queue_music Chapters

• 01 - Introduction, Ch. 1: The Rise of Papal Power, Pt. 1

  play_arrowPlaymenu_bookRead

  I. The Rise of Papacy from the Great Schism to the Sac of Rome, Volume I. Chapter 1. The Rise of Papal Power, Part 1. The change that passed over Europe in the 16th century was due to the development of new conceptions, political, intellectual, and religious, which found their expression in a period of bitter conflict. The state system of Europe was remodeled, and the medieval ideal of a united Christendom was replaced by a struggle of warring nationalities.

  The papal monarchy over the Western Church was attacked and overthrown. The traditional basis of the ecclesiastical system was impugned and in some countries rejected in favor of the authority of Scripture. The study of classical antiquity engendered new forms of thought and created an inquiring criticism which gave a new tendency to the mental activity of Europe. The processes by which these results were achieved were not isolated but influenced one another. However

  important each may be in itself, it cannot be profitably studied when considered apart from the reaction of the rest. The object of the following pages is to trace, within a limited sphere, the working of the causes which brought about the change from medieval to modern times. The history of the papacy affords the widest field for such an investigation, for the papacy was a chief element in the political system and was supreme over the

  ecclesiastical system of the Middle Ages, while round it gathered much that was most characteristic of the changing intellectual life of Europe. The period which we propose to traverse may be defined as that of the decline of the papal monarchy over Western Europe. The abasement of the papacy by the great schism of the 14th century intensified papal aggression and wrought havoc in the organization of the Church. The schemes of reform which consequently agitated Christendom

  showed a widespread desire for change. Some of these movements were held to pass beyond reform to revolution and were consequently suppressed while the plans of the conservative reformers failed through national jealousies and want of statesmanship. After the failure of these attempts at organized reform, the chief European kingdoms redressed their most crying grievances by separate legislation or by agreements with the pope. A reaction that was skillfully used

  restored the papacy to much of its old supremacy, but instead of profiting by the lessons of adversity, the papacy only sought to minimize or abolish the concessions which had been rung from its weakness. Impelled by the growing feeling of nationality, it sought a firm basis for itself as a political power in Italy, whereby it regained prestige in Europe and identified itself with the Italian mind at its most fertile epoch. But by its close identification with Italy,

  the papacy both in national and intellectual matters drifted apart from Germany and the result was a Teutonic and national rebellion against the papal monarchy. A rebellion so far successful that it divided Europe into two opposing camps and brought to light differences of national character, of political aim, and intellectual ideas, which had grown up unnoticed till conflict forced them into conscious expression. Important as this period may be, it deals only with one or

  two phases of the history of the papacy. Before we trace the steps in the decline of the papal monarchy, it will be useful to recall briefly the means by which it rose and the way in which it was interwoven with the state system of Europe. The history of the early church shows that even in apostolic times, the Christian congregations felt a need of organization. Deacons were chosen by popular election to provide for the due ministration of Christian benevolence,

  and elders were appointed to be rulers and instructors of the congregation. As the apostles passed away, the need of presidency over meetings of the representatives of congregations developed the order of bishops and led to the formation of districts within which their authority was exercised. The political life which had been extinguished under the Roman imperial system began to revive in the organization of the church, and the old feeling of civic

  government found in the regulation of ecclesiastical affairs a new field for its exercise. A line of separation was gradually drawn between the clergy and the laity, and the settlement of controversies concerning the Christian faith gave ample scope for the activity of the clerical order. Frequent assemblies were held for the discussion of disputed points, and the preeminence of the bishops of the chief cities was gradually established over other bishops. The clergy

  claimed authority over the laity. The control of the bishop over the inferior clergy grew more definite, and the bishop in turn recognized the superiority of his metropolitan. In the third century, the Christian churches formed a powerful and active confederacy with an organized and graduated body of officials. The state looked on this new power with suspicion, which at times passed into persecution. Persecution only strengthened the organization of the church,

  and brought into prominence the depth of its influence. As soon as it became clear that in spite of persecution, Christianity had made good its claim to be ranked as a power amongst men, the empire turned from persecution to patronage. Constantine aimed at restoring the imperial power by removing its seat to a new capital where it might rise above the traditions of its past. In the new Rome by the Bosphorus,

  the old memories of freedom and of paganism were alike discarded. The gratitude of a Christian people to a Christian emperor, combined with the servile ideas of the East, to form a new foundation for the imperial power on a ground cleared from those restraints which the past history of the city of Rome seemed to impose on claims to irresponsible sway. The plan of Constantine so far succeeded as to erect a compact power in the East, which withstood for centuries

  the onslaughts of the barbarian invaders who swept over Western Europe. But though Rome was left widowed of her imperial splendor, the memories of empire still hung around her walls, and her barbarian conquerors bowed before the awe inspired by the glories of her mighty past. In the rise of the papacy on the spot left desolate by the empire, the mysterious power of the old city claimed the future as her own, by breathing her stern spirit of aggression into the

  power of love and brotherhood which had begun to bind the world into a vaster system than even the Roman Empire had created. Moreover, in the East, the imperial system had no intention of conferring on the new religion which it adopted a different position from that held by the old religion which it had laid aside. Christianity was still to be a state religion, and the emperor was still to be supreme. The internal development of Oriental Christianity strengthened these imperial claims.

  The subtlety of the Oriental mind busied itself with speculations as to the exact relationships involved in the doctrine of the Trinity, and the exact connection between the two natures of Christ. A feverish passion for logical definitions seized clergy and laity alike, and these abstruse questions were argued with unseemly heat. Patriarchs hurried into rash assertions, which calmer inquiry showed to be dangerous, and the patriarchates of the East lost respect

  among the Orthodox because their holders had been at times associated with some shallow or over-hearty doctrine. As the struggles waxed fiercer in the East, men's eyes turned with greater reverence to the one patriarch of the West, the Bishop of Rome, who was but slightly troubled by the conflicts that rent asunder the Eastern Church. The practical tendency of the Latin mind was comparatively free from the temptations to over-speculation which beset the subtle Greek. The barbarian settlements

  in the West called out a missionary zeal which was concerned with enforcing the great moral principles of religion on the consciences of men, rather than attempting to commend its details to their intelligence by acuteness of definition. The Western Church, which recognized the precedence of the Bishop of Rome, enjoyed the blessings of inward peace, and more and more frequently were questions referred from the troubled East to the decision of the Roman bishop. The precedence of

  the Bishop of Rome over other bishops was a natural growth of the conditions of the time. The need for organization was forced upon the Church by internal discords and the hardships of stormy days. The traditions of organization were of a quest from the imperial system. It was natural, in 347 AD, that the Council of Sardica should entrust Bishop Julius of Rome with the duty of receiving appeals from bishops who had been condemned by synods and ordering, if he

  thought fit, a fresh trial. It was natural that the Council of Chalcedon in 451 AD should accept the letter brought by the legates of Leo the Great as an orthodox settlement of the weary contests about the union of the divine and human natures in the person of Christ. The prestige of the imperial city, combined with the integrity, impartiality, and practical sagacity of its bishops, won for them a general recognition of precedence. The fall of the shadowy Empire of

  the West from AD 476 to 590 and the union of the imperial power in the person of the ruler of Constantinople brought a fresh accession of dignity and importance to the Bishop of Rome. The distant emperor could exercise no real power over the West. The Astragothic Kingdom in Italy scarcely lasted beyond the lifetime of its great founder Theoderic. The wars of Justinian only served to show how scanty were the benefits of the imperial rule. The invasion of the Lombards

  united all dwellers in Italy in an endeavor to escape the lot of servitude and save their land from barbarism. In this crisis, it was found that the imperial system had crumbled away and that the church alone possessed a strong organization. In the decay of the old municipal aristocracy, the people of the towns gathered round their bishops, whose sacred character inspired some respect in the barbarians and whose act of charity lightened the calamities of their

  flocks. In such a state of things, Pope Gregory the Great, 590 to 604, raised the papacy to a position of decisive eminence and marked out the course of its future policy. The piety of emperors and nobles had conferred lands on the Roman church, not only in Italy, but in Sicily, Corsica, Gaul, and even in Asia and Africa, until the bishop of Rome had become the largest landowner in Italy. To defend his Italian lands against the incursions of the Lombards was a course suggested to Gregory

  by self-interest. To use the resources which came to him from abroad as a means of relieving the distress of the suffering people in Rome and southern Italy was a natural prompting of his charity. In contrast to this, the distant emperor was too feeble to send any effective help against the Lombards, while the fiscal oppression of his representatives added to the miseries of the starving people. The practical wisdom, administrative capacity, and Christian zeal of Gregory the First

  led the people of Rome and the neighboring regions to look upon the pope as their head in temporal as well as in spiritual matters. The papacy became a national center to the Italians and the attitude of the popes toward the emperor showed the spirit of independence which rapidly passed into antagonism and revolt. Gregory the First was not daunted by the difficulties nor absorbed by the cares of his position at home. When he saw Christianity threatened in Italy by

  the heathen Lombards, he boldly pursued a system of religious colonization. While dangers were rife at Rome, a band of Roman missionaries carried Christianity to the distant English, and in England first was founded a church which owed its existence to the zeal of the Roman bishop. Success beyond all that he could have hoped for attended Gregory's pious enterprise. The English church spread and flourished, a dutiful daughter of her mother church of Rome.

  England sent forth missionaries in her turn, and before the preaching of Wille Brod and Winifred, heathenism died away in Friesland, Franconia, and Turingia. Under the new name of Boniface, given him by Pope Gregory the Second, Winifred, as Archbishop of Mainz, organized a German church subject to the successor of St. Peter. The course of events in the East also tended to increase the importance of the Sea of Rome. The Mohammedan conquests destroyed the patriarchates of Antioch

  and Jerusalem, which alone could boast of an apostolic foundation. Only Constantinople remained as a rival to Rome, but under the shadow of the imperial despotism, it was impossible for the patriarch of Constantinople to lay claim to spiritual independence. The settlement of Islam in its eastern provinces involved the empire in a desperate struggle for existence. Henceforth, its object no longer was to reassert its supremacy over the West, but to hold its ground against

  watchful foes in the East. Italy could hope for no help from the emperor, and the pope saw that a breach with the empire would give greater independence to his own position and enable him to seek new allies elsewhere. An opportunity was not long in coming. The great emperor, Leo the Isaurian, in his endeavor to organize afresh the shattered mechanism of the imperial system, saw the need of rescuing oriental Christianity from an effeminate sentimentalism

  which sapped its strength. A spirit of ecstatic and transient devotion had taken the place of a serious sense of the hard duties of practical life. By ordering the restriction of images to the purpose of architectural ornaments, Leo hoped to infuse into his degenerate people some of the severe Puritanism which marked the followers of Mohammed. He hoped, moreover, to enforce his decree to assert the power of the emperor over the church and so to strengthen the imperial

  authority. In the East, his edict met with serious opposition. In the West, it was regarded as a needless and unauthorized interference of the imperial power in the realms of church government. Combining political and ecclesiastical animosity, Pope Gregory II loudly protested against the execution in Italy of the imperial decree. The Romans drove from the walls the imperial governor and the pope was left undisputed head of the imperial church of the West. In this abeyance

  of the empire, the Lombard king naturally aspired to seize the vacant dignity and the only possible help for Italy was to be found in the Frankish kingdom which under the strong rule of the house of Pippin of London had between 740 and 756 renewed his early vigor. In consolidating his power, Pippin the Short saw the usefulness of ecclesiastical organization as a means of binding to the Frankish monarchy the German tribes across the Rhine. Through the labors upon a face

  the apostle of the Germans, the papacy reaped a rich return for Gregory I's gift of Christianity to the English by the formation of an alliance between the pope and the ruler of the Franks. There were more ways than one in which these two vigorous powers could help each other. Pippin wished to set aside in name as he had done indeed the Merovingian line which still held the titular sovereignty of the Franks. Relieved from their scruples by the supreme priestly authority

  of the pope, in 751 the Franks elected Pippin, who had hitherto been mayor of the palace, as their king and the bishops gave peculiar solemnity to this transfer of national allegiance by the ceremony of anointing the new sovereign with holy oil. Soon pope Stephen III asked for help in his turn and in 754 fled to Pippin before the triumphant advance against Rome of the Lombard King. Pippin recognized his obligations to the pope. In two campaigns he beat back the Lombard

  King and made him relinquish his conquests. Wishing moreover to give a signal token of his gratitude, he bestowed on the pope the territory which the Lombards had won from the emperor, the district reaching along the eastern coast from the mouth of the Po to Ancona. Thus the possessions of the emperor passed into the hands of the pope and their acquisition gave definiteness to the temporal power which circumstances had gradually forced upon the papacy.

  On the other hand, the imperial suzerainty over Italy devolved on the Frankish king and the vague title of patrician of Rome, bestowed on Pippin by the pope as representative of the Roman people, paved the way for the bestowal of the full imperial title of the west upon Pippin's more famous son. Charles the Great, son of Pippin, extended still further the power and renown of the Frankish monarchy till he won for himself a position which was in truth imperial over Western Europe.

  He crushed the last remains of the Lombard power in Italy and extended over the papacy his protecting arm. Leo III fled across the Alps to beg for protection against his foes who had attempted a murderous outrage upon him. Charles led back the pope in triumph to the rebellious city where on Christmas Day 800 as he knelt in St. Peter's Church in the garb of a Roman patrician, the pope advanced and placed upon his head a golden crown. While the church rang with the

  shout of the assembled Romans, long life and victory to Charles Augustus, crowned by God, great and pacific emperor. In such strange fashion did the city of Rome assume once more its right of setting up an emperor, a right which since the time of Romulus Augustulus it had been content to leave to the new Rome in the east. Everything tended to make this step both easy and natural. The eastern empire was in the hands of a woman and was sunk for the time both

  in feebleness and moral decay. The Germans on the contrary were united for the first time into a strong power and were ruled by a vigorous hand. No longer was there any antagonism between Germans and Latins. They had found the need in which each stood of the other and were joined in firm alliance. The coronation of Charles corresponded to the ambition of Latins and Germans alike. To the Latins it seemed to be the restoration to Rome and to Italy of their former glory.

  To the Germans it was the realization of the dream which had floated before the eyes of the earliest conquerors of their race. To Latins and Germans alike it was at once the recognition of their past achievements and the earnest of their future greatness. No one could have foreseen that the power which would reap the greatest benefit was that represented by him who in his twofold capacity of chief magistrate of the city of Rome and chief priest of Christendom placed the crown on the head

  of the kneeling Charles and then fell prostrate before him in recognition of his high imperial dignity. End of section 1.

• 02 - Ch. 1: The Rise of Papal Power, Pt. 2

  play_arrowPlaymenu_bookRead

  Chapter 1. The Rise of Papal Power, Part 2. The coronation of Charles may be explained on grounds of temporal expediency, but it also had its root in the ideal aspirations of men's hearts, an ideal which was partly a memory of the worldwide organization of the old Roman Empire and partly an expression of the yearning for universal brotherhood which Christianity had taught mankind. It put into definite form the

  belief in the unity of Christendom, which was the leading principle in medieval politics, till it was shattered by the movement which ended in the Reformation. It was natural to express this theory in the form of outward organization and to set up by the side of a Catholic Church, which was to care for the souls of all Christian people, a universal empire which was to rule their bodies. No disappointment was rude enough to show men that this theory was but a dream.

  They were not so much concerned with actual practice. It was enough for them that the theory was lofty and noble. The establishment of this great symbol of a united Christendom could not but produce ultimately an accession to the papal dignity, though under Charles himself, the Pope held the position of a grateful subordinate. The Empire was the representation of God's Kingdom on earth. The Emperor, not the Pope, was the vice regent of the Most High. The

  Pope was his chief minister in ecclesiastical affairs, standing in the same relation toward him as did the High Priest towards the divinely appointed King of the Jewish theocracy. But the strong hand of Charles was needed to keep his empire together. Under his feeble successor's local feeling again made head against the tendencies towards centralization, the name of Emperor became merely an ornamental title of him who in the partition of the Dominions of Charles

  obtained the Kingdom of Italy. Under the degenerate rulers of the line of Charles, it was impossible to look upon the Empire as the representation on earth of the Kingdom of God. It was at this time that the papacy first stood forward as the center of the state system of Europe. The Empire had fallen after having given an expression, as emphatic as it was brief, to the political ideas that lay deep in the minds of men. The unity embodied in the Empire of Charles had been broken up into

  separate states. But it still was possible to combine these states into a theocracy under the rule of the Pope. The theory of the papal monarchy over the Church was not the result merely of grasping ambition and intrigue on the part of individual popes. It corresponded rather to the deep-seated belief of Western Christendom. This desire to unite Christendom under the Pope gave meaning and significance to the forged decretals bearing the name of Isidore, which formed the

  legal basis of the papal monarchy. This forgery did not come from Rome, but from the land of the Western Franks. It set forth a collection of pretended decrees of early councils and letters of early popes, which exalted the power of the bishops and at the same time subjected them to the supervision of the Pope. The Pope was set forth as universal bishop of the Church, whose confirmation was needed for the decrees of any council. The importance of the forgery lay in the

  fact that it represented the ideal of the future as a fact of the past and displayed the papal primacy as an original institution of the Church of Christ. The papacy did not originate this forgery, but it Pope Nicholas I, A.D. 857 to 867, claimed and exercised the powers of supreme ecclesiastical authority and was happy in being able to exercise them in the cause of moral right. The Frankish Church was willing to allow the profligate King Lothar II to put away his wife that he might marry

  The Pope interfered, sent delegates to inquire into the matter, deposed the archbishops of Cologne and Trier, and forced Lothar into an unwilling submission. In like manner he interposed in the affairs of the Eastern Church, withstood the Emperor, and sided with the deposed Patriarch of Constantinople. On all sides he claimed for his office a decisive supremacy. Meanwhile, the Empire fell still lower in prestige and power. The papacy, allying with the feudal feeling of the

  great vassals who were striving to make the Frankish kingship elective, declared the Empire be elective also. Charles the Bald, 870 to 950, in 875, received the imperial title from the hands of John VIII as a gift of the Pope, not as a hereditary dignity. If the decay of the Frankish monarchy had not involved the destruction of order throughout Europe, the papacy might have won its way rapidly to supreme temporal as well as spiritual power. But the end of the 9th century

  was a time of wild confusion. Saracens, Normans, Slavs plundered and conquered almost at will, and the Frankish kings and the popes were equally powerless to maintain their position. The great vassals among the Franks destroyed the power of the monarchy. The fall of the imperial power in Italy deprived the popes of their protector and left them helpless instruments in the hands of the Italian nobles who were called their vassals. Yet even from

  its degradation the papacy had something to gain as the claims put forth by Nicholas I, gained in validity by not being exercised. When Empire and papacy at last revived, two centuries of disorder threw a halo of immemorial antiquity over the forged decretals and the bold assertions of Nicholas I. From this common abasement, the temporal power was the first to rise, 950 to 1046. The German peoples within the empire of Charles the Great were at length

  united by the urgent necessity of protecting themselves against the barbarous foes. They formed a strong elective monarchy and shook themselves loose from their Romanized brethren, the Western Franks, amongst whom the power of the vassals was still to maintain disunion for centuries. The German kingdom was the inheritor of the ideas and policy of Charles the Great, and the restoration of the imperial power was a natural and worthy object of the Saxon line of

  kings. The restoration of the empire involved a restoration also of the papacy, but this was not left solely to political considerations. A revival of Christian feeling found a center in the great monastery of Cluny and the monastic reformers, thoroughly imbued with the ideas of the forged decretals, aimed at uniting Christendom under the headship of the pope. Their immediate objects were to bring back the clergy to purer and more spiritual lives, and to check the secularization

  of the clerical office which the growing wealth of the church in the lax discipline of stormy times had gradually wrought. Their cry was for the strict enforcement of the celibacy of the clergy and the suppression of simony. They felt, however, that reform must begin with the head, and that no one could restore the papacy except the emperor. Henry III was hailed as a second David, one at the synod of sutri. He superintended the deposition of three simonyical or profligate popes who were

  struggling for the chair of Saint Peter. Then, under a noble line of German popes, the papacy was again identified with the highest spiritual life of Christendom, and learned to borrow the strength of the imperial system under whose shadow it grew to power. This condition of tutelage to the empire could not long continue. The German bishop might be filled with the deepest loyalty to the emperor, but his ideas and aspirations became enlarged when he was raised to the lofty position of head

  of the church. So soon as the papacy was reestablished, it aimed at independence. The next objects of the reformers were to make Rome the center of the new ideas, to secure for the papacy a safe position in Rome itself, and to free it from its dependence on the empire. Their leading spirit was an Italian monk, Hildebrand of Saona, who both at Rome and Cluny had studied the reforming policy, and then, with keen and sober appreciation of the task that lay before him, set himself to give it effect.

  Hildebrand combined the resoluteness that came from monkish discipline with the versatility and clear judgment that Marcus statesman. He labored patiently at the task of enforcing ideas which might provide a basis for the papal power. His aim was to make clear the principles on which the papal monarchy was to rest, and he trusted to the future to fill in the outline which he was careful to trace distinctly. He had the greatest mark of political genius. He knew how to wait till the

  full time had come. He maintained the German power in Rome till it had crushed the factious party among the Roman nobles. Then, by entrusting the papal election to the cardinal bishops, priests, and deacons, a step was taken which professed to check the turbulence of the Roman people, but which also stopped imperial interference. An alliance with the Norman settlers in south Italy won to the papal cause soldiers who had a direct interest in opposing the imperial claims.

  The papacy slowly prepared to assert its independence of imperial protection. When at length the time was ripe, Hildebrand ascended the papal throne as Gregory VII, 1073 to 1085. Full of zeal and enthusiasm, he was desirous of carrying out the grandest schemes. He wished to summon an army from the whole of Christendom, which under his leadership would conquer Byzantium, unite the eastern and western churches under one head, and then march triumphantly against

  the Saracens and expel them from the lands where they had usurped an unlawful sway. A worthy domain was to be secured for the papal monarchy by the restoration of the old limits of Christendom, and the glories of the brightest age of the church were to be brought back once more. It was a splendid dream, fruitful like all that Gregory did for later times, but with a sigh. Gregory renounced his dream for the harsh realities of his actual condition. Men were

  lukewarm. The church at home was corrupt. Kings and rulers were profligate, careless, and unworthy of a lofty aim. The reforming principles must sink deeper before western Christendom was fitted for a noble mission. So Gregory VII turned to enforce immediate reforms. The celibacy of the clergy had long floated before the eyes of Christians as an ideal. Gregory VII called on the laity to make it a reality, and bade them abstain from the

  ministrations of a married priest because his blessing was turned into a curse, his prayer into sin. In the midst of the storm which this severity aroused, he went on to take rigorous measures against simony and struck at the root of the evil by forbidding all investiture by laymen to any spiritual office. Gregory VII put forward his ideas in their most pronounced and decided form. He claimed for the church an entire independence from the temporal power. Nor was this all.

  As the struggle advanced, he did not hesitate to declare that the independence of the church was to be found solely in the assertion of its supremacy over the state. We read with wonder the claims which he put forward for the papacy, but our wonder is changed into admiration when we consider how many of them were realized by his successors. Gregory VII did not aim at securing the papal monarchy over the church. That had been established since the days of Nicholas I.

  He aimed at asserting the freedom of the church from the worldly influences which benumbed it by setting up the papacy as a power strong enough to restrain church and state alike. In ecclesiastical matters, Gregory enunciated the infallibility of the pope, his power of deposing bishops and restoring them at his own will, the necessity of his consent to give universal validity to synodal decrees, his supreme and irresponsible jurisdiction,

  the precedents of his legates over all bishops. In political matters, he asserted that the name of pope was incomparable with any other, that he alone could use the insignia of empire, that he could depose emperors, that all princes are to kiss his feet, that he could release from their allegiance the subjects of wicked rulers. Such was the magnificent claims which Gregory VII bequeathed to the medieval papacy and pointed out the way towards their realization.

  Such views as these necessarily led to a struggle between the temporal and spiritual power. The conflict was first with the empire, which was connected in the most vital way with the papacy. Gregory VII was happy in his adversary, the profligate and careless Henry IV. Strong as were the opponents whom the rigorous policy of Gregory raised up, the opponents of the misgovernment of Henry were still stronger. The Saxons rose in revolt against

  a ruler of the house of Franconia, the enemies of the king combined with the pope, and Henry's moral weakness gave Gregory the opportunity of impressing, by a striking dramatic act, his view of the papal power upon the imagination of Europe. Three days did the humbled monarch in the courtyard of the castle of Canossa sue for absolution from the triumphant pope. Gregory as priest could not refuse absolution to a penitent, and by obtaining absolution,

  Henry could overthrow the plans of his opponents. But Gregory as a politician resolved that the absolution so reluctantly extorted, which frustrated his designs for the present, should work for the future furtherance of his aims. The humiliation of Henry IV was made a type to posterity of the relations between the temporal and spiritual power. Gregory VII boldly plunged the papacy into an interminable strife. He was not daunted by the horrors which followed,

  when Rome was plundered by the Normans whom he summoned to his aid. He died in exile from his capital, still confident in the justice of his aims, and left the fruits of his labors for others to reap. The course of events in Europe carried away men's interests to a field where the papacy came into prominence which there was none to dispute. The outburst of crusading zeal united Christendom for common action, in which the unity of the church, which had before been a conception

  of the mind, became a reality, and Europe seemed one vast army under the leadership of the pope. But in the pious enthusiasm of Urban II at Clermont in 1095, we miss the political wisdom of Gregory VII. Urban could animate, but could not guide the zeal, with which men's hearts were full, and instead of the scheme of organized conquest which Gregory VII had mapped out, he kindled a wild outburst of fanaticism which led only to disillusionment.

  Yet the movement corresponded too closely to men's desires for any failure to extinguish it. The old roving spirit of the Teutons was turned into a new channel by its alliance with revived zeal for the church. The materialism of the Middle Ages long sought to find the spirit of Christ in local habitation of those fields which his feet had trodden. So long as the crusading movement lasted, the papacy necessarily occupied the chief place in the politics of Europe.

  Other influences were also at work which tended to strengthen the building which Gregory VII had raised. Gregory had gathered around him a school of canonists whose labors put into legal form the pretensions which he had advanced. The University of Bologna, which became the great center of legal teaching throughout Western Europe, imbibed and extended the ideas of the Isidorean decretals and of the Hildebrandeen canonists. From Bologna issued in the middle of the 12th century

  the Decretum of Gratian, which was accepted throughout the Middle Ages as the recognized code of canon law. It embodied all the forgeries which had been made in the interests of the papacy and carried to its logical consequences the Hildebrandeen system. Moreover, the University of Paris, the center of medieval theology, developed a system of theology and philosophy which gave full recognition to the papal claims. In law and philosophy alike, men's minds were

  led up to the acknowledgement of the papal supremacy as the necessary foundation both of Christian society and thought. The struggle about investiture ended as was to be expected in a compromise. But it was a compromise in which all the glory went to the papacy. Men saw that the papal claims had been excessive, even impossible. But the object at which they aimed, the freedom of the church from the secularizing tendencies of feudalism, was in the main obtained. The conflict

  aroused by Gregory VII deepened in men's minds the sense of spiritual freedom. And if it did not set up the church as independent of the state, at least it saved it from sinking into a passive instrument of royal or aristocratic oppression. But the contest with the empire still went on. One of the firmest supporters of Gregory VII had been Matilda, countess of Tuscany, over whose fervent piety Gregory had thrown the spell of his powerful mind. At her death, she bequeathed her

  possessions which embraced nearly a quarter of Italy to the Holy See. Some of the lands which she had held were allodial. Some were fiefs of the empire, and the inheritance of Matilda was a fruitful source of contention to two powers already jealous of one another. The constant struggle that lasted for two centuries gave full scope for the development of the Italian towns. Courted first by one side and then by the other, they learned how to wring privileges from the emperor in return for

  the help they gave him, and when the imperial pretensions became irksome, they sided with the pope against their common foe. The old Italian notion of establishing municipal freedom by an equilibrium of two contending powers was stamped still more deeply on Italian politics by the wars of Gvels and Ghibelines. The union between the papacy and the Lombard republics was strong enough to humble the mightiest of the emperors. Frederick Barbarossa, who held the strongest views of the

  imperial prerogative, had to confess himself vanquished by Pope Alexander III, and the meeting of pope and emperor at Venice was a memorable ending to the long struggle that the great emperor should kiss the feet of the pope whom he had so long refused to acknowledge was an act which stamped itself with dramatic effect on the imagination of men and gave rise to fables of a still more lowly submission. The length of the strife, the renown of Frederick, the unswerving

  tenacity of purpose with which Alexander had maintained his cause, all lent luster to this triumph of the papacy. The consistent policy of Alexander III, even in adverse circumstances, the calm dignity with which he asserted the papal claims, and the wisdom with which he used his opportunities made him a worthy successor of Gregory VII at a great crisis in the fortunes of the papacy. It was reserved, however, for Innocent III, 1198 to 1216 to realize most fully

  the ideas of Hildebrand. If Hildebrand was the Julius, Innocent was the Augustus of the Papal Empire. He had not the creative genius nor the fiery energy of his great forerunner, but his clear intellect never missed an opportunity and his calculating spirit rarely erred from its mark. A man of severe and lofty character which inspired universal respect, he possessed all the qualities of an astute political intriguer. He was lucky in his

  opportunities, as he had no formidable antagonist. Among the rulers of Europe, his was the master mind. In every land he made the papal power decisively felt. In Germany, France, and England, he dictated the conduct of the kings. His very success, however, was fraught with danger for the future. In England, the pope might treat the kingdom as a fief of the Holy See. But when he attempted to use the papal power in his vassals' aid against the old liberties of the land,

  he awakened a distrust of the papacy which quickly grew in English hearts. On all sides, Innocent III enjoyed successes beyond his hopes. In the East, the crusading zeal of Europe was turned by Venice to the conquest of Constantinople, and Innocent could rejoice for a brief space in the subjection of the Eastern Church. In the West, Innocent turned the crusading impulse to the interest of the papal power by diverting it against heretical sects which in

  northern Italy and the south of France attack the system of the Church. These sectaries consisted of men opposed partly to the rigidity of sacerdotalism, partly to the intellectual narrowness of the Church doctrine, partly to the immoral and unspiritual lives of the clergy. Others again had absorbed Manichean heresies and vague Oriental mysticism, while others used these sects as a cover for antinomian views, for religious heedlessness and profligacy of life. Looked at from the point of

  view of our own day, they seem a strange mixture of good and evil, but from the point of view of the Middle Ages they were a spectacle which could only be regarded with horror. They destroyed the unity of religious belief and practice, and without the visible unity of the Church, Christianity became in men's eyes a mockery. It was in vain to hope for God's blessing on their arms against the infidels in the Holy Land if they allowed unbelievers within the pale of Christendom

  to rend asunder Christ's seamless coat. Innocent III did not speak in vain when he proclaimed a crusade against the Count of Toulouse, whose dominions afforded the chief shelter to these heretics. Political jealousy and a desire for booty strengthened religious fanaticism. The storm of war swept over the smiling fields of Languedoc, and the taint of heresy was washed away in blood. From this time forward, the duty of seeking out

  heretics and bringing them to punishment became a prominent part of the Episcopal office. End of Section 2

• 03 - Ch. 1: The Rise of Papal Power, Pt. 3

  play_arrowPlaymenu_bookRead

  Section 3 of A History of the Papacy, Volume 1 by Mandel Creighton. This LibriVox recording is in the public domain, read by Pamela Nagami. Book 1, Chapter 1, The Rise of Papal Power, Part 3. Moreover, Innocent saw the beginning, though he did not perceive the full importance, of a movement which the reaction against heresy produced within the Church.

  The Crusades had quickened men's activity, and the heretical sex had aimed at kindling greater fervor of spiritual life. The old ideal of Christian duty which had grown up among the miseries of the downfall of the Roman world, gave way to an impulse toward more active zeal. By the sight of the monastic aim of averting, by the prayers and penitents of a few, God's

  anger from a wicked world, there grew up a desire for self-devotion to missionary labor. Innocent III was wise enough not to repulse this new enthusiasm, but find a place for it within the ecclesiastical system. Francis of Assisi gathered round him a body of followers who bound themselves to a literal following of the Apostles, to a life of poverty and labor amongst the poor and outcast.

  Dominic of Castile formed a society which aimed at the suppression of heresy by assiduous teaching of the truth. The Franciscan and Dominican orders grew almost at once into power and importance, and their foundation marks a great reformation within the Church. The Reformation movement of the 11th century, under the skillful guidance of Hildebrand,

  laid the foundations of the papal monarchy in the belief of Europe. The reformation of the 13th century found full scope for its energy under the protection of the papal power. For the papacy was still in sympathy with the conscience of Europe, which it could quicken and direct.

  These mendicant orders were directly connected with the papacy and were free from all episcopal control. Their zeal awakened popular enthusiasm, they rapidly increased in number and spread into every land. The friars became the popular preachers and confessors, and threatened to supersede the

  old ecclesiastical order. Not only amongst the common people, but in the universities as well, did their influence become supreme. They were a vast army devoted to the service of the pope, and overran Europe in his name. They preached papal indulgences, they stirred up men to crusades in behalf of the papacy,

  they gathered money for the papal use. Nowhere could the pope have found more effective servants. Innocent III did not realize the full importance of these new helpers, and even without them, he raised the papacy to its highest level of power and respect. The change which he wrought in the attitude of the papacy may be judged from the fact

  that whereas his predecessors had contented themselves with the title of Vicar of Peter, Innocent assumed the name of Vicar of Christ. Europe was to form a great theocracy under the direction of the pope. If Innocent III thus realized the Hildebrandean ideal of the papacy, he at the same time opened up a dangerous field for its immediate activity, Innocent III may be called the founder

  of the states of the church. The lands with which Pippin and Charles had invested the popes were held subject to the suzerainty of the Frankish sovereign and owned his jurisdiction. Upon the downfall of the Carolingian Empire, the neighboring nobles calling themselves papal vassals seized on these lands, and when they were ousted in the pope's name by the

  Normans, the pope did not gain by the change of neighbors. Innocent III was the first pope who claimed and exercised the rights of an Italian prince. He exacted from the imperial prefect in Rome the oath of allegiance to himself, he drove the imperial vassals from the Matildon domain, and compelled Constance, the widowed queen of Sicily, to recognize the papal suzerainty over her ancestral kingdom.

  He obtained from the emperor Otto IV in 1201 the cession of all the lands which the papacy claimed and so established for the first time an undisputed title to the papal states. Innocent was an Italian as well as a churchman. As a churchman he wished to bring all the kings and princes of Europe into submission to the papal power.

  As an Italian he aimed at freeing Italy from foreign rulers and uniting it into one state under the papal sway. In this new sphere which Innocent opened up lay the greatest danger of Innocent's successors. The papal monarchy over the church had won its way to universal recognition, and the claim of the papacy to interfere in the internal affairs of European states had been established.

