Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-29T00:02:35.980Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The ‘Mendicant Problem’ in the Later Middle Ages

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 February 2016

R. N. Swanson
R. N. Swanson*
Affiliation:
University of Birmingham
Get access

Extract

Almost from their foundation, the mendicant orders proved problematic. Their insistence on poverty, their preaching skills, and their responsiveness to contemporary spirituality challenged the Church at many levels, providing standards against which the secular clergy might be judged and found wanting. Their dependence on papal privileges which limited episcopal oversight, and their claims to a special role as confessors and preachers, threatened the Church’s current order, especially in parishes. By undermining the parish priest’s authority — jurisdictionally by offering confession and absolution, financially by encouraging burial in their houses — the friars in fact undercut some of the aims of the early thirteenth-century reformers, most notably by disrupting the demands of Omnis utriusque sexus, the decree requiring annual confession to the ‘proprius sacerdos’, issued at the Fourth Lateran Council. The most important resolution of these ‘grass root’ problems was provided in Boniface VIII’s Super cathedram of 1300, which by 1326 applied to all four of the main mendicant orders, and formally became part of canon law when enshrined in the Clementines. Unfortunately, Super cathedram seemed incompatible with Omnis utriusque sexus, and debate on the resulting discrepancy persisted throughout the Middle Ages, despite attempts at resolution such as Vas electionis of 1321.

Type
Research Article
Information
Studies in Church History Subsidia , Volume 11: The Medieval Church: Universities, Heresy, and the Religious Life , 1999 , pp. 217 - 238
Copyright
Copyright © Ecclesiastical History Society 1999 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

I am grateful to the British Academy for financial support for the research for this paper.

References

1 X 5.38.12; Tanner, Decrees, 1, p. 245.

2 Clem. 3.7.2; Tanner, , Decrees, 1, pp. 365–9Google Scholar. For the early history of Super cathedram, C. Uyttenbroeck, Xe droit pénitentiel des religieux de Boniface VIII à Sixte IV, Études

franciscaines, 47 (1935), pp. 176–85 (see p. 176 n. 5 for its application to individual orders). For later reissues, Walsh, K., A Fourteenth-Century Scholar and Primate: Richard FitzRalph in Oxford, Avignon and Armagh (Oxford, 1981), pp. 407, 421Google Scholar. See also Trexler, R. C., ‘The bishop’s portion: generic pious legacies in the late Middle Ages in Italy’, Traditio, 28 (1972), pp. 407–11, 415–16Google Scholar. The legal relationship between the mendicants and the secular clergy in the aftermath of Vienne is usefully summarized in H. Lippens, ‘Le droit nouveau des mendiants en conflit avec le droit coutumier du clergé séculier, du Concile de Vienne à celui de Trente’, Archivum franciscanum historicum, 47 (1954), p. 251.

3 Extrav. comm. 5.3.2.

4 On such analysis, Walsh, , Fourteenth-Century Scholar, pp. 430–1Google Scholar; Uyttenbroeck, ‘Droit pénitentiel’, pp. 181–2.

5 For the Franciscans and the Rule, Nimmo, D., Reform and Division in the Franciscan Order, from St Francis to the Foundation of the Capuchins, Bibliotheca seraphico-capuccina, 33 (Rome, 1987), pp. 152–8.Google Scholar

6 Leff, , Heresy, 1, pp. 51–230Google Scholar; Douie, D. L., The Nature and Effect of the Heresy of the Fraticelli (Manchester, 1932)Google Scholar; Lambert, M. D., Franciscan Poverty: the Doctrine of the Absolute Poverty of Christ and the Apostles in the Franciscan Order, 1210–1323 (London, 1961)Google Scholar; Dufeil, M.-M., Guillaume de Saint-Amour et la polemique universitaire parisienne, 1230–1259 (Paris, 1972)Google Scholar; Dawson, J. D., ‘Richard FitzRalph and the fourteenth-century poverty controversies’, JEH, 34 (1983), pp. 316–29Google Scholar; Nimmo, , Reform and Division, pp. 51–138Google Scholar; Tierney, B., Origins of Papal Infallibility, 1130–1350: a Study on the Concepts of Infallibility, Sovereignty and Tradition in the Middle Ages, Studies in the History of Christian Thought, 6 (Leiden, 1972).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

