hoc eciam videtur innuere glosa c. Si papa.
fol. 108v, to line 1510 ("dispensator"): Et tamen multo facilius deponi debet
et potest quilibet dominus temporalis quam papa, ut patet ex notatis per
Iohannem Andree in c. i., De renundacione, Libro sexto, super verbo "in-
sufficientem," et supra dictum est.
fol. llOr, to lines 1564-66: Ilia glosa non dicit de statu universalis ecclesie,
saltern in libro meo, sed de articulis fidei, nee dicit clare quod subsit consilio,
sed quod non potest destruere statuta consiliorum circa articulos fidei. Unde
glosa dicit sic: "Videtur quod papa non possit destruere statuta" etc. Sed in
c. Anastasius, 19. di., loquitur clarius dicens sic: "quod papa tenetur requi-
rere consilium episcoporum, quod verum est ubi de fide agitur, et tune sy-
nodus maior est papa, ut 15. di., Sicut sancti," et probatur 21. di., § Nunc
autem in textu ibi: "collecto universorum concilio," et 2. q. 7, § Item cum
Balaam, in fine, ubi "Item Symachus" ibi "in Romana synodo." Et glosa ad
hoc clarius dicit, 2. q. 7, Sicut inquit laudabile, super verbo "hortamur" circa
medium, ubi dicit, "quod consilium iudicat de papa in hiis in quibus ipse
potest iudicari." Et Archidiaconus in c. In fidei favor em, De hereticis, Libro
sexto; et pro hoc bene facit 17. di., § Hinc autem, ibi: "ut sanctum consi-
lium." Glosa eciam 9. q. 3, c. Nemo, satis dicit quod in causa heresis potest
papa iudicari, non dicit per quern, nisi colligatur ex glosa finali, que dubie
loquitur. Sed in istis nichil tangitur quantum ad statum universalis ecclesie,
ut in hiis subsit. Sed bene dicitur alibi quod papa non potest ilia per que
turbaret universalem ecclesiam. Unde dicit glosa, 9. q. 3, c. Per principalem,
in fine: "quod papa non potest omnes episcopos deponere quia sic universa-
lem ecclesiam turbaret." Ad idem glosa in c. Si papa, in fine, ubi dicit: "Item
nunquid papa posset statuere quod non posset accusari de heresi? Responsio:
non, quia ex hoc periclitaretur tota ecclesia." Ad idem 25. q. 1, c. Que ad
perpetuam, ubi dicit glosa: "quod papa non potest contra generalem statum
ecclesie dispensare, nee contra articulos fidei" etc. Sed glosa aliter loquitur
in c. Sunt quidam, 25. q. 1, in fine, ubi dicit: "Quidquid dicat Iohannes,
quandoque papa dispensat contra generalem statum ecclesie, sicut fecit In-
nocencius in c. Non debet, De consanguinitate et affinitate, licet contra
articulos fidei non dispensed"

fol. llOv, to lines 1576 ff.: Multum obstat quia nullum ratum est consilium
aut erit unquam nisi fuerit auctoritate apostolice fulcitum, 17. di., Regula.
Unde non consilium sed consiliabulum vel conventiculum dicitur, et cassatur
quidquid etc., 17. di., Multis. Et licet aliqua consilia fuerint sine romani
 226 Appendix II

pontificis auctoritate celebrata, tamen non valent nisi quia post fuerunt per
ipsum confirmata. Que autem generaliter vel specialiter confirmata non fu-
erunt, valitudinem amiserunt, ut patet in c. Consilium in principio eiusdem
di. Unde per ipsum debuit primo convocari, ut patet in § Hinc eciam, eius-
dem di., et per Gracianum in principio di., allegate. Ab apostolis enim et
eorum successores videtur hoc statutum: non licere preter sentenciam romani
pontificis consilium celebrari, ut habetur 3. q. 6, c. Dudum. Et licet ad
mandatum regis venire deberent, et venerint et potuerint celebrare consilium
sicut si essent in suis provinciis, videtur tamen quod de tam arduo negocio
nichil potuerunt per modum constitucionis diffinire, ut patet 18. di., in prin-
cipio, et in glosa ibi, et notata 4. di., Porro, et sic posset dicere aliquis quod
per modum consultacionis potuerunt sic dicere, sed non per modum consti-
tucionis aut diffinicionis. Et adhuc licet diceretur quod potuerunt diffinire
hoc et constituere, tamen non potuerunt per hoc legem imponere pape, iuxta
c. Significasti, extra De eleccione, et 25. q. 1, § Hiis ita respondetur in
principio et circa medium, ibi: "quanquam" etc., et ibi: "unde in nonnullis
capitulis."
fol. llOv, to line 1596 ("sibi"): Utrum hoc sufficiat ad firmandum auctori-
tatem consilii!
fol. llOv, to line 1622 ("Francie"): Ex hoc videtur quod non potest dici
unum et idem consilium Francie et post Hyspanie.
fol. lllr, to lines 1650-51: In consilio generali non attenditur numerus pre-
sencium sed quod omnes sint mandati vel moniti generaliter venire; licet non
veniant, in presentibus residet potestas ecclesie et dicitur ibi esse ecclesia
universalis. Ar. c. Cum nobis olim, cum glosa, et c. Quod sicut, circa me-
dium, et c. Ecclesia, lo i. in prin. De eleccione.
fol. lllr, to line 1659 ("Si quis"): Istud bene faceret si convocati in consilio
Parisius non determinassent aliquid quousque audita opinione aliorum, sed
per se diffiniverunt, et sic consilium eorum fuit in se perfectum etc.—pro
quo finis dicti c. Si quis. Et secutum fuit consilium Yspanie, et sic est aliud
consilium. Non enim voces eorum tanquam plurium admittuntur quos tem-
porum diversitas simul interfuisse prohibuit, ut dicit textus 3. q. 9, Nichilo-
minus, et ad hoc facit 1. Si unus, C. De testamentis; nam diversitas temporis
et personarum consistencium et presidencium et convocancium probant non
esse unum et idem consilium, sed diversa. Sed alias: Ubi est idemptitas in
persona quamvis diversitas in tempore censeatur idem consilium, ut nota 16.
di., c. Habeo librum, in glosa finali. Et oportet dicere quod sunt duo consilia
licet idem concludencia, et neutrum fuit generale ecclesie sed solum unius
regni, nee ex supervenientibus aliorum consensibus potest primum consilium
dici generale ecclesie, nee nova species sibi daret nisi id quod prius.
fol. lllv, to line 1716 ("presentibus nunciis suis"): Hoc non sufficeret, quia
requiritur quod habeant speciale mandatum ad hoc. .. .
 The Marginalia in C 227

fol. lllv, to line 1719 ("necessarium"): Ymo videtur tune plus necessarium
ex natura cause, que ad sedem apostolicam debet deferri, 24. q. 1, Quociens.
Alioquin esset durum et magnum periculum si in causa tangente universalem
ecclesiam et salutem eciam, unum solum regnum posset diffinire.
fol. lllv, to line 1723 ("multa"): Et ilia non videntur nisi prius confirmata
per sedem.
fol. lllv, to line 1731: In hoc est advertendum quia valent quod si non
prestiterunt eis obedienciam, licite poterunt convocare consilium.
fol. lllv, to line 1742 ("pape"): Ymo consilio.
fol. 112r, to lines 1746-54: Ubi sunt ut universi vel ut collegium, et super re
necessaria vel utili. Secus si ut singuli, ut notatur in dicto c. Cum omnes.
fol. 116r, to line 1943 ("negligencia"): .. . nee est sine culpa qui desidem et
negligentem obiurgare et cohercere differt, 84. di., Pervenit, circa medium;
et propter negligenciam quis deponitur, 81. di. c. Dictum cum ibi nota. in
glosa prima.
fol. 126v, to line 2614 ("cogi"): Pro hoc facit quia adicio hereditatis debet
esse libera, alias non valet . . . [civil-law citations] . . . , et tamen recusans
adire in dampnum alterius cogitur adire . .. [more such citations, supporting
the argument in the text]....
 Appendix III
The Marginalia in F

Although evidently originating as a clear copy of G, to be sent abroad,

ms. F has a few marginalia in what is otherwise a remarkably clean set of
margins. Apart from a few rubrics and corrections, there are four of these
additions which deserve notice, since they support or fit in with the argument
of the treatise, and may therefore be the work of Simon de Cramaud or
someone in his secretariat. The hand seems to be the same as that of the
rubricator, different from that of the text and corrector—but these are the
impressions of a non-expert, working with a microfilm. There are defects
due to trimming.

p. 64 (of F), to lines 1801-04: Septa [sic] Machameti fuit introducta tempore
pape Honorii primi, anno domini dcli°, et Eraclii imperatoris circa finem vite
sue. Et causa istius erroris fuit tirannia dicti imperatoris, quia habita victoria
de Persis, nimis premebat eos et regiones vicinas ut Arabes, Caldeos, et alios
confines Persis; quod fuit materia scismatis inter Latinos et Grecos, et eccle-
siam romanam et constantinopolitanam. Assumpta occasione rebellandi,
assu(mpse)runt occasionem divini cultus di<ver)si, ad nunquam obediendum.
Idem(f)ecerunt Greci ad nunquam obediendum (rom)ane ecclesie, quia di-
versum ritum (in)ceperunt in ecclesia ministrandi et (in) diversos prolapsi
sunt errores. (Unde) ex turbacione [?] cum imperio inchoata (est) et ista secta
Machometi, et rebellio perseveraret, fecerunt (sc)isma, ut non solum
recederent (ab) imperio sed a cristianismo. Et quidam Sergius monachus
nestorianus fuit acceptus multum Machometo—et illius secte Nestorii habent
multa monasteria Sarraceni. Tirannicus autem principatus Eraclii fuit causa
huius erroris et secte. Machometus autem de Arabia dedit eis legem (et?)
Alchoranum; ipsi vero devastando Siriam, post Egiptum, deinde Affricam,
post (His)paniam, omnes neci dabant qui (re)cusabant legem recipere Ma-
cho(m)eti. Et sic introducta fuit di(cta) secta, secundum Tholomeum de
Leuca post alios, libro xii°, c. i., ii., et iii.
p. 68 (of F), to lines 1997 ff.: Item quod pro iusta causa posset clerus se
subtrahere a pape obediencia et communione, facit c. Anastasius, xix. di.,
ubi clerus—scilicet episcopi, presbiteri, diaconi, et alii clerici—tempore
Theodorici regis Gothorum se separaverunt ab Anastasio papa secundo, qui
communicavit Fotino diacono thessalonicensi sine consilio eorum. Cum ergo
inpresenciarum sit eadem vel maior causa, videtur quod liceat ecclesie se
subtrahere ab obediencia domini Benedicti.

