¹ See for example Chenu, M.-D., La théologie comme science au xiiie siècle, 3rd edn, Paris 1969Google Scholar; Leclercq, J., ‘La théologie comme science d'après la littérature quodlibétique’, Recherches de théologie ancienne et médiévale xi (1939), 351–74Google Scholar.

² Gabriel, A. L., ‘The ideal master of the medieval university’, Catholic Historical Review lx (1974), 1–40Google Scholar; Guelluy, R., ‘La place des théologiens dans l'église et la société médiévales’, in Miscellanea historica in honorem Alberti de Meyer, 2 vols, Louvain-Brussels 1946, i. 571–89Google Scholar; Le Bras, G., ‘Velut splendor firmamenti: le docteur dans le droit de l'église médiévale’, in Mélanges offerts à Etienne Gilson, Toronto–Paris 1959, 373–88Google Scholar; Leclercq, J., ‘L'idéal du théologien au moyen âge: textes inédits’, Revue des sciences religieuses xxi (1947), 121–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

³ Crucial contributions to this debate include, Baldwin, J. W., Masters, princes and merchants: the social views of Peter the Chanter and his circle, 2 vols, Princeton, NJ 1970Google Scholar; Bartlett, R., Trial by fire and water, Oxford 1986Google Scholar; Brown, E. A. R., ‘Cessante causa and the taxes of the last Capetians: the political applications of a philosophical maxim’, Studia Gratiana xv (Post Scripta) (1972), 567–87Google Scholar; Brown, E. A. R., ‘Taxation and morality in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries: conscience and political power and the kings of France’, French Historical Studies viii (1973), 1–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Cobban, A. B., The medieval universities, London 1975Google Scholar; Le Goff, J., Les intellectuels au moyen âge, Paris 1957Google Scholar; Smalley, B., The Becket conflict and the schools, Oxford 1973Google Scholar; Tentler, T. N., ‘The summa for confessors as an instrument of social control’, in Trinkaus, C. and Oberman, H. A. (eds), The pursuit of holiness in late medieval and renaissance religion, Leiden 1974, 103–26Google Scholar.

⁴ The standing of the University of Paris in the late thirteenth and early fourteenth centuries has been variously assessed. According to Leff, G., Paris and Oxford Universities in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, New York 1968, 48–9Google Scholar, the clash between Boniface VIII and Philip the Fair was a turning-point when the university had to choose between pope and king for the first time, the king replaced the pope as the dominant power over the university, and the university was increasingly composed of Frenchmen. Southern, R. W., ‘The changing role of universities in medieval Europe’, Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research lx (1987), 133–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar, presents the late thirteenth and early fourteenth centuries as a stage of potential independence for the Paris theologians, after a gradual breakdown of relations between the papacy and the schools, and before Pope John XXII effectively established a central theological school at the papal court at Avignon in the 1320s. Menache, S., ‘La naissance d'une nouvelle source d'autorité: l'université de Paris’, Revue historique cclxviii (1982), 305–27Google Scholar, stresses the continuing independence of the Paris masters through into the 1330s. Avi-Yonah, R., ‘Career trends of Parisian masters of theology 1200–1320’, History of Universities vi (1986–1987), 47–64 at p. 61Google Scholar, argues that the University of Paris enjoyed a unique status as a centre for the definition and advancement of sacred knowledge from the 1230s to the late fourteenth century. For my own view of the masters' independence and influence in the late thirteenth and early fourteenth centuries see Wei, I. P., ‘The masters of theology at the University of Paris in the late thirteenth and early fourteenth centuries: an authority beyond the schools’, Bulletin of the John Rylands University Library of Manchester lxxv (1993), 37–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁵ See Avi-Yonah, , ‘Career trends’, 47–64Google Scholar.

⁶ See n. 54 below.

⁷ This speech is recorded in an anonymous account of the Council of Paris in 1290. The account clearly favours the papal legates and the friars: Finke, H., ‘Das Pariser Nationalkonzil vom Jahre 1290: ein Beitrag zur Geschichte Bonifaz VIII. und der Pariser Universität’, in Römische Quartalschrift für christliche Alterthumskunde und für Kirchengeschichte, Rome 1895, 171–82 at pp. 178–82Google Scholar, and Aus den Tagen Bonifaz VIII, Münster 1902, Quellen, iii–viiGoogle Scholar.

