1. The total published Cusanus bibliography at present comprises almost 900 items. New additions are listed every other year in Mitteilungen und Forschungsbeiträge der Cusanus Gesse Gessellschaft.

2. The classic studies of Cusanus that consider the Brixen period and were published before 1921 are listed below. After that date a large part of the Innsbruck archival material disappeared to Italy, and in many cases its whereabouts is unknown. Material since then has been more specialized, and most of it has not dealt at length with the Brixen period. The chief earlier works are: Sinnacher, F., Beiträge zur Geschichte der Bischöflichen Kirche Säben und Brixen in Tirol, 6 vols. (Brixen, 1824–1829), VIGoogle Scholar; Scharpff, F., Der Cardinal und Bischof NvC (Mainz, 1843)Google Scholar; Jäger, A., Der Streit des Cardinals NvC mit dem Herzog Sigmund, 2 vols. in 1 (Innsbruck, 1961)Google Scholar; and Vansteenberghe, E., Le Cardinal Nicholas de Cues (Paris, 1920)Google Scholar. In addition, there is much material in Voigt, A., Enea Silvio de' Piccolomini als Papst Pius II, 3 vols. (Berlin, 1856–1863), IIIGoogle Scholar; Creighton, M., History of the Papacy from The Great Schism to the Sack of Rome, new ed., 5 vols. (London, 1901), IIIGoogle Scholar; von Pastor, L., (ed. Antrobus), History of the Popes, 2nd ed. (London, 1891 ff.), II and IIIGoogle Scholar, and Düx, J., Der Deutsche Cardinal NvC, 2 vols. (Regensberg, 1847)Google Scholar, Scharpff, Düx, Pastor and Vansteenberghe nrc pro-Cusanus, Vansteenberghe almost lyrically so; Jäger, Creighton and especially Voigt are against him. Sinnacher is relatively impartial. The one biography in English, Bett, H., Nicholas of Cusa (London, 1931)Google Scholar is lifted almost bodily from Vansteenberghe.

3. Jäger, A., “Regesten und Urkundliche Daten über das Verhältniss des Cardinals NvC,” Archiv für Kunde Œsterreichischer Geschichtsquellen, IV (1854), 299 ff.Google Scholar; Sinnacher, VI, 338; Vansteenberghe, 166. Eubel, C., Hierarchia Catholica Medii Aevi (Münster, 1901), II, 124Google Scholar, gives January 28, where he is followed by Tomek, E., Kirchengeschichte Œsterreichs (Innsbruck, 1949), II, 115, fnGoogle Scholar. 153, and Schmidt's, A. edition of Aeneas Sylvius' Germania (Cologne, 1962)Google Scholar, preface, 20. The February dating seems better.

4. Jäger, “Regesten …,” ad ann. The Bull is in Düx, II, 4–5. Sinnacher, 339 ff., dates the Bull on March 24. See also Jäger, , Streit ……, I, 6 ffGoogle Scholar. For a thoroughly unsympathetic view of the papal moves, see Voigt, III, 305 ff.; for a sympathetic one, Pastor, II, 110, and Vansteensberghe, 166–9.

5. On the historical and legal aspects of episcopal nominations, see: Dictionnaire de Droit Catholique, s.v. “Evdques; Nomination;” Walter, F., Manuel de Droit Ecclesiastique (Paris, 1840), 292–7Google Scholar; Plöchl, W., Geschichte des Kirchenrechts (Vienna, 1955), II, 191–4Google Scholar; Seppelt, F., Geschichte des Papsttums, 2nd ed. (Munich, 1957), IV, 309–11Google Scholar; Fliche, A. & Martin, , ed., Histire de l'Église (Paris, 1962), XIV, 401–12Google Scholar; Barraclough, G., “The Making of a Bishop in the Middle Ages,” Cath. Hist. Rev., XIX (1933–1934), 275–319Google Scholar; Hefele-Leclerq, , Histoire des Conciles (Paris, 1916), VIIGoogle Scholar, pt. 2, 1129–37, especially Article 2 of the Concordat of Vienna. See also Toews, J., “Pope Eugenius IV and the Concordat of Vienna–An interpretation,” Church History, 06 1965, 178–84.Google Scholar

