^{page 1 note 1} Roberti Grosseteste Episcopi Quondam Lincolniensis Epistolae, ed. H. R. Luard (Rolls Series 1861), Ep. 128, 436.

^{page 1 note 2} For recent work on Grosseteste's life and thought see the bibliography of Crombie, A. C., Robert Grosseteste and the origins of experimental science, Oxford 1953, 320–52Google Scholar.

^{page 1 note 3} So, at least, we are often told. E.g. Luard referred to the clash with Innocent IV as ‘the transaction which has done more to make Grosseteste's name known and popular than any other in his long and active life’ (Epistolae, lxxix). Similarly, Creighton, Mandell (Historical Lectures and Addresses, London 1903)Google Scholar ‘… the event that made Grosseteste most famous …’ (145); Abbot Gasquet (King Henry III and the Church, London 1905) ‘… the most serious as it is perhaps the best known incident in his whole career …’ (337).

^{page 1 note 4} Tierney, B., ‘A conciliar theory of the thirteenth century,’ in Catholic Historical Review, xxxvi (1951), 415–40Google Scholar; ‘Ockham, the conciliar theory, and the canonists,’ in Journal of the History of Ideas, xv (1954), 40–70Google Scholar.

^{page 2 note 1} For Innocent III's doctrine see, e.g. Migne, P.L., ccxv, col. 279 (Ep. i),‘Petrum caput ecclesiae … qui … in membra diffunderet ut nihil sibi penitus deperiret, quoniam in capite viget sensuum plenitudo, ad membra vero pars eorum aliqua derivatur.’ (Cf. Rivière, J., ‘In partem sollicitudinis … évolution d'une formule pontificale,’ Revue des Sciences Religieuses, v (1925), 210–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar.) Grosseteste's very high conception of the papal authority is in evidence all through his letters. See especially Ep. 127, 364, ‘… sicut autem dominus Papa se habet ad universalem ecclesiam in potestatis plenitudine, sic se habet episcopus in potestate accepta a potestate apostolica ad suam diocesim. …’ 389–90, ‘Quemadmodum igitur sol, quia non potest ubique super terram simul et semel praesentialiter lucere … de plenitudine luminis sui, nullo per hoc sibi diminuto, lunam et Stellas illuminat… Ita dominus Papa, respectu cujus omnes alii praelati sunt sicut luna et stellae, suscipientes ab ipso quicquid habent potestatis ad illuminationem et vegetationem ecclesiae, suam exhibit praesentiam ….’ The image of the Holy See as a sun radiating light and life throughout the Church also occurs in the exhortation read at the papal curia in 1250, see Brown, Edward, Fasciculus Rerum Expetendarum et Fugiendarum, London 1690, ii. 254Google Scholar. Mr. W. A. Pantin's translation of the relevant passage is quoted by SirPowicke, Maurice, ‘Robert Grosseteste, Bishop of Lincoln,’ Bulletin of the John Rylands Library, xxxv (1953), 482–507CrossRefGoogle Scholar at 505.

^{page 2 note 2} I. iii. 5, ‘Qualitatem negotii pro quo tibi scribitur, diligenter considerans, aut mandatum nostrum reverenter adimpleas aut per litteras tuas, quare adimplere non possis rationabilem causam praetendas.’

^{page 2 note 3} Such points were discussed at length in the Gregorian Decretals, especially in the title, De Rescriptis, and in the glosses and summae on this title.

^{page 3 note 1} The fact that Grosseteste's letter was addressed to the pope's notary, Master Innocent, not to the pope himself, does not seem materially to affect the issue. The pope sent his command through this agent; Grosseteste replied through the same man.

^{page 3 note 2} G. G. Perry, The Life and Times of Robert Grosseteste, London 1871. Jourdain's criticisms were originally published in 1868 in the Bulletin de l'Académic des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres and were reprinted in his Excursions Historiques à travers le Moyen Âge, Paris 1888, 147–71Google Scholar.