  It was natural for the papacy at the height of its power to strive over a firm territorial basis on which to rest secure. What had been gained by moral superiority must be kept by political force. However distant nations might tremble before the papal decrees, it often happened that the pope himself was exiled from his capital by the turbulent rabble of the city or was

  fleeing before foes whom his imperial antagonist could raise against him at his very gates. The papacy was only obeying a natural instinct of self-preservation in aiming at a temporal sovereignty which would secure it against temporal mishaps. Yet the whole significance of the papacy was altered when this desire to secure a temporal sovereignty in Italy became a leading feature of the papal policy.

  The papacy still held the same position in the eyes of men, and its existence was still held necessary to maintain the fabric of Christendom. But a pope straining every nerve to defend his Italian possessions did not appeal to men's sympathies. So long as the papacy had been fighting for ecclesiastical privileges or for the establishment

  of its own dignity and importance, it had been fighting for an idea which in the days of feudal oppression awakened as much enthusiasm as does a struggle for freedom in our own day. When the papacy entered into a war to extend its own possessions, it might win glorious But they were won at a ruinous cost.

  The emperor Frederick II, who had been brought up under Innocent's guardianship, proved the greatest enemy of the newly won sovereignty of the pope. King of Sicily and Naples, Frederick was resolved to assert again the imperial pretensions over north Italy and then win back the papal acquisitions in the center. If his plan had succeeded, the pope would have lost his independence and sunk to be

  the instrument of the House of Hohenstaufen. Two popes of inflexible determination and consummate political ability were the opponents of Frederick. Gregory IX and Innocent IV flung themselves with ardor into the struggle and strained every nerve till the whole papal policy was absorbed by the necessities of this strife.

  Europe groaned under the exactions of papal tax gatherers, who under the old pretense of a crusade rung money from the ecclesiastics of every land. The great interests of Christendom were forgotten in the struggle for self-preservation, and the temporal and spiritual power changed places in Europe. Instead of the pope, the pious king of France, Louis IX, led the last crusading expeditions

  against the infidels, and in his saintly deeds, rather than in the byways of papal policy, men found the highest Christian ideal of their age. The papacy baffled the plans of Frederick II, but Europe had to pay the costs of a struggle with which it felt no sympathy, and the moral prestige of the triumphant papacy was irrevocably lowered.

  Frederick II died in 1250, but the popes pursued with their hostility his remotest descendants and were resolved to sweep the very remembrance of him out of Italy. To accomplish their purpose, they did not hesitate to summon the aid of the stranger. Charles of Anjou appeared as their champion and in the pope's name took possession of the Sicilian kingdom in 1261.

  By his help, the last remnants of the Hohenstaufen house were crushed, and the claims of the empire to rule over Italy were destroyed forever. But the papacy got rid of an open enemy, only to introduce a covert and more deadly foe. The Angevin influence became superior to that of the papacy, and French popes were elected that they might carry out the wishes of the Sicilian king.

  By its resolute efforts to escape from the power of the empire, the papacy only paved the way for a connection that ended in its enslavement to the influence of France. Immersed in narrow schemes of self-interest, the popes lost their real strength in the respect and sympathies of Europe. Instead of being the upholders of ecclesiastical independence, they became the oppressors of

  the clergy and the infringers of ecclesiastical rights. Hence in France, lawyers developed a fruitful conception of the liberties of the Gallican church, freedom of patrons from papal interference, freedom of election to chapters, and a prohibition of papal taxation except with the consent of the church and the crown. Instead of being the upholders of civil liberty, the popes ranked with the princes of Europe

  and had no sympathy with the cause of the people. In England, during the Barons' War, the papacy was on the side of its pliant ally, Henry III, and steadily opposed all efforts to check his feeble misgovernment. The great English churchmen, on the other hand, sided with the Barons, and the English church was the strongest element in the struggle against royal oppression.

  Similarly in Italy, the popes deserted the party which in each city was striving to maintain municipal freedom against foreign aggressors or two powerful nobles at home. When the empire had been reduced to feebleness, the popes had no more need of their republican allies but were intolerant of civic liberties. Hence they were so short-sighted as to permit the suppression of republican constitutions

  by powerful lords and to allow dynasties to establish within the papal states a sway which proved to be the greatest hindrance to the assertion of the papal sovereignty. In this career of purely political enterprise, the papacy again became associated with the factions of contending families in Rome. Till in 1292, the assembled cardinals were so equally divided between the parties that

  they found it impossible to elect. At last in utter weariness they chose the holy hermit of the Abruzzi, Piero da Marone, whose fame for piety was in the mouths of men. The pontificate of Celestine V, 1294, for such was the name Marone assumed, might seem to be a caricature on the existing state of the papacy.

  A man had been elected pope by a sudden impulse solely for his holiness. No sooner was he elected than the cardinals felt that holiness was not the quality most requisite for the high office of the head of the church. Never did election awaken more enthusiasm among the people, yet never was pope more powerless for good.

  Ignorant of politics, of business, of the ways of the world, Celestine V became a helpless instrument in the hands of the king of Naples. He gave up the government of the church to others and bestowed his favors with reckless prodigality. The crowd thronged around him whenever he went abroad to crave his blessing.

  A new order, the Celestinians, was founded by those who were eager to model their life on his. But the cardinals groaned in secret dismay over the perils with which his incompetence threatened the papacy. After a pontificate of five months, he abdicated to the joy of the cardinals and to the grief

  of the people, which showed itself in hatred for his successor. Henceforth it was clear that the papacy had become a great political institution. Its spiritual significance had been merged in its worldly importance. It needed a statesman to baffle princes by his astuteness, not a saint to kindle by his holiness spiritual aspirations among the masses.

  Celestine's successor, Boniface VIII, 1294-1303, attempted, when it was too late, to launch the papacy upon a new career. Though endowed with all the fire of Gregory VII, and with the keen political instincts of Innocent IV, he failed to understand either the disastrous results to the papacy of the policy of his predecessors or the hidden strength of the opposition which it had kindled.

  The papacy had destroyed the empire, but in its victory had fallen with its foe. In overthrowing the empire, it had weakened the outward expression of the idea on which its own power was founded, and had first used, and then betrayed, the growing feeling of nationality which was the rising enemy of the medieval system. When Boniface VIII aimed at absorbing into the papacy the imperial power, when he strove

  to weld together Europe into a great confederacy over which the pope was to preside, at once the head of its religion and the administrator of a system of international law, he only brought to light the gulf which had been slowly widening between the aims of the papacy and the aspirations of Europe. His weapons were the weapons of this world, and though his utterances might assume the

  cover of religious phrases, his arts were those of an adventurous politician. First he resolved to secure himself in Rome, which he did by the remorseless overthrow of the Colonna family. In the rest of Italy he aimed at bringing about order by crushing the gibbelines and putting the gvelps in power.

  He called in French help to restore the unity of the Sicilian kingdom, which had been broken by the rebellion of 1282, and Charles of Valois overthrew the gibbelines in Florence and drove Dante into exile. But beyond drawing on himself and the pope the hatred of the Italian people, he accomplished nothing.

  While these were his measures in Italy, Boniface VIII advanced with no less boldness and decision elsewhere. He demanded that the kings of England and France should submit their differences to his arbitration. When they refused, he tried to make war impossible without his consent by cutting off one great

  source of supplies and issued a bull forbidding the taxation of the clergy, except by the consent of the pope. But in England Boniface was repelled by the vigorous measures of Edward I, who taught the clergy that if they would not contribute to the maintenance of civil government they should not have the advantages of its protection.

  In France Philip IV retaliated by forbidding the export of gold or silver from his realm without the royal consent. Boniface was thus cut off from the supplies which the papacy raised for itself by taxation of the clergy. Even while professing to fight the battle of clerical privilege, Boniface could not

  carry with him the staunch support of the clergy themselves. They had experienced the fiscal oppression of pope and king equally and found that the pope was the more intolerable of the two. If they had to submit to the tender mercies of one or the other, the king was at least more amenable to reason.

  For a time Boniface had to give way, but circumstances soon seemed to favor him. A quarrel arose between Edward I and Philip IV from which both wished to withdraw with credit. Boniface, not in his papal but in his individual capacity, was appointed arbitrator. In giving his award he assumed the character of a pope and pronounced the penalty of excommunication

  against those who infringed its conditions. Moreover he took up the position of an absolute superior in the affairs of the German kingdom, where he disallowed the election of Albert of Austria. In England he claimed to interfere in the settlement of Edward's relations towards Scotland.

  Edward submitted the pope's letter to Parliament which replied to Boniface that the English kings had never answered nor ought to answer about their rights to any judge ecclesiastical or civil. The spirit of national resistance to the claims of the papacy to exercise supremacy in temporal matters was first developed under the wise government and patriotic care of Edward I.

  Yet Boniface could not read the signs of the times. He was misled by the outburst of popular enthusiasm and religious zeal which followed the establishment of a year of Jubilee in 1300. The crusading age was passed and gone, but the spirit that animated the crusades still survived in Europe.

  The restless desire to visit a holy place and see with their bodily eyes some guarantee of the reality of their devotion drove crowds of pilgrims to Rome to earn by prayers and offerings the promised absolution for their sins. Others since the days of Boniface have been misled as to the real strength of a system by taking as their measure the outbursts of feverish enthusiasm which it could at times

  call forth. Men trampled one another to death in their eagerness to reach the tombs of the apostles, but in three short years the vicar of St. Peter found no one to rescue him from insult and outrage. The breach between Boniface VIII and Philip IV went on widening.

  As the pope grew more resolute in asserting his pretensions, the king gathered the French clergy and people more closely around him. The growth of legal studies had raised up a class of lawyers who could meet the pope on his own ground. As he fortified himself by the principles of the canon law, the French legists rested

  on the principles of the old civil law of Rome. The canon law, in setting up the pope as supreme over the church, had but followed the example of the civil law which traced its own origin to the imperial pleasure. The two systems now met in collision and their fundamental identity rendered compromise impossible. Three bowls and letters followed one another.

  The pope furbished up all the weapons in his armory. On doctrinal grounds he asserted that as God made two lights, the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night, so he set up two jurisdictions, the temporal and the spiritual, of which the spiritual is greater and involves the temporal and point of right, though not necessarily in point of use.

  On historical grounds he asserted, our predecessors have deposed three kings of France, and if any king did the wrong which they did, we would depose him like a servant. Against this was set up the intelligible principle that in things temporal, the king held his power subject to God alone. Both sides prepared for extremities.

  Most lawyers accused the pope of heresy, of crime, of simony, and appealed to a general council of the church. Boniface excommunicated Philip and prepared to pronounce against him the sentence of dethronement, releasing his subjects from their allegiance. But Philip's plans were cunningly laid, and he had Italian craft to help him.

  The day before the Bull of Deposition was to have been published, Boniface was made prisoner by a band of Philip's adherents. The exiled Italian, Chiara Colonna, planned the attack, and the acuteness of the Tolosan Guillaume de Nogaret, one of Philip's lawyers, helped to make its success complete. As he sat unsuspecting of evil in the retirement of his native Anagnis, Boniface was suddenly

  surprised and maltreated, without a blow being struck in his behalf. It is true that on the third day of his captivity he was rescued, but his prestige was gone. Frenzied or brokenhearted, we know not which, he died a month after his release. With Boniface VIII fell the medieval papacy. He had striven to develop the idea of the papal monarchy into a definite system.

  He had claimed for it the noble position of arbiter amongst the nations of Europe. Had he succeeded, the power which according to the medieval theory of Christendom was vested in the empire would have passed over to the papacy, no longer as a theoretical right but as an actual possession, and the papacy would have asserted its supremacy over the rising state system of Europe.

  His failures showed that with the destruction of the empire, the papacy had fallen likewise. Both continued to exist in name and set forth their old pretensions. But the empire, in its old aspect of head of Christendom, had become a name of the past or a dream of the future since the failure of Frederick II. The failure of Boniface VIII showed that a like fate had overtaken the papacy likewise.

  The suddenness and abruptness of the calamity which befell Boniface impressed this indelibly on the minds of men. The papacy had first shown its power by a great dramatic act. Its decline was manifested in the same way. The drama of Ananyi is to be set against the drama of Kenosha.

  End of section 3.

• 04 - Ch. 2: The Popes at Avignon, Pt. 1

  play_arrowPlaymenu_bookRead

  Section 4 of A History of the Papacy, Volume 1 by Mandel Creighton. This LibriVox recording is in the public domain, read by Pamela Nagami. Chapter 2. The Pope's at Avignon, Part 1. We speak loosely of the Reformation as though it were a definite event. We ought rather to regard the fall of the papal autocracy

  as the result of a number of political causes which had slowly gathered strength. The victory of the papacy over Frederick II marked the highest point of its power. The beginning of the 14th century saw the rise of new ideas which gradually led to its fall. The struggle of Philip IV against Boniface VIII was carried on by new weapons, by appeals to political principles.

  The rights of the state were asserted against the claims of the papal monarchy, and the assertion was made good. The papacy had advanced to power partly by religious, partly by political means, and the papal claims rested on principles which were drawn partly from texts of scripture, partly from historical events in the past.

  To overthrow the papal monarchy, both of these bases had to be upset. The ideas of the Middle Ages had to make way for the ideas of the Renaissance before it was possible for men to grasp the meaning of scripture as a whole and found their political as well as their social life upon a wide conception of its spirit. But this was the second part of the process for which the first part was necessary.

  Before men advanced to the criticism of scripture, they undertook the criticism of history. Against the papal view of the political facts and principles of the past, the men of the 14th century advanced new principles and interpreted the facts afresh. The medieval conception of the papal power was set forth by Thomas of Aquino. His ideal of government was a constitutional monarchy, strong enough to keep order,

  not strong enough to become tyrannical. The object of Christian society is to lead men to eternal salvation, and this work is done by the priests under the rule of the pope. Under the Old Testament dispensation, priests have been subject to kings. Under the New Testament dispensation, kings are subject to priests in matters pertaining to Christ's law.

  The king must see that such things as are necessary for the salvation of his people are cared for and that things contrary thereto are forbidden. If a king is heretical or schismatic, the church must deprive him of his power and by excommunicating him release his subjects from their allegiance. The church which is thus to lead the state must be ruled by a monarchy,

  strong enough to preserve the unity of the faith and decide in matters that arise what is to be believed and what condemned, nova aditio simboli. In the pope is vested the authority of the universal church and he cannot err. According to Christ's words to Peter,

  I have prayed for thee that thy faith fail not. Against such ideas, the struggle of Boniface VIII and Philip IV produced a reaction which may be seen in the day monarchia of Dante, who in behalf of the empire asserted the claims of the temporal against the spiritual power. Dante's empire was the ideal creation of unity, peace and order

  which floated before the medieval mind. The empire, he argues, is necessary for the good of mankind since the end of society is unity and unity is only possible through obedience to one head. This empire belongs of right to the Roman people who won it

  and what they won Christ sanctioned by being born into it. Further, he recognized its legitimacy by receiving, at the hands of a Roman judge, the sentence by which he bore our sorrows. The assertions of those who maintain that the empire does not come immediately from God but immediately through the pope are not to be received.

  They are founded on the decretals and other traditions which came after the church and could not therefore confer on the church any rights which it did not previously possess. The foundation of the church is Christ. The empire existed before the church which received from Christ no authority over the empire

  and therefore possesses none. Yet he ends, Let Caesar be reverent to Peter, as the firstborn son should be reverent to his father. Dante's arguments are scholastic and obscure,

  resting frequently on merely verbal grounds. But the importance of the Dei Monarchia lies in the fact that against the decretals and against the current interpretation of Scripture, it founds a political system on the basis of reason and of historical fact. The form of the book is medieval,

  but a modern spirit of political dignity breezed through its pages. Dante's Dei Monarchia is but a specimen of the writings which the conflict of Boniface VIII and Philip IV called forth. Echidius Colonna, who became Archbishop of Bourges and John of Paris, a Dominican monk,

  asserted the independent existence of the temporal and the spiritual power since both alike came from God, and each has its own sphere of action. In many points, the priesthood must be subject to the monarchy, and in no way could it be shown that the papacy

  had any jurisdiction over the realm of France. John of Paris went further and argued that as Christ exercised no dominion in temporal matters, no priest could, on the ground of being Christ's vicar, exercise a power which his master never claimed.

  In these and such like arguments, there is an attempt to reach the facts of primitive Christianity and use them as a means of criticizing the papal claims to universal monarchy. These attacks upon the papal position were not the only mischief which the assertion of Boniface VIII brought upon the papacy.

  The papacy had destroyed the empire, but failed in its attempt to establish itself in the place of the empire as the undoubted head over the rising nationalities of Europe. It was worsted by France, and as a consequence fell under French influence.

  When Philip IV pursued his victory and devised the scheme of getting the papal power into the hands of a nominee of his own, he met with little difficulty. Clement V, an Aquitainean by birth,

  shrank before the troubles which Philip IV easily contrived to stir up in Italy, and for greater safety in 1305 took up his abode at Avignon, a city held by Charles II of Naples as Count of Provence. It was, however, so near the boundaries of the French king as to be practically under his influence,

  and it marked a mighty breach with the tradition of the past when the seat of the papacy was removed from the world city of its ancient glories. It is at first a cause of some surprise that the papacy did not suffer more than it did from the transference of its seat to Avignon,

  but though deprived of political strength, it still had the prestige of past importance and could exercise considerable influence when opportunity offered. Clement V, 1305 to 1313, was powerless against Philip IV. He had to consent to recognize the validity of everything

  that Philip IV had done against his predecessor. He had to revoke the obnoxious bulls of Boniface VIII, and even to authorize an inquiry into his life and character. He had to lend himself as a tool to the royal avarice in suppressing the order of the Knights Templars.

  But in spite of their disasters, the papacy and the empire were still the centers of European politics. No one ventured to think it possible to diminish their claims to greatness. It was rather a struggle, which nation should succeed in using them for its own purposes.

  France had secured a strong hold upon the papacy and wished to become master also of the empire. Philip IV strove to procure the election of his brother Charles of Valois, and so gave the pope a new means of asserting his importance. Charles was not elected,

  and the king found it wise not to press the pope too far. At Avignon, the pope was subject to the influence of the French king, but he was at least personally secure and could afford to adopt a haughty tone in dealing with other powers. There was no abatement in the lofty language of the papacy,

  and when Clement V died, he might have boasted that he handed down the papal power undiminished to his successors. His position might be ignoble, but he acted with policy and prudence in difficult and dangerous circumstances

  and made up for his humility toward the king of France by the arrogance of his attitude toward the empire. The success of Henry VII in Italy alarmed King Robert of Naples, and Clement V warmly espoused the cause of his vassal, in whose dominions lay the protecting city of Avignon.

  The death of Henry VII prevented the quarrel from becoming serious, but on Henry's death, Clement V published a bull declaring that the oath taken by the kings of the Romans to the pope was an oath of vassalage and involved the papal suzerainty over the empire. At the same time, during the vacancy of the empire,

  the pope, acting as overlord, did away with the ban of the empire, which Henry VII had pronounced against Robert of Naples, and also appointed Robert as imperial vicar in Italy. Clement V followed the example of his predecessors

  in endeavoring to turn into a legal claim the vague talk of former popes. His death within a month of the publication of his bull left the struggle to his successor. John XXII, 1313 to 1322, entered readily into the struggle, and the disputed election to the empire between Louis of Bavaria and Frederick of Austria gave him a lucky opportunity of asserting these new claims of the papacy over the empire.

  As an obsequious dependent of the king of France and Naples, the pope was encouraged to put forward against the empire claims much more arrogant than those which Boniface VIII had ventured to make to Philip IV. The French king hoped to lay hands upon the empire. The king of Naples wished to pursue his plans in Italy without fear of imperial intervention.

  So long as the pope furthered their purposes, he might advance any arguments or pretensions that he pleased. It was this selfish policy on the part of the princes of Europe that maintained so long the papal power and gave the papacy the means of rising after many falls and degradations.

  The papal power and the papal claims were inextricably interwoven in the state system of Europe, and the papacy was a political instrument which any monarch who could command was anxious to uphold. John XXII claimed to be the rightful ruler of the empire during the vacancy, and so long as the contest between Louis and Frederick occupied all the energies of the rival claimants,

  there was no one to gainsay the pope. When the Battle of Muldorf in 1322 gave the victory to Louis, John resented his assumption of the title of king of the Romans without papal confirmation and soon proceeded to his excommunication. In the contest that ensued there was nothing heroic.

  Papacy and empire alike seemed the shadows of their former selves. John XXII was an austere and narrow-minded pedant with no political insight. Louis was destitute of any intellectual greatness and knew not how to control the forces which he had at his command. The attack of the pope upon the empire was a desperate attempt to gain consideration for the papacy

  at the expense of a foe who was supposed to be too weak to make any formidable resistance. But the national feeling of the German people gathered round their king when it became manifest that the onslaught upon him was made in the interest of France. The lawyers as before mustered in defense of the civil power and unexpected allies came to its succor

  whose help made the contest memorable in the history of the progress of human thought. Since the abdication of Celestine V, the papacy had drifted further away from its connection with the spiritual side of the life of the church. The monkish asceticism of Celestine and his followers was not a robust form of Christian life, but it was the only one which set itself before the imagination of men.

  The doctrine of absolute poverty as held by Saint Francis and his followers was hard to reconcile with the actual facts of life. And the Franciscan order had become divided into two parties, one of which insisted on the rigid observance of the rules of their founder, while the other modified them into accordance with the growing wealth, learning, and importance of their order.

  The pope had striven by judicious measures to hold together these contending parties. But the obvious worldliness of the papacy estranged from it the more rigid party, the spiritual Franciscans or Fratticelli as they were called. In their enthusiastic desire to lead the higher life, they found in Christ and his apostles the patterns of the lives of mendicant friars,

  and at last the papacy was brought into open collision with the Franciscan order. A Dominican inquisitor at Narbonne condemned for heresy a fanatic who amongst other things had asserted that Christ and the apostles had no possessions, either individually or in common. A Franciscan who was present maintained the orthodoxy of this opinion against the inquisitor,

  and the question was taken up by the entire order. Two general chapters were held in 1322 which accepted this doctrine as their own and rested upon a papal bull of Nicholas III, 1279. This brought the matter before John XXII, but the luxury and quiet of Avignon made the doctrine of apostolic poverty

  more intolerable to John than it had been to his predecessors. They had contented themselves with trying to explain it away and evade it. John XXII denounced the opinion as heretical. The more pronounced of the Franciscan body refused to admit the justice of the papal decision and clamored against John himself as a heretic.

  The question itself may seem of little moment, but the struggle brought to light opinions which in aftertimes were to become of deep importance. As Boniface VIII had developed a temporal, so did John XXII develop a spiritual antagonism to the papacy. The pope was regarded as the head of a carnal church,

  degraded by worldliness, wealth and wickedness, against which was set a spiritual church, adorned by simplicity, poverty and godliness. The spiritual Franciscans gathered round Louis in his contest with the pope and lent a religious significance to the struggle.

  It was not the doings of either party, but the bold expression of opinions which made the conflict memorable. Against the pope were arrayed men who attacked him in the interests both of the church and of the state. From the ecclesiastical side,

  the general of the Franciscan order, Michael of Cesena, maintained against the pope the principles on which his order was founded. In his tractate against the heirs of the pope, he criticized the papal utterances, denounced portions of them as erroneous

  and appealed against him as against a heretic to the universal church and a general council, which in faith and morals is superior to the pope, since a pope can err in faith and morals, as many Roman pontiffs have fallen from the faith,

  but the universal church cannot err, and a council representing the universal church is likewise free from error. In like manner, the Englishman William of Ockham, who had exercised his power as a disputant in the University of Paris, till he won the title of the invincible doctor,

  brought his pen to attack the pope. In a series of dialogues and tractates, he poured forth a flood of erudition, in which scholastic arguments are strangely mingled with keen criticism of the papal claims.

  At one time he is immersed in details of the passing conflict, at another he enunciates general principles of far-reaching importance. Against the plenitude of the papal power, he asserts the freedom of the law of Christ. Men are not by Christ's ordinance the slaves of the pope,

  nor can the pope dispose of temporal affairs. Christ gave to Peter spiritual jurisdiction over the church, and in temporal matters the right only of seeking his own maintenance and enough to enable him to fulfill his office. Peter could confer no more on his successors.

  If they have more, it comes from human grant or human indolence. It is not necessary that there should be one primate over the church, for the head of the church is Christ, and by its union with him the church has unity. This unity would not be lessened if there were different rulers

  over different ecclesiastical provinces, as there are kings over different nations. An aristocratic government maintains the unity of a state as well as does a monarchy. Ockham discusses many questions,

  and the conclusions which he establishes do not form a consistent system. But we see certain principles which he stoutly maintains. He is opposed to the papal claims to temporal monarchy and spiritual infallibility. Moreover, he shows a remarkable tendency to assert the authority of Scripture

  as the supreme arbiter of all the questions in the church. The Pope-mayor, a general council-mayor, the fathers and doctors of the church are not entirely exempt from error. Only Holy Scripture and the beliefs of the Universal Church are of absolute validity.

  Ockham seems to be groping after what is eternal in the faith of the church, that he may mark it clearly off from what is of human ordinance and concerns only the temporal needs of the ecclesiastical system. If this is a sample of the ecclesiastical opposition raised against John XXII, the attack was still stronger from the political side,

  where Marsilio of Padua and John of Gendon examined with boldness and acuteness the relations between church and state. Marsilio was an Italian who, in the politics of his own city, had gained a comprehensive grasp of principles and whose mind had matured by the study of Aristotle.

  John of Gendon, a Frenchman, was Marsilio's friend and both held high positions in the University of Paris, which they suddenly quitted in 1327, sought out Louis and placed their learning at his disposal for an attack upon the Pope. It was strange that scholars and theorists

  should come forward merely on theoretical grounds to enter into a contest, which in no way affected themselves. They proposed to Louis a serious undertaking, that the Empire as such should enter into a controversy on abstract questions with the Pope.

  The papacy was the source of orthodoxy, the center of learning. Rude soldiers before this had answered its claims by deeds, but Louis was asked to meet the Pope with his own weapons. Marsilio urged that John XXII had already laid himself open to the charge of heresy. His decision about the friars was in contradiction to the opinion of his predecessors.

  Unless the papal autocracy were to be absolutely admitted, it was the Emperor's duty to check an erring Pope. For a time Louis hesitated, then he accepted Marsilio's proposal and appealed to Christendom to support him in his position. The great work of Marsilio, the Defensor Pacis, was already written,

  when first he sought Louis and was at once published in explanation of the principles on which Louis acted. The title of the work was skillfully chosen. It marked out the Pope as the originator of the troubles, discords, and wars which a Pacific Emperor wished to check.

  The work itself is a keen, bold, and clear assertion of the rights of the state as against the Church. Following in the steps of Aristotle's Politics, Marsilio traces the origin of government and of law. Civil society is a community for the purpose of common life. In such community there are various classes with various occupations.

  The occupation of the priestly class is to teach and discipline men in things which according to the Gospel ought to be believed, done, or omitted to obtain eternal salvation. The regulator of the community is the judicial or governing class whose object is to enforce the laws. Law is defined as knowledge of what is just or useful, concerning the observance of which a coercive precept has been issued.

  The legislator is the people or community of the citizens, or the majority of them, determining by their choice or will, expressed by word in a general assembly, that anything should be done or omitted regarding man's civil acts under pain of temporal punishment. This legislative power is the source of the authority of the prince or ruler whose duty it is to observe the laws and compel others to observe them.

  If the prince set himself above the laws, he ought to be corrected by the legislative power which he represents. This system of civil life is disturbed by the interference of the spiritual authority, especially of the pope, with the due execution of the laws and with the authority of the prince. The papal claims rest on the supposed descent to Christ's representatives of the plenitude of Christ's power,

  but this carries with it no coercive jurisdiction, juristicio coactiua, by which they may exact penalties or interfere in temporal affairs. It is their claim to this coercive jurisdiction that destroys civil government and causes universal disorder. To trace this point more fully, Marsilio proceeds to examine the relations of the priesthood towards the community.

  The Church is the community of all who believe in Christ, for all, priests and laity alike, are churchmen, because Christ redeemed them with his blood. So far as a priest possesses worldly goods or engages in worldly matters, he is under the same laws as the rest of the community. The priesthood can have no authority except what was given by Christ,

  and the question to be considered is not what power Christ could have given them, but what he actually gave. We find that Christ did not himself exercise coercive jurisdiction and did not confer it on the apostles, but warned them by example, advice, and precept to abstain from using it. Moreover, Christ submitted himself to the coercive jurisdiction of temporal princes. Hence, no priest has any judicial or coercive power unless it be given him by the legislator.

  His priestly authority, which he derives from Christ, is to preach the doctrine and administer the sacraments of Christ. Two pronouns excommunication does not belong to an individual priest, but to the community of believers or their representatives. The priest is the minister of God's law, but has no power to compel men to accept or obey it. Only as physicians care for the health of the body, so do priests, by wise advice and warning, operate on the soul.

  It may be objected that at least in question of heresy the priesthood has to judge and punish. Really, however, the judge of heresy is Christ, and the punishment is inflicted in another world. The priest judges in Christ's stead in this world and must warn and terrify offenders by the thoughts of future punishment. The civil power punishes heresy only so far as heresy subverts the law. Marsilio next subjects to criticism the doctrine of the papal supremacy.

  Priests, as such, are all equal. St. Peter has no authority over the other apostles, no power of punishment or jurisdiction. Moreover, the legend that St. Peter was the first bishop of Rome rests on no scriptural authority and has no historical evidence. The appointment and deprivation of ecclesiastics belong to the community of the faithful, as is shown by the appointment of the first deacons recorded in the Acts of the Apostles.

  This authority of the community is now vested in the princes, and the appointment of good priests is a matter which concerns the well-being of the state. The Catholic faith is one and rests on scripture only, so that decretals and decrees of popes and cardinals are not necessary for salvation. When doubts arise about the meaning of scripture,

  they could be settled only by a general council of the faithful in which laity and clergy alike have seats. The summoning of such a council belongs to the supreme legislative power, and only a council can pronounce excommunication or interdict upon princes or peoples. The authority of the Roman bishop over other bishops is necessary to give a head to the Church and a president to its councils, but the Roman bishop has no power of coercion beyond what a council confers.

  The existing theory of the primacy of the pope sprang from the respect originally paid to the bishop of Rome, which has been extended, partly by unfounded claims of scriptural right, partly by the grants of princes, especially by the donation of Constantine. The papal primacy has corrupted the Church, for the pope, through the plenitude of his power, interferes with elections,

  sets aside the rights of chapters, and appoints bishops who cannot speak the language of the people over whom they are set as shepherds, and who simply aim at gathering money from their flocks. Generally speaking, the bishops cannot preach, nor have they knowledge to refute heresies, and the inferior clergy are as ignorant as their superiors.

  Lawyers, not theologians, fill the papal court. Ecclesiastical order is everywhere overthrown by the dispensations from episcopal control, which the pope readily grants to monks and friars. Simony abounds, and on all sides may be seen the proofs that the plenitude of the papal power is the root of corruption in the Church.

  Moreover, the papacy has put forth claims against the temporal power, especially against the empire. This arises from the fact that the pope crowned the emperor, and a reverence at first voluntary has gradually been regarded as a right. Papal recognition has been considered necessary to complete the authority bestowed on the emperor by election, but this is entirely unfounded.

  The right conferred by election needs no supplement, and the claims of the papacy have simply been advanced owing to the frequency of disputed elections and vacancies in the empire. The papal claims and the exercise of papal power in temporal matters have plunged Italy and Germany into discord, and it is the duty of all men, especially of kings and rulers,

  to check the abuse of this usurped authority. End of Section 4

• 05 - Ch. 2: The Popes at Avignon, Pt. 2

  play_arrowPlaymenu_bookRead

  Section 5 of A History of the Papacy, Volume 1 by Mandel Creighton. This LibriVox recording is in the public domain, read by Pamela Nagami. Chapter 2. The Popes at Avignon, Part 2. The remarkable work of Marsilio stands on the very threshold of modern history as a clear forecast of the ideas which were to regulate the future progress of Europe.

  The conceptions of the sovereignty of the people and of the official position of the ruler mark the development of European politics up to our own day. The general relations between church and state, which Marsilio foreshadowed, were those which the Reformation established in countries where it prevailed. In the clear definition of the limits of ecclesiastical authority,

  and in his assertion of the dignity of the individual believer, Marsilio's ideas still remain unrealized. It is a wonderful testimony to the vigor of Italian civic life that the political experience gleaned at Padua, ran so readily into the form provided by a study of Aristotle's politics,

  and produced results so clear, so bold, and so systematic. It is the scientific character of the Defensor Pacis which marks it as especially important, and sets it far beyond the other political writings of the next two centuries. It was calculated to produce a powerful impression on men's minds, and remained as a great storehouse for the writers of the next century.

  The ease with which the conciliar movement won its way to general acceptance throughout Christendom must be attributed in great measure to the dissemination of Marsilio's principles. Pope Clement VI declared that he had never read a more pestilent heretic, and Gregory XI found that the opinions of Wycliffe were only slightly changed from those of Marsilio. If Wycliffe had been as clear and as systematic as Marsilio,

  his influence on his contemporaries would have been far greater, and his teaching would not have lent itself to so much misunderstanding. It was Marsilio's misfortune that he was allied to a cause which had not a leader strong enough to give adequate expression to the principles which the genius of Marsilio supplied. The traditions of the past still determined the steps of Louis.

  In 1327 he marched into Italy and was elected emperor by the people of Rome. The old rights of the Roman Republic were set up against those of the pope, and the imperial crown was placed on the head of Louis by Sciara Colonna, who struck the deadly blow against Boniface VIII at Anagni. Nor was this enough.

  The minor rights from the pulpits denounced John XXII as a heretic, and Rome, which had made an emperor, was willing to go further and also make a pope. John XXII was deposed, a friar was elected pope by the clergy and laity of Rome, and took the name of Nicholas V. Louis had no means of combating the fictions on which the papal power was founded,

  save by setting against them a fiction still more ludicrous. The claim of the citizens of Rome to appoint the temporal and spiritual heads of Christendom was more monstrous than that of the pope, to determine the election of the emperor. The medieval theory might be untenable, but the attempt to overthrow it by a revival of classical usage was absurd. The last struggle which had so long raged between empire and papacy ended in an empty theatrical display.

  Louis was soon made to feel his real powerlessness. He failed in an attempt to reduce Robert of Naples, and his Italian supporters dropped away from him. He discovered at last that the Italians welcomed an emperor only so long as he was useful for the purposes of their own factions. When their disputes were settled, they were anxious to get rid of their troublesome guest. Louis slowly abandoned Italy. The Ghibliin party was everywhere put down.

  The anti-pope Nicholas was driven to make humiliating submission to John XXII. Louis's prestige was gone and the pope was triumphant. In vain, Louis tried to be reconciled with the Holy See. John XXII was inexorable, but the end of John's pontificate in 1334 gave Louis some gleam of triumph. John had made many enemies who were ready to use any handle against him,

  and his own pedantic and scholastic mind made him anxious to win theological triumphs. He ventured on an opinion contrary to the general views of theologians, that the souls of the blessed departed do not see God and are not perfectly happy until after the general resurrection. The University of Paris strongly opposed this view, as did popular sentiment. King Philip VI of France sided with the university and in a peremptory tone advised the pope to alter his opinion.

