BCCCAP00000000000000000000835

314 IGNATIUS BRADY The spokesmen for the Dominicans were James of Brescia, Ver– cellino of Vercelli and Gabriel of Barcelona, who (according to Pius II) played the leading role 111 • If we may believe Father Mortier, O.P, so many Franciscans flocked to Rome for the dispute that the Pope had to make a choice 112 • Pius II says instead that the Minors themselves put forward Francis de Savano or della Rovere, the future Sixtus IV, as their principal speaker, and that their other choice, a certain William, made a very poor showing. He had been extolled to the skies as the monarch of theologians, omnium doctorum doctor, and admired almost as a god: yet he said nothing worthy of note 113 • This comment may perhaps be glossed over as the reaction of an Italian who had little use for the French 114 ; or admitted, with the excuse that Vaurouillon was already an old man in poor health, as shown by his death soon after the dispute 115 • Nonetheless, if we examine the defence presented by Francesco della Rovere, as which lasted three days (apparently 18-20 December), took place in 1462. Dominic de' Do– menichi, a participant in this dispute also, dates his tract De sanguine Christi as of early January 1463 (Vat. lat. 6234, f.118r, and ed. cit., f.lr; cf. H. JEDIN, Studien, 188 and 270). This must be 1463 new style, since Dominic was absent from Rome as legate to Frede– rick III, 1463-1464. This is made absolutely certain by the treatise De sanguine Christi sent to Pius II by the third Franciscan in the dispute, Francis of Rimini; cf. C. PIA.NA , in Tract. Quatuor de Im. Cone. B.M.V. (Bibi. Franc. Schol. XVI), 345. See also Ludwig VON PASTOR, Geschichte der Piipste II, Freiburg 1925, 198 n.2; Storia dei Papi II, Roma 1911, 188 n.3. 111 Commentarii, 279. Their defence is summarized by the Pope himself in De con– tentione Divini Sanguinis inter Predicatores et Minores coram se habita, in Opera inedita, ed. Cugnoni, Romae 1883, 308-336; also in another account in B.N. lat. 12390, f.46r-51r, while the trio later composed a tract on the question, ibid., f.72r78v. See excerpts in QuETIF– ECHARD, Scriptores O.P. I, 823. 112 P. MORTIER, Histoire, 415; his remark goes beyond the chronicle he cites as his source. 113 « Inter Predicatores precipue disputandi partes Gabrieli Cathalano sunt attribute; inter Minores Francisco Saonensi; uterque philosophus, uterque theologus peritissimus habe– batur. Adventaverat ex gymnasio Parisiensi Vilhelmus quidam nomine, ordine Minor, na– tione Gallus, quem sui gentiles omnia supra verum extollentes, in doctrina theologica mo– narcham et omnium doctorum doctorem appellabant, ac veluti quoddam 1mmen admiraban– tur, cui theologi Italici generis comparati, vix nomen discipulorum mererentur: hunc Mi– nores, qui de sanguine disputaret triumvirum elegere. Ea res virum contemptibilem reddidit, cum nihil diceret auditu dignum » (Commentarii, 279). - Though no other source mentions Francis of Rimini, O.F.M., we have his own testimony that he was present and took a vocal part the first day of the debate: « Ego igitur, quoniam responsalis coram eadem Sanctitate Tua officium prima die accepi » (cited in Tractatus quatuor, 345). More important, perhaps, is his testimony that others besides the two Orders took part in the dispute: « Sequitur prelium episcoporum [rubr.]. Post hoe, me absente quoniam non fui permissus intrare, factum est prelium magnum in celo, id est in ecclesia, Te presente, Beatissime Pater, scilicet dominorum episcoporum quorundam in theologia magistrorum » (Vat. lat. 3701, f.26v-27r; note graciously furnished by Fr. Cel. Piana). 114 Thus PELSTER, art. cit., 55; and E. WEGERICH, 194. 115 So Sbara!ea: « .•. at non erat, cur multum de eo obloqueretur, si perpendisset, ipsum iam senem eo anno, et male affectum in ltaliam descendisse, proptereaque non multos post menses a disputatione diem obiisse » (Supplementwn, 339a).