¹ Thompson, C. H. “Uthred of Boldon, a Study in Fourteenth-Century Political Theory,” Ph.D. diss., Victoria University, Manchester, 1936, 1:ii–iii. Part II of Thompson's dissertation consists of a typescript of Uthred's pamphlets De dotacione ecclesie and Contra garrulos dotacionem ecclesie impugnantes from Durham MS A. iv. 33, fols. 69r-110r, copied in a fifteenth-century hand. This typescript serves as the basis for the present study; all citations in this essay are from it. I am grateful for the editorial assistance given to me by Professor Crowder, C. M. D. Google Scholar

² Wendy Scase, ‘Piers Plowman’ and the New Anticlericalism, Cambridge Studies in Medieval Literature 4 (Cambridge, 1989), ix–x.Google Scholar

³ Williams, Arnold, “Relations between the Mendicant Friars and Secular Clergy in England in the Later Fourteenth Century,” Annuale Medievale 1 (1960): 22–95.Google Scholar

⁴ On FitzRalph's conflict with the friars, see especially Carolly Erickson, “The Fourteenth-Century Franciscans and their Critics,” Franciscan Studies 35 (1975): 107–35 and 36 (1976): 108–47; Katherine Walsh, A Fourteenth-Century Scholar and Primate: Richard FitzRalph in Oxford, Avignon and Armagh (Oxford, 1981), 349–451; James Doyne Dawson, “Richard FitzRalph and the Fourteenth-Century Poverty Controversies,” Journal of Ecclesiastical History 34 (1983): 315–44; Janet Coleman, “FitzRalph's Antimendicant ‘Proposicio’ (1350) and the Politics of the Papal Curia at Avignon,” Journal of Ecclesiastical History 35 (1984): 376–90.Google Scholar

⁵ See n. 1 above. For further details on the sources of Uthred's surviving works, see Marcett, M. E., Uthred de Boldon, Friar William Jordan and Piers Plowman (New York, 1938), 68–75; William Abel Pantin, “Two Treatises of Uthred of Boldon on the Monastic Life,” in Hunt, R. W., Pantin, W. A. and Southern, R. W., eds. Studies in Medieval History Presented to Frederick Maurice Powicke (Oxford, 1948), 364–66; Thompson, “Uthred,” iv–viii. Google Scholar

⁶ There is general agreement on the dating of and relationship between these controversies. See Thompson, “Uthred,” 26; Marcett, Uthred de Boldon, 8–9; Pantin, W. A., The English Church in the Fourteenth Century (Cambridge, 1955), 167–69 and “Two Treatises on the Monastic Life,” 364; Knowles, M. D. “The Censured Opinions of Uthred of Boldon,” Proceedings of the British Academy, 37 (1951), 311–13, and The End of the Middle Ages, vol. 2 of The Religious Orders in England (Cambridge, 1961), 50; Stephen Forte, “A Study of Some Oxford Schoolmen of the Middle of the Fourteenth Century, with special Reference to Worcester Cathedral MS. 65” (B. Litt. thesis, Oxford University, 1947), 123–25; Szittya, Penn R. The Antifraternal Tradition in Medieval Literature (Princeton, 1986), 109–10; Miller, Carol M., “The Monastic Treatises of Uthred of Boldon” (Ph.D. diss., Cornell University, 1984), 11–16. Hilton may have been involved as well in the attempt to have Uthred charged with heresy (see Knowles, “Censured Opinions,” 330).Google Scholar

⁷ There is considerable disagreement on the dating of Uthred's central polemics from the disendowment debate. Thompson (“Uthred,” vii and 28–29) and Knowles (End of the Middle Ages, 66) regard them as anti-mendicant treatises and assign them to the conflict with Hilton in 1366/7. Marcett (Uthred de Boldon, 18–19), Pantin (“Monastic Treatises,” 364–65 and English Church, 169–72), Miller (“Monastic Treatises,” 21–23), and Scase (‘Piers Plowman,’ 12), regard them as primarily defences against the attacks of the Wycliffites, although they do allow that Uthred's opponents may have included some friars, and suggest that they were written after Uthred's departure from Oxford in 1367/8, likely ca. 1374–76.Google Scholar

