.0". .-m

 

 

 

 

 

PAPACY

EENTH - CENTURY
AS VIEWED BY_THOSE

THE 't'HlRT

 

OUTSIDE THEI’RfIIM‘~ ’ ‘ CURIA

 

 

 

  

V f. ‘. H- V .
. . . .
r . . . < ‘
: V
‘
. . Z . < .
. .. z , . V
y . ,
. A .

 

 

 

 

.0

 

was

3“, .

‘

 

'theD‘e

Bismafidn for
was

GM ism

 

 

..x., 234,»... A A

  
 

 

 

Jd‘k-‘fl" “H"WL
LIBRAL Y
Britt}; 5.33.11 5 tat:
Unnrcmty

   
      

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled

THE THIRTEENTH-CENTURY PAPACY
AS VIEWED BY THOSE
OUTSIDE THE ROMAN CURIA

presented by

Carole Jeanne Dobson

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

Ph.D. degree in Interdiscgplinary

 

k
/ Major professor

Date ’2' A3 ' 75/

0-7639

 
     
    

  

E, BINDING av :1.
l HUM 8: SUNS
l ‘5': r.- _~"'\‘ “

ii“ BUM othucHY NC _.
m LlEx’U‘Jv (“NUFRS ll
. sralusrom, MlCHlBA_ll H

lel

——q..-_.....¢———_~——.—

       

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  
 
 
 
 
 
     
  
      
  
    
    
  
  
  
  
   
  
 
 
  
  

IOEWIAL‘I

“I THIRTEIK’W—"" 2'3 D“"C’
‘5 VIE‘EL L'r ’ UL):
JUMLX m ”0”" gal.-

gm .

(lruz...» loan: n ‘4 ‘

"h‘l‘

W“~rtouon QiLtfi‘t.)
"‘1‘ ‘n .1"

' m by timer. 3;.” .
~,_ _ Ma tho group. authen-
‘ .

t :5.

w r '{m
4"}:

u’ .-M :m. 4-.
.‘a‘
'n Va.

. " ). t~ CPDrgV; PCT 'LIi'W‘mQ In"

”WWI-5 .."'~'.r‘?‘ ow,” :-

.uvml nevusamn. um

' rigs, Frv‘lq

Van Door twiwma 1-.

"-9 11117. 7

h ‘ 0"”!- Omrcc material. 3'." (will? 42!" '. --r 7 ~'
«:A‘wfi. . .
‘ . .. -' fut $01:me "MM-nuns rvut- air m:- s ,.
;'-;.‘ «.9
x ‘ INN" mm w. w WM,
. Inga.“
”W .W'.’ ”9.; pg." during a. midst. Aqom Dual
\ m not "I. who]. of dost-2n Harm-9 9"".
If ‘ ‘ mm the “we of all Sum. MM
: 1 . whim on Naming W of
$3.
~ _m. on“. «and»... 3?. u
‘ on. tum In m
‘3:

NI

(1

 

 

 

 

ABSTRACT

THE THIRTEENTH-CENTURY papacy
as VIEWED av THOSE
OUTSIDE THE ROMAN CURIA
By

Carole Jeanne Dobson

This dissertation attempts to explore the various opinions
held about the papacy by those outside the Roman curie during the
thirteenth century. The groups studied include the secular rulers
(kings and emperors), the clergy, and those lay groups ehich expressed
opinions about the papal institution. Only France, England. end the
Holy Roman Elpire have been included in the study. Chronicles have
provided the bulk of the source material, but political tracts, poetry,
and literature written for spiritual edification have also been used.

Historians generally agree that the thirteenth century
Iarked the high point of papal power during the middle Ages: Papal
organs of government extended over the whole of Western Europe end,
directly or indirectly, affected the lives of all Europeans. However,
the thirteenth century also witnessed an increasing nueber of
complaints against papal corruption, greed. and morldliness. It is
the thesis of this dissertation that, ahile Europeans in general
accepted the papacy as a vital institution. their visas on what the
papacy should be doing and on the extent of papal power differed,

scletilea draletically, from the views held by the various popes.

 

em. or thnu my”?
3.51:5: and cries 0f 93
mm.
Thu grutoat

m natty. At one 931"
rind the right of the I
astlaiud that thoy. n“
:22: local snatches and t

1"! nasty om- thase p01

 

mm to rid the [but
:.:L:tly spiritual functi

£13m-
“My CMrchagn. up
Mr!
C“, they. too. 9:.
sari
”Mucus. cormp‘
“331cm:

Carole Jeanne Dobson
Because of these varying expectations and conceptions of papal power
conflict and cries of papal corruption were common throughtout the
century.

The greatest disputes occurred between the secular rulers and
the papacy. At one point or another almost all the secular leaders
denied the right of the papacy to meddle in purely political affairs
and claimed that they, not the popes. were to hold the prime control
over local churches and churchmen. After years of bitter conflict with
the papacy over these points the Holy Roman Emperor Frederick II
proposed to rid the Church of all its wealth and to limit the papacy to
strictly spiritual functions in order to save the world from corrupt
and greedy churchmen. While none of the monarchs went as far as
Frederick, they, too, frequently complained that the various popes were
overly ambitious, corrupt. or even heretical. when Rome attempted to
exert control in the political arena.

These same cries of papal corruption were also voiced among
the clerical classes who resented papal interference in local matters
(unless it was to their benefit) and especially papal monetary demands.
Therefore. while churchmen, like secular rulers, did accept the papacy
as the religious head of Western Europe, they often saw individual
papal actions as signs of greed and corruption. Even those preletes
who fully endorsed the great papal reform schemes were quick to protest
if the papacy's methods conflicted with their own ideas on how the
various reforms should be accomplished.

The laity also showed frequent signs of discontent over the
existing papal institution. Although only a few heretical groups, such

as the Cathars and the Usldensians, expressed a desire to see the

may :estroyed, there I_
use in the Reno curls.
:engioue leaders of the
gimme. Also, while m:
Wflyptic mvenente he’

'ee seen as the Pasteur”
N

 

insisting evils of t
we Stapcsed corruption
otlc'saroblees was rec

3“ 3‘43 0' political eff:-

14'5; While th! papacY' S

:9' all 0' Europe's “.13.

:air' - ‘
lst. .ore and politi

mi: ‘
“:1 f’meucms in p.

Carole Jeanne Dobson
papacy destroyed. there were few who did not want to see some changes
made in the Roman curia. After Francis of Assisi none of the lay
religious leaders of the period looked to the papacy for spiritual
guidance. Also, while most of the century's frequent penitentisl and
apocalyptic movements had no connection whatsoever with the papacy, a
few such as the Egstguggaux and the Apostolic Brethren ended by blaming
the existing evils of the world on a corrupt papacy. This idea that
the supposed corruption of the papacy was somehow to blame for the
world's problems was repeated by Dante, who called for the popes to
get out of political affairs and to return to their spiritual duties.
Thus, while the papacy's dream of a united Christendom-- a dream shared
by all of Europe's Christians-- required that the popes be able
administrators and politicians, many saw the papacy as sacrificing its

spiritual functions in pursuit of worldly goals.

 

i 9‘
n partial

D
eaartmen

THE THIRTEENTH-CENTURY PAPACY
AS VIEWED BY THOSE

OUTSIDE THE ROMAN cunm
8v

Carols Jeanne Dobson

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Department of Interdisciplinary Studies

1975

 

I,.-~.
.1. - ”"11
.00. V' . . . . . .

3:1: 1' Ti-{ SACAL VIE
I??? 11: "rf SEC'JLA‘?
353.71! Hf FCLY
M9? 2: T‘{ "'23“;

32?: '

in! CHL'ECHJ'EK I
4:2; ..

«~I-‘s LAY RELIST"

"1"“ ‘1‘.
e. As '
‘5'U‘be‘ . .
O
O
O
U
0

5:5! 7“‘ R
\‘Ua-aAPHY
. O
. O O

0C7

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
CHAPTER I: THE PAPAL VIEW OF ITS ROLE IN SOCIETY .
CHAPTER II! THE SECULAR STATE AND THE PAPACY . . .
PART 1: THE HOLY ROMAN EMPIRE . . . . . . .
PART 2: THE MONARCHIES (FRANCE AND ENGLAND)
CHAPTER III: CHURCHMEN AND THE PAPACY . . . . . . .
CHAPTER IV: LAY RELIGIOUS ENTHUSIASM AND THE PAPACY
CONCLUSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

BIBLIOGRAPHY I O C I O O O O O O I O I O O O I C O O

32

32

7B

119

171

217

225

Vs-

HUN” irSZitUo

 

:2 :t'neruise. are ”In“:

::ssi‘:le sources! D’W‘ii‘

tESEDetSCfiS 01' grouos '

:fiese tea methods the It

”‘9” 351
«s u B

when

abreakdoun in the cr

I N T R O D U C T I O N

Human institutions, whether political, religious, social,
or otherwise, are ultimately dependent for their authority upon two
possible sources: physical coercion and/or general acceptance by
those persons or groups with which the institutions are involved. Of
these two methods the latter is generally regarded as the more
acceptable, while the use of force is usually considered as evidence
of a breakdown in the credibility of an institution. The proper
functioning of any institution without physical force is therefore in
direct correlation to how well that institution meets the needs and
expectations of those affected by the institution.

The thirteenth century, generally considered by
historians as marking the high point of the medieval papacy, began
under Pope Innocent III, who, as one chronicler maintained,1 would
have ruled the world had he lived ten more years, and ended under
Pops Boniface VIII, who was defiled as a usurper and heretic before
being made a prisoner of the French at Anagni and dying a short while
afterwards in humiliation at Rome. The question of what caused this
tremendous change of attitude towards the papal institution has been

the subject of numerous inquiries ever since the events at Anagni.

 

7 1Bishop Sichard of Parma as cited in Salimbene de Adam,
"Cronica," Monumgnta Germaniae Historica, Scrigtorss, XXXII, pp- 19-20.

   
  
   
   
 

32;; as: any of his C:
32's can bed faith alt:
2:12:in easel instituti

:ee' receeted in Dupuy‘s

4': 3
'

-.‘a ‘R U
&‘9 Haj-‘9 93‘1’5;=

 

‘AEJ- Chamberlin'g Th
”was. he t '

! V8 avoided ’J‘.
33:!"- ‘igrney3 b

1
$3581 the

"‘:.3“‘m
be.-:'.°u A e
S '8! galhst F}

'8.
s Vuch P ' l
. .helr Interpre‘:
_=‘.°.
.. _y 53. ‘he
5 “a 4"
I‘ as 1
-.._ Sgie

h believed I»

'an
ahil
«e, Anh‘l
t. ‘ 1!
that ‘
t 5he
De
“he cm patty
u :5 ry
$33? . TheSh I
\ "
2 he
8
3 h ""1 !

2
Dante and many of his contemporaries blamed Boniface's fate on the
pope's own bad faith along with a general overall corruption in the
existing papal institution. The theme of Boniface as a bad pope has

been repeated in Dupuy's seventeenth-century Histoire g2 Differend

' n P Bonifa V e Phili es lo el Ro de rance and
in E. R. Chamberlin's The flag ngeg (1969). Most historians,

however, have avoided this simplistic answer. A. L. Smith2 and

Brian Tierney3 blamed the decline of papal power on the papacy's
disastrous war against Frederick II in the mid-thirteenth century,
although their interpretations of this war differed markedly.

Tierney saw the war as giving rise to new theories of the state,
while Smith believed Innocent IV's pontificate marked a high point of
papal corruption which in turn led to an irrepairable loss in papal
prestige. T. S. R. Boase4 and Steven Runciman5 blamed the papacy's
decline on its Sicilian policies which allowed too much French

influence. Cordon Leff's flgzesy in the Late; Middle Ages (1967)
accused the papacy of losing touch with the spiritual needs of the
age. Meanwhile, Achille Luchaire's multi-volume work on Innocent 1116
denied that the papacy was really very strong even at the beginning

of the century. These are only a few of the many explanations

offered for the seemingly great decline in papal prestige from the

—-—_—

zfihgggg and State in the Middlg Ages (1913).

3 s r h nd tate 50- 300 (1964).
“mum (1933).

5The Sicilian ygggggs (1958).

6Innocent III (6 vols.: 1906-1908).

:rtir‘izete 0' Inmw‘t

Largely 19"“

 

1!! 33:31 governeent, tt
scents of papal po-er
arrest the century t

are and if they coincid

 

:aeiic charges in the a

01‘} .- -
new. ‘ ‘ A

.. ce perhaps “‘3
‘erind ’
as Its almost t3

- .3 into actual pr:

“P.“

3
pontificate of Innocent III to that of Boniface VIII.
Largely ignoring the works of those directly involved in
the papal government, this dissertation has attempted to trace the
concepts of papal power held by those outside the Roman curia

throughout the century to determine not only what these concepts

were and if they coincided with papal ideals but also if there were

drastic changes in the attitudes towards the papacy between 1198 and
1303. Since perhaps the most striking feature of the papacy of this
period was its almost total commitment to putting its ideals and
theories.into actual practice, it was necessary for the various
popes to advance theories that would correspond as nearly as
possible to the expectations of the rest of European society. With
no standing army or other military force the papacy was almost
entirely dependent upon its prestige for power: its spiritual
weapons, such as excommunication and interdict, could have little
practical effect upon a public which was indifferent or hostile to
it as an institution. Therefore, while prestige was the basis of
papal power, this prestige was dependent upon the acceptance of papal
theories in that they provided the framework for actual practice.
Because it is first necessary to outline papal
objectives and assumptions, Chapter One will deal with the basic
principles behind papal government. The primary focus of this
chapter will be on the pontificate of Innocent III (1198-1216),
since, as most modern historians agree, there was no radical change
in papal theories throughout the remainder of the century. Moreover,
the theories behind papal government will be stressed much more than

their practical application by the various popes. Since this chapter

 

SC

11‘

4
is largely introductory and is meant primarily to serve as a point of
reference for later chapters, secondary sources have been used, major
controversies regarding papal theories have largely been ignored, and
the sympathetic views of Brian Tierney and J. A. Watt have been
accepted. Unlike many historians who view the medieval papacy from
national or religious biases, these two historians have attempted in
their works to present papal views within a papal framework: that is,
they have attempted to show how the popes themselves saw their role
in thirteenth-century society. Another great aid in this chapter has
been Horace Kinder Mann's The Lives of thg Pages in the Middle Ages
(18 vols.; 1926-1931). While in many respects out of date and perhaps
too apologetic, this work gives a very adequate view of the great
scope of papal activity during the height of its power.

The remaining three chapters will deal with the
expectations and reactions of other segments of European society in
regard to the papacy. Chapter Two will be devoted to the ideas and
expectations of the secular rulers, Chapter Three to the opinions of
churchmen, and Chapter Four to the views of various sections of the
laity. Since these chapters hope to cover a rather wide time span,
they will only be concerned with a limited geographical erase the
Holy Roman Empire, France, and England, since their interplay with
the papacy was most crucial during the thirteenth century.

Since, as already stated, this work covers a rather wide
time span and geographical area, sources have had to be more selective
than inclusive. Assuming that theories are usually formulated after
the fact, I have depended heavily upon the chronicles of the period to

determine what the people were doing and what they thought about

5

papal activities. The chronicles of Roger of Wendover, metthew Paris,
and Salimbene de Adam have been the most useful, since they all covered
wide time spans and were interested in all European events rather than
with purely local affairs. Of course, other less comprehensive
chronicles have been used to augment the three above-mentioned
chronicles for greater depth in particular areas. Unfortunately,
my own time limits have prevented me from reviewing all the
chronicles of the period. While chronicles provide the bulk of the
primary source material used, the major political poems of the era
by such men as Rutebeuf, Walther von der Vogelweide, Peire Cardenal,
and Dante Alighisri have been used when they pertain to the papacy.
The great mass of thirteenth-century religious poetry has been
ignored, since it does not directly pertain to the subject of papal
prestige. Another major primary source has been the diplomatic
correspondence of Frederick II, whose struggle with the papacy
further defined the boundaries of church and stats. Theoretical
writings have been generally ignored except in the cases of Dante,
Thomas Aquinas, and a few others whose works were well known during
the period or offered a novel approach to the problems of papal power.
Secondary sources have also been widely used, especially in regard to
the heretical movements and the reigns of various monarchs, since the
primary source material on both these themes tends too often to be
extremely prejudiced.

There are numerous limitations to this work. It does not
pretend to offer any final solution or explanation for the thirteenth-
century papacy. Since it concentrates on the opinions of those

outside the Roman curia, such vital issues as the papacy's financial

6

problems, papal control over legetes and cardinals, and other internal
problems have been generally ignored. However, the understanding of
these subjects is necessary for a total comprehension of the papacy
during the period. Also, the papacy here has been dealt with as an
institution and the personalities of the various popes-- undoubtedly
an important factor to many contemporaries such as Matthew Paris and
Salimbene- have been generally overlooked. Such a distinction
between the office and the man holding the office is never that
clearly drawn in real life. Assuming that the papacy was to be
obeyed blindly because of its supposedly divine origin-- another rather
absurd assumption in real life-- there has been no attempt here to
make any moral or other judgments on particular papal practices.
Indeed, meet individual papal policies have been ignored except when
they seem to demonstrate the opinions of those outside the curia. The
division of this work into clergy, secular rulers, and laity is quite
arbitrary and has been used primarily for the sake of providing some
type of order. While such divisions did exist, these three groups were
continually interacting with each other and reacting to much the same
outside stimuli. National particularities were very evident throughout
the period and would have perhaps provided a better method of division;
but, since papal theory did distinguish groups primarily according to
their functions in society, I have used the three stated classifications.

Another major limitation of this work is the fact that it
concentrates almost exclusively upon criticism directed against the
papacy. Because the major aim has been to determine why the events of
Anagni took place and why there was no general response of outrage

among either the clergy or the laity, the vast amount of literature

uczrtirg the papacy h

articulerly evident is

:15 ‘raninicens, and the
mgestioning loyalty
tie: from any discu

‘9?“ v-
...Zae.s who general}
.nt-red except in case

.La. ?
re or. Dr0gram.

.-,‘.-
a~.'v ‘

LOi

r should be awa“

39231,:

34:1 ‘ .7.
-U
:"fl‘ 1',"
A QU3’ it “as n
0

.u‘ o
e‘:: 1‘
U

5 Claim to be

. Chapter r
3‘22 1;,
..Dra
.. Cy has e
“‘15 “eke-n 1-.
2f: lng t?
~~ :
De felt to.
.v “at:
- *8:
e [no t
355.. Voca1
"ts-En!-
.Etng 0?
a DO!
.‘%§31 ,
.g y Uhk
a“: "Owafil
" ‘53 t
W583 an
0
:E‘irf‘h 0”th
:3 amo
. ”'9 t a
‘ ‘tEd 11
”t
~. 8
"‘33-: ‘5 rest
nere
a
‘1: '1

7

supporting the papacy has largely been ignored. This weakness is
particularly evident in Chapter Three where the clergy have been
discussed. Such vital groups as the canon lawyers, the scholastics,
the Dominicans, and the Conventual Franciscans, all of whom gave almost
unquestioning loyalty to the papal institution, have generally been
omitted from any discussion. Indeed, the whole group of ecclesiastical
reformers who generally supported papal power and prestige has been
ignored except in cases where their reform ideas conflicted with the
papal reform program. A true assessment of the thirteenth-century
papacy would have to take these factors more into consideration. The
reader should be aware that, although the high papal ambitions of
such thirteenth-Century popes as Innocent III were somewhat modified
after 1303, it was not until over two centuries later that the papacy
lost its claim to be called the one spiritual head of Western Europe.

Chapter Four has posed the most numerous difficulties.

4 Since literacy was extremely low and there were no public opinion
polls taken during the thirteenth century to indicate how the masses
of Europe felt towards the papacy, only the attitudes of those groups
which were most vocal can be assessed with any accuracy. How
representative of popular opinion these groups were is therefore
ultimately unknowable. The question as to whether these groups
represented an outward manifestation of widespread, but covert,
feelings among the laity as a whole or whether they merely reflected
a limited interest group has been left largely unsettled except in
cases where an answer is evident. Only when several sources agree on
the interpretation of some papal activity or event can a general

attitude be determined. There is also the problem that few people

W——_——

8
Content with the gtgtgg'ggg have much motivation to record their ideas.
This leaves the bulk of literature to be written by those persons
alienated or angry at the existing institutions. An accurate analysis
of the heretical movements and their relationship to the papacy is also
almost impossible. Pious inquisitors often tended to destroy original
heretical works and to paint the heretics in the worst possible light.
Modern historians dealing with heresy also have their own biases.
While the old view of the heretics as the noble forerunners of the
Reformation has generally been discarded, many modern historians give
a disproportionate importance to the heretical movements so that they
seem to be the prime force in the society rather than a rather limited
social phenomenum. Also, few historians have been able to escape
without passing some moral judgment, either positive or negative, on
the heretics and their ideas. Given these problems, it is almost
totally impossible in most cases to make a definite statement on the
attitude of the heretics towards the papacy and to analyze their
relationship to Rome. The attempt nevertheless has been made to
determine if and when the papacy was a direct target of the heretics or
merely a part of a whole social order against which the heretics were

rebelling.

Although '“5
'srticrs had been 66V
‘5: until the thirteen

raga-n to systematize tl

 

C H A P T E R I
THE PAPAL VIEW OF ITS ROLE IN SOCIETY

Although most of the doctrines regarding the papacy's
functions had been developed during the preceding centuries,1 it was
not until the thirteenth Century that canon lawyers and theologians

began to systematize these earlier ideas into a unified whole.2 At

 

1For a general discussion of the development of papal

theory before 1200 see Walter Ullmann, The growth of Papal Government
in the Migglg Ages (London: Methuen and Company, Ltd., 1955).

Ullmann tends, however, to picture the popes as uniting in a vast
conspiracy to usurp secular power and is therefore not to be relied
upon as a final authority for the development of papal power. An
older and more sympathetic view is provided by Richard Chenevix
Trench, ngtgggg 9n Medigval Church History (London: Macmillan and
Company, 1897), pp. 149-167. Despite its obviously moralistic over-
tones, Trench's view that the papacy rose to power through various
historical circumstances, such as the idea of Rome and the importance
of religion to the medieval mind, probably comes closer to portraying
the events leading up to doctrines of papal supremacy. A more modern
version is presented by Roland H. Bainton, The Medieval Church
(Princeton, New Jersey: D. Van Nostrand Company, Inc., 1962), pp.
10-74. While in most ways agreeing with Trench, Bainton places more
emphasis on the "innovations” wrought by Gregory VII. A more
theoretical approach to the development of papal ideas is offered by
Albert Hyma, at an an itics: A to
n u nd at (New York: J. B. Lippincott, 1938),
pp. 1-3‘. The importance of the concept of empire to the development
of papal theory is stressed by Robert Folz, Thg fiongggt of figgige in
n m F h o h ou te nth ntur , trans. by
Shiele Ann Ogilvie (Great Britain: Edward Arnold Ltd., 1969), pp. 7?-
97: and William D. McCreedy, ”Papal Plggitugg Pgtggtetie and the Sources
of Temporal Authority in Late Medieval Papal Hierocratic Theory,"
filmm- XLVIII (October 1973), pp. 654-662.

2The study of all types of law became more important in

9

:1 sale the the mint
been! and into can
retrained encroach to
mum: of this new 1

an that .ith only “'0

 

.cemry acpes received i
ttecver. canon law and
inclusions how the ac‘

:cces so that the three

The tone of
1! Deriod's first DUDE

swing in both canon

:Bltit and a legalistic

 

10
the same time the reintroduction of Roman law into European thought
in general and into canon law in particular brought a more logical
and unified approach to problems of church government.3 The
importance of this new system of thought was greatly enhanced by the
fact that with only two minoruexceptigne<allfigf_thewthirteenth-
.century popes received their training in canon 19!#EQQ.41§l9§fi1¢14

Moreover, canon law and scholasticism derived many of their

_EEEEEESEEEE_IEEE,t"° activities  and pronouncements of the individual
Mimijhejmes L913 ghost totally, interrqlfit‘ks

The tone of thirteenth-Century papal thought was set by
the period's first pope Innocent III, who had received extensive
training in both canon law and theology. Imbued with a firm reform
spirit and a legalistic mind, this pope set out to define the proper

role of the papacy in the world. His emphasis upon codifying and

 

the thirteenth century: Trench, 22. git., p. 1623 Helen Jane Weddell,

Tu: We nagging §cholgrs (New York: Doubleday and Company, Inc., 1955),
pp. 142-143; R. W. Carlyle and A. J. Carlyle, A History of Mgdieval
T o n h t, Vol. V: e Po 1 al The of th

(New York: Barnes and Noble, Inc., 1928), p. 4;

w
and Ewart Lewis, Magi egg; Eolitiggl Iggas (2 vole.; New York: Alfred
“a “Half. 1954), VOle II, p. 433s

33- H- Lawrence. ado. W

in the Middle Ages (London: Burns and Dates, 1965), p. 120: and
Clarence Gallagher, S.J., ”Canon Law and the Christian Community: I,
A Classical View,” ugxghzog Jgugnal, XII (July 1971), p. 295.

4Bernard McGinn, "The Abbott and the Doctors: Scholastic
Reactions to the Radical Eschatology of Joachim of Fiore," ghuggh
. XL (March 1971), p. 30. The two exceptions were the physician
John XXI and the hermit Celestine v.

sTrench points out that neither the canonists nor the
scholastics were particularly original, but says that both were
primarily concerned with justifying the status g_g through the use of
rsason and new interpretations of old lawszo _2, git., pp. 162 and 204-
2 8.

11

enlarging the mass of canon law created a new legalistic framework
for the government of the Church.6 In 1234 Gregory Ix brought
together the most important statements of Innocent along with the
older body of canon law to form the Qggggtglg§.7 This new
comprehensive compilation was added to by all of the thirteenth-
century popes, especially Innocent IV and Boniface VIII.8 Also,
during the middle of the century Thomas Aquinas, the greatest of the
scholastic theologians, further augmented the definition of the
Church's role in society by applying Aristotelian logic to Christian
doctrines.

While these new systems of thought tended to be
legalistic and theoretical, they nevertheless were essentially
religious in that both canon law and scholasticism were based upon
the fundamental tenets of the Christian faith. The primary goal in
life was still eternal salvation; and Christ was still considered the
true mystical head of the Church. What canonists and scholastics did
'do was to press these religious premises to their logical conclusion
and to provide a system for their practical application in the real

world. Human reason was thus made to complement divine revelation.

 

6Lawrence, 99, git., p. 121. For the importance of
Innocent III to thirteenth-century canonist thought see J. A. Watt,
"The Theory of Papal Monarchy in the Thirteenth Century: the
Contribution of the Canonists," :aditio, XX (1964), pp. 179-317.
Watt states that Innocent was ”the most important papal legislator of
the thirteenth century and an outstanding analyst of papal primacy.”

7Brian Tierney, tions of t i h 0
(Cambridge: University Press, 1955), p. 17.

8Brian Tierney, In; Crisis gf Chuggh and §§at§. 1050-
JQQQ (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1964), p.
150.

firmer, while maki
they prescribed almc

Papal the-

 

:znceots of unity or

 

 

:‘m natural and fun!
sill was revealed tl

Iristianity .35 t h.

I|:
..3

.o Sir‘ce MU'S ‘

”it.“ his Spiritua

inattence than any

 

WV'

12
Moreover, while making the world into a logical and orderly whole,
they prescribed almost a divine mission to the papacy.

We

£32E2EE:_3:_22£E!_EEE~E£252£EEY° The world supposedly consisted of
the natural and fundamental unity of all creation under God, Whose
will was revealed through the teachings of the Christian faith.
Christianity was thus the one "true" religion and God the center of
life. Since man's purpose in life was his return to God, the Perfect
Unity, his spiritual well-being was necessarily of much more
importance than any material comfort. As Thomas Aquinas stated,
"Wherefore, as there can be nothing which is not created by God, so
there can be nothing which is not subject to his government."9 It
was for these reasons that the Church, as established by Christ, the
Son of God, through Peter, was to be the primary leader of society.10
These ideas were clearly expressed in the papal bull uggm figngtgm
(1302):

By our faith, we are forced to believe and maintain one
holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. This we firmly believe, and
we confess simply that out of it there is no salvation, nor
remission of sins, for the spouse in the Canticles declared 'Dne
is my dove, my perfect one is but one, she is the only one of
her mother, the chosen of her that bore her' (Cant., vi, 8).

This represents the one mystical body of which the head is
Christ--the God in Christ, and in which there is one Lord, one

 

9Thomas Aquinas, Th3 Sugmg Thgologigg, trans. by the

Fathers of the English Dominican Province (London: Burns, Dates and
Washbourne, Ltd., 1941), First Part, D 103, Art 5.

10Marcel Pacaut, ”L'autoitS pontificale selon Innocent
IV.“ flaxlg_figg. LXVI (1960), pp. 104-106. R. W. Southern stated that
one of the fUndementai characteristics of the Middle Ages was the
complete identification of the Church with the whole of society;

Wgstggn §ggigty god the.§hu;§h in t5; Midglg Aggs (Baltimore: Penguin
Books, 1970), p. 16.

faith and one baptism.11

Furthermore, as Aquinas maintained, this Church was incapable of

error because of its unity with God through the Holy Spirit.12

Because Christian society supposedly consisted of a single unity, it
was believed that there had to be a single, ultimate source of
authority and this source was to be the pope, the successor of Peter.
The great canonist Hostiensis thus defended papal power on the

grounds that it was necessary in the interests of unity and concord.13

The interests of the Church as well as those of Christian society were
LWH—Ifix

 

tWEfifliflflfihE’fiEUDLPEP§°Y° 4

While the world was believed to consist of a single
unity, it was also supposedly arranged in a perfect hierarchy. This
Platonic concept of hierarchy which had long played a primary role in
Christian theology and which also provided one of the basic
theoretical principles for the institution of feudalism was generally
accepted as the basis for order during the thirteenth century.
Accordingly, authority went from higher to lower in a perfect pyramid
fashion to preserve the proper working of human society.15 God, the

ultimate peak of this hierarchy, held all authority: and all true

 

1"Horace Kinder Mann, The Liyes of thg Poggs in the

fligglg_fig§g (London: Kegen Paul, Trench, Trubner and Company, Ltd.,
1931), vol. XVIII. pp. 346-347.

12

Aquinas, 22, 531., Second Part of Part Two, 0 1, Art 9.
13Gallagher, 9g. 311., p. 285.
1"Maureen Purcell, "Changing Views of Crusades in the
Thirteenth Century,” Jgggn nal gfi figligiggs History, VII (June 1972),
Pa 15a
15

Gallagher, 2g.‘git., p. 285.

mar had to cone thrI
c? religion, it was nl
:‘etetscral one in t
15:: the power given

:rier to make it unde
13"”359 IhOl greater

The canon:

rim. position in tl

when: authority

”‘ ”lasing the i

:3»:er the twin can

23 331.6 a temorsl c

23:15:! in panel :1

‘itual and tensor

”tau 8r

—. w—v‘v '

14

power had to come through Him. Because of the preeminent importance
of religion, it was necessary that the spiritual authority be above
the temporal one in the earth's hierarchy: "Did he [Paul] not explain
that the power given over angels extended also to temporalities in
order to make it understood that lesser things also are subordinated
to those whom greater ones are subject?"16

The canonists and scholastics assigned the papacy a
unique position in this hierarchy. While Roman law emphasized the
preeminent authority of the ruler, church tradition had gradually
been enlarging the importance of the papacy. By the beginning of the
century the twin concepts of the pope as Christ's vicar and of Christ
as both a temporal and spiritual king were being developed and
accepted in papal circles.17 Christ had delegated all power, both
spiritual and temporal, to Peter; and Peter had established the papacy:

Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church...
(Matt. 1 6: 18)

The pope was thus Christ's representative on earth through Peter; and
he, acting in the name of Christ and as the successor of Peter, had
full authority on earth. Just as there had been one Peter, there
could be only one pope. Unlike other governmental bodies in the
world, the papacy depended "not on any human decree, but on divine

law, [its] authority being not of man but of God."18 Since the pope

 

16Innocent IV' encyclical letter Egg; Cui Lgvia (1246) as
cited in Tierney, h i f C h and t te 050-1300, p. 147.
17

Ullmann, Th 0 th of P a Go nment in the Middle

Ages, p. 853 and Jean Leclsrq, L'igge g9 la :oxggte g2 Christ au moyen
£9; (Paris: Editions du Cerf, 1959), p. 59.

1§!211§ (1204) as cited in C. R. Cheney and w. H. Sample,

-h‘h-

15
received his authority directly from God, he alone held "true”
authority:

Only St Peter was invested with the plenitude of power.
See then what manner of servant this is, appointed over the
household; he is indeed the vicar of Jesus Christ, the successor
of Peter, the Lord's anointed... set in the midst between God
and man... less thapgpod but greater than men, judge of all men
and judged by none.

If only the pope held "true” authority, it was logical that all
WW—fi

earthly authority should come from him. Thus, by necessity the

 

papacy was to serve as the apex of all the world's hierarchies.20

 

Only in the pope was there a complete and perfect unity between the

1

physical and spiritual world, between body and soul.2 After

demonstrating the superiority of the spiritual power in the hierarchy
of world authority, the canonist Giles of Rome likewise asserted the
superiority of the pope:

The power of the supreme pontiff governs souls. Souls
ought rightly to govern bodies or they will be badly ordered as
regards the part which does not obey the soul or mind or reason.
But temporal things serve our bodies. It follows then that the
priestly power waich governs souls also rules over bodies and
temporal things.

 

tt 3 f P e nnocsnt I on e mi E land 1198-1216
London: Thomas Nelson and Sons, Ltd., 1953), p. 65. This same idea
was presented equally well in Innocent IV's Egg; Cui Levis (1246) as

cited in Tierney, [he Crisis of Church and fitatg. 1050-130 , p. 147.

19Innocent IIl's sermon at his consecration (1198) as cited
in Cheney and Sample, 22. git., p. x.

20[Mann stated that Innocent III saw the pope "as the
father of the great Christian family, as the apex of the feudal
government of Europe, and as the rock of the Christian faith";

22. Me, XI, Pa 63s

21Letter from Innocent III to John of England (April 21.
1214) as cited in Cheney and Semple, 22. 915., p. 178.

2?Q§_§§§1§§i§§§i§g Posestate (1301) as cited in Tierney,

     
  
  
 

" V

\ while cam" ‘

rsizisn of the papacy.
meta play no passive
mszic life style of c
We ncrld to omit the
‘xrtughly accepted by 1
W! Mes themselves.

If the contet
oratitetle; and if
fruitful. In fart:
smelled the cowl»

7th Zmrch's duty on:

hire life, the papacy.

a” ‘
~ 31:50

 

(Because the a
”it“: it was natural

’w .
. .on was actively t;

 

Ntiedlction theoret

7‘;
that
scene 0' Donal

'3 let:
BI COhvckiN the

1.. I h!
ccmke V8 deddw

geharal

 

 

16

While canon law and scholasticism were elevating the
position of the papacy, church tradition also dictated that the popes
were to play no passive role in society.23 Rather than following a
monastic life style of prayer and contemplation, the popes were to work
in the world to omit the causes and the cases of sin. This view was
thoroughly accepted by most of the lawyers and theologians as well as
by the popes themselves.24 As Innocent III stated,

If the contemplative state is safer, the active is more
profitable: and if the former is sweeter, the latter is more
fruitful. In fertility of ggfspring the blear-eyed Leah
excelled the comely Rachel.

If the Church's duty was in the world to serve as a bridge to the
future life, the papacy, too, was to play an active role in earthly
affairs.

Because the papacy was the one source of "true" authority
on earth,\it was natural that its duties should be world-wide. Its
function was actively to direct the world to its Christian ends; and
its Jurisdiction theoretically included all peoples, even non-Christians.
The great scope of papal duties was amply set forth by Innocent III in
his letter convoking the Fourth Leteran Council (April 19, 1213):

... I have decided after the manner of the ancient fathers to

convoke a general council, by means of which evils may be
uprooted, virtues implanted, mistakes corrected, morals

—_—

LLDC Cgigis 9f Chgggh gng SCatg. 1050-130 , p. 199.

23Bainton, 92. git., pp. 10-74.

24Among the most important thirteenth-century thinkers who
accepted an active role for the papacy were Thomas Aquinas, Bonaventure,
Alanue Anglicus, and Hostiensis. All of these men were in direct
communication with the papacy during most of their careers.

25'.nng 22a may XI, pa 27a

.1‘ Ir!

7""—

reformed, heresies extirpated, the faith strengthened, disputes
adjusted, peace established, liberty protected, Christian
princes and people induced to aid the Holy Land 23d saluatory
decrees enacted for the higher and lower clergy.

)glhe pope was to serve as a parental figure and a teacher for
Christian humanity:

The Apostolic See, constituted not by man but by Cod as
the mother and teacher of all Christ's faithful, most truly
exercises its maternal affection and its educative discipline
when it loves its sons with a kindly graciousness and guides its
pupils by a rule of even Justice. It cannot for any reason
either ignore its role as mother or neglect its role as teacher,
for from the Lord through St Peter it has been given the power
of binding and loosing.

figpope could judge all Christians:
It remains then that the Roman pontiff can exercise his
pontifical judgment at least incidentally over any Christian of
any condition whatsoever especially if no one else can or will
render 58 him the justice that is due, and particularly by means
of sin.
Those who refused to accept the pope's authority were classified as
pagans, infidals, schismatics, or heretics.
The first dominion which the papacy hold was naturally
over the Church.29 According to Hostiensis, all clerical and

episcopal authority was ultimately derived from the pope.30 This

 

26Henry Joseph Schroeder, 0.P., Qisgiglingry Qgcrees of

on i a (St. Louis, Missouri: 8. Herder Book Company,
1937), p. 326.
2'llLetter from Innocent III to John of England (April 28,
1199) as cited in Cheney and Sample, 29. 913., p. 10.

28Innocent IV's encyclical letter Egg; Cui Lgvia (1246) as
‘ cited in Tierney, i i of hu h an tat 050- , p. 148.
l 29Augustin Fliche, Christine Thouzellier, et Yvonne Azaiz,
l ' , vol. x: hr‘t an s omaine 98- 74
fl (Paris: Bloud et Cay, 1950), p. 31.

I aqflallagher.‘22. git., p. 285.

 

aéiiiw.

 
   

of wprmcy lithin
«'fl—fi
myth: f 012th ulf

Renuinq the
we 39cm with the
that alt er the Rom
all others pra-eo:
fishes of all 1.1
first plaza, tho:
and that of Jam.
11111111: so the‘
10m aontttf tn.

the alenitune or
35 lfidelity an:
the Oalliun on 1
Ct Winn prove

'M‘" “'1 the plej
th. cm: mm
3111 and .11.,“
ifsigqia Of AD:
111m to thei

”Etessary’ Savi

Rm”? 0' this c

_:3‘1.‘Jer ll hin the

o“!

‘ a t of th
l anth c n e
u: . ,
0712 y :e

    

333
52 15 “9 399cm.
W ' '11024
“5th the

f

18

papal supremacy within the Church was ex licitl stated in the fifth 4,
canon of t th ill

Renewing the ancient privileges of the patriarchal sees,
as decree with the approval of the holy and ecumenical council,
that after the Roman Church, which by the will of Cod holds over
all others pro-eminence of ordinary power as the mother and
mistress of all the faithful, that of Constantinople shall hold
first place, that of Alexandria second, that of Antioch third,
and that of Jerusalem fourth, the dignity proper to each to be
observed: so that after their bishops have received from the
Roman pontiff the pallium, which is the distinguishing mark of
the plenitude of the pontifical office, and have taken the oath
of fidelity and obedience to him, they may also lawfully bestow
the pallium on their suffragans, receiving from them the
canonical profession of faith for themselves, and for the Roman
Church the pledge of obedience. They may have the standard of
the cross borne before them everywhere, except in the city of
Rome and wherever the supreme pontiff or his legate wearing the
insignia of Apostolic dignity is present. In all the provinces
subject to their jurisdiction appeals may be taken to them when
necessary, saving appealssdirected to the Apostolic See, which
must be humbly respected.

The canons of this fifli—QDEBQQF/QS botbl§h§_§99£9@§‘-

lawgiver within the Church and the universal court of appeals for
Md4—o—fl \__/—— -»_,___, -._

 

 

disputed cases concerning the clergy and doctrine.32 These rules

governing the Church were further defined by the two councils held at
Lyons in 1245 and 1274.33 The canons of these general councils dealt

with all areas of clerical life and further implied that the papacy

 

31Schroeder, 22. cit., p. 246.

32John H. Fisher states that the purpose of the Fourth
Lateran Council was "to improve morals and spiritual life by
prescribing more exactly both the qualifications and duties of parish
priests”; [02 flgdiaval Literature of western Europe (London:
University of London Press, 1966), p. 181. See Schroeder, _2, git.,
for an exact text of the canons of the three great councils of the
thirteenth century. See specifically canons 5, 26, 30, and 46 for the
council of 1215.

33See specifically canon 4 for the council of 1245 and
canons 2, 18, 21, and 24 for the council of 1274. These canons dealt
directly with the relationship between the papacy and the clergy.

 

    

as tho artery source
to gooo who cohookeo
meshed to: the o
“with om! to lake
m. than than they h

attained, the f the}

R.—

Eecausa o‘
‘4'! worm pontiff
Eihce it as the pa:

‘illed with the pro:

relates and abb:ts

1ht'tho free dies
3'2: the death of

33311 collation of

112m 5 Hernanent l

33"! Worthy of r
.. 39
‘E' M the same

\

34
'M Letter f
author) 1200) as C ii

35 .
Aqumas, '
3
1,7,7 otter frc
"' h 85 cited In Cher
37 '

#-

19
was the primary source of authority within the Church, since it was
the pope who convoked the councils in the beginning and whose consent
was required for the passage of any canon. Moreover, while the popes
had the power to make the laws, they also claimed the right to dispense

with them when they felt the need arose.34 Ih§_pgpg_wgsi_a§‘iguig§§__

maintained, the final authority in all matters of faith.35
MW

Because of his domination over the Church as a whole,

the supreme pontiff held the theoretical ownership of all churches.:56
Since it was the papacy's duty to ensure that all these churches were
filled with the proper personnel, papal confirmation of all major
preletes and abbots was required. In 1265 Clement IV also stated
that “the free disposal of ecclesiastical charges, whether before or
after the death of their holders, is an Apostolic prerogative."37 The
papal collation of benefices had been begun by Innocent III and was
put on a permanent basis by Gregory Ix.38 Likewise, if a prelate
proved unworthy of his charge, the papacy claimed the right to depOSe

9

him.3 At the same time the papacy also claimed the right to tax all

 

34Letter from Innocent III to Archbishop Hubert
(February 1200) as cited in Cheney and Sample, 22. cit., p. 19.

35Aquinas, 22. git., Second Part of Part Two, 0 11, Art 2.

36Letter from Innocent III to John of England (May 26,
1207), as cited in Cheney and Sample, 22, r;§., p. 88.

37Henri Daniel-Reps, Qarhedral rnd Crusade (2 vols.;
New York: Doubleday and Company, Inc., 1963), vol. I, p. 295: and

Geoffrey Barraclough, Drral Erggisions (Westport, Connecticut:
Greenwood Press, 1963), pp. 4-5.

38Barraclough, Pres; Prggisions, p. 168.

sgfliche, figs, we as, p. 15‘.

:trsnes. Hhila the 9"

3112mm" end other
:qu also clot-ed the I
ant-gooey. such 33 ‘0‘
12a nonetety MUDDY!
ml to the «intent!
1‘1“! world on: bet:
“it“ recuired large
Besides 1
fisher: broad po-ers
fight to judge any C
tarercised thrmgr
3‘" '81“ premises
51512 em to be has
5‘ 1) The c

3’5”“! flamers; eng
r 2) These
a”

" ‘h‘v' welfare of Ch.

\

L". 3) The so!

1359'
u’ I” 3009 sens:

\

.1 ‘ Rob
M (London: for; Eros

47
:H 4 , Inn
«.9_ ‘ DC!
in new” 7;: IV

  

20
churches. While the popes collected certain sums/from thegglergy for
,——~iar__‘__’,,,s/»—~\\\\‘___r,,/,4s~~ ‘_A

confirmation and other such services involving regular church business,
_,___l\r______’~,~f_, , ,He, , w er, 7 7 fl

,

they also claimed the right to gether additional money in cases of ,

 

emergency, such as for crusades #99 other holy were.)0 This power to

draw monetary support from the whole of the Church was considered
vital to the maintenance of the Holy See because of its many activities
in the world and because of its vast and complex structural organization
which required large numbers of personnel.

Besides its power over the Church the papacy also
claimed broad powers over the laity. While the papacy asserted its
right to judge any Christian directly,41 most of its authority was to
be exercised through the clergy and the secular rulers.42 There were
three main premises upon which the relationship between church and
state were to be based:

1) The church and the state constituted two distinct,
separate powers] and both received their power directly from God.

\Q/ 2) These two powers were to cooperate with each other

for the welfare of Christian society.

3) The spiritual authority was ultimately the higher

authority in some sense or another.43

 

‘uhobert Crosseteste, firistolae, ed. by Henry Richards
Luard (London: Longman, Green, Longman, and Roberts, 1961), p. 341.

‘1Innocent IV's encyclical letter figgr gui Levis (1246) as
cited in Tierney, Th sis of hurch an tats 1050-1300, p. 148.

‘2..an 220 Ego. XVIII, pp. 3‘6'3‘7.

‘%flatt, g2, 533., pp. 182-183. The fact that canon lawyers
and popes had varying interpretations of the term glenitudo potestatis
clearing the century is amply demonstrated by McCreedy, g2. gig” pp. 664-

um" m. first t'
indeed!“ °f the
iron! sacredotel 1
we first ten 9"
31m both the soil
ariectly logical

tries stated th!
Iliad that the I
we: to secular :
it rte thirteenth
mole of Western 1

fire East.“ uhet

I”

 

21
Although the first two principles seemed to point to a certain
independence of the state with its own £22222 d'Bt , it was the third
idea of sacredotal superiority which actually determined the content
of the first two principles.“ Since Peter was believed to have been
given both the spiritual and temporal swords, such superiority seemed
perfectly logical to the papists. In his work Qn Princelx Government
Aquinas stated that ”kings must be subject to priests" and thereby
implied that the pope as the head of the priesthood was superior in
power to secular rulers.45 Moreover, it was generally accepted as fact
in the thirteenth century that the Emperor Constantine had given the

whole of Western Europe to the papacy when he transferred the Empire to

the East.46 What all of these ideas meant was t heoreticall

 

674. McCready says the term plgnitudo gorgstatig was first used to
denote the power of papal legetes over churchmen.

A‘Watt, 22. rgt., p. 183. Also see Brian Tierney, "The
Continuity of Papal Political Theory in the Thirteenth Century. Some
Methodical Considerations,“ ggiegal Studies, XXVII (1965), p. 234.

45A. P. D'Entreves, ed., Agginasg figlgcted Politiral

Illilflflfit trans. by J. G. Dawson (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1948), p.
77. The canonist Hostiensis stated, "just as the moon receives its
light from the sun and not the sun from the moon, so too the royal
power receives authority from the priestly..."; §umme Domini Henrigi
£3;§1§glflg_flgg§igg§1§ (1250-1253) as cited in Tierney, Thg Crisis of

~ 0 0- 30 , p. 155.

46While historically inaccurate, the Donation of

Constantine was generally accepted as fact in the thirteenth century,
although the popes seldom used it to support their rights to interfere
in secular matters. There were two main exceptions in this case: In
1236 Gregory IX used the Donation in a weak defense of the papacy's
territorial claims in Italy. The document was used again in 1246 by
Innocent IV, who, however, stated that it was merely Constantine's
recognition of the pope's inherent regal authority. Tierney, In;

050- 00, pp. 142-1493 and Jean Louis
Alphonse Huillerd-Br‘holles, ed., Hietoria Diplomatice Frggrriri
figgggfli (6 vols.; Parisr Henricus Plan, 1852-1861), vol I, pp. 49-
50’ v01. IV. Ppe 91“9233 and VOle VI, pp. 396-3990

Lees: ire papacy had 5|
setting to an extra:

as :rought irto bet“

18

3‘33
The atti‘.

\

M _

Larre‘rs between it

‘\__ .

Fritessiong ,
meals far all Ch:

ms "”186 in tr

SinCe y‘
to be no F952,:

 

22
47
least the ad supremac in th secular s In fact,
according to an extreme statement by Boniface VIII, the secular power

was brought into being and received its direction from the sacredotal

power.
The attitude of the papacy toward§_£he secular princes
VFW __.—/ ‘7 V _.7_.¥,

was often one of paternal affection._altihad o settle

,__K______‘___\___.___~___fi"l_,i, -

quarrels between its children and to punish FDQ§§,QUilty,Of
, /Wv~\'/ “w” .

transgressions.49 Thus, it was to serve as an international court of
w...
appeals for all Christian rulers in exceptional cases when the civil

courts failed in their duties.50 This attitude was clearly expressed

by Innocent III in a letter to Philip II of France!

Since your Majesty well knows that with us there ought
to be no respect of persons, we believe that you will not take

 

47In actuality the exact position of the prince in
relation to the papacy fluctuated throughout the century. Some
popes, such as Honorius III, seemed quite satisfied to stay out of
secular affairs as much as possible. The fact that others, such as
Innocent III, generally felt compelled to justify their intervention
in the secular governments also indicated a certain hesitancy about
fully assuming such a role. However, all the popes insisted upon
their supremacy in "spiritual” matters with the word "spiritual"
being an abstract term which could be interpreted broadly or narrowly
according to the whims of individual popes. Pacaut states that
"spiritual" at first applied only to sacred rights, privileges, and
goods but later came to include all things used by the Church and
finally to all things pertaining to the mission of the Church (human

salvation); 23. Eli-n p. 99.

‘BUIImann, Thg Qrgwth of Papal government, p. 440.

49L9613rq. 220 site, Do S6e

50In his commentary on the decretals Innocent IV claimed
that: the pope could interfere in secular matters out of his plenitude
of power and listed the cases when such intervention should be used:
mm lb 3 uin u c etalium (1250) as cited in
Tierney, Thg Crisis of Churgh and State. 1050-1300, pp. 154-155. Also
see Tierney, "The Continuity of Papal Political Theory in the
Thirteenth Century,” pp. 231-234; and Pacaut, g2..grr., p. 115.

1:111 1' '9 no.
N on“ 9‘s“ ‘
a! the 3mm M
and primes eere
sore m" the“
censure 9' "m
m fret» that
Ihedever ”9951
re addresSad t‘
in the Church-r
are 331136 ‘0
Given the p189

2' their cuties-33""
reierred t0 then I“

:‘e imperial "'9'”

Seculai
“.rttions the 0:3

:ee. HostiefiSiS

.rly proper func't

:nai ‘
4. ts existence.

.3 order to carry

sardid or brutal f

Mien ea
5 rather 4

2311:: ,
xtcry Functior

Error
..mnicetes, w

\

51
May 1233
52;
1,”: 01‘ e . '
“they and Semi?
I

hit

23

it ill if we now discharge the duty of our pastoral office in
your own case: for, if negligent, we shall incur the displeasure
of the Divine Majesty: and if an occurrence involving even kings
and princes were tacitly ignored because we regarded their wishes
more than their salvation, our ministry might also incur the
censure of men. The word of God in our mouth must not be bound,
but free, that we may freely warn the unruly and fulfill,
whenever expedient, the command of the Apostolic which we regard
as addressed the more directly to us as we hold a higher position
in the Church, indeed the highest position of all: for others
are called to a share of respgpsibility, we alone have been
given the plenitude of power.

In their correspondence with the various rulers the popes continually
referred to them with the word "son" while designating themselves with

the imperial "we".S2

Secular rulers accordingly had as one of their primary
functions the protection and enforcement of church laws for the Holy
See. Hostiensis even went so far at one point to insist that "the
only proper function of the civil power (and the only justification
for its existence) was to use the material sword of physical coercion
in order to carry out tasks delegated by the church which were too
sordid or brutal for the clergy themselves to perform."53 While such
a view was rather extreme, church canons did lay down certain
obligatory functions, such as the punishment of heretics and

excommunicates, which the state was to perform for ecclesiastics.54

 

51May 1203; Cheney and Sample, 2g. cit., p. 56.
52For examples sea the papal letters to John and Frederick II
in Cheney and Sample, 2g. git. and Historia Qiglomatira.

53Tiernsy, T s s of h h n tat 050- 300, p.
139. Gallagher maintains that Hostiensis generally held a more
moderate view and supported a clear division of the two powers;

.22' we. p. 2850

54Canons 3 and 67 (Council of 1215): Schroeder, gr. £$£°t
pp. 144 and 289-290.

znitsears against I
rs’reaerick II and
:relay rulers for '
Snilic II the page
:1: rowers against

It is expedi:
and the secol
eateztisni-em
fifth, and !
ecclesiastic
are i111 Cur:
hct fear the

2:133: the SBCUIBI

artisteent of he:

5
'6 Likewi:

I

I .
..ch

again the Holy L

3335 rare :0 Mi
the? rule“: Such

claimed

the fight

 

56

1 M

 

24
In its were against those who threatened the Church's existence, such
as Frederick II and the Albigeneian heretics, the papacy called upon

the lay rulers for military aid. In a letter of Innocent III to

Philip II the pope stressed the need for Joint action between the
two powers against enemies of the faith:
It is expedient, therefore, that both the spiritual authority
and the secular power, mindful of the reason for their
establishment, should concur together for the defense of the
Church, and should aid each other, so that those whom
ecclesiastical discipline cannot restrain from evil, the secular

arm will curb, and those who trusting in their own savageness gg
not fear the material sword, spiritual punishment will pursue.

\égéflso, the secular powers were made responsible for the capital

punishment of heretics, since churchmen were forbidden to shed
blood.56 Likewise, all the military operations of the crusades to
regain the Holy Land were entrusted to the lay princas, while the
popes were to maintain the ultimate supervision of the projects.
When rulers, such as John of England, failed to protect the Church
and even went so far as to persecute ecclesiastics, the papacy
claimed the right of deposition on the grounds that they were not
fulfilling their Christian duties as kings.58

The role of defender of the Church and leader of the

crusades was particularly assigned to the Holy Roman Emperor. As

 

55Albert Clement Shannon, The Pages and Heresy in the

en entu (Villanova, Pennsylvania: Augustinian Press,
1949), pa 14a

56haurica 86venot, S.J., "The Inquisition and its
Ant-cedents, IV," flgythgog Journal, VIII (April 1967), p. 167.

57Ullmann, IDS Growth of Papal ngeggggnt, p. 307.
58Roger of wendover, flowers of flistory, trans. by J. A.

Giles (London: Henry G. Bohn, 1848), pp. 259-260.

& _

Intent 1:! stated, "
nasanoeth to him
mother I‘JlEI the
ItiEtenm anc was
5
‘3‘ II “‘8 Daoacy.
‘I‘ A 5‘ A
“*‘J- secause
Ttvlmocgnt 1;;
w,__
mm“ they ads.
33
W_/
:zifotect the .h
:9 :

a“) SLHCE the em

«I?»

We the:

 

25
Innocent IV stated, "the emperor is the protector of the pope and
takes an oath to him and holds the empire from h1m....”59 More than
any other ruler the emperor complemented the papal ideal of a united
Christendom and was often regarded by the canonists es the secular
arm of the papacy.60 Only the emperor was to be crowned by the
papacy.61 Because of the importance of the emperor the various popes
from Innocent III to Boniface VIII insisted ung/thnxgigbfflfgg
det33:123—223vsuitgbility_g£_candiggtg§#9efore theirlcoronation,
although they admitted the right of the German Electors to make the
initial selection.62 The popes also claimed the right to dEEEEE__~
those emperors, such aZflo;IE.iJ/;ga’;;;;;;;;;yii:fl;;;\;;;’;n1y failed
;;‘;;§§;;;_;;; Church but even threatened its independence.63 In
deposing Frederick, Innocent IV claimed to be performing the will of
God, since the emperor had failed in his mission to promote the
welfare of Christian society!

We therefore... show and declare... that the aforesaid

 

o nta is 8 er Lib os uin ue retalium (1250) as
cited in Tierney, T isis of hu ch and S t 1050-1300, p. 153.
60Pacaut, 32. cit., p. 106.
61The papacy based this right to crown the emperor on
the Donation of Constantine and the subsequent coronation of
Charlemagne in 800 whereby the pope conferred the temporal sword
on the Western emperor; letter of Gregory IX to Frederick II (October

1236) as cited in Tierney, The Crisis of Church and §tateI 1050-1300,

pp. 143-1“.
fizygngubilgm (1202) as cited in yum, pp. 133-134; and

WM. 1. pp. 49-50 and 70-76.

63In actuality Frederick II was deposed at the First
Council of Lyons on charges of perjury, sacrilege, and heresy:

Tierney, The Enisie of ghurgh and §tateI 1050-130 , pp. 140141; and
W

out ’ VII PP. 319-327.

w
‘vt

0‘
at“? n
and dig!

1 9‘
his “—1
we!“
.59an

. "VE
ML .

catches “‘3
:2 tax or

as to re!
n:ti:ulaz
secular jr.
gJarartee:
mrcnes I
5'21 more

25:23:9'19;
i'e. . .
lhcur
lithe;
551112
ravens
gift, I
to be 1
tho 1n:
3033535.-
m 7950.
DOSSESSI(

(3%th were a

\

6t
' ;['6 o
3:” 1’7 New: Y I

65
Chhons
k'lEhtl @. w',

 

26
prince--who has rendered himself so unworthy of all the honour
and dignity of the Empire, and the kingdom and who, because of
his wickedness, has been rejected by God from acting as king and
Emperor-~is bound by his sins and cast out and deprived of all
honour and dignitgaby God, to which we add our sentence of
deprivation also.

While the secular rulers were supposed to protect the
churches within their realms, they were nevertheless denied the right
to tax or otherwise interfere with clerical business.65 The Church
was to remain absolutely independent of lay control. Church lands,
particularly the Papal States, were to stay strictly outside of any
secular jurisdiction: and their respective boundaries were to be
guaranteed by the lay princes. A law prohibiting the lay taxation of .
churches was firmly laid down by the Fourth Lateran Council66 and was

even more strongly stated in 1296 in the bull Claricis laicos, which

 

threatened the use of ecclesiastical weapons for those who disobeyed:

We... have... decreed the sentence of excommunication to be
incurred by the very act, against any ecclesiastics who shall,
without apostolic authority, pay to laymen, as levies or
talliages or any other part of their own or their churches'
revenues or goods, under the name of loan, subvention, subsidy,
gift, or any other designation whatsoever. The same sentence is
to be incurred by emperors, kings... princes... podestas, etc.,
who impose or receive such payments, or take or help to take
possession of the belongings of churches or ecclesiastics which
are deposited in ggcred buildings, or receive them when taken
possession of....

Monarchs were also denied the right to punish members of the clergy

 

64Frederick II's sentence of deposition (June 1245) as
cited in Tierney, The Crisis of church and State. 1050-130 , p. 144.

65Canons 45 and 46 of the Fourth Lateran Council (1215);
Schroeder, m. 354., pp. 275-276.

66Canon 46; Schroeder, 22. git., p. 276.

6.,an, 92' me, XVIII, p. 238.

”eh, I“ Sac“

mini-395 8‘

. . , he
traate
slave .
was“
3hate
Inst
been
inju:

1‘4
a
32.8, I

unity an:

9:19
in t
king
test
ave:
eartI
heave
sen s
and c
Vener.

t

they .
7W}: the
is, me
flchSESI In

Mild], to the

 

 

27
even for secular offenses. In a letter to the Danish king Innocent III
upbraided the royalty for imprisoning a traitorous bishop:

... he ought not to have Judged the servant of another, nor have
treated a bishop with as little consideration as a worthless
slave, but he ought to have deferred to the Roman Church, left
Judgment to the Apostolic See, and kept his hands guiltless....
whatever were the crimes of the bishop, it may well be asked
what evil has the Apostolic See committed, and what wrong has
been wrought byéshe Universal Church that their rights should be
injured in him?

I Monarchs, as the vessels of Christ and therefore of the
pope,69 were considered a vital link in the papal conceptions of
unity and hierarchy:

The King of kings and Lord of lords, Jesus Christ, a
priest forever after the order of Melchisedech, has so established
in the Church His kingdom and His priesthood that the one is a
kingdom of priests and the other a royal priesthood, as is
testified by Moses in the law and by Peter in his Epistle; and
over all He has set one whom He has appointed as His Vicar on
earth, so that, as every knee is bowed to Jesus, of things in
heaven, and things in earth, and things over the earth, so all
men should obey His Vicar and strive that there may be one fold
and one shepherd. All secular kings for the sake of God so
venerate this Vicar, that unless they seekoto serve him devoutly
they doubt if they are reigning properly.

Through the kings the popes hoped to be able to control all the laity.
Thus, while asserting that the pope held the ultimate authority in
all. cases, Innocent III admonished royal vessels to take their legal
cases first to their immediate overlords, the kings, rather than

directly to the papacy.71 Those groups which rebelled against royal

 

Gelgidw. XII, ppe 191‘192-

69Leclsrq, 22. gig., p. 63.

70letter from Innocent III to John of England (April 21,
1214) as cited in Cheney and Sample, 22. cit., p. 177.

71ygngrgbilgm (1202) as cited in Tierney, Thg Crisis of
HERE" gng §ta§h 1050-fl00, pp. 133-134; and Pacaut, 22. c_i£., p. 101.

O

«‘5‘...
V

\NW: "

‘x‘. ‘6' ’

‘or “

a
om‘lfis ‘
so0*

earth?)

ue t
be] :

Iii'ffft 9.7
5: :eeent.
We the

3-1:: thereb'

fan.

