¹ Baumhauer, A., Philipp der Schöne und Bonifaz VIII. in ihrer Stellung zur französischen Kirche (Freiburg 1920) 127–8; Finke, H., Aus den Tagen Bonifaz VIII. (Münster 1902) 52, 65 n. 1, 104, 116, 244; Hughes, P., A History of the Church III (London 1947) 59; Leclereq, J.,’ La renonciation de Célestin V et l'opinion théologique en France du vivant de Boniface VIII,’ Revue d'histoire de l'église de France 25 (1939) 185; McNamara, J., ‘Simon de Beaulieu and Clericis Laicos,’ Traditio 25 (1969) 158 and Gilles Aycelin The Servant of Two Masters (Syracuse 1973) 48; Monier, L., Die Kardinäle Jakob und Peter Colonna (Paderborn 1914) 46; Seppelt, F., Studien zum Pontifikat Papst Coelestins V. (Berlin 1911) 38; Sommer, C., Die Anklage der Idolatrie gegen Papst Bonifaz VIII. und seine Porträtstatuen (Freiburg 1920) 35; Wenck, K., ‘War Bonifaz VIII. ein Ketzer?,’ Historische Zeitschrift 94 (1905) 21–2. Both, T. Boase in his Boniface VIII (London 1933) and Digard, G. in his Philippe le Bel et le Saint-Siège (Paris 1936) are more cautious. Digard doubted (I.247–9, 310) that Simon had accused the pope of misdeeds quite so serious as later reported, but he did regard Simon as having put into circulation at the French court ugly stories of some sort concerning the pope. Boase somewhat skeptically reported (367–8) the stories of Simon's scandal-mongering. Elsewhere (22, 174), however, he referred to Simon as one of Boniface's enemies in the Curia, thus implicitly accepting these stories as to some degree true.Google Scholar

² McNamara, , ‘Simon de Beaulieu.’ This view is repeated in her Gilles Aycelin 40–62.Google Scholar

³ For Simon's life see Lajard, F., ‘Le Cardinal Simon de Beaulieu,’ Histoire littéraire de la France 21 (Paris 1847) 20–40. Glorieux, P. (La faculté des arts et ses maǐtres au XIII ^e siècle [Paris 1971] no. 1035) gives the date of Simon's master's degree in theology, not known to Lajard, as 1274.Google Scholar

⁴ There are numerous accounts of this dispute, which was provoked by the issuance in 1281 of Ad fructus uberes, a new papal privilege to the friars. Among the most important are those of Glorieux, P., ‘Prélats français contre religieux mendiants,’ Revue d'histoire de l'église de France 11 (1925) 309–31, 471–95 and Schleyer, K., Anfänge des Gallikanismus im 13. Jahrhundert (Berlin 1937) 44–106. A detailed treatment may also be found in the unpublished doctoral dissertation (Cornell 1972) of Marrone, J., ‘The Ecclesiology of the Parisian Secular Masters 1250–1320’ 120–50, 173–84.Google Scholar

⁵ The part played by Simon is dealt with in the works cited in the previous note. Google Scholar

⁶ An account of this meeting, apparently by an eye-witness, has been preserved in the work of a fifteenth-century chronicler. It has been published many times, most accessibly by Finke, Aus den Tagen, Quellen iii–vii and Callebaut, A., ‘Les provinciaux de la province de France au XIII^e siècle,’ Archivum Franciscanum Historicum 10 (1917) 347–9. Gaetani is reported to have told the bishops that the friars were the ‘sole healthy member’ of the French church and to have repeatedly taxed the masters of Paris with being ‘fatuous’ men, ‘more foolish than fools.’ Gaetani's harsh language is not difficult to explain. During the previous decade certain French bishops and Parisian secular masters of theology had advanced and acted upon interpretations of the privilege Ad fructus uberes plainly in conflict with the pope's intentions (see Marrone, , ‘The Ecclesiology’ 149–50), a strategy to which Gaetani apparently referred in his angry remark that ‘in this way every privilege of the Apostolic See could be annulled by the twistings of the masters.’ It is interesting that later, as pope, Gaetani was to prove flexible on the question of the friars’ privileges. He was the first pope in almost fifty years to agree to impose limitations on the mendicants’ pastoral authority (see Marrone, ‘The Ecclesiology’ 189–94).Google Scholar

⁷ Boase, , Boniface VIII 20–2; Digard, , Philippe le Bel I.247–8; Hughes, , A History of the Church III.59; McNamara, , ‘Simon de Beaulieu’ 158 and Gilles Aycelin 41–2; Sommer, , Die Anklage 35. See also Finke, , Aus den Tagen 105. The other scholars listed in n. 1 above who accepted Simon's hostility toward Boniface gave no reason for Simon's attitude. McNamara, incidentally, melodramatically speaks (‘Simon de Beaulieu’ 158 n. 12 and Gilles Aycelin 42 n. 6) of Gaetani and Simon as having exchanged ‘charges and countercharges’ at the meeting. In fact nothing of the kind is reported.Google Scholar

⁸ Later in 1295–6 both Parisian secular theologians known to have discussed publicly the validity of papal resignation — a question to which a negative answer was tantamount to a declaration of Boniface's illegitimacy as pope — concluded that papal resignation was permissible. Evidently, although the secular masters of Paris, not the French bishops, had been the chief target of Gaetani's abuse in 1290, two of them remained sufficiently unembittered by the experience to defend the validity of Gaetani's later election to the papacy. The two secular masters in question are Godfrey of Fontaines, who discussed papal resignation in his Quodlibet 12, q. 4, written in 1295 (ed. Hoffmans, J., Les philosophes beiges 5 [Louvain 1932] 96–100) and Peter of Auvergne, who discussed the issue in 1296 (see Leclercq, loc. cit. n. 1 supra). Elsewhere, both men expounded the theory of church structure characteristic of the anti-mendicant university masters; see Congar, Y., ‘Aspects ecclésiologiques de la querelle entre mendiants et séculiers dans la seconde moitié du XIII^e siècle et le début du XIV ^e,’ Archives d'histoire doctrinale et littéraire du moyen ǎge 28 (1961) 64, 67–8, 74–5.Google Scholar