⁸ Galbraith, V. H., “Articles Laid Before the Parliament of 1371,” English Historical Review 34 (1919): 579–82.Google Scholar

⁹ McFarlane, K. B., John Wyclif and the Beginnings of English Nonconformity (London, 1952), 62.Google Scholar

¹⁰ Unfortunately, there is no consensus on when Wyclif determined against Uthred. Thompson (“Uthred,” 31–5) and Knowles (End of the Middle Ages, 66–67), follow the lead of early biographers of Wyclif and opt for a date between 1366 and 1368. For a date between 1373 and 1375, see Loserth, J. “The Beginnings of Wyclif's Activities in Ecclesiastical Politics,” English Historical Review 11 (1896): 319–28; Workman, Herbert B., John Wyclif: A Study of the English Medieval Church (Oxford, 1926; repr. Hamden, Conn., 1966), 1:231–39 and Dahmus, Joseph H. The Prosecution of John Wyclif (New Haven, 1952), 4–5; for late 1372 or 1373, see McFarlane John Wycliff, 62 and George Holmes, The Good Parliament (Oxford, 1975), 168. The most recent, and most convincing, contribution to this debate has been made by Thomson, Williell R., The Latin Writings of John Wyclyf: An Annotated Catalogue, Subsidia Mediaevalia 14 (Toronto, 1983), 41 and 229–30. Thomson suggests that Wyclif's determination may have been occasioned by Uthred's missing treatise, possibly De non auferendis ecclesie bonis (Thompson, “Uthred,” 28). Pantin (“Two Treatises,” 365) suggests that this work may be identical with Contra garrulos dotacionem. Nonetheless, Thomson maintains, the appearance of Uthred at a great council in London in 1374, in which he defended papal claims to dominion, was “an adequate stimulus for Wyclyf's recalling the monk's earlier utterances—of course we may safely presume he had known of them at the earlier date.” Thomson, Latin Writings of Wyclif, 230. On Uthred's role in the great council, see Frank Scott Haydon, ed. Eulogium Historiarum sive Temporis Rolls Series 9 (London, 1863), 3:337–39.Google Scholar

¹¹ See Lambert, M. D., Franciscan Poverty: the Doctrine of the Absolute Poverty of Christ and the Apostles in the Franciscan Order 1210–1323 (London, 1961), 126–48.Google Scholar

¹² On Ecclesiastical Power by Giles of Rome. trans. Monahan, Arthur P. (Lewiston, 1990), 2.7.101–07.Google Scholar

¹³ Iohannis Wycliffe, De Dominio Divino. ed. Poole, R. L. (London, 1890; repr. New York, 1966); Lambert, M. D., Medieval Heresy: Popular Movements from the Gregorian Reform to the Reformation, 2nd ed. (Oxford, 1992), 236–37; Michael Wilks, “Predestination, Property and Power: Wyclif's Theory of Dominion and Grace,” Studies in Church History 2 (1965): 220–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹⁴ Gordon Leff, “John Wyclif: The Path to Dissent,” Proceedings of the British Academy 52 (1966): 153–54 and 174–76; Heresy in the Later Middle Ages: The Relation of Heterodoxy to Dissent ca. 1250–1450 (Manchester, 1967), 527–34 and 545–49; “The Apostolic Ideal in Later Medieval Ecclesiology,” Journal of Theological Studies n.s. 18 (1967): 71–82.Google Scholar

¹⁵ Dawson, “Richard FitzRalph” (n. 4 above), 332–43.Google Scholar

¹⁶ Scase, ‘Piers Plowman’ (n. 2 above), 18–19.Google Scholar

¹⁷ Ibid., 12.Google Scholar

¹⁸ Forte, “Study” (n. 6 above), 144–47.Google Scholar

¹⁹ Contra querelas fratrum in Marcett, Uthred de Boldon (n. 5 above), 25–28 and 35–37 and the discussion in Szittya, Antifraternal Tradition (n. 6 above), 109–12.Google Scholar