7 Walsh, , Fourteenth-Century Scholar, pp. 349–447Google Scholar; Dawson, , ‘Richard FitzRalph’, pp. 329–44.Google Scholar

8 Douie, , Nature and Effect, pp. 209–47Google Scholar; Niramo, , Reform and Division, pp. 252–72Google Scholar; Leff, , Heresy, 1, pp. 230–55.Google Scholar

9 E.g. C. Schmitt, Xe traité du cardinal Jean de Torquemada sur la pauvreté évangélique’, AFP, 57 (1987), pp. 103–44; Douie, D. L, ‘Some treatises against the Fraticelli in the Vatican Library’, FS, 38 (1978), pp. 16–40, 43–55, 59–78Google Scholar. The debate about poverty also continued in other circumstances; see e.g. Williams, A., ‘Protectorium pauperis: a defense of the begging friars by Richard of Maidstone O. Carm. (d.1396)’, and V. Edden, The debate between Richard Maidstone and the Lollard Ashwardby’, both in Fitzgerald-Lombard, P., ed., Carmel in Britain: Essays on the Medieval English Carmelite Province, vol. 2. Theology and Writing (Rome, 1992), pp. 35–83, 84–105.Google Scholar

10 That the disputes were kept within bounds fits them within the structures proposed in Swanson, R. N., ‘Unity and diversity, rhetoric and reality: modelling the church’, Journal of Religious History, 20 (1996), pp. 156–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

11 On the Observant movements, the tensions, and connections with ‘laicization’, Nimmo, , Reform and Division, pp. 353–658Google Scholar; Nyhus, P. L., The Franciscans in South Germany, 1400–1530: Reform and Revolution, Transactions of the American Philosophical Society, ns 65/viii (Philadelphia, 1975), pp. 10–17Google Scholar; Richards, M., ‘The conflict between Observant and Conventual reformed Franciscans in fifteenth-century France and Flanders’, FS, 50 (1990), pp. 263–81Google Scholar; Guttierrez, D., The Augustinians in the Middle Ages, 1357–1517 (Villanova, PA, 1983), pp. 73–98Google Scholar; Elm, K., ed., Reformbemuhungen und Observanzbestrebungen im spätmittelalterlichen Ordenswesen, Berliner historische Studien, 14: Ordensstudien 6 (Berlin, 1989)Google Scholar – esp. articles by R. Manselli, D. B. Nimmo, P. L. Nyhus, J. Smet, and K. Walsh.

12 Kedar, B. Z., ‘Canon law and local practice: the case of mendicant preaching in late medieval England’, Bulletin of Medieval Canon Law, 2 (1972), pp. 17–26Google Scholar (for continued control over sermon content even after licensing seemingly lapsed in the fifteenth century, ibid., pp. 26–32); Spencer, H. L., English Preaching in the Late Middle Ages (Oxford, 1993), p. 60Google Scholar. The context of the discord in Roth, F., The English Austin Friars, 1240–1538, 2: Sources, Cassiciacum: Studies in St Augustine and the Augustinian Order, 7 (New York, 1961), pp. 509-10Google Scholar* is not clear, but may reflect a similar dispute.

