^{page no 177 note 1} For these capitulations see [Raynaldus, O.,] Ann[ales] Eccl[esiaslici] (ed Bar-le-Duc 1877) XXX, p 537 Google Scholar: anno 1511 no 3, where the relevant parts of the capitulations are given verbatim. For the general juristic problems caused by these capitulations see Ullmann, W., ‘The legality of the papal electoral pacts’ in Ephemerides iuris canonici, XII (Rome 1956) pp 212ffGoogle Scholar.

^{page no 178 note 1} See especially Ann Eccl p 397a, 1503, no 6: ‘Ego Julius secundus electus...praemissa omnia et singula promitto, iuro et vovo...et sub poena periurii et anathematis, a quibus nec me ipsum absolvam nee alicui absolutionem committam.’

^{page no 178 note 2} This present communication deals with Julius as pope, and not with the man who in so magnificent a manner had largely made Rome what it has become. It will be recalled that it was Julius II who granted Henry VIII the dispensation from the marriage impediment, see Ann Eccl p 402a-b, 1503, no 22 where the papal decree is dated 26 December 1503.

^{page no 178 note 3} See Georgio, Johannes Antonius de sancto, Commentaria super decretorum volumina (ed Lyons, 1522)Google Scholar hereafter Songiorgio, ad D.a.c.I, Dist 17, no 3, fol 66ra, and Dist. ead.c. I (Synodum) no 5, fol 66va. The extremely detailed presentation by Sangiorgio would warrant a study of its own. He devotes no fewer than six folios to the question of pope and general council. On him see Schulte, [F. J.], [Geschichte der Quellen und Literatur des canonischen Rechts] (Stuttgart 1877) 11, pp 338-41Google Scholar; van Hove, A., Prolegomena ad Codicem Iuris Canonici (2 ed Mechlin-Rome 1945) p 498 Google Scholar. He was created a cardinal by Alexander VI in 1493, having been appointed an auditor of the Rota by Innocent VIII in 1481 (see Cerchiari, A., Capelloni papae et apostolicae sedis auditores (Rome 1926) 11, p 69)Google Scholar. He was professor of Roman and canon law at Pavia and was one of the most outstanding jurists of the late fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries. He died in March 1509 (see Schulte, p 339).

^{page no 179 note 1} One can hardly disagree with [L.] Pastor’s judgment, see his [Geschichte der Päpste im Zeitalter der Renaissance] (Freiburg 1895) 111, p 526 Google Scholar. See further the unnecessarily reticent view of Schwaiger, G. on Julius II in L[exikon für] T[heologie und] K[irche] V (Freiburg 1963) p 1205 Google Scholar: ‘hinter der gewaltigen politisch-militärischen Tätigkeit trat das geistliche Wirken sehr stark zurück.’ Here are good bibliographical details.

^{page no 179 note 2} Once more we can cite Pastor’s view, 111, p 527: ‘Der Hauptgedanke: die Weltmacht des Papsttums neu zu beleben, dem heiligen Stuhl durch einen festgefügten Staat Unabhängigkeit und Ansehen zu verschaffen, stand von Anfang seiner Regierung an unverrückt vor der Seele des neuen Papstes.’

^{page no 180 note 1} Quoted from Reallexikon für Theotogie & Kirche, ed Hauck, A., IX (Tübingen 1907) p 624 Google Scholar.

^{page no 180 note 2} See the latter’s Consilia (ed Frankfurt 1582), cons 419 by him himself (fol 216va); no 420 by Antonius de Butrio (fol 218ra); and no 421 by two other Bolognese doctors. Nor is it generally known that Baldus de Ubaldis dealt at some length with the with-drawal of the French king from the anti-pope Benedict XII in 1397; see Baldus, , Lectura in decretales (ed Venice 1615)Google Scholar ad Extra: 1.iii.25 (Olim), fols 53rb-53va. See further [Petrus de] Ancharano, [Consilia] (ed Lyons 1539) cons 281, fols 116ra ff which is a very subtle and lengthy treatment of the juristic points raised by the cardinals who had receded from both obediences; see further Domenicus, Geminianus, Consilia (ed Lyons 1533), cons 88, fols 51ra-vbGoogle Scholar.

^{page no 181 note 1} On him see Eubel, [C.], [Hierarchia catholica medii aevi] (Münster 1914) 11 p 22 Google Scholar and 111 p 4; further Wodka, J. in LTK, 11 (1957) pp 959-60Google Scholar: cardinal since 1493 and curial legate in Germany in 1496 and 1507-8.

