Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T19:42:19.847Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A New View of William Durant the Younger's ‘Tractatus de modo generalis concilii celebrandi’

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 July 2016

Constantin Fasolt
Constantin Fasolt*
Affiliation:
Columbia University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The work which is the subject of this article marked a major advance in the history of medieval political thought. Its significance, although perhaps not widely enough perceived, is well known to scholars specializing in the origins of conciliarism. This is not to suggest that William Durant the younger's contribution to the nascent conciliar theory has been exhaustively interpreted. On the contrary, it is probable that the systematic legal and political argument underlying his pointed demands has never been as fully understood as would have been possible or desirable. But Durant's theories lie beyond the scope of this article. It is instead addressed to the more fundamental question whether the available texts of the treatise are sound. It is somewhat surprising that this question has never been studied before, since the early modern printed editions, on which all previous work on Durant has relied, do not give the impression of being trustworthy. Upon inspection of the extant manuscripts it must be concluded that the unsuspecting faith put in these editions was ill-advised, to say the least. It is the thesis of this article that every known printed edition of the Tractatus de modo generalis concilii celebrandi is seriously flawed, and, furthermore, that the deficiencies have prevented scholars from arriving at an adequate interpretation of the nature and the scope of Durant's plan for reform.

Type
Articles
Information
Traditio , Volume 37 , 1981 , pp. 291 - 324
Copyright
Copyright © Fordham University Press 

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.)

References

* I would like to express my gratitude to Mundy, J. H., Pascoe, L. B. S.J., and Somerville, R. for their help in the writing of this article.Google Scholar

In addition to the sigla customarily employed in Traditio, the following abbreviations will be used: Viollet: Viollet, P., ‘Guillaume Durant le Jeune, évêque de Mende,’ Histoire littéraire de la France 35 (Paris 1921) 1–139; P: Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, MS lat. 1443 fol. 1–112; M: Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, clm. 6605 fol. 2–69v .Google Scholar

Since manuscript evidence has been used to supplement the printed editions, it may be useful to explain the method followed in quoting from the Tractatus de modo generalis concilii celebrandi. Quotations will be followed by an indication of the book (Tractatus maior or Tractatus minor) and the part and chapter of the Maior or the chapter of the Minor, e.g., Maior 2.73, or Minor 9. For the distinction between Maior and Minor see 297–9 below. Where the printed editions provide a different numbering of chapters, this has been supplied in brackets. References will conclude with a parenthesis indicating the corresponding folio, column (a and b for columns on the recto, c and d for those on the verso), and lines in the editio princeps of the work (ed. Crespin, Jean; Lyons 1531). Durant's technical references to canon law will only be given in the Latin text in the footnotes. References added by the present writer will be given in brackets. All references have been modernized and are abbreviated in the manner suggested by Ochoa, X., Diez, A., Indices canonum, titulorum et capitulorum Corporis Iuris Canonici (Rome 1964) v. The full texts can be found in Corpus Iuris Canonici (ed Friedberg, E.; Leipzig 1879–1881). Variant readings in Durant's text have been marked off by asterisks and are followed by brackets with the siglum of the MS from which they were taken.Google Scholar

1 See the judgment of Tierney, B., Foundations of the Conciliar Theory (Cambridge 1955) 190, 196 that Durant's treatise was a ‘really very considerable contribution to the growth of conciliar thought,’ which ‘strikes for the first time the authentic note of the Conciliar Movement properly so called.’ The bibliography on William Durant reflects the different contexts in which he has been studied by historians. The best biographical essay is Viollet 1–139. Scholars who have come to deal with the bishop of Mende because of their interest in the reform-legislation of the council of Vienne include Heber, M., Gutachten und Reformvorschläge für das Vienner Generalconcil 1311–1312 (Leipzig 1896) 40–56, 64–74; Müller, E., Das Konzil von Vienne 1311–1312 (Münster, 1934) esp. 587f., 591–610; Lecler, J., Vienne (Paris 1964) esp. 38–50; Bellone, E., ‘Cultura e studi nei progetti di reforma [sic] presentati al concilio di Vienne (1311–1312),’ Annuarium Historiae Conciliorum 9 (1977) 67–111; and Vereecke, L., ‘La réforme de l'église au concile de Vienne 1311–1312,’ Studia Moralia 14 (1976) 283–335. Their attention to the developments of political thought around the turn of the fourteenth century led the following writers to discuss Durant, William; Scholz, R., Die Publizistik zur Zeit Philipps des Schönen und Bonifaz' VIII. (Stuttgart 1903) 208–23; Haller, J., Papsttum und Kirchenreform (Berlin 1903) I 58–66, 70; Rivière, J., Le problème de l‘église et de l’état au temps de Philippe le Bel (Louvain 1926), 363–69; and Posch, A., ‘Die Reformvorschläge des Wilhelm Durandus jun. auf dem Konzil von Vienne,’ Mitteilungen des Österreichischen Instituts für Geschichtsforschung Ergänzungsband 11 (1929) 288–303. Durant's relationship to Gallicanism motivated Martin, V., Les origines du Gallicanisme (Paris 1939) I 92, 357, II 31 and Torquebiau, P., ‘Le Gallicanisme de Durand de Mende le Jeune,’ Acta congressus iuridici internationalis 3 (Rome 1936) 269–89 to devote some thought to him. Durant's striking demands are also frequently mentioned in studies such as Dempf, A., Sacrum Imperium (Munich 1929) 421; Carlyle, R. W. and A. J., A History of Mediaeval Political Theory in the West VI (London 1936) 24f.; Jedin, H., Geschichte des Konzils von Trient I (Freiburg 1949) 5, 7, 471, 510; and Hofmann, H., Repräsentation (Berlin 1974) 253–55, 257. Finally, there are good encyclopedia articles by Mollat, G., ‘Durant, Guillaume,’ DHGE 14 (1960) 1171–73 and Naz, R., ‘Guillaume Durand ou Durant le Jeune,’ DDC 5 (1953) 1013–14.Google Scholar

