No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 17 February 2016
One of the ‘Problems of Sovereignty’ addressed by Michael Wilks in his magisterial study is whether the pope can appoint his own successor.’ It was, of course, a particularly pressing problem for any prince who had no natural heir, either because of his own deliberate celibacy, or, if he had children, because there was no established rule of hereditary succession. In the seventeenth century Thomas Hobbes saw the right to appoint a successor, and thus to perpetuate what he calls the ‘artificial eternity’ of the commonwealth, as an essential attribute of sovereignty: There is no perfect form of government, where the disposing of the succession is not in the present sovereign. For if it be in any other particular man or private assembly, it is in a person subject, and may be assumed by the sovereign at his pleasure; and consequently the right is in himself.’ He also pinpointed the problems which would arise without this attribute: ‘If it be known who have the power to give the sovereignty after his [the ruler’s] death it is known also that the sovereignty was in them before; for none have right to give that which they have not right to possess, and keep to themselves, if they think good.’ Moreover, if the sovereign cannot appoint his successor ‘then is the commonwealth dissolved; and the right is in him that can get it.’
1 Wilks, Michael, The Problem of Sovereignty in the LaterMiddle Ages (Cambridge, 1963), pp. 467–8.Google Scholar
2 Hobbes, Thomas, Leviathan, ed. Oakeshott, Michael (Oxford, 1960), pt ii, ch. 19, p. 127.Google Scholar
3 Ibid.
4 See Bresc, H., ‘La Genèse du Schisme: les partis cardinalices et leurs ambitions dynastiques’, in Gènae et débuis du Grande Schisme d’Occident = Colloques internationaux du C.N.R.S., 586 (Paris, 1980), pp. 45–57Google Scholar; Wood, Diana, Clement VI: the Pontificate and Ideas of an Avignon Pope (Cambridge, 1989), pp. 98-9, 110–11.Google Scholar
5 Palu, Pierre de la, Tractatus de potestate papae, ed. Stella, P. T. (Zurich, 1966), q. 1, art ii, esp. pp. 172–6Google Scholar. On him see Dunbabin, Jean A Hound of God: Pierre de la Palud and the fourteenth-century Church (Oxford, 1991), esp. pp. 70–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar on the De potestate papae.
6 On the pope’s right to appoint his successor, and in general see Ortolan, T., ‘Election des papes’, in Vacant, A., Mangenot, E., and Amman, E., eds, Dictionnaire de théologie catholique, 15 vols (Paris, 1902-50)Google Scholar, 4, cols 2281-5; Duchesne, L., LÉglise au Vle sièle (Paris, 1925), pp. 142–6Google Scholar; Journet, C., The Church of the Word Incarnate: an Essay in Speculative Theology, Downes, tr. A. H. C., 1 (London and New York, 1955), excursus 8, pp. 479–82.Google Scholar
7 Decretum, D.79 C.10(col. 279).
8 Ibid., D.79 c.2 (col. 276).
9 Kelly, J. N. D., The Oxford Dictionary of Popes (Oxford and New York, 1986), ‘Felix IV’, pp. 55–6.Google Scholar
10 PL, supplement 3, cols 1280-1.
11 Kelly, Oxford Dictionary, ‘Boniface II’, p. 53.
12 Duchesne, L., ed., Liber pontificalis, 1 (Paris, 1886), ch. 57, p. 281.Google Scholar
13 See Taylor, Maria L., ‘The election of Innocent III’, pp. 97-8, 103–7 above.Google Scholar
14 See, for example, Exod. 28; Num. 20.25ff.; I Mace. 2.54.
15 Pierre de la Palu, Tractatus, q. 1, art 2, p. 173: ‘Sic, autem, non est in sacerdocio Novi Testamenti, quia illud non debetur generi, sed virtuti. Unde nec Chrisrus vicarium suum fecit aliquem de genere suo, puta aliquem de filiis Zebedei, aut de Filiis Alphei, qui erant eius consanguinei ex eius materteris nati, sed Petrum extraneum nihil sibi attinentem.’
16 FitzRalph, Richard, Summa de quaestionibus Armenorum (Paris, 1511)Google Scholar, bk viii, ch. 21, fol. 50r: ‘[Johannes]… de iure nature videtur quod bona parentum iure hereditario ad filios debeant dirivari.’ Ibid., fol. 50V: ‘[Ricardus] … Et ideo ineptum fuit extunc quod uxoratus statum summum teneret quoniam ad summum pontificem pertinet esse solicitum circa ea que dei sunt et non esse divisum ut cogitet piacere uxori. Unde dicit Paulus [I Cor. 7.33]… Et ideo premisso ab ore dominico Christo Perro tanquam sibi similiori in virtute: beams es symon bariona: quia caro et sanguis non revelavit cibi sed pater meus qui est in celis, sequitur statim a Christo insarutio sive prenominatio in eius successorem.’ On Richard FitzRalph see Walsh, Katherine, A Fourteenth Century Scholar and Primate: Richard FitzRalph in Oxford, Avignon and Armagh (Oxford, 1981).Google Scholar
17 Ibid.: ‘nullus iure parentele debeat esse successor aut summum ponrificium iure hereditario possidere unde non video quod per ecclesiam aliter fieri congrue potuit nisi per electionem.’