13 Registrum Johannis de Trillek, episcopi Hereforiensis, A. D. MCCCXUV-MCCCLXI, ed. Parry, J. H., CYS, 8 (1912), pp. 195–6.Google Scholar

14 Lichfield, Joint Record Office [hereafter LJRO], B/A/1/7, fol. 129r. It also appears in a London will of 1462: Rohrkasten, J., ‘Londoners and London mendicants in the late middle ages’, JEH, 47 (1996), p. 468.Google Scholar

15 Legge, M D., Anglo-Norman Letters and Petitions from All Souls MS 182, Anglo-Norman Texts, 3 (Oxford, 1941), pp. 35–6.Google Scholar

16 York, Borthwick Institute of Historical Research, CP. E.184.

17 See the claim for such exemption in Parry, Registrum Trillek, p. 170.

18 BL, MS Add. 14848, fol. 26r-v. For later licences, issued to Franciscans and Dominicans, ibid., fols 26v, 79V-80.

19 Shrewsbury, Public Library, MS 112, fol. 72V.

20 Eg. Norwich, Norfolk and Norwich Record Office [hereafter NNRO], DCN 2/14/17, the parish account for Great Yarmouth for 1489–90, which records ‘expensis contra fratres minores, nihil hoc anno, quia continuatur’. The other relevant entry in these accounts (DCN 2/4/16, for 1485–6) is to a dispute over burials with the Franciscans.

21 Owen, D. M., The Making of King’s Lynn: a Documentary Survey, Records of Social and Economic History, ns 9 (London, 1984), no. 87Google Scholar (Augustinians, in 1361); NNRO, DCN 87/1 (Carmelites, 1371).

22 NNRO, DCN 2/1/25, 26. 44. 49.

23 NNRO, DCN 2/1/26-68.

24 NNRO, DCN 2/1/49.

25 NNRO, DCN 2/1/39. This dispute perhaps originated during Henry VTs visit to Lynn in 1446: Roth, , Austin Friars, p. 328*.Google Scholar

26 LJRO, B/A/1/7, fols 133v-134r; Roth, , Austin Friars, pp. 270*–71*.Google Scholar

27 CPL, vol. IV, A. D. 1396–1404, pp. 539–40.

28 LJRO, B/A/1/7, fols 128r-137r; Roth, , Austin Friars, pp. 268*–77*.Google Scholar

29 The rector’s claims appear LJRO, B/A/1/7, fols 129r-130r; Roth, , Austin Friars, pp. 272*–5*.Google Scholar

30 LJRO, B/A/1/7, fol. 131r; Roth, , Austin Friars, p. 269*Google Scholar. Unfortunately, the testimony is not recorded.

31 The award was delivered in two parts, LJRO, B/A/1/7, fols 131V-133V, 134v-137r; Roth, , Austin Friars, pp. 269*–70*.Google Scholar

32 LJRO, B/A/1/7, fols 131V-133V, Roth, , Austin Friars, pp. 276*–7*.Google Scholar

33 Swanson, R. N., ‘The origins of the Lay Folks’ Catechism’, Medium AEvum, 60 (1991), p. 98Google Scholar; Piers Plowman: the B Version – Will’s Visions of Piers Plowman, Do-Well, Do-Better, and Do-Best: an Edition in the Form of Trinity College, Cambridge, MS B.15.17, Corrected and Restored from the Known Evidence, with Variant Readings, ed. George Kane and E. Talbot Donaldson (London, 1975), passus 15, 11. 70–6, p. 538.

34 For the case and its context, G A. Robertson, The tithe-heresy of friar William Russell’, Albion, 8 (1976), pp. 1–13. Similar ideas were allegedly revived among the London populace in response to Carmelite preaching in 1464: F. R. H. du Boulay, The quarrel between the Carmelite friars and the secular clergy of London, 1464–1468’,/EH, 6 (1955), pp. 161, 173. An early fifteenth-century Doncaster dispute seems analogous, with a Carmelite claiming that offerings on feasts (presumably the compulsory parochial offerings on certain dates) were free offerings which might be given elsewhere than to the parish church – implicitly, to friars: Alban, K., ‘The letters of Thomas Netter of Walden’, in Fitzgerald-Lombard, Carmel in Britain, 2, p. 373.Google Scholar

35 The Records of the Northern Convocation, Surtees Society Publications, 113 (1907), pp. 146–72.

36 Boulay, Du, ‘Quarrel’, pp. 158–74Google Scholar. This fracas found echoes in contemporary Italian writings on tbe poverty issue: Douie, ‘Some treatises’, pp. 14–16, 21, 32.

