European monarchism in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries

Having read Ed West, I'm off to attempt Hahn and Wiker, Politicizing the Bible... again.

The first chapter concerns that Calamitous Fourteenth Century, as Tuchman would have it. After 1316, Pope John XXII maintained the "temporary" sojourn in Avignon. That, and John XXII's grandiose ambitions for the Papacy, allowed for a crisis of legitimacy elsewhere. The German kings in particular took John XXII for a heretic. One Ludwig got Bavaria and Bohemia on his side, subdued the Habsburg claimant and... invaded Rome. He even set up his own pet Pope there, Nicholas V.

For some reason historians do not count this as a "papal schism". For them, Nicholas is just an antipope. Based in Rome. Well okay then.

Because John XXII was unable to get his (inevitable) excommunication to stick across the Rhône and Rhine, Ludwig opened his realm to any philosopher on the outs with Avignon. Hahn and Wiker point here to Marsilius of Padua, sort of the Pope's mirror image - where the Pope asserted that the Papacy ruled over kings, Marsilius would have kings rule over their church. I get the impression Marsilius would have excelled in Byzantium... had the Fourth Crusade gone otherwise.

William of Ockham was another dissident against Avignon; he ended up in Ludwig's land too, basically following and moderating Marsilius. William figured that that to do commentary on Scripture requires an impartial expert in Scripture. His work, I find admirable. I am unsure why Dante's De Monarchia 1313 does not feature as a third influence on Ludwig's thought and praxis.

I also wonder how come Hahn and Wiker do not know Giles of Rome, as precedent to all the above. Ed West (p. 254 - unindexed, boo!) certainly thinks Giles an influence on Richard II and on Wycliffe. Which should affect Hahn & Wiker's second chapter.

As to Wycliffe's times, the 1377 publication of al-Muqaddimah is a milestone unmentioned here. As to that, perhaps Europe was too busy digesting Avicenna and (especially) Averroes to accept a third Islamic-themed freethinker. (Many think Machiavelli had some access to Ibn Khaldun, but many don't.)