Hostname: page-component-f7d5f74f5-z2nk8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2023-10-02T19:27:32.937Z Has data issue: false Feature Flags: { "corePageComponentGetUserInfoFromSharedSession": true, "coreDisableEcommerce": false, "coreDisableSocialShare": false, "coreDisableEcommerceForArticlePurchase": false, "coreDisableEcommerceForBookPurchase": false, "coreDisableEcommerceForElementPurchase": false, "coreUseNewShare": true, "useRatesEcommerce": true } hasContentIssue false

‘This Realm of England is an Empire’

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 March 2011


Few phrases in an English Statute can have left such an indelible imprint as the opening words of the Act in Restraint of Appeals of 1533: they have evoked a literature of their own. If on this occasion a mere medievalist has the temerity to enter the precincts of the Henrician Reformation measures it is not because he is unaware of the pitfalls that may be in store for him, but because he believes that an exegesis which sets these famous words in their strictly confined historical context may possibly contribute to a better comprehension of the matrix of what came to be the Ecclesia Anglicana of the Reformation era. In offering the jubiland a modest essay on this topic, I hope he will accept it in the spirit in which it is submitted to him: as a token of gratitude for the services he has conspicuously rendered to ecclesiastical history. Specifically, this brief sketch is to pay respect to Clifford Dugmore as the parent and editor of the JEH which for long will remain a monument to his initiative, courage and perseverance: he has tended his own creation in an exemplary way for 30 years and saw the Journal grow to an internationally acknowledged organ of ecclesiastical history. It is a self-evident duty to pay tribute, however inadequate it may be, to his single-minded devotion to historical scholarship and dedicated editorship. Rarely can an occasion so clearly have offered a three-fold cause for rejoicing: the celebration of his seventieth birthday, the celebration of the thirtieth birthday of the JEH, and the conclusion of thirty years of his editorship. Quid plura?

Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1979

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.)


1 It would only be tedious to enumerate the many passages in Roman law, notably in the Code of Justinian, which bear out the monarchic Function of the ruler, not to mention the Novellae. For the Digest cf, for example, 1.4.1.

2 For Azo see Fattorini, M. Sarti-M., De Claris archigymnasii Bononiensis professoribus, i. Bologna 1888, 103–13Google Scholar; Panciroli, G., De clans tegum interpretibus, Leipzig 1721Google Scholar; repr. Farnborough 1968, 113-16; Thomas Diplovatatius, Liber de clans iurisconsultis, ed.Rabotti, G. in Studia Gratiana, X (1968), 6771Google Scholar; Dizionario biografico degli Italiani, iv. Rome 1962, 774–81Google Scholar.

3 For some details cf. W. Ullmann, ‘Arthur's Homage to Kingjohn’ in English Historical Review (forthcoming).

4 Cited from English Historical Review, lxiv (1949), 4, n. 4.Google Scholar

5 Guido de Baysio (the Archdeacon), Rosarium (ed. , Venice 1577), ad XXIII. 8. 22Google Scholar, fo. 7.

6 See Dizionario (as note 2) iii (1961), 100-3; also Ullmann, W., Law and Politics in the Middle Ages, Cambridge 1975, 217Google Scholarwith further literature.

7 Super usibusfeudorum (ed. , Lyon 1579), II. 14Google Scholar, fo. 41, no. 3.

8 Speculum iuris (ed. , Frankfurt 1592), IV: pars 3, De feudis, p. 320bGoogle Scholar, no. 2g.

9 Goldast, M., Monanhia (ed. , Hanau-Frankfurt 1614), ii. 98Google Scholar, lines 24f. For details cf. also Watt, J. A., ‘The Quaestio in utramque partem reconsidered’ in Studia Gratiana, xiii (1967), 411–53Google Scholar.

10 Cited from Ullmann, W., The Medieval Idea of Law, repr. London 1968, 173, n. 3.Google Scholar

11 Huillard-Breholles, J. L. A., Historia Diplomalica Friderici II, iii, Paris 1852, 469.Google Scholar

12 This was on the occasion of so mundane a matter as the grant of mining rights, see Steinwenter, A., ‘Nomos empsychos’ in Anzeiger der osterreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, lxxxiii (1946), 250Google Scholar, 256.

13 Rot. Pad., iii. 343.

14 To leave no doubt on the matter the royal decree of legitimation ends: ‘de plenitudine nostre regalis potestatis et de assensu parliament nostri tenore dispensamus vosque et vestrum quemlibet natalibus restituimus et legitimamus’ (Rot. Parl. cit.).

15 Bossuat, A., ‘La formule “Le roi est empereur en son royaume”: son emploi au XV siécle devant le parlement de Paris’ in Revue historique de droit francais el étranger, xxxix (1961), 371–81, at 373.Google Scholar

16 About sources and literature cf. Law and Politics (above note 6), 290-1.

17 Somnium viridarii, ed. Goldast, M. (above note 9), i. 173Google Scholar(at II. 160). There is a facsimile edition in Revue du moyen age latin, xxii (1966), 58ffGoogle Scholar. For details see now Quillet, J., La philosophic politique du Songe du Vergier (1378), Paris 1977, 164Google Scholar; for Nicholas Oresme, ibid. 160. There is an excellent survey of this work (not mentioned by Mme. Quillet) by Merzbacher, F., ‘Das Somnium viridarii von 1376 als Spiegel des gallikanischen Staatskirchenrechts’ in Savigny Zeitschr. Kan. Abt., xlii (1956), 55ff.Google Scholar; cf. 72: ‘Der Staat iiberwacht ihre (scil. der Kirche) Amtsgeschafte und ihre Disziplin und verfugt iiber Personalfragen und Kirchengut.’