“-«lEI, E
r , P

1‘. "e in
Westimai

\

72]
a, .
" I257} as 51'

, 73
“V E
JE‘het 2” 1
It
[15
CECEU

7S
than

F.
'g’élwe’t‘h
t . .
i

It
In ”I:

A

   

28
lieved to be revolting against the universal hierarchy.
a king was obedient to the Holy See, his vessels were
raw the respect and honour due to him".72 However, the
nstructed to regulate their "loyal attachment to the
so as never to offend the Heavenly King".73

non law also admitted that lay princes had some

ions all their own.7‘ In the decretal Novit (1204)

 

stated that monarchs were supreme in purely feudal

t no man, therefore, imagine that we intend to
or disturb the king's jurisdiction and power.... For

t intendsto judge concerning a fief, judgment on which 1..

t0 hi... '
Innocent made two important qualifications to this

n the first place he mentioned that the papacy could not

her because it did not have the time to judge all cases

Iplied that the papacy did have certain rights in the

:ndly, Innocent added to the last sentence the phrase

ad to judge] concerning sin, a judgment which

I belongs to us, and which we can and should exercise

I”.76 Since almost any criminal act or breach of the

.etter from Innocent III to the Archbishop of Rouen (May
Lted in Cheney and Sample, 3g. git., p. 40.

,etter from Innocent III to the English magnates
1207) as cited in Ibid., p. 97.

'ierney, ”The Continuity of Papal Political Theory in the
Itury,” p. 2343 and Carlyle and Carlyle, 22. git., p. 27.

:henay and Sample, 32. cito. PP. 63-64.

n his comment on Norit in the Qggrgrglgg Innocent IV

29
peace could be interpreted as involving 2%E§:Innocent's argument
opened up vast possibilities for papal intervention in the secular
sphere. Also, while warning preletes to stay out of civil cases,77
he admitted no similar limitation on his own power.78 Moreover, by
the end of his pontificate Innocent had accepted the role of feudal
overlord over Sicily, England, Aragon, Portugal, and Bulgaria.79

This idea that the papacy could assume overt control in the secular
W—m““_——ji"’ * w ---.a

 

state was accepted by all’the thirteenth-centuryMpopes. In fact, as
g:‘_~"_____“‘_#_,,,—_——s a__,. a _
late as 1300 Boniface VIII was asserting papal suzerainty over the
kingdom of Scotland.80 However, none of the popes claimed any
natural feudal overlordahip but based their claims on written
documents in which various kings had ceded their territories to the
Holy See es papal fiefs.81

The supremacy of the papacy was not just to extend over
Western Christendom but over the whole world as well:

... we do certainly believe that the pope, who is vicar of

 

nevertheless showed that it would be almost impossible to determine

when such a case existed; Commentaria fiupe; Libros Quingue
Qggggtgligg (1250) as cited in Tierney, The Crisis of Church and

fifilgg. 10§0-1300, p. 153.
77Canon 42 (Council of 1215); Schroeder, 22. cit., p. 274.

78Letter to the English preletes (Summer 1215) as cited in
Cheney and Sample, 33. cit., p. 205.

79Karl Bihlmeyer, Church History, revised by Herman
Tuechle and trans. by Victor E. Mills and Francis Muller (Westminster,
Maryland: Newman Press, 1963), vol. II, p. 259.

Bulge Chrgnigle of Laneggos , trans. by Sir Herbert Maxwell

(Glasgow: James Maclehoae and Sons, 1913), p. 1713 and L. F. Salzman,
(London: Constable and Company, Ltd., 1968), p. 153.

a1Pacaut, 22. cit., pp. 95-97.

19508 chriSts
all widen.
faitthl and 1
thou;h WY °r
clear that the
though not 1°.

'heaapacy as to a
hope and the rest
2:395 were to bring
Cinch and to conua
relations lith Chri
in: their recogniti

Throughout the cent

seeks and Nestoria

ms under the R0

he Ethiopians were

he papacy was also
activities which '0

maression of nor

“its delegated tr

3? for various er

 

30
Jesus Christ, has power not only over Christians but also over
all infidels, for Christ has power over all.... But all men,
faithful and infidels, are Christ's sheep by creation even

though they are not of the fold of the church and thus... it is
clear that the pope 323 jurisdiction and power over all g; jure

though not g; fggto.

The papacy was to serve as the main ambassadorial organ between
Europe and the rest of the world. As heads of the "true" faith, the
popes were to bring all Christians within the unity of the Roman
Church and to convert or eradicate all non-believers. In its
relations with Christian groups outside the West the papacy strove
for their recognition of the primacy of the Roman pontiff.83
Throughout the century the various popes sent messengers to the
Greeks and Nestorien Mongols in the hope of uniting all Christian
groups under the Roman Church: and even such Christian peoples as

the Ethiopians were contacted several times during the century.84

The papacy was also in charge of the crusades and of missionary
activities which worked for the conversion, eradication, or
suppression of non-Christian groups. Although the actual work was
always delegated to others, the popes acted as the central coordinating
body for various enterprises. Also, while missionary activity was an
old function of the papacy, it was not until the thirteenth century

that the popes expanded their role to expeditions outside Western

 

82Innocent IV's omment is u or ibros ui ue
‘Qggrguaflggg (1250) as cited in Tierney, The grigis of Qhurgh and
fisasg. IDSO'ISO . Fe 1550

83It should be noted that Innocent IV nevertheless
arered that even infidel peoples could set up legitimate governments,
although the theory apparently attracted little attention; Ibid., pp.
152 and 155-156. ' "

a‘illlmann, The growth of Papal ngernmen , p. 30?.

{sashes Gregory I
messed his belief
:heyes of the Reds
the divine e'ord as t
The papa:
2|" earthly Christen:
:eirg to the spirit
533? fPOI the soul 1
”t the Iaterial to

3. .
«tenth-century 9*

516th fulfill their

Unity, the popes 1

try an: all cases eh!
it‘eruise involved.

.a spiritual encoep=

t.
he"
3‘4

«1‘.
y of the paper:

lays the actual esta':

'h the

attentibili‘
Test
. . 3 .

eastern Eurog

31
Igory IX, who sent various missions to the Arab world,
belief in such missionary activity: "We believe that in
we Redeemer it is just as good to bring infidels to confess
rd as to crush their falsehood by force of arms."86
I papacy truly saw itself as the great spiritual head
:istendom; and, indeed, did not all things ultimately
spiritual realm? Who, after all, could separate the
soul in the present life: and in the last analysis was
Lal to be below and subservient to the spirit? The
etury papacy answered such questions in the affirmative;
. their Christ-given task, the ultimate salvation of 1‘
popes felt justified, indeed compelled, to intervene in
less where the human soul might be endangered or
Ilved. Papal policy thus rested upon the theory that
encompassed the whole of human life. However, the
I papacy to achieve its goals--was not this goal in many
I1 establishment of God's kingdom on earth?--depended
Itibility of papal assumptions and aspirations by the

'n European society.

tann, 22a site. XII, p. 131e

aniel-Rops, 22. £$£-t II, p. 255.

 

Papal th'
heal leadership C5
pieces of Europe 5'!
therthelese, there
attitude towards tht
the papacy as their
“at did they regar
ISnatch? what did

.‘eoerd to the state

hereto political

‘ecrlar

princes and

they usually occurr

listed in conflict

C H A P T E R I I
THE SECULAR STATE AND THE PAPACY

Papal theories of a single Christian society under
papal leadership called for the full cooperation of the secular
princes of Europe whose power was to be subordinate to that of Rome.
Nevertheless, there were many questions involved in this papal
attitude towards the secular state: did the secular princes view
the papacy as their superior in all areas of thought and action?
what did they regard as the proper relationship between papacy and
monarch? what did they consider the proper function of the papacy in
regard to the state? These questions were generally not answered in
concrete political tracts but in the day to day relations between the
secular princes and the papacy. When political tracts did appear,
they usually occurred at moments when the papacy and princes were
locked in conflict over their own respective rights.

pear Ia THE HOLY Roam cmmae'
Throughout the thirteenth century imperial thought was

in a process of evolution because of the introduction of Roman law

 

1Sicily, Venice, and the Papal States have been included
1;: this section, although they properly constituted separate political
units.

32

ercsecause of the

the social. politic
:tsceroing the ti?”
late in his 2;};
23".“ before 1200 tr
trial to that of tr
tte teo powers were
his the lest he:

5'51”?» emcerors su
”item ‘JI had al
i'ceriel power just

“9 56565 '3? 95001 .

If both
t"33".‘Ei‘hit'tg the i 1‘ 0w

tith each other. I

Wit of

the strUg

33

and because of the general overall advancement of Western society in
the social, political, and economic spheres. These new ideas
concerning the rights and functions of the Empire were incorporated by
Dante in his Q: Mgngrghia early in the following century. Nevertheless,
even before 1200 the Empire had a tradition in European society quite
equal to that of the papacy so that on a theoretical level at least
the two powers were more or less at the same stage of development.
While the West had never quite forgotten the glories of the old Roman
Empire, emperors such as Charlemagne, the three Otto's, Frederick I,
and Henry VI had already established the fundamental principles of
imperial power just as Gregory VII and his successors had established
the bases of papal government.2

If both the Empire and the papacy had a tradition
concerning their own rights, they also had a tradition of conflict
with each other. Indeed, the formulation and elaboration of many of
their theories concerning their respective rights had come as a
result of the struggle in which the papacy had attempted to free the
Church from secular interference and the Empire had hoped to
subordinate the Church to its own necessities. Papal theories of
sovereignty and supremacy had never been totally accepted by the
imperialists who often saw the popes, not as defending their own
independence, but as offending against the rights of the Empire.
Therefore, although theorists generally maintained that the two

powers were supposed to work in harmony, history had repeatedly shown

 

2Geoffrey Barraclough, The Origins of Modern Gerggny (New
Yorke Capricorn Books, 1963), pp. 3-246.

 

re: the he more 1
The Iaifi
around the inabilit
1*: religious and 5
seal. If the pepec
meters also claim
ileerial never came
{tire and was a fa
I‘m the eleventh
inerial coronation
“to! clearly Chri-
changed and “Bands
Ihristendou.

therlt

hire as ”scarcely

significeme of the
.tto I ettemted to
ihlselvee es the e

unshared the-eelv
In R

the cente

f
‘11.” into the h
an

\

. 3
Waters' Henry A
('Keiserci

34

that the two were incompatible.3

The main conflict between the Empire and the papacy centered
around the inability of either side to draw a clear distinction between
the religious and secular spheres-- the inability to separate body from
soul. If the papacy claimed rights in the secular sphere, the medieval
emperors also claimed rights in the religious sphere. The idea that
imperial power came directly from God dated back to the old Roman
Empire and was a favorite theme of medieval imperialists, especially
after the eleventh century. To further complicate the matter the
imperial coronation of Charlemagne by the pope in 800 had put the Empire
into a clearly Christian context.4 The emperor's duties were thereby
changed and expanded to include the task of spreading and defending
Christendom. Charlemagne's successor, Louis the Pious, truly saw the
Empire as "scarcely indistinguishable from the Church".5 This religious
significance of the Empire was again brought to the fore in 962 when
Otto I attempted to revive imperial power. Rather than seeing
themselves as the servants of the Church, Dtto and his successors
considered themselves the leaders of the Church and worked hard to
make Rome the center of their empire and to reform the papacy which had

fallen into the hands of the warring Roman nobility.6 While a certain

 

3Henry A. Myers, "The Concept of Kingship in the 'Book of
Emperors' ('Kaiserchronik'),” Iraditio, XXVI! (1971), p. 225.

4Roland H. Bainton, In; Mecicval Church (Princeton, New

Jersey: 0. Van Nostrand, Inc., 1962), p. 27.

5Robert Folz, Inc Qancect of figcicc in flestcrn fiugoce from
t

F t n ant , trans. by Shiele Ann Ugilvie
(Great Britain: Edward Arnold Ltd., 1969), p. 26.

6Thomas Curtis Van Cleve, The Emcerog Ezedegick II of

gem of rellgiou
‘act that large at
clesiastlce and:
iterative if the
hfuttumtely for
be subordinate to
Iwestlture Strug'
‘recerlck I, the

tnWilt pepel co
‘5 press Mariel
D(the Christ (th
3°“ HWY to Cone

threatened papal

tLh‘rit

cries were

 

35
degree of religious leadership was an accepted imperial function, the
fact that large areas of land in Germany were directly controlled by
ecclesiastics made this policy of imperial control over the Church
imperative if the emperors wished to consolidate their imperial power.
Unfortunately for the emperors, the reformed papacy showed no desire to
be subordinate to a secular government.7 However, the resulting
Investiture Struggle brought no clear victory for either side.
Frederick I, the strongest emperor following this controversy, refused
to admit papal control over the clergy in temporal affairs, continued
to press imperial rights over Rome and Italy, and "claimed the status
of the Christ (the anointed) of the Lord".8 The marriage of Frederick's
son Henry to Constance, the heiress of the Kingdom of Sicily, further
threatened papal independence, since it meant that papally claimed
territories were to be surrounded on all sides by a single powerful
state.9 At the same time the revival of Roman law during the twelfth
century enlarged the concept of empire beyond its religious role in
Christendom;1o and the idea of the empire as an institution derived
directly from from God for the common welfare of humanity became a

flcncgstcufen (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1972), p. 1.

7Albert Hyma, Chcisticnity and Politics: A History of the
J. B.

P i n t u l s of hurch and State (New York:
Lippincott Company, 1938), pp. 24-25.
eFolz, cg. cit., pp. 101-102; and Van Cleve, cg. ci£., p. 2.

9Van Cleve, cg. ci§., pp. 5 and 35.

1qulliam E. Brynteson, "Roman Law and Legislation in the
Middle Ages," ficcculum, XLI (July 1966), p. 422.

eminent 310"ent in
as both a scum °
eveloeed 1” ”9""
Isreover, throughou
rented to rake 5i
mansion (11891“ S
A minor
:teurrad in the “T
issuing the canal
claimed territories
steer lurkeard of A
:Nhillp of Seebie
Sicily e eepel fiat
Frederick to preven
1% recognize the ve
iteriel claims.14
Northern Italy,

v.-
Wary aid ageing
“Elly, over which

36

dominant element in imperialist thought.11 This idea of the empire
as both a secular and a religious institution was being furthered
developed by Henry VI at the time of his unexpected death in 1197.
Moreover, throughout his brief reign Henry had made it clear that he
intended to make Sicily play a vital role in future imperial
expansion dispite strong protests from the papacy.12

A minor clash between papist and imperialist factions
occurred in the first years of Innocent III's pontificate. Upon
assuming the papal tiara, Innocent found the independence of papally
claimed territories threatened from the south by imperialist forces
under Markward of Anweilar, a former follower of Henry VI and an ally
of Philip of Swabia.13 Although Constance, Henry VI's widow, had made
Sicily e papal fief and had given Innocent the guardianship of her son
Frederick to prevent a takeover by the hated Germans, Merkward refused
to recognize the validity of Constanca's actions and continued to push
imperial claims.14 The pope was soon forced into calling on the cities
of Northern Italy, particularly those of Lombardy and Tuscany, for
military aid against Markward's invasion into the Papal States and

Sicily, over which the papacy now claimed guardianship and suzerainty.1

 

"ran, 22. 535.. pp. 103-103.

12Van Cleve, cg. ci§., p. 20.

1sElizabeth Kennan, "Innocent III and the First Political
Crusade: A Comment on the Limitations of Papal power," Traditio,

XXVII (1971), p. 233.
14Van Cleve, 22. cit., p. 37.

15D. P. Weley, "Papal Armies in the Thirteenth Century,"

gmlish Histcciccl Revieg, LXXII (1957), p. 15.

A _

These cities: 'hi
the papacy @3th
aid was often COU
at: never Inf-"i5
m" the military
that his call '0
trilure of the It:
ancestrated the ‘
throughout the th;
lave for the paper
tier. they felt the
iileiarkuard, uht
3’7 Sairitual off!
“filing in his 0!.
‘irst ten years of

aerial affronts

37
These cities, while nominally imperial, had long been the allies of
the papacy against the encroachments of aggressive emperors; and their
aid was often counted upon by the various popes. Nevertheless, their
aid never materialized in 11993 and the pope was finally forced to rely
upon the military services of the French mercenary Walter of Brianne,
after his call for a crusade against Markward had gone unheeded. The
failure of the Italian cities to help in the struggle amply
demonstrated the fact-- a fact which was to be shown repeatedly
throughout the thirteenth century-- that these cities felt no great
love for the papacy as an institution but only became papal allies
when they felt that their own interests were threatened.16 At the same
time Markward. who offered to make peace with the Church in regard to

any spiritual offenses, flatly told the papacy that it had no business

meddling in his own personal political affairs.17 Thus, within the

first two years of his pontificate Innocent had met two distinct
imperial affronts upon papal supremacy: the indifference of the
northern cities and the open belligerence of Markward of Anweiler.
Ioraover, few had responded to Innocent's denunciation of Markward as
an enemy of Christ and the Church.18 This lack of response indicated
no corresponding lack of religious enthusiasm but a failure on the
part of the Italians to identify the political interests of the papacy

with the spiritual needs of their religion.19 This failure in turn

 

16Kannan. g2. §i§., p. 238; and Van Cleve. 92. §i£.. p. 181.
17Kahnan. £23 Eil" p. 239a

181b1de, p. 247.
195.. Chapter IV for the religious life of the Italians.

 

1m that my 1
cstheultinate sow
Another
:ecel claims occur
Crusade when the ‘J
1‘ their recapture
I‘htistian terrico:
21
31x11 do 50. F
ilecmsatle, desc:
marking Zara:
The” the deal.

VOU well the‘
then Lthe De'

willing to see
scan granted abso
rereading to the

W”; in conjun

t‘trtriVed to have

.rar‘lSl main
'3? JG Fourth Cru
‘Wseed by Dona
fl” 091201,.
M Stromly
"t; CH e‘el
” Y
21
Rota
42. H01 3 ”the
22
hi:
23
:L‘eh

38

implied that many Italians did not totally accept the role of the papacy
as the ultimate source of all authority in Christian society.

Another more blatant example of Italian disrespect for
papal claims occurred only a few years later during the Fourth
Crusade when the Venetians persuaded the French crusaders to aid them
in their recapture of Zara despite a papal order not to attack any
Christian territory20 and the papal threat of excommunication if they
should do 50.21 Robert of Clari, one of the principle chroniclers of
the crusade, described the insistence of the Venetian dogs on

attacking Zara:
Then the dogs spoke again to the barons and said: 'Lords, know
you well that I will not in any degree give over being avenged 5?
'them [the people of Zara], no, not even for the apostolic see.‘
Unwilling to see the whole venture abandoned, Innocent nevertheless
soon granted absolution to the crusaders.23 However, rather than
proceeding to the Holy Land as the papacy wished, the Venetians,
working in conjunction with some of the allies of Philip of Swabia,

contrived to have the crusaders attack Constantinople.24 The final

 

2orhchille Luchaire, Innocent III; La Question d'Orient

(Period Librairie Hachette at Cie., 1907), pp. 101-102. The diversion
of the Fourth Crusade to lands held by Creek Christians is briefly
discussed by Donald E. Queller, "Innocent III and the Crusader-Venetian

Treaty of 1201 ," Mgdievalia gt Humanistica, XV (1963), pp. 31 -34.

Ouellar strongly believes that the attacks on Zara and Constaninople
were completely contrary to the express orders of the pope.

21Robert of Clari, [he gongugst of Constantinople, trans. by

Edgar Holmes McNeal (New York: Columbia University Press, 1936), p. 43.

zzlgide, 9. 44a

23Geoffrey Villehardouin, Thg Qonggest of Constantinople,

trans. by M. R. B. Show (Baltimore: penguin Books, 1963), p. 53.

24Robert of Clari, 22, 91%., p. 59.

 

ulctery of the CW
assets and pille
tench and Venetie
'uttaterred by fee
inherent first ex;
finally forced to
cnedeeould bri
Inertiae the Vans
renal legate, can
hfflinq of the S
heed.throughou

tat£1 uminingne

M °f the Daoac

Nevert

if = .
name and 0t!

 

39
he crusaders over the Creeks was ended by "a scene of
pillage”25 in which, according to Villehardouin, both the
enetians were so greedy for booty that they were totally
by fear of excommunication by the Pope.”26 Although
at expressed shock and horror at the whole affair,27 he was

ad to acquiesce in the fait accoggli and to hope that the

d bring the Greeks back to the Roman Church.28 In the

Venetians fraudulently obtained their absolution from a
, continually opposed many of Rome's ideas regarding the
the Greeks, and openly ignored papal excommunications.29
ughout the whole venture the Venetians demonstrated a
ingness to sacrifice any of their own interests for the
papacy and even expressed no fear of papal sentences.
everthelass, it was the disputed election between Philip

d Otto of Brunswick30 which brought the first major

SVillehardouin,‘22, git,, p. 91.

61bido, p. 94.

7Letter of Innocent III to the papal legate Peter in
Is as cited in James A. Brundage, The Crusgggs: A
iggggxy(Milwaukee, Wisconsin: Marquette University
9 pp e 208-209 e

8Letter of Innocent III to the clergy and crusaders in

Is as cited in Edward Peters, ed., Christian figgigty and
- 2 7: S s n T one on (Philadelphia:

f Pennsylvania Press, 1971), p. 22.

9Luchaire, Innogent 111: Le Question d'Drient, p. 219.

DShortly before his death Henry VI had persuaded the
as to elect his enfent son Frederick as King of the
this earlier election was generally overlooked by both
a of Frederick's extreme youth.

:leeh betueen th‘
’95:“; the trad:
mecy wring the
realizing the d“
gment three hi
ether of WW ‘
ttjects, Wat”!
semr. writing
ialsterbach Still
trefact that he '1
:eer excomnicate
sauedthe confus:
animossibllity ac
While tr
2metocroun the e
‘59 Dope could conf
V‘e references of b.

:leerl

7 indicated t!

\

31Van [la

3
2Barracl

 

 

40

clash between the papacy and the Empire in the thirteenth century.
Fearing the traditional Hohenstaufen ambitions which had threatened the
papacy during the previous century under Frederick I and Henry VI and
realizing the danger of Philip's support of narkward in Sicily,31
Innocent threw his support behind Otto.32 Nevertheless, Philip, the
brother of Henry VI, was the more popular candidate: and many imperial
subjects, particularly in Germany, continued to view him as the true
emperor. writing some twenty years later, the moderate Ceesarius of
Heisterbach still referred to Philip as the rightful emperor despite
the fact that he had never been recognized by the papacy and had even
been excommunicated.33 Another chronicler, Albert of Stade, partially
settled the confusion by referring to both Philip and Otto as kings--
an impossibility according to both imperial and papist theories.34

While the imperialists generally accepted the right of the
pope to crown the emperor, they rejected Innocent III's assertion that
the pope could confirm or deny the choice of the Carmen Electors. 5

The references of both Ceesarius and Albert to Philip as emperor

clearly indicated that Germans did not generally accept any papal

 

31Ven Cleve, 92. git., pp. 38-39.

32Barraclough, 15g Origins of Hodggn ngggnx, pp. 206-207.

33Ceesarius of Heisterbach, Th i as on i a a,
trans. by Von C. Scott and C. C. Swinton Bland with an introduction
by C. C. Coulton (New York: Harcourt, Brace, and Company, 1929),
VOle II, pp. 70-71e

S‘Albert von Stade, Chgonik (Leipzig: Verlag der
Onkschen Buchhandlung), p. 56.

35Jean Louis Alphonse Huillard-Br‘holles, ed., flistogie

i i on (6 vols.: Paris: Henri Plon, 1852-
1361), vol. I. pp. 49-50e

 

 

action as th' pri'
Jaclaration 0f Spi
eroclalled Wt or
meter and ”it:
elected m9?” 8"
:heoooe's W '°
to article Iho ShOU
hen the supporter
edismted electio
’urther stated in

reporters dellande
muted election I
3Into the Electors
darn Zeleke, like
ihi'herill electit
as only conferred
llch westlon the 1

if such action. w

'l’smtioe. one of
lbw

a

allet poet we

36
Ml- Charla
”1,th in the I
.llalie UX X 8 ‘
hitte’1939)’ p. H
37
Hayley,
3B ,
%..
39I .
%'e y

41
action as the prime factor in the selection of an emperor. The
Declaration of Spire, made by Philip's supporters in 1199, firmly
proclaimed that only the imperial princes had the right to elect an
emperor and admitted no limitations to the power of a properly
elected emperor even in the absence of a coronation by the papacy:
the pope's duty was simply to crown the properly elected emperor, not
to decide who should or should not be emperor.36 At the same time
even the supporters of Otto refused the right of the papacy to judge
a disputed election.37 The rights of the Carmen Electors were
further stated in the Halls Manifesto of 1202 whereby Philip's
supporters demanded the immediate coronation of Philip and said the
disputed election could only be decided by a spontaneous agreement
among the Electors.38 Two German civil lawyers, Eike von Repgau and
Johann Zemeke, likewise refuted the right of the papacy to interfere
in imperial elections, although Eike did maintain that imperial power
'was only conferred by the papal coronation.39 Others did not so
much question the legal right of the papacy to interfere as the justice
of such action. While admitting the legitimacy of the Donation of
Constantine, one of the bases for the pope's intervention, the

imperialist poet Walther von der Vogelweide claimed that Constantine's

 

36Charles C. Bayley, Ihg Formation of the ngggn Collgge
of Electors in tug gig-[hittegnth Century (Toronto: University of

Toronto Press, 1949), p. 120: and Edouard Jordan, 'A ma na t
l' t i e a (Paris: Presses Universitaires de

France, 1939 , p. 183.

37a.y19y. we age. [1. 121a

38mg. , pp. 127-128.
39

Me 9 ppe 130-131 e

 

 

action hindered r

KUOC Constan
els lch 82 3'
del stool 28
Zghent OCT E
'ouuen 0‘1"“
e stuont diU
der lst elh ‘
dez lirt 081‘
alle fursteh
Ian dar hocht
daz hat der 5
daz si dir. 5
die pfaffen I
der angel hat

Eyinterfering in
meleeide, actual

2e Rose horte
zeene kunege

3a uon hoop s
Get e was ode
do sich begun
piaffen unde .
daz was sin n:
lip unde sela
die pfaffen 3‘
doch wart der
Uhd griff‘en 2:
Bio bienen die
Uhd nlht den 5

! 3h thrc
33” 3”th Dole:1
3;” heay rden '
.3 '
“EM? St Prince 1
“ Duet cont .
dike rive
e ., perverti

 

42

action hindered rather than promoted the welfare of Christian society:

Kunc Constantin du gap so vil,

als ich ez iu besheiden wil,

dem stuol ze Rome, spar kriuz unde krone.
Zehent der angel lute schre

'ouwe, ouwe, zem dritten we!

a stuont diu kristenheit mit zuhten schone:
der ist ein gift nu gevallen

daz wirt der werlt her nach vil leit.‘
alle fursten lebent nu mit eren,

wan der hochete ist geswachet:

daz hat der pfaffen wel gemachet.

daz si dir, sueger got, gekleit.

die pfaffen wellent leied rehsoverkeren.
dar angel hat uns war geseit.

By interfering in the imperial elections, the pope was, according to

Vogelweide, actually betraying Christendom:

Ze Rome horte ich liegen

zwene kunege triegen.

de von huop sich der waist strit
der e was oder iemer sit,

do sich begunden zweien

pfaffen unde leien.

daz was sin not vor aller mot:
lip unde sele lac da tot.

die pfaffen striten sere:

doch wart der leien sie dernider,
und griffan zero der stole wider:
sie bienen die sis wolten,

und niht den sis solten.

do storte man diu goteshus.

ich horte verre in einer klus
vil nichel ungebaere:

 

4 hglthgg gag deg gogglweide, trans. by Walther Bulst

(Berlin: Der Temple), p. 61. Translation [ by Walther von der

lwe e ' the o d', trans. by Ian G. Colvin (London:
Edward Arnold and Company, 1938), p. 64.]: "King Constantine in
folly gave the Cross, the Crown, the Sacred Stave that pierced our
Lord, all to the Holy See. The angel mourned his folly so: 'Ah
woe, ah woe, eh threefold woel For Christendom is now in jeopardy.
I see a subtil poison fall: their honey will be turned to gall: on
man a heavy burden will be laid.' The prince loses all proper awe:
the highest prince is of all power deprived by this election which
the priests contrived. Let accusation before God be made: the
clerics are perverting the civil law. It is no falsehood what the
angel said!”

a mints 81”

or negate 90'
'00“ del- babl
Ever-Ceesarius, Iht
sewlar state, war!
5:11 that the prom
as to tend to the
The uhe)

the civil m this?
.‘zllmihq year the
h5191921996 to uphc
I1517"} Unfortuna
3' the fichenstau fer
"‘1“? 9final State

9* the Otto furt

.3 suhit his quart

t1
Bulst
35’11the vow,
3’3), 9: 96.1" I!
”I that

43

to sin klossnaere,

ate gote siniu lsit, 41
er babest ist zs junc: hilf, herre, diner kristenheit.‘
us, who did not sXplicitly deny all papal rights in the
e, warned against the Church holding both swords and
is proper function of the clergy, both higher and lower,

to the spiritual needs of their flocks.42

he unexpected murder of Philip in 1208 brought an end to

r which had been devastating Germany: and in October of the
ar the pope crowned Otto IV as emperor at Rome after Otto

to uphold the independence of papally claimed territories in
afortunately, Otto shared the ambitions, if not the papularity,
staufsns and soon began to assert imperial claims in Sicily

4

1 States, thus jeopardizing papal independence. 4 At the

to further asserted his independence from Rome by refusing

s quarrel with Philip II of France to papal arbitration.45
18ulst, op. cit., p. 20. Translation [by George T.
a van Vo lweids (New York: Twains Publishers Inc.,
..: "In Rome I heard the lying, two kings being betrayed.
use the greatest struggle that ever was or ever will be,
themselves priests and laymen took sides. That was e
vs all distress. The priests fought violently, yet the
ymsn increased, so the priests took up their stoles.
nicated whomever they wished instead of those they should
man betrayed God's house. I heard far away in a call such
93 there a hermit was crying, he lamented his sorrows to
the Pope is too young. Lord, help thy Christendom.'”
2Cassarius of Hisstsrbach,lgg. cit., I, p. 111.

3Van Cleve, 92, cit., pp. 70-71.

4Roger of Wendovsr, Flowers of flietory, trans. by J. A.
n: Henry Ge 80h"; 1848), VOle II, pp. 253-2540

SJorden,‘2g. Qits’ p. 1900

 

.n:le to car-
inlared him
twy#I.Fre
ssecamplete
3‘ asses urit
33'1i'1ually 1
:srrupticn;

Ahi Hie 1
Sienna e1
912 er d:
Er giht,
daz 5212
1: ca Um
{Eh hen E
1’ tuitsc
I!“ pfaffe
““08 lat

3‘";t an,
Daz it in
Sienn in
5° tuot e
81‘ Seit U
W in at
ich Iaen ‘
grozen be:
her Sto:,
2 ‘1‘ U2

 

44
Unable to control his own creature, Innocent excommunicated him,
declared him deposed, and shifted his support to the young son of
Henry VI, Frederick II.‘6 The imperial party viewed this manoeuvre
as a complete act of treachery on the part of the pope. In a series
of poems written between 1213 and 1216 Walther von der Vogelweids
continually lampooned the pope for his treachery, greed, and
corruption:

Ahi wis kristsnlichs nu dsr babst lachet,

swsnne er sinen walhsn seit: 'ich hanz also gemachetl'
Daz er da seit, dss solte er niamer had gedaht.

Er giht, 'ich han zwen Allsman under einsr krone braht,
daz seiz richs sulsn stoersn unde wasten.

Ic da under fuller wis dis kasten:

ich han si an miner stoc gemsnt, ir guot ist allaz min:
ir tuitschez silber vart in miner welschen schrin.

Ir pfaffen, szzst husnsr und trinket win,

undo lat die tuitschen leien magern unds vasten.‘

Sagt an, her Stoc, hat iuch dsr babst her gsssndst,

Daz it in richst und uns Tiutschan srmet unde pfendst?
swsnn im diu wolle maze kumt ze Lateran,

so tuot er sinen argsn list, ale er a hat gstan:

er ssit uns danns wis daz richs sts vsrwarren,

unz in erfullent absr alle pfarrsn.

ich waen dss silbsrs wsnie kumst zs helfs in gotes lant:
grozsn hort zertailet sslten pfaffen hant.

her Stoc, ir sit scheden her gesant, 47
daz ir uz tiutschsn liuten suochet toerinns unds narren.

 

46 3 ° 3 i lomati or I, pp. 179 and 188-189; Barraclough,
[he Origins of Modern Germany, p. 212; and Ernest Kantorowicz, Frederick

the Second. 1194-125 , trans. by E. O. Lorimsr (New York: Frederick
Ungar Publishing Co., 1931), pp. 47-49.

47Bulst, 22. cit., p. BO. Translation [by Jones, 23. _c_i_t_.,
pp. 104-105.]: "Aha, how Christianly the pope laughs when he says to
his Italian cronies: 'I have made it 301' (What he says he shouldn't
even have thought.) He boasts, '1 have put two Germans under one
crown so that they will destroy and devastate the Empire. Meanwhile,
we can fill our chests: I have goaded them with my stick, their
wealth is all mine: Their German silver is flowing into my Roman
safew You priests, sat chicken and drink wine: let the German laity
langer and fast. / Tell me, Sir Stick, did the pope send you here to
make himself rich by robbing us? When the full amount reaches the

F;

n

her bats
Ian ich 1
air hortl
as air .
do in in
daz Iir .
ouch sul
ir spree!
gesegnet
lit flue:
wrch go
Oh it 09:

:0t git ;
der umc-e
”“5 leier
51"? lerte
daz wells
”J tUOnz
Uhd Sager
VClI‘ecker
die alter
UOS mnke
m zUnge

45

Her babst, ich mac wol gensssn:

wan ich wil iu geharsan wessn.

wir hortsn iuch dsr kristenheit gebeiten
was wir dem kaiser soltsn plegen,

do in im gebst den gotes segen,

daz wir in herrsn hiezsn und vor im knisten.
ouch sult ir niht vsrgazzen,

ir sprachet 'swer dich segens, dsr si
gssegnet: swer dir fluoche, dsr si verfluochet
mit fluocha volmezzen.‘

durch got bsdenket iuch da bi

ob ir den pfaffen ere iht geruochet.

Got git ze kunege swan er wil:

der umbe wundert mich niht vil:

uns leien wundert umbe dsr pfaffen lere.
sis lertsn uns bi kurzen tagen:

daz wellents uns nu widersagen.

nu tuonz durch got und durch ir selber are,
und sagsn uns bi er triuwen,

volrecken uns dir sinen wol von grunde,
dis alten ode die niuwen.

uns dunket sinez si gelogen. 48
zwo zungen stant unebne in einem munde.

 

Lateran, he will play a dirty trick, as he did before: he will tell
the Empire to remain in confusion until our parishes fill the chest
again. I doubt the silver will be of help in God's land, for
priests' hands seldom share treasures. Sir Stick, you have been sent
here to ruin and make fools of the German people." This poem hinges
upon the wordlfitgg which can be translated either as "stick" or as
”chest" and is obviously a pun. It was written in 1213 when Innocent
was collecting money for another crusade.

48Bulst, [cit., pp. 24 and 28. Translation [by Jones,
2g..gi§., pp. 108-1O221:”Sir Pope, I can surely win salvation,
except I wish to obey you. On the day you gave Otto God's blessing,
we heard you command all Christendom how to behave towards the
emperor, to call him 'lord', to kneel before him. You shouldn't
forget what you said: ‘If anyone blesses you, let him be blessed;
if anyone curses you, let him be cursed with a full measure of
curses.' For the sake of God, think this matter over, if you value
at all the honor of the priesthood. /'God gives us whomever he
wishes as our king, and this does not surprise me. we laymen are
amazed, however, at what you clerics teach. Yesterday you taught
us this, today you contradict it. For the sake of God and your own
honor, tell us what story to believe. Explain just one story from
the beginning, the old one or the new one. It appears to us that
one of them is false; two tongues do not fit evenly in one mouth."

:3: the 5°”
,lled for t
inn:‘s“~'s

later “Sim

D
ARU

ptly StOD
suggest that '
m, was at I

ear deserted

51A

3d.
at:

ed to the

masked the

a 51
want: h‘e'

v!

aazsition and

(v- .
he Imperial vs

The

Q
Jeace.‘

U1 For th

 

46
At the same time an anonymous work entitled the German de Ottong
called for the overthrow of Frederick and said that the pope was more
Apostatiggs (apostate) than Agostolicus (apostolic).49 Ceesarius also
later insinuated that Innocent had acted wrongly in the affair:

NOVICE. --At the time of the division of the Roman
Empire, the lord pope Innocent was condemned by many who said
he was the author of the schism, first by taking hotly the part
of Otto, and afterwards by opposing him.

MONK. --That is why when the same Innocent of blessed
memory was one day preaching at Rome to edify the people, John
Capot, who was an adherent of Otto, interrupted him, crying out:
"Thy words gas the words of God, but thy deeds are the deeds of
the devil."

Abruptly stopping the discussion at this point, Ceesarius seemed to
suggest that Innocent, who was heavily praised in other parts of his
work, was at fault on this issue. Nevertheless, the German Electors
soon deserted the unpopular Otto and at a council at Nurenburg

adhered to the pope's choice of Frederick 11, although they again
emphasized the sole right of the German princes to elect the
emperor.51 Meanwhile, Otto refused to accept the validity of the papal
deposition and on his deathbed in 1218 insisted upon being buried in
the imperial vestments.52

The first years of Frederick II's reign were remarkably

peaceful for the papacy. Despite a few early minor squabblss with

 

49Horace Kinder Mann, The Lives of the Popes in the Middle
TAggs (London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner, and Company, Ltd., 1931),

VOle XI, p. 2149

socaesarius OF HBiSterbaCh, 92s Cite, I, pm 1150

51W. I. pp- 195-197: and Jordan.
' me n ' is ux e at XIIIe siecles, pp. 193-194.

SZVan Cleve, 220 Site, Do 1120

Iment over |
rtej extremel
{get (July 12,
received from
:rztectar, ahd
:srcetnted by

1 \
meets were t

47

Innocent over his treatment of certain Sicilian bishops53 Frederick
acted extremely conciliatory towards the pope. In the Golden Bull of
Eger (July 12, 1213) he acknowledged the great benefits he had
received from the pope, his 'dearest lord and most reverend father,
protector, and benefactor', and promised to rectify all abuses
perpetrated by his ancestors. The March of Ancona and the Duchy of
Spoleto were to be returned to the Roman Church, while the Kingdom of
Sicily was to be defended and retained as a fief for the papacy.
Church rights were also to be restored in Germany, although this was
to be done 'with the council and consent of the princes of the
Empire'.54 Taken altogether, this bull largely recognized papal
rights within the Empire and the spiritual function of the emperor to
defend these rights. Two years later Frederick took the cross and
thus acknowledged the papal claim that one of the more important
duties of a Christian prince was to liberate the Holy Land.55
Frederick also promised never to unite Sicily to the Empire, since
such an action would Jeopardize papal independence.56

Despite all these promises Frederick gradually began to
reassert his imperial and royal rights after the death of Innocent.
while the complaisant Honorius III generally appeared willing to

accept Frederick's promises to go on a crusade and to abandon Sicily,

 

53 isto is i omatica, I, pp. 140-142 and 170-171; and
Van Cleve, 92, cit., pp. 64-65.

54Histogia Qiglomatiga, I, pp. 258-271-
SSIbidn pp. 394-395. Van Cleve said Frederick was actually

usurping papal leadership over the crusade by this act; 92, cit., p. 97.

56Histo is i lomati a, I, pp. 469-470.

:he spent in
eye; to re;
avattheless
regalian righ
3‘39 com:Iilaim
5‘tercepting F
Frederick 919
' 6-:
SJCH abuses.

Sitessions t;

We :apal c

i=~di3etiahs the

‘15 tern.

“arias

sis pelicy Seen.

 

4B
the emperor was busy amassing support in Germany and Sicily. Although
trying to regain rsgalian rights over the Sicilian Church,“ he
nevertheless evinced great care at this time in not pushing his
rsgalian rights so far that he would offend the papacy.58 when the
pope complained that he was interfering in episcopal elections,
intercepting papal letters, and disregarding clerical immunities,59
Frederick either totally ignored the protests or denied knowledge of
such abuses.60 Meanwhile, in Germany the emperor made numerous
concessions to the high preletes and princes so as to win their
support for the election of his son Henry as King of the Romans
despite papal opposition.61 Nevertheless, despite these minor
indications that Frederick was trying to dominate the churches in
his territories for the benefit of the Empire, the main thrust of
his Policy seemed to be one of harmony and cooperation with the
POPBCY- Frequently referring to the pope as his 'fathsr', Frederick
based his delays for going on a crusade on the grounds that he was
needed at home to protect the churches.62 His reluctance to give up

—__—-.‘———_—

57James M. Powell, "Frederick 11 and the Church: A

gevigg°nist View." a o 1 isto ical Review, XLVIII (January 1963),

d saJamgs m. powell, "Frederick II and the Church in the King-
Om of Sicily, 1220-1224," Church History. xxx (March 1961). p- 33-

sguisgeria Qiglomatica, II, pp. 200-201. 384-387. 588-599:

60M" II, pp. 283-284, 286-287, 409-413, and 675-677.

F 61Georges Blondel, tu su la oliti us de l'Em s

W (Paris : Alphonse Picard st Fils, 1892), p.
’ and Kantorowicz, 29. git” p. 103.

62Histogia Diplomatiga, I, pp. 636-638.

and 633-635

 

 

Sicily “3 m
Sicilt ‘5 ° I
{yen aha” th'
mercr's ati
’inally sub-'1
initial wit“
ever-t untrieh

Th1.
state ended Ur
tractable and

keep his crusa

Charts: The

afijust and acm
Princes througt
letter to the c
D336. Claiming
:ravlsioh for t!

Water had beer

”Dora

65 :
J and“) h 43‘
EH1: : and l

49
Sicily was motivated, he claimed, by his sincere desires to protect
Sicily as a papal fief and to facilitate preparations for a crusade.63
Even when the pope openly sided with the Lombard League against the
emperor's attempt to bring it back under imperial control, Frederick
finally submitted to the pope's arbitration, although only after an
initial outburst of rage in which he blamed the Roman curia for
overt unfriendlinsss.

The peaceful days of seeming cooperation between church and
state ended under Honorius' successor, Gregory IX, who proved less
tractable and soon had Frederick excommunicated for his failure to
keep his crusading vows and for his wrongs against the Sicilian
Church.65 The emperor immediately declared the exommunication
unjust and accused the papacy of wanting to subjugats all secular
princes through the use of its spiritual weapons.66 In a long
letter to the crusaders Frederick presented his case against the
pope. Claiming that the Roman Empire had been 'destinsd by divine
provision for the defense of the Christian faith' and that the

emperor had been given the secular sword 'by God for the defense of

 

6il§in-. I. pp. 741-744.

64Kantorowicz,_qg. cit., pp. 155 and 159. Van Cleve
states that this incident marked a major turning point in Frederick's
attitude towards the papacy which he henceforth came to regard as a

competing teaporal power: 92. 315,, p. 187.
6§fl1§§231§_2i2lgggtigg, 111, pp. 32-34. Van Cleve, Powell,

Barraclough, and Kantorowicz all agree that Gregory excomnicatsd
Frederick primarily for his aggressive policy in Northern Italy and
that the crusade was only a side issue. While this opinion is largely
justified, it neglects the overall importance of the crusades to papal

policy in general.

66Roger of Wandover,.22. cit., p. 505.

 

1.12 faith “d

macy '10 “hi

gga :hild by

1135 and was C

Fe Further cle
zrztest again?
fanatiizing t
Esteral times ‘
Eitere soul' I
{tire through
ultimately prc':
‘39 Macy's vi
am, it dehi
3-11 acknowledge:

Weir nasal act

it“ ‘

V
twat

”Ed Spiritt

i’tifteiiafl Dos

’reeerick recall
mi of Toulous:

iii-Er

50
the faith and of ecclesiastical liberty', Frederick said that the
papacy 'to which the Lord concedes power over earth' had wronged him
as a child by ignoring his legal election by the German princes in
1196 and was continuing to wrong him through an unjust excommunication.
He further claimed that it was his duty as a Christian prince to
protest against the pope's 'manifest and grave injury' which was
jeopardizing the crusade, the Empire, and the peace of Christendom.
Several times throughout the letter he referred to his own 'pure and
sincere soul‘ which had been the cause of his elevation to the
Empire through the intervention of the Holy Spirit and which would
ultimately protect him from injury.67 Although this letter accepted
the papacy's view that the Empire had a special relationship with the
Church, it denied a complete dependence of the emperor on the papacy
and acknowledged the right of the emperor to protect himself against
unfair papal actions. Moreover, it asserted that the emperor
received spiritual grace directly from God with the pope holding no
intermediary position. In another letter to Henry III of England
Frederick recalled the recent papal actions against King John and the
l:ount of Toulouse, both of whom had been deprived of their temporal
power, and said that the Roman Church which was supposed to be their
mother was the 'center and origin of all evils, behaving not as a
nurther but as a stepmother'. He ended this letter by an attack upon
all preletes who, he claimed, were trying to take over the world

‘thrcugh the use of their ecclesiastical weapons.68 At about the same

 

67Historia Di lomatica, III, pp. 36-38.

Galbigeg 111, pp. 48-500

 

:iae Frederi

hi: to be h:

ardering the
anti” of 31'
79 53396 the:
1833335»: 311‘ .

'rl
k‘y Lard as E

71

3539, In El

as:

5
”an“! even in
fight

31 queue
Aimee t0 QUE/ev-
:rs‘n,‘

".1:ka Cla

he fully br: .,

7'1
(k7. Kant,

 

51
time Frederick also issued an encyclical ordering the papal interdict
not to be honored in his kingdom and the temporal goods confiscated
from all churchmen who wished to obey the pope.69 Later, in a letter
ordering the crusaders to prepare themselves, he accused the Roman
Dontiff of disturbing the internal tranquility of the Empire and said
he hoped that Gregory would not behave 'indecently' towards him to the
detriment of the crusade.70 In the following May he set out for the
Holy Land as an sxcommunicate and against the express orders of the
pope.71 In all of these letters and actions Frederick seemed to be
asserting a certain independence of the secular power in regard to the
papacy even in the spiritual realm. Also, while he acknowledged the
parental quality of the papacy, he insisted upon the right of the lay
prince to govern his territories without papal intervention.
Frederick's claims for a religious significance for the emperor were
more fully brought out in a letter to the commune of Civita Nova
where he asserted that he had received his power directly from God
and that he was held responsible to God for conserving the peace of
his subjects, a peace which the Church was disturbing.72 According
to Frederick, rather than the Empire aiding the papacy, the Church
was supposed to support the emperor in his projects. Accusing the
pope of excommunicating him without reason, of misusing church funds

to invade his lands, and of preventing a crusade, Frederick stated,

 

691bide, 111, pp. 50-51e

701Dide, III, ppe 57-60e

71Kantorowicz, 92, git., p. 230; and Van Cleve, 22. cit., p.
207.

72 etc a i omati a, 111, pp. 66-68.

we nighes

9 .i‘
3.;5- bY h

it the bit1
it JUQPIIEl
Christianity
its Oil" ifite
amassed am

site Freder.

1.". hey the

3H1»

....y, stfor
:ei itter‘tion

7.?“ the 3031

{393831005 5
35 5 victory

ieerial desi

 

77

Q': p.

3: “H

1
78

(D

52

'the highest pontiff provokes us unjustly and unworthily, when he
ought by his paternal compassion to provide for our labors.‘7

The ensuing war between pope and emperor again brought
out the bitter anti-papal attacks of such imperialists as Walther von
der Vogelweide, who hailed Frederick's crusade as a great triumph for
Christianity and accused the papacy of diverting crusade funds for
its own interests.74 A certain Sicilian count named Thomas
expressed amazement at the pope's invasion of Sicily, especially
since Frederick was on a crusade and since Christ had told Peter to
put away the temporal sword.7S Even Hermann of Seize, the Grand
Master of the Teutonic Knights, who was very respectful towards the
papacy, strongly defended the actions of Frederick and denied any
bad intentions on the part of the emperor who had delivered Jerusalem
from the Moslems.76 Indeed, despite the papal disapproval of
Frederick's crusade many in Europe and the Holy Land saw his action
as a victory for Christendom and questioned the justice of the
emperor's excommunication.77 Only the Lombard League, which feared

imperial designs on its independence,78 came out in open, although

 

731bige, III, pe 73e

748ulst,[22. cit., p. 80; and George Madison Priest,

3 figigf [jistggy of German Literature (New York: Charles Scribner's

Sons, 1910), p. 53.

75flistogia Qiglomatica, 111, pp. 110-112.

761-bi_d" III, ppe 90"93 and 99‘102e

77Roger of Wendovsr, 23. cit., p. 521: and Kantorowicz,
_O_2e Eite, pe 182e

78Barraclough, The Origins of Modern Germany, p. 230.

7“,

 

 

united SUD”:
:c stay 0‘” °|
{rejeritk's dj
inSiciU' “hi
I'M mt that

by the “Ct th
r:le in F reder.
team?“ of E

at Salza write:

83 ,.
eweror. u 39

nith no reSDOV‘S

such for the 8'

attention that

edoubtedly shat
uith the emperor

peace

bureau, in whit

Sicilian Church 1

\

79
Kant
a. Q" p. 210:

8
OJordz
81

Hist:

53

limited sUpport of Gregor”?9 while many of the German princes tried
to stay out of the controversy altogether on the grounds that
Frederick's dispute with the papacy involved the emperor's activities
in Sicily, which was technically not a part of the Empire.80 However,
the fact that Germany generally sympathized with the emperor was shown
by the fact that many of the German prelatss and princes took an active
role in Frederick's forbidden crusadam and later aided him in his
reconquest of Sicily from papal mercenaries,82 while the German Hermann
01’ Salza worked hard to restore peace between Gregory and the
emaror.83 Gregory's call for a new imperial election was also met
With no response from the princes who nevertheless did promise to
Vauch for the emperor's good intentions.BA Indeed, Hermann's
contention that Frederick was guilty of no major wrong-doing was
u"“"3th:tedly shared by most of the Germans who continued to associate
With the emperor despite his excommunication.

Peace was finally restored in July 1230 by the Treaty of
caparano, in which the emperor made many concessions in regard to the

Sicilian Church to escape from the ban of excommnication.as Admitting

\_

”Kantorowicz, 93. cit., pp. 198 and 210; and Van Cleve,

.22. fie, Fe 210.
80Jordan, L'Allemagne st I'Italis, p. 226.

81W. 111. pp- 207-214.
azvan Cleve! 220 Cite, p. 228.
83 i oria i lomatica, III, pp. 90-93 and 99-102.

8“Van Cleve, 92. cit., pp. 205 and 231.

85Kantorowicz, 92. cit., p. 209.

 

is 1718593“:
grease CIf Cr
a the CM“
grace those it
enacted 8951“
3am, to 1‘29
:rclergy. to
letters, and t
Freaerick F011
;ain the papa:
ignite and the
Is firmly belie

B7
are ane.’

Desp
1: Fallow his 01
'Erthe claims c

arfis‘erar made law

tftihurwes, and
511 of which 1th

1535‘ awarding t

"9”» of as Christ

‘ 1 bid
flash: .evlsion

 

54

his inadequacies in regard to his fulfillment of crusade vows and his
defense of church liberties, Frederick promised to obey the mandates
of the Church, to return confiscated goods, to receive back into his
grace those who had fought for the Church, to abolish all laws
enacted against them, to never again invade the Patrimony of St.
Peter, to restore all exiled preletes, to levy no taxes on churches
or clergy, to bring no clergyman into civil courts except on feudal
matters, and to allow free ecclesiastical elections.86 Here again,
Frederick followed a policy of appeasement to the Church in order to
gain the papacy as an ally. Later, Frederick was to assert that the
Empire and the papacy were united by an 'identity of souls': 'indeed,
we firmly believe and publicly assert that we two, father and son,
are one.'87

Despite all these words and promises Frederick continued
to follow his old policy of building up the state with little regard
for the claims of the church. In the Constitutions of Melfi the
emperor made laws concerning heresy, blasphemy, marriage, donations
to churches, and the inheritance rights of the sons of clergyman,88
all of which items properly belonged to the realm of the Church, at
least according to Gregory.89 Moreover, while insisting upon the

right of a Christian prince to maintain the Church, Frederick

 

86 isto lama 1C8, 111) pp. 207‘220e

8112;10, IV, pp. 408“411e

8912i9.. Iv. pp. 5-7, 134, 175, and 225-229.

8212;Q., III, p. 290: and Powell, "Frederick II and the

Church: A Revisionist View," p. 495.

55
paraphrased the old Biblical quotation of "Render to Caesar the
things that are Caesar's" and claimed that kings and princes had a
duty independent of any relationship with the papacy.90 The purely
secular character of the Empire was more clearly stated in one of
Frederick's letters to the Romans. Making no reference to either
the Church or the papacy, he lamented the present decline of Rome
and asked why the city no longer accomplished great things:
...you perhaps will respond that it was the kings and caesars
who did these great things. Behold! you have a king and
caesar who for the exaltation of the Roman Empire has exposed
his person, opened his treasury, not spared his labor. You
have a king who h s excited your sleep with continual
interruptions....
At the same time the emperor continued his attempt to subjugate
the cities of Northern Italy to imperial control, although such
subjugation in the and threatened the independence of papal
territories and thus of the papacy itself.92 Of course, Frederick
usually insisted in his letters to the pope that he was pushing his
imperial claims in Italy 'particularly for the honor of the church.’93
Although the next few years were relatively calm despite

all these minor infractions,94 Frederick's success in bringing

 

golbige, IV. pp. 847-852e

911g;g., IV, pp. 901-903. A similar letter was sent to
the Romans in January 1238: 1bid., pp. 161-163.

92Barraclough, The Origins of Modern Germany, pp. 230-231.

93 i ori i omati o, IV, pp. 442-444 and 872-880.

94The period of peace between 1230 and 1236 can largely be

attributed to the internal problems of both pope and emperor. while
the Romans were causing Gregory difficulties, Henry VII was rebelling
against his father in Germany.

‘urthern It:
momnicat
mapgs ll
to the Churc
right to jet
:1: analogy
”50m secula
E:
Pain st.
The Dri:
lould ol
the pin:
Frederick Ger
in ”Mar af
mm?" of hi
mam ihju
Assregoz‘Y re
"snowed by J

Maths, Sift

56
Northern Italy under imperial domination brought about his renewed
excommunication despite the emperor's efforts to keep peace with the
papacy.95 While Frederick quickly stated his willingness to submit
to the Church in ecclesiastical matters, he flatly denied the papacy's
right to determine imperial control over Northern Italy.96 Using the
old analogy of sun and moon, Frederick accused the pope of trying to
usurp secular jurisdictions
But, 0 marvel of unheard of arrogance! The Sun would

fain steal from the Moon her colour and rob her of her light!

The priest would bait Augustus, and with his apostolic greatness

would obscure the radiagge of our majesty whom God has set upon‘

the pinnacle of Empire.
Frederick denied that the papacy had any right whatsoever to interfere
in secular affairs, even if the prince were at fault: ”It is no
concern of his [the pope's] to inflict any punishment on us for
temporal injuries even if the cases were proved according to law."98
As Gregory refused to budge on the Lombard issue, the emperor
responded by hurling more insults Upon the person of the pope, 'that

author of schism and friend of error', whom he accused of protecting

heretics, since by papal admission Milan, the center of the Lombard

 

95The overt reason for the excommunication was Frederick's
handling of the Sicilian Church: Historia Qiglomatiga, V, pp. 286-287.
However, there can be little reason in denying that the Lombard
question was the real issue, especially since most papal letters
dealt with Lombardy. See Kantorowicz, 92, ggt,, p. 473; and

Barraclough, Ihe Origins of Modern Gezmany, p. 231.

96Barraclough, The Origins of Modern Germany, p. 231.
Kantorowicz, 92, cit., p. 502.

98Brian Tierney, The Crisis of Church and State. 1050-
1300 (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1964), p.

145.

97

League: “We:
gape t0 8 Vicj
that the [hurt
taunt tc his 5
an 98mm!)

itet they rECE
med the un_
their clerical
assertion com:
tremendence a
tire the emper
intention to r
it. Peter and
tavertheless ,

35 M made no

Called for a 9'

lwarship .1 03

{hi} a;
«51.85 WhiCh
3:
to SUwest t
“Y himself

:thgu
.. Chirch bu

\

99
i

100p

\‘

57

League, served as a home for several heretical sects,99 Likening the

pope to a vicious Pharisee and a repacious wolf, Frederick stated
that the Church's chief pastor desired gold instead of poverty, was

bound to his stomach, and carelessly spilled Christian blood for his

1 00
oven gain.

Moreover, the emperor informed the Sicilian preletes

that they received their rights and power from him and that, if they

obeyed the unjust papal interdict and therefore neglected to perform

their clerical cuties, he would remove them from office.101 This

assertion comletely negated the concepts of ecclesiastical

independence and of papal supremacy over the Church. At the same

tithe the emperor announced to his Sicilian and Roman allies his

intention to recover all imperial lands including the Patrimony of

St - Peter and to restore Rome to its ancient imperial glory.102

NeVertheless, in his letters to those outside the Empire Frederick
as yet made no direct attack upon the papacy as an institution but

called for a general council to rid the Church of its heretical

leadership.1os Such an action was in direct contradiction to papal

theories which did not permit an emperor to declare a pope heretical
or to suggest the summoning of a church council. Later, when
Gregory himself called for a council to discuss the matter as well as

other church business, Frederick took active measures to prevent the

x

99 etc 1‘ lomatica, V. pp. 295-307.

1°”;b;d., v, pp. 308-312.

1O11bid., v, pp. 437-439 and 443-446.

1021b1ge, V, pp. 760-763e

103Kantorowicz, 22- 512” PP- 495‘497 and 503’

attendance of
council not fc
sf cardinals c
meror tare d
Macy could e
33.29 cauld leg-
The
105
i'terregm.
:mrch govermg
:wld release r
Election of lnr
since Frederick
his dispute “it
lhtre the inDer;
Set Up papal he:
5150.153 the MOS
Frederick, of Cc

”3 “311.109

Al‘ter

\

10%
9: 1037.104“

105
W“ leaving

132

C91
th

106

107Kam

SB

a‘-’-teu'\<:lance of the preletes on the grounds that the pope called the

c°¥"‘«:::|.l not for peace but to further discord and that only the college

of cardinals could call such a council when both the pope and the

e""i-5ex'or were directly involved.“’4 Herein Frederick denied that the

p‘pacy could serve as an impartial Judge in all matters and that the

pope could legally do anything that would jeopardize public peace.

The death of Gregory in 1241 was followed by a long papal

'1"‘lT-erregnumm‘5 during which time Frederick did little to harass the

cmrch government and seemed eager for the election of a new pope who

eF-‘M-IIIA release him from the ban of excomnicstion. Nevertheless, the

e:I-Bcztion of Innocent IV in 1243 brought about renewed hostilities,

Bi|"I¢=s Frederick refused to admit the jurisdiction of the papacy in

his dispute with Lombardy)“.6 and the new pontiff soon fled from Italy

-h°re the imperial faction dominated.10 Innocent then proceeded to

Set; up papal headquarters in Lyons and to call for a new council to
c"matures the imperial question as well as other church problems. 8

Praderick, of course, protested against these papal actions but to

After having been declared deposed by the First Council

 

\
1 104 -. p- 5423 and W: V: pp- 1027-
029, 10374041, 1075-1077, and 1089-1090.
1

05Celestine IV was elected pops in 1241 but died within a
”nth, leaving the papacy vacant for the next one and a half years.

106W. v1. pp. 204-221.
10?
Kantorowicz, 93. cit., p. 514.

108W. v1. pp. 247-248.

109Me 3 pp. 204-221 e

at Lyons (1245
to the kings c
:soressions ot
tee-cral gain
derived his pt
lssertirg a s;
fittcked the ;
functions uhil

~.othose

princes,

the are c
position,
that is j
presupptj
a gameral
58ntehce

DTUUEd 90
c0Uld not
ana all k
the effrg
deflose us
and Solem
ihola Chu
the last

to cast 0

meriCk late

Emmy the ex.

criginal emphag

1101
E5“. J.

 

59
OF Lyons (1245) under Innocent's leadership, Frederick himself wrote
t0 the kings of Europe and asked for their aid against the obvious
Oppressions of the papacy which was using its spiritual sword for
tamoral gain and which had no power to depose an emperor who
tieI‘llved his power from the German princes, not from the pope.110
ABBarting a special divinity in the imperial office, he viciously
attacked the papal church for neglecting its own spiritual
f.“ fictions while usurping imperial rights:

...thoss who are considered clerics, grown fat on the alms of
princes, now oppress princes' sons; and the sons of our subjects
who are ordained as apostolic fathers, forgetting their fathers'
position, do not deign to show any reverence for emperor or king.
What is implied in our maltreatment is made plain by the
presumption of Pope Innocent IV for, having summoned a council--
a general council he calls it--he has dared to pronounce a
sentence of deposition on us who were neither summoned nor
proved guilty of any deceit or wickedness, which sentence he
could not exact without grievous prejudice to all kings. You
and all kings of particular regions have everything to fear from
the effrontsry of such a prince of priests when he sets out to
depose us who have been divinely honored by the imperial diadem
and solemnly elected by the Princes with the approval of the
whole church.... In truth we are not the first nor shall we be
the last that this abuse of priestly power harasses and strives
to cast down from the heights.