⁹ The following is based on the detailed account given by R. Holtzmann, Wilhelm von Nogaret (Freiburg 1898) 176–206.Google Scholar

¹⁰ Thus, with one exception, the tribunal was content to ignore conflicts between witnesses' statements and to let pass opportunities for obtaining testimony from the witnesses concerning other witnesses' statements. The one exception — an intriguing one — resulted from the testimony of King Philip's former confessor, Cardinal Nicholas of Fréauville. Nicholas recalled that the king had told him of several cardinals — left unnamed — who had written concerning Boniface's heresies. He added, however, that it seemed to him that the king had actually mentioned John Lemoine by name. When Cardinal Lemoine appeared before the tribunal the next day and was asked whether he recalled ever writing to Philip of Boniface's heresies, ‘respondit se non recordari, quod ipse scripserit.’ The testimony from this inquiry was first edited from a seventeenth-century copy by Höfler, Höfler, ‘auf P, Rückblick. Bonifacius VIII. und die Literatur seiner Geschichte,’ Abh. Akad. Munich 3 pt. 3 (1843) 45–84 and was later transcribed from the original document by Mohler, , Die Kardinäle 251–77. See Höfler 48 and 53, and Mohler 253 and 256 for the depositions of Fréauville and Lemoine.Google Scholar

¹¹ For the little that is known of this man see Boase, Boniface VIII 366 n. 2 Google Scholar

¹² Höfler, , op. cit. 69–70; Mohler, , op. cit. 267: ‘… illo animo [sic, read ‘anno’], quo … domini B[erardus] Albanensis … et S[imon] Penestrinensis … cardinales, venerunt in Franciam pro reformanda pace inter dominum predictum regem et regem Anglie … dictus dominus Penestrinus me presente et audiente dixit et firmiter asseruit dicto domino regi in presentia etiam quorundam de consilio suo, quod ipse erat informatus per fidedignas personas, quod dictus Bonifacius erat hereticus non credens resurrectionem Christi neque nativitatem, et quod a multis fidedignis audiverat, erat informatus, quod idem Bonifacius erat et fuerat idolatra, etiam antequam fuisset notarius et postquam fuit notarius et antequam esset cardinalis et postquam fuit cardinalis, et quod intrusus fuerat ad papatum, et quod ad eum non intraverat per ostium, sed tamquam fur et latro dolo et machinatione sua, et quod cum tuba de nocte insidiose fecerat dici Celestino, dum iaceret in lecto, quod nisi crederet [sic, for ‘cederet’], in inferno intraret, simulando, quod angelus Dei loqueretur ad ipsum. Dixit etiam idem cardinalis dicto domino regi se audivisse a rege Carolo, quod Celestinus informatus de predictis erroribus et heresibus voluit eum a cardinalatu deponere ad promotionem dicti regis Caroli, nisi dominus Iacobus de Columpna cum suis sequacibus cardinalibus hoc impedivisset. Quare dictus dominus Penestrinus requisivit dictum dominum regem Francie pro se et multis cardinalibus, quos sibi adherere dicebat, quatenus pro honore Dei et stabilitate fidei Christiane opportunum remedium in predictis adhiberet… sicut predecessores sui, reges Francie, in similibus casibus opposuerant [Höfler: ‘apposuerant’], asserens, quod per alium non poterat competens in predicto negotio fidei remedium adhiberi, quod nisi faceret, timebat verisimiliter de subversione fidei et de periculo magno ecclesie, et quod scandalum et scisma universale in ecclesia Dei et in christianitate evenirent [Mohler: ‘evenissent’].’ Two other witnesses at this inquiry, Cardinal Napoleon Orsini and Cardinal John Lemoine, said (Höfler 50, 53 and Mohler 255, 256) that they had heard that Simon had accused Boniface of heresy to the king upon returning from the Curia. Since neither man said how or from whom he had heard this, their testimony does not add weight to Peredo's.Google Scholar

¹³ Indeed, according to Peredo, Simon had stated that the previous pope and many cardinals had been aware of stories of Gaetani's heresies and other immoral propensities before his election as pope. This seems the least credible of Peredo's allegations. Google Scholar

¹⁴ By inventing this suspect detail, Peredo made himself a direct witness, rather than a conveyer of hearsay. The likelihood that any such communication as Simon was alleged to have made would have been secret is suggested by a bizarre story told to the tribunal by de Marigny, Enguerran, King Philip's chamberlain. According to Marigny (Höfler, op. cit. 82–3; Monier, , op. cit. 276), Philip once showed him a letter from a cardinal, sealed with a special seal, telling of Boniface's heresies and scandalous behavior. Since Marigny could not read Latin, the king translated the letter into French for him. Marigny, however, still could not understand the letter and told Philip so. The king then replied: ‘Non est mirum, quia ita scribebant michi aliqui cardinales, quando scribebant michi super heresibus et bogeriis [Höfler: ‘bogreriis’] Bonifacii incitando me ad illud promovendum, et hoc ita obscure faciebant et scribebant, ne eorum nomina scirentur et propter pericula ipsorum et nunciorum.’Google Scholar

¹⁵ Höfler, , op. cit. 47; Mohler, , op. cit. 253: ‘Et scio, quod ex tunc dominus rex cepit quodammodo dubitare de statu domini Bonifacii et pluries petiit a me, quid de hoc sentirem.’Google Scholar

¹⁶ The earliest reference to Nicholas as Philip's confessor known to us occurs in that king's second will of April 1297 (Archives Nationales, J 403, no. 13). Professor Elizabeth A. R. Brown of Brooklyn College kindly provided us with her transcription of this unpublished document. Dr. François Maillard has referred us to an act dated Paris, October 1296, which was collated ‘per me Reginaldum cum fratre Nicolao confessore’ (Seine-Maritime, Archives départementales, 54 H, Foires et marchés). Maillard commented that he was inclined to think that the Nicholas in question was Nicholas of Fréauville rather than Nicholas of Gorran, his predecessor. Google Scholar

¹⁷ Denifle, H., ‘Die Denkschriften der Colonna gegen Bonifaz VIII. und der Cardinäle gegen die Colonna,’ Archiv für Literatur- und Kirchengeschichte des Mittelalters 5 (1889) 493–529.Google Scholar

¹⁸ Tierney, B., Foundations of the Conciliar Theory (Cambridge 1955) 56–66.Google Scholar