18 , Bossuat, art. cit., 376.Google Scholar

19 Cited ibid., 378. This is also quite a skilful adaptation of the Orosian teleology of history which was applied in a different, yet related sense by Dante, cf. Ullmann, W., Medieval Foundations of Renaissance Humanism, London 1977, 108Google Scholar, 109, n. 40.

20 Cf. Ullmann, W., Principles of Government and Politics in the Middle Ages, 3rd ed., London 1974. 150–92.Google Scholar

21 The absence of feudal government may be one of the reasons why women could become rulers in Constantinople.

22 State Papers: King Henry VIII (hereafter St. P.), v. 262, no. 283; Letters and Papers: Henry VIII (hereafter LP.) iv. 3005, no. 6667, 7 October 1530. This problem of succession explains the frequent efforts which were made to circumvent the electoral principle, the creation of a co-king, and so on. That a mother of a minor acted as a regent was of course possible, but constitutionally she was no successor to her deceased husband. For the implementation of Henry's policy see now Elton, G. R., Reform and Reformation, London 1977, chs. 6-8Google Scholar.

23 For some details cf.Ullmann, W., ‘The Constitutional Significance of Constantine the Great's Settlement’ in Scholarship and Politics in the Middle Ages (Collected Studies iii), London 1978, ch. 1Google Scholar.

24 For the source of this famous coronation prayer see Erdmann, C., Forschungen zur politischen Ideenwelt des Frühmittealters, Berlin 1951, 5470Google Scholar; ed. of the ninth-century ‘Seven Formulae’, ibid. 88; Ward, P. L., ‘The coronation ceremony in medieval England’ in Speculum, xiv (1939), 160–78CrossRefGoogle Scholarat 171-3; full ed. of the ordo in Elze, R. and Vogel, C., Le pontifical Romano-Germanique du dixiime sie'cle (=Studie Testi, cocxvi (1963)), i. 246ff.Google Scholar, at 257, no. 22; also in Schramm, P. E., Kaiser, Ksnige und Pápste iii, Stuttgart 1969, 100Google Scholar, no. 22. The English ordines did not incorporate this text, but, beginning with the Dunstan ordo, borrowed from the West-Frankish models. The royal coronation ordo in the Pontificate Romanum was composed by Cardinal Stefaneschi for the coronation of the Sicilian king, Robert the Wise, in 1310, see Ullmann, W., ‘The Curial Exequies for Edward 1 and Edward in’ in The Papacy and Political Ideas in the Middle Ages (Collected Studies ii), London 1976, ch. 8, 28f.Google Scholar; Schimmelpfennig, B., Die Zeremonienbiicher der romischen Kurie im Mittelalter, Tubingen 1973, 174 ff.Google Scholar: ordo XlVb; 180 ff.: ordo XVIa, at no. 17. For the Pontificale itself I have used the edition Venice 1836, where the text is at 147.

25 For the meaning of these terms cf.Ullmann, W., ‘Der Souveranitatsgedanke in den mittelakerlichen Kronungsordines’ in The Church and the Law in the early Middle Ages (Collected Studies i), London 1975, ch. 6, 83fGoogle Scholar.

26 Indeed, the synodists at Chalcedon acclaimed the emperor Marcian hiZaoicahi nioxzwc, which did not mean ‘innovator of new doctrines’, but transmitter of the right faith by teaching it, for details cf.Ullmann, W., ‘Die rechtliche Bedeutung der spatromischen Kaisertitulatur fur das Papstturn’ in Collected Studies iii (above note 23), ch. 2, at 37, n. 45Google Scholar. Similarly the papacy stressed this duty: Leo 1 (JK. 546) in Avellana (Corpus scriptorum ecdesiasticorum latinorum, xxxv), 117, no. 51 (17 June 460); Simplicius to the emperor Zeno, ibid. 147 line 5, no. 66 (the emperor as defensor Jidei: JK 584); Felix in to the same emperor (JK. 595), ed.Schwartz, E., Publizistische Sammlungen xum Acacianischen Schisma (=Abhandlungen der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschqften, Phil.-Hist. Klasse, N.F., fasc. 10, 1934), 74 line 6Google Scholar: the emperor as Jidei custos et defensor orthodoxae. After all, according to the same Felix in the emperor was ‘veraciter divinitatis imitator’: JK. 591, ed. Schwartz, 69 line 9. From the strictly ecclesiological standpoint the expression used by Boniface 1 in his letter to the emperor Honorius is particularly significant: ‘Cum enim humanis rebus divinae cultor religionis Domino favente praesideas…’ (JK. 353, of 1 July 420, Ep. 7, in P.L., xx. 766).