Ifreclsrick later stated that it was his duty as a Christian prince to

destroy the existing papal institution which had so strayed from its

original emphasis upon poverty and simplicity.112 Writing to the

\

1‘°;p;g., v1, pp. 275-277 and 331-337: and R. w. Carlyle

3'": A. J. Carlyle, A fligtory of Mgdigva; Poiiticrl Theory, vol. V:
N P ti o of Thi eenth entu (New York: Barnes and
c3bJ.e, Inc., 1928), pp. 87 and 118.

111Tierney, The sis of hu ch and tats 1050-130 . p-

145: and flietorig Q'iglomarrga, VI, pp. 390-393.

112Karl Bihlmeyer, Church History, revised by Herman
Tuechle and trans. by Victor E. Mills and Francis Muller (westminster,
maryland: Newman Press, 1963), vol. II, p. 267: and flrgrgrig

 

 

European pril
Assist I
affirm '
worthy '
and bet

=:iests, he

Christ, not ‘

oil-3.1” I,

insisted, the

W worldly t

the existing

Christ For th

the ihgle ”at

F r

m his conc.

Ed bY the pg

Seeing coupe,

shanty betas

f‘h r-
”! “0d and t

.\
4%»11

60

European princes in 1249, Frederick stated,

Assist us against the superfluous prelatss that we may finally
affirm the Church, our mother, in giving her leaders more

worthy to direct her, and that we cap'3as it is our duty, reform
and better her for the glory of God.

priests, he declared, were to follow the simplicity and poverty of

Christ, not to partake in the greed and self-indulgence of the

wcl‘ldofl‘ In order to regain her former apostolic position, Frederick

insisted, the Church would first have to rid herself of all property

and worldly dignities.115 By thus making a clear distinction between

the existing Roman Church and the church originally established by

Christ for the union of the faithful,"6 the emperor threw into question

the whole nature of the existing ecclesiastical structure.117

From his voluminous correspondence Frederick made it clear
that his conception of papal power differed markedly from the ideas
held by the popes and canon lawyers. Even during his periods of

seeming cooperation with the papacy he always maintained a certain

equality between church and state: both received their power directly

P'POII God and both had specific God-given functions to perform.118

 

In
\
W, v1, pp. 392-393 and 707.

113“! Soiil Qjelomat192' VI, p. 707.

11frgrg., V, p. 3113 and Kantorowicz,.ggolgggos P- 515°

11SHISEPILS grgromatiga, VI, pp. 392-393: and Kantorowicz,
22. Eli" p. 616.

116flis§gria Digiomgtiga, V, pp. 305 and 350 and VI, p. 510.

117

T. S. R. Boase, Boniface VII] (London: Constable and
Coupony, Ltd., 1933), p. 133.

118Historir grgromatiga, IV, pp. 408-411.

 

 

wis my disp:
encased of tr
His call for

CMrch was nc
interfere pit
secular affai
Church and 3:
mime in

governance of
3.17 SUDDOrte
3019! neg-e t0
sueStioned by
”1th Conger,

held directly

91"“ call to

.th realizatic

.'-.
IL

he Ch“ch
Whi
"a ragi"9 in

\

119
I

120
J

122
I

123
I

124
LI

125
It

\

61
his many disputes with the Church he always blamed the papacy which he
accused of trying to intrude itself into purely secular affairs.119
His call for the lay princes of Europe to aid in the reform of the
Church was not motivated, or at least he so claimed, by any desire to
interfere with ecclesiastical matters but to get the Church out of
secular affairs.120 Nevertheless, Frederick's view of equality between
church and state relegated the papacy to a position of almost total
impotence in the realm of political power: policies enacted for the
governance of the Christian peoples were to be made by the state and

only supported by the Church;121 preletes acting as aids to the secular

power were to be chosen by the state:122 secular laws were not to be

123
a

questioned by the Church and could only be repudiated by God; 11

things concerning justice and the physical welfare of the Christian

peoples were to be handled by the state;124 lay princes were to be

held directly responsible to God, not to the pope.125 fredarick's

final call to rid the Church of all its wealth undoubtedly marked his

own raalizetion that the state, as he envisioned it, could not co-exist

with a church which rivalled the Empire in wealth and political power.
While Frederick was hurling his insults upon the papacy, war

was raging in Italy and Germany. The first response of the German

 

119mge, III. pp. 48-50 ENC, VI, pp. 275-2770

‘Zoxbid. 1211bid., IV, p. 910.

1221b1de, VI) Ppo 359-361-

1231bid., 111, pp. 35-33.

124Ibid., v1. pp. 769-771.

1251b1ge. IV. p. 910 and VI, pp. 644‘646.

princes to th
nmest the p
Md already c
recov'eciliatic
Kitten in Ap
the lesser pr.
llhdgrave of T
where to the
3W5 0' Saxony
reconciled uitf
Dosltion, 'sinc
lingo” and the
“my. reporq
fire the 1'99:
White by
stayed the DE
Sflrinq 0? n
he £00k in“
Sfion ihvade

the panel C

343993 law

 

62
princes to the renewed fighting between pope and emperor was to
request the pope to make peace with Frederick,126 although Gregory
had already ordered those supporting Frederick or promoting
reconciliation to be excommunicated.127 In a series of letters
written in April and May of 1240 almost all of the major and many of
the lesser princes pleaded with the pope to make peace.128 While the
landgrave of Thuringia and the Count palatine of Saxony promised to
adhere to the Church in case Frederick refused to make peace,129 the
Duke of Saxony openly stated the willingness of the emperor to be
reconciled with the Church and advised the pope to reconsider his
position, 'since the Christian religion cannot prevail without the

130 Albert of Behan, the papal legate in

kingdom and the sacradotal.‘
Germany, reported that the imperial party was so strong that not only
were the imperialists claiming to be working for the welfare of Church
and Empire by ignoring Frederick's excommunication but that those who
obeyed the papal sentences were actually being persecuted.131 In the
spring of 1241 Duke Otto of Bavaria flatly warned the pope that unless
he took immediate action the greater part of the German princes would

soon invade Italy to aid Frederick.132 Considering the vastness of

the papal claims demanding obedience and the gravity of the papal

 

charges levelled against Fraderick--heresy and sacrilege--,133 the
12?;9;g., v, pp. 393-400 and 644-646.
12719141., v, pp. 525-527. 1281319., v, pp. 935-991.
129mg... v, pp. 986-987. ”OM” v, p. 990.
”11933., v. pp. 1031-1035. ”219$” 11, p. 1111.
133

lIb_1_ge, V, pp. 327-340.

millingnas
afireu in“) c
mnstratec
camping t
ecclesiastic
:he secular 1
Icyal to the
given to the

elected Ki”?

he: at first :
receiving ma":
esch followini
exkingly cal
may after

me the citi

:(CD’epenciu,

/
’1

(16
38/»

r l
39W.

63
unwillingness of the German princes to support the pope not only
threw into doubt the actual extent of real papal power but also
demonstrated a definite skepticism on the part of many Germans
concerning the justice of the papal cause. Although many of the
ecclesiastical princes eventually deserted Frederick, the majority of
the secular princes as well as most of the German towns remained
loyal to the emperor despite the excessive papal favors and monies
given to the anti-Hohenstaufan party.134 Henry Raspe, who was
elected King of the Romans in 1246 by the archepiscopal electors,135
had at first refused to abandon Frederick and only changed after
receiving many papal bribes and threats.136 Unable ever to obtain
much following except among the preletes, this new emperor-elect was
mockingly called 'the priests' king' by many of the German peopla.1:57
Shortly after Henry's death in 1247 the pope called for a new election,
but the citizens of Cologne refused to allow an assembly comprised
primarily of prelatss into their city to elect a new anti-king so
that the election of William of Holland took place in the small
village of Worringen.138 Meanwhile, many of the lay princes told
the pope that he had no rights in the matter, since only the Electors

could choose a new emperor.139

 

134BOY18Y, 220 Cite, ppe 17 and 32a 135Ibige, pa 18o

136"Sifridi Presbyteri de Balnhusin Historia Universalis

at Compendium Historiarum,” Monument; Germaniae fiistoricaI §cgigtorea,
XXV, p. 704: and Jordan, L'Allemagne at l'Italie, p. 285.

13“(Albert von Stade,l22. cit., p. 101.

138Bayley,.gg. cit., p. 22.

139Albert von Stade,‘22, cit., pp. 93 and 101.

 

The
etaeen church
s'cire. This I
ally in Italy.
.eeterd League
the Church the"
before Frederic
It: with the Err

eezut 093:9 be‘

‘Ohggh

..... tedly dela

TEUf‘ESEUtatlt/o 3

:ertially 1:111

“telly tevorabl

‘11.; 14
"thy. 2 n

.nc
.teberds aeain

Eltying the SD

'1
113N338. Who h

flirt»
“:peCt er I

f ,

m then City

thf- a'

64

The war in Italy was often characterized less as a battle
hurch and state than as a battle between city-state and
This was particularly true in Lombardy, the foremost papal
taly. Indeed, the alliance between the papacy and the
eague seemed motivated less by a real Lombard love for
h than by a fear and dislike for the Hohenstaufens. Even
ederick's excommunication in 1239 the Lombards had been at
the Empire and had steadily ignored papal efforts to bring

140

ca between the two factions. Not only had they

y delayed in honoring the pope's request to send
atives to Rome,141 but even when Frederick appeared

willing to accept the papacy's peace proposals-~proposals
vorable to the Lombards--, they had refused to submit to the

Once the war between pope and emperor had begun, the

again showed their limited enthusiasm for the papacy by
the sending of promised financial aid to Rome.143 The

who headed the Lombard League, further showed their
t for Rome by refusing to drive the numerous heretics

r city. Another papal ally, Venice, only agreed to come to

f the papacy after the pOpe had promised lucrative commercial

 

140W. F. Butler, The Lombard Communes (London: T. Fisher

)6), pp. 255-260.

141flis§ogia Qiglomatiga, IV, pp. 490-494.

142Butler, 22, cit., p. 255. It should be noted that
also withdrew his support from the pope's peace proposal
Lombards showed their unwillingness to submit to any kind

:1 control; flistogia Diglomatiga,IV, pp. 441-442.

1”Historia Qiglomatica, V, pp. 1012-1013.

 

:rivileges :
my suppcsu

the me so:

S.Wt‘aathies.
the Fetrima'
5301 after 1

a ' '
3511151; “he

1.
”tum .
..4. pint“

3%
721

14

Pint

wg‘a I:

14

14-

6S

9 in all imperial lands conquered by the Venetians.144 Also,
asedly Guelf cities, especially in the Patrimony, deserted
soon after hostilities began.145

There were also many Italians who showed strong imperial
3. The March of Ancona, claimed by the papacy as a part of
nony of St. Peter, came out in open support of Frederick
P the war began.146 Padua, the city where Frederick was
when he received news of his excommunication, continued to
emperor honorably despite the papal sentence;147 and a
r of that city took pains to note Frederick's great respect
wurch and religion.148 In 1240 many of the Romans made
great the approaching emperor and were only called back to
1 party when the aging Gregory IX marched solemnly through
uith the relics of $55. Peter and Paul.149 The actions of
Jaduans and the Romans showed no underlying religious
n but a tendency to view the papacy's political manoeuvres

a the realm of the Church's spiritual duties. Of course,

3 other cities, such as Pisa, which appeared to support the

 

1441pm., v, pp. 390-394.
145

"Platynae Historici: Liber de vita Christi ac
1tificum,” Begum Italigagum Scrigtores, III, Part 1, p.

14sfligtoria Qiglomatiga, V, pp. 1021-1022.

147Rolandinus Patavini, "Cronica in factis at circa

:hie Trivixane," Begum Italigarum Sggigtoges, VIII, Part

1‘81b1ge , p. 64a

149flistogia Diplomatiga, V, pp. 776-779.

 

 

{tire becauf
and because C
I'deed, this
aften cloude:
for both the
aere doubtles
cietrd della
was essential
by its oppdsi
the imperiali
Irejdr teeters
Surrounded on
Choice but to
W imperial

The.

ed to the M

1-1'. '
..Jll war to c

 

66
cause of the many trading privileges offered by Frederick
39 of their rivalry with neighboring Guelf cities.150
his presence of local rivalries both between and within cities
ruded the dispute over the respective rights of church and state
the Cuslf and Chibelline factions.1S1 At the same time there
rtlessly many imperialists, such as the imperial chancellor
ella Vigna, who sincerely seemed to believe that a strong empire
rtial to the Church and that the papacy was weakening the faith

152

rposition to Frederick. Whatever their motivations were,

‘ialists were powerful enough in 1245 to have been one of the
tors in the pope's decision to flee from Italy in secret.153
d on all sides by imperial sympathizers, Innocent had little
t to flee Rome if he wanted to maintain a papal policy free
rial coercion.
The sudden death of Frederick in late 1250 brought no
a papacy's imperial troubles. While Germany was too torn by
to challenge papal authority, it was also incapable of
s papacy any aid in Italy.154 william of Holland was kept

onsolidating his own power and fighting internal rebels that

 

150Ryccardus da Sancto Germano, "Chronica," Berum

m Sggigtoges, VIII, Part 2, p. 204.

1S1Butler,_gg. cit., pp. 288-300.

152J. L. A. Huillard-Bréholles, Vie et correspondence de
la Vigne (Paris: Henri Plon, 1865), pp. 30, 158, 310-314,
26.

153Kantorowicz, 22, git., p. 514.

154Friedrich Heer, The Holy Roman Empire, trans. by Janet

r (London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1968), p. 87.

 

he revs: I
his 563th
:ezwall ‘
sag-he"t °
3311:0358
lermyn
JhiselanC
rerzidate
15.118 the
:he nejsri
imerial r
:epel actl

meniscus

,s C‘.‘
.arrrrmati

 

67

he never had time to be crowned officially by the pope.155 Following

his death in 1256 one section of the German Electors chose Richard of
C01: recall as King of the Romans, while the Pisans along with another

segment of the Electors elected Alphonso of Castile.1l56 Although both

candidates sought papal approval, neither had any strong support in

Germany3157 and the Rhineland League, which had been formed by the

Rhineland cities in 1254 to establish peace, refused to support any

candidate in case of a disputed election by the Electors."58 Thus,

While the two candidates, both outsiders, sought papal confirmation,
the majority of Germans refused to recognize the validity of any

imperial election unless made by the German Electors regardless of any

papal action. This chaotic situation was finally ended by the

“"3h1mous election of Rudolf of Hapsburg in 1273.1539 Although papal
c:O'Tl’:l.rmation to the election was soon given by Gregory X in the hope
that Rudolf would go to the Holy Land, the new emperor was kept so busy
putting down rebellion in Germany that he not only failed to go on a

crusade but even failed to get to Rome for his coronation.160

 

 

In
\
155
Barraclough, The Origins of Modern German , pp. 244-245.
a 1SGIOhtrlt‘rmas Longus de Ipra, "Chronica Monasterii Santi
artini’u

a onumantg Germaniae Historiga, Sgrigtores, XXV, p. 848; and
yley, go gite, p. 720

157

 

i "Balduini Ninovensis Chronicon," Monuments Germaniae
.KCOEOIiQa. figrigtores, XXV, p. 544: "Platynae Historici," p. 242; and
Se ifredi Viterbiensis Opera," Monuments Germaniae flistoriga.
i tores, xxu, pp. 366-367.

0 158Jordan, L'Allemaqns et l'Italig, p. 296; and Bayley,
"E‘ 333., p. 182.

159 . . .

"Balduini Ninoven31s Chronicon," p. 545.
160

"Platynae Historici," pp. 248 and 257. Pope Hadrian V

 

1m meantime
M9231 thrl
chasm as an
cope and the
Shared that .
mom. Th4
fallowed Dy T
mm, 330:
tht the £18:
(lapecy and 81
stead.154 we
3589 aecause
at War Wit h E
fa ”User i
”laity and ob
hlbm demms

68

the meantime King Ottacar of Bohemia, who also aspired to the
imperial throne, sent vast sums of money to the p0pe to have himself

chosen as emperor: but this piece of bribery was ignored by both the

pope and the majority of Germans.161 Nevertheless, the incident

showed that imperial candidates were not totally disdainful of papal

support. The death of 'the glorious king of the Romans Rudolf‘162 was

Followed by the election of Adolf of Nassau in 1291.163 Adolf,

however, soon began devastating the territories of rival princes so

that the Electors declared him deposed without any reference to the

papacy and elected Albert of Austria, a son of Rudolf, in his

st ead.164 Nevertheless, Albert soon ran into difficulties with the

pot-38 because of his alliance with Philip IV of France, who was then

at War with Boniface VIII.165 However, in exchange for the promise

0" a proper imperial coronation by the pope, Albert swore an oath of

1’ealty and obedience to the papacy in 12503.166 This submission by

Albert demonstrated the fact that imperial candidates still felt the

need for papal approval, although close ties between empire and
\

318°
Chg

requested Rudolf to come to Italy to offset the growing power of
..pl

Plea of Anjou, but Rudolf was too busy fighting rebels in Bohemia;
Qtynae Historici,“ p. 247.

C 161”'Faifridi Presbyteri de Balnhusin Historia," p. 7143 and
Eu’lyle and Carlyle, 9g. 9_1_t_.. p- 113-

1621mm, p. 711.

163"Platynae Historici," p. 256.

154”Sifridi Presbyteri de Balnhusin Historia," p. 701.
1658arraclough, LLB. Origins of Modern Germanlp P0 305°
166Heer, 23. 935-: P- 99-

 

may had let
The
cf iloerial an
ally of Freda:
and subsequen-
3m, Jicanz;
Med the mu
:relatures an
me the high
Stir UP rebel
51W with t-
MS 30 that
heatglic See
mi") for re
Mthbed,169
Dam Dover,
Demand “in
:the papacy.”

adhered to hi

69
papacy had largely been broken.

The death of Frederick had meanwhile not brought the end

of" imperial ambitions in Italy and Sicily. Ezzelino da Romano, an

ally of Frederick, held sway in the March of Traviso until his defeat

and subsequent death in 1259. Exercizing a cruel tyranny over Verona,

Dame, Vicenza, Feltro, Traviso, Tridentum, and Brescia, Ezzelino
caused the murder of a number of churchmen and 'conferred the

prelatures and church prebends... on whomever he wished, as if he

were the highest pontiff.’167 After captoring a papal legate sent to

Stir up rebellion against him, Ezzelino mockingly asked how Christians
35-9th with the cross could attack other Christians, extort their

9°°ds so that they lived in poverty, and then be absolved by the

“9°8tolic 5880168 Unlike Frederick, Ezzelino made little pretense of

caring for religion and reportedly even refused the sacraments on his
deathbed.169 While Ezzelino showed no regard for either the Church or

papal power, his enemies appeared to have been motivated more out of

per381::nal animosity towards this tyrant than out of any deep love for

the Dapecy.17° Meanwhile, even after his defeat the city of Brescia

adhared to his party and refused to return the captured legate without
\

167

Chronicon Marchiae Travisinae et Lombardia, 1207-1270,"
3-K“!!! Italigggum §§£12t0r859 VIII, Part 3, p. 410
168

Rolandinus Patavini, 92. cit., p. 167.
169"Chronicon Marchiae Travisinae et Lombardia," p. 39.
170

See "Gronaca di Antonio Godi," Berum Ltalicarum
M, VIII, Part 2, pp. 12-19; Rolandinus Patavini, 92. cit., pp.

Now‘ 57: and "Chronicon Marchiae Travisinae et Lombardia," pp. 29-42.
gbhe of these chronicles pay any attention to the papacy or the
3“tar war between the papacy and the Hohenstaufens.

 

 

dry regard ft:

Fr
cowl 0f Si
to lake peeCE
called 'the '1
excd-‘W’JllnicatE
3338's jurisc
want little
gdpular net I
ard Cisa as u
sadnsored Che
idlenstaufens
Verena sent ]
Italy to rege

jly‘Ully in n

His eventual

admitted age

70

7
any regard for papal mandates ordering his release.1 1

Frederick's heirs likewise refused to give up their

control of Sicily after the emperor's death. After various attempts

to make peace with the papacy Manfred, whom one Pisan chronicler

cal led 'the most excellent lord King of Sicily',172 was finally

excommunicated in 1255, since he was largely unwilling to admit the

pope's jurisdiction over Sicily.173 This excommunication apparently

meant little to Manfred's allies, since by the early 1260's he was

Popular not only in Sicily but in the Papal States, Rome, Cremona,

and 9153 as well."74 His final defeat in 1266 by the papally

Sponsored Charles of Anjou did not and Italian attachment to the

Hohehstaufens; and the cities of Rome, Pisa, Siena, Pavia, and

Verona sent letters to Frederick's grandson Conradin to come to

Italy to regain his paternal kingdom“?5 Conradin was greeted

Jo)fi"‘!..llly in many of the Italian cities including Rome,176 while

his eventual execution was seen by many as an act of violence

comitted against an innocent child."77 Indeed, the papal victory

 

\
171”Chronicon Marchiae Travisinae et Lombardia," p. 42.
"K: 172"Chronicon aliud breve Pisanum incerti auctoris ab anno
Fl I“‘quue ad annum MGGLXVII," grum Italigarum §criptores, VI, Part 2,
' ‘11.
J 173Iohannes Longus de Ipra, 22. git., pp. 848-849; and
°Pdan, L'Allemagne gt l'Italie, p. 323.
174"'Platynae Historici," p. 238.
175

”Chronicon Marchiae Travisinae et Lombardia," p. 57.
176

b "Platynae Historici," p. 243; and "Chronicon alliud
PB‘Ie Pisanum," pp. 114-115.

177"Chronicon Rhythmicum Austriacum," Monuments Germaniae

 

 

2m the ““3
.31 been achi
attachment t!
T!
also meant ”C
Chrles prove
:redecessors
Waits to flu
cromises to 3:
he soon assume
Iterial Vicar
live up these
litany refuse
the he dsrke

We cardinals

1% s - .
m ““30”; If

‘ n
m LEIES'C

 

71
over the remaining Hohenstaufens was relatively shallow in that it
had been achieved by force tether than by any strong Italian
attacMent to the papal cause.

The installation of Charles of Anjou as King of Sicily
also meant no victory for the concept of papal supremacy, since
Charles proved to be no less ambitious than his Hohenstaufen
Predecessors and evinced no scruples about interfering in church
a1“"‘airs to further his own advancement.178 Despite his original
promises to stay out of imperial territories and the Papal States,"79
he soon assumed the senatorship of Rome180 and later became the
I""‘Flerial Vicar of Tuscany.181 when later requested by the papacy to
give up these positions, he grudgingly resigned as Roman senator but
t‘Z'tally refused to abandon his vicariate over Tuscany.182 At the same
time he worked behind the scenes to have pro-French popes elected by
the cardinals.183 During the 1290's Charles II, the heir of Charles
cf‘ Anjou, interfered actively in papal politics to obtain privileges

t"from Celestine V and vigorously protested the right of the simple pope

 

 

\

We. xxv, pp. 237-238.

ph11osophiclzafgbiafingig58%03233g7:or the Pagacy (New York:
179Jordan, L'Allemagne et l'Italie, p. 370.
1Bolohannes Longus de Ipra, 9.2. _g_i_t., p. 582.

181Steven Runciman, The Sicilian Vespers: A Histogyiof the
Medi e an

U an o d in th ate Thi t enth entur (Cambridge:
"1Versity Press, 19585, p. 119.

1821b (1.

183"Platynae Historici," pp. 248 and 257.

 

:0 r9519"
cardinals !
:isidg QSW‘
Sicilia" J'
reselled 15'
these Sicii
611189885
the papal I

their alle:

wentlo 1
”cent: ]
Dilicies :5

an. £61~862

’ 1
Witt

72

to resign, although this resignation was accepted by the majority of

cardinals and by the next pope Boniface VIII."84 Nevertheless, the

rising power of the Angevins had been largely undermined by the
Sicilian Vespers of 1282, when the people on the island of Sicily had
rebelled and massacred all the Frenchman on their island."as Although
these Sicilian rebels quickly sent envoys to the pope and stated their
willingness to live under direct papal control, they refused to obey
the Papal order to return under French dominion and finally shifted
their allegiance to Peter of Aragon, a grandson of Manfred.186 The
following papal excommunication and deposition of Peter had no real
effect on the plans of either Peter or the Sicilians, whose main
COW-tern was to rid themselves of the hated French.187 Unable to
achieve any military victory over the Aragonese or the Sicilian
"bale, the papacy was finally forced to recognize the claims of
Ara90H over the island in 1302.188

While neither Aragon nor the House of Anjou paid much
attention to the wishes of the papacy, the city-states of northern
“"9 central Italy usually continued to pursue their own individual

Policies regardless of any papal approval or disapproval just as they

\

184

Ibid., p. 257.
1B51bifi., p. 252; and Iohannes Longus de Ipra, 22. gi .,
”9' 361-352.
186
s Salimbene de Adam, "Cronics," Monuments Germaniae
W! XXXII, PO 509-
187
Iohannes Longus de Ipra, 22. git., pp. 861-862.
188

Runciman, 92. 215., p. 274.

i

has CODE 5
variaus ci
33331 p186
interdict

nease with
seventeen

'neoeoale
Ifizellines
lhibellines

32'.
0a and P

192

73

had done during the first part of the century.189 were between the

various cities continued unabaited with little attention paid to

papal pleas for peace. Papal sentences of excommunication and

interdict were generally ignored until the cities were ready to make

Peace with each other. Pisa remained under a papal interdict for

seventeen years and apparently suffered little because of H.190

The people of Florence were excommunicated for ejecting their

Chibellines; but they continued to refuse the re-entry of the

(:hibe.11|.ines.191 After repeated papal warnings to stop their fighting,

Genoa and Pisa were finally put under anathema but to no avail."92 At
the Same time dislike of the papally sponsored French was so strong in
certain parts of Italy that several cities beginning with Perugia were

Wt UHder an interdict, because they refused to go along with the

papacy-5 policies."g:3 Even Milan, the strongest papal ally in the war

a931'181: Frederick, soon fell out with the papacy when the pope tried to

persuade Milan to make peace with her neighbors and to rid the city of

its Many heretics."94 Meanwhile, rivalries between various Italian

fl

Cities. particularly the animosity between the Pisans and the Cenoese,
continued to thwart any papal attempts to aid the Holy Land. Writing

from Acre around 1292, Ludolph of Suchem reported that the disputes

x

1898Ut18r9‘220 Eite, p. 3220

190"Chronicon aliud breve Pisanum," pp. 108-109.

191"Platynae Historici,” p. 246.

1921bige’ pp. 245 and 2470

193Runciman, 92. cit., p. 122.

1948utler, 92. cit., p. 334.

 

em; veri:

Those
[betas
Pisans
Acre.
the er
the ci

it the same

theCones I

 

74
among various Italian groups overshadowed any war against the Moslems:

Those Lombards who dwelt at Acre took sides in this same quarrel
[between the Guelfs and Chibellines of Italy], especially the
F3isans and Genoese, both of whom had an extremely strong party in
Acre. These man made treaties and truces with the Saracens, to
the end that ggay night the better fight against one another in

1
t,“ CitYaoaa

At the same time papal control over Rome itself was so tenuous that

the popes resided elsewhere most of the time.196

This chaotic political situation in Italy was lamented by
many Of the Italian chroniclers;197 and it was in this setting that
"8" ideas concerning the relationship of church and state emerged.
While the Empire itself was largely destroyed, the idea of a world
Stat-8 under secular leadership was yet being elaborated by such men
as Thomas Aquinas and Dante Alighieri.198 Although Aquinas insisted

upon the ultimate supremacy of the papacy,199 he also saw the need for

—_

195Ludolf of Suchem on the fall of Acre as cited in

Brundflge, £20 Qite, p. 268.

. 196Henri Daniel-Reps, Cathedral and crusade, trans. by John
“arrj-"Qton (2 vols.) New York: Doubleday and Company, Inc., 1963),
“1' II . p. 350.

of th 197Salimbene was probably the most vocal in his denunciation
Ital ? Italian political scene. However, he wrongly blamed all of
0 Y S troubles on the divisions caused by Frederick II; Salimbene,
J“ “Kt" p. 591.
198

Roger Bacon also believed that the world would
11y come under the domination of a single secular state:
8 Ma us, trans. by Robert Balls Burke (New York: Russell
8311, Inc., 1962), V01. II, p. 662.
Aquinas 1991" his figmentum in ILJLibros Sententiarum (1253-1255)
comer“ presented according to Tierney a quite ambiguous statement
"The s 1'19 the respective rights of the spiritual and temporal powers:
paws .pil‘itual and the secular powers are both derived from the divine
so 9 ; 3he! therefore the secular power is under the spiritual only in
that as it has been subjected to it by God; namely, in those things

81"Cain to civil good, the secular power is to be obeyed rather

eventUQ
The 0 u

and R143

 

usingle at

For 31
assen!
the u:
goverr
gavarr
the e:
of a 1
cause
the c;
There:
Fran 1
best 1

'hese sane

iéficaral wc

9W: gf‘ mm?
“EVE: 09971
Sin Very ht
“mum inc

:3 the)’ Car

 

a single secular state:

For since the end of government of the world is that which is
essentially good, which is the greatest good: the government of
the world must be the best kind of government. Now the best
government is government by one. The reason for this is that
government is nothing but the directing of things governed to
the end; which consists in some good.... Therefore the intention
ref a ruler over a multitude is unity, or peace. Now the proper
cause of unity is one. For it is clear that several cannot be
the cause of unity or concord, except so far as they are united.
Therefore a multitude is better governed by one than by several.
From this it follows that the governgBBt of the world, being the
best form of government must be one.

These same ideas were expressed by Dante, who stated that "a singular

tamPoral world-government is necessary for the world's well-being."2m

While both Dante and Aquinas admitted that the ultimate
end of human life and of the state was religious-- Frederick II had
never Openly denied this--, they also asserted that the state had its
own very human goals and functions. Aquinas stated that man had "a
natural inclination" to live in society and that human laws, insofar
as they corresponded with natural reason (natural law) and justice,

were natural to mmZDZ These same arguments were picked up by

-——

3:3" the spiritual.... Unless, perhaps, the secular power is joined to
the S13.1ritual, as in the pope, who holds the apex of both authorities,
a: SDiritual and the secular." This statement can best be understood
p0estll‘eference to the papacy's overall power rather than to its

10h in Italy as Tierney maintains. Tierney, W
tate 1050- 300, p. 171. Also see T. T. Eschmann, U.P., "St.

Th . .
"afggséquinas on the Two Powers," Medieval Studies, XX (1958), pp.

F t 20("Thomas Aquinas, The Summa Theologiga, trans. by the
a hers of the

and W English Dominican Province (London: Burnes Dates
ashbourne, Ltde' 1941), part One, 0 103, Art 30

Sch 2010”";9 Alighieri, On We 1d-Government, trans. by Herbert
nEider (New York: Bobbs~Merrill Co., Inc., 1949), p. 8.

202Aqu1nas, 92. 9113., First Part of Part Two: 0 959 Art 2°

W.

Dante in M
based upon but
itself for ate?
cflflnkind:

... Man he
the D0int 4
the 3ther’
kind 3f me
Every gear
every ”att‘
fQHOWS tf'

TwOF
has OFCAir'
the Functi'
earthly pa:
the enJS‘Y”:
his own 99"
state iS P

The state thus I

:zhe: consideraTI

3F the state a":

hat-many between

:ha‘ th
V U

rch and
shares of acti“;

91 ' J
mtmnship be"

A+ a

U

.313.
«Alglous sionif

 

 

76
Dante in Q; monarchig. Like Aquinas, he believed that the state was
based upon human reason and that this reason, while not complete in
flzsseelf'for eternal salvation, was to be developed for the betterment

0F mankind:

... Man has two essential parts, body and soul, considered from
the point of view of one part, the body, he is corruptible; from
the other, the soul incorrUptible.... Accordingly, if man is a
kind of mean between the corruptible and the incorruptible, like
every mean, he partakes of the nature of the extremes. And since
every nature is arranged to seek its proper and final goal, it
follows that man exists for a double purpose....

Twofold, therefore, are the ends which unerring Providence
has ordained for man: the bliss of this life, which consists in
the functioning of his own powers, and which is typlified by the
earthly Paradise; and the bliss of eternal life, which consists in
the enjoyment of that divine vision to which he cannot obtain by
his own powers, except they be aided by the divine 11985, and this
state is made intelligible by the celestial Paradise.

'rf‘Ei state thus had a natural human origin and function outside of all
other considerations.204 These ideas suggested a very modern concept
of‘ the state as an end in itself.205 Moreover, they broke up the
harmony between body and soul which existed in the papal theory so
that church and state became two separate entities with distinct

Spheres of action. 206

At the same time neither Aquinas nor Dante denied the
reJ-Jigious significance of the Empire but emphasized that the
relationship between God and the Empire was direct without the

paDacy as an intermediary. While Aquinas insinuated that the state

 

 

\
203
Dante, Qn World-Government, p. 78.
2041b1der p. 690
"I 205Walter Ullmann, The Growth of Papal Government in the

 

ladle A as (London: Methuen and Company, Ltd., 1955), p. 455.

OGMYBPS, 22y Cite, p. 229.

flamed its 95
state, was Coc
{mire receive
The 9.0M"
intervent
cansequen
... 30d 1
igain in the 3;
relationship be
Deflation of C0?
fiivice or give
“Y one man to
”‘9 W0 pawers

mt from the p

 

 

77
derived its power from God in that human reason, the basis of the
state, was God's gift to man, Dante explicitly stated that the
EZwmgajlre received its authority directly from God:
The Roman Empire was helped to its fulfillment by divine

intervention and aid: and therefore, it was wills? by Cod and
consequently existed and still exists by right.

... God is the immediate source of imperial authority.208
Again in the 13.22922 Dante had Justinian speak of a special
twalLtationship between God and the Empire.209 Dante also rejected the
CNJTWEation of Constantine as invalid, since an emperor had no right to
divide or give away his empire.210 He further denied the right of
art), one man to hold both the spiritual and temporal swords, since
tT‘EB two powers were of different natures.211 What Dante seemed to
want, from the papacy was a vague, narrowly-defined spiritual
13laudership within the Church. At one point he even went so far as to
State that the papacy had little more to do in the secular world than

to give the state its blessings:

... I maintain, temporal power receives from the spiritual power
neither its being, nor its power or authority, nor even its
functioning, strictly speaking, but what it receives is the
light of grace, which God in heaven and the pope's blessing on
earth cause tgzshine on it in order that it may work more

 

 

effectively.
2070ante, 0n World-Government, p. 30. 208Ibid., p. 73.
209

t Dante Alighieri, The Divine Comedy, Vol. III: Paradiso,
Pans. by John D. Sinclair (New York: Oxford University Press, 1961),
canto V1, Do 940

210Dante, Qn World-Government, p. 68.

2111pm., p. 71. 2121bid., p. 60.

The arty of t'
spiritual nee;
NOW the i
Christ, .
pattern 6
mcst esp:

the Shea:

TH
cantribution :
Influenced Dy
state. the 105
Nations rm
“at papal 15
“Capable of‘ C
new theory of
final SUPPemat
insisting Upor

lowing indepe

 

78
The duty of the clergy, both higher and lower, was to tend to the

spiritual needs of their flocks:

Now the form of the Church is nothing else than the life of
Christ, in word and in deed. For his life was the idea and
pattern of the Church militant, especially of its shepherds and

most especially of iETSChief shepherd, whose duty it is to feed
the sheep and lambs.

This new idea of the state was perhaps the most important
contribution of the imperialists to thirteenth-century thought.
Influenced by the revival of Roman law and Aristotelian ideas of the
State, the idea of the secular state with its own M 123212 and
functions forecast the end of the papal ideal of a theocratic state
Under papal leadership. Thus, while the papacy was proving itself
incapable of controlling either a united or a fragmented empire, the
new theory of the secular state not only denied the whole concept of
papal supremacy but even dismissed the necessity of cooperation by
insisting upon a complete separation of the two powers with each

“Orking independently in its own sphere.

PART II: THE MUNARCHIES (FRANCE AND ENGLAND)
while the monarchies had not yet deve10ped the elaborate

theories which characterized the Empire and papacy, kingship was
hGivertheless a recognized political reality in European politics by

1 200 and was being further enhanced by the study of Roman law.214

\

213]bid., p. 76.

Y 2“I‘See Ewart Lewis, Medieval Political Ideas (2 vols.; New
Dirk: Alfred A. Knolf‘, 1954), vol. I, pp. 147-284; and Carlyle and
arlyle, 9g. _c_:_i_t_., pp. 4-51. The great works of such civil lawyers as
aaumanoir and Bracton have been ignored here, because they were not

"valved with royal-papal rights. However, their importance in

Jurinq the twel
their rights ”5
territories; 3'
century. At U-
pzlitically in:
as :ayal mum?E
mrchs claims
flagship had 1:
the thirteenth~
kings purporte'
supposeily ans.
at the monarch
screaming the
0:“ kingship.
The
aWarming thei

t3 °
n. rontatianc

3 F ‘
gg~ESSlVE act ,

\

defining the r I

 

 

 

 

79
During the twelfth century the kings had been asserting and enlarging
their rights as feudal overlords within their own and surrounding
territories; and this trend continued throughout the thirteenth
century. At the same time the kings were working to make themselves
politically independent of the clergy by gradually replacing churchmen
as royal counsellors and assistants.215 Also, like the emperors, the
monarchs claimed a quasi-divinity in their person and office. German
kingship had long been surrounded with a certain religious aura: and
the thirteenth-century kings directly encouraged these ideas.216 The
kings purportedly had certain healing powers; and their prayers were
supposedly answered before those of common people.217 The attitude
°f the monarchs to the papacy was to be closely bound to these ideas
,conCSrning the expansion of royal rights and the religious character
0? I(ingship.

The Capetian kings of France were the most successful in
adva"\cing their own rights and yet avoiding too many direct
confrontations with the papacy.2“8 Indeed, even in their most
aggressive acts they always claimed to be acting as the defenders of

\

de""Jlning the role of monarchies should not be overlooked.

215Alexander Clarence Flick, The D in of the Medieval
5%}; (L ondo

19 n3 Kegan Paul, Trench, and Trubner, and Company Ltd.,
“‘30), vol. I, p. 8; and Robert Fawtier, The Qagetian Kings of France,
an

1 s. by Lionel Butler and R. J. Adam (New York: St. Martin's Press,
966), p. 1750

216Maurice Jallut, P 9 Au ust fondateu d l'unit5

W (Paris: Au Fil d'ariane, 1963), p. 41; and Myers, 92. cit.,
° 5.

17rvlyers, op. cit., p. 225.

2‘IBFawtier, 93. cit., p. 74.

Burch?” phi
his office by t
ather such actt
marchy by fre-
irankish king 2
m power to t'r
meaty, aithou;

339” warfare .

Marriage to F.

3:91 I

‘
LES who 0?:

a;

ti

. I
his UHCle ’ t

L.
—O
. J

N)

N

C)

Ir—v
_ —

( a .

 

 

80
Church.219 Philip II, who often encouraged the religious aspects of
his office by blessing his army, leading a flagellant movement, and
other such acts220 and who emphasized the heroic past of the French
monarchy by frequently recalling the glorious deeds of the canonized
Frankish king Charlemagne,221 was by far the most astute in pushing his
own power to the limit and became involved in several quarrels with the
PBPBCy, although he always withdrew before these skirmishes turned into
OPBO warfare. The Ingeborg affair demonstrated Philip's unwillingness
‘10 Obey blindly papal directives or to push his own demands too far.
”he" the pope placed France under an interdict in 1197 for the king's
1113981 divorce from the Danish Ingeborg and for his subsequent
1”marriage to Agnes of Merane, Philip first responded by punishing all
”Slates who obeyed the papal edict,222 since he maintained that his

divoPee, formally granted by the French episcOpate under the leadership
Of his uncle, the archbishop of Reims, was perfectly valid.223

\

2191mm, p. 215; and Jallut, 22. eit., p. 41.

220

d Rigord, "Gesta Philippi Augusti,” Oeuvres de Rigord at
\e Guilleume 1e Breton (Paris: Librairie Renouard, 1882), pp. 18, 71,
32:1 1343 Guillaume 1e Breton. ”Caste Philippi Augusti," Oeuvres de

-9£rd et de Guillaume le Bgeton (Paris: Librairie Renouard, 1882),
pp. 229-273; and Norman Cohn, The Pursuit of the Millennium (London:
at3ker and warburg, 1957), p. 82.

K 2.21Gabrielle m. Spiegel, "The Reditus Re ni ad Stir em

..Lroii n.9,.“ A New Look,” geneh flistorieal Studies, v11 (Fall 1971).

:1. 1 55. It should be noted that the French reverence for Charlemagne
:39 little reference to his coronation by the pope but emphasized his
9 as a French king: F012, 92. eit., p. 134.
Na 222Guillaume de Nangis, Qhronigue letine de Guillaume de
is de 1113 a 1300 (Paris: Jules Renouard et Cie., 1843), p. 112.
S 22.Z’Achille Luchaire, Innocent III: Les royautés vassales du

W (Paris: Librairie Hachette et Cie., 1908), p. 253.

y

V"'
l"

tavertheiess,
zarch 1203 the
:resided over
France from tt
the Council or"
3::3a21y fear;

astonished 31;

15 than DrOCo .-

‘9’783 in the _

—.L .

 

 

 

 

81
Nevertheless, after a meeting of the French barons and prelates in
March 1200 the king agreed to have the matter settled by a council
presided over by a papal legate, if the pope would first release
France from the interdict. Although the interdict was soon raised,
the Council of Soissons (1201) settled nothing, since the king,
Pr0bably fearing that the council would not decide in his favor,
astonished all the assembled prelates by galloping off on a horse with
Ingeborg, whom he afterwards locked up in a castle.224 In a very
Polite letter to the pope Philip defended his action by complaining
against the partiality of the legetes for Ingeborg and stated that he
had only ceded momentarily to prevent further wrangling at the council.
He then proceeded to ask the pope to provide another council which
Would permanently settle the matter and to legitimize his children by
Aghee in the meantime}?5 Although the early death of Agnes in the
Following summer and the pope's legitimization of her children by
philip partially solved the problem,226 Philip continued to press for a
divorce and even attempted to marry the daughter of the Landgrave of
Tl"wringia in 1210.227 Moreover, while he did take Ingeborg back
pL‘blicly, he refused to live with her and denied the ability of the

pope to make him do so. Since he was acting completely within the

t"Minds of canon law, Innocent could do nothing but rely on gentle

 

 

\
224 . . .
Ibid., p. 255; and Rigord, 22. c1t., p. 149.
e ue' des A tes de Phili Auguste Roi de France
(paris: Imprimerie Nationals, 1943), vol. II, pp. 232-243.
226Guillaume de Nangis, 92. eit., pp. 114-115.
. 227Luchaire, Innocent III: Les roxautés vassales de
Lalnt-siege, pp. 253-259.

H .

persuasionsc ‘
treat his wife
certain degree

Phi:
international :
:85 supporting
the pope that .
2? papal jurir
Sivan to L‘tto,
Casai action if

31‘375 Served '

thrzstian mane:

E'en '
A vted King C.

geh' .
miter 1n the

ieni

although he CC

9..
..EOvep, phil:

the.
”at 593105?

ks Wed all tl

228
_. 23p '
4D. 143.145 :.
T 231
1'1 fur .,

 

 

82

persuasions.228 The moral exhortations of the pope for Philip to
treat his wife fairly apparently meant little to the king, thus to a
certain degree negating the spiritual rectitude of the papacy.

Philip also firmly resisted papal domination in his
international policies. At the same time as the Ingeborg affair he
was supporting Philip of Swabia despite papal protests and even told
the pope that it was strictly temporal matter and therefore outside
0? FDEIpal jurisdiction.229 Expressing amazement at the papal support
given to Otto, a known enemy of France, the king stated that the
Papal action was not only detrimental to his own kingdom which had
always served the Church so reverently and obediently, but to all
Cl"l‘istian monarchs, since Philip of Swabia was the only properly
elected King of the Romans.230 when Innocent attempted to act as
atiliter in the dispute between France and England, Philip again
de"tied the pope's right to interfere in a purely feudal matter,
81though he soon afterwards did accept the pope's mediation}:51
moI‘eover, Philip refused the papal demands to send military aid for
tr"? war against the heretics of Southern France on the grounds that

he needed all his military in his war against England.2:52 This

 

\
228Ja11ut. 22. 512., pp. 101-102. 229nm." p, 94,
230 e ei des Actes de Phili e Au uste Roi de France,
'39- 143-145 and 245-246.
I 23"when earlier threatened with an interdict by Celestine
til For collecting 8" army to use against rebellious vassals (including
9 k

ing of England), Philip had responded that the Roman Church had

no right to go against a king when he was acting for the honor of his
crOWh: JBIIUt. 22a Cite, pe SSe

232J811Ut, 9.2a Cite, p0 131w

refusal clearl
gender of th
his own royal:
the Albigensia
claimed that t

Etarepriated

._.1

King Jonn's s-
the :apacy to
illegitimate
letter to the
:een nor will

:ITI‘
we Hhermcr ;
D

4300 w:‘JUld ha,

19 kinn c
of his be
pipe deer
perniClOu

 

 

 

83
refusal clearly conflicted with his own self-proclaimed role as
de Fender of the faith and demonstrated his belief that the defense of
his own royalty was the most important duty of a king. Later, when
the Albigensian Crusade showed signs of being successful, Philip
claimed that he, not the pope, had the right to dispose of the lands
eXpropriated from the heretics and their supporters.23:5 Following
KiJWg; John's submission to the papacy Philip also denied the right of
the papacy to make England a papal fief, since, as he declared, an
jilegitimate king couldinot give away his kingdom.234 In a sharp
latter to the pope Philip stated, 'The Kingdom of England has never
been nor will ever be the Patrimony of Peter or of your Roman Church.'23S
FUrthermore, Philip denied that, even if he had been a legitimate king,

John would have had the right to give away his kingdom:

No king or prince can give his kingdom away without the consent
of his barons, who are held to defend the kingdom. And if the

pope decrees this error to be ac egted, he will be giving a
pernicious example to all kings.

Nevertheless, Philip declined to give his son Louis VIII active support
in his invasion of England after the pope threatened to excommunicate

t"levee who took part in such a venture.237 However, since Innocent had

\_

233

Charles Petit-Dutaillis, Etude sue la vie et le régne
W (Paris: Librairie Emile Bouillon, 1394), p. 25.

2:f'aRoger of Wendovsr, 92. ei ., pp. 361-362.
235

"Annales Londoniensis," Chgonieles of the fieigns of
a nd a (London! Longman and Co., 1882), p. 18.

2361b; . It seems rather doubtful that Philip would have
gMinted his own barons so much importance.

si§ 237LUChair9' Innocent 1118 Les ro autes vassales de Saint-

N, pp. 271-273; Petit-Dutaillis, Louis VIII, p. 181; and Elie
Bl"gar, Histoire de Blanehe de fiastile Reine ee France (Paris: Thorin

been the firs
smporters re
an act of tre
suggested the
double-dealin

As
tried quite s
“thOUgh the

twns'fin who

r
BCClESiastiCa‘

Paaacy ’ de te I"

of crusade fUr
demnciati0n C

39 torcon’ “ht:-

the HOIy L and.

at F113

9 1395)
235

 

 

84
been the first to suggest the invasion to the French, Philip's
supporters regarded the pope's subsequent withdrawal of the scheme as
an act of treachery.”a The royalist Guillaume le Breton even

suggested that the death of Innocent was a result of the pope's

double-dealings with Philip in the matter.”9

Aside from his independent foreign policy Philip also
tried quite successfully to dominate the churches of his realm. '
Although the king actually did defend these churches from nobles and
t“mailman who wished to limit ecclesiastical power?“ he insisted upon
Mintaining royal rights over these churches in return for their

defense. He, rather than the papacy, defined the limits of

241

Balesiastical jurisdiction within his realm. Heo rather than the

9393.337, determined the laws regulating crusaders and the collection

242

0" crusade funds. In 1215 it was the king who led the clergy in a

“mficiation of the unscrupulous actions of the papal legate Robert
de cDrcon, who was sent by Innocent to recruit more crusaders for

the Holy Land.243 In all of these actions Philip claimed to be

\

at F118, 1895), De 250

2:Z'aJallut, 22. cit., pp. 261-262.

2390uillaume le Breton, 22. cit., pp. 307-309.

4oRigord, 22. cit., pp. 16-173 and figgeuil des Actes

d phi Au at oi r a . pp. 143, 162-163, 200-203, and
‘55‘456.

241
487-491 .

“Zuni” pp. 239-241; and Rigord, pp. git., pp. 35-90.

243(3uillaume 1e Breton, op. cit., pp. 303-304.

pp s t s Ph 11 Au st Roi :1 France,

 

atctecting th
Rigord and Cu
Christian kin
they often de
Wh
the monarch,
'the priest-k1
8W9: of t
CWI‘Chmn, II
the state of
”5”er b183ph
thhibitlons

saecial favOr

 

BS
protecting the purity of his religion; and his two famous biographers,
Rigord and Guillaume le Breton, always posed Philip, that 'most

Christian king', as a defender of the Church and its ministers, while

they often denounced the abuses perpetrated by the popes.244

While Philip never ignored the religious significance of

the monarch, his grandson Louis IX almost fully played the role of

245

the priest-king. Besides daily celebrating the canonical hours as

a "amber of the regular clergy,2’:6 Louis posed as the defender of
chMr:c:hmen, widows, orphans, and all the oppressed?" To further
the state of religion in his realm he enacted laws against heresy,
"3013)! , blasphemy, and excesses in food and clothing;248 Despite papal
PrOhibitions he founded several new religious orders and showered

Special favors on the new mendicant orders.249 The contrast between

244MB. pp. 229, 294. BHd 306-3093 OHd Rigord, 9.20 Cite,

PP- 2 , 5-6, 50-55, 71-72, and 32. It should be noted that Rigord's
"dot for the french king seemed to cool considerably daring the later
part of his chronicle, especially after the disturbances caused by
"“3 I ngeborg affair.

B 2lit-"lilargaret Wade Labarge, W (Boston: Little,
"”3“, and Company, 1968), p. 18; and Louis Carolus-Barre, "Les
Enquates pour la canonisation de Saint Louis--de Cr‘goire X I
on; Pace VIII--et la bulle filogia Laus, de AoOt 1297,” e

”‘1 1301 ' is n e, LVII (Janvier-Juin 1971 , p. 19.

Fri 246Lester K. Little, "Saint Louis' Involvement with the
31‘s,” Church History, XXXIII (June 1964), p. 128.

247Guillaume de Saint-Pathus, es Miracles de Saint

16%, ed. by Percival B. Fay (Paris: Librairie Ancienne Honor‘
a'flpion, 1931), pp. 1-3: and Etienne de Bourbon, Aneggtgs

We; (Paris: Librairie Renouard, 1877), p. 407.

(9 248Due de L6vis Mirepoix, ggint Louis roi de france
amiss Editions Albion Michel, 1970), p. 78.

249

 

Little, 920 site, ppe 143-144.

 

 

|
the king's CC!
Jean ‘50 Join}
I

for Rome' a p‘
I shall be at.
tom. among t
spiritual 3UP
by the fact t
I
ignored PM”l
sith Henry 13
by taking par
nasal approve
henchmen d1?
an

spiritual pre
rights over t
claims. Inh
himself up as
and complains
mining the F
l
\

a 25
IN Hague ( I

l
‘

 

25
I
252
o .
't F115. 169‘
25.
th‘om ‘ I

86

tLhe king's court and the worldly Roman court was brought out by Sire
.Jean de Joinville, who reported that, when leaving the royal company
for Rome, a papal legate stated, ”But my heart is deeply grieved that
II shall be obliged to quit your godly company and go to the Court of
Fiona, among the faithless folk who frequent it."250 The considered
aspiritual superiority of Louis over the pope was further demonstrated
lay the fact that during the early 1260's the rebellious English barons
.1gnored papal arbitration and asked Louis to settle their dispute
twith Henry III.251 Louis further asserted his spiritual leadership
lay taking part in two crusades, both undertaken with only limited
[papal approval.252 Moreover, the Pastouggggg and probably many other
Frenchmen directly blamed Louis' disasters in Egypt on the pope.253

While Louis was to a certain extent usurping the
spiritual prestige of the papacy, he was also busy maintaining royal
rights over the French Church, often in contradiction to papal
claims. In his firsvamina W W (1247) Louis set

himself up as the champion of the French Church against papal abuses 254

and complained against the papal curia's innovations which were

ruining the French Church and violating the traditional rights of

250Jean de Joinville, The if of t. ouis, trans. by
lienfi Hague (New York: Sheed and ward, 1955), p. 181.

251"Annales Londoniensis,“ p. 58.

252

Elie Berger, §aint Louis gt Innocent 1V (Paris: Thorin
9t.Fils, 1893), p. 321.

253Ibid., p. 343; and Salimbene, 92, cit., pp. 444-445.
254

A. L. Smith, Church and §tate in the Middle Aggs
(Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1913), p. 145.

1.6“

 

the French Ior
scandalized er
as the collati
excslmnicatic
coffers, and t
Louis stated t
to the king pr
ah0 was held r
recalling the
if troubles ir
”Charchs, Lou:
their privile;
Stay at Lyons,
he tether thar
flag was part;
against Bede:
istied bith De
Beauvais who Se
by the tin 25'
9.

5
L0
SEER abSDlu

My 0? the St

 

 

87
the French monarchy}!55 Claiming that all Christianity was being
scandalized and disturbed by recently initiated papal practices, such
as the collation of non-vacant and royal benefices, the use of
excommunication against those who failed to contribute to Roman
coffers, and the installation of non-resident Roman benefice holders,
Louis stated that the temporal wealth of the French Church belonged
to the king whose ancestors had originally endowed the churches and
who was held responsible by God for defending these churches. After
recalling the fact that earlier popes seeking refuge in F rance because
of troubles in Italy had always been honorably treated by the French
monarchs, Louis then denied that these earlier popes had ever abused
their privileges as Innocent IV and his court were doing curing their
Stay at Lyons.256 Indeed, throughout his reign Louis insisted that
he rather than the papacy was the leader of the French Church. The
king was particularly jealous of maintaining royal jurisdiction
against ecclesiastical encroachments and throughout most of the 1230's
defied both papal pleas and threats to do justice to the bishop of
Baauvais whose goods he had confiscated for not paying sums demanded
by the king.257 When churchmen demanded that he force excommunicates
t0 seek absolution within a year or have their property confiscated (a
duty of the state), Louis refused despite papal urgings unless he were

2ssceoffrey Barraclough, Papal Provisions (WGStPOPt'

COnnecticut: Greenwood Press, 1935), pp. 11-12.

256 Mattheiu Parisiensis, Chronica Majora (London:
Lcmglltans and Company, 1876), vol. VI, pp. 99-112.
d 257Odette Pontal, “Le différend entre Louis IX at las eveques
9 Beauvais et ses incidences sur les conciles (1232-1248) ," Biblio-

th3 a de l'5cole dss Ch rt es, CXXIII (Janvier-Juin 1965), pp. 5-34.

first allowed
naturally dec
leakened thei
over the Fran
Geoffrey de 5
requests of b
he maintained
his hair, ‘61
its life; an
Such instruct
vacant benef‘i

Lo
in-hul‘ch and Mr
DY his “tit/1
Jespite the f.
French aid ag;

 

 

 

88

first allowed to review the justice of the cases. The clergy
naturally declined such a compromise, since it would have severely
weakened their own jurisdiction.258 Louis fUrther asserted his rights
over the French episcopate by his refusal to bestow the regalia on
Geoffrey de Grandpr‘, the bishop-elect of Chalons, despite the
requests of both Gregory IX and Innocent IV.259 Even on his deathbed
he maintained his royal rights over the French Church and instructed
his hair, 'Give the benefices of Holy Church to persons of a good and
pure life: and do this with the council of good and honest men.’260
Such instructions clearly violated the papal claims to rights over
vacant benefices.261

Louis' insistence on the independence of the French
Church and monarchy from papal supervision was also amply demonstrated
by his activities during the papacy's war against Frederick II.
Despite the fact that both Gregory and Innocent attempted to elicit

French aid against the emperor,262 Louis preferred to remain as

neutral as possible and twice attempted to restore peace between the

 

258Joinville, 92. 31.3., pp. 38-39: M. Guizot, M
and legin (New York: Macmillan and Company, 1868), p. 107: and
Gerald J. Campbell, S.J., ”The Attitude of the Monarchy Toward the Use
of Ecclesiastical Censures in the Reign of Saint Louis," figgggywm.
XXXV (October 1960), pp. 548-549.

259Berger, Spin; Louis gt Innogent IV, pp. 41-42.
26OlMirepoix, pp, cit., p. 261.

261Daniel-Ropshgg. cit., I, p. 2953 and Barraclough, Papal
Provisions, pp. 4-5.

262flistogia Qiplomatiga, V, pp. 457-461 and VI. pp. 270,
425-428, and 544-547; and Berger, §aint Louis gt Innocent 1V, p. 321.

 

I
to partissfl
that the ewe
by imperial f
the king went

to the emperi

the French MC
rhile his re:
e“‘Deror at tr
59.9058 secula
the 9099's de
Since he rema
to address as
king gave Fr;
attack eithe;
hath L0Uls a.
3099 to take

to “838 war a

imperial r igh

 

 

89
two parties.263 In a letter to Frederick in 1241 Louis demanded
that the emperor release the French prelates who had been captured
by imperial forces on their may to a papal council. However,
the king went on to assure Frederick that the prelates meant no harm
to the emperor but more only obeying papal orders to come and that
the French monarchy had always supported the honor of the Empire.264
While his representatives protested against the deposition of the
emperor at the Council of Lyons on the grounds that pepes could not
depose secular rulers,265 Louis showed that he had little faith in
the pope's denunciation of Frederick as a heretic and a schismatic.
since he remained in correspondence with the emperor whom he continued
to address as his 'most excellent and dear friend'.266 Moreover, the
king gave Frederick solemn promises that his crusaders would not
attack either the emperor or his son Conrad.267 While on his crusade
both Louis and his mother Blanche of Castile rersad to allow the
pope to take money from France on the grounds that it would be used

to wage war against Christiana.268 Despite his obvious support of

imperial rights Louis nevertheless refused totally to abandon the

zssflistgria Qiglomatigg. VI. pp- 463-4643 Matthew Paris,
{gglish flistogx, trans. by J. A. Giles (London: Henry G. Bohn, 1852),

vol. II, pp. 112 and 268; and Berger. Saint Louis 3t Innoggnt IV. p. 154.

264W. v1. pp. 18-20-

265Matthew Paris. 22o git-e 11’ p. 70, and Mirepoix. '92. $0,

p. 84: and Kuhner.'gg. cit., pp. 90-91.

266W. v1. pp. son-502.

2671b! .

268Matthew Paris, g2, cit., II, p. 388; and Berger, §aint

Louis et Innocent 1!, p. 371.

 

papacy. Alth-
territory pos
royal authori
Lyons to protr
IDOL-ed, throu:
as a strong cl
encroachments
31“” mainta

he refused to

”inciple that

 

90
papacy. Although he denied the pope the right to reside in French
territory possibly out of fear that it would jeopardize his own

royal authority,269 he was prepared in 1247 to send his army to

Lyons to protect the pope in case of a military attack by Frederick.270
Indeed, throughout the war between papacy and emperor Louis appeared
as a strong defender of the rights of secular rulers against papal
encroachments while yet refusing to negate all papal power. If he
always maintained a certain degree of respect for the papal office,
he refused to follow papal directives blindly, thus establishing the
principle that kings could form their own judgments about the extent
of papal power and act accordingly.

while the French kings were often resisting papal claims
of supremacy but still avoiding much Open conflict, the English king
John did not display such skillful strategy in his attempts to rule
with as little papal interference as possible.271 Although John

never showed much inclination to follow papal directives without

reservations,272 it was the pope's efforts to place Stephen Langton

 

269Francis Seymour Stevenson, Bobcct gcosscccstc (London:
Macmillan and Company, Ltd., 1899), p. 245.

270flistccic Qiclomacica. VI. pp. 544-547: and Berger,
ficint Louis ct Innocent 1!, p. 262.
27

1William Hamilton Bryson maintains that John wanted to
establish a theocratic monarchy whereby the king would rule by the
grace of God alone; "Papal Releases from Royal Oaths," cournal of

Ecclesiastical flistocx. XXII (January 1971). p. 23.

272For earlier complaints against the English king see

Innocent 111's letter to John (February 20, 1203) as cited in C. R.
Cheney and W. H. Sample, §elacted Lettecs of gcce Innoccnt LII
concernicg Enclcnd (London: Thomas Nelson and Sons, Ltd., 1953), p.
50; and Sidney Painter. [hc fieign of King John (Baltimore: John
Hopkins Press, 1949), pp. 154-155 and 158-159.

in the 598 o
27

and Dope.

mnkS of R89
aanks ihto e:
irregularity
bishops that
numerous appE
;raund1955’ t
Uhcanonlcal'
to Make anctt
3? his 0”” C
place at Rome
to consecratE
king's good In
niacing a "an
Eugustus, in
interferiNg u.

