¹ Printed in Goldast, M., Monorchia S. Romani Imperii (Frankfurt 1612) II 1394–1410. The text was widely circulated in the late fourteenth and early fifteenth centuries. A preliminary list of surviving manuscripts was printed in Gwynn, A. ‘The Sermon Diary of FitzRalph, FitzRalph, Archbishop of Armagh,’ Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy 44 (1937) sect. C, 46, and to that list should be added the following MSS: Brussels, , Bibliothèque Royale II 2632; Cambridge, St John's College MS 204; Eichstätt, , Staatliche Bibliothek MS 465 and MS 717; Erfurt, Amplon. F. 77 and Q. 118; Graz, (Austria) Universitätsbibliothek MS 751; Innsbruck, , Universitätsbibliothek MS 646; Magdeburg, , Domgymnasium MS 47 (now in Berlin, Staatsbibliothek, Preussischer Kulturbesitz); Mantua, , Biblioteca comunale, C.IV.10; Merseburg, , Domarchiv MS 131; Michaelbeuron (near Salzburg), Benedictine abbey Cart. 55; Oxford, MS Bodleian 158; Paris, , Bibliothèque Nationale, Cod. Lat. 3222 and Cod. Lat. 11693; Pommersfelden, , MS Schönborn 156; Rome, Biblioteca Casanatense MS 948; Württ, Stuttgart. Landesbibliothek, Theol. et philos. fol. 133; Uppsala, , University Library, C.iii; Città del Vaticano, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Cod. Palat. Lat. 1022, Cod. Vat. Lat. 4265; Vienna, , Nationalbibliothek, cvp 4627, 4696, 4854, 14516. The work was printed in Louvain by the Westphalian printer Johannes von Paderborn in 1484, and there are two extant copies of this printing, respectively in Marsh's Library, Dublin. D.4.4.(14)2, and in The British Library (formerly The British Museum), no. 9284 in the list of incunabula. See Proctor, R., An Index to the Early Printed Books in the British Museum I (London 1898) 679. The main features of FitzRalph's, life and career have been outlined by Gwynn, Gwynn in a series of articles in Studies 22 (1933) 389–405, 591–607; 23 (1934) 395–411; 24 (1935) 25–42, 558–72; 25 (1936) 81–96; 26 (1937) 51–67. Here I would like to record my debt to Gwynn, Gwynn, who has always put his knowledge of sources for FitzRalph, generously at my disposal. It is intended to publish, in collaboration with him, a more detailed study of FitzRalph's, literary activity, and the circulation and significance of his work.Google Scholar

² Gwynn, , ‘Sermon Diary,’ passim; Hughes, H., ‘“De Pauperie Salvatoris ” of Richard FitzRalph of Armagh' (unpublished Ph.D. thesis; Manchester 1927 ); Brock, R. O., ‘An Edition of Richard FitzRalph 's “De Pauperie Salvatoris”, Books V, VI and VII' (unpublished Ph.D. thesis; University of Colorado 1954). The first four books of De pauperie Salvatoris were edited by Poole, R. L. as an appendix to his edition of Wyclif's De Dominio Divino (London 1890).Google Scholar

³ See James, M. R., A Descriptive Catalogue of the Manuscripts in the Library of Sidney Sussex College Cambridge (Cambridge 1895) 46–7, and for a more detailed examination of the contents of this codex, Walsh, K., ‘The “De Vita Evangelica” of Geoffrey Hardeby O.E.S.A. (c. 1320-c. 1385),’ Analecta Augustiniana 33 (1970) 151–261 at 216–220. For William, More see Emden, A. B., Biog. Reg. Camb. Univ. 410.Google Scholar

⁴ Vas electionis was issued by John, XXII in condemnation of the doctrine of the Paris master de Pouilly, Jean concerning the friars' powers to hear confessions and papal authority to grant them such powers. Its interpretation became a central feature of the dispute between FitzRalph and the friars when the case came before the papal courts. For the text of the bull see Extrav. V.3.2. (Richter-Friedberg II 1291–2).Google Scholar

⁵ For these MSS see Walsh, , art. cit. 221–30, to which should be added two manuscripts in the collection of Queen Christina of Sweden in the Vatican Library, Cod. Reg. Lat. 297, and Cod. Reg. Lat. 449, both of French provenance and dating from the late fourteenth century.Google Scholar