27 Hence the duty of rulers to expel and exterminate heretics from their territories: IV Lateran, c. 3 = X: V. 7. 13. This had always been the meaning of cura, cf., for example, Nov. 8 where the emperor spoke of the ‘cura reipublicae tradita nobis’; also Now. 6;72 (‘omnia quidem legislatori reipublicae in magna cura sum…’); 81; 149 which deals exclusively with ecclesiastical matters and has the preamble: ‘Du m reipublicae a Deo nobis datae curam gerimus…operam damus…”

21 MS. British Museum, Cotton, Tiberius E VIII, fo. 100; facsimile in Ellis, H., Original Letters illustrative of English history, second series, i (1827)Google Scholar(frontispiece), and in Legg, L. Wickham, English Coronation Records, London 1901, facing 241Google Scholar.

29 Taylor, Neither A., The Glory of Regality, London 1820, 337Google Scholarnor Gneist, A., History of the English Constitution, transl. Ashworth, P. A., London 1891, 484Google Scholarnor Russell, C., The Crisis of Parliaments, Oxford 1971, 7ffGoogle Scholar. nor Schramm, P. E., History of the English Coronation, Oxford 1937, 214fGoogle Scholar. has adequately assessed the import of this piece of evidence. I am not aware of any other modern authority that deals with it.

30 Cat. State Papers: Spanish, iv. 734, no. 445. The charges preferred against Richard 11 concern the assumption of an imperial status within a royal framework, see below note 33. For the pope-emperor Maximilian see below note 103.

31 The constant use of this terminology shows the influence of the ‘new’ political ideas.

32 LP. v. 343, no. 721. This could have come straight from the Code or the Novels: the descending theme of government expressed in classic form.

33 St. P. i. 543, no. 84. Richard it was perfectly aware of the meaning of late Roman emperorship. One of the charges against him was the violation of his coronation oath to preserve ‘iustas leges et consuetudines regni sui’ by giving free rein to his will ‘quod leges suae erant in ore suo et aliquotiens in pectore suo et quod ipse solus posset mutare et condere leges regni sui’ (Rot. Part. iii. 419, no. 33). These are in fact direct quotations from Roman law: Cod. I. 17. 1. 6; VI. 23. 19. Cf. also Law and Politics (above n. 6), 56-61.

34 For this cf. Ullmann, W., ‘The medieval interpretation of Frederick i's Habita’ in Collected Studies iiiGoogle Scholar(above note 23), ch. 11; id., Medieval Foundations (above n. 19), 46. For the regius chairs in civil law at Oxford and Cambridge which were originally salaried by Westminster cathedral, see Simon, J., Education and Society in Tudor England, Cambridge 1967, 307, 255f.Google Scholar, and Knighton, C. S., Collegiate Foundations 1540-1570 (Cambridge Ph.D. dissertation 1975), 304Google Scholar, 307ff. for details of payments (I am grateful to Professor Elton for this reference). For a full and very instructive re-examination of the whole matter see now Logan, D., ‘The Origins of the so-called Regius Professorships:, an Aspect of the Renaissance in Oxford and Cambridge’ in Studies in Church History xiv (1977), 271–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar. The hypothesis advanced at 277 (‘civil law was included (scil. among the new chairs) quite probably to buttress the law school which had suffered from the elimination of canon law as a university subject’) would seem to be in need of rectification. Whether the effect intended by Henry was achieved may be doubtful, cf. in this context McConica, J. K., ‘The Social Relations of Tudor Oxford’ in TRHS., 5th series, xxvii (1977), 115-34, at 116–22Google Scholar.

35 This is the explanation of the conferment of the potestas iurisdictionis on the bishops by royal letters patent. Cf. also below p. 200.

36 This was an imperial law and incorporated as a novella extravagant in the Collatio XI where it was under the title: ‘Quomodo in laesae maiestatis crimine procedatur.’ For some details cf.Ullmann, W., ‘Zur Entwicklung des Souveränkatsbegriffs im Spatmittelalter’ in Collected Studies iii (above n. 23), ch. 9Google Scholar.

37 See Dig. 1. 18. 3; 2. 1. 20; etc.

38 Cap. 2, ed. in Conciliorum oecumenicorum decreta, 3rd ed., Bologna 1973, 31f.Google Scholar

39 This decretal also influenced the Golden Bull of 1356, cf. art. cit. (above n. 36), 25f. The decretal is in Clem. II. 11. 2.

40 VI: I. 2. 2; see Dig. 2. 1. 20.

41 St. P. vii. 355.

42 Ibid. He continues: ‘quia legibus etiam id prohibentibus necnon antiquissimis conciliis et pontificum Romanorum definitionibus repugnantibus, id facit non solum inique sed etiam nulliter facit.’ See Clement in his decretal: the verdict concerning Robert was invalid, because the place could not be approached by the king safely: ‘…in loco notorie (ut praefertur) non tuto…’ The gloss had: ‘Citatio non arctat assignato loco notorie nontuto.’

43 St. P. vii. 195, no. 250. A very similar view was expressed by the Parliament of Lincoln in 1301 in the Scottish affair, see Pad. Writs, i. 104, cit. in Ullmann, W., ‘On the Influence of Geoffrey of Monmouth in English History’ in Collected Studies i (above n. 25), ch. 13, 257-76, at 265–7Google Scholar. This parliamentary expression was also cited as historical evidence for the non-justiciability of the king (Edward 1) by Foxe, Edward, Opus eximium de differentia, London 1535, fo. 58r59rGoogle Scholar.