Selection of

threatened tc

might not be

\

27

 

2?
3.0

Mel

169~1 70

91
in the see of Canterbury that started open hostilities between king
and pope.273 Ignoring an earlier secret election by the Canterbury
monks of Reginald, one of their own members, the king had cajoled the
monks into electing the royal favorite, John de Gray.274 The
irregularities of both elections along with the insistance of certain
bishops that their rights in the election had been ignored brought
numerous appeals to Home. After dismissing the episcopal claims as
groundless, the pope then proceeded to quash both elections as
uncanonical. However, rather than ordering the monks to return home
to make another selection, Innocent had the monks present elect a man
of his own choice, Stephen Langton.27S Claiming that elections taking
place at Rome did not require royal approval, the pope then proceeded
to consecrata Langton, although he did first send a letter seeking the
king's good wishes.276 John was furious. Accusing the papacy of
placing a man unknown to him and a friend of his chief enemy, Philip
Augustus, in the important archbishopric of Canterbury and of
interfering with his traditional rsgalian rights to take part in the
selection of his own prelates,277 John refused to admit Langton and
threatened to stop all intercourse with Home so that ”his territories

might not be emptied of their wealth."278 The king then proceeded to

 

273"Annales Londoniensis," p. 8.

274Alan Lloyd, [hc Maligned Monarch! A Life of King John
of England (Garden City, New York: Doubleday and Company, Inc., 1972),

pp. 169-170.

2751b1de , De 1 71 e 276Painter, .92. Cite , pe 1 69e
277Ib1de, pe 170, and LIOYG, 22e site, pp. 172‘173e
278

Roger of wendover, cc, cit., p. 241.

12’" ‘2‘:

 

eiect the m5
importing 1

maveables‘

mauled enU'J':

_'J"

a»
L"

a precede
ewmrous att
finally “If
The king res
Umse eccles
‘J‘Ey were fa.
afidnistratic
:::he goods
item being 3
Far Punishing
Emit, while p

iw’ '
JJrIOUS to

_ Ju
501 homi

3C9 tua

 

 

92

eject the monks of Canterbury on the charge of less majesty for
supporting the pope and to levy a tax of one-thirteenth on all clerical
moveables.279 Despite this initial display of outrage John soon
cooled enough to begin negotiations with the pope. However, although
he eventually agreed to admit Langton, he refused to accept the case
as a precedent which would jeopardize future royal rights.280 After
numerous attempts to obtain John's unconditional submission Innocent
finally fulfilled his threat to put England under an interdict.281
The king responded by outlawing and confiscating the goods of all
those ecclesiastics who observed the interdict on the grounds that
they were failing to perform their prescribed social function (the
administration of the sacraments) and therefore had lost their rights
to the goods and protection of the realm.282 Although John was far
from being a popular king, many in England openly criticized the pups
for punishing the whole country for royal misdeeds.283 Dne anonymous
poet, while praising the pops in general, denounced the interdict as
injurious to a large number of innocent people:

Justitae speculum, flos cleri, cereus orbis,

Sol hominum, salve, Petri sucessor et hares!
Pace tua loquer et paucisa offendis in uno

 

279"Annales Londoniensis," pp. 8 and 133 and Lloyd..22-.2££-v
p. 172.

zaupainter. 9.2. cit... pp. 173-174; and Lloyd. 22o Lit” 9-
176.

281Luchaire, Innocgnc 111: Les coxaugés vassales de Saint-
sie e, pp. 200 and 204-205; and Painter, cc, cit., p. 172.

282Cheney and Sample,ycc, cit., p. 135: Painter, cc, cgc3.
p. 1753 and LIOYd, 92e Eite, pe 178e

2831.10ng 92o Bite, pe 177e

Quad j:
papa, I
In reg!
Ultio
Hoc do:
while many 1
successful .
Since th8y ¢

C'Jffers Wit?

wmtEl‘ Of 0L

(because of

 

 

93

Duod jacet in threnis at fletibus Anglica tellus.

Papa, quid hoc meruit grex insons? Culpa redundat

In regem, magis hic reus est. Consultius ergo

Ultio digna reum feriat, nec plebs laceretur.

Hoc docet, ordo jubet, ratio deocet, exigit usus.
While many were critical of the pope's interdict, John was also very
successful in defying the interdict and his final excommunication,
since they offered him the magnificent opportunity of filling royal
coffers with confiscated church wealth.285 It was not until a large
number of outraged English barons appeared on the verge of revolt
(because of royal political and financial policies, not because of
John's ecclesiastical policy!) and the French king was actively
making plans to invade England that John felt it practical to make
peace with the pope.286 His enfeofment of England to Rome in fee

(1000 pounds sterling per year) and his subsequent crusade vows were

moreover political moves designed to gain papal protection against a

 

284Edmond Feral, Les Arts Poétigues du 3119 at zllle Siecles

(Paris: Librairie Ancienne Honore Champion, 1924), pp. 24-26.
Translation: "Mirror of justice, flower of the clergy, candle of the
world, sun of men, successor and heir of peter, Salve! With a few
words I must tell you that you have done one thing wrong: the land of
England lies in tears and weeping. 0 Papa, does the guiltless flock
deserve this? The sin lies with the king. Therefore, reconsider: a
just revenge strikes the guilty party; the common people should not

be torn to pieces. This is only proper according to order, reason,
and experience."

285William E. Lunt, ina ial e ations of the Pa a th
§ng1and to 1327 (Cambridge, Massachusetts: The Medieval Academy of
America, 1939), p. 57; Painter, cc, cit., p. 176; and Lloyd,.cc. cit.,
p. 181e

2869ainter,ygc,‘c$c., pp. 188-189. After declaring John
deposed, Innocent had himself finally offered the English crown to
Philip II or his son, but this action was most probably a political
move designed to force John to surrender to the papacy's demands.

couplets baro

In
1213 deeply a
refusal to ac
Patronage in
3f the nobles
patronage, an
Pleas and thr
"their aid to
intfirf’ere in
away his king
the hex-ens pr
excommnicflti

until 1217 th

Af

 

 

94

complete baronial rebellion and a French invasion.287

lnnocent's defense of John against his enemies after May
1213 deeply angered the barons who had actually supported John's
refusal to accept Langton as a means of defending their own rights of
patronage in the English Church.288 Soon after John's submission many
of the nobles deserted the king, no longer the staunch defender of lay
patronage, and joined forces with the French king. Despite papal
pleas and threats against a French invasion of England, they continued
their aid to Louis VIII and asserted that the pope had no right to
interfere in English affairs and that a deposed king could not give
away his kingdom.289 Again, when the pope condemned Magna Carta,
the barons protested vigorously and rebelled. Their subsequent
excommunication by the pope likewise produced no effect: and it was not
until 1217 that they finally decided to submit to their new king.290

After the death of John in 1216 the English crown was held

by the relatively weak Henry III for over fifty-six years.291 Owing

 

287Petit-Dutaillis, Louis yizz. p- 56: and Painter,
cg. cit., pp. 192-193.

288Painter, 0 . cit., pp. 274-275.

zagpetit-Dutaillis, Logis yrzz, p. 73; Lunt,‘cc.‘cic., p.
156: and Luchaire, n nt 8 o aut s ass as e aint-
ccggc, p. 209. In 1204 the nobles of Aragon and Catalonia had also
formed a league to force their king to renounce his infeudation to
the Holy See: Lunt,ycc,.c1§., pp. 138 and 156.

290Roger of Wendovsr,‘gg. cit., pp. 330-343.

291Henry III is here considered week because of his
inability to attract wide support among most classes of Englishmen.
For his administrative and jurisdictional successes see W. R. Jones,
”Relations of the Two Jurisdictions: Conflict and Cooperation in
England during the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Centuries,” fitudigs in

Medieval ang fignaisccgce Histocy, V11 (1970), pp. 79-209.

his positio
royalist be
and living

rebellion,2
Rid) of his
assert his

right of th:
:ermission,
against Fre:
remained in
‘9 give the
Dapacy any n
39811151; any

1‘9

‘0

 

95

his position largely to the manoeuvres of the papal legate and a few
royalist barons who took over the government after his father's death
and living under an almost constant threat of another baronial
rebellion,292 Henry was strongly influenced by the papacy throughout
much of his reign.293 Nevertheless, he, too, tried occasionally to
assert his royal power against the papacy. Soon after rejecting the
right of the pope to send legetes into his realm without royal
permission, he refused to send more money for the papacy's war

against Frederick II.294

Indeed, throughout this war the king
remained in close communication with the emperor; and, if he failed
to give the emperor active support, he also refused to offer the
papacy any military aid.295 After pledging aid to the emperor
against any imperial enemies except the Church,296 Henry's
representatives at the Council of Lyons joined with those of Louis IX

to persuade the pope to make peace with the emperor and to protest

 

292”Robert of Cloucester's Chronicle," in Igg Church
Histgcigns cf figglgng, trans. by Joseph Stevenson (London: Seelys,

1858), vol. V, Part 1, p. 351: F. M. Powicke, Thg Thiccecnth Cancucy.
1216-1307 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1953), pp. 3-4; and T. F. Tout,

sto of E n f om t A ession of n I o the h of
figgacd III. jZ]6-1§77, Vol. III of P o o n ,

ad. by William Hunt and Reginald L. Pools 8 vols.) London: Longmans,
Green and Company, 1920), p. 2.

293Oliver H. Richardson, 1 n Mo n n the
3:19" of flgncx 111 (New York: Macmillan Company, 1897), p. 14.

294“Annales Londoniensis," p. 44.

2955mm, v. pp. 840-846, 920-923, 1037-

1041, 1123-1125, and 1165-1167, and VI, pp. 52, 259-260, 290, and
644'646e

zgfilbide, V1, p. 52e

 

against the
attemted tc
John had new
these attemp
net with Fai
vigorous pro
nunciog to R
the kingdom

e:‘iSCOPEIte u

Dbl-”flats rOYa

 

96
against the papal deposition of a secular ruler.297 Also, Henry
attempted to stop payment of the tribute money on the grounds that
John had never had the right to give away his kingdom.298 While
these attempts were generally supported by the barons, they largely
met with failure, since Henry was too dependent on Rome to make
vigorous protests.299 In 1237 the king reportedly sent secret
nuncios to Rome to request the pope to send a papal legate to reform
the kingdom and to augment royal power indirectly by bringing the
episcopate under closer royal scrutiny.300 Also, Henry softened his
original objection to papal taxation when he found that such taxation
could be used to his own advantage.301 This use of the papacy to
promote royal interests was followed in other matter as well; and
the king never appealed to Rome when it would detract from his own
power.302 After ignoring numerous papal efforts to restore peace
between France and England, Henry finally accepted papal arbitration

to arrange a treaty when it would benefit his Sicilian plans.303

 

297;b;d., v1, p. 290; and Matthew Paris, 22. cit., II,

p. 70e

298Lunt, cc, cit., p. 156.

299Marion Gibbs and Jane Lang, Bichggs ang flgfocc, 1215-1272
(London: Humphrey Milford, 1934), p. 14.

300"Annales Londoniensis,” p. 34.

301Lunt,cc,. cit., p. 309. Several occasions in which
popes granted financial aids to Henry are mentioned in Gibbs and Lang,

QEe Site. p. 132.

302J. H. Danton, "Royal Supremacy in Ancient Desmesne

Churches,” ou of siast l Histo , XXII (October 1971),
p. 302e

303Powicke, Ihg Ihicteenth Qantucx, p. 120.

15' "

 

L’s-Mo .

whenever |
Also, Hen

excommni:

dislike of
early as 1
immediate].
officers u
flatly ref:
a1thng a;
after this
Secret Soci
inundated t

005188 ”Ere

at

the king'

 

97

Whenever possible he used church benefices to reward royal servants.304
Also, Henry gained from the papacy the immunity of royal officials from
excommunication when in the service of the crown.305

Meanwhile, the English barons showed an almost continual
dislike of the strong alliance between their king and the papacy. As
early as 1223 the barons protested when the pope ordered that they
immediately surrender their royal towns and castles to the king's
officers upon threat of ecclesiastical censures.306 In 1230 they
flatly rersed the papacy's demands for money to fight Frederick,
although both the king and the prelates agreed to contribute.307 Soon
after this refusal many English knights under Robert Twenge formed a
secret society to eject the many Roman benefice holders who had
inundated the country since the beginning of Henry's reign.306 The
nobles were also highly suspicious of the papal legate sent to England

at the king's request 309 and resented the papal usurpation of church

 

304Frank Pegues, "The c1e£icus in the Legal Administration

of Thirteenth-Century England," figglish Hiscgcical Bcviaw, LXXI (1956),
p. 351. Gibbs and Lang state that Henry's control over episcopal

elections was much less than historians have generally believed: Gibbs
and Lang, 22' Rue, p. 92e

30$Jones, "Relations of the Two Jurisdictions,” pp. 146-147.
These same papal immunities were gained by Louis IX: Berger, figint

ngic E! Innocgnc 1y, pp. 62-65: and Campbell, "The Attitude of the
Monarchy Toward the Use of Ecclesiastical Censures," p. 553.

306Roger of Wendovsr, cc, cit., p. 446.
3°?19;g.. PP. 528-530.
308
jggg,, pp. 544-545 and 551-552.
309

Matthew Paris, cc, cit., I, pp. 54-55; "Annales
Londoniensis,” p. 34: and Powicke, Thc Igicceenth antucx. PP. 74-75.

 

benefices:

orelates.3'
continued 1
was stirrer
its war age
country's p
Fore papal

statement 0
both the pa:
Rather than
imoverishi.
the Barons!
reign. the t
Drovisions 0
the king in
considered t
the Papal 19
dispute with

\

3

(A

 

L4

(J

98
benefices, often usurped to the disadvantage of the barons and
prelates.31o Indeed, baronial discontent over papal provisions
continued throughout most of Henry's reign.311 Even more resentment

was stirred up when the papacy attempted to force England to support

its war against Frederick during the 1240's;312 and in 1245 the

country's ports were guarded by the barons to prevent the entrance of

313

more papal letters demanding money. The barons also sent a strong

statement of grievances to the Council of Lyons and complained against

b°th the Papacv's monetary demands and the royal-papal alliance.314

Rather than aiding England, this alliance, the barons claimed, was

impoverishing their country and trampling on their rights.315 When

the Barons' War finally broke out during the latter part of Henry's
reign, the king immediately turned to the papacy for aid and had the
Provisions of Oxford declared void on the grounds that they restricted
the king in his God-given right to rule his kingdom.316 The nobles
considered this an act of treachery on the part of the pope, ignored
the papal letters, and turned to Louis IX of France to settle their

317

dispute with the king. Indeed, although the barons had at first

 

310Matthew Paris, 93. g_1_t., I, p. 230.

Powicke, [hg [hiccggnth ancucy, p. 141.

Matthew par139‘223.EL£ep I, pp. 501-503e

31§1g$geg II, pe 53e

31f;g;g., II, p. 73: and Lunt, 929.2Lk0v p. 148.

315Berger, 5‘13; chgc gt Innocgnt 1!, p. 132.
316
Bryson, cg. £1_t., pp. 28-29.

311

312

317”Annales Londoniensis," p. 58.

99
actively sought papal approval for their government and had even
requested a papal legate-both of which measures were coldly rejected
by the papacy-glathey ended by almost creating a separate Anglican
church because of their hostility towards the papacy's continued
support of Henry.319 All aliens, clerical and lay, were expelled;
papal legetes were forbidden to enter the kingdom: and all those who
disobeyed the Provisions of Oxford were excommunicated by the English

320 While all of these measures were a direct affront to

prelates.
papal influence in England, the use of ecclesiastical weapons against
those who violated the Provisions of Oxford, decrees which had been
expressly annulled by the pope, clearly established the independence of
the English church from Roman control.

While the first part of the thirteenth century witnessed no
admission of the concept of papal supremacy by the secular powers,
the last quarter of the century saw two forceful kings ascend the
thrones of France and England. Both Philip IV and Edward I were
dedicated to building up their royal power: and neither was willing
to tolerate undue interference from the papacy. At the same time
both monarchies were in a position of relative strength. While

Louis IX had left the French monarchy with not only tremendous moral

prestige but also with strong royal control over the administrative

 

318Powicke, Tag Thictegnth antucx. DP. 125 and 135.

319F. M. Powicke, i an an the o r
(Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1947), vol. II, p. 49.

320

"Annales Londoniensis," pp. 59-61.

and jurisdic
subsequent r
officials he
been at any
E
seemed quite
derogatory t
Banal fief,
be used,324
continued to

Sincgre Plan

Holy LBHU af

“”9500! and

 

 

100
and jurisdictional offices,321 the defeat of the rebel barons and the
subsequent resettlement of the country by the papal legate and royal
officials had left the English monarchy probably stronger than it had

been at any time earlier in the century.322

Edward I, the so-called English Justinian,323 at first
seemed quite complaisant. Although he regarded the tribute money as
derogatory to royal power, denied the right of John to make England a
papal fief, and suggested that other means of collecting the same sum

be used,”4 he accepted the pope's rersal with little bickering and

continued to pay the tribute.325 Also, he made ostentious and probably
sincere plans to go on another crusade, although he never went to the
Holy Land after his coronation since it would have jeopardized his
kingdom and his royalty.326 Nevertheless, Edward soon began to assert
his power in contradiction to the claimed rights of the Church. In
1279 he passed the statute of mortmain,Ingcg;igiosis, whereby he

forbade future land grants to ecclesiastical corporations without

 

321Berger, int ou s nn nt V, p. 28: and Campbell,
”The Attitude of the Monarchy Toward the Use of Ecclesiastical
Censures,” p. 553.

322

Powicke, flgncx 111 gng 5g: Locg figgccg, II, p. 49.
323Powicke, to n h ant , p. 227.
324

Edward claimed that the tribute money could only be paid
with baronial consent and that a king was bound by his coronation oath
to keep his kingdom intact; Lunt, cc, cit., pp. 158-1593 and C. H.

Lawrence, ed., sh h and th n h Mi e A a
(London: Burns and Dates, 1965), p. 133.
325

Lunt, Q-Ee site. pe 157e

32 h h on I of Pi e toft, ed. by Thomas Wright

(London: Longman, Green, Reader, and Dyer, 1868), p. 194: and Powicke,
Thg Thictgenth antucy, p. 229.

 

:rior royal

exportation

the pope‘s S
seized the t
against Wale
thirtieth tc
returned wit
Evident that
““935 colle

035 ”Orking

Irit of Eire

 

e‘ClesiPSIlc‘

existing POL.

(J

(J

 

(J

§
Bu.

“nab Ltc
lction

 

101
prior royal consent.327 In 1282 he placed an embargo on the
exportation of the crusade tenth from England partially in protest of
the pope's Sicilian policy.328 Again in the next year he forcibly
seized the tenth deposited in English churches to finance his own war
against Wales,329 after the clergy had refused to grant more than a
thirtieth to aid the king.330 Although this money was eventually
returned with expressions of penance, it was becoming increasingly
evident that the king considered that he had a definite right to
monies collected by the English churches. At the same time Edward
was working to extend royal jurisdiction and in 1285 issued the royal
writ Pf.§l££2E§222£§ a atis, which closely defined the limits of

331

ecclesiastical jurisdiction. While this writ, generally considered

as a statute by the end of Edward's reign, was careful to respect the

existing boundaries of ecclesiastical jurisdiction, it also prevented

332

the spread of such jurisdiction. Papa Nicholas IV's protests

 

327193 figconiclg of Pierrc de Langtoft, p. 174; Powicke,
Thg [hiccccngh antucy, pp. 325 and 372: "Annalee Londoniensis,” p. 89:

and Thomas Walsingham, ghconica Monastecii 5, Alban , ed. by Henry
Thomas Riley (London: Longman, Roberts, and Green, 1865), p. 14.

After telling of the statute, Pierre de Langtoft added, "Nevertheless
the king has great devotion."

328
n of Bu t n s - , trans. by
Antonia Gransden (London: Thomas Nelson and Sons, Ltd., 1964), pp.
77'78e

3291g1 .; and Powicke, Ihg Thictggnch antucx, p. 505.

330Tout, [he fliscgcy of Englang, p. 164.

331T. F. Tout, Edwacg thc Ficst (London: Macmillan and
Company, Ltd., 1920), p. 158; Jones, ”Relations of the Two
Jurisdictions," p. 95; and "Annalee Londoniensis," p. 95.

332Powicke, Thg Ihiccgcnth cgntugx. pp. 432-433.

 

against 1
care larg
ignore th
sought pa
directly ‘
outlaw all
with war a
Stated the

the wel Far

~ 33
king, 7w

E
Surrounding
be~

,an to 9x

 

 

 

102

against these acts and against the trial of churchmen in civil courts
were largely ignored.333 By 1290 the king also quietly began to
ignore the payment of the tribute money.33" Although Edward generally
sought papal approval for the taxation of his clergy, in 1294 he went
directly to the clergy with his demand for money and threatened to
outlaw all members of the lower clergy who refused to pay.335 Faced
with war against France as well as a rebellion in Scotland, the king
stated that it was the clergy's duty as his subjects to contribute to
the welfare of the kingdom.336

Meanwhile in France Philip IV, who was bringing the French
feudal system further on its path towards direct dependence on the
king,337 was asserting his own power against the rights of the papacy.
Surrounding himself with well-trained civil lawyers,338 Philip quickly
began to expel the clergy from an active participation in the legal

administration.339 Because of the king's efforts to increase royal

 

333

Ibige' pp. 265-2663 and Mann, 2.2. Cite, XVII, p. 2150
334Lawrence, e2. cit., p. 133.
335

Michael Prestwich, use, Polifiics ene Finance Undo;
‘figeegg_1_(Londonl Faber and Faber, 1972), p. 186.

336Powicke, Ihe Thigtegngh gentuex, pp. 659-672.

337Roland H. Bainton, The Medieval Qhueeh (Princeton, New
Jersey: D. Van Nostrand Company, Inc., 1962), p. 633 L. Elliott

Binns, 0.0., The flistegx of £02 Qeeline ane fell of the Meeiegal
Eeeeex (London: Methuen and Company, Ltd., 1934), pp. 64-65; and

FBWtier, 220 me, Do 360

338Frank J. Pegues, [he Leexees of she Lest Qaeetians
(Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1962), p. 11.

339Flick, e2, eit., p. 123 and John F. Benton, "Philip
the Fair and the Jours of Troyes,“ to es in M di and

fleneissanee flistory, VI (1968), pp. 329-336.

 

jurisdictio
trial of ch:
occurred in
protests th:
irench cost
the king wh:
held tempera
0f Constant:
activities c
SUPPOI‘t for
little scruc
"EVEN-081935
Stefan-ed to
StomiSES to
Dretensa of

8001294 the

 

 

103
jurisdiction, the papacy was twice forced into complaining against the
trial of churchmen in French civil courts.340 Another minor incident
occurred in 1289 over the jurisdiction of Lyons. Despite Nicholas'
protests that all jurisdiction in Lyons belonged to the Church, the
French court insisted that the area's temporal jurisdiction belonged to
the king who merely conferred it on the archbishop and that the papacy
held temporal jurisdiction only in that region covered by the Donation
of Constantine.341 Likewise, Philip did not hesitate to hamper the
activities of the Inquisitors in Southern France to win the Midi's
support for his policy in Caacony.342 Moreover, the king evinced
little scruples in taxing his clergy to finance his foreign wars.343
Nevertheless, when the papacy complained against such taxation, Philip
preferred to ignore the protests as much as possible and gave idle
promises to reform.344 The king indeed usually did try to make a
pretense of working with the papacy. In the clerical grants of 1288
and 1294 the king first acted with the papacy to obtain financial aid
from the churches, although in 1295 he abandoned this method by going
straight to the French clergy, thereby circumventing any negotiations

340Mann,ee,. eit., XVII, pp. 174-175. For an earlier

incident regarding the civil arrest of French bishops and the
response of the papacy see Richard Kay, "An Episcopal Petition

from the Province of Rouen, 1281," Chueeh flisteex, XXXIV (September
1965). p. 297a

341Georges Digard, Phi i e Is at aint-Sia e 285
a 1303 (2 vols.: Paris: Librairie du Recueil Sirey, 1936), vol.1, p. 85.

3421211., 11, p. 64.

343

FIICk, 229.2;50, p. 200

344Jo Ann McNamara, "Simon de Beaulisu and 'Clericis

Laicoa'," Teaeitio, xxv (1969), p. 156.

 

with the pa

the more [’0
lay taxatio
excommnica
stated that
Drier papal
Eduard declz
kingdom whe;
Drstecticn

t: the papa:
to make Wha"
ki"§'dom and
defenSe in I
asserted the

Dflly With t."

1

(J I

O—l
O)
rf
y
(3.0
3
0’0)
27'
p

 

 

104

with the papacy.345

A major crisis arose late in the thirteenth century when
the more forceful Boniface VIII issued 51921215.12£§2§ which forbade
lay taxation of the clergy without papal consent under pain of
excommunication.346 Both Edward and Philip reacted violently and
stated that kings did have the right to tax their clergy without
prior papal consent in times of national emergency.347 In England
Edward declared that the clergy had a responsibility to support the
kingdom where they resided and then proceeded to withdraw royal
protection from those clergy who refused to pay.348 Philip responded
to the papal action by reminding the pope that the king had a right
to make whatever laws he deemed necessary for the preservation of his
kingdom and that the clergy had a duty to pay for the kingdom's
defense in return for their own defense by the king. Furthermore, he
asserted that ecclesiastical privileges were conceded by the pope but

only with the permission of the king.349 At the same time the French

 

345
mg.

346McNamara blames the whole dispute in France on the bad
relationship between Boniface and the French legate Simon de Beaulieu,
who had been a long-time enemy of the pope and therefore tried to
undermine Boniface's authority in France; leido, pp. 155-170.

347 oni of Pie re do n toft, pp. 276-278. Tout
noted that the battles over fileeieie* laicos were between king and
archbishop in England and between king and pops in France: TheH Histoex

of finglene, p. 201.

348R. 5. Deighton, "Clerical Taxation by Consent, 1279-

1301." MW, LXVIII (April 1953), p. 1813 and
Thomas walsingham,'ee. ei§., p. 63.

Sagoupuy. isto Diff end 'ent e 1 Pa e Boniface

[I]: et Philieees le Bel flog de Feence (Tuscons Audax Press, 1963),
pp 0 22-23 e

 

publicist
Boniface

"reaffirm
The Lea;
period to
authoriti
Um propel

Peter eve:

two p
autho
His r
hSave
ViCar
glory
thOSQ
thing!
those
that F
reCEit
Christ
thersf

 

105
publicists under the leadership of Pierre Flotte began attacking

Boniface as a usurper and made resistance to gleeicis laieoe into a

”reaffirmation of French independence from papal domination.”350

The Qiseetatio inte; gleeieum et Milieem also appeared during this

period to refute further the supremacy of the Church over secular

authorities.351 Stating that "temporals ought to serve spirituals in

the proper way“,352 the anonymous author nevertheless denied that
Peter ever held authority in the secular sphere:

KNIGHT.-- I have heard holy and devout men distinguish
two periods in Christ, one of humility and the other of
authority: of humility up to His passion, of authority after
His resurrection, when He said, 'All power is given to me in
heaven and on earth' (Matthew 28). Now Peter was constituted
vicar of Christ for the state of humility, not for the sake of
glory and majesty. For he was not made vicar of Christ for
those things that Christ does now in glory, but to imitate those
things that Christ did when He was humble on earth, because
those are necessary to us. Therefore He committed to His vicar
that power which He exercised as mortal man, not that which He
received when glorified.... Therefore you hear clearly that
Christ was constituted neither judge nor divider in temporalsi
therefore in that state of ministry which He accepted, He
neither had temporal kingship nor strove after it. Rather,
when they ate the multiplied bread, He fled; and in the
commission made to Peter He gave him not the keys of the kingdom
of earth but the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And it is
certain that the priestssgg the Hebrews were subject to kings
and deposed by kings....

Moreover, the author insisted that ecclesiastical jurisdiction was

only to come into play when civil justice failed:

 

350McNamara, ee. eieu p. 168.

351Carler and Carlyle, ee, cit., pp. 379-380: and Thomas J.
Renna, ”Kingship in the Qiseeeatio inte; gleeieem st Militem, ”
Seeeulum, XLVIII (October 1973), p. 678.

352 s t 1 m item, as cited in Lewis,
22s Site, 11, pa 571a

3S3

Ibide . pa 569e

r
Philip
keeping
in oper-
shcwed .
PBDBCy.:
311 gold
Papacy's
Emblems
“”95. th.

right to t

Clergy acc

retalents:
bat'ee” Fra

that BOnj Fa

\

 

 

106
KNIGHT.-- ...the prince by his own right has cognizance

of the just and the unjust: and let everyone heed his decision,

that it may be maintained, and obey him as it is commended

(Deuteronomy 17). If, however, anyone, swelling with pride,

does not obey his command, and if the prince whose was the

office of judging does not have the page; to resist or coerce

him, then your jurisdiction begins....
Philip also did more than rely on verbal assaults on the pope. By
keeping up friendly communications with the Colonna cardinals who were
in open rebellion against Boniface as an illegitimate pontiff, the king
showed his willingness to go even further in his defiance of the
papacy.355 Also in August 1296 the French court forbade the export of
all gold and silver from the country, thus severely jeopardizing the
papacy's financial security.356 Faced with the Colonna rebellion,
problems in Sicily, and the opposition of both the French and English
kings, the pope was finally forced to concede that kings did have the
right to determine when a state of emergency existed and to tax the
clergy accordingly.357

Boniface's submission did not, however, and royal

recalcitrance. When the pope offered to mediate in the dispute
between France and England, Philip only consented on the grounds

that Boniface would do so as a private person and not as pope.358

 

35‘Me, 9. 570.

355Digard,‘eg. eit., I, p. 287.

356%., I, p. 272e

ssjfigei.ge_§§atu as cited in Tierney, T is s of hur h
eee §§eteI 1050-]; 9, p. 178.

358

Thomas Walsingham,‘ee,‘eie., pp. 73-74. For the year
1293 Walsingham stated that the French and English kings had referred
their dispute to the pope 'whose duty it is to establish peace between
kings and kingdoms'x 22"§;£e, p. 44.

 

By doir
nations
arbitra
superioz
only, an
the king
affair-s."
between E
Edward pc
Scotland
the pOpe .
it the Sar
DOPE knew
had l.nterv
peaDie, wh
parliament
Scotland as
Although p

bElieVe th

 

 

 

107
By doing so, he denied the right of the papacy to act as an inter-
national arbiter. In fact, before submitting to Boniface's
arbitration, Philip told the pope that the king had no temporal
superior in his kingdom, that he was subject to the pops in spirituals
only, and that a papal truce carried no weight unless approved by
the king, since the papacy had no jurisdiction in temporal

359 Later, when the pope tried to interfere in the dispute

affairs.
between England and Scotland and claimed Scotland as a papal fief,
Edward politely but firmly replied that God Himself knew that

Scotland had always been subservient to the English crown and that

the pope had no right to interfere in internal English affairs.360

At the same time a less discreet English chronicler stated that the
pope knew from the beginning that he had no rights over Scotland but
had intervened after receiving many bribes from the Scots, a wise
people, who knew the 'venality of Rome'.361 Even the English
Parliament sent Boniface letters claiming the king's sovereignty over
Scotland and asking the pope to review the case more carefully.362
Although both the English king and nobles maintained a great degree of
politeness to the pope, they made it quite clear that they did not

believe the papacy had any rights in the matter. Later, in 1301

 

359
Dupuy, m. mu pp. 27-28.

ans cost 72- 4 , trans. by Sir
Herbert Maxwell (Closgowc James Maclehose and Sons, 1913), p. 171;
Thomas Walsingham,‘ee..ei§., pp. 87-95: and "Annales Londoniensis,"
pp. 104-124.

361Thomas walsingham,‘ee. cit., pp. 81-82.

36%LQ;Q., pp. 96-97; and "Annales Londoniensis," pp. 122-

125.

[award reap
“claimed th
the clergy"

that year ' s

|
French civi
which Final
364
Cefitury.
traitorous
I

refused to
Soisset cou
again Order
Drelates to
refuged’ an

.1

I

 

(«i

 

108

Edward reaped most of the benefits from a papal tax on the clergy and
”claimed the exclusive control of the taxation of the temporalities of
the clergy” despite the fact that the pope had only allotted half of
that year's clerical tax to the king.363

Despite these minor clashes it was the arrest and trial by
French civil authorities of Bernard Saisset, the bishop of Pamiers,
which finally brought matters to a head early in the fourteenth
century.364 Although Philip did appeal to the pope to have the
traitorous bishop condemned and degraded from the priestly dignity, he
refused to release the bishop or to accept the pope's excuse that
Saisset could not be degraded without a trial in Rome.365 Boniface
again ordered the release of Saisset, summoned a council of French
prelates to discuss the state of the church in France when the king
refused, and than suspended all papal privileges of clerical taxation
granted to Philip.366 At the same time (December 5, 1301) the pope
launched the bull euseulta.£;l;, in which he reminded the king that it
was the Church's duty to guide Christian kings in all matters of
conscience and scolded Philip for his many aggressions against the
independence of the French Church.367 Although the problem actually

centered around the respective rights of pope and king over the French

Church, Philip quickly launched his attack against the person of the

 

363Powicke, [he Thieteenth gentugx. P- 500'
354019.“, 92. 213., II, p. 59.

365Pegues, Ihe Legxees of the Last caeetians. P- 33-
366Thomas Helsingham,‘ee,‘e;£oo PP. 3"85°

367

Digard, 22' Eéte. pp. 89‘93e

pope rather
forbidding
pain of dee
obedience 1
his action;
enemies.37£
0““mil 1[
Sovereigntt
Power in Ft
minister MI
'9?! motive
faith 'hicrl
all te“Dora
trying to p
Etta“ of i
of all the

DDpe "as de

‘-~‘_-~‘~

:gains t B O r

t

JEI‘Sey‘ D r

reSm:

c .
DDp..8t1V5
pars

 

 

109
pope rather than the institution of the papacy.368 Moreover, after
forbidding any person within his realm to receive papal letters under
pain of death and confiscation,369 the king acknowledged complete
obedience to the Holy See (although not to Boniface) and declared all
his actions motivated by a desire to protect France from foreign
enemies.370 At an initial assembly of all the estates at Notre Dame
on April 10, 1302, Philip stated that he alone held temporal
sovereignty in France and accused the pope of claiming all temporal
power in France primarily to rid the country of its wealth.371 His
minister Nogaret even went so far as to state that he and the king
were motivated strictly by their great concern for the Christian
faith which would be greatly compromised if the Church were to usurp
all temporal authority.372 Although Philip kept up a pretense of
trying to make peace with Boniface, his ministers kept up a steady
stream of invectives against the pope and called for a second meeting

of all the estates for June 1303. It was at this assembly that the

pope was defiled as a usurper and heretic;373 and a general council

 

68Boase, 229.2lE3' p. 334. All of Philip's accusations
against Boniface were made through his ministers: Joseph R. Strayer,
ti es of st (Princeton, New

Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1971), p. 203.

afigDigard, g3. 35., II, p. 96.

370816011, 22a Bite, XVIII, p. 355e

3710198rd, _O_2e Qitee II; pp. 99-100e

372Fawtier, ea. 9.1.!” p. 42.

373Not one of the twenty-nine charges levelled against
Boniface at this Paris assembly of June 1303 was concerned with the
respective rights of pope and king: but all were attacks upon the
pope's personal life. See DUPUY:.223.EiE-n pp. 100-109.

 

was called
council was
however, ma
could not b
to submit a
court deter
victory. I
the Papal c
outrage amc
days, Bani?
experience;

heretic.

brought out
khOWledge 0
define the
claimed the

lemural jU

a e
HPBSSjisg
”Jr h ”is:

 

 

 

110
was called to elect a new pope.37‘ The right to summon a general
council was, of course, a papal not a royal prerogative.37S Nogaret,
however, maintained that the Church had no leader, since a heretic
could not be pope.376 Since the pope meanwhile showed no willingness
to submit and made plans to excommunicate Philip by name, the French
court determined on a course of physical coercion to secure their
victory. In the and French agents accompanied by the Colonnas invaded
the papal chambers at Anagni and captured the pope. Although popular
outrage among local residents forced his release within a couple of
days, Boniface died shortly afterwards, probably as a result of the
experience: and Philip pushed the posthumous trial of the pope as a
heretic.

Meanwhile, the dispute between Philip and Boniface had
brought out pamphlets by the French legists who with their excellent
knowledge of Roman law were approaching a theory of absolutism to
define the role of the king within his realm.377 Peter of Blois
claimed that the pope should publicly apologize for invading the king's
temporal jurisdiction and then went on to state that popes should be

poor anyway as their saintly predecessors had been.378 The Queeeio

 

3741! 3 !" pp. 56-59: Fawtier, 22. gite' ppe 94‘95: Brian

Tierney, Eeeegetiens ef gee Qonsilie; [heogx (Cambridge: University
Press, 1955), pp. 8-9: and Richard Chenevix Trench, Leetuges on Medieval
Q0229“ fliseogx (London: Macmillan and Company, 1879), p. 285.

375

Fawtier, ea, eit., pp. 38 and 224.
376Tierney, Eoendetions of the Eensiliae [heorx. PP. 8-9.
377Lewis,‘ee. 915., II, pp. 449-452: and Fawtier,.ge. eit.,
pp e 46‘47e
378

DUPUYg «92. site. ppe 44-47e

in utram".
#

 

their sep:
universal
Donation I
alienate I
presented
1301) was
M
be Placed
"the Chute
Papacy bee
govgr
“We
of th
Shall
and L
lord]
his n:
deVOt
neigh
Whole
0V6
theme.
EXpenz

 

 

111
in utreegue eagtem by an anonymous author said that both powers derived
their separate and distinct rights from God and that the papacy had no
universal temporal authority. Moreover, this tract denied that the

Donation of Constantine was valid, since an emperor could not legally

alienate a large part of his empire.379

Perhaps one of the most radical of the legist tracts was
presented by Pierre Dubois, whose Bationes inconvincibilee (December
1301) was later paraphrazed in the second part of his Beeeveex ef the

‘flelijeeg (1308), where he proposed that all future crusade ventures

be placed under the French king.380 Referring to the French king es

”the Church's most Christian foundation",381 Dubois proposed that the
papacy become a French possession, since the Romans had so misused the
office for their own gain:

... when, in return for a guaranteed annual pension, the
government, possessions, and distractions of the pope's
temporalities have been entrusted in perpetuity to the lord king
of the French, to be governed by his brothers and sons as he
shall see fit to provide: when the poisonous plots of the Romans
and Lombards have ceased--then it is highly probable that the
lord pope will be able to enjoy a long and healthful sojourn in
his native land, the kingdom of the French, with liesure to
devote his sole attention to the governance of souls.... This
would be of ineatimable and lasting benefit to all the friends,
neighbors, and kindred of the lord pope, and especially to the
whole kingdom of France, since the ultramontane clergy would not
have the income of fat benefices belonging to the cismontane
churches--as they have had in the past--for building castles for
themselves and their kin by defrauding the churches even at the
expense of divine offices....

Since the Roman pope has misused his power and has done

 

379Carlyle and Carlyle, 93. 531., p. 421.

aaoPierre Dubois, In, fleeoeeex ef the uni! Lang, trans. by
Walther I. Brandt (New York: Columbia University Press, 1956), p.

170.

381Me ' p. 206.

112
so because he is a Roman, it is fitting and proper, and in
harmony with the intent of the decree of the holy fathers, that
the Romans, saving and in every way increasing the papal dignity,
should, though unwilling, permit this great honor to be enjoyed
indefinitely by individuals who would not be eager to snatch at
the chief dignity of a most Christian prince: who would not
exceed the limits which the holy fathers established: who would
permit any Caesar to reign insgll his kingdom, and to administer
and enjoy his possessions....
After thus repeating Frederick II's proposals to rid the papacy of
its temporal possessions and to restrict it to purely spiritual
duties,383 Dubois made it clear that he viewed the existing papacy as
little more than another greedy Italian political institution which
had lost sight of its founders' original purpose of religious
leadership. Accordingly, the state was to have charge of all the
Church's temporal possessions and had the right to tax the churches,
since these churches received their power from the secular power.
Although Dubois' work attracted very little attention at the time,385
it represented an extremely nationalistic solution to the problem of
church-state relations: rather than calling for the Church simply to
get out of secular affairs, Dubois wanted to make the papacy a
favored dependent of the Capetian monarchy.386 Under such an arrange-

ment the French king rather than the papacy would have become the

ultimate source of ecclesiastical authority in Western Europe. When

 

382

Me, pp. 167'159e
383Dubois was clearly aware of the writings of Frederick 11:
.lfléfi-t P' 179'
38‘Igid.. pp. 183-185.
385
11;!" pe Se
386

Cohn, 22e site, pe 57a

taken with
works, thi
a future F
his crown

Aquinas.

called £0,
although _
when this
SUP“ cases
as a “hale
As r01. the
validity}
directed t

entities.

 

 

 

113

taken with the whole of the Beeogeex of see gel! Lend and Dubois' other

works, this tract was more reminiscent of the old prophecies concerning

a future French king who would become world emperor before laying down

his crown at Colgotha387

than of the tracts written by such men as
Aquinas.
One of the best known and more moderate defenders of

Philip IV's position was the Dominican Jean of Paris, whose Tractatus

ge Pe§estate aegis at Peeeli was completed around November 1302. This

work, like Dubois' Batioees igeoneieeibiles and Dante's Qe moneechia,

called 79? the PBPBCY to abandon everything but its spiritual duties,388

although Jean did admit that the Church could exercise secular power,
when this power was ceded by a secular state.389 However, he believed
such cases would be rare and were generally unhealthy for the Church
as a whole, because they might detract from its spiritual duties.390
As for the Donation of Constantine, he expressed grave doubts as to its

validity.391

Nevertheless, the main thrust of Jean's argument was
directed towards showing that the church and state were two separate

entities. By defining kingship as the "rule over a community perfectly

 

3°7Leuis, 32. g9... 11, p. 352.

388Walter Ullmann, "A Medieval Document on Papal Theories of

Government,” English Histoeieal Beview, LXI (1946), p. 193: Tierney,

The gegsgs of gneeeh and state. 1050-130 , pp. 193-198: and Carlyle and
Carlyle, ee, cit., pp. 426-427.

389John of Paris, 0n Royal end Page; Poeee, trans. by Arthur
P. Monahan (New York: Columbia University Press, 1974), pp. 4, 42, 45,

79, and 103.

3901b1§., pe 39e

391Ibidn pp. 77-78 and 111-118.

ordered to

 

”the spiri
dispensing
that chore
state was

lthe clutch
WY goal

SUfFicient
'33 Caller:
s’leation;
to fulfill
Chum" wit
different .
modes of 0:
a Sir"’31s a
Could be a
because of

for the ar-

 

114
ordered to the common good by one person"392 and the priesthood as

"the spiritual power given by Christ to ministers of the Church for

93

dispensing the sacraments to the faithful",3 Jean clearly demonstrated

that church and state had two separate functions in society: the

state was ordained to serve the human needs of mankind on earth, while

the church was to direct men to the supernatural life.394 If man's

only goal were to lead a virtuous life, a human king would be

sufficient and there would be no need for the church.395 The Church

was called into being to direct men to another goal, eternal

salvation:396 the state which had existed first in tin.397 was unable

to fulfill this task.398 The state was concerned with ethics: the
church with the mystical, or supernatural. Since the two powers had
different endsgggean reasoned that they should also have different
modes of operation. While it was necessary for the church to be under

a single authority, representing the common unity of all souls, there

could be a multiplicity of states to fulfill human needs which varied

because of climate, geography, custom, language, and the like.400 As

for the argument that Christendom should have one ultimate authority,
Jean answered that it already had such a leader in Christ Himself.401

Also, while it was perfectly legitimate for the state to use physical

 

coercion to maintain its end of social peace and moral order.402 the
39?1e;g., p. 7. 39?;9;g., p. 11. sgflgig.. p- 8-
39?;eeg., p. 10. 39§1e;g., pp. 10, 84-35, and 90-91.
3971139... p. 16. 398M” p- 10. 3991329” 9' 37'
40912£Q°t pp. 13-14. 40119;Q., p. 91.
402

Ibige, p. 8e

same force
las to use
since Spll
according.
corporeal

3f greatei
Superiorig

secular s:

dign
SUpe
rela
aris
than
and y
the.
Spit:
DOWef
Drin
supej
abSoM

i
%

J93" Strum

from Goa:
For t
Chute
whicg
Cog.

After SUCh

SEDatatiOD

hetegsity

\

 

115
same force was incompatible with the spiritual ends of the church which
was to use its ecclesiastical weapons only to persuade, not to force,
since spiritual grace required individual consent.403 moreover,
according to Jean, Christ "conferred spiritual power on Peter, and gave
corporeal power to Caesar.”40‘ After admitting that ”priestly power is
of greater dignity than secular power”,405 Jean denied that the
superiority of priests in spiritual affairs carried over into the

secular sphere:

However, if the priest is greater than the prince in
dignity and absolutely, it is not necessary for him to be
superior in all things; for the latter secular power does not
relate to the higher spiritual ower in such a way that it
arises or derives from it.... Secular] power is greater
than spiritual power in some things, namely, temporal things:
and it is not subject to the spiritual power with reference to
them in any way, because secular power does not arise from
spiritual power. The two arise directly from a single supreme
powers the divine power.... Hence, the priest is superior
principally in spiritual matters: and conversely, the prince is
superior in temporal matters, although the priest is superior U6
absolutely insofar as the spiritual is superior to the temporal.

Jean strongly repeated this theme that secular power came directly

from God:
For the prince has knowledge of the faith from the pope and the
Church, but he still has a power distinct and proper to him,
whicgobe does not receive from the pope but immediately from
GOde

After such a strong defense of the divine origin of monarchy and the

separation of church and state Jean nevertheless did understand the

necessity of cooperation between the two powers‘08 and did concede

 

40§12;Q°! PP- 14: 29' 45, 53, 66, and 69a
‘04M.' p. 37' “5%.. pa 19a 4061b1de, pa 20a
407 403

Ibide, pa 73a Ibide' Do 680

”Mb-:3 -

that t}
sword 1
the pop
against
Financi
acting l

the chux

of royal
Specific
“hils me.
not, had
Roman Em;
taCit rec
also mair
Not a ti:
If abUSe:
in513ted

&

ACC:
“hEr
SUD:
tems

\l

 

 

 

116
that the church could request, but not demand, the use of the temporal
sword to promote the spiritual welfare of the community.409 Moreover,
the pope could use its ecclesiastical weapons, but not physical force,
against demonic secular rulers, just as a secular ruler could withdraw
financial support from a derelic pope.41D However, the secular prince,
acting as a concerned Christian, could use the material sword to rid
the church of a bad pope upon the request of the cardinals.411
Besides being a general tract written to define the limits

of royal and ecclesiastical power, Jean's work was also intended as a
specific defense of Philip IV's recent actions concerning the Church.
while maintaining that the Donation of Constantine, whether valid or
not, had never included France, which had never been a part of the
Roman Empire,412 Jean said the papacy's canonization of Louis IX was a
tacit recognition of the integrity of the French monarchy.413 Jean
also maintained that clerical immunity from trial in civil courts was
not a right but a privilege granted by secular princes to the Church.414
If abused, such a privilege could be withdrawn. Moreover, Jean
insisted that prelates holding temporal power were more closely bound
to their king than to the pups:

Accordingly, a bishop who accepts feudal obligations, especially

when this is done with the knowledge and the permission of the

supreme pontiff, is bound more closely in abgdiance to his
temporal lord than to the supreme pontiff.

 

409mg°0 P0 450 41olbige. ppe 66-67e
411M" PD. 68 and 105.

412M.’ ppm 77‘78’ 1129 and 115m

413 414 415

Me, ppe 115-116e Ibige, Fe 680 lbide, pe 103a

Likewise,
rather we
customary
4.
customs.
without I‘(
kingdom 5.;
not acted
as the kir
into almo
State and
tracts as
a long 89:
it no time-
MOI‘B extre

 

 

 

11?

Likewise, royal and noble patronage of ecclesiastical benefices was
rather weakly Upheld by the arguments that such patronage was
customary and that Plato had warned against violating reasonable
customs.416 Philip's closure of France to all contact with Rome
without royal permission was defended on the royal right to defend the
kingdom against spiritual abuse and on the grounds that the king had
not acted in an absolute sense but had granted exceptions.417 As far
as the king's right to work against a bad pope, Jean made this right
into almost a duty of the prince who was thereby defending his own
state and promoting the Church's welfare.418

The outrage at Anagni along with the publication of such
tracts as the De Egtgstgtg 82932 gt Papali marked the culmination of
a long series of royal protests against the concept of papal supremacy.
At no time during the thirteenth century had monarchs accepted the
more extreme papal doctrines regarding the papacy's rights to intervene
in secular affairs: and by the end of the century they were willing to
accept even fewer papal pretensions. The rise of the monarchies also
signalled the collapse of the papal ideal of a united Europe. Such a
state of affairs had existed since the beginning of the period, although
many throughout the century continued to pay lip-service to the ideal
of unity. At the same time the monarchs, unlike the emperors, had less
need of the pope and tended to build Up national churches which were
largely immune to papal leadership except perhaps in matters of

doctrine. Even the spiritual prestige of the papacy was diminished by

 

41€Lgigep pa 106e 4171b1de, pp. 10“105e

41§12ige9 pp. 120'122e

such a ki
of a Chri
attempt 0
Frederick
to a posi
which st:
the compo

Spiritual

 

118

such a king as Louis IX, who exemplified the royal theory that the duty
of a Christian king was to lead his people to salvation. There was no
attempt on the part of the kings to destroy the papal institution as
Frederick 11 had attempted; but the pope himself was largely relegated
to a position of figurehead rather than one of actual power in a system
which stressed the moral character of the secular ruler to watch over
the common welfare of his subjects. The pope was to have only vague

spiritual powers, or, as Jean of Paris maintained, persuasive powers.

AHMb~

papal pm
Christen:
Drelates
Their Uh:
or “atior
the Setul
denended
View the
SChEHES?

positiVB

 

under an

 

 

the papa:

Reme as t

 

t

ippehcog

 

C H A P T E R I I I

CHURCHMEN AND THE PAPACY

While the secular princes played a vital role in the
papal programs, the success of the papacy's plans for a united
Christendom also depended heavily on the full cooperation of the
prelates and clergy and their total commitment to papal ideals.
Their undivided loyalty to the Church as a whole rather than to local
or national interests was indeed as necessary as the cooperation of
the secular rulers. However, the loyalty of the clerical classes
depended ultimately on three important questions: how did the clergy
view the papacy as an institution? did they accept the papal reform
schemes? was the papacy capable of meeting their own needs? A
positive answer to all of these questions was necessary for the
achievement of papal goals, since such goals could not be attained
under an indifferent or hostile clerical class.

There were two main conceptions held by churchmen about
the papacy during the thirteenth century: one conception pictured

Rome as the gagut mundi;1 the other saw Rome as the center of greed

 

1Albert Hyma, Christianity and Ecliticsg A History of
thg Principle §tguggles of Church and fitate (New York: J. B.

Lippencott Company, 1938), p. 26.

119

44.21.)“ I:

 

and corru;
the papaci
acceptanc:
acceptanCI
Robert Ert

NW Churcl

preei
sing
orde
and

univ
the

PUrg
Drer
his

MOVe
as (
Iorl
next
mini
the

thin
and

Sair
Chur
Dontl
Rune
Obecl
the

\

T

 

Mtge“t
’DC

3%?/

William A
EPOwn’" i

 

120
and corruption.2 The frequent use of the term‘ggggt‘mgggi to denote
the papacy's position in the world demonstrated the clergy's
acceptance of papal leadership at least within the Church. This
acceptance was phrased most eloquently by the English scholar-bishop
Robert Crosseteste, who, in speaking of the unity and hierarchy of
the Church, compared the papacy to the sun:

As in the visible world the conspicuous sun by its
preeminent light, purges the darkness of the world, and in a
singular manner lights up the world, and by its own most
ordered movement (as the learned men of the world hold) orders
and regulates the other natural bodily movements: so in the
universe of the Church, the supreme pontiff takes the place of
the sun, by the excellent light of his teaching and good works
purging the world from the darkness of error, and by a singular
prerogative illuminating it unto the knowledge of truth, and by
his disposition ordering, regulating and governing all the
movements of actions in the universal Church. Therefore just
as (so the seekers after the prudence and intelligence of this
world hold) the state, beauty and order of the world are due,
next after the world's Creator and the angelic spirits that
minister at the Creator's command, to the visible sun and to
the hinges of the world: even so (as they hold who know the
things that are above), after the world's Creator and Redeemer
and the heavenly court of the blessed spirits of angels and
saints, the state, the beauty and order of the universal
Church are due to the sun and hinges, that is, to the supreme
pontiff and his assistants the cardinals. And so the Holy
Roman Church is due from all sons of the Church the most devout
obedience, the most honor d reverence, the most fervent love,
the most subject fear.... '

This view that Rome was the center of the world was countered and

 

2Robert Brentano, T o hu h s n n n t in t a
Ihigtggnth Centugy (Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press,
1968), pp. 5 and 10-19.

3Letter to Cardinal Cil de Torres (1236) as cited in
William Abel Pantin, ”Crossateste's Relations with the Papecy and
Crown," in ngggt grossgtestg. fighglgg gng Qishog, ed. by Daniel A.
Callus (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1955), pp. 184-185. For a further
exposition of Crossateste's high regard for the papacy see Brian
Tierney, ”Crossateste and the Theory of Papal Sovereignty,” Journal

of Egglgsiastiga; H18t0£23 VI (1955), pm 2e

often 1
living

used as
Roman c
thirtee
said th
one-thi
attacks

Simny.

The Uhol

SEUylon;

 

 

121

often accompanied by the view that Rome was somewhat less than the
living ideal of purity and holiness. Even before 1200 Rome had been
used as a symbol of greed by clerical satirists:4 and this theme of
Roman corruption continued to be one of the favorite topics of the
thirteenth century.5 The English clerical poet Walter Mapes even
said thatIBQQg stood for‘flggigwgggigg,Malogum Ayarita.6 Nearly
one-third of the poems in the Carmina‘gggggg were concerned with
attacks upon ecclesiastical authorities, particularly the papacy.7
Simony, rather than merit, was the key to receiving papal gifts:

cum non datur, Simon striget:
sed si datur, Simon ridet

The whole church was run by greed with the pope being the prince of

 

Babylon:
Vida, Deus ultionum,
vide, videns omnia
quod spelunca vispillonum
facts est Ecclesia,
quod in templum Salomonis
vanit princeps Babylonis
et escelsum sibi thronum
4
John A. Yunck, ID! Liggagg gt ngy 3229! [he ngglogment
WW (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame
Press, 1963), p. 93.
5Helen Jane Weddell, W (New York:
Doubleday and Company, 1955), p. 180.
chhille Luchaire, Innocent 11]: Lli flgyggtfis vassglgs du
Ifigig§:gi§gg (Paris: Librairie Hachatte at Cie., 1908), p. 148.
7weddell,‘gg. cit., p. 229. .
agggming flgggng: pig mogalisgg-satiggsghgn Qightugggn

(Heidelburg: Carl Winter's Universitatsbuchhandlung, 1930), p. 14.
Translation: "when nothing is given, Simon hisses: but, if
something is given, Simon kisses."

The Car
Saint pl

would b:

The twel
which at
remained

the card,

the Chum

attitude

ovarall p

 

 

122
poauit in medial9
The German rector Hugo von Trimberg even stated, ”If Saint Paul and
Saint Peter were now living at Rome, they would be sold, if anyone
would bid a fair price for tham.”10 Rutebauf likewise complained,
Roume, qui deust estre de notre foi la fonds,

Symonie, avarice et touz maux y abonde.

Cil aunt plus conchia qui doivent estre monde

Et par mauvais essample honissent tout le monde.
The twelfth-century satire, "The Gospel According to Mark Silver",
which attacked the greed and corruption of the Roman court, likewise
remained popular during the period and was even expanded to include
the cardinals.12

These dual concepts of the papacy as both the leader of
the Church and the symbol of corruption greatly influenced the
attitude of churchmen towards the papal reform schemes and towards

overall papal policies. At the same time local needs and interests

often determined which concept would prevail at a given time. If

 

919;g., p. 56. ‘Translation: "See, avenging Cod, see,

you who sees all things, how the Church is made a den of vipers, how
the prince of Babylon comes into the temple of Solomon and places
himself in the middle on the highest throne.”

10

Joseph Costwick and Robert Harrison, Qutlings 9f gggggn
thgggtggg,(Naw York: Henry Holt and Company, 1873), pp. 56-57.
11

u b u , publiees par Edmond Feral
at Julia Bastin (Paris: A. at J. Picard, 1959), vol. I, p. 395.
Translation: ”Home, which should be the foundation of our faith,
abounds in simony, avarice, and all evils. The Romans are more
hard—shelled than those who belong to the world and by bad examples
dishonor all the world.”

12finals;1:41.393,,p. 86: and C. H. Lawrence, he n sh

W41: (London: Burns and Dates.
1965 . p. 127.

clergyme
be equal
sense of

This poi

three gr-
of 1215,
censures
Called f:
Church ar
emPeror ‘
wrote to
Drelates
hardships
seasiCkne
in 901m;
calling t
the Mala
necessity

attend th

 

 

 

123

clergyman often did look to Rome to solve their problems, they could
be equally critical of Rome if papal policies offended their own
sense of right and wrong and/or went against their own interests.
This point was to be demonstrated repeatedly throughout the century.

While churchmen generally showed enthusiasm towards the
three great general councils, especially the Fourth Lateran Council
of 1215, the popes had to threaten the prelates with ecclesiastical
censures to get them to attend in the first place.13 When Gregory Ix
called for a general council in 1240 to discuss the state of the
church and to determine what should be done with the rebellious
emperor Frederick 11, the lower clergy of both France and England
wrote to their ecclesiastical superiors and requested that the
prelates not attend the council. After recounting the numerous
hardships (strange languages, indigestble foods, storms, drowning,
seasickness, dysentry, and all other types of adversity) involved
in going to and staying in Rome, the clergy accused the pope of
calling the council only to get their money and recommended that
the prelates attend the council only if Gregory could prove dire
necessity.14 If the churchmen were a little less than eager to

attend the councils, those who chronicled the events of these great

 

13Letter of Convocation (April 19, 1213) as cited in C. R.

Cheney and W. H. Sample, §elg§ted Lettegs gf nge Innocent ill
nggegning England (1198-1216) (London: Thomas Nelson and Sons, Ltd.,
1953), p. 147: Henry Joseph Schroeder, 0.P., Qisgiglinary Degrees of
the aneggl Councils (St. Louis, Missouri: 8. Herder Book Company,

1937), pp. 236-237, 299, and 324: Elie Berger, Saint Logis gt Innocent
1!.(Paris: Thorin at File, 1893), pp. 122-123: and Jean Louis Alphonse

Huillard-BrGhollas, ed., st 0 ti d i Se ndi (6
vols.: Paris: Henricus Plan, 1852-1860), vol. VI, pp. 247-248.

14Hi8t0££a Q‘ElOMEiQE, V, ppm 1077-1085e

124
church meetings were generally much more enthusiastic about the number
of people attending the councils than with the reform measures
passed.15 Indeed, those recording the events of the Fourth Lateran
Council, probably the greatest of the medieval reform councils,
focused most of their attention on the political issues brought up
at the council.16 Writing towards the end of the century, Salimbene
even called this council useless, since he claimed it accomplished
nothing in the realm of real reform.17 Likewise, those reporting
on the First Council of Lyons were primarily interested in the
deposition of Frederick II and in recording clerical attacks upon

the papacy's financial policies.18 Chroniclers also showed only a

 

15For examples see Thomas Walsingham,‘CgrggiggJflggggggrri
§y_filgggi,(London: Longman, Green, Longman, Roberts, and Green, 1863),
p. 12: Guillaume de Nangis, Chronigue Latin de Cuillaume de Nangis de
111; Q 1:00 (Paris: Jules Renouard et Cie., 1843), pp. 150-151 and
244-245: Guillaume le Breton, "Geste Philippi Augusti,” in Dguvres de
Biggrg gt Cuillaumg lg Breton (Paris: Librairie Renouard, 1882), p.
306: Salimbene de Adam, ”Cronica," Monument; Germaniae Histories,
figrggrgrgg, vol. XXXII, p. 22: "Chronicon Marchiae Travisinae et
Lombardiee, 1207-1270," Bgrum Itglicarum Sgrigtores, vol. VIII, Part 3,
Po 6: Ryccardus de Sancto Germano, "Chronica,"‘figrgg_152li§2rgm
Scriptores, vol. VII, Part 2, p. 61: and "Platynae Historici: Liber de

vita Christi ac omnium pontificum,” Rgrum Italigargm Sgriptores, vol.
III. Part 1, p. 228s

16Stephen Kuttner and Antonio Garcia y Garcia, "A New
Eyewitness Account of the Fourth Lateran Council," aditio, xx (1964),
pp. 163-16‘: Albert von Stade, i h onik s A be t von Stade
(Leipiz: Verlag dar 0nkschen Buchhandlung), p. 61: ”Richeri Caste

Senoniansis ecclesiee,” flgnumgnta Carmaniae fiistoriga, firrigtores,
vol. XXV, pp. 300-301: Iohannes Longus da Ipra, ”Chronica Monesterii

Santi Bertini," floggggnga Cgrmagiae flisgorirg, figrigtorrs, vol. XXV,
p. 831: Guillaume da Nangis, gr, gi§., pp. 150-151: and Guillaume le
Breton, gr,'§i§., p. 306. One of the few major exceptions is found in
Ryccardus de Sancto Germano, 22,.g;§., pp. 61-72.

17C. G. Coulton, from 5;. frangis to Qante (New York:
Russell and Russell, 1907), p. 275.