⁶ MS Sidney Sussex 64 fol. 111 ^r, 125 ^v, 126 ^v, 108 ^v respectively.Google Scholar

⁷ Ibid. fol. 108 ^v, 108 ^r. Gravem dilectorum is printed in L. Torelli, Secoli Agostiniani (Bologna 1659–86) VI 27–8; Bullarium Franciscanum VI 316–7; Theiner, A., Vetera Monumenta Hibernorum et Scotorum … (Rome 1864) 313. For Conway see Emden, Biog. Reg. Ox. Univ. I 479, and for the issue to him of Vas electionis, Bullarium Franciscanum VI 319 n. 1.Google Scholar

⁸ MS Sidney Sussex 64 fol. 119 ^r-v, 120 ^r-v, 120 ^v; the Allegaciones are divided, at fol. 121^r-v and 123^r–125 ^r, with the petition of the English provincials inserted in between. The minute is on fol. 126 ^r, while the Processus summarius is crammed in extremely small writing on fol. 111^v–113 ^v.Google Scholar

⁹ For Super cathedram see Clem. III. 7. 2. (Richter-Friedberg II 1161–4). A number of such cases for the years 1356–61 appear in Bullarium Franciscanum VI 296, 308, 322, 327 and 333. No area appears to have escaped this conflict and the bull was issued to various parts of France, Sweden, northern Germany, the Rhineland, the Low Countries, Alsace, lower Austria and Hungary, Lombardy and Tuscany, as well as to London and, in 1359, to York.Google Scholar

¹⁰ See Summary Catalogue 2737 (vol. II i [Oxford 1922] 521–22).Google Scholar

¹¹ For Grandisson see Dictionary of National Biography VIII 371–2, and the edition of his registers by Hingeston-Randolph, F. C., 3 vols. (London 1894–99 ); Gwynn, A., The English Austin Friars in the Time of Wyclif (Oxford 1940) 81–2. On Jean de Pouilly see Koch, J., ‘Der Prozess gegen den Magister Johannes de Polliaco und seine Vorgeschichte,' Recherches de théologie ancienne et médiévale 5 (1933) 391–422; Sikes, J. G., ‘John de Pouilly and Peter de la Palu,' English Historical Review 19 (1934) 219–40.Google Scholar

¹² James, M. R. and Jenkins, C., A Descriptive Catalogue of the Manuscripts in the Library of Lambeth Palace (Cambridge 1902) 220–3. The note is on fol. 241 (251) ^v, and for Parys, Parys see Biog. Reg. Ox. Univ. III 1431.Google Scholar

¹³ James, and Jenkins, , A Descriptive Catalogue 827. For Clare, Clare see Biog. Reg. Ox. Univ. I 425. Brock, supra n. 2, made the statement that this manuscript was of Low German or Netherlands provenance on p. 6 of the abstract of his thesis, but did not develop the point in his description of the manuscript on p. lxvi. It is not inconceivable that Brock's ascription is correct and Clare may have acquired the manuscript on his travels in the service of his order.Google Scholar

¹⁴ Gwynn, , ‘Sermon Diary,’ 2–10.Google Scholar

¹⁵ FitzRalph's, most vigorous attack was concentrated in four sermons preached respectively on December 18, 1356, January 22, 1357, February 26, 1357 and March 12, 1357. These four anti-mendicant sermons were frequently copied in isolation from the rest of the sermon diary but in conjunction with other writings against the friars. They were printed in Paris in 1511 in conjunction with the edition by Sudoris, Sudoris of FitzRalph's, Summa de erroribus Armenorum, and again in London in Brown, E., Fasciculus Rerum Expetendarum … II (London 1690).Google Scholar

¹⁶ Gwynn, , ‘Sermon Diary,’ 36.Google Scholar

¹⁷ Ibid. 48–57, lists FitzRalph's sermons from the diary together with the date and place of preaching in every case where this can be established. See further Walsh, K., ‘An Irish Preacher at Avignon: Richard FitzRalph's Sermons to the Dominican Friars,’ Xenia medii aevi historiam illustrantia, oblata Thomae Kaeppeli, O.P. (forthcoming).Google Scholar