44 Ed. Pocock, N., Records of the Reformation ii, Oxford 1870, 402Google Scholar. For a most interesting collection of historical pieces justificatives (Collectanea satis copiosa) see the excellent Cambridge Ph.D. dissertation by a pupil of Professor Nicholson, Elton G. D., The Nature and Function of Historical Argument in the Henrician Reformation (1977)Google Scholar.

45 Rot. Parl. iii. 419, no. 27. For the character of this assembly see Tuck, A., Richard II and the English nobility, London 1973, 221Google Scholarand relevant literature.

46 St. P. vii. 354.

47 For this see LP. ii. 353, no. 1313, and Gardiner, J., Lollardy and the Reformation in England, i, London 1908, 283Google Scholar. The scope of benefit of clergy had been a thorny problem during many reigns, cf. the case reported in ‘A decision of the Rota Romana on the benefit of clergy in England’ in Collected Studies ii (above n. 24), ch 9, 455-90. On citing the first sentence Scarisbrick, J. J., Henry VIII, repr. London 1976, 327Google Scholarcomments: ‘It is difficult to know what to make of this.’ See the perceptive observations by Elton, G. R., op. cit. (above note 22), 56, 134Google Scholar.

48 St. P. vii. 26if. The non-recognition of a superior by a king had originally nothing to do with the idea underlying the function of a rex as an imperator, because non-recognition simply meant non-subjection to the contemporary medieval emperor. This latter idea was first put forward, not by Innocent in, as it is commonly said, but by Philip Augustus in a petition to Innocent (2 November 1201) who then adopted and incorporated Philip's idea into his own decretal Per Venerabilem (X: IV. 17. 13). For this see art. cit. (above n. 3). Nevertheless, the two expressions were frequently later combined: ‘rex superiorem non recognoscens in regno suo est imperator.’ Russell (above n. 29), 70-1, misses the point of the ‘imperial jurisdiction’ when he says ‘that the king had the same legal privileges in his realm as the Holy Roman emperor had in his’.

49 St. P. vii. 262. The canon law (X: I. 3. 28), had: ‘Statuimus ne quis ultra duas dietas extra suam diocesim per litteras apostolicas trahi possit.’ Cf. in this context also the Act in Restraint of Citations (1532) which applies exactly the same argument (23 Henry vm c. 9, p. 377). Here also the re-appearance of the domicile as a legally relevant item–the main argument of Clement v in his Pastoralis cura. See further St. P. vii. 263 referring to the verdict of the University of Padua, also 353. It certainly is teasing that Henry (and his advisers) were so greatly influenced by papal language that even the age-old papal device of administering a stern reproof—Miramur non modicum or plurimum—was adopted by the king in his instructions to Ghinucci: St. P. vii. 363: ‘Miramur autem plurimum…”

50 See Henry's address to the Lords and Commons on 12 May 1532: ‘Wee thought that the clergie of our realme had bene our subjectes wholy, but now wee have well perceived that they bee but halfe our subjectes, yea, and scace our subjectes’ (Halle, Edward, Henry VIII (ed. London 1904), ii. 210).Google Scholar

51 For some details cf. W. Ullmann, ‘Roman Public Law and Medieval Monarchy: Norman rulership in Sicily’ in Ada Iuridica: Essays presented to B. Beinart (forthcoming).

52 Capitularegni Siciliae, ed. Testa, F., i, Palermo 1751, 676–7.Google Scholar

53 Evidence cited in art. cit. (above n. 51). Cf. also my ‘John of Salisbury's Policraticus in the later Middle Ages’ in Festschrift für Heinz Lowe, Cologne-Vienna 1978, 519–46, at 53 offGoogle Scholar.

54 JL. 5706.

55 JL. 6562.

56 For modern literature see art. cit (above note 51).

57 The work has not yet been edited. I would like to thank the officers of the Archivio di Stato, Palermo, especially Professor Virgilio Giordano, for their help and the prompt supply of a photographic copy.

58 See Foxe's Opus eximium (above n. 43) fo. 50r. He does not omit to drive home the designation of the king as ‘vicarius Dei’ in this letter. For the letter itself cf. my Principles (above n. 20) 161f. and art. cit. (above n. 43), 258-62, here also further literature. At that time I was unaware of this further historical use made of the Leges Anglorum, ed. Liebermann, F., Die Cesetze der Angelsachsen i, Halle 1906, 636fGoogle Scholar. The letter was probably fabricated in the early years of King John's reign and has not attracted the attention which is its due, especially in regard to Magna Carta (cf. op. cit. 160ff., 321). I fail to understand on what grounds Janelle, P., L'Angleterre calholique a la veille du schisme, Paris 1935, 275–81Google Scholar, asserted that Foxe ‘gauchement’ followed Marsilius of Padua: it is hardly possible to see a greater divergence of basic tenets than that between Henry (or Foxe) and Marsilius. Janelle did not even notice this letter of Eleutherius in Foxe's book, though he is by no means alone in this. For the search in the Vatican Archives see Scarisbrick (above n. 47), 351-3.