  The cry of heresy was raised against John and Louis was preparing to summon a general council to inquire into this papal heterodoxy when John died in December 1334. His successor, Benedict XII, 1334-1342, an upright but feeble-minded monk, would willingly have made peace with Louis, but he was too much under the power of King Philip VI to follow his own inclinations. It was to little purpose that he told Philip VI that if he had possessed two souls,

  he would willingly sacrifice one to do him service, but as he had only one soul he could not go beyond what he thought right. Philip still demanded that Germany should be kept distracted. Benedict XII had to dismiss the ambassadors of Louis with tears over his own powerlessness. The national feeling of Germany declared itself more strongly than before in behalf of Louis. The states affirmed that Louis had done all that he ought and that justice was wrongfully denied him.

  They pronounced the papal sentence of no effect and threatened with punishment any of the clergy who ventured to observe the papal interdict. Moreover, the electoral princes declared at Reims in 1338 that on a vacancy in the empire, he who was elected by a majority of votes was straightway to be regarded as king of the Romans and stood in no need of papal confirmation before assuming the title of king and beginning the exercise of the imperial rights. This declaration passed into a law and whatever success the pope might meet with afterwards,

  he could win no victory in a struggle which had occasioned such an outbreak of decided national feeling. Benedict's successor might humble Louis before him, but Germany had made good its assertion of national independence and had rescued its kingship from the difficulties into which its connection with the empire had so long involved it. It is true that the kingship was weak and infirm and that the empire had dwindled to a shadow, but this only made the German protest against papal interference more emphatic in its historical importance.

  Louis, however, did not know how to use his advantages. He had not the firmness to carry on a protracted contest, but wavered between rash defiance of the papal power and abject attempts at reconciliation. After striving for absolution in 1341, he made in 1342 an invasion upon ecclesiastical authority at which Europe stood aghast. By the plenitude of the imperial power, he dissolved the marriage of Margaret Maltasch,

  heiress of the Tyrol, with John, son of the king of Bohemia, and also granted a dispensation on the grounds of consanguinity for her marriage to his own son Louis, Muckroff of Brandenburg. Such an act was the logical result of the theories of Marsilio of Padua and William of Ockham, and was suggested, or at least defended, by them. They argued keenly enough that if a marriage or divorce was opposed to the law of God, no one, not even an angel from heaven, could make it lawful,

  but if the impediment can be removed by human law, the dispensation ought to proceed from the civil power and not from the ecclesiastical, from the emperor and not the pope. They forgot that it was an unfortunate case for the assertion of newly claimed powers when personal interest and dynastic aggrandizement were so clearly the ruling motives. The moral as well as the religious sentiment of Europe was shocked, and the political jealousy of the German nobles was aroused by this

  accession of power to the Bavarian house. The sympathy which had been on the side of Louis was now transferred to the pope, and the views of Marsilio and Ockham were looked upon with increased dread. A reaction set in against the rashness of the reforming party, a reaction which explains the timidity and caution of those who revived its principles when the great schism of the papacy called for some revision of the government of the church. The papacy on its side also knew not how

  to use to real advantage the opportunity which had just been offered. If the piety of Benedict the 12th could not overcome the difficulties attendant on a reconciliation with Louis, the luxurious and worldly Clement the 6th was resolved to press Louis to the uttermost. He would not content himself with the most humiliating submission, but made demands which the diet set aside as destructive to the empire. He set up Charles

  of Bohemia against Louis, who however in spite of his unpopularity in Germany maintained his position against the pope's nominee till his death in 1347. Even then, Charles was so entirely regarded as a tool of the pope that he had some difficulty in establishing his position. It would seem that the victory in this long and dreary conflict remained with the pope. Certainly his opponents showed their incapacity for organizing a definite political resistance.

  Resistance to the pope had not yet become a political idea. At times it burst forth, but soon fell back before other considerations of political expediency. Yet the conflict did much towards educating popular opinion. The flood of political writings awakened a spirit of discussion which tended gradually to spread downwards. The papacy was no longer accepted without question as a divine institution. Men began to criticize it and examine the origin and limits of its power.

  It was no longer looked upon as supreme over the other powers of Europe, but rather as an independent power with interests of its own, which were opposed to the national interests of the states of Europe. The pope could no longer command public opinion and feel that it would give force to his decrees. The conflict with Louis of Bavaria ends the medieval period of the history of the papacy. In one way this struggle inflicted serious injury on the papacy.

  It gave it a delusive sense of power. It well might seem to Clement VI that Boniface VIII had been avenged and that the majesty and dignity of the papal power had been amply vindicated. Princes might learn from the example of Louis that rebellions against the papacy were doomed to failure. Moreover, the papal position was secured at Avignon, which place Clement VI in 1348 bought from Giovanna of Naples. At Avignon the voice of public opinion did not make itself heard

  by the pope's ear so readily as in the turbulent city of Rome. The luxury, vice, and iniquity of Avignon during the papal residence became proverbial throughout Europe, and the corruption of the church was most clearly visible in the immediate neighborhood of its princely head. Luxury and vice, however, are costly, and during the pope's absence from Italy the papal states were in confusion and yielded scanty revenues. Money had to be raised from ecclesiastical property throughout Europe,

  and the popes at Avignon carried extortion and oppression of the church to an extent which it had never reached before. As the church had grown wealthy in every land, kings and popes competed with one another to have a share in its revenues. Gregory VII had labor to deliver the church from the power of the temporal rulers, and his attempt was so far successful as to establish a compromise. The church was to have the show of independence. The state was to have the practical right of

  nominating to important offices. The claims of the chapters to elect to bishoprics were nominally unimpaired, but the royal influence was generally supreme. Still, the chapters were equally amenable to the pope and to the king, and might exercise their right according to the dictation of either. Gradually, the pope and the king arrived at a practical understanding as to the division of spoil. If the offices of the church were to furnish salaries for the king's

  ministers, they must also supply revenues to the head of the church. At times, the pope's authority was exercised to order a rebellious chapter to accept the king's nominee. At times, the royal authority supported the pope's request that the chapter in their election should provide for one of the pope's officials. Thus, the chapters placed between two fires tended to lose even the semblance of independence. While in this alliance with the crown, the papacy soon gained the upper

  hand. Armed with spiritual power and claiming obedience as the head of the church, the pope cloaked his usurpations under the show of right and extended his claims to smaller benefits which were in the gift of the king or private patrons. It was but a further extension of this principle when John XXII reserved to himself all benefits vacated by promotion made by the pope and afterwards extended his reservation to the most lucrative posts in chapters, monasteries, and

  collegiate churches. Monstrous as were these claims, they met with no decided opposition. The frequency of disputes about elections and the consequent appeals to the pope had practically given him the decision of the validity of ecclesiastical appointments. His assumed power of granting dispensations from canonical disabilities made him a useful means of overstepping inconvenient barriers. The pope had been allowed so much authority to act as the instrument of the selfish

  interest of kings that they had nothing to urge when he began to use his powers shamelessly in his own behalf. Clement VI provided for his nephews and his court at the expense of Christendom and said with a laugh that his predecessors had not known how to be popes. Besides provisions, reservations, and dispensations, he demanded large fees for the confirmation of all episcopal elections and succeeded in wresting from the bishops many of their rights over the inferior

  clergy. Chief of these were the revenues of benefices during a vacancy, fructus medii temporis, which arose from the extension of feudal reliefs to ecclesiastical holdings. Bishops as protectors of benefices disposed of their revenues when they were vacant and this claim tended to become a regular tax of half a year's revenue paid by the presentee on his succession. The papacy in its turn took this right from the bishops and claimed it for itself. Moreover, the pope imposed tithes

  from time to time on clerical revenues, sometimes for his own use, sometimes granting them to princes on the specious pretext of a crusade. A vast system of papal extortion was gradually developed, partly from the fault of churchmen who too readily brought their quarrels to the pope's tribunals, partly from the short-sighted policy of kings and princes who found in an alliance with the pope an easy means of helping themselves to ecclesiastical revenues. Papal aggression could

  not have grown unless it had been welcomed in its beginnings and those who used the pope's interference to serve their own ends had no strong ground for repelling the pope when he used his powers in his own behalf. Cries went up throughout Christendom, but it was long before the cries were more than utterances of despair. England was the first country which showed a spirit of national resistance to papal extortion. The alliance of the papacy with John

  and with Henry III had awakened a feeling of political antagonism amongst the barons when they found the pope supporting royal misgovernment. Under Edward I, the nation and the king were at one and the claims of Boniface VIII were met by a dignified assertion of national rights. The French war of Edward III gave an increased meaning to the national resistance to the papal extortions. The popes at Avignon were the avowed partisans of the French king

  and England would not submit to pay them taxes. In 1343 a stand was made against the agents of two cardinals whom Clement VI had appointed to offices in England and they were ignominiously driven from the land. When the pope remonstrated, Edward III laid before him a complaint against the army of provisers which has invaded our realm and drew a picture of the evils which they wrought on the church. The king was warmly supported by parliament which demanded the expulsion of

  provisers from the country and in 1351 was passed the statute of provisers enacting that if the pope appointed to a benefice the presentation was to be for that turn in the hands of the king. And the provisers or the representatives were to be imprisoned till they had renounced their claim or promised not to attempt to enforce it. This statute led to a collision of jurisdictions. The royal presentee defended his rights in the king's courts. The papal provisor supported himself

  by bulls from Rome. To prevent this conflict was passed in 1353 the statute of primunary which forbade the withdrawal of suits from the king's courts to any foreign court under penalty of outlawry and forfeiture. These laws did not at once arrest the evils complained of but they served as a menace to the pope and impressed on him the need of greater moderation in his dealings with England. They armed the king with powers which he might use if the pope did

  not observe fair terms of partnership. Under the pontificate of Innocent VI, 1352 to 1362, the advantages reaped by the papal sea from its sojourn at Avignon seem to have come to an end. The disturbed condition of France no longer offered security and repose. In 1361 a company of freebooters scoured the country up to the gates of Avignon, defeated the papal troops, and were only bought off by a large ransom. Innocent VI found it desirable to increase

  the fortifications of the city. Moreover, the state of affairs in Italy called loudly for the pope's intervention. The wondrous attempt of Rienzi to recall the old grandeur of Rome showed the power that still attached to the old traditions of the mistress of the world. The desperate condition of the states of the church which had fallen into the hands of small princes called for energetic measures unless the popes were prepared to see them entirely lost to

  their authority. Innocent VI sent into Italy a Spanish cardinal, Gil Arbonos, who had already shown his military skill in fighting against the Moors. The fiery energy of Arbonos was crowned with success and the smaller nobles were subdued in a series of hard-fought battles. In 1367, Urban V saw the states of the church once more reduced into obedience to the pope. Meanwhile, France was brought by its war with England to a state of anarchy and the French

  king was powerless to keep the popes at Avignon or to protect them if they stayed. Urban V, 1362-1370 was a man of sincere and earnest piety who looked with disgust upon the pomp and luxury of the Avignonese court and he judged that a reform would be more easily worked if it were transferred to another place. In Rome there was a longing for the presence of the pope, who had not been seen for two generations. The inconvenience of the papal residence at Avignon

  was strongly brought out in the repudiation by England in 1365 of the papal claim to the tribute of one thousand marks which John had agreed to pay in token of submission to papal suzerainty. These motives combined to urge Urban V in 1367 to return to Rome amidst the cries of his agonized cardinals who shuddered to leave the luxury of Avignon for a land which they held to be barbarous. A brief stay in Rome was sufficient to convince Urban V that the fears of his cardinals were not

  unfounded. The death of Albonos soon after the pope's landing in Italy deprived him of the one man who could hold together the turbulent elements contained in the states of the church. Rome was in ruins. Its people were sunk in poverty and degradation. It was to no purpose that the pope once more received in Rome the homage of the emperors of the east and west. Charles IV displayed in Italy the helplessness of the imperial name.

  John Palaiologos came as a beggar to seek for help in his extremity. Urban V was clear-sighted enough to see that his position in Rome was precarious and that he had not the knowledge nor the gifts to adventure in the troubled sea of Italian politics. His moral force was not strong enough to urge him to become a martyr to duty. The voices of his cardinals prevailed and after a visit of three years, Urban returned to Avignon. His death, which happened three months after his

  return, was regarded by many as the judgment of God upon his desertion of Rome. Urban V had returned to Rome because the states of the church were reduced to obedience. His successor, Gregory XI, 1370 to 1378, was driven to return through the dread of losing all hold upon Italy. The French popes awakened a strong feeling of national antipathy among their Italian subjects and their policy was not associated with any of the elements of state life existing in Italy.

  Their desire to bring the states and the church immediately under their power involved the destruction of the small dynasties of princes and the suppression of the democratic liberties of the people. Albornoz had been wise enough to leave the popular governments untouched and to content himself with bringing the towns under the papal obedience, but Urban V and Gregory XI set up French governors whose rule was galling and oppressive and a revolt against them was

  organized by Florence, who, true to her old traditions, unfurled a banner and scribed only with the word liberty. The movement spread through all the towns and the papal states and in a few months the conquests of Albornoz had been lost. The temporal dominion of the papacy might have been swept away if Florence could have brought about the Italian league which she desired. But Rome hung back from the alliance and listened to Gregory XI, who promised to return if Rome

  would remain faithful. The papal excommunication handed over the Florentines to be the slaves of their captors in every land and the kings of England and France did not scruple to use the opportunity offered to their cupidity. Gregory XI felt that only the pope's presence could save Rome for the papacy. In spite of evil omens, for his horse refused to let him mount when he set out on his journey, he left Avignon. In spite of the entreaties of the Florentines, Rome again joyfully

  welcomed the entry of its pope in 1377. But the pope found his position in Italy to be surrounded with difficulties. His troops met with some small successes, but he was practically powerless and aimed only at settling terms of peace with the Florentines. A congress was called for this purpose and Gregory XI was anxiously awaiting its termination that he might return to Avignon when death seized him and his last hours were embittered by the thoughts of the crisis that

  was now inevitable. Rome had made many sacrifices to win back the pope and on the occurrence of a vacancy which necessitated an election within the walls of Rome, it was likely that the wishes of the city would make themselves felt. The remonstrances of Christendom had been raised against the continuance of the papacy at Avignon and its consequent subordination to French influence. Moreover, national feeling had been quickened in Italy and the loss of the papacy seemed to

  be a deprivation of one of her immemorial privileges. To this national feeling was added a spirit of religious enthusiasm which found its supreme expression in the utterances of the saintly Catherine of Siena. She had exhorted Gregory XI to leave Avignon to return to Italy, to restore peace and then turn to the reformation of the distracted church. On all sides there was a desire that the pope should shake off the political traditions which at Avignon had hampered

  his free action, should recover his Italian lands and live of his own in Rome at peace with all men and should stop the crying abuses which the needs of a troubled time and of exceptional circumstances had brought into the government of the church. The papacy had been strong in the past when it was allied with the reforming party in remedying disorder. The question was, would the papacy again renew its strength by taking up an independent position and

  redressing the ecclesiastical grievances under which Europe groaned? The first step was its restoration to its ancient capital where it might again be regarded as the representative of Christendom. End of section 5.

• 06 - Book I. The Great Schism, 1378-1414, Ch. 1: Urban VI, Clement VII, and the Affairs of Naples, 1378-1389, Pt. 1

  play_arrowPlaymenu_bookRead

  Section 6 of A History of the Papacy, Volume 1 by Mandel Creighton. This LibriVox recording is in the public domain, read by Pamela Nagami. Book 1, The Great Schism, 1378-1414. Chapter 1, Urban VI, Clement VII, and the Affairs of Naples, 1378-1389, Part 1. When Gregory XI lay upon his deathbed, all men in Rome felt that a great crisis was at hand.

  Among the citizens, the ideas of the days of Rienzi and the aspirations of Catherine of Siena passed from mouth to mouth, and the cardinals were busy consulting on the steps which they could possibly take. The government of Rome was at that time vested in a senator and 13 banderizi or bannerets, who commanded the civic levies of the thirteen regions into which the city was divided. Already before Gregory XI's eyes were closed in death, the Romans urged upon

  the cardinals the election of a Roman pope who might introduce order into the states of the church, and during the funeral rites of Gregory, their representations were renewed with increasing persistency. The banderizi watched the cardinals to prevent them fleeing from the city, and at the same time took measures to show that they were able and willing to maintain order within the walls. The gates were strictly guarded, the Roman barons were ordered to withdraw,

  and bands of armed militia were summoned from the country to protect the city against the danger of surprise by the soldier hordes who were prowling in the neighborhood. A marble column was erected in the middle of the piazza of St. Peter's, bearing an axe and a block, and three times a day proclamations were made that anyone who injured the cardinals or their attendants would instantly be beheaded. The cardinals could find no pretext for refusing to proceed to an election at Rome,

  but they took such precautions as they could on their own account. They sent their valuables and all the papal jewels for safekeeping into the castle of St. Angelo, where the papal chamberlain, the archbishop of Arles, went to secure the governor and the garrison. They accepted the banderizi as guardians of the conclave, but added to them two Frenchmen and the bishops of Marseilles, Todi, and Tivoli. Of the 23 cardinals who at that time represented the church,

  six had remained in Avignon and one was absent as legate in Tuscany. Of the 16 who were in Rome, one was a Spaniard, four were Italians, and 11 were French. The great question to be decided at the coming elections was whether by choosing an Italian, the cardinals would assure the return of the papacy to Rome, or by choosing a Frenchman, they would strive to perpetuate its residence at Avignon. The French cardinals looked upon Rome with disgust as squalid and barbarous. They

  sighed to return to the luxurious ease of Avignon. If they had been united, they would have secured the majority of two-thirds which was necessary for the election of a pope, but the French were divided amongst themselves on grounds which awakened amongst them feelings as intense as could inspire the Italians. Clement VI and his nephew, Gregory XI, were both limousins and had shown marked preference for their fellow countrymen. Of the 11 French cardinals, six belonged to a

  limousin party, four were pitted against them as a Gallican party, and one seems to have been doubtful. Rather than submit to the election of another limousin, the Gallican cardinals were ready to join with the Italians. In this state of things, it was clearly necessary to try and arrange a compromise, and conferences were held before entering into the conclave. At first, the limousins tried to take advantage of their numerical majority over any other party,

  and boldly put forward Jean Ducrot, cardinal of Limoges. When told that he was impossible, they proposed Pierre de Bernier, cardinal de Vivier, who was a native of Cahors, and therefore slightly removed from the dreaded neighborhood of Limoges. The four Gallican cardinals, joined by the Spaniard, Peter de Luna, declared that they would never agree to this. The Italians, meanwhile, held by themselves and demanded the election of an Italian. The Gallican party affirmed that they

  would make common cause with the Italians rather than give way to the limousin, and the limousin, before they entered the conclave, were prepared to propose a compromise if they found it impossible to carry the cardinal of Vivier. For this purpose, they thought of an Italian outside the college, whose election would not be a decisive triumph to any party, and would leave open all the questions which were involved in their struggle. They fixed on Bartolomeo Pregnano, archbishop of Bari,

  a man of humble origin who had risen to eminence through the patronage of Pierre de Monterac, cardinal of Pomp Luna, a limousin who had remained at Avignon. Pregnano had come to Rome as his deputy, and exercised in his stead the office of vice-chancellor to the Curia. He seems to have acquired considerable influence in Rome, was in the confidence of the Banderisi, and had shown much skill in arranging with them the measures for the security of the conclave. Thus he was likely

  to be acceptable as an escape from the jealousies within the college, while he would satisfy the demands of the Roman people. The limousin determined that if a compromise was necessary, it had better proceed from their side. They fixed on a man already connected with their party and trusted that gratitude for their good offices would bind him still more securely to their interests. Under ordinary circumstances, the idea of a compromise would not so soon have taken shape,

  and a long vacancy would have been the most probable consequence of the divided condition of the college. But under the novel circumstances of an election in Rome, especially in the ferment of popular excitement, long delay was impossible, and a compromise to be effective must be put forward at once. When the time came for the cardinals to enter the conclave, an excited crowd accompanied them to the door of the chamber in the Vatican. It might well be that after so many years

  of disuse, the Romans had forgotten the general decorum which was supposed to attend the solemn ceremony. The crowd pressed into the room with the cardinals and peered into every corner to convince themselves that the cardinals were really to be left alone. It was with difficulty that the room was cleared by the banderisi, who before withdrawing, addressed another exhortation to the cardinals to elect a Roman pope. It was late in the evening of April 7, 1378,

  when the conclave was closed, and the repose of the cardinals was troubled all night by the shouts of the mob who stood around the palace exclaiming, Romano, Romano, lo volem o lo papo, o al manco Italiano, a Roman, a Roman, we want a Roman for pope, or at least an Italian. As the morning drew near, the tumult outside increased, the campanile of St. Peter's was broken open, and its bells clanged out as summons to a greater crowd. The cardinals saw that it

  would be well to lose no time, and the compromise projected by the limousin began to assume a very definite shape. On the morning of April 8, after mass had been said, the cardinals proceeded to vote. The cardinal of Florence, as the senior, voted first, and expressing his real desire, gave his voice in favor of Tebaldeschi, cardinal of St. Peter's, a Roman. Next followed the cardinal of Limoges, who expressed the general opinion of the French party when he said that there were two

  objections to the cardinal of St. Peter's. First, that he was a Roman, and it was undesirable to elect a Roman, lest they should seem to have done so through fear. Secondly, that he was too infirm for the labors of the papacy. The cardinal of Florence, he proceeded, belongs to a people who are enemies to the church. The cardinal of Milan comes from a land of tyrants who oppose the church. Cardinal Orsini is a Roman and the archbishop of Bari. It was found that there was a general consent.

  Too demurred on the ground that the election was being hurried through fear, and cardinal Orsini is even said to have proposed that the college should pretend to elect some obscure friar, invest him with the papal rogues to deceive the people, and in the confusion make their escape and proceed to a real election. This proposal was at once rejected. It would seem that there was some sense of popular pressure, but not enough to influence the conduct of the cardinals.

  The election of the archbishop of Bari had been determined, but before proceeding to the formal act, the cardinals retired to breakfast. The tumult outside was raging furiously. The mob had broken into the pope's cellars and the papal wine had increased their patriotism. The cardinals hesitated to face them with the news that they had not elected a Roman pope. The man whom they had selected was not a member of the sacred college,

  he was not there, and they had no one to present for the reverence of the crowd. They sent a messenger to summon the archbishop of Bari and some other ecclesiastics. They also used this opportunity of sending to the castle of St. Angelo the plate and jewels which they had with them, as they feared that the conclave chamber would be sacked according to old custom. When the mob saw the prelates arrive, they suspected that an election had been made and clamored to be

  informed. When they found that the vessels of the cardinals were being carried away, they grew still more suspicious and indignant. No longer able to endure suspense, they rushed to the door which had been already broken down to admit the prelates and the cardinals were now genuinely terrified at the prospect of facing the mob with the tidings that they had not elected a Roman. Already steps were heard along the passages and as the crowd burst in,

  terror inspired one of the cardinals to deceive them. The cardinal of St. Peter's pope was exclaimed by someone and as the eager throng rushed to do reverence to the old Tebaldeschi, the cardinals hastened to make their escape. As the rude artisan seized Tebaldeschi's gaudy hands to kiss them, it was in vain that the agonized old man screamed out, I am not the pope, but a better man than me. Few heard him and those who heard thought it was his humility that spoke.

  The cardinal succeeded in getting away before the cries of Tebaldeschi at length convinced his persecutors of the truth. Then a wild search was made for Prygianno throughout the palace. If the disappointed mob could have found him, they would have torn him in pieces. But he hid himself in the pope's most private chamber till the search was abandoned as useless. Meanwhile the cardinals who had escaped when they saw the excitement of the people whom they had

  deceived dreaded the consequences to themselves when the truth was known. Some fled from Roman fright, some took refuge in the castle of St. Angelo, five only dared to remain in their palaces, the cardinal of St. Peter's alone remained with Prygianno in the Vatican. Next day the tumult had ceased. The Roman people magnanimously forgave their disappointment and the banderisi loyally accepted the election of the archbishop of Bari.

  The new pope summoned the cardinals to his side and the five who were in the city ventured to return to the Vatican. It needed, however, repeated messages, even the entreaties of the banderisi, before those who were in the castle dared to come forth. At last they assembled, went through the customary formalities, and on Easter Sunday, April 18th, 1378, crowned the new pope who took the name of Urban VI. Next day they wrote to the cardinals at Avignon

  announcing their election and saying that their votes had been given freely and unanimously. The cardinals had elected Prygianno as a respectable figurehead who would prove amenable to their wishes. He had a reputation for theological and legal learning, he was well versed in the business of the curia, he knew the charms of Avignon and was likely to find a good excuse for returning there and carrying on the traditions of the Avignonese papacy. Great was their

  disappointment when they found that one whom they regarded as insignificant was resolved to make himself their master. Urban VI had never been a cardinal and so was untouched by the traditions of the order. Like many men whose presumed insignificance had raised them unexpectedly to high position, he longed to assert his authority roundly over his former superiors. He had long held his tongue and allowed others to lord it over him. Now that his turn was come,

  he was resolved to use his opportunity to the full. He was a short stout man with a swarthy face full of Neapolitan fire and savagery. His monkish piety burned to distinguish itself by some striking measures of reform, but he was without knowledge of himself or of the world and knew nothing of the many steps to be taken between good intentions and their practical execution. He thought that he could enforce his will by self-assertion and that the cardinals would be

  reduced to absolute obedience by mere rudeness. Already on Easter Monday he began to convey against the conduct of the bishops and said that they were perjured because they deserted their seas and followed the curia. He tried to enforce sumptuary regulations upon the cardinals and ordered that they should make their meals of one dish only. He had no tact, no sense of dignity or decorum. He sat in the consistory and interrupted speakers with remarks of,

  Rubbish! Hold your tongue! You have said enough! His anger found vent in unmeasured language. One day he called Cardinal Orasini a fool. Seeing the cardinal of Limoges turn away his head and make a face at something that he said, he bade him hold up his head and look him in the face. Another day he grew so angry with the same cardinal that he rushed at him to strike him, but Robert of Geneva pulled him back to his seat, exclaiming,

  Holy father, holy father, what are you doing? These were personal matters, intensely galling to the cardinals, who under the last popes had been richly endowed with ecclesiastical revenues, had lived in luxury, accustomed to treat kings as their equals, and to meet with nothing but consideration and respect. Still Urban VI's personal conduct gave them no ground for action, till they found to their dismay that the pope had no intention of returning to Avignon.

  He openly told the banderisi that he proposed to remain at Rome and make a new creation of Roman and Italian cardinals. The college felt itself seriously menaced. The Frenchmen saw that they would be reduced to a minority and then would be entirely neglected. Before this common danger, all differences disappeared. Gallicans and Limousins were reconciled and prepared to resist the pope, whom their dissensions had set over them. One day after the pope had furiously attacked the

  cardinal of Avignon, Robert of Geneva said to him openly, You have not treated us cardinals with the honor due to us as your predecessors used to do, and you are lessening our dignity. I tell you truly that the cardinals on their side will try to lessen your dignity also. Urban VI found that this was no empty menace and that the hostility of his cardinals had power even in Rome. The French governor of the castle of St. Angelo refused to surrender it to the pope, who consequently could

  not make himself master of the city. The cardinals knew that they could rely on the support of the king of France against the pope, who avowed his intention of rescuing the papacy from French influence. Urban's conduct gave them an unexpected ally in Queen Giovanna I of Naples, who had at first hailed with delight the election of one of her subjects to the papacy. Counting on the pliancy of the new pope, her fourth husband Otto, duke of Brunswick, hastened to Rome to receive at

  the pope's hand his coronation as king of Naples. But Giovanna I was childless, and Urban VI did not choose that at her death Naples should pass into the hands of Germans. He refused Otto's request, and even treated him with haughty insolence. One day Otto acted as the pope's cup bearer at a banquet, and as the custom was presented the cup on bended knee. Urban for some time pretended not to see him, till one of the cardinals called out, Holy Father, it is time to drink. Giovanna's

  ambassadors who were sent to congratulate Urban on his election were treated to a scolding on the evil state of Naples, which the pope threatened to amend. After this, it was but natural that Giovanna I, who had been a firm ally of the Avignonese popes, should be willing to join a party which aimed at the restoration of the old state of things. This moldering discontent was not long in breaking out. At the end of May the cardinals obtained leave from the pope to retire

  before the heats of Rome to Anagnis, which had been the summer residence of Gregory XI, where they had houses and stores of provisions. At Anagnis the cardinals found a new ally whom the pope's conduct had estranged. Honorato Canto Fondi, who was lord of Anagnis, had been appointed by Gregory XI, governor of Campania, and had lent the pope twenty thousand florins. The headstrong Urban refused to pay his predecessor's debts, and after offending Honorato by his refusal, judged it safer

  to deprive him of his office and conferred upon his enemy Tommaso of San Severino. After this he grew suspicious of the intercourse of the cardinals with Honorato. He determined to go to Tivoli for the summer and ordered the cardinals to join him there. The cardinals raised difficulties about leaving their houses which they had provisioned for the season. The archbishop of Arles, Gregory XI's chamberlain, joined them at Anagnis, bringing with him the papal jewels. The pope ordered his

  arrest, and the cardinals feigned to comply with the pope's order. The cardinals at Anagnis and the pope at Tivoli each professed to invite the other, and feigned to wonder at the delay to accept the invitation. At last the cardinals let their intentions be seen. They summoned to their aid a band of Bretons and Gaskins, which had been taken into the service of the church by Gregory XI, and had served under Robert of Geneva in the year before. These adventurers advanced, plundering the

  Roman territory, and defeated by Pontesalaro, the Romans who went out against them. The Breton company pursued its way to Anagnis, and Urban at Tivoli begged for help from the queen of Naples, who had not yet declared herself against him, and sent Duke Otto with 200 lances and 100 foot to guard his person. Otto, who was a shrewd observer, gave it as his opinion that the pope's name should be Turbanus instead of Urbanus, as he seemed likely to upset everything and bring himself

  into many difficulties. End of section 6.

• 07 - Bk. I, Ch. 1: Urban VI, Clement VII, and the Affairs of Naples, 1378-1389, Pt. 2

  play_arrowPlaymenu_bookRead

  Section 7 of A History of the Papacy, Volume 1 by Mandel Creighton. This LibriVox recording is in the public domain, read by Pamela Nagami. Book 1, Chapter 1, Urban VI, Clement VII, and the Affairs of Naples, 1378-1389, Part 2. The Cardinals at Ananyi now found themselves strong enough to proceed to open measures against Urban. On July 20, 1378, they wrote to the four Italian Cardinals who were still with Urban,

  setting forth that his election had been forced upon them by the Roman mob. And so had not been made freely. They required them to appear at Ananyi within five days to deliberate upon the steps to be taken to obviate this scandal. They wrote also to the University of Paris and to the King of France demanding their assistance. Urban, on his part, showed himself alive to the importance of the crisis.

  He sent the three Italian Cardinals who were with him, the Cardinal of St. Peter was ill and died in August, declaring the validity of Urban's election, to negotiate at Palestrina with those at Ananyi. He empowered them to offer to submit the question to the decision of a General Council. The Ultramontanes refused this offer and urged the Italian Cardinals to join them at Ananyi.

  The Italians wavered and retired to Genazzano to await the turn of affairs. The King of France, Louis of Anjou and Giovanna of Naples, openly declared themselves in behalf of the rebels, who on August 9th issued an encyclical letter to the whole of Christendom. They declared that the election had been made under violence.

  Through fear of death they had elected the Archbishop of Bari, in the expectation that his conscience would not allow him to accept an election made in such a way. He had been ensnared by ambition to the destruction of his soul. He was an intruder and a deceiver. They called upon him to give up his delusive dignity

  and they summoned all Christians to reject his authority. War was now declared, but it was at first a war of pamphlets. Learned legists gave their opinions and universities examined the question. There were two nice points to be determined and arguments could readily be obtained on either side. 1. Did the tumult of the Romans amount to actual violence

  sufficient to do away with the freedom of the electors? 2. If so, did not the subsequent recognition of urban by the cardinals, a recognition which lasted for three months, supply any defect which might have been in the original election? It is clear that these questions might be settled according as prejudice or interest directed.

  There had been enough irregularity in the election to give the cardinals a fair plea for their proceedings. But the formal plea was a mere cloak to political motives. The significance of urban selection lay in the fact that it restored the papacy to Rome and freed it from the influence of France. It was not to be expected that the traditions of the 70 years captivity could be set aside at once.

  It was not natural that France should let go her hold without a desperate effort. The rebellion of the irritated cardinals against the pope who paid no heed to their privileges combined with deep-seated motives of political interest and produced a schism. The cardinals at Anagni found that their soldiers consumed all the provisions so that they were driven to change their abode.

  They therefore transferred themselves to Fondi, where they were safer under the protection of Count Onorato. The Italian cardinals went from Palestrina to Sesa that they might continue their negotiations. Soon, however, they were persuaded to join the other rebels at Fondi. It is said that they were won over by a promise that one of them should be elected pope in Urban's stead.

  The cardinals could now point to Urban's helplessness. The whole body of his electors was united in opposition to him. In truth, Urban found himself almost entirely deserted, and when it was too late, he repented bitterly of his first rashness. For a time his spirit was crushed,

  and his secretary Dietrich of Niem tells us that he often found him in tears. But he soon plucked up courage and on September 18th created 28 new cardinals. This resolute step of Urban's hastened the proceedings of the rebels at Fondi, who on September 20th, 1378, elected as their pope Robert of Geneva, who took the name of Clement VII.

  The Italian cardinals took no part in this election nor did they repudiate it. They returned to Sesa and thence retired to a castle of the Orsini at Talia Cozzo. There Cardinal Orsini died in 1380, and the two others, feeling that it was too late for reconciliation with Urban, joined the party of Clement.

  In their election of Robert of Geneva the cardinals had chosen the man whom they thought best fitted to fight a hard battle. Robert was brother to the Count of Geneva, and so was allied with many noble houses. He was in the vigor of manhood at the age of 36, and had already shown great force of character and practical skill in business.

  His fierce determination had been seen in his conduct as legate in North Italy in 1377, where a rising of Cezana against his soldiers was avenged by a pitiless massacre of the whole city. Even the hardened leader of the savage mercenary band shrank at first from fulfilling Robert's orders, but was urged by the imperative command, Blood, Blood and Justice.

  For three days and three nights the carnage raged inside the devoted city. The gates were shut and no one could escape. At last despair lent strength to feeble arms and the gates were forced open, but the unhappy victims only found another band of soldiers awaiting outside to receive them. Five thousand perished in the slaughter, and the name of Cezana would have been destroyed

  if the barbarous general Hawkwood had not been better than his orders, saved a thousand women and allowed some of the men to escape. This exploit had awakened in Italy the deepest detestation against Robert, but now seems to have stood him in good stead, as convincing his electors of the promptitude and decision which he possessed in emergencies.

  Moreover, Robert had all the qualities which Urban VI lacked. He was tall and of commanding presence. His manner was agreeable. He was a favorite with princes and nobles and knew how to conciliate them to his interests. He had all the suavity and knowledge of the world which was so conspicuously wanting in Urban VI. The cardinals could not have chosen a better leader of revolt.