¹⁸ The bull had been revoked in 1304 by the Dominican pope Benedict XI, but because of the dissatisfaction of the secular clergy Clement V, with the approval of the Council of Vienne, restored it in the decree Dudum May 6, 1312. In much of the subsequent literature of the controversy the bull is cited under this title. Google Scholar

¹⁹ The Proposicio ‘Unusquisque', which is edited by Hammerich, L. L., The Beginning of the Strife between FitzRalph and the Mendicants (Copenhagen 1938) 53–73.Google Scholar

²⁰ For a general discussion of the problem based on the study of some fifty English episcopal registers, see Williams, A., ‘Relations Between the Mendicant Friars and the Secular Clergy in England in the Later Fourteenth Century ', Duquesne Studies, Annuale Medievale 1 (1960) 22–95.Google Scholar

²¹ A case in point was the English chancellor John Thorseby, who had succeeded FitzRalph as dean of Lichfield in 1346 and on becoming bishop of Worcester became conservator of the privileges of the English Franciscans. In 1351 he intervened to protect them from the secular clergy, Little, A. G., ‘A Royal Inquiry into Property Held by the Mendicant Friars in England in 1349 and 1350,' Historical Essays in Honour of James Tail (Manchester 1933) 180n.Google Scholar

²² Proposicio, ed. cit. 55. The petition is not entered in the papal registers of supplicacations for that year.Google Scholar

²³ Hödl, Hödl, ‘Zum Streit um die Bußprivilegien der Mendikantenorden in Wien im 14. und beginnenden 15. Jahrhundert,' Zeitschrift für katholische Theologie 79 (1957) 170–89. Rennhofer, F., Die Augustiner-Eremiten in Wien: Ein Betrag zur Kulturgeschichte Wiens (Würzburg 1956) 72, discusses the arrival of the legate and his grant of permission for the new Augustinian church there to be consecrated without the approval of the diocesan ordinary, a decision which reflects the state of relations between the friars and the bishop of Passau, but Rennhofer does not deal with the dispute about hearing confessions.Google Scholar

²⁴ Hödl, , art. cit. 185–7, prints the cardinal's letter of August 1, 1349 to the bishop of Passau and the papal bull of November 26.Google Scholar

²⁵ A month later he preached in the Carmelite church at Avignon, Gwynn, ‘Sermon Diary,’ 27. Little, art. cit. 180, suggested that the inquiry of 1349–50 into property held by the mendicant orders might have been prompted by FitzRalph's attacks, but as the first writs had been issued on October 15, 1349, some months before FitzRalph openly attacked the friars, this seems unlikely. But FitzRalph's Proposicio clearly indicated an already existing body of opposition to the friars from the secular clergy and some bishops, and this hostility may have provoked the inquiry.Google Scholar

²⁶ Proposicio, ed. cit. 70–3.Google Scholar

²⁷ For Gwynn's, Gwynn's argument see Studies 23 (1934) 408–11, and for criticism of it Robson, J. A., Wyclif and the Oxford Schools: The Relation of the ‘Summa de ente’ to Scholastic Debates at Oxford in the Later Fourteenth Century (Cambridge 1961) 72.Google Scholar

²⁸ Apart from the polemical anti-mendicant writings, the Summa de erroribus Armenorum was the most popular of FitzRalph's works, and it survives in at least thirty-three MSS. While Italian collections have remarkably few manuscripts of FitzRalph's anti-mendicant works (and most of those which do survive in the Vatican are of French or German provenance), an extremely large proportion of the extant manuscripts of the Summa de erroribus Armenorum are Italian. A revival of interest in the work around the time of the negotiations for union at the Council of Ferrara-Florence 1438–9 is reflected in some mid-fifteenth-century copies, for example the Malatesta lord of Cesena, Malatesta Novello, had a copy made for him, as had the Spanish Dominican cardinal Juan de Torquemada. The only printed version of the work is that of Johannes Sudoris which appeared in Paris in 1511. Google Scholar

²⁹ Gwynn, , Studies 25 (1936) 81–96, discusses the archbishop's attempts to re-organize his diocese 1352–56. He came into conflict with the friars who were alleged to be courting popularity by treating their penitents too leniently on the question of restitution.Google Scholar