228
 The Marginalia in F 229

p. 80 (of F), to lines 2332-36: (Secundum) beatum Bernardum in materia

scis(ma)tis inter Innocencium II. et Petrum (Leon)is, in epistola ad Gerar-
dum (eng)olismensem et ceteros episcopos (Aqui)tanie, convocacio consilii
debuit fieri a principio, alias magis fieret ad (disce)ptandum quam
ad concor(dan)dum.
p. 81 (of F), to line 2342 (after "audivi"): Et ad vincendum Greco(s) per
maiorem numerum.
 Appendix IV
Simon de Cramaud: Pro via cessionis

[Statement in preliminary debate of the First Paris Council, ca. 1 February

1395; the only known copy of the report is in ASV Arm. 54, t. 21, fol. 61rv.]

Ista sunt tacta per Patriarcham

Primo, c. Si duo, 79. di.,1 induco modo quo sequitur; et si dicatur quod
non contra fas dominus noster est electus, maior pars cristianitatis tenet con-
tra, ex quo quilibet pro rebus debet habere dubium quia non debet inniti
prudencie sue; et per consequens debet eligere viam cessionis in qua nullum
est periculum anime, et in retinendo est maximum, per c. Significasti, De
homicidio.2 Confirmatur quia si vellet ecclesiam dei sic dividi, deberet ab
ipso auferri, per c. Afferte, De preswnpcionibus.*
Item, supposito periculo animarum quod imminet hominibus propter
scisma, sequitur quod secundum debitum caritatis per quod quis tenetur
diligere proximum sicut se ipsum, si non faciat ad sedandum scisma quod
potest, facit contra debitum caritatis, iuxta dictum Augustini qui ponit quod
"qui desinit obviare cum potest, consentit," 23. q. 3, c. finali [Ostendit], cum
multis similibus.4 Et alibi Augustinus: Ubi non est caritas non est iusticia,
quam si scismatici haberent, ecclesiam que corpus Cristi est non dilaniarent—
24. q. 1, Ubi.5 Et inde Beda super Marcum: "qui precepta caritatis spernit,
deum qui caritas est ut Iudas prodit," 11. q. 3, Abiit.6
Item episcopus propter obstinanciam subditorum compellitur cedere, per

[Since almost all the canonistic authorities do duty again in Simon's treatise De sub-
straccione, the indices to that work can serve here as well, to locate references to and
quotations from a given authority. The following footnotes are chiefly cross-references
to the treatise and its notes, as a matter of convenience. See SdeC, pp. 116 ff., for the
context.]
1
Annotations, n. 159, above. Since Si duo is not given much play here, the "modo
quo sequitur" may refer to an unreported segment of the speech.
2
Annotations, n. 211, above.
3
Annotations, n. 113, above.
4
Treatise, lines 794 ff., above.
5
Not in the treatise; 24. q. 1, c. 29, where the syntax shows that "quam" refers
to "caritas"/"dilectio"; Simon's "scismatici" replaces "heretici"—or, in the Editio
romana, nothing.
6
Not in the treatise; 11. q. 3, c. 83. Simon's quote is free but just.
230
 Pro via cessionis 231

c. Mutaciones, 7. q. I.7 Faciunt que notantur in c. Nisi cum pridem.8 Et

racio: quia utilitas publica prefertur private; et debet fieri episcopus non ut
presit sed ut prosit, ut ait Augustinus in c. Qui episcopatum, 8. q. I.9 Ergo
idem de episcopo romano, licet non sit subiectus iuri positivo, quia preceptum
iuris divini habet: "Patere legem quam ipse tuleris," ut ponit Archidiaconus
in c. 1. [Omnes leges], 1. di.10 Quod si non faceret videretur esse proceden-
dum, quia non habet superiorem, contra ipsum de facto tanquam contra
ilium qui se intrudit in papatum, videlicet per viam resistencie, per c. Si quis
pecunia et c. In nomine domini, et notata Innocencii in c. Licet de vdtanda,
et c. Patet, 3. q. I.11 Maxime quia papamet fatetur, ubi facit contra iura se
esse erroris magistrum non veritatis discipulum, ideo se alias submisso iudicio
legatorum regis Francie—in c. Nos si incompetenter, 2. q. 7.12 Ymo principes
catholici qui ecclesiam tuendam a domino receperunt etc. deberent ipsum
compellere, per c. Principes, 23. q. 5, quod fuit Ysidori13—attento quod ista
parificantur: male inchoare et male retinere, in c. Sepe contingit, De resti-
tucione spoliatorurn.14
Item debet cedere cedula, si videatur regi et consilio melius expedire,
quia videtur iurasse,15 et "os cum mentitur occidit animam," 22. q. 1. Iura.16
Et tenetur rex eum ad hoc compellere quia ut ait Gregorius, "Consentire
videtur erranti qui ad ea que corrigi possunt debite non occurrit," et "Negli-
gere quippe cum possis disturbare perversos nichil aliud est quam fovere,
nee caret scrupulo societatis occulte qui manifesto facinori desinit obviare"—
83. di., c. 1., 2., et 3. [Si quis episcopus, Nemo quippe, Error].17 Et quamvis
in modo compellendi non sit insistendum, per motiva magistri Egidii, tamen
per nos attenta materia est regi publice consulendum, et per regem domino
nostro insinuandum; quia ut ait Augustinus, "Qui veritatem celat iram dei

7
Annotations, nn. 184, 222; cf. n. 8, below.
8
Annotations, n. 173, above. In the treatise this canon is given pride of place
(and rightly) for the point made here, with Mutaciones reduced to mere confirmation.
See also Annotations, n. 398, above, for the immediately following "racio" about
public utility.
'Treatise, line 1104, above.
10
Annotations, nn. 228, 229, above (the quote "Patere . . . " comes from Innocent
Ill's decretal Cum omnes).
11
Annotations, nn. 162, 168, above.
12
Annotations, n. 76, above.
ia
Treatise, line 840, above.
14
Treatise, lines 1189-90, above; Annotations, n. 202, above.
15
Reference is to the (false) text of the cedula conclavis, the oath sworn by the
cardinals before the election of Benedict XIII, and then by him as pope, to pursue
union by all means including abdication, should that seem advisable to the cardinals
at the time, with (in the false text) the counsel of the King of France. See SdeC, p.
114.
16
Correctly 22. q. 2, c. 17 (Si quis); the quote is originally from Sap. 1.11.
17
The quotes are from Dist. 83, c. 5 (Consentire) and c. 3 (Error).
232 Appendix IV

super se provocat, quia magis timet hominem quam deum," etc.—11. q. 3.,
Quisquis;18 et scribitur, "Clama ne cesses et quasi tuba exalta vocem tuam,"
43. di., Si[t] rector.19 Ex quibus videtur dominum nostrum cedere debere et
nos eciam debere consulere, maxime quia via cessionis est habilior et con-
veniencior, ut per raciones per universitatem et alios dominos tactas apparet
manifeste.

18
Cf. treatise, lines 112-13, above; the quoted passage is not used in the treatise.
19
Treatise, lines 75-77, above.
 Appendix V
The Works of Simon de Cramaud

1. Statements in connection with the First Paris Council

a. Preliminary speech Pro via cessionis: "Ista sunt tacta per Patriar-
cham"
DATE ca. 1 February 1395. ATTRIBUTION in ms. & evident from
text. MS. ASV, Arm. 54, t. 21, fol. 61rv. PUBLISHED here.
b. Opinion at the Council: "Oppinio modica loquentis," with rubrics:
"Secuntur ilia que pro instruccionibus dominorum ducum . . . conclusa
et deliberata fuerunt" (ms. 1), "Opus unius magni prelati cui plus quam
tres partes prelatorum et aliorum vocatorum adheserunt" (ms. 2).
DATE between 2 February and 15 February 1395 (see AN, J 518,
fol. 127r). ATTRIBUTION clear from substance, and rubric 2 has
a notation at "prelati" in the hand of Martin de Salva, "creditur
quod Patriarcha." MSS. (1) AN, J 518, fols. 131r-133v, 125r-127r,
(2) ASV, Arm. 54, t. 21, fols. 51r-54r. PUBLISHED in RSD, 2:226-
44, probably from an exemplar of ms. 1, with variants. ABRIDGED
by Jean Canart at the Council for voting purposes, the text in J 518,
fols. 99v-100v, cf. 125r, and published in Ampl. coll., 7:462-63.
c. Instructions for ducal embassy to Avignon: "L'instruccion baillee par
le roy
DATE between 18 February 1395, the end of the Council, and the
departure of the embassy in the latter part of April. ATTRIBU-
TION—it is an amplified translation of item b above. MS. J 518,
fols. 83r-98r. PUBLISHED in Ampl. coll., 7:437-58.
2. Treatise, De substraccione obediencie, "Nunc reges intelligite"
DATE 1396/97. PUBLISHED here—see the Introduction.
3. Letter to the magistrates of Frankfurt, 21 July 1397
PUBLISHED by J. Weizsacker, Deutsche Reichstagsakten, 2 (Munich,
1874), 466-67, with date and attribution; also in Auctarium chartularii
Universitatis Parisiensis (cited above, Annotations, n. 218), 1:743 n. 1.
GIST—Simon requests lodging, etc. as a royal envoy to the Frankfurt
Diet of July 1397; cf. Valois, 3:126.
4. Letter to King Richard II of England, "Potens et indite rex!"
DATE 1397, from content and context. ATTRIBUTION—the language,
authorities, and autobiographical passages are typical for Simon; the
letter transmits a "libellus" whose description fits No. 2 above: "Et ego
. .. pro parte regis patris vestri regna diversa peragrando circa modum
prosequendi ad unionem ecclesie, diverse oppinantes audivi, . . . et au-
dita in libello quod de mandato regis sicut melius potui recollexi, que