  When the schism was declared and the two parties stood in avowed opposition, allies began to gather round, each for motives which were purely political. Italy took the side of the Italian pope, except the Kingdom of Naples, which had been closely connected with the papacy at Avignon and so maintained its old position. France labored for Clement VII to assert its former hold upon the papacy.

  England, through hostility to France, became a staunch partisan of Urban, when Scotland declared itself on the side of Clement. If Urban, by his unyielding behavior to Giovanna, had estranged Naples, he had by his complacency secured Germany. One of his first acts had been to accede to the request of Emperor Charles IV

  that he would recognize his son Venzel as King of the Romans and the death of Charles IV on November 29, 1378, set Venzel on the throne of Germany. Hungary took the side opposed to Naples. The Northern Kingdoms went with Germany. Flanders followed England through its hostility to France.

  The Count of Savoy adhered to Clement, whose kinsman he was. The Spanish Kingdoms alone remained neutral, though in the end they fell into the allegiance of Clement. In Italy, Urban's position was certainly the strongest. He had in July made peace with Florence and Perugia,

  but he had not entire possession of Rome, as the French captain of the Castle of Sant'Angelo resisted all the onslaughts of the Romans. They broke down the bridge and erected earthworks and palisades, but the castle was well supplied with provisions and guns. For the first time, the Romans heard the sound of cannon from its ramparts

  and saw the balls shatter their houses. The Borgo of San Pietro was set on fire and destroyed. Everywhere in the city was confusion. Outside the walls, the Orsini and the Count of Fondi laid waste to the Roman territory and cut off their supplies.

  The position of Urban at the end of 1378 was gloomy enough. He was endeavoring to gather round him the cardinals whom he had nominated, though some of them declined to accept the dignity at his hands. He found also some satisfaction in excommunicating Clement and his supporters and in gathering testimonies and writing letters in support of the validity of his own election.

  But he did not disregard the measures necessary to secure his safety. Against the Breton band, which was now under the command of Clement VII's nephew, the Count Mongeoix, Urban summoned the aid of a band of adventurers under the leadership of a young Italian general, Alberigo da Barbiano. By the course of the 13th century in Italy, the old communal militia had declined.

  The War of the Papacy against Frederick II and his house made Italy the battleground of foreign forces, and foreign mercenaries had taken the place of the civic levies. During the 14th century, Italy had been the prey of German, Hungarian, Provençal, English, and Breton bands, and the Italian army had taken control of the country and perpetuated the anarchy on which they prospered. But the spirit of adventure had at last awakened among the Italians themselves,

  and to Alberigo da Barbiano belongs the fame of having first gathered together the company of St. George, composed of soldiers who were almost entirely Italian. The growing national feeling which had drawn such a band together found a worthy object for its first exploit, in upholding the cause of the Italian Pope against his French opponents. Italian piety, as embodied in the mystic maid Catherine of Siena,

  sent forth its imploring cry to Italian patriotism. Now, she exclaims, is the time for new martyrs. You are the first to have given your blood. How great is the fruit that you will receive. It is eternal life.

  We will do like Moses, for while the people fought, Moses prayed, and while Moses prayed, the people conquered. It is significant to note how round this war of the rival popes gathered the first enthusiasm of a new national feeling in Italy. No sooner had Alberigo arrived in Rome and received the papal benediction

  than he set out against the enemy who were besieging Marino, only 12 miles distant from Rome. April 29th, 1379. He drew up his forces in two squadrons while Mongeois arranged his in three. Alberigo sent out his first squadron under one of his captains, but it was discomfited by the opposing squadron of the foe.

  Then Alberigo himself charged, drove back the pursuers in disorder upon their second squadron, routed that also, and charged the third division which was commanded by Mongeois. The battle was long and desperate, but the Italians won the day. Great was the joy in Rome. Urban dubbed Alberigo Knight and presented him with a banner emblazoned with a red cross

  and bearing the inscription Italia liberata dai barabari. It was a national as well as a papal victory. On the same day the castle of Sant'Angelo capitulated and the Roman people, in their hatred of this terrible fortress which had so often held them in subjection, set themselves to work to destroy it.

  But this mighty structure of Roman masonry, the tomb of Hadrian, which had been transformed into a castle and was bound up with the most glorious memories of the city, withstood even the fury of the people. They tore off its marble covering, but the mass of the interior building still resisted their efforts. It remains to this day a mutilated monument of its former greatness.

  In the first flush of his victory at Marino, Alberigo had not bethought himself a pressing on to Annagni, but Clement VII found it no longer a safe place of residence. He hastily retreated to Sperlonga and thence to Gaeta, where he took ship to Naples and was received with royal pomp by Queen Giovanna I. But the people viewed his presence with dislike.

  Their sympathies naturally went with their fellow countrymen urban. A tumult arose in the city. The mob rushed to the streets with the cry of Viva Papa Urbano and pillaged the houses of the ultramontanes. Clement VII saw that there was no safe resting place for him in Italy. He took ship for Avignon, where he arrived on June 10 and was received with reverence by the five cardinals,

  who during these stormy scenes had remained there in peace. Avignon was the only place outside Rome where a pope could find a resting place, and there Clement VII was secure in the allegiance of France. It is true that at first the University of Paris held aloof. Some were for urban. The majority were in favor of neutrality.

  But Charles V paid little heed to the scruples of canonists or theologians in a matter that involved the national dignity. He urged on the University the recognition of Clement VII. It was forced to give way and reported that a majority of the faculties assented to the decree in Clement VII's favor. Urban VI was not so free as Clement VII from dangerous neighbors. He bitterly resented the defection of the Kingdom of Naples, his native country,

  and the condition of the land soon gave him grounds to interfere in its affairs. Since the fall of the Roman Empire, southern Italy had been the battleground of contending powers. Greeks, Lombards, and Saracens in turn prevailed, until a band of Norman adventurers brought order into those fair provinces, gradually founded a kingdom of the two Sicilies, and obtained from papal recognition a title to legitimacy. The Norman dynasty handed on its claims by marriage to the Schwabian emperors,

  whose line died out in war against the papacy, which transferred the kingdom to Charles of Anjou. But before his death, Charles lost Sicily, which went to the house of Aragon, and in Naples itself the house of Anjou fell into disunion. Charles II of Naples gained by marriage the dowry of Hungary, which passed to his eldest son, Charles Martel, while his second son Robert ruled in Naples.

  But Robert survived his only son, and left as heiress of the kingdom his granddaughter, Giovanna. The attempt to give stability to the rule of a female by marriage with her cousin Andrew of Hungary only aroused the jealousy of the Neapolitan nobles, and raised up a strong party in opposition to Hungarian influence. Charles II of Naples, Giovanna's great-grandfather, had left many sons and daughters, whose descendants of the great houses of Durazzo and Tarento, like those of the sons of Edward III in England,

  hoped to exercise the royal power. When in 1345, Pope Clement VI was on the point of recognizing Andrew as king of Naples, a conspiracy was formed against him, and he was murdered with the connivance, as it was currently believed, of the queen. Hereon the feuds in the kingdom blazed forth more violently than before. The party of Durazzo ranged itself against that of Tarento, and demanded punishment of the murderers.

  Giovanna I, to protect herself, married Louis of Tarento in 1347. King Louis of Hungary, aided by the party of Durazzo, entered Naples to avenge his brother's death, and for a while all was confusion. On the death of Louis of Tarento in 1362, Giovanna I married James, king of Majorca, and on his death in 1374, Otto, Duke of Brunswick. Giovanna I was childless, and the slight lull which in the last years had come over the war of factions in Naples was only owing to the fact that all were preparing for the inevitable conflict which her death would bring.

  It was easy for Urban VI to awaken confusion in Naples and precipitate the outbreak of war. At first Giovanna I seems to have been alarmed after the departure of Clement VII. She made overtures to Urban, and promised to send ambassadors to arrange the terms of her submission. Soon, however, she changed her mind, recalled her ambassadors, and it is said to have set on foot a conspiracy to poison Urban. The Roman people, free from the dread of Clement's neighborhood, found themselves more at leisure to criticize Urban's behavior,

  and began to assert their freedom by seditious outcries. So alarming were their threats that the Holy Maiden, Catherine of Siena, who stood by the Pope with enthusiastic devotion, putook herself to earnest prayer as a means of averting from him impending calamity. She saw the whole city filled with demons who were inciting the people to crime, and who gathered with loud clamor round the praying saint to terrify her from her pious work which was baffling their endeavors.

  Urban VI showed his courage by ordering the doors of the Vatican to be thrown open to the clamorous mob. When they rushed in, they found the Pope seated on his throne in full pontificals. He calmly asked them what they wanted, and they, abashed by his display of dignity, retired in peace. After this, the tumult in Rome settled quietly down, and when Giovanna I stirred up Reinaldo delle Orsini to lead a troop against Rome,

  the Romans repulsed them and left their captives bound to trees to perish with hunger. End of Section VII.

• 08 - Bk. I, Ch. 1: Urban VI, Clement VII, and the Affairs of Naples, 1378-1389, Pt. 3

  play_arrowPlaymenu_bookRead

  Section 8 of A History of the Papacy, Volume 1 by Mandel Creighton. This LibriVox recording is in the public domain, read by Pamela Nagami. Book 1, Chapter 1, Urban VI, Clement VII, and The Affairs of Naples, 1378-1389, Part 3. The legend goes on to say that some of those who called on Catherine of Siena were miraculously released. It was the last miracle wrought by the saint in the flesh, as she died on April 29, 1380.

  In the dismal history of these gloomy times, she presents a picture of purity, devotion, and self-sacrifice, to which we turn with feelings of relief. In her intense and passionate desire for personal communion with Jesus, Catherine resembled the fervent nature of St. Francis of Assisi. But her lot was cast in times when zeal had grown cold in high places, and she spent her energy in agonized attempts to heal the breaches of the papal system. A simple maiden of Siena, she ventured in her master's name to try and redress the evils which were so open and avowed. She saw Italy, widowed of its pope. She saw the Church, venal and corrupt.

  And though she was inspired by mystic enthusiasm, she worked with practical force and courage to restore the papacy to Italy, and to inaugurate an era of reform. In urgent tones, she summoned the popes from Avignon, and Urban V answered to her call. She went from city to city pleading for peace, and in the discharge of her mission, shrank neither from the fierce brawls of civic passion nor the coarse brutality of the condottieri camp. Before her eyes floated the vision of a purified and reformed Church, of which the restoration of the papacy to its original seat was to be at once the symbol and the beginning. Blinded by her enthusiasm, she hailed with delight the accession of Urban VI.

  And by the side of the violent and vindictive pope, her pure and gentle spirit seems to stand as an angel of light. She did not long survive the disappointment of the schism, and though she remained constant in her allegiance to Urban VI, his character and actions must have been a perpetual trial to her faith. She died at the age of 33, and the removal of her influence for mercy is seen in the increased vindictiveness of Urban's measures. Canonized by Pius II, Catherine of Siena has a claim upon our reverence higher than that of a saint of the medieval Church. A low-born maiden without education or culture, she gave the only possible expression in her age and generation to the aspiration for national unity and for the restoration of ecclesiastical purity.

  Urban VI, finding himself menaced by Giovanna of Naples, did not hesitate to accept the challenge, and on April 21, 1380, declared her deposed from her throne as a heretic, schismatic, and traitor to the pope. He looked for help in carrying out his decree to King Louis of Hungary, who had for a time laid aside his desire for vengeance against Giovanna, but was ready to resume his plans of aggrandizement when a favorable opportunity offered. He had brought into subjection his powerful nobles and had consolidated Hungary into a strong and aggressive power. When Urban's messengers reached him, he was at war with Venice for the possession of Dalmatia. Louis was not himself disposed to leave his kingdom, but he had at his court the son of his relative, Louis of Durazzo, whom he had put to death in his Neapolitan campaign for complicity in Andrew's murder.

  After his father's death, the young Charles was brought to Hungary and educated at court. As Giovanna was childless, Charles of Durazzo, or Carlo de la Pace, as he was called in Italy, had a strong claim to the Neapolitan throne at her death. Louis, who had only a daughter to succeed him in Hungary, was not sorry to rid himself of one who was conspicuous for military and princely qualities. He furnished Charles with Hungarian troops for an expedition against Naples after exacting from him a promise that he would put forward no claim to the thrones of Hungary and Poland. In November, Charles made his entry into Rome.

  He was a little man with fair hair, of princely bearing, well qualified to win men's goodwill by his geniality and by his courage to make the most of his opportunities. He was also a friend of learning and a man of keen political intelligence. He was one of the earliest of Italian rulers, who combined a love for culture with a spirit of reckless adventure. Clement VII on his side, bestirred himself in behalf of his ally Giovanna, and for this purpose could count on the help of France. Failing the house of Durazzo, the house of Valois could put forward a claim to the Neapolitan throne as being descended from the daughter of Charles II.

  The helpless Giovanna in her need adopted as her heir and successor Louis, Duke of Anjou, brother of the French king, and called him to her aid. Clement VII hastened to confer on Louis everything that he could. He even formed the states of the church into a kingdom of Adria and bestowed them on Louis. Only Rome itself and the adjacent lands in Tuscany, Campania Maratima, and Sabina were reserved for the pope. The Avignonese pretender was resolved to show how little he cared for Italy or for the old traditions of the Italian greatness of his office.

  Charles of Durazzo was first in the field, for Louis of Anjou was detained in France by the death of Charles V in September 1380. The accession of Charles VI at the age of 12 threw the government of the kingdom upon the Council of Regency, of which Louis of Anjou was the chief member. He used his position to gratify his chief failing, Avarice, and gathered large sums of money for his Neapolitan campaign. Meanwhile, Charles of Durazzo was in Rome, where Urban VI equipped him for his undertaking. He made Charles Senator of Rome, that he might call out the levies of the Roman people.

  He exhausted the papal treasury and even laid hands on the sacred vessels and images of the Roman churches to supply pay for the troops of Albarigo da Balbiano, which were summoned to swell the ranks of Charles. But the Pope's zeal for Charles was tempered by attention to his own interests, and though willing to invest Charles with the kingdom, he demanded a high price for his services. Charles found the Pope's terms exorbitant, and the differences between them were only settled by an arbitration conducted, on the Pope's side, by five cardinals, and on the part of Charles, by a learned Florentine lawyer, Lapo da Castiglione Chio. Ultimately, Charles agreed to confirm grants which the Pope claimed to have made in the vacancy that, according to him, followed on Giovanna's deposition. The grants were all in favor of Urban's nephew, Francesco Pregnano, nicknamed Butilo, and conferred on him Capua, Amalfi, Caserta, Fondi, Gaeta, Sorrento, and other towns, all the richest part of the Neapolitan kingdom.

  This unblushing nepotism of Urban VI was not justified by anything in the capacities or character of his nephew, who was a rude and profligate ruffian with no ability to redeem his vices from infamy. When this matter had been arranged to Urban's satisfaction, he conferred on Charles the investiture of Naples in June 1381. He was proud of his triumph over Charles, and was determined to read him a lesson on the necessity of obedience. He sent for Lapo da Castiglione Chio in the presence of the cardinals and of the king's attendants, and as he knelt before him, proudly said, King Charles, King Charles, make much of Lapo, for it is he who has made you king.

  The coronation of Charles was performed with due pomp and ceremony. Urban, in a sermon of two hours length, praised his virtues and published a crusade in his favor. With his own hands, he fastened the red cross on Charles's breast. Charles, who had been fretting under his long delay, hastened to leave Rome on June 8, 1381, and marched against Naples, where he had not many difficulties to encounter. The Neapolitan barons were for the most part on his side.

  They preferred a native ruler to a foreigner who would bring with him a train of French followers. Moreover, Urban VI, as a Neapolitan, had the popular sympathies in his favor. He had raised many Neapolitans to the cardinalate, while Clement VII had chosen only Frenchmen. The cause of Charles and Urban was the national side, and Giovanna found herself in great straits. Yet her husband Otto was a brave soldier and went out to meet the foe.

  His first effort to check him on the frontier was unsuccessful. He was repulsed from San Germano on June 28, and Charles pressed on to Naples. Otto hurried after him, and the armies were face to face outside the walls. But a rising within the city opened the gates to Charles on July 16, and Giovanna was driven to take refuge in the Castel Nuovo, while Otto retreated to Aversa.

  Charles vigorously pressed the siege of the castle, which was ill supplied with provisions. He neglected no means of bombardment to terrify the garrison, for he was anxious to get the queen into his hands before reinforcements could arrive from Provence. It was to no purpose that Giovanna scanned the waters to catch sight of the sails of Provençal galleys. Provisions failed, and on August 20 she was driven to open negotiations with Charles.

  A truce was made for five days, at the end of which the queen was to surrender if no help came. On the morning of the 24th, Otto resolved to make a last desperate effort. Gathering his forces, he advanced against Charles. But his troops were half-hearted, and when Otto rushed upon the foe they did not follow him. He was surrounded and made prisoner.

  Giovanna's last hopes were gone, and on August 26 she surrendered the castle to Charles, who in a few days received the submission of the whole kingdom. No sooner was Charles in possession of Naples than Urban's legate, Cardinal de Sangro, proceeded to treat the clergy as a barbarous conqueror dealing with defeated rebels. The unhappy prelates, who had only obeyed their queen in recognizing Clement VII,

  were deprived of their possessions, imprisoned, and tortured without regard to their rank or dignity. Urban is said to have appointed on one day 32 archbishops and bishops for the Neapolitan kingdom. Louis of Anjou had delayed to help Giovanna I while she was still in possession of her kingdom. His help, when she was in captivity, only hastened her death. At first Charles hoped to obtain from Giovanna the adoption of himself,

  and a revocation of her previous adoption of Louis, so as to secure for himself a legitimate title. He treated the queen with respect, till he found that nothing could overcome her indomitable spirit. Then he changed his policy, imprisoned her closely, and in view of the approaching invasion of Louis, judged it wise to remove her from his path. She was strangled in her prison on May 12, 1382, and her corpse was exposed for six days before burial,

  that the certainty of her death might be known to all. Thenceforth, the question between Charles III and Louis was not complicated by any considerations of Giovanna's rights. It was a struggle of two dynasties for the Neapolitan crown, a struggle which was to continue for the next century. Crowned King of Naples by Clement VII, Louis avenged Côte d'Avignon at the end of May, accompanied by a brilliant array of French barons and knights.

  He hastened through North Italy and disappointed the hopes of the fervent partisans of Clement VII, by pursuing his course over Aquila, through the Abruzzi, and refusing to turn aside to Rome, which they said he might have occupied, seized Urban VI, and so ended the schism. When he entered the territory of Naples, he soon received large accessions to his forces from discontented barons, while twenty-two galleys from Provence occupied Ischia and threatened Naples.

  Charles was unable to meet his adversary in the field, as his forces were far inferior in number to those of Louis, which were estimated by contemporaries at forty thousand horse. He was compelled to act on the defensive, but showed such tactical skill that Louis in Maddaloni could obtain no fodder for his horses, which died miserably, while his men suffered from the hardships of a severe winter, and no decisive blow could be struck.

  Through the winter and the following spring, Charles acted strictly on the defensive, cutting off supplies and harassing his enemy by unexpected sallies. The French troops perished from the effects of the climate. The Count of Savoy died of dysentery. On March 1, 1383, Louis saw his splendid army rapidly dwindling away.

  But Urban VI was already discontented with Charles. His fiery temper wished to see the invaders swept away from the land, and he resolved to give his cautious vassal a lesson in generalship. Moreover, Charles already showed signs of ingratitude, and took no steps to hand over to the nephew Boutillo his share of the spoil.

  Urban resolved to go in person to Naples, and there settle everything that was amiss. In vain the sixth cardinals who were with him protested against the dangers of such a course. In vain, some of them pleaded poverty as a reason why they should remain behind. Urban threatened them with immediate deposition unless they followed him, and they were compelled to obey.

  Taking advantage of a pestilence which was raging in Rome, Urban withdrew to Tivoli in April 1383, without exciting the suspicion of the people. Thence he advanced to Valmontone, through Ferentino and San Germano to Sueza, and so to Aversa. Charles was naturally disturbed at the news of the Pope's arrival in his territory. He was sufficiently employed by his contest with Louis,

  without being exposed to the complications which might arise from the presence of the suzerain in a kingdom whose possession was yet ill-assured. He resolved at once to give the Pope a lesson, and show him his real powerlessness. He accordingly went to meet the Pope at his entry into Aversa. Urban VI attired himself in full pontificals, but Charles came dressed in a simple suit of black,

  and instead of advancing in state along the road, came across country so as to give the meeting an accidental appearance. Still he showed all signs of dutiful respect, but as he was leading the Pope's polyphory toward the castle of Aversa, Urban expressed his desire to take up his quarters in the Bishop's palace. Charles at once gave way, but Urban's followers observed with terror

  that the city's gates were shut after they entered. The following night Charles sent orders to Urban to come to the castle. The Pope replied that it was the same hour as that in which the Jews had seized Christ. He was hurried away by armed men, passionately declaring them excommunicated as he went, and assuring them of the certainty of their damnation.

  After three days spent with Charles in Aversa, the King and the Pope journeyed amicably together to Naples, where they made their solemn entry on November 9th. Again the Pope wished to take refuge in the Archbishop's palace. Nay, Holy Father, exclaimed the King, let us go to the castle. There for five days the Pope was kept in honorable custody,

  till an agreement was made between him and the King that the nephew, Bucilo, was to have Capua, Amalfi, Nocera, and other places, as well as a revenue of 5,000 Florins, and the Pope on his part was not to interfere in the affairs of the Kingdom. This compact, made by the intervention of the Cardinals, was celebrated by rejoicings and the Pope took up his residence in the Archbishop's palace in peace.

  Yet his desire to enrich his relatives was insatiable, and two of his nieces were married with great pomp to Neapolitan nobles. The parade of papal ceremonial was welcomed by the Neapolitans, though the religious impression produced by the Pope's ecclesiastical solemnities was somewhat marred by the misconduct of his nephew.

  On Christmas Eve, as the Pope was present at Vespers in the Cathedral, a rumor was suddenly brought that Bucilo had forcibly entered a nunnery and violated a sister of noble birth, remarkable for her beauty. Charles was glad to make use of this scandal and called Bucilo to trial. Urban VI excused his nephew on the ground of youth.

  He was 40 years old. And urged his rights as suzerain of Naples to stop the proceedings. Charles gave way after remodeling his agreement with the Pope, and as a punishment for his offense, Bucilo was condemned to matrimony. He wedded a lady related to the King,

  and received in dowry the Castle of Nocera and a promise of a revenue of 7,000 florins, so long as the domains which Charles had granted him remained in the possession of Louis. After this settlement of affairs, Urban, on January 1, 1384, proclaimed a crusade against Louis as a heretic and schismatic, and Charles unfurled the banner of the cross.

  The presence of the Pope gave fresh vigor to the efforts of Charles, for it made him anxious to rid himself of Louis before turning against Urban VI, whose presence in his kingdom was intolerable to him. He followed up the papal proclamation of a crusade by a royal edict, January 15, summoning all his counts and barons to prepare for an expedition in the spring.

  Meanwhile, he raised supplies from every quarter. The finest horses of the cardinals disappeared from their stables, and men said that the King knew where they had gone. The cloths of the Florentine Pisan and Genoese merchants, which were in the Custom House, were seized and appropriated to the royal service.

  On April 4, Charles led out his army to Bartoletta, wither Louis advanced and offered battle. Charles took counsel of his prisoner Otto of Brunswick, who advised him not to risk battle, but to act on the defensive, as Louis would not long be able to keep the field.

  His advice proved wise. After a few skirmishes, Louis was compelled to fall back upon body. As a token of his gratitude, Charles set Otto at liberty and remained at Bartoletta, watching Louis. End of Section 8

• 09 - Bk. I, Ch. 1: Urban VI, Clement VII, and the Affairs of Naples, 1378-1389, Pt. 4

  play_arrowPlaymenu_bookRead

  Section 9 of A History of the Papacy, Volume 1 by Mandel Creighton. This LibriVox recording is in the public domain, read by Pamela Nagami. Book 1, Chapter 1, Urban VI, Clement VII, and The Affairs of Naples, 1378-1389, Part 4. Meanwhile, Urban had determined to withdraw himself from the power of Charles and take up a strong position against him.

  In spite of the king's promises, Capua had not yet been handed over to the pope's nephew, and Nocera was the only place which Boutillo could call his own. Hither Urban retired, during the king's absence from Naples. The castle of Nocera was strong, and Urban caused it to be well provisioned. But the town that gathered round it did not contain seventy habitable houses,

  and the curia found Nocera a most uncomfortable residence, when Urban, in the middle of May 1384, transferred his court thither. He was resolved to make Nocera the capital of the papacy, till he had settled at his will the affairs of Naples, and he conferred upon the town the title of Luceria Christianorum. The cardinals shuddered at the horrors of the life they led in Nocera,

  and longed for an opportunity to escape. In the middle of August, some smoke in the distance caused an alarm that the enemy was advancing against the city. There was a general flight in which some of the cardinals took refuge in Naples, and showed no disposition to listen to the pope's summons to return. Strengthened by their presence, Queen Margaret, who was regent in Naples,

  forbade the supply of provisions to the pope, on which Urban retaliated by asserting his claims as suzerain to interfere in the affairs of the kingdom. He abolished the impost on wines, and forbade its payment to the royal officers under pain of excommunication. It was clear to Charles that Urban was a more serious adversary than Louis, but Charles lay helpless, his army was attacked by the plague, and he himself was stricken down by

  it. It spread to the army of Louis, which was already worn down by hardships and by want of food, and proved more fatal than in the camp of Charles. In September 1384, Louis himself died, leaving behind him a will by which he bequeathed his claims on Naples to his eldest son. Louis was a brave and skillful general, and a sensible politician. In France, he might have played a useful part. As it was, he wasted his own life and that of many noble followers

  in the useless pursuit of a kingdom. Naples was to prove hereafter the destruction of his race, and his own fortunes were but a symbol of the fate of those who were to follow in his steps. On the death of Louis, the remnant of his army dispersed, and Charles was free from one antagonist. Still suffering from the effects of the plague, he returned to Naples on November 10th, and at once proceeded to bring matters to a crisis with the pope. He sent to inquire

  courteously the reason why the pope had quitted Naples and invited him to return thither. Urban haughtily answered that kings were wont to come to the feet of popes, not popes at the command of kings. He went on to assert his right as suzerain to interfere in the affairs of Naples. Let the king, he said, if he wishes for my friendship, free his kingdom from oppressive imposts. He seems to have wished to gather round himself a popular party, and it was believed that he had

  formed the wild idea of setting his worthless nephew, Boutillo, on the throne of Naples. The answer of Charles was equally clear and decided. The kingdom, he said, was his own. He had won it by his own arms and labors. As to taxation, he would impose as many taxes as he chose. Let the pope busy himself with his clergy and not meddle with things that did not concern him. War was now declared between the pope and the king, and both sides prepared for the conflict.

  Charles found adherents among urban cardinals who repined at the discomforts of Nocera, and there were few who could sympathize with urban schemes. He had been elected pope that the papacy might be restored to its old seat at Rome. It was more intolerable that Nocera should be headquarters of the papacy than Avignon. Urban's designs to establish his nephew in Naples interested no one but himself, and the cardinals stood aghast at the stubbornness and recklessness of the intractable

  pope. It was monstrous that they should submit to be dragged helplessly from place to place as the whim of the passionate old man might dictate. It was natural that they should take counsel together how they could rid themselves from this intolerable yoke. They consulted a learned lawyer, Bartolino of Piacenza, and submitted a case for his opinion. They wished to know if a pope who was imperiling the church and ruling at his own will without paying any heed to the cardinals

  might be compelled to accept a council elected by the cardinals to regulate his doings. Their plan was to set up a body of commissioners by the side of an incapable pope. The papal monarch he has exercised by a mad despot was to be limited by a permanent council of the ecclesiastical aristocracy. The plan was ingenious and the constitutional question which it raised was of great importance for the future of the papacy, but the cardinal Orsini of Manupello revealed it

  to Urban before it had been brought to maturity and the pope lost no time in crushing it. On January 11th, 1385, he called to a consistory the six cardinals whom he most suspected. His nephew Boutillo seized them and cast them into a loathsome dungeon made in a broken cistern. The pope accused them of a plot to seize his person, compelled him to confess himself to be a heretic and then burn him. They were left in their horrible dungeon to suffer from cold,

  hunger and loathsome reptiles. Dietrich of Nîmes, who is sent to examine them, gives us an account of their sufferings and of the pope's vindictive fury. It was in vain that the unhappy men pleaded their innocence. In vain Dietrich of Nîmes entreated the pope to be merciful. Urban's face glowed with anger like a lamp and his throat grew hoarse with furious maledictions. The accused were dragged before a consistory and were urged to

  confess. When they still pleaded innocence, they were again plunged into their dungeon. Three days afterwards they were submitted to torture, elderly and infirm as many of them were. The brutal Boutillo stood by and laughed at their sufferings while the pope himself walked in a garden outside, listening with satisfaction to their shrieks of agony and reading his hours from the Breviary in a loud voice that the torturer might display more diligence when he knew the

  pope was at hand. After this, the unhappy cardinals were again carried back to their prisons. With his College of Cardinals thus crippled, Urban proceeded to strengthen it by new nominations amongst whom were many Germans. We are not surprised to find that they all refused the dangerous honor. And only a few Neapolitans could be found to accept it. Five of his cardinals left him and wrote to the Roman clergy declaring that they could no longer recognize Urban as pope.

  They told the story of his recent cruelty. They complained of his stubborn, intractable, perverse and haughty character, which reached almost to the pitch of madness. His conduct was ruining the church. His orthodoxy was doubtful. They declared their intention of coming to Rome and there summoning a general council to consider how the dangers which threaten the church might be averted. Urban VI, however, was undaunted. His arrogance and recklessness were thorough and admitted as

  little consideration for the future as for the present. He excommunicated the abbot of Monte Cassino, who showed signs of following in the line suggested by the letter of the cardinals and was accused of stirring up a disturbance in Rome. He excommunicated the king and queen of Naples and laid their land under an interdict. It is needless to say that the Neapolitan clergy stood in greater awe of Charles than of Urban and the papal thunders produced no effect beyond

  raising a persecution against such of the clergy as were suspected of being partisans of Urban. They were tortured, imprisoned, and some were even thrown into the sea. It was one horrible feature of the schism that had called forth the spirit of persecution and intolerance as much as if some great principle had been at stake. Charles III had no longer any compunctions about proceeding against the pope and sent to the siege of Nocera the constable of Naples,

  Albarigo da Barbiano, the condodier general who six years before had secured Urban VI and the papacy by his victory at San Marino. Since then his fidelity to Charles had won for him nobility and high office in the kingdom. Albarigo had no more scruples in attacking the pope than if he had been a Saracen. The town of Nocera was soon taken, but the castle was on a steep rock and was well fortified. Its outer wall was thrown down by bombardment, but the citadel remained

  impregnable. Three or four times a day the dauntless pope appeared at the window and with bell and torch cursed and excommunicated the besieging army. He issued a bowl freeing from ecclesiastical penalties all clergy who might kill or mutilate the partisans of Charles. Albarigo replied by a proclamation offering a reward of 10,000 florins to anyone who could bring the pope alive or dead into the camp. Never had pope used his ecclesiastical authority so profusely.

  Never had pope been treated with such contumilious contempt. Yet Urban VI still had friends and Charles III had foes. A fleet of 10 genoese vessels lay off the coast to aid Urban if they saw an opportunity. Raimondello Orasini, son of the count of Nola, who had been an adherent of Clement VII and Louis of Anjou, was willing to sink his ecclesiastical in his political quarrel and to help Urban against Charles. Taking under his command a band of mercenaries he hastened to

  Nocera, but his mercenaries thought that they would gain more from Charles than from Urban. When the royal troops came out to meet them they fled in pretended fear. Raimondello, finding himself deserted, dashed with furious courage through his enemies and with a few followers escaped into the castle. Meanwhile his traitorous soldiers succeeded in capturing the pope's nephew Butilo, who had unsuspectingly given them shelter in their flight. He was carried

  off a prisoner to Charles. Raimondello remained only long enough to concert measures with the pope. By night he again made his escape through the besieging army and went to summon the remnants of the army of Louis, which still remained under the leadership of Tommaso of San Severino. After this the blockade of Nocera was made more rigid. The arrival of the abbot of Monte Casino and the royal camp inspired great savagery into the war. All who were discovered approaching the

  castle or trying to introduce supplies or letters were cruelly tortured. A messenger of the pope who was taken prisoner was hurled from a catapult and was dashed to pieces against the castle walls. Yet even in his extremities Urban VI showed a touching solicitude for his successors and framed a bull for future occasions of papal captivity, denouncing penalties on all resident within 10 days journey who did not hasten to succor a pope and promising to those who aided him

  the same indulgences as if they had gone on a crusade to the Holy Land. Urban's troops were sorely pressed by famine when at length on July 5th 1385, Raimondello Orsini and Tommaso of San Severino broke through the camp of the besiegers and carried provisions into the castle. Two days afterwards they rescued the pope with all his baggage and the captive cardinals whom he refused to let go even in his flight. The horse on which one of them, the bishop of Aquila, was mounted

  went lame. Whereon Urban ordered the bishop to be put to death and his corpse was left unburied by the roadside. The royalist troops who were not strong enough to prevent the escape hung on the rear and harassed the retreat. The confusion that arose gave the pope's deliverers an opportunity of pillaging his baggage for the majority of the motley army consisted of Breton adventurers and the French soldiers of Louis who looked with contempt on Urban as the anti-pope and had no

  motive for rescuing him but a desire for gain. As they drew near to Salerno a proposal was made to carry off Urban to Avignon and hand him over to Clement unless he gave them money enough. The Germans and Italians had some difficulty in defeating this project and Urban had to pay down 11,000 florins and give his bond for 24,000 more. After this it was thought wise to get rid of the French soldiers and Urban with 300 Germans and Italians hurried on to Benevento.

  During this retreat we feel that Urban the Sixth was in his proper sphere. Surrounded by a band of reckless ruffians, himself as reckless and as ruffianly as the worst of them, Urban showed courage equal to any danger and his spirit was undaunted amidst all hardships. He made for Benevento and when the inhabitants refused to receive him he professed to lay aside his intention of going there and then suddenly appeared before the gates and forced an entrance.

  Thither he summoned the captains of the Genoese galleys which were still anchored off Naples and arranged with them that they should convey him to Genoa. He exacted from the Beneventans a thousand florins, bestowed the rule of the city on Raimond Aeló as a reward for his services and then commenced his journey to the eastern coast which still held for the Angevin party. Where the Genoese galleys were to meet him, Gobelin of Paderborn who accompanied Urban in his flight

  gives a vivid account of the sufferings experienced in crossing the Apennines in the full blaze of the fierce summer sun. For three months there had been no rain so that the ground was parched up and water was scarcely to be found. From before sunrise till after sunset the resolute Urban pressed on with only an hour's rest at midday. When at length the sea came in view, not far from Barletta, the sight was hailed by joyous blasts of the trumpets.