2 For the spelling ‘Durant’ see Viollet 2 n. 2, but note also Heber, , Gutachten 65 and Andrieu, M., Le Pontifical romain au moyen âge III (Vatican City 1940) 3 n. 1.Google Scholar

3 The most balanced characterization of Durant's work is given by Rivière, , Problème 363–69. The most detailed paraphrase of the contents is found in Viollet 79–129. A stimulating interpretation can be found in Tierney, Foundations 190–99. The other studies cited above make no serious attempt to proceed from paraphrases of Durant's demands to their systematic analysis. Some of the older ones, such as Heber, Gutachten 73 and Haller, Kirchenreform 65, deny the existence of any systematic coherence.Google Scholar

4 All the printed editions, for example, confuse the author of the treatise with his uncle; see 29 below. There were other indications which might have prompted a careful look at the textual transmission; see 311f. below. The only scholar who seems to have used more than one MS of the treatise was Viollet (3 n. 4, 79 n. 2, 82 n. 1, 99 n. 4, 100 n. 2, 128 n. 1), who knew of the MSS in Paris, Tours, Troyes, and Kues. Müller, , Vienne 593 n. 28 added the Munich MS, and Scholz, Publizistik 523 ad 210, the Barberini MS. For shelf-marks see 296 below. The reliability of the printed editions will be assessed in detail 310–15 below.Google Scholar

5 Unless stated otherwise, the following information on Durant's life is taken from Viollet.Google Scholar

6 In addition to Viollet 64–71, see Göller, E., ‘Zur Geschichte der italienischen Legation Durandus des Jüngeren,’ Römische Quartalsschrift für christliche Altertumskunde 19 (1905) part Geschichte 14–24.Google Scholar

7 They were needed to permit his canonization; cf. Viollet, 72–75.Google Scholar

8 Viollet, 58–61.Google Scholar

9 His other writings are reviewed by Viollet, 64–79, 129–39.Google Scholar

10 ‘Videretur deliberandum si posset, per quam utile fore et necessarium quod ante omnia corrigerentur et reformarentur illa que sunt in ecclesia dei corrigenda et reformanda tam in capite quam in membris.’ Maior 1.1 (4b37–41). Durant has occasionally, but without proof, been credited with inventing the formula reformatio in capite et membris ; see Lecler, , Vienne 40; idem, Le Pape ou le concile? (Paris 1973) 49. On the notion of reform as such, see Ladner, G. B., The Idea of Reform (Cambridge, Mass. 1959) esp. 298–303; Pascoe, L. B., John Gerson: Principles of Church Reform (Leiden 1973); Stump, P., ‘Reform in Head and Members: The Reform Ideas of the Council of Constance’ (Ph.D. diss., Univ. of California 1978). On reform in Roman law see Ladner, G. B., ‘Justinian's Theory of Law and the Renewal Ideology of the Leges Barbarorum,’ Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 119 (1975) 191–200. Further references can be found in Pascoe, L. B., ‘John Gerson: The “Ecclesia Primitiva” and Reform,’ Traditio 30 (1974) 379 n. 1.Google Scholar

11 ‘Quod [Romana ecclesia] nulla iura generalia deinceps conderet nisi vocato concilio generali quod de decennio in decennium vocaretur.’ Maior 1.96 [3.27] (59a36–39). This is sufficient to call Durant a conciliar thinker in a general sense. No attempt will be made to enter into the complicated discussion concerning the meaning of the term ‘conciliarism.’ Google Scholar

12 For the text of Haec sancta, see Conciliorum Oecumenicorum Decreta (edd. Alberigo, J. et al.; 3rd ed. Bologna, 1973) 409–10. See also the recent article by Morrissey, T., ‘The Decree “Haec Sancta” and Cardinal Zabarella,’ Annuarium Historiae Conciliorum 10 (1978) 145–76. Durant's choice of a period of ten years for the general council obviously agrees with Constance's provision in the decree Frequens; see Conciliorum Oecumenicorum Decreta 438–43. Aside from the standard works of reference, such as Handbuch der Kirchengeschichte III 2 (ed Jedin, H.; Freiburg 1973) and Delaruelle, E. et al., L'église au temps du Grand Schisme (Paris 1962), a good introduction to conciliarism may be found in Bäumer, R., ed. Die Entwicklung des Konziliarismus (Darmstadt 1976) with bibliography 393–402. Recent literature is listed in the bibliographies appended to the volumes of the Annuarium Historiae Conciliorum. Google Scholar

13 See for example the comments of John XXII in his letter of April 10, 1319, to Philip V: ‘Sed ipse [William Durant] intendens aliud forsitan quam pretendat, videlicet scisma, quod absit, inter te et Sedem istam ponere sicut et in Viennensi consilio [sic] inter felicis recordationis Clementem papam quintum et prelatos studiose ponere laboravit, injuste conqueritur secum agi. Vere, fili, nescimus quo ductus nisi superbie spiritu, jam plures anni sunt quod Sedi isti et ejus honori detrahere non cessavit, contra ipsam latrare non desiit, licet hec Sancta Sedes non suis sed alienis potius meritis, videlicet predecessoris sui, ipsum elevarit de pulvere et inter presules collocarit, nec adhuc, sicut fertur, cessat a talibus, sed in ipsis insistens dampnabiliter, contra stimulum calcitrare nititur ac te et alios a devotione Sedis hujusmodi deviare.’ Lettres secrètes et curiales relatives à la France de Jean XXII I (edd. Coulon, A. and Clémencet, S.; Paris 1906) 740–41 no. 850. Another letter by Pope John XXII on the same subject was written on the same day and addressed to Queen Jeanne: see n. 76 below. John XXII was well acquainted with the events at Vienne. He had been one of the five members of the central commission of cardinals appointed by Clement V in order to inspect the gravamina submitted to the council, for which see Müller, , Vienne 117f. There is every reason to believe that he had first-hand knowledge of Durant's treatise as a result of his participation in this commission. On the entire incident see Haller, , Kirchenreform 58–60; Viollet 29f.; and Müller, , Vienne 591–95.Google Scholar

