¹ Tierney, B., Religion, Law and the Growth of Constitutional Thought, 1150–1650 (Cambridge, 1982), pp. 30–5 Google Scholar. M. Van de Kerckhove, ‘La notion de juridiction dans la doctrine des décrétistes et des premiers décrétalistes’, EF 49 (1937), pp. 420–55.

² 2.11: cited in Tierney, Religion, p. 31, n. 2. Also Accursius, Ordinary Gloss to Deo auctore (Justinian’s introductory letter to the Digest). Tierney, p. 31.

³ Wilks, M., The Problem of Sovereignty in the Later Middle Ages (Cambridge, 1963)Google Scholar.

⁴ W. D. McCready, The Theory of Papal Monarchy in the Fourteenth Century: Guillaume de Pierre Godin, O.P., Tractatus de causa immediata ecclesiastice potestatis = Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, Studies and Texts 56 (Toronto, 1982). W. D. McCready, ‘Papal pletiitudo potestatis and the Source of Temporal Authority in Late Medieval Papal Hierocratic Theory’, Speculum, 48 (1973), pp. 654–74. Franciscans were the natural enemies of episcopalists and argued against the external wealth and coercive power of the Church hierarchy, seeing this to be a violation of the ideal of the primitive Church.

⁵ Innocent IV, In quinqué libros Decretalium commentario (Venice, 1570), ad Decretales III, xxxiv, 8. Tierney, Religion, p. 32, n. 6.

⁶ Giles of Rome (Aegidius Romanus), De Ecclesiastica Potestate, ed. R. Scholz (Leipzig, 1929, reprinted Aalen, 1961), pp. 104–5, 70–3. Tierney, Religion, p. 32 seems to imply that Giles was the first to confuse the concepts of jurisdiction and property in his use of the word dominium. Also W. Ullmann, ‘Boniface VIII and his Contemporary Scholarship’, JTS 27 (1976), pp. 58–87.

⁷ F. Bleienstein, ed., Johannes Quidort von Paris. Über kõnigliche undpapstliche Gewalt (Depotestate regia et papali). Frankfurter Studien zur Wissenschaft von der Politik (Suttgart, 1969), pp. 97–8. J. Coleman, ‘Medieval Discussions of Property: Ratio and Dominium according to John of Paris and Marsilius of Padua’, History of Political Thought, 4 (1983), pp. 209–28.

⁸ Y. M. Congar, ‘Aspects écclésiologiques de la querelle entre mendiants et seculiers’, AHDLMA 36(1961), pp. 35–151.

⁹ Guillaume de Saint-Amour, ‘De periculis novissimorum temporum (1255), the reply to Bonavenrure’s Quaestio disputata de paupertate’, in Bonavenrure, Opera Omnia, 5 (Quaracchi, 1892). Also E. Faral, ed., ‘Les responsiones de Guillaume de Saint-Amour’, AHDLMA 25–6 (1950–1).

¹⁰ Tierney, Religion, pp. 61–2.

¹¹ Ibid., p. 62.

¹² Ibid., p. 63.

¹³ Thomas of York (?), [incipit] Manus que contra Omnipotentem tenditur. See Bierbaum, M., ‘Bettelordnen und Weltgeisdichkeit an der Universitat Paris’, FStn (1920), Beiheft 2, pp. 36–168 Google Scholar, and Pelster, F., ‘Der Tractat “Manus que contra Omnipotentem tenditur” und sein Verfasser’, AFH 15 (1922), pp. 284–90 Google Scholar.

¹⁴ Douie, D., Archbishop Pecham (Oxford, 1952), pp. 27–8 Google Scholar.

¹⁵ Clasen, S., ‘Tractatus Gerardi de Abbarisvilla “Contra Adversarium Perfectiones Christianae”’, AFH 31 (1938-9), pp. 276–329, AFH 32 (1939-40), pp. 89–200 Google Scholar. On the chronology of the different works in this second phase: Glorieux, P., ‘Les polemiques contra Geraldinos’, RTAM 6 (1934-5), pp. 1–41 Google Scholar; RTAM 7 (1935–6), pp. 129–55.