233
234 Appendix V

vestre maiestati . . . mittere disposui." He admitted favoring the sub-

tractionist opinion: "dubius et anxius, ad partem . . . affirmativam . . . de
presenti magis inclinatus." Cf. Simon's description of his treatise in the
text. MS. J 518, fols. 303r-304r, with an incorrect rubric ("domino nostro
regi ).
5. Letter from King Charles VI to King Wenceslas IV of Bohemia and the
Empire, "Serenissimo ac illustrissimo principi Winceslao"
DATE 1397, before September, for the Schism has been going on "per
decem et novem annos" (fol. 289r). "Nos et reges ceteri catholici via
regia incedentes" (fol. 289r) may refer to the Anglo-French-Castilian
embassy of 1397 to the two popes. It was brought to Prague by a French
embassy, probably in August 1397, and Wenceslas sent a copy to the
Elector Palatine Ruprecht in December 1397 to justify the former's
meeting with Charles VI the following March—all this from F. M. Bartos,
techy v dobe Husove (Prague, 1947), pp. 151, 153. ATTRIBUTION—
most of the text is composed of material obviously taken from Simon's
treatise (No. 2 above); MS. J 518, fols. 289r-290v. PUBLISHED in Ampl.
coll., 7:622-25.
6. Glosses on "Fundamenta vie iusticie"
DATE in autumn 1397. The "Fundamenta" was written in the summer
of 1397 (Valois, 3:118 n. 1). There is a reference to the letter of the King
of Castile to the King of Aragon, 10 September 1397 (see Valois, 3:137),
and the terminus ante quern appears from the statement (fol. 341v) that
Boniface IX "is not yet known" to have rejected the via cessionis—he
did reject it in September 1397 when the Anglo-French-Castilian em-
bassy offered it to him, and this would have been known in Paris in
October. References to the Schism's having lasted "per xx. annos" (fols.
341v, 343r) mean only that the twentieth year was still going on (i.e.,
until September 1398). ATTRIBUTION—phrasing and arguments seem
unmistakably Simon's. MS. J 518, fols. 339r-344r. GIST— the glosses
refute the via iusticie favored by Benedict XIII.
7. Speeches at Third Paris Council
a. Speech of 22 May 1398 opening the Council
The first part survives in ASV, Arm. 54, t. 21, fols. 190r-191v; this
corresponds to the text printed in Ampl. coll., 7:712-14C, from
another ms.; ibid.: 714-17 contain added material perhaps intro-
duced at various points in the speech. Cf. the independent brief
summary in ALKG, 6:276 f. There are no problems of dating or
attribution.
b. Speech of 30 May 1398 replying to opponents
Included in the main report of the Council's proceedings, BN, ms.
lat. 14644, fols. 58r-61r, and published thence in BduC, pp. 20-28
(and thence in Mansi, 26:855-63); another report in ASV, Arm. 54,
t. 21, fols. 192r-196r, part of which Ampl coll., 7:717-19 pub-
 The Works of Simon de Cramaud 235

lishes a fuller text from another ms. Cf. the brief notice in ALKG,
6:284.
8. Letter to Cardinal Bertrand de Chanhac, 28 October 1398
DATE & ATTRIBUTION given in text. MS. ASV, Arm. 54, t. 33, fol.
49v. PUBLISHED in ALKG, 6:287 f. GIST—urges the cardinals to
begin working with Paris to implement the subtraction.
9. Letter from King Charles VI to the magistrates of Florence, 2 January
1399
DATE—the letter is dated 2 January; Valois, 3:290 gives the year, which
is clear enough from the content. ATTRIBUTION evident from style
and content. MS. J 518, fols. 304v-305v. PUBLISHED in Ampl. coll.,
7:627-29. GIST—a. request that Florence join France's effort to get all
major powers to subtract their obediences and attend an inter-obedience
council.
10. Treatise Ad ostendendum dare
DATE 1399/1400—marginal glosses are dated "Cologne, 25 May 1400"
(ms. 396, fol. lOr) and there is a reference in the text to 22 years of
schism {ibid., fol. lr), which would give a terminus a quo of ca. Septem-
ber 1399. ATTRIBUTION—the work consists mostly of portions of De
substr. (No. 2 above). MSS. (1) Erfurt, Wissenschaftliche Bibliothek,
Amplonianum 59, fols. 198r-220v, (2) ibid., fols. 221r-229v, (3) Ampl.
396, 10 fols. The second contains the whole work, the third has the whole
work with long hostile glosses, the first is a clear copy of most of the
third.
11. Glosses on the Allegaciones of Martin de Salva
DATE 1400—while the Allegaciones, justifying Benedict XIII's rejection
of the via cessionis in 1395, was written 1395/96 (Valois, 3:50; n. 70 to
the present edition of De substr.), the glosses refer to 22 years of schism
(fol. 45v), also to Richard II of England as "recently dead" (fol. 45r; the
news was known in France by the end of January 1400), and the sub-
traction of obedience by Liege of June 1399 (fol. 47v); see Valois, 3:76,
283-89. ATTRIBUTION unmistakable; ideas, language, arguments, au-
thorities, and biographical details are all Simon's. MS. BN, ms. lat. 1475,
fols. 33r-53r. GIST—a refutation of every argument for a via iusticie
and against the via cessionis.
12. Letter to the Archbishop of Canterbury
DATE about February 1401; see Valois, 3:298 n. 3. ATTRIBUTION—
Simon identifies himself in the text. MSS. (1) Rouen, ms. 1355, fols. 296r
ff., (2) BN, nouv. acquis. lat. 1793, fols. 161r ff. PUBLISHED in Thes.
nov., 2:1230-50 from ms. 1.
13. Letter to an English prelate (the Archbishop of Dublin?), "Excitemus
nos fratres"
DATE early 1401—this letter is related to No. 12; it asks the addressee
to get Henry IV to send English representatives to the Metz Diet set for
236 Appendix V

late June 1401: "Metis in festo beati Iohannis . . . conveniamus, . . . Vos

ergo pater, cum domino vestro quem deus multis virtutibus insignavit,
quantum efficacius poteritis laborare, ut ad predictam convencionem
veniant de Anglia prelati notabiles" (fol. 258v). There are also references
to 23 years of schism (fols. 252v, 254r). ATTRIBUTION given in a
rubric in the hand of Martin de Salva, "epistola patriarche nova seu sub
eius nomine publicata." The substance and language are characteristic
too. MS. ASV, Arm. 54, t. 21, fols. 252r-258v.
14. Letter to a cardinal, 6 June 1401
DATE in the text. ATTRIBUTION assigned in the rubric, "copia littere
misse per patriarcam uni domino cardinali," and confirmed by the con-
tents. MS. ASV, Arm. 54, t. 27, fol. 184rv. PUBLISHED in ALKG, 7:
155-58. GIST—information about various actions connected with the
coming Diet of Metz; refers to items 12 & 13 above.
15. Glosses on the anti-subtractionist letter of the University of Toulouse
DATE April/May 1402. The Toulouse letter was presented to Parlement
in mid-March 1402, and the glosses were written in the following month
according to their author's statement: "Ego inter doctores decretorum
Parisius minimus, statim predicta epistola domino nostro regi presentata,
posui manum ad calamum, et infra mensem a die presentacionis ipsam
sic glosatam sue magestati presentavi" (BN, ms. lat. 1573, fol. 37r; see
Valois, 3:260, 266—where however this item and the following one are
treated as anonymous). References to 24 years of schism (ms. 1, fol. 502r,
e. g.) fit in with this. ATTRIBUTION explicit in the superscription of
ms. 5 and in the table of contents of ms. l's codex; obvious too from
content, style, etc. MSS. (1) AN, J 518, fols. 500r-555v, (2) BN, ms. lat.
17585, 32 fols., (3) BN, nouv. acquis. lat. 1793, fols. 97r-159r, (4) Bib-
lioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Vat. lat. 4117, fols. 223r-256v, (5) Bonn
University, S 594, ii, fols. 42r-71r.
16. Letter to King Henry III of Castile, "Illustrissime princeps"
DATE mid-1402; the letter transmits a copy of the Toulouse letter with
Simon's glosses refuting it (No. 15 above), and exhorts the king to stay
firm in subtraction. The terminus ante quem would be France's resti-
tution of obedience 19 July 1403, or Henry's own restitution of 29 April
1403 (Valois, 3:334), but it seems more likely that Simon sent his work
very soon after finishing it, since he knew Henry was wavering. AT-
TRIBUTION certain from language, substance, tone, etc., and compare
the "Ego .. . minimus" phrase quoted in No. 15 above with Simon's self-
identification in his treatise, at n. 17. MS. BN, ms. lat. 1573, fols. 32r-
37v.
17. Letter from the Duke of Berry to Pope Innocent VII
DATE ca. 22 February 1405; the letter was sent with Berry's envoy who
went with a University of Paris delegation to the new pope in early
1405—see Valois, 3:423 n. 3. ATTRIBUTION clearly Simon's work on
 The Works of Simon de Cramaud 237

the basis of language, tone, authorities, and substance. PUBLISHED in

Ampl. coll., 7:695-702.
18. Letter from the Duke of Berry to Innocent VII (or Gregory XII)
DATE late 1406 (or early 1408). The text refers to the earlier letter from
Berry, evidently No. 17 above, and complains that the pope's original
promises of cession have been belied by procrastination "in annos"—this
last either an exaggeration or an indication that the letter was written
later and addressed to Gregory XII. Innocent died on 6 November 1406.
See Valois, 3:599 n. 3, for the later date. ATTRIBUTION as with No.
17 above. PUBLISHED in Ampl. coll., 7:706-12.
19. Speeches at the Fourth Paris Council
a. Speech of 27 November 1406, PUBLISHED in BduC, pp. 118-24
b. Speech of 8 December 1406, PUBLISHED in BduC, pp. 211-18
c. Statement of the Council's decisions, 4 January 1407 (a notarized
report of what Simon said). PUBLISHED in Thes. nov., 2:1307-10.
There are no problems of dating or attribution.
20. Speech to Gregory XII in Rome, 18 July 1407
Briefly reported in RSD, 3:666-70, on the basis of the report by Jacques
de Nouvion, BN, m$. lat. 12544, fol. 44r, edited by N. Valois, "Jacques
de Nouvion et le Religieux de Saint-Denis," Bibliothdque de I'Ecole des
chartes, 63 (1902), 249.
21. Speech at Council of Pisa, 8 May 1409
DATE given in other sources (see below). ATTRIBUTION given in the
ms. and evident from the substance and style. MS. Wolfenbtittel 2330,
fols. 263r-268v. PUBLISHED by Johannes Vincke, Schriftstucke zum
Pisaner Konzil (Bonn, 1942), pp. 165-77. GIST—it defends the Council
against charges that it is illegitimate, and ends with official assurances
on behalf of the King of France that he does not seek a French or
Avignon papacy.
22. Depositions at Pisa, 1 June 1409
DATE & ATTRIBUTION given in the acta. PUBLISHED by Johannes
Vincke, "Acta Concilii Pisani," Rdmische Quartalschrift, 46 (1938), 220
f., 228 f., 236, 245-47, 249 f., 256, 258 f., 270, 279. Cf. p. 180 for Simon's
preliminary attestation of these items on 27 May, and see the index for
Simon's other depositions still in mss.
23. Glosses on a letter of Giovanni Dominici to Emperor Sigismund
DATE perhaps autumn 1414, at any rate between Dominici's letter
(early 1414) and the opening of the Council of Constance in November
1414. ATTRIBUTION—Simon identifies himself in the text. MSS. (1)
Hannover Landesbibliothek, I 176, (2) Munich Staatsbibliothek 15183,
fols. 128 ff., (3) Vienna Nationalbibliothek 5100, fols. 50 ff. PUBLISHED
without citations by Heinrich Finke, Acta Concilii Constanciensis, 1
(Miinster, 1896), 277-89. GIST—a refutation of Dominici's argument
that Gregory XII is true pope, and in general a plea that the Council of
Pisa be accepted as valid.
238 Appendix V

24. Letter to Archbishop Conrad of Prague, 26 September 1414

DATE & ATTRIBUTION given in the text. MS. Tfebon A 11, fols.
138v-139r. PUBLISHED by Frantisek Palacky, Documenta Mag. Joan-
nis Hus vitam, doctrinam, causam . .. illustrantia (Prague, 1869), pp.
529 f. GIST the letter acknowledges receipt of information about Hussit-
ism and urges Conrad to be vigilant.
25. Treatise on the mode of electing a pope at Constance
DATE 18 June/26 July 1417. ATTRIBUTION Simon identifies himself
in the text. MS. BN, ms. lat. 18378, pp. 551-67. PUBLISHED by Hein-
rich Finke, Ada Concilii Constanciensis, 3 (Munster, 1926), 653-61.
26. Last will and testament, 11 March 1422
DATE & ATTRIBUTION given in the text. MSS. (1) AN, X 1A 8604,
fols. 91(bis)r-92r, (2) Archives departementales de la Vienne, G 14, No.
1. Simon died 19 January 1423; both these texts are collated copies of
the original will submitted to Parlement for execution on 1 February.
 Indices
The indices include mistakenly cited canons and laws, as well as the
correct titles supplied in brackets in the text by the author. All references
are to line numbers.
Medieval spelling is used: c not t before soft i; i not j ; e not ae or oe.
Abbreviations: "gl." after a line number means that the reference is to
the canon (or law) and/or some gloss on it; "app." after a line number means
that the reference is in the apparatus.

