No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
The Dominican Political Theory of John of Paris in its Context*
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 17 February 2016
Extract
The Dominican John of Paris (d. 1306) wrote a tract De potestate regia et papali which would later influence fifteenth-century conciliarists and seventeenth-century republicans. But the manuscript tradition shows no widespread diffusion of the work in its own times, and, according to Leclercq, the Depotestate does not figure amongst the works attributed to John of Paris in ancient Dominican catalogues of Dominican authors. It has long been thought that it should be dated c. 13023 as a contribution to the debate between Boniface VIII and Philip the Fair of France. John has been judged a major advocate of the royal position and his treatise has been taken to be a principal literary weapon in Philip’s arsenal against the Pope. It has also been judged by many to be a single-issue treatise of great coherence.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Studies in Church History Subsidia , Volume 9: The Church and Sovereignty c.590-1918 , 1991 , pp. 187 - 223
- Copyright
- Copyright © Ecclesiastical History Society 1991
Footnotes
*
A first draft of this study was presented at a Kolloquium des Historisches Kollegs, Munich, 1989: Das Publikum politischer Theorie im 14.jahrhundert Zu den Rezeptionsbedingungen politischer Philosophie im späteren Mittelalter. My thanks to Professor Jürgen Miethke for his many astute comments and criticisms.
References
1 Coleman, Janet, ‘Dominium in thirteenth-and fourteenth-century political thought and its seventeenth-century heirs: John of Paris and Locke’, Political Studies, 34 (1985), pp. 73–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2 Leclercq, Jean, Jean de Paris et l’Ecclésiologie du 13e siècle, (Paris, 1942), pp. 7–8Google Scholar. Only one MS, Paris BN, lat 18288 can be dated with certainty to the first half of the fourteenth century, p. 151. Also see the incomplete list of MSS in Bleienstein, Fritz, Johannes Quidort von Paris, über königliche und päptsliche Gewalt, Textkritische Edition mit deutscher Übersetzung, De regia potestate et papali (Stuttgart, 1969)Google Scholar. For additional MSS see Miethke, Jürgen, ‘Die Traktate De potestate papae, ein Typus politiktheorerischer Literatur im späten Mittelalter’, in Les Genres littéraires dans les sources théologiques et philosophiques médiévales = Université Catholique de Louvain, publications de l’Institut d’Etudes Médiévales, II.5 (1982), p. 209.Google Scholar
3 Leclercq, pp. 10-14.
4 Watt, J.A., tr. and introduction, John of Paris, On Royal and Papal Power (Toronto, 1971), pp. 11–12Google Scholar. Watt argues that John’s deposition theory is the centre of the work, pp. 47-57. A.J., and Carlyle, R. W., A History of Mediaeval Political Theory in the West (Edinburgh, 1928), p. 437Google Scholar: ‘it serves to represent the confident and thorough-going temper in which the French king and his advisers met the claims of Boniface VIII.’ Monahan, Arthur P., tr. and introduction, John of Paris, On Royal and Papal Power (New York, 1974)Google Scholar, for similar views.
5 Finke, H., Aus den Tagen Bonifaz VIII (Münster, 1902), p. 171Google Scholar also called the De poleslate a series of juxtaposed treatises, but Finke argued that there are no links between the parts.
6 Coleman, Janet, ‘The two jurisdictions: theological and legal justifications of church property in the thirteenth century’, SCH, 23 (1987), pp. 75–110Google Scholar. Also Coleman, Janet ‘Property and poverty’ in The Cambridge History of Medieval Political Thought, ed. Burns, J. H. (Cambridge, 1988), pp. 607–48.Google Scholar
7 J. A. Watt, introduction, p. 35, speaks of this university discussion beginning in 1292. For an argument that rejects that there was any Parisian discussion before 1297 which argued that papal renuciarion was invalid, see Marrone, John and Zuckerman, Charles, ‘Cardinal Simon of Beaulieu and relations between Philip the Fair and Boniface VIII’, Traditio, 31 (1975), pp. 195–222Google Scholar, esp. p. 207. There was, however, a debate in 1295-6 in Paris concluding that papal resignation was permissible, according to Godefroid of Fontaines, Quodlibet 12, q.4, and the Thomist Peter of Auvergne (1296).