59 Proemium in constitutiones regni Siciliae, ed. Calasso, F., I glossatori e la teoria della sovrardta, 3rd ed., Milan 1957, 182, lines 18-20.Google Scholar

60 Ed. cit., 188, lines 3-4.

61 , Gratian, Dist. 21 1.Google Scholar

62 Ed. cit., 185, lines 15-18. May this perhaps explain why Henry came to be addressed as sacratissima maiestas, and the like? Cf. St. P. vii. 154, 184, 191, etc., all in 1529. For the difference between sacratus (sacer) and sanctus cf. art. cit. (above n. 26) 35f.

63 Ibid., 186-7.

64 Ibid., 187, lines 30f.

65 Ibid., lines 30f.

66 Above at n. 30.

67 The rubricator of the editio princeps had: ‘Quomodo regis Anglie competit auctoritas in rebus divinis’ (fo. 47 V). Clearly Foxe had in mind the sacra of Dig. 1.1.1.

68 Late Roman and medieval legislation on this point is so abundant that it is superfluous to cite specific examples. The coronation promises are further evidence, including Frederick ii's anti-heretical legislation in his coronation edicts of November 1220. For earlier pronouncements about the duty of the ruler to preserve the orthodox faith see above n. 26.

69 Cf. in this context Ullmann, W., The Carolingian Renaissance and the Idea of Kingship, London 1969, 95Google Scholar, 107, 113, 175; Fleckenstein, J., ‘Rex canonicus’ in Festschrift fur P. E. Schramm i, Wiesbaden 1964, 5771Google Scholar.

70 See Nov. 83 and also Nov. 123 in which theprivilegiumjon was granted by the emperor, but nowhere ‘spiritual’ matters mentioned. There is persuasive evidence that it was the personal status of an office holder which conferred ‘spiritual’ character on his actions.

71 A good example is Andreas de Isernia, ed. cit. (above n. 7) who in his Praeludium, no. 20, says: ‘Causarum enim aliae sunt civile* et temporales, aliae canonicae et spirituals… Philosophus de temporali videtur intellexisse et civili, nesciebat canonicam et spiritualem.’

72 For this see Kuttner, S., Reperlorium der Kanonistik, Rome 1937, 195f.Google Scholar

75 Gloss on Dist. 63. 22, ed.Gillmann, F., ‘Die Dekretglossen’ in Archiv fur katholisches Kirchenrecht, cxvii (1927), 234Google Scholar.

74 On Dist. 94. 1, ed. cit., 240. Thi s questio n was still discussed in the 16th century, cf. Philippus Decius, one of the great jurists at the time, Super Digesto veteri (ed. Lyon 1547), ad Dig. 2. 1.2, fo. 24V, no. 12.

75 See his commentary on C. I. 3. 33, fo. 18vb (Authentica ‘Clericus’) (ed. Frankfurt 1578), where he said: ‘Ecclesia sibi usurpavit ratione peccati totam iurisdictionem.’

76 The forgery had been exposed independently by three scholars–Valla, Cusa and Peacock—more than two generations before Henry vm. Is one really to assume that a man of Henry's calibre and resources at his disposal was unaware of this?

77 LP. v. 343f., no. 721. See also 23 Henry vinc. 9, p. 377 and c. 19, p. 383, and also below at n. 97.

78 Cf. Richard 11 above at n. 14 on the occasion of legitimising the Beauforts and acting ‘as an entier empereur’. The causa dotis was ‘per se temporalis’ as the Quaestio (above n. 9) pointed out: art. 4, p. 101.

79 For examples cf. Medieval Papalism, London 1949, 98107Google Scholar; and Principles (above R. 20), 81-86.

80 For the former cf.Flahiff, G. B., ‘The Writ of Prohibition in the 13th century’ in Medieval Studies vi (1944), 261ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar; vii (1945), 22gff. For the latter cf. Genestal, R., Les origines de I'appel comme d'abus, Paris 1951Google Scholar. On Henry VIII's attack on the ‘abuse’ of the extensive jurisdiction by clerics, see below nn. 90, 91.

81 Cf. St. P. vii. 358; etc.

82 Above n. 73, ed. cit. 205.

83 See art. cit. (above n. 48), 481-2.

84 Ibid., 483. The case in X:II. 2.17 was always seen as a privilegium or an indulgentia conceded ‘Anglicis’, cf. the glossa ordinaria, s.v. ‘Certo loco’.

85 Ibid., 481.

86 See the quotation, ibid. 464: ‘Consuetudo Anglicana quod rex habeat iurisdictionem in clericos…non valet.’ Referring to the papal statement in X: IV. 17. 13, the Quaestio (ed. cit., above n. 9), 98, lines 5if. could not refrain from remarking: ‘Si hoc dicitur de rege Angliae, qui Romanae ecclesiae feudalis est et censualis, multo magis de rege Franciae verum sit, qui in nullo praedictorum penitus sit subiectus.’

87 Here too he moved in line with earlier views, cf., for instance, Cynus (above n. 75) who said, loc. cit.: ‘Illud est crimen eccleiiasticum quod immediate pertinet ad ecclesiam, ut crimen haeresis, ut in Authentica ‘Gazaros’ (C. I. 5. 19), quod immediate respicit fidtm. Sed alia crimina quae non respiciunijidem, ut furta, latrocinia, et similia, sunt dvilia.’ Russell, (above n. 29), 91 rightly stresses Henry's ‘attacks on Roman jurisdiction…papal authority in doctrine did not interest Henry’.