37 York, York Minster Library, L2/3a, fol. 78r-v. See also the Doncaster case mentioned in n.34.

38 Hudson, , Books, pp. 133, 135Google Scholar. See also idem, PR, pp. 152–3, 316–18, 342, and c£ Wilkins, , Concilia, 3, p. 208.Google Scholar

39 See the reported reaction to the Carmelite preaching in London in 1464, Boulay, du, ‘Quarrel’, pp. 161, 173.Google Scholar

40 Szittya, Antifratemal, chs 5–7. See also Erickson, C., ‘The fourteenth-century Franciscans and their critics’, FS, 35 (1975), pp. 107–35, 36 (1976), pp. 108–47Google Scholar, which attempts to assess the validity of this material in a broader European context.

41 For fourteenth-century France, Adam, P., La vie paroissiale en France au XlVe siècle, Histoire et sociologie de l’église, 3 (Paris, 1963), pp. 220–45, 307–10Google Scholar; for Brittany, , Martin, H., Les ordres mendiants en Bretagne, vers 1230-vers 1530: pauvreté volontaire et prédication à la fin du Moyen-Age (Paris, 1975), pp. 140–1, 144–8, 152–4Google Scholar; more generally, Lippens, ‘Droit nouveau des mendiants’, esp. pp. 266–70, 272–3, 277–84, 288–9.

42 Little, A. G., ‘Introduction of the Observant friars into England’, PBA, 10 (1921-3), pp. 458–71Google Scholar. For hints of an ‘observant’ movement among early fifteenth-century English Franciscans, and that the English Franciscans were exceptionally rigorist, Whitfield, D. W., ‘Conflicts of personality and principle: the political and religious crisis in the English Franciscan province, 1400–1409’, FS, ns 17 (1957), pp. 325 (and n.8), 341–2.Google Scholar For a proposed foreign imposition of observance on the English Carmelites, Smet, J., ‘Pre-Tridentine reform in the Carmelite Order’, in Elm, ed., Reformbemühungen und Observanzbestrebungen, pp. 308, 317.Google Scholar

43 Eltis, D. A., ‘Tensions between clergy and laity in some western German cities in the later middle ages’, JEH, 43 (1992), pp. 239–40Google Scholar. For such instances in France, Adam, Vie paroissiale, pp. 241–2. The tertiaries sometimes used their links with the mendicants to avoid the penalties of interdicts: Erickson, , ‘Fourteenth-century Franciscans’ (1975), p. 125; (1976), pp. 124–5.Google Scholar

44 The debate on the confessional powers of the mendicants in the later fourteenth and fifteenth centuries is surveyed in Uyttenbroeck, ‘Droit pénitentiei’, pp. 306–32.

45 Koch, J., ‘Der Prozess gegen den Magister Johannes de Polliaco und seine Vorgeschichte(1312-1321)’, in his Kleine Schriften, 2, Storia e letteratura: raccolta di Studi e Testi, 128 (Rome, 1973), pp. 387–422Google Scholar; Uyttenbroeck, ‘Droit pénitentieP, pp. 186–8; Dunbabin, J., A Hound of God: Pierre de la Palud and the FourUenth-Century Church (Oxford, 1991), pp. 58–68, 113–19Google Scholar; Sikes, J. G., ‘John de Pouilli and Peter de la Palu’, EHR, 49 (1934), pp. 223–40Google Scholar. For the ecclesiological traditions reflected in this clash, Congar, Y. M.-J., ‘Aspects ecclésiologiques de la querelle entre mendiants et séculiers dans la seconde moitié du Xlir siècle et le début du XTVe ’, AHDLMA, 36 (1961), pp. 52–114.Google Scholar

46 Leff, , ‘Apostolic ideal’, pp. 71–3, 81–2Google Scholar (quotation at p. 71).

47 Koch (‘Der Prozess’, p. 417) associates it with ‘die Demokratie des Weltgeistlichen, der aus jedem Pfarrer einen Papst machen môchte’.