²⁰ Thompson, “Uthred” (n. 1 above), 68–69, was the first to note this.Google Scholar

²¹ Between 1322 and 1328, John XXII promulgated a series of Bulls which undermined the very basis of Franciscan teaching on apostolic poverty. The pope was answered by a schismatic group from the order and their supporters, including Michael of Cesena, Bonagratia of Bergama, William of Ockham and Marsilius of Padua. For the details of this conflict, see Lambert, , Franciscan Poverty, 208–46 and idem, “The Franciscan Crisis under John XXII,” Franciscan Studies 32 (1972): 123–43; James Heft, “Nicholas III (1277–1280) and John XXII (1316–1334): Popes in Contradiction?” Archivum Historiae Pontificae 21 (1983): 245–57; Gordon Leff, “The Bible and Rights in the Franciscan Disputes over Poverty,” in The Bible in the Medieval World: Essays in Memory of Beryl Smalley, ed. Katherine Walsh and Diana Wood, Studies in Church History, Subsidia 4 (Oxford, 1985), 225–35; Thomas Turley, “John XXII and the Franciscans: a Reappraisal,” in Popes, Teachers and Canon Law in the Middle Ages, ed. James Ross Sweeney and Stanley Chodorow (Ithaca and London, 1989), 74–88. For a recent re-evaluation of the background of John XXII's decision to move against the Franciscan formulation of apostolic poverty, see David Burr, Olivi and Franciscan Poverty: The Origins of the Usus Pauper Controversy (Philadelphia, 1989).Google Scholar

²² De dotacione ecclesie sponse Christi. fols. 69–69b: “Set sacerdocium domini Iesu Christi quod est iam pro tempore legis gratie est magis spirituale ac minus intendens prediis, possessionibus et huiusmodi, eo quod vulpes foueas habent et volucres celi nidos. Filius autem / hominis non habet vbi caput suum reclinet, Math. 8°, Luc. 9°”; fol. 73: “… Iesus respondit: Vulpes foueas habunt et volucres celi nidos. Filius autem hominis non habet vbi caput suum reclinet, patet Math. 8°, Luc. 9.” On Bonaventure's use of these passages, see Lambert, , Franciscan Poverty, 131.Google Scholar

²³ De dotacione ecclesie, fol. 73b: “Confirmatur eo quod dominus noster Iesus Christus quoscunque vocauit ipsos ad sequelam suam inuitauit quatinus eum vita et moribus sequerentur.” One of the most prominent passages cited in support of this statement is Christ's advice to the rich young man contained in Matthew 19:21, Mark 10:21, and Luke 18:22: “Immo illi diuiti multas possessiones habenti respondit Iesus: Si vis perfectus esse, vade et vende omnia que habes, etc.; et veni et sequere me, patet Math. 19, Marc. 10, Luc. 18.”Google Scholar

²⁴ Ibid., fol. 73b: “Vocando enim Petrum, Andream, Iohannem et Iacobum, dixit eis: Venite post me, faciam vos, etc. At illi relictis omnibus secuti sunt eum, Math. 4. Similiter vocando Mattheum de theolonio dixit ei: Sequere me, Math. 9, Marc. 2, Luc. 5. Similiter vocando Phillipum, Ioh. 1°.”Google Scholar

²⁵ Conrad Eubel, ed. Bullarium Franciscanum (Rome, 1898), 5:443 and “Tractatus de Christi et Apostolorum Paupertate,” ed. Livarius Oliger, Archivum Franciscanum Historicum 24 (1931): 323.Google Scholar

²⁶ Opus nonaginta dierum in Opera politica, ed. Sikes, J. G., Bennett, R. F. and Offler, H. S. (Manchester, 1963), 2:98.741–42.Google Scholar