^{page 3 note 3} Thomson, S. Harrison, The Writings of Robert Grosseteste, Cambridge 1940, 171Google Scholar, 193, 212–3. Jourdain's arguments were criticised by J. Fehlten, Robert Grosseteste, Bischof von Lincoln, Freiburg 1887, 109–12. See also Stevenson, F. S., Robert Grosseteste, Bishop of Lincoln, London 1899, 315, 316, 319 ff.Google Scholar; Powicke, F. M., King Henry III and the Lord Edward, Oxford 1947, i. 285, n. 3Google Scholar.

^{page 3 note 4} This was, indeed, Jourdain's principal argument, Excursions Historiques, 170–1, ‘Un point demeure constant, cʼest que les écrits contre la cour de Rome, attribués à Robert Grosse-Tête aussi bien que les faits correspondants, racontés dans l'Historia major et dans l'Historia minor sont en contradiction manifeste avec les opinions qui se font jour à chaque page de la correspondance authentique de l'éVêque de Lincoln. La critique est done en droit de rejeter ces écrits commes apocryphes ….’ This conclusion was accepted and vigorously re-stated by Smith, A. L., Church and State in the Middle Ages (Ford Lectures delivered in 1905), Oxford 1913, 101–37Google Scholar. H. K. Mann took note of these criticisms, but did not commit himself concerning the authenticity of Ep. 128, Lives of the Popes, xiv, London 1928, 262–3.

^{page 3 note 5} Dehio, L., Innocenz IV. und England, Berlin-Leipzig 1914, 75–81Google Scholar. Cf. Stubbs, W., Constitutional History of England, 3rd ed.Oxford 1887, ii. 314Google Scholar, ‘Certainly as he grew older his attitude to the pope became more hostile.’ Mandell Creighton, Historical Lectures, 148, ‘Grosseteste, devoted to the existing ecclesiastical system as he was, an absolutely devout son of the pope, yet was driven in spite of himself into antagonism to that system ….’

^{page 4 note 1} Maitland, F. W., Roman Canon Law in the Church of England, London 1898, 66–7Google Scholar. Cf. Stevenson, Robert Grosseteste, 312, ‘Although the language of the letter is full of vigour, the sequence of the thoughts is less logical than when Grosseteste's faculties were in their prime.’

^{page 4 note 2} Papal Provisions, Oxford 1935, 169Google Scholar. And again, ‘Maitland himself was one of the first to protest against reading the history of the mediaeval Church through Protestant spectacles; but the mere application to Grosseteste of “the simple statement that the pope cannot lawfully provide clerks with English benefices”, is anachronous … It was an attitude impossible for a churchman in the thirteenth century.’ It is hard to see the point of this criticism. Maitland's whole argument was designed to establish the fact that Professor Barraclough himself seems concerned to emphasise—that Grosseteste could not have relied on a ‘simple statement’ of the ancient practice of the Church, because neither he, nor any other English bishop of the time, denied the validity of the contemporary decretals which claimed universal authority for the pope.

^{page 5 note 1} F. M. Powicke, art. cit., 503.

^{page 5 note 2} Historical Lectures, 148.

^{page 5 note 3} Kern, F., Gottesgnadentum und Widerstandsrecht im früheren Mittelalter, Leipzig 1914, 183Google Scholar. The translation is that of Chrimes, S. B., Kingship and Law, Oxford 1939, 89Google Scholar. See also Chrimes, 112: ‘In the Church papal infallibility and exemption from every jurisdiction were claimed and unconditional obedience was demanded from the laity.’ In a note to the first quotation (Gottesgnadentum, 183, n. 337) Kern pointed out that the infallibility (Unfehlbarkeit) of the Church was not held necessarily to reside in the person of the pope. Perhaps the use of the word infallibility at all, with its overtones of modern controversies, is unfortunate; the doctrine concerning the indefectibility of the whole Church, which was commonly held in the early Middle Ages, had little to do with the question at issue. See Van Leeuwen, A., ‘L'Église, règie de foi chez Occam,’ Ephemerides Theologiae Lovanienses, xi (1934), 249–88Google Scholar, Landgraf, A. M., ‘Scattered remarks on the development of dogma and on papal infallibility,’ Theological Studies, vii (1946), 577 ffCrossRefGoogle Scholar. The question of the right to resist a tyrannical pope was also raised briefly by Gierke, but he referred only to the doctrines of fourteenth- and fifteenth-century conciliarists on this point, see Gierke-Maitland, , Political Theories of the Middle Age, Cambridge 1900, 36Google Scholar: ‘Gradually also the doctrines of Conditional Obedience, of a right of resbtance against Tyranny, of a right of revolution conferred by necessity were imported into the domain of ecclesiastical polity’ (referring to the works of Ockham, Gerson, Dietrich of Niem, Andreas Randulf, Antonius de Rosellis, Nicholas of Cues).