¹⁶ Apologia Pauperum in Bonaventure, Opera Omnia, 6 (Quaracchi, 1898), pp. 223–330. G. Leff, The Franciscan Concept of Man’, in Prophecy and Millenarianism. Essays in Honour of Marjorie Reeves, ed. A. Williams (Harlow, 1980), pp. 217–37.

¹⁷ Lambert, M. D., Franciscan Poverty. The Doctrine of the Absolute Poverty of Christ and the Apostles in the Franciscan Order, 1210–1323 (London, 1961), pp. 36ffGoogle Scholar. Also Habig, M., ed., Saint Francis of Assisi, Writings and Early Biographies. English Omnibus of the Sources for the Life of Saint Francis, 3rd edn rev. (Chicago, 1973)Google Scholar for the various Rules. K. Esser, OFM, Das Testament des Heiligen Franziskus von Assisi. Eine Untersuchung iiber seine Echtheit und seine Bedeutung (Münster in Westfalen, 1949).

¹⁸ Lambert, Franciscan Poverty, pp. 84–8.

¹⁹ Sheehan, M. M., The Will in Medieval England = Institute of Pontifical Studies, Studies and Texts, 6 (Toronto, 1963)Google Scholar. QHO elongati, ed. H. Grundmann, AFH 54 (1961), pp. 20–5.

²⁰ Innocent IV, Ordinem vestrem, “… in ius et proprietatem beati Petri”: cited Lambert, Franciscan Poverty, p. 97, n. 3. For discussion see ibid., pp. 97–9.

²¹ Bernard, De Consideratione, II, viii, 16, Sancti Bernardi Opera, 3, ed. J. Leclercq and H. M. Rocháis (Rome, 1963), p. 424: ‘Nempe signum singularis pontificii Petri, per quod non navem unam, ut ceteri quique suam, sed saeculum ipsum susceperit gubernandum. Mare enim saeculum est; naves, Ecclesiae…. facta ex omnibus ipsa universalis Ecclesia, toto orbe diffusa.’

²² Gregory VII, Reg., vii. 14a (Caspar, p. 487): ‘… si potestis in caelo ligare et solvere, potestis in terra imperia, regna, principatus, ducatus, marchias, comitatus et omnium hominum possessiones pro mentis tollere unicuique et concedere’: cited Wilks, Sovereignty, p. 170, n. 4.

²³ In Quanto studiosius (1247) Innocent IV did away with the requirement that Franciscans need apply to the Cardinal Protector for alienation of goods. Now they had the right to appoint procurators acting on behalf of the papacy and they were at the service of the superiors of the Franciscan Order: Lambert, p. 100.

²⁴ Lambert, pp. 116–17.

²⁵ Apologiapauperum, cap. 8, par. 3, pp. 272–3 in Opera Omnia, 8 (Quaracchi, 1898), taken from Gregory IX’s Quo elongati.

²⁶ Ibid., cap. 7, pars 4–5, p. 273.

²⁷ Ibid., cap. 9, p. 289.

²⁸ For a discussion of medieval alterations of Roman law, J. Coleman, ‘Property and Poverty, c.1150-c.fifteenth century’, in J. H. Burns, ed., The Cambridge History of Medieval Political Thought (Cambridge, 1987). See Corpus Iuris Civilis, 1, Institutions, II, iv, 1, ed. P. Krueger (Berlin, 1928), p. 13.

²⁹ Bonaventure, Apologiapauperum, cap. 7, par. 38, pp. 284–5.

³⁰ Digest, L, 17.93, Corpus Iuris Civilis, I, Digesta, ed. Mommsen, Krueger (Berlin, 1928), p. 923; Apologia pauperum, cap. 11, par. 7, p. 312.

³¹ Apologiapauperum, cap. II, par. 9, p. 313.

³² Bonaventure, Sermo in Epiphania, 1, in Opera Omnia, 9 (Quaracchi, 1901), pp. 147–8 and Collatio, p. 149; also Sermo in Epiphania, III, p. 158 and Sermo V, pp. 163–4.

³³ John of Paris, De palestate regia et papali, ed. F. Bleienstein, proemium et passim.