48 Ibid., pp. 418–20.

49 Uyttenbroeck, , ‘Droit pénitentieP, p. 309; Lippens, ‘Droit nouveau des mendiants’, pp. 260–1, 272.Google Scholar

50 Outlined in Uyttenbroeck, ‘Droit pénitentiel’, pp. 311–16; see also Brown, D. C., Pastor and Laity in the Theology of Jean Gerson (Cambridge, 1987), pp. 74–8.Google Scholar

51 Jean Gerson, oeuvres complètes, ed. Glorieux, P., 10 vols in 11 (Tournai, 1960-73)Google Scholar [hereafter Glorieux], 8, no. 403.

52 CUP, no. 1864.

53 Glorieux, 10, no. 494.

54 Ibid., 9, no. 424.

55 Ibid., 9, p. 29.

56 But see below, n.61, for another possible stimulus.

57 CUP, no. 1868.

58 CUP, no. 1868, p. 166.

59 Ibid., no. 1868, p. 167.

60 Ibid. (Super cathedram is cited by its Clementine incipit, Dudum [a Bonifacio])

61 Materials for the History of the Franciscan Province of Ireland, A. D. 1230–1450, ed. F. B. Fitzmaurice and A. G. Little, British Society of Franciscan Studies, 9 (Manchester, 1920), pp. 172–3 (suggesting that the Irish actually procured the Bull); BRUO, 3, p. 2037; Wilkins, , Concilia, 3, pp. 324–5.Google Scholar

62 Glorieux, 5, no. 387 (pp. 978–92). See also CUP, no. 1877.

63 Glorieux, 5, p. 984.

64 Ibid., 5, p. 988.

65 Ibid., 5, pp. 991–2.

66 CUP, nos 1878, 2086; Auctarium chartularii universitatis Parisiensis, ed. Denifle, H. S. and Châtelain, E., 2 (Paris, 1937), p. 233Google Scholar; Acta concila Constanciensis, ed. H. Finke, 4 vols (Munster, 1898–1928), 2, pp. 572–3.

67 CUP, no. 1879, p. 173.

68 Ibid., no. 1885; Fitzmaurice, and Little, , Materials, pp. 173–6.Google Scholar

69 CUP, no. 1887.

70 Ibid., no. 1886; Nimmo, , Reform and Division, pp. 538–42.Google Scholar

71 CUP, nos 1900, 1915.

72 Ibid., no. 1917.

73 E.g. ibid., nos 1926, 1927.

74 Ibid., no. 1965. The resolution of the Observant issue by Supplicationibus personarum of 23 Sept. 1415 (see Nimmo, Reform and Division, pp. 549–56) presumably provided grounds for the reconciliation.

75 Caucbie, A., ‘Nicole Serrurier, hérétique du XVe siècle’, Analectes four servir à l’histoire ecclésiastique de la Belgique, 2nd ser., 8 (1893), pp. 250–2, 289–90.Google Scholar

76 Finke, , Acta, I, pp. 690–8.Google Scholar

77 Ibid., p. 694. Cf.Brown, , Pastor and Laity, pp. 38–41, 44–9, esp. 40, 44, 46.Google Scholar

78 On chorepiscopi, Valton, E., ‘Évêques: questions théologiques et canoniques’, DTC, 5/ii (Paris, 1912-13), cols 1706–7.Google Scholar