^{page 6 note 1} The letter of Giraldus Cambrensis to the bishop of Hereford on behalf of the young Grosseteste referred not only to his skill in the liberal arts but also to his usefulness ‘in the decision of cases’, Giraldi Cambrensis Opera, ed. J. S. Brewer (Rolls Series 1861), i. 249. Grosseteste's familiarity with Decretum and Decretals is especially in evidence in Ep. 72 (Luard, 205–34).

^{page 6 note 2} On the French school of canonists see Kuttner, Stephan, ‘Les debuts de l'école canoniste française,’ Studia et Documenta Historia et Iuris, iv (1938), 193–204Google Scholar; and on the English school, Kuttner, Stephan and Rathbone, Eleanor, ‘Anglo-Norman canonists of the twelfth century,’ Traditio, vii (1949–51), 279–358Google Scholar. For information concerning the various canonists mentioned in the text see Schulte, J. F. v., Die Geschichte der Quellen und Literatur des canonischen Rechts, i, Stuttgart 1875Google Scholar; S. Kuttner, Repertorium der Kanonistik, i, Città del Vaticano 1937, and idem, ‘Bernardus Compostellanus Antiquus,’ Traditio, i (1943), 277–340; Van Hove, A., Prolegomena (Commentarium Lovaniense in Codicem Iuris Canonici, I, i, Malines-Rome 1945Google Scholar).

^{page 6 note 3} Carlyle, A. J., A History of Mediaeval Political Theory in the West, London 1928, ii. 164–78Google Scholar, provides a discerning analysis of Gratian's views on the pope's authority in relation to existing canon law. Carlyle's discussion of the Decretists’ treatment of the question (178–94) is interesting but based on a very narrow selection of texts. C. H. McIlwain also discussed the theoretical limits to the pope's competence in The Growth of Political Thought in the West, New York 1932, 279Google Scholar, 283–4. His illustrations were taken from the works of fourteenth-century papal publicists but their arguments in turn were usually borrowed from thirteenth-century canonistic sources. See also Maitland, Canon Law in England, 11–12; A. L. Smith, Church and State, 85–91; Gillmann, F., ‘Romanus pontifex iura omnia in scrinio pectoris sui censetur habere,’ in Archiv für katholisches Kirchenrecht, xcii (1912), 3–17Google Scholar.

^{page 7 note 1} This was universally acknowledged in the Middle Ages. A selection of canonistic texts illustrating the point was printed by Schulte, J. F. v., Die Stellung der Concilien, Päpste und Bischöfe, Prague 1871, 253–69Google Scholar. For further references see Gierke-Maitland, Political Theories, 154, n. 176.

^{page 7 note 2} Dist. 19 dictum Gratiani post c. 8.

^{page 7 note 3} 25 q. 1 dictum Gratiani post c. 16.

^{page 7 note 4} Huguccio, Summa ad Dist. 4 post c. 3, MS. 72 of Pembroke College, Cambridge, fol. 119ra, and again ad Dist. 15 c. 2, fol. 125vb, ad Dist. 16 c. 9, fol. 126rb, Dist. 40 c. 6, fol. 147^vb. These limitations on the pope's authority were commonly recognised, e.g. by Rufinus, Summa (ed. Singer, Paderborn 1902) ad Dist. 4; Glossa Palatina ad 25 q. 1 c. 3 and 25 q. 2 c. 17, MS. 0.10.2 of Trinity College, Cambridge, fol. 35^vb and fol. 37^va; Joannes Teutonicus, Glossa Ordinaria ad 25 q. 1 c. 3, 25 q. 2 c. 17; Tancred, Gloss ad Comp. III, II. vi. 3, MS. 17 of Gonville and Caius College, Cambridge, fol. 197^vb; Bernardus Parmensis, Glossa Ordinaria ad Decretales, II. xiii. 13, III. viii. 4; Hostiensis, Summa Aurea, Venetiis 1570, De Constitutionibus, fol. 7vb.