⁸ See Wei, , ‘Masters of theology’, 37–63Google Scholar.

⁹ See Swanson, R. N., Universities, academics and the Great Schism, Cambridge 1979CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Black, A., ‘The universities and the Council of Basle: collegium and concilium’, in Ijsewijn, J. and Paquet, J. (eds), The universities in the late Middle Ages, Louvain 1978, 511–23Google Scholar.

¹⁰ Swanson, , Universities, esp. pp. 13–14, 75–8, 84–5, 115–16, 188Google Scholar; Oakley, F., The political thought of Pierre d'Ailly: the voluntarist tradition, New Haven, Conn. 1964, 149–54Google Scholar.

¹¹ On quodlibetal disputations see Boyle, L. E., ‘The quodlibets of St Thomas and pastoral care’, Thomist xxxviii (1974), 232–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Glorieux, P., La littérature quodlibétique de 1260 à 1320, 2 vols, Paris 1925, 1935Google Scholar; Glorieux, P., ‘L'enseignement au moyen âge: techniques et méthodes en usage à la faculté de théologie de Paris au xiii^e siècle’, Archives d'histoire doctrinale et littéraire du moyen âge xxxv (1968), 65–186 at pp. 128–34Google Scholar; Wei, , ‘Masters of theology’, 39–44Google Scholar; Wippel, J. F., ‘The quodlibetal question as a distinctive literary genre’, in Les genres littéraires dans les sources théologiques et philosophiques médiévales: définition, critique et exploitation: actes du colloque international de Louvain-la-Neuve 25–27 mai 1981, Louvain-la-Neuve 1982, 67–84Google Scholar; Wippel, F., ‘Quodlibetal questions, chiefly in theology faculties’, in Les questions disputées et les questions quodlibéliques dans les facultés de théologie, de droit et de médecine, Turnhout 1985, 151–222Google Scholar.

¹² Guelluy, , ‘La place des théologiens’, 580 n. 1Google Scholar, refers briefly to quodlibetal questions listed in Glorieux, Littérature quodlibétique. Leclercq, , ‘L'idéal du théologien’, 121–48Google Scholar, edits a number of relevant quodlibetal texts with characteristically incisive comments, but equally characteristically does not look at all quodlibetal material systematically (see his own comments at p. 122 n. 4), and does not examine the arguments in full. Gabriel, , ‘Ideal master’, 1–40Google Scholar, recognises the importance of quodlibetal material, but does not analyse it in detail and considers what was common to every type of master in all universities over the whole medieval period.

¹³ Quodlibet, V. 24: ‘Si doctor semper praedicavit aut docuit principaliter propter inanem gloriam, utrum habeat aureolam, si in morte poeniteat’: AQQ, 113–14Google Scholar. On the dating of Aquinas's quodlibets I have followed Weisheipl, J. A., Friar Thomas d'Aquino, Oxford 1974, 367Google Scholar.

¹⁴ Quodlibet, I. 34: ‘Utrum doctor intendens principaliter honorem suum in docendo peccet mortaliter’: Henrici de Gandavo Quodlibet I, ed. Macken, R., Louvain 1979, 193–5Google Scholar. See also Gabriel, , ‘Ideal master’, 32Google Scholar.

¹⁵ Quodlibet, II. 12: ‘Utrum digni licentiari in theologia, qui non licentiantur, adipiscantur aureolam’: Henrici de Gandavo Quodlibet II, ed. Wielockx, R., Louvain 1983, 78–9Google Scholar; Leclercq, , ‘L'idéal du théologien’, 146Google Scholar. Leclercq's accompanying remark that ‘Pour que le théologien mérite l'auréole des docteurs, il faut done à la fois qu'il soit constitué dans “l'état de magistère” et qu'il en accomplisse les actes’ is clearly a misinterpretation.

¹⁶ Quodlibet I. 2: 'Iste est doctor theologus; docet existens in peccato mortali; in fine vite sue penitet; moritur; utrum talis habeat aureolam: BN MS lat. 15850, fo. 35rb (q. 97); Leclercq, , ‘L'idéal du théologien’, 143Google Scholar, though I have preferred my own transcription.

¹⁷ ‘Dicendum est primo quid est aurea et aureola. Aurea dicitur esse premium essentiale, aureola premium accidentale, et debetur actui excellenti [MS excellanti] et difficili sicut martyrio et virginitati et doctrine. Tune dicendum est quod predicto doctori non debetur aureola [MS auriola] cuius ratio potest esse quia actus non est meritorius nisi informatus caritate et aureola [MS auriola] debetur actui non habitui et quia non est operatus in gratia ideo etc.’: BN MS lat. 15850, fo. 35rb.