Index I: Alphabetical List of Canons

Decretum
Achacius non est (24. q. 1, c. 1): 1276 gl., De quibus (Dist. 20, c. 3): 98, 915 gl.,
1309 gl. 1536-37, 1665, 2186-87
Administrators (23. q. 5, c. 26): 874 Diaconi sunt (Dist. 93, c. 23): 1388-89
A iudicibus (2. q. 6, c. 33): 2471-72 Dictum est a nobis (Dist. 81, c. 8): 1965
Aliorum hominum (9. q. 3, c. 14): 462 Didicimus omnes [or Dicimus omnino]
Aliud (11. q. 1, c. 34): 557 (24. q. 1, c. 31): 1226(app.) gl., 1281 gl.
Alius (15. q. 6, c. 3): 303 Dilectissimi (8. q. 2, c. 2): 529
Alligant (26. q. 7, c. 12): 1894 Displicet (23. q. 4, c. 38): 2636
Anastasius (Dist. 9, c. 9): 1260(app.) Dominus deus noster (23. q. 2, c. 2): 1151
Apostolus Paulus: (Dist. 81, c. 1): 930 gl. gl-
Audi denique (11. q. 3, c. 21): 46 gl. Duo ista (23. q. 4, c. 35): 878-79, 1523
Duo mala (Dist 13, c. 1): 1881, 2840
Beati Petrus et Paulus (2. q. 7, c. 37): Duo sunt (Dist. 96, c. 10): 821
171-72
Bene quidem (Dist. 96, c. 1): 499-500 § Ecce (Dist. 49): 1973
Biduum (2. q. 6, c. 29): 2310-11 Ecclesiam (De cons. Dist. 1, c. 28): 295
Error (Dist. 83, c. 3): 896
Canones (Dist. 15, c. 1): 1724 Esto subiectus (Dist. 95, c. 7): 1340-41
Cleros et clericos (Dist. 21, c. 1): 279
Consentire (Dist. 83, c. 5): 900 Faciat homo (22. q. 2, c. 15): 1967
Cum beatus (Dist. 45, c. 8): 1891(app.) Factus est Cornelius (7. q. 1, c. 5): 49,
Cuncta per mundum (9. q. 3, c. 17): 463 452
Filiis (16. q. 7, c. 31): 838
De Constantinopolitana (Dist. 22, c. 4): Forte (23. q. 4, c. 11): 1891(app.) gl., 1964
1342, 2023-24
De Liguribus (23. q. 5, c. 43): 860-61,
1195 Hec est fides (24. q. 1, c. 14): 177
De [or In] manifesta (2. q. 1, c. 17): 1532 § Hec etsi legibus (Dist. 4): 1203 gl.
Denique quam sit (7. q. 1, c. 9): 56, 251- Heresis (24. q. 3, c. 27): 1236
52 gl., 1225 Hereticus (24. q. 3, c. 28): 1236
Denique sacerdotes (Dist. 4, c. 6): 298- § Hinc eciam (Dist. 17, after c. 6): 502-
99, 465-66 gl., 1202-03 gl., 1961-62 03, 1712 gl., 2739
239
240 Index I
§ Hoc autem (Dist. 79, after c. 8): 1000
Hoc ius porrectum (10. q. 2, c. 2): 1748-
49
§ Hoc tune (7. q. 1, after c. 48): 2508-09
Homo cristianus (Dist. 40, c. 5): 1382,
1981-82
Honoratus (Dist. 74, c. 8): 929 gl.
Ideo divina (24. q. 3, c. 40): 2894
Ilia prepositorum (11. q. 3, c. 67): 1313,
1372
Ille rex (De pen. Dist. 3, c. 25): 2029 gl.
Illud sane (24. q. 3, c. 34): 1125(app.)
Imperiali (25. q. 2, c. 13): 1356
In apibus (7. q. 1, c. 41): 292 (n. 49)
In canonicis scripturis (Dist. 19, c. 6): 945,
2187, 2349
Indigne (12, q. 2, c. 21): 1193, 1949 gl.,
1963-64 gl., 1991(app.) gl.
Inferiorum (Dist. 86, c. 1): 1941
In memoriam (Dist. 19, c. 3): 182-83
In nomine domini (Dist. 23, c. 1): 41-42,
342, 2599-2600
In synodo (Dist. 63, c. 23): 419-20 gl.
Inter heresim et scisma (24. q. 3, c. 26):
1220-21 gl., 1251 gl.
Ipsa pietas (23. q. 4, c. 24): 905-06,1323-
24, 1556-57 gl., 2046, 2658-59, 2779-
80 gl.
Ita plane (23. q. 4, c. 6): 877, 1523
Iulianus (11. q. 3, c. 94): 2147-48, 2168
Ius civile (Dist. 1, c. 8): 1354-55 gl.
§ Leges (Dist. 4, after c. 3): 298-99
Legimus in Ysaia (Dist. 93, c. 24): 282-
83, 294-95, 416, 590, 1567, 1807
Loquitur (24. q. 1, c. 18): 297
Memor sum (24. q. 1, c. 10): 678
Metropolitanum (2. q. 7, c. 45): 2789-90
Miramur tantum (Dist. 61, c. 5): 572
Mulier que (15. q. 1, c. 4): 338
Multi sacerdotes (Dist. 40, c. 12): 1185-
86, 2350-51 gl., 2716-17
Multi corriguntur (2. q. 1, c. 18): 2081
Multis denuo (Dist. 17, c. 5): 578, 2249
Mutaciones (7. q. 1, c. 34): 1113, 1343-
44
Nee dampnosa (25. q. 2, c. 14): 1356-57
Nee licuit (Dist. 17, c. 4): 2249
Nemo episcoporum (11. q. 3, c. 41): 875-
76
Nemo iudicabit (9. q. 3, c. 13): 462, 2698
Nervi (Dist. 13, c. 2): 348, 1881, 2093,
2840
Nicena (Dist. 31, c. 12): 2349
Nichil sic debet (11. q. 3, c. 33): 46, 569
Nimium (23. q. 4, c. 37): 1322, 2630-31
Noli existimare (23. q. 1, c. 3): 2515
Nolite timere (11. q. 3, c. 86): 112-13,
1583, 2194
Nolo (12. q. 1, c. 10): 537
Non decet (Dist. 12, c. 1): 169, 1349-50
gl-
Non in ferenda (23. q. 3, c. 7): 795
Non invenitur (23. q. 4, c. 41): 4
Non liceat pape (12. q. 2, c. 20): 697,
2671, 2712, 2724-25
Nonne (8. q. 4, c. 1): 502, 2739
Non omnis (5. q. 5, c. 2): 1321
Non potest esse (23. q. 4, c. 32): 2520
Non semper malum (11. q. 3, c. 92): 2167-
68
Non vos hominum (23. q. 5, c. 42): 13-
14, 860, 1195
Nos in quemquam (2. q. 1, c. 1): 1528-
29
Nos si incompetenter (2. q. 7, c. 41): 418-
19 gl., 672-73
§ Notandum (1. q. 4): 751 gl.
Nulli dubium (3. q. 1, c. 5): 73, 80
Nulli fas est (Dist. 19, c. 5): 242-43 gl.,
466
Nullus invitis (Dist. 61, c. 13): 2348-49
Nunc autem divina (Dist. 21, c. 7): 466
Omnes leges (Dist. 1, c. 1): 1366 gl.
Omnes sive patriarche (Dist. 22, c. 1):
233-34
Ordinaciones que ab heresiarchis (9. q. 1,
c. 5): 597-98, 2313
Ostendit propheta (23. q. 3, c. 11): 794-
1
95
Oves pastorem (6. q. 1, c. 9): 2289
Pasce fame (Dist. 86, c. 21): 793
§ Patet (3. q. 1, after c. 6): 964, 1195
 Alphabetical List of Canons
Paulus Petrum (2. q. 7, c. 33): 695, 1497
Per principalem (9. q. 3, c. 21): 463-64
Pervenit ad nos (Dist. 84, c. 1): 2002
Presbiter aut diaconus (Dist. 81, c. 12):
886-87 gl.
Presbiter si a plebe (2. q. 5, c. 13): 930-
31
Presul (2. q. 4, c. 2): 683 gl.
Principes (23. q. 5, c. 20): 85, 840 gl.,
1518
Principium (De pen. Dist. 2, c. 45): 682
§ Providendum (Dist. 83, before c. 1):
799
Puto (2. q. 7, c. 35): 175
Quam periculosum (7. q. 1, c. 8): 370-71
Quam sit (18. q. 2, c. 5): 1064 gl.
Quando vult deus (23. q. 4, c. 39): 817,
2579
Quattuor modis (11. q. 3, c. 78): 2303
Que contra (Dist. 8, c. 2): 2146-47
Quia cognovimus (10. q. 3, c. 6): 1373
Qui aliorum (24. q. 3, c. 32): 1169
Quia per ambiciones (Dist. 64, c. 6): 1135,
1173-74, 1179 gl.
Quia res (11. q. 1, c. 50): 1821 gl., 1853
gl-
Qui cathedram (Dist. 93, c. 3): 473
Qui consentit (11. q. 3, c. 100): 1169
Qui contra pacem (24. q. 1, c. 32): 1387
Quicquid invisibilis (1. q. 1, c. 101): 870
Quid autem iniquius (24. q. 3, c. 30):
2202-03
Quid culpatur (23. q. 1, c. 4): 366-67,
1151-52 gl., 2180
Quid enim (Dist. 83, c. 4): 1969
Quid est (Dist. 78, c. 3): 1968-69
Quid faciet (23. q. 4, c. 25): 1927
Qui episcopatum (8. q. 1, c. 11): 1104
Qui episcopus (Dist. 23, c. 2): 1800-01 gl.
Qui omnipotentem (11. q. 3, c. 95): 2168
Qui peccat (23. q. 4, c. 40): 2624-25
Qui potest obviare (23. q. 3, c. 8): 795-
96
Qui resistit (11. q. 3, c. 97): 2735
Quisquis metu (11. q. 3, c. 80): 113
§ Quod autem (24. q. 1, introduction
["summa"]): 761-62 gl., 1219-20 gl.,
1279 gl.
241
Quodcunque ligaveris (24. q. 1, c. 6):
2780-81 gl.
Quod debetur (14. q. 1, c. 2): 115
Quo iure (Dist. 8, c. 1): 832, 1318
Quorundam (Dist. 34, c. 1): 928
Remissionem (1. q. 1, c. 39): 2794-95 (see
n. 425)
Remittuntur (23. q. 5, c. 49): 92
Sacerdotes et reliqui (2. q. 7, c. 8): 1147-
48 gl.
Sacrosancta Romana (Dist. 22, c. 2): 235-
36
Sana quippe (Dist. 9, c. 11): 2348