  But the galleys were not visible and Barletta held for Charles III. They were obliged to make a circuit and direct their weary steps towards Trani with many an anxious glance over the waters. At length the longed-for sails were seen, with shouts of joy they hastened to the shore and were picked up by the galleys on August 21st. Their voyage was not without perils, but at last they landed in Genoa on September 23rd. The Genoese had not served Urban for nothing.

  They sent in a bill for their kind protection, the cost of ten galleys for four months which amounted to 80,000 florins. Urban made over to them as payment the seaport town of Coronetto, which lay in the patrimony. Though Urban VI was in safety at Genoa, his haughty spirit did not relish a residence in a city where opinion was so freely expressed. The Doge Antonio de Adorno was a man of large views and enterprising character who soon showed the pope that he was by no means

  ready to obey his behests. He wrote to the emperor and to other princes inviting them to cooperate with him in taking measures to end the schism. The people of Genoa did not show the pope the respect which he considered his due, and during his residence in Genoa, Urban never went beyond the precincts of the hospital of St. John where he had taken up his abode on landing. Yet the ferocity of his temper was in no way abated. One day there appeared before him a crazy

  hermit, for crazy indeed he must have been, to come on such an errand to such a man, a Frenchman who claimed to have had a revelation from heaven that Clement was the true pope. He charged Urban as he loved the church and valued his own salvation to lay aside his office. Urban was so amazed at this audacity that he was driven to account for it by the supposition of diabolical instigation. Seeing a ring on the hermit's finger, an unwonted ornament, he assumed that it was the abode of the

  evil spirit. He asked jokingly to be allowed to look at it, and as soon as it was in his hand, ordered his attendants to seize the hermit and put him to torture. The poor wretch of course confessed that his pretended revelation was diabolic and not divine. The pope wished to put him to death, but his cardinals pleaded that the French king might take an unpleasant revenge on several of their relatives who were still in France. The hermit's head was shaved in mockery.

  He was compelled to take an oath of allegiance to Urban and publicly to recant his words. At length he was allowed to go back to France. After a residence of rather more than a year in Genoa, Urban received a courteous but decided hint from the doge that he had better seek another place of sojourn. The Genoese did not like his presence, and there were frequent tumults between them and the followers of the pope. Before his departure, the captive cardinals were put to death and buried

  in a stable, because the pope no longer wished to be troubled by the custody of prisoners. One only was released, an Englishman, Adam Easton, who owed his safety to the special entreaties of King Richard II. At the end of his stay in Naples, Urban saw a new opportunity for prosecuting his designs on Naples by the untimely death of Charles III in February 1386. No sooner had that adventurous prince freed himself from Urban than he plunged into new schemes of

  aggrandizement. The death of King Louis of Hungary in 1382 left his kingdom to his daughter Mary, a girl of twelve years old, who was betrothed to Ziggismund, second son of the emperor Charles IV, a boy of fifteen. The regency was in the hands of the widowed Queen Elizabeth, whose preference for Nicholas Gara, one of the ministers of the late king, awoke the jealousy of the Hungarian barons. Wishing for a leader of revolt, they sent to Charles of Naples and offered

  him the Hungarian crown, and the ambition of Charles outweighed the promises which he had made to Louis and prevailed over the entreaties of his wife. It would almost seem that Charles ordered his general to connive at Urban's escape from Nocera as being the simplest means of freeing himself from difficulties at home. No sooner was Urban fairly embarked on the Genoese galleys than Charles, with a few followers, hurried off to Hungary, where he found much dissatisfaction

  with the rule of women, and had no difficulty in gathering a strong party round him. At first he declared that he only came to pacify Hungary, but gradually he assumed to himself a kingly position. Elizabeth deemed it wisest to yield. In behalf of herself and her daughter, she resigned the crown and besought Charles to take it. But a reaction soon set in, and popular sympathy arose for the dispossessed queens, who attended the coronation of Charles with tears streaming down their cheeks,

  and eyes fixed on the tomb of the great Louis, whose favors had been so soon forgotten, and whose wife and daughter were so traitorously abandoned. Charles was naturally of a mild disposition, and every mode of a policy combined to lead him to treat with kindness Elizabeth and her daughter in the hopes of uniting the contending factions in the kingdom. Elizabeth used her opportunity and plotted the death of Charles. She invited him to a conference and managed that it

  lasted so long as to weary the patience of Charles' Italian followers who gradually dispersed. When Charles was thus left alone, Nicholas Gaura drew near as though to take leave of the queen. A man followed him, who suddenly drawing his sword, aimed a blow at the head of the unsuspecting Charles. Though sorely wounded, Charles could still stagger from the room, but his attendants fled. He was the prisoner in the hands of Elizabeth and Nicholas Gaura, and when his wounds showed

  signs of healing, he was put to death in prison on February 24th, 1386. End of section 9.

• 10 - Bk. I, Ch. 1: Urban VI, Clement VII, and the Affairs of Naples, 1378-1389, Pt. 5

  play_arrowPlaymenu_bookRead

  Section 10 of the History of the Papacy, Volume 1 by Mandel Creighton. This LibriVox recording is in the public domain, read by Pamela Nagami. Book I, Chapter I, Urban VI, Clement VII, and the Affairs of Naples, 1378-1389, Part V. The death of Charles III again plunged the Kingdom of Naples into confusion. The Angevin party, which had been powerless against Charles, raised against his son Ladislaus,

  a boy of twelve years old, the claims of Louis II of Anjou. The exactions of the Queen Regent Margaret awoke dissatisfaction and led to the appointment in Naples of a new civic magistracy called the Otto du Buono Stato, who were at variance with Margaret. The Angevins rallied under Tommaso of San Severino and were reinforced by the arrival of Otto of Brunswick. The cause of Louis was still identified with that of Clement VII, who in May 1385 had solemnly

  invested him with the Kingdom of Naples. Urban, however, refused to recognize the claims of the son of Charles, though Margaret tried to propitiate him by releasing Boutillo from prison, and though Florence warmly supported her prayers for help. Ordinary motives of expediency did not weigh with Urban, who still hoped to bring Naples immediately under himself by setting Boutillo upon the throne. When he left Genoa, he resolved to move southward toward Naples, where he had hopes of acceptance

  from the Otto di Buono Stato. Urban could not leave Genoa hurriedly, for it was difficult for him to find anywhere else to go. The Italian cities were not anxious for the expensive honor of entertaining a pope of Urban's overbearing disposition. At last, after meeting with many refusals from other cities, he prevailed on Lucca to receive him. On December 16, 1386, accompanied by twelve cardinals, he left Genoa by sea and journeyed to Lucca. Though he had promised

  the citizens of Lucca not to stay longer than fifteen days, he remained there till the following September 1387. Things in Naples went badly for his plans. His refusal to recognize Lattice loss necessarily tended to strengthen the party of Louis, which found an Otto of Brunswick a skilled general. The dissensions in the city of Naples between the Queen and the magistracy gave an opportunity for a successful attack. On July 8, Margaret was driven out of Naples, which fell

  into the hands of the Angevin party, and she had to take refuge in the impregnable castle of Gaeta. Fierce vengeance was wrecked by the conquerors, who had personal, political, and religious differences to settle. Clement VII gave the papal permission to sell the gold and silver vessels of the Neapolitan churches as a means of providing pay for the soldiers. Though Urban might not wish to see Lattice loss established in Naples, still less could he wish to see there a king who owed

  his title to Clement. On August 30, he issued an encyclical letter calling on the faithful to follow the banner of the church and driving out the schismatics from Naples. But he had no notion of drawing nearer to Lattice loss. On September 6, he appointed the archbishop of Patras, guardian of Achaia on behalf of the church. Lattice loss through his father had some claim to the succession and Urban took in the name of the church the heritage of an excommunicated heretic.

  Both these letters of Urban's were equally without effect. No army gathered at the pope's command to invade Naples. The church got no hold of Achaia. The proceedings of Urban VI created uneasiness in Florence. The republic, in its wish for peace, strove to reconcile Urban with the party of Lattice loss. When Urban showed himself inexorable, the Florentines tried to make peace by other means. They sent an embassy to France and proposed a reconciliation of the two factions in Naples

  by a marriage of Louis-Yvon Joux with Giovanna, the sister of Lattice loss. Their proposal came to nothing, but on their way home the ambassadors paid a visit to Clement VII at Avignon and were by him received with great respect. Urban's conduct, especially his execution of the captive cardinals, awakened disgust throughout Europe. Clement was anxious when he saw his rivals on popularity to submit his claims to a general council. He sent an embassy to Florence to urge them to take a

  leading part in summoning a council. But the Florentines were too entirely Italian to wish to help a pope at Avignon. They answered that it was for kings and princes to summon councils, not for them. They contented themselves with trying to neutralize the ill effects of Urban's presence in their neighborhood. Party spirit waxed high at Bologna and a faction was desirous of calling in the pope to their aid. Florence was afraid of the power of John Gagliaccio Visconti

  of Milan and feared lest the pope should add another to the disturbing causes which were already at work. Events near Rome tended to call Urban southwards. On May 8th, 1387, a powerful foe of Urban and of the Roman people, Francesco da Vico, was put to death at Viterbo. He was one of the most powerful and of the most cruel and oppressive amongst the tyrants who had made themselves masters of the states of the church, and his death was the cause of great

  rejoicing to the Roman citizens. His relatives, however, were powerful and the people of Viterbo, after slaying their tyrant, were driven to put themselves under the papal protection and receive as papal legate Cardinal Orsini of Manupello. Encouraged by his success, Urban began to draw nearer Rome and on September 23rd left Lucca for Perugia. The Florentines tried to persuade the Perugians not to receive him, and the Perugian magistrates so far listened to them

  that when they met the pope on his entry into their city, they urged on him a pacific policy, particularly towards Florence. Urban briefly answered that peace no doubt was a good thing, but he wanted the lands of the church. It was not for them to dictate to him on his dealings with Florence. He hoped to have brought Perugia under his rule, but the Perugians showed no signs of submission, nor did they pay fitting respect to the nephew Butilo, who had grown no wiser by

  previous experience and conducted his amours with the Perugian lady in such a way as to awaken the anger of her brothers, who lay in wait for the imprudent lover by night and ignominiously flogged him. The pope was full of wrath at this insult to his favorite, but his wrath was directed to another quarter. On some trivial cause, he recalled Cardinal Orsini from Viterbo, but the people, held by the cardinal, and refused to admit the new legate whom Urban sent in his place.

  Furious at this insult, Urban summoned Cardinal Orsini to Perugia and could not await his arrival, but sent soldiers to arrest him on the way. This roused the anger of the cardinal's brother, Cola Orsini, who seized upon the towns of Narni and Terni. Urban was driven to liberate the cardinal and end this unprofitable quarrel. But all this while the pope's eyes were fixed on Naples, and he saw in the varying successes of the two contending parties, and in the miseries of the

  land, a means of asserting his own claims. He declared that the kingdom had lapsed to the Holy Sea, and even wrote from Perugia, on May 1, 1388, appointing a governor of Calabria. He labored to gather together troops for an expedition into Naples, and called upon Sicily to provide him with ships and men, in accordance with an old treaty which bound Sicily to furnish aid to Naples, when it was in extreme peril. As rightful lord of Naples, Urban declared its peril to be extreme.

  All the army that Urban could raise was a band of mercenaries who, under the command of an Englishman, Beltot, had been ravaging Tuscany. On August 8, 1388, Urban put himself at the head of this lawless company, and departed from Perugia. He had not gone far before his mule stumbled and he fell. Though so severely shaken that he had to be carried in a litter, he still refused to go to Rome, and continued his course to Naples. A hermit came to meet him on his way and prophesied,

  You will go to Rome, and there die. The prophecy came true. At Narni, his reckless soldiers began to doubt about their chances of receiving pay. The Florentines, anxious to avert war, had made them tempting offers if they would enter their service, and they began to think that the money of Florence was surer than that of the pope. Two thousand of them left him and went back to Tuscany. Though Urban was left with only two

  hundred men, he still went on his way to Fedentino. There he waited for reinforcements, but only a thousand men gathered round him. He saw that his expedition was useless and gloomily retired to Rome, which he had not seen for five years. He was received by the Romans on September 1, 1388, with outward respect, but with suspicion and dislike. They insisted that he should send away the soldiers whom he had brought with him, and he was obliged to dismiss them to Viterbo.

  Yet Urban's mind was still set upon an expedition to Naples, and for that purpose money must be raised. He hit upon the happy expedient of hastening on the year of Jubilee, which had been established by Boniface VIII in 1300 as an anniversary to be held every hundred years, when pilgrims might visit Rome and gain indulgences by prayers at the graves of the apostles. This Jubilee had been found so profitable that Clement VI enacted that it should be held every

  fiftieth year. Urban VI went further and ordered that the year 1390 should be a year of Jubilee, and that henceforth it should be held every thirty-third year. Of course, there were excellent reasons for this change. Thirty-three was the number of years of the Redeemer's life on this earth. It was also the duration of a generation of men, and gave all who wished it a fair chance of obtaining inestimable privileges. The proclamation of a Jubilee was Urban's last desperate step to

  obtain supplies for his projected invasion of Naples. Meanwhile, it gave him a powerful means of keeping in order the refractory Romans. Their city was desolate. They had suffered from the incursions of bands of plunderers of every sort. Poverty, beggary, and famine were rife. Urban found it even necessary to issue a decree forbidding the people to dismantle the empty palaces of the cardinals that they might use the materials for building. Rome hailed with joy the

  promise of a Jubilee, which would again bring crowds of pilgrims and make money flow into their beggared city. Urban saw and used his opportunity to strike a blow at the power of the magistracy, who since his departure had ruled the city. He appointed a senator by his own powers. The people rose in uproar and rushed clamorous to the Vatican. But the papal excommunication again had power in Rome when anything was to be gained from the papacy. In a few days,

  the Roman magistrates, barefooted in the garb of penitence, with ropes round their necks and candles in their hands, sought the pope's absolution. Urban's indomitable spirit had still some ground to triumph before it passed away. He reduced to obedience the people of Rome, and he heard of the failure of an attempt made by his foe, Cardinal P. Leo of Ravenna, to create a diversion in favor of Clement in north Italy. On August 25th, Urban fulminated his

  anathemas against him as a child of wickedness. On October 15th, 1389, he died in the Vatican and was buried in the chapel of St. Andrew, whence his bones were afterwards transferred into the main church. Urban VI pontificate is one of the most disastrous in the whole history of the papacy. Many other popes have been more vicious, but none showed less appreciation of the difficulties, the duties, the traditions of his office. The private vices of a man are

  known for certain only to a few, and entire incompetence, if a dignified exterior be preserved, may escape detection. But at a most critical moment in the history of the papacy, when tact, discretion, and conciliatory prudence were above all things necessary, Urban showed to his astonished adherents nothing save furious self-will, unreasoning ambition, and a wild savageness of disposition which removed his actions from all possibility of calculation.

  He excited bitter hatred, all the more bitter because his followers could not choose but submit. Urban was at the head of a party bound together by many different interests, but he was a necessary head, and men could not dispense with him if they would. Revolt against Urban meant acceptance of Clement, and all the political consequences which a pope under French influence necessarily involved. Men followed Urban in helpless terror and disgust,

  for his wild energy and ferocity prevented them from regarding him with contempt. Only a man like Charles of Naples, strong and unscrupulous as himself, could beat him back. Men said that he was mad, that his head had been turned by his unexpected elevation to the papacy. In truth, Urban is an example of the wild excesses of an adventurous spirit which had been in early years repressed but not trained by discipline. When he became pope, he wished to compress into a few years

  the gratification of the desires of a lifetime. He fancied that his office in itself afforded him the means of giving effect to his personal schemes and caprices. The traditions of the papacy, the policy of his predecessors, the advice and entreaties of his cardinals, weighed equally little with him. His very virtues only lent intensity to the evil which he wrought. His personal uprightness, straightforwardness and piety only tended to give strength to his pride

  and obstinacy. He was so confident in the rightness of his own opinion that he regarded all advice with contempt. He was so determined to move directly to his end that he never reasonably considered the difficulties in the way. He was so convinced that his cause was the cause of heaven that he had no place for the hesitation or the wisdom of humility. He formed no large plans. He can scarcely be said to have had a policy at all. Being a Neapolitan by birth, he seems to have burned with desire to

  make his power felt in his native land. This he hoped to do by the mere assertion of the old claims of the papacy, which he wished to use solely in the interests of his own family. His attempt would have been ludicrous if it had not been carried on with a fiery and passionate persistency that made it tragic. Still, even in this attempt, unreflecting as it was, we see the beginnings of the obvious policy which the conditions of Italy forced upon the restored papacy, the policy of founding itself

  upon a basis of temporal sovereignty and taking place among the vigorous rulers who had sprung up in every part of Italy. Urban saw the need of this and saw also that the end could only be reached by employing the papal power to promote the pope's relatives. The rash endeavors of Urban VI are but a grotesque forecast of the subtler and more far-seeing policy of his successors in the 15th century. End of section 10.

• 11 - Bk. I, Ch. 2: Clement VII, Boniface IX, Religious Movements in Oxford and Paris, 1389-1394, Pt. 1

  play_arrowPlaymenu_bookRead

  Section 11 of A History of the Papacy, Volume 1 by Mandel Creighton. This LibriVox recording is in the public domain, read by Pamela Nagami. Book 1, Chapter 2. Clement VII. Boniface IX. Religious Movements in Oxford and Paris, 1389-1394, Part 1. In following the wild career of Urban VI, we have seen but little of his rival Clement VII. It would seem as if their elevation to the papacy had transformed the characters of the two men.

  The high-born Robert of Geneva laid aside the reckless bloodthirstiness, which marked him as a condodier general, and adopted the stately decorum of the papal office. The lowly Neapolitan bishop Bartolomeo Pregnano disregarded the traditions of the curia in which he had been trained, and plunged furiously into a career of military enterprise. In the peaceful retirement of Avignon, Clement VII was free from the complications of Italian politics,

  and had none of the temptations to adventurous exploits which led Urban VI astray. He could listen unmoved to the fulminations of his rival, and was concerned only with the ceremonial side of the Neapolitan contest, the investiture and coronation of the angevin pretenders. Instead of struggling to win a kingdom for himself, he pursued the less adventurous task of gaining over to his obedience the kingdoms of the Spanish peninsula.

  At first they had stood aloof from the strife of rival pontiffs, but in 1380 the necessities of a close alliance with France urged John I of Castile, who had come to the throne in 1379, to recognize Clement VII. John I was the son of Henry of Trastemar, who, in spite of the arms of the black prince, had ousted Peter the Cruel from the Castilian throne. But Peter's daughter Constance had been married to John of Gaunt, Duke of Lancaster, who, in right of his wife,

  claimed Castile for himself. This struggle was necessarily part of the great struggle between France and England, which occupied so much of the history of the 14th century. While the English troops were ready to fight against John's throne, it was the interest of France to help him, and he was bound to draw near to France on all political matters. Yet the recognition of Clement was done with all due decorum, so as to be impressive to the rest of Europe. In November 1380,

  John ordered a council to be held at Medina del Campo in the Diocese of Salamanca for the purpose of inquiring into the claims of the two popes. Urban's cause was pleaded by the bishops of Fienza and Pavia, Clement's by a Spanish cardinal, Peter the Luna, a keen and shrewd man of the world, whose Spanish birth gave him many advantages in the discussion. Many were the sittings of the council, lengthy the speeches of the advocates, bulky the statements sent by the

  two popes, and enormous the massive depositions by which they each substantiated their claims. The council sat from November 1380 till March 1381, and then declared for Clement, who by his adhesion of Castile won a decided triumph over his rival. Urban had submitted his claims to a tribunal, which professed to weigh the matter carefully, and then gave judgment against him. So far as conciliar action had gone, it had been in favor of Clement. Of course, Urban declared John

  of Castile deposed and handed over his kingdom to the Duke of Lancaster, who more than once led an English army into Castile. But though helped by Portugal, he found the strife hopeless and in 1390 made peace with John and gave his daughter Catherine in marriage to the heir to the Castilian throne. In Aragon, the ambitious and grasping Peter IV was willing to recognize Urban, if the pope would invest him with Sicily, where he was trying to assert his claims to the throne, and would

  gratify his cupidity by further concessions. It is to Urban's credit that he refused the terms offered. Indeed, Urban's haughtiness and self-confidence was too great to purchase recognition by unworthy means. Peter accordingly acknowledged neither pope, but his successor John I listened to the persuasions of Peter de Luna, followed the example of Castile, and immediately on his accession in 1387 acknowledged Clement. Three years later in 1390, Charles III of Navarre, again at the

  instigation of the indefatigable Peter de Luna, joined the kings of Castile and Aragon in their recognition of Clement. Following on the stormy and disastrous reign of Charles the Bad, he pursued a peaceful policy of alliance with his neighbors and so wished to avoid the difficulties of ecclesiastical differences. In the peace of Avignon, however, Clement VII had to face a theological power from whose influence his rival was free. One of the results of the papal residence

  at Avignon had been an increase of the reputation of the University of Paris as the fountain of theological learning. The university, by becoming the seat of philosophical teaching, had in the 12th and 13th centuries given organized expression to the beliefs and opinions on which the papal power was based and in close alliance with the papacy had grown in importance. Many of its sons became popes and showed due gratitude to their nursing mother by increasing her privileges and

  extolling her glory. Alexander IV spoke of the University of Paris as the tree of life in paradise, the lamp of the house of God, a well of wisdom ever flowing for souls that thirsted after righteousness. With such a reputation and supported by the national pride of the French people, it was but natural that this powerful corporation of learned theologians should be reckoned as superior in theological matters to the popes at Avignon, who were content to register rather than

  mold its decrees. When John XXII held a different opinion from the university about the condition of departed souls after death, he narrowly escaped being branded as a heretic. On the outbreak of the schism, motives of political interest had outweighed the scruples of the canonists, and the French king had acknowledged Clement VII without heeding the hesitation of the university. Yet a slight experience of the evils of the schism revived the power of the university

  and gave practical emphasis to its warnings. Clement had to procure revenues for himself and his cardinals chiefly at the expense of the French church. Thirty-six proctors of the cardinals ranged like harpies through the land, inquiring into the value of abbeys and benefices and ready on a vacancy to pounce upon them for their masters. Every post of any value was reserved for the papal officials and the goods of prelates were seized at their death for the pope's use.

  The native clergy saw that they would soon be reduced to hard straits. The university dreaded the loss of its share of ecclesiastical patronage, and thoughtful men saw with sorrow the neglect of all spiritual functions which such a state of affairs must necessarily produce in the church. Already on the death of Charles V in September 1380, there were hopes that under the new rule something might be done to heal the schism and the university laid before

  the regent, Nuit of Anjou, a proposal for summoning a general council. But Louis was bound to Clement VII by the exigencies of his Neapolitan policy and answered the petition of the university by throwing its representatives into prison, whence they were not released till he had promised to lay aside the proposal of a council. Still the university did not give up its project, though political necessities hindered it for a time. In the course of a few years, a conflict

  arose within the university itself, which led it to submit to the pope's decision a disputed question of doctrine. Its orthodoxy received a shock in 1387 by the opinions of a Dominican, Jean de Manson, who asserted the view held by his order that the Virgin Mary was conceived in original sin. The reverence paid to Mary had led to attempts to define and determine the exact limits of her holiness. St. Bernard had declared that she had been free from sin during her lifetime,

  but popular devotion demanded more than this, and St. Thomas Aquinas had found it necessary to argue against the notion of an immaculate conception. The Dominican order had followed their great teacher, but the opinion of Duns Scotus, who was followed by the Franciscans, was more popular and asserted the fitness and possibility of the belief that the Virgin had not been conceived in sin. The question had gradually developed into importance, and the

  two parties were in decided opposition to one another. The university as a body sided with the Franciscan view, and Manson's teaching was regarded as a challenge. A commission was appointed to look into his opinions which were unanimously condemned. Manson appealed to Clement, and a deputation headed by Peter of Ailly, who was accompanied by his pupil Jean Guerson, was sent to plead the views of the university at Avignon. Clement's position toward this question was uncomfortable.

  On the side of Manson was the authority of Aquinas, who had been recognized by Pope Urban V as an authoritative teacher of Christian truth. Clement must either set aside the declaration of a previous pope, and so give his rival the opportunity of impeaching his own orthodoxy, or he must oppose the favorite doctrine of the university and run counter to the popular opinion of France. Clement did not immediately pronounce on the matter, but Manson's flight into Aragon and

  adhesion to Urban decided Clement against him, and in January 1389 he condemned Manson's opinions to the delight of the university and the people of France. Clement VII thus took an important step in the formation of the opinion of the church, though it was not till 1854 that the views of Ailly and the University of Paris were raised to the dignity of a necessary dogma. Still the quarrel lasted within the university. No one was admitted to a degree who did not assent to the condemnation

  of Manson's propositions, and Dominicans were for a time forbidden to lecture, and it was not until 1403 that a reconciliation was brought about and the Dominicans reluctantly submitted. Urban VI died on October 15, 1389. On October 30 in the court of Avignon, Clement VII, with great pomp, crowned Louis II of Anjou as King of Naples. The French king lent his presence to the ceremony which was thus a declaration of the political strength of the pope at Avignon. There were hopes that with

  the death of Urban VI, the schism might be ended by the universal recognition of Clement VII. Such, however, was not the idea of the fourteen cardinals of Urban VI who were at Rome. They lost no time in going into conclave and elected a Neapolitan cardinal, Piero Tomaceli, who was enthroned on November 2, 1389 and took the title of Boniface IX. Tomaceli was tall and of commanding appearance in the prime of life, being only 33 years old. He was not a scholar nor a student,

  nor was he even versed in the ordinary routine of the business of the Curia. His secretary, Dietrich of Nîmes, sighs over his ignorance and heedlessness of the formalities in which the official mind especially delights. The college of cardinals was not strong, and it was clear that he who was elected pope would have no easy task before him. Tomaceli's vigor and prudence were well known and his life was free from reproach. Contemporaries tell us

  with wonder that no suspicion of unchastity ever attached to him. The cardinal, smarting under the indignity of the rule of Urban VI, chose a successor of whose affability they were sure, in whom they believed to possess the force of character necessary to rescue the papacy from the disastrous results of Urban's wrongheadedness. On his return from his enthronization, Boniface IX's answer to those who congratulated him was, My joy is your joy.

  Boniface lost no time in showing that his spirit was different from that of Urban. He restored to his position as cardinal the luckless Englishman Adam Easton, the sole surviving victim of Urban's tyranny. This conciliatory act bore its fruit in the return of the runaway Pelio of Ravenna, who after being first a cardinal of Urban VI and then of Clement VII, was again received by Boniface IX. The Italians made merry over the turncoat

  and gave him the nickname of the cardinal di tricapelli, the cardinal of three hats. A pious adherent of Clement expresses a devout hope that his ambition and wantonness might be rewarded hereafter by a fourth hat of red-hot iron. If Boniface IX thus wished to show his freedom from the personal quarrels of his predecessor, he was equally anxious to reverse his political measures. He saw the hopelessness of Urban's opposition to Ladislaus of Naples.

  He saw that a powerful vassal king in Naples was the necessary support of the papacy at Rome. Accordingly, he made haste to recognize Ladislaus, who in May 1390 was solemnly crowned king of Naples by the Florentine bishop Angelo Ascioli, who was sent as papal legate for the purpose. Boniface had the political wisdom to perceive at once that the first object of papal policy must be to secure a firm territorial basis in Italy itself. He exchanged the wild schemes of Urban

  for a statesmanlike plan of establishing the pope's power in Rome and of gathering together again the scattered states of the church. But this was no easy task, and it required above all things money for its accomplishment. The whole nature of Boniface seems to have been devoted to attempts to gather money, and to this he turned all the power and privileges of his ecclesiastical position. Urban VI had grievous faults, but he was not extortionate. His

  determination to root out the abuses of the Curia was the chief cause which provoked against him the hatred of the seceding cardinals. Yet Urban had felt the pressing need of money, and had proclaimed the Jubilee for 1390, and it was the luck of Boniface to enter at once into the enjoyment of the revenues which this source of income provided. Pilgrims flocked from Germany, Hungary, Poland, Bohemia, and England, and the papal treasury was enriched by their pious offerings.

  So satisfied was Boniface with the results that he was unwilling to deprive anyone of the indulgences which were so precious both to himself and them. He extended the privileges of the Jubilee to those who visited the churches of many cities in Germany, provided they extended helping hands to the papal needs. Köln, Magdeburg, Meissen, Prague, and Paderborn were in turns the objects of the papal generosity, and to each of them papal collectors were sent who received the

  tribute of the faithful. So lucrative was this proceeding found that unaccredited agents of the pope took on themselves to sell indulgences, and the scandal was so great that the pope was obliged to appoint commissioners to restrain these impostors. The money which Boniface raised by the Jubilee was needed for the help of Ladislaus in Naples where Louis-Avangu landed in August 1390. The party of Ladislaus was feeble, and all the pope's aid was necessary to supply him with

  resources sufficient to enable him to make head against his more wealthy rival. Boniface did not scruple to alienate or mortgage church lands to raise supplies. He took also an important step by selling to the nobles who had risen to power in various cities of the patrimony the title of Vicar of the Roman Church. In this Boniface showed his wisdom. He recognized the existing state of things which he had no power of preventing, and he was paid for this recognition.

  Moreover, his recognition was in the nature of a limitation. The authority which had been gained by the nobles was irregular and indefinite. It had grown up of its own accord and might have developed unchecked. The pope conferred upon them a title and an authority for a limited period, from 10 to 12 years, and received in return a sum of money paid down on a small yearly tribute. When the authority of these papal vicars had once been defined, it could be altered or suspended

  according as the pope was powerful. It was a wise act on the part of Boniface, in the midst of all the difficulties and necessities of his position, to adopt a scheme which filled his coffers, diminished the number of his foes, and gave him a standing ground from which to proceed against them when opportunity offered. Yet the tendency toward dismemberment of the papal states was strong, and the dynasties whose rights were now recognized remained for more than a century to disturb the

  popes. Antonio of Montefeltro was made vicar of Urbino and Cagli, and Astorgio Manfredi of Faenza. The Alidosi ruled Imola, the Ordonlaffi at Forli, the Malatesta at Rimini, Fano, and Fosambrone, Albert of Este at Ferrara. Bologna, Fermo, and Ascoli bought similar privileges for their municipal bodies. Not since the days of Albornoth had the papal lordship been so widely acknowledged in the states of the church. Boniface could raise money in Germany and Italy, but he found it more difficult

  to do so in England, where neither religious nor political feeling was strong on the side of the pope. The old resistance to papal exactions had gained additional weight when the pope at Avignon was clearly on the side of the national foes. At the outbreak of the schism, England had set herself on the side opposite to France, but had no interest in specially maintaining the cause of the pope at Rome. The policy of national opposition to the extortions of the papacy

  gathered still greater strength after the enactment of the statutes of Provisors and Primunieri, and this national spirit soon found an exponent who raised the question of resistance to Rome above the level of a mere struggle against extortion. The destruction of the ecclesiastical system by the popes and the disastrous results of the schism gave rise to a movement within the University of Oxford, which went deeper than the corresponding movement in the University of Paris.

  While the theologians of Paris, accepting the papal system, set themselves to find a practical method of healing its breaches and restoring its unity, there arose in Oxford a follower of William of Ockham, who advanced to a criticism of the foundations of the ecclesiastical system itself. From a little village near Richmond in Yorkshire, John Wycliffe went as a student to Oxford, where his learning and ability met with their reward in a fellowship at Merton,

  the mastership of Balliol and the wardenship of Archbishop Islip's new foundation of Canterbury Hall in 1365. In this last position, Wycliffe was engaged in the struggle that continually was waged between the monks and the secular clergy. Each party strove to possess themselves of the endowments of the hall, and the monks, aided by Archbishop Langham, Islip's successor, and by the pope, succeeded in dispossessing Wycliffe and the secular clergy. In 1366, Wycliffe first was

  brought into relation with public affairs. Pope Urban V was unwise enough to add another to the causes of England's discontent by demanding payment of the one thousand marks which John had agreed to pay yearly as tribute to the pope. Since the accession of Edward I, this tribute had not been paid, and when Urban V demanded arrears for the past 33 years, Edward III referred the matter to Parliament. Lords, prelates, and commons unanimously answered that John had not the power

  to bind the people without their consent, and that his compact with the pope had been a breach of his coronation oath. They placed at the king's disposal all the power and resources of the nation to protect his throne and the national honor against such a demand. Urban V withdrew his claim in silence, and no mention was ever made again by the papacy of suzerainty over England. On this occasion, Wycliffe first used his pen by recording in a pamphlet the arguments used in Parliament by

  seven lords who, on the grounds of national interest, positive law, feudal obligation, and the nullity of the compact made by John, combated the papal claims. In the later years of Edward III, England was impoverished by the long war with France and discontented at the management of affairs. In 1371, laymen were substituted for ecclesiastics in the high offices of state, and hope was strong that the lay ministry, headed by John of Gaunt, besides bringing the

  French war to a speedy end, would protect the nation against the extortions of the Roman Curia. But the ministry soon showed its feebleness by its dealings with Arnold Garnier, who in February 1372, presented himself in England as the accredited agent of Gregory XI. The council did not venture to forbid his presence, but contented themselves with administering to him an oath that he would do nothing injurious to the king, the realm, or the laws. We do not find that Garnier and consequence

  of his oath behaved in any way differently from other papal collectors, and Wycliffe afterwards pointed out that he must necessarily commit perjury, as no diminution of the country's wealth could fail to be pernicious to the kingdom. But Wycliffe soon had an opportunity of seeing close at hand the management of affairs by the Curia. In 1374, he was appointed one of seven commissioners who were to confer with papal nunshoes about the redress of England's grievances

  at Bruges, where a conference was being held to arrange terms of peace with France. The commission arrived at no results, except that the chief commissioner, the bishop of Bangor, soon after his return home, was translated by papal provision to the more lucrative sea of Hereford as a recompense for his readiness to do nothing. Gregory XI issued, it is true, six lengthy bulls which dealt only with existing circumstances and laid down no principles for the

  future. The rule of John of Gaunt did nothing for England, and the good parliament of 1376 set aside his power and again committed the government to William of Wickham, bishop of Winchester, an experienced official. End of section 11.

• 12 - Bk. I, Ch. 2: Clement VII, Boniface IX, Religious Movements in Oxford and Paris, 1389-1394, Pt. 2

  play_arrowPlaymenu_bookRead

  Section 12 of A History of the Papacy, Volume 1 by Mandel Creighton. This LibriVox recording is in the public domain, read by Pamela Nagami. Book 1, Chapter 2. Clement VII. Boniface IX. Religious Movements in Oxford and Paris, 1389-1394, Part 2. The antagonism of political parties waxed high in these last years of Edward III, when his glory and his power alike had passed away.