6. Chmel, J., Regesta Friderici IV (Hildesheim, 1962), no. 2063–4Google Scholar. The document itself is in Chmel, , Materialen zur Œsterreiohesehen Geschichte (Vienna, 1837), I, 195Google Scholar. Frederick was annoyed at the Brixen canons because in the previous election, that of Röttel, he had not been consulted; he seems to have been exercising his privilege by anticipation. This had made it necessary for the canons to get legal advice, following which they received support from the Council of Basel and from the anti-pope, Felix, V., Streit …, 10, 18–9.Google Scholar

7. Münch, E., Vollständige Sammiung aller ältern und neuern Konkordate (Leipzig, 1830), I, 91Google Scholar. The Basel decree on which this is based is in Hardouin, J., Acta Conciliorum et Epistolae Decretales (Paris, 1714) vol. VIII, col. 1208–10.Google Scholar

8. Sinnacher, 339–41.

9. Deutsehiand (ed. Schmidt), Bk. I, no. 23. Cf. Vansteenberghe, 166, fn. 4.

10. Schmidt, , Deutschlasd, 21.Google Scholar

11. There was some reason for them to take notice. A similar case had recently occurred in Kempten, south of Augsburg, , Streft …, 27, fn. 1.Google Scholar

12. This legatine journey is one of the most famous incidents of Cusanus' career. See Koch, J., NvK und seine Umwelt (Sitzungsberichte der Heidelberger Akad. d. Wissenschaften, Phil.-Hist. Kiasse, 1948), 153–9Google Scholar, for the bibliography. For newer additions, see MFCG. The most recent work is Koch's, Der Deutsche Kardinal in Deutschen Landen: Die Legationsreise res NvK (Trier: Kleine Schriften der Cusanus-Gesellschaft, Heft 5, 1964)Google Scholar. The relevant bulls are quoted in Zibennayr, I., Die Legation des Kardinals NC… in der Kirchenprovinz Salzburg (Münster, 1914), 24.Google Scholar

13. There has been considerable difference of opinion on this. A summary is in Koch, , Umwelt, 148, fn. 1.Google Scholar

14. Jüger, “Regesten …;” Sinnacher, 352–3.

15. Ibid. This may have contributed to Cusanus' opinion that he was entitled to act as a Prince of the Empire. In any case, his duty to Frederick now took precedence in his mind over any loyalties to Sigmund. See Voigt, 309. Curiously the investiture is not mentioned in Frederick's register, although the mediation of March 15 is, and the investitures of the Archbishop of Salzburg and of the Bishops of Chur and Trent, all during the next few years, are as well.

16. Chmel, , Malerialen …, I, 346.Google Scholar

17. Koch, , Umwelt, 116–9Google Scholar, has a complete register of his activities at this time.

18. Jäger, “Regesten⃜”

19. The reforms of religious communities that Nicholas proposed were so severe that the Archbishop of Salzburg protested on January 28, 1452, while Nicholas was still in Germany. Jäger “Regesten⃜”

20. For example, there had been a ducal and an episcopal candidate for the parish church at Zams, in the Oberinntal. Nicholas withdrew his candidate in favor of Sigmund's. On some questions of tithes, Sigmund acceded to Nicholas. Streit …” 40.

21. The exact date of his birth is uncertain.

22. Nicholas devoted the inheritance from his father to his hospital at Kues. In his last years, after the sources of income from Brixen were cut off, he commented frequently on his lack of money.

23. For an example of the state of religious communities at the time, see Trithemius, , Annales Hirsaugiensis (St. Gail, 1690) II, 348–56Google Scholar. Trithemius also comments on Nicholas', legatine journey, both in AH, II, 423–4Google Scholar, and more famously in his De Vera Studiorum Ratione, a ms. cited by Janssen, J., Geschichte des deutschen Volkes seit dem Ausgang des Mittelalters, 19th ed. (Freiburg-i-B, 1913), I, 4Google Scholar. The attribution is not given in the English edition.