Sane Thessalonicenses (16. q. 7, c. 15):
1150
Scelus quod Lotharius (2. q. 1, c. 21): 1790
Sciendum est summopere (8. q. 1, c. 10):
503-04
Scisma (24. q. 1, c. 34): 65
Sed illud (Dist. 45, c. 17): 1939
§ Sed notandum (1. q. 1, after c. 39): n.
425
Sentencia pastoris (11. q. 3, c. 1): 564-65,
1365-66 gl.
Si custos (27. q. 1, c. 18): 1952
Sicut quamvis (Dist. 96, c. 15): 2662-63
gl-
Sicut sancti evangelii (Dist. 15, c. 2): 413
gl., 1564 gl.
Si de rebus (23. q. 7, c. 2): 89
Si dominus (11. q. 3, c. 93): 2147, 2162
Si duo forte contra fas (Dist. 79, c. 8):
412-13 gl., 950, 989 gl., 1001, 2135
Si ea destruerem (25. q. 2, c. 4): 6, 675,
685(app.)
Si ecclesia (23. q. 4, c. 42): 784-85, 2154
Si episcopus (2. q. 6, c. 36): 196
Si forte (Dist. 63, c. 36): 764-67 gl., 957-
58 gl.
Si inimicus (Dist. 93, c. 1): 467
Si papa (Dist. 40, c. 6): 460-61, 697-98
gl., 1239 gl., 1503(app.) gl.
Si Petrus (8. q. 1, c. 1): 2885
Si quis cum clerico (11. q. 1, c. 45): 837
Si quis erga (2. q. 7, c. 16): 2787 gl.
Si quis pecunia (Dist. 79, c. 9): 1004-05
Si quis suadente (17. q. 4, c. 29): 894-95
242 Index I
Si qui sunt presbiteri (Dist. 81, c. 15): 505,
700, 1149-50 gl., 1242-43
Sit rector (Dist. 43, c. 1): 75, 316
Suggestum (7. q. 1, c. 46): 520
Sunt in ecclesia (8. q. 1, c. 19): 652
Sunt quidam dicentes (25. q. 1, c. 6): 685,
1040
Synodum (Dist. 17, c. 1): 2249
Tarn sacerdotes (24. q. 3, c. 14): 1423
Transferunt (24. q. 3, c. 33): 313-14
Vides ut opinor (23. q. 6, c. 3): 2650
Violatores canonum (25. q. 1, c. 5): 1131-
32, 1139 gl., 1161, 1248, 2176
Visis (16. q. 2, c. 1): n. 2, 70-71, 1908
Volumus ut frater (Dist. 89, c. 2): 885
Vos autem (16. q. 1, c. 30): 521-22
Decretales Gregorii IX.
Abbas (1. 40. 2): 453-54 gl.
Absolutos (5. 7. 16): 1414
Accedens (3. 8. 14): 2533 gl.
Ad abolendam (5. 7. 9): 1275, 1303-04
gl-
Ad aures (1. 14. 7): 1156-57 gl.
Ad probandum (2. 27. 24): 2274-75
Afferte (2. 23. 2): 660-61
Alia quidem (1. 38. 1): 582-83
A nobis est (5. 39. 28): 2356-57
Antiqua (5. 33. 23): 2687-88 gl.
Bone, i (1. 6. 23): 1571
Bone, i (1. 5. 3): 1794-96 gl.
Consilium (3. 46. 2): 2793-94
Consultacionibus (3. 38. 19): 1021-22
Cum ad monasterium (3. 35. 6): 1378-80
gl-
Cum contingat (1. 3. 24): 740, 1834-35
Cum dilecta (2. 30. 4): 114
Cum dilectus (1. 4. 8): 304-05
Cum dilectus (1. 40. 6): 454 gl.
Cum ex iniuncto (5. 32. 2): 1095-96 gl.,
1100, 1117-20 gl., 1481 gl.
Cum ex officii (2. 26. 16): 1330-31
Cum iam dudum (3. 5. 18): 1012-13
Cum in cunctis (3. 11. 1): 1750-51
Cum inferior (1. 33. 16): 239, 492-93
Cum non ab homine (2. 1. 10): 885-86
gl., 888-90 gl., 926 gl., 1896-97 gl.
Cum non liceat (2. 26. 12): 168-69
Cum omnes (1. 2. 6): 1752-54 gl., 2351-
52 gl.
Cum parati (2. 28. 19): 491-92 gl.
Cum secundum (3. 5. 16): 612-13
Cum voluntate (5. 39. 54): 895-96
Custos ecclesie (1. 27. 1): 1393-94
De cetero (5. 39. 11): 2795-96
De consuetudine (title) (1. 4): 1138 gl.
De hereticis (title) (5. 7): 1302-03 gl.
De Quodvultdeo (2. 1. 1): 425-26 gl.
Deus qui (5. 38. 3): 575 gl.
Dubia (hie In dubiis) (5. 41. 2): 1271
Dubius in fide (5. 7. 1): 254-55 gl., 353-
54 gl.
Dudum (1. 6. 22): 1157-58 gl.
Ecclesia Sancte Marie (1. 2. 10): 498
Ego N. (2. 24. 4): 143, 2690
Evidencia patrati sceleris (5. 1. 9): 1530-
31 gl., 1691 gl., 2129-30
Excommunicamus (5. 7. 13): 1293 gl.,
1402-03 gl.
Ex frequentibus (3. 7. 3): 2479-80
Ex literis vestris (2. 14. 2): 1824-25
Ex parte, ii (1. 29. 13): 1360 gl.
Ex parte tua (3. 11. 4): 1750-51
Gratum (1. 5. 2): 1570-71
Grave nimis (3. 5. 29): 618 gl.
Gravem (5. 37. 13): 1403
Illud (1. 33. 5): 638(app.) gl.
In dubiis: see "Dubia"
In Genesi (1. 6. 55): 1639, 1671, 2685
In literis (2. 13. 5): 638(app.) gl.
In nostra (2. 20. 32): 2349-50
In omni (2. 20. 4): 1419-20 gl., 1522-23
gl., 1976 gl.
Inquisicioni tue respondentes (5. 39. 44):
435-36, 717-19 gl., 1028, 2590 gl.
Irrefragabili (1. 31. 13): 1544-45
Licet de vitanda (1. 6. 6): 371 gl., 964-
65, 1533-34, 2468-69
 Alphabetical List of Canons
Licet ex suscepto (2. 2. 10): 203-04 gl.,
227-28 gl.
Licet magister (1. 10. 3): 1942-43 gl.
Literas (2. 13. 13): 434, 1027, 2592 gl.
Magne devocionis (3. 34. 7): 157-59(n.
23), 524, 687-88 gl., 724-25, 1072-73
gl., 2760
Maiores (3. 42. 3): 578-79
Mandato nostro (5. 3. 46): 484 gl.
Ne innitaris (1. 2. 5): 759-60
Nisi cum pridem (1. 9. 10): 623-24 gl.,
1199-1200, 2614-17 gl.
§ 5 Propter maliciam: 1037-38, 1112,
2504-05, 2614-15
§ 6 Pro gravi quoque scandalo (Non
autem): 395-96, 1037-38, 1112-13,
2522-23
Nisi essent (3. 5. 21): 2480-81 gl.
§ Non autem: see "Nisi cum pridem"
Non debet (4. 14. 8): 1019-20
Novit (2. 1. 13): 1520-21 gl.
Nulla (3. 8. 2): 1998-99 gl.
Nuper (5. 39. 29): 1162-63
Per tuas (3. 24. 5): 2068-69
Per tuas (5. 3. 32): 435
Per tuas, ii (5. 3. 35): 443-44 gl.
Pervenit (5. 31. 1): 2686-87
§ Porro: see "Literas"
Post miserabilem (5. 19. 12): 827-28
Postulasti (5. 12. 21): 827
Preterea, ii (4. 1. 12): 751-52
Procuraciones (3. 39. 23): 1362-63
§ Pro gravi quoque scandalo: see "Nisi
cum pridem"
Proposuit (3. 8. 4): 480, 686-87 gl., 1072
gl., 1498 gl., 1502-03 gl.
Proposuit (5. 27. 8): 725-26
§ Propter maliciam: see "Nisi cum pri-
dem"
Prudenciam (1. 29. 21): 1675
Qualiter et quando (2. 1. 17): 838 gl.
Quante (5. 39. 47): 805-06 gl., 870-72 gl.
Que in ecclesiarum (1. 2. 7): 499, 1350-
51 gl., 1358-59 gl.
Querelam (1. 38. 2): 540-41 gl.
243
Quia diversitatem (3. 8. 5): 285-86
Quia plerique (3. 49. 8): 1350 gl., 1363-
64 gl.
Quia propter (1. 6. 42): 1749
Quia quesitum (1. 29. 1): 866-68 gl.,
1165-74 gl.
Qui scandalizaverit (5. 41. 3): 1106-07(n.
183)
Quociens Tridentinus (5. 34. 5): 2686
Quod a predecessore (5. 8. 1): 33, 596-
97, 1257-58, 1266
Quod sicut (1. 6. 28): 1749
Quod translacionem (1. 30. 4): 576
Quoniam in plerisque (1. 31. 14): 327
Sacris (1. 40. 5): 61-62
Sepe contingit (2. 13. 18): 1189-90
Sane (1. 43. 1): 2485
Scriptum est (1. 6. 40): 2408-09 gl.
§ Si canonici: see "Irrefragabili"
Si celebrat (5. 27. 10): 1405-06 gl.
Si concubine (5. 39. 55): 1163
Sicut dignum (5. 12. 6): 868 gl., 901, 1171
gl-
Si episcopus (3. 29. 1): 2221(app.)
Significasti (1. 6. 4): 483-84 gl.
Significasti (5. 12. 18): 1271
Si quando (1. 3. 5): 1355-56
Si quis venerit (1. 33. 2): 561-62
Si venditori (3. 17. 7): 408-09 gl.
Solite (1. 33. 6): 820-21
Super eo (1. 36. 7): 2479
Super eo vero (5. 39. 1): 1176-77 gl.
Super inordinata (3. 5. 35): 2858-59
Suscepimus (5. 12. 10): 2513
Ut fame (5. 39. 35): 889 gl.
Venerabilem (1. 6. 34): 302-03, 1749-50
Liber sextus
Abbate sane (2. 14. 3): 1917
Alma mater (5. 11. 24): 1546, 2754-55
Beneficium ecclesiasticum (5. 12. 1): 622-
23
Clericis laicos (3. 23. 3): 584-85, 2450(n.
373)
244 Index II
Cum eterni (2. 14. 1): 2293, 2443-44(n.
372)
Cum medicinalis (5. 11. 1): 570-71
Cum quis (5. 11. 23): 802-04 gl.
Cupientes (1. 6. 16): 2534-35 gl., 2537-
38 gl.
De maioritate et obediencia (title) (1. 17):
1394-96 gl.
Dilecto (5. 11. 6): 802-04 gl.