  John of Gaunt was unscrupulous in his desire for power and was opposed to the prelates, whose political influence stood in his way. He sought allies against them on all sides, alike in the Roman Curia and in the energetic party which gathered round Wycliffe's aspirations for a reformed Church. The prelates were not slow to retaliate and aimed a blow at John of Gaunt by striking Wycliffe, who in February 1377 was summoned to appear before convocation

  in the Lady Chapel of St. Paul's and answer for his opinions. He came, but the Duke of Lancaster stood by his side and the assembly ended in a faction fight between the Londoners and the adherents of John of Gaunt. But the prelates were prepared to move against Wycliffe under cover of the papal authority if their own power was thus defied. In May 1377, Pope Gregory XI issued five bulls against the heirs of Wycliffe,

  who was accused of following in the steps of Marsilio of Padua and John of Gendon, whose writings had already been condemned. Wycliffe was already famous as a philosopher and a theologian. Nineteen propositions taken from his writings were condemned by the pope as erroneous, and two prelates were appointed to examine if the condemned propositions were rightly assigned to Wycliffe. The propositions in question were concerned with theories of civil

  and ecclesiastical polity. They asserted that the rights of property and of inheritance were not unconditionally valid, but depended on obedience to the will of God, that the property of the Church might be secularized if the Church fell into error or the clergy misused their possessions, on which points temporal princes might judge that the pope's power to bind and loose was only valid when used in accordance with the gospel. Wycliffe's teaching on the relations

  between Church and state lacked the precision as well as the political knowledge which characterized Marsilio of Padua. Marsilio was a political philosopher who started from Aristotle and from the experience of a self-governing civic community. Wycliffe was a schoolman who limited his analysis to the particular discussion of the foundation of dominium or lordship, and his political and religious concepts were obscured by being expressed in the language of feudalism. He regarded God as

  the Lord of the world, who apportioned to all an authority their power, which was held under him. Dominion, in things temporal and spiritual alike, was held by God, and popes and kings were bound to recognize that their sovereignty depended upon its exercise in accordance with the law of God. Mortal sin was a breach of the tie of allegiance and in itself destroyed the basis of power. In Wycliffe's phraseology, dominion was founded on grace. This theory was no doubt an ideal theory.

  Intended to set forth the spiritual independence of the righteous man, who was lord over the world, in spite of appearances to the contrary. Wycliffe did not wish to apply this doctrine to the subversion of social order, and to remedy its abstractness, he enunciated in a paradoxical form the duty of obedience to existing authority. God, he said, ought to obey the devil. God has permitted evil in the world. A Christian ought to obey the commands of a wicked ruler.

  In the same sense as Christ obeyed the devil by submitting to his temptations. In these statements, Wycliffe was neither clear in his analogies nor happy in his phraseology, and we can scarcely wonder that he was misunderstood and misrepresented. His political teaching easily lent itself to anarchical movements, and his followers in later times labored under the disadvantage of having no clear basis on which to bring their ideas into relation

  with the actual facts of political life. Before the arrival of the Pope's bulls ordering Wycliffe's trial, Edward III died, and the first parliament of Richard II was strongly opposed to papal exactions. It raised the question whether in time of need the king might prohibit the exportation of money in spite of the Pope's admonitions. Wycliffe's opinion was asked, and on the three grounds of the law of nature, the law of scripture, and the law of conscience,

  he replied in the affirmative. The prelates could not take action on the Pope's bull before the end of 1377, and when Wycliffe was summoned before Archbishop Sudbury and Courtney, Bishop of London, the council did not think it wise that the trial should proceed. A message was sent by the Princess of Wales, mother of the young King Richard II, ordering the trial to be broken off, and the cries of the people round the court admonished

  the prelates to obey the command. The proceedings against Wycliffe were suspended, but for form's sake he was forbidden to promote or teach any of the doctrines condemned by the Pope. The death of Gregory XI and the schism that ensued put aside the question of Wycliffe's further trial. But the papal prosecution and the events of the schism had an important influence on the mind of Wycliffe. At first, he had been chiefly an Oxford student of keen critical

  intellect, ready to give expression with remorseless logic to the national dislike of papal extortion. But his political experience at Bruges, his riper study and reflection, his deeper knowledge as vicar of Lutterworth of the spiritual needs of simple folk, all these combined to lead him on to investigate the inner working as well as the political aspect of the ecclesiastical system, the mechanism and doctrines of the Church as well as the relations between Church and State.

  To this temper, the outbreak of the schism gave an additional impulse. The spiritual earnestness of Wycliffe was shocked at the sight of two men, each claiming to be head of the Church, and each devoting his entire energies to the destruction of his rival, seeking only his own triumph and doing nothing for the flock which he professed to guard. Moreover, the schism dealt a heavy blow at the influence exercised on the imagination of the Middle Ages by the unity of

  the Church. Instead of unity, Wycliffe saw division, saw the pope whom England professed to follow, sinking to the level of a robber chieftain. Gradually his mind became dissatisfied with the doctrine of the papal primacy. At a time when two popes were fulminating excommunications against each other and each calling the other anti-Christ, it was not such a very long step for Wycliffe to take when he asserted that the institution of the papacy itself was the poison

  of the Church, that it was not Urban or Clement who were anti-Christ, but the pope, be he who he might, who claimed to rule the universal Church. As Wycliffe's opinion led him more and more to oppose the papal system, his zeal increased. Disciples gathered round him and like another Saint Dominic, Wycliffe sent forth preachers into the evil world. But unlike the reformers of the 13th century who went forth as missionaries of the papal power, those of the 14th denounced a

  corrupt hierarchy and the enslavement of the Church by an anti-Christian pope. Moreover, to supply all men the means of judging for themselves, Wycliffe and his chief disciples with dauntless energy undertook the noble work of translating the Bible into English, a work which was finished in the year 1382. Wycliffe was at all times of his career a fertile writer and may in this respect be compared with Luther. It was natural for him to cast into a

  literary form the thoughts that passed through his mind and his works are alternately those of a scholastic disputant, a patriotic churchman, and a mission priest. In all things he was equally earnest whether it was to maintain the constitutional rights of the English Church and the English ruler against the extortions of Rome, to expose the assumptions of the papal monarchy, to show the corruptions of the ecclesiastical system, or to kindle the spiritual life of simple folk.

  His treatises are numerous and many of them exist only in manuscript. It is difficult to reduce into a system the multitudinous utterances of one who was at once a profound theologian, a publicist, and a popular preacher. In matters of ecclesiastical polity as in political speculations Wycliffe laid down a basis which was too abstract and too ideal to admit of application to actual affairs. He defined the church as the corporate body of the chosen consisting of three parts,

  one triumphant in heaven, another sleeping in purgatory, and a third militant on earth. This view which in itself accords with the Augustinian doctrine of predestination, Wycliffe applied to determine the basis of ecclesiastical polity. Against the corrupt church which he saw around him he set up the mystical body of the predestined. Against a degenerate hierarchy he asserted the priesthood of all faithful Christians and did not clearly

  determine the relations between the visible church on earth and the great company of the saved. From the basis of this ideal conception of the church Wycliffe attacks the papal primacy. There ought, he says, to be unity in the church militant if it is to be at unity with the church triumphant. But unity is disturbed by new sects of monks, friars, and clergy who have set over the church another head than Christ. The primacy of St. Peter on which they rest their theory of the

  papacy is set forth in Scripture only as depending on his superior humility. He exercised no authority over the other apostles but was only endowed with special grace. Whatever power Peter had there is no ground for assuming that it passed to the bishop of Rome whose authority was derived from Caesar and was not mentioned in the Scriptures save an irony where it is written, the kings of the Gentiles exercised lordship over them but ye shall not be so. It must have been at the

  instigation of a malignant spirit that the popes chose as the seat of the curia the profane city of Rome steeped in the blood of martyrs. By continuing in their secular life and in the pride of Lucifer they wrong Christ and continue in error. They claim to grant indulgences and privileges beyond what was done by Christ or the apostles and their pretensions can only be explained as the work of the devil the power of antichrist. A pope is only to be followed so far as he follows Christ.

  If he ceases to be a good shepherd he becomes antichrist and reverence paid to antichrist as though he were Christ is a manifest snare of the devil to beguile unwary souls and the belief in papal infallibility is contrary to Scripture and is a blasphemy suggested by the devil. If we take Scripture as our guide and compare the pope with Christ we shall see many differences Christ is truth the pope is the origin of falsehood Christ lived in poverty the pope

  labors for worldly wealth Christ was humble and gentle the pope is proud and cruel Christ forbade that anything be added to his law the pope makes many laws which distract men from the knowledge of Christ Christ bade his disciples go into all the world and preach the gospel the pope lives in his palace and pays no heed to such command Christ refused temporal dominion the pope seeks it Christ obeyed the temporal power the pope strives to weaken it Christ chose for

  his apostles 12 simple men the pope chooses as cardinals many more than 12 worldly and crafty Christ forbade to smite with the sword and preferred himself to suffer the pope seizes the goods of the poor to hire soldiers Christ limited his mission to Judea the pope extends his jurisdiction everywhere for the sake of gain Christ was lowly the pope is magnificent and demands outward honor Christ refused money the pope is entirely given up to pride and simony

  who so considers these things will see that he must imitate Christ and flee from the example of Antichrist these are the words of a man who has been driven by the actual facts around him to take refuge in the plain words of Scripture and flee from the corruption of the ecclesiastical system to the purity and simplicity of the divine head of the church but Wycliffe was not content only with this endeavor to bring back the organization of the church to its original purity

  his keen critical intellect pressed on into the region of doctrine and attacked the central position of the sacerdotal system he busied himself with an examination of the sacraments and convinced himself in 1380 that the doctrine of transubstantiation or the change in substance of the elements of the Eucharist after consecration was not according to Scripture he lost no time in publishing his convictions in the summer of 1381 he put forth 12 propositions about the Eucharist

  which he offered to defend in disputation against all gainsayers the upshot of these propositions was the assertion that bread and wine remained after consecration bread and wine as they were before yet by virtue of the words of consecration contained the true body and blood of Christ which was really present at every point of the host Wycliffe did not deny the real presence of Christ in the elements he denied only the change of substance in the elements after consecration

  Christ's body was still miraculously present but the miracle was wrought by Christ himself not by the words of the priest thou that art an earthly man he exclaimed to the priest by what reason mayst thou say that thou makest thy maker anti-Christ by this heresy destroys grammar logic and natural science but what is more to be regretted does away with the sense of the gospel the truth and faith of the church is that as Christ is at once God and man so the

  sacrament is at once the body of Christ and bread bread naturally and the body sacramentally he rebelled against the idolatry of the mass against the popular materialism against the miraculous powers claimed by the priesthood and his propositions were aimed against the root of these abuses not against the conception of the sacrament of the altar in itself he attacked the prevalent materialism without pursuing the other aspects of the question the propositions of Wycliffe about

  the sacrament of the altar at once attracted much attention and gave a shock to many who had hitherto sympathized with him in his opposition to papal aggression and clerical corruption he had advanced beyond the discussion of ecclesiastical polity to the more dangerous ground of doctrine and the professed theologians especially those of the mendicant orders who had hitherto looked on Wycliffe with approval felt themselves bound to oppose him the chancellor of

  the university of oxford summoned a council of doctors who concurred in declaring the doctrines contained in these theses to be unorthodox and the decree was published forbidding them to be taught within the university this was entirely unexpected by Wycliffe who was sitting in his doctor's chair in the school of the augustinians lecturing on the very subjects when an official entered and read the decree Wycliffe at once protested against its justice and appeal from

  the chancellor to the king john of gaunt interfered to impose silence on Wycliffe and events themselves declared against him the peasants rising under watt tyler the murder of archbishop sudbury and the hatred against wealth displayed by the insurgents filled the well-to-do classes with terror and provoked a reaction though Wycliffe's teaching had no necessary connection with the revolt it was natural that all novelties should be suspected and that men shrank before the

  discussion of dangerous questions it was not difficult for Wycliffe's opponents to raise a feeling against him connect the Wycliffe fight teachers with anti-social movements and find the root of all political dangers in the new doctrines which Wycliffe taught the archbishop of canterbury william courtney held in london in may 1382 a council which condemned as heretical the propositions drawn from Wycliffe's writings which dealt with the

  doctrine of the sacraments and condemned as erroneous 14 others which dealt with points of ecclesiastical polity only the opinions were condemned and no mention was made of their author by name the council was called by Wycliffe the earthquake council because a slight shock of an earthquake was felt while it was sitting both sides explained the portent in their own favor Wycliffe asserted that god spoke in behalf of his saints because men were silent

  the orthodox party answered that the earth expelled its noisome vapors in sympathy with the church which drove out pestilent heresy armed with a condemnation of the dangerous opinions the archbishop at once proceeded against the teachers he appointed a carmelite peter stoves well known for his zeal against Wycliffe as his commissary in oxford and bade him publish the decrees of the council and prohibit the teaching within the university of the condemned conclusions

  he also wrote to the chancellor bidding him assist the commissary in this matter for a while the chancellor and a strong academical party resisted this interference with the privileges of the university Wycliffe might be a heretic or not but the intervention of stokes by the archbishop's authority was a slight on the officials and the dictation of the archbishop even on points of heresy was unlawful but theological feeling was stronger than academic patriotism

  and the opponents of Wycliffe's views were ready to use any means to suppress them nor was it possible for those who wish to fight only for the rights of the university to disentangle that issue from a supposed sympathy with Wycliffe's opinions party feeling ran high and the archbishop used the opportunity so afforded him of striking a blow at the independent position of the university when the chancellor did not at once obey the archbishop's mandate

  the authority of the crown was invoked on the archbishop's side and the chancellor was forced to submit and to apologize within five months the rebellious teachers recanted or were reduced to silence and the university of oxford was brought back to an outward appearance of orthodoxy the triumph of the archbishop marks a decisive period in the history of the university of oxford hitherto it had been a center of independent opinion henceforth its freedom was gone

  while the undisputed orthodoxy of the university of paris set it above bishops and synods and gave it influence enough even to organize a general council the prestige of oxford was lost through its support of wycliffe and it became the handmaid of the episcopacy end of section 12

• 13 - Bk. I, Ch. 2: Clement VII, Boniface IX, Religious Movements in Oxford and Paris, 1389-1394, Pt. 3

  play_arrowPlaymenu_bookRead

  Section 13 of A History of the Papacy Volume 1 by Mandel Creighton. This LibriVox recording is in the public domain, read by Pamela Nagami. Book 1, Chapter 2. Clement VII. Boniface IX.

  Religious Movements in Oxford and Paris, 1389-1394, Part 3. With his success in silencing the University, the Archbishop's triumph ceased. When Parliament met in November of 1382, Wycliffe presented to it a memorial defending some of his opinions.

  The Commons so far sided with Wycliffe that they demanded and obtained the withdrawal from the Statute Book of a Bill which had been passed by the Lords only, in the last session, ordering the sheriffs to arrest Wycliffeite teachers. Wycliffe himself was summoned before a provincial synod at Oxford, but it would seem that the Archbishop judged it wise to rest content with some slight explanations on Wycliffe's part

  and allowed him to retire in peace to his living at Lutterworth. Next year, 1383, England had brought home to her the meaning of the schism in the papacy. Henry le Dispencer, Bishop of Norwich, had displayed the spirit of a determined and remorseless soldier in putting down the villains rising. Thirsting for a new field for military glory, he obtained from Urban VI a bull, appointing him leader of a crusade against Clement VII.

  All who went on this crusade or aided with their money were to receive the spiritual benefits of a crusade in the Holy Land. The Bishop of Norwich made every use he could of the sale of papal indulgences as a means of raising money. The other bishops aided him with all their might. And the patriotic feelings of the English were awakened in behalf of an expedition which was to be directed against

  their national foe, the French. Again, Wycliffe's warning voice was heard. He pointed out that the schism was a natural consequence of the moral decay of the Church, which was to be cured. Not by crusades against Christian brethren, but by bringing back the Church to apostolic poverty and simplicity. The rival popes, he added, are two dogs, snarling over a bone. Take away the bone of contention and the strife will cease. Dispenser's expedition, though at first

  successful in Flanders, ended in disaster. In six months he returned to England empty-handed, without having accomplished anything. So great was the anger against him that he was called to account by Parliament and his temporalities were sequestered for two years to the Crown. Wycliffe's days were drawing to a close, but one of his last utterances was a keenly ironical statement of his attitude toward the papacy thrown into the literary form of a confession

  of faith made to the Pope. I infer, he says, from the heart of God's law, that Christ in the state of his earthly pilgrimage was a very poor man and rejected all earthly dominion. The Pope, if he is Christ's vicar, is bound above all others to follow his master's example. Let him lay aside his temporal dominion and he would become a pattern to Christian men, for he would be following in the steps of the Apostles. Not long after writing these words, Wycliffe was stricken by paralysis

  in his own Church of Lutterworth and died on the last day of 1384. The teaching of Wycliffe marks an important crisis in the history of the Christian Church. He expressed the animating motives of previous endeavors for the amendment of the Church and gave them a new direction and significance. He began as a follower of William of Ockham and labored to set forward an ideal of Christian society dependent immediately upon God as its Lord. To this he added the earnest longing

  after simplicity and spirituality of life and practice, which had animated such men as St. Bernard and St. Francis of Assisi and had made them look with regret upon the riches and temporal importance of the Church. It would seem that in Wycliffe, a deeply religious feeling of the moral evils of the existing Church system, united with the keen intellect of the dialectician and the publicist, lent him to a criticism of the doctrines on which the existing system of the Church was founded.

  As the basis for this criticism, he set up the authority of Scripture as higher than the authority of Popor Church. He laid his finger upon the central doctrine of the existing ecclesiastical system and maintained that the material belief and transubstantiation was contrary alike to reason and Scripture. The question which he thus raised remained a prominent one in the controversies of the Reformation movement and it was more and more

  clearly seen that the only way to overthrow sacerdotal domination was to purify the doctrine of the sacrament of the altar from the superstition by which it had been converted into a miraculous act depending on human intervention. It was a question which the Lollards handed on to the Hussites and the Hussites to Luther. Wycliffe challenged the belief in a miraculous change in the nature of the elements. The Hussites attacked the denial of a cup to the laity

  and Luther warred against the doctrine of the sacrifice of the mass. But Wycliffe did more than simply enunciate opinions. He expressed in his own life a conviction that the existing state of the Church was radically wrong and needed entire revision. His own method was defective and his ideas were frequently put forward in ambiguous or misleading phraseology, but they served as a basis to earnest minds in later times and their echo never entirely died

  away. Wycliffe's opinions, though persecuted by the English prelates, were spread among the people by the poor priests whom Wycliffe had instituted and found many followers. They strengthened the spirit of resistance to papal aggression, which we find Parliament ever ready to profess. The old question of provisers was fruitful of disputes and disturbances. The statute was often passed and often broken, because it was as much the interest of the King as of the Pope to set aside

  the rights of other patrons and nominate to vacant benefices. Thus in 1379, Urban VI conferred on the King the right to appoint to the two next vacant prebens in every cathedral church setting aside the rights of bishops and chapters. It was not natural that the King should be very anxious to enforce the statutes of provisers and primiuniri when he might use them to his own advantage. Yet the Parliament returned again and again to this grievance and tried to make the statutes

  more and more peremptory. In 1390, a more vigorous statute of provisers was passed and Boniface IX saw with disgust the obstacles which the English Parliament placed in the way of his rapacity. Yet he was determined not to give way without a struggle, and in February 1391 he issued a bull, in which after expressing his pain and grief that so good and pious a King as Richard II should allow such statutes to be passed, he boldly declared them to be null and void,

  ordered all records of them to be destroyed, forbade anyone to revive them, and commanded all who held benefices in virtue of such statutes to vacate their benefices within two months. He at once began to grant provisions in England and, amongst others, conferred on Cardinal Brancaccio a prebend at Wells. A suit arose in the King's court between the King's nominee and the Cardinal, in which the court held to the statutes. But there was some fear of the possible effects of

  a papal excommunication, and in the next Parliament the Commons petitioned the King to inquire of the estates what course they would adopt if the Pope were to excommunicate a bishop for instituting the King's nominee. To this question the Lords and Commons answered that they would regard such proceedings as against the law of the land and would resist them to the death, if need were. The clergy answered that though they recognized the Pope's power of excommunication,

  yet in the case proposed the rights of the Crown would be attacked and it would be their duty to uphold them. After this display of determination on the part of all the estates, the final statutes of Provisors and Premiunary were passed, which put out of the protection of the law and forfeited to the King the goods of any man who obtained provisions or introduced bulls into the Kingdom contrary to the royal rights. These statutes were not enforced much more than the previous ones,

  but the result of the struggle was an increase of power to the Crown. The papacy saw that it was useless to claim the right of provisions in England. The right could only be used with the royal consent and sanction. The clergy did not regain the rights of which the Pope had deprived them, but the gain went to the Crown. Here, as in many other matters, the papal despotism had overthrown the rights of the clergy, who had to turn for support to the Crown. What the Crown

  recovered from the Pope, it appropriated to itself. Hence it was that when the papal yoke was at length thrown off, the Crown was found to be guardian of the Church in so many matters that the step to the recognition of its supremacy was but small. England escaped by its firmness the insatiable rapacity of Boniface VIII, which fell with relentless violence on the other countries that owned his obedience. Throughout his pontificate, the cries against extortion and

  simony rise louder and louder. At first Boniface stood in awe of some of the cardinals and at least preserved a decent appearance of secrecy in his scandalous sales of Church preferment. As the old cardinals died, he became more open in his mercantile transactions. It was soon understood that it was useless for a poor man to prefer a request to the papal court. Favors were granted only on payment, and if a better offer were made afterwards, the Pope

  did not scruple to make a second grant dated previously to the first. In time, a shameless system of repeated sales of presentations was recognized. The next presentation to a benefic was sold two or three times over. Then a new class of grant was constituted marked preference. In time, yet another class was created marked pre-preference, which gave the happy possessor a higher claim than his rivals, though even then, when the vacancy actually occurred,

  the Pope would often sell it again, despite all previous grants of reservation. If any disappointed candidate instituted a suit on the ground of a previous grant, the Pope inhibited his courts from trying it, so that there was no possibility of redress. Boniface, with grim humor, maintained that this procedure was only just, for those who had offered little had wished to deceive him. Every possible right and privilege was sold, even exemptions from

  canonical restrictions and permissions to hold pluralities to the number of ten or twelve at once. Monks bought the right to change from one order to another. For a hundred Florans, a mendicant might transfer himself to a non-mendicant order. It was a wonder, says the Pope's secretary Gobelin, how the Pope could expect a man to pay so much who possessed nothing, or at least ought to have possessed nothing. Friars bought the right of hearing confessions and preaching in parish churches,

  even against the will of the rector. Ecclesiastical agents scoured the whole of Italy to watch the state of health of the owners of rich benefices, and to give speedy intelligence to anxious expectants at Rome, who might judge thereby how much it was wise to offer. Many were too poor to pay in money, but the Pope was not above receiving even swine, horses, corn, and other payments in kind. So great was the demand for money in Rome that usury, which was regarded as an impious trade,

  flourished to an extraordinary degree, and the moneylenders were regarded as a natural and necessary addition to the curia. No one was safe from the Pope's rapacity. Like a crow hovering round a dying animal, he would send to gather the books, apparel, plate, and money of bishops or members of the curia as they lay dying. The members of the curia had a ready defense for these practices. They affirmed that they must all be lawful, as in such matters the Pope could not err.

  Boniface IX had enough to do with his money, however it was obtained. First he had to maintain the cause of Lattice loss in Naples, where the party of Louis II was gaining ground. In October 1390 Boniface sent 600 horse and took into his pay Alberigo da Barbiano, but in spite of these reinforcements Lattice loss lost one place after another, till in March 1391 the Castel Nuovo, the only part of the city of Naples which had remained faithful to him,

  was driven by famine to capitulate to the troops of Louis. In June however Pazuoli rebelled against Louis and returned to its allegiance to Lattice loss. Matters were now pretty evenly balanced between the two competitors and the Neapolitan barons began to hold aloof from the strife and prepare themselves to join decorously the side of the victor. Next year 1392 a blow was aimed by the party of Lattice loss against the powerful house of the Sansevrini who held great

  possessions in Calabria. Troops were collected for a sudden expedition against them, but news reached the Sansevrini who determined to turn their own tactics against their assailants. Gathering 550 horse and 2,000 foot they made a forced march of 70 miles in a day and a night and fell at early dawn upon the unsuspecting army of Lattice loss. Its route was complete. The chief's amongst whom was Albarigo de Barbiano were taken prisoners in their tents.

  The Sansevrini enriched themselves by the ransoms which they exacted and Albarigo, besides paying his ransom, promised not to serve against them for 10 years. A crushing blow had been inflicted upon the fortunes of Lattice loss who more than ever felt the need of the pope's protection. He had no resources of his own and a plan for gaining help from Sicily which at first seemed successful ended in nothing. The fortunes of Sicily were indeed a

  matter of some concern to the papacy. The death of King Frederick II in 1377 had left the crown of Sicily to an infant daughter Mary with the usual results of a regency among a body of turbulent nobles. There was an Aragonese party and a native party headed by the powerful baron Manfredo di Chiaramanti. The Aragonese succeeded in getting possession of the young Queen Mary who was sent to Aragon and married to Martin, the king's grandson. The Sicilian nobles, threatened at

  once by the Aragonese and the Saracens, who took advantage of the disturbed state of the island to make plundering raids on the coast, submitted themselves in 1388 to Urban VI who regarded Sicily as a fief of the Holy See. An alliance with Sicily was an important means of gaining supplies for the shattered fortunes of the house of Durazzo in Naples. In 1389 the young Lattice Lass was married to Costanza, daughter of Manfredo di Chiaramanti, and her rich dowry served for a

  while to support his cause. But Manfredo died and Martin of Aragon prepared to make good by force of arms his claims and that of his wife Mary to the Sicilian crown. The cause of Boniface IX was won with that of the Sicilian nobles, for Aragon had joined the side of Clement VII, and Boniface saw himself doubly threatened in Naples and Sicily. He accordingly declared Mary's marriage with Martin, which was within the prohibited degrees, and had been contracted in accordance with the dispensation

  from Clement VII, to be null and void. So long as Mary remained schismatic, her title was to continue in abeyance. Boniface, as suzerain of Sicily, divided it into tetrarchies and appointed four of the Sicilian nobles as governors. As soon however as the Aragonese forces landed in 1392, the union of the Sicilian nobles began to break up. Palermo fell before Martin and the fortunes of the Chiaramonte family were at an end. Boniface sent legates to acknowledge the title of Mary,

  provided that she would recognize him as pope. Everyone wished to save himself from the dangers which the Aragonese occupation of Sicily threatened. Ladislaus had spent his wife's dowry and had nothing more to hope from the marriage now that her family was ruined. It was rumored that Martin, father of the young king of Sicily, had made Manfredo's widow his mistress. Ladislaus was bidden by his mother to profess the greatest horror at this stain cast

  upon his wife by her mother's unlawful connection with an Aragonese schismatic. He hastened to Rome, where he was received with due honors by Boniface, who gave him a bill of divorce. The luckless Costanza was sacrificed without a feeling of pity or a plea of justice to the political necessities of her husband. It was perhaps hardly to be expected that Boniface, who had no scruples in selling the rights of the church to raise money for Naples,

  should allow any compassion for a wretched woman to stand in the way of getting money for Ladislaus. Another lucrative marriage might be made if Costanza were only set aside. Ladislaus returned to Gaeta, where Costanza was publicly divorced. Ignorant of her fate, she went to hear Mass with her husband. The bishop of Gaeta read the Pope's bull, and then, advancing to Costanza, took from her finger the wedding ring, which he returned to Ladislaus. From the cathedral, Costanza was taken

  to a small house, where with only three attendants, she continued to live on the alms of the court, till she was given in marriage to a Sicilian baron. But her high spirit was not subdued. As she left the church with her new husband, she proudly said that he was lucky in being allowed to commit adultery with a queen. Help in the way of a divorce was not all that Boniface IX gave to Ladislaus. In 1393, he sent fresh reinforcements under the command of his brother Giovanni

  Tomacelli. Ladislaus was but a youth, scarce eighteen years of age, but his mother Margaret saw that the decided effort must be made. She sent forth her son into the field like a Spartan mother. Coming before the barons, no, she said, that I give into your hands my soul, the breath of my life, my only treasure. Here it is. And she flung her arms around her son's neck. I commend him to you. The shouts of the soldiers greeted her appeal. The army marched against the important town of Aquila

  in the Abruzzi and took it. This was the beginning of the military exploits of Ladislaus, whose energy never flagged and whose cause from this time forward prospered. He had all his father's activity and force, and these qualities contrasted strongly with the feebleness and indolence of his rival Louis. Martin of Sicily was kept busy in his own land, for the Sicilian towns were true to their allegiance to Boniface and rebelled against the rule of a schismatic.

  It required all his forces for the next two years to reduce the rebels to submission. Henceforth, Boniface was free from threatening dangers in the south of Italy and could devote his energies to the task of securing his power in the Papal States. End of Section 13.

• 14 - Bk. I, Ch. 2: Clement VII, Boniface IX, Religious Movements in Oxford and Paris, 1389-1394, Pt. 4

  play_arrowPlaymenu_bookRead

  Section 14 of A History of the Papacy, Volume 1 by Mandel Creighton. This LibriVox recording is in the public domain, read by Pamela Nagami. Book 1, Chapter 2. Clement VII. Boniface IX.

  Religious Movements in Oxford and Paris, 1389-1394, Part 4. Rome had been submissive to the Pope, so long as there was a hope of gain from the pilgrims who flocked to the Jubilee. But when this harvest was over, difficulties soon arose, and the papal court was at variance with the magistracy.

  On September 11, 1391, an agreement was made between the Pope and the Republic of Rome, which promised to respect the immunities of the clergy, to free the members of the Curia from tolls, to keep and repair walls and bridges, to help in the recovery of the papal possessions in Tuscany,

  and to urge the barons to ally with the Pope and the city. On March 5, 1392, a further agreement was made to raise forces to put down the nobles who had seized the towns and the patrimony, and whose plundering raids made them as much the enemies of the city as of the Pope. It was agreed that all places wrested from them should belong to the Roman people,

  with the exceptions of Viterbo, Civitavecchia, and Orchio. The fact that these formal agreements were necessary is sufficient in itself to show that things did not go smoothly. In the war against Giovanni Sciara d'Avico, who held Viterbo, the Romans found that they were contributing the lion's share.

  The Pope, in straights for money, had pledged all the lands of the Roman churches, but the people did not get the money quickly enough. One day they rose in arms, and headed by the Bondarisi, rushed to the palace, and dragged from the papal presence the canons of St. Peter's who refused to part with the possessions of their church for the purposes of war.

  No wonder that the Pope did not feel himself secure in Rome, and gladly embraced an opportunity of quitting it. Perugia had long been a prey to civil discords. The Tuscan League against the Pope in 1377 had awakened the activity of the old Ghibliin party within the city, and the nobles were glad to rise against the traitors, who had possessed themselves of the government.

  The war that arose in 1390 between Florence and Giovanni Gagliazzo Visconti of Milan, drew all the contending parties into its sphere. The restless ambition of the crafty Duke of Milan threatened the liberties of the free cities of North Italy, and Florence had boldly stepped forward to meet the danger before it came too near. The Ghibliin nobles of Perugia, headed by Pandoffo de Ballioni,

  placed their city under the protection of Giovanni Gagliazzo, and expelled the opposing Guelphs who took refuge in Florence. Both sides suffered severely in the war without gaining any decisive results, and were at last willing to listen to Boniface IX. The Pope strove to make peace, and with a view of freeing himself from the troubles of a residence at Rome,

  at the end of September 1392, set out to Perugia, where the guardianship of the citadel and of the city was entrusted to the papal legate, Pileo, Archbishop of Ravenna. Perugia put itself in the hands of the Pope, and owned his suzerainty. Bologna, Imola, and Massa Lombarda, which had suffered severely in the war, submitted themselves in like manner.

  In Perugia, Boniface abode for a year, recalled the Guelph exiles, and tried to maintain peace within the city. During his residence at Perugia, he met with many successes. The Romans were successful in their war against Giovanni Sciara d'Avico. He renounced Clement VII, and submitted to Boniface,

  who with the consent of the Romans, took to himself the office of Prefect of Viterbo. Similarly, in La Marca, the cities of Ancona, Camerino, Fabriano, Gese, and Matteolica submitted to him. But the peace which the Pope had made at Perugia was not of long duration. The feud which he had striven to pacify was too deep-seated for the rival parties to live in unity within the same city walls.

  In July 1393, one of the returned exiles was murdered in the street. When the Podesta was about to pass sentence on the assassins, the chief of the nobles, Pandolfo de Ballioni, interfered on their behalf. The other party vowed vengeance. Pandolfo was assassinated, and all his family whom the eager crowd could reach were put to death.

  Butchery reigned in the city, and the Pope, with a few followers, fled by night from the scene of carnage and took refuge in Assisi. The Ghiblin party was exiled from Perugia in their turn, and the city was now to unite itself closely to Florence. A Perugian general of Condottieri, Biordo de Micolatti,

  made himself chief of the people, and the city was lost to the Pope. In Assisi, Boniface IX abode in quietness, but the Romans grew alarmed at the absence of the Pope and feared that he intended to fix his seat in Umbria. Then, as always, the papacy cast a blight over the municipal institutions of Rome and prevented them from developing into strength.

  The Romans could neither obey nor resist the Pope, according to any persistent plan. His presence and his absence were alike intolerable to them. They could not make up their minds either to forgo the advantage which their city reaped as capital of the papacy, nor to endure the inconvenience of the papal residents among them. They sent ambassadors to Boniface at Assisi, beseeching him to return to Rome.

  Boniface assented on his own conditions. The Romans were to send one thousand knights to escort him on his way, and were to loan him ten thousand florins of gold for the expenses of the journey. They were, moreover, to agree that the Pope should, if he chose, appoint a senator of Rome. If he did not do so, the conservators, who exercised the senatorial authority,

  were to take an oath of fidelity to him. His senators were not to be interfered with by the banderisi or other magistrates of the city. The Romans were to keep the roads to Narni and the Rieti free and open, and were to maintain a galley to guard the approach by sea. The clergy and members of the curia were to be amenable only to the papal courts,

  and were to be free from tolls and taxes. The goods of the churches and hospitals were to be similarly free from taxes. The markets of the city were to be under the charge of two officers, one appointed by the Pope, the other by the people. These conditions were accepted by the Romans on August 8, 1393,

  and Boniface again took up his residence in Rome at the beginning of December. This agreement bears a strong testimony to the political shrewdness of Boniface. He knew the advantage of striking a blow at the right time. He knew the importance of privileges once granted. The conditions to which the Romans so lightly agreed under the impulse of a passing panic

  laid the foundations of the papal sovereignty over the city of Rome. Boniface IX himself lived to broaden and extend them, and his successors inherited his claims as their lawful prerogatives. But Boniface was not to reap immediately the fruits of his policy and of the sure sightedness of the Roman people.

  The rule of the Pope was soon found to be galling, and the Romans regretted that they had sold their liberties for such a doubtful boon as the presence of the Pope. Disagreements soon arose between the Pope and the Bonderisi. The Roman people rose in arms in May 1394,

  and the position of Boniface in Rome became precarious. Even his life was threatened. But his alliance with Naples had not been made in vain, and Ladislas was ready to help his protector. In October 1394, the young king of Naples came to the rescue of the Pope

  and repressed the rebellion of the people. After a few days' stay in Rome, he returned to Gaeta, laden with substantial tokens of the Pope's gratitude. At the same time that Boniface was freed from this danger, he also was relieved from another foe.