³⁴ Little, A. G., The Grey Friars in Oxford, OHS 20 (Oxford, 1892), pp. 320–35 Google Scholar.

³⁵ Little, p. 321: ‘Dixit frater Salomon: vos fratres minores peccuniam recipitis per interpositas personas sicut nos in personis propriis.’

³⁶ Ibid., pp. 321–2: ‘Pono quod aliquis moriatur et in testamento suo unam summam peccuniae vobis leget. Quero cujus sit ilia peccunia. Defuncti non est quia nichil proprietatis in ea aut in re alia defunctus habet aut habere potest; vivencium enim et non moriencium est jus et proprietatem in rebus habere et in eis dominium vendicare. Executorum non est, constat. Ergo aut omnino nullius erit, aut vestra erit.’

³⁷ Ibid., p. 322: ‘Non est ergo necessarium dicere quod legatum semper transit in dominium legatarii. Et ideo peccunia quamvis nobis legetur, non est necesse dicere quod sit nostra. Ad quod’ accedit quod nunquam in dominium consensimus, et nobis invitis et contra dicenribus nullo modo in dominium nostrum transiré potest…. secundum diffinicionem jurisperitorum, peccunia legata in bonis annumeratur defuncti, quousque transient in dominium et proprietatem legatarii. “In jus autem nostrum aut dominium nullo modo potest transiré, nobis inviris et non consenrientibus. Unde qualitercumque peccunia ab executoribus deponatur seu apud quemcumque pro fxatribus reponatur, quam diu manet inexpensa, semper in bonis defuncti annumeratur, et possum earn executores, auctoritate propria vel defuncti, repetere quando votunt. Quomodo ergo dicetur nostra? nullo modo.”’

³⁸ ibid.

³⁹ Ibid., pp. 324–5: ‘Nos habemus regulam qua utimur secundum declarationem domini papa qui earn juxta mentem beati francisci declaravit. In sua declaracione dicit, quod nos ipsa, declaracionem cum regula observando peccuniam non recipimus per interpositam personam. Vos ergo, si insistiris contrarium asserendo, notam mendacii, ut videtur, domino pape imponi tis?’

⁴⁰ Ibid., p. 325: ‘Voluntas testamentaria fuit beati Francisci, quod fratres nullo modo quererent litteras expositorias, a sedes apostolica, sed hoc non obstante quesierunt et papa annunente oprinuerunt. Non solum ergo fratres sed et papa contra intencionem ejus fecerunt, ex quo videtur quod intencionem ejus non noverunt…’.

⁴¹ Ibid.: ‘Nec in hoc pape potuit in aliquo prejudicari in facienda declaracione maxime cum apud eum resideat plena potestas et auctoritas tocius ecclesie gubernande.’

⁴² Ibid.: ‘Si vult et non aliter.’

⁴³ Ibid., p. 326.

⁴⁴ Ibid., p. 335: ‘Ponamus quod papa nunquam declarasset capitulum id, eciam secundum jura communia possetis regulam vestram sancte et sincere observare. Nee dico vobis aliud quam jura civilia et canonica communiter dicunt. Unde mirabile est, quod vobis imponitur recepcio peccunie ad utilitatem vestram quocumque titulo deputate, ex quod in dominium vestrum non transit nec transire potest ullo jure, sed semper remanet dominium et auctoritas peccunie penes principalem dominum, et earn repetere potest quando vult quamdiu manet inexpensa.’

⁴⁵ Tractatus fratre Johannis de Peckham conscriptis (caps 1–6) ed. A. van Wyngaert (Paris, 1925); F. Delorme, Trois chapitres de Jean Peckham pour la defense des ordres mendiants’, SF 29 (1932), pp. 3–47 (caps 7–9); Coll Franc 14 (1944), pp. 84–120 (caps 11–14); Fratris Ricardi de Mediavilla, quaestio disputata de privilegio Martini IV (Quaracchi, 1925), pp. 79–88 (cap. 15); Fr. Johannes de Peckham, quondam Archiepiscopi Cantuarensis tractatus tres de paupertate, ed. A G. Little (British Society of Franciscan Studies, Aberdeen, 1910), 2, pp. 21–90 (prologue, caps 10, 16, and extracts from other chapters). In general see Douie, Pecham, pp. 30–3.