8 De renuntiatione papae, ed. Rocaberti, J. = Bibliotheca Maxima Pontifica, 2 (Rome, 1698), pp. 1–64Google Scholar.. Also edited by Oliger, L. in AFH, 11 (1918), pp. 366–73Google Scholar. Eastman, John, ed. and introduction, Aegedius Romanas, De renuntiatione papar, Kritische Edition una Analyse der Frage der Paptsab-dankung in der Zeil von Cölatin V und Bonifaz VIII (Würzburg, 1984).Google Scholar
9 This debate continued at least until 1290 when the University of Paris debated, and cardinal legate Gaetani, me future Boniface VIII, found in favour of the mendicants and their privileges against the seculars. See Finke, Aus den Tagen, Quellen III-VII.
10 Coleman, ‘The two jurisdictions’, pp.75-110. Also see Tierney, Brian, Religion, Law and the Growth of Constitutional Thought, 1150-1650 (Cambridge, 1982), pp. 30–5CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Kerckhove, M. van de, ‘La notion de jurisdiction dans la doctrine des decrétistes et des premier decrétalistes’, Etudes Franciscaines, 49 (1937), pp. 420–55.Google Scholar
11 Franciscans conflated jurisdiction and ownership but separated use from ownership. Dominicans separated jurisdiction from ownership but combined use and ownership.
12 For a fuller account of the arguments made by Bonaventure and Pecham see Coleman, ‘The two jurisdictions’, and for the continuation of this debate in the fourteenth century see Wilks, Michael . The Problem of Sovereignty in the Later Middle Ages (Cambridge, 1963).Google Scholar
13 Tierney, Religion, p. 32, n. 6. Innocent IV, Ordinem vestrum. For citations and discussions see Lambert, M. D., Francbcan Poverty, the Doctrine of the Absolute Poverty of Christ and the Apostles in the Franciscan Order, 1210-1323 (London, 1961), p. 97, n. 3Google Scholar and pp. 97-9. On Innocent IV’s Quanto studiosius, p. 100.
14 Congar, Y. M, ‘Aspects ecclésiologiques de la querelle entre mendiants et seculiers’, AHDL, 36 (1961), pp. 35–151Google Scholar. Guillaume de Saint Amour, Depericulis novissimorum temporum (1255): see Tierney, , Religion, pp. 61–2. Ciasen, S., ‘Tractatus Gerardi de Abhatisvilla contra adversarium perfectionisChristiane’, AFH, 31 (1938-9), pp. 276–329 and AFH, 32 (1939-40), pp. 82–200.Google Scholar St Bonaventure’s, Apologiapauperum is in his Opera omnia, 8 (Quaracchi, 1898), pp. 223—330.Google Scholar
15 Apologia pauperum, chs 7-9, pp. 272—89.
16 Also see Bonaventura, , Sermo in Epiphania I, in Opera omnia, 9 (Quaracchi, 1901), pp. 147–8Google Scholar and Collalio, p. 149. Sermo in Epiphania, III, p. 158 and Sermo V, pp. 163-4. In Bonaventure’s, Perf.ev., Opera omnia, 5 (Quaracchi, 1882), p. 193Google Scholar, he says, ‘As vicar of Christ a pope receives from Christ both a royal and a priestly power; the first gives a pope power to rule over temporal matters; the second, over spiritual matters. Both powers belong to the pope as to the one, first and highest ruler.’
17 Little, A. G., The Grey Friars in Oxford, OHS, 20 (1892), provides the text for die debate in appendix, pp. 320–35Google Scholar. Coleman, ‘The two jurisdictions’, pp. 86f., nn. 35—44.
