No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 25 March 2011
page 78 note 1 I have tried to explain this in my Short History of the Papacy in the Middle Ages, 2nd ed. (London 1974), 311 ff.Google Scholar
page 79 note 1 Cf. ‘Eugenius iv, Cardinal Kemp and Archbishop Chichele’ in Medieval Studies presented to Aubrey Gwynn, ed. Watt, J. A. et al., Dublin, 1961, 359–83Google Scholar, now reprinted in The Papacy and Political Ideas in the Middle Ages, London, 1976Google Scholar, ch. 13. One wonders whether the bishop of Cracow (Sbigneus Olesnicki, cf. ibid. 380 ff.) had taken part in drafting the Declaration of Cracow University: he had the singular distinction of having been created a cardinal by the pope, Eugenius iv, and the antipope, Felix v.
page 79 note 2 Cf. ‘The legality of the papal electoral pacts’ in Ephemerides Iuris Canonici, XII (1956), 3–36 (now reprinted loc. cit., preceding note, ch. 15).Google Scholar
page 79 note 3 The Humbertine fragment embodied in Gratian, Dist. 40, c. 6, should have been noted (cf. 358 f.).
page 79 note 4 For this amalgam cf. the new preface to the reprint of Origins of the Great Schism, Hamden, Conn. 1972, xiv ff.; for Zabarella see 191–231.Google Scholar