²⁷ Lambert, , Franciscan Poverty (n. 11 above), 137, and Dawson, “Richard FitzRalph” (n. 4 above), 317.Google Scholar

²⁸ De dotacione ecclesie, fol. 74: “Apostoli qui erant sequances verissimi domini Iesu Christi et ab ipso deputati ut pascerent oues eius, patet Ioh. 21, statim post missionem sancti spiritus in eos, ab ipso spiritu plenius informati vitam ecclesiasticam instituerunt, scilicet ut forent eis omnia communia nec agros nec domos, possessiones aut substancias retinerent, set omnia huiusmodi venderent et precium inter singulos diuiderent, prout cuique opus erat nec quisquam egens erat inter eos, patet Act. 2° et 4 capitulis.”Google Scholar

²⁹ Ibid: “Similiter Act. II° patet quomodo Agabo propheta predicente famem magnam futuram, discipuli singuli prout vnusquisque habebat miserunt per Saulum et Barnaban in ministerium fratribus habitantibus in Iudea; immo de collectis que fiebant in sanctos viuentes in communi, patet prima Corin. 16, 2^a Corin. 8 et 9 capitulis.”Google Scholar

³⁰ Bullarium Franciscanum, 5: 445–46, and Opus nonaginta dierum 107.781–82.Google Scholar

³¹ De dotacione ecclesie, fol. 79: “Quis enim hiis diebus superbior, quis honoris cupidior, quis ad iniurias perferendas impaciencior, quis in incessu gestu et apparatu et in corde elacior quam isti diuites ecclesiastici? 2° ad auariciam et cupiditatem, et radix omnium malorum est cupiditas; ideo, qui volunt diuites, fieri incidunt in temptacionem et laqueum diaboli et in desideria inutilia et nociua que mergunt homines in interitum et pedicionem, etc. Tu autem o homo dei hec fuge, etc., prima Thim. 6^to.”Google Scholar

³² Opus nonaginta dierum 75.604.Google Scholar

³³ Ibid. 76.610–11: “… ex quibus verbis datur intellegi quod qui perfectus esse desiderat, debet omnia vendere et dare pauperibus, et per consequens proprietatem omnium abdicare.”Google Scholar

³⁴ De dotacione ecclesie, fol. 72b: “Vnde quidam vocatus doctor de Lira super illa littera, vrbes ad habitandum, dicit ad habitandum, non dicit ad dominandum vel redditus inde recipiendum, quia sic erant ipsius regis vel aliorum dominorum.” Google Scholar

³⁵ Bonaventure, , Apologia Pauperum. in Opera Omnia, ed. Lauer, R. P. (Ad Claras Aquas, 1898), 8: 286.Google Scholar

³⁶ Ibid., 7: 279–80.Google Scholar

³⁷ Bullarium Franciscanum (n. 25 above), 5: 417. John XXII had reintroduced the argument of Gerard of Abbeville on consumable possessions in the Bull Ad conditorem of December 1322.Google Scholar

³⁸ Ibid., 420.Google Scholar

³⁹ Ibid., 426.Google Scholar

⁴⁰ Ibid., 439.Google Scholar

⁴¹ Opus nonaginta dierum 20.462 (n. 26 above).Google Scholar

⁴² Ibid., 466.Google Scholar

⁴³ De dotacione ecclesie, fol. 71: “Et generaliter dominus ordinauit vt leuite recipientes decimas a populo decimam illarum decimarum offerent sacerdoti vt reputaretur ipsis leuitis oblacio deo grata tanquam de suis propriis illam decimam obtulissent, omnes enim decime leuitarum erant pro suo ministerio in tabernaculo sibi dato. Ad illud, Deuteronomio 18°: Non habebunt sacerdotes et leuite et omnes qui de eadem tribu sunt, partem et hereditatem cum reliquo populo Israel. Et consequenter ordinans vnde viuerent, addit: Quia sacrificia domini et oblaciones commedent, et nichil aliud accipient de possessione fratrum suorum; dominus enim ipse est hereditas eorum, etc.”Google Scholar