¹⁸ Quodlibet, X. 18: ‘Utrum per unum bonum iuristam possit melius regi ecclesia quam per theologum’: Le dixième quodlibet de Godefroid de Fontaines, ed. Hoffmans, J., Louvain 1931, 395–8Google Scholar.

¹⁹ Quodlibet II. 8: ‘Utrum prelatus possit tenere statum prelationis non instructus in theologia’: Leclercq, , ‘L'idéal du théologien’, 125–7Google Scholar.

²⁰ In a final garbled section John briefly echoed Godfrey's approach based on the different possible interpretations of ‘ecclesia’. According to John, if ecclesiastical goods were understood to constitute the Church, men untrained in theology would pose no problem. However, in truth the Church consisted of the faithful whom the greater prelate could not govern without divine Scripture.

²¹ Quodlibet I. 15: ‘Utrum ignorantia sacerdotum doctoribus imputetur in peccatum’: Leclercq, , ‘L'idéal du théologien’, 123–5Google Scholar.

²² Quodlibet VI q. 69: ‘De confessore utrum teneatur scire quod peccatum est mortale et quod veniale’: BN MS lat. 15350, fos 284vb–5rb. For date see Glorieux, P., ‘Les quodlibets de Gervais de Mont-Saint-Eloi’, Recherches de théologie ancienne et médiévale xx (1953), 132–4Google Scholar.

²³ ‘Scire quod peccatum est mortale et quod veniale potest intelligi dupliciter. Vel simpliciter et universaliter, id est secundum conditiones suas per quam viam sunt talia et talia et etiam de omni et sic dico quod non oportet. Quedam enim sunt ardua que pertinent ad magistros et ad maiores prelatos, non ad minores … Vel secundum quid, id est secundum quod incumbet persone sue ad cavendum et sic omnes tenentur scire que sunt mortalia et que venialia quantum requiritur ad hoc quod possint cavere ilia, quia quilibet tenetur cavere peccata mortalia, id est vel quod sit certus esse mortalia, id est vel quod sit quando incumbit sibi facere ilia vel dimittere, vel quod dubitet et propter hoc suspendit consensum donee super hoc certificatus sit, alioquin non excusatur de ignorantia … Verum est per modum quem dixi vel quantum requiritur ad hoc quod possint de illis secundum quod pertinet ad officium suum, per istum modum quod si iudicant aliqua esse mortalia debent scire esse mortalia, si venialia venialia, si dubitalia inter doctos et ideo concilio indigentia quod sint talia, et etiam quod si iudicent aliqua esse commissa suo iudicio quod sit ita, et si iudicio superiorum reservata quod sint talia, alioquin possent condempnare iustum et iustificare inpium, et sic fieri abhominabiles apud deum … Et hoc maxime est verum de hiis qui habent populum sibi commissum’: BN MS lat. 15350, fos 284v–5ra.

²⁴ Quodlibet VIII. 14: ‘Utrum sacerdos omnis ad hoc quod possit suos subditos absolvere debet esse multum instructus et peritus in scientia theologica’: Le huitième quodlibet de Godefroid de Fontaines, ed. Hoffmans, J., Louvain 1924, 136–7Google Scholar.

²⁵ For the relatively low level of education and theological expertise required by parish clergy in late medieval England see Swanson, R. N., ‘Learning and livings: university study and clerical careers in later medieval England’, History of Universities vi (1986–1987), 81–103 at pp. 84–5, 88–9Google Scholar.

²⁶ Quodlibet, IX. 15: ‘Utrum habere plures praebendas sine cura animarum, absque dispensatione, sit peccatum mortale’: AQQ, 192–4Google Scholar.

²⁷ Quodlibet, I. 14: ‘Utrum aliquis teneatur dimittere studium theologìae, etiam si aptus ad alios docendum, ad hoc quod intendat saluti animarum’: AQQ, 13–14Google Scholar.

²⁸ Quodlibet, III. 9: ‘Utrum liceat quod aliquis pro se petat licentiam in theologia docendi’: AQQ, 46–7Google Scholar.

²⁹ For other expressions of this belief, see Gabriel, , ‘Ideal master’, 40Google Scholar.