⁴⁶ Douie, Pecham, pp. 30–1. Tractatus, caps 4, 5, 6, pp. 45–6, 52–7, 83–6.

⁴⁷ Tractatus, cip. 10, pp. 30–1.

⁴⁸ Ibid., p. 32 (Regula, cap. 6): ‘“Fratres nihil sibi approprient nee domum nee locum nee aliquam rem, sed tanquam peregrini et advene in hoc seculo in paupertate et humilitate etc.’, quod etiam patet quia, sicut dicit regula, necessaria victui et vestitri sunt ex medicitate elemosinarium perquirenda et labore illorum qui pro hoc gratiam acceperunt. Ex quibus lucide constat quod in extrema paupertate fratribus minoribus congruit militare, adeo quod nee propria nee communia habeant, sicud expresse dicit Gregorius papa (IX)… (Quo elongati) “Dicimus quod nee in communi nec in speciali debent proprietatem habere, sed earum rerum quas licet habere, i.e. que modum paupertaris non excedunt, ordo usum habeat.”’

⁴⁹ Ibid.: ‘Amplius arguunt sic: Cuius, inquiunt, sunt res quibus utimini? aut vestte?’

⁵⁰ Ibid., pp. 33–4.

⁵¹ Ibid., p. 34: ‘Ad hoc intellectum quod ecclesie vel monasteria habent possessiones mobiles et immobiles, licet non proprias uni persone, proprias tamen ecclesie, quoniam ita sunt unius ecclesie quod non alterius. Sed tamen nomine ecclesie hic non intelligantur ligna ec lapides sed persone. Sequi tur ut possessiones sint proprie communi taris personarum, iuxta quod dicitur XII. q. 1 cap. expedit [Decretum, 11, C.XII, q. 1, cap. xiii]: “non sunt proprie, sed communes ecclesie facultates”, et queritur in apparatu, cuius sit dominium rerum ecclesiasticarum, et determinatur quod dominium est apud clericos, sicut dominium est universitatis apud cives. Quod tamen non est omnino simile, quoniam clerici non possunt res ecclesiasricas dìstrahere vel vendere, sicut possunt cives.’

⁵² Ibid., p. 35: ‘Item in hiis rebus ecclesia est Cesari obnoxia et tributum dare tenetur, sicut patet XI q. I ri tributum [Decretum, II, C. XI, q. 1 cap. i].’

⁵³ Ibid., pp. 35–6: ‘Item viri ecclesiastici utuntur quibusdam ecclesiasricis benefìciis intitulatis, quibusdam immobiliter tantummodo commendatis: ex quibus patet, quod status huiusmodi, qui tali recipere possunt, non sunt status huiusmodi egestatis, quippe qui ex statu quo habundant vel habundare possunt.’

⁵⁴ Ibid., p. 35: ‘Dico enim absque cuiuslibet status prejudicio, quod paupertas fratrum minorum hiis omnibus denudatur: nihil enim est proprium communitati eorum quin sine inuria ecclesie sue, i.e., communitatis ordinis, omnium et singulorum possit auferri a domini papa.’

⁵⁵ Ibid., p. 36.

⁵⁶ Ibid., pp. 37–8: ‘Nee aliquod alii dare possunt ex sua auctoritate nee servos habere, quin potius tenentur ex regula invicem servire … item a nullo inquietantur exactione tributi. Item nee rebus quibuscunque possunt uti sed illis que modum altissime paupertatis non excedunr, unde fateor multa edificia ordinis esse monstra professionis. Nihil etiam possunt habere

⁵⁷ Ibid., p. 39: ‘… quod revera omnia quibus utuntur fratres minores sunt in potestate libera domini pape et cardinales quid oridini preest, ad hoc ministrorum instantia misericorditer inclinants…. Statui autem dispensatores non repugnant… et precipue quia non pro se hoc possidet sed pro aliis. In hac igitur communione et quasi connubio domini cardinalis et istius ordinis cavetur utriusque periculo quod hoc, periculo domini cardinalis dum preest illis rebus mere pro aliis, periculo etiam ordinis cui nullus immobilis ritulus, nullus usus potestativus, superbiendi ministrat materiam.’