14 For details see Fasolt, C., ‘The Manuscripts and Editions of William Durant the Younger's Tractatus de modo generalis concilii celebrandi,’ Annuarium Historiae Conciliorum 10 (1978) 290–309.Google Scholar

15 There are separate editions in Lyons 1531, reprinted in 1534 with no changes except for a new frontispiece, and in Paris 1545 under the imprints of Galeotus Pratensis and Poncetus Le Preux. The text of Lyons 1531, with a few minor changes and the addition of brief summaries to each chapter, was included in two large collections of jurisprudence: Volumen secundum tractatuum ex variis iuris civilis interpretibus collectorum (Lyons 1549) fol. 88v-117v, and in the Tractatus universi iuris XIII 1 (Venice 1584) fol. 154–182v. The edition of Paris 1545 was reprinted in Venice 1562 and again in Paris 1671 (rpt. London n.d. [1963?]). Other editions given in various bibliographies and footnotes, for which I have been unable to locate actual copies, are: 1561, 1572, 1617, 1635, and 1638, all assigned to Paris, or to Paris and Venice. Cf. Fasolt, , ‘The Manuscripts’ 306f. See also 310–15 below.Google Scholar

16 Nicolaus of Cues owned a manuscript of the treatise, which he annotated in the margins. It is now in Kues, St. Nikolaus-Hospital, MS 168. Pierre Pithou, too, had a copy, today in Troyes, Bibliothèque Municipale, MS 786; cf. Fasolt, , ‘The Manuscripts’ 294–97. Bossuet approvingly quoted from Durant's work. It is virtually certain, moreover, that Pierre d'Ailly, and very probable that Gerson, read it; see Viollet 123–29. Pinelle, Louis († 1516), chancellor of the University of Paris and later bishop of Meaux, owned what is now Paris, Bibliothèque Mazarine, MS 1687. On Pinelle see Vessière, M., ‘Un précurseur de Guillaume Briçonnet: Louis Pinelle, évêque de Meaux de 1511 à 1516, ’Cahiers d'Histoire publiés par les Universités de Clermont, Lyon, Grenoble 9 (1964) 81–82.Google Scholar

17 On William Durant the elder and his works see Falletti, L., ‘Guillaume Durand,’ DDC 5 (1953) 1014–75, with bibliography. See also the recent article by Chevailler, Laurent, ‘Observations sur le “Speculum legatorum” de Guillaume Durand,’ Mélanges Falletti, Annales de la faculté de droit de Lyon 2 (1971) 85–98.Google Scholar

18 William Durant the elder's legal expertise is too well known to need attestation. For praise of the younger Durant's skills, and the judgment that among contemporaries he was surpassed by none except Guido de Baysio, see Tierney, , Foundations 191.Google Scholar

19 Six of the ten extant MSS attribute the treatise to the speculator, i.e., the elder Durant. Only one, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, MS Barb. lat. 1487 fol. 313, explicitly distinguishes the author from his uncle.Google Scholar

20 See the editio princeps (ed. Crespin, Jean; Lyons 1531) fol. 3. The text is repeated in the other editions. The matter was finally clarified in Gallia christiana I (Paris 1715) 94–97.Google Scholar

21 The catalogues of the great libraries and the bibliographies of incunabula yield ca. 50 early modern editions for the Speculum iuris and almost 100 for the Rationale. Google Scholar

22 For a detailed review see Fasolt, , ‘The Manuscripts’ 290–309.Google Scholar

23 Ibid. 292–94.Google Scholar

24 For a thorough discussion of the idea of the ‘best’ manuscript see Fränkel, H., Einleitung zur kritischen Ausgabe der Argonautika des Apollonios (Göttingen 1964) 123–51; cf. Boyle, L. E., ‘Optimist and Recensionist,’ Festschrift L. Bieler (Leiden 1976) 264–74.Google Scholar

25 For an example see the reading of P cited in n. 50 below.Google Scholar

26 Five of these eight MSS contain the whole Tractatus maior, but omit the Tractatus minor entirely: Kues, MS 168; Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, MS Barb. lat. 1487; Rome, Biblioteca Nazionale Centrale, Fondo varia MS 1; Paris, Bibliothèque Mazarine, MS 1687; Troyes, Bibliothèque Municipale, MS 786; for the title of the treatise see 297–98 below. The three remaining MSS are still more fragmentary: Tours, Bibliothèque Municipale, MS 237 breaks off in the middle of Maior 2.71; Zürich, Zentralbibliothek, MS S 204 o and Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, MS Ottob. lat. 823 barely go beyond the beginning of Maior 2.Google Scholar

27 This statement is justified in detail 305–307, 310–12 below.Google Scholar

28 See 298 and n. 38 below.Google Scholar

29 The meaning of these various partitions will be discussed in detail 298–310 below.Google Scholar

30 Careful readers may have calculated that the total number of chapters in the MSS is 4 + 100 + 40 = 144, whereas in the printed editions there are only 4 + 72 + 63 = 139. But no text is missing from the printed editions. In the MSS, the numbering of the Tractatus minor jumps from chapter 1 to chapter 8 so that there are actually only 34 chapters in the Minor; cf. 309–10 below. Thus the total of chapters in the MSS is 4 + 100 + 34 = 138. The printed editions only seem to contain one more chapter because they consider the last part of Maior 2.71 as a separate chapter, which, in their numbering, appears as 3.2. Thus the real total is 138 in both the MSS and the editions.Google Scholar