¹⁹ For a critique of the Colonna position see Tierney, Foundations 158–61. Google Scholar

²⁰ Denifle, , ‘Die Denkschriften’ 509–18.Google Scholar

²¹ Denifle, , ‘Die Denkschriften’ 519–24.Google Scholar

²² James had been a cardinal since 1278 and Peter since 1288; see Monier, Die Kardinäle 5, 15. Google Scholar

²³ The Spiritual Franciscans disliked Boniface because he immediately revoked the concessions given them by Celestine. The nature of their complaints about the new pope are indicated in Pietro Olivi's letter of September 1295 to an Italian Franciscan in which Olivi chastised the Spiritua's for their refusal to recognize Boniface as the true pope (‘Petri Iohannis Olivi De Renuntiatione Papae Coelestini V Quaestio et Epistola,’ ed. Oliger, L., Archivum Franciscanum Historicum 11, 1918, 366–73). As the Colonnas would do later, the Spirituals stressed the invalidity of papal resignation. There is no indication in Olivi's letter that he was aware of stories of Boniface's heretical beliefs or immoral personal conduct.Google Scholar

²⁴ Scholz, R., ‘Zur Beurteilung Bonifaz’ VIII. und seines sittlich-religiösen Charakters,’ Historische Vierteljahrschrift 9 (1906) 509: ‘Die Schmähungen der Kläger fallen auf sie selbst zurück. Sehr töricht ist es, wenn sie beweisen wollen, Philipp der Schöne sei kein Feind gewesen, gewesen, er, der doch schon durch Kardinal Simon (v. Beaulieu) quaeri et examinari fecit Parisius, utrum quondam Celestinus renunciare papatui posset, et determinatum quod non.’Google Scholar

²⁵ See and Seppelt, Mohler, loc. cit. n. 1 supra. Google Scholar

²⁶ The identity of the ‘plaintiff as Nogaret is made plain by an earlier reference on fol. 104^v (107 ^v) of the Vatican Archives, Arm.XI.29, and [p. 5] of the Archives Nationales, J 492, no. 805 (see n. 27 below concerning the numeration of the Vatican manuscript). There the ‘plaintiff’ is said to have taken Boniface prisoner. This could only have been a reference to Nogaret, who played a leading part in the affair of Anagni. For Nogaret's activity on behalf of Philip in connection with the trial see Holtzmann, , Wilhelm von Nogaret 194–201. We have been unable to find any account by Nogaret of the university's ‘determination’ in the documents from the trial published by Dupuy, P., Histoire du differend d'entre le Pape Boniface VIII et Philippe le Bel Roy de France (Paris 1655), preuves 315–575. In them, Boniface's accusers referred only to ‘great’ and ‘learned’ men who had asserted the illegitimacy of Boniface's election (344, 345, 361) and informed Philip of this (374). It seems, however, that Nogaret must have recounted this story earlier to the papal tribunal, for otherwise Boniface's defenders at the trial would have been in the impossible position of falsely attributing to Nogaret allegations supposedly made at the very same trial. Moreover, as we shall see, there is other evidence that the same story circulated among the former pope's enemies.Google Scholar

²⁷ Nationales, Nationales, J 492, no. 805 [p. 7]; Archives, Archives, Arm.XI.29 fol. 109’ (old foliation in upper-right corner) or fol. 112^r (new foliation in lower-right corner): ‘Dixit etiam idem proponens ut bene potest recolere sanctitas vestra, rem defensoribus et multis incognitam, quod dominus rex per quondam dominum symonem olim episcopum penestrinum queri et examinari fecit parisius utrum quondam celestinus renuntiare potuisset papatui et determinatum quod non. Inspiciatur ergo tempus huius rei quia fuit in principio papatus domini Bonifacii et post constitutionem eiusdem celestini de fratrum consilio editam quam ipse dominus symon tamquam qui fuerat de presentibus fratribus unus non ignoraverat. Certe si ita est considerent qui habent considerare numquid id ad regem pertinuerit terminata per apostolicam constitutionem disceptare et in dubium revocare, et numquid talis inquisitio maxime cum supradicta terminatione super statu tanto fuerit perfectissima causa inimicitiarum et odii. …’ There are a number of differences between the readings of the Paris and Vatican MSS, but they are trivial and hence go unnoticed here with one exception. In the Vatican MS the word ‘rem’ in the first sentence above is ‘non,’ a reading which we have rejected for obvious reasons. In general, the readings of the Paris MS are preferable. We should finally note that this ‘determination’ by the university is also briefly mentioned elsewhere in this document (Vatican MS fol. 111^r [114 ^r], Paris MS [p. 8]); no role in the incident is, however, there attributed to Simon.Google Scholar

²⁸ For this reason and also because the alleged determination was ‘a thing unknown to the defenders and to many,’ Boniface's advocates plainly doubted that Simon had acted as Nogaret claimed. Their incredulity is noteworthy, since the story of the Parisian determination supported their contention that Philip had been motivated by intense animus against Boniface's person. Google Scholar

²⁹ The statement of 1297 of Simon and the other cardinals is edited by Denifle, ‘Die Denkschriften’ 524–9. In it these men described Celestine's decree declaring papal resignation licit as having been made ‘de eorundem fratrum suorum consilio unanimi. et concordi’ (526) and further stated that the resignation itself had taken place with the approval and in the presence of the cardinals. Since Simon was a cardinal and in Rome when these events occurred, he doubtless was a party to them. Google Scholar