18 Tractates pauperis a fratre Johannis de Peckham conscriptus, (chs 1-6), ed. Wyngaert, A. van (Paris, 1925)Google Scholar. Delorme, F., ‘Trois chapitres de Jean Peckham pour la defense des ordres mendiants’, StFr, 29 (1932), pp. 3–47 (chs 7-9); Collectanea Franciscana, 14 (1944), pp. 84–120Google Scholar (chs 11-14). Fratris Ricardi de Mediavilla, Questio disputata de privilegio Martini IV (Quaracchi, 1925), pp. 79-88, (ch. 15). Fr. Johannes de Peckham, quondam Archiepiscop. Cantu-arensis tractatus Ira de paupertate, ed. Little, A. G. (Aberdeen, 1910), pp. 2, 21–90Google Scholar (prologue, chs 10 and 16, and extracts from other chapters). On Pecham in general, see Douie, Decima, Archbishop Pecham (Oxford, 1952).Google Scholar
19 Tractatus, chs 10, 34. Coleman, ‘The two jurisdictions’, p. 91, nn. 51-3. Many Dominican arguments appear to have taken up the positions of the secular clergy made in the earlier debates. This is of some significance when we realize that John of Paris only entered die Dominican Order after he received the Master of Arts at me University of Paris.
20 Tractatus, ch. 10, pp. 35—8. Coleman, ‘The two jurisdictions’, pp. 91-2, nn. 54-6.
21 Tractatus, ch. 10, pp. 39—42. Coleman, ‘The two jurisdictions’, p. 93, nn. 57-9.
22 Tractatus, eh. 10, p. 43: ‘Credo quod inter omnes possessions pecunia est illecebrosissima que maxima delectat avaros, in quantum in earn omnes alie resolvuntur. Hec est enim inmediatissima omni contractui, omni voluptad, non tantum necessitati.’
23 Aquinas, Summa theologiae, II, ii, q. 66, an. 1-2.
24 In eh. 10 of the De potatale, John of Paris argues that all the Apostles received the same power as Peter ‘and it does not say from him.’ ‘Item eandem potestatem acceperunt omnes apostoli cum Perro. In Novo (Decretum, D. 21, c.2) ubi dicitur quod Petrus ligandi solvendique potesta tem primus accepit, ceteri vero apostoli cum eodem, non dicitur “ab eodem”, pari consorcio honorem et potestatem acceperunt et in collatione huius non posuit Christus aliquam restrictionem respectu aliorum a Petro.’ Peter is only me more principal, as head of the Church, for trie sake of preserving unity. So now, in common law, whatever the pope can do, so can any other bishop: ‘et nunc de iure communi quidquid papa potest quilibet episcopus potest, nisi quod papa potest ubique ceteri vero episcopi in suis dioecesibus tantum’: De potestate, p. 109.
25 Pecham, Expositio super regulam fratrum minorum, in Bonaventura, , Opera omnia, 8 (Quaracchi, 1898), p. 391Google Scholar. On Pecham’s authorship, see pp. lxxi-lxxii.
26 Tractatus, eh. 10, pp. 45-6. Coleman, ‘The two jurisdictions’, p. 94, nn. 63-4.
27 Roensch, Frederick J., Early Thomist School, also published as The Unicity of Substantial Form and its Implications in the Early Thomistic Schools (Dubuque, Iowa, 1964)Google Scholar. Ehrle, F., ‘Der Kampf um die Lehre des hl. Thomas von Aquin in den ersten fünfzig Jahren nach seinem Tod’, ZKTh, 37 (1913) PP.266–318Google Scholar, and ‘John Pechkam über den Kampf des Augustinismus und Aristotelismus in der zweiten Halite des 13.Jahrhunderts’, ZKTh, 13 (1889), PP. 172-93. Callus, D. A., ‘The origins of die problems of the unicity of forms’, in Weisheipl, J. A., ed.. The Dignity of Science: Studies Presented to W.H.Kane, OP (Washington, D.C., 1961).Google Scholar
28 Marston, Roger, Quaestiones disputatae, ed. Bonaventurae, PP. Collegi S., Bibliotheca Franciscana Scholastica, 7 (Florentiae ad Claras Aquas, 1932).Google Scholar
29 Roensch, The Unicity, pp. 17f. Acta capitulorum generalium ordinis praedicatorum, ed. Reichert, B. M. (Rome, 1898), p. 199Google Scholar. Denifle, H. and Chatelain, A., eds, Chartularium Universitatis Parisiensis, 2, p. 567, n. 481Google Scholar. Burbach, M, ‘Early Dominican and Franciscan legislation regarding St. Thomas’, MS, 4 (1942), pp. 139–58.Google Scholar
30 Correctorium, in AFH, 26 (1933),‘Definitiones capituli generalis Argentinae’, p. 139. Crey-tens, R., ‘Autour de la littérature des correctoires’, AHP, 12 (1942), pp. 313–30.Google Scholar