31 See 310–12 below.Google Scholar

32 Maior 2.69 (45d19–31) and 2.68 (45b35–44).Google Scholar

33 The common ancestor of all eight subordinate MSS need not have been much older than its closest extant relative, M, written after 1436.Google Scholar

34 Haller, , Kirchenreform 60, probably unaware of M, already suggested replacing the traditional title with the more suitable De reformatione ecclesiae in capite et membris. Google Scholar

35 See n. 10 above.Google Scholar

36 ‘Sane videretur ad correctionem et reformationem ecclesie et ad salubre regimen humani generis posse perveniri hac brevi via.’ Maior 1.2 (4d8–13).Google Scholar

37 Since the Minor not only is shorter than the Maior, but will also be shown to have a different purpose (see 307–10 below), it might seem useful to distinguish it from the Maior by more than just its length. But more important than the differences between the two is their substantive agreement. Since tractatus is found in the introduction to the Minor (P fol. 91v, M fol. 57), it has been preserved in this study.Google Scholar

38 ‘Perlectis dudum cum diligentia a sanctis patribus conciliis generalibus, provincialibus, et aliis pro statu universalis ecclesie constitutis, a quibus in pluribus est recessum, scribendum duxi ea de quibus iuxta parvitatis mee modulum agendum esse videtur in concilio memorato.’ Maior prefatio (4a44–b6). It is not clear in the Latin whether Durant meant ‘constitutions of other councils’ or ‘constitutions other than conciliar’ when he wrote ‘aliis pro statu universalis ecclesie constitutis.’ It is certain that he gave particular prominence to conciliar law while quoting extensively from other types of law as well; see 301–303 below. On the important notion of the status ecclesie and its use by canonists and curialists see Hackett, J. H., ‘State of the Church: A Concept of the Medieval Canonist,’ The Jurist 23 (1963) 259–90; Congar, Y. M.-J., ‘Status Ecclesiae,’ Studia Gratiana 15 (1972) 1–31. It is doubtful whether the preface of the Maior (4a5–4b6) is or is not meant to introduce the Minor as well. The contents of the quotation given above suggest a closer relationship to the Maior; cf. the more explicit statement of purpose in the preface to Maior 2, cited n. 50 below. There is no such close correspondence to the Minor. It is thus more likely that the preface to the Maior has nothing to do with the Minor. Google Scholar

39 ‘De correctione eorum que male aguntur premittenda in Dei ecclesia a ministris ecclesiasticis in capite et in membris.’ Maior 1.1 (4b7–10).Google Scholar

40 Maior 1.2 is entitled: ‘De modo correctionis et reformationis ecclesie et christianitatis’ (4d6–7). It continues: 'Si itaque duo a quibus regitur humanum genus sicut a ministris Dei, videlicet ecclesiastica autoritas et regalis potestas, sicut Gelasius Papa scribit Anastasio Imperatori (D. 96 c. 10) vellent intendere ad dictam reformationem et salubre regimen humani generis, haberent viam amplecti predictam ut videlicet seipsos et humanum genus regerent secundum quod in lege et in evangelio et in conciliis Spiritus Sancti instinctu probatis (D.16 c. 6) et in aliis humanis et comprobatis legibus et iuribus continetur.' Maior 1.2 (4d32–45).Google Scholar

41 ‘Quod predictus modus correctionis et reformationis ecclesie et christianitatis sit conveniens rationi et iuri, maxime quantum ad presidentes spirituali et temporali potestati, et quod non debeant transgredi iura.’ Maior 1.3 (5a16–21).Google Scholar

42 ‘Liquide constat quod [dominus papa et reges] non solum statuta in divinis legibus verum etiam a sanctis patribus in conciliis et sacris canonibus servari debent.’ Maior 1.3 (5c2–5). ‘Regenda igitur atque limitanda et restringenda est sub ratione potestas ut totum ratio regat, sicut Gregorius Mauritio Imperatori scribit’ (C. 11 q. 3 c. 67); Maior 1.3 (5d20–25).Google Scholar

43 ‘Rubrica de limitanda potestate superiorum…. Proh dolor, si premissa [i.e., the virtue and justice of the ancient Romans] servabantur in rectoribus et in administratoribus rei publice qui legis divine notitiam non habebant, nonne est inestimabile dedecus si moderni administratores rei publice, qui fide illuminati sunt et alios illuminare et corrigere debent, in se ipsis talia non observant? Verendum quippe est, si contrarium faciunt, quod et ipsi discernant et in sinu suo colligant causam suam’ (D. 17 c. 6 Gr. p.; D. 21 c. 7); Maior 1.3 (7, correct: 6, d 17–29).Google Scholar

44 ‘Quarto specificatur amplius de limitando et regulando exercitio potestatis dictorum presidentium monarchie.’ Maior 1.4 (7a40–43). The context shows that both the papacy and secular rulers are meant. The most explicit formulation of Durant's demand for conciliar participation in ecclesiastical legislation can be found in this chapter: ‘Videretur esse salubre consilium pro re publica et pro dictis administratoribus rei publice quod sic sub ratione, ut premissum est in rubricis proximis, limitaretur potestas eorundem quod absque certo consilio dominorum cardinalium dominus papa, et reges ac principes absque aliorum proborum consilio, sicut hactenus in re publica servabatur, non uterentur prerogativa huiusmodi potestatis, potissime aliquid concedendo contra concilia et contra iura approbata communiter, et quod contra dicta concilia et iura nihil possent de novo statuere vel concedere [sic] nisi generali concilio convocato, cum illud quod omnes tangit secundum iuris utriusque regulam ab omnibus debeat communiter approbari.’ Maior 1.4 (7b27–45).Google Scholar

