Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T17:49:08.507Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Marsilius of Padua and the Case for the Royal Ecclesiastical Supremacy1 (The Alexander Prize Essay)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 February 2009

Shelley Lockwood
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Taking William Marshall at his word, a comparison of his Defence of Peace of 1535 with the Latin editio princeps of the Defensor Pacis, printed in Basle in 1522, reveals that there is much need for ‘correction’ or rather, it reveals that Marshall had himself corrected and amended the original to suit his own purposes. What those purposes were, the nature of the amendments and their consequences for our understanding of the royal ecclesiastical supremacy will be the subject of this essay.

Type
Research Article
Information
Transactions of the Royal Historical Society , Volume 1 , December 1991 , pp. 89 - 119
Copyright
Copyright © Royal Historical Society 1991

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

2 Marshall, William, The defence of peace lately translated out of laten in to englysshe, (Wyer, R., 1535)Google Scholar, STC 17817, fol. 1. It was, however, written by April 1533 [LP VII.422 and 423].

3 William Marshall was clerk to Richard Broke, Chief Baron of the exchequer in 1531. He was acquainted with Thomas More who tried to get him office at court [LP IV.3.App. 133]. He apparently obtained his licence for printing books through his connections with the Boleyn family, DNB XXXVI, 25; Elton, G. R., ‘An early Tudor Poor Law’ in Studies in Tudor and Stuart Politics and Government, 2 vols, (Cambridge, 1974) II, 151–3Google Scholar.

4 Marshall almost certainly used this edition since he includes its preface by Licentius Evangelus (the pseudonym of the Protestant Valention Curio) and he follows the textual peculiarities of the editio princeps. The editio princeps was printed as Opus insigne cui titulum fecit auctor defensorem pacis … It is collated in ed. Previte-Orton, C. W., The Defensor Pacis of Marsilius of Padua (Cambridge, 1928)Google Scholar.

5 Previte-Orton, C. W., Defensor Pacis, (Cambridge, 1928)Google Scholar xl n1; Janelle, Pierre, L'Angleterre Catholique à la veille du schisme, (Paris, 1935) 252–6Google Scholar; Elton, G. R., ‘The Political Creed of Thomas Cromwell’ in Studies II, (Cambridge, 1974) 215–35Google Scholar.

6 Marshall, fol. IV.

7 ed. Brewer, J. S., Gairdner, J. and Brodie, R. H., Letters and Papers, Foreign and Domstic, of the reign of Henry VIII 36 vols (London 1862–1932)Google Scholar[LP] VII.14.

8 Elton, G. R., Policy and Police: The Enforcement of the Reformation in the Age of Thomas Cromwell (Cambridge, 1972) 180–98Google Scholar, Reform and Renewal: Thomas Cromwell and the Common Weal (Cambridge, 1973) 57–65Google Scholar, Reform and Reformation: England 1509–1558 (1977) 195–7; Fox, and Guy, , Reassessing the Henrician Age: Humanism, Politics and Reform 1500–1550 (Oxford 1986)Google Scholar cc. 3, 5, 7.

9 LP. VII.422, 423; XI. 1355. G. R. Elton, Reform and Renewal 62 n79 Policy and Police 186 n2.

10 LP. Vll. 722 where a Mr. Marshall is described as a gentleman ‘learned in the temporall law’ and see n3.

11 A Treatyse of the donation gyuen unto Syluester pope of Rhome, (Godfray, Thomas, 1534)Google ScholarSTC 5641. This is an accurate translation of Ulrich von Hutten's 1517 editio princeps.

12 (T. Godfrey, 1535) STC 24238, translated by Marshall from Bedrote's Latin translation of Bucer's Das einigerlei Bild.