⁵⁸ Ibid., pp. 41–2: ‘… plane illius est nuncius cuius tractat pecuniam. Hec est sententia domini pape non regulam ampliantis sed declarantis et apostolorum auctoritate firmantis.’

⁵⁹ Ibid., p. 42: ‘Quod si obicias de testamento eius, qui iam decessit, a cuius videtur dominio pecunia elongata et per consequens in fratrum dominium translata, respondeo quod intentio fuit testatoris sic pecuniam fratrum usibus assignare, sicud potest in eorum necessitates transiré; hoc autem est sub ista forma, ut teneatur pecunia nomine defuncti—sicut residuum testamenti—in potestate executorum, donee sit pro fratrum necessitatibus commutata. Quod si omnino intendat dator pecuniam a se elongare, sciat earn in curie Romane redigi potestatem: auctoritas igitur apostolice sententie cuiuslibet debet satisfacere conscientie.’

⁶⁰ Ibid., p. 43: ‘Credo quod inter omnes possessiones pecunia est illecebrosissima que maxime delectat avaros, in quantum in earn omnes alie resolvuntur. Hec est enim inmediatissima omni contractui, omni voluptati, non tantum necessitati.’

⁶¹ Aquinas, Stimma Théologie, II, ii, qu. 66, arts 1–2.

⁶² Tractates, cap. 10, pp. 45–6: ‘Ipse ergo fundamentum, cui totum corpus ecclesie innititur, a quo et fondamento post Christum ad omnem ecclesie potestatem vigor derivatur. Ex hoc loco soli Petri et eius successoribus plenitudo potestaos conferrur et inde eorum heresis confunditur, qui dicunt non plus posse papam super universalem ecclesiam quam episcopum super sibi subditam dyocesim…. Hoc quidem verum est quia propter hoc necesse foit, sed nihilominus fieri potuit divina auctoritate, nee sunt episcopi maiores presbiteris in officio sacerdotali, sunt tamen in pontificali, alias non esset ordinata ecclesiastica ierarchia ad conformitatem summe ierarchie, cuius ecclesiastice ierarchie vertex est ecclesie Romane antistes Petri successor …’.

⁶³ Ibid., p. 46: ‘… jurisdictionem ei attribuit super omnes episcopos… Ex quo patet quod Petrus seu Petri vicarius est totius ecclesie pastor immediatus a Domino constitutus.’

⁶⁴ Ibid., p. 47: ‘Hec igitur quatuor, obedientia in ordine, paupertas et castitas et subiectio ecclesie Romane, quia émanant a fonte evangeli, ponuntur sub districtione precepti.’

⁶⁵ Tractatus eontrafralrem Robertum Kilwardby O.P., ed. F. Tocco, tract iii, in Fratrisjohannis Pecham, quondam archiepiscopi Cantuarensis, Tractatus tres de pauperiate, ed. C. L. Kingsford, A. G. Little, F. Tocco (British Society of Franciscan Studies, Aberdeen, 1910), pp. [21–47.

⁶⁶ Canticum pauperis pro dilecto fratris Iohannis de Peckham (Bibliotheca Franciscana ascetica medii aevi, Quaracchi, 1905), IV, from MS 684 of Libr. of Assisi, pp. 133–205. See Tocco, n. 65 above, Introduction, p. 110.

⁶⁷ Tractatus contra Kilwardby, Tocco ed. and Introduction, pp. 112–13.

⁶⁸ Ibid., p. 114.

⁶⁹ Tractatus, p. 139.

⁷⁰ Ibid., p. 140: ‘Et hec omnia de pecunia et rebus dicit Gregorius nonus in exposirione super regulam quam ipse condiderat, propter quod quidam detractores dicere presumpserunt fratres inmores non vivere secundum regulam beati Francisci, sed secundum regulam beati Gregorii [!!], quod est calumpniam imponere apostolice sanctitari … Adhuc sciendum quod utuntur fratres quibusdam, quorum ex intentione dantium et fratrum rransfertur dominium non ad fratres sed ad sedem apostolicam que rebus, quibus fratres utuntur, dominatur immediate.’