45 ‘De dispensationibus’ Maior 1.4 (7d11–8b6).Google Scholar

46 ‘De exemptionibus’ Maior 1.4 (8b7–13b33).Google Scholar

47 That is the thrust of the argument made in the whole of Maior 1, and well expressed in the Tractatus minor: ‘Novitas nostri temporis sub inquietudine degit, quia dictum gradum et ordinem derelinquit. Secundum namque Augustinum minus ordinata inquieta sunt, ordinata vero quiescunt, et ideo, quia antiqua ordinatio de regimine mundi et ecclesie et sua unicuique iurisdictio a Romana ecclesia et presidentibus non servatur, … sed ad se que ad minores et medios pertinent trahere volunt, ut in eis verificetur illud: “Cum exaltatus fuero a terra omnia traham ad meipsum [Jo. 12.32],” mundus turbatur universalis, ecclesia leditur et gravatur, et ordo ecclesiasticus confunditur, sicut Gregorius attestatur [C. 11 q. 1 c. 39].’ Minor 8 [3.31] (62a5–21). The quotation from the Gospel of John illustrates Durant's estimate of the efforts to centralize the Church by papal government. It contains the words spoken by Christ on his entry to Jerusalem and announcing the last judgment: ‘Nunc iudicium est mundi: nunc princeps huius mundi eiicietur foras. Et ego si exaltatus fuero a terra, omnia traham ad me ipsum. Hoc autem dicebat, significans qua morte esset moriturus.’ See John, 12.31–33. Durant clearly wanted to associate his view of the future of the Church with the terrors of the last judgment.Google Scholar

48 Whether or not the bishop's fears are a testimony to his farsightedness, they deserve to be quoted: ‘Nisi in hoc sacro concilio provideatur de competenti remedio in premissis, que quasi manifeste et notorie in Dei ecclesia committuntur, fides, que secundum Jacobum sine operibus mortua est [Jac. 2.17], dicetur per fideles et infideles in prelatis et personis ecclesiasticis … periisse…. Et elapso et transacto presenti sacro concilio, in omni statu reformatione carente, nisi reformatio debita facta fuerit incomparabiliter [P] peiora prioribus subsequentur, et omnia imputabuntur domino nostro summo pontifici, eiusque venerabili collegio, et huic sacro concilio, qui possunt et debent corrigere supradicta et obviare eisdem.’ Minor 9 [3.32] (62c40–d16).Google Scholar

49 Viollet 86 and n. 2 charges Durant with tampering with the text of St. Ambrose. But Durant quoted it in the form in which he found it in canon law, and there the only basis for Viollet's claim seems to be the reading ne negligantur, which Durant used instead of Friedberg's ne legantur. But ne legantur is an obvious haplography for ne negligantur, and the latter makes not only more sense in the context of D. 37 c. 9, but is also suggested by the variants in Friedberg's apparatus and was, indeed, the version retained by the Editio Romana of the Corpus Iuris Canonici, because the medieval glosses relied on it.Google Scholar

50 ‘Incipit secunda pars istius tractatus, in qua in speciali agitur de his que ab antiquo fuerunt Spiritus Sancti instinctu* [P] ab apostolis constituta, et a sanctis patribus, et a quatuor conciliis, scilicet Niceno, Constantinopolitano, Ephesino, et Calcedonensi, que sicut sancti evangelii quatuor libros sancta ecclesia veneratur (D. 15 c. 2, *D. 16 cc. 2-6* [P]), et ab aliis conciliis in Grecia primo et postmodum in occidentali ecclesia in diversis provinciis celebratis et a Romana et universali ecclesia ab antiquo approbatis, que *presentialiter* [P] usquequaque non servantur, quorum in presenti tractatu cum paucis concordantiis aliorum iurium sub *breviloqui* [P] memoria agitur ad hunc finem ut legamus aliqua ne negligantur, alia ne ignorentur, et alia, non ut teneantur, sed ut repudientur, sicut ait beatus Ambrosius super Lucam et in Decretis (D. 37 c. 9). Si aliqua in dicta specificatione casuum reperiantur utilia et universali ecclesie proficua, quod sacri provisione concilii super eorum observantia vel revocatione aut *immutatione* [P] vel declaratione deliberatio si visum fuerit expediens, habeatur.’ Maior 2 prefatio (13b35–c19). It is not quite clear in the Latin to which grammatical subject the phrase ‘et a Romana et universali ecclesia ab antiquo approbatis’ belongs. The translation assumes that it belongs only to ‘aliis conciliis in Grecia primo et postmodum in occidentali ecclesia … celebratis,’ because that is grammatically most sound and because these were the councils whose authentication by Rome needed to be stressed. If one compares the text of this preface with the preface of the entire Tractatus maior (see n. 38 above), it becomes clear that the latter is a brief, but precise, description of the purpose of Maior 2.Google Scholar

51 In Durant's view, the ‘laws established by the apostles,’ i.e., the collection otherwise known as the Canones apostolorum, and the ‘laws established by the holy fathers’ were the earliest conciliar decrees of the Church. Note the parallel in n. 38 above.Google Scholar

52 Viollet 85f. believed it merely probable that Durant arranged his material in the order of the chronological canonical collections. How little weight he attributed to this observation, however, is illustrated by his failure to recognize the contents of Maior 2.1 as excerpts from the Canones apostolorum; see Viollet 87.Google Scholar

53 Only Maior 2.1 consists in its entirety of conciliar canons, i.e., excerpts from the Canones apostolorum. The 26 canons there quoted are nos. 7, 10–16, 20, 25, 26, 28, 30–35, 38–44, 48.Google Scholar