⁴⁴ Bullarium Franciscanum 5: 440.Google Scholar

⁴⁵ Leff, Gordon, William of Ockham: The Metamorphosis of Scholastic Discourse (Manchester, 1975), 626.Google Scholar

⁴⁶ Opus nonaginta dierum 88.662: “… sed ex hoc non sequitur quod illud dominium non erat introductum iure humano, licet sequatur quod non erat introductum iure regum.”Google Scholar

⁴⁷ Ibid., 658–59: “Et ita clerici quicquid possident, iure humano possident; quia Deus nec in speciali nec in communi unum denarium dedit clericis, licet ordinaverit quod fideles eis debeant necessaria ministrare.”Google Scholar

⁴⁸ See Aubrey Gwynn, The English Austin Friars in the Time of Wyclif (London, 1940), 64–65, and Richard Scholz, Unbekannte kirchenpolitische Streitschriften aus der Zeit Ludwigs der Bayern (1327–1354), vol. 1 (Rome, 1911), 13–22 and vol. 2 (1914), 16–28. The first of six articles discussed by William concerns the dominion of the Church over temporal goods. Unlike Uthred, he is content to restate Giles of Rome's position without serious modification.Google Scholar

⁴⁹ Thompson, “Uthred” (n. 1 above), 86, 96–97.Google Scholar

⁵⁰ Scase (‘Piers Plowman’ [n. 2 above], 53) indicates that the possessioners took particular interest in the writings of FitzRalph, as evidenced by the manuscript remains in their libraries.Google Scholar

⁵¹ On Ecclesiastical Power 2.10.134–35.Google Scholar

⁵² Riviere, Jean, Le Problème de l'Eglise et de l'Etat au temps de Philippe le Bel (Louvain and Paris, 1926), 212, 217.Google Scholar

⁵³ De dotacione ecclesie, fol. 91b: “Hec sunt dominia iure hereditario de persona in personam succedencia, vel alio modo licito et legitimo perquisita et transeuncia per personas habuerunt et eciam habent alia dominia ab ipso Christo domino principali et istis dominis personalibus collata, …”Google Scholar

⁵⁴ Ibid., fols. 82b–83: “Set secundus Adam, dominus noster Iesus, innocens et purus ab omni peccato, immo multo dignior homo quam vnquam fuerat primus Adam propter ipsam / diuinam personalitatem qua fuerat eius humanitas personata sine omni huiusmodi forisfactura, solus inter homines natus est in primo hominis dominio naturali: …”Google Scholar

⁵⁵ De pauperie salvatoris, in ed. Poole, Iohannis Wycliffe, De Dominio Divino, 2.1.334–35; 2.10.350; 3.31.424–25.Google Scholar

⁵⁶ On Ecclesiastical Power 2.3.66–67.Google Scholar

⁵⁷ Ibid., 67–71.Google Scholar

⁵⁸ De dotacione ecclesie, fol. 84b: “… set ipso tabernaculo fixo localiter in Silo ne vlterius localiter mouereter, ut patet Ios. 18; statim ut patet Ios. 21°, dederunt principes filiorum Israel ipsis sacerdotibus et leuitis secundum mandatum domini 48 precipuas ciuitates cum suburbanis earumdem sic et ecclesie localiter et stabiliter fundate, set non prius erant hec dominia, localia et mundialia annectenda, non tamen tempore Christi fuerat hec predialis dotacio ecclesie sicut nec tempore Moisis tabernaculo facienda.”Google Scholar

⁵⁹ Ibid., fol. 72: “Ex quibus videtur sequi quod leuite non habuerunt civitates istas nec suburbana ad dominandum set solum ad habitandum et pecora nutriendum, quia cum precepit dominus dare leuitis urbes istas 48, addidit ‘ad habitandum’, …”Google Scholar