³⁰ Quodlibet, III. 10: ‘Utrum auditores diversorum magistrorum theologiae habentium contrarias opiniones, excusentur a peccato, si sequantur falsas opiniones magistrorum suorum’: AQQ, 47–8Google Scholar.

³¹ Quodlibet, IV. 18: ‘Utrum magister determinando quaestiones theologicas magis debeat uti ratione, vel auctoritate’: AQQ, 83Google Scholar.

³² For an almost identical question leading to a similar approach to the use of authorities see Quodlibet Anon. V. 14 (as listed in Glorieux, Littérature quodlibétique): ‘Utrum magistri in theologia disputando debeant inniti auctoritati vel rationi’: Leclercq, , ‘L'idéal du théologien’, 137Google Scholar, and see comments at pp. 136–7.

³³ Quodlibet, V. 25: ‘Utrum si ex doctrina doctoris aliqui revocentur a meliori bono, utrum ille doctor teneatur illam doctrinam revocare’: AQQ, 114Google Scholar.

³⁴ Quodlibet, I. 35: ‘Utrum melius sit stare in studio, spe plus proficiendi, sufficienter instructum quam ire ad procurandum animarum salutem’: Henrici de Gandavo Quodlibet I, 195–202Google Scholar.

³⁵ In Quodlibet XIV. 12 Henry tackled an apparently similar question, ‘Utrum doctores debent facere conscientiam de peccato eo quod non laborant ad conversionem infidelium’, but did not expand on a master of theology's social functions. For a brief summary of his arguments see Leclercq, , ‘L'id!eal du théologien’, 130–1Google Scholar, and Gabriel, , ‘Ideal master’, 29 nGoogle Scholar. 102 where it is incorrectly titled Quodlibet XIV. 2.

³⁶ When asked a similar question, ‘quare plus vacant theologi disputationibus quam predicationibus’, Gerard of Abbeville also argued that each should fulfill the function for which he was suited. He did not, however, take the opportunity to elaborate on the functions of the master. See Quodlibet, X. 1 in Leclercq, , ‘L'idéal du théologien’, 128–9Google Scholar.

³⁷ Quodlibet, II. 12: ‘Utrum digni licentiari in theologia, qui non licentiantur, adipiscantur aureolam’: Henrici de Gandavo Quodlibet II, 78–9Google Scholar; Leclercq, , ‘L'idéal du théologien’, 146Google Scholar.

³⁸ Quodlibet, X. 16: ‘Utrum doctor sive magister determinans quaestiones vel exponens scripturas publice peccet mortaliter non explicando veritatem quam novit’: Henrici de Gandavo Quodlibel X, ed. Macken, R., Louvain 1981, 304–7Google Scholar; also partially in Lecleicq, , ‘L'idéal du théologien’, 135–6Google Scholar. See also Gabriel, , ‘Ideal master’, 32Google Scholar.

³⁹ See Leclercq, , ‘L'idéal du théologien’, 136Google Scholar; Gabriel, , ‘Ideal master’, 23Google Scholar.

⁴⁰ Quodlibet IV, q. 40: ‘Utrum actus disputandi vel docendi sit potior et magis meritorius quam actus predicandi, vel e converso’: BN MS lat. 15350, fo. 277va–vb; Leclercq, , ‘L'idéal du théologien’, 129–30Google Scholar, though I have preferred my own transcription. For date see Glorieux, , ‘Les quodlibets de Gervais de Mont-Saint-Eloi’, 132–4Google Scholar. See also Gabriel, , ‘Ideal master’, 29Google Scholar.

⁴¹ ‘Quod actus predicandi probatio: illud est magis meritorium quod magis facit ad edificationem et devotionem populi, hoc est predicare. Contra: maxime meritorium est quod maxime facit ad defensionem fidei cum fides sit maxime necessitatis; sed hoc est per actum disputandi vel docendi, ergo etc.’: BN MS lat. 15350, fo. 277va.

⁴² ‘Dicendum quod actus meriti attenditur penes radicem caritatis, penes conatum voluntatis, penes difficultatem operis, et penes excellentiam finis’: ibid.

⁴³ ‘…quantum ad [primum] possunt esse equales ut si fiant ex equali caritate…et quantum ad [secundum] adhuc possunt esse equales quia equali conatu possunt exerceri’: ibid. fo. 277va–vb.