^{page no 181 note 2} For him see Savigny, [F. C], [Geschichte des römischen Rechts im Mittelalter] (Heidelberg 1850) VI, pp 374ffGoogle Scholar; Schulte, 11, pp 361ff and Gilmore, [M. P.], [Humanists and Jurists] (Cambridge, Mass. 1963) pp 73ffCrossRefGoogle Scholar. See also Ascheri, M., Un Maestro del ‘Mos italicus’: Gianfrancesco Sannazari della Ripa (Milan 1970) pp 27-9Google Scholar.

^{page no 181 note 3} See Savigny, VI, pp 397-418, Gilmore, pp 68-72 with further literature.

^{page no 181 note 4} See Savigny, VI, p 381.

^{page no 181 note 5} See Pastor, 111, p 649 (a mere mentioning); Jedin, [H.] [Geschichte des Konzils von Trient] (Freiburg 1949) p 86 Google Scholar (only a few lines) (Engl transi 1957, at p 106). Jedin also refers to an anonymous consilium which he himself had discovered in Rome, Vatican MS Bibl Barb Lat 843; see furthermore Leclercq, J.Hefele-H., Histoire des conciles (Paris 1917) VIII, p 316 Google Scholar, and for a very brief summary, Gilmore, pp 75-7.

^{page no 182 note 1} See Ann Eccl XXX, p 538: ‘pro vera pace christianorum fundanda et sufficienti bello contra infideles et pro extirpatione haeresum et errorum in diversis mundi partibus superiorum negligentia pullulantium et similiter schismatum ac divisionum necnon potissime pro reformatione morum universalis ecclesiae in capite et membris plurimum collapsorum ac emendatione criminum gravissimorum notoriorum, continuorum aut incorrigibilium universalem ecclesiam scandalizantium’.

^{page no 182 note 2} See above, p 178 n 1.

^{page no 182 note 3} See Ann Eccl XXX, p 538b.

^{page no 182 note 4} The statement by Scarisbrick, [J. J.], [Henry VIII] (London 1968) 26 Google Scholar, that Louis XII summoned a schismatic general council to meet at Pisa in May 1511 ‘which would have on its agenda nothing less than the deposition of Julius himself’ does not seem accurate.

^{page no 182 note 5} Ann Eccl XXX, p 538b: ‘Quapropter cum omni reverentia et humilitate ac instantia sanctissimum dominum nostrum Julium papam nomine quo supra supplicamus et per viscera misericordiae Dei nostri requirimus, ut huic vocationi concilii pro dictis causis assentire dignetur et illud personaliter vel per legatos suos honorare et confirmare.’

^{page no 183 note 1} Ibid p 539a: ‘Quia tutum non esset nobis procuratoribus dictam convocationem concila et procestationem in praesentia sanctissimi domini nostri facere, qui sanctae universalis ecclesiae cardinales fratres suos et ecclesiam universalis principes carceribus aliquando mancipandos minati fecit oratoresque principum contra ius gentium detineri, prout notorium est et pro notorio allegatur, ideo decrevimus per affixionem huiusmodi schedulae.’

^{page no 183 note 2} I am unable to understand the statement by Jedin, p 87 (Eng trans p 108) that ‘Sangiorgio blieb bei Julius II.’, because he had been dead for two years by the time the cardinals convoked the general council; he died on 14 March 1509, see Schulte, above p 178 n 3 and Eubel, 11, p 22, n 3.

^{page no 183 note 3} See Sangiorgio, fol 66ra: ‘Satis videtur cum papa ex hoc videtur scandalizareuniversalem ecclesiam, poterunt cardinales quasi ex necessitate convocare concilium ... ubi congregati fuerint (possint) rogare papam ut adsit et auctorizet congregationem, quod si fecerit monendus erit ut se corriget...quod si neque venire neque auctorizare voluerit vel se corrigere recusaverit tamquam suspectus de haeresi poterit deponi, c.si papa (=Dist. xl.c.6).’ About the provenance of this chapter in Gratian see Ullmann, W., ‘Cardinal Humbert and the ecclesia Romana‘ in Studi Gregoriani, IV (Rome 1952) pp 111ffGoogle Scholar; here also further literature. In another place Sangiorgio declared that in case of scandal caused by the pope, the council could well proceed against him ‘non intelligo ad iudicandum eum, sed ad monendum et inducendum eum ad correctionem, quia a nemine excepta causa haeresis iudicari potest’ (fol 66va, no 5).

^{page no 184 note 1} See Jason, de Mayno, Consilia (ed Frankfurt 1609) IV, cons. 95, pp 349ffGoogle Scholar at no 41, p 356b: ‘Item per concilium generale potent fieri charitativa admonitio et exhortatio papae circa eius correctionem denuntiando ei qualiter pernicioso vitae suae exemplo universam ecclesiam scandalizaret et conturbaret. Quae exhortatio sic a tota ecclesia facta cum tanta sollenitate et auctoritate non est dubium quin magna virtutis et efficaciae esset ad animimi papae in bonum convertendum.’