88 Cf., for example, Cardinal Zabarella's view cited in my Origins of the Great Schism, rev. ed. 1972, 218ff. who based this right and duty of the secular ruler on his being the ‘advocatus et defensor ecclesiae’ in his tract De schismate, ed. in Schardius, S., De iurisdictione, Basle 1566, 689Google Scholar, in which he was followed by the papal tax collector in England, Petrus de Monte, who in the mid-fifteenth century wrote his tract De primatu papae (ed.Rocaberti, I. T., Bibiotheca maxima pontificia, xviii, Rome 1698, 106a)Google Scholarand almost literally copied Zabarella, see also 107a. Both maintained that ‘cum agitur de fide’ the secular ruler had a right to be at the council ‘non ad potentiam ostendendam, sed adfidem confirmandam’.

90 The communication touched his title as supreme head and referred to the authority of Justinian for the acknowledgment by bishops and priests of princes as heads. ‘Why should not we say as Justinian said, Ornnia nostrafacimus quibus a nobis impartitur auctoritas?’ (Wilkins, D., Concilia iii. 764)Google Scholar. One cannot refrain from asking whether this was not modelled on Gratian's dictum p.c. 16, C. XXV. 1.

91 Like Foxe (below n. 96) Henry said, loc. cit., 764a: ‘What meant Justinian the empereur to make laws De episcopis et clericis, and such other spiritual matters if he had not been perswaded Mi esse curam ecclesiae mandatam a Deo?… taking that word spiritual not as the common speech abuselh it, but as it signifieth indeed, for quae spiritu aguntur nulla lege astringuntuT as scripture saith. If you take “spiritualibus” for spiritual men, that is priests, clerks, their good acts and deeds worldly, in all this we and all other princes be at this day chief and heads to govern them.’ Here he also referred to the sacraments and their administration as of no concern to him: ‘divina quoniam supra nos sunt nihil ad nos’ (763b and 764a). In this communication his adherence to the descending theme of government is conspicuous, see especially 764b referring to himself as supremum caput from which is derived power.

92 See Tegernseer Briefsammlung, ed. in M. G. H. Epistolae selectae, iii (1925), Ep. 124, p. 140Google Scholar: Abbot Siegfried ‘Caesari Heinrico Romanorum invictissimo imperatori, ecclesiae strenuissimo gubematori ac tutori’ Abbot Ecbert, ibid., Ep. 125, p. 141: ‘Piissimo imperatori Augusto Heinrico ad votum Domini…monachorum gubematori pio et iusto’ and in the letter itself p. 142 lines gf.: ‘quia dum caput ecclesiae, quod estis, permanet illesum omnibus ecclesiasticis specialiter autem rectis corde monachis proficere Deoque servire stabit inpertesum.’ The late Roman emperor was to be protector of the world vice Dei, see above n. 26. We should also recall that in the medieval coronation orders the coronation prayer itself addressed the king by saying that he should govern with the Saviour Jesus Christ ‘cuius nomen vicemque gestare crederis’. Full text above p. 181.

93 Wipo, Vita Chuonradi, ed. in M. G. H. Scriptores Rerum Germanicarum (1915), 23Google Scholar. Here also the emphasis on the king's rebirth through unction and his participation in the divine governance: God's grace ‘te hodie in virum alternum mutavit et numinis participem fecit.’ The wording is borrowed and adjusted from I Kgs. 10. 6. In his Tetralogus ed. ibid. 76 verses 17-19, Wipo referred to Conrad as one who ‘alter post Christum regit orbem circiter istum’. These examples in this and the preceding note are supplementary to those cited by Maccarrone, M., Vicarius Christi: storia del titolo papale, Rome 1952 who gives numerous others, 85–9Google Scholar.

94 See Principles (above n. 20), 1 76.

95 Annales Mattseenses, ed. in M. G. H. Scriptores ix. 83s, lines 38 ff.

96 , Foxe, Opus eximium (above n. 43)Google Scholar, fo. 47V: ‘Porr o autem Iustinianus Romanoru m imperato r nihil fere praetermisit legibus cavere quo d ad divinorum pietatem pertineret’ and goes on to quote the titles of the first book of the Code. Of the exact contemporary John 111 of Cleve, it was said that ‘Dux Cliviae est papa in terris suis’. Cardinal Pole told Charles v that everything in his kingdo m was his: ‘omni a tua sunt tantum te caput ecclesiae quod reveraes, vocari te facias’ (Apologia ad Carolum v Caesarem, ed. Quirinus, A.: Epistolae, 1, Brescia 1744, 121)—Google ScholarThe former hierocratic argument was now turned upside down: ‘Monstro simile videtur duo capitain eodem regno‘(ibid., 122). For the hierocratic condemnation of a body with two heads as a monster, cf. Medieval Papalism, 140ff.Bradshaw, B., The Dissolution of the Religious Orders in Ireland under Henry VIII, Cambridge 1974, 3Google Scholarrightly observes that ‘obviously the doctrine of royal supremacy was not incompatible with the theological basis of religious life.’