54 See 317–320 below. Beginning with Maior 2.84, the subject of the chapters, and not the first canon cited, is tabulated. The reason for this is discussed 304–305 below. The numbering of canons is taken from Hinschius, P., ed., Decretales Pseudo-Isidorianae et Capitula Angilramni (Leipzig 1863).Google Scholar

55 The bishop of Mende was most interested in conciliar law, and for this reason he rarely used Pseudo-Isidore's famous forged papal decretals, although he mentions them in Maior 2.34 (30c5–d14). He also quoted extensively from such typical Pseudo-Isidorian texts as the Ordo de celebrando concilio , ed. Hinschius, , Decretales 22–24, and the De primitiva ecclesia et sinodo nicena, ibid. 247–49. It is therefore certain that he used Pseudo-Isidore. It might be thought that he also used the Collectio Hispana. But since there seems to be not a single one among his more than 2000 quotations from canon law which cannot be traced to either Pseudo-Isidore or the Corpus Iuris Canonici, that is very unlikely. It should finally be noted that the order in which Pseudo-Isidore presents the councils is not strictly chronological. To call it chronological or historical conveniently distinguishes it from the systematic and non-chronological collections of classical canon law which make up the Corpus Iuris Canonici. On Pseudo-Isidore see Fuhrmann, H., Einfluss und Verbreitung der pseudoisidorischen Fälschungen I–III (Stuttgart 1972–1974), with abundant bibliography in I xv–li.Google Scholar

56 E.g., Viollet 89.Google Scholar

57 In addition to the texts mentioned in n. 54, see Maior 2.70–71.Google Scholar

58 It may be a general characteristic of institutional crises that they foster an interest in old legislation. It is therefore worthwhile pointing out that the Gregorians' interest in the old law ministered to a rise in the power of the papacy, whereas Durant was concerned with limiting it. On these perspectives see Olsen, G., ‘The Idea of the Ecclesia primitiva in the Writings of the Twelfth-Century Canonists,’ Traditio 25 (1969) 61–86.Google Scholar

59 In Maior 2. 2–8, Durant quoted extensively from the section in Pseudo-Isidore entitled De ecclesia primitiva et sinodo nicena; see n. 55 above. On the concept of the ecclesia primitiva see Olsen, G., ‘The Idea of the Ecclesia primitiva’; Pascoe, L. B., ‘Jean Gerson: The “Ecclesia Primitiva” and Reform’; and Ditsche, M., Die ecclesia primitiva im Kirchenbild des hohen und späten Mittelalters (Diss., Bonn 1958).Google Scholar

60 Romanus, Aegidius, De ecclesiastica potestate (ed Scholz, R.; Leipzig 1929) Posch, , ‘Reformvorschläge’ 289f. and Müller, , Vienne 596 n. 40 believed this was Giles' earlier work, De regimine principum. But in Maior 2.95 [3.26] Durant states explicitly that he is referring to the same book as in Maior 2.72 [3.3]. Since Maior 2.95 is entitled ‘De potestate ecclesiastica super temporales dominos et dominia temporalia,’ it is quite certain that Durant had Giles' De ecclesiastica potestate in mind.Google Scholar

61 Since ancient laws failed to cover all the topics Durant wanted to include, such a supplement could not be avoided. This does not mean that it excluded all ancient legislation, but that its tenor became decidedly contemporary.Google Scholar

62 These lists are mentioned by Viollet 100, 109f.Google Scholar

63 The sole exception is Maior 2.72 [3.3], the first reference to Giles of Rome's De ecclesiastica potestate. See table II, 321 below.Google Scholar

64 See table III, 322–23 below.Google Scholar

65 Compare, e.g., Minor 1 [3.30] (61b13–c23) with Maior 1.1 (4b17–d5), or Minor 8 [3.31] (61d9–39) with Maior 1.2 (4d8–5a15). On the omission of chapters 2–7 in the Minor see 309 below. The very beginning of Minor 1 [3.1] seems to have been modelled on the summary in Maior 2.96; compare Minor 1 [3.1] (52a8–25) with Maior 2.96 [3.27] (58c9–19).Google Scholar

66 Cf. Minor 1 [3.1] (52a25–b8).Google Scholar

67 ‘Sacrosancta Romana ecclesia … caput est omnium aliarum, ad quam tamquam ad caput ecclesiarum omnis sancte religionis relatio est secundum Gregorium referenda [D. 12 c. 2], et quam tamquam caput et matrem omnium ecclesiarum secundum Calixtum membram omnia sequi debent [D. 12 c. 1], *nec aliunde sicut Innocentius Papa scribit auctoritatem debent accipere vel exemplum [D. 11 c. 11]. Ipsa namque* [P] sicut *Stephanus* [P] Papa scribit est omnibus posita in speculum et exemplum [D. 19 c.4].’ Minor 1 [3.1] (52a13–20). Note the use of these words made by Scholz, , Publizistik 215; Viollet, 118; Posch, , ‘Reformvorschläge’ 290; Müller, , Vienne 593 n. 27; Torquebiau, , ‘Gallicanisme’ 286f. In context, however, they serve above all to heighten the contrast between Rome's duties and its actual shortcomings, as conceived by Durant. Cf. also Minor 1 [3.1] (52a20–b25) and Minor 9–16 [3.32–39].Google Scholar

68 That is not to deny the possibility that substantive differences exist. Certain proposals may have been omitted and others added; see 309 below. On the whole, however, the Minor repeats the demands of the Maior. Google Scholar

69 For a discussion of the reasons why the printed editions treat Durant's works as a single book and a refutation of their testimony see 310–12 below.Google Scholar