⁶⁰ Ibid., fol. 72b: “Similiter leuite non poterant vendere suburbana ipsis distributa ad sua pecora nutrienda quia possessio sempiterna est, patet Leu. 25. Ergo non erant domini illorum suburbanorum cum posse vendere pertineat ad dominum verum rerum. Immo licuit aliis filiis Israel vendere pro perpetuo domos suas infra vrbes muratas situatas quod non licuit leuitis, quin in iubeleo redirent, patet Leu. 25. Ergo leuite non erant veri domini vrbium vel domorum.”Google Scholar

⁶¹ Ibid., fol. 93: “Ad 2^m huius 2ⁱ cum assumitur quod sacerdotes et leuite vendere pro perpetuo non poterant domos suas aut suburbana, etc., et ideo non erant domini eorumdem dicitur sicut iam supra quod ideo eorum dominia erant veriora et stabiliora quia per eos alienari non poterant, sicut et deus est verissimus dominus qui a se vendere vel alienare non poterit dominium alicuius.”Google Scholar

⁶² On Ecclesiastical Power 2.6.95–96.Google Scholar

⁶³ Leff, “The Bible and Rights” (n. 21 above), 230–35. Dawson (“Richard FitzRalph” [n. 4 above], 316–29), on the other hand, speaks of a conception of natural law among the Franciscan theorists beginning with Bonaventure.Google Scholar

⁶⁴ Dawson, ibid., 334.Google Scholar

⁶⁵ De pauperie salvatoris 1.20.310, 2.20.362–63.Google Scholar

⁶⁶ De dotacione ecclesie, fols. 92–92b: “Ideo precepit dominus dare sacerdotibus et leuitis ciuitates illas in medio filiorum Israel ut ipsi sacerdotes et leuite in medio habitarent, tanquam diceret quod ad dominium / specialiter pertinet in suorum medio habitare: ideo sicut, ego verissimus dominus et supremus inuisibiliter habito in medio filiorum Israel, sic sacerdotes et leuite quos habentes visibiliter meo nomine vicarios et ministros in signum quod dominium suum immediatissime sub me habunt in medio habitabunt.”Google Scholar

⁶⁷ Ibid., fols. 93b–94: “Dicitur enim habere quod haberi vel non habere verius diceretur, sicut auari, cupidi et venales dicuntur aurum, argentum, diuicias [et] possessiones habere que nolunt aliis instante necessitate communicare debite ut deberent…. Dicitur eciam habere set proprie qui quodcunque habuerit ad effectum vtendi et communicandi debite illud habet….” fols. 94–94b: “… illo primo modo habendi, quia eos communicare nolunt nisi pro tempore pullis suis quando, nec dominus Iesus nec aliquis veraciter enim sequens habet vbi caput suum reclinet, quia sic habere quicquam est non solum omni christiano set eciam creature rationali cuilibet interdictum. 2° tamen modo habendi habuit ipsemet dominus Iesus et habet quia verus dominus omnium mundanorum, non tamen vbi caput suum reclinet set ad seruicium suum prout voluit seu vult omnia huiusmodi mundi et sic habere communicauit fidelibus / suis sequacibus quam ecclesiasticis quam secularibus singulis pro gradu suo sicut aliter superius in primo argumento pro veritate principalis dubii est predictum. Ita quod isto 2° modo habere diuicias, dominia, predia, possessiones et huiusmodi non repugnat, immo maxime conuenit et expedit verissime sequele Christi, …”Google Scholar

⁶⁸ On Bonagratia's distinction, see Dawson, “Richard FitzRalph,” 325.Google Scholar

⁶⁹ De dotacione ecclesie, fol. 96b: “In cuius signum omnia predia, possessiones et huiusmodi ecclesie appropriata sunt mortificata tanquam mortua quo ad mundum, quia sicut ipsi ecclesiastici sic et omnia predia, dominia, possessiones et huiusmodi quamuis sint in mundo, sunt penitus non de mundo.”Google Scholar