^{page 7 note 5} For typical discussions of such questions see Bernardus Parmensis, Glossa Ordinaria ad I. vii. 2, I. ix. 11, II. xiii. 13, II. xxiv. 18, III. viii. 4, III. xxxv. 6. It was often held that the pope could not annul natural law or divine law but that he could interpret them: e.g. Raymundus de Pennaforte, Summa Iuris, ed. J. R. Serra, Barcelona 1945, 38, ‘Licet autem dixerim nullam dispensationem admittendam contra ius naturale tamen papa potest ipsum interpretari. …’ The power to ‘interpret’ might in practice prove very elastic, as was emphasised by Ullmann, W., Medieval Papalism, London 1949, 50–75Google Scholar, but it was never altogether limitless. On the bounds of the pope's dispensatory authority see J. Brys, De dispensatione in iure canonico praesertim apud Decretistas et Decretalistas usque ad medium saeculum decimum quartum, Bruges 1925.

^{page 8 note 1} Gloss ad Comp. III, I. v.3, Caius MS. 17, fol. 147va. Repeated by Bernardus Parmensis, Glossa Ordinaria ad I. vii. 3.

^{page 8 note 2} Gloss ad Comp. III, II. vi. 3, Caius MS. 17, fol. 197vb, ‘Dominus papa potest dispensare in omnibus quae non sunt contra articulos fidei vel generale statutum ecclesiae … nec in his quae sunt contra substantiam monachatus ut monachus haberet uxorem vel proprium … nec in his quae in sui natura sunt mala ut quis sine peccato posset adulterari.’

^{page 8 note 3} 11 q. 3 dictum Gratiani post c. 43.

^{page 9 note 1} Bernardus Parmensis, Glossa Ordinaria ad I. vii. 2.

^{page 9 note 2} Luard, Ep. 128, 434.

^{page 9 note 3} Summa ad Dist. 19 c. 2, Pembroke MS. 72, fol. 128rb.

^{page 9 note 4} His view was cited by S. Mochi Onory, Fonti canonistiche dell' idea modema dello stato, Milano 1951, 196, ‘… set die quod aliud est ipsa iurisdictio per se inspecta, que a Deo processit, et aliud, quod ipsius iurisdictionis executionem consequatur aliquis per populum … Nam populus per electionem facit imperatorem, set non imperium, sicut cardinales per electionem preferunt aliquem sibi ad iurisdictionem, que a Deo data est, exercendam.’

^{page 9 note 5} The gloss was commenting on 24 q. 1 c. 27, ‘Quicunque ab unitate fidei vel societatis Petri Apostoli quolibet modo semetipsos segregant, tales nee vinculi peccati absolvi. …’ It runs, ‘societatis, i.e. ab eo qui sedet pro Petro sed tune 19 dist. Anastasius contra. Solutio, Anastasius non fuit de societate Petri sed cardinales erant.’ Caius MS. 676, fol. 166ra. On the date and provenance of this work see S. Kuttner and E. Rathbone, art. cit., 317–21.

^{page 10 note 1} Glossa Ordinaria ad Dist. 40 c. 6. After setting out the usual doctrine that a pope could be deposed for heresy Joannes Teutonicus went on, ‘Item nunquid papa posset statuere quod non posset accusari de haeresi. Respondeo quod non, quia ex hoc periclitaretur tota ecclesia quod non licet… quia hoc fit in eo casu quo desinit esse caput ecclesiae et ita non tenet constitutio.’

^{page 10 note 2} Glossa Ordinaria ad Dist. 40 c. 1, ‘Sed non dicitur hie quod sancti sunt sed quod sancti praesumuntur donee contrarium constet.’

^{page 10 note 3} Dist. 12 c. 1.

^{page 10 note 4} Rufinus, ed. cit., ad Dist. 12, ‘Dictum erat quod nulli preter consuetudinem romane ecclesie faciendum est; sed ne hoc omnino absolute intelligeretur, determinat quod cum discretione iustitie aliquando secus licet.’ Stephanus Tornacensis, Summa (ed. Schulte, Giessen 1891) ad Dist. 12 c. 1, ‘Sine discretione. Alterum cum discretione fieri….’