24. On Tyrolese history before 1450 see Egger, J., Geschichte Tirols, 3 vols. (Innsbruck, 1872), I, 445–532Google Scholar (often based on Sinnacher and Jäger); Streit …, 200–4. Good brief summary of the Empire in this period is found in Cambridge Medieval History, VIII. For a (very rare) sympathetic sketch of Frederick III, see Wandruszka, A., Das Haus Habsburg (Vienna, 1956), 87–92.Google Scholar

25. Egger, I, 515.

26. Streit …, 14–17; Sinnacher, 33, 107 ff.

27. Egger, 548.

28. von Lichnowsky, E., Geschichte des Hauses Habsburg (Vienna, 1842), VI, 57–62Google Scholar; Chmel, J., Geschichte Kaiser Friedrichs IV und seines Sohn Maximilian I, (Hamburg, 1843), II, 521–3.Google Scholar

29. Jäger, A., “Die Fehde der Gradner gegen den Herzog Sigmund,” Denkschriften der Kaiserl. Akad. d. Wissenschaft, Phil.-Hist. Cl., IX, 245–56.Google Scholar

30. Where his father's nickname had been “Empty Pocket,” Sigmund's was “The Rich in Coin.” See Moeser, K. and Dworschak, F., Erzherzog Sigmund von Tirol: Die Grosse Münzreform (Vienna, 1936).Google Scholar

31. Mansi, J. P., Sacrorum Conciliorum Coellctio (Paris, 1902)Google Scholar, t. XXXII, col. 163–74, gives the full agenda of a council at Salzburg in 1456. Cusanus does not seem to have spoken at it, but the problems raised there were typical of those he was trying to solve. For a full discussion of Brixen, see Sinnacher; in more detail, Bickell, G., Synodi Brixinenses Saeculi XV (Innsbruck, 1880)Google Scholar. It is not available in this country, but there is a digest in Grisar, H., “Ein Bild aus dem deutsehen Synodalleben im Jahrhundert vor der Glaubensspaltung,” Historisches Jahrbuch der Görres-Gesellschaft, I (1880), 603–40Google Scholar. The diocesan synods there after 1400 were held only in 1419, 1438 and 1449. Nicholas held syuods in 1453, 1455 and 1457 for which we have records. A sermon survives from one in 1454. See Hürten, H., Akten zur Reform Des Bistums Brixen (Cusanustexte; V, 1960), 42 ff.Google Scholar

32. A contemporary recorded 130 sermons by Nicholas during the less than 8 years he spent in his diocese, and he must have preached much more than that. (Streit …, 42) This is an enormous number, especially when Nicholas' travels and administrative work are considered. Several of his sermons have been printed in critical editions as Cusanus Studien und Texte by the Heidelberger Akademie der Wissenschaften.

33. Streit …, 110–11; Düx, II, 117. A similar list, which may be by Cusanus, is reprinted in Hüirten, 23–32.

34. See Pastor, III, 178–9; for an unsympathetic view, Creighton, III, 235.

35. This is a fairly standard case. See Jäger, , “Regesten …”; Streit …”, 87–90Google Scholar; Vansteenberghe, 144; Pastor, III, 179.

36. Part II of Jäger's, Regesten (Akoc VII, 1851), pp. 147–72Google Scholar deals exclusively with the relations of the Sonnenburg nuns with Nicholas and Sigmund. Much of it is based on the convent's letter-book, which has been lost. Jäger also discusses the problem at great length in Streit⃜ For a criticism, see Pastor, III, 181, fn. 1; Vansteenberghe, 145 ff. Other literature on Sonnenburg is summarized in Sparber, A., “Vom Wirken des NvC als Fürstbischof von Brixen,” Veröffentichungen des Musenm Ferdinandeum, XXVII (Innsbruck, 1947–1949), 353–4Google Scholar. See also Hallauer, H., “Eine visitation des NvK im Benediktinerinnenkloster Sonnenburg,” MFCG, IV, 104–25.Google Scholar

37. It is significant that almost every one of Nicholas' major moves against the nuns was made while Sigmund was out of the duchy on business.