31 See the list of John of Paris’s works in Roensch, Unicity pp. 101—3.
32 Müller, J. P., ed., ‘Le correctorium corruptorii ‘circa’ de Jean Quidort de Paris’, StAns, fasc, xii-xiii (Rome, 1941).Google Scholar
33 Roensch, pp. 266-97. ‘Le correctorium comparii ‘Quare’ (R. Knapwell)’, in Glorieux, P., ed.. Les premiers polémiques thomistes = Bibliothèque Thomiste, 9 (Le Saulchoir, Kain, 1927).Google Scholar
34 Tractalus contra fratrem Robertum Kilwardby OP, ed. Tocco, F., in Fratris Johannis Pecham, quondam Archiepiscop. Cantuarensis, tractalus tres de paupertate, ed. Kingsford, C. L., Little, A. G., and Tocco, F. (Aberdeen, 1910), tract III, pp. 121–47Google Scholar. Coleman, ‘The two jurisdictions’, pp. 95-8. In this tract Pecham makes explicit that he now accepts Innocent IVs doctrine of papal dominium of Franciscan wealth, which Bonaventura and Pecham had previously been reluctant to do. This position would be confirmed by Pope Nicholas III in his Exiit qui seminal (1279). Tractalus contra Kilwardby, p. 140. Exiit, in Regula Fratrum minoris seraphicae legislationis, textus originales (Quaracchi, 1897), pp. 181—227.
35 Tractatus contra Kilwardhy, p. 143.
36 Johannis de Peckham, Quodlibet Romanum, ed. Delorme, F. M. (Rome, 1938), VII, Qq.v, vi, pp. 109–23.Google Scholar
37 Coleman, , ‘The two jurisdictions’, pp. 101–10.Google Scholar
38 Depotestate, ch. 13, citing papal decretals Extra. Qui filii sint legitimi c. Lator (Decretala, 4.17.5) which states that the secular judge or lord should have judgement of hereditary right and c. Causam (Decretala, 4.17.7) of the same title which says: we take account of the fact that it is for the king to judge of such property matters, not the Church, lest we should appear to detract from the right of the king of England, who claims that such judgement belongs to him. Extra. De iudiciis c. Novil (Decretales, 2. 1. 13), etc. John says (p. 137) that to argue that popes teach and write this doctrine merely from humility is completely dangerous. Boniface VIII would indeed modify his own views, on what grounds it is not clear, allowing in time of necessity and danger for a king to tax clergy without prior appeal to Rome, in Romana mater ecclesia (1297). John goes on to say that churchmen can only impose temporal punishments on sinners conditionally, that is, if they wish to repent and accept money penance, for an ecclesiastical judge cannot impose a corporal or money penalty as can a secular judge, except on the condition that the guilty party is willing to accept it: p. 13 8. Edward I made certain that as soon as ecclesiastical judges punished offenders in their courts by pecuniary pains, the case became a question of chattels and under the royal prerogative. Punishments had to remain spiritual in court Christian. Coleman, ‘The two jurisdictions’, p. 103.