³⁰ Höfler, , op. cit. 58; Mohler, , op. cit. 259–60: ‘… ex quo Bonifacius scivit de Francia determinationem magistrorum esse factam contra eum, et quod rex intendebat assumere, et quod super assumptione requisiverat Columpnenses antedictos, ipse precipitavit processus suos contra eos in odium veritatis et regis Francie predicti, ut subtraheret dicto regi favorem. … dicti Columpnenses nullatenus ad dictam pronunciationem processissent, nisi sub favore et spe indubitata regis predicti et propter determinationes magistrorum significatas eidem et denunciatas per nuncios ipsius regis. …’ Elsewhere, toward the end of his lengthy testimony, Peter referred to the Parisian masters’ collective ‘sealed determination’ in the following terms (Höfler 66, Mohler 265): ‘… postquam per magistros Parisienses de illegitimo suo ingressu determinatum fuit, et ipse [Philip] habere voluit et sibi tradi fecit determinationem magistrorum sigillatam. …’ Shortly before this remark Peter had referred to the masters attacking the validity of Boniface's election as ‘magistri theologie.’ Our statement in the text reflects the ambiguity in Peter's account of who within the university supported the challenge to the pope. The same alleged university declaration was probably also referred to briefly in the Bishop of Bayeux's remark at this inquest that ‘… publice magni doctores de hoc disputaverant et eorum determinationes ad dictum dominum regem dicebantur contra ipsum Bonifacium quoad illegitimum ingressum ad papatum pervenisse …’ (Höfler 79, Mohler 273).Google Scholar

³¹ Arquillière, Arquillière, ‘L ‘appel au concile sous Philippe le Bel et la genèse des theories conciliaires,’ Revue des questions historiques 89 (1911) 34–7; Baumhauer, , Philipp der Schöne 127; Boase, , Boniface VIII 147; Denifle, H., Chartularium Universitatis Parisiensis 2 (Paris 1891), no. 604 and ‘Die Denkschriften’ 506; Digard, , Philippe le Bel I.313–4; Fawtier, R., L'Europe occidentale de 1270 à 1380. 1. ptie. De 1270 à 1328 in Glotz, G., ed., Histoire générale 2, Histoire du moyen ǎge 6 pt. 1 (Paris 1940) 390; Finke, Aus den Tagen 73 n. 2; Hughes, , A History of the Church III.64; Langlois, Ch.-V., Les derniers Capétiens directs in Lavisse, E., ed., Histoire de France 3 pt. 2 (Paris 1901) 138; Leclercq, , ‘La renonciation’ 189; Mohler, , Die Kardinäle 46, 52, 75–6; Scholz, R., Die Publizistik zur Zeit Philipps des Schönen und Bonifaz’ VIII. (Stuttgart 1903) 6, 29, 198, 517; Seppelt, , Studien zum Pontifikat 40. These writers often differ from one another and, more important, sometimes deviate from Peter Colonna's account of the university's actions, which is the sole source for details of the challenge to Boniface. Thus, both Digard and Leclercq state, contrary to Peter's testimony, that no theological masters, but only lesser members of the university, were involved. Similarly, Arquillière denied the existence of any collective or official university declaration in addition to statements by individual masters, and he also apparently regarded the masters' actions as occurring after the Colonnas' break with the pope, thus reversing Peter's order of events. Finally, both Digard and Fawtier dated the university's challenge 1296 rather than 1297 as suggested by Peter's testimony, the former placing it shortly after Celestine's death in mid-May and the latter dating it at the beginning of Philip's quarrel with Boniface over clerical taxation in August. Perhaps one of the reasons for this frequent modification of Peter Colonna's account is the incredibility cf so many of its features. Yet none of the above writers challenged the cardinal's essential truthfulness or the credibility of his narrative.Google Scholar

³² Denifle, , Chartularium 2, no. 634.Google Scholar

³³ Denifle's query (Chartularium 2, no. 604) ‘Sed ubinam existunt hae determinationes?’ has never received a positive answer. Arquillière did suggest (‘L'appel au concile’ 36 n. 1) that Giles of Rome's treatise in defence of Boniface, the De renuntiatione papae (ed. Rocaberti, J., Bibliotheca maxima pontificia, Rome 1698, 2.1–64), was in part directed against Parisian anti-resignation tracts since it ‘réfute des arguments qu'on ne trouve pas dans les manifestes des Colonna.’ Arquillière, however, did not specify which arguments these were except to say that Parisian material was reflected especially clearly in chapter 23 of Giles’ work (55–8). But this chapter was in fact directed against the Colonna cardinals, as is shown by Giles’ references (58) to the arguments criticized as propounded by electors of the present pope. Not only was it well known that the Colonnas had taken part in the conclave that had elected Boniface, but, in addition, the anti-resignation arguments discussed there by Giles were put forward in the first Colonna manifesto (see Denifle, ‘Die Denkschriften’ 512). In our own reading of Giles' work we have found nothing that suggests any target besides the Colonnas. It may also be noted that the two Parisian questions devoted to the issue of papal resignation in 1295–6 (see n. 8 above) do not seem to be replies to earlier anti-resignation manifestos. In truth the arguments in favor of the view that a man could be separated from the papal office were so overwhelming that it is difficult to believe that any Parisian scholar, particularly a theologian, could have supported the opposed position.Google Scholar

³⁴ Denifle, , ‘Die Denkschriften’ 519–24; cf. Chartularium 2, no. 604a.Google Scholar

³⁵ See n. 15 above. Google Scholar

³⁶ For a brief account of these events see Tierney, B., The Crisis of Church and State 1050–1300 (Englewood Cliffs, N. J. 1964) 172–5.Google Scholar

³⁷ The bull in question is Romana mater ecclesia; for the text see Raynaldus, O., Annates ecclesiastici, ad annum, sect. 49. In discussions of the process of papal collapse on the question of clerical taxation too much emphasis has usually been placed on the later bull of July 1297, Etsi de statu (Les registres de Boniface VIII 1, ed. Digard, G. et at. [Paris 1939] no. 2354). Etsi de statu merely spelled out what was implicit in the terms of Romana mater ecclesia, namely that the king himself could decide when a state of ‘emergency’ existed. Indeed Boniface perhaps gained more than Philip from the visit of the chief royal minister, Peter Flotte, during which Etsi de statu was issued. At the very time when the Colonnas were fulminating against Boniface as false pope, the latter was able to stage for the French ambassadors the solemn canonization of Philip's grandfather Louis IX. One can hardly imagine a more effective retort to the Colonna propaganda.Google Scholar

³⁸ Reg. Boniface VIII, no. 2309.Google Scholar

³⁹ At the end of January or early in February the French bishops wrote to Boniface, dutifully asking his permission to grant Philip a clerical subsidy to help meet the threat posed by the English and Flemings. Although no copy of this letter has survived, its existence is known from the papal reply, dated February 28 (Reg. Boniface VIII, no. 2333). Furthermore, a letter of January 31 from a number of French bishops to someone in the Curia asked him to use his influence to persuade the pope to sanction a clerical grant (Historical Papers and Letters from the Northern Registers, ed. Raine, J., Rolls Series 61 [London 1873] 124–7). This request, representing tacit acceptance of the papal position, is unlikely to have been forwarded without royal consent.Google Scholar