18 Triumphus, Augustinus, Summa de potatale ecclesiastica (Rome, 1582)Google Scholar, q. ii, art 3, p. 20: ‘cum contingat plerumque, illum, qui succedit alteri, iure haereditario [p. 21] in aliquo regimine malum esse, et srultum. Non est autem conveniens, quod regimen Ecclesiasticum. et spiritualium donorum casui, et fortunae exponatur: potissime, quia praesumptionis est, quod que Dei sunt, ad nomine dari debeant’
19 See Ullmann, W., ‘The significance of the Epistola Clementis in the Pseudo-Clementines’, JThS, II (1960), pp. 295–317, and Principles of Government and Politics in the Middle Ages (London, 1961), pp. 43–5.Google Scholar
20 Ullmann, , ‘The significance’, pp. 303–5.Google Scholar
21 Decretum, C.8 q.1 c.1 (col. 590).
22 Decretum, C.8 q.1 cc.3-7. Á particularly interesting example of a bishop appointing his successor is provided by Augustine of Canterbury (d. 604.), who consecrated Laurentius as archbishop during his lifetime. Bede, Historia Ecclesiastica Gentis Anglorum, ed. Plummer, C., 2 vols (Oxford, 1896), 1, bk ii, 4, pp. 86–7Google Scholar, tells us that this was according to the example of Peter’s appointment of Clement: see also Plummer’s notes, 2, p. 82, which sets out the canonical position. Stenton, F. M., Anglo-Saxon England, 3rd edn (Oxford, 1971), p. 112Google Scholar, points out that he never received the pallium, which may indicate that his election was seen as uncanonical at Rome.
23 Teutonicus, Johannes, Glossa ordinaria, ad C.8 q.1 c1 ‘aut ligandi’ in Corpus iuris canonici, 2 vols (Lyons, 1572), i, col. 839Google Scholar: ‘Isti autem duo temporalia pauperibus erogabant: ad quod officium apostoli diacones elegeram… et patet quod Linus et Cletus non fuerunt apostolici et hoc est verum quod post Petrum statim non fuerunt apostolici, sed Clemens fuit post eum apostolicus. Videns autem Clemens quod hoc esset perniciosum exemplo, quod aliquis sibi eligeret successorem: renunciavit papatui: et rane electus fuit Linus: eo morrao electus est Cletus: quo mortuo denuo fuit Clemens electus et sic Clemens secundum unam computationem fuit secundus: et secundum aliam fuit quaitus unde versus. Disputat hic mundus quartus fuerit vel secundus.’
24 Conrad of Megenberg, Yconomica, ed. Kruger, S., MGH. Staatsschriften des späteren Mittelalurs. 3, 3 vols (Stuttgart, 1971-7), 2, pt 2, ch. 4, p. 43Google Scholar: ‘Sed quia Clemens providus fuit. Lino cesserat et postea Cleto, ne forte exemplo Petri ducti quilibet summorum pontifìcum sibi successorem statuere vellec’
25 Baconthorpe, John, Quaesliones in quatuor libros Sententiarum et Cuodlibetales (Cremona, 1618, Gregg repr. 1969)Google Scholar, Prol., q.10, art 3, p. 264: ‘Nam in contrarium est textus Canonis hic, ait enim quod Petrus dementem ordinavit successorem in auribus totius Ecclesiae: et per consequens cum hoc Ecclesiae placuit, fuit canonice electus electione, quae vocatur inspirado Spiritus sancti, quae est canonica.’
26 Ibid.
27 Ibid.: ‘Et hoc certificat quod in registro Romanorum Pontificum non computantur Linus et Cletus. Similiter ceteri successores Clemenris, dementem immediate computant post Petrum.’
28 Pierre de la Palu, Tractatus, q.1, art 2, p. 173: ‘Si dicatur quod Clemens non successif Perro, sed Linus, postea Cletus, post quos ex nova electione, non Petri institutione, Clemens rexit ecclesiam, non valet, quia Clemens non successit de facto, quia res erat perniciosa exemplo, ut scilicet quilibet prelatus eligeret sibi successorem et sic hereditate possideret sanctuarium Dei; sed tamen successit de iure, quid propter predictam causam ipse renuntiavit papatui,… que renunciatio non fuisset necessaria si ex Petri institutione nullum ius fuisset sibi acquisitum.’
29 Ibid., p. 145. To make matters worse the marriage, which had been consummated, had not been annulled: ‘nihilominus fuit verus papa durante matrimonio, quod ante mortem non potuit dissolui.’
30 Ibid., p. 175: ‘aliqua habuit Petrus pro se personalia privilegia; aliqua pro successione. Ea, enim, que sunt ecclesie necessaria et utilia, accepit pro omnibus, sicut plenitudinem potestads in ecclesiis. Quedam, vero, non, sicut mirabilia, que non sunt necessaria fidelibus nee utilia… Et sic est de potestate substituendi, quia Dominus sciebat quod abuteretur, unde sibi permisit, non sic autem aliis, qui corporaliter providissent…’.