  On September 16th died the anti-Pope Clement VII. His end was probably hastened by the humiliations to which he was subjected by the remonstrances of the University of Paris. It is the great glory of that learned body. That it did not cease to labor to restore the shattered unity of the Church.

  It was indeed necessary that this question should be discussed by a learned body of professed theologians, for the principles of papal jurisprudence had been so successfully applied to the system of ecclesiastical government that they had destroyed all traces of a more primitive organization.

  The Pope was recognized as God's vicar as superior to general consuls, and there was no jurisdiction which could claim to call him to account. Yet now, the organization of the papacy, which owed its power to the fact that it was a symbol of the unity of the Church, had brought about the destruction of that unity

  and was an insupportable obstacle in the way of its restoration. Christendom groaned under the expense of two papal establishments, but was helpless to find any lawful method of redressing its grievances and setting at one the distracted Church. It was the work of the University of Paris to revive the more ancient polity of the Church

  before the days of the establishment of the papal monarchy, and by a ceaseless literary agitation to familiarize Christendom with ideas which at first seemed little better than heretical. So great were the difficulties which beset any endeavor to escape from the legal principles of the canon law that the conciliar theory was advanced with great caution

  and only on the ground of absolute necessity. In 1381, a German doctorate Paris, Henry Langenstein of Hesse, wrote his Conchillium Pacis, in which he argued in favor of the summons of a general council. Necessity, he urged, makes things lawful which are otherwise unlawful. Where human law fails, recourse must be had to natural or divine law.

  The spirit of ecclesiastical rules must take precedence of the letter. Equity, as Aristotle says, must be called in to redress the wrongs of strict justice. In times of necessity, the Church must have recourse to the authority of Christ, the infallible head of the Church, whose authority is resident in the whole body. To decide the question whether the election made by the cardinals as commissaries of the Church

  was lawful or not, recourse must be had to the assemblage of bishops which represents the Church. This theory of Langenstein had much to commend it, but no one could ignore the difficulties in the way of assembling or constituting a general council. The threat of a council was an effective weapon in reserve for the case of extreme need. But instead of summoning a council to decide between two claimants,

  was it not possible to induce the rival claimants to resign their positions? This idea of voluntary abdication by the two popes found favor in Paris, but it was open to the obvious objection that it was difficult to induce men to resign lucrative and important posts. It might, however, be possible to compel them to do so by a withdrawal of the allegiance of the faithful. This proposed withdrawal the theologians of the university set

  to work to justify. Schism was as bad as heresy, and if a pope condemned for heresy ceased to be pope. The case of popes openly and notoriously persisting in schism fell under the same law. By this theory, the principles of feudalism were carried into the Church. The pope held his power of Christ. If he used it to the separation of his Lord's kingdom, the inferior vassals might defy him. It was an attempt to legitimize rebellion as the ultimate appeal in case of difficulty.

  An opinion was slowly formed within the university. It was from time to time laid before the French king, but the madness which fell upon him in 1392 and the disturbed state of France through the struggle for power between the king's uncles and his brother made any political measures hopeless. Yet in the king's lucid moments, the entreaties of the university were renewed, and strangely enough, they were seconded by Boniface IX, who at the end of 1392 sent two

  Carthusian monks with a letter to the king, reminding him of his duties to Christendom and offering his cooperation in any steps which might be thought necessary to heal the schism. Boniface IX hoped by a show of humility to detach France from his rival, but the royal counselors wrote back an answer carefully framed to contain no word of recognition of Boniface while conveying a general assurance of the king's zeal. At the end of 1393, the

  university met with a favorable answer from the king's brother, the Duke of Beret. It showed its gratitude by a solemn procession to Saint-Martin-des-Champs, and at once appointed a commission to consider means for retaining its end. A chest was placed in the convent of the Matarin into which each member of the university cast his written opinion, and after duly inspecting the votes, the commissioners reported that three possible courses had been submitted, an abdication by both

  popes, an arbitration by an equal number of judges appointed by both sides, or a general council. Clement VII was alarmed at these revolutionary proposals. He summoned the chiefs of the university to Avignon, but they refused to go. He then tried the more effectual means of sending a legate with rich presents to the king's counselors, and the crafty cardinal, Peter the Luna, who was then resident in Paris, helped with his ready intrigues. Hence, when the university first

  brought its report to the king, the Duke of Beret refused an audience and threatened its chief men with imprisonment. It was only after some delay by the influence of the Duke of Burgundy that the representatives of the university came on June 29, 1394, before the king. They laid before him in an address the three methods proposed for ending the schism. They stated the arguments in favor of each, and combated the objections which might be raised.

  Why should not the pope, they pleaded, submit himself to the authority of others? Is he greater than Christ, who in the gospel was subject to his mother and Joseph? Surely the pope is subject to his mother, the church, who is the mother of all faithful people. Charles VI listened with interest and ordered the address of the university to be translated into French, that it might serve as the declaration of a new policy. Great hopes were entertained,

  that he would act decisively. But again the intrigues of Peter the Luna prevailed with the Duke of Beret, and the university was forbidden to approach the king or meddle with the matter of the schism. The university knew of Clement's machinations and was prepared for the check, for its deputies at once replied that all lectures, sermons, and other academic acts would cease until it obtained its just demands. The king, however, had ordered a copy of the address of

  the university to be forwarded to Clement, and the university itself sent him a representation against the conduct of Peter the Luna and an exhortation to unity. Clement was both wounded and alarmed at their plain speaking, and angrily denounced the letter of the university as wicked and venomous, but his cardinals gave it as their opinion that one of the ways recommended by the university would have to be followed to restore peace to the church. In the state of depression

  which these humiliations caused to the haughty spirit of Clement VII, he was stricken suddenly by apoplexy and died on September 16th, 1394. Robert of Geneva, like many others, found that a lofty position stifled rather than kindled his energies. In his earlier days he had enjoyed the work of a soldier and felt keen pleasure at being at the head of the strongest party among the cardinals. His aristocratic sentiments made him delight in being in a position of command,

  and he did not discover, till after his elevation to the dangerous dignity of an anti-pope, how much sweeter is power when it is exercised without the oppressive load of responsibility. Robert of Geneva was not the man for an equivocal position, for his nature was too sensitive to grapple with the difficulties which beset him. By feeling as well as by birth he belonged to the class of feudal nobles, not of adventurers, and the daring which he showed when his course was

  clear deserted him when he felt that his position was doubtful. He soon discovered that the greater part of Christendom repudiated him and that he was maintained as pope solely by the French king, a fact which the French courtiers did not scruple to throw in his teeth. His adherents in other lands were ousted from their offices and fled in poverty to Avignon clamoring for help, which Clement had no means of giving. He could not afford to maintain a crowd of needy dependants,

  and his natural taste for grandeur suffered from the sight of misery which fidelity to his cause had brought upon others. His sensitiveness was also wounded by the calls which constantly reached his ears that he should restore peace to the distracted church. His pride prevented him alike from abandoning and from enjoying his position. He could not find satisfaction in the petty intrigues and the small victories which would have satisfied a coarser nature. Tall, handsome, and of commanding

  aspect, he always cherished those gifts which had won him popularity. He was always genial, affable, and decorous. But he shrank from everything that reminded him of his powerlessness, and such power as he had he was determined to exercise by himself. He was morose to his cardinals and rarely asked their advice or held consistories. When he did so, they were summoned at a late hour and were rapidly dismissed. Such business as he had he dallied with,

  and it was hard to get him to take a decided step. When at last he saw that the representatives of the University of Paris had begun to prevail, even with the French king, Clement's humiliation was complete. He was not great enough to submit for the good of Christendom, nor was he small enough to fight solely for himself. Overcome by the dilemma, he died. End of section 14.

• 15 - Bk. I, Ch. 3: Boniface IX, Benedict XIII, Attempts of France to Heal the Schism, 1394-1404, Pt. 1

  play_arrowPlaymenu_bookRead

  Section 15 of A History of the Papacy, Volume 1 by Mandel Creighton. This LibriVox recording is in the public domain, read by Pamela Nagami. Book 1, Chapter 3, Boniface IX, Benedict XIII. Attempts of France to Heal the Schism, 1394-1404, Part 1. When, on September 22, 1394, the news of the death of Clement VII reached Paris, it was felt that a great opportunity was offered for ending the schism.

  A meeting of the royal council was held immediately, and a messenger was dispatched post-haste to Avignon, bearing a royal missive to the cardinals requiring them to make no new election till they had received an embassy which the king was about to send. In this the royal zeal outsped the munitions of the university, but that body sent a letter to the cardinals by the hands of the royal ambassadors.

  Never could there be again such an opportunity of healing the schism. It was as though the Holy Ghost stood at the door and knocked. No time was lost by the king. On the 24th a royal embassy was sent off to Avignon, but heard on the way the news of the election of Peter de Luna.

  It was, in fact, too much to expect that the cardinals at Avignon should trust themselves to the tender mercies of the king of France. They had advised Clement VII to take steps toward ending the schism, and had been ready to second the advice of the University of Paris. But in any measures taken by a pope, their dignity could at least be spared

  and their interests respected. The extinction of the schism by preventing the election of another pope meant the extinction of the cardinals themselves. The one unmistakable right of cardinals was the election of a pope. If they did not proceed to the election,

  they cast a doubt on the validity of their own office, which they could not expect that others would esteem more highly than they did themselves. They lost no time in entering into conclave, and the king's first letter reached Avignon just as the doors were being closed on the evening of September 26th.

  But the cardinals suspected its contents and resolved to read it after the election, which was the business on which they were at present engaged. At the same time, wishing to free themselves from the charge of promoting the schism, they drew out a solemn form of oath, binding themselves to do all in their power to end the schism,

  and binding him who should be elected to resign the papacy if a majority of the cardinals called on him to do so in the interests of the church. Of the 24 cardinals who then composed the college, three were absent, and of those present, only three refused to sign this declaration. The 18 cardinals who signed proceeded at once to deliberate.

  One cardinal was proposed, but he cried out, I am feeble and perhaps would not abdicate. I prefer not to be exposed to the temptation. I, on the other hand, said Peter de Luna, would abdicate as easily as I take off my hat.

  All eyes were turned on him. His political skill was well established, and his zeal for the reunion of the church was credited. On September 28th, 1394, Peter de Luna was elected pope and took the title of Benedict XIII. The election of Peter de Luna was in itself unexceptionable.

  Sprung from an old Aragonese house, he had devoted himself to the study of canon law, of which he became professor in the University of Montpellier. Gregory XI made him a cardinal on a con of his learning, and his ability had always made him a man of mark in the Curia. He was a man of blameless life, and his enemies could bring no charge against him,

  save that of fostering the schism. His cleverness, however, verged on craft and subtlety, and in his dealings with Spain and with the court of France, he had shown an ingrained love of intrigue, and a delight in managing complicated affairs which augured ill for his pliability.

  His short and spare frame contained a restless and resolute mind, and the cardinals who had voted for him on the ground of his repeated protestations of his desire to end the unhappy schism of the Church, found that he meant the end to come only in the way which he pleased. At first, however, all went smoothly, and so delighted was the University of Paris

  with the new pope's expressions of readiness to adopt any measures for appeasing the schism, that they hailed him as indeed Benedict. One blessed indeed if he spread on all sides the blessings of peace. The letter in which he announced his election to the French king assured him that he had only accepted the office of pope as a means of ending the schism,

  and reminded him how entirely their views had agreed on this point when they had discussed the matter together at Paris. No one could speak more fairly than Benedict. The envoys of the University in their first interview met him as he was going to table. As he took off his hat before sitting down, he repeated his remark,

  that he could lay aside his office as easily as his cap. Promises and fair words were easily uttered, but the year came to an end, and nothing further had been done. In February 1395, a synod of bishops met in Paris, and after considering the three methods proposed by the University,

  gave its opinion in favor of abdication as the best way of ending the schism. If Benedict could suggest any better way, let him do so. If not, let him place himself in the king's hands, who would then confer with the princes of the obedience of Boniface, and take steps to compel him to do likewise.

  Armed with this opinion, a royal embassy was sent to Benedict, headed by the Dukes of Burgundy and Berry, the king's uncles, and the Duke of Orléans, his brother. They arrived at Avignon on May 22, and lost no time in urging their business. The pope met them by raising difficulties at every step.

  First, there was a discussion whether they might see the document which the cardinals had signed before the election. When at last they obtained a copy, Benedict warned them that it did not follow that those who had signed it before would sign it now. And as for himself, his position had been entirely changed since his election.

  When the proposal for abdication was made, Benedict met it by the impossible suggestion of a conference between the two popes, under the protection of the French king. For the purpose of discussing their respective pretensions. When this was naturally rejected by the royal ambassadors, Benedict asked that their propositions should be reduced to writing and submitted to him in due form.

  He was answered that the king's proposal was contained in one word, abdication. At this, he was offended and complained of scant courtesy. He was ready to receive advice, not commands, as he was not bound to obey anyone save Christ. When the pope was thus found to be unyielding, the duke of Burgundy resolved to bring the

  opinion of the College of Cardinals to bear on his obstinacy. He summoned the cardinals to his house and demanded the private opinion of each upon the course to be pursued. Nineteen agreed, more or less decidedly, with the proposition of the king. One, the cardinal of Pamplona, the only Spanish member of the college, advocated the martial

  method of ending the schism by forcibly expelling Boniface IX from Rome. If this were impossible, he preferred a conference to abdication. The attempt to exercise pressure on Benedict XIII was a mistake, and the negotiations were conducted in an overbearing manner that was sure to provoke his resentment. Benedict, before his election, was well aware of the schemes of the university and had gauged

  the capacity of the men who advocated them. Now that he was pope, he was responsible for maintaining the rights of his office, and the crude proposals of the university theologians were scarcely likely to commend themselves to one who was well versed in canon law. Benedict may be pardoned for feeling it his duty to resist a scheme,

  which was founded on the use of compulsion toward the two claimants of a disputed succession. It was a clumsy attempt to cut the knot instead of untying it. One of the claimants was clearly the rightful pope. It might be difficult to find any legal means of settling on which side the right lay, but the proposal to override the questions of right by compelling both claimants to abdicate

  was a rude abolition of law in favor of violence. Moreover, Benedict saw clearly enough the practical difficulties which lay in the way of the plans of the university. If he were to abdicate, what guarantee was there that his rival could be compelled to do likewise? He was asked to place himself unreservedly in the hands of the King of France, who probably after a few years of unsuccessful negotiations would set up a pope of his own,

  entirely subservient to the French crown. Benedict's obedience comprised other kingdoms besides France. He was himself a Spaniard and resented the interference of France as though it were the only power concerned in this matter which affected the whole of Christendom. He said with some truth that if he had been a Frenchman he would not have been treated with such arrogance. There were other kings besides the King of France, other universities besides that of Paris.

  He could not answer the King's proposals till he had consulted with the doctors of the University of Avignon, for no clerks were more learned than they, and many came from Paris to consult them. On June 20th, Benedict, in the presence of two cardinals only, gave his answer in the shape of a bull to the ambassadors. He repeated his proposal of a conference and reiterated his objections to the procedure of abdication. It was to no purpose that the ambassadors tried to bring

  pressure to bear upon him through the cardinals, who declared themselves on the King's side. Benedict met them with tact and prudence and overwhelmed them with formal objections. The ambassadors lived in Ville-Neuve on the opposite side of the Rhone from Avignon. Whether it was a measure to speed their departure or not cannot be said, but one night the wooden bridge across the Rhone caught fire, and thenceforth the ambassadors' interviews with pope or cardinals

  were checked by the fact that they had to cross the turbulent Rhone in an open boat. They could obtain nothing from Benedict XIII, but more bulls expressing his willingness to do what he had suggested. With these, they returned to Paris on August 24th. Their mission had proved entirely fruitless. Both sides now prepared for war. The University of Paris, stung by the attack of Benedict, had once presented a memorial to the King desiring him to call a synod,

  and by its authority, deprived Benedict of the right of presentation to benefices and cut him off from his ecclesiastical revenues. The royal advisors were not however prepared to take such a decisive step, and the University contented itself with sending circular letters to all the princes and universities in Europe, urging them to join in enforcing their policy upon the contending popes. On his side, Benedict drew nearer to Spain, and the King of Castile wrote angrily to the cardinals,

  complaining that they took counsel with the French king and did not consult him. Yet I think that among Christian princes I ought to be consulted as much as any other king whatever. Moreover, the University of Toulouse espoused his cause and began to attack the theological position of the University of Paris. Already while the French ambassadors were at Abignos, the representatives of the University of Paris had laid before them eight conclusions put forward

  by an English Dominican, John Hayton, which were entirely subversive of their position. Hayton asserted the rights of one head of the Church, the Pope, and announced the use of coercion to make him abandon them. He did not hesitate to call the University a daughter of Satan, mother of error, nurse of sedition, defamer of the Pope. The envoys of the University urged the royal ambassadors to procure the papal condemnation of these conclusions of Hayton, and the Pope

  faintly condemned them. But Benedict XIII showed considerable tact in detaching from the side of the University some of its most distinguished men. Benedict was himself a scholar and as such had an attraction for other scholars. While the practical steps which the University recommended as the means of carrying their opinions into effect naturally awakened repugnance in many thoughtful minds. The simple scholar would feel little interest in urging on the king the use of

  forcible means to bring Benedict to abdicate. He would see that it was impossible to restore spiritual authority by means of compulsion applied in such a way. Hence we find Nicolas de Clémange, who had been rector of the University in 1393, invited by Benedict to be his secretary and librarian in 1394, and early in 1395 the learned Peter Dyee resigned his offices in the University and accepted from Benedict the rich bishopric of Cambrai. This retirement of the more moderate men

  only made the action of the University more vehement. It submitted in the form of questions nine definite points which had been in their opinion raised by the refusal of Benedict to accept the proposed abdication. Has the pope by his refusal fallen into heresy and mortal sin? Are the cardinals bound any longer to obey him? Ought he to be compelled to abdicate and if so by whom? Is he subject to a general counsel? Are his censures against those who proceed in this matter

  to be heeded? These were the questions raised by the University and their bare statement caused a reaction in favor of the pope. They were revolutionary and struck at the root of the existing organization of the Church and the papal headship altogether. The most eminent of the University theologians, Jean Garçon, who had done much to mold its opinion, raised his voice in favor of milder measures. An answer to these questions on the part of the University, would he pleaded, only lead to a

  counter-argument on the side of the pope, and when once dogmatic opinions had been put forward on either side, obstinacy would take the place of reason as no one would willingly confess that he had been a heretic. Matters were stayed for a time but the ill feeling between Benedict and the University increased. Benedict harassed the University in small points and the University appealed from Benedict to a future pope, one true, orthodox, and universal. Benedict replied that an

  appeal from the Roman pontiff was unlawful. The University retorted that in that case, St. Peter's chair must be assumed to make its possessors impeccable. The pride of the University was more and more involved in the struggle, which had become almost a personal one, and its representations to the French king were redoubled. At the end of 1396, embassies were sent to Germany, England, and Spain to gain cooperation in carrying out the ecclesiastical policy of France. After a little

  wavering, the king of Castile gave in his adhesion, and Richard II of England, who had married a daughter of Charles VI and hoped for French help in carrying out his high-handed policy at home, was also willing to acquiesce. In June 1397, a joint embassy from the kings of England, France, and Castile was sent to Rome and Avignon. When Benedict XIII declined to give a definite answer to their proposals, he was informed that the French king required him to take steps before February 2,

  1398, that the schism must be healed by that date, otherwise the king would himself proceed to remove its causes. Charles VI was now pledged to proceed to extremities, but wished first to engage on his side Venzel, king of the Romans. Venzel was personally on good terms with Boniface IX, who had good-naturedly overlooked his wild violations of ecclesiastical privileges, but the University of Prague had followed the lead of the University of Paris, and the Bohemian king

  felt himself called upon to seem to do something. A conference was held between the two monarchs at Reims on March 23, 1398, to decide the future of Christendom. They were a strange pair for such a purpose, a madman and a drunkard. Charles VI enjoyed intervals of reason, and though feeble in mind at all times, was still beloved by his people for his personal kindliness. Venzel, day by day, grew more besotted in his vices, and was only able to do business in the morning

  before he had time to get drunk. The two kings agreed that between them they would restore the peace of the Church. Charles VI undertook to force Benedict XIII to abdicate, and Venzel vaguely promised to compel Boniface IX to do likewise, if it could be done without prejudice to his own honor. On this understanding, Charles VI returned to Paris and did his utmost to fulfill his promise. It would have been well for Venzel if he had acted with like determination. On May 22,

  1398, a synod of French bishops and representatives of the universities assembled in Paris in obedience to the royal summons. The king himself was unable to attend through illness, but the dukes of Berri, Burgundy, and Orléans were present. Simon Camot, patriarch of Alexandria, the chief ecclesiastical in France, and a staunch supporter of the royal policy, was president of the synod. He laid before it, as the question for discussion, how the abdication of Benedict XIII was

  to be procured, whether for that purpose a total or partial withdrawal of obedience was necessary. It was agreed that six disputants on either side should put forth the arguments for and against Benedict XIII. On the side of Benedict was urged first the theoretical unlawfulness of a withdrawal of allegiance, since the supremacy of the pope was absolute, and nothing save heresy could impair it. Next, the practical inconveniences, as it would be the cause of great disorders and would

  probably harden the resistance of Benedict rather than subdue it. If he were to abdicate after such withdrawal of allegiance, his adherents would declare it had been done under compulsion. If he were not to abdicate, it was impossible to see what might happen. Moreover, such a step was fatal also to the foundations of civil government, for it gave an example of rebellion. On the side of the clergy and university, it was urged that the life of the church lay in unity, and schism

  was its death. Only when the pope cares for the unity of the church is he Christ's vicar. When he opposes unity, he is Christ's adversary. As to the argument about the danger to civil governments of the example of withdrawing allegiance from the pope, there was no analogy between the two, for Christ said, The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them, but whosoever amongst you would be greatest, let him be your servant. The temporal power is not subject to the people. But the pope

  is the servant of the church and must act for its good. His abdication is necessary to heal the schism, and the withdrawal of allegiance is necessary to cut off his resources and reduce him to submit. After this disputation, the votes of the assembly were taken. 247 voted in favor of immediate withdrawal of obedience. 20 voted for postponing the question at present and summoning the pope afresh. 16 voted for holding a council of the entire obedience of Benedict and submitting the

  matter to its consideration. After this vote, the royal order was signed on July 27, 1398, for the withdrawal of allegiance, which cut off from Benedict all power over the French church and all means of raising money out of the ecclesiastical revenues of France. End of section 15.

• 16 - Bk. I, Ch. 3: Boniface IX, Benedict XIII, Attempts of France to Heal the Schism, 1394-1404, Pt. 2

  play_arrowPlaymenu_bookRead

  Section 16 of A History of the Papacy, Volume 1 by Mandel Creighton. This LibriVox recording is in the public domain, read by Pamela Nagami. Book 1, Chapter 3, Boniface IX, Benedict XIII. Attempts of France to Heal the Schism, 1394-1404, Part 2. The University of Paris had worked its will at last, and could certainly claim the credit or blame of all that had been done. It had succeeded in awakening in men's minds a desire to end the schism, and had asserted as the basis for all action,

  the superiority of the interests of the Church as a whole, over the interests of its contending rulers. But the doctors of the University were still under the power of the ideas of the Middle Ages. They took their stand upon the necessity of a formal unity of the Church, which was to be represented by the outward unity of its government. Many minds amid the jangle of contending assertions tended towards neutrality,

  and looked upon both popes with suspicion. Many advocated a national government for each national Church. But the University maintained stoutly the medieval desire for outward unity, and carried its theories no farther than was necessary under existing circumstances for its restoration. But there was an inherent weakness in the policy of the University,

  for it resorted to extraordinary measures, while it could not be sure that they would gain their end. The withdrawal of allegiance from Benedict was an act entirely opposed to the ecclesiastical constitution, and no reasons except those of expediency could be urged in its favor. Moreover, that measure in itself was only a dubious step toward gaining the end proposed. The University argued that the withdrawal of the allegiance of France would probably lead to the

  abdication of Benedict. And then, the example of France would probably be followed by the Empire towards Boniface, who would also probably be compelled to abdicate, and then the United Church could again choose ahead. The chance of ultimate success in this elaborate scheme was too far distant to justify the revolutionary step which was to set all in motion. Revolutionary measures are dangerous unless they are likely to affect their end at once.

  In this case, the inevitable reaction in favor of legality set in before the first step could be accomplished. France counted on forcing Benedict into perfect submission. Immediately after the Council, Dye, Bishop of Cambrai, who had previously been employed in negotiation with the Pope, set out together with Marshal Boussicot for Avignon. If Dye's persuasions failed, Boussicot, who stayed behind at Lyon, was to proceed to force. When Dye, in his first interview

  with Benedict, expressed the King's wish that he should resign his office, Benedict changed color and angrily exclaimed, I will never do so as long as I live, and I wish the King of France to know that I will pay no heed to his ordinances, but will keep my name and papacy till death. Dye replied that he could accept no answer which was not made after council with the Cardinals. Two who were present joined in urging the summoning of a consistory. Next morning,

  Dye spoke before the assembled Cardinals and then left them to their deliberations, which were stormy. Many of them urged the Pope to yield, and when he refused, they left the consistory in anger. Dye, who was waiting outside, entered the room and asked for Benedict's answer. The Pope, still sitting on his throne with one or two Cardinals around him, answered with indomitable spirit that he had been duly elected Pope and would remain so as long as

  he lived. Tell our son of France, he added, that until now we have held him for a good Catholic, but if from ill advice he is about to enter into error, he will repent it. But I pray you tell him from me to take good advice and not incline to anything which may trouble his conscience. Saying this, the Pope left his throne and Dye mounted his horse to carry the news of his ill success to Boussicot, who had already advanced to the fort of Saint-André, 27 miles from Avignon.

  Benedict XIII, besieged in Avignon, September 1, 1398 to April 10, 1399. Dye's mission had failed, and Boussicot's was now to begin. He rapidly raised a body of troops, for many were eager to share in the plunder of Avignon. On September 1, the withdrawal of allegiance was proclaimed at Villeneuve, and Benedict's French supporters left him. Eighteen of his 23 Cardinals went to Villeneuve and wrote to the French King, proclaiming their renunciation of the stubborn Pope.

  The citizens of Avignon were not desirous of suffering a siege for the Pope's sake, and welcomed Boussicot's soldiers into the city. Benedict was besieged in his palace, where he made a stubborn defense. Victuals, however, began to fail, and all the store of fuel was set on fire and burnt. The two Cardinals who adhered to Benedict were captured in an attempt to escape and were put in prison. Everywhere Benedict seemed to be deserted.

  Flanders, Sicily, Castile, and Navarre joined with France in the withdrawal of allegiance. Only Scotland and Aragon still held for Benedict. The King of Aragon, in spite of Benedict's summons to him as gonfaloniere of the Church, hesitated to enter into war with France for the sake of a priest. Still Benedict held out stubbornly, and his brother, Rodrigo de Luna, was energetic in introducing supplies. The procedures attempted to enter the castle

  through a sewer which communicated with the kitchen, but were discovered and were captured one by one as they slowly crawled out of their subterranean passage. This led to an exchange of prisoners, and the blockade was more strictly pressed. But the troubled state of France itself brought Benedict help. Among the numerous intrigues who gathered round the unhappy Charles VI, there were some who hoped to find Benedict useful for their purposes,

  and who secretly exerted their influence with the King to save the Pope from being reduced to extremities. Orders were sent to Marshal Boussicaud that he was not to pursue the siege too vigorously, and the experienced general must have felt ashamed of the pitiful duty assigned to him. Ambassadors from the King of Aragon urged Charles VI to a reconciliation. After much negotiation, it was agreed that Charles should withdraw his troops and guarantee Benedict's

  safety at Avignon, provided Benedict promised that he would abdicate in case Boniface abdicated, died, or was ejected, that he would not hinder any plans for the union of the Church, and would be willing to attend any council held for that purpose, that meanwhile he would not leave Avignon without the King's permission, and would receive guardians of his person appointed by the King. Benedict's resources were at an end, and he was obliged to accept these terms,

  which at all events gave him time. On April 10, 1399, the King nominated as the Pope's guardians the College of Cardinals, but Benedict placed himself under the protection of the Duke of Orléans, who had already discovered how useful a Pope might be for his ambitious schemes. This matter was not decided for the present, but became of importance in the future. Already the French court found that the reaction in favor of Benedict had set in,

  and that their course was full of difficulties. Three of the cardinals who in January 1399 had come to Paris to accuse Benedict of heresy and urge sterner measures against him were hooted by the people in the streets. The clergy also found, as was always the case, that the yoke of the crown was heavier than the yoke of the Pope. They groaned over the impositions of the royal treasury, and began to regard the enthusiasm for the peace of the Church as a convenient means of fiscal

  exaction from ecclesiastical revenues. In this state of public feeling, the court was glad of a truce with Benedict, who remained, for the next four years, a prisoner in his palace at Avignon, eagerly watching the current of events. Boniface IX and Ladislaus 1394-1395. Meanwhile, Boniface IX at Rome had been feeling the pressure of this movement in behalf of unity, but the greater independence of his political position enabled him more safely to resist.

  Boniface was a clear-sighted statesman, and after his return to Rome in 1394, kept steadily in view the importance of strengthening his hold upon the city. The states of the Church were ravaged by the old opponents of the Pope, Biordo de Michelotti, who had seized upon Assisi, Malatesta de Malatesta, who had made himself Lord of Todi, and Honorato of Fundi, who was always on the watch to attack

  the Pope, and who strove to raise among the Romans a party in favor of Benedict XIII. Boniface saw that his only hope of success against these foes lay in close alliance with Ladislaus, who in 1395, after capturing Aversa and Capua, laid siege to Naples. But the siege was broken by some Provençal galleys which routed the Papal fleet, and the final triumph of Ladislaus was delayed for some years longer.

  Yet Boniface did not serve Ladislaus for nothing. He obtained from him the investiture of the Duchy of Soda for his brother Giovanni Tomacelli. Boniface, like all other popes who aimed at temporal sovereignty, felt the need of helpers whom he could trust. He carried on the nepotism of which Urban VI had set the example, but he was more fortunate in his relatives. His brother Andrea, invested by him with the Duchy of Spoleto in the Marquiset of Ancona, was an experienced

  soldier, and on him and Giovanni Boniface mainly relied for counsel and aid. With the rise of a new pope, the relatives of his predecessor were swept away. The end of Francesco Pregnano, the nephew of Urban VI, was tragic enough. Neglected by all on his uncle's death, and fearful for the future, he took refuge with Raimondello Orsini in one of his castles in the Abruzzi. There he grew day by day more melancholy at the thought of his fall, till at last one day after a ball given by

  his host, he returned to his room and attempted suicide with a knife. On his recovery, Raimondello feared to keep any longer so unpleasant a guest, and it was agreed that Francesco should hand over to him all that was left of his once vast possessions, the county of Altamura, in return for 12,000 florins and an annual pension. When this was settled, Francesco set sail with his wife and mother to Venice, but on the way the ship was lost, and all that remained of the lineage of Urban VI

  was swallowed in the waves. Effects of the policy of France on Boniface IX, 1396 to 1398. In all things, Boniface IX pursued with firmness and prudence his policy of establishing his hold over Rome and the dominions of the Church, and it is surprising to see how he succeeded amid the many difficulties by which he was beset. In 1396 was another rising of the Romans against him. Some of the nobles of the city, in league with the Count of Fondi, conspired to put him to death.

  Again, King Ladislaus lent his aid, and the rising was with difficulty put down. Thirteen ringleaders in whose houses were found banners to wave before the rebel army were executed, and the people of Trastevere were deprived of their franchises. Boniface determined to rule the Romans with a strong hand, yet day by day his position became more insecure, as the steps taken by France to bring about a union of the Church grew more decisive.

  The blows leveled at Benedict fell upon Boniface as well. The enforced advocation of one was regarded as the preliminary to the enforced abdication of the other. So soon as Charles VI reduced Benedict to submission, it would be the duty of Vensel to deal with Boniface. Hence Boniface saw with alarm the spread of French influence in Italy. Genoa, worn out with intestine discords, handed over to the King of France its Signori in October 1396. In vain,

  Boniface tried to awaken the national jealousy of the English and enlist their sympathy. He appointed the King's half-brother John Holland, Duke of Huntingdon, leader of a crusade in his behalf. But Richard II adhered to his plan of a close alliance between himself and the French King. Nothing was done by the Earl of Huntingdon, and the internal troubles of the last years of Richard's reign rendered English intervention impossible. Yet Boniface was pestered with embassies and advice

  in the same way as Benedict. To the ambassadors of France and Spain he answered haughtily that he was the true and undoubted Pope and had no intentions of resigning his office. A worthy hermit of the name of Robert, who at the end of 1396 undertook the task of visiting Rome and Avignon in the interests of peace, could get no better answer from Boniface than a declaration that he would not consent to place the justice of his cause in another man's hands. After the conference at Reims

  between Charles VI and Vensel, Peter Dye the Bishop of Cambrai was sent as joint ambassador of King and Emperor to the two Popes. He visited Boniface first and found him at Fondi, where he met with an honorable reception. Boniface refused to answer him till he had consulted his cardinals at Rome. Then he replied that so soon as Benedict had resigned, he was willing to submit to the advice of the kings of England, Germany and Hungary, and would attend a general council

  if they thought fit to summon one. When this answer was brought back to Vensel he said to Dye, you will carry this to the King of France, according as he shall act so will I and the Empire, but he must begin first, and when he has deposed his Pope, we will depose ours. The Roman people meanwhile looked upon these embassies with suspicion. They might not like Boniface, but they were anxious to have a Pope at Rome. The year 1400 was drawing near, and they were

  looking forward to the rich harvest which they were likely to reap from the pilgrims who would flock to the Jubilee. A number of the leading citizens hastened to Boniface after his interview with Dye to assure themselves that he had no intention of leaving Rome. Whatever the Emperor or the King of France may do, I will not submit to their will, was the answer of Boniface. Indeed, the position of Boniface in Rome was gradually growing stronger. In February 1397,

  Honorato of Fundi founded expedient to make peace with the Pope, and several of the Roman nobles also submitted. The affairs of Ladislaus and Naples were at a standstill, owing to the defection of some of his chief adherents, but after many negotiations their differences were referred to the mediation of Boniface who arranged matters in June 1398. From this time, the party of Ladislaus was united, and the hopes of Louis began to fade away. One by one, the chief barons of the Angevin

  faction began to reconcile themselves with Ladislaus, and the power of the Pope over the states of the Church grew in proportion to the success of Ladislaus in Naples. Aided by this and by the pliancy of the Romans, who had set their hopes on the Jubilee, Boniface in 1398 proceeded more vigorously to establish his power over the city of Rome, and appointed a vice-senator responsible only to himself. The Republican party amongst the Romans, headed by three of

  the former magistrates, formed a plot to throw off the papal yoke, and allied themselves to the restless Count of Fundi, who promised to support their rising in the city by an attack on the gate of St. John Lateran. The vigilance of the vice-senator discovered the plot, and the ring leaders were beheaded, but Honoratia Fundi seized Astia and carried on a piratical war against the city, cutting off its supplies and hindering free communication with it. Boniface used the

  opportunity given by this unsuccessful rising to assert his supremacy over Rome, and the year 1398 was remembered as the epic of the loss of the liberties of the city. As other Italian cities let their municipal liberties fall into abeyance and submitted to the power of a despot, so the city of Rome fell under the sway of the pope. Henceforth, the old magistrates disappeared, and Rome was governed by a senator appointed by the pope every six months.