⁴⁰ This objection is avoided by the accounts of Digard and Fawtier (see n. 31 above), who dated the university's actions 1296. Neither writer, however, indicated the grounds for their dating and we doubt whether one can simply reject this important point in Peter Colonna's testimony without casting doubt upon the rest of his narrative, which is the main evidence for the university's challenge. Moreover, Digard's date (see n. 31 above) is no more reasonable than the one implied by Peter Colonna's deposition. For the French ruler's relations with Boniface were tranquil until August 1296, when the quarrel over clerical taxation began. We also fail to see why the former Pope Celestine's death should have revived the issue of the validity of his resignation, as Digard suggested. If anything, it made the question of less significance. Google Scholar

⁴¹ See ns. 1 and 2 above. Google Scholar

⁴² In line with her thesis that the quarrel was primarily due to Simon's machinations, McNamara (‘Simon de Beaulieu’166–70 and Gilles Aycelin 58–9) attempted to show that both king and pope put forward a series of conciliatory positions. While a detailed discussion of this view is outside the scope of this paper, it seems clear to us that it is in error. Google Scholar

⁴³ McNamara, , ‘Simon de Beaulieu’ 159–65, repeated in part in her Gilles Aycelin 42–6, 54–5.Google Scholar

⁴⁴ As McNamara, (‘ de Beaulieu, Simon' 161, Gilles Aycelin 46) pointed out, the bull was released in France before August 17, since the first royal reaction to it occurred on that date. It was the first circumstance, that is the release of Clericis laicos prior to the presentation of the new truce letter, that McNamara, regarded as of primary importance. Concerning the alleged release of that prohibition before receipt of any papal command to publish it, McNamara remarked (‘ de Beaulieu, Simon' 166) that this ‘probably did not seem important to [Boniface] since he had given Beaulieu the right to use [Clericis laicos] at his discretion for the prosecution of the peace.’Google Scholar

⁴⁵ The passage in question (quoted by McNamara, , ‘de Beaulieu, Simon' 159 n. 14; Gilles Aycelin 44 n. 17) is as follows (Reg. Boniface VIII, no. 1584 col. 593): ‘Verum quia non est fragilitatis humane prescire futura, — intentionem nostram a vobis caute servandam presentibus aperimus, ut si dicti reges per treugas vel sufferentias voluntarias vel per viam alicujus concordie seu alias a bellicosis aparatibus et prosecutione cessabunt (sic) — et sic per consequens videritis quod non expediret ad treugarum hujusmodi publicationem procedi, discretioni vestre committimus ut in hoc casu treugarum presentatio differatur; ubi autem de congressu hujusmodi verisimiliter timeretur, presentatio et publicatio nullatenus omittatur.’ Plainly, it is the ‘presentatio treugarum’ which the pope says may be deferred.Google Scholar

⁴⁶ Registrum Roberti Winchelsey Cantuariensis Archiepiscopi 1, ed. Graham, R., Canterbury and York Society 51 (Oxford 1952) 161: ‘… Bonifacius episcopus servis [sic] servorum dei venerabilibus fratribus B[erardo] Albanensi et S[imoni] Penestrensi episcopis sedis apostolice nunciis salutem. … Constitucionem quam nuper in favorem ecclesiastice libertatis edidimus vobis bulla nostra munitam per dilectos filios magistros de Raus, Galterum et de Cantalupo, Arnaldum nuncios nostros latores presencium destinamus fraternitati vestre per apostolica scripta mandantes quatinus vos vel alter vestrum per vos vel per alium seu alios constitucionem predictam per Francie et Anglie regna in eorum locis de quibus expedire videritis, auctoritate nostra publicare curetis ejus copiam petentibus facientes. Datum Rome apud sanctum Petrum xi kal. Maii pontificatus nostri anno secundo [April 21, 1296],’ This letter was not registered at the papal chancery but was preserved because the legates forwarded it to Archbishop Winchelsey when they ordered him to enforce Clericis laicos in England. The Archbishop in turn included it in his instructions to subordinate English bishops. Failure to register letters was not uncommon in the papal chancery of Boniface's time; see Fawtier's account of this process in Reg. Boniface VIII 1.xcvii–cvi.Google Scholar

⁴⁷ Reg. Vat. 48 fol. 178^r (cf. Reg. Boniface VIII, no. 1644 ): ‘Constitutionem de fratrum nostrorum concilio nuper edidimus pro ecclesiarum relevamine ac libertate ipsarum que incipit clericis laicos infestos oppido etc., quam per te Albanensem in Regno Anglie et per te Penestrinensem in Regno Francie sub certa forma mandavimus publicari. Quia vero nondum accepimus ipsam fore publicatam in Regnis eisdem secundum directarum vobis super hoc nostrarum continentiam litterarum fraternitati vestre in virtute obedientie districte precipiendo mandamus quatenus si publicatio facta fuerit, nos super ea et qualiter facta fuit reddatis celeriter per vestras litteras certiores. Quod si facta non est, ipsam sine more, dispendio, contradictione et exceptione quibuslibet nequaquam obstantibus per vos vel per alios secundum predictarum litterarum nostrarum tenorem sollemniter faciatis. Et tam tu Albanensis prelatos dicti Regni Anglie quam tu Penestrinensis prelatos eiusdem Regni Francie per vos vel per alios attentius moveatis ac ex parte nostra districte precipiatis eisdem ut constitutionem ipsam diligenter observent et a subditis suis faciant inviolabiliter observari. Nobis nichilominus seriosius rescripturi quicquid faciendum duxeritis in hac parte.’ The editors of Boniface's registers chose not to publish the text of this letter. Hence its content was unavailable to McNamara, , who mistakenly referred to the letter as ‘unfortunately not preserved’ (‘ de Beaulieu, Simon' 160 n. 18).Google Scholar

⁴⁸ The real question is not why Simon failed to withhold Clericis laicos, but why he did not publish it even sooner, in May, when the papal order to do so must first have reached him. This will be discussed below. Google Scholar