97 The question was of course bound up with the highly topical problem of citizenship. Cf. the lengthy discussion with full literature by Philippus Decius, the eminent contemporary jurist, in his commentary Super Decretalibus (ed. Lyon 1551), ad X: I. 2. 10, fo. 37ff. Later he wrote a consilium on eight specific points of the divorce, though he was inconclusive: I used the edition of his consilia (Lyon 1565), cons. 602, fo. 610va-612rb. Throughout Henry is called ‘Olimbardus’.

98 To demonstrate his imperial status he is said to have been depicted wearing on the great seal the domed crown imperial, see LP. 564, no. 1295; J.J. Scarisbrick 354. I am not at all sure that this was meant to refer to a physical crown: there was only one imperial crown, and that was not a domed, but an arched crown, cf.Fillitz, H., Die Insignien und Kleinodien des h. romischen Reiches, Vienna 1954Google Scholar, and Biehn, H., Die Kronen Europas, Wiesbaden 1957Google Scholar. Or is by ‘the domed crown’ mistakenly meant the mitre? The Bohemian, Sicilian, Castilian kings had been granted the right to wear the mitre under the crown. For the emperor this had been the case since Innocent 111. The contemporary Maximilian 1 was never crowned emperor, but decided to call himself Roman emperor on 4 February 1508 at Trent and merely notified the pope of this self-elevation:Ulmann, H., Kaiser Maximilian I., ii, Stuttgart 1891, 339Google Scholar.

99 See P.L., xxvi. 1061, cap. 36.

100 Cf. MedievalPapalism, 98.

101 Ep. 73 in C.S.E.L. iii. 795.

102 Cf. Thomas Ebendorfer's memorandum submitted to the Diet at Mainz, April 1441, ed. in Deutscke Rcichstagsakten xv. 825, lines 131T.: ‘reges et principes saeculares sicud sunt principalia capita in ecclesia…’

103 For details see Ulmann, H., Kaiser Maximilians I. Abskhten auf das Papsttum, Stuttgart 1888Google Scholar; Wiesflecker, H., ‘Kaiser-Papst Plan Maximilians i. J. 1511’ in Mitteilungen des b'sterreichischen Institutsfur Geschkhls/orschung lxxi (1963), 311–32Google Scholar.

104 Degrassalius, Carolus, Regalium Franciae libri duo, Paris 1545, i. 63Google Scholar(first edition Lyon 1538).

105 Coquille, Guy, Traite des libertez de I'eglise de France (ed. Paris 1650), 43–4Google Scholar, who shows how clear the distinction between the internal and the external was perceived: ‘ne pas que le roi puisse ou vueille commander en ce qui est de la principale fonction des ecclesiastiques an faict de la doctrine chrestienne et au faict des consciences et autres choses pures spirituelles.’

106 That may be the explanation of why on the whole ordinary people were unaware of the change for some time. Such abstract matters as sovereignty, jurisdiction, appeals, citations, etc. did not, and do not, prove suitable topics for popular consumption.

107 Richard II's plenitude of power, above n. 14.

108 Scarisbrick (above n. 47), 509.

109 Cf. Ullmann, W., The Medieval Papacy, St Thomas and Beyond, London 1960, 12fGoogle Scholar. with n. 24; id., A Short History of the Papacy in the Middle Ages, 2nd ed., repr. London 1977, 98Google Scholar, 244f, 252, 311f., 328. The origin of episcopal jurisdictional power was so sensitive a point that neither Trent nor Vatican I ventured to deal with it.

110 For this see the quotation above p. 181. Indeed, in some respects art. 37 of the Thirty-Nine Articles might almost appear a paraphrase of this prayer text. Foxe had quite rightly put his finger on this feature of rulership when he instanced the first titles of the Code as illustrations of the ‘headship’ of the ruler: they are classic examples of governmental intervention in external matters of the ecclesiastical organism (above n. 96). The same can be said about the Novellde. About Henry's view on the divina and the sacraments cf. above n. 91, and about earlier learned juristic opinion see Cynus in the fourteenth century, above n. 87. Cf. also following note. The term caput was sometimes employed in a descriptive rather than constitutional sense, for instance in the Modus tenendi parliamentum: ‘Rex est caput, principium et finis parliamenti, et ita non habet parem in suo gradu et ita ex rege solo est primus gradus’ (which is a very neat description of the king as an estate of his own):Stubbs, W., Charters, 9th ed. by Davis, H. W. C., Oxford 1948, 503Google Scholar. The exact contemporary civilian Lucas de Penna in his Commenlaria in tres posteriores libros (ed. Lyon 1597), ad XI. 58. 7, no. 8, said this: ‘Princeps est caput reipublicae et respublica est eius corpus’ which is derived from John of Salisbury, as also is his statement ad C. XII. 55. 2, no. 1 and XII. 3. 3, no. 3: ‘Princeps obtinet instar capitis.’ Some details op. cit. (above n. 10), i65ff. The corporation principle as well as the possible influence ofjohn of Salisbury (however indirect it may have been) would long have merited detailed investigation in the questions under review, for John gained a new lease of life in the sixteenth century, notably his organological thesis (cf. on this above n. 53). On ecclesiological presuppositions the famous English canonist Alan in the early thirteenth century stated: ‘Est enim corpus unum ecdesia, ergo unum solum caput habere debet,’ cited from Schulte, J. F., ‘Literaturgeschichte der Compilationes antiquae’ in Sitzungsberichte der kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Phil.-Hist. Klasse, lxvi (1870), at 89Google Scholar. The metaphor of the caput served the descending theme of government excellently, cf. the important passage cited by Tierney, B., Foundations of the Conciliar Theory, Cambridge 1955, 139Google Scholar: ‘…ita a capite, id est romana ecclesia descendunt maiores ecclesiae et ab eis aliae a quibus aliae quaecumque descendunt.’