39 Douie, Pecham, pp. 129—30. Registrum epistolarum Iohannis Peckham, I, ed. C. Trice-Martin, RS(1882-5), PP. 239—4, Lambeth, November, 1281: ‘Quia tamen oportet Deo magis quam hominibus obedire, ad praevaricarionem legum illarum quae divina auctoritate absque omni dubio subsistunt, nulla possumus humana constitutione legari, nee edam juramento. Quoniam quicquid divinis beneplaciris, dicente Domino, per prophetam ‘Vae qui condunt leges iniquas’. Quia igitur ab antiquo tempore inter reges et magnates Angliae ex parte una, et archiepiscopos et episcopos ac clerum ejusdem regni ex altera, duravit amara dissensio pro oppressione ecclesiae contra decreta summorum pontificum, contra statura conciliorum, contra sanctiones orthodoxorum patrum, in quibus tribus summa auctoritas, summa Veritas, summaque sancritas consistunt, supplicamus regiae majestad quatenus pro honore Dei, ac animae suae suorumque salute, ac prosperitate stabili successionis suae, ab Imperatore omnium obtinenda, in Cuius redundar injuriam ecclesiae conrra praedicta conculario, huic periculosae regno et perniciosae clero discordiae dignetur finem imponere salutatem. Cui finis aliter imponi non potest, nisi vos sublimitatem vestram praedictis tribus scilicet decreris pontificum, statuas conciliorum et sancrionibus orthodoxorum patrum juxta Dei beneplacitum cum catholicis imperatoribus dignemini inclinare. Ex hiis enim tribus sunt cañones aggregati, et jura coronae vestrae Chrisri coronae suppositae, cujus sunt diadema ac sponsae suae monilia, universae ecclesiasticae libertates, ipso per prophetam dicente … (Isa. 61. 10)… Decreris autem summorum pontificum auctoritatem dedit omnium Imperator, dicens Petro in evangelio Matthaei: Quicquid ligaveris super terrain erit ligatum et in coelis. (Matt. 16. 19). Ligat siquidem summus ponrifex non vinculis corporalibus sed spiritualibus, sacris scilicet legibus, quibus tenentur universi nomines obedire, in dicente eodem Domino per Moysen in Deuteronomio (17.12): Qui superbierit nolens obedire sacerdoris imperio, qui et tempore ministrat Domino Deo tuo, ex decreto judiciis, morietur homo ille. Ab hac autem obediencia non est altitudo regia absoluta, sed plusquam ceteri laici ea inferiores eidem obnoxia. … Tenetur igitur rex ipse ex praecepto legis expresso summo pontifici obedire, quod si non fecerit, timere potest est legis insinuatione ne regi sui prolongado minuatur… Ergo nulla obstante consuetudine obediendum est canonibus hierarchice ¡mpositis, hoc est sacris arbitriis praelatorum. Sed dicet forsitan ecclesiae inimicus quod non perdnet ad summum ponrificem juga hujusmodi legum vel canonum imponere principi saeculari, cujus nos cum universali ecclesia et omnibus mundi Sanctis ac sapiendbus ex adverso contrarium affirmamus…. Ergo ad summum ponrificem pertinet omnis controversiae determinano, quae non potest per inferiores quoscumque judices terminan…. Qui igitur ecclesiae non obediunt in concilio praecipue congregato, haeretici sunt censendi. … Haec attendentes, imperatores catholici leges suas omnes sacris canonibus subdiderunt, ne schismatici vel haeretici putarentur. Cum igitur ad vos, excellenrissime domine rex, perrineat pax inclyta imperii, et vos edam tenemini leges vestras canonibus subjicere, et contrarias abolere, turpis est pars quae suo non convenit universo. Constanti nus insuper rex Angliae, et orbis nihilominus imperator, universa concessit quae peämus, et specialiter personas clericorum a solis praelatis ecclesiae judicandas esse decre vit Juramen to vestro tenemini a regno vestro malas consuetudines extirpare, nec juramento aliquo potesti ad ea quae repugnant libertad ecdesiasticae obligan. Et ex abundanti ab omni vos juramento absolvimus, quod potest conscientiam vestram contra ecclesiam aliqualiter excitare.
For Pecham’s continued anti-Thomist stance in metaphysical issues, see Registrum, III (7 Dec. 1284), p. 864 and (1 Jan. 1285), p. 870.
40 In eh. 10, p. 115, John of Paris says, in contrast, that the power of prelates does not come to them from God indirectly through any papal mediation, but directly and also from the people who elect them or consent to their election. Christ, not Peter, sent forth the Apostles, whose successors are the bishops, and not through any intermediary. Cf. with the views of Bonavenrure in Petf.ev., q.4, sec. 7-8, in Opera omnia, 5, p. 193, and ad 7 and ad 9, in 5, p. 196. Also Bonaventure, IV Sent. A. 25, a.1, q. l ad 5,‘Et propter…’in Opera omnia, 4, p. 643 and 4, p. 631.
41 Inch 11, 35, p. 135, John says that they argue further to the diminution of royal power and the elevation of papal dignify that God established the priesthood from the beginning of history of his chosen people but did not institute a king, so that it appears that God did not accept royal government so much as suffer it to exist, ‘sed solum ipsum permisit indignatus.’