13 (J. Bydell, 1534) STC 15986. Other works are A Worke entytled of ye olde god and the newe, von Watt, Joachim (Bydell, J., 1534)Google ScholarSTC 25127, An exposition after the maner of a contemplacion upon the It psalme called Miserere mei Deus, (Bydell, J., 1534)Google Scholar STC 21789.3, A lytle treatise on the forme of confession,(Bydell, J., ?1535)Google Scholar STC 10498, Paraphrase of Erasmi upon ye Epistle of Paul unto Titus, (Bydell, J., ?1535)Google Scholar STC 10503.5 and The boke of the discrypcyon of the images of a very chrysten bysshop, (Wyer, R., ?1536)Google Scholar STC 16963.

14 Butterworth, C. C., The English Primers 1529–45, (Philadelphia, 1953), 52–62Google Scholarand Appendix 1 (A) ‘Martin Luther and the Marshall Primers’ 279–85 in which Butterworth states that Marshall was ‘clearly a staunch Lutheran’ as his primer contains numerous passages from Luther's works.

15 LP. IX. 506–7.

16 LP. VIII. 600 and IX.523; Elton, G. R., Policy and Police, 210Google Scholarn.2.

17 Haas, Steven, ‘The Disputatio inter clericem et militem: was Berthelet's 1531 edition the first Henrician polemic of Thomas Cromwell?’ in Moreana XIV (1977) 65–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

18 Koebner, Richard, ‘“The Imperial Crown of This Realm”. Henry VIII, Constantine the Great and Polydore Vergil’ in Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research XXVI (1953) 29–52Google Scholar.

19 BL Cotton MS Tiberius E VIII fol. 100 and in ed. Wickham-Legg, L., English Coronation Records (Westminster, 1901)Google Scholarfacing 241.

20 Act in Restraint of Appeals to Rome (1533: 24 Henry VIII, c.12) in Elton, G. R., The Tudor Constitution 2nd ed. (Cambridge, 1982) no. 177, 353–8Google Scholar.

21 Act of Appeals 24 HVIII c.12.

22 G. R. Elton, Tudor Constitution for texts and analysis.

23 Marshall, fol. 140v.

24 Marshall, fol. 140.

25 Marshall, fol. 114V marginal note to II.xxvi.

26 Marshall, fol.2.

27 Marshall, ‘peroracyon’.

28 II.iv.12. This retains the sense of the Roman law term as ‘mere’ meant ‘sole’ or ‘absolute’.

29 II.v.8, Marshall, fol.59.

30 This causes particular problems for Marshall in Discourse II.

31 The concept of ‘empire’ was particularly useful in propaganda terms as its traditional emotive appeal belied the fundamental shift in its meaning; whereas early notions of empire were perceived within, and therefore as compatible with the universal concept of Christendom with the Pope as head under Christ, later, ‘empire’ was used to proclaim England's independence from Rome. Valla's Confutation of the Donation of Constantine meant that the independence of the Emperor was available as a precedent for the claims to independence of other holders of temporal jurisdictions. It is no surprise, then, when we recall that it was Marshall who produced the first English edition of Valla's work.

32 Despite the lack of significant changes of meaning, these first chapters contain valuable insights into the problems facing English translators. For instance, terms such as ‘civitas’ and ‘politia’ are problematical. At one point Marshall adds, ‘regnum may be Englysshed a realme or kyngdom and civitas a cytie’ [I.ii, fol.11], this leads him to translate ‘vicus seu vicina’ with ‘called in the laten tonge vicus or vicina in Englysshe a strete’ [I.iii, fol.12v], a street being the smaller component of an English city. But he later has ‘called in the laten civitas in the englysshe a cytie or a commune weale’ [I.iii,. fol. 13]. ‘Politia’ is sometimes ‘comen welthe’ [I.ix, fol.24], sometimes ‘ciuile gouernaunce’ [I.ii, fol. 11]. Marsilius is himself rather vague on these terms.