³⁰ Introduction to De pauperie Salvatoris (ed. Poole) 273, where FitzRalph himself explains the fate of the commission and how he came to write this dialogue. Google Scholar

³¹ Gwynn, , ‘Sermon Diary,’ 44, where he follows the view expressed by Miss Hughes in her unpublished thesis.Google Scholar

³² Walsh, , art. cit. 251–4, for a more detailed analysis of this point.Google Scholar

³³ Gwynn, , Studies 26 (1937) 56–60; idem, The English Austin Friars, 85–88. The Appellacio appears to survive only in a single manuscript, MS Sidney Sussex 64 fol 4 ^r-v.Google Scholar

³⁴ Rymer, , Foedera III 353; Cal. Close Rolls (1354–60) 399.Google Scholar

³⁵ MS Sidney Sussex 64 fol. 127^r–128 ^r.Google Scholar

³⁶ On the procedures of the consistory see G. Mollat, The Popes at Avignon 1305–1378 (trans. from the ninth French edition; London 1963) 294–6.Google Scholar

³⁷ There are six copies of this petition: MS Sidney Sussex 64 fol. 110^r–111 ^r; Oxford, MS Bodl. 158 fol. 174 ^r-v; MS Bodl. 865, fol. 87^v–88 ^v; London, Lambeth Palace MS 121 fol. 208 (218) ^ra-vb; Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Cod. Reg. Lat. 297 fol. 114^vb–115 ^rb; Cod. Reg. Lat. 449 fol. 48^v–49 ^r.Google Scholar

³⁸ This instrument or Recordacio commissionis facte … is copied in the same six MSS, respectively fol. 109 ^v; fol. 174 ^r; fol. 87^v–88 ^v; fol. 219 (229) ^vb; fol. 114 ^va-b; fol. 48 ^r. The proceedings in this case seem to been more elaborate than the summary procedure before the cardinals' tribunal which Mollat, op. cit. 297–8, describes. Here the oral account summarized and attested by the notary was followed, as we shall see, by the delivery by each party of its Libellus (a written document in which the suppliant set forth his plea).Google Scholar

³⁹ Eubel, , Hierarchia Catholica I 17, 81; Baluze, , Vitae Pap. Avin. I 206, 212–3, II 320–4, 412. From January 1353 he held the archdeaconry of Wells by papal provision, Cal. Pap. Reg.: Petitions, 237; Cal. Pap. Reg.: Papal Letters III 475, and a number of further English benefices passed to him during the 1350s. Court was a nephew of the former Cistercian cardinal Jacques Fournier (Benedict XII), and it is possible that he may also have exercised a protectio over his order, even though he was not formally described in the sources as a Cardinal Protector. See Strnad, A. A., ‘Kardinal Antonio Caetani, ein vergessener Protektor des Zisterzienserordens ', Analecta Sacri Ordinis Cisterciensis ( 1964) 201 and n. See Patschovsky, A., ‘Strassburger Beginenverfolgungen im 14. Jahrhundert,' Deutsches Archiv 30.1 (1974) 56–198 at 110 for Cardinal Guillaume Court as inquisitor in the prosecution of a Franciscan for heresy.Google Scholar

⁴⁰ For de Saint Yrieux, Elias, Eubel I 19, 120; Baluze I 318, II 412, 447–8. He was the only member of the tribunal to survive FitzRalph by more than a year, and he died on May 10, 1367. The other two members had both died in 1361. For Pierre du Cros, Eubel I 19; Baluze I 256, 286, II 411–2. For the provision at his request of Kilwington to St. Paul's, Cal. Pap. Reg.: Papal Letters III 516.Google Scholar

⁴¹ See Dizionario Biografico degli Italiani IV 545–6, and Trexler, R. C., ‘The Bishop 's Portion: Generic Pious Legacies in the Late Middle Ages in Italy', Traditio 28 (1972) 432–5, 449–50.Google Scholar

⁴² MS Sidney Sussex 64 fol. 111^v–113 ^v.Google Scholar

⁴³ Ibid. fol. 111 ^v. For an account of the limited competence of a tribunal of cardinals who had to receive from the pope each time they examined a case a specific delegation of authority detailing the extent of their powers, see Mollat, op. cit. 298.Google Scholar