⁷⁰ De pauperie salvatoris 2.3.336–38, 2.5.340.Google Scholar

⁷¹ Dawson, “Richard FitzRalph,” 334, 338–41.Google Scholar

⁷² “De dotacione eclessie,” fol. 91b: “Primi alienare poterunt sua dominia quia tamen personas concernencia, non secundi quia officium remanet post personam et per personam aliam occupandum, ut sit dominium quasi immortale quia non moritur cum persona occupante quamuis ab eo persona occupans moriatur; ideo ista secunda sunt veriora et stabiliora dominia quam sunt prima, quia similiora dominio diuino quod alienari non poterit quousmodo, etc.”Google Scholar

⁷³ Scase, , ‘Piers Plowman’ (n. 2 above), 47–49.Google Scholar

⁷⁴ Contra garrulos dotacionem, fol. 99b: “… excitant dominos temporales ad personas ecclesiasticas castigandas et temporales possessiones ecclesie auferendas, ut Christum pauperem sequuntur in consimili paupertate.”Google Scholar

⁷⁵ Ibid., fols. 104b–105: Contra illud dictum in motiuo 7° obicitur de temporalibus deo et ecclesie collatis, mortuo tamen prelato pro tempore vocacionis redeuntibus ad man-/ us patronorum quousque prelatus alius elegatur. 2° obicitur quod patrono reseruatur in huiusmodi prelaciis dignitas talis quod illi quibus a patrono conceditur potestas futurum prelatum eligendi, non procedent ad eleccionem huiusmodi nisi ab ipso patrono prius petita eligendi licencia et optenta. 3° obicitur quod electus talis presentabitur patrono vt consenciat eleccioni et electo, et recipiat electus temporalia ecclesie a patrono qui consensit et collacio tunc temporalium, videntur consistere in ipsius patroni libera voluntate. 4^to obicitur quod licet regibus accipere temporalia ecclesie et in suis manibus assesiare cum prelati ecclesie tales delinquerint contra illos et illa temporalia retinere ad sue beneplacitum voluntatis.”Google Scholar

⁷⁶ Emerton, Ephraim, The Defensor Pacis of Marsiglio of Padua: A Critical Study (Cambridge, Mass., 1920; repr. New York, 1951), 78. See also Dawson, “Richard FitzRalph” (n. 4 above), 316, and Walsh, Fourteenth Century Scholar (n. 4 above), 357, 381–83.Google Scholar

⁷⁷ Scase, ‘Piers Plowman,’ 98.Google Scholar

⁷⁸ Marsilius of Padua, Defensor Pacis, ed. Previté-Orton, C.W. (Cambridge, 1928), 2.14.246–47.Google Scholar

⁷⁹ Ibid., 248–49.Google Scholar

⁸⁰ In the rule of 1223, Francis allowed that the brothers might have recourse to an amicus spiritualis, a money agent responsible for purchasing clothing and providing for sick friars. In the Bull Quo elongati, Gregory IX allowed for recourse to the amicus spiritualis for “imminent necessities.” The pope also declared that dominion over property held by the order was retained by the donor, and he created the office of nuntius as an agent of the donor. With the promulgation of the Bull Ordinum vestrum by Innocent IV in 1245, dominion over the goods held by the order was transferred to the Holy See. Two years later, with the Bull Quanto Studiosus, Innocent IV replaced nuntius and amicus spiritualis with a procurator who administered the possessions held by the order on behalf of the papacy. See Lambert, , Franciscan Poverty (n. 11 above), 84–88 and 96–102.Google Scholar

⁸¹ Scase, ‘Piers Plowman,’ 103.Google Scholar

⁸² Contra garrulos, fol. 100b: “… ergo non liceret de iure taliter commutanti nec alicui alteri post eum repetere illud corporale et temporale taliter commutatum, nisi reddere ac alienare a se voluerit spirituale illud et eternum quod recepit vel reciperet in futuro; …”; fol. 101b: “Nullus dominus secularis conferens alteri seculari pari vel superiori suo dominium, possessionem, redditumve quemcunque poterit ad libitum suum vel auctoritate propria reaccipere dominium illud collatum…. Set nec rex nec imperator nec alius quicunque dominus secularis est, vel esse poterit superior deo et ecclesie immo nec par, set inferior … Ergo a forciori nulli domino seculari ex auctoritate alia seculari licet huiusmodi temporalia Christo et ecclesie collata reassumere …”Google Scholar