Eum qui certus est (5.12. 31): 884(n. 149)
Fundamenta (1. 6. 17): 201 gl., 294, 1446
Generali (1. 6. 13): 243-44 gl., 1139-40
gl.
In eleccionibus (1. 6. 2): 973-75 gl.
Licet romanus pontifex (1. 2. 1): 2363-
64
Perpetuo (1. 6. 1): 2013-14
Presenti (1. 16. 9): 1329
(Prohemio) 194-95 gl.
Quam sit (1. 6. 6): 627-28, 2085-86
Quamvis (1. 6. 10): see "Quam sit"
Quamvis (1. 16. 8): 2688(app.) gl.
Index II: Numerical List of Canons
Decretum
Dist. 1, c. 1: Omnes leges
Dist. 1, c. 8: Ius civile
Dist. 4, after c. 3: § Leges
Dist. 4, c. 6: Denique sacerdotes
Dist. 4, part iv: § Hec etsi legibus
Dist. 8, c. 1: Quo iure
Dist. 8, c. 2: Que contra
Dist. 9, c. 11: Sana quippe
Dist. 12, c. 1: Non decet
Dist. 13, c. 1: Duo mala
Dist. 13, c. 2: Nervi
Quod semel placuit (5. 12. 21): 526-27(n.
95)
Quoniam aliqui curiosi (1. 7. 1): 1102-
03, 1484-85, 2230-31
Religionum diversitatem nimiam (3. 17.
1): 1521-22 gl.
Romana (2. 10. 3): 2299-2301 gl.
Si quis iusto (1. 6. 46): 1659
Super eo (5. 2. 4): 2678-79 gl.
Ubi periculum maius (1. 6. 3): 342-43,
627-28, 1552, 1631-32, 2085-86, 2467-
68, 2598-99, 2604, 2806-07
Constitutiones Clementinae
Ad compescendas (2. 6. 1): 1846-47
Cum illusio (1. 4. 1): 524-25
Ex frequentibus (5. 10. 1): 1675-76
Ne Romani (1. 3. 2): 691-92 gl., 1573 gl.,
2797-98, 2815
Pastoralis (2. 11. 2): 457-58, 2257-58
Si duobus (2. 5. 1): 488
Dist. 15, c. 1: Canones
Dist. 15, c. 2: Sicut sancti evangelii
Dist. 17, c. 1: Synodum
Dist. 17, c. 4: Nee licuit
Dist. 17, c. 5: Multis denuo
Dist. 17, after c. 6: § Hinc eciam
Dist. 19, c. 3: In memoriam
Dist. 19, c. 5: Nulli fas est
Dist. 19, c. 6: In canonicis scripturis
Dist. 19, c. 9: Anastasius
Dist. 20, c. 3: De quibus
 Numerical List of Canons
Dist. 21, c. 1: Cleros et clericos
Dist. 21, c. 7: Nunc autem divina
Dist. 22, c. 1: Omnes sive patriarche
Dist. 22, c. 2: Sacrosancta Romana
Dist. 22, c. 4: De Constantinopolitana
Dist. 23, c. 1: In nomine domini
Dist. 23, c. 2: Qui episcopus
Dist. 31, c. 12: Nicena
Dist. 34, c. 1: Quorundam
Dist. 40, c. 5: Homo cristianus
Dist. 40, c. 6: Si papa
Dist. 40, c. 12: Multi sacerdotes
Dist. 43, c. 1: Sit rector
Dist. 45, c. 8: Cum beatus
Dist. 45, c. 17: Sed illud
Dist. 49, beginning: § Ecce
Dist. 61, c. 5: Miramur tantum
Dist. 61, c. 13: Nullus invitus
Dist. 63, c. 23: In synodo
Dist. 63, c. 36: Si forte
Dist. 64, c. 6: Quia per ambiciones
Dist. 74, c. 8: Honoratus
Dist. 78, c. 3: Quid est
Dist. 79, c. 8: Si duo forte contra fas
Dist. 79, after c. 8: § Hoc autem
Dist. 79, c. 9: Si quis pecunia
Dist. 81, c. 1: Apostolus Paulus
Dist. 81, c. 8: Dictum est a nobis
Dist. 81, c. 12: Presbiter aut diaconus
Dist. 81, c. 15: Si qui sunt presbiteri
Dist. 83, before c. 1: § Providendum
Dist. 83, c. 3: Error
Dist. 83, c. 4: Quid enim
Dist. 83, c. 5: Consentire
Dist. 84, c. 1: Pervenit ad nos
Dist. 86, c. 1: Inferiorum
Dist. 86, c. 21: Pasce fame
Dist. 89, c. 2: Volumus ut frater
Dist. 93, c. 1: Si inimicus
Dist. 93, c. 3: Qui cathedram
Dist. 93, c. 23: Diaconi sunt
Dist. 93, c. 24: Legimus in Ysaia
Dist. 95, c. 7: Esto subiectus
Dist. 96, c. 1: Bene quidem
Dist. 96, c. 10: Duo sunt
Dist. 96, c. 15: Sicut quamvis
1. q. 1, c. 39: Remissionem
1. q. 1, after c. 39: § Sed notandum
1. q. 1, c. 101: Quicquid invisibilis
245
1. q. 4, final §: § Notandum
2. q. 1, c. 1: Nos in quemquam
2. q. 1, c. 17: De [or In] manifesta
2. q. 1, c. 18: Multi corriguntur
2. q. 1, c. 21: Scelus quod Lotharius
2. q. 4, c. 2: Presul
2. q. 5, c. 13: Presbiter si a plebe
2. q. 6, c. 29: Biduum
2. q. 6, c. 33: A iudicibus
2. q. 6, c. 36: Si episcopus
2. q. 7, c. 8: Sacerdotes et reliqui
2. q. 7, c. 16: Si quis erga
2. q. 7, c. 33: Paulus Petrum
2. q. 7, c. 35: Puto
2. q. 7, c. 37: Beati Petrus et Paulus
2. q. 7, c. 41: Nos si incompetenter
2. q. 7, c. 45: Metropolitanum
3. q. 1, c. 5: Nulli dubium
3. q. 1, after c. 6: § Patet
5. q. 5, c. 2: Non omnis
6. q. 1, c. 9: Oves pastorem
7. q. 1, c. 5: Factus est Cornelius
7. q. 1, c. 8: Quam periculosum
7. q. 1, c. 9: Denique quam sit
7. q. 1, c. 34: Mutaciones
7. q. 1, c. 41: In apibus
7. q. 1, c. 46: Suggestum
7. q. 1, after c. 48: § Hoc tune
8. q. 1, c. 1: Si Petrus
8. q. 1, c. 10: Sciendum est summopere
8. q. 1, c. 11: Qui episcopatum
8. q. 1, c. 19: Sunt in ecclesia
8. q. 2, c. 2: Dilectissimi
8. q. 4, c. 1: Nonne
9. q. 1, c. 5: Ordinaciones que ab here-
siarchis
9. q. 3, c. 13: Nemo iudicabit
9. q. 3, c. 14: Aliorum hominum
9. q. 3, c. 17: Cuncta per mundum
9. q. 3, c. 21: Per principalem
10. q. 2, c. 2: Hoc ius porrectum
10. q. 3, c. 6: Quia cognovimus
11. q. 1, c. 34: Aliud
11. q. 1, c. 45: Si quis cum clerico
11. q. 1, c. 50: Quia res
11. q. 3, c. 1: Sentencia pastoris
11. q. 3, c. 21: Audi denique
-11. q. 3, c. 33: Nichil sic debet
11. q. 3, c. 41: Nemo episcoporum
246
11. q- 3, c. 67: Ilia prepositorum
11. q- 3, c. 78: Quattuor modis
11. q- 3, c. 80: Quisquis metu
11. q- 3, c. 86: Nolite timere
11. q- 3, c. 92: Non semper malum
11. q- 3, c. 93: Si dominus
11. q- 3, c. 94: Iulianus
11. q- 3, c. 95: Qui omnipotentem
11. q- 3, c. 97: Qui resistit
11. q- 3, c. 100: Qui consentit
12. q- 1, c. 10: Nolo
12. q- 2, c. 20: Non liceat pape
12. q- 2, c. 21: Indigne
14. q- 1, c. 2: Quod debetur
15. q- 1, c. 4: Mulier que
15. q- 6, c. 3: Alius
16. q- 1, c. 30: Vos autem
16. q- 2, c. 1: Visis
16. q- 7, c. 15: Sane Thessalonicenses
16. q- 7, c. 31: Filiis
17. q- 4, c. 29: Si quis suadente
18. q- 2, c. 5: Quam sit
22. q- 2, c. 15: Faciat homo
23. q- 1, c. 3: Noli existimare
23. q- 1, c. 4: Quid culpatur
23. q- 2, c. 2: Dominus deus noster
23. q- 3, c. 7: Non in ferenda
23. q- 3, c. 8: Qui potest obviare
23. q- 3, c. 11: Ostendit propheta
23. q- 4, c. 6: Ita plane
23. q- 4, c. 11: Forte in populo
23. q- 4, c. 24: Ipsa pietas
23. q- 4, c. 25: Quid faciet
23. q- 4, c. 32: Non potest esse
23. q- 4, c. 35: Duo ista
23. q- 4, c. 37: Nimium
23. q- 4, c. 38: Displicet
23. q- 4, c. 39: Quando vult deus
23. q- 4, c. 40: Qui peccat
23. q- 4, c. 41: Non invenitur
23. q- 4, c. 42: Si ecclesia
23. q- 5, c. 20: Principes
23. q- 5, c. 26: Administratores
23. q- 5, c. 42: Non vos hominum
23. q- 5, c. 43: De Liguribus
23. q- 5, c. 49: Remittuntur
23. q- 6, c. 3: Vides ut opinor
23. q- 7, c. 2: Si de rebus
24. q- 1, at beginning: § Quod autem
Index II
24. q. 1, c. 1: Achacius non est
24. q. 1, c. 6: Quodcunque ligaveris
24. q. 1, c. 10: Memor sum
24. q. 1, c. 14: Hec est fides
24. q. 1, c. 18: Loquitur
24. q. 1, c. 31: Didicimus omnes [or Di-
cimus omnino]
24. q. 1, c. 32: Qui contra pacem
24. q. 1, c. 34: Scisma
24. q. 3, c. 14: Tam sacerdotes
24. q. 3, c. 26: Inter heresim et scisma
24. q. 3, c. 27: Heresis
24. q. 3, c. 28: Hereticus
24. q. 3, c. 30: Quid autem iniquius
24. q. 3, c. 32: Qui aliorum
24. q. 3, c. 33: Transferunt
24. q. 3, c. 34: Illud sane
24. q. 3, c. 40: Ideo divina
25. q. 1, c. 5: Violatores canonum
25. q. 1, c. 6: Sunt quidam dicentes
25. q. 2, c. 4: Si ea destruerem