⁴⁴ Ibid. fol. 111^v–112 ^r.Google Scholar

⁴⁵ Ibid. fol. 115^r–118 ^v. It is also contained in MS Bodl. 158 fol. 171^v–174 ^r; MS Bodl. 865 fol. 79^r–86 ^v; MS Lambeth 121 fol. 208 (218)^vb–212 (222) ^ra. For Omnis utriusque sexus, V.38.12 (Richter-Friedberg II 887–8).Google Scholar

⁴⁶ John, XXII condemned de Pouilly's views as erroneous and dangerous, but carefully avoided saying that they were heretical. He distinguished clearly between the proprius sacerdos and a duly licensed friar, a distinction which was plain at least to the Augustinian critic of FitzRalph's position, Geoffrey Hardeby, who reported in his De vita evangelica that many writers had blurred this distinction (Bodleian Library, MS Digby 113 fol. 80 ^r). Whatever John XXII might have intended by this precise definition, in practice the licences and penitential commissions issued by even the most vigilant prelates implied that friars and secular clergy were interchangeable. Licences and commissions issued around Easter or for remote areas or linguistic minorities obviously did not imply an obligation on the penitents to make a further confession to their proprius sacerdos (Williams, art. cit. 32–4, 39).Google Scholar

⁴⁷ Processus summarius, fol. 112^r–113 ^r. The principal reply to the friars' Libellus was contained, not in FitzRalph's Excepciones to it, but in the Allegaciones of Jacques de Seve, supra n. 8. Those of Pietro da Perugia appear not to have survived and we know of his participation only from the Processus summarius. Google Scholar

⁴⁸ MS Sidney Sussex 64 fol. 120 ^r.Google Scholar

⁴⁹ Ibid. fol. 120 ^v.Google Scholar

⁵⁰ Processus summarius, fol. 112 ^v.Google Scholar

⁵¹ MS Sidney Sussex 64 fol. 119 ^r-v. The friars' procurators referred to fifty-four articles by FitzRalph on De pauperie Salvatoris, presumably the eighth book of the dialogue in the form of forty-five articles which FitzRalph added at Avignon. They survive in a single manuscript; Paris, Bibl. Nat. Cod. Lat. 3222 fol. 1–78 ^r, and they were later answered by the English Franciscan William Woodford in the Defensorium mendicitatis, contained in Oxford, Magdalen College MS 75.Google Scholar

⁵² Processus summarius, fol. 112 ^v.Google Scholar

⁵³ Copied in the lower margin at the end of FitzRalph's Petitio, MS Sidney Sussex 64 fol. 111 ^r.Google Scholar

⁵⁴ Ibid. fol. 126 ^v. The chancellor in question was probably John de Hothum, provost of the Queen's College, who had become chancellor by August 1, 1357 and appears to have remained in office until Whitsun 1359 (Biog. Reg. Ox. Univ. II 969–70).Google Scholar

⁵⁵ Fol. 111 ^v.Google Scholar

⁵⁶ Supra n. 41.Google Scholar

⁵⁷ MS Sidney Sussex 64 fol. 113 ^r-v. The text of their petition is on fol. 125 ^v. For Conway, supra n. 7; for John of Tatenhall Biog. Reg. Ox. Univ. III 221; Jordan, Jordan, ibid. II 1022; de Waldeby, John ibid. III 1957–8; Richard of Soleville is unidentified. Though these friars are described in the Processus summarius as being all masters of theology, this Franciscan cannot be traced either to Oxford, Cambridge, or Paris. It is of course possible that he had been promoted at the studium in Avignon. The manuscript reads Couton, W., but the Carmelite in question must be John Couton, English provincial of the order 1359–62. See British Museum MS Harl. 3838 fol. 29 (31)^v–30(32)^r and fol. 41 (43 ^v), also Biog. Reg Ox. Univ. I 507.Google Scholar