33 I.ix, ed. Previte-Orton, , Defensor Pacis 29–36Google Scholar(henceforth P–O), Gewirth 29–34.

34 I.ix, para. 11, P–O 36, Gewirth 34.

35 I.ix, para.5, P–O 33, Gewirth 31–2. Also omitted: I.ix, part of para.5 to para 11.

36 I.xvi, P–O 75, Gewirth 68.

37 ‘That it is most expedyent to the commune weale to have onely one certayne man to be prynce of governoure hym selfe with all his posteryte which they call communlye the successyon of kyndred or blode’ Marshall fol.35V.

38 I.xvi, 1, P–O 75, Gewirth 68.

39 Marshall, fol.36.

40 I.xii,3, P–O 50. Also the section immediately following on the ceremonies connected with election is omitted.

41 III.ii, Nos 9 and 10, P–O 494–5, see Appendix.

42 I.xii, P–O 48–54, Gewirth 44–9.

43 I.xii, 3, P–O 49, Gewirth 45.

44 Marshall, fol.27v–28.

45 Cf. above at n21.

46 See Ullmann, W., ‘Personality and Territoriality in the Defensor Pacis. The Problem of Political Humanism’ in Medioevo: Rivista di storia della filosofia mediovale, VI (1980) 397–410Google Scholar.

47 Marshall, fol.28.

48 I.xii,5, P–O 46, Gewirth 46.

49 I.xii,9, P–O 53–4, Gewirth 49.

50 Marshall, fol.29.

51 I.xii,5, P–O 51.

52 Marshall, fol.28v.

53 For Marsilius' doctrine of representation, Quillet, J., La Philosophic Politique de Marsile de Padoue, (Paris, 1970)Google Scholar, ch.VIII. For England, Edwards, J.G. ‘The Plena Potestas of English Parliamentary Representatives’ in Oxford Essays in Medieval History Presented to H. E. Salter, (Oxford, 1934), ch.VI, 141–54Google Scholar.

54 I.xii,6, P–O 52.

55 I.xii,9, Gewirth 49, P–O 54.

56 Marshall, fol.34v–35.

57 This is an inversion of what Marsilius was saying, see text at n55.

58 III.ii, cone.6, P–O 494, Gewirth 427.

59 Marshall, conc.4.

60 Marsilius, conc.8, Gewirth 427.

61 Marshall, conc.6.

62 Marshall, conc.4.

63 I.xv, P–O 66.

64 Marsall, fol.34.

65 Later references in Discourse II back to this crucial chapter concerning election also had to be painstakingly omitted, eg. II.v,3, P–O 146, Gewith 129; II.vi, 12, P–O 170, Gerwith 149.

66 I.xv,7, P–O 71.

67 Marshall, fol.35.

68 I.xvii., P–O 89.

69 Marshall, fol.37.

70 Marshall, fol.111.

71 Marshall, fol.110v.

72 Marshall, fol.40.

73 Marshall retains the analogy of the heart which Marsilius took from Aristotle, De partibus animalium 111.4.665a 29 ff. I.xv,5, P–O 69. By seizing upon Marsilius' use of a biological analogy and using it as the title of his revised chapter on the ruler, Marshall not only conventionalises the concept of kingship but also the terms in which it is discussed, that is, he returns to the familiar body politic imagery, abandoning the more abstract and legal terminology of the ‘universitas’ and its parts.

74 I.xviii,3, P–O 97, Gewirth 87–8.

75 See Marshall, conc.8. For all references to conclusions, see Appendix.

76 ‘Auctoritate legislatoris’, Marsilius, conc.15, compare with Marshall, conc.10.

77 Marshall, conc.4.

78 Marshall, fol.42v.

79 Marshall, fol.43.

80 The increasing number and nature of the marginal glosses reflect this; for instance, where it is stated that all bishops must be appointed with the consent of the emperor [II.xxv,9, P–O 388–9, Gewirth 337], Marshall adds ‘This he meaneth of bysshops within the emperours dominion for els the emperour hathe nought to do in the leccyon of bisshops in Englande’.