18Matthew Paris, Englign flisgory, trans. by J. A. Giles

125

very limited enthusiasm for the Second Council of Lyons which they
generally mentioned in only two or three sentences.19 Moreover,
during both the councils held at Lyons the lesser prelates begged
permission to go home early because of the overwhelming expenses of
their stay.20 This whole general response of the clergy and prelates to
the reform councils was definitely rather unimpressive in view of the
high hopes of the papacy. At the same time the failure of most
chroniclers to take note of the new reform measures passed at these
councils indicated either that they had little or no interest in
reform or that they viewed the new measures as largely irrelevant to
their local problems.21

While the papacy's enthusiasm for reform was not shared by
all members of the clergy, some of its reform measures were met with
open hostility and were regarded as detrimental to the Church.
Innocent III's attempt to get rid of clerical marriages created a

certain amount of anger among the lower clergy, one of whom accused

 

(London: Henry G. Bohn, 1352), vol. II, pp. 68-73: Guillaume de
Nangia,‘gg..ri§., pp. 198-199: Salimbene, 22,,g;§., p. 177: ”Chronicon
Marchiae Travisinae et Lombardiae, 1207-1270," p. 17: Albert von Stade,
92. 311., p. 99: and Iohannes Longus de Ipra, 22. £i_t_., p. 843.

19”Annalas Londoniensis,” in Chrgniglgs of 5hr Reigns of

W (London! Longman and Company. 1882). p. 83:
Guillaume de Nangis, 92,‘r;§,, pp. 244-245: Salimbene, 92, git., p.

489: and Iohannes Longus da Ipra,.gg. cit., p. 858.

20Schroeder,_gg_. git., p. 325. Berger stated that the
clergy frequently fell into debt while staying at Lyons during the

pontificate of Innocent IV: firint Louis gt lnnggent 1!, p. 110.

21F. M. Powicke stated that the decrees of the Fourth
Lateran Council did not often pertain to local situations and were
hence ”not widely known in England": Thg Thirteenth Century, 1216-
];07 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1953), p. 450.

126
the pope of maliciously setting aside the natural law of God:
Non est Innocentius, immo nocens vere,
qui quod Deus docuit, studet abolere:
jussit enim Dominus foeminas habere,
sed hoc noster pontifex jussit prohibere.
Another clergyman argued that the prohibition against clerical
marriages merely increased the practice of concubinage:
Habebimus clerici dues concubines:
monachi, canonici, totidem vel trines:
dacani, praelati, quator vel quinas:
sic tandem leges implebimus divinas.
This attack on clerical celibacy as unnatural and leading to other
evils was later repeated in the Roman de 13 Bosg and by the
Franciscan Arnold of Villanova.24 Also, the French Church attempted
to retain clerical privileges for married clergy despite royal and

papal efforts to remove such privileges.25

While the papal ban on clerical marriages affected

 

22Thomas Wright, ed., The Latin Pogms Commonly Attributed
39W (London: John Bowyer Nichols and Son, 1841), p. 172.

Translation: "He is not Innocent, but truly injurious, who works to
abolish what God teaches: the Lord ordered us to have wives, but our
pope has ordered it prohibited."

23Ibid., p. 179. Translation: "We clerics have two
concubines: the monks and canons two or three: the deans and prelates
four or five: thus do we implement the divine laws.”

24Pierre Dubois, [hr Recovery of thg floly Len , trans. by
Walther I. Brandt (New York: Columbia University Press, 1956), p. 56

(Introduction).

ZSCerard J. Campbell, S.J., "Clerical Immunities in France
during the Reign of Philip III,” Spegulum, XXXIX (July 1964), p. 410.
The clerical attack on celibacy was nothing new to the thirteenth
century. During the early twelfth century the married archdeacon
Henry of Huntingdon had ended up opposing the whole Gregorian reform
scheme because of his opposition to clerical celibacy: Nancy Partner,
"Henry of Huntingdon: Clerical Celibacy and the Writing of History,"

Cngrgh firsgory, XLII (December 1973), p. 467.

127

primarily the lower clergy, the papal collation of benefices angered
all ranks of churchemn, particularly during the first half of the
century.26 This practice of papal provisions was particularly
onerous, since large percentages of local talent often failed to
find benefices.27 Such a situation was particularly true in England
where under fifty percent of the native clergy held benefices.28 Soon
after John's enfeofment of England to the papacy the reform archbishop
Stephen Langton protested loudly against the papal legate's free
dispersal of the country's benefices, a practice in direct violation
of the pope's own canons concerning the proper election of prelates.29
In 1231 various segments of the English clergy became so enraged
that they formed a secret society to eject foreign benefice holders
from the country and circulated letters protesting against the
excessive number of Romans in English churches:

How the Roman pontiffs and their legetes have behaved

themselves towards us and other ecclesiastics of England, we
are sure is no secret to you, and how they have conferred the

 

26A. L. Smith, Church and Statei;p the Middle Ages (Uxford:

Clarendon Press, 1913), p. 138: Robert Fawtier, The Cagetian gings of
frgnge: fionarghy gnd Ngtion, trans. by Lionel Butler and R. J. Adams
(New York: St. Martin's Press, 1966), p. 213: and Geoffrey
Barraclough, Eggs} Erovisions (Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood
Press, 1935), pp. 10-11.

27W. Nigel Yates, "Bishop Peter de Aquablanca (1240-1268):

A Reconsideration," Journal of Ecclesiastiggl fiistory, XXII (October
1971), p. 312a

28John R. H. Moorman, Churgh Lifg in England in the
Thirteenth antury (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1946),

pp. 4-5.

29F. M. Powicke, Stephen Langton (London: Merlin Press
Ltde, 1965), pp. 104-105e

128

benefices of the kingdom on their followers, at their pleasure,
to the great prejudice and injury of yourselves and all others
of the kingdom: and that they have fulminated sentences of
excommunication against you and your fellow bishops and other
ecclesiastics, to whom the collation of benefices properly
belongs, to the intent that you shall confer no benefices on a
native until five Romans... shall have been provided for in
each of your churches throughout England, each of them with a
revenue of a hundred pounds, besides other burdens which they
have imposed, both on the laity and nobles of the kingdom, in
the matter of advowsons and charities bequeathed by them and
their ancestors for the maintenance of the poor, as well as on
clerks and other rfiligious persons, concerning their property
and benefices....

This plight of the English Church was also decried in exaggerated
terms by the acid-tongued Matthew Paris:

Illiterate persons of the lowest rank, armed with the
bulls of the Roman Church, ... daily presumed... to plunder the
[churches'] revenues.... And if any of the injured or robbed
parties resorted to the remedy of appeal, or to the appeal of
privilege, they immediately suSpended and excommunicated them
by means of some other prelates, on authority of a warrant
from the pope.... [Agents] and farmers of the Romans, now
scraped together all that was useful and valuable, and
transmitted it to foreign countries to their1lords, who are
living daintily on the patrimony of Christ.

Nevertheless, in 1237 Robert Grosseteste, unlike the majority of
churchmen, accepted the practice of papal provisions as entirely
within the rights of the papacy: but he strongly warned against
their abuse:
I know and I truly know, that the lord Pope and the Holy
Roman Church have this power, that they can freely dispose of all
ecclesiastical benefices. I know also that whoever abuses this

power, builds for hell-fire: I know also that whoever does not u
it for the promotion of faith and charity is abusing this power.

 

3ORoger of Wendovsr, Flowers of fiisgory, trans. by J. A.
Giles (London: Henry G. Bohn, 1849), p. 544.

31Matthew Paris, gg, git., I, pp. 50-51.

32Letter to the legate Utto (1238) as cited in Pantin,
22, git., p. 188: and Robert Grosseteste, Egistglae, ed. by Henry

129
A few years later at the First Council of Lyons both the English
and French attacked the system of papal provisions as being injurious
to native clerks and in violation of the rights of local patrons.33
When Innocent IV attempted to insert his nephew Frederick Lavagns
into an English living despite his lack of proper qualifications,
Grossetesta responded that he could not do so because it violated the
integrity of the Church:

It is not possible, therefore that the Apostolic Sea, to which
has been handed down by Christ Himself power for edification and
not for destruction, can issue a precept so hateful and so
injurious to the human race as this: for to do so would
constitute a falling off, a corruption and abuse of its most holy
and plenary power. No one who is subject and faithful to the
said See in immaculate and sincere obedience, and is cut off from
the body of Christ and the said holy See by schism, can obey
commands and precepts such as this, even if it emanated from the
highest order of angels, but he must of necessity, and with his
whole strength, contradict and rebel against them.... To sum up,
the holiness of the apostolic See can only tend to sdification and
not to destruction: for the plenitude of its power consists in
being able to do all things for edification. These provisions,
however, as they are called, are not for edification, but for
manifest destruction. They are not, therefore, within the power
of the apostolic See: they owe their inspiration to 'flesh and
blood' which 'shall not inherit the kingdom of God,‘ 32d not to
the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ who is in heaven.

Here Grossetesta made disobedience to the Holy See into an act of
fidelity for the Christian faith: the papacy could not legitimately

use its power to destroy. Indeed, Grossetesta seemed to believe that

 

Richards Luard (London: Longman, Green, Longman, and Roberts, 1961),
pp. 144-145. Also see Tierney, "Grossetesta and the Theory of Papal
Sovereignty,” p. 9.

3Lawrence, gg, it., p. 149: "Annalee Londoniensis," p. 44:
Guillaume de Nangis, gg,‘g;£., pp. 198-199: and Matthew Paris, gg,‘g;§.,
II, p. 73s
34Francis Seymour Stevenson, gobgrt grossstgstg (London:
Macmillan and Company, Ltd., 1899), pp. 310-311. For the full letter
see Grosseteste, gg,‘§i§., pp. 432-437.

130

the papacy was itself guilty of abusing and destroying the effectiveness
of one of its own reform measures. Many other clergyman shared
Grossetesta's views and continued to see the whole system of papal
provisions as an abuse of papal power,3S although opposition generally
decreased towards the end of the century.36

Papal legetes were also quite unpopular with the clergy,
since they tended to usurp local power from the bishops and also to
drain local coffers.:57 Walter of Guisborough mockingly told how
successful legetes were in England, since they always managed to
leave with full pockets.38 While Matthew Paris often characterized
legetes as symbols of Roman greed,39 the outbreak of riots soon

after the arrival of these papal agents into an area also testified

to their unpopularity.4o When the legate Dttobono came to England

 

35Barraclough, Pa a1 P ovisions, pp. 146-147.
3?1g;g., p. 156. It should be noted that in France it was
not the clergy but the monarchy and nobility which led the fight
against papal provisions on the grounds that such papal practices
violated their own rights of patronage. The greater independence of
the English prelates allowed them to take a more active role in the
struggle, although here, too, the nobles and kings protested against
papal disregard for their rights of patronage. Indeed, the whole
struggle between King John and Innocent 111 over the archbishopric of
Canterbury was to a great extent involved with the king's rights of
patronage.

37C. R. Cheney, ”Cardinal John of Fsrsntino, papal legate
in England in 1206," English Historical Review, LXXVI (1961), p. 655.

38153 Cgroniglg of ngter of Guisborough, ed. by Harry

Rothwell (London: Camden Society, 1957), p. 258. Also see The
Chroniglg of Pigrre de Lgngtoft, ed. by Thomas Wright (London:

Longmans, Green, Reader, and Dyer, 1868), p. 132.

39Matthew pariS, 22a Eite’ I, pa 61a

40"Robsrt of Gloucester's Chronicle,” in The Churgh
Historians of finglgnd, trans. by Joseph Stevenson (London: Seelys,

131
to settle differences after the Barons' War, Robert of Gloucester
complained that the legate had come "with the pope's power to do
the king's will”.41 Legates were equally unpopular in France.
Rigord referred to the two papal legetes sent to settle Philip II's
divorce from Ingeborg as 'muts dogs incapable of barking'.42 In 1215
the French clergy protested loudly to both king and pops against the
unscrupulous practices of the legate sent to France to enlist more
crusaders for the Holy Land.43 During the minority of Louis IX
Blanche of Castile was greatly aided by a papal legate who helped
her retain royal power against the feudal lords. Contemporaries
often suggested an illicit relationship between the two:

Alas we die: slaughtered, despoiled and drowggd,
To such a fate by the legate's harlot bound.

The excessive use of legetes in the Holy Roman Empire during the
papal were against the Hohenstaufens likewise brought about
complaints from the local clergy who found their authority severely
cut.4S Otto, the papal legate in Germany from 1228 to 1231, had

almost no success in stirring up a rebellion against Henry VII but

 

1858), vol. V, Part 1, p. 357: The h onic e of Walte of Guisborou h,
p. 177: and ”Annalee Londoniensis,” pp. 35 and 76.

M”Robert of Gloucester's Chronicle." P- 375°

42Rigord, "Gesta Philippi Augusti," in geuvres de Rigord at
W (Paris: Librairie Renouard, 1882), p. 125.

43Guillaume le Breton, gg, cit.. Pp. 303-304.

‘4 h n onic of Bu t dmunds 212-130 , trans. by

Antonia Gransden (London: Thomas Nelson and Sons, Ltd., 1964), pp.
5-6e

4SBrentano, gg, git., p. 87.

132

did manage to excite the resentment of the German bishops by his
harsh projects for ecclesiastical reform and by his favoritism
towards the Dominicans.46 Armed with Henry's rule that only the
prelates could convoke church councils, almost none of the prelatss
showed up for the provincial council called by Otto at Cologne in
late 1230 so the council had to be dismissed.47 Later, the legate
Albert of Behan, who was sent to Germany to enlist aid for the papal
crusade against Frederick, was so unpopular that the dean and
chapter of Passeu publicly preached a crusade against Albert
instead--a crusade which many actually joined.48

The intrusion of papal justice into local areas and the
increased number of appeals to Rome also brought mixed reactions on the
part of churchmen. Clerical disputes over property rights, elections,
jurisdiction, and a host of other subjects occurred frequently in the
thirteenth century: and the weaker parties often appealed to Rome

for justice.49 Nevertheless, although the clergy often appeared

 

46uls§gria nglomatiga, pp. ccxix-ccxx.

4(19;g.. III, pp. 438-439. The Duke of Saxony and other

nobles said the council had only been called to extort more money
from the German Church and to give away rich prebends to forsignors:
Ibige' III, pp. 339'340e

48

lbid., V, pp. 1023-1027: and Palmer A. Throop, Critigism
of e u d of Public 0 inion nd usade Pro a soda
(Amsterdam: N. V. Swets and Zeitlingsr, 1940), p. 53.
49

Colin Morris, "From Synod to Consistory: The Bishops'
Courts in England, 1150-1250," ourna of lesiasti a Histo ,

XXII (April 1971), p. 115: Dubois, gg.'gl§., pp. 93-94: John C. Moore,
"Papal Justice in France Around the Time of Pope Innocent III,” Churgh
Histo , XLI (September 1972), pp. 295-296: Jean-Frangois Lemarignier,
Jean Gaudemet, et Mgr. Guillaume Mollat, istoire dss Institutions

frangais au Moygn Age, vol. III: lnstitutions Ecclesiasgiguss (Paris:

Presses Universitaires de France, 1962), pp. 191-192: and Augustin

133
both willing and eager to utilize the papal court to settle their
problems,50 they also often complained that the Roman court was using
these many appeals primarily to extort more money from the clergy.
In 1255 the chronicler Burchard wrote,

There remains scarcely any bishopric or ecclesiastical
dignity, or even a parochial church, which is not made the
subject of litigation and its cause carried to Rome: but not
with empty hands. Rejoice, Rome, our mother, because cataracts
of treasures are opened in the land so t t brooks and piles
of money flow to you in great abundance.

Many of the litigants indeed became severely disillusioned with Rome
either because of the loss of suits or because of the high costs
involved. Instead of a high court of justice Rome was often
conceived of as the fountain of corruption where cases were judged
according to the pecuniary assets of the plaintiffs rather than
according to the merits of the case.52 Many openly complained that
the only way to win a case in Rome was by bribes:
Cum ad papem vensris, habe pro constanti,

Non est locus pauperi, soli favet danti:

Vel si menus praestitum non est aliquanti,

Respondet hic tibi sic, Non est michi tanti.

Papa, si rem tangmus, nomen habet a re,
Ouicquid habent alii, solus vult papers:

 

Fliche, Christine Thouzellier, st Yvonne Azais, fiistoire de I'Eglise,

vol. X: La Cgrgglengfi romaine (1198-1274) (Paris: Bloud at Gay,

1950), p. 148.

50Brian Tierney, "The Continuity of Papal Political Theory
in the Thirteenth Century, Some Methodological Considerations," Medieval

fitndigs, XXVII (1965), p. 245: and Ewart Lewis, Medievgl Politigal Ideas
(2 vols.: New York: Alfred A. Knolf, 1954), vol. II, p. 520.

 

51William E. Lunt, nan 1 Re a ions of he Pa a with
England tg 1327 (Cambridge, Massachusetts: The Medieval Academy of
America, 1939), p. 181.

52Brentano stated that all Europeans saw the Roman court as
filled with intrigues and poison: Brentano, gg, cit., pp. 10-25.

134

Vel si verbum Callicum vis apocopare,--
Paez, Paez, dit li mot, 51 via impetrare.

The whole papal court was seen as an extension of the old corrUpt

Roman senate:

Roma mundi caput est, sed nil capit mundum,
quod pendet a capite, totum est immundum;
trahit enim vitium primum in secundum,

et de fundo redolet, quod est iuxta fundum.
Roma capit singulos et res singulorum,
Romanorum curia non est nisi forum.

Ibi sunt venalia iura senatorum,

et solvit contraria copia nummorum.

In hoc consistorio si quis causam reget,
suam vel alterius, hoc imprimis legat:

nisi det Pecuniam, Roma totum negat;

quis plus dat pecuniae, melius allegat.
Romani capitulum habent in decretio,

ut petentes audiant manibus repletis.
Debis, aut non dabitur, petunt, quangg petis,
qua mensura semines, et eadem metis.

At the same time papal justice was usually quite slow and was often

 

53Thomas Wright, ed., The Political Songs of England

(London: John Bowyer Nichols and Son, 1839), pp. 16-17. Translation:
”when you come to the Pope, take it as a rule, that there is no place
for the poor, he favors only the giver: or if there is not a bribe of
some value or another forthcoming, he answers you, 'I am not able.‘ /
The Pope, if we come to the truth of the matter, has his name from the
fact that, whatever others have, he will suck the pap; or if you like
to apocopate a French word, 'pay, pay,’ saith the word, if you wish to
obtain anything." Similar poems can be found in the Carmina Burana,
pp. ‘, 10, 15, 43, and S40

54Carmina Bugana, pp. 76-77. Translation: "Rome is the
head of the world, but it seizes nothing clean, whatever hangs from
the head is completely dirty: it truly drags the first fault into a
second one, and what is near the bottom smells of the bottom. Rome
seizes everything: the court of the Romans is nothing but a market.

In that place are the venal laws of the senators, and it releases
according to the abundance of money. In this consistory, if anyone
wishes to direct a cause, either his own or another's, the first rule
is: unless he gives money, Rome negates everything: whoever gives the
most mmney gains the best commission. Romans have a little head in
this resolve as they can hear only requests with full hands. You give
or nothing is given; they request as much as you request; by what
measure you sow, the same shall you reap.”

135

hampered by faulty information.55 Writing in the late thirteenth
century, Prior Richard Claxton reported, ”Cases in the court of Rome
are like things immortal and only with difficulty come to any
effective and."56

While many clerks were doubtlessly alienated by the
slowness, the high costs, the impersonality, and the sheer immensity
of the papal curia, the intrusion of papal justice into the local
level often caused resentment among the major prelates who found
their jurisdictional rights over local churches and monasteries
being usurped by the papacy. Bishops who were devoted to the
eradication of local abuses often saw their efforts thwarted by
special papal privileges granted to various individuals or monastic
institutions.57 While exempt monasteries completely escaped from
their authority,58 the bishops also complained that appeal cases to
Rome denied them of their own judicial rights and prevented any true

reforms because of the long delays created by such appeals.59 The

Italian bishops particularly suffered from their proximity to Rome

 

55C. R. Cheney, "England and the Roman Curie under Innocent

III,” Journal of Egglgsiastigal History, XVIII (October 1967), pp. 182-
183: and Moore, ”Papal Justice in France,” p. 300.

56hours, ”Papal Justice in France," pp. 300-301.

57J. H. Danton, "Royal Supremacy in Ancient Desmesne
Churches,” ou na as t a isto , XXII (October 1971), p.
2993 Morris, me Me, 9. 115’ OHd Lemarignier £21.03 220 Site, 9.
195.

58
Cheney and Sample, 22. cit., p. 193: and Lemarignier

£210, 22. 91:0, pp. 237-238 80d 26‘s

59Stevenson, 22. cit., pp. 284-288: and Moore, "Papal
Justice in France," p. 305.

136

which allowed easy appeals to the papal court.60 An excellent example
of the delays and confusion caused by appeals to Rome for even a minor
ecclesiastical diocese was presented by a small monastery in Anjou.
Upon his election in 1227 the abbot Gaufridus attempted to correct some
monastic abuses by deposing some monks from high office. The deposed
monks, however, appealed to Rome where the case dragged on for over ten
years to the detriment of the abbot's reform plans. In the meantime
the local bishop was trying to assert jurisdictional rights over the
monastery thus provoking the abbot to appeal to Rome. This case also
lasted ten years. Finally, after twenty-two years of almost continual
litigation, the abbot was forced to resign by the pope. Nothing in the
way of true reform had been accomplished: and the hostility between the
monks and the bishop had been intensified rather than soothed by the
appeals to Rome.61

The local clergy were also becoming increasingly irritated
over the intrusion of friars into their dioceses and frequently
appealed to Rome for aid.62 Although the popes did occasionally try to
rectify obvious abuses, they realized the importance of the friars both
as papal agents and as religious leaders in urban communities and could

not therefore totally desert the mendicants.63 Churchmen, however,

 

608tentano,ggg..git., p. 88.

61”Historia Sancti Florentii Salmurensis," in Qhronigues dss
Eglisgs g'finjou (Paris: Mme Va Jules Renouard, 1869), pp. 318-320.

62Geoffrey Barraclough, The Mgdigvgl Papecy (New York:
Harcourt, Bruce and World, Ines. 1968), De 1343 afld FaWtiere _°_2e site,

p. 213e

63tdouard Jordan,“Le Premier Siacle Franciscain: Les Grandes

Crises de l'Drder," in Saint Frangois d'Assise: son oeuvre--son

137
usually only saw the infringements upon their rights and the loss of
their resources.64 From 1252 to 1257 frequent rioting broke out at the
University of Paris in protest against the placement of mendicants in
university chairs.65 At first the scholars appealed to the papacy for
support: but, when the pope sided with the friars, they attacked him,
too.66 The attack was made even stronger in 1255 when the University
denounced the ”pontifical innovation" of the mendicant orders and
claimed that such an innovation could not be made without the consent
of a general council.67 Guillaume de Saint-Amour, who, as a canon of
Beauvais, in 1244 had attacked papal privileges given the mendicants,68
even went so far as to declare the mendicant way of life as contrary to
morality and religion.69 In his poem "La Bataille des Vices contres
les Vertues“ Rutebeuf denounced Pope Alexander IV by name for his

support of the mendicants who, as Rutebeuf maintained, were destroying

 

infilggngg. 1226-1226 (Paris: Editions E. Droz, 1927), p. 104.

64Henry 8ett, Joachim of Flor; (London: Methuen and
Company, Ltd., 1931), p. 68: and "Richeri Cesta Senoniansis
ecclesiae," pp. 306-308.

65Bett, 92, cit., p. 73: and Guillaume de Nangis, 22, cit.,
p. 209.

66 s tes d utebeu , p. 70: and Bett,‘gg. 9i .,
pp. 77-79.

67 u s cm lDtes d Rutebeu , pp. 73-74,

68Lemr19nier it 2;." 22e site, pe 313e

69De 1 ulis novissimorum te o um (1255) as cited in

Etienne Cilson, The Philosophy of fit. Bonaventure, trans. by Dom
Illtyd Trethowan (New York: Sheed and Ward, 1939), p. 13: Salimbene,

22. git., pp. 53, 300, and 455: and "Platynae Historici," p. 240.

138
the faith.70 Meanwhile, Guillaume's supporters accused the papacy of
having Guillaume's book burned not because it contained any heresy but
because it attacked the cherished mendicants.71 Later, when the two
Franciscan popes Martin IV and Nicholas IV bestowed a great number of
privileges on the friars, a large number of the clergy were indignant
at the papal actions and sent protests to Rome with the University of
Paris again supporting the seculars against the mendicants.72 One
chronicler of London indeed seemed to rejoice at Nicholas' death,
since he believed that this pope had gravely wronged older religious
orders to favor such friars as John Pecham, who had been uncanonically
made archbishop of Canterbury by the papacy.73 Nevertheless, the
older clerical bodies did not always associate the intrusion of friars
into local dioceses with some sinister papal plot to undermine local
authority:74 and many of the clergy continued to appeal to the pope to
stop mendicant infringements.

The mendicants, particularly the Spiritual Franciscans,

 

7Dquyrgs Completes dg Rutebeu , pp. 299-312.

71Guillaume de Nangis, g2. cit., pp. 216-217.

h oni e of L ne ost 27 - 346, trans. by Herbert
Maxwell (Glasgow: James Maclehose and Sons, 1913), pp. 25-26: Richard
Kay, ”An Episcopal Petition from the Province of Rouen, 1281,” Church
‘fligfiggx, XXXIV (September 1965), p. 294: Thomas Walsingham,‘gg.‘§;§.,
p. 28: Jordan, ”Le Premier SiEcle Franciscain," p. 126: and

Lemarignier‘gtnglg,‘ggg Eite. pe 217e

73”Ann8188 LOHdoniBn81Se” P. 100e

74For example, Jean de Meun, who bitterly attacked the
mendicants in his section of the Roman 9g la 3059, made no reference
to their relationship with the papacy. Salimbene also mentioned a
church council at Ravenna in 1261 where the lower clergy rebelled
against the privileges of the mendicants but made no mention of the
papacy: Salimbene, gg.‘§i§., p. 403.

139
were also not always happy with papal policies. While Salimbene
openly blamed the death of two popes on their attempts to limit
mendicant privileges,7S the Spiritual Franciscans often viewed such
privileges as contrary to the wishes of their founder.76 Although
up until the 1290's those who wished to follow the Iestamentum of St.
Francis in a strict manner generally vented their outrage towards the
growing laxity in the order on the Conventuals and requested the
papacy for aid,77 the lines of future antagonism between the papacy
and the Spirituals had been clearly drawn by the 1240's when the
Franciscan ideals of poverty and simplicity became mixed with Joachite
expectations of a coming new age.78 During the late twelfth century
Joachim of Fiore, who claimed to be able to predict the future by a

careful reading of the Old and New Testaments,79 had written three

 

7SSalimbene,‘gg. git., pp. 419, 618-619, and 629. The two
popes were Innocent IV and Honorius IV.

76Jordan, "Le Premier Siacle Franciscain," p. 93.

77Jacques Paul, ”Les Franciscans et la pauvreté aux XIIIe
et XIVe schles,” vu d'histoire de l' lise de F an e, LII (1966),
p. 34: and Jordan, ”Le Premier Siecle Franciscain,” p. 100.

78Salimbene noted that some Franciscans viewed Joachim's
{ideas as dangerous to the order: Salimbene, 92, cit., p. 237. For
the significance of Joachim's ideas to the Franciscans see Marjorie
Reeves, Th nf n e f P 0 he in the a e Middl A as A Stud
in Joachimism (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1969), p. 175: and Paul
Fournier, u a him e lo et 3 s o t s (Frankfort:
Minerva GMBH, 1963), p. 40.

79Decima L. Douie, The Nature and the Effiegt of the Heresy
of’tng [ragigglli (Manchester: University Press, 1932), p. 24: and
Fournier,‘22,‘§it., p. 11. Contemporaries believed Joachim had the
gift of prophecy: Guillaume de Nangis, 92,'gi£., pp. 81-82: Salimbene,
22. £35." pp. 19, 242, and 247: and "Alberti Milioli notarii Regini
Isiber de temporibus et aestetibus et cronica imperetorum," Monuments

Ggrmnias ”13tOI1gal SEEiQtOEBS, XXXIe pe 452a

140

major works (Concordia Noyi ac Veteris Testamenti, Expositio in

 

Agogalygsim, and Psalterium) in which he divided the history of the
world into three ages: 1) the Age of the Father as represented by the
Old Testament, 2) the Age of the Son as represented by the New
Testament, and 3) the Age of the Spirit to be represented by new
orders of religious men who would first endure a great period of

tribulation.80 Although Joachim never intentionally attacked the

papacy which had indeed fostered many of his writings,81 his ideas
concerning a coming new age presided over by a "purified" pope and
represented by new Spiritual orders gave an anti-establishment bent to
his writings.82 After falling into disrepute for a short while
following the condemnation of his attack on Peter Lombard by the
Fourth Lateran Council,B3 interest in Joachim's works revived during

the 1240's when the war between the papacy and the Empire was

reaching its height84 and when the antagonism between the Spirituals

 

8DSalimbene,_gg.§-_it., p. 466: Reeves, The Influence of
P 0 he . PP. 126-142 and 303-306: and Bett, g2, §i£., pp. 44-47.
Contemporaries of Joachim were primarily concerned with his
predictions concerning the end of the world in two generations:
Guillaume de Nangis, 22.'§it., pp. 81-82.

B1FOUPU13P, 22e gite, pe 26; and Bett, 92' site, pe 17e

82Morton W. Bloomfield, "Joachim of Flora: A Critical
Study of His Canon, Teachings, Sources, Biography and Influence,"
'Tgaditio, XIII (1957), pp. 249 and 267: and Douie, 22..§;t., pp. 25-
26. Joachim gave no clear time period for the coming new age: Bett,
gyg.‘§i£., p. 28: Reeves, lhgfllnfluence of Prophecy, pp. 395-396: and
Salimbene, 920 Elie, p0 239s

83Salimbene, 22, git., p. 239: Guillaume de Nangis,
£53. cit., pp. 150-151: and 8ett,lgg. git., pp. 62 and 102.

4
B The Joachite expectations concerning Frederick II are
fully'mentioned in Reeves, The Influence of Prophecy, pp. 126-170.

141
and the Conventuals was being clearly delineated.85 The 5322;
His emiam, or Expositio in fiieremiam,86 which appeared around 1242 and
was supposedly an original work by Joachim, heralded the two new
mendicant orders as the forerunners of the third age87 and prophesied
the new age to arrive in the year 1260.88 Although this work
criticized both the Empire and the papacy,89 it was particularly hard
on the papacy and bitterly denounced the Donation of Constantine for
involving the Church in secular affairs.90 Furthermore, this work was
extremely critical of the crusades and said the popes should mourn
over their own Jerusalem, the Universal Church, and stop exhausting
Christendom with hopeless were against the Saracens.91 Picturing
Rome as Babylon, the classic symbol of greed, this pseudo-Joachite
work also foretold that the new mendicant orders would ultimately be
the leaders in the reformation and punishment of the existing Church:
'These two orders are to be born simply and humbly in the Church, but
by process of time they will courageously chastize and reprove the

fornication of Babylon.‘92 This idea of the Franciscans holding a

 

BSSalimbene, 22, git., pp. 231-236: and Bloomfield,
22, cit., p. 297.

86Fournier, g2, git., p. 48. According to Salimbene, the
Commentary on Jeremiah was the most widely read Joachite work:
Salimbene, ‘Q‘Qe Cite. pe 2370

87Salimbene, 92, cit., pp. 101, 266, 415, 441, and 540.

88Ibid., pp. 293 and 466. 89Ibid., p. 439.

 

90Bloomfield,9_p_. cit., p. 252: Jordan, "Le Premier Siecle
Franciscain,” p. 111: and Douie, 92. cit., p. 27.

91Thr00p, £220 Cite, pe 174e

9?§222£_fl$§£§migm_as cited in Salimbene, 22, cit., p. 640.

142

prominent place in the world during a transitional period in history
was again presented in a life of St. Francis by three of his early
followers in 1246:

[Francis once said,] "The fellowship and life of the Friars

Minor is a feeble flock which the son of God in these last

days has requested of his heavenly Father, saying: 'Father,

I wish that you would create and give to me in these last

days a new and humble people, differing in humility and in

poverty from all th gs who have gone before, and content to

have me alone.'...”
Although this work repeated Francis' warning against accepting papal
privileges which might offend local bishops,94 it nevertheless failed
to make any direct attack on the papacy but levelled most of its
complaints against those in the order who wished to follow a more
lax interpretation of the Rule. A full mingling of Joachite ideas
and the aspirations of the Spiritual Franciscans was not produced
until around 1254, when a certain Gerard of Borgo San Donnino wrote
An Introdugtion to the Eternal Gosgel, which stated that Joachim's
works constituted the eternal gospel, that St. Francis was the new
lawgiver sent by God, and that the Spiritual Franciscans were the
new order foretold by Joachim.95 Gerard was thus the first to

portray Francis as a second Christ, a common element in later

 

9§§££é2£2_L20n18.lfigfini,et Angeli §ociorum g. Francisci
([hg Writings of Leo. Bufinoignd Angelo Comganions of St. Francis),

ed. and trans. by Rosalind 8. Brooke (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1970),
p. 203e

 

gdlbide, pp. 113-115 and 289e

95Walter L. Wakefield and Austin P. Evans, Heresies of the
liigh Migglg Aggs: Sglggted Sourges (New York: Columbia University

llress, 1969), p. 416: and Gordon Leff, Heresy in thg Later Middle Ages

(2 vols.: New York: Barnes and Noble, Inc., 1967), vol. I, pp. 69-72:
and Bett, gg. git” pp. 105-111.

143
Spiritualist thought.96 Although this work was quickly proclaimed
heretical and its author imprisoned,97 many of its ideas, especially
the exaggerated significance of St. Francis, were to be espoused
throughout the remainder of the century. Even the conventual
Bonaventure, who maintained that a certain amount of degeneracy was
natural as the order numerically increased and lost contact with its
original founder,98 referred to Francis as "another Angel, ascending
from the sunrising and bearing the seal of the Living God", "the 1
messenger of God”, and the "beloved of Christ",99 sent "to repair the 1
material Church”.100 Towards the end of his Life of St. Francis
Bonaventure even stated that Francis had been "wholly transformed
into the likeness of Christ crucified, not by martyrdom of body, but
by enkindling of heart".101 Although Bonaventure was quick to show
the saint's great respect for papal authority,102 he also represented
Francis, ”a little poor man, of mean stature and humble aspect," as
propping up the Lateran Basilica with his back.103 Likewise, the

worldly Salimbene, who sincerely believed that the Franciscan Order

had been prophesied in the Commentary on gergmigH, could not help

 

96Karl Bihlmeyer, ChurgH History, revised by Herman

Tuechle and trans. by Victor E. Mills and Francis Muller (Westminster,
Maryland: Newman Press, 1963), vol. II, p. 304: and Leff, Heresy in

W322. p- 176-

9788tt,‘223‘£;£e, p. 111e

98Gilson, gg. git” p. 62.

99Bonaventure, Life of St. Frgncis (London: Everyman's
Library, 1963), pp. 303-304.

100 101

1b;d0' p. 311e Ibido. pe 322s
102 103

lgigep ppe 320-321e lbige

 

144
comparing Francis to Christ and frequently referred to Francis' twelve

‘04 This identity of Francis with Christ had serious

early disciples.
consequences for the papacy: and in 1274 several Italian Spirituals
were imprisoned for their opposition to a new papal definition of
Franciscan poverty. Arguing that Francis' [estamentum was as sacred
as the New Testament, these Spirituals denied the ability of the pope
to modify the Franciscan Order in any way.105 Nevertheless, the
anti-papal tendencies of the Joachite ideas and of the Spirituals'
discontent with the growing laxity in the order did not become critical
until Boniface VIII ordered the Spirituals of Italy, who had been
allowed to form a separate order by Celestine v, to return to their
regular Franciscan order.106 Many of the zealots under the leadership
of Ubertino da Casale then became furious at the pope and denied his
authority on the grounds that the previous pope Celestine had not had
the right to resign.107 One of these Spirituals, Jacopone de Todi,
openly joined Boniface's enemies, the Colonna cardinals, and accused

the pope of unprecedented avarice:

0 Papa Bonifatio

 

1°4Salimbene, .99.- m” pp. 75, 195, and 239-290.

105Georges Digard, Ehiliggg ls 8e; gt lg figint-sifige de 1285
§_1§Qg (2 vols.: Paris: Librairie du Recueil Sirey, 1936), pp. 144-

145: and Carter Pertee, O.F.M., "Peter John Olivi: Historical and
Doctrinal Study,” Ergggisgan fitggies, XX (September-December 1960),
p. 21 7e

106Leff, s n th to Mi A as, p. 170.

107Jordan, ”Le Premier Siecle Franciscain," p. 131. Many

stories circulated concerning Boniface's trickery to get Celestine V
to resign. See Thomas Walsingham, gg,‘g;§., p. 62: Guillaume de
Nangis,.gg..g;§., pp. 284-285: "Platynae Historici," pp. 258-259: and
Iohannes Longus de Ipra, gg,'git., p. 866.

 

 

145

Malta hai jocato al mondo

Penas che jocondo

Non ta porrai partire.

Pare che la vergogna

Deriato agi gittata:

L'alma et el corpo hai posto

Ad allevar tua casata.

O pessima avaritia

Sete induplicata,

Bevere tanta pecunia08

Non essere satiatel
Meanwhile, another Franciscan, Peter John Olivi, from Languedoc became
the rallying point for the Spirituals' dissffection with the papacy.1

While insisting upon complete obedience to the Holy See,110 Olivi in

his grggsitio in Agogglygsim heavily attacked the abuses surrounding

the ecclesiastical hierarchy111 and denied the ability of the pope to

dispense a friar from his vow of poverty.112 Rather than completely
denying the validity of the institutionalized church, Olivi drew a
distinction between the sinful carnal church under a corrupt papacy

and the spiritual church which would eventually be led by a purified

 

108H9nry Dwight Sedgwick, Italy in thg Thirteenth Century

(New York: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1912), vol. II, pp. 317-318.
‘Translation: "0 Pope Boniface, you've had a merry day, but when you
go away, it won't be with a jolly face. It seems that you have
:shameless been, yes flung all shame aside, and all your soul applied to
elevate your kith and kin. O avarice still worse than pride, 0 thirst
most multifold, to drink a monstrous mass of gold and still be quite
unsatisfied.” A similar denunciation of Boniface was made by Ubertino

da Casale: Leff, Herggy in Egg Lgrgr Migdlg Aggs, p. 127.
109Leff, ngggy in tHg L222: Miggle Aggs, pp. 101-102.

(Ilivi opposed the radicals who denied Boniface's legitimacy.

110Me’ p. 119e

we. pe 129’ and Donia. 230 site, pe 91e

112Leff, es in he at Midd A es, p. 113: and
00013, 92e Bite. pp. 114-11Se

111

 

146

Roman shepherd.113 Again likening Francis to a second Christ, Olivi
denied the ability of the pope to dispense or absolve friars from
the Igggggggtg! of St. Francis.114 With so much hostility being
directed against the Holy See Boniface finally felt forced to make
inquiries into the orthodoxy of the Spirituals:115 and some were
persecuted as heretics during the early fourteenth century.116

While the papacy's reform measures were meeting far from
total success, its efforts to gain financial aid, primarily in the
form of crusade tithes, from the churchmen continually encountered
negative responses throughout the century. Since many of the clergy
were already suffering from a relative decline in their monetary
prosperity,117 papal encroachments in the financial realm were often
viewed as a further drain on already limited resources.118 When

Innocent III desired to place an income tax on the clergy for a

proposed crusade early in his pontificate, the clergy of France and

 

11:I’Paul, ”Les Franciscans et la pauvret‘,” p. 35: Fournier,
‘gg.'g;§., pp. 42-43: and David Burr, ”The Apocalyptic Element in
Olivi's Critique of Aristotle,“ Churgh History, XL (March 1971), p. 24.

114Marc Bloch, n sous n s tians 2 3-
1328 (Paris: Librairie Armand Colin, 1958), p. 112: Bett, g2, gi§.,
pp. 138-139: and Douie, 532. mu p. 114.

11SBull of October 22, 1296: Douie, 32, git., p. 257.

116Paul, ”Les Franciscans at la pauvret‘,“ p. 35: and Bett,
gr, cit., p. 140. For a fuller view of Spiritual thought see 13g

Mirror of Pgrfiggtion (London: Everyman's Library, 1963).

117Charles Renardy, ”Recherches sur la restitution ou la

cession de dimes aux (glises dans le diocese de LiEge du XIe au debut
du XIVe schle,” MASS: LXXVI (1970), p. 235: and Lemarignier
£91., 0 e Big” ppe 22‘ 30d 227s

118Roger of Wendovsr, gg. gi§., pp. 462-465.

147
England only consented after he had promised that such a tax would not
serve as a precedent for future taxation.119 Later, when he attempted
to have a tenth of all cathedral revenues put at the disposal of the
papacy, he met with total resistance from those attending the Fourth
Lateran Council and had to withdraw the plan.120 A few years later
Honorius III proposed a similar plan and again had to abandon it after
an initial reaction of outrage on the part of the French and English
clergy who protested to the papal legetes that they were already paying
too much for the Roman curia.121 The clergy argued repeatedly that the
papal ownership of churches applied to the protection of these churches
and not to their fruits.122 One of the main complaints of the clergy
against paying crusade taxes was that the money was often not used for
the Holy Land.123 Early in the century a Cluniac monk named Guyot de
Provins wrote a satire on the Church called‘Lg_§;ng, in which he

accused the papacy of avarice and asked why the crusades were primarily

 

119Horace Kinder Mann, e i s f the Po s in the Middle
‘Hggg,(London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner and Company, 1931), vol. XI,
pp. 236-237.

120
Me, XII, ppe 295-2963 arid Throop, 920 Me, Do 73e
Innocent's own willingness to abandon the matter suggests that he, too,
might have shared the views of his contemporaries that monetary concerns
were somehow alien to the true purpose of a religious institution. At
any rate, had this proposal been accepted, it might have provided a
permanent income for the papacy and decreased the monetary requests
coming from Rome.

121Roger of Wendovsr, gg, git., pp. 462-465.

122Convocation of the English clergy (January 18, 1256):
LUHt, 22' sue, pp. 270-271e

12lihaureen Purcell, "Changing Views of the Crusade in the

‘Thirteenth Century,“ Ihg Jogrnal of Religiogs History, VII (June
1972), pp. 3-19: and Throop, gg. giht,” p. 24.

148
direct against the Greeks.124 Likewise, according to Roger of
Wendovsr, many churchmen felt that the crusade against the Albigensian
heretics was not perfectly moral:125 and in 1226 the French clergy
protested loudly against paying subsidies for another venture in
Southern France, since these subsidies would reduce the French Church
to a state of servitude while doing nothing to promote religion, king,

126

or kingdom. Monies collected for the papal wars against Frederick

II and the remaining Hohenstaufens also enraged many of the clergy who
did not consider a war against a Christian prince to be a crusade.127
In their complaints against the papal subsidy of 1240 the English
clergy gave the following objections: 1) the subsidy was to finance

a war against a Christian prince married to their king's sister: 2)

it would render them liable to capture if they wished to travel through
imperial lands: 3) it would pauperize England where many were already
on a crusade to the Holy Land: 4) it was disadvantageous to local

church patrons: 5) it was contrary to the liberty of the English

Church: 6) it would become customary: 7) it ought to be a general

 

124Throop, 92s site, p. 30s

125Roger of Wendovsr, gg, g;£,, p. 226: and Edward Peters,
ed., h i n o i t and e u ades 98-1229 Sou ces in
Trggglarion (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, 1971), pp.
xvi and 29.

126Charles Petit-Dutaillis, Etude sur 12 vig gt le regne de
Louis Hill (Paris: Librairie Emile Bouillon, 1894), pp. 293-294: and

FIIChB Eggs, 0 a $0, pe 305e
127R. W. Carlyle and A. J. Carlyle, A History of Megieval

Eolitigal Thgory in the Hggt, vol. V: [He Politigal Theory of the
Thirteenth Century (New York: Barnes and Noble, Inc., 1928), p. 225:

Throop, ggp‘gig., p. 27: Lawrence, gg, git., p. 145: Matthew Paris,
‘gg..git., I, pp. 261-265: and Roger of Wendovsr, 22, git., pp. 528-
530.

149
contribution by all countries: 8) it should be handled by the coming
general council: 9) it would end the hospitality of churches by
taking all their money: 10) ecclesiastical goods could not be
contributed to warfare without a general council: 11) the pope had no
right to tax them, since he had the care, not the ownership, of
churches: 12) the Roman Church had its own patrimony to pay for its
needs: and 13) Frederick II had not yet been convicted of heresy.12
The papal attempt to place new claimants on the throne of Sicily was
likewise resented by the clergy of both France and England, since they
were the ones held responsible for financing the ventures.129 When a
papal legate called for a tenth of all ecclesiastical revenues for
another crusade at a council at Paris in 1263, the French bishops
refused the demand and stated their independence from the papacy,
although they eventually gave the sum as a gift out of their own
generosity.130 By the time Gregory X attempted to raise more crusade
funds at the Second Council of Lyons, the clergy were fully suspicious
of such papal crusade proposals which they had to finance and only
consented (with no enthusiasm) to contribute financial aid to the new
crusade project after lodging numerous complaints that such taxation

would ruin their churches and after the papacy had promised to return

money not used for a crusade.131 Later, Salimbene, who openly decried

 

128Lunt,'gg. git., pp. 200-202.

129Mann,_gg,. cit., XV, p. 229.

130Lalarignier 9:; 91a, 22e site, pe 320e

131Flicheigg.g;.,‘gg. cit., pp. 495-500: and Throop, g2. cit.,
pp. 227 and 239e

150
the political ambitions of the popes,132 cynically noted that in the
Italian civil wars Martin IV spent ”1,400,000 golden florins, which
sum was from the tithes of all the churches which Pope Gregory IX had
gathered for the succour of the Holy Land, and which was thus diverted
from its true purpose".133 If Salimbene differed from many churchmen
in that he fully accepted the papacy's right to receive unlimited
financial aid from local churches, he nevertheless felt that it was
necessary for the papacy to spend such money in worthy pursuits.

While churchmen often found that the monetary demands of the
papacy conflicted with the financial interests of their own local
churches, the intrusion of the papacy into national political affairs
also often put churchmen in the uncomfortable position of having to
choose between loyalty to the Church as represented by the papacy and
loyalty to the needs and interests of their own churches and countries.
Because of the widespread effort on the part of nobles and townsmen in
both France and the Holy Roman Empire to usurp church rights the clergy
of these two countries were often dependent upon the kings and emperors
for protection.134 As long as the papacy was on good terms with these
secular rulers, the relationships were smooth or at least fairly

stable. However, when the papacy became locked in a dispute with these

same rulers, churchmen often found themselves in the middle. At the

 

132Salimbene, g2. gi§., p. 302: and Coulton, From St.

Frgggis go Qantg. DP. 237-238.

1335alimbena, 22. gig” p. 438: and Coulton, M
Frangig to ante, p. 272. A similar note is found in ”Alberti Milioli
notarii Regini Liber de temporibus et aestetibus et cronica
imperatorum," p. 549.

13"’riiche £391., 92. git., p. 477.

151

same time a strong alliance between the papacy and the secular rulers
was also resented by the clergy if they believed such an alliance to be
harmful to the interests of local churches. Moreover, the thirteenth
century marked the beginning of national churches whereby the prelates
began to identify themselves with a certain nationality group.135

The were between the Empire and the papacy during the first
half of the century involved many of the imperial prelates in a
conflict of interests. Since several of the German prelates were
also great landed princes with electoral rights in the imperial

136 they owed as much loyalty to the state as they did to

elections,
the church.137 Meanwhile, by the beginning of the thirteenth
century Italy had become so divided into small, often insignificant
bishoprics and srchbishoprics that few of the prelates had the power
or money to do more than watch over their own interests and could
therefore give the papacy little aid.138 At the same time the
usurpation of church property and rights by townsmen in both Italy

and Germany created a need among the bishops to have their rights

 

13sAlexander Clarence Flick, [he Qggling of tHg Medievgl
Churgh (London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner, and Company, Ltd.,

1930), vol. I, pp. 14-15: and Lemarignier.g§.g;,.gg. git., pp. 145
8""! 321 e

136Charles C. Bayley, [Hg Fgrmation of thg Cgrman College

of Clggtors in thg Mig-lhirteenrh Century (Toronto: University of
Toronto Press, 1948), p. 182. The German Electors included the

archbishops of Mainz, Cologne, and Trier.

137The fact that Frederick II also filled many vacant
bishoprics with his own appointees also undoubtedly increased the

loyalty of prelates to the state: Historia Qiglomatiga, II, pp. 522-
523 and IV, pp. 828-832 and 905-913.

1383t8ntan0, 22. site, ppe 63-78e

152
and property protected by a strong civil power.139 On the other hand
the prelates derived their position of power from the ecclesiastical
structure where the papacy was the accepted head.

The divided loyalty of the German prelates was demonstrated
first in the thirteenth century in the disputed election between Otto
IV and Philip of Swabia: while several of the prelates supported the
papal candidate Otto, others under the leadership of Ludolf, the
archbishop of Magdeburg, supported the excommunicated Philip.140 At
the Diet of Bamberg (September 8, 1201) thirteen leading bishops and
archbishops along with several abbots and lay princes stated their
fidelity to Philip and then issued a manifesto in which they denounced
the unprecedented interference of the pops in an election which
properly belonged to the German princes.141 At the same time Adolf,
the archbishop of Cologne, who at first led the Guelf faction,
likewise denied the right of the pope to interfere in the disputed
imperial election142 and eventually switched his allegiance to

Philip143--an act for which he was finally deposed by the pope.144

 

139For a few examples of cases involving Frederick II's
protection of the clergy against nobles and townsmen see Historia
.Qiglggggigg, I. pp. 253-255, 402-405, 449-451, 603-605, 854-855: II,
pp. 18-19, 239-240, 319-322, 430, 795: III. pp. 316, 327-332, and
365. Also see James M. Powell, ”Frederick II and the Church in the
Icingdom of Sicily, 1220-1224,“ Cnggh History, XXX (March 1961), pp.
32.33, 80d Flicha 11 file, .92. flit-e, pe 294e

1‘0Cheney and Sample,'gg. gi§., p. 5: and Carlyle and
Carlyle, 92. gig}, pp. 213-215.

141F11Ch8 £21." 23s site, p. 62.
Bayley, g2. git., p. 121.

1431b‘de, p. 129s 1‘4Ib1de, p. 154s

142

153

Meanwhile, Conrad, the archbishop of Mainz, ignored the papal
partiality towards Otto and worked to arrange a truce between Philip
and Innocent.145 A few years later the papal deposition of Otto did
not detract from the prelates' loyalty to the emperor,146 although
they did gradually adhere to Frederick 11 after the princes, not the
pope, had declared Otto deposed at the Diet of Nuremburg.147

While Frederick II catered to the interests of the
ecclesiastical princes by guaranteeing church freedom148 and by
granting churchmen numerous privileges,149 the prelates responded
after some hesitation by electing Frederick's son Henry as King of the
Romans against the wishes of the pope.150 Later, when Gregory IX
excommunicated Frederick in 1227, the ecclesiastical princes of

151

Germany remained completely silent and ignored the papal sentence,

while the Italian archbishops of Reggio and Bari acted as imperial

 

145Edouard Jordan, L'Allemagne et l'Italie aux XIIe et XIIIe
siegtes (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1939), p. 154:

Carlyle and Carlyle, gg. cit., p. 204: and ”Gotifredi Viterbiensis
opera," onumenta Germgniae Historica. §crigtores, XXII, p. 346.

146Car1y16 and Carlyle. gg, cit., p. 229: Petit-Dutaillis,
.gg. git., p. 31: and Thomas Curtis Van Cleve, The e o F e ick I
gf HgHgnstgufign (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1972), p. 75.

147Jordan, t'flltgmagng et l'Italie, pp. 193-194.

148Golden Bull of Eger (July 12, 1213): Bayley, gg. cit.,
p. 133: and Higtgrtg Qigtomatiga, I, pp. 268-273.

149 v um n favo em rinc e siastorum (“PPil

26, 1220): Bayley, £2, git., p. 134: Historig Qiglomatigg, I, pp. 765-
768; arid Van Cleve, 9.2. Site, 9. 116a

150Georges Blondel, Etude gur la golittgug gg L'ngereur
Frgdfirig I] gn Allgmagng (Paris: Alphonse Picard et File, 1892), p.

211: and Van Cleve,‘gg. git., p. 116.

1S1Fliche _e_t__a_1., gg. cit., p. 229.

 

154
messengers to make peace with the pope.152 Likewise the Sicilian
bishops whose rights the pope was claiming to defend supported the
emperor when the papal army invaded the kingdom.153 At the same time
Frederick ordered that all those prelates who plotted against him by
obeying the pope be removed from the protection of the state.154
Following the restoration of peace Frederick gave new privileges,
especially to the German prelates, to win their support for imperial
projects.155 In 1237 when the archbishops of Mainz, Trier, and
Salzburg joined with the lay electoral princes to elect Frederick's
second son Conrad as King of the Romans, they claimed to be acting as
the successors of the old Roman senators and made no reference to their
position as prelates or to any rights of the papacy in the matter.156
Soon after Frederick's second excommunication in 1239 the majority of
both the German and Italian prelates again declared in favor of the

emperor and tried to persuade the pope to make peace.157 The conflict

of interests for the German prelates was amply demonstrated by their

 

152Historia Qiglomgtiga. 111: PP- 43 and 84' Later, the

archbishop of Magdeburg served as one of Frederick's prime nuncios to
make peace with the pope: Historta Diglomatiga, III, p. 72.

153purcell, 22, Eite, pe 33e

154Historig Diglomatiga, 111. pp. 50-51 and 55-53.

155]bid., 111. pp. 207-220.

1S6Carlyle and Carlyle, gg, cit., p. 278.
7
15 Blondel, 22, cit., p. 194: Ernst Kantorowicz, Frederick
the Second. 1194-1250, trans. by E. O. Lorimer (New York: Frederick

Ungar Publishing Company, 1931), p. 538: Historia Digtomatiga, III, pp.
295-307: Albert von Stade, gg, git., pp. 88-89: and "Chronici

Rhythmici Coloniensis Fragments," Monuments Germaniae Historia,
§§£ietor93, XXV, pe 372e

155
letter to the pops in September 1239. After proclaiming themselves
caught between their two roles as prelates and imperial princes and
stating that the two powers of church and state could not be divided
without being detrimental to both, the prelates asked for peace to stop
'the scandals of the world' and offered themselves as peacemakers 'with
reverence for mother church and honor for the holy empire'.1 In the
following year the imperial ecclesiastical princes led by the archbish0p
of Salzburg flatly refused to obey the papal order to elect a new
emperor and denied that the Roman Church had any legal rights in the
matter.159 Meanwhile, pressure was being applied by both pope and
emperor to gain the support of the prelates: while Frederick again
ordered all prelates who obeyed the pope removed from imperial
protection,160 the pope had all those prelates who obeyed the emperor
excommunicated.161 Although several of the major German prelates
beginning with Archbishop Siegfried of Mainz gradually switched their
allegiance to the pope either because of personal favors given by the
pope or because of the fear of Hohenstaufen ambitions,162 many of the
German bishops remained loyal to the emperor until his final deposition

in 1245.163 Although most of the prelates did desert Frederick after

 

158Historia Diplomatica, V, pp. 398-400.

1591bid., v. pp. 955-991 and 1023-1027.
160

Ibig., V, pp. 435-437 and 1089-1090: and Salimbene,
Qfle Site, p. 176s

161Historia Diglomatiga, v, pp. 1031-1035 and 1088.

162Ibid., VI, pp. 57-58: Bailey, 22, git., pp. 14-17: and

Blondel, 22. gtt., p. 212.

163Bayley,.gg. cit., p. 18.

 

156

he had been declared heretical, even then a few remained loyal:164 and
in 1246 Innocent IV had five prelates punished for serving as peace
envoys for the emperor.165 Even many of the mendicants who had
originally served as papal agents began supporting Frederick:166 and
in 1248 a certain friar named Arnold presented the emperor a tract for
the reform of the Church by the civil power.167

The death of Frederick likewise brought about no complete
submission to papal political ideas. While Christian, the new
archbishop of Mainz, was deposed by a papal legate for his pacificism
and refusal to get involved in the papacy's war against the remaining
Hohenstaufens,168 many of the archbishops began to desert the papally
sponsored William of Holland once the new emperor-elect attempted to
assert more control over ecclesiastics.169 Nevertheless, the absence
of a strong imperial power after Frederick's death generally left the
prelates of both Italy and Germany too involved in defending their own

rights against nobles and townsmen to pay much attention to papal

 

164Historia Qiglomatica, V, pp. 398-400.

165151g., v, pp. 449-451 and 574-575.
166 '

1019., V, pp. 1146-1148 and VI, pp. 479-480.

167Bayley, gg, git., p. 34: Reeves, The Influence of Proghecy,
p. 311: and Morton W. Bloomfield and Marjorie E. Reeves, "The

Penetration of Joachism into Northern Europe," figegqum, XXIX (October
1954), pp. 791-792.

168nchristiani Archiepiscopi Liber de calamitate ecclesiae

Moguntinae," onumenta Cgrmaniae Histories, §crigtorgs, XXV, p. 248:
and "Sifridi Presbyteri de Balnhusin Historia Universalis et Compendium

Historiarum," oggmgntg Cgrggniag HIstorica, Sgrigtores, XXV, p. 705.

169Bayley, gg, git., pp. 40-41.

157
politics.170
The situation of the ecclesiastical princes in France was
also being threatened by townsmen and nobles171 so that the prelates
were often dependent upon their king for protection.172 In return for
that needed protection the French kings expected ecclesiastical support
for royal policies.173 When Innocent III ordered France put under an

interdict because of Philip II's illegal divorce from Ingeborg,174

several of the French bishops refused to publish the sentence.175 On

the other hand those prelates who obeyed the papal order were punished

 

170The chronicles of both Italy and Germany show almost no

interaction between the papacy and the prelates on political matters
after 1250 but concentrate on local problems.

171The less than high esteem given prelates in France is
reflected in Dubois, gg, eit., pp. 90-91 and 102-103.

172Robert Fawtier, The Ca etian Kin s of France: Monarch

and Netion (987-1328), trans. by Lionel Butler and R. J. Adams (New
York: St. Martin's Press, 1966), pp. 68, 157, and 211-212: and

Lemarignier et 2;" pg. cit., pp. 160-161. For attacks by nobles and
townsmen upon French prelates see Carlyle and Carlyle, e2, eit., p.
313: Rigord, ge, eit., pp. 16-17 and 50: Guillaume de Nangis, gg, cit.,

p. 14: Berger, Saint Louis st Innocent IV, pp. 45-46, 245, and 376-378:
Histo is Di lomatic , VI, pp. 467-469: Lemarignier st a1.,‘gg. cit.,

pp. 156, 210, and 275-279: and HagueiI dss Aetes de Philigge Auguste
(Paris: Impremerie Nationals, 1943), vol. II, pp. 162-
163 and 455-456.

173Fawtier.'22. £1t., pp. 70-77: Regueil des Actes de

PhiIiege Auguste Ho; de trance, pp. 209-210 and 408-418: Lemarignier
2t _a_l_., gg. eit., pp. 152, 181, 245, and 249-254: and Petit-Dutaillis,

Louis vn . pp. 408-418.

174The original interdict was put on France by Celestine
III and only repeated by Innocent III: Guillaume de Nangis, ge, eit.,

p. 1090

175Luchaire, Innoeent III: Les royautés vassales du Saint-
si§ 8, pp. 252-253; Lemarignier g—t file, 9.2. Qite, pe 149; BUd R1Chard

Chenevix Trench, Leetures on Medieval Chureh History (London: Macmillan
and Company, 1879), p. 354.

 

158
176 .
by the king who ejected their canons and clergy. Perhaps fearing
more royal wrath, the French prelates in 1203 came out in open support
of Philip II's war against England despite papal protests that the
conflict interfered with plans for another crusade. Writing to the
pope on August 22, 1203, the prelates stated,

We are obliged to succour Philip, our seigneur, in the war
against King John, notwithstanding the wishes of the pope or his
legate. We exhort him to continue that war without being
intimidated by vain words: we intend on our part to give him all
the aid he needs and to make neither a trpcg nor an accord
without the orders of the king, our sire.

Later, when Philip was making plans to invade England, he again
received the full support of the clergy who stated that papal
interference in the matter was unwarranted and derogatory to the honor
of the French crown.1

The reign of Louis IX brought about another set of problems

for the clergy. While the king was busy defending the French Church
against papal abuses,180 several of the prelates were complaining

against the excessive favoritism shown the king by the pope, since

many of the privileges granted to the king limited the jurisdiction of

 

176Guillaume de Nangis, 22, cit., pp. 111-112.

177ph111p03 strict control over the French prelates is cited

in Luchaire, Innoeent III! Les royautés vassales du Saint-sifige, pp.

262-266.

178Maurice Jallut, PhiIIgge Auguste! fondateur gs l'Uni§§

:geeegte (Paris: Au Fil d'Ariane, 1963), p. 115.

1791bjd., pp. 251-252. Luchaire stated that clerical

support for Philip's English wars was extracted by threats: Les

royautés vessales gg SeInt-si5ge, p. 275.

180mettheiu Parisiensis, egregiceJmejggc. ed. by Henry

Richards Luard (London: Longman and Company, 1856), vol. VI, pp. 99-
12: and Lemarignier etelu g2. eit., p. 155.