⁴⁹ The legates sent Clericis laicos to Winchelsey on October 10 (Reg. Roberti Winchelsey 1.161), whereas, as we have indicated, Philip had already reacted to the bull in mid-August. Google Scholar

⁵⁰ Reg. Boniface VIII, no. 1567 col. 584: ‘… imperatores, reges seu principes, duces, comites vel barones, potestates, capitanei, officiales vel rectores, quocunque nomine censeantur, civitatum, castrorum seu quorumcunque locorum constitutorum ubilibet et quivis alius cujuscunque preminentie, conditionis et status. …’Google Scholar

⁵¹ This was the ‘dimidia’ of ecclesiastical revenues; see Powicke, M., The Thirteenth Century. 1216–1307 (Oxford 1953) 672, 674. The French tax mentioned in Clericis laicos was the ‘centesima’ of 1295. Authorities differ concerning the extent of clerical liability to this tax. According to Boase (Boniface VIII 134–5), the ‘centesima’ was assessed on ecclesiastical as well as secular property. However, Boutaric, E. (La France sous Philippe le Bel [Paris 1861] 260), Digard, (Philippe le Bel I.255), Fawtier, (L'Europe occidentale 385), and Strayer, J. R. (‘Consent to Taxation under Philip the Fair’8–9 in Strayer, J. R. and Taylor, C. H., Studies in Early French Taxation [Cambridge, Mass. 1939]) all suggest that clerical liability to the ‘centesima’ was limited. According to Boutaric and Fawtier, the ‘centesima’ taxed the ‘personal possessions’ of clerics, not their ecclesiastical benefices, which were subject to the usual clerical levy, the ‘decima'. Strayer states that the class of tax to which the ‘centesima’ belonged was assessed only on the ‘secular property’ of churchmen, while Digard concludes that the revenues subject to the ‘decima’ were excluded from the ‘centesima’ of 1295. The main reason for this conclusion is that in the previous year Philip's government had obtained the grant of a ‘decima’ for two years from some provincial church councils on condition that the clergy be exempt from other subsidies during the period of the grant (Strayer, op. cit. 25–8). It seems unlikely, however, that Boniface would have protested against the ‘centesima’ in Clericis laicos if that tax had not affected clerical property more than these writers suggest. There is in fact evidence indicating that at least some of the French clergy had to pay the ‘centesima’ on more than their ‘personal,’ ‘secular’ possessions. Boutaric himself (op. cit. 260 n. 1) cites a charter from Burgundy describing the ‘centesima’ as being levied on ‘all goods’ of all clerks, including monks. The reference to monks is particularly revealing, since they could have no personal property. For another likely instance of an attempt to collect the ‘centesima’ from monks see the document published by M. B. C. Kervyn de Lettenhove, J., ‘Études sur l 'histoire du XIII^me siècle,’ Mémoires de l'Académie Royale des Sciences, des Lettres et des Beaux-Arts de Belgique 28 (1854) 11–2. Note also Inventaire d'anciens comptes royaux dressé par Robert Mignon, ed. Ch.-V. Langlois (Paris 1899), nos. 1231–2 and Comptes royaux (1285–1314) 2, ed. Fawtier, R. (Paris 1954), nos. 22347, 22350–1, where ecclesiastical bodies are reported as having paid the ‘centesima.’ (Professor Strayer, J. R. of Princeton University kindly called our attention to these references in the royal accounts to clerical payment of the ‘centesima.’) Finally, according to the chronicler William of Nangis, the ‘centesima’ was levied on ‘all goods’ of ‘clerks as well as laymen’ (Chronique latine de Guillaume de Nangis, ed. Géraud, Géraud [Paris 1853] 1.293–4). Apparently the promise of clerical immunity made to certain provincial assemblies in connection with the grant of 1294 did not apply everywhere in France.Google Scholar

⁵² Edward, Edward reacted just as angrily as did Philip, although Clericis laicos was published first in France. McNamara, cited two remarks of a French clergyman at the inquiry into Philip's motives to support her contention that the bull was seen as more prejudicial to Philip than to Edward. According to her, Berengar Frédol, in 1296 Bishop of Béziers, recalled that when Clericis laicos first appeared in France ‘some said that the constitution had been made especially against our king’ and also testified to his own belief that ‘At the time when there was war between [Philip] and England, Boniface worked for the destruction of the king’ (‘ de Beaulieu, Simon' 162, 164 and Gilles Aycelin 44, 46); the passages from Berengar's testimony cited by McNamara in Höfler's edition are to be found in Monier 270–1). The first remark, however, need not indicate a conviction that the bull was somehow directed at Philip more than at Edward. For there is nothing to suggest that the comparison implicit in the word ‘especially’ was directed at the ruler of England rather than some other European ruler or rulers. As for the second, seemingly more telling remark, Bishop Berengar simply never said any such thing. The sentence in the bishop's testimony translated by McNamara and the one before it are as follows (Vatican Archives, Arm. C. 641 fol. 14 ^v): ‘Super zelo Regis Francie illustris … in negotio domini Bonifacii videtur michi Berengario Episcopo Tusculano quod si dictus Rex malam intentionem vel malam volun tatem contra dominum Bonifacium habuisset, hoc bene potuisset exprimere et habuisset causam vel occasionem exprimendi in casu quem ego dictus Berengarius vidi. Contigit enim circa principium guerre mote inter illustres Reges Francie et Anglie iam destinctum circa principium promotionis dicti domini Bonifacii quod dictus Rex Francie misit solennes nuncios suos … ad provinciate concilium provincie Narbonensis tunc congregatum Biterrensis pro subsidio postulando.’ This passage may be correctly translated as follows: ‘Concerning the motivation of the illustrious king of France… in the Boniface affair, it seems to me Berengar, Bishop of Tusculum, that if the king had had evil intentions or ill will toward Boniface, he could have easily expressed them and he would have had cause or occasion to express them in an instance that I Berengar saw. For it happened around the beginning of the war between the illustrious kings of France and England, which was already apparent around the time of Boniface's election, that the king of France sent his official messengers … to the provincial council of Narbonne, then meeting at Béziers, to request a subsidy.’ Berengar then went on to describe the incident, the abrupt disclosure of Clericis laicos' existence to Philip by his clerical subjects, in which the king might have, but in fact had not, displayed ‘ill will’ toward Boniface. Thus, far from indicating Berengar's opinion of Boniface's policy toward Philip in 1296, as McNamara claimed, the statement in question merely dated the incident which, Berengar felt, would enlighten the papal tribunal on Philip's attitude toward the former pope. McNamara, who used Höfler's edition, was doubtless misled by the fact that either Höfler or the seventeenth-century scribe whose copy he used misread the word ‘destinctum’ as ‘destruction’ and also left out the words ‘hoc bene potuisset exprimere et habuisset’ in the preceding sentence, which were important for understanding the context of Berengar's remark. We have referred to the original manuscript here because Mohler followed Höfler in the mistaken reading of ‘destructum’ and also made a number of other errors in transcribing the passage.Google Scholar