^{page 11 note 1} Summa ad Dist. 12 c. 1, Pembroke MS. 72, fol. 124ra. Huguccio drew a distinction between following a local practice different from that of the Roman church, but not forbidden by it, and acting against the discipline of Rome. ‘Sed nunquid cum discretione licet agere contra disciplinam romanae ecclesiae, nunquid licet alicui judicare de facto papae? … Dico ergo vacat argumentum a sensu contrario nee facit ad propositum magistri … licet ergo cum discretione aliter agere quam romana ecclesia teneat, sed nec cum discretione nee sine discretione licet agere contra disciplinam eius.’

^{page 11 note 2} Swnma ad Dist. 12 c. 2, Pembroke MS. 72, fol. 124ra.

^{page 11 note 3} Ibid. The argument recurred in very similar form in Ockham's Breviloquium (ed. Baudry, L., Paris 1937)Google Scholar, II. xxi, 61. See ‘Ockham, the conciliar theory, and the canonists,’ 45–6.

^{page 11 note 4} Rosarium seu in Decretorum Volumen Commentaria, Venetiis 1577, Dist. 12 cc. 1, 2, fol. 15ra–15rb.

^{page 11 note 5} Glossa Ordinaria ad Dist. 12 c. 1.

^{page 11 note 6} For his view and that of Goffredus Tranensis see Rosarium ad Dist. 12, fol. 15ra.

^{page 11 note 7} Vatican MS. Pal. Lat. 658, fol. 3rb, Gloss ad Dist. 12 c. 1; ‘Quid ergo quod romana ecclesia aliquid praecipit contra ius. Dico quod non statim est faciendum sed secunda responsio est expectanda.’ Gloss ad Dist. 12 c. 2; ‘Salutifere impleantur … et est argumentum quod non quaecumque a praelatis statuuntur observare tenemur, nisi salutifere sint statuta.’

^{page 12 note 1} Luard, Ep. 37, 128.

^{page 12 note 2} Summa Iuris, ed. cit., 28; ‘Si dubitatur utrum rescriptum habeat vim constitutionis, videas utrum sit secundum ius, aut preter ius, aut contra ius. In primo et secundo casu est epistola decretalis, et habet auctoritatem canonis in causis definiendis.… In tertio casu, scilicet cum est contra ius, reiciendum est.’

^{page 12 note 3} Summa super titulos Decretalium, Venetiis 1601, fol. 4, n. 6.

^{page 12 note 4} Summa Aurea, Venetiis 1570, De Rescriptis, fol. 11va.

^{page 12 note 5} Summa Aurea, De Maioritate et Obedientia, fol. 90vb-fol. 93ra, ‘… secularis vero et regularis consequenter obedire debet preceptis maioris in his quae pertinent ad divinum cultum, vel respiciunt utilitatem communem … ideo si quid precipiat maior quod canonicis obviet institutis servandum non est … hoc si certum est quod iniustum sive iniquum sit … nunquam enim propter obedientiam malum committendum, licet bonum aliquando debeat intermitti… alias in dubio obediendum est …’ (fol. 92rb). Hostiensis, one of the most eminent jurists of the thirteenth century, lived for several years in England in the service of Henry III. The most recent survey of his life and thought is that of C. Lefebvre, Dictionnaire de Droit Canonique (1953), s.v. Hostiensis. On his stay in England see F. M. Powicke, King Henry III and. the Lord Edward, i, 272–3; Didier, N., ‘Henri de Suse en Angleterre,’ Studi in Onore di Vincenzo Arangio-Ruiz, Napoli 1953, 333–51Google Scholar.

^{page 12 note 6} Glossa Ordinaria ad I. xxxiii. 2. Bernardus expressed himself more ambiguously in his gloss ad I. xiv. 4: ‘Si enim ex certa scientia scriberet papa pro minori eius mandato esset obediendum quia sacrilegii instar obtinet, dubitare an is sit dignus quern Princeps eligit…. Praeterea contra ius et contra publicam utilitatem est tale rescriptum et ideo non valet…. Item est hie argumentum quod non est obediendum semper mandato Papae … sed non dicitur mandatum, quando ignoranter mandat.’