⁷¹ Ibid.

⁷² Ibid., p. 143 (commenting on Matthew 19): ‘Si vis perfectus esse vade et vende omnia que habes. Intelligas divitias non esse malas essentialiter sed occasionaliter, quia occasio sunt triplicis affectus inordinati. Item ponamus nullum esse peccatum habere et uri diviriis, est tamen perfectius carere divitiis…. Certe secundum rationem tuam, non est pauper perfectior secundum statum divide, nee virgo quam nupta, cum nubere non sit peccatum nee licite uri opere coniugali; et in hoc errores dampnabiles inpegisri nesciens distinguere inter actum imperfectum et peccatum. Velie enim habere divitias vel voluntarle habere eas per se infirmum et imperfectum est, et tamen non est, nisi libidinosus sit apperitus.’

⁷³ loannis de Peckham, Quodlibet. Romanum, ed. F. Delorme (Rome, 1938), VII, QQ. V, VI, pp. 109–23.

⁷⁴ Exiit qui seminai in Regula Fratrum Minoris Seraphicae Legisìationis, Textus Originales (Quaracchi, 1897), pp. 181–227: ‘… nee sit persona, in quam loco Dei congruenrius hujusmodi rei dominium transferatur quam sedes prefata vel persona Romani ponrificis Christi vicarii, qui Pater est omnium et fratrum minorum nihilominus specialis, ne talium rerum sub incerto videatur esse dominium, cum patri filius suo modo, servus domino, et monachus monasterio res sibi oblatas, concessas vel donnatas acquirant; omnium utensilium et librorum, ac eorum mobilimi) presentium et futurorum, que et quorum usus facri scilicet ordini vel fratribus ipsis licet habere, proprietatem et dominium quod etiam felicis recordationis Innocentius papa IV predecessor noster fecisse dinoscitur, in nos et Romanam ecclesiam apostolica auctoritate recipimus et ad nos et ipsam ecclesiam piene et libere pertinere hac presenti constitutione in perpetuum valitura sanximus.’

⁷⁵ F. Tocco, ed., Tractatus contra Kilwardby, p. 91, citing the Speculum perfectionis, cap. 43.

⁷⁶ W. R. Thomson, Friars in the Cathedral, the First Franciscan Bishops, 1226–1261 (Toronto, 1975), pp. 14, 141.

⁷⁷ Ibid., pp. 141–2.

⁷⁸ Ibid., p. 142.

⁷⁹ Ibid., p. 15, art. 8: ‘If any friar at all shall have taken up an archbishopric or bishopric without the licence of the Minister General, except when he is compelled to it by an obedience such that in refusing he would sin mortally, by this statute we deprive him of books, voting rights, membership and advantages in the Order, in life and death. The same applies to those already promoted …’.

⁸⁰ Ibid., p. 15.

⁸¹ Ibid., pp. 16–17, 20. W. R. Jones, ‘Bishops, Politics and the Two Laws: the Gravamina of the English Clergy, 1237–1399’, Speculum, 41 (1966), pp. 209–45.

⁸² Douie, Pecham, p. 92.

⁸³ Ibid., p. 113.

⁸⁴ E. G. Kimball, Tenure in Frank Almoign and Secular Services’, EHR 43 (1928), pp. 341–53. Also see the discussion in Bean, J. M. W., The Decline of English Feudalism 1215–1540 (Manchester, 1968), pp. 49–50 Google Scholar.

⁸⁵ Douie, Pecham, pp. 116–17. H. G. Richardson and G. O. Sayles, ‘The Clergy in the Easter Parliament, 1285’, EHR 52 (1937), pp. 220–34, at p. 231. Flahiff, G. B., C.S.B., ‘The Writ of Prohibition to Court Christian in the Thirteenth Century’, MSt 6 (1944), pp. 261–313: pp. 293–6 Google Scholar citing Matthew Paris, Chronica Majora, IV, p. 614.