⁵³ Reg. Boniface VIII, nos. 1567, 1584–5; Reg. Roberti Winchelsey 1.161. There are a number of puzzling questions concerning the origin of Clericis laicos. First, precisely what occasioned the bull? Its date in the papal register suggests that Clericis laicos was drafted in reaction to the new round of taxation of the French and English clergy begun by Edward, in November 1295 (Powicke, The Thirteenth Century 673) and continued by Philip in December-January 1295–6 (Ordonnances des rois de France de la troisième race 12, eds. de Vilevault, L.-G., de Bréquigny, L.-G. [Paris 1777] 333–4, nos. 1, 6, 11 which stress clerical liability). Yet it is odd that Philip's ‘quinquagesima’ of 1295–1296 was not expressly mentioned in the bull's lengthy list of prohibited taxes. What is perhaps more important and needs explanation is why Boniface waited until February 1296 to draft such a prohibition, since the French and English clergy had since 1294 been subjected to taxation that was illicit from the papal standpoint (see n. 51 above and Powicke, op. cit. 671–2). Boniface may have restrained himself in hopes that the legates would be able to end the Anglo-French war and thus make unnecessary direct confrontation over the legitimacy of war taxation of the clergy. If this was the case, by early 1296 Boniface's patience would have been nearly exhausted, so that the news of a new round of clerical taxation in France and England would have provoked Clericis laicos. Finally, it may be asked, why did Boniface wait until April before dispatching the bull to France and England? If this delay was calculated, perhaps it too had to do with the state of the truce negotiations between Edward and Philip, the main concern of the correspondence accompanying the bull. The legates had succeeded in arranging a meeting at Cambrai in mid-January 1296 among representatives of Edward, Philip, and the German ruler Adolf (Foedera 1, ed. Rymer, T. [3rd ed. The Hague 1745] pt. 3.154, letter of December 20, 1295), and Boniface may have waited for news of this conference before sending Clericis laicos. The meeting at Cambrai must have broken up late in February or early in March, since the legate Berard returned to England for further discussions with Edward on March 12 (Matthew of Westminster, Flores historiarum, ed. Luard, H., Rolls Series 95 pt. 3 [London 1890] 96). News of the failure of the conference, reaching Rome late in March or in April, may have triggered Clericis laicos' dispatch. Thus, far from being ancillary to the attempt to mediate between Edward, and Philip, , Clericis laicos was the result of the failure of the attempted mediation, although the pope would undoubtedly have been pleased had the bull caused the two rulers to take the peace negotiations more seriously.Google Scholar

⁵⁴ Powicke, , The Thirteenth Century 674.Google Scholar

⁵⁵ See the testimony of Berengar Frédol at the inquiry into Philip's motives ( Hötler, , op. cit. 74–6; Mohler, , op. cit. 271). According to Berengar, the clergy of Narbonne were already in the process of negotiating with the king's agents on the terms of a new subsidy when a copy of Clericis laicos arrived. This suggests that the decision to seek a new clerical tax should be dated around June. McNamara (‘Simon de Beanlieu’162, Gilles Aycelin 43) misleadingly intimates that the assembly of the clergy of Narbonne occurred earlier in the ‘spring,’ that is in ‘April or early May.’Google Scholar

⁵⁶ It is worth stressing again that, according to Frédol (see the preceding note), negotiations between royal officials and the clergy of Narbonne had already begun when a copy of the papal prohibition was received. Google Scholar

⁵⁷ There survives a letter from Celestine to Edward, on this subject (Foedera 1 pt. 3.137, letter of October 2, 1294). Celestine may have intended Simon to play some role in this project, since the Frenchman was brought to Rome and made a cardinal at this time.Google Scholar

⁵⁸ Reg. Boniface VIII, nos. 697–8.Google Scholar

⁵⁹ Reg. Boniface VIII, no. 870.Google Scholar

⁶⁰ In April 1296 the pope accepted the legates' decision not to present or make public the truce injunction of May 1295 (Reg. Boniface VIII, nos. 1584, 1586; for the text of this latter letter see Raynaldus, Annates ecclesiastici, ad annum 1296, sects. 18–9 where, however, the date is mistakenly given as the ides of August). The legates themselves stated in a report written in 1297 that they had withheld this injunction ‘ex causa’ ( Dupuy, , Histoire du differend, preuves 27).Google Scholar

⁶¹ The following chronicles mention the legates' attempts to mediate between the two kings in 1295: Continuatio chronici Girardi de Fracheto, Recueil des historiens des Gaules et de la France 21 (Paris 1855) 13; Matthew of Westminster, Flores historiarum 93–4; The Historical Works of Gervase of Canterbury, ed. Stubbs, W., Rolls Series 73 (London 1879–80) pt. 2.311–4; Chronique latine de Guillaume de Nangis 1.289; The Chronicle of Walter of Guisborough, ed. Rothwell, H., Camden Third Series 89 (London 1957) 254–8. See also Foedera 1 pt. 3.148, last three letters of August 14, 1295; pp. 149–50, letter of September 28, 1295; p. 153, first letter of November 17, 1295; p. 154, letter of December 20, 1295; and letter 1586 in Boniface's registers, in which the pope referred to the legates' attempts to make ‘treugae, seu sufferentiae voluntariae’ (see the previous note).Google Scholar