31 Ibid., pp. 175-6: ‘potest dici quod nec Petrus illud potuit, nee fecit: sed episcopum, quidem, sine cura episcopali ordinavit… et ipse renuntiavit, id est declaravit se non habere ius ex ilia institutione … Nec fuit ratio, quare magis acceptavit elecrionem, quam institutionem, si utrumque erat lieitum. Nec est res perniciosa exemplo, si aliquis utatur iure suo. Si, autem, ex speciali dono Dei hoc fecit, tunc Clemens Spiritui Sancto restirit. Unde dicendum quod Clemens renuntiavit iuri, quod habere videbatur secundum opinionem illorum, qui putabant Petrum potuisse et voluisse substituere. Clemens, vero, renuntiavit electioni [sic] de se facte, nolens immediate eligi, ne videretur ordinario putativa Petri imposuisse necessitarem aliis eligendi.’
32 Pierre de la Palu, Tractatus, p. 173. Cf. n. 22 above.
33 Ibid., p. 174: ‘Sed isca probaciones non valent… Primo, quia, cum papa sic supra ecclesiam et superior non ligacur lege inferioris, quia nullus potest ligare nisis subdirum, unde princeps legibus solutus esc [Dig. 1.3.3].’
34 Ibid.: ‘Concilium sua lege papam non potest ligare, quia papa superiorem non haber De elecitione. Licet [X 1.6.6.] et specialiter ipse esc supra Concilia et dat eis robur. De electione.Significasti [X 1.6.4.]…Unde Concilia allegara, prohibiendo ipsum sibi successorem non eligere, debent incelligi excepeo papa, cui non possum legem imponere.’
35 Ibid., lines 21—5.
36 Ibid., pp. 174-5: ‘Scacucum, vero, de episcopo, quiod non possit sibi eligere successorem, non est de pertinentibus ad fidem, quia in his nec papa potest dispensare; de cuius, tamen, dispensatione episcopus [p. 175] potest sibi eligere successorem.’
37 Augusrinus Triumphus, Summa, q.ii, art. 3, p. 20.
38 Ibid., p. 21: ‘si Papa eligerer sibi successorem, hoc faceret in virtute statuti Ecclesiae: sed starata Ecclesiae sunt in contrarium, sicut patet 8, qo. I per totum [Decretum, C.8 q.1]. Sed si quaeratur si Papa faceret statutum in contrarium de eligendo successore, posset ne ipse successorem dimittere; Dicendum est, quod non; quia faceret statutum valiturum pro futuro tempore, in quo ipse non esset iudex, ut virtute eius statuti posset successorem dimittere, sicut notatur 8 q.1 e Apostolica [07].’
39 Pierre de la Palu, Tractatus, p. 175: ‘quamvis iudex non possit iubere, iudicare, in tempore, quo futurus est privatus, potest tamen statuere statutum, quod valebit non solum pro tempore sui regiminis immo in perperuum, sicut manifestum est de papa et imperatore, quia faciunt constirutiones perpetuas. Legaras, edam, pape facit eas, De officio legali, e. ultimo [X.9.1.30].’
40 Pierre de la Palu, Tractatus, q.1, art 2, p. 144.
41 See Coleman, Janet, ‘The Dominican Political Theory of John of Paris in its Context’, pp. 218–19, 223Google Scholar. above.
42 Pierre de la Palu, Tractatus, p. 175.
43 Dante Alighieri, Monarchia, ed. Ricci, P. G. (Verona, 1965), iii, 7, p. 247.Google Scholar
44 Antonio de Burgos De Constitutionibus, in Repetitionem in universas fere Juris canonici, ed. Giunta, I. A., 6 vols (Venice, 1587), 2, p. 78r, nos 169-71.Google Scholar
45 See Burns, J. H., “Conciliarism, Papalism, and Power, 1511-1518’, pp. 409–28Google Scholar below, at p. 419 and n. 43.
46 Duvalius, Andreas, De suprema Romani Pontificis in Ecclesiam Potastate (Paris, 1614), q.8, pt 3, p. 425Google Scholar: ‘si nempe illi verisimilicer constaret, Cardinales non facile post eius mortem fore congregandos, et instaret gravis necessitas, cui illico esset providendum, et cui ipse lethaliter decumbens succurrere non posset; hoc enim casu, ne Deus Ecclesiam in necessariis defuisse videretur. Papa posset successorem designare.’
47 See, for example, Ullmann, W., The Origins of the Great Schism: a Study in fourteenth-century Ecclesiastical History, 2nd edn (Hamden, Connecticut, 1972), pp. 4–8Google Scholar; Wilks, , The Problem of Sovereignty, p. 456Google Scholar; Guillemain, B., ‘Cardinaux et société aux origines de la double election de 1378’in Genèse et debuts, pp. 19–30Google Scholar, at p. 28. On the electoral pact of 1352 see Wood, Clement VI, pp. 96-121, and for further literature.
48 Ibid., p. 19, n. 1.