 

159

local churchmen.181 In 1268 the clergy also complained against the

crusade taxes imposed by the king with the consent of the pope.182 The
greatest dispute between the clergy and Louis occurred, however, during
the 1250's when the University of Paris was rebelling against the
:wendicant orders. Here, Rutebeuf attacked the king for obeying the
papal command to exile Guillaume de Saint-Amour and accused him of
‘violating his rsgalian rights by his obedience to the pope.183
lVevertheless, Louis was generally very popular among the French clergy
uwho unanimously supported his canonization after his death.184

The full-scale resumption of the English-French dispute
1Jnder Philip IV put the French clergy again in the uncomfortable

position of having to choose between loyalty to the pope and loyalty to

their king. When Boniface VIII issued Clericis lai 03, which forbade

the lay taxation of churches without papal consent, part of the French

clergy politely asked the pope to let them make a "donation" to their

king,185 while others attacked the pope for trying to undermine royal

 

181Guillaume de Nangis, _g, git., pp. 192-194: Campbell,
”The Attitude of the Monarchy Toward the Use of Ecclesiastical

Censures,” pp. 539-540 and 553-554: and Lemarignier et_et,,‘gg. cit.,
pe 323s

182Throop, 22. eit., p. 74: and Lemarignier eta)..." .92- 91$”
ppe 155‘157e
183

Edward Billings Ham, Rutebeuf and Louis I! (Chapel Hill:
University of North Carolina Press, 1962), p. 17: and Lester K. Little,

”Saint Louis' Involvement with the Friars,” Chureh History, XXXIII
(June 1964), p. 125.

184Louis Carolus-Barré, ”Les enquates pour la canonisation
de Saint Louis--de Gr§goire X a Boniface VIII--et la bulls Gloria

Laue, du aoOt 1297," Revue d'histoire de l'église de Eranee, LVII
(Janvier-Juin 1971), pp. 21-23.

185Carlyle and Carlyle, gg. eit., p. 278.

160
authority and stated that it was their duty to aid the crown in time of

need.186 Later, in the great dispute between Boniface and Philip early

in the next century the French clergy again ended by siding with the

king, although the issue, the imprisonment of a bishop by the secular

power, was largely contrary to their own interests. Only the

archbishop of Narbonne took a firm stand against the king by insisting

that the pope alone was capable of judging a prelate.188

When the pope
called for an assembly of French prelates to discuss the state of
religion in their country,189 the bishops requested a delay because of
their need to help the king in his war against England190 and because
of royal threats to confiscate their goods if they left the kingdom.191
Ignoring papal threats that they return to the obedience of the Holy
See,192 the French prelates accepted the validity of a forged papal
bull claiming temporal supremacy for the pope and denied that the king

had any temporal superior in his kingdom.193 Nevertheless, despite

 

186Jo Ane McNamara, "Simon de Beaulieu and 'Clericis
Laicos'," Traditio, XXV (1969), pp. 163-164.

187Thomas Walsingham,‘gg. cit., pp. 84-85.

1880198rd, 22a Qite, 11, pe 74e

189December 5, 1301: Pierre Dupuy, Histoire du DIffereng
d'entre Page fionifaee VIII et PhiIIgges le BeI Hey ge fragee (Tuscan:

Audax Press, 1963), pp. 53-54.

190Guillaume de Nangis, ge, eit., p. 321.

191Frank Pegues, [he Lawyers of the Last Cagetians

(Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1962), p. 39: Thomas
Walsingham, gg. eit., pp. 63 and 84-85: and Dupuy, ge. eit., p. 17.

9ZDUPUY, .92. Cite, ppe 65-66e

193121.10, ppe 66-710

161
Philip's order to seize the goods of all ecclesiastics who left the
kingdom,193 four archbishops, thirty-five bishops, and six abbots did
attend the papal council in Rome.195 However, several other prelates
did not attend, although probably as much out of fear as out of loyalty
to the crown.196 Among the important prelates who did not attend were

the archbishops of Sens and Narbonne, the bishops of Soissons,

Beauvais, and Meaux, and the abbot of Saint Denis.197 Finally, after a

brief period of deliberation following a royal council of all the

estates at Paris in June 1303,198 the majority of French prelates gave

their support to the king's call for a general church council to settle

the diSpute between Boniface and Philip.199 Although certain members

of the clergy, especially those at the University of Paris, strongly
adhered to the king and his denunciation of Boniface,200 other prelates
were apparently wavering in their loyalty to the king, since Philip

thrice had to issue his order to seize the goods of those clergy

leaving the kingdom.201

1941bido. pp. 83-84.

195Ibid., p. 86. There were seventy-seven French bishop8

and archbishops in the thirteenth century: Lemarignier.et.gI.,.gg. cit.,
Is 1600

196L. Elliott Binns, 0.0., The History of the Qeeline and

‘all of the Meeieygl Pegaey (London: Methuen and Company, Ltd., 1934),
a. 67: Dubois, gg, cit., p. 23: Thomas Walsingham, gg, eit., p. 98: and

310Ch, 92e Elie, p. SZe

197DUPUY, .QE. Qite, ppe 87-89e

198Ibig., p. 100. 199Ibid., pp. 112-113.

2001g1u., pp. 117-118 and 164-165-

201151g., pp. 83-84, 99-100, and 131-133.

 

162

For the French clergy these quarrels between pops and king

nvolved much more than a struggle for political control over the

ranch Church. While many French churchmen doubtlessly felt trapped

:etween conflicting loyalties, other clerics took advantage of the

:onflicts between Philip and Boniface to air their grievances against

the whole papal government. Angry at Boniface for his earlier

favoritism towards the mendicants while serving as a legate in France,
‘the University of Paris had around 1297 produced a scholarly tract

declaring that Celestine V had had no right to resign and that Boniface

‘VIII was therefore an illegitimate pope.202 Although Philip never

openly endorced this document, it definitely presented a weapon for the
king in his quarrel with the pope over Clergeis laieos. Later, when
the pope summoned a church Council because of the civil arrest of
Bernard Saisset, several French prelates ignored the issue at hand and
took the opportunity to denounce papal provisions and the excessive

financial drains on the French Church by the Roman curia.203 Likewise,

the Dominican Jean of Paris, whose Traetatus de Potestate Hegia et
[Eeeeli defended royal power in the temporal sphere, came out in support
of the relative independence of local churches from papal control.

While stating that bishops holding temporal authority owed their

primary allegiance to the king,204 Jean then denied that prelates

 

ZOZDigard, 9£e Qite, I, pp. 313-314e

3DUPUY, 22a gite, ppe 66'71e
204

John of Paris, Qn RoyaI and Pagal Power, trans. by Arthur
P. Monahan (New York: Columbia University Press, 1974), p. 103.

 

163

received their Spiritual power only from the pope205 and that the Roman
curia had any exclusive rights over the temporal goods of the French
Church.206 Arguing that Christ had given spiritual authority to all
His disciples and only leadership to Peter,207 Jean declared that the
election of prelates should be a local concern to promote participation
by all Christ's followers208 and thus negated the whole theory behind
papal provisions. Excessive papal taxation was, according to Jean, an
abuse since it robbed communities of their rightful endowments which
had been instituted to aid the poor and perform other charitable
acts.209 Like Grossetesta before him, Jean insisted that the pope
simply could not act in a destructive manner by taking goods which did
not belong to him:

For it should be assumed that the will of so great a father is

not contrary to rights, and that he will not take what belongs to

anyone from hi 1without reasonable cause. For he cannot by rights

act otherwise.
Moreover, Jean maintained that the pope could be deposed for wrongfully
usurping church goods.211 Towards the end of his work Jean went on to
state that the pope differed from other prelates only in the matter of

212 and that the Church as a whole was greater than

wider jurisdiction
the pope alone.213 These latter arguments marked the culmination of
over a hundred years of clerical protests against the papal claim to

complete domination over all the churches. While Jean defended the

 

205Ibid., pp. 43-44. 206Ibid., pp. 22-27.
207Ibide, ppe 43'44e 2oalbide, pp. 126'127e
2091mm, p. 22. 21DIbid., p. 27. 211Ibid., p. 26.
212 213

12;g., p. 134. Ibid., pp. 111 and 133.

164
independence of royal power on the one hand, on the other hand he
asserted the independence of local churches from exclusive papal
control. The dispute over the civil arrest of a French bishop had thus
turned into a protest against papal abuses by the French clergy who
seemed to support their king partially as a means of showing their
disapproval of certain papal practices believed to be abusive.

The situation was somewhat different in England where
churchmen repeatedly looked to the papacy for protection of their
rights against the extension of royal power and managed to maintain
a certain degree of independence from the crown.214 However, when
the papacy failed to provide the desired protection or infringed
upon what they considered their rights, the English clergy quickly
protested and accused the pope of treachery. The first such incident
occurred early in the century when John in defiance of the papal
support of Stephen Langton as archbishop of Canterbury expelled
the clergyman who sided with the pope.215 The "Song of the Bish0ps"
lamented the exile of these prelates and ended with a plea for papal
aid:

I Roman, liber parvula,
Nec rsmeare differas

 

214

F. M. Powicke, King Hen 2 III and the Lord deard
(Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1947), vol. I, pp. 273-274: and Smith,

Chureh and State, p. 133. This discussion will largely ignore the royal

clerks who remained loyal to the crown: see Frank Pegues, "The CIericus
in the Legal Administration of Thirteenth-Century England," English
Hietorigal Heview, LXXI (1956), p. 556.

215"Annalee Londoniensis," pp. 7-8: Luchaire, Les royautds
vassales du Saint-sifige. PP. 200-203. Only a small number of prelates
actually deserted the king until after his excommunication: Sidney

Painter, The Reign of King John (Baltimore: John Hopkins Press, 1949),
pp. 172-175 and 182-183.

 

F’

165

Salute quosque sedule,
Et papae salve differas
Dic quid de tribus sentiam.
Ipse promat sentsntiam,
Utrum suo judicio
Sint liberi a vitio
Et michi detur venia.

216

Nevertheless, after John's submission to Rome the clergy became
extremely disillusioned with the pope, especially when he nullified
the Magna Carta which among other things guaranteed the freedom of the
English Church.217 As early as 1213 the English bishops had been

complaining that the papal legate Nicholas of Tusculum was more

 

favorable to the king than to the clergy who had suffered severe
financial losses because of the disturbances of the past five

years. Even Langton, whose elevation to the archbishopric of
Canterbury had begun all the problems, protested against the legate's
favoritism towards the king and finally found himself suspended from
office by papal command.219 Another English clergyman complained that

the whole infeudation of England to the Holy Sea was 'an ignominous

thing' and created an intolerable yoke of servitude on the English

 

216Wright, ed., The Politigal Songe of Englang, p. 13.
Translation: "Go to Rome, little book, nor delay thy return: salute
them all diligently: and carry a salutation to the pope: Tell what I
think of the three: Let him give judgment, whether in his opinion
they be free from vice: and let pardon be granted to me.”

217Petit-Dutaillis, Louis VIII, p. 60.

218Roger of Wendovsr, e2, cit., p. 290: Luchaire, Les
roysutés vaseales du §aint-si§ge, p. 232: and Painter, gg, cit.,
p. 199e

219

Roger of Wendovsr, 22, eit., pp. 342-343: and "Annalee
Londoniensis," p. 17.

166
Church and people.220 Likewise, when the pope excommunicated the
rebellious nobles, the prelatss declined to defy the pope openly but
refused to honor the pope's sentence on the grounds that it was based
upon faulty information and was therefore invalid.221 In protest
against the various papal activities one less sympathetic popular
clerical poem accused the papacy of changing with the wind in order to

advance its own financial interests:

Roma, turpitudinis jacens in profundis,
Virtutes praeposterat opibus inmundis,
Vacillantis animi fluctuans sub undis,

Diruit, aedificat, mutat quadrata rotundis.

Vultus blandos asperat, quibus nunc arrisit:
Sinu fovet placido quos prius elisit:

Dum monetam recipit, tractat, et revisit: 222
Ouod petiit, spernit, repetit quod nuper omisit.

Throughout the greater part of Henry III's reign the clergy
also attacked the pope for his unqualified support of the king. To
protect himself against the English bishops Henry was forced to keep
his own lawyers ever present at Rome--an action which not only failed

to win episcopal Sympathy but increased irritation against Roms.223

 

220

 

Luchaire, nnocsnt I I as o autés vassales du Saint-

Siggfi, pa 1480
2:1Petit-Dutaillis, Lgyis VIII, pp. 104-105: and T. F. Tout,
Th n 1 nd f om th A ession of Hen III to t Death of

o2 6- 377, vol. III of The Politi a Histo f En lend, ed.
by William Hunt and Reginald L. Pools (8 vols.: London: Longmans,
Green and Company, 1920), pp. 2-3.

222Wright, ed., The Political gangs of Cngland, p. 31.
Translation: "Rome, lying in the depth of turpitude, ranks virtues

beneath filthy lucre: fluctuating under the waves of a vacillating mind,
she overthrows, builds, and changes square things for round. She
despises the bland countenances at which but now she smiled: she
cherishes in her placid breast those whom before she rolled down:

while she receives money, she treats and revises: what she sought shs
despises, and seeks again what lately she let go."

223Matthew Paris, 92, cit., I, p. 165: and "Annales

 

167
The English clergy particularly resented the papal scheme to have

Henry's son made king of Sicily, since it was the clergy who were

supposed to finance the project.224 On January 18, 1256, representatives

of the whole clerical body of England met in a convocation to protest
against papal abuses, especially the taxation for the Sicilian
project.225 Thus, while the pope was having a crusade preached
against Manfred in England, Matthew Paris was crying out against

Roman avarice:

How sterile thy anxiety! how blind thy ambition! oh, court of
Rome, which holy as thou art, art too often deceived by the
counsel of the wicked. Why dost thou not check thy violence
with the curb of discretion? why art tggg not taught by the
past and amended by so many calamities?

In 1256 one clergyman accused the pope of joining in an unholy alliance

with the king to rob the English clergy:

Li rois ne l'apostoile ne pensent altrement,
Mes coment au clers tolent lur or s lur argent.
Co est tute la summe,
Ke la pape de Rume
Al rei trop consent,
pur aider sa curuns
la dime de clers li dune
De co en fet sun talent.
Jo ne quid pas ke li roi face sagement,
Ks il vit de roberie ke 11 de la clergie Prent.
Ja ne fra bone prise,
pur rober saints egliss:
11 la say verament.

 

Londoniensis,” p. 34.

224Chronicle of Bgry St Edmunds, pp. 18-20.

225Powicke, The Thirteepth Century, p. 503.

 

226Matthew Paris, 22, eit., III, p. 124. Note that Matthew
Paris accepted Rome's role as a leader in society.

168

Ke vot aver semblance,
regard ls roiszgg France
E sun achevement.

Although their consent was required before any taxes could be
collected, the clergy were seldom able to resist the combined
pressure of pope and king.228 They accused the pope of submitting

to bribery for annulling the Provisions of Oxford and of favoring

22
the king in general against the best interests of the country. 9

During the Barons' War English churchmen almost unanimously supported

the nobles against the king and pops by harassing royal officials,

O
expelling royal appointees, and giving the rebels financial aid.23

Indeed, the barons and prelates saw themselves as the true defenders

of the English Church against foreign interests as represented by the

pope and king.231 Later, the punishment by the papal legate of many of

the country's leading bishops for their participation in the Barons'

War was heartily resented by many of the English clergy.232

227Wright, ed., The PoIitical Songs of Cngland, pp. 43-44.

Translation [by Wright]: "The king and the pope think of nothing else,
but how they may take from the clergy their gold and their silver. This
is the whole affair, that the pope of Rome yields too much to the king,
to help his crown, the tenth of the clergy's goods he gives him, and
With that he does his will. I do not think that the king acts wisely,
that he lives off robbery he commits upon the clergy. He will never be
a gainer, by robbing the church: he knows it truly. He seeks an
example, let him regard the king of France and his achievement."

228Marion Gibbs and Jane Lang, Bishogs end HeformI 1215-
.lQZZ (London: Humphrey Milford, 1934), p. 133.

229"Robert of Gloucester's Chronicle," p. 357.

230Chroniele of Bury St Edmunds, PP- 30'333 and "Annales
Londoniensis,” pp. 58-55-

231"Robert of Gloucester's Chronicle," p. 361.

232"Annales Londoniensis," p. 72.

169

The disintegration of relations between the papacy and the
English Church along with the closer relationship between the crown and
the prelates under Edward I was fully brought to light by the
difficulties caused by Boniface VIII's CIericis laicaa.233 when
Edward began pressuring the clergy to pay their taxes despite the
papal ban, many, particularly in the northern areas, quickly submitted:
and only Robert Winchelsey, the archbishop of Canterbury, and a few of
his followers stated their unwillingness to defy the pope.2:54 This
situation contrasted sharply with the uproar created by Langton's
appointment early in the century when several of the leading prelates
eventually rallied to the papal cause. When Boniface finally relented
and accepted the right of kings to tax their clergy in times of
emergency, several of those who had supported the papal cause were
furious and denounced the pope for changing his mind at their
expense.235

Despite the fact that the English clergy showed an increasing
dislike of papal political intervention, there was no drastic change of
attitude on the part of churchmen towards the papacy during the

thirteenth century. The dual concepts of the papacy as both the center

 

233Ths growing distance between the English Church and the
papacy is also vividly shown by the chronicles. The great amount of
space devoted to the papacy in chronicles of the first half of the
century is in sharp contrast to those of the latter part of the century.
The later chronicles appear much less informed about occurrences in
Rome and devote appreciably less space to papal affairs. This was, of
course, partially caused by the greater independence of Edward from Rome.

234H. S. Deighton, "Clerical Taxation by Consent, 1279-

1301," English HIstorieal Heview, LXVIII (April 1953), pp. 172-183:
and Thomas Walsingham, ge, eit., p. 63.

235Chronicle of Lgnercost, p. 121.

170
of the world and the center of corruption continued to dominate clerical
thought, although certain nationalist sentiments which detracted from
the idea of papal supremacy were apparent throughout the period.
Moreover, while there was little dispute over major church dogmas
outside the University of Paris and most gave at least lip-service to
the idea of a united Christendom with a church hierarchy under papal
leadership,236 churchmen, including those who embraced the papal reform
schemes, were primarily concerned with their own interests and with the
preservation of their own authority. The greatest proof of the papacy's
inability to win the undivided support of the large masses of the
clergy was offered by the almost total failure of the great papal reform
schemes as envisioned by Innocent III and his successors. Indeed, many
of the reform bishops, such as Langton and Grosseteste, ended up
accusing the papacy itself of hampering rather than fostering the
eradication of abuses.237 As early as the First Council of Lyons many
churchmen were beginning to believe that it was the papacy which was in
the greatest need of reform.238 It was clear throughout the century
that the clergy tended to view the papacy and the needs of the Church
differently than did the p0pes and canon lawyers: and this difference in

viewpoint led them to only a partial support of papal projects.

 

236Even the bitter anti-papist Matthew Paris stated his
reverence for the papal institution and expressed the idea that the
pope could not be judged by any man: "... whether he acted well, it is
for the Lord, the judge of all judgments, and who has the care of all,
to decide: it is not for me to judge the pope's acts." Of course,
Matthew Paris did judge and condemn papal activities throughout the
whole of his chronicle. Matthew Paris, gg,‘g;t., III, p. 90.

237Stevensontgg. eit., pp. 284-288.

38Barraclough, Ihe Medieval Pegacy. PP. 63-183.

C H A P T E R I V

LAY RELIGIOUS ENTHUSIASM AND THE PAPACY

While the papacy was busy trying to exert its authority
over the monarchial and church organizations, it was also having to
contend with various lay religious movements which were particularly
prevalent in the more advanced urban areas, especially those of
Southern France and Northern Italy. Religious enthusiasm, here
defined as the desire to make an outward expression of inner faith,
was indeed a common occurrence among the laity of the thirteenth
century and was expressed in a variety of forms ranging from heresy
to the writing of the inine Comedy. If the papacy were to fulfill
its claim to be the spiritual leader of all Christendom, it was
essential for the popes to provide some sort of direction and
control over these lay movements or at least to make sure that the
laity did not become antagonistic and pose a threat to the accepted
precepts of the Christian faith as understood by the papacy. Papal
prestige and power was thus intimately connected with the attitude
of the laity towards Rome and with the effectiveness of papal
methods used to curb, channel, and stimulate existing religious
enthusiasm among the laity.

Of all the organized lay religious movements of the
thirteenth century the heresies, so classified because of their

171

172
supposed doctrinal differences with the Church,1 posed the greatest
challenge to papal authority: and of all the heretics the Cathars,
or Albigensians,2 appeared the most dangerous. Probably begun as
a protest against ecclesiastical wealth on the local level,3 the
Cathars had been declared heretical well before 1200 because of their
belief (perhaps partially derived from certain Eastern sects)4 in a
total dualism between the spiritual and material worlds with each
world presided over by a different god.S Although this dualism between
the good soul and the bad body was contrary to advanced Christian

theology, it was a common medieval theme and was seldom condemned

 

1Actually, heresy in the thirteenth century could mean
“schism, resistance within the Church to papal administration,
political opposition to the hierarchy from secular powers, advocacy
of religious toleration, socsry, or intellectual arrogance": Walter
L. Wakefield and Austin P. Evans, HeresIes of the High Middle Ages:
Seleeted fiourees (New York: Columbia University Press, 1969), p. 3.

2For two recent bibliographies on the Cathars see George
H. Shriver, "A Summary of 'Images of Catharism and the Historian's
Tesk',” Church History, XL (March 1971), pp. 48-49: and Daniel
Walther, "A Survey of Recent Research on the Albigensian Csthari,"

Chureh History, XXXIV (June 1965), pp. 146-177.

3Shriver, gg, git., p. 49: and Andre Vauchez, "La pauvreté

voluntaire au Moyen Age," Annalee: Economies. Sogiétés, Ciyilisations,
XXV (Novembre-Décembre 1970), p. 1572.

 

4The various arguments for and against a Bogomil influence
on the Cathars are discussed in R. I. Moore, "The Origins of Medieval
Heresy,” Histo , LV (February 1970), pp. 21-36. Moore maintains,
however, that such arguments are largely irrelevant and attributes the
rise of popular heresies primarily to the reform program of Gregory VII,
who appealed directly to the people against abuses in the church
hierarchy, thus setting "a precedent for direct popular action". The
question of Bogomil influence is definitely irrelevant to this study.
As will be shown, many Cathar practices appear as exaggerations of
accepted Catholic practices rather than as an alien standard of values.

5Etienne de Bourbon, Aneedotes Historigues (Paris:
Librairie Renouard, 1877), pp. 299-311.

 

173
as heretical.6 What made the Cathars appear so dangerous was their
desire to put their beliefs into actual practice. Believing that
everything connected with the physical world was evil, the Perfects
of the faith practiced an extreme asceticism very similar to that
practiced by certain Catholic monastic groups.7 However, unlike
the monastic ascetics, the Perfects went about the countryside and
urban areas in humble garb and preached to the people.8 Referring
to the Roman Church as the famous prostitute spoken of in the
Apocalypse9 and denouncing almost all of the principle ingredients
of the existing society: marriage,1D oaths, capital punishment,
the Church's organization, the priesthood, and the sacraments, all
of which they contended represented the physical world,11 they
gained widespread popularity in Southern France and Northern Italy,

where the church hierarchy was generally considered too wealthy and

 

6Robert W. Ackerman, "The Debate of the Body and the
Soul and Parochial Christianity," Sgegulum, XXXVII (October 1962),
pp. 542-543e

7René Nelli, La vie guotIdienne des Cathars du Languedoc
aur XIIIe sibele (Paris: Librairie Hschette, 1969), p. 174.

8Guillaume de Nangis, ChronIgus Iatine de Guillaume de

NangIe de 1113 5 1300 (Paris: Jules Renouard et Cie., 1843), pp.
127'128e

9Pierre des Vaux-de-Cernay, Histoi Albi eoise, trans. par
Pascal Cuébin et Henri Maisonneuvre (Paris: Librairie Philosophique J.
Vrin, 1951), p. 8.

1QActually, marriage was tolerated by the Cathars for the
less advanced members of the sect but was never considered a
sacrament, since it involved a concession to the physical world:
René Nelli, Jean Duvernoy, Fernand Niel, et Deodat Roche, Les Cathars
(Paris: Editions de Delphes, 1965), p. 443.

11Maurice Bévenot, S.J., "The Inquisition and its
Antecedents, II,” Heythrog Hourne , VII (October 1966), pp. 391-392.

174

remote from the people12 and where the secular leaders were trying to
wrest political and economic power from the prelates.13 By 1200 the
Cathars had attracted enough sympathy, if not actual membership, from
all levels of society to have instituted their own church and hierarchy
in Southern France.14

Although the Cathars were probably the most notorious of
the heretical groups because of their doctrines of extreme dualism
and their connections with the rebellious Southern French nobility,
they were not the only heretics to originate in this region. Another
group which had been declared heretical by the thirteenth century
was the Waldensians, who clearly represented the reformist variety of
heresy and the desire for a more active participation in the church
by laymen.1s These heretics had a much more definite relationship

with the papacy than the Cathars. During the 1160's Peter Waldo, a

 

12Salimbene de Adam, "Cronica," MonumentafiCermaniae

Histories, §crigtores, XXXII. pp. 115-129.

13Shriver, 22! cit., pp. 33-34: Wakefield and Evans,

ge,.ett., p. 27: and Etienne de Bourbon, 22,.eit., pp. 213-214.
Etienne de Bourbon stated that it was the Cathars' attack upon the
established church and their personal asceticism rather than their
doctrines which attracted so much sympathy. This idea seems rather
accurate in that many of the nobles who supported the Cathars often
requested on their deathbed to be received into one of the military
orders, particularly the Order of the Hospital of St. John of
Jerusalem, and continued to give legacies to the Church to save their
souls: Nelli, 22"§$£e, pp. 24, 66, 99, and 102.

14Charles Petit-Dutaillis, Etggegsur la vie et le rsgne de
Louis VIII (Paris: Librairie Emile Bouillon, 1894), p. 23; Pierre des
Vaux-de-Cernay, 22! cit., p. 20: and Wakefield and Evans, gg, cit., p.
167.

15Jeffrey Burton Russell, A History of Medieval Christianity:
Proghecy and Order (New York: Thomas Y. Crowell, 1968), p. 147: and

Vauchez, ge, eit., pp. 1572-1573.

175
merchant of Lyons, had given away his wealth to the poor and had formed
a group of pious laymen interested in living an apostolic life modelled
on the simplicity and poverty of Christ and his apostles and in learning
and spreading Christian doctrines to combat heresy.16 Although Waldo's
ideas were well received by the lay population of Lyons, his refusal to
obey local ecclesiastical authorities who prohibited lay preaching soon
got him into trouble: and in 1177 he was banished from the city by the
archbishop.17 Waldo then appealed to Rome where he made a profession of
faith and was cleared of any charges of heresy by the Lateran Council of
1179. Despite this papal approval a new archbishop of Lyons in 1182
again excommunicated and banished the Waldensians for refusing to obey
canonical rules against lay preaching.18 Two years later the Council of
Verona which anathematizsd all heretical groups also comdemned the
Waldensians for being contumacious and schismatic.19 Since the Waldensians,
who claimed to owe obedience to God, not to man, preferred to ignore
these sentences against them, their condemnation only served to separate
them further from the Roman Church, which they henceforth began to regard

as an evil deviation from the simple church established by Christ.

 

16Moore, 22, cit., p. 22: Bernard Marthaler, 0.F.M.,
"Forerunners of the Franciscans: The Waldensians," Franciscan Studies,
XVII (1958), p. 134: and Gordon Leff, "The Apostolic Ideal in Later

Medieval Ecclesiology," Journal of Theological Studies, XVIII (April
1967), p. 75.

17Marthaler, 22s Cite, pe 135s

18Christine Thouzellier,_CatharI§me at Valdéisme en Languedoc
(Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1966), p. 38.

19Ibid., pp. 45 and 47-48: Marthaler, gg. cit., p. 141: and
Marc Bloch, La France sous les derniers Capétians, 1223-1328 (Paris:
Librairie Armand Colin, 1958), p. 103.

 

176

Although neither the Cathars nor the Waldensians made
many direct attacks upon the papacy but upon the whole of the
existing church structure, the papacy, as head of that church
structure and of the Christian faith, was nevertheless involved.
When Innocent III became pops in 1198, the problem of heresy had
become so acute in Southern France that it was necessary to find
some kind of compromise or solution which would bring the heretics
back into the Church and stop their rapid spread.20 Since to
succumb to the heretics' demand to rid the Church of all its wealth
would have produced a veritable revolution, the new pope first sought
to win back the heretics by sending educated Cistercians into the
Midi to point out the doctrinal fallacies of the various heresies and
by attempting to remedy some of the more obvious abuses in local
churches.21 Both measures ended in total failure.22 While it was
impossible for those wholly committed to heretical, particularly
Catharist, beliefs to compromise,23 the heretics' sympathizers found

the clergy sent by the pope too pompous and high-handed.24 The

 

20Guillaume de Tudéle, La Chanson de lajgrpisade Albi eoise,
trans. par Eug§ne Martin-Chabot (Paris: Sociéte' d'édition "Les Belles
LettraS", 1960), page

2"Iohannes Longus de Ipra, "Chronica Monasterii Santi

Bertini," onumegte Germaniae Historica. Scriptores, XXV. p. 8243
Augustin Fliche, Christine Thouzellier, wt Yvonne Azais, Histoire

ge_;:§gltee, vol. X: La Chrétientg romeine (1198-1274) (Paris: Bloud
et Gay, 1950), p. 179: and Maurice Bévenot, S.J., "The Inquisition and

its Antecedents, IV," Heythrog Journal, VIII (April 1967), p. 162.
22

Guillaume de Nangis, gg, cit., pp. 127-128.
23N0111, 22’ Cite, p. 52e
24

Etienne ds Bourbon,‘gg. cit., pp. 213-214.

 

177

Cistercians likewise found themselves unprepared for such a mission and,
after receiving numerous insults, requested the pope to return to their
monasteries.25 Meanwhile, the local clergy were largely antagonistic
to the papal reform measures and generally refused to cooperate.26 The
only successes in these early years of Innocent's pontificate were
accomplished by the Spanish priest Dominic, who imitated the humble
clothing of the Cathar Perfects and went about preaching and debating
with the heretics in the urban areas.27 Nevertheless, Dominic's
success was minimal in comparison to the vastness of the problem.

Faced with these glaring failures, the open hostility
shown his envoys, and finally the murder of one of his legetes, Peter
of Castelnau,28 Innocent felt forced to resort to physical coercion.29
However, once called by the pope, the Albigensian Crusade quickly
slipped out of papal control. Indeed, those recording the events
in the Midi gave only a very secondary importance to the papacy's
role: and one of the major chroniclers of the crusade, Guillaume de
Tud§le, even omitted to mention the name of the pope, while he

heavily praised the merits of the crusade leader, Simon de Montfort.30

 

25Pierre dss Vaux-de-Cernay, gg, ei ., p. 11.

26Achille Luchaire, Innogent III: La croisade des Albrgeois
(Paris: Librairie Hachette et Cie., 1911), pp. 23-24.

27Nelli,.gg. cit., p. 104: and Guillaume de Nangis, 22. cit.,
pp. 127-128.

28Guillaume de Tudble, 22, git., p. 16.

29Pierre des Vaux-ds-Cernay, ge, eit., pp. 25-32: and
Guillaume de Nangis, gg. cit., pp. 129-130.

306U1118Um8 d8 TUd§19, _9£e Eite, pa 16o

178
At the same time the issues often became so clouded with what seemed
to be purely political matters that it was almost impossible for the
pope residing in Rome to receive accurate and trustworthy information.
While both the crusaders and the Southern French nobility protested
their loyalty to the pope, both sides were quick to accuse the pope
of being poorly informed if he acted contrary to their respective
wishes. Those of the Midi denied that heresy was widespread in their
area, and accused the crusaders of wanting to steal their land, and
appealed to the pope against the excesses of de Montfort and his
followers.31 When at the pleas of the supporters of the Count of
Toulouse32 the pope attempted to have the excommunicated count
brought back into the Church,33 the crusaders made only a half-
hearted attempt to comply and accused the Southern French of trying
to trick the pops into believing that Count Raymond and his allies
were not heretics.34 Later, when the pope ordered a halt to the

35

venture in the interests of a crusade to the Holy Land, the

crusaders were fully displeased, largely ignored the papal directive,

31Peire Cardenal, Poésies Comelfites du Troubadour Peire
Ca d na 80- 278 (Toulouse: Edouard Privat, 1957), pp. 78-83:

and Pierre dss Vaux-de-Cernay, gg, eit., p. xix.

32 neon e a roisade Albi eoise, trans. par Eugene

Martin-Chabot, vol. II: La Poéme de l'auteur anonyme (Paris: Société
d'Edition "Les Belles Lettres", 1957), p. 38.

33Luchairs, Le eroieage des Albigeois, pp. 153-154: and
Pierre des Vaux-ds-Cernay, e2, eit., pp. 60, 151, and 169.

34Luchaire, Ls eroisage des AlbigeoIs, pp. 168-176: and
Pierre des Vaux-de-Cernay, gg..ett., pp. 69, 154, and 156-160.

 

35Ryccardus de Sancto Germano, "Cronica," Rerum Italicarum
‘fiertgtgree, VII, Part 2, p. 51: and Pierre des Vaux-de-Cernay,

2g. 9.35.” p. xix.

 

179
and again suggested that the pope had been led astray by the lies of
the Southern nobility.36 Since they believed the pope did not
comprehend the whole of the situation, they reasoned that it was
perfectly legitimate for them to disobey. The supposedly final
settlement of the issue at the Fourth Lateran Council was likewise
popular with neither side.37 While the crusader faction continued to
see the pope as largely ignorant of the true facts,38 the anonymous

poet who defended the Southern French nobility depicted the pope as

 

a rather pathetic creature literally forced against his wishes to
deprive the young Count of Toulouse of his lands:

L'Apostolis regards l'enfant s sas faisos,
E conosa lo linatge e saub las falhizos
De Glieza e de clerics, que son contrarios:
De pietat e d'ira n' a-l cor tent doloisos
Ou'en soapira e-n plora de 305 olhs ambedos.
Mas lai no val als comtes dreitz ni fes ni razos.
Mas pero l'Apostolis, qu'es savis e guiscos,
Denant tota la cort e vezen dele baros,
Monstra, per escriptura e per leisls sermos,
Que'l comte de Tholosa no repren ocaizos
Ou'el dsia perdre terra ni que mals crezens fos,
Ans l'a pres per catholic en faitz e an respos.
Mas, per la covinensa c'avian entr'els dos
E, paor de clerics de qu'el es temoros,
Li retenc pueih sa terra e-n devenc poderos,
E volc que la tenques en comanda -n Simos,

Car en autrs maniera no l'sn era faitz-l dos.39

 

36Luchaire, La croisgde des AIbigeois, pp. 232-233.

37Ibido. pp. 240-255.

38Pierre des Vsux-ds-Cernay, g2, cit., pp. 211-212.

39922222£_§s_ls_2£2185992Albigeoise. II. p. 42.
Translation: "The pope considers the young man and his countenance:

he has been informed of his lineage and has not ignored the faults
committed by the men of the Church who are hostile to him: with
pity and indignation he has a heart so sadly oppressed that he
suffers and the tears fall from his two eyes. But to the counts in
that circumstance, neither right, nor faith, nor reason is to any

180

Despite all its destructiveness the Albigensian Crusade,
which lasted intermittently until 1227, failed to wipe out the
Cathars.4D Many of the heretics had fled to their co-religionists in
Italy during the war and began to drift back to the Midi after the
war's end.41 Faced with this failure but unwilling to allow the
Cathars to regain their old position of prominence in Southern French
society, the papacy instituted the Inquisition which was eventually put
under the charge of the new Dominican order.42 The Inquisition was
likewise heartily disliked in Southern France and failed to wipe out
the Cathars whose actual number did not decline until the fourteenth

century.43 Regarding themselves as the only true church, many of the

 

avail. Meanwhile, the pope, who is filled with wisdom and experience,
shows before all the assembly and in the presence of the barons by a
written act and by a loyal discourse that on the elder Count of
Toulouse no accusation such that he should lose his land nor that he
has been heretical, that to the contrary he has considered him a good
Catholic in action and in thought. But finally in virtue of the
accord concluded between these two and by the fears of the clergy who
have intimidated him, he confiscates his land and gives it to Simon.”

4oGuillaume ds Nangis, gg. cit., p. 135.

41Jean Louis Alphonse Huillard-Bréholles, ed., Historia

Qiglomatiee [rederiei Secundi (Paris: Henricus Plon, 1852-1861), vol.
II, ppe 421-4233 Orld F11Ch9 .9—t—2l°’ 22s Cite, pe 299a

‘zHans Kuehner, Encyclopedia of the Papecy (New York:
Philosophical Library, 1958), p. 88: Henri Daniel-Reps, Cathedral and
Crgeege, trans. by John Warrington (2 vols.: New York: Doubleday and
Company, Inc., 1963), vol. II, p. 310: and M. -H. Vicaire, "Saint
Dominique et les inquisiteurs," Anflfilesggu mrgr, LXXIX (April 1967),
pp e 173-175e

43Wakefield and Evans, 223 git}, p. 13: and Austin P.
Evans, ”Hunting Subversion in the Middle Ages," §geculum, XXXIII
(January 1958), p. 13. One of the effects of persecution seems to
have been in pushing Catharism down into the lower levels of society
so that by the late thirteenth century it was composed exclusively of
artisans and peasants: Gordon Leff, Hersey in the Later Middle Ages
(New York: Barnes and Noble, Inc., 1967), vol. I, p. 29.

 

181
. 44

Cathars willingly accepted persecution as proof of their sanctity.
At the same time they made no attempt to diminish their attacks upon
the Church and papacy. Writing in 1241-1244, the Dominican Inquisitor
Monete of Cremona stated that the persecution actually encouraged their
attacks upon the Roman Church and its head, the pope:

For they interpret "the beast" and ”the woman" as reference to

the Roman Church. The beast, we read, was scarlet: likewise we

find in verse 4 that the woman was clothed ”with scarlet and

purple, and gilt with gold and precious stones and pearls,

having a golden cup in her hand.” These words are applicable to

the lord pope, who is the head of the Roman Church. The woman

"drunk with the blood of the saints" (verse 6) is referred to

in the same connection. This symbol they attach to the Roman

Church because issorders their death, for they believe that
they are saints.

Likewise, the crusade and the Inquisition had little
effect on the Waldensians. Although Innocent III managed in 1207 to
bring a certain number of these laymen back into the Church,46 the
majority of Waldensians had pushed their reformist ideas to such an
extreme that they no longer desired to be brought back into a

church whose clergy they considered too worldly, corrupt, and

 

44Wakefield and Evans, gg,'gtt., p. 43.

“Srgre., p. 328. Monete's point cannot be proven, however,
because of the scarcity of actual Cathar texts for the periods both
before and after the persecution. Nevertheless, it seems probable
that the papacy was attacked incidentally because of its position in
the church hierarchy during the twelfth century and directly because
of its actions during the thirteenth century.

46Leff, Heresygin thegLeter Middle A es, 1, pp. 40-41: and

Herbert Grundmann, Hetzergesehichte des Mittelalters, as cited in

Jeffrey Burton Russell, ed., Heligious Qissent in the MiddIe Ages (New
York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1971), p. 143. It should be noted

that the Poor Catholics were never welcomed by the episcopate and were
absorbed whenever possible into other orders. In 1247 the remnants of
this group were banned by Innocent IV for unauthorized preaching:
Wakefield and Evans, ge,le;t., p. 221.

 

182

exclusive to fulfill their needs. At about the same time the
Waldensians, by then spread into Northern Italy, split into two rival
factions: the more radical Lombards who insisted that all good
persons were priests and the Ultramontanes who established their own
clergy under lay supervision.47 Stressing the apostolic life of
simplicity and poverty, both groups rejected the Roman hierarchy
which they believed had gone astray when Pope Sylvester I had
accepted the Donation of Constantine:

Also, [the Waldensians say] that the Church of Christ subsisted

in the bishops and other prelates down to the time of the

Blessed Sylvester, and I3 him it fell away until they

themselves restored it.
Thus, completely ignoring the fact that it was the papacy which had
initiated many of the recent reform programs within the Church, the
Waldensians believed the papacy to be the chief cause of the Church's
decline. In a tract written between 1249 and 1261 the Inquisitor
Etienne de Bourbon cited other reasons for Waldensian discontent
with the papacy:

Also, they say that all good men are priests and that any
good man has as much power to absolve sins as we believe the pope
to possess....

Also, they say that evil men, who live in sin, cannot bind
and loose, bestow indulgences or remissions on sinners, or ordain,
or do anything such that God approves or that is done to the end
that it may please God, but only do that which is pleasing in the
sight of men. They deride papal indulgences and absolutions and
the keys of the Church, calling the dedication and consecration of
churches and altars a feast of stones....

Also, they assert that the Roman Church is the harlot of
Babylon of whom one reads in the Apocalypse.

 

47Georges de Legarde, La Naissanee de l'esgrit laigue au
deelin gg moyen Sge (Wien: Editions Béatrice, 1934), vol. I, p. 120.

8Tract by the Dominican Inquisitor Rainer Sacconi as
cited in Wakefield and Evans, gg, cit., p. 346.

183
... The reason for their falling into these abominations, I

think, were arrogance, hatred of the clergy, and decay of the

f.1the e e e
Thus by the mid-thirteenth century the Waldensians had rejected not
only the papacy itself but the whole papal concept of the church with
its hierarchy and clergy forming an exclusive class separate from the
laity. Even the Ultramontanes who did accept the existence of a
clerical class believed that the clergy should be responsive to and
controlled by the laity. Rather than seeing authority as coming down
from on high, that is, from the papacy, the Waldensians stressed
individual responsibility, thus implying that the Church should have a
democratic structure where all Christians would be represented.
Furthermore, the church envisioned by the Waldensians was to be poor
and simple with its ministers imitating the life of Christ and removed
from secular concerns. Persecution had totally failed to convince the
Waldensians that the Roman Church was truly Christ's church. Indeed,
believing themselves to be the true church, they denied the legal and
moral right of the pope to have them punished:

The foolish followers and impious teachers of this sect

[of WaldoJ hold and teach that they are not subject to our lord

pope, the Roman pontiff, or to other prelates of the Roman Church,

for they declare that the Roman Church persecutes and censures

them unjustly and unduly. Also, they declare positively that they

cannot be excommunicated by the said Roman pontiff and prelates,

to none of whom obedience be given should he enéain or command

members of this sect to desert or sbjure it....

By taking part in the earth's wealth and power, the papacy had,

 

49Wakefield and Evans, 22, cit., pp. 347-350.

50Account given by Bernard Guy as cited in Ibid., p. 388.

184

according to the Waldensians, forfeited its spiritual powers.S1

While the Albigensian Crusade and the Inquisition failed to
exterminate heresy, they were quite successful in provoking the
hostility of the native population of Southern France.52 This
hostility was particularly evident in the political poems of the
troubadours, whose poems of courtly love and sensuous delights
generally put them beyond suspicion of being Cathar.$3 While usually
insisting Upon their fidelity to the Catholic faith, they heavily
denounced the corruption, greed, and ambition of the prelates, the
French, and the Inquisitors. Thus, after stating the orthodoxy of

his own beliefs:

E cre Rom'e sent Peire a cuy fon comandatr
jutge de penedensa, de sen e de foldatz.

 

S1Ib1de, pe 396e

52Guillaume de Tudble stated that even the Catholic peasants
joined in the murdering of the crusaders: Guillaume de Tud31e, 2e, git3,
p. 170. Likewise, the murder of several Dominican Inquisitors at
Avignon in 1242 was accomplished by the lower nobility who only
sympathized with the Cathars and were not themselves heretics: Nelli‘et
gap, ge,,ett., p. 304. There was also a large amount of hostility
directed against the Inquisitors in Germany and Italy. However, I
have found no account of this hostility in any way being connected with
the papacy. Indeed, many appealed to Rome against the excesses of the
Inquisitors. For examples see Salimbene, eg..ett., pp. 501 and 507:

and HistorIg QIgIomgtiee, IV, pp. 649-651.

53The Inquisitors nevertheless considered courtly love "a
factor of moral dissolution by which heresy is propagated": Henri
Gougaud, Po m s 011 i as d s Trouba ou 5 (Paris: Bélibaste, 1969), p.
15. Also see Palmer A. Throop, Critieism of the Crusade: A Study of
ngIie CeIgIen eng Crusgge Progaganda (Amsterdam: N. V. Swets and
Zeitlinger, 1940), p. 30: and Jeffrey 8. Russell, ”Courtly Love as

Religious Dissent,” CetHoIic Historieal Hevieg, LI (April 1963), pp.
31‘32e

54Gougaud, ge, eit., p. 77. Translation: ”I believe in
Rome and St. Peter, who was ordained to judge our duties, our
judgments, and our sins."

185
one troubadour, Peire Cardenal, accused the clergy and monks of only
believing in greed55 and in another poem stated that the prelates of
the Roman Church were full of pride and arrogance:

Il son plen de folor e d'orguelh e d'ufang6
Aquest mestre pastor de la gleiea romana.

Picking up one of the old complaints of the clergy against the Roman
curia, Cardenal accused the pope, cardinals, and legetes of forgiving
the rich and condemning the poor:

L'apostoli -lh legat e-lh cardenal
S'acordon tug at an fag establir

Que qui no-s pot de trassir esdir,
S'aver non a, fassa-lh hom lo sandal:

Finally, writing towards the end of his life (0. 1278), the same post
said that the leaders of the Church were damning themselves by their
lack of charity and their abuse of the power of excommunication:

Aus tu, que gleiza gov§rnas

E cobeitas e chaupernas

L'autrui drag? del tot t'enffirnas
Si caritatz no-t defen.

E 81 a tort escuménjas,

De tu meteis cre que-t vénjas
Due non tainh las gens deggr‘njas
Mas tan can razos consen.

IbId.

56Pairs Cardenal, 22-.£££09 p. 186. Translation: "They are
full of folly and pride, those chief pastors of the Roman Church.”

57Ibid., p. 298. Translation: "The Apostle of Rome, the
legetes, and the cardinals accord everything for themselves: and they
have established the fact that whoever cannot exonerate himself from
treason, if he does not have any money, one imposes on him the mark of
the hot iron.”
58Ibid., p. 340. Translation: "Do you hear, you who govern
the Church and who tread on the rights of other? You damn yourselves
cDupletely if charity does not defend you. And if you excommunicate
u"Justly, I believe that you punish yourselves, because it is not

186

Almost all of the troubadours writing in the 1220's also criticized the
papacy for ignoring the Holy Land by its Albigensian Crusade.59 While
troubadours such as Tomier and Palazi said that all those joining the
"false crusade" were guilty of heresy themselves,60 another troubadour
Huon de Saint-Quentin said the papacy had betrayed the whole crusading
ideal by its war against European heretics.61 In a poem written around
1226 Cardenal likewise stated his disapproval of the papacy's crusade
policies and claimed that Syria could have been already recovered from
the Saracens had not the papacy wasted so many resources against the
noble Count of Toulouse.62

Perhaps the most virulent attack upon Rome by a troubadour
was the long Provengal lay written by Guilhem Figueira in the 1220's.
Unlike Cardenal, who seemed to blame Rome more for its connections with
the local prelates and the French than for any inherent dislike of the
papacy, Figueira attacked Rome as the birthplace of all corruption
and decadence in the world:

D'un sirventes far so est son que m'agenssa

no-m vuolh plus tarzar ni far longs bistensas,

e sai ses doptar qu'ieu n'aurai malvolenssa,

car fauc sirventes

dels fals, mal apres,
de Roma, que es caps de la dechasenssa,

on dechai totz bes.

No-m meravilh ges, Roma, si la gens erra,

 

fitting that you restrain man without good reason." In other poems
Cardenal accused the clergy of fostering war for their own financial
and political gain but made no direct reference to the papacy and

concentrated his attack on the local clergy: Ibid., pp. 56, 64, and
146.

59
Throop, gg. cit., pp. 34-35. 601b1d., p. 41.

atLELQ-o p. 44. 62Pairs Cardenal, 22! cit., pp. 64-65.

187

que-l segle avetz mes en trelh et en gerra,
a pretz e merces mor per vos e sostsrra,
Roma enganairitz,

qu'etz de totz malseguitz

e cima e razitz,...

After accusing Rome of leading all persons, including the French
nobility, astray through its desire for gain,64 Figueira asked by what
right Home led good Christians into martyrdom and had them killed:

Roma, als Sarrazins faitz vos pauc de dampnatge,
mas Grscs e Latis metetz e carnalatge.

ing el foc d'abie, Roma, faitz vostre estatge
en psrdicion.

Ja Dieus part no-m don,

Roma, del pardon ni del pelegrinatga

que fetz d'Avinhon.

Roma, ses razon ayetz mainta gen morta,

e jes no-m seb bon, car tenetz via torts,
qu'a salvacion, Roma, serratz la ports.

Per qu'a mal govern

d'estiu e d'invern

qui sec vostr'estern, car diables l'en porta
ing el fuoc d'enfern.

Roma, be-is decern lo mals c'om vos deu dire,
quar faitz per esquern dels crestians martire,
mas en-cal quadern trobatz c'om daja aucire.
Roma-ls crestians?
Dieus, qu'es verais pans
e cotidians, me dog so qu'en desire

5
vezer dels Romans.

 

63Gougaud, gg..ett., p. 132. Translation: "1 will make a
poem to suit myself, I will no longer maintain silence: and I will make
malice blossom because I will make a poem about the liars established
at Rome, the city and fountain of decadence where all goodness is
murdered. I no longer wonder, Rome, about those errors where you throw
men: from trouble into violence, honor and pity are murdered by your
bread, Rome of dishonor, chair of evil....”

64Ibid.

6§1th., pp. 34 and 36. Translation: "Rome, you do little

harm to the Saracens, but you massacre Greeks and Latins. In hell-fire
and ruin you have your seat, Rome. May God give me no share in the
indulgences of the pilgrimage to Avignon. Rome, without any reason you
have killed many men: and I find it displeasing that you follow a

188
By so many evil deeds Rome had forfeited, according to Figueira, all
66
its rights and could not be saved by either God or the saints.
Predicting that Count Raymond VII of Toulouse would soon be victorious
over the French invaders67 and that the 'loyal emperor' (Frederick 11)
would soon bring the papacy low,68 the troubadour echoed Frederick II's
complaint that the Church was trying to usurp all earthly power:
Tant voletz aver del mon la senhoria
que ren non temetz 69
Dieu ni sos develz,...
Figueira further predicted that, if Rome's power were not destroyed,
the whole world would die from its poison:
Si'n breu non perdatz poder, a male traps
es lo mons cazutz
e mortz e vencutz.
E-l pretz confondutgb Roma, 1a vostre papa
fai aitals vertutz.
In his last stanzas the poet accused the papacy of causing the horrible

bloodbath made by the French crusaders at Béziers and said Rome was

locked in friendship with the devil.71 The whole of Figueira's poem

 

tortorous path, because, Rome, you close the door to salvation. You
are a bad guide in summer and winter for that one who follows your
steps because the devil leads him into hell. Rome, the evil which you
do is easy to discern: by folly you throw Christians into martyrdom.
In what book does it say that you should kill good Christians, Rome?
God, who art the true and daily bread, do as I wish and punish the
evil Romans." ,

66M" p. 136. 67Ibi e Galbide, pa 138e
69

Ibid. Translation: "You want so much the world's power
that you no longer fear God, our sovereign."
70Ibid. Translation: "If you do not soon lose your power,
the world will fall into a bad trap. It will be dead and vanquished.
And merit will be destroyed: Rome, here are the miracles which your
pope performs."

711b1ge, pe 142s

189

was so hostile that the Inquisitors ordered those reciting it to be
imprisoned,72 while Figueira himself was forced to seek refuge at the
court of Frederick II in Sicily.73

While the papacy had only a very minimal success with the
Cathars and Waldensians except in provoking the hostility of the native
population of Southern France, it scored a major victory for the Church
with the lay religious organization initiated by Francis of Assisi.
Closely akin to the early Waldensians, Francis put great emphasis upon
the personal pursuit of a more spiritual life and upon the renunciation
of worldly goods.74 However, unlike Waldo, Francis spent little time
denouncing the many wrongs committed by churchmen but always insisted
upon showing complete respect for the Church's doctrines and clergy.
Nevertheless, probably recognizing that some of Francis' characteristics,

such as his strong individualism and his scorn of wealth, could easily

lead to heresy76 and also perhaps wishing to protect Francis from the

 

72Thr00p, Qfle Qite, pe 30e 731bide, pe SUe

74 i a onis Rufini at An e i o iorum S. Francisci

(The Writings of Leo. Huffino and Angelo Companions of §t._francis), ed.

and trans. by Rosalind 8. Brooke (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1970), p.
91.

 

75Etienne de Bourbon stated that in a sermon delivered to
the cardinals at Rome Francis made a strong attack against the
worldliness of all prelates: Etienne de Bourbon, eg, 2353: p. 407.
This assertion should probably be ignored, since such an event was not
mentioned in the writings of Francis' early followers who made it clear
that Francis held great respect for the prelates and wished to teach
them by the sanctity of his own life, not by denouncing their

shortcomings: Serigta Leonie. Hufini et AngelI Soeiorum S. Franeisci,
p. 289a

6Edouard Jordan, "Le Premier Sidcle Franciscain: Les
Grandes Crises de l'Order," in Caintrfiranchs d'Assise: son oeuvre--

son Influenee, 1226-1926 (Paris: Editions E. Droz, 1927), p. 92.

190
jealousy of local prelates,77 Innocent III took the precaution of
placing three important restrictions on the young order when he gave it
approval on a trial basis in 1210: 1) Francis was to promise full
obedience to the pope: 2) all members of the group were to take at
least minor orders in the Church: and 3) they were to preach only
penance and moral exhortations to the people.78 While the papacy was
binding the early Franciscans to Rome and incorporating them into the
church structure, the great popularity of Francis, especially in the
early years of his order, made him an important asset to the Church and
to the papacy whose contact and influence with the laity was thereby
greatly enhanced.79 At the same time, of course, the mere fact that
Francis and his early followers had sought papal approval in the first
place80 demonstrated that disillusionment with the papacy had not
permeated all levels of lay society and that some at least still
regarded the papacy as the source of spiritual authority within the
Church. Indeed, it was not until the end of the century that certain
elements (the Spirituals) within the Franciscan Order, by than fully a
part of the church structure, became an embarassing source of direct

attacks against the papacy.81 At the same time the Franciscans managed

 

7?LQ;Q., p. 103: and Bonaventure, Life of St, Franeis

(London: Everyman's Library, 1963), p. 320.

78Omer Englebert, Saint Franeis of Assiei, trans. by Edward
Hutton (London: Burnes Oates, 1950), p. 97: and Bonaventure, gg. cit.,
pp. 320-321.

9Bonaventure stated that Francis renewed the Church:
Bonaventure, ge,.ettt, p. 316.

Bolbige, pe 319s

81See Chapter III.

191
to obtain a great degree of p0pularity in areas formerly given over to
heresy, such as Southern France, where several lay groups lived under
the rule of St. Francis.82 Thus, for a time at least the papacy
provided through the Franciscans an outlet for the lay impulse to lead
a more apostolic life.

The apocalyptic ideas which eventually so greatly influenced
the Spiritual Franciscans were indeed not restricted to the clerical
classes. While the papacy was trying to cope with lay reform groups,
it was also having to contend with various lay apocalyptic organizations
which made sporadic appearances throughout the century. Unlike the
reform groups which called for changes to be made through human effort,
the apocalyptic groups expected drastic changes to occur suddenly
through divine intervention. While millenarians predicted changes in
all levels of society, the most sweeping changes were to occur in the
ecclesiastical structure.

One of the first of such apocalyptic groups was the
Amalricians. Around 1205 Amalric of Bena, a leading professor of logic
and the other liberal arts at the University of Paris, picked up some
of "the pantheistic ideas of John Scotus Eriugena, taught an identity of
God with the universe, and explained the membership of the faithful in
the Body of Christ in a pantheistic sense".8.3 After coming under

attack from local authorities, Amalric appealed to the pope who likewise

 

82Salimbene, gg, gIt,, p. 235: and Carter Pertee, "Peter
John Olivi: Historical and Doctrinal Study," Eranciscan Studies, XX
(September-December 1960), p. 229.

83Karl Bihlmeyer, Church History, revised by Herman Tuechle
and trans. by Victor E. Mills and Francis Muller (Westminster, Maryland:
Newman Press, 1963), VOle 11, pe 306s

192

rejected his teachings. Finally compelled to recent publicly at the
University, he died shortly afterwards from weariness and indignation.84
The Amalricians, who called themselves his followers, appeared soon
after his death and quickly spread into the major commercial centers
from Flanders to Lyons.85 While several members of the lower clergy
were involved,86 the group also contained a large number of laymen and
women.87 Teaching that the sacraments of the New Testament were void
under the third age of the Holy Spirit and that whatever was done in
the spirit of charity was not a sin,88 the Amalricians also showed a
great hostility towards the papacy which they predicted would be
overthrown and replaced by the spiritual leadership of the French king
within five years.89 Ceesarius of Heisterbach described the beliefs of
one of the group's lay members:

... William [the goldsmith] also prophesied within five years

these four plagues would occur: first, one upon the people, who

will be destroyed by famine: the second will be the sword, by

which the nobles will kill each other: in the third, the earth

will open and swallow up the townspeople: and in the fourth, fire

will come down upon the prelates of the Church, who are members of
Antichrist. For, he said, the pope was Antichrist, Rome was

 

84Guillaume 1e Breton, "Gesta Philippi Augusti," in Oeuvres

de HIgord at de GuiIIaume Is Breton (Paris: Librairie Renouard, 1882),
pp. 230-231e

85Norman Cohn, [he Pursuit of the Millennium (London:
Secker and Warburg, 1957), pp. 158-160: and ”Contra Amaurians" as cited

in Russell, ed., HeIigious Dissent in the Middle Ages, pp. 83-84.

86There were also many clergyman involved with the Cathars:

N8111, 22, Eite, pa 1710
B7

Guillaume le Breton, gg, git., pp. 231-233.
B?1grg.; and Guillaume de Nangis, gg. cit., p. 136.
89

Cohn, ge, eit., pp. 158-160: and "Contra Amaurians," pp.
83-84.

193

Babylon: the pope hIBself reigns upon Mount Olivet, that is, in the
grossness of power.

After having been condemned by both the archbishop of Soissons and the
bishop of Paris, the Amalricians were then burned at the stake by the

91

order of Philip II, although a few members of the sect continued to

exist until the early years of the reign of Louis VIII.92

The year 1260, the year of the great Joachite expectations,
gave birth to two new lay apocalyptic groups, both in Italy: the Order
of the Sack begun by Raymond Attanulfi and the Apostolic Brethren begun
by Gerard Segarelli. Both Attanulfi and Segarelli had at one time
attempted to gain membership in the Franciscan Order but had been
rejected because of illiteracy.93 Nevertheless, they formed groups
very similar to that of the Franciscans: the brethren of the two new
lay orders went about Northern Italy preaching, hearing confessions, and
begging for a living.94 Despite their popularity among the laity--
especially among the simple rustics, according to Salimbene, who

resented their encroachment upon what he considered Franciscan

territory95-- Gregory X annulled the two lay orders on the grounds that

 

90Wakefield and Evans,‘ge. cit., p. 260.

9"Guillaume le Breton, g2. eit., pp. 231-233.

92Cohn,_gg. eit., pp. 158-160: and "Contra Amaurians," pp.
83-84.

QSSalimbene, _O£e Eét°’ ppe 255-256e

911519., pp. 255-257.

9§LQIQ., p. 258. Similar opinions as to the simplicity of

Segarelli's followers were made by Bernard Guy and in the history of
Dolcino: Anonimo Sincrono, "Historia Fratris Dolcini Heresiarche,"

Herge Italiearum Snggtores, IX, Part 5, p. 4: and Bernardo Gui, "De

sects illorum qui se dicunt esse de ordins Apostolorum," Rerum Italicarum

194
too many mendicants would overly burden the public.96 While the
Brethren of the Sack quietly complied with the papal directive,97 the
so-called Apostles made no effort to disband.98 Claiming to live as
the original apostles according to the Scriptures and to be in a state
of salvation,99 the Apostolic Brethren continued to go about through
Lombardy and to preach to the people.100 Gerard Segarelli was quite
popular by himself, reportedly performed many miracles,101 and even
had himself entertained at the episcopal palace at Parma, although
the bishop, a nephew of Innocent IV named Opigo, openly ridiculed

102 Indeed, up until the year 1285 Segarelli and

Segarelli as a fool.
his followers seemed to be tolerated as harmless, if somewhat
annoying rustics.103 In that year, however, Honorius IV condemned
the Apostles by name, accused them of 'herstical deprevity', and
ordered that they be abolished for 'seducing the simple with their

false image of sanctity'.104 In the following year Opigo expelled

 

Cerigtores, IX, Part 5, p. 17. In their bulls condemning the Apostles
both Honorius IV and Nicholas IV also stated that the Apostles appealed
primarily to the simple: Bernardo Gui, eg. eIt., pp. 18-19.

96Salimbenshgg. eit., pp. 255 and 268.

971.9230: 9- 2530 9819;. 99]b;d., p. 553.

100Marjorie Reeves, [he Ianuence of Proghegy in the Later

MiedIe Ageeg A fitgdy In Joaehimism (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1969),
p. 242s

1m"Acta Sancti Oficii Bononie,” Herum Iteliearum Serigtores,
IX, part 5, Fe 570

1028.11Mb8na, 220 Site, pe 265e

103Henry Bett, JoaeHim of [Iora (London: Methuen and
Company, Ltd., 1931), p. 148.