⁸⁶ Flahiff, ‘Writ of Prohibition’. See also MSt 7 (1945), pp. 229–90, and ‘The Use of Prohibitions by Clerics against Ecclesiastical Courts in England’, MSt 3 (1941), pp. 101–16.

⁸⁷ Flahiff, ‘Writ of Prohibition’, p. 261. Also Sayers, J. E., Papal Judges Delegate in the Province of Canterbury, 1198–1254 (Oxford, 1971)Google Scholar. Sayers argues that the dispute between the two jurisdictions reached the thirteenth century in diluted form and theoretical legal writers (for example, Bracton) tended to dress it up in terms of a deep-rooted and incompatible rivalry. ‘In broad terms the areas of jurisdiction in dispute between Church and State did not increase or change. It was rather the amalgamation of courts that brought matters to a head and pitted the royal courts in England against the growing ecclesiastical jurisdiction, particularly that of Rome.’ p. 164. And yet, as Richardson and Sayles point out, ‘Clergy in the Easter Parliament’, p. 231: The proceedings of this parliament bring out the essential incompatibility of the ecclesiastical organization with the secular. The clergy treat with the king and his councillors in parliament as with a separate and indeed a rival power. The Church in its provincial organization has its own records and its own memory. It is not like the body of knights and burgesses, an occasional and fleeting assembly with no unity, no meaning, no existence outside parliament.’ Also see Jones, W. R., ‘Relations of the Two Jurisdictions: Conflict and Cooperation in England during the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Centuries’, Studies in Medieval and Renaissance History, 7, ed., Bowsky, W. (Lincoln, Nebraska, 1970), pp. 77–210 Google Scholar.

⁸⁸ Flahiflf, ‘Writ of Prohibition’, pp. 272–4. On franchisal jurisdiction as independent of feudalism see Jewell, H., English Local Administration in the Middle Ages (Newton Abbot, 1972), pp. 65–6 Google Scholar.

⁸⁹ Flahiff, ‘Writ of Prohibition’, pp. 278, 300–1.

⁹⁰ Ibid., pp. 281–2: ‘Quia vero manifeste est contra coronami et dignitatem nostram quod aliquis super hiis quae in curia nostra facta sunt et terminata trahatur in placitum in curia christianitatis, vobis prohibemus…’.

⁹¹ Ibid., p. 286. Regarding the taxation of revenues of parish priests, which originated in contributions to the Crusades, the pope levied these. During Henry Ill’s reign, the clergy were constantly called on to make contributions, the popes writing to urge bishops and prelates to make an aid. By mid-century, the King sought clerical grants without a previous application to the papacy. The clergy, by 1269, declared the King had no such right, no precedent. But by the end of Henry Ill’s reign the clergy were a recognized source of revenue ‘and to this they owed their position as one of the four estates in the Parliaments of Edward I’: Gibbs, M. and Lang, J., Bishops and Reform 1215–1272, with Special Reference to the Lateran Council of 1215 (Oxford, 1934), p. 134 Google Scholar.

⁹² Flahiff, ‘Writ of Prohibition’, p. 301 and App. = PRO Treasurer’s Remembrancer, Diplomatic Documents, E 30/1576, dated 1279, and dicussion, p. 287.

⁹³ Epistolae Roberti Grosseteste, ed. H. Luard, RS 72* (London, 1861), pp. 223–4. Flahiff, ‘Writ of Prohibition’, pp. 288–9. Cheney, C. R., English Synoäalia of the Thirteenth Century (Oxford, 1941 Google Scholar, with new Introduction, 1968), cap. 5, ‘The statutes of R. Grosseteste’.

⁹⁴ Registrum Epistolaram fratris Iohannis Peckham Archiepiscopi Cantuariensis, ed. C. T. Martin, 3 vols, RS (1882–5), 2, p. 687:‘… quamquam dicta domini regis cancellaria juste concedat literas quae petuntur, impetrantes tamen justa regalis curiae liberalitate iniustissime et nequiter in nostra curia abutentur.’

⁹⁵ Flahiff, ‘Writ of Prohibition’, pp. 302–3, and Douie, Pecham, p. 119.