^{page no 184 note 2} On Dist. xl, c. 6.

^{page no 184 note 3} See further Baldus, , Lectura ad tres priores libros decretalium (ed Venice 1615)Google Scholar ad Extra: 1.iii.25, no 22, fol 53vb: after referring to Huguccio ‘quod papa potest removeri propter notorium crimen enorme. Tene menti.’ The outstanding Ludovicus Romanus Pontanus held in his Consilia (ed Frankfurt 1577) cons. 523, no 15, fol 285rb that ‘papa stans in crimine notorio scandalizante totam ecclesiam desistere nolens incidit in suspicionem haeresis...potest ut haereticus condemnari atque consequenter deponi a papatu.’

^{page no 184 note 4} See gl. ord. ad Dist. xl, c. 6. [Phillipus], Decius in his [Consilium], ed in Melchior Goldast, Monarchia Romani imperii (Frankfurt 1668) 11 pp 1767ffGoogle Scholar at p 1771, no XIII, lines 25ff: ‘Illa enim incorrigibilitas seu contumacia dicitur haeresis secundum glossam, et tali casu non requiritur quod sit haereticus proprie.’ See also Ancharano above, p 180 n 2.

^{page no 184 note 5} See above, p 178 n 1. See further Antonius, de Butrio, Commentaria ad decretales (ed Lyons 1556)Google Scholar ad Extra: 1.ii.1, no 10, fol 9vb: ‘Et papa astringitur voto et iuramento ac promissione nae ab illis stante vinculo seipsum absolvere potest...ex quibus patet Gregorium XII qui in conclavi ante papatum tamquam cardinalis et post papatum promisit, iuravit et vovit renuntiare pro sedando schismate quod duraverat XXX annis...quod et publicavit per universum orbem, suo astringitur iuramento et voto et promissione...cardinales pene omnes ab eo de Luca recesserunt Pisas.’ Cf. further Panormitanus, Super quinto libro deaetalium (ed Lyons 1512) ad Extra: v.xxxix.44, no 5, fol 248ra, as well as Decius in Cons., p 1772, no XVII, lines 30ff. The latter pointed out that the oath came within the precincts of divine law, from which, by general consent, the pope could not dispense.

^{page no 185 note 1} Decius, p 1770, lines 3-5.

^{page no 185 note 2} Ibid, p 1774, no XXVI, lines 58ff. For earlier similar views see Tierney, [B.], [Foundations of conciliar theory] (repr Cambridge 1969) pp 127ffGoogle Scholar.

^{page no 185 note 3} See Paulus, Castrensis, Consilia (ed Frankfurt 1582) 1, cons. 419 Google Scholar, who went even so far as to say that ‘si cardinales persistant in eius obedientia [Gregory XII] videntur eius esse fautores et participare in crimine praestando ei auxilium et favorem’. See also Antonius deButrio, cons. 420, fol 217rb who held a similar opinion. Cardinal Zabarella had indeed envisaged the possibility of a divided College of Cardinals in which case he counselled recourse to the emperor, obviously an advice that could not be adopted in the present instance, see his Consilia (ed Lyons 1552), cons. 150, fols 90vb-92rb, at no 5, fol 91ra: ‘ipse [imperator] repraesentat totum populum christianum’ with a reference to the lex regia. About Zabarella see Ullmann, W., The Origins of the Great Schism (repr London 1967) pp 191ffGoogle Scholar.

^{page no 186 note 1} Decius, p 1775, lines 12ff and lines 23ff: ‘Quia collegium deprehenditur in negligentia, haec provincia ad cardinales deferri videtur, ut omnes doctores tenent.’

^{page no 186 note 2} Decius refers to Baldus, Lectura in Codicem (ed Venice 1615), v.i.2, fol 149vb, but this appears hardly relevant, as Baldus dealt here with the unfulfilled promise to marry within two years, in which case no special warning was necessary.

^{page no 186 note 3} See for instance, Panormitanus, [Super primo libro decretalium] (ed Lyons 1512) ad Extra: 1.v.2, no 9, fol 77ra: ‘...quaeritur numquid ius universitairs possit remanere in uno solo omnibus aliis mortuis vel privatis... tota potentia collegii residet in isto solo ... iste tarnen solus non poterit seipsum eligere’. See also Petrus, de Monte, De potestate pontifias, ed in Tractatus universi iuris (ed Venice 1579) XIII, 1, fol 147vaGoogle Scholar: ‘ius universitatis potest esse in uno residente.’ This standpoint had already been clearly expressed by the gl. ord. on Extra: 1.v.2, s.v. ‘Pauciores’. For Petrus de Monte compare also Black, A., Monarchy & Community (Cambridge 1970) pp 58, 62ffGoogle Scholar.