⁶² Reg. Boniface VIII, no. 1586; see n. 60 above.Google Scholar

⁶³ Reg. Boniface VIII, no. 1585 col. 595: ‘Ceterum, licet — maluerimus quod inter dictos reges stabiles treuge vel sufferentia [sic] forent voluntarie quam indicte, tamen — certas treuguas [sic] inter memoratos reges duximus … noviter indicendas; quocirca fraternitati vestre per apostolica scripta in virtute obedientie districte precipiendo mandamus … litteras nostras super hujusmodi confectas indictione treuguarum … memoratis Francorum et Anglie regibus presentatis.Google Scholar

⁶⁴ See n. 45 above. Google Scholar

⁶⁵ Reg. Boniface VIII, no. 1643: ‘… nostre tamen intentionis existit ut… inter partes sufferentie vel treuge stabiles ordinentur: unde diligenter id fieri procuretis. Ad hec miramur non sine ratione turbati quod treugas quas indiximus inter dictos reges tibique Albanensi mandavimus … tibique Penestrino ut eas … publicaretis seu faceretis sollempniter publicari, non intelligimus juxta mandati nostri tenorem plenarie publicatas. … Quapropter fraternitati vestre districte precipiendo mandamus quatinus si dicta Dia mittendorum nuntiorum ad tractandum in nostra presentia forsitan non procedat, et utiliorem viam pacis, treuge vel sufferentie celeriter a partibus non inveneritis cum effectu [italics ours], publicationem ipsam, ut vobis mandavimus, in dictis regnis sollemniter faciatis. …’ McNamara (‘ de Beaulieu, Simon' 160 n. 17) incorrectly described this letter as ordering ‘that the legates publish the truce with which they had been provided immediately. …’ Boniface stated that the reason for his concern at the failure to publish the truce in England and France was its promulgation in Germany, whose ruler ‘non decet cum predictis regibus [ Edward, and Philip, ] ad imparia judicari.’Google Scholar

⁶⁶ After this date, that is after August, the peace question is not mentioned in any letter issued during Simon's legation, which was included in the papal register. This is understandable, since it was at this point that the quarrel over royal taxation of the clergy exploded. It thus seems that Boniface never set a firm deadline for the presentation of the truce injunction of 1296. Google Scholar

⁶⁷ This is evident from a letter of August 18 to the two legates (Reg. Boniface VIII, no. 1642) in which Boniface wrote: ‘Litteras vestras recepimus… continentes seriose processus atque tractatus per vos communiter et divisim habitos — et qualiter predictus rex Anglie treugis non preberet assensum nisi… concurreret… regis Romanorum assensus, nec non qualiter ordinastis convenire … cum ipsius nuntiis Cameraci. Demum ex ipsarum litterarum vestrarum [tenore?] conclusionem percepimus quod predicti Francorum et Anglie reges consentirent mittere sollennes nuntios ad presentiam nostram ad traetandum de pace, — unde super hac ultima via petiistis celeriter nostrum vobis beneplacitum explicari.’ Edward's, Edward's letters concerning a truce presuppose continuing communication with the French ruler — presumably through Simon — even after the beginning of the quarrel over clerical taxation in August: see Foedera 1 pt. 3. 167, three letters of November 21, 1296; pp. 174–5, last two letters of February 6, 1297.Google Scholar

⁶⁸ As we have indicated in n. 57 above, some form of peace initiative was contemplated by Celestine. We do not, however, know the precise peace-making authority Celestine and his advisors intended the legates to have. It is tempting, therefore, to view these imposed truces as Boniface's own idea, stemming from the same lofty conception of papal supremacy that he evidenced in other actions. Google Scholar

⁶⁹ Philip's, reaction to the presentation of the papal truce injunction, which finally occurred in April 1297, would have confirmed the most pessimistic expectations. The king did not permit this injunction to hinder plans for the invasion of Flanders, and the legates' report of the incident shows that Philip protested that he was not subject to the pope in temporal matters; see Dupuy, , Histoire du differend, preuves 28. McNamara, (‘ de Beaulieu, Simon' 163 and, hesitantly, Gilles Aycelin 55) interpreted this belated presentation as Simon's final attempt to create royal distrust of Boniface. This is unlikely to be correct, however, since Berard of Got, who was in no way hostile toward the pope, participated in the presentation. The purpose of the legates' action is, however, unclear, since the pope had shortly before conceded a clerical tenth to Philip to aid him in dealing with the Count of Flanders' defection.Google Scholar

⁷⁰ de Beaulieu, ‘Simon' 160–1.Google Scholar

⁷¹ See n. 65 above; the papal letter in question was addressed to both Berard and Simon. Google Scholar

⁷² Foedera 1 pt. 3.189, letter of August 25, 1297: ‘Et, ut haec possent salubrius et efficacius provinere [sic], duo Ecclesiae membra Nobilia, videlicet, bonae memoriae, Albanensem, B., et Penestrinum, S., Episcopos, duximus specialiter destinandos. Qui, hujusmodi prosequendo negotium, tot anxietates animorum et labores corporum subierunt, quod alter, in via redeundo ad nos; alter, postquam ad nostram pervenit praesentiam, infra paucos dies, naturae debitum persolverunt. Eorum tamen prudentia circumspecta, quasi praescia futurorum, antequam Alpes ad nos revertendo transirent, processus, tractatus, proposita et responsa, quae, mediantibus ipsis, inter te ac Reges eosdem intervenerunt, fideliter redigi fecerunt in scriptis, et sigillis propriis consignari; ut revocari non possent in dubium, quae facta fuerant ministerio eorumdem. Quibus per Penestrinum praedictum, in illis paucis diebus, quibus morans in Curia supervixit, ad notitiam nostram deductis, perpendimus ipsos, cum multa cautela, diligentia et sollicitudine, in ipso negotio processisse.’ This letter was not mentioned by McNamara, .Google Scholar

⁷³ One of the unanswered questions raised by this study is why Philip's supporters fixed upon Simon as having been the main source of early doubts about Boniface at the French court. To be sure, Simon was a great churchman in contact with the Curia as well as with the royal court — necessary qualities for someone who was to play the role of scandal-monger. Then, too, by 1310–1311, when Nogaret and Peredo were lying about Simon's past conduct, Simon was safely dead. But quite possibly there were other reasons — now unknown — for choosing Simon. Google Scholar