81 Particularly instructive is the translation of II.vi, 13—that ‘it pertains to the whole body of the faithful to appoint a judge’—as that it belongs to ‘the hole congregacyon of faythful beleuynge people … to have a superyoure heed’. In Discourse II, as Marsilius' ‘universitas civium’ becomes ‘universitas fidelis’, Marshall begins to translate it as ‘hygher powers’, ‘hygher powers or theyr deputees’, ‘superyoure powers’ or ‘superyoure or soueragyne’ [see particularly II.vi.]. Also, as ‘legislator humanus’ becomes ‘legislator humanus fidelis’, so Marshall's ‘prynce’ becomes ‘chrysten’ or ‘chrystened’ [eg. in II.xvi.]. Thus Marshall generalises Marsilius' examples to include all temporal ‘powers’.

82 II.xxvi, Gewirth, 344.

83 II.xxvi,.4, P–O 399–400, Gewirth, 346.

84 Marshall, fol. 107V.

85 II.xxvi,5, P–O 401. Marshall, fol.108.

86 Marshall, fol. 107V.

87 The distinction is being drawn between the potestas jurisdictionis and the polestas ordinis with a warning against allowing bishops to lay claim to the latter. For Marshall's Lutheranism see above n14.

88 Marshall, conc. 15. Compare with Marsilius, conc.21. Appendix.

89 A Treatyse of the donation gyuen unto Syluester pope of Rhome, (Godfray, Thomas, 1534)Google ScholarSTC 5641. In a letter to Cromwell in April 1534 [LP. VIII.423], Marshall wrote of his book: ‘I think there was none ever better set forth for the defacing of the Pope of Rome’.

90 Marshall, fol.94, beside II.xviii,7, P–O 309.

91 I.xix,8, P–O 105.

92 Beside Il.xxviii, 19, P–O 451: ‘I thynke this to be a loud lye forged in the name of Constantyne as was the gyfte called the donacyon or gyfte of Constantyne’, Marshall, fol. 124V; and beside II.xii,8, where Marsilius refers to Constantine's gift to Sylvester, Marshall adds, ‘That coulde not the emperour do iustly’.

93 See below n102.

94 Calendar of State Papers (Spanish), V.2.no.223.

95 Nicholson, G., ‘The Nature and Function of Historical Argument in the Historical Reformation’, Cambridge Univ. Ph.D. thesis, 1977Google Scholar, chap. I, especially on the writings of Nicholas of Cusa.

96 Sawada, P.A., ‘Two Anonymous Tudor treatises on the General Council’ in Journal of Ecclesiastical History vol. XII (1961) 197–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

97 ‘Judgement of the convocation of Canterbury 1536’, Wilkins, D., Concilia Magnae Brilanniae et Hiberniae, 4 vols (1737), iii 808–9Google Scholar.

98 St. German, Christopher, Dialogue in English betwixt a Doctor of Divinity and a Student of the laws of England (London, 1530)Google Scholar STC 21561. Ed. for Selden Soc. by T. F.T. Plucknett and J.L. Barton (1974).

99 Guy, J. A., Christopher St. German on Chancery and Statute (Selden Soc. Supp., 1985) 14Google Scholar.

100 Marshall, conc.25.

101 Marsilius, conc.33, Gewirth 430.

102 The sections omitted are II.xviii,8, II.xx, II.xxi and III.iii. There are also numerous references throughout II which are systematically eradicated (as were those concerning election in I), eg. xix, i, 3 and 6, xxvii,9 and xxviii parts of (xxi) and (xxii).

103 Marsilius, conc.2. Marshall omits this, see Appendix.

104 Marsilius, conc.33.

105 Marsilius, conc.36.

106 Marsilius, conc.21 and 23.

107 Marsilius, concs.27 and 28.

108 Marshall, fol. 95V.

109 II.xx, ‘To whom belongs or has belonged the authority to define or determine doubtful sentences of the holy Scripture’ [Gewirth 279]. II.xxi, ‘To whom belongs or has belonged the coercive authority to assemble a General Council of priests, bishops, and other believers … ’ [Gewirth 287].