⁴⁴ ‘…et quantum ad hoc actus disputandi et docendi excellit quia difficilius est dicere quare sic est quam dicere sic est. In disputationibus autem assignantur rationes de quibus in predicationibus dicitur quia est’: ibid. fo. 277vb.

⁴⁵ ‘Et sic adhuc disputatio excellit quia ordinatur ad defensionem fidei contra versutias hereticorum et ad tradendum regulas predicandi. Unde ars disputaria est architectonica et predicatoria est manu operativa et ideo minus nobilis et minus meritoria, manu operativi minus merentur quam architectonici’: ibid.

⁴⁶ ‘Nota quod suppono quod quilibet faciat actum suum sicut debet facere. Si enim doctor theologie disputaret de inutilibus, sicut fit multociens, melius esset quod predicaret de utilibus’: ibid.

⁴⁷ Quodlibet IV, q. 43: ‘Utrum doctor vel bacellarius celans sermonem quern habet in corde suo vel in quaterno, vel nolens com[m]unicare socio petenti de quo scit probabiliter quod sine detrimento rehabebit, peccet mortaliter’: BN MS lat. 15350, fo. 278rb–va; Leclercq, J., ‘Le magistère du prédicateur au xiiie siècle’, Archives d'histoire doctrinale et littéraire du moyen âge xv (1946), 105–47 at p. 124Google Scholar, though I have preferred my own transcription.

⁴⁸ ‘Celare sermonem suum vel in animo vel in quaterno potest fieri dupliciter: vel ex avaritia, et sic esset mortale in casu necessitatis alterius ei non com[m]unicare, qui a in necessitate quilibet tenetur alteri subvenire; vel ex human a providentia, et sic potest sine omni peccato’: BN MS lat. 15350, fo. 278rb.

⁴⁹ ‘Verbi gratia loquor de me. Habeo tres sermones super collum meum et forte habebo multa facere; si habeo ex providentia mea aliquid ubi potero recurrere si necesse fuerit, non video hoc esse malum. Si feci sermonem labore meo apud cartusiam vel in alio loco ubi pauci fuerunt et cogito quod alio anno de isto sermone potero me iuvare si necesse fuerit, quia forte non vacabit michi alium facere, et veniant ad me aliqui qui habeant de qualibet die duos vel tres bonos sermones, si non com[m]unico eis ilium sermonem ad eorum petitionem, non video quod hoc sit malum, quia si com[m]unicarem postea non possem me inde iuvare, timerem enim michi ne posset inproperari michi, sicut magnis magistris factum est: monstrabo vobis in quaterno meo totum sermonem quern fecistis. Et hoc esset contra decentiam status magistrorum quod predicant de sermonibus qui sunt in quaternis, ex quo satis habent de tempore. Unde dico quod licet celare ex tali providentia, ne homo faciat aliquid indecens unde status suus deturpetur’: ibid. fo. 278rb–va.

⁵⁰ How hurt and affronted Gervase would have been to read the following assessment of his sermons in Hauréau, B., ‘Servais, abbé du Mont-Saint-Eloi’, Histoire littéraire de la France xxviii (1881), 320–5, at p. 325Google Scholar: ‘Servais prêche en savant, il fait beaucoup de citations; mais il manque complètement d'originalité’.

⁵¹ Quodlibet XI 10: ‘Utrum clericus beneficiatus et praecipue habens curam animarum, sufficienter literatus et dispositus ad idonee deserviendum ecclesiae in qua est beneficiatus, possit esse absens a sua ecclesia morando in studio ut amplius proficiat, vel insistendo servitio alicuius principis vel praelati’: Les quodlibets onze-quartorze de Godefroid de Fontaines, ed. Hoffmans, J., Louvain 1932, 51–3Google Scholar. The question also concerned absence while in the service of a prince or prelate, but Godfrey did not address this aspect of the problem.

⁵² The matter was certainly not as simple as Leclercq, implies when he states that ‘Le magistère des docteurs diffère de celui des évêques et de celui des prédicateurs; le théologien a moins d'autorité que les premiers et plus que les seconds. Son magistère s'exerce d'ailleurs dans un domaine différent du leur: le théologien instruit les clercs sur des aspects de la révélation différents de ceux que les évêques et les prédicateurs enseignent aux fidèles’: ‘L'idéal du théologien’, 147Google Scholar.