^{page no 186 note 4} See further the gl. ord. on Extra: 1.v.2; and Panormitanus, no 5, fol 76vb.

^{page no 186 note 5} Furthermore, the right of the College of Cardinals could devolve on one cardinal only, as the corresponding uiversitas in Roman law also could consist of one member only, according to Decius, p 1775, no XVIII, lines 51, 55ff referring to Dig. 3.4.7 §2: ‘ius omnium in unum reciderit et stet nomen universitatis.’

^{page no 187 note 1} Ann Eccl, pp 540b-545b.

^{page no 187 note 2} Ibid p 543b.

^{page no 187 note 3} Ibid pp 543b, 544a.

^{page no 187 note 4} Ibid p 543b.

^{page no 188 note 1} Ibid p 544b.

^{page no 188 note 2} In his lengthy work De concilio, lib. vii, art. 1, ed in Tractatus universi inris (Venice 1584), XIII-I, fol 302.

^{page no 188 note 3} Gradan, XXIV.i.34; also Panormitanus in the heading on the gl. ord. on Extra: V, 8.

^{page no 189 note 1} Ann Eccl, p 544.

^{page no 189 note 2} For Jacobazzi see Ullmann, W. in Medieval Studies presented to Aubrey Gwynn, ed Watt, J. A., Morrall, J. B., Martin, F. X. (Dublin 1961) p 360, n 4 Google Scholar, with further literature.

^{page no 189 note 3} See De concilio, no 80, fol 302vb: ‘Non videntur dicendi schismatici [cardinales] quia nullam scissuram in ecclesia fecerunt...cum ergo per discessum ipsorum cardinalium adhuc nulla reperiatur illicita divisio per inobedientiam ab unitate ecclesiae, sequitur quod adhuc praedicti cardinales non possunt dici schismatici.’

^{page no 189 note 4} Ibid no 82, fol 303ra: ‘Vereor si post intimatum concilium per sanctissimum dominum nostrum ad quem hoc spectat, se non subiecerunt voluntati eius, et a suis coeptis non destiterint volendo a seipsis concilium tenere et antipapam erigere, quod tune erunt vere et proprie schismatici, quia tune quicquid fecerunt, ambitiose factum esse ostenderent.’ See also ibid no 87, fol 303rb. Jedin has rightly stressed the importance of Jacobazzi’s standpoint, p 89 (Eng trans p 107).

^{page no 190 note 1} Ann Eccl, pp 5J3-7, with testimonies of eye witnesses and actual texts of sanctions promulgated.

^{page no 190 note 2} See, for instance, Decius, no XI, p 1770, lines 50ff: ‘Non curandum est quod theologi aliter .dicant, quia in ista materia magis standum est doctoribus canonum quam theologiae magistris, quia hoc non exigitur de articulis fidei, sed de moribus et integritate vitae, quo casu magis credendum est professoribus canonum.’ See also no XII, p 1771, lines 20ff expressing a similar point of view.

^{page no 191 note 1} See Tierney, especially pp 96ff.

^{page no 191 note 2} See Scarisbrick, p 166: ‘probably the most considerable Catholic theologian of the century.’

^{page no 191 note 3} See also the assessment by Jedin, p 91 (Eng trans p 114).

^{page no 192 note 1} See Pastor, 111, p 564; more recently Wiesflecker, H., ‘Kaiser-Papst Plan Maximilians i.J.1511’ in Mitteilungen des Instituts für österreichische Geschichtsforschung, LXXI (Vienna 1963) pp 311-32Google Scholar.

^{page no 192 note 2} See Decius above, p 190 n 2.

^{page no 193 note 1} There was of course consistency in Julius II’s basic aims. Two years earlier, on 2 July 1509, he had issued his decree Suscepti regiminis, ed in Bullarium [Magnum Romanam] (Lyons 1692) I, pp 511-12, in which any appeal to a general council against a decree or law by whomsoever initiated, made the appellant at least suspected of heresy. This, incidentally, is still the law in the modern Codex iuris canonici (c.2332). But this decree of Julius II was an extension of Pius II’s decree Execrabilis of 18 January 1459: it was the first time that an appeal from a decree or verdict of the pope to a general council incurred the penalties of the crime of lèse-majesté (ed in Bullarium, 1, p 386).

^{page no 193 note 2} See his Resolutiones (ad annum 1518) in conclusio 89, WA (1883) 1, p 627, lines 27ff. ‘Ecclesia indiget reformatione, quod non est unius hominis, pontifias nee multorum cardinalium officium sicut probavit utrumque novissimum concilium, sed tocius orbis, immo solius Dei.’ On this see esp Stange, C., ‘Luther und das Konzil von Pisa von 1511’ in Zeitschrift für systematische Theologie, X (Tübingen 1933) pp 681ffGoogle Scholar at pp 685-8, 709-10.