110 II.xxii, ‘In what sense the Roman bishop and his church are the head and leader of the others; and by what authority this headship belongs to them’ [Gewirth 299].

111 Marshall, fol.111 v, marginal note to II.xxvi.

112 Marginal notes to II.v,8 and II.xxvi.

113 Beside Il.viii: ‘Preestes oughte to be punysshed by the secular iudge and yet Thomas of Caunterbury wolde not haue it so’ [Marshall, fol.68v.]. And beside the statement that priests refuse to be subject to rulers and that they even claim to be superior to them in coercive jurisdiction [II.ix,8]: ‘As obstynat Thomas of Caunterbury otherwyse called Thomas Beket’ [Marshall, fol. 71v]. Becket experienced a general reversal of favour under Henry VIII.

114 II.xvii, P–O 288.

115 Marshall, fol.91v.

116 Marshall, fol.91v.

117 Marsilius' conclusions 12, 36, 9, 10, 18, 26, 32, 35, 26 and 41 are omitted.

118 Marsilius' conclusion 1–5, Marshall's 1–3.

119 The omitted conclusion is Marsilius 38. Also, in Marshall's words, ‘The xiii and xiiii chapytres ben omyted as contaynynge no matter moche necessarye’ (fol.82). These long chapters explain the virtues of voluntary poverty by means of copious Biblical quotations pointing to the conclusion that Christ and the apostles lived in this state of meritorious poverty whilst on earth. I think it would be to overstate the case to claim any direct connection between these omissions and the dissolution of the monasteries. Contemporary opinion may well have been the reason, but it is perhaps most likely that lengthy elaboration of the religious orders would rankle considerably with Marshall as they were an example of that mediation between God and man so odious to followers of Luther.

120 Marshall, conc. 12. Marsilius, conc. 17.

121 Marshall, conc.9. Marsilius, conc.14.

122 Marshall, conc.4. Marsilius, conc.6.

123 Marshall, concs.5, 6, 13, 14, 15, 17, 22, 26. Marsilius' 7, 8, 19, 20, 21, 23, 29, 34.

124 Marshall, concs.20 and 24. Marsilius' 27 and 31.

125 Marshall, concs.25 and 27. Marsilius' 33 and 37.

126 Marshall, concs.21 and 23. Marsilius' 28 and 30.

127 Marshall, conc. 19. Marsilius' 25.

128 Marshall, concs.26 and 29. Marsilius' 34 and 40.

129 Marshall, conc.14. Marsilius, conc.20.

130 Marshall, conc.16. Marsilius, conc.22.

131 Marshall, conc.22. Marsilius, conc.29.

132 Marshall, conc.26. Marsilius, conc.34.

133 Marshall, conc.20. Marsilius, conc.27.

134 Marshall, conc.21. Marsilius, conc.28.

135 Marshall, conc.23. Marsilius, conc.30.

136 Marshall, concs.4 and 6. Marsilius' 6 and 8.

137 Marshall, conc.13. Marsilius, conc. 19.

138 Marshall, conc.24. Marsilius, conc.31.

139 Marshall, conc. 19. Marsilius, conc.25.

140 Marshall, conc.3. Marsilius, conc.5.

141 On the ‘godly prince’ see Figgis, J. N., Political Thought from Gerson to Grotius 1414–1625, (New York, 1960) 84Google Scholar and Skinner, Quentin, Foundations, II 12–19Google Scholar.

142 Marsilius' conc. 13. See Appendix.

143 Nicholson, , ‘Historical Argument’ 217Google Scholar.

144 I.xii, P–O 48–54.

145 Note Marshall refers back to the crucial chapter in which supreme coercive jurisdiction is given to the king, where Marsilius does not.

146 The distinction between the ‘impotent deserving poor’ and idle vagabonds was made in the Poor Laws from the 1530's onwards.