⁵³ Quodlibet, IV. 13: ‘Utrum magister theologiae quaestionem cuius veritatem scire est necessarium ad salutem, debeat reputare esse litigiosam et generantem scandalum, et ob hoc eam repellere et nolle determinare si super ilia ab eo veritas requiratur’: Les quatres premiers quodlibets de Godefroid de Fontaines, ed. de Wulf, M. and Pelzer, A., Louvain 1904, 274–7Google Scholar.

⁵⁴ For accounts of the university's involvement in the struggles between the friars and the secular clergy during the thirteenth century see Congar, Y. M.-J., ‘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 litléraire du moyen âge xxviii (1961), 35–151Google Scholar; Douie, D. L., The conflict between the seculars and the mendicants at the University of Paris in the thirteenth century, Aquinas Paper no. xxiii (1954)Google Scholar; Glorieux, P., ‘Prélats français contre religieux mendiants: autour de la bulle: “Ad fructus uberes” (1281–1290)’, Revue d'histoire de I'église de France xi (1925), 309–31, 471–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Gratien, P., ‘Ordres mendiants et clergé séculier à la fin de xiii^e siècle’, Études franciscaines xxxvi (1924), 499–518Google Scholar; Hödl, L., ‘Theologiegeschichtliche Einführung’, in Henrici de Gandavo Tractatus super facto praelatorum et fratrum (Quodlibet XII, quaestio 31), ed. Hödl, L. and Haverals, M., Louvain 1989, pp. vii–cxviiGoogle Scholar; Little, A. G., ‘Measures taken by the prelates of France against the friars (c. A.D. 1289–90)’, Studi e testi xxxix (1924), 49–66Google Scholar; Post, G., ‘A petition relating to the bull Ad fructus uberes and the opposition of the French secular clergy in 1282’, Speculum xi (1936), 231–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Schleyer, K., Anfänge des Gallikanismus im 13. Jahrhundert: der Widersland des französischen Klerus gegen die Privilegierung der Bettelorden, Berlin 1935Google Scholar; Wei, , ‘Masters of theology’, 44–53Google Scholar.

⁵⁵ Quodlibet V, q. 55: ‘Queritur de peccato magistri in theologia disputantis de quodlibet qui renuit accipere questionem sibi propositam quia tangit aliquos quos timet offendere, [utrum] peccet in hoc mortaliter’: BN MS lat. 15350, fo. 281rb–va; Leclercq, , ‘L'idéal du théologien’, 134–5Google Scholar, though I have preferred my own transcription. For date see Glorieux, , ‘Les quodlibets de Gervais de Mont-Saint-Eloi’, 132–4Google Scholar.

⁵⁸ ‘Dico quod doctor theologie habet officium docendi veritatem utilem vel necessariam … Questio ergo est utrum alicui dimittere quod pertinet ad officium suum propter scandalum aliorum sit peccare mortaliter. Dico quod scandalum tantum est passivum quia veritas predicata non dat occasionem ruine. Tune ergo si veritas esset non necessaria, esset dimittenda propter pacem infirmorum ne inde scandalizentur donee essent roborati…; sed si esset necessaria quia forte est de veritate que factis vel dictis aliquorum opprimitur et sic periclitaretur cum tamen necessarium esset earn non periclitari, et tune aut probabile est quod maius damnum sequetur ex doctrina illius veritatis quam ex taciturnitate, et sic adhuc esset dimittenda ne in dispendium animarum fiat hec doctrina et tune tacere non est pusillanimitatis sed circumscripte sagacitatis, ita tamen quod sedetur scandalum si quod oriatur ex tali taciturnitate…; aut probabile est quod maius dampnum sequetur ex taciturnitate quam ex doctrina eius quia mendacium habebitur pro veritate et iniustitia pro equitate et in hoc casu dimittere veritatem esset mortalis pusillanimitatis’: BN MS lat. 15350, fo. 281rb–va.

⁵⁷ ‘…multis est odiosa veritas, quia semper putant se impeti; unde parum de veritate diceretur si pro hoc semper dimitteretur’: ibid. fo. 281va.

⁵⁸ Quodlibet III. 22: ‘Utrum magister teneatur recipere quaestionem pro qua incurret malivolentiam, quam quaestionem est utile scire’: partially in Leclercq, , ‘L'idéal du théologien’, 133Google Scholar, and wrongly titled III. 23. I have cited directly from his source, Quolibeta doctoris eximii Ricardi de Mediavilla, Brescia 1591, 119Google Scholar.