⁵⁸ MS Sidney Sussex 64 fol. 113 ^v. The vice-chancellor Pietro da Prato had held the office since 1325 and continued to do so until 7 May 1361, Baumgarten, P. M., Von der apostolischen Kanzlei: Untersuchungen über die päpstlichen Tabellionen und die Vizekanzler der Heiligen Römischen Kirche im XIII., XIV. und XV. Jahrhundert (Cologne 1908) 104–7. FitzRalph must have known him from his previous visits to the curia and he preached many times in the vice-chancellor's chapel.Google Scholar

⁵⁹ For the printings of Gravem dilectorum, supra n. 7. The minute is copied on fol. 126 ^r.Google Scholar

⁶⁰ Gwynn, , ‘Sermon Diary,’ 44–5. FitzRalph must have retained some considerable standing at the curia for him to have been invited to preach before the pope on the feast of the Epiphany, and the reluctance of the tribunal to decide against him is understandable.Google Scholar

⁶¹ Supra nn. 4, 5 and 51.Google Scholar

⁶² Lavery, P., O.F.M., De Fr. Rogerii Conway O.F.M. vita et operibus deque eiusdem controversiis cum Richardo Radulpho, Archiepiscopo Armachano (unpublished thesis for the Antonianum; Rome 1930) 50–1, 60. Here I would like to record my thanks to Lavery, Lavery for having allowed me to consult his thesis. The Defensio mendicantium was widely copied in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, usually coupled with the Defensio curatorum. One MS of Conway's Defensio, a codex which had formerly belonged to Flaccius Illyricus, and is now in the Herzogliche Bibliothek zu Wolfenbüttel, MS Heimst. 311, contains on fol. 82 ^rb, an explicit stating that the Defensio mendicantium had been preached in consistory at Avignon in 1359, and the same MS (fol. 88 ^ra) dates to 1360 the replies to FitzRalph by the Alsatian Dominican Barthelmy of Bolsenheim. This dating, if correct, would strengthen the impression that the hearing continued after the issue of Gravem dilectorum and was only brought to an end by the death of FitzRalph in November 1360. For a detailed description and analysis of MS Helmst. 311, see Patschovsky (supra, n. 39) 58–77.Google Scholar

⁶³ MS Sidney Sussex 64 fol. 108 ^r.Google Scholar

⁶⁴ FitzRalph's Libellus was devoted mainly to the privilege of hearing confessions and it must be remembered that this Libellus, and not the Defensio curatorum, was the official statement of his case before the tribunal. Google Scholar

⁶⁵ For Kilwington, see Biog. Reg. Ox. Univ. II 1050–1.Google Scholar

⁶⁶ MS Sidney Sussex 64 fol. 108 ^v; MS Lambeth Palace 1208 fol. 100^v–101 ^v. Only the former contains these ‘theses': ‘Tenor autem dictorum Armachanorum talis est videlicet: Verbum divinum non aliter est in natura assumpta quam in lapido, Deus non est aliter in sacramento altaris quam in buffone, Qualiter tamquam pater non divinus distinguitur a filio distinguitur a divina essencia, Non aliter distinguitur pater in divinis a filio quam essencia distinguitur ab utroque.’ Although this ditty implies several adherents, only one faced charges. The author of the Scriptum cuiusdam iuvenis, which was copied in Paris, Bibl. Nat., Cod. Lat. 3222 fol. 103^v–111 ^r, may possibly have been one of these, though his views as reflected in this short treatise were fairly conventional, following the ordinary line of argument against the friars.Google Scholar

⁶⁷ Kilwington's defence is contained in Paris, Bibl. Nat., Cod. Lat. 3222 fol. 111^v–116 ^v.Google Scholar

⁶⁸ Ibid. fol. 112 ^r.Google Scholar

⁶⁹ Supra n. 28.Google Scholar

⁷⁰ John of Reading, Cronica (ed. Tait, J.) 131; Thomas Walsingham, Historia Anglicana (ed. Riley, H. T.) I 285. Henry Knighton, Cronicon (ed. Lumby, J. R.) II 93–4, stated that FitzRalph did have ‘subsidium clero’ and that the abbot of St. Albans acted as his procurator, but there is no other evidence for this, and the presence of the abbot of St. Albans in support of FitzRalph would have scarcely escaped mention in the Processus summarius. Google Scholar

⁷¹ Cal. Pat. Rolls (Edward III 1358–61) 27, 101.Google Scholar