^{page 13 note 1} E.g., in the matter of monastic poverty and celibacy. In Quingue Libros Decretalium Commentaria, Venetiis 1570, 517, ad III. xxxv. 6.

^{page 13 note 2} Commentaria ad I. iv, Rubrica, 40: ‘Vel dicas et melius quod contra iura et contra praecepta venire licet his, quibus licitum est novam legem et specialem introducere contra illud ius vel praeceptum similiter, et novam consuetudinem. Sed si tale esset, quod contra illud ius vel praeceptum non licet sine peccato legem specialem statuere; et ad hoc, ut non peccet ille qui contra ius vel praeceptum domini papae facit, opportet quod ex aliqua iusta causa faciat, et volens consuetudinem introducere, et superiore consentiente, scilicet eo qui legem fecit, vel qui potestatem habet condendi legem contra illud ius, vel mandatum.’

^{page 13 note 3} Commentaria ad I. xiv. 4, 125: ‘Non enim semper literis papae obediendum est, quia decipi potest papa … sunt enim literae aliquando contra ius vel publicam utilitatem, unde non valent, nisi ex certa scientia facta inde mentione quod pro minus literato vel minore scriberet.’

^{page 13 note 4} Commentaria ad V.iii. 34, 601.

^{page 13 note 5} Commentaria ad I. iv. 4, 41.

^{page 14 note 1} V. xxxix. 44: ‘In primo casu debet potius excommunicationis sententiam humiliter sustinere, quam per carnale commercium peccatum operari mortale.’ It is interesting to note that this authoritative decretal of Innocent III directly contradicts a twelfth-century opinion quoted by A. L. Smith, Church and State, 54–5: ‘A Summa Quaestionum, a book problems more than thirty years before the Lateran Council, had put the case of a man bound to adhere to a wife whom he knows to be not really his wife. “Yet he sins not if he is obeying a command of the Church.… If the objection be raised that he is acting against his conscience and therefore sins, we answer he must let conscience go’.’

^{page 14 note 2} Glossa Ordinaria ad V. xxxix. 44. Grosseteste, indeed, did not profess himself willing to undergo punishment for his disobedience, but rather declared in advance that no action could be taken against him for his conduct. Luard, Ep. 128, 437: ‘Nec ob hoc potest inde vestra discretio quicquam durum contra me statuere, quia omnis mea in hac parte et dictio et actio, nec contradictio est nec rebellio, sed filialis divino mandato debita patri et matri honoratio.’ But the whole issue of ‘passive resistance’ as against ‘active resistance’ assumed a different form when the penalty involved was a spiritual one whose main sanction was its effect on the soul of the excommunicated party; for the question naturally arose whether an unjust sentence of excommunication could be binding in the eyes of God even though promulgated by the pope. The point was often discussed by the canonists in connection with the words, ‘Quodcumque ligaveris super terram erit ligatum et in caelis.’ The more common opinion held that an unjust papal excommunication might bind as regards the Church Militant, but not as regards the Church Triumphant. This was the view, e.g. of Joannes Teutonicus, Glossa Ordinaria ad 11 q. 3 c. 48, 24 q. 1 c. 5, c. 6.

^{page 15 note 1} Commentaria ad V. xxxix. 44, 661. The edition cited has ‘nisi ex praecepto iusto vehementer praesumeretur’. Iniusto is given in the edition of Frankfurt 1570 and seems obviously preferable in this context. There is no critical edition of Innocent's work.

^{page 15 note 2} Luard, Ep. 128, 434.

^{page 15 note 3} Ibid.

^{page 15 note 4} This argument was advanced by H. K. Mann, Lives of the Popes, xiv, 263: ‘This language, which under the circumstances must be set down as too general, has led some authors to regard the letter as a forgery, or at least as a mere literary exercise. It may perhaps with more justice be said to be a letter in which Grosseteste was dealing, not with the particular case of Frederick, but with the whole method of procedure of the papal commissioners.‘

^{page 16 note 1} A. L. Smith, Church and State, 104–5.