70 Cf. Maior 2.27 (27d4) with Minor 1 [3.1] (52a14–16).Google Scholar

71 ‘Prohdolor quia videtur in ipsa ecclesia verificari dictum Esaie c. 34 [13–15] in figuram Babylonice civitatis gloriose in regnis et inclite in superbia Caldeorum, de qua dicitur: erit cubile draconum et pascua struthionum…. Onocentaurus et pilosus clamabit alter ad alterum. Ibi *cubabit* [P] lamia et *inveniet* [P] sibi requiem. Ibi *habebit* [P] foveam ericius, et *enutriet* [P] catulos. Illic *congregabuntur* [P] milvi alter ad alterum.’ Minor 9 [3.32] (62c16–26). The various figures in this description are compared to the mortal sins in Minor 10–16 [3.33–39], where they are surveyed in detail. For examples of stylistic differences between the Maior and the Minor compare the texts in n. 40–44, 47–48, and 50. The full extent of these differences can be appreciated only in a consecutive reading of the Maior and the Minor. Google Scholar

72 ‘Ista dictata fuerunt in concilio generali Vienne celebrato per reverendum patrem dominum Guillelmum Dei gratia episcopum Mimatensem.’ Minor colophon (74d13–16). This text has been noticed before; see Müller, , Vienne 593 n. 28 with reference to M, and Göller, , ‘Italienische Legation’ 16 n. 2. As long as the Minor and the Maior were believed to be one work, however, its full significance could not be perceived.Google Scholar

73 See, e.g., Forcellini, E., Totius latinitatis lexicon (4th ed.; Prato 1858–1887) or Du Cange s.v. ‘dictare.’ Google Scholar

74 See Maior 2 praefatio (13c15), which is cited 301 above and n. 50; Maior 2.15 (22b10–11), 2.18 (23b40–41), 2.21 (25c33–34), and 2.23 (26d43–44).Google Scholar

75 See Minor 9 [3.32] (62c40, 62d14, and esp. 62d8–9: ‘presenti sacro concilio,’ quoted in context n. 48 above).Google Scholar

76 See 293–94 above and n. 13. In his letter of April 10, 1319 to Queen Jeanne, John XXII gave some additional information: ‘In consilio [sic] siquidem Viennensi, contra felicis recordationis Clementem papam quintum, predecessorem nostrum, cui ipsum fidelitatis vinculum astringebat, scisma suscitare voluit et temptavit librum contra ipsum et Sedem hujusmodi, sicut notum est fratribus nostris qui tunc aderant et multis aliis, fabricando, et demum cum hec ad prefati predecessoris nostri notitiam pervenissent, librum ipsum cum humilitate apparenti maxima, eidem predecessori nostro, petita venia, assignavit sicut sciunt qui reconciliationem hujusmodi procurarunt.’ Lettres secrètes et curiales … de Jean XXII I 739 no. 849.Google Scholar

77 The most probable interpretation is perhaps that the offensive book was indeed the Minor, that Durant circulated it among the fathers at Vienne, was taken to task by Pope Clement V, and removed the most inflammatory passages before surrendering the text to the pope. See just below.Google Scholar

78 Revisions of the text were suspected by Haller, , Kirchenreform 59f. Müller, , Vienne 595 rejected Haller's notion for lack of evidence.Google Scholar

79 The way in which P introduces chapters 8 and 9 makes this unlikely: porro and tertio, i.e., second and third. A ‘first’ is missing and might have been found somewhere in chapters 2–7. M, followed by the printed editions, begins chapter 8 porro and chapter 9 secundo, not tertio. But that is clearly a mistaken ‘emendation’ by the scribe of M or one of its ancestors, because in Minor 26 [3.49] (70b2–4) Durant refers back to Minor 9, and at that point both P and M agree on calling Minor 9 ‘the third method of reform’ (‘de tertio modo reformationis ecclesie’). At that point the scribe of M had already forgotten that he had decided to call the subject of Minor 9 the ‘second method of reform.’ Google Scholar

80 Both works must have been written after the bull of convocation for Vienne was issued on August 12, 1308. Whereas the Maior was probably completed before the council met in the fall of 1311, the Minor may well have been composed while the council was in session. See the colophon, n. 72 above.Google Scholar

81 Most of the MSS do not contain the Minor: see n. 26 above.Google Scholar

82 Some MSS continued to be read in the early modern period. A reader of P with a hand of the late 16th or early 17th century noted in the margins of P fol. 77, 81 that it differed from the printed editions.Google Scholar

83 See 306–307 above.Google Scholar

84 Further changes in editions other than the editio princeps are discussed 313–15 below.Google Scholar

85 The edition of Paris 1545 and its descendants, Venice 1562 and Paris 1671, took the logical step of renumbering this chapter 2.72.Google Scholar

86 Such incongruities might have made the printed editions suspect.Google Scholar

87 If ca. 2.5 columns in the editio princeps correspond to about one whole folio in the hypothetical MS, then the 32.5 columns in the editio princeps between A and B (52b25–60b46) would correspond to ca. 13 folios in the MS. Allowing for imponderables, the fact that A and B are rather less than 2.5 columns, and the likelihood that a gathering would consist of an even number of folios, 14 would appear to be the likeliest number. By adding these to the two folios A and B one obtains a whole of 16 folios in a gathering of 8 sheets — but obviously this is no more than a possibility, mentioned in order to explain the choice of figures in the text.Google Scholar

88 The duplicated passage reads as follows: ‘Regem enim eterna iura faciunt, non persona, quia non constat sui mediocritate, sed sublimitatis honore. Que ergo honori debeant, honori deserviant, et que reges accumulant regno relinquant ut, quia eos regni gloria decorat, ipsi quoque regni gloriam non extenuent sed exornent.’ It originally appears in Maior 2.71. In the printed editions it can be found in 3.1 (52b25–32) and is repeated in 3.30 (61b4–11).Google Scholar