42 Heiman, A. J., ‘Essence and esse according to Jean Quidort’, MS, 15 (1953), pp. 137–43.Google Scholar
43 Acta cap. gen., I, p. 204.
44 As John of Paris says in eh. 10, p. 107, the more a thing has perfect existence the more its existence is distinct See also the views on the differentiation of souls per corpora in me writings of the Thomist Thomas Sutton: Ehrle, F., ‘Thomas de Sutton, sein Leben, seine Quolibet und seine Quaestiones disputate’, in Festschrift Georg von Hertling (Kempten, 1913), pp. 426–50Google Scholar. The Quaestiona disputatae are in MS Oxford, Merton College, 138.
45 As Thomists in general would argue, matter has an esse (existence) derived from the form which it has received, and an esse which is really different from chat form, which means it has a capacity to receive form. Quantity is the principle of individuation. As Sutton argued, quantity is not a principal, intrinsic constituent of individuals, but is a disposition, the corporeal nature, which enables a thing’s individuation. Form is not the principle of individuation because of itself it is ‘de se indivisibilis et indifférais ad multas materias’. See Sharp, D. E., ‘Thomas of Sutton OP, his place in scholasticism and an account of his psychology’, Revue néoscholastique de Philosophie, 36 (1934), pp. 332–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar and ‘Thomas of Sutton OP, continued’, ibid., 37 (1934), pp. 88-104 and 219—233. Sutton (fl.c. 1277) was a ‘socius domus de Merton College’ who later became a Dominican. His Quaestiones disputate (MS Oxford, Merton Coll. 138, including his quodlibets) are dated 1280-90.
46 M‘ller, J. P., ‘Les reportations des deux premiers livres du commentaire sur les Sentences de Jean Quidort de Paris, OP’, Angelicum, 32 (1956), pp. 361–414Google Scholar. Heiman, ‘Essence’, PP. 137-43.
47 This coresponds to Knapwell’s Correctorium ‘quare’ at art 31.
48 In a communication to the Historisches Kolleg, Munich, whose proceedings are forthcoming: Jürgen Miethke, ed., Das Publikum politischer Theorie im 14. Jahrhundert. Zu den Rezeplionsbedingungen pälitischer Philosophie im späteren Mittelaller.
49 The Latin text cited throughout is Bleienstein, Fritz, Johannes Quidort von Paris, Über königliche und päpstliche Gewalt, De regia potestate et papali (Stuttgart, 1969), pp. 69–211.Google Scholar
50 De potestate, p. 69.
51 Ibid., pp. 70-1.
52 Pecham played an important part in Edward I’s expulsion of the Jews from England in 1290, although contemporaries also attributed it to the intervention of the Pope. The expulsion of the Jews from Gascony preceded their exile from England. Edward legislated the Statute of Jewry in 1275, restricting their commercial transactions. In 1285 the clergy petitioned that in accordance with the Statute of Jewry, usury laws which had fallen into abeyance should be enforced, with Jews being compelled to restore their goods obtained through usury. Contemporary legislation, however, permitted usury with certain restrictions, and both the Queen Mother and the Queen, Eleanor of Castile, used Jews to acquire estates of small landowners which had been pledged to Jews as security for loans. Pecham was particularly fond of Eleanor, and earnesdy warned her against risking her soul by involving herself in usury, to no avail. When the King of France at first accepted Jewish refugees, his charitable impulses were stifled by remonstrances from the Pope. It seems that Pecham’s view was that no king or clergy could absolve usurers, but because of the papal plena potalas, the pope alone could do this. See Douie, Pecham, pp. 323-30.
53 De potatale, p. 71.
54 Ibid., p. 72.
55 Ibid., ch. 3, p. 82.
56 Ibid., pp. 82-3.
57 Ibid., ch. 7, p. 96.
58 Ibid.
59 Ibid., ch. 7, pp. 96-7.
60 Godefroid de Fontaines, Quodlibets, XI (1294), XII (1295), XIII (1296), and XIV (1297), ed. Hofmans, J., Philosophes Belges, 5 (1932).Google Scholar
61 De potestate, ch.3, p. 82.
62 Ibid., ch. 3, pp. 82-3.
63 Ibid., ch. 7, p. 97.
64 Ibid., ch. 1, p. 76.
65 Ibid.
66 John argues later, in ch. 15, p. 151, that there is no reason why what has validity in private law (which deals with private property of individuals) necessarily has validity in public law (which deals with the common good). ‘Quae autem lege privata dicuntur nulla ratio est ut lege publica construantur.’