⁵⁹ ‘In casu…in quo si non reciperet quaestionem deliberative adverteret fieri praeiudicium veritati fidei vel morum non recipiendo peccaret mortaliter, et maxime si probabiliter coniecturaret quod illam quaestionem recipiendo et determinando illis periculis obviare posset’: ibid.

⁶⁰ ‘In illo autem casu in quo videretur probabiliter quod si quaestio non reciperetur in nullo praeiudicaret fidei vel moribus, videret tamen quod hoc scire auditoribus utile esset, si illam quaestionem dimitteret recipere, ne illorum incurreret malivolentiam a quibus bonum recipit vel recipere posset, sic dico quod posset peccare venialiter’: ibid.

⁶¹ In illo autem casu, in quo si quaestionem non reciperet aestimare [aestimaret?] probabiliter non fieri praeiudicium fidei vel moribus, sed hoc faceret pro conservanda caritate et pro vitanda turbatione et scandalo et malis iudiciis quae ex receptione et determinatione illius quaestionis oriri possent, sic dico quod mereretur': ibid.

⁶² Quodlibet, XII. 6: ‘Utrum liceat doctori praecipue theologico recusare quaestionem sibi positam cuius veritas manifestata per determinationem doctoris offenderet aliquos divitesetpotentes’: Quodlibets onze–quartorze de Godefroid de Fontaines, 105–8Google Scholar. See also Gabriel, , ‘Ideal master’, 31–2Google Scholar.

⁶³ Quodlibet, III. 10: ‘…utrum aliquis doctor in theologia possit in cathedra determinare ea quae ad solum papam pertinent, sive possit determinare et asserere alteram partem in dubiis quae oriri possunt in his quae a solo papa sunt condita vel statuta’: Les quatre premiers quodlibets de Godefroid de Fontaines, 218Google Scholar. See also Gabriel, , ‘Ideal master’, 14–15Google Scholar.

⁶⁴ Quodlibet, VII. 18: ‘…si proponatur magistro in theologia quaestio aliqua, cuius unam partem tenet firmiter tanquam veram propter rationes et auctoritates ex quibus iudicio eius ilia pars concluditur tanquam vera, ilia tamen pars per sententiam alicuius episcopi condemnatur tanquam falsa et excommunicationem incurrunt quicumque illam asserunt sive docent, quaeritur quam partem debeat determinare dictus magister’: Les quodlibet cinq, six et sept de Godefroid de Fontaines, ed. de Wulf, M. and Hoffmans, J., Louvain 1914, 402–5Google Scholar. See also Gabriel, , ‘Ideal master’, 14–15Google Scholar.

⁶⁵ Quodlibet, XV. 15: ‘Utrum sit licitum disputare de potestate praelatum’: Aurea Quodlibeta, Venice 1613, ii. 393r–4rGoogle Scholar.

⁶⁶ ‘Dico quod triplici intentione potest fieri disputatio de potestate praelatorum, sicut et de potestate Christi et Dei. Una videlicet ut potestatem illorum diminuat aut attenuat, et minorem quam sit credi faciat, et propter hoc eis minus et in paucioribus obediendum sit. Alia autem contraria ut potestatem eorum extendat et maiorem quam sit credi faciat, et propterea eis amplius et in pluribus obediendum sit. Tertia vero media est ut scilicet quae et quanta sit praelatorum potestas innotescat, et secundum hoc quisque praelatis obediat’: ibid. 393r.

⁶⁷ ‘Disputare de potestate praelatorum prima intentione est omnino illicitum…et tali intentione disputare de praelatorum potestate…est resistere sive contrariari divinae ordinationi, et bonum publicum non amare. Potestas enim praelatorum eis a Christo Deo data est et ad publicam utilitatem ecclesiae ordinata…Re vera, qui tali intentione de potestate praelatorum disputant, damnationem aeternam sibi acquirunt, et merito, quia sic disputando potestatem praelatorum pro quanto earn diminuere intendunt, fitrari [furari?] quantum in ipsis est nituntur, quae quia de numero sacrorum est a Deo sanctae ecclesiae concessorum [concessum?] igitur ad instar sacrilegii est disputare de potestate praelatorum…Et quia sic disputantes de praelatorum potestate frequenter sunt invidi praelatis, et rebelles, atque inobedientes, nolentes ab eis corrigi aut corripi vel puniri pro suis delictis, ideo displicere solet praelatis…de ipsorum potestate disputare, et hoc prohibent. Et merito, quia vident sibi in hoc iniuriari, et divinae ordinationi contrariari, et bonum publicum demoliri, et sic disputantibus sibi a seipsis aeternam damnationem procurari’: ibid.