38. In a letter of September, 1452, Nicholas writes to Philipp von Sirck, the brother of the Archbishop of Trier, who was trying to get Nicholas to resign a benefice in the Low Countries. Nicholas says he cannot at present, because things are so insecure in the Tyrol. He adds, “Ego dici ihis (i.e. to Sigmund and the Tyrolese Estates) feci qui regunt quod essern legatus et cardinalis et facere nequirem. Responderunt, si episcopus Brixinensis esse vellem, oporteret me facere sicud predecessores, qui fuerunt seruitores … habebo pacienciam ad tempus, et si non potero habere pacem, queram earn alibi.” (Koch, J., Briefwechsel des NvK, Sammlung, Erste, SBHAW, Phil.-Hist. Klasse, Heidelberg, 1944, #25).Google Scholar

39. Sinnacher, 408–10; Hallauer, H., “Eine Denkschrift des NvK zum Kauf der Æmter Taufers und Uttenheim in Südtirol,” MFCG, I, 76–94.Google Scholar

40. Vansteenberghe, 174–5; Jäger, “Regesten …,” 303–4, summarizes the history of the claims. There is a letter from Nicholas to Iflrich von Freundsberg in Hausmann, F., Das Brixner Brief buch des Kardinals NvK (BBHAW, Heidelberg, 1952), No. 27.Google Scholar

41. Part VI of Jäger's, “Regesten …” (AKOG, XV)Google Scholar deals with Tyrolese relationships with the Bishopric of Chur. See under 1453.

42. On the composition of chapters at this time, see Schufte, A., Der Adel und die Deutsche Kirche im Mittetalter (Kirehenrechtliche Abhandlungen: Stuttgart, 1910)Google Scholar, Heft 63–4, and Santifaller, L., “Das Brixner Domkapital in seiner persönlichen Zusammensetzung im Mittelalter,” Schlern-Schriften, #7, Innsbruck, 1924).Google Scholar

43. Streit …, 82 ff.; Sinnacher, 382–3, mentions the election, but not Wehlen's canonry. Summary in Vansteenberghe, 172, fn. 5, and 175, fn. 7; Schmidt, 59, fn. 78; and Eubel, II, 157.

44. Three of them–Conrad Bossinger, Gebhard von Bulach, and. Wehien, seeni to have been Nicholas' constant agents. The other names that occur most frequently are Georg Golser, Michael von Natz, Stephen Stainhorn, and Jakob Lotter. It is hard to tell whether they were strongly anti-Cusanus at this time, or only opposed to some of their bishop's more violent measures. Cusanus' later letters to and about theni show bitter anger. For further informntion, see Santifaller, 509 ff.

45. Such peace-keeping was needed. The affairs often ended in “Streit und Raufhändel.” See Jäger, , “Regesten …”; Egger, 563, 663Google Scholar; Streit, 141.

46. Caspar von Gufidaun was a leading lay official in the diocese, and up to June 1453 often acted as Nicholas' representative. After that his name disappears from the correspondence, and by 1456 Jacob von Thun is “Pfleger zu Gufidaun.” See Haussmann, , Briefbach, No. 62 and No. 111.Google Scholar

47. Sigmund had asked Nicholas' predcessor in 1446 whether he would resign if that would lead to peace, but Röttel was unenthusiastic. (Streit …, 19). With Nicholas, other methods were called for. There are two primary accounts of the Wilten affair, one from each side. Vansteenberghe, 178 ff., quotes only the document from Cusanus' side. Streit …, 210 ff., gives it much attention, as does Voigt, 329 ff. Koch, J., “NvK als Mensch nach dem Briefwechsel und Persoenlichen Aufzeichnungen,” in his Humanismus, Mystsh und Kunst in der Welt des Mittelaiters (Leiden-Köln, 1959)Google Scholar, interprets a hitherto unknown document bearing on it, and also discusses Nicholas' resignation plans as early as 1453. The actual sequence of events and intentions is still obscure.

48. Egger, 527, says that the Bishop of Brixen in 1437 enfeoffed Duke Frederick, Sigmund's father, with Rodeneek and Gufidaun, and that Frederick in return promised protection of the bishopric.