25. q. 2, c. 13: Imperiali
25. q. 2, c. 14: Nee dampnosa
26. q. 7, c. 12: Alligant
27. q. 1, c. 18: Si custos
De pen. Dist. 2, c. 45: Principium
De pen. Dist. 3, c. 25: Ille rex
De cons. Dist. 1, c. 28: Ecclesiam
Decretales Gregorii IX.
1. 2. 5: Ne innitaris
1. 2. 6: Cum omnes
1. 2. 7: Que in ecclesiarum
1. 2. 10: Ecclesia Sancte Marie
1. 3. 5: Si quando
1. 3. 24: Cum contingat
1. 4: De consuetudine (title)
1. 4. 8: Cum dilectus
1. 5. 2: Gratum
1. 5. 3: Bone, i
1. 6. 4: Significasti
1. 6. 6: Licet de vitanda
1. 6. 22: Dudum
1. 6. 23: Bone, i
1. 6. 28: Quod sicut
1. 6. 34: Venerabilem
1. 6. 40: Scriptum est
 Numerical List of Canons
1. 6. 42: Quia propter
1. 6. 55: In Genesi
1. 9. 10: Nisi cum pridem
1. 10. 3: Licet magister
1. 14. 7: Ad aures
1. 27. 1: Custos ecclesie
1. 29. 1: Quia quesitum
1. 29. 13: Ex parte, ii
1. 29. 21: Prudenciam
1. 30. 4: Quod translacionem
1. 31. 13: Irrefragabili
1. 31. 14: Quoniam in plerisque
1. 33. 2: Si quis venerit
1. 33. 5: Illud
1. 33. 6: Solite
1. 33. 16: Cum inferior
1. 36. 7: Super eo
1. 38. 1: Alia quidem
1. 38. 2: Querelam
1. 40. 2: Abbas
1. 40. 5: Sacris
1. 40. 6: Cum dilectus
1. 43. 1: Sane
2. 1. 1: De Quodvultdeo
2. 1. 10: Cum non ab homine
2. 1. 13: Novit
2. 1. 17: Qualiter et quando
2. 2. 10: Licet ex suscepto
2. 13. 5: In literis
2. 13. 13: Literas
2. 13. 18: Sepe contingit
2. 14. 2: Ex literis vestris
2. 20. 4: In omni
2. 20. 32: In nostra
2. 23. 2: Afferte
2. 24. 4: Ego N.
2. 26. 12: Cum non liceat
2. 26. 16: Cum ex officii
2. 27. 24: Ad probandum
2. 28. 19: Cum parati
2. 30. 4: Cum dilecta
3. 5. 16: Cum secundum
3. 5. 18: Cum iam dudum
3. 5. 21: Nisi essent
3. 5. 29: Grave nimis
3. 5. 35: Super inordinata
3. 7. 3: Ex frequentibus
3. 8. 2: Nulla
3. 8. 4: Proposuit
247
3. 8. 5: Quia diversitatem
3. 8. 14: Accedens
3. 11. 1: Cum in cunctis
3. 11. 4: Ex parte tua
3. 17. 7: Si venditori
3. 24. 5: Per tuas
3. 29. 1: Si episcopus
3. 34. 7: Magne devocionis
3. 35. 6: Cum ad monasterium
3. 38. 19: Consultacionibus
3. 39. 23: Procuraciones
3. 42. 3: Maiores
3. 46. 2: Consilium
3. 49. 8: Quia plerique
4. 1. 12: Preterea, ii
4. 14. 8: Non debet
5. 1. 9: Evidencia patrati sceleris
5. 3. 32: Per tuas
5. 3. 35: Per tuas, ii
5. 3. 46: Mandato nostro
5. 7. 1: Dubius in fide
5. 7. 9: Ad abolendam
5. 7. 13: Excommunicamus
5. 7. 16: Absolutos
5. 8. 1: Quod a predecessore
5. 12. 6: Sicut dignum
5. 12. 10: Suscepimus
5. 12. 18: Significasti
5. 12. 21: Postulasti
5. 19. 12: Post miserabilem
5. 27. 8: Proposuit
5. 27. 10: Si celebrat
5. 31. 1: Pervenit
5. 32. 2: Cum ex iniuncto
5. 33. 23: Antiqua
5. 34. 5: Quociens Tridentinus
5. 37. 13: Gravem
5. 38. 3: Deus qui
5. 39. 1: Super eo vero
5. 39. 11: De cetero
5. 39. 28: A nobis est
5. 39. 29: Nuper
5. 39. 35: Ut fame
5. 39. 44: Inquisicioni tue respondentes
5. 39. 47: Quante
5. 39. 54: Cum voluntate
5. 39. 55: Si concubine
5. 41. 2: Dubia [or In dubiis]
5. 41. 3: Qui scandalizaverit
248
Liber sextus
1. 2. 1: Licet romanus pontifex
1. 6. 1: Perpetuo
1. 6. 2: In eleccionibus
1. 6. 3: Ubi periculum maius
1. 6. 6: Quam sit [or Quamvis]
1. 6. 13: Generali
1. 6. 16: Cupientes
1. 6. 17: Fundamenta
1. 6. 46: Si quis iusto
1. 7. 1: Quoniam aliqui curiosi
1. 16. 8: Quamvis
1. 16. 9: Presenti
2. 10. 3: Romana
2. 14. 1: Cum eterni
2. 14. 3: Abbate sane
3. 17. 1: Religionum diversitatem
nimiam
3. 23. 3: Clericis laicos
Index III: Alphabetical List of Roman Laws
Digest
Ad legatum (3. 3. 62): 923-24
Ad rem mobilem (3. 3. 56): 923-24
Aliquando (16. 1. 13): 2058-59
Alcius (8. 5. 15): 1066-67
Apud Iulianum (40. 5. 20): 2901-02
Barbarius Philippus (1. 14. 3): 1021-22
Catoniana regula (34. 7. 1): 2868-69
Continuus (§ ii) (45. 1. 137 [§ 2]): 2558-
59
Creditores (48. 7. 7): 513
Cui iurisdiccio (2. 1. 2): 921-22
Cum aliter (29. 5. 1 [§ 28]): 80-81
Cum quid mutuum (12. 1. 3): 429-30
De statu (28. 1. 15): 737-38
Duo sunt Ticii (26. 2. 30): 970-71
Equissimum (7. 1. 17 [or 13, § 3]): 1828-
29
Index III
5. 2. 4: Super eo
5. 11. 1: Cum medicinalis
5. 11. 6: Dilecto
5. 11. 23: Cum quis
5. 11. 24: Alma mater
5. 12. 1: Beneficium ecclesiasticum
5. 12. 21: Quod semel placuit
5. 12. 31: Eum qui certus est
Constitutiones Clementinae
1. 3. 2: Ne Romani
1. 4. 1: Cum illusio
2. 5. 1: Si duobus
2. 6. 1: Ad compescendas
2. 11. 2: Pastoralis
5. 10. 1: Ex frequentibus
Et ex diverso, § Ubi (6. 1. 35, § 1): 2476
Filiosfamilias (1. 7. 1): 272-73
Herennius (50. 2. 10): 1839
Honori (37. 15. 2): 606-07, 2321
Me a quo, § Tempestivum (36. 1. 13, §
4): 493-94
In cause cognicione (4. 4. 16): 386-87
In fundo (6. 1. 38): 2067
Inter stipulantem, § Sacram (45. 1. 83, §
5): 2841-42
Ita vulneratus (9. 2. 51): 1918
Item si unus, § Si in duos (4. 8. 17, § 5):
2484
Item si verberatum (6. 1. 15): 2646-47,
2682
Item veniunt, § A quo denunciatum (5.
3. 20, § 11): 752-53
Ius dicentis (2. 1. 1): 1819-20
 Roman Laws
Lucius (21. 2. 11): 2862
Mora (22. 1. 32): 1996-97 gl.
Nee, § Proinde (4. 2. 7, § 1): 456-57
Necessarium, § Post originem (1. 2. 2, §
13): 835
Nepos Proculo (50. 16. 125): 2529-30
Oracio (23. 1. 16): 924
Post acciones, § Per hanc (6. 1. 1, § 2):
391-92 gl.
Pretor ait, § Rectissime (43. 16. 1, § 34):
1999-2000
Prospexit (40. 9. 12): 362
Pupillus (42. 9[or 8]. 24): 1945
Quedam (2. 13. 9): 394
Que de tota (6. 1. 76): 1958
Quidam decedens, § Ex quo (26. 7. 5, §
10): 753-54
Qui restituere (6. 1. 68): 1582-83
Qui solidum, § Eciam (31. 1. 78, § 2):
382-83
Quod maior pars (50. 1. 19): 1751-52,
2187-88
Relegati (48. 19. 4): 1981
Sicut, § Sed si queritur (8. 5. 8, § 3): 2475
Si dictum, § Si compromisero (21. 2. 56,
§ 1): 406-07, 2494-95
Si fuerit (34. 5. 10): 969
Si incertus (32. 1. 1): 738-39
Si in tres (4. 8. 17, § 7): 1642-43
Si mulier (4. 2. 21): 2643
Si quis aliquid ex metallo, § Qui aborci-
onis (48. 19. 38, § 5): 336-37
Si quis de pluribus (34. 5. 27): 963
Si quis domum, § Hie (19. 2. 9, § 1): 581-
82
Si quis liberum (22. 3. 20): 1834
Si res vendita (19. 1. 1): 883-84
Verum (47. 2. 39): 1557-58
Vis (4. 2. 2): 2530-31 gl.
249
Codex
Ad probacionem (4. 19. 21): 634-35
Consensu (5. 17. 8): 2374
Cum non solum (v. necessitate) (6. 60.
11): 1709-10 gl.
Digna vox (1. 14. 4): 510-11
Diffamari (Defamari) (7. 14. 5): 2014
Ex imperfecto (6. 23. 3): 510
Generaliter (4. 30. 13): 527
Infamia (10. 32. 8): 539-40
Multo magis (1. 3. after 19): 735-36
Neque natales (4. 19. 10): 635
Ne quis in causa sua (title) (3. 5): 1711,
2331
Omnes (1. 5. 2): 352
Quicunque (3. 24. 1): 1307-08
Quociens (1. 19. 2): 1357-58 gl.
Res inter alios acta (rubric) (7. 60): 405-
06(n. 71)
Sepe quidam (7. 39. 9): 2175-76
Si fundum (3. 32. 17): 754-55
Si mater (6. 25. 3): 425-27 gl.
Institutes
De adopcionibus, § Minorem natu (1. 11,
§4): 273
De auctoritate tutorum, § Si autem (1.
21, § 6): 1708-09
De testamentis ordinandis, § Sed ut nichil
(2. 10, § 1): 2889
Novels (Authenticae)
De nupciis, § i (Coll. iv, tit. 1, pref.) (No-
vella 22): 2756
250 Index IV