79 Wilkins, , Concilia, 3, pp. 363–4.Google Scholar

80 Finke, , Acta, 1, p. 699.Google Scholar

81 Ibid., 2, pp. 430–5, esp. 434.

82 Magnum oecumenicum Constantiense concilium, ed. der Hardt, H. von, 6 vols (Frankfurt and Leipzig, 1697-1700), 1, pp. 713–16.Google Scholar

83 Clem. 5.7.1.

84 Hardt, Constantiense concilium, 1, pp. 715–16.

85 Ibid., 1, pp. 715–20.

86 Hardt, Constantiense concilium, i, pp. 715–18.

87 For relations between seculars and tertiaries in general, Erickson, ‘Fourteenth-century Franciscans’ (1976), pp. 125–7; see also Schmitt, J.-C., Mort d’une hérésie: l’église et les clercs face aux béguines et aux béghards du Rhin supérieur du XlVe au XVe siècle, Civilisations et sociétés, 56 (Paris, 1978), pp. 118–19, 125.Google Scholar

88 Wilkins, , Concilia, 3, p. 567 (no. 36).Google Scholar

89 Schmitt, , Mort d’une hérésie, pp. 114–30, 155–8, 189–90, 207–12.Google Scholar

90 Finke, , Acta, 2, p. 682.Google Scholar

91 Cauchie, , ‘Nicole Serrurier’, esp. pp. 290, 293.Google Scholar

92 Ibid., pp. 265–8, 301–2.

93 Uyttenbroeck, ‘Droit pénitentiel’, p. 317; Lippens, ‘Droit nouveau des mendiants’, pp. 282–3.

94 Uyttenbroeck, ‘Droit pénitentiel’, pp. 321–3, 325–6; Farge, J. K., Orthodoxy and Reform in Early Reformation France: the Faculty of Theology of Paris, 1300–1543, Studies in Medieval and Reformation Thought, 32 (Leiden, 1985), pp. 122–4, 229.Google Scholar

95 Uyttenbroeck, , ‘Droit pénitentiel’, pp. 317–20.Google Scholar

96 Ibid., pp. 320–1; Annales Minorum, ed. L. Wadding, 25 vols (3rd edn, Florence, 1931–4), n, pp. 121–2.

97 Hefele, C. J. and Clercq, C. de, Histoire des conciles, 11 vols in 22 (Paris, 1902-52), 7/ii, pp. 1209, 1222.Google Scholar

98 Uyttenbroeck, , ‘Droit pénitentiel’, pp. 327–8Google Scholar; Wadding, , Annales Minorum, 14, pp. 112–27Google Scholar (canonical portion at p. 122); Lippens, , ‘Droit nouveau des mendiants’, pp. 284–5.Google Scholar

99 Uyttenbroeck, , ‘Droit pénitentiel’, pp. 329–31Google Scholar; Lippens, , ‘Droit nouveau des mendiants’, pp. 286–8.Google Scholar

100 Hefele, and Clercq, de, Histoire des conciles, 8/i, pp. 311–12Google Scholar; Lippens, , ‘Droit nouveau des mendiants’, p. 290.Google Scholar

101 For Lateran, V, la Brosse, O. de, Lecler, J., Holstein, A., and Lefebvre, C., Latran V et Trente, Histoire des conciles oecuméniques, 10 (Paris, 1975), pp. 70–4, 109–10Google Scholar. For die preaching decree, Tanner, Decrees, i, pp. 634–8, esp. p. 636.

102 Ibid., 1, pp. 645–9.

103 Spencer, English Preaching, p. 60 and n.163; Roth, Austin Friars, p. 441*. Disputes continued elsewhere to the eve of the Reformation: for e.g. Strasbourg, see Rapp, F., Réformes et Réformation à Strasbourg: église et société dans le diocèse de Strasbourg (1450-1525), Collection de l’institut des hautes études alsaciennes, 23 (Paris, 1974), pp. 215–16.Google Scholar