49. Chmel, , Regesta …, No. 2969Google Scholar; Streit …, 238, ff.; see 200–2 for Nicholas' own summary of earlier relationships between the Counts of the Tyrol and the Bishops of Brixen.

50. The decree is dated November 12, 1457, but its contents seem to have been known earlier than that in Innsbruck, , Streit …, 256–7.Google Scholar

51. Ibid., 279–80, gives text of the letter.

52. The question of how far the previous Interdict, that of Calixtus III, was observed in the Tyrol, and what areas specifically that Nicholas' Interdict applied to, is a very confusing one, and Nicholas' own clergy were by no means agreed on it. On Interdiets, see Krehbiel, E., The Interdict: its History and its Operation (Washington, 1909), 19 ffGoogle Scholar. The interdict here was latae sententiae. One of the more confusing factors was that the Brixen chapter had a papal privilege saying that they could not be excommunicated while Nicholas was their bishop, so they proceeded as though the decree could not apply to them–without mentioning the privilege, lest it be withdrawn at once.

53. On Heimburg, see Joachimsolin, P., Gregor Heimburg (Bamberg, 1891)Google Scholar. It has a complete bibliography, and little has been written on Heimburg since.

54. Vansteenberghe, 188–9, asks rhetorically whether the pope would have put Nicholas in charge of the whole temporal administration of the Papal States if he had not been satisfied with his work in Brixen. Aeneas was perfectly capable of just that: Nicholas' administrative talents were great, particularly with paperwork, and it looks as though the pope hoped for a cooling-off period in the Tyrol, perhaps while Nicholas was sent on another legatine journey through Germany. Aeneas, as cardinal, had already written Nicholas two letters begging him to leave the dull Tyrol and come to Rome, where cardinals belonged. The first dates from December 1456, the second from August 1457– just when news of the “murder attempt” would have reached Rome. The letters have been frequently reprinted, most recently in Meuthen, E., Die Leteten Jahre des NcK (Köln, 1958), 133–5Google Scholar. For other letters of Aeneas to Nicholas, see Fontes Rerum Ausiriacarum, II Abth., vol. 46 (1892), 106–11, 134–49, 165–7, 204–15, 277–95, 389–91, 446–7.Google Scholar

55. Streit …, 344–5.

56. Sinnacher quotes a sample letter, 486–8.

57. All the biographies of Nicholas deal with this event in detail. As usual, there are two original accounts, one from each side. It is the only event in Nicholas' episcopate that caught the attention of contemporary chroniclers. Two good examples are the Austrian chroniclers Thomas Ebendorffer and the somewhat later Jakob Unrest. Ebendorffer's account, which is extremely cautious, but is by a man who knew both Nicholas and Heimburg personally, is in Pez, H., Scriptores Rerum Austriacarum (Leipzig, 1725), t. II, 923 ff.Google Scholar; Unrest', Œsterreichische Chronik has been edited by Grossman, K. in MGH, Scrippt, Rer. Germ. (Weimer, 1957), XIGoogle Scholar. See also Lhotsky, A., Thomas Ebendorfer (Stuttgart, 1957), 19, 28, 53Google Scholar; and Lhotsky's, Œsterreichische Historiographie (Munich, 1962), 57 ffGoogle Scholar. Neither chronicler adds significantly to what is known. See also Trithemius, , AH, II, 439Google Scholar, for a slightly later summary. The account of the reaction in papal circles is in Raynaldus, , Aanales Ecclesiastici (Bar-le Duc, 1874) t. XXIX, ad ann. 1460, Nos. 35–8Google Scholar. Pius' own summary is in his Narratio, ia Goldast, M., Monarchia S. Romani Imperii (Graz, 1960), II, 1576–9Google Scholar. An enormous Streitschrift followed for the next several years. The strength of German reaction was noted by Bessarion in his legatine reports from there in 1460–1, while he was trying to gather support for the crusade. See Fontes Rerum Austriacarum, II Abth., XXXXVI (1892), 5–6Google Scholar. The details are not at afl clear, but the general situation is.

58. Pastor, III, 179.