10489rnard0 GU1, 92a site, pe 18e

195
Gerard and the Apostles from Parma for being 'vils ribslds' and
deceiving the people.105 The papal condemnation of the Apostles was
repeated in 1290 by Nicholas IV.106 When Segarelli returned to
Perms in 1294, he was immediately arrested and thrown into prison by

the Inquisition.107 Finally, following a recantation of his errors,

Segarelli was burned at the stake in Parma on July 18, 1300.108

The burning of Segarelli followed by the take over of the
order by Dolcino of Novara brought a new phase to the teachings of the
Apostolic Brethren. Although there had been definite undertones of
anti-establishment ideas from the order's inception, these became the
dominant element under Dolcino's leadership. In August of 1300 Dolcino
wrote the first of three epistlss in which he told the mission of the
Apostles and the future of the Church. Claiming that his congregation
was a spiritual order 'chosen and sent by God, especially for the
salvation of souls' and that he himself was particularly chosen by God
to reveal the present and future through his perfect knowledge of the
prophecies and writings of the Old and New Testaments, Dolcino denied
that the Brethren owed obedience to any outside authority and called
for the extermination of their adversaries which included both secular

and ecclesiastical rulers. Dolcino then proceeded to divide the world's

history into four ages, or status: During the first status, the age of

 

the Old Testament, the patriarchs, prophets, and other good men lived

in a state of justice and practiced matrimony for the propagation of

 

10555111143808, 22e Qite, p. 620s
106
Bernardo Gui, gg, cIt., p. 19.
107 108

BBtt, me Cite, p. 150e Ibide

196
the human race. The second etetge began with the advent of Christ and
his disciples who came to correct the errors into which the first age
had fallen. This age was marked by the performance of miracles and by
the practice of poverty, chastity, and humility. With the decline of
the second age came the.etetge initiated by St. Sylvester and the
emperor Constantine. During this age poverty and humility were
abandoned, since it was judged better to own possessions and govern in
order to maintain the people in the faith. Stricter rules concerning
the ownership of property were later enacted first by St. Benedict and
then by SS). Dominic and Francis. The fourth status was begun by
Segarelli and his followers who were instituted to restore the primitive
apostolic life by a complete renunciation of all goods and property.
Dolcino than predicted that a new emperor, Frederick of Sicily, would
'exterminate' the pope, cardinals, prelates, clergy, monks, friars, and
sisters because they had declined so gravely from their original state
of perfection. After the extermination of Boniface VIII and the
cardinals a new angelic pope would be sent by God. Reviling Boniface
for causing so much war among Christians, Dolcino said the new pops
would liberate men to live in peace under the grace of the Holy Spirit
as had done the apostles in the primitive church. This last age was to
last until the coming of Antichrist and the end of the world.109 A
second and similar epistle was written by Dolcino in December 1303 and
foretold of four last popes, two good and two bad. The first of these
popes was Celestine V, who was the first good pope since St. Sylvester

and whose abdication was foretold in Isaiah 21: 1. The next pope,

 

109Bernardo Gui,.gg. eit., pp. 19-22.

197

Boniface VIII, who was severely criticized for supporting Charles II of
Sicily against Frederick, likewise had his downfall foretold in Isaiah
21: 7. Boniface was to be followed by an unnamed bad pope who would be
destroyed by Frederick, the ascending lion described in Jeremiah 49:19.
The last angelic pope was foretold in Isaiah and was to be elected by
God to lead the spirituals under the grace of the Holy Spirit.110

Although the Apostolic Brethren probably numbered no more
than 1400 followers, if that many,111 the writings of Dolcino were
important because of their display of extreme anti-papal sentiment.
While Dolcino showed anger at most of the authority figures in Italian
society,112 he concentrated most of his hostility on the papacy whose
actual power he greatly over-estimated. The reign of peace under the
guidance of the Holy Spirit could only come about when the angelic pope
would sit upon the papal throne:113 in other words, what Dolcino seemed
to feel was that the world would be good once the papacy was pure and
that the present evils in the world were largely caused by a corrupt
papacy. Moreover, after paying a respectful tribute to the reforms

14

initiated by St. Francis and St. Dominic,1 Dolcino made it clear that

 

11011319., pp. 22-23. The last few years of Dolcino's life

were spent as a renegade in the mountains until his capture and burning
as a heretic in 1308: Anonimo Sincrono, ge, eetp, pp. 9-12.

111‘00711” Sincrono, 22e site, pe 4e

1lzzoig., pp. 5-9. This work puts much more emphasis on the
anti-authoritarian overtones of Dolcino's teachings than does Bernard
GUYe

113Bernardo Gui, gg, ett,, pp. 19-21.

11‘M’: 9° 200

198

such reforms were no longer fruitful and that new changes for the
better could only be achieved by violence, such as the extermination
of existing secular and ecclesiastical leaders, and by the direct
intervention of God, who would send an angelic pope to convert the
world to Christ and to allow men to live in peace. Such a solution to
the world's problems demonstrated not only deep frustration but also
total disbelief in the ability of existing institutions, such as the
papacy, to bring about any meaningful reforms in themselves or in
others. According to Dolcino, Celestine V, the only good pope since
Sylvester, had had no choice but to resign, since the whole papal
structure was at that time too corrupt to house such a holy man.115
Unlike the attacks made upon Boniface by Philip IV and many of the
Spiritual Franciscans, Dolcino did not restrict his attack to this one
pope but regarded Boniface's so-called wrongdoings as proof of the
complete corruption of the Holy See. Such an institution could demand
no obedience: its excommunications and other decrees were worthless.116
Nevertheless, Dolcino never seemed to doubt the validity of the papal
institution as an institution: however, his conception of what that
institution should be and do differed radically from what he perceived
to be the actions and character of the existing papacy. Dolcino wanted
a simple, spiritual church and papacy: the papal institution he saw was
huge, complex, and worldly.

Beyond such groups as the Apostolic Brethren which often

ended in heresy there were numerous sporadic religious movements

 

115gb1de, pp. 21'22e
115

Anonimo Sincrono, gg,‘eit., pp. 7-9.

199
throughout the century which espoused only short-term goals, lacked
any solid organization, and only momentarily captured the popular
imagination. These movements were particularly prevalent in areas,
such as the Empire, where the unstable political situation and
almost continuous warfare probably helped to stimulate sudden
outbursts of religious conversions among the laity.

Penitential movements were one of the dominant forms of
religious expression in Italy. The Great Hallelujah of 1233, which
Salimbene described as 'a time of quiet and peace',117 was apparently
initiated by the preaching of a few Dominican friars in different
parts of northern and central Italy, where the cities put aside their
fierce rivalries at least temporarily in a great display of Christian
brotherhood. A certain Friar Benedict, 'a simple and illiterate man
of both innocent goodness and honest life,‘ came to preach in Parma
and later in Pisa and was greeted by the people as 'another John the
Baptist who preceded the Lord'.118 Meanwhile, in the March of
Traviso another friar named John caused great excitement among the
people by preaching the peace of Christ and His apostles and even
succeeded in getting himself elected as the count and duke of
Vicenza.119 John's success was, however, very short-lived. One
chronicler succinctly described the preacher's great popularity
and sudden decline:

Brother John from the Order of Preachers was held in so much
reverence by the men of the March and even of Lombardy that at

117Salimbene, 22, eit., p. 70. 1181b1d., p. 71.

119"Cronaca di Antonio Godi," Rerum Italicarum Scri tores,

VIII, Part 2, p. 10.

200

his coming the people of Padua, Verona, Brescia, and Mantua

with their carrocios and a great multitude of other citizens

came together in the compagna of Verona. And there on the day

of St. Augustine [August 28] he authoritatively promulgated

decrees to all the people.... But soon his power expired:

within abgut a month whatever he had ordained was reduced to

nothing.
Although the Hallelujah probably ended in more than a little
disillusionment,121 it had momentarily captured and awakened deep
religious sensitivities in the people who seemed to have been filled
with a feeling of expectation of better things to come. At the same
time, rather than attacking church authorities, as had done the
heretical groups, the movement had largely ignored the ecclesiastical
structure and had focused its hopes on an individual rejuvenation of
the human soul.122 None of those recording the event mentioned any
participation whatsoever by the papacy.

The Italian flagellant movement of 1260 occurred at a

time 'when the whole of Italy was being inundated by many base
crimes and wickedness'123 and followed a year of severe famine in

the peninsula.124 Although the movement was partially caused by

 

120"Chronicon Marchiae Travisinae et Lombardiae, 1207-

1270," Herue Italieargm Serieteres, VIII, Part 3, p. 10.

121Antonio Godi reported that the overthrow of John
caused the people to lose faith in the Preacher who 'proceeded not
from God but from man': ”Cronaca di Antonio Godi," p. 11. Only
Salimbene, then quite young, showed no disillusionment.

122Marvin 8. Becker, ”Dante and his Literary Contemporaries
as Political Men,” figsequm, XLI (October 1966), p. 676. The friars
leading the Hallelujah acted independently of the episcopate.

123"Chronicon Marchiae Travisinae et Lombardiae," p. 44.

1245811Mbene, 22s its, 9. ‘65.

201
125
the Joachite expectations of a coming new age, its primary
motivations seemed to be a real desire for peace and brotherhood.
Beginning first in Perugia and then spreading to Rome and the rest

of Italy, the movement created great excitement among all classes

of society.126 Salimbene described the tremendous popular

enthusiasm created by the flagellants in the area around Mutina:

... [The] flagellants came through the whole world: and all
men, as many small as great, as many noble soldiers as
commoners, proceeded nude through the streets beating
themselves, proceeded by the bishops and clergy. And they

made peace and restored what had been wrongfully taken from
others and confessed their sins...: and in their mouths

sounded 'the voice of God, not of man', and the voice of them
as much as the voice of the multitude: and the men walked in
salvation. And they composed divine praises to the honor of
God and the Blessed Virgin, which they sang as they went about
beating themselves. And on the day of the moon on the feast of
All Saints [November 2] all the men of Mutina, as many small as
great, and all from the county of Mutina, both the podesta and
the bishop with the standards of all the societies, came to
Reggio: and they pggt themselves through the whole city and
went to Parma....

Although local secular and ecclesiastical leaders exerted enough
control over the movement to keep it from getting totally out of
hand,128 the real impetus of the movement came from the pe0ple: and
the papacy again played no active role. Indeed, one chronicler
remarked that the movement was 'not instituted by the highest

pontiff... or other preachers or persons of authority... but by the

simple... showing that the Holy Spirit inspires and inflames with

 

1251mg” p. 293. The "Chronicon Marchiae Travisinae st

Lombardiae" made no mention of any Joachite influence.

126"Chronicon Marchiae Travisinae et Lombardiae,” p. 44.

127Salimbene, eg, cIt., p. 465.

128Cohn,,ge, eit., pp. 126-129.

202

the fire of his love whomever he wishes.'129

There were numerous other strictly local outbursts of
religious piety throughout the century in Italy: and, like the two
larger movements, they demonstrated no connection with the papacy.
In 1208 all ranks of Paduan society formed into a brotherhood of
peace and love and went about reading the Psalms and other Biblical
works. This period of 'grest peace' was broken up in the next year
when Vicenza invaded Padua.130 Slightly over two decades later in
1230 another peace movement occurred in Padua under the direction of
Antonio, who was hailed as 'the hope, confidence, tutor, refuge, and
patron' of the people of that city.13‘ In 1239 an eclipse of the sun
caused the people of Lucca to parade through the streets behind their
podesta and clergy and momentarily to make peace among themselves.132
The capture of Padua from Eccelino during the 1250's also produced
a great display of popular religious piety with the conquest of Padua
being attributed directly to the grace of God rather than human
merit.133 In 1279 the cities of Cremona, Parma, and Reggio
enthusiastically erected statues of a winemaker named Albert whose

body supposedly worked many miracles after his death. This popular

canonization was definitely contrary to canon law, but neither the

 

129"Chronicon Marchiae Travisinae et Lombardiae,” p. 45.

130Rolandinus Patavini, "Cronica in factis et circa facts
Marchie Trivixane,” Herum Iteliearum Serigtores, VIII, Part 1, p. 23.

131rere., pp. 40 and 43-44.

1325a1imbene,.gg. cit., p. 164.

133"Chronicon Marchiae Travisinae et Lombardiae,“ p. 32.

203
local bishop nor the people sought any official approval from
Rome.134 While these were only a few of many such incidents, they
demonstrated clearly that the pope played no active role in
stimulating or controlling expressions of popular religious
enthusiasm in Italy. None of these movements showed any anti-papal
sentiments: the papacy was simply not involved at all. Only in 1230
when a great flood inundated many parts of Rome was there any show
of pro-papal sentiment. Frightened by the natural calamity, the
Romans called back and enthusiastically greeted the pope whom they
had previously ejected for political reasons.135 Even here, however,
the papacy was only indirectly involved, since it neither caused nor
controlled the events taking place.

While Italian outbreaks of religious piety were generally
characterized by a strong desire for peace, such outbreaks in Germany
often ended in violence. Attacks upon Jews, the crucifiers of Christ,
occurred sporadically throughout the century.136 Prelates were also
frequently attacked: but such attacks were generally political in

nature, representing the desire of the cities to undercut the power of

the bishops.137 Only the Stedinger peasant movement which pillaged the

 

134Ryccardus de Sancto Germano, g2, eit., p. 165.

135Salimbenehgg. eit., p. 502.
136"Richeri Gesta Senoniansis ecclesiae,” Monuments Germaniae
Histortee, Serigtores, XXV, pp. 322-323: "Balduini Ninovsnsis

Chronicon," Monuments Cermaniae Histories, Serigtores, XXV, p. 546: and

"Sifridi Presbyteri de Balhusin Historia Universalis st Compendium

Historiarum," onumenta GermanIae Historiee. fierigtores, XXV, pp. 702
afld 715-71 6e
137

“Richeri Gesta Senoniansis ecclesiae," pp. 319 and 341-
3433 "8991611 Aursavallensis Gesta episcporum Lsodiensium," Monuments

204
churches and convents of Northern Germany from 1230 to 1234 seemed
mostly devoid of political motivations.138 Nevertheless, while these
acts of hostility generally had no direct relationship with the papacy,
there were two movements which expressed strong anti-papal feelings.
In 1248 during the height of the papal war against the Hohenstaufens a
group of preachers appeared in Germany and claimed to have the truth
directly from God rather than from the pope or prelates. Denying the
right of any man, whether pope or bishop, to keep another from divine
service or to put a city under interdict, these new preachers advised
the people to desert the depraved pope and place their hopes in
frederick II and his son Conrad. They further claimed that the pope had
lost all power to bind and loose because he had failed to lead an
apostolic life.139 The German flagellant movement of 1260 likewise
displayed anti-papal sentiments. Insisting that they could achieve
salvation through their own merits, these German flagellants turned

against the ecclesiastical authorities and eventually had to be put

down by the secular princes working in conjunction with the bishops.140

 

Germaniae flistoriga, Scriptores, XXV, pp. 116 and 124: "Balduini
Ninovsnsis Chronicon," p.540: and "Chronici Rhythmici Coloniensis

Fragments," monuments Germaniae Histogiga. figgigtgres, XXV, p. 349.
138F11Ch8‘fiinglep'22p site. Do 2300
139

Albert von Stade, gig Chronik gas Albert von §tade
(Leipzig: Verlag der 0nkschen Buchhandlung), pp. 106-108; "Chronicon

Rhythmicum Austriacum,” Monuments Germaniae Histories. Scriptores, XXV,
p. 363; "Chronici Rhythmici Coloniensis Fragments," p. 379: and Cohn,

220 Eite' p. 1050

140Cohn, 22, cit., pp. 128-129; and "Sifridi Presbyteri de
Balhusin Historia," p. 705.

205

Persons claiming to be Frederick II appeared in 12621‘1 and 1284142 and
created a momentary excitement among the populace. The fact that
Frederick was often associated in the German mind with the chestisement
of the Church143 suggested a certain amount of indirect anti-papal
sentiment behind this popular enthusiasm.

Spontaneous expressions of popular religious enthusiasm in
France were largely centered around the French kings. In 1196 Philip 11
took over the leadership of a flagellant movement occurring at s time
of great floods.144 Great religious celebrations occurred throughout
the kingdom following the king's victory at Bovines.145 Guillaume de
Saint-Pathus, the biographer of St. Louis, cited numerous examples of
popular religious devotion in connection with the royal personage.

While such pro-king sentiment expressed in religious terms generally

had no connection with the papacy, it could, as happened with the

 

141”Sifridi Presbyteri de Balhusin Historia,” p. 706.

1421nd” p. 7103 Cohn, 92. cit., pp. 108-1093 Salimbene,
g2. cit., p. 537: and ”Alberti Milioli notarii Regini Liber de
temporibus et aestetibus et cronica imperatorum," Monuments Germaniae

5W. xxx1. p- 569-

143Marjorie Reeves, "Joachimist Influences on the Idea of a
Last World Emperor,” Infinitio, XVII (1961): pp, 327 and 337. This
association of Frederick II with the chastisement of the Church is
demonstrated in several chronicles of the period: Albert von Stade,
‘22..Qit., pp. 83-853 "Chronicon Rhythmicum Austriacum,” p. 361:
"Chronici Rhythmici Coloniensis Fragments," p. 3753 and ”Balduini
Ninovsnsis Chronicon,” p. 543.

144Rigord, ”Gesta Philippi Augusti," Oeuvres de Rigord et de
Guillaume 1e flrgton (Paris: Librairie Renouard, 1882), p. 134.

145"l‘ticheri Gesta Senoniansis ecclesiae," p. 294.

146Guillaume de Saint-Pathus, Les Miracles de Saint Louis,
ed. par Percival B. Fay (Paris: Librairie Ancienne Honoré Champion,
1931). Also see Guillaume de Nangis,‘2g..§;§., p. 239.

206
Amalrician heretics, be turned against the pope. Such an incident of
popular support for the king being turned against Rome occurred in the
spring of 1251, when the Pastoureaux began spreading throughout France.
Led by the eloquent Jacob, ”Master of Hungary," and claiming to have
received direct revelations from God, the original band of shepherds
were soon joined by many of the urban classes.147 Even the Queen Mother
Blanche of Castile gave them support in the hope that they could fulfill
their avowed purpose of freeing Louis IX from his Moslem captors in
Egypt.148 Despite its original good intentions, the movement quickly

began to show signs of extreme anti-clericalism.149

While all members
of the clergy were denounced, particular antagonism was vented against
the mendicants who were called hypocrites and vagabonds and who were
held responsible for having preached the king's disastrous crusade150
and against the Roman curia which was labelled the font of all the
corruption.151 After murdering a number of priests and Jews, the group
was finally outlawed by the Queen Mother who found their excesses

beyond royal control.152 The movement rapidly deteriorated after the

 

147Salimbene,_g_g. cit., pp. 444-445.

“Lagarde, 920 Qitep I, Do 2020
149Guillaume de Nangis, 22. cit., pp. 207-208. The
Qotrgreaux who formed together against the enemies of God in 1183
likewise turned against the clergy; Rigord,‘22. rit., p. 36.

1505311Mb9n8, 9.2. git.) pp. 444-445.

151C. G. Coulton, From 5t. Frangis to gante (New York:
Russell and Russell, 1907), p. 187: and Matthew Paris, English History,

trans. by J. A. Giles (London: Henry G. Bohn, 1852), vol. II, p. 441.

52
1 Cohn, 22, cit., pp. 82-87; The Chronicle of Bury St
Edmunds, 1212-1301, trans. by Antonia Gransden (London: Thomas Nelson

and Sons, Ltd., 1964), pp. 17-18; and Robert E. Lerner, "The Uses of

207
ban: and the remaining Egstourgaux leaders were hung by local
officials.153 The ease with which popular affection for the king could
be used against the papacy was again demonstrated during Philip IV's
quarrel with Boniface VIII, when the French people strongly adhered to
the king's appeal for a general council.1S4 This later support, however,
was strictly a political matter and demonstrated the populace's
non-acceptance of the papacy's temporal power.

Unlike the French, the English people were often either
indifferent or in league with the nobles and prelates against their
kings and indirectly against the papacy which usually supported the
monarchy.155 However, such antagonism against the popes was primarily
political in character and could not be regarded as expressions of

156 157

religious sentiment. Indeed, outside of a few attacks on Jews

England seemed almost totally devoid of such spontaneous popular

 

Heterodoxy: The French Monarchy and Unbelief in the Thirteenth
Century,” Ergggh flisroriggl Studies, IV (Fall 1965), pp. 198-201.
153

”Richeri Gesta Senoniansis ecclesiae," pp. 310-311.
V154Pierre Dupuy, n 'ent le Pa e
Bon f P i a le 8 (Tuscan: Audax Press,
1963), p. V19.
155
T. F. Tout, h to of n n f om th A e sion of

flan ry 111 re the anrh of Edgard III, 1216-137 , vol. III of The
Politicgl History of England, ed. by William Hunt and Reginald L. Pool

(8 vols.: London: Longmans, Green and Company, 1920), p. 1. This does
not mean that there were no popular expressions of religious piety

shown the king in England, but such expressions never reached the
exaggerated proportions they did in France during the thirteenth century.
156An example of such politically oriented groups was the
formation of secret lay societies during the 1230's to rid local churches
of Roman benefice holders: Roger of Wendovsr, Elgygrr gf History, trans.
by J. A. Giles (London: Henry G. Bohn, 1849), pp. $51-$52.

157Matthaw Paris, ”a site, 19 pa 490

208
158
outbursts which occurred in other parts of Europe. However, if
England failed to have great popular movements, it did have a strong
cult of popular heroes,159 such as Thomas Becket, Robert Grosseteste,
and Simon de Montfort, all of whom were noted for their defense of the

integrity of the English Church and nation.160

The English attitude
towards these heroes was closely connected with the English attitude
towards the papacy. If the papacy supported the local saint, as in the
case of the twelfth-century archbishop of Canterbury, Thomas Becket,
whose relics were translated by Honorius III in 1220, it was highly
praised and its power approved.161 However, if the papacy was not on
good terms with these heroes, it was criticized or ignored. Indeed,
Robert Grosseteste, who generally supported the papal plenitude of
power, was mainly revered because of his attack on papal abuses and was

regarded as a defender of the English Church against the evil intentions

of the pope and king. Matthew Paris even went so far as to claim that

 

158There were two probable explanations for this general
lack of popular movements in England: 1) the strong leadership
exerted by the English nobles and prelates and 2) the predominantly
rural character of England.

159Cults of local saints were typical of the thirteenth
century, especially in Italy: Coulton, 22¢.EiE-v p. 40. However, the
Italian cult of saints was mainly a local affair and reflected the
Italians' primary loyalty to their own city-states rather than to a
larger political unit. The English cult of popular saints can best
be compared to popular devotion to the crown in France.

16OAll of these heroes were men of action and contrasted
greatly with Germany's most popular thirteenth-century saint,
Elizabeth of Thuringia, who abandoned the political arena to spend a
simple, holy life in prayer and in helping the poor.

161Robert of Gloucester, Tug r192 and Martyrdom of Thomas
B ket, ed. by William Henry Black (London: T. Richards, 1845), pp. 12,

30, 32’ 56, 64, Md 12‘s

209

Innocent IV's death was caused by his opposition to Grossetesta.162
Another popular hero was Simon de Montfort, the leader of the barons in
the war against Henry 111.163 Despite the facts that he was posthumously
excommunicated by the papal legate Dttobono and that the pope had
steadily supported the king against the barons, many in England totally
ignored the papal disapproval, continued to see de Montfort as the
defender of English freedom, and claimed that miracles were performed
by his body.164

While the heretical groups and the popular movements
represented certain facets of the papacy's relationship with the laity,
perhaps the best description of the orthodox layman's attitude towards
the papacy was presented by Dante in his Diyine Corr y.165 Although
written during the first quarter of the next century, this work
embodied much of the religious aspiration and disillusionment
experienced by the laity at the end of the thirteenth century, if not
for the whole preceding period. Its characters were primarily those of

Dante's youth: and the story itself was set in the year 1300. While

Dante belonged in sentiment with the church reformers and never

 

162Matthew Paris, 93. git” 111, p. 100.

163C. H. Knowles, Simon gs Monrfort. 1265-1965 (London: The
Historical Association, General Series, no. 60, 1965), p. 6: and The

hroni e of i h n of th 8 rons' w th the Mi a les
of §imon dg Montfor , ed. by James 0. Halliwell (London: Camden Society,
1868), pp. 67-110.

16‘"Robert of Gloucester's Chronicle,‘ in The Church
Histgrians of England, trans. by Joseph Stevenson (London: Seelys,
1858), vol. V, Part 1, p. 375: and The oni of Bu t dmunds,
pp. 30-33.

165Kenelm Foster, 0.P., "The Canto of the Damned Popes:

Meme. xix." mm. LXXXVII (1969), p. 47.

210
advocated the complete destruction of the established ecclesiastical
institution, he nevertheless echoed the complaints of such heretical
groups as the Waldensians and Spiritual Franciscans against church

abuses.166 At the same time, while insisting upon the necessity of the

Church and its sacraments,167 he put great emphasis on the experience
and will of the individual: it was Beatrice who was the guiding force
behind Dante's salvation.

Undoubtedly blaming the political machinations of Boniface
VIII for his forced exile from Florence,168 Dante made numerous attacks
upon the papacy's greed for wealth and power.169 On his trip thrOUgh
Hell he acknowledged the presence of 'both popes and cardinals' in the

170

circle of the avaricious, while Nicholas III was made to forecast

 

166Lsff' "The Apostolic Ideal in Later Medieval Ecclesiology.”

p. 69. Dante differed in one important aspect from most of the
heretics: he never rejected secular power. Indeed, much of the inine
‘Qggggy was devoted to his own political views and was therefore more
closely skin to the thought of imperial politicians than to that of the
average layman. For this reason it has been largely omitted here.

167Dante Alighieri, Ign_2ryrgg_§ggrgy, vol. II: Pu sto io,
trans. by John D. Sinclair (New York: Oxford University Press, 1968),

canto iii.

168Dante Alighieri, [hg Qiyrng flogggy, vol. III: Parggisg,
trans. by John D. Sinclair (New York: Oxford University Press, 1968),

canto xvii: and Robert F. Murphy, ”Dante and Politics," Histo Toda ,

169The wolf, the medieval symbol of covetousness and greed,
was often used by Dante most probably as a reference to the papacy.
Also, like Dolcino, Dante seemed to view Boniface's activities as
symtomatic of a general overall corruption in the whole papal office.

170Dante Alighieri, [he inine Qomggy, vol. I: Inferno,
trans. by John D. Sinclair (New York: Oxford University Press, 1968),
canto vii.

211

the presence of Boniface among the greedy simonists.171 In this canto

of the damned popes Dante pointed out dramatically the perversion and
distortion of the existing papal institution: Nicholas was thrust

upside down in molten rock--a great contrast to the rock on which

172

Christ had founded His church. Even the pagan Virgil was made to

show his contempt and scorn for Nicholas, thus denoting that the papal

betrayal of Christ was ”an offense to human reason and conscience".173

Later, in the Egradiso Dante again referred to Rome as 'the place where

174

Christ is bought and sold all day' and to the Church as 'the good

plant that was once a vine and is now become a thorn'.175 Nevertheless,

Dante insisted upon the greatness and sanctity of the office of the

Holy See throughout the whole of his work176

177

and acknowledged the great

burden it inflicted upon its holder. This mixture of great respect

for the office of the papacy and of complete disgust with its recent

occupants was best put forward in the Pgrgdiso where Dante had Peter,

the first pope, speak of the evils which had befallen the holy office:
. . . 'Se 10 mi trascoloro

non to maravigliar: che, dicend'io,
vedrai transclolrar tutti costoro.

 

1711b1g., canto xix.
172

Foster, gg. git., pp. 54 and 60.
173

Ibige, p. 53.

174Egradiso, canto xvii.

17sIbid., canto xxiv.

1761b1de' canto V1110

177Dante had Adrian V say, ”A month and little more I proved

how the great mantle weighs on him that keeps it from the mire, so that
all other burdens seem a feather." Pur atorio, canto xxi.

212

Quelli ch'usurpa in terra il luogo mio,
il luogo mio, il luogo mio, chs vaca
nella presenza del Figliuol di Dio,
fett' he del cimiterio mio cloaca
del sangue e della puzza: onde 'l perverso
che cadde di qua su, la giu si placa.‘
'Non fu la sposa di Cristo allevata
del sangue mio, di Lin, di quel di Cleto,
per essere ad acquisto d'oro usata:
ma, per acquisto d'esto viver lieto,
e Sisto e Pio e Calisto e Urbano
sparser lo sangue dopo molto fleto.
Non fu nostra intenzion ch'a destra mano
de' nostri successor parts sedesse,
parts dall'altra del popol cristiano:
ne che le chiavi che mi fuor concesse
divenisser signaculo in vessillo
che contra battezzati combattesse:
ne ch' io fossi figure di sigillo
a privilegi venduti e mendaci,
ond' io sovente arrosso e disfavillo.
In vestra di pastor lupi rapsci
si veggion di qua su per tutti i paschi:
o difesa di Dio, perche pur giaci?
Del sangue nostro Caorsini e Guaschi
s'apparecchian di bars: 0 buon principig,
a che vil fine convien che tu caschil

In this brilliant passage Dante voiced two of the most common complaints

 

178Pa diso, canto xxvii. Translation [by Sinclair]: "If I
change colour do not marvel, for while I speak thou shalt see the colour
change in all of these. He that usurps on earth my place, my place, my
place, which in the sight of the Son of God is empty, had made of my
tomb a sewer of blood and filth, so that the apostate who fell from here
above takes comfort there below.’ ... 'The bride of Christ was not
nutured with my blood and that of Linus and of Clitus to be used for
the gain of gold: but for the gain of this happy life Sixtus and Pius
and Cslixtus and Urban shed their blood after many tears. It was not
our meaning that on the right hand of our successors should sit one part
of Christ's people and the other on the left: nor that the keys which
were committed to me should become the device on a standard for warfare
on the baptized: nor that I should be the seal for sold and lying
favours, for which I often redden and flash with fire. Ravening wolves
in shepherds' clothing are seen from here above through all the
pastures. O God of our defence, why sleepst Thou still? Cahorsines and
Gascons prepare to drink our blood. 0 fair beginning, to what base and
art thou to fall?...” It is difficult to determine from this passage if
Dante is referring to Boniface being an illegitimate pope or the overall
corrUption of the papacy when he says the papal throne is vacant.

213

against the thirteenth-century papacy: its uncontrolled greed and its
subsequent use of warfare against its Christian enemies to maintain its
wealth and power. Here, also, Dante emphasized the difference between
the lives of the primitive churchmen and the worldly lives of the popes
and prelates of his own age.179 Unless this process, begun by the
Donation of Constantine, could be reversed and the Church returned to
its original spiritual duties, Dante argued that there could be no
peace for Christendom.180

Another frequent criticism of Dante against the papacy was
its mismanagement and abuse of the crusades--another facet of the
papacy's overall greed for wealth and power. Unlike various Joachite
groups as well as the Waldensians and Cathars, Dante had not lost
faith in the crusading ideal itself but instead attacked the popes for
their failure to launch another great expedition to the Holy Land and
for their diversion of crusades so that they were directed against
fellow Christians rather than against infidels.181 Here again, Dante
indicated that the papacy was paying too much attention to politics
instead of fulfilling its spiritual functions.

While Dante was quite precise in his denunciation of

 

179Leff, "The Apostolic Ideal in Later Medieval Ecclesiology."

p. 69a

180F08t9r9‘220 site, pp. 62-63e

1B1P radiso, cantos ix, xv, and xxvii: and Inferno, canto
xxvii. How well Dante represented popular opinion on this issue is
unknowable. Probably both the abuse of crusades and a growing disbelief
in their validity contributed to the decline of crusading fervor. The
continued failure of so many crusades was probably a major cause of this
decline. That Dante himself had mixed feelings towards the Moslems is
offered by the fact that he put Saladin, Averroes, and Avicenna among the
noble pagans whose only fault was being non-Christian: Inferno, canto iv.

214

particular papal offenses and in his description of the greatness of
the papal office, he nevertheless was rather vague about what he wanted
‘from the popes except in the matter of crusades. By including almost
all facets of human existence within the Diying Comedy, he seemed to be
accepting the papal view that all elements in the life of this world
were related either directly or indirectly to the spiritual realm.182
What he seemed to reject was the idea that the papacy had control over
all the world's activities. If by assigning control over the political
sphere to the secular princes,183 he was following the call of kings
and emperors alike for the papacy to stay out of politics, by attacking
ecclesiastical wealth, he seemed to be echoing the call of reformers
and heretics for e purer, poorer, and more simple church. Indeed,
while heaping great praise upon St. Francis of Assisi,184 he asserted
that it was Francis that kept 'Peter's bark on the right course',185
thus suggesting that Franciscan ideals were to guide the papacy rather
than the papacy to guide the Franciscans. In such a framework the
papacy was relegated into doing little more than calling for crusades,
providing a good example, and safeguarding the sacraments, a duty of all
the Church.

Two factors became increasingly evident about the papacy's
relations with the laity during the thirteenth century. 0n the one

hand, the popes created little or no stimulus for religious enthusiasm

among the laity: whatever enthusiasm there was generally sprang from

 

azfllurphy, as Cite, pa 484a

183Parsgiso, cantos xviii, xix, and xx.

184Ibid., canto xi. 185Ib d.

215
the people themselves, as exemplified by the Italian movements, or from
local leaders, as in the cases of France and England. On the other
hand, papal attempts to lead existing enthusiasm into orthodox
channels usually ended in failure (with the notable exception of the
early Franciscans) and often provoked hostility with its methods being
regarded as oppressive. Moreover, the heresies of the period186 were
often rooted in social discontent:187 that is, they were aimed at
changing the social system, a system in which the papacy played a vital
role, rather than at posing doctrinal differences, differences which
often appeared as a result of changing social concepts as well as new
ideas. Indeed, the great amount of criticism directed against the
papacy during the period, whether uttered by an orthodox Christian such
as Dante or by a heretic, was closely linked to a general dissatisfaction
with the whole social structure. From almost all sides came up the cry
for a more spiritual church under a truly religious leadership. Rather
than a great bureaucracy partaking in the world's wealth and power,
laymen exhibited an almost constant desire to see a return to such
virtues as simplicity, personal piety, poverty, and brotherhood.186
Whether this desire sprang from a too rapidly growing social system or
from true religious sentiment, it was evident that the papacy too often

failed to provide an outlet for these feelings and even indirectly

 

18§At least the ones discussed here. The intellectual

heresies at the University of Paris and elsewhere have been ignored
here.
1B7B‘venot, "The Inquisition and its Antecedents, II," p.
384.

188The original purpose of the Waldensians was to simplify
the Church: Luchaire, Lg groisgge Albrggois, p. 10.

216
encouraged a great amount of hostility to be aimed against its office.
Undoubtedly, the laity could feel little identity with such a
grandiose institution as the popes envisioned but looked for the
salvation of the world through some simple, pious soul. Nevertheless,
despite this criticism coming from almost all directions few outside
of the Cathars and the more radical Waldensians wanted to do away
with the papal institution. Indeed, the Jubilee of 1300 saw 'an
innumerable multitude of people' from all Europe coming to Rome to

189

view the relics of Peter and Paul. While there were many calls

to reform the papacy, there were few demands to destroy it.

 

189"Platynae Historici: Liber de vita Christi ac omnium
pontificum," figrum Irgliggrgm figrigtorgs, III, Part 1, p. 260: and
”Sifridi Presbyteri de Balnhusin Historia Universalis at Compendium
Historiarum," p. 715.

C D N C L U S I O N

The conclusions of this work tend to agree with Luchaire's
assessment that the pontificate of Innocent III did not mark any great
period of papal power extending over the whole of European society.
Furthermore, it has shown that the thirteenth-century papacy as a whole
never exerted the power over Europe which its doctrines of papal
supremacy proclaimed so loudly. Indeed, the papal ideal of its
plenitude of power discussed in Chapter One can generally be relegated
to the realm of papal aspiration rather than historical actuality. The
real power of the papacy simply did not exist to such an extent.

The most glaring proof of the papacy's inability to demand
obedience was offered in the political arena. On the one hand none of
the secular rulers wanted to abolish the papacy. Even in the fiercest
disputes between popes and princes there was no widespread cry to
destrOy the institution. It was not until the final years of his great
struggle with the papacy that Frederick II proposed a plan that would
radically alter the structure of the existing church by removing it
totally from a position of political and economic power. Moreover, his
aim was reform, not destruction. Later, Philip the Fair was to launch
his attack against the Church strictly on the personal unworthiness of
Boniface VIII.

If the secular princes never wanted to destroy the papal
institution, they refused on the other hand to accept papal pretensions

217

 

218
in the political realm. King John of England successfully defied a
papal excommunication and interdict until a coalition of angry barons
threatened rebellion. Later, when the pope changed to support the
king, the English barons and prelates rebelled against the royal-papal
alliance and denounced the pope for jeopardizing the independence of
the English Church. Louis VIII's conquest of England was not stopped
by the sentence of excommunication but by the disintegration of English
support after the death of John. As for the papal war against the
Hohenstaufens, it often appeared less as a war between church and state
as one between the Empire and the rising city-states of Northern and
Central Italy which had been trying to gain independence since the
twelfth century. The majority of soldiers fighting for the ”papal
cause" were either from these cities or paid mercenaries. Moreover,
the so-called papal victory failed to bring about a general recognition
of the papacy's secular claims. Also, while imperial power quickly
eroded after Frederick II's death, there was no corresponding rise of
papal power. Both Germany and Italy again disintegrated into arenas of
petty, internal fighting over which the papacy had no control: and
imperialists such as Dante blamed the papacy for all the unrest and
longed for a period of peace under a strong emperor. The establishment
of the papally sponsored Charles of Anjou in Sicily was likewise only
achieved by hard military victories. Once established, Charles showed
no inclination to reign according to papal directives and even
interfered in Roman affairs to advance his own ambitions. Meanwhile,
the French kings followed paths irrespective of any papal approval or
disapproval. However, it was not until the last years of Boniface VIII's

pontificate that the papacy actually pushed hard its claims in France.

219
Had earlier popes asserted their power, they, too, would have been
rebuffed.

While none of the secular rulers showed any tendency to obey
blindly the papacy, they often did seek papal approval for various
activities to support their cause. However, papal disapproval was
always ignored or denounced. The English barons appealed to the pope
to support their cause against the king: but, when the papacy quashed

Magna Carts and later the Provisions of Oxford, they ignored the papal

 

sentence and accused the popes of treachery and greed. At the same time

I

the thirteenth-century ruler who most sought papal approval was none
other than Frederick II, who needed papal approval to support his
imperial claims over Italy. However, the Lombards ignored any papal
support given to Frederick. Later, when the papacy openly supported
the Lombards, the emperor attacked the papacy for interfering in secular
affairs. During the long imperial interregnum after Frederick II's
death a few Germans denounced the papacy for not taking any decisive
action, while the Italian Salimbene partially blamed Gregory X's death
on his efforts to promote a new emperor. In light of such facts the
papacy seemed more the pawn than the arbiter of European politics. Since
the secular powers often did appeal to the papacy for moral support, the
popes would probably have been denounced for neglecting their moral
responsibilities had they chosen to completely abandon political
affairs. As it was, they were periodically denounced for meddling.
While the papacy's ability to exercise power in the secular
sphere was often more theoretical than actual, even its theories for
such action were under attack. The expansion of imperial and

Aristotelian ideas concerning the independent origin and function of

220
the state by such men as Thomas Aquinas, Jean of Paris, and Dante
greatly undercut the concept of the pope alone having direct divine
origin and power. Although Aquinas did insist that Christian rulers
were under the pope, other theorists of the secular state, notably
Jean of Paris, believed that such rulers, as Christians, had certain
duties in regard to the Church in addition to their purely secular
functions. The real emphasis of thirteenth-century thought was not so
much upon the separation of church and state as upon the enlarged

religious significance of the secular ruler-- a significance which

 

ultimately detracted from papal power. Indeed, in church-state
disputes successful temporal rulers often appealed to their religious
duties. Frederick II, who compared his birthplace to a second
Bethlehem, said it was his duty as a Christian emperor to reform the
papacy. Louis IX defended his rights over the French Church with the
assertion that it was his duty as a Christian king to defend the
churches within his realm from abuses, even abuses committed by the
papacy. Philip IV argued that it was his duty as a Christian monarch
to aid in the deposition of an heretical pope.

Papal control within the church structure fared somewhat
better: but here, too, there were many problems. Churchmen showed a
steady antagonism against papal encroachments in the financial realm:
they gave only half-hearted support to papal reform schemes, especially
when such schemes threatened their own rights and privileges. Although
the clergy frequently did appeal to the papacy to settle legal disputes,
they were even more frequently disillusioned with papal justice. Also,
while there was a definite growth of national loyalty among the

churchmen, the inability of the papacy to defend adequately local

221
churches against expanding civil powers (townsmen, nobles, and monarchs)
forced the prelates to seek attachments to friendly secular authorities
so that their loyalty to the Church was more or less divided with their
loyalty to the state.

While the papacy exerted much less power during the
thirteenth century than its doctrines of supremacy proclaimed, a much
more serious problem was the erosion of its spiritual prestige,
particularly among the laity. At no time in the century did the papacy
provide any dramatic religious inspiration to the public at large.
Indeed, such inspiration was usually generated on the local level and
never reached the papacy. Likewise, with the exception of the
foundation of the Franciscan Order the various popes generally failed
to provide orthodox outlets for existing religious enthusiasm. Although
outbreaks of religious movements only occasionally ended in heresy, the
absence of any papal leadership in these movements increased the already
growing distance between Rome and the people.

Papal efforts to curb heretical expressions of religious
piety also provoked considerable hostility. Although Europeans
generally disapproved of heresy, they also disliked the strong-arm
tactics used in the Albigensian Crusade and the Inquisition and even
showed a certain sympathy with the more ascetic heretical groups.

While many did not equate the Inquisitors with the papacy, the Provencal
troubadours did. Accusing the papacy of neglecting its spiritual

duties in order to persecute innocent Christiana, troubadours such as
Figueira called Rome the birthplace of all evil. Meanwhile, the
heretics used their persecution as proof of their sanctity-- had not

Christ Himself been crucified?-- and to deepen their attacks upon the

 

222
Roman hierarchy.

While the heresies discussed in this work were generally
rooted in protests against ecclesiastical and to a certain extent
secular abuses, they not only denied the legitimacy of the Roman Church
but also generally negated the very concepts behind the papal reform
schemes which called for human effort working with divine aid through
the Church to correct abuses. The Waldensians, whose ideas most
closely paralleled those of the papacy, did accept the idea of reform
but rejected the idea that the corrupt Roman hierarchy could accomplish
the needed changes. The Cathars, who believed that everything
connected with the physical would was evil, undermined the whole concept
of reform by insisting that a complete renunciation of the world
provided the only path to salvation. By the end of the century the
apocalyptic heresies, such as the Apostolic Brethren and the Spiritual
Franciscans, gained prominence and further negated the concept of papal
reform. Often believing the papacy to be the root of all the corruption
in the Church, these heretics called for the rejuvenation of the world
through direct intervention by God.

The one area where the papacy really did try to promote
enthusiasm was with its crusade projects to the Holy Land.
Unfortunately, its efforts largely met with failure. The kings and
clergy were too involved in their own affairs to want to partake in an
overseas venture. Also, while part of the blame for this failure of
crusade plans probably rested with the papacy's diversion of crusade
funds to fight the Albigensians, Frederick II, and finally Peter of
Aragon-- faults which many Europeans, both clerical and lay, loudly

denounced--, the failure of actual crusades to the Holy Land probably

 

223
generated more than its share of disillusionment with the whole
crusading ideal. Also, while the papacy was unable to exert effective
control over those crusades which did take place, it was often blamed
for their failure, especially after 1250. This criticism of the papacy
which had been brought up frequently during the first half of the
century had become a major theme by 1300.

Indeed, by 1300 the papacy had lost much of its moral hold
over Western Europe. In trying to fulfill their goal of a united
Christendom under papal leadership, the popes had been forced into roles
as lawyers and administrators in a vast, complex, and seemingly worldly
organization. Moreover, Europeans had never accepted the doctrine of
papal supremacy in all areas of human life: and, when Rome tried to
assert such supremacy, they regarded it as a sign of greed and worldly
ambition. What they wanted from the p0pe-- a vague spiritual leadership
in most cases-- appeared lacking in the gigantic bureaucracy which
housed the Roman curia.

The papacy in the end was caught in the midst of conflicting
ideals-- its own ideals of what it should be and the ideals of princes,
priests, and laymen, each having their own expectations and conceptions
of papal power. Because these ideals and expectations were out of
harmony with each other, the century was filled with disillusionment
with the Holy See. The seeming victories of Innocent III, the supposedly
strongest of the medieval popes, and of Innocent IV over Frederick II
were all relatively hollow in that they failed to make Europe accept the
papal ideal of the plenitude of its power. It was impossible for the
varying concepts of papal power to live in harmony with each other,

especially as long as the popes were actively intent upon achieving

 

224
their goals of a united Christendom under papal leadership.

Because the goals of the papacy differed, often radically,
from those of other segments of European society, the cry of papal
corruption was common throughout the century. Although this
dissertation has not attempted to investigate the justice of such
charges of papal corruption, it has attempted to show that at least
part of these charges stemmed from different views of what the popes

should and should not be doing. The idea of a real European unity,

 

the backbone of the papal ideal, was impossible to attain in an
atmosphere where the views on what should be done and who should do
what contrasted dramatically from one another. At the end of the
century Jean of Paris dismissed all but a vague spiritual unity for
Christendom and Upheld the integrity and independence of the secular
state in the social, economic, and political spheres. Dante, who still
dreamed of a united world, wanted the world united under a secular
prince and definitely not under any pope. Moreover, the ideas of
Dante and Jean represented no dramatic change from the past but the
culmination of ideas which had been expounded continuously throughout

the thirteenth century to refute the concept of papal supremacy.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL ESSAY

Thirteenth-century local and national chronicles have
provided the most important sources for this dissertation. Although
these works deal primarily with local affairs, they give valuable
insights into the opinions held about the existing papal institution.
Of all the chronicles those of Matthew Paris and Salimbene de Adam
have been the most valuable. Both Salimbene and Matthew Paris had a
wide range of interests and loved to gossip, especially about subjects
upon which they could morslize. A review of these two chronicles is
almost essential for any understanding of thirteenth-century ideas and
opinions. J. A. Giles has made a very good English translation of most
of Matthew Paris' chronicle under the title of Cnglrgh History,
although it is still necessary to refer to the Rolls Series' 6-volume
Latin edition of Matthew's Chrgnrga Maigrg for a complete text and for
the documents kept in his chronicle. The Latin text of Salimbene's
chronicle can be found in the Monuments Cgrmanrgg Higtoriga, §grigtorgs,
vol. XXXII. There is no full English translation of Salimbene's work,
but a partial translation and commentary on his chronicle can be found
in G. G. Coulton's from 5;, [rggrig to Dante (1907).

Many thirteenth-century English chronicles have been

translated into English. Among the more important translated chronicles

are The Chroniglg of Pierre de Langtoft, Thg Chroniglg of angrrost,

1272-134 , Roger of Wendover's [lorers of fligrory, "Robert of
225

 

226

Gloucester's Chronicle" (vol. V of Ihg Churgh Higtorians of Englang),

h on e f t f G i be 0 , and The ChronigIg of Bury St
nggnds. 1212-1301. With the exception of Roger of Wendover'a

chronicle none of these works presents more than a limited range of
topics: and they are concerned almost exclusively with English

affairs. Two other English chronicles of the period are the "Annalee

Londoniensis" (vol. I of The Chronicles of rho Reigns of Cdgard I gng

ngarg II) and Thomas Walsingham's Chronicg Monasrgrii S, AIbgn . Both
of these chronicles are very useful for obtaining a sample of English

opinion during the century and generally give accurate information.
With the exception of Jean de Joinville's Th: Life of St,
ngrg none of the thirteenth-century French chronicles have been
translated into English. However, Joinville's work as well as‘ng_
MIraglgg g9 Sgint Louis by Guillaume de Saint-Pathus is not so much a
chronicle as a eulogy of Louis IX, although Joinville does pay some
attention to historical detail. Almost all of the major French
chronicles of the thirteenth century have this tendency to eulogize
the French monarchy. This is particularly true of the chronicles of

Rigord and Guillaume 1e Breton. The only major French chronicle which

spans the whole of the period is the ChrgnIggg Igrrng q: Cuillgume dr
N n s e 13 300. All of these works plus many minor chronicles

have been published by the Soci‘tfi de l'histoire de France.

Almost all of the German chronicles used in this dissertation

have been found in the Moggmgntg Cgrmanigg flIsrgrigg, figrigtores. The
one exception has been QIe Cnrgnik ggs AIbgrt yon firggg, vol. LXXII of

Die Geschightsghreiben dgr deutsghen Vorzeit. None of these German
chronicles has much individual merit beyond the study of strictly local

227

affairs. Moreover, these chronicles generally lack any analytic
approach to the problems at hand but simply offer a year by year
account of major events. It is only when taken altogether that they
offer more than a casual view of German opinion during the century.

The Italian chronicles found in L. A. Muratori's‘flgrgm
Italigarum Scrigrores generally offer a greater analytic approach and
a wider range of interests than their German counterparts, although
they, too, are primarily focused Upon local affairs. The most

important chronicles found in Muratori's collection are the following:

 

"Chronicon Marchiae Travisinae et Lombardia, 1207-1270" (vol. VIII,
Part 3), "Chronica Monasterii Santi Bertini auctore Iohanne de Ipra"
(vol. XXV), "Platynae Historici" (vol. III, Part 1), and "Ryccardi de
Sancto Germano notarii Chronica” (vol. VII, Part 2). Of course,
Salimbene's work is another major source for the study of thirteenth-
century thought and opinion.

Other more specialized chronicles include those on the
Fourth Crusade and the Albigensian Crusade. Both of these subjects
deal directly with the impact or the non-impact of the papacy on the
century's life. The two most important sources for the Fourth Crusade
are the chronicles by Geoffrey Villehardouin and Robert of Clari. Both

works have been translated into English and are entitled Tug Congugst

of Congtgntinoglg. James A. Brundage's Ihs Cruggges: A Qoggmentary
figry§y_and Edward Peters' Christian Sogigty gnd rhg Crgsaggs, 1198-1229:
fiogrggg in IrgnsIgtion provide some important insights into the papacy's

relationship to the Fourth Crusade as well as to later crusades to the
Holy Land. There are three major chroniclers for the Albigensian

Crusade: Pierre des Vaux-de-Cernay, Guillaume de Tudsle, and the

228

anonymous poet supporting the Count of Toulouse. All of these sources
are extremely biased and often present conflicting information.

Another major source for this dissertation has been those
works written to refute heresy and to edify the people on matters of
faith. Since the papacy was intimately involved with both these
subjects, such sources almost always provide valuable references to
the papal institution. Probably the single most useful primary source
in the area of heresy is He esies of the i h Midd e A es: elects
fiourggs by Walter L. Wakefield and Austin P. Evans. This large volume
contains exerpts from almost all the major opponents of heresy.
Important works which were written for edification as a means of
combatting heresy include Anggdotgs gigtorigggs by Etienne de Bourbon,
W by Ceesarius of Heisterbach, and the works of
Bernard Guy. Several Franciscan works were also written for edification
but have little to do with combatting heresy. The two important
Franciscan works used here are Bonaventure's Lifg of §aint Frangis and
T W of o R f no and An elo 0 ani ns of t Fran i .

There are numerous thirteenth-century poetic works which
offer opinions on the papacy and its activities. One-third of the
clerically-written Cgrmggg Burgna is concerned with attacks on the
church hierarchy, especially the papacy. Thomas Wright has edited two
important volumes of early thirteenth-century English poems: The Latin

Eggmg Cogggnly Aggrrggglg go WaItgr flgggs and Thg PgIICigaI §ong§ of
finglgng. Both works contain several poems dealing with attacks Upon

the papacy. Henri Gougaud's Pogmgs ggIItIgggg gag Troggggogrs offers

not only some good background material for the troubadours' political

poetry but also a complete version of Guilhem Figueira's long Provengal

 

229
lay against Rome with a modern French translation. A similar but not so
useful collection of troubadour poetry is offered by the Chgsons
s t i b u i l , edited by A. Jeanroy and A.

Langfors. Many works on individual posts are also available: P si s

goggIfirgs fig Trougggour Peirg CardenaI (1180-1278), Les Poésias de Pairs

1392;. u s cm at d Rutebeuf, and Qig Cedigntg gee Walther von
ggr yogglwgide. There are only scattered references to the papacy

throughout these works. The single most important literary work used
in this dissertation has been Dante's inige Comedy. Although several
editions and translations of this work are available, I have used the
edition translated by John D. Sinclair.

While chronicles have generally been used for sources on

church-state relations, two important exceptions have been the Historia

Q12Igmgrigg_firgggr1§;_§gggggr, edited by J. L. A. Huillard-Brfiholles,

and the BaggeII ggg Agteg dg EhIIiggg Auguste Roi dg Frgngg, edited by
M. Clovis Brunel. Although both these sources are in Latin, they are

well arranged and easy to read. For King John's reign‘lgg_§glggrgg
Larrgrs ofl Eogg Innoggnr III gonggrnrng CngIgnd (1]98-1216) is a very
useful source, although it contains only papal letters. Pierre Dupuy's
Hi: -_ = -. D f': :ns o':n : : P-e: Bo ‘- 2 - P _1 --es 1: Be.
.flgy_gg_firgggg also contains an important source of original documents
for the dispute between Philip IV and the papacy.

Political treatises dealing with the relationship between
prince and pops have also provided important sources for views on the
thirteenth-century papacy. A good source book for the political
theories of the Middle Ages is presented by Ewart Lewis in his Medieval

PglIrigsI Iggas. Ewart provides not only exerpts from the major

230
medieval thinkers but also a suitable framework and background for their
ideas. Most of the major thirteenth-century treatises on church-state
relations have been translated into English. The most important of
these treatises are Dante's 0n World-Govgrnment and John of Paris"gg
ngaI and Page; Power. Pierre Dubois' figggvery of the H01 Land, which
also contains his Ingontrovertible Arguments (Ragiones inconvincibiles),

 

can offer little to an historian interested in political theory itself
but is a valuable source for those concerned with the growth of French
nationalism. Another major source for medieval political theory is the
work Agginas: figlegteg PolitigaI Writings, edited by A. P. d'Entr3ves
and translated by J. G. Dawson.

Another major source for the thirteenth century are the
papal registers which are available for the whole period. This source,
however, has not been used in this dissertation.

There are also numerous good secondary sources about the
thirteenth-century papacy. Perhaps the most thorough account of the
workings of the medieval papacy is offered by Horace Kinder Mann's 152
Livgg of thg Poggs In thg Minge Ages (18 vols.: 1926-1931). This work
offers valuable source references but is perhaps a little too uncritical
in most areas. There are also numerous books in English studying the
reasons behind the decline of the medieval papacy and its replacement by
the national state: tu s on Mediev hu h i to (1879) by R. C.
Trench, figoghg of Chg ngggy (1883) by A. R. Pennington, Churgh gnd
firgrg In Che MiggIg Eggs (1913) by A. L. Smith, [hg QgglIne of the
MggigygI Churgh (1933) by A. C. Flick, Thg flrgrgry of thg Qggling and
EaII gf the Medieval Eggagy (1934) by L. Elliott-Binns, A Stugy of the
Cflgrgh (1935) by Philip Hughes, [he MedIgvaI Chgrgh (1962) by Roland H.

231
Bainton, Ihg hggigyaI ngggy (1968) by Geoffrey Barraclough, and‘hggrgrh
§ggIgty gnd thg Churgh Ih thg Middle Ages (1970) by R. W. Southern.
Another major work in this area is Johannes Heller's Qas Pegsttum (1953),
but this work has unfortunately had no English translation. These
general papal histories have been complemented by studies concentrating
on individual pontificates, particularly those of Innocent III and
Boniface VIII. Innocent III's pontificate has undoubtedly received the
greatest attention. Achills Luchaire's six-volume work Innocent III
(1906-1908) has remained a major source for this pontificate since its

publication. Other works in English on Innocent include Curogg and the

Churgh under Innogent III (1927) by Sidney R. Packard, Inno ent I

(1931) by L. Elliott-Binns, and Innoggnt 11;, Churgh nggndgr (1951) by
C. R. Smith. An attempt to analyze and demonstrate the conflictings

views on this pontificate has been made by James M. Powell in Innogent

: a of h ist o o of the World (1963). The most recent
work on Innocent is the Italian §tudi ser Innogenzo III (1972) by
Michele Maccarrone. There have also been a number of articles
published on the subject in recent years. Two of the more important of
such articles are Brian Tierney's "'Tria Ouippe Distinguit...‘ A Note
on Innocent III‘s Decretal Egr,VgnerabIlem" (1962) and Elizabeth
Kennan's "Innocent III and the First Political Crusade: A Comment on
the Limitations of Papal Power" (1971). Boniface VIII's pontificate has
been fully explored by T. S. R. Boase in Bonifgge [III (1933). Attempts
to analyze the character of this pope have been presented by Charles T.
Wood, editor, in Philig thg fisIr ang Bohifagg y11; (1967). E. R.
Chamberlin has also devoted a section to Boniface in his work The Bad

Poggs (1969), but this book is too unscholarly to be of much use to

232
anyone other than a backwoods preacher of damnation.

A number of good works have also been published on the
theoretical problems of church-state relations. Four major general
works in this area are A history of MedievaIgPoIrtical Thgory in thg
‘mggr (6 vols.: 1928) by R. W. Carlyle and A. J. Carlyle, Christiagrry
gnd PolitIcs: A History of the Principle Struggles of Church gnd State
(1938) by Albert Hyma, Mgdieval Political Ideas (2 vols.: 1954) by Ewart
Lewis, and The Crisis of Church and:§tatg£ 1050-1300 (1964) by Brian

Tierney. Walter Ullmann's Ihg Crowth of Bagel Covgrnment in thg middle
ages (1955) is another major work in this area but concentrates

 

strictly on the development of papal theory. Ullmann tends to be
extremely critical of the papacy: and more recent publications dealing
with papal political ideas generally spread a more sympathetic light on
these ideas. There are three important articles in this area:
"L'autorits pontificale selon Innocent IV" (1960) by Marcel Pacaut,
”The Theory of Papal Monarchy in the Thirteenth Century: The
Contribution of the Canonists" (1964) by J. A. Watt, and ”Papal

EIgnitggg Potestatis and the Sources of Temporal Authority in Late

 

Medieval Papal Hierocratic Theory" (1973) by William D. McCready.

There have also been many recent studies made of the ideas of many
thirteenth- and fourteenth-century political thinkers, particularly
Dante and Thomas Aquinas. Some good recent articles on Dante's
political ideas include Marvin B. Becker's "Dante and his Literary
Contemporaries as Political Men" (1966), Kenelm Foster's "The Canto of
the Damned POpes: Infgrno xix" (1969) and Robert T. Murphy's "Dante
and Politics” (1970). A very good analysis of Aquinss' political ideas

along with selections from his major political tracts has been made by

233

A. P. d'Enteres in figgIngs: Selggtgg PolitigsI WrItings (1948). .128

o t ne of t ommon Goo of 11 o i t in th Wo ks of St. Thom
Agginas (1951) by Jaime Velez-Seen: offers an extremely theoretical
approach to Aquinas' thought in the specified area. Another work along
the same line is Richard A. Crofts' article "The Common Good in the
Political Theory of Thomas Aquinas" (1973). T. T. Eschmann's ”St.
Thomas Aquinas on the Two Powers" (1958) serves as a supplement to the
work by D'Entréves.

National histories and royal biographies also deal either
directly or indirectly with the relations between prince and pops,
although they generally present their views from a different angle than
the church histories. Rather than studying why the papacy declined,
they stress why the monarchies rose. One of the major works in this
area is Charles Petit-Dutaillis' The uda on h n an e and
gngIsnd (1936).

Modern French historians have investigated the rise of the

monarchy in France very thoroughly. Three important general works in

this area are Marc Bloch's Cg [range sous Ies dernierg CagétiansI 1223-
1328 (1958), Frank Pegues' Thg Lahygrs of rhg L25! nggtians (1962),
and Robert Fawtier's Thg CaggtIgn Kings of Frgngg (1966).

PhiIIggg Aughsgg: fondateur de I'gnit§ frgngais (1963) by
Maurice Jallut is the most recent book published on Philip II and

provides a good description of his reign. There are also some recent
articles on particular aspects of his reign. One of the best of such
articles dealing with royal-papal relations is John C. Moore's "Count
Baldwin IX of Flanders, Philip Augustus, and the Papal Power” (1962).

An older but excellent work which gives many insights into Philip's

234
reign is Petit-Dutaillis' Crud; sgr Ia vie g; le ragne dg Louis VIII
(1894).