⁹⁶ Statutes of the Realm, ed. A. Luders et al., 11 vols, Record Commission (London, 1810–28), 1, p. 51 (15 November 1279). Also Select Charters from the beginning to 1307 ed. W. Stubbs, 9th edn, rev. H. W. C. Davis (repr. 1960): Statutum de viris religiosis, pp. 451–2. Council and Synods, 2, ed. F. M. Powicke and C. R. Cheney (Oxford, 1964), pp. 864–5.

⁹⁷ Bean, Decline of English Feudalism, p. 52.

⁹⁸ Ibid., p. 55.

⁹⁹ Ibid., pp. 64–6. BL, MS Add. 38821, fol. 31. A register for c. 1273 recognizes an ordinary’s right to present to a church after six months except in cases where the king is one of the claimants, for the sovereign’s rights are imprescriptible; cited Flahiff, ‘Writ of Prohibition’, pp. 269–70.

¹⁰⁰ Douie, Pecham, pp. 129–30. Registmm … Peckham, 1, pp. 240–4, Lambeth, November 1281: ‘Quia igitur ab antiquo tempore inter reges et magnates Angliae ex parte una, et archiepiscopos et episcopos ac clerum ejusdem regni ex altera, duravit amara dissensio pro oppresione ecclesiae contra decreta summorum pontificum, contra statuta conciliorum, contra sancriones orthodoxorum patrum in quibus tribus summa auctoritas, summa Veritas, summaque sanctitas consistunt, supplicamus regiae majestati quatenus pro honore Dei, ac animae suae suorumque salute, ac prosperitate stabili successionis suae, ac Imperatore omnium obtinenda, in suius redundat injuriam ecclesiae contra predicta conculatio, huic periculosae regno et perniciosae clero discordiae dignetur finem imponere salutarem. Cui finis aliter imponi non potest nisi vos sublimitatem vestram praeductis tribus, scilicet decretis pontificum, statutis conciliorum et sanctionibus orthodoxorum patrum…. Ex hiis enim tribus sunt canones aggregati, et jura coronae vesrrae Christi coronae suppositae…. Ergo nulla obstante consuetudine obediendum est canonibus hierarchice impositis, hoc est, sacris arbitriis praelatorum … Ergo ad summum pontificem pertinet omnis controversiae determinano, quae non potest per inferiores, quoscumque judices terminare. … Haec attendentes, imperatores catholici leges suas omnes sacris canonibus subdiderunt, ne schismatici vel haeretici putarentur. Cum igitur ad vos, excellentissime domine rex, pertineat pax incly ta imperii, et vos etiam tenemini leges vestras canonibus subjicere et contrarias abolere…. Constantinus insuper rex Angliae, et orbis nihilominus imperator, universa concessit quae petimus et specialiter personas clericorum a solis praelatis ecclesiae judicandas esse decrevit. … Et oppressione quas plangimus credimus sumpsisse ex ordium tempore regis Henrici primi et praecipue regis Henrici parris Henrici junioris …’.

¹⁰¹ Council and Synods, 2, p. 891: ‘Mandamus vobis quod, sicut baronias vestras quas de nobis tenetis diligitis, nullo modo concilium de aliquibus quae ad coronam nostram pertinent… seu aliquid contra coronam et dignitatem nostram in eodem statuere presumatis…’.

¹⁰² Wilks, Sovereignty, pp. 134, 210–29, 305–41, and passim.

¹⁰³ E. B. Graves, ‘Circumspecte Agatis’, EHR 43 (1928), pp. 1–20 and FlahifF, ‘Writ of Prohibition’, pp. 296, 302–9; text: pp. 307–8. Richardson and Sayles, The Clergy in the Easter Parliament’, pp. 220–34: Edward l’s responses to clerical grievances.

¹⁰⁴ PRO Exch. T.R. Misc. book 274 fol. 256^r. Councils and Synods, 2, pp. 828–57, 832–3.

¹⁰⁵ The bull, Ad conditorem canonem (1322): use is inseparable from proprietorship; withdrawal of the right of holding property in the name of the Roman see. Leff, ‘The Franciscan Concept of Man’, pp. 217–37.