De tabellionibus, Coll. iv (tit. 7) § Non
Bngant (Novella 44): 2183-84
Quomodo oporteat episcopos, Coll. i (tit.
6, pref.) (Novella 6): 822-24, 1764-65
Ut divine iussiones, Coll. viii (tit. 10, pref.)
(Novella 114): 1765-67
Ut iudices sine quoquo suffragio, Coll. ii
(tit. 2, pref.) (Novella 8): 1770-71

Index IV: Proper Names

The list omits names of no practical significance, as well as "Romanus
pontifex" and "Ihesus Cristus"; "Benedictus XIII" and "Bonifacius IX" are
noted only when they refer to acts and statements by the two. The authors
of passages cited from the Decretum, etc. are listed when given in the
treatise, otherwise not.

Part 1: Medieval Authors

Accursius (glossa ordinaria in Digestum,
Codicem): 391, 1357, 1996, 2530-31
Archidiaconus (Guido de Baysio): 251,
465, 915, 930, 1139, 1151, 1202, 1224,
1251, 1349-50, 1354-55, 1800, 1821,
1841, 1853, 1964, 2787, 2789
Armachanus (Richard Fitzralph, Archb.
of Armagh): 317
Astesanus (Hastensis, Frater): 246, 805,
1420, 2587
1118, 1158, 1171, 1303, 1355, 1360,
1378, 1402, 1408, 1419, 1481, 1522,
1531, 1691, 1795, 1897, 1976, 1998,
2351, 2687
Hostiensis (Henricus de Segusio, Cardi-
nalis Ostiensis): 454, 484, 540-41, 618,
686, 687, 724, 804, 867, 1170, 1302,
1363, 1402, 1419, 1752, 1794, 1896,
1942
Huguccio: 914, 1149, 1179

Bernardus Clarevallensis: 703, 1098, 1334,
1345, 1479
Bernardus Guidonis: 1733-34
Bernardus Parmensis (gl. ord. in Decre-
tales): 408, 454, 866, 885, 1156-57,
1170, 1896
Cardinalis: see Iohannes Monachus
Compostellanus, Bernardus, Junior: 1359,
1752-53
Goffredus (Gauffredus) de Trano: 1183
Gracianus: 1000, 1005, 1496, 2508
Guillelmus Durantis: see Speculum Iuris
Henricus de Bohic: 353, 443, 483, 575,
623, 686, 687, 805, 868, 1072, 1095,
Innocencius IV.: 203, 371, 491, 723, 889,
1138,1146, 1176,1358-59,1520, 1752,
2408, 2477, 2533, 2616, 2644
Iohannes, Frater: 887
Iohannes Andree: gl. ord. in Sextum: 125,
243; other: 203-04, 227-28, 425-26,
687, 717-18, 889-90,1139,1498,1753,
1794-95
Iohannes de Bracho (recte Petrus de Bra-
co): 516
Iohannes de Legnano (de Liniano): 2323
Iohannes Monachus (Cardinalis): 201,
802-03, 974, 1140, 1380, 1394-95,
1521, 2300, 2534, 2537, 2678-79
Iohannes Saresberiensis: 133, 135, 138,
348, 2717, 2886
Iohannes Teutonicus (gl. ord. in Deere-
 Proper Names
turn): 47, 242-43, 412-13, 697-98, 761,
769, 840, 886, 929, 957, 988,1064, 1147,
1219, 1239, 1277, 1279, 1308, 1365,
1556-57, 1564, 1738, 1949, 1963, 2029,
2125, 2350, 2664, 2779, 2780
Martinus glossator: 1997
Martinus Oppaviensis (in cronica sua):
307-08, 549, 1512, 1733, 1811, 2223-
24
Ockham (Oquam), William of: 2131
Odofredus: 1357
Petrus de Bellapertica: 1997
Petrus de Braco: see Iohannes de Bracho
Petrus Bertrandi: 194, 691, 1443, 1573,
2123-24
Petrus Comestor (Magister ...): 218
Pierre d'Ameilh, Cardinalis Ebredunen-
sis: 2691
Pierre Bersuire, Prior Sancti Eligii: 247
Speculum Iuris Guillelmi Durantis: 576,
971
Thomas Aquinas: 244, 1084, 1096-97,
1118, 1346, 1349, 1480
Part 2: Other Names
Abiron (Abiram): 55
Alamania (and see Imperium, Germani):
22, 1684-85
Alexander II., pope (1061-73): 1725-26
Alexander HI., pope (1159-81): 549,1267,
2315
Ambrosius: 91, 171, 232, 796
Anglia: 22, 2453-54; rex Anglie: 1678,
2237, 2453-54
Aragonia: 26; rex Aragonie: 1622-23
Aristoteles (Philosophus): 123, 261, 269
Augustinus: 3, 65, 175, 365, 565, 777, 784,
793, 812, 857, 876, 901, 940,1030,1040,
1048, 1074, 1123, 1233, 1321, 1324,
1781, 2036, 2148, 2514, 2518, 2568,
2621, 2631, 2635-36, 2650, 2760-61,
2890
251
Avignon (in Avinione): 1597, 1609, 1668,
2389
Bartolomeus de Prignano: see Urbanus VI.
Benedictus IX., pope (1032-45 ff.): 1731
Benedictus XIII., pope (1394-1409 ff.)
(dominus noster): 105, 150, 400, 421,
534,1197,1285,1590,1693,1715,1986,
2465, 2541
Bonifacius IX., pope (1389-1404): 105,
1680, 1700, 1982, 2339, 2453
Calcedonense concilium (451): 183
Cassiodorus: 553, 1756
Castella, rex Castelle (and see Hispania):
1614, 1616, 1619-20
Cicero (Tullius): 1787
Cirillus, episcopus Alexandrie: 188
Clemens I., pope (90-99): 2883
Clemens II., pope (1046-47): 1733
Clemens VII., pope (1378-94): 28, 515,
536, 543, 544, 1007, 1305, 1908, 2325,
2378-79, 2745
Constantinopolitanus patriarcha: 305-06,
1809
Constantinus II., antipope (767-68): 2431
Cyprianus: 368, 473
Dathan: 55
Eugenius III., pope (1145-53): 704, 1333
Francia, regnum Francie, Gallia: 25, 92,
119, 302, 430, 545, 1576, 1618, 1622,
1632, 1648, 2209, 2430
Genoa (Ianua): 2212
Germani: 302
Greci: 287, 301-02, 1808
Gregorius I., pope (590-604): 673, 899,
1312, 1510, 1779, 1882, 1950, 2020,
2840
Gregorius XL, pope (1370-78): 2394
Hainault (Hanonia): 2823
Henricus IV., imperator (1056-1106):
1726
Hispania (and see Castella): 26, 1576,
252 Index IV
1630-34, 1655, 1699, 1716; rex Hispa-
nie: 1582, 1630-31, 1695, 1716
Honorius, imperator (395-423): 952,
1734-35, 2136
Hungaria: 22, 1734-35
Iheronimus: 45, 129, 177, 308, 439-40,
551, 588-89, 1096, 1220, 1231, 1567,
1734, 1805, 1930-31, 2161-62, 2178
Imperium, imperator, Rex Romanorum
(and see Alamania, Germani): 1655,
1679-80, 2254, 2265
Iohannes XII., pope (955-63): 2131
Iohannes Crisostomus (Chrysostom): 1584,
2193, 2716
Iohannes Damascenus: 440-41
Iohannes de Moravia: 1304
Isidorus: 82, 841, 951, 1249, 1516, 2135
Italia, Italici: 22, 2340, 2341, 2430
Iustinianus, imperator (527-65): 1765-66
Karolus Magnus (Charlemagne, 771-814):
180-81
Karolus V., rex Francie (1364-80): 542
Karolus VI., rex Francie (1380-1422): 92,
119, 433, 489, 497, 514, 542, 550, 1591
ff., 1618, 1622, 1695, 1714, 2073, 2454,
2545, 2772
Lateranense concilium III. (1179): 1265,
2314
Laurencius, antipope (498-505): 1728
Leo IV., pope (847-55): 668
Ludoyicus Augustus II., imperator (855-
75): 671
Machometi lex: 1804
Martinus de Salva, Cardinalis Pampilo-
nensis: 401
Navarra: 26; rex Navarre: 1622-23, 1628
Nicholaus Cardinalis: 1802-03
Oxoniensis universitas: 376, 2204, 2232
Parisiensis universitas: 146, 1283, 1602,
1650, 2110-11, 2206-07, 2847
Parisius: 117, 1649
Paulus, Apostolus: 173, 200, 314, 556, 568,
688, 695, 746, 750, 759, 1115, 1495,
2158, 2585, 2627, 2893
Petrus, Sanctus: 161, 173, 175, 180, 185,
190,191, 249, 274, 467, 474, 695, 1339,
1495, 2880
Phocas I., imperator (602-10) (Foca ce-
sar): 305, 1810
Poncius Beraldi: 2390, 2397
Portugalia, rex Portugalie: 544
Ravenna: 1730, 1740
Roma: 25, 173, 984, 1667, 1743, 2393
Romana ecclesia: 229, 233, 234, 626, 704-
05, 1331-32, 2676, 2689-90
Sardicense concilium (343): 195
Scocia: 25; rex Scocie: 1624, 1628
Seneca: 1786, 1800, 1942
Sergius III., pope (904-11): 549
Simon de Cramaudo, patriarcha alexan-
drinus: 116, 1681, 2380 f., 2440
Sixtus II., pope (257-58): 675
Stephanus III., pope (768-72): 2429
Symmachus, pope (498-514): 1728, 1735,
2712
Theodoricus, rex Italie (489-526): 1729,
1740
Toletanum concilium VIII. (653): 1869
Urbanus VI., pope (1378-89 Bartolomeus
de Prignano): 23, 447, 545, 1089, 2271,
2324, 2365, 2379, 2381-82, 2387, 2392,
2396, 2594, 2745