111 This identification evidently blurred the distinction between the extema and the intema which was not only reflected in the coronation prayer text referred to (above p. 181), but also in literature. Cf, for example, Paschasius Radbertus (ob. 856), who in his Vita Walae {Epitaphium Arsenii) in M. G. H. Scriptores, ii. 548, lines 3ff. asked ‘quibus ordinibus Christi constat ecdesia’ and answered: ‘Primum considerari oportet inlus divina, turn exterius humana, quia procul dubio his duobus totius ecclesiae status administratur ordinibus.’ He castigates the already observable practice, according to which (ibid., lines 5zff.): ‘Sacerdotes vero Christi et ministri altaris una cum divinis ad exteriora de intimis se eiciunt…hinc pessima praesumptio nascitur et confusio, hinc vorax concupiscentiarum flamma…’. The situation in the Middle Ages whereby the clerics overstepped the boundaries of the intema by engaging in extema is exactly opposite to that which gave rise to the stern reproach by Gelasius that the emperor Zeno had overstepped the boundaries of the extema by his Henoticon which dealt with internal-dogmatic-religious issues. Cf. on this art. cit. (above n. 26) at 36ff. and W. Ullmann, ‘Der Grundsatz der Arbeitsteilung bei Gelasius 1.’ in Hist. Jahrbuch (forthcoming).

112 The Libri Feudorum which were certainly well known in England (see Principles 162D, contained a decree of Frederick 1 (ii. 55) the preamble of which expressed the ruler's concern in unimpeachable terms universally applicable: it behoves him ‘ita reipublicae curam gerere et subiectorum commoda investigare, ut regni utilitas incorrupta persistat et singulorum status iugiter servetur illaesus’. Scholars, too, propounded similar views, for instance, Philip of Leyden, De cura reipublicae, ed. Fruin, R., s'Gravenhage 1900, casus 9, p. 53Google Scholar, no. 2. This work is of late fifteenth-century origin. According to Pierre Dubois in the early fourteenth century, the king as the defender of the faith was supreme legislator and thus rightfully intervened in ecclesiastical matters: ‘Did not Moses deal with sacral matters when he gave the laws?’ he asked, sec Medieval Foundations (above n. 19), 123f.

113 Cf. Henry VIII himself, St. P. vii. 261, no. 283: ‘Consuetudo et privilegium regni, ne Angli extra Angliam litigare cogantur…’.

114 , Coquille, op. cit. (above n. 105), 58Google Scholar: the king acts ‘comme protecteur de tout son peuple auquel sont compris les ecclesiastiques du corps politique’ see also p. 54. This was based on exactly the same corporation principle which had served Henry VIII well. Coquille said: ‘L'une des principales libertez de 1'eglise de France est I'union qui est d'entre les rois de France et le peuple franc, ois, soit des ecclesiastiques, soit des nobles, soit des bourgeois et roturiers: laquelle union fait que toute la France est un seul corps politique, duquel le roy est le chef…’ (ed. cit. 43).

115 Ives, E. W., ‘Promotion in the Legal Profession of Yorkist and early Tudor England’ in Law Quarterly Rev., lxxv (1959), 348–63Google Scholardoes not deal with the academic side of law. Cf. also id., Common lawyers in pre-Reformation England’ in TRHS., 5th series, xviii (1968), 145–73Google Scholartouching on Roman law only obliquely at 165, 171: ‘Nor did the monarch stand to gain in England from Roman law doctrine’ is a statement that looks distinctly odd. J. Simon, op. cit. (above n. 34), does not go beyond quotations, cf. 40, 47, 60. It is not, of course, a mere coincidence that at the King's Hall, Cambridge, Roman law flourished significantly throughout the fifteenth century, see Cobban, A. B., The King's Hail within the University of Cambridge, Cambridge 1969, 255ffGoogle Scholar.

116 Cf., e.g. Dickens, A. G., The English Reformation, repr. London 1968, 43Google Scholar.

117 Although Colet may have been a Cambridge graduate and under the influence of some notable humanists (John Doget, Lorenzo Traversagni), see Godfrey, W. R., ‘John Colet of Cambridge’ in Archiv fur Reformationsgeschichte, Ixv (1974), 618Google Scholar.

118 For England cf. Donaldson, P. S., A Machiavellian Treatise by Stephen Gardiner, Cambridge 1977, 19Google Scholar, with further literature, and for the unipolarity theme of politics in Machiavelli, see Guillemain, B., Machiavel: l'anthropologiepolitique (=Travaux d'Humanisme et Renaissance clvii), Geneva 1977Google Scholar.