⁸³ Ibid., fol. 101: “Secundum apostolum 1^a Corin. 15° alludentem processui naturali corpus animale et terrenum per mortem interpositam fiet corpus spirituale et celeste quia seminatur animale surget corpus spirituale…. Ergo a consimili processu, cum bona quecunque deo et ecclesie collata secundum iura a mundo mortificantur et sic fiunt spiritualia, non poterunt ideo secundum ordinem naturalem ab huiusmodi spiritualitate ad animalitatem, scilicet ad manus laicorum iterum reuocari ut fiant codicionis deterioris et retrograde quam per prius iuxta quod derisorie dicitur cancerem retrograde incedere versus aquam.”Google Scholar

⁸⁴ Ibid., fols. 104–104b: “2° quia in puram elemosinam eas dedit, pura quidem elemosina non habet aliquid mixtum, ita quod conferens pure nichil sibi retinet quia nec sermonem inpensum vel inpendendum, nec redditum resoluendum, nec aliquod super dominium, nec aliquod huiusmodi, nec eciam quicquam iuris: si enim conferens in sic deo et ecclesie collatis sibi aliquid reseruaret, illud sibi reseruatum non daret et sic non pure daret, nec res sic date forent pura elemosina set mixto ex isto dato et reseruato, quasi mixta ex spirituali et seculari…. 3° quia in elemosinam perpetuam istas dedit deo et ecclesie et ministris, perpetuum autem communi intellectu principium habet set non finem. Ex hiis igitur condicionibus quia res huiusmodi in elemosinam puram et in elemosinam perpetuam conferuntur deo, ecclesie et ministris, sequitur quod talis con-/ ferens magis a se et successoribus suis alienat et a se expropriat et simplicius donat res huiusmodi deo et ecclesie ac ministris quam dare posset alias alius possessiones retinendo sibi quantumcunque modicum redditum, sericium super dominium vel eciam quicquam iuris.”Google Scholar

⁸⁵ Ibid., fols. 99b-100: “Ergo cum nec deo nec ecclesie sponse Christi sanctificate nec habenti maculam neque rugam aut aliquid huiusmodi Eph. 5^to possit culpa alia imputare, sequitur quod / nec propter culpam quamcunque personarum ministrancium in ecclesia siue ipsis temporalibus ecclesie abutendo siue officium eis ex gradu ecclesie assumpto impositum omittendo aut quomodo aliter delinquendo possit ipse deus aut ecclesie sponsa sua per aliquam potestatem secularem iuste possessionibus suis spoliari…. quod nulla persona ecclesiastica ex tali collacione efficitur verus dominus ipsarum rerum deo et ecclesie collatarum, quia nulla persona ecclesiastica occupans res illas donatas potest omnes actus dominii, scilicet dare, vendere, alienare ac huiusmodi prout libet, sicut poterat conferens antequam eas contulerat, exercere.”Google Scholar

⁸⁶ Thomson, , Latin Writings (n. 10 above), 41.Google Scholar

⁸⁷ Determinacio Johannis Wyclif in Opera Minora, ed. Johann Loserth (London, 1913), 405.Google Scholar

⁸⁸ Ibid., 409.Google Scholar

⁸⁹ Ibid., 411.Google Scholar

⁹⁰ Ibid., 412.Google Scholar

⁹¹ Ibid., 406–9.Google Scholar

⁹² Ibid., 410.Google Scholar

⁹³ Ibid., 412.Google Scholar

⁹⁴ Ibid., 412–13.Google Scholar

⁹⁵ Scase, , ‘Piers Plowman’ (n. 2 above), 58–59.Google Scholar