The reign of Louis IX has produced an exceptional number of
biographies and historical studies. However, many of these works tend
to be eulogies and lack true historical perspective. Prime examples
of such works written for the praise and glory of this narrow-minded
monarch are Guizot's St. Louis gnd Calvin (1868) and Mirepoix's éEiflE
Louis roi ge Frangg (1970). Margaret Labarge's Saint Louis (1968) is
somewhat better but still fails to give an overall critical approach to

the reign. Two other recent publications on Louis IX are Saint Louis

ou l'agoggg du Moyen Age (1969) by Jacques Levron and Saint Louis ou Ia
grintemgs gs I: Frangg (1970) by Guillain de Bénouville. Despite the

weakness of most general biographies on Louis there have been several
critical studies on particular aspects of the reign of this patron
saint of bigotry. Elie Berger has written two very good accounts of
particular subjects dealing with Louis' reign: Saint Louis et Innocent
Iy_(1893) and flIgtoIre de Blsnghe de Casgilg figIne de Erange (1895).
Several recent articles have also had the ability to escape from the
shadow of Louis' questionable sainthood and to take a more analytical
approach to the policies and events of his reign. Lester K. Little's
"Saint Louis' Involvement with the Friars" (1964), Odette Pontal's "Le
Différend entre Louis IX et les §v8ques ds Beauvais et ses incidences
sur les conciles (1232-1248)" (1965), and Gerard J. Campbell's "The
Attitude of the Monarchy Toward the Use of Ecclesiastical Censures in
the Reign of Saint Louis" (1969) each presents a critical attitude
toward certain aspects of this king's reign. Edward Billing Ham's short

book fiutebggf ang Louis I; (1962) likewise is not overawed by Louis'

235
alleged saintliness and serves as a complement to Little's article.
The whole dubious process leading up to Louis' canonization is
discussed in Louis Carolus-Barré's "Les enquates pour la canonisation
de Saint Louie--de Gregoire X 8 Boniface VIII--et ls bulls El2£isuL22§J
du aoOt 1297" (1971).

The last named article also deals with the relationship
between Philip IV and Boniface VIII. Indeed, this dispute between pope
and king dominates almost all the literature on the reign of Philip IV.
The best history of this dispute and of Philip's reign in general is
Georges Digard's Phi i e 1e Bel at e Sain -513 e de 1285 3 304 (1936).
Some recent research giving additional insight into Philip's controversy
with the papacy is presented by Gerard J. Campbell's "Clerical
Immunities in France During the Reign of Philip III" (1964), Richard
Kay's "Martin IV and the Fugitive Bishop of Bayeux” (1965), Jo Ane

McNamara's ”Simon de Beaulieu and 'Clericis Laicos'" (1969), and Thomas

Renna's ”Kingship in the QIsguratio Inter CIerIggm gt Militgm" (1973).

Pierre Dupuy's seventeenth-century WW
Eggg anifarg VIII er EhIIIggg§ lg BeI Boy gs [rangg is too
nationalistic to have much value other than as a major source of primary
material. In EhiIIg rhg EgIr gng flgnifggg yIII (1967) Charles T. Wood

has given an outline of the major views regarding this church-state
dispute and has attempted to give some insights into the characters of
both Boniface and Philip.

There are also a number of good thirteenth-century English

historians. Two general histories of the period are T. F. Tout's he

History of England from the Acression of Hgnry III to the Dgath of
Eggard III. 1216-1377 (1920) and F. M. Powicka's Thg Thirtegnth Century

236

(1953). Another book dealing directly with royal-papal relations for

the whole period is William E. Lunt's FinangiaI Belgtions of the

ngagy gith Englang to 1327 (1939). Recent articles covering specific
aspects of royal policies relating either directly or indirectly to the

papacy include "The CIeriggs in the Legal Administration of Thirteenth-
Century England" (1956) by Frank Pegues, "Relations of the Two
Jurisdictions: Conflict and Cooperation in England during the
Thirteenth and Fourteenth Centuries" (1970) by W. R. Jones, "Royal
Supremacy in Ancient Desmesne Churches" (1971) by J. H. Danton, and
"The Medieval Tradition of English Political Thought" (1972) by John
B. Morrall. All of these articles tend to further dispel the old
notion that the thirteenth-century English monarchs were too
subservient to the papacy.

The best single history of the reign of King John is Sidney
Painter's Thg geIgn of King John (1949). Alan Lloyd's h Ma 1 n d
Mongrgh (1972) is the most recent study of John's policies but is
primarily a repetition of Painter's work in its better parts. C. R.
Cheney has produced two recent articles on royal-papal relations
during the period: "Cardinal John of Ferentino, papal legate in
England in 1206“ (1961) and "England and the Roman Curie Under Innocent
III" (1967). Neither article, however, adds significantly to current

knowledge about the reign. There have also been a number of recent

works published on Magna Carta including Msgng Cgrrgg Tgrr gnd
Cohhgntary (1964) by A. E. Dick Howard and Magng Carts (1965) by J. C.
HOlte

Henry III's reign has been quite thoroughly examined by

Powicke in his work King Hgnry III and thg Corg ngard (1947) as well

237

as in his The Thirteenth antury (1953). J. J. N. McGurk's article
"Henry III of England" (1972) adds little to recent research in the
field but reiterates the theme that Henry's reign did witness many
administrative innovations in the financial realm, especially under the
guidance of his Poitivin relatives. The Barons' War of the 1260's still
continues to attract many historians. Oliver H. Richardson's 1hr
hngonaI_flgygmantrIn the Reign of Henry III (1897) continues to be a
good source for the period. In 1964 the Friends of Lewes Society
published a short book The Battle of Lewes, 1264: Its EIace in English
flIstory, which contains two interpretative articles by Powicke and R.
F. Treharne. There have also been a number of recent histories dealing
with Simon de Montfort: gimon de Montfort (1962) by Margaret Wade
Labarge, flattIe Royal (1965) by Trefton Beamish, and fiImon de hontforrl
Beformgr gng Rebgl (1971) by Elizabeth Luckock and Caroline Grundy.

Histories of Edward I include T. F. Tout's figharg the First
(1920) and L. F. Salzman's deard I (1968). Michael Prestwick's recent
book War, Politics and Einsnge gnder Edward I (1972) primarily discusses
the financial policies of Edward to pay for his many wars.

There are numerous histories about the Holy Roman Empire.
Because of the close ties between the Empire and the papacy almost all
of these works deal in some way with church-state relations. Two of
the most thorough of these works which provide vital information on the
thirteenth century are 'Allema ne et l'Italie aux e at e si les
(1939) by Edouard Jordan and The Origins of Modern Germgny (1946) by
Geoffrey Barraclough. Frederick Heer's [he hgly gomgn Chgire (1968)

offers little about the Empire in the thirteenth century. T on e t

of Chgire in Western Europe from the fifth to the Fourteenth Century

 

238

(1969) by Robert F012 is an excellent study showing the evolution of
the concept of empire but likewise offers little about the thirteenth

century. One of the best sources dealing only with Germany in this

period is Charles C. Bayley's The Eormation of the German ColIege of

[Iggtors in thg Mig-Thirtegnth Century (1949). However, this book is
almost entirely devoted to political history with no mention being made

about other areas of life. Since most modern historians are too
fascinated with the Italian Renaissance to pay much attention to earlier
periods in Italian history, there has been nothing written recently in
English about thirteenth-century Italy. There are, however, several

older works written in this area such as W. F. Butler's The Lombard

Commungs (1906) and G. G. Coulton's from St. Francis to Dante (1907).

H. D. Sedgwick's Italy in the Thirteenth Century (1912) heavily praises
the liveliness of thirteenth-century Italian intellectual activity but

lacks any real historical analysis. Like Bayley's work, Steven

Runciman's Thg SIciIian Vesgers: A History of the Mgditerranean World

In thg Cgte ThIrteenth Century (1958) gives an excellent analysis of
the political manoeuvrings in Southern Italy and Sicily during the

specified period but omits any social or economic factors. Jacques
Paul's article "L'eloge des personnes et l'id‘al humain au XIIIe siGcle
d'apres la chronique de fra Salimbene" (1967) gives some interesting
insights into the value standards of thirteenth-century Italians and
along with Coulton's work provides useful information for a social
historian.

There have been a great many studies made of the reign of
the Emperor Frederick II. While many of these works are in German, one

of the better works has been translated into English: Ernst Kantorowicz's

Illllll|l|||lll||lli‘l

239
Frggerigh Chg Segond, 1124-1250 (1957). There have also been a number
of studies on different aspects of Frederick's reign, particularly his
relationship to the Church. Georges Blondel's tude sur la oliti ue
dg I'Cmgereur frsgérig II en Allemagne (1892) still offers valuable
insights into Frederick's relationship with the German Church. James M.
Powell has written two recent articles to dispute the idea that Frederick
was a persecutor of the Church: "Frederick II and the Church in the
Kingdom of Sicily, 1220-1224" (1961) and "Frederick II and the Church:
A Revisionist View" (1963). Thomas Curtis Van Cleve has incorporated
almost all of the known facts of Frederick's reign into his bookllhg

Cmggror [regerick II of Hohgnstaufen (1972). Like Kantorowicz, he

appears convinced that the papacy was attempting to usurp rights which

 

properly belonged to the Empire.

The state of the Church in the thirteenth century and the
papacy's relationship to other churchmen have also been topics well
explored by historians. One of the best of such works is‘Cg
ghrfitigntg romaine 11198-1274) (1950) by Augustin Fliche, Christine
Thouzellier, and Yvonne Azais. This work is primarily oriented
towards explaining the causes behind the failure of the great papal
reform schemes. Another useful source in this area is Karl Bihlmeyer's

Chgrgh History (revised, 1963). Geoffrey Barraclough's Pagal Provisions

(1935) deals with the development of this papal practice and also the
reaction of local clergy. Brian Tierney's foundations of the Consiliar
[hgory (1955) shows the reaction of churchmen against increased papal
interference in local affairs. Neither of the two last mentioned books
totally exhausts their respective fields of study.

Numerous studies have been made about the thirteenth-century

240
English Church. A basic general work in this area is John R. H.
Moorman's Chgrgh Lifg in CngIand In the Thirteenth Century (1946).
Many of the older works concentrate on episcopal reform efforts during
the period. she and e o m 215-1272 (1936) by Marion Gibbs and
Jane Lang studies the attempts at episcopal reform during the reign of
Henry III and generally rejects the thesis that the papacy was a major
source of corruption in the English Church during the period. ‘th
Cninsh Churgh and the Pagagy in the Middlg Ages (1965), edited by c. H.
Lawrence, contains several articles showing much insight into the
relationship between the papacy and the English episcopate. Other
studies often concentrate on individual episcopates. Powicke's Steghen
Cangton (1965) is a valuable study of this bishop's reform ideas and
further brings to light the connection between episcopal reform plans
and the baronial movement in the thirteenth century. The episcopate of
Robert Grossetesta has also attracted considerable attention among
historians. Francis Seymour's Robert Crossetgste (1899) is still a
major general study of the bishop's life and work. Bobert Grosseteste,
SghoIar ang CIshog (1955), edited by Daniel A. Callus, explores various
facets of the bishop's activities including his relations with king and
pops. Tierney's "Grossetesta and the Theory of Papal Sovereignty"
(1955) analyzes Grosseteste's views on papal power. There have also
been many recent articles dealing directly or indirectly with the
English Church's relation to the papacy. H. S. Deighton's ”Clerical
Taxation by Consent, 1279-1301" (1953) discusses papal pressure applied
to the English clergy to raise taxes for the king. C. J. Holdsworth
shows clerical disapproval of the papal interdict during the reign of

King John in his article "John of Ford and the Interdict" (1963).

III} ‘III ‘I

| ‘11: I‘ll. ll

241
”Bishops, Politics, and the Two Laws: The Crgyghrhg of the English
Clergy, 1237-1339” (1966) by W. R. Jones shows the gradual clerical
acceptance of royal taxation during the specified period. Nancy
Partner's article "Henry of Huntingdon: Clerical Celibacy and the
Writing of History" (1973) shows clerical discontent over clerical
rules concerning clerical celibacy in the twelfth century.

The best single source for the French Church in the
thirteenth century is Histoire des Institutions frangais au Moyen Age,
Vol. III: InsCitutions ngIésiastigues (1962) by Jean-Frangois
Lemarignier, Jean Gaudemet, and Mgr. Guillaume Mollat. Since the
publication of this book there have been four articles written further
studying the French Church. Adrien Friedmann's "Notre Dame et les
Paroisses de Paris au XIIIe siecle" (1964) shows the close cooperation
between the bishop of Paris and the king during the reign of Philip II
in regard to episcopal reform. "An Episcopal Petition from the
Province of Rouen, 1281” (1965) by Richard Kay shows clerical
discontent over papal privileges given to mendicants. "Recherches sur
la restitution ou la cession de dimes aux eglises de le dioc!se de
LiEge du XIe au debut du XIVe siecle" (1971) by Charles Renardy
discusses the problem of tithes. John C. Moore's article "Papal
Justice in France Around the Time of Pope Innocent III" (1972) shows
the gradual expansion of royal courts at the expense of papal justice.

While ecclesiastical and national histories have generally
followed conventual forms, some of the most exciting and provocative
modern historians have attempted to define the ZeICgeist of the Middle

Ages. One of the first of such works was Georges de Lagarde's‘Cg

Naissance de l'esgrit laigue au declin du Moyen Age (1934). This work

242
was followed in 1940 by J. R. Strayer's article "The Laicization of
French and English Society in the Thirteenth Century". Both Lagarda
and Strayer were convinced that the later Middle Ages (including the
thirteenth century) witnessed a gradual turning away from religious to
secular pursuits. However, this thesis has been largely disputed by
more recent historians who generally see no such decline in religious
feeling. One of the first of such works was Jean Laclarq's C'idée de
la royauté du Christ au moyen age (1959), which stresses the growing
religious significance of kingship in the medieval mind. Leopard
Genicot's Ce_XIIIe siacIe Eurogéen (1968) likewise shows that Europeans
were attempting to assert more control over the Church and religion
during the period and were thus not losing their religious ideals. The
entire thesis of Gordon Leff's article "The Apostolic Ideal in Later
Medieval Ecclesiology" (1967) disputes the secular influence of
Aristotle on later medieval thought and insists that antagonism against
the Church was primarily motivated by the desire to return to a more
apostolic life. Another major work attempting to define the spirit of
the period is Henri Daniel-Rops' Cathedral and Crusade, first
published in French in 1952.

Recent works on heresy have also demonstrated the desire to
place heretical movements within the whole framework of European
thought. Gordon Leff's two works, "Heresy and the Decline of the
Medieval Church" (1961) and Heresy ngthngC r Minge Aggs (1967),
both point to a growing alienation between church authorities and key
elements in the lay population as a major source of heresy. Jeffrey
Burtin Russell refuses to admit the validity of Leff's indictment

against the Church and in his A History of MedievaICChristianity:

243
Proghegy and Crder (1968) points to the unwillingness of heretics to
accept the Church's program of gradual reform. Recent works on the
Cathars and Waldensians also attempt to define the relationship between
heresy and orthodoxy in an historical setting, although Nelli's two

works on the Cathars, Les Cathars (1965) and La vie guotidienne dss

 

Cgthars duiCanguedoc aux IIIIa siecle (1969) perhaps make the heretics
seem too much like an idealistic protest group of the 1960's. Christine
Thouzellier's Catharisme et Valdgisma en Lenguedoc (1966) is an excellent
study of heretical thought around 1200 as well as its relationship to
political conditions.

Joachim of Flora and the Spiritual Franciscans have also
attracted considerable historical interest although possibly not so

much in recent years. Two basic works in these areas are Henry Bett's

Jogchim of [Iorg (1931) and Decima L. Douie's [he Nature and the Effect
of thg ngesy of thg FratichIi (1932). Morton W. Bloomfield's two

articles, "The Penetration of Joachism into Northern Europe" (1954) and
”Joachim of Flora: A Critical Study of his Canon, Teachings, Sources,
Bibliography and Influence" (1957), summarize known data on Joachim but
offer little new in historical analysis. Marjorie Reeves' Thg Influence
of Eroghggy in the Catgr MiddIg Ages: A §tudy in Joachism (1969) is a
major attempt to analyze Joachim's ideas and to integrate them into
thirteenth-century thought. There have also been a number of recent
articles dealing with different aspects of Joachism and the Spiritual
Franciscans: "Les Franciscans et la pauvreté aux XIIIe et XIVe siacles"
(1966) by Jacques Paul, "Apocalyptic Conversion: The Joachite
Alternative to the Crusades" (1968) by E. R. Daniel, and ”The Abbot

and the Doctors: Scholastic Reactions to the Radical Eschatology of

 

 

244
Joachim of Flora" (1971) by Bernard McGinn. Two other recent articles
analyze the Joachite influence on Peter John Olivi's thought: "Peter
John Olivi: Historical and Doctrinal Study" (1960) by Carter Partee
and "The Apocalyptic Element in Olivi's Critique of Aristotle" (1971)
by David Burr. Almost all of the major biographies of St. Francis have
also had to cope in one way or another with Joachite influences upon
the original order. Some of the more critical studies on the life of
St. Francis and the origins of the Franciscan Order include Paul
Sabatier's Cijggof St. Frangis of Assisi (1906), O. S. F. C. Cuthbert's
Life of St. Frghgis of Aggrgr (1927), Luigi Salvatorelli's The Life of
St. Francis of AssigI (1928), and Omar Englebert's aint Fran is of
Agsisi (1950).

There are two good studies on the life on St. Dominic and
the early Dominican Order: Pierre Mandonnat's St. Dominic and his Work
(1948) and M. H. Vicaira's Sgint Qominig and hig Times (1964). Vicaire
has also published an article "Saint Dominique et les inquisiteurs"
(1967) in which he attempts to apologize for the Dominican involvement
with the Inquisition.

Older histories, such as Charles T. Gorham's The Mgdieval
Inguisition: A §tudy in ReIigious Persggution (1918) and G. G.

Coulton's InguisitIon ang Liberty (1938), tend to look with horror upon

the Inquisition. Recent historians have attempted to soften this older
condemnation. A. C. Shannon's lhg Poggs ang heresy in thg Thirteenth
antury (1949) maintains that the papacy was actually very little
involved with the suppression of heresy. Maurice Bevenot's "The
Inquisition and its Antecedents" (1966-1967) insists that the execution

of heretics was originally a secular response to heresy and should not

245

therefore be blamed upon the Church. There have also been a number of
recent articles dealing with the day-to-day workings of the Inquisition:
"L'Inquisition Toulousaine de 1243 a 1273” (1953) by Yves Dossat,
”Hunting Subversion in the Middle Ages" (1958) by Austin P. Evans,
"Remarques sur la l§gation de l'éveque Gautier de Tournai dans la Midi
de la France“ (1963) by Yves Dossat, and "Friar Farrier, Inquisitor at
Cauner, and Escapes from Prison at Carcassona" (1972) by Walter L.
Wakefield.

Coupled with the revived interest in the Inquisition is the

revived interest in the Albigensian Crusade. Some of the major recent

works in this area are 206 Oldenbourg's Lg Egghgr gg MonCségur (1959),
Jacques Madaule's lhg AIbigensian Crusade (1961), Marcel Lignihres'

L'Hérgsig Alhigeoise at Ia groisade (1964), Jean-Pierre Cartier's

Histoire de oisade ont las Albi aois (1968), Carmen Ennesch's

Les Cathars gans la gitg (1969), Dominique Paladilhe's Ces grandes
heurag Cgthareg (1969), Edouard Privat's Pgir dg Dieu st guerre saints
an Languedoc (1969), and Michel Roquebert's C'sgogGe gathgrg (1970).

Beginning with Palmer A. Throop's Critigism of the Crgsages
(1940), most recent historians have dispelled the older idea that

interest in the crusades was waning in the thirteenth century. Like
Throop, historians such as James A. Brundage ([hg Crusadeg: A

Qogumentgry Curvgy, 1962), E. Randolph Daniel ("Apocalyptic Conversion:

The Joachite Alternative to the Crusades,” 1969) Edward Peters (ChrIsCian
§ogigCy ghd thg Cryggdeg, 1198-1222: Sourggg in TrgngIation, 1971), and
Maureen Purcell ("Changing Views of Crusade in the Thirteenth Century,"

1972) insist that Europeans were not so much losing interest in regaining

the Holy Land but losing faith in the efficacy of the traditional

246
crusade leadership.

There are a number of works available for the study of
thirteenth-century literature. Three of the sources most useful for
this dissertation have been Edmund Faral's Cesggonqleurs en Frangg_gg
Moyen Age (1910), Helen Jane Waddell's The Wandering Scholars, and
John A. Yunck's The Lineage of Lady Mead: The Development of Medieval
VenaIICy SsCIrg (1963). All of these sources deal with the
relationship of social discontent to the satirical and protest
literature of the period. Another interesting study in this connection
is Margaret Schlauch's Cnglish MadievaI_CICerature and its Social
Foundations (1956), which explores the development of English

literature in Marxist terms.

B I B L I 0 G R A P H Y

A. PRIMARY SOURCES

"Acts Sancti Officii Bononis." Rerum Italicarum Sgrigtores, IX, Part
5 ' 53‘730

"Aegidii Aursavallensis Gesta episcoporum Leodiensis." Monuments

Cgrmaniae historiga. figrigtores, XXV, 1-129.
Albert von Stade. Qie Chronik das AlberC von Ctadg. Leipzig: Verlag

dsr 0nkschen Buchhandlung.

"Alberti Milioli notarii Regini Liber de temporibus et aetatibus at

cronica imperatorum." Monuments Cermsniae Historiga.
Snggtorgs, XXXI, 336-668.

Alighieri, Dante. Thg Diving Comedy. Translated by John D. Sinclair.
New York: Oxford University Press, 1961.

. gn Worlg:Covgrnmgnt. Translated by Herbert W. Schneider.
New York: Bobbs-Merrill Company, Inc., 1957.

 

"Annalee Londoniensis." h oni las of the ei ns of ard and
degrg II. Vol. I. London: Longman and Company, 1882.

Anonimo Sincrono. "Historia Fratris Dolcini Heresiarche." e um

ItaIicarum §grigtores, IX, Part 5, 1-14.
Aquinas, Thomas. hggings: §glegtgd PintIgal Writings. Edited by

A. P. d'Entreves and Translated by J. G. Dawson. Oxford:
Basil Blackwell, 1948.

. Thg fiummg ThgoIggIg . Translated by Fathers of the English

Dominican Province. London: Burns Dates and Washbourne Ltd.,
1941.

 

Bacon, Roger. The Qggs Majus. Translated by Robert Belle Burke.
Vols. I-II. New York: Russell and Russell, Inc., 1962.

"Balduini Ninovsnsis Chronicon." Monu nt G nia istor ca.

finggCgrgg, XXV, 515-546.

Bernardo Gui. "De sects illorum qui se dicunt esse ds ordins Apostolorum."

Rgrum Itingarum §grigtores, IX, Part 5, 15-36.

247

 

248

Brown, Carleton, ed. n sh s f th Th te n h entu .
Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1932.

Ceesarius of Heisterbach. [he Qiangug on Miragles. Translated by H.
Von E. Scott and C. C. Swinton Bland with an introduction by
G. G. Coulton. Vols. I-II. New York: Harcourt, Brace and
Company, 1929.

CarmIns Buranag Dig moraIisgh-satirischen Dichtungen. Heidelburg:
Carl Winter's Universitatsbuchhandlung, 1930.

La Changon de Ia Croisade Albigeoise. Translated by Eugine Martin-
Chabot. Vol. I: La Chanson de Guillaume de Tudéla. Vol.

II: La Poemg de l'auteur snonymg. Paris: Soci‘te
d'Edition ”Les Belles Lettres”, 1957 and 1960.

Cheney, Christopher Robert: and Sample, W. H. §elegted Letters of Poge

Innoggnt III gonggrning Cngland (1198-1216). London:

Thomas Nelson and Sons Ltd., 1953. 7

"Christiani Archiepiscopi Liber de calamitate ecclesiae Moguntinae."
Moggmenta Cgrhaniae HIstoriga. Sgrigtorss, XXV, 236-248.

"Chronici Rhythmici Coloniensis Fragments." Monuhgnta Ggrhgniag
fligtoriga. 59::12t0£:839 XXV, 369‘380e

The h oni of Bu munds 2 - 3O . Translated by Antonia
Gransden. London: Thomas Nelson and Sons Ltd., 1964.

Th h on f ane ost 272- 346. Translated by Sir Herbert
Maxwell. Glasgow: James Maclehose and Sons, 1913.

"Chronicon aliud breve Pisanum incerti auctoris ab anno MCI usque ad

annum MCCLXVII." Rgrum IthIggrum figrigtorgs, VI, Part 2,
107'116e

"Chronicon Marchiae Travisinae at Lombardia, 1207-1270." Rerum
ItaIiggrum Cgrigtorgs, VIII, Part 3.

"Chronicon Rhythmicum Austriacum." Monumgan Cgrmaniag HisCoriga.
firrigCorgs, XXV, 349-368.

ChronIgugg 933 fiinggs g'Anjgu. Paris: Mme vs Jules Renouard, 1869.
"Cronaca di Antonio Godi." figrgm Italigarum figrigCores, VIII, Part 2.

Dubois, Pierre. The Regovery of the Hon Lgng. Translated by
Walther I. Brandt. New York: Columbia University Press,

1956.

Dupuy, Pierre. Histoirg du Differend d'gnCre Ia Page Bonifage VIII at

Philigges la Cgl Roy de Frange. Tuscon: Audax Press,
1963.

249

Etienne de Bourbon. Anggdotes historigues. Paris: Librairie
Renouard, 1877.

”Ex Andreas Msrchianensis Historia Regum Francorum." Monuments

Germanisg HigtorIgg. Sgrigtores, XXVI, 204-215.

"Ex annslium Rotomagensium continuationibus." Monuments Germaniae

historigs. figrigtores, XXVI, 500-506.

Fsral, Edmond. Les Artg goétigues du XIIe at du XIIIe siecle. Paris:
Librairie Ancienne Honoré Champion, 1924.

Geoffroy Villehardouin. The Coaguest oflgConstantinogle. Translated
by M. R. B. Shaw. Baltimore, Maryland: Penguin Books,
1963.

"Gotifredi Viterbiensis opera." Monuments mani Histori a.

figrigtores, XXII, 1-376.

Gougaud, Henri. Posmgs golitigues dss Troubadours. Paris: Bélibeste,
1969.

Grosseteste, Robertus. Cgistolse. Edited by Henry Richards Luard.
London: Longman, Green, Longman, and Roberts, 1961.

Guillaume de Nangis. Chronigue latine de Guillaume de Nangis de 1113
a 1300. Paris: Jules Renouard at Cie., 1843.

Guillaume de Ssint-Pathus. Les MIrachs ge SainC Louis. Paris:
Librairie Ancienne Honorfi Champion, 1931.

Henry, Albert, ed. Ls 1eu ge Saint NIgholas de Jghan Bodel. Paris:

Presses Universitaires de France, 1962.

"Historia Monasterii Rastedensis." Monumgnta Cgrmaniae Histories.
S i to as, XXV, 495-511.

Huillard-Bréholles, Jean Louis Alphonse, ed. hIstoria Diglomatiga
[raderici Sgggndi. Vols. I-VI. Paris: Henricus Plan,
1852-1861.

Iohannes Longus de Ipra. "Chronica Monasterii Santi Bertini auctore

Iohanne Longo de Ipra." Monuhgntg Ggrmaniag Historigg.
Scriptores, XXV, 736-866.

John of Paris. On Roygl ang PagaI Powgr. Translated by Arthur P.

Monahan. The Records of Civilization, Sources and Studies.
New York: Columbia University Press, 1974.

Joinville, Jean do. [he Life of St. Louis. Translated by Rene Hague.
New York: Sheed and Ward, 1955.

Jeanroy, A.: and Langfors, A., eds. Changons satirigues at bachigues
du XIIIe siegle. Paris: Librairie Ancienne Honoré Champion,

1921.

 

250

Th itt e lo a s of t. F an is The Mi ro f P faction t.

Bongventurg'g Lifg of St. frangis. Introduction by Fr.
Hugh McKay, O.F.M. London: Everyman's Library, 1963.

Little, Andrew George, ed. Earts of thg Ogus Igrtium of Roger Bacon.
Aberdeen: University Press, 1912.

Matthew Paris. English history. Translated by J. A. Giles. Vols. I-
III. London: Henry G. Bohn, 1852.

Mattheiu Parisiensis. Chronigg Majors. London: Longmans and
Company, 1876.

Oeuvres de Rigord at ds Guillaume le BreCon. Paris: Librairie
Renouard, 1882.

Pairs Cardenal. Poésies completes du Troubadour Peire Cardenal (1180-

1278). Toulouse: Edouard Privat, 1957.

Peire Vidal. Lgs Poésigs da Peira yidal. Edited by Joseph Anglade.
Paris: Librairie Ancienne Honors Champion, 1913.

Pierre des Vsux-de-Cernay. histoira Albigeoise. Translated by Pascal
Guébin and Henri Msisonneuve. Paris: Librairie
Philosophique J. Vrin, 1951.

"Platynae Historici: Liber de vita Christi ac omnium pontificum."
Bgrum Itingarum Sgrigtores, III, Part 1.

l A ts e P i i e Au ust Roi e an e. Publiée sous la
direction de M. Clovis Brunel. Tome II: Annfigs du rsgne

XVI a ggygx (1er Novembrg 1194- 31 ogtobre 1206). Paris:

Imprimerie Nationals, 1943.

"Richeri Gesta Senoniansis ecclesiae.” Monumentg CgrmanIgg Historica.
59::12t0rgs ' XXV g 249-34Se

Robert of Clari. Thg Conguest of ConstantinogIg. Translated by Edgar
Holmes McNeal. New York: Columbia University Press, 1936.

Robert of Gloucester. lhg Life gng Martyrdom of Thomas Beket. Edited
by William Henry Black. London: T. Richards, 1845.

. "Robert of Gloucester's Chronicle.” [hg Churgh Historians
of EngIang. Translated by Joseph Stevenson. Vol. V, Part 1.
London: Seelys, 1858.

 

Roger of Wendover. F ow s of 's o . Translated by J. A. Giles.
London: Henry G. Bohn, 1849.

Rolandinus Pativini. "Cronica in factis at circa facts Marchie

Trivixane." Bgrum Italiggrgm §crigtores, VIII, Part 1.

251

Rothwell, Harry, ed. Th h oni e f t of u borou h. London:
Camden Society, 1957.

Rutebeuf. O u s om 1 tea d utebeuf. Publiees par Edmond Faral et
Julia Bastin. Vols. I-II. Paris: A. at J. Picard, 1959.

Ryccardus de Sancto Gsrmsno. "Ryccardi de Sancto Germsno notarii

Chronica.” figrum Italigarum SgrigCores, VII, Part 2.

Salimbene de Adam. ”Cronica." Monuments Cgrmaniae Historica.
ECIIEtOEBS, XXXII.

Schroeder, Henry Joseph, 0.P. Disgiglinary Decrees of the General
Coungils. St. Louis:‘ B. Herder Book Company, 1937.

iota ,-onis ’ufini at An-eli So iorum . _an is i. The .ritin-s
of so 'uf_no and An-elo om-aniona of t. Francis. .
Edited and translated by Rosalind 8. Brooke. Oxford:
Clarendon Press, 1970.

"Sifridi Presbyteri de Balnhusin Historia Universalis at Compendium

Historiarum.” Monumgntg Germaniae historiga. §grigtoras,
XXV, 679-718.

Thomas Walsingham. Chroniga Monasterii S. fiIbani. London: Longman,

Green, Longman, Roberts, and Green, 1863.

Tierney, Brian. [he Crisis of Church and Stgte. 1050-1300. Englewood
Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1964.

 

Wakefield, Walter L.: and Evans, Austin P. heresies of the High

Middle Ages: §elegng Sourreg. New York: Columbia
University Press, 1969.

Walther von der Vogelweide. QIg Gedightg. Herausgegeban von Hermann.
Halls (Saale): Verlag von Max Niemeyer, 1921.

. 'I Saw the yorld'. Translated by Ian G. Colvin. London:
Edward Arnold and Company, 1938.

 

. the von de Vo weide. Translated by Walther Bulst.
Berlin: Oar Tempel.

 

Wright, Thomas, ed. h oni e i e an toft. London:
Longmans, Green, Reader, and Dyer, 1868.

, ed. Th in Po ms ommon At 1 ed to alt Ma as.
London: John Bowyer Nichols and Son, 1841.

 

, ed. Th Po ti a on s of n an . London: John Bowyer
Nichols and Son, 1839.

 

 

252

8. SECONDARY SOURCES

Ackermann, Robert W. ”The Dabgte of the Body and the Soul and
Parochial Christianity.” 5 a ulum, XXXVII (October 1962),

541-565e

Artonne, André. "Les statute synodsux diocasians fran ais du XIIIe

siecle au Concile de Trente." Revue d'histoire de l'aglise
de F an , xxxv1 (1950), 168-181.

Bainton, Roland H. The MedievsI Churc . Princeton, New Jersey: 0.
Van Nostrand Company, Inc., 1962.

Barraclough, Geoffrey. The Medieval Pagagy. New York: Harcourt,
Brace and World, Inc., 1968.

. The Crigins of Modern Germany. New York: Capricorn
Books, 1946.

 

. PagsI Provisions. Wastport, Connecticutt: Greenwood
Press, 1935.

Bayley, Charles C. Thg Formation of the German College of Elegtors in

Chg Mid-Thirtggnth Century. Toronto: University of Toronto
Press, 1949.

 

Becker, Marvin B. ”Dante and his Literary Contemporaries as Political
Men." figegqum, XLI (October 1966), 665-680.

Benton, John F. "Philip the Fair and the Jours of Troyes." Stugies in
MedIang gng hgnaissance history, VI (1969), 281-338.

Berger, Elie. higtoire gg BIanghe dg ngCIIg thng dg Frgngg. Paris:
Thorin et File, 1895.

. aint ouis at nno ent V. Paris: Thorin et Fils, 1893.

 

Bett, Henry. JogghIm of rora. London: Methuen and Company Ltd.,
1931.

Bevenot, Maurice, S.J. "The Inquisition and its Antecedents." The
Hgythrog Jggrnal, VII (October 1966), 381-393: VIII (January
1967), 52-69: and VIII (April 1967), 152-168.

Bihlmeyer, Karl. Chgrgh Higtory. Revised by Hermann Tuechle and
translated by Victor E. Mills and Francis J. Muller. Vol.
II: Thg Midglg Ageg. Westminster, Maryland: The Newman
Press, 1963.

Binns, Leonard Elliott, 0.0. The History of the Qeglina and Fall of
the Medigval Pagscy. London: Methuen and Company Ltd.,

1934.

 

253
. nno nt . London: Methuen and Company Ltd., 1931.

Bloch, Marc. La francs sous les derniers CagétiansI 1223-1328. Paris:
Librairie Armand Colin, 1958.

Blondel, Georges. Etugg sur la golitigue de l'Emgereur Frederic II an
AIlemagne. Paris: Alphonse Picard at File, 1892.

 

Bloomfield, Morton W. ”Joachim of Flora: A Critical Study of his
Canon, Teachings, Sources, Biography and Influence.”
Tragitio, XIII (1957), 249-311.

Bloomfield, Morton W.: and Reeves, Marjorie E. "The Penetration of
Joachism into Northern Europe." Sgeculum, XXIX (October
1954), 772-793.

Boase, Thomas Sherrer Ross. Coniface VIII. London: Constable and
Company Ltd., 1933.

Brentano, Robert. Two Churches: England and Italy in the Thirteenth
Century. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University

Press, 1968.

Bridges, John Henry. The Life and york of Roger Baconjg An Introduction
to the Ogus Majus. London: Williams and Norgate, 1914.

Brundage, James A. "Crusade of the Pastoureaux." New Catholic

EncygIogedia. 1967. Vol. X.

. The Crusades: A Documentary Survey. Wisconsin:
Marquette University Press, 1962.

 

Bryant, W. N. "Matthew Paris, Chronicler of St. Albans.” History
Toda , XIX (November 1969), 772-782.

Brynteson, William E. "Roman Law and Legislation in the Middle Ages."
Sgggqum, XLI (July 1966), 420-437.

Bryson, William Hamilton. "Papal Releases from Royal Oaths." gournal
of EcglesisstigsI History, XXII (January 1971), 19-33.

Burr, David. "The Apocalyptic Element in Olivi's Critique of
Aristotle." Chgrgh history, XL (March 1971), 15-29.

Butler, William Francis Thomas. T e ombar ommunes. London: T.
Fisher Unwin, 1906.

Callus, David A., ed. Robe osseteste ho a and isho . Oxford:
Clarendon Press, 1955.

Campbell, Gerard J., S.J. "The Attitude of the Monarchy Toward the Use
of Ecclesiastical Censures in the Reign of Saint Louis."
S eculum, XXXV (October 1960), 535-555.

254

. "Clerical Immunities in France During the Reign of
Philig III. ‘ngggIgh, XXXIX (July 1964), 404-424.

Carlyle, Robert Warrand: and Carlyle, Alexander James. A history of

Medieval PolitigaI Theory in the West. Vol. V: The
Politigal Theory of thg Thirteenth Century. New York:

Barnes and Noble, Inc., 1928.

 

Carolus-Barre, Louis. "Les entutes pour la canonisation de Saint
Louis-- de Gregoire X S Boniface VIII-- at la bulle Gloria

Laus, du AoOt 1297." Revue d'histoire de I' gglise de

F ance, LVII (Janvier-juin 41971), 19-29.

 

Chamberlin, Eric Russell. The Bad ngas. New York: Dial Press, 1969.

Cheney, Christopher Robert. ”Cardinal John of Ferentino, papal legate

in England in 1206." English HistoriggI Review, LXXVI
(1961), 654‘660e

. ”England and the Roman Curia Under Innocent III." Journal

of Egglggiastigal History, XVIII (October 1967), 173-186.

Cohn, Norman. Thg EursuiC of thg Millennium. London: Secker and
Warburg, 1957.

Coulton, George Gordon. From St. Frangis to Qantg. Second Edition.
New York: Russell and Russell, 1907.

. Inguisition and Libgrty. London: William Heinemann, Ltd.,
1938.

. Two Sgints: CC, Bgrnard and fit, [rangis. Cambridge:
University Press, 1932.

 

 

 

Courtney, F. J. "Flagellation." N ho n o d . 1967. V.

Crofts, Richard A. ”The Common Good in the Political Theory of Thomas
Aquinas." The ThomIst, xxxv11 (January 1973), 155-173.

Cuthbert, 0. S. F. C. if f t. n is f As isi. London:
Longmans, Green and Company Ltd., 1927.

Daniel, E. Randolph. ”Apocalyptic Conversion: The Joachite Alternative
to the Crusades." TraditIg, XXV (1969), 127-154.

. "A Re-examination of the Origins of Franciscan Joachitism.”
figgcqum, XLIII (October 1968), 671-676.

 

Daniel-Rops, Henri. Cgthedrsl and Crusagg. Translated by John
Warrington. Vols. I-II. New York: Doubleday and Company,

1963.

 

255

Deighton, H. 5. "Clerical Taxation by Consent, 1279-1301." Eninsh
W, LXVIII (April 1953), 161-192.

Danton, Jeffrey Howard. "Royal Supremacy in Ancient Desmesne

Churches" WW. XXII (October
1971), 289-302.

Digard, Georges Alfred Laurent. PhIIIgge Ig BeI gt Ig Saint-Siegg dg
12§§ 8 13 3. Vols. I-II. Paris: Librairie du Recueil
Sirey, 1936.

Dossat, Yves. ”L'Inquisition Touloussine de 1243 8 1273." hevue

d'higtoIrg g; l'ginsg de Frangg, XXXVII (1951), 188-191.

. "Remarques sur la legation de l'évaque Gautier de Tournai
dans le Midi de la France (1232-1233)." Ann 1 s du Midi,
Lxxv (1963), 77-85.

Douie, Decima L. lhg NgCyrg ang thg Efifggt of thg hgrgsy of thg
ErgCIggIII. Manchester: University Press, 1932.

 

Duby, Georges. "Les Pauvres des Campagnes dens l'Occident medieval

jusqu'au XIIIe siDcle." flgyug d'hIgtoire de l'eglisg de
firghgg, LII (1966), 25-32.

Englebert, Omer. nt n s of A si. Translated by Edward
Hutton. London: Burns Dates, 1950.

Eschmann, T. T., 0.P. "St. Thomas Aquinas on the Two Powers.”

MgdieyaI fitugIgs, XX (1958), 177-205.

Evans, Austin P. "Hunting Subversion in the Middle Ages." figegulum,
XXXIII (January 1958), 1-22.

Feral, Edmond. s on eu n a u M n A . Paris:
Librairie Honor‘ Champion, 1910.
Fawtier, Robert. [hg nggtIgn hihgg of firghgg: Mongrghy gnd Nation

(282-132CI. Translated by Lionel Butler and R. J. Adams.
New York: St. Martin's Press, 1966.

Fisher, John H., ed. h M v i t of as e n u o a.
London: University of London Press, 1966.

Fliche, Augustin: Thouzellier, Christine: and Azais, Yvonne. histoire

W. Vol. X: Lg ChrfiCIgnCfi rothn 11198-1274).

Paris: Bloud et Gay, 1950.

Flick, Alexander Clarence. n t M v hu . Vols.
I-II. London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner, and Company,
Ltd., 1933.

, i...

256

Folz, Robert. lhg CongggC gf Ehgirg in Western Euroge from the Fifth

to the fourtegnth antury. Translated by Shiele Ann
Ogilvie. Great Britain: Edward Arnold Ltd., 1969.

Foster, Kenelm, 0.P. "The Canto of the Damned popes: Inferno xix."
QanCe Studies, LXXXVII (1969), 47-68.

Fournier, Paul. u s su as him a o e et ses Do trines.
Frankfort: Minerva GMBH, 1963.

Friedmann, Adrien. "Notre Dame at lea Paroisses de Paris au XIIIe

siecle.” hevue g'histgirg de l'6inse de Frange, L (1964),
27'33e

Friends of Lewes Society, ed. The Battlg of Lewes, 1264: Its Place in
EngIIsh history. Lewes, Sussex: W. E. Baxter Ltd., 1964.

Gallagher, Clarence, S.J. ”Canon Law and the Christian Community: I,

A Classical View." The Heythrog JgurnaI, XII (July 1971),
281-296e

Genicot, LSopard. Lg hIIIg fiIfigIe Eurogéen. Paris: Presses

Universitaires de France, 1968.

Gibbs, Marion: and Lang, Jane. Cishogs and Rgform, 1215-127 . London:
Humphrey Milford, 1934.

Gilson, Etienne. Thg PhIIosoghy of fit. BohgvenCure. Translated by Dom
Illtyd Trethowan. New York: Sheed and Ward, 1938.

Gorham, Charles T. Ihg Mggigng InguigitIong A Ctudy In Beligious
PgrsgrgCIon. London: Watts and Company, 1918.

Gostwick, Joseph: and Harrison, Robert. OutIingg of Cgrman LiCergture.
New York: Henry Holt and Company, 1873.

Guizot, Frangois Pierre Guillaume. at h t ns of F n e: e nt
no a nd n. New York: Macmillan and Company, 1868.
Heller, Johannes. 'Qgg_£gggCCyh. Basel: Benno Schwabe und Company,
1953.

Ham, Edward Billings. thgbgyf eng Lgng I3. Chapel Hill: University
of North Carolina Press, 1962. .

Hear, Friedrich. he a n e. Translated by Janet
Sondheimer. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1968.

Holdsworth, C. J. "John of Ford and the Interdict." English Historiggl
hgngl, LXXVIII (1963), 705-714.

Hughes, philip. A St th C . New York: Sheed and Ward, 1935.

 

257

Huillard-Bréhollas, Jean Louis Alphonse. ng gC gorrgsgongengg gg

PIgrrg gg Ia yigng. Paris: Henri Plan, 1865.
Hyma, Albert. ChrIsCigniCy gng PolICigsg A hIgCory of Chg Pringiglg
u of n t . New York: J. B. Lippincott

Company, 1938.

Jallut, Maurice. P 1 Au uste: fon t l'unit f angaise.
Paris: Au Fil diAriane, 1963.

Jones, George T. W he on d o w de. New York: Twayne
Publishers, 1968.

Jonas, Whitney Richard David. "Bishops, Politics, and the Two Laws:
The Gravsmina of the English Clergy, 1237-1339." §gegulum,
XLI (April 1966), 209-245.

. "Relations of the Two Jurisdictions: Conflict and
Cooperation in England during the Thirteenth and Fourteenth
Centuries.” u i in M i n n i n is 0
VII (1970), 79-210.

 

 

Jordan, Edouard. 'A ne t ' si% es.
Vol. IV ofH HIgCoire gym oygn Agg. Paris: Presses

Universitaires de France, 1939.

. "Le Premier Siicle Franciscain: Le Grandes Crises de

l'Order." Sgint Ergn ggIs g'Assiggg sgn ogyyrg-- son
in n a Paris: Editions E. Droz, 1927.

Kantorowicz, Ernst. Ergggrigk the Sggond, 1193-1250. Translated by
E. O. Lorimer. New York: Frederick Ungar Publishing

Company, 1957.

 

Kay, Richard. "An Episcopal Petition from the Province of Rouen,
1281." Churgh HIngry, xxx1v (September 1965), 294-305.

. "Martin IV and the Fugitive Bishop of Bayeux.” Sgggulum,
XL (July 1965), 460-483.

 

Kennan, Elizabeth. "Innocent III and the First Political Crusade: A
Comment on the Limitations of Papal Power." TrngCio,
XXVII (1971), 231-249.

Kuhner, Hans. We New York: Philosophical
Library, 1958.

Kuttner, Stephen: and Garcia y Garcia, Antonio. "A New Eyewitness
Account of the Fourth Lateran Council." Traditio, XX
(1964), 115-178.

Labarge, Margaret Wade. int u . Boston: Little Brown and
Company, 1968.

258

Lagard, Georges de. La haisggggg de I'gsgrit Iaigue au decIin du
‘ggygh__gg. Vols. I-II. Wien: Editions Bfiatrice, 1934.

Lawrence, Clifford Hugh, ed. Ihe English Churgh and thg Pagagy in thg

Middle hggs. London: Burns and Oates, 1965.

Leclerq, Jean. L'ing dg lg royaut! on Christ au moyen age. Paris:

Editions du Cerf, 1959.

Leff, Gordon. "The Apostolic Ideal in Later Medieval Ecclesiology."

Journal of Theological §tudies, XVIII (April 1967), 58-82.

. "Heresy and the Decline of the Medieval Church.” a nd
Ergsgnt, XX (November 1961), 36-51.

 

. e s in the ta Middl h sla ion of
terdox to issent c 50- . 0. Vols. I-II. New
York: Barnes and Noble, Inc., 1967.

 

Lemarignier, Jean-Fran ois: Gaudemet, Jean: at Mollat, Mgr. Guillaume.
stoi a des institutions f an a u o n e. Vol. III:

Institutions gggIgsiggtigggs. Paris: Presses Universitaires

de France, 1962.

Lerner, Robert E. he Hares of he Free t n th at d
‘hggg. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1972.

. "The Uses of Heterdoxy: The French Monarchy and Unbelief

in the Thirteenth Century." Erghgh histgrigal fitudigs, IV
(F811 1965), 189-202e

Lewis, Ewart. MgdigyaI EoIiticaI Idegs. Vols. I-II. New York:

Alfred A. Knolf, 1954.

 

Linahan, Peter A. "The CrgysmIna of the Castilisn Church in 1262-3."

Eninsh historical Review, LXXXV (1970), 730-754.

Little, Andrew George. hgggr_hgggh, London: Humphrey Milford Amen
House, 1928e

Little, Lester K. "Saint Louis' Involvement with the Friars.” Churgh
history, XXXIII (June 1964), 125-148.

Lloyd, Alan. h M no on h ifs of in ohn of n lan .
Garden City, New York: Doubleday and Company, Inc., 1972.

Luchaire, Achills. Innoggnt III. Vol. I: La groisadg des thiggois.
Vol. II: fighg et I'Italie. Vol. III: Lg gagautfi at
I'ehgirg. Vol. IV: La gggstion d'Qrient. Vol. V: ng,
royautés vassales du Saint-siegg. Vol. VI: Lg gongIIg ge
Lateran st Ig rfiform de l'éinse. Paris: Librairie

Hachette at Cie., 1906-1908.

 

259

Lunt, William E. n is s of th Pa a ith n an to
.1§Z.- Cambridge, Massachusetts: Medieval Academy of
America, 1939a

McCready, William D. "Papal EIeniCugo PnggCatig and the Sources of
Temporal Authority in Late Medieval Papal Hierocratic
Theory.” ‘figgggIgg, XLVIII (October 1973), 654-674.

McGinn, Bernard. ”The Abbot and the Doctors: Scholastic Reactions to
the Radical Eschatology of Joachim of Flora.” Churgh
higtory, XL (marCh 1971), 30-47e

McGurk, J. J. N. ”Henry III of England.” HigCary Todgy, XXII
(November 1972), 786-792.

 

McNamara, Jo Ann. "Simon de Beaulieu and 'Clericis Laicas'." Traditio, :
xxv (1969), 155-170. F

Mandonnet, Pierre, 0.P. fit, QamInig ang His hark. Translated by Sister "*

 

Mary Benedicta Larkin, 0.P. St. Louis, Missouri: 8. Herder
Book Company, 1948.

Mann, Horace Kinder. Th e of th Pa in t M ddl A as. Vols.
I-XVIII. London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner and Company,
1926-1932.

Marthaler, Bernard, O.F.M. "Forerunnere of the Franciscans: The
Waldensians." Frangisggn §tugigs, XVII (1958), 133-142.

Mirepoix, Duc de L6vis. figInC Louis roI gg [rghgg. Paris: Editions
Albin Michel, 1970.

Moore, John C. "Count Baldwin IX of Flanders, Philip Augustus, and
the Papal Power." .figgggIgh, XXXVII (January 1962), 79-89.

. "Papal Justice in France Around the Time of Pope Innocent
III." Chgrgh_hIgCgry, XLI (September 1972), 295-306.

Moore, R. I. "The Origins of Medieval Heresy.” 'hIgCgry, LV (February
1970), 21-36.

Moorman, John R. H. Chgrgh LIfg in Englgng In Chg ThIrteenth Century.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1946.

 

Morrall, John 8. ”The Medieval Tradition of English Political Thought."
Histgry Toggy, XXII (April 1972), 289-295.

Morris, Colin. "From Synod to Consistory: The Bishops' Courts in

England, 1150-1250." JourngI of Egglesiggtiggl History,
XXII (April 1971), 115-123.

Myers, Henry A. "The Concept of Kingship in the 'Baok of Emperors'
('Kaiserchronik')." TradItio, XXVII (1971), 205-230.

260

Murphy, Robert F. "Dante and Politics." history Toggy, XX (July 1970),

481 -488 e
Nelli, RenG. La vig guoCIgignng ggg Cathgrg gg Languedag gux hIIIs

‘gIggIg. Paris: Librairie Hachette, 1969.

Nelli, René: Duvernoy, Jean: Niel, Fernand: et Roche, Deodat. Les
Cgthars. Paris: Editions de Delphes, 1965.

O'Brien, John M. ”Jews and Cathari in Medieval France.” Comgarativa
Studies in fiogIety ang History, X (January 1968), 215-220.

Pacaut, Marcel. “L'autarité pontificale salon Innocent IV.” Moygn
Ass. va1 (1950), 35-119.

Packard, Sidney R. uro a and th hur h und nnocsnt . New
York: Henry Holt and Company, 1927.

Painter, Sidney. The Rgign of hing gohn. Baltimore: John Hopkins
Press, 1949.

Partee, Carter, 0.F.M. ”Peter John Olivi: Historical and Doctrinal
Study." [ranciscan fitugiea, XX (September-December 1960),
21 5-260.

Partner, Nancy. ”Henry of Huntingdon: Clerical Celibacy and the
Writing of History.” Churgh HIgtary, XLII (December 1973),
467'475e

Paul, Jacques. ”L'llage des personnes et l'idéal humain au XIIIe
siecle d'apris la chronique de fra Salimbene.” Mo e A ,
LXXIII (1967), 403-430.

. "Les Franciscans et la pauvret‘ aux XIIIe et XIVe

schles.” hgygg d'histoirg gg I'Sglisg dg Frahgs, LII
(1966), 33-37.

 

Pegues, Frank. ”The CIarigus in the Legal Administration of
Thirteenth-Century England.” ish ate 1 a i w,
LXXI (1956). 529-559.

. "Ecclesiastical Provisions for the Support of Students in
the Thirteenth Century." Chgrgh hIstory, XXVI (December
1957), 307-318.

. The Lawyers of the Lgst Cagetians. Princeton, New Jersey:
Princeton University Press, 1962.

 

 

Pennington, Arthur Robert. Egoghs of the Eggggy. New York: E. P.
Dutton and Company, 1883.

Peters, Edward, ed. Christian Cogiety and the Crgsades, 1193-12g9,

§aurces in Trgnslation. Philadelphia: University of
Pennsylvania, 1971.

261

 

Petit-Dutsillis, Charles. Etugg ggr Ig vig gt Ig rfigng ge ngig yIII.
Paris: Librairie Emile Bouillon, 1894.
. Thg [ggggI Mahgrghy in frahgg gng Ethgng. Translated by

E. D. Hunt. New York: Harper and Row, 1936.

Pontal, Odette. ”Le diff‘rend entre Louie IX st les Gquues de
Beauvais et ses incidences sur les concils (1232-1248)."
b io 3 ' 01 a t s, CXXIII (Janvier-juin
1965), 5-34.

Powell, James M. ”Frederick II and the Church: A Revisionist View."
CgthoIIg historIggI Reyigg, XLVIII (January 1963), 487-497.

. ”Frederick II and the Church in the Kingdom of Sicily,
1220-1224.e Chgrgh higCory, xxx (March 1961), 28-34.

 

 

. nn n Vaaf hit a ofteWo ?
Boston: 0. C. Heath and Company, 1963.
Powicke, Frederick Maurice. n en a s a d .
Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1947.
. h t nth n u 6- 3O . Oxford: Clarendon

 

Press, 1953.

. Ctgghen nggtah. London: Merlin Press Ltd., 1965.

 

Prestwick, Michael. W Po iti nd n a . London:
Faber and Faber Limited, 1972.
Priest, George Madison. A CrIgC hIgCory g: Cgrggn LItgrature. New

York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1910.

Purcell, Maureen. "Changing Views of Crusade in the Thirteenth

Century.” JourhaI of thigioug hIgCgry, VII (June 1972),
3'19e

Oueller, Donald E. "Innocent III and the Crusader-Venetian Treaty of
. ed. T e n on est of ns an in . Major Issues in

 

History. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1971.

Rashdall, Hastings. h n v si 1 s of in h Mi A as.
Edited by Frederick Maurice Powicke. Vols. I-III. London:
Oxford University Press, 1936.

Reeves, Marjorie. T of P o h in th to Mid A s:
A tu n s m. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1969.

. "Joachimist Influences on the Idea of a Last World
Emperor." TragItIa, XVII (1961), 323-370.

 

262

Renardy, Charles. ”Recherches sur la restitution au la cession de
dimes aux figlises de le diocase de Libge du XIe au debut du
XIVe silcle.” Ma n A , LXXVI (1970), 205-261.

Renna, Thomas J. ”Kingship in the Qiggutgtig Intgr CIngggm gt
QIIIng," ‘nggglgh, XLVIII (October 1973), 675-693.

Richardson, Oliver H. [hg thIgngI MovgmgnC in thg Rgign of Henry III.

New York: Macmillan Company, 1897.

Runciman, Steven. A H s o of he use . Vols. I-III. New York:
Harper and Row, 1967.

. he i ian V s A ist of the Medit an an

Wgrlg in Che Lgtg ThInggnth Centgry. Cambridge: University

Press, 1958.

 

Russell, Jeffrey Burton. "Courtly Love as Religious Dissent."

CgChoIig HIngrigaI Rgvigg, LI (April 1965), 31-44.

. A Higtory of hggIgygI Chrigtignity: Praghggy gng Order.
New York: Thomas Y. Crowell, 1968. '

 

 

. ed. R i as n in Mi d A as. New York: John
Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1971.
Sabatier, Paul. LIfg of CC, firshgia ofi Agsigi. New York: Charles

Scribner's Sons, 1906.

Salvatorelli, Luigi. Thg LIfg of fit, FrgngIg g: Aggisi. Translated by
Eric Sutton. New York: Alfred A. Knolf, 1928._

Salzman, Louis Francis. 'Egggrg_1, London: Constable and Company Ltd.,
1968.

Schlauch, Margaret. n i M i a tu d i s o is
fguhggCigns. Warrzawe: Panstwawe Maukawe, 1956.

Sedgwick, Henry Dwight. n th i t th ntu . Vols. I-II.
New York: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1912.

Shannon, Albert Clement. T P s and in h hi te nth
antgry. Villanova, Pennsylvania: Augustinian Press, 1949.

Shriver, George H. "A Summary of 'Images of Catharism and the
Historians' Task'.” Chgrgh HIstory, XL (March 1971), 48-54.

Smith, Arthur Lionel. h an S to n th d as. Oxford:
Clarendon Press, 1913.

Smith, Charles Edward. Innaggnt III, Churgh nggndgr. Baton Rouge:
Louisiana State University Press, 1951.

 

263

Southern, Richard William. hggtern ngigty sng the Churgh in the
MiddIe hgeg. Baltimore: Penguin Books, 1970.

Spiegel, Gabrielle M. ”The hggItgg hggni ad §CIrgem Karoli Magni: A

New Look.“ Ergngh historiggl CtudIes, VII (Fall 1971),
145'17‘e

Stevenson, Francis Seymour. hohgrt CrassgCeste. London: Macmillan
and Company, 1899.

Strayer, Joseph Reese. ”The Laicization of French and English Society
in the Thirteenth Century." figegglum, XV (January 1940),
76-86.

Sweat, Jennifer. ”Some Thirteenth-Century Sermons and their Authors."
ou n of lesiasti Histo , IV (1954), 27-36.

Thomson, Rodney M. "Two Twelfth Century Poems on the 'Regnum-
Sacerdotium' Problem in England." hgygg CEnEdigtIne, LXXXIII
(1973), 312-325.

Thouzellier, Christine. Catharisme at ValdGisgg en Langgedoc 8 la fIn

gg XIIg gC gu d§but gg hIIIe gICgIg. Paris: Presses
Universitaires de France, 1966.

. "Controverae m6di§val en Languedoc relative au sens du mot

 

anhII," Ann Mid , LXXXII (Octobre-dCcembre 1970),
321 -348 e
Throop, Palmer A. i f t usad A tu of Pub 1 0 inion

gng Crggagg Proggggnga. Amsterdam: N. V. Swets and
Zeitlinger, 1940.

Tierney, Brian. ”The Continuity of Papal Political Theory in the
Thirteenth Century. Some Methodical Considerations."

Weiss. xxvn (1963). 227-245.
. n ns f the o i i T . Cambridge:

 

University Press, 1955.

. "Grossetesta and the Theory of Papal Sovereignty." Journal
W. V1 (1955). 1-17-

. “'Tria Ouippe Distinguit Iudicia. . .' A Note on Innocent

III's Decretal Pgr ygngrgbiIgm." ‘figggglgh, XXXVII (January
1962), 48-59.

 

 

Tout, Thomas Frederick. Egggrg Chg Eirst. London: Macmillan and
Company Ltdeg 1920e

. Th H s o of En land f om th A s ion of en III to
th oath of a d 2 6-137 . Vol. III of‘lhg
Political History of EngIand. Edited by William Hunt and
Reginald L. Pools. 8 vols. London: Longmans, Green and
Company, 1920.

 

264

Trench, Richard Chenevix. ngCgres on hnggygI Chgrgh higtory. London:
Macmillan and Company, 1879.

Ullmann, Walter. Ihg CrggCh of EggaI CoygrhhgnC in the Middlg Ages.
Landon: Methuen and Company Ltd., 1955.

. "A Medieval Document on Papal Theories of Government.”

 

EnglIgh higCarIggI hngeg, LXI (1946), 180-201.
Van Cleve, Thomas Curtis. Th m e 0 ads 1 k I of Hohenstaufen.

Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1972.

Vauchez, André. "La pauvretE voluntaire au Mayan Age.” Annalss:

Egonomigs, CogIétgs, CIinisations, XXV (Novembre-décembre
1970), 1566-1573.

Velez-Seenz, Jaime. [hg QogCrIge of Chg Common Coag of CiviI Cocigty
n t o ks T me A . Ann Arbor, Michigan:
Edwards Brothers, Inc., 1951.

Vicaire, Marie Humbert. CgIhC ComInIg gng hIg Timeg. Translated by
Kathleen Pond. New York: McGrsw-Hill Book Company, 1964.

. ”Saint Dominique et les inquisiteurs.” Ahhalgs du MidI,
LXXIX (April 1967), 173-194.

 

Weddell, Helen Jane. We Sixth edition. New
York: Doubleday and Company, Inc., 1955.

Wakefield, Walter L. "Friar Farrier, Inquisitor at Cauner, and

Escapes from Prison at Carcassone." CathoIIg HisCorigal
'hgngg, LVIII (July 1972), 220-237.

Waley, Daniel Philip. ”Consitutions of the Cardinal-legate Peter

eaoocci. July 1249-e MW Lxxv

. "Papal Armies in the Thirteenth Century.” Eninsh
Wes. LXXII (1957). 1-30-

Walther, Daniel. ”A Survey of Recent Research on the Albigensian
Cathari.” Wm, XXXIV (June 1965), 146-177.

 

Watt, John A. ”The Theory of Papal Monarchy in the Thirteenth Century:
The Contribution of the Cananists." IradItIg, XX (1964),
179-317.

Westacott, Evelyn. hgggr Caron In LIfg gng nggng. New York:
Philosophical Library, 1953.

Weston, Jessie L., ed. lhg ChIgf MIddIe Cninsh Posts. New York:
Houghton Mifflin Company, 1914.

265

Wood, Charles T., ed. EhIIIg Chg [air gng fianIfage VIII. New York:
Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1967.

Yates, W. Nigel. ”Bishop Peter de Aquablanca (1240-1268): A

Reconsideration.” gggrngI of EgglgsiagtIgal Higtory, XXII
(October 1971), 303-317.

Yunck, John A. T e n of a M Th De elo nt of Mediev l
n t a . Notre Dame, Indiana: University of Notre
Dame Press, 1963.

   

w«inwwwu