89 See 324 below.Google Scholar

90 Table IV may thus be used as a rough concordance between the manuscript numbering and the numbering of the printed editions.Google Scholar

91 See his preface fol. 2. Having described his discovery of one, and his prolonged, but unsuccessful, search for another MS, Crespin continues: ‘Pervenit tandem ad nos, ductu cuiusdam optimi viri alterum exemplar paulo emendatius, utrumque alteri contulimus.’ Google Scholar

92 All the extant MSS reflect the original version. There is no evidence that one of them was used by Crespin.Google Scholar

93 Tierney, , Foundations 134 n. 1 and Vereecke, , ‘Réforme de l'église’ 287 n. 13 used the edition of Paris 1545. The edition of Paris 1671 was used by Heber, , Gutachten 40 n. 6; Viollet 82 n. 1; Müller, , Vienne 570 n. 21, 498 n. 28; Bellone, , ‘Cultura e studi’ 68 n. 2; and Torquebiau, , ‘Gallicanisme’ 271 n. 1. The only scholar who used the editio princeps of 1531 seems to have been Rivière, Problème 363 n. 3. Otherwise the text in the Tractatus universi iuris is frequently employed, as in Jedin, , Trient I 471 n. 5; Haller, , Kirchenreform 58 n. 1; Scholz, , Publizistik 209 n. 2; and Posch, , ‘Reformvorschläge’ 294 nn. 3, 4.Google Scholar

94 Presumably Probus had a copy of the edition of Lyons 1531, the only edition known to have been available in 1545.Google Scholar

95 Chapters 2 and 3 were amalgamated. The ‘Rubrica de limitanda potestate superiorum’ was combined with chapter 4 to form a new chapter 3. The ‘Rubrica de dispensationibus’ became chapter 4, and the ‘Rubrica de exemptionibus’ chapter 5. Thus there are 5 chapters and no unnumbered rubrics. In the editio princeps the chapter headings of chapters 3 and 4 read as follows: ‘Quod predictus modus correctionis et reformationis ecclesie et christianitatis sit conveniens rationi et iuri, maxime quantum ad presidentes spirituali et temporali potestati, et quod non debeant transgredi iura sed se regere et limitare secundum ea et non querere que sua sunt sed que Christi, nec aliorum iura usurpare sed sub ratione se regere. Et additur qualiter ab antiquo res publica gubernabatur.’ Maior 1.3 (5a16–26). ‘Quarto specificatur amplius de limitando et regulando exercitio potestatis dictorum presidentium monarchie ne in agendis absque concilio proborum proprio utantur arbitrio, nec sine generali concilio agant [P] contra ea que sunt in conciliis a sanctis patribus provide constituta in dispensationibus, privilegiis, et exemptionibus, et aliis exercendis; quod revocent et revocare debeant exemptiones in contrarium concessas, cum hoc esse utile et rationabile videatur.’ Maior 1.4 (7a40–b7). This last text is crucial for an appreciation of the extent of Durant's plan for reform. It is difficult to understand its absence from all printed editions except the editio princeps. Google Scholar

96 Examples of some small changes can be found at 4d19 (inferri, for fieri), 4d34 (auctoritate, for auctoritas), 5b16 (omission of quod predictum est), and 5a27 (S.D. Papa, for the simpler dominus Papa. Google Scholar

97 See, for example, the following text, one of the most important passages in the entire work: ‘Quod contra dicta concilia et iura nihil possent de novo statuere vel concedere nisi generali concilio convocato.’ Maior 1.4 (7b40–43). This text has been quoted in its context n. 44 above. The edition of 1545 reads statuere vel condere instead of statuere vel concedere. This is a vital difference. Statuere vel condere would mean that Durant envisioned nothing more than the regular participation of general councils when new law was to be formally established. But if statuere vel concedere is the correct version, Durant wanted conciliar participation, not only when new law was made (statuere or condere leges), but also when concessions within the framework of existing law were being considered. Concedere may mean any number of papal administrative measures changing the law or its effects for particular reasons, e.g., exemptions, dispensations, privileges, all of which were part of the everyday business of the curia. If statuere vel concedere is the correct version, and both the editio princeps and the MSS support it, then Durant wanted more than conciliar participation on those relatively rare occasions when new law was being formulated. For the meaning of the terms condere, concedere, and statuere see the parallels from Roman law in Heumanns Handlexikon zu den Quellen des römischen Rechts (ed. Seckel, E.; 9th ed. Jena 1914) 85, 88, 553f. Google Scholar

98 See his preface aii [sic].Google Scholar

99 Such charges can be found in Rivière, , Problème 363; Posch, , ‘Reformvorschläge’ 289; Torquebiau, , ‘Gallicanisme’ 275f.; Müller, , Vienne 609f.; Tierney, , Foundations 191; and above all in Viollet 80, 85, 87, 101, 110, 117, and 82: ‘Dans son ensemble, l'œuvre est confuse et hâtive; ce sont, pourrait-on dire, des notes jetées comme en courant.’ Google Scholar

100 The preface of the Tractatus maior is perhaps the best brief example of Durant's ability to express his ideas by using quotations from canon law to create a coherent context.Google Scholar

101 Even in the editions, the plan according to which the Tractatus maior was arranged was still explained in the preface to part two, and carefully followed up to Maior 2.71.Google Scholar

102 More than 100 if one includes the 26 canons from the Canones apostolorum quoted in the body of Maior 2.1. See n. 53 above.Google Scholar

103 Müller, , Vienne 594f. already dealt with this subject and concluded against Haller, , Kirchenreform 65f. that the bishop doubtless influenced the measures decided upon by the council of Vienne. It may not prove to be significant that, except for a single case (615 n. 14), all of Müller's evidence for Durant's efforts is taken from the Maior. Google Scholar

104 I am planning to undertake both a detailed study and a critical edition.Google Scholar