67 De putatale, ch. 1, p. 76.
68 Ibid., ch. 1, pp. 76-7.
69 Ibid., ch. 4, p. 86, ‘quorum officium est ad vitae humanae civilis necessitatem.’
70 Ibid., ch. 13, p. 139.
71 Ibid., p. 138.
72 Jacques Krynen, ‘“De nostre certaine science…” Remarques sur l’absolutisme legislatif de la monarchie médiévale française’, in André Gouron et Rigaudière, Albert, eds, Renaissance du pouvoir législatif et génèse de l’état = Publications de la Societé d’Histoire du Droit et des Institutions des Anciens Pays de Droit Ecrit, 3 (Montpellier, 1988), pp. 131–44Google Scholar, at p. 131 (my translation).
73 De potestate, ch. 2, pp. 79—80.
74 Ibid., ch. 2, p. 81.
75 Ibid., ch. 4, p. 85.
76 Ibid., ch. 5, pp. 87-9.
77 Ibid., ch. 10, p. 108.
78 Ibid., p. 109: ‘Et propter has raciones voluit sapientissimus ordinatur dictas duas potestates esse distinctas re et subiecto.’
79 Ibid., ch. 6, pp. 91-2.
80 Ibid., ch. 8, pp. 98-9.
81 Ibid., p. 100.
82 Ibid., pp. 101-2.
83 Ibid., chs 8 and 10.
84 In Romana mala ecclesie, in Raynaldus, O., ed., Annales ecclesiastici (ad annum 1297, sect49)Google Scholar, Boniface says diat in cases of necessity, where delay might result (in consulting Rome) and prove dangerous, a king could licitly seek clerical subsidies on his own authority.
85 Tierney, Brian, Foundations of the Conciliar Theory, 2nd edn (Cambridge, 1968)Google Scholar, pt 3, ch. 1, ‘John of Paris’, pp. 157—78; Scholz, R., Die Publizistik zur Zeit Philipps des Schönen und Bonifaz VIII (Stuttgart, 1903), pp. 198–208Google Scholar; Herde, P., Cölestin V (1294), (Peter vom Marrone) der Engelpapst, mit einem Ürkundenanhang und Edition zweier Viten (Stuttgart, 1981).Google Scholar
86 For a discussion of the manifestos, see Marrone, John and Zuckerman, Charles, ‘Cardinal Simon of Beaulieu’, Traditio, 31 (1975), pp. 195—222,202–3Google Scholar; Denifle, H., ‘Die Denkschriften der Colonna gegen Bonifaz VIII und der Cardinale gegen die Colonna’, Archiv für Literatur und Kirchengachichte des Mittelalters, 5 (1889) pp. 493–529.Google Scholar
87 See Eastman Introduction to Aegedius Romanus: De renuntialione papae.
88 Note that laymen are not given property but rather acquire it through natural labour and skill. Through the law of inheritance, sale, etc., they enhance their natural rights to be owners by acquiring even more than they have directly laboured for. Except in cases concerning the public good, laymen are the rightful administrators of what is their own.
89 De potatale, ch. 13, p. 140: ‘Et tunc imperator requisitus a cardinalibus cum sit membrum ecclesiae, deberet procedere contra papam modo praedicto ad eius depositionem.’
90 Tierney, Foundations, pp. 157-78,162.
91 De potatale, ch. 18, pp. 164-5.
92 Ibid., ch. 19, p. 173.
93 Ibid., ch. 19, reply to argument 35, pp. 175-6.
94 Krynen, ‘De nostre certaine science’, p. 131, my translation.
95 De potatale, p. 177.
96 Ibid., ch. 21, p. 180.
97 But it has been doubted whether a co-ordinated debate of this kind ever took place. See Marrone and Zuckerman, ‘Simon of Beaulieu’, p. 207. No copy of the so-called sealed University of Paris determination survives, which argued that it was illicit for a pope to abdicate. Marrone and Zuckerman conclude that the Colonna lied at the 1310 proceedings.