⁶⁸ ‘Disputare autem de potestate praelatorum secunda intentione etiam est illicitum eadem de causa qua praecedens quia sicut est data praelatis a Deo simpliciter ad ecclesiae utilitatem, sic etiam data est eis in determinato gradu ad eandem utilitatem, ut ad magis et minus, sive maius et minus potestatis, quam sit a Deo datum ad ecclesiae utilitatem, non vergeret. Et sic utroque modo disputare de potestate praelatorum vitiosum est. Magis tamen vitiosum est disputare de ilia prima intentione quam secunda quia disputario [disputatio?] de ilia intentione secunda potius est in favorem ecclesiae et praelatorum quam in odium…Et quia tali intentione plerique de potestate praelatorum disputant adulando sperantes ex immensa potestate praelatorum generaliter, aut specialiter et [ex?] immensa potestate alicuius illorum commodum aliquod sibi provenire, ideo etiam talis disputatio merito debet praelatis displicere. Boni enim viri nolunt aestimari ultra id quod sunt, et frequenter volunt aestimari minus quam sint…Et praecipue debet praelatis talis disputatio talium de sua potestate displicere, quia sicut disputando potestatem praelatorum nimium extendunt, quando earn sperant facere pro se, sic e contrario earn disputando attenuant, quando timent ne per earn debeant praelati contrariari ipsis. Unde frequenter in uno articulo potestatem praelatorum extollunt et in alio deprimunt’: ibid. 393r–v.

⁶⁹ Unde servando medium virtutis et moderamen inter utranque [utramque?] dictarum duarum disputationum de potestate praelatorum, dico quod disputatio de potestate praelatorum intentione tertia, omnino licita est et multum proficua…et bene concedendum est quod talis disputatio de potestate praelatorum multum necessaria est, nee debet displicere alicui, sed multum placere, sicut et placet praelatis bonis postquam sciverint [sciverunt?] et praesumpserint [praesumpserunt?] magistros aliquos tali modo de sua potestate disputare, et hoc praecipue ideo quia tali disputatione plurium etiam ipsi praelati frequenter discunt quantum et quid super subditos possunt, et quantum et quid non possunt, et per hoc sciunt legitime uti sua potestate, et sibi cavere de potestatis abusu, quod forte sine ilia nescirent, sicut subditiex tali disputatione discunt quantum et in quibus debent praelatis suis obedire, et quantum et in quibus non, et per hoc sciunt legitime suis praelatis obedire, et cavere ab indebita rebellione, et in casu obedientiae illicitae suis praelatis obviare, quod forte sine ilia disputatione nescirent': ibid. 393v.

⁷⁰ ‘Nec dico, a subditis mandata praepositorum esse diiudicanda ubi nihil iuberi deprehenditur divinis contrarium institutis…Per dictam autem disputationem omnia quae pertinent ad potestatem praelatorum probantur et diiudicantur dum in praeceptis eorum timetur aliquid adversari divinis institutis, et quod bonum est tenetur per prudentiam serpentum, quae tali disputatione discitur, et per simplicitatem columbae obedienter opere impletur’: ibid.

⁷¹ ‘Dico ergo quod talem disputationem de potestate sua nullus praelatorum refugere debet, sed earn potius appetere, et hoc praecipue quia si quis eorum ipsam refugit, illud in quo eam refugit suspectum de veritate renet [reddet?]’: ibid.

⁷² ‘Nee tamen abnuo quin propter aemulos disputatores et suspectos super aliquibus sub poena disputatio prohiberi potuit absque eo quod de veritate illorum apud prohibentem suspicio aliqua sit…Nee etiam abnuo quin utile esset de potestate praelatorum non disputare si non timeretur quod contraria divinis praeceptis possent praecipere, aut aliter quam veritas se haberet’: ibid.

⁷³ Crowder, C. M. D., Unity, heresy and reform 1378–1460: the conciliar response to the Great Schism, London 1977, 75Google Scholar. See also Oakley, , Political Thought of Pierre d'Ailly, 153–4Google Scholar, and n. 10 above.