  Moreover, Boniface IX took the same steps as other despots to secure his power. The Vatican palace was strongly fortified. The castle of Sant'Angelo, which had been dismantled in the time of Urban VI, was restored and surmounted by a strong tower. The palace of the senator on the capital was built up and fortified. Many poor priests labored at this work, carrying stones and cement in the vain hope of winning by their manual labor some ecclesiastical

  preferment from the pope. The papal fleet was again revived, and Gaspar Cosa of Ischia was made admiral. Ostia was taken directly under the pope's rule and was repaired for purposes of defense. Boniface IX shows in all his doings the keen practical sense which Urban VI so entirely lacked. Secure in Rome, Boniface at once turned against his enemies. In May 1399, a solemn bull of excommunication was issued against Honorato of Fundi, and the papal troops under Andrea Tomaccelli,

  the pope's brother, marched against him. Agnani fell at once before him, and the success of Ladislaus in Naples made Honorato's position desperate. The barons of the Neapolitan kingdom continued to abandon the side of Louis and join themselves to Ladislaus, till at last the adhesion of the powerful family of the San Severini left Ladislaus conqueror. In July 1399, he sailed to Naples while Louis was absent at Taranto and was quickly admitted by the citizens within the walls.

  Charles of Anjou, the brother of Louis, was besieged in the Castel Nuovo, and when Louis returned, he found Naples in the hands of his rival. Feeling that his chances were lost, he made terms with Ladislaus, surrendering the Castel Nuovo, ransomed his brother, and sailed away to Provence, leaving Ladislaus in undisturbed possession of Naples. Honorato of Fundi now saw that his cause was hopeless and was driven to make terms with the pope, by which he gave up almost the whole of

  his possessions. Unable to bear his humiliation, he died in April 1400, and by his death Boniface became lord of Campania. In October 1399, another of the pope's enemies, Giovanni d'Avico, who had so long ravaged the patrimony of St. Peter was driven to submit. Freed from his most pressing foes, Boniface IX could look forward to celebrate the Jubilee in triumph. End of section 16

• 17 - Bk. I, Ch. 3: Boniface IX, Benedict XIII, Attempts of France to Heal the Schism, 1394-1404, Pt. 3

  play_arrowPlaymenu_bookRead

  Section 17 of the History of the Papacy, Volume 1 by Mandel Creighton. This LibriVox recording is in the public domain, read by Pamela Nagami. Book I, Chapter III. Boniface IX. Benedict XIII.

  Attempts of France to Heal the Schism. 1394-1404, Part III. The end of the fourteenth century witnessed a profound outburst of popular devotion. The miserable condition of the Church, distracted by schism, and the disturbed state of every country in Europe, awoke a spirit of penitence and contrition at the prospect of another great

  jubilee, and the opening of a new century. Bands of penitents wandered from place to place clad in white garments. Their faces except the eyes were covered with hoods, and on their backs they wore a red cross. They walked two and two in solemn procession, old and young, men and women together, singing hymns of penitence, amongst which the sad strains of the Stabat Mater held the chief place. At times they paused and flung themselves on the ground,

  exclaiming mercy or peace, and continued in silent prayer. All was done with order and decorum. The processions generally lasted for nine days, and the penitents during this time fasted rigorously. The movement seems to have originated in Provence, but rapidly spread through Italy. Enemies were reconciled. Restitution was made for wrongs. The churches were crowded wherever the penitents or bianchi, as they were called from their dress, made their appearance. The

  inhabitants of one city made a pilgrimage to another and stirred up their devotion. The people of Modena went to Bologna. The Bolognese suspended all business for nine days and walked to Imola, whence the contagion rapidly spread southwards. For the last three months of 1399 this enthusiasm lasted and wrought marked results upon the morals and religion for a time. Yet enthusiasm tended to create imposter. Crucifixes were made to sweat blood.

  A fanatic declared that he was the prophet Elias and foretold the impending destruction of the world. Crowds of men and women wandering about and spending the night together in the open air gave reason for suspicion of grave disorders. Boniface, like the Duke of Milan and the Venetians, as a cautious statesman in troublous times, doubted the results that might occur from any great gatherings of people for a common purpose. He was afraid, lest his enemies might seize the

  opportunity and hatch some new plot against him. When the bands of the Bianchi reached Rome in the year of the Jubilee, he discountenanced and finally dissolved them. The movement passed away. But it has left its dress as a distinctive badge to the confraternities of Mercy which are familiar to the traveler in the streets of many cities of Italy. In the Jubilee of 1400 crowds of pilgrims flocked to Rome, although it was but ten years since the last Jubilee was celebrated.

  Still, to many pious minds, the original intention of granting these indulgences at intervals of a hundred years gave a solemnity to this Jubilee which had been possessed by none since the first institution in 1300. From France especially, pilgrims are said to have come in crowds. But the results of their crowding into Rome was disastrous. The plague broke out among them and spread rapidly throughout Italy. In Florence alone from 600 to 800 died daily. In Naples, the loss

  was computed at 1600. It is said that in some places two-thirds of the population was destroyed. But though Rome was stricken by the plague, Boniface did not dare to leave it, lest he should lose his hold upon the city which he had won with such difficulty. The resistance was indeed stubborn and needed a strong hand, prompt, to repress. The powerful house of the Colonna of Palestrina saw with resentment the danger which overtook their relative, the Count of Fundi. Their hereditary

  antagonism to the political power of the papacy made them join the side of the anti-pope in the schism and they looked with alarm at the spread of the papal authority in Rome. They allied themselves with the discontented republicans in Rome and on a dark night in January Niccolo and Giovanni Colonna, with a troop of 4,000 horse and 4,000 foot, dashed through the Porta del Popolo and made for the capital, raising the cry, Long live the people, death to the tyrant Boniface.

  The pope and alarm took refuge in the Castel St. Angelo, but the senator, Zaccaria Trevisano, and Venetian, manfully defended the capital and the Roman conspirators shrank back when they found that the mass of the people refused to rise at the Colonna cry. When morning dawned, the Colonna found it wise to retire. Thirty-one were made prisoners in the retreat and were promptly hanged. As the public executioner could not be found, one of the captives was promised his life on condition

  that he would put the others to death. With face streaming with tears, he hanged his comrades, amongst whom were his own father and brother. Boniface IX showed his gratitude to the senator, by the grant of a yearly pension of 500 florins of gold. In May, after the death of the Count of Fondi, he judged himself strong enough to proceed against the Colonna. Their possessions were laid under an interdict, themselves were excommunicated, and a holy war was proclaimed against them.

  The papal forces were reinforced by Ladislaus and several of the Colonna castles were captured, but Palestrina defied the papal arms till in January 1401 the Colonna found it wise to come to terms. Boniface IX had learned from the example of his predecessor Boniface VIII the unwisdom of driving this powerful family to extremities. On receiving their submission, he confirmed them in their possessions. Even Giacobbello Gaetani, the son of Count Onarato of

  Fondi, was allowed to retain some part of his father's lands. Boniface was sufficiently prudent not to raise up implacable enemies by advancing lofty pretensions which he could not maintain. On November 18th in the same year, Viterbo, also worn out by internal discords, acknowledged the papal sway. Thus Boniface, by his persistent skill, established his rule over Rome and reduced to submission the enemies around him. In Germany also his policy met with a triumph. King Wenzel

  had so far agreed with the policy of Charles VI of France that he promised to compel Boniface to abdicate if Charles was successful in his endeavor to force Benedict to this step. But Wenzel's position in Germany did not allow him to do anything decided even if he had the will. His father, Charles IV, had transferred to the eastern provinces the supremacy over Germany and he had cautiously maintained his position by a close union with the Bohemian people.

  Wenzel had to face the natural jealousy of the purely Germanic states at the sclavonic policy of the House of Luxembourg and he had not his father's wisdom in dealing with Bohemia. Profligate and drunken, with all a drunkard's capriciousness and savagery, he set the clergy against him by his open mockery of their weaknesses and made himself many enemies amongst the Bohemian barons. Germany, neglected by the king, was in a state of anarchy

  and the prevailing discontent found expressions in plots against Wenzel. The falscraft Rupert was the natural leader of opposition and found a strong supporter in John, Archbishop of Mainz, a count of the House of Nassau, who, in spite of another election by the Chapter and the opposition of Wenzel, managed in 1396 to obtain his archbishopric by the payment of large sums of money to Boniface IX. The archbishops of Trier and Köln followed John of Mainz and the League of

  the Rhenish electors sought the help of Boniface to support them in the deposition of Wenzel. Boniface was dissatisfied with Wenzel's attitude toward him since his conference with Charles VI at Reims in 1398. Before Wenzel went to Reims, Rupert wrote him a long letter of remonstrance in which he warned him that if he withdrew from obedience to the pope, who had confirmed him as king of the Romans, it was possible that the electors might withdraw their allegiance from

  himself. Still Boniface was too cautious to declare himself openly on the side of the discontented electors. So late as August 26th, 1400, he wrote to Wenzel, assuring him that he was prepared to uphold his cause even to the point of shedding his own blood. Yet two years later he took credit to himself that it was his support and authority that emboldened the electors to proceed to Wenzel's deposition. The attitude of Boniface towards Germany was astute rather than

  straightforward. He was prepared to be on the winning side, whichever that might be. At length in 1400, the plans of the Rhenish electors were ripe. Wenzel was involved in troubles in Bohemia and his brother, Zigezmunt, was equally busy with his kingdom of Hungary. The four Rhenish electors met at Lahnstein on August 11th and decreed the deposition of Wenzel. It was a bare majority of the electoral college that proceeded to carry matters with so high a hand. The electors of

  Saxony and Brandenburg stood aloof. On August 20th, the decree of deposition was read by John of Mainz to the assembled people. It set forth that Wenzel had not striven to end the schism and promote the unity of the church, that he had not established peace and order in Germany, and that he had diminished the rights of the empire in Italy. The first two charges against Wenzel demanded of him tasks which were beyond his power, but on the third head of accusation

  there was a strong case against him. Since the accession of Giovanni Gagliazzo Visconti to the lordship of Milan in 1378, the peace of northern Italy had been disturbed by his struggles for self-aggrandizement. He added to his dominions Verona, Vicenza, Padua, and Siena, and pressed hard upon Florence, which was the bulwark of the remaining liberties of Italian cities. But Giovanni Gagliazzo was not content with possession. He wished also for a semblance

  of legitimacy to his conquests. At first he called himself Count of Vertu, from the small French county which he inherited from his wife Isabella, daughter of John of France. But in 1395 he bought from the needy Wenzel for 100,000 gulden, the title of Duke of Milan, and agreed to hold his lands as fiefs of the empire. In 1397 Wenzel conferred on him the further title of Duke of Lombardy and the right of bearing in his arms the imperial eagle. Wenzel made this new creation

  without consulting the princes of the empire, who were indignant at this addition to their number. He also sold for money a title over cities which had been forcibly seized and so used the imperial mantle as a cloak to deeds of violence and oppression. His recognition of Giovanni Gagliazzo awakened the alarm of the Florentines, who lent their powerful aid to help the electors and bring about Wenzel's fall. Such were the formal grounds for Wenzel's deposition.

  The real grounds were the private grievances of the electors and the fact that the vices, incompetence, and indolence of Wenzel had so weakened his hold upon Germany that it was safe to act against him. On the day following the declaration of Wenzel's deposition, the electors chose the Valsgrave Rupert to be king of the Romans. Rupert possessed all the qualities of a ruler. He was surnamed the mild from his gentleness and was just, devout, upright, and

  learned, so that in all points he was a contrast to the luckless Wenzel. Still he was not recognized at first by any but the states along the Rhine and Boniface IX, afraid of alienating Bohemia, Hungary, and Poland, refused to commit himself to his cause. Wenzel, however, failed to receive even his brother's support, for Zigezmunt was too cautious to help him without securities which Wenzel declined to give. Dissension broke out between the two brothers. Wenzel did not move

  and his adherents fell away. Disturbances arose in Hungary and Zigezmunt was imprisoned by his rebellious subjects. Rupert, on his side, had small resources at his command and despaired of making much way in Germany by force of arms, but judged the opportunity favorable for an expedition into Italy, by which he might overcome the hesitation of the pope, vindicate the rights of the empire over Milan, and return with the prestige of the papal approbation and the dignity

  of the imperial crown. He accordingly negotiated with Boniface for his coronation, which Boniface agreed to perform on condition that Rupert undertook to make no treaty with the king of France, to take no part in measures for ending the schism without the pope's consent, and to do his utmost to reconcile France and other schismatic countries with himself as the one true pope. Boniface IX was resolved to drive a hard bargain and Rupert's troubles would be great

  before he accepted it. The Florentines hailed Rupert's coming as a means of striking a blow against the alarming power of the Duke of Milan and promised money and supplies, but Rupert's Italian expedition was even more inglorious than those of his predecessors. He marched from Trent against Brescia, October 24th, 1401, where his army was attacked by John Galeazzo's condottiere general, Facino Cane. The Duke of Austria was taken prisoner and released in three days without

  ransom, stories of treachery were spread, and the Duke of Austria angrily withdrew. Rupert's army began to diminish and he found that supplies did not flow in as he had hoped from the pope or the Florentines. Without these, he was helpless, and after a few ceremonial receptions at Padua and Venice, he retired ingloriously to Germany in April 1402. No sooner had Rupert departed from Italy than John Galeazzo Visconti prepared for new aggressions. His troops under Albedigo

  da Barbiano marched upon Bologna, inflicted a severe defeat upon the Florentines, and took the city. Florence was reduced to the lowest ebb. She saw herself surrounded by the arms of the Duke of Milan, her supplies threatened, and her trade ruined. But in September 1402, John Galeazzo died suddenly of the plague, and Italy began to breathe anew. John Galeazzo Visconti was a man of great force and determination, who had gone far to establish his power as supreme over North Italy,

  but his conquests were made by force and rested on force only. He was skillful in making acquisitions, but he had neither the talents nor the time to weld them together into a state. His rapid advance spread universal terror, but his power died away with the strong hand that created it. The most lasting impress that he left in Italy are the two mighty monuments of the Cathedral of Milan and the Cirtosa of Pavia. In their luxuriant magnificence and wild splendor, we can still trace

  the restless ambition and undisciplined desires of the passionate spirit of him, who designed them as memorials of his glory. On the death of John Galeazzo, his dominions were divided among his three young sons, who were helpless to protect them. The Florentines and the Pope entered into an alliance. Alberigo da Barbiano left the side of the Visconti and took service under the Florentines. Boniface sent as his legate Cardinal Baldessare Cosa, who knew how to promote his master's

  interests. There were commotions in all the cities under the rule of the Visconti, and when the joint army of the Pope and the Florentines entered the Bolognese territory, in June 1403, it was a signal for universal revolt. The Visconti thought it wise to detach the Pope from the Florentines and entered into a secret treaty with the legate, giving up to the Pope Bologna, Perugia, Assisi, and other towns which had been taken from the states of the Church.

  On August 25th, this treaty was published to the mortification of the Florentines, who found that no mention was made of their interests, and that they were abandoned by their ally. On September 2nd, Cardinal Cosa entered Bologna. In October, Perugia opened its gates to the Pope's brother, Giannelo Tomaccelli. It was in vain that the Florentines sent ambassadors to the Pope to besiege him not to ratify the treaty made by his legate and not to abandon the League disgracefully.

  Boniface alluded their remonstrances by delays and confirmed the treaty. He had reason to be satisfied with the success that attended his efforts to restore the papal sovereignty over the states of the Church. As regards German affairs, the death of John Gagliazzo was of some moment. Rupert returned from his Italian expedition with ruined prestige, and Wenzel's cause rose in proportion. It was now Wenzel's turn to plan an expedition to Rome that he might obtain the glory

  of the Imperial Crown. But troubles arose in Bohemia, and Wenzel was entirely dependent on the help of his brother Zigesmunt, who so managed matters as to get Wenzel entirely into his own hands. He kept him prisoner and intended to use him as a tool. Wenzel's health was broken by debauchery, his life was uncertain, and he had no children. At his death, Zigesmunt would inherit Bohemia and thought it well to begin in good time to arrange its affairs. He therefore proposed to

  take Wenzel to Rome and have him crowned Emperor by the help of the Duke of Milan, who was not sorry to have an opportunity of using his power under the guise of the Emperor's orders. This dangerous threat to Rupert and the Pope was dispelled by John Gagliazzo's death, but it set Boniface IX to discover a means of keeping Zigesmunt employed at home. End of section 17.

• 18 - Bk. I, Ch. 3: Boniface IX, Benedict XIII, Attempts of France to Heal the Schism, 1394-1404, Pt. 4

  play_arrowPlaymenu_bookRead

  Section 18 of the History of the Papacy, Volume 1 by Mandel Creighton. This LibriVox recording is in the public domain, read by Pamela Nagami. Book 1, Chapter 3. Boniface IX. Benedict XIII.

  Attempts of France to Heal the Schism. 1394-1404. Part 4. Ziggas' once position in his Hungarian kingdom had always been a difficult one. He held his title by virtue of his marriage with the Queen Maria,

  and after the murder of Charles of Naples had been crowned king in 1387. But he quarreled with his wife, offended the Hungarian people, and suffered a crushing defeat in an expedition against the Turks at Nicopolis in 1396. On his inglorious return, there were disturbances in Hungary and Ziggasbunt was imprisoned by his rebellious subjects, who turned their eyes to the old house of Durazzo for a leader,

  and called Ladislas to assert his father's claims on Hungary. At that time Ladislas had enough to do in Naples to make his head against Louis of Anjou. Ziggasbunt was freed from prison, and there was a temporary peace. But when Ziggasbunt began to threaten an expedition into Italy for the crowning of his puppet Vensel, it was easy for Boniface to find him work at home, now that the hands of Ladislas were free.

  Early in 1402, when Ziggasbunt first began to talk of his expedition, Ladislas sent five galleys to Dalmatia, and the rebels in Hungary again began to raise their heads. At the end of May, Boniface and a secret consistory declared Ladislas king of Hungary, and on June 1st appointed Cardinal Angelo Accioli, Papal Legate in the Hungarian kingdom. In July, Ladislas landed at Zara, and on August 5th was crowned king of Hungary

  in the presence of the Papal Legate. Ziggasbunt retaliated on the pope with vigor. He forbade both in Bohemia and Hungary the payment of any money to the papal treasury. He prohibited the publication of any bulls, papal letters or ordinances, and threatened imprisonment to anyone who corresponded with the Roman court. Boniface retaliated by a formal decree of deposition against Vensel, in which he asserted that the proceedings of the electors

  had been taken with his sanction, and confirmed the election of Rupert without requiring the conditions which he had previously attempted to exact. He judged it prudent to secure Rupert's allegiance, lest he should make common cause with France and England, and join them in withdrawing from obedience to both popes alike. When Ladislas advanced into Hungary, he received a severe defeat near Rhab, and was driven back into Dalmatia. The fate of his father Charles seemed to him an evil

  omen. He felt that his Hungarian partisans could not be trusted, and he wisely decided that a secure kingdom in Naples was better than the uncertainties of a tedious war waged for a precarious throne in Hungary. Ziggasbunt showed his wisdom by offering amnesty to the rebels. Ladislas saw that his chance was gone, and at the end of October, returned to Naples. The pope's schemes upon Hungary had failed disastrously, as Ziggasbunt held to his edict forbidding papal intervention in his kingdom,

  and thenceforth disposed of ecclesiastical offices at his pleasure. Reaction in France against the withdrawal of obedience from Benedict XIII, 1402 to 1403. As regards the schism, Boniface IX's position was too purely that of an Italian prince for him to make any real head against his rival. In France, it was found that no good results had followed from the withdrawal of allegiance from Benedict. The French clergy groaned under the taxation of the royal officers.

  They discovered that the liberties of their church were more respected by the pope than they were by the king, who on the ground, that his efforts to end the schism involved him in great expense, demanded large grants of clerical revenues. Even the University of Paris saw its privileges set aside, as the bishops, to whom passed the collation of benefices hitherto reserved by the pope, paid little heed to the claims of learned theologians, and conferred preferments on officials

  who were useful to themselves. It was natural that a reaction should set in, and the state of parties at the French court gave it a leader. In the madness of Charles VI, France became the prey of contending factions headed by the king's brother the Duke of Orléans, and the king's uncle, the Duke of Burgundy. Orléans represented the site of aristocratic culture against the feudal chivalry which gathered around Burgundy. It was natural that Orléans should find his strength in

  the south of France, and Burgundy in the north. That Orléans should advocate the restoration of Benedict, and that Burgundy should maintain the existing attitude of affairs. The Duke of Orléans openly threatened in the king's presence to take up arms in behalf of Benedict, who was consequently more closely watched in his captivity at Avignon. The ambassadors of Aragon urged the release of Benedict. The University of Toulouse, moved by jealousy of the University of Paris, addressed to

  the king a long letter controverting the grounds on which the University of Paris had advocated the withdrawal of allegiance. Louis of Anjou, on his return from his unsuccessful attempt on Naples, determined to support the pope on whose sanction his claims on Naples were founded. He visited Benedict at Avignon on August 31, 1402, and restored obedience to him within his county of Provence, on the ground that he had never given his consent to the withdrawal, which had been

  proved to be useless in restoring the unity of the Church, and was founded neither on human nor divine law. Opinion was so divided in France that the king's counselors thought it wise to summon the nobles and prelates of the realm to a council to be held in Paris on May 15, 1403. But before this assembly could meet, Benedict XIII and the Duke of Orléans had settled matters for themselves. The nobles around Avignon all belonged to the party of Orléans, and were ready to help the pope,

  who secretly gathered together a body of 400 men at arms who awaited him outside the city. He himself only awaited a favorable moment to evade the vigilance of the cardinals and the citizens of Avignon. A Norman baron, Robert de Braquemont, who was in the service of the Duke of Orléans, devised means for his escape. On the evening of March 12, 1403, Benedict, in disguise accompanied by three attendants, managed to pass the guards and

  quit the palace. He took nothing with him save a pix containing the host and an autographed letter of the French king, in which he promised to the pope filial obedience. Once free from prison, Benedict found himself in the midst of adherents. He took refuge in a house in Avignon, where a company of French gentlemen awaited him. They kissed his feet and paid him again the honors of which for five years he had been deprived. A band of troops was waiting outside the gates,

  and Benedict was hurried away under their care to the Château Reynard, a few miles from Avignon. There he could feel secure and laid aside the outward sign of his humiliation, his beard, which had grown long as he had made an oath never to shave it while he was a prisoner. He could afford to laugh good-humoredly at those who had shown him the greatest insolence. He asked the barber what county he came from, and on hearing that he was a picar, he merrily exclaimed,

  then I have proved the Normans liars, for they declared that they would shave my beard for me. At Château Reynard, Benedict could rely on the protection of Louis-Yvain Joux, and he knew what he had to expect from the Duke of Orléans. In Avignon, all was terror when the pope's flight was discovered. The burghers at once saw their powerlessness and offered no opposition to the departure of the pope's attendants and of the

  cardinals who had remained faithful to him. The cardinals who had been opposed to him sought all means to be restored to his favor. The nobles who had been against him vied in declarations of the necessity of restoring obedience. Benedict addressed the letter to the king, his counselors, and the university, setting forth that he had been willing for some years to endure privations for the good of the Church, but finding that they had been useless, he had left Avignon and gone to

  Château Reynard, that he might labor more usefully to restore the union of the Church. To the repentant cardinals, he showed himself merciful. On April 29, they presented themselves before him, and on their knees with sobs begged his forgiveness and swore to be faithful for the future. Benedict was not revengeful. His determined temper was united with buoyancy and a keen sense of humor. He assured them of his forgiveness

  and invited them to dinner. When they were seated, they saw with terror that the other places were occupied by men in arms. Trembling, they expected punishment, but were grimly assured that these were the pope's bodyguard, who never left his side even when he said mass. It was a significant hint that Benedict henceforth was determined to protect himself, even against those who ought naturally to be his supporters.

  Nor were the cardinals the only ones who were alarmed at the pope's military bearing. The citizens of Avignon, in terror, besought his pardon, which was accorded on condition that they repaired the walls of the papal palace which had been overthrown during the siege. Long time they labored at this ungrateful task, but Benedict refused again to take up his abode at Avignon. He garrisoned it with the Ragony soldiers and provisioned it to withstand a lengthy siege.

  The men of Avignon were left to the tender mercies of the pope's mercenaries. On May 25th, 1403, two of the repentant cardinals appeared before Charles VI to plead for a restoration of obedience to Benedict. The universities of Orléans, Angers, Montpellier, and Toulouse all supported them. There were great differences of opinion, and the discussions might have gone on interminably if the Duke of Orléans

  had not hastened to bring the matter to a conclusion. He ordered the metropolitan's to inquire secretly the opinions of the suffragans. When he found that a majority was in favor of renewing obedience, he presented himself on May 28th before the king, whom he found in his oratory, and laid before him the results of his canvas. It was one of the lucid intervals of the unhappy Charles. Moved by the representations of Orléans and by his own respect for the pope's character

  and learning, he gave his adhesion to the plan of renewing obedience. The duke took the crucifix from the altar and prayed the king to confirm his words by an oath. Laying his trembling hands upon the crucifix, the king declared, I restore full obedience to our lord, pope Benedict, declaring by the holy cross of Christ that I will maintain so long as I live, in violet obedience to him as the true vicar of Jesus Christ on earth, and I will cause obedience to him to be restored

  in all parts of my kingdom. Then kneeling at the altar with clasped hands, the king chanted the taedeum, in which those present joined with tears of joy. The churches in Paris re-echoed the taedeum, and their bells rang joyous peals for the restoration of their pope. The dukes of Beret and Burgundy were at first indignant, as was the University of Paris. After a time, they gave way and professed to hope that the lesson which Benedict had received might make him more eager

  to bring about the union of the church than he had been before. On May 29th, a solemn service of thanksgiving was held in Notre Dame, at which the bishop of Cambrai preached and read an undertaking made by the duke of Orléans in behalf of Benedict, that he would forgive all that had passed and would recognize all ecclesiastical appointments made during the withdrawal of obedience, that he was still ready to resign if his rival should resign or die, that he would summon

  a general council to discuss measures for the reform of the church. No promises could be fairer. The reforming party rejoiced to think that they would get more, after all, from the pope than they could hope to gain by rebellion against him. But all hopes founded on Benedict's moderation were soon dashed to the ground. He received most graciously the two royal ambassadors who were sent to announce to him the restoration of obedience, but immediately after giving them

  audience, he sent a commission of cardinals to call to account one of them, the abbot of Saint-Denis, who had been appointed during the period of withdrawal of obedience. His election was declared null, an inquiry was made into his life and character, and he was then formally reappointed to his office. Benedict fell back upon the full rights of the papacy. He was willing to overlook the rebellion against his authority, but he could not recognize as valid what had been done during

  his imprisonment. The rights of the papacy stood an antagonism to the honor of the French monarchy. The French king had taken an untenable position from which he was driven to withdraw. Benedict did not wish to put any needless difficulties in the way, nor to make any demand for humiliating submission. But he could not be expected to admit the principle that a king might withdraw at pleasure from obedience to the head of the church, might arrange at his will matters ecclesiastical

  in his own dominions, and might then demand the ratification of his measures as a reward for the restitution of obedience. On the other hand, the proceedings of the French king had been taken in a period of emergency to remedy oppressing evil. It was sufficiently humiliating that they had failed in their end. It was too much to expect that they should also be admitted to have been illegal in their means. Benedict saw the difficulty and acted wisely. He asserted his own rights quietly in

  individual cases, without putting forward any principles which might offend the feeling of the French nation. Yet his attitude made any good understanding between himself and the court impossible. It was to no purpose that in October the duke of Orléans paid a visit to Benedict, who owed him so much, and tried to bend his stubbornness. Benedict was grateful and polite, but would not confirm the promises which the duke had made in his name. The king met the difficulty

  by an edict, December 19th, which declared that all ecclesiastical appointments made during the withdrawal of obedience were valid, and that no payments should be made to the pope of any monies, which he might claim as due to him during that period. Benedict on his part gave way a little, and the duke of Orléans was able to take back to Paris a few delusive bulls which announced forgiveness of all wrongs during the withdrawal of obedience, announced also a general council,

  and promised that through paternal care for the honor of France, no mention of the withdrawal should there be made. Another bull declared Benedict's intention to labor in all ways to bring about the union of the church. Benedict found it necessary to make some show of taking steps toward restoring unity. He secretly negotiated with Boniface that he should receive his envoys, and in June 1404 obtained a safe conduct for them through the mediation of the

  Florentines. The bishops of Saint-Pont and Ilerda appeared on September 22nd before Boniface IX and his cardinals. They brought from Benedict proposals for a conference between the two popes in some neutral place to be agreed upon between them, and suggested the appointment of a committee to be chosen equally from both sides who should report upon the questions in dispute. It was the old proposal of Benedict to the French king, and was clearly useless and delusive. Boniface was suffering

  agonies from the disease of which he died, the stone. He sternly answered the proposals of the ambassadors in the negative. I am pope, he proudly said, and Peter the Luna is anti-pope. At least answered the envoys, our master is not Simon Naical. Boniface angrily bade them leave the city at once. It was his last effort. He returned to his bed and died in the tortures of his terrible disease on October 1st, 1404. Boniface IX was a skillful ruler who knew how

  to use for his own interest the fluctuations of Italian politics. Among the Italian princes of his time, he would deservedly hold a high position for wisdom in gathering his states together, and skill in repressing their disorders. He made good his hold upon Rome, destroyed its old municipal liberties, and established himself in a security which his predecessors had never gained. Rome found in him a stern and powerful ruler, and the unruly city quailed before a master.

  He brought together again the states of the church, and established the papacy as a territorial power in Italy. Tall, stalwart, and handsome, with kindly and courteous manner, he was well fitted to be a ruler of men. Yet he was destitute of any elevation of mind, either on the side of religion or of culture. His ends were purely temporal, and he had no care for the higher interests of the church. The schism seems to have affected him in no way save as a diminution of his revenues.

  To gain the sovereignty which he aimed at, he saw that money was above all things necessary, and no sense of reverence prevented him from gaining money in every possible way. His shameless simony filled with horror contemporaries who were by no means scrupulous, and his greed was strong even in death. When asked in his last hours how he was, he answered, If I had more money, I should be well enough. Even amid the intolerable agonies of the stone, says Goblin, he did not

  cease to thirst after gold. At all periods of his life his spirits rose on receiving money, for he was eminently a man of business and took a practical view of his position and its immediate needs. Even when mass was being celebrated in his presence, he could not disengage his mind from worldly affairs, but would beckon cardinals to him or send for his secretaries to give them instructions which flashed through his mind. He was entirely engrossed in secular matters,

  and managed the church as though it were merely a temporal lordship. Yet his worst enemies could bring no worse charge against him. He was free from private vices, and was respected as much as he was feared. In another age, the statesmanlike qualities of Piero Tomaccelli would have deserved admiration. As it was, his rapacity and extortion warned the growing party in favor of reform of the dangers to which the ecclesiastical system was exposed

  from the absolute monarchy of the pope. End of section 18.

• 19 - Bk. I, Ch. 4: Innocent VII, Benedict XIII, Troubles in Italy and France, 1404-1406

  play_arrowPlaymenu_bookRead

  Section 19 of A History of the Papacy, Volume 1 by Mandel Creighton. This LibriVox recording is in the public domain, read by Pamela Nagami. Book 1, Chapter 4. Innocent VII. Benedict XIII. Troubles in Italy and France, 1404 to 1406.

  The career of Boniface IX was that of an aspiring Italian prince, and the fortunes of his dominions corresponded to the means by which they had been won. No sooner was the news of his death spread through the city, than the people rose to assert their old liberties, October 1, 1404. The streets were barricaded, the nobles hurried their retainers from the country,

  and the old cries of Gvelth and Ghibelline, Colonna, Orasini, were again heard in the city. The capital was held by the two brothers of Boniface and by the senator. The people, led by the Colonna, hastened to attack it. But the Orasini gathered their partisans and, advancing by night to its relief, defeated the Colonna in a fight in the streets.

  The defeated party turned for help to Ladislaus of Naples, who had already shown a desire to mix in the affairs of Rome. It was in this wild confusion and with the knowledge of the rapid advance of Ladislaus, that the nine cardinals present in Rome entered the conclave on October 12. The ambassadors of Benedict, who had been imprisoned during the tumult by the Castellan of St. Angelo,

  and only obtained their liberty after payment of a ransom of 5,000 ducats, besought them to defer the election. They were asked if they were commissioned to offer Benedict's resignation. When they answered that they had no power to proceed so far, the cardinals went on to their election.

  The public opinion of Europe so far weighed with them, that they followed the example of the cardinals at Avignon, before the election of Peter de Luna. They signed a solemn undertaking that each of them would use all diligence to bring about the unity of the church, and that he who might be chosen pope would resign his office at any time if need were, to promote that object. It is said that they had some difficulty in coming to an agreement,

  but the approach of Ladislaus did not permit them to delay. On October 17, they elected Cosimo de Migliorati, a Neapolitan, who they hoped would be alike well-pleasing to Ladislaus and to the Romans, and whose pacific character held out hopes of a settlement of the discords of the church. Migliorati was sprung from a middle-class family of Sulmona in the Abruzzi. He was learned both in canon and in civil law,

  and entered the Curia under Urban VI, where his capacity for business won him speedy advancement. He was for some time papal collector in England, then was made Archbishop of Ravenna in the room of Pelio, and afterwards Bishop of Bologna. Boniface IX recognized his merits by appointing him Cardinal, and confided to his care the chief part of the business of the Curia. He was popular in Rome through his conciliatory manner and gentle nature.

  He was, moreover, universally respected for his learning and his blameless life. He was, however, old, and the Romans felt that in him they had not got another master like Boniface. Cardinal Migliorati took the papal title of Innocent VII, but it was some time before he could openly assume the papal crown. He possessed nothing except the Vatican and the castle of St. Angelo,

  which a brother, a Boniface, still held securely. In the city itself only the capital resisted the people, who declared that they would only let the pope be free when he had given them back their freedom. In this state of things, Ladislaus arrived at Rome and was received in triumph by the people. He entered by the gate of San Giovanni in Ladurano,

  on October 19th, and spent the night in the Lateran Palace. Once on the morning of the 21st, he went in state to the Vatican to offer his services as mediator to the luckless pope. Ladislaus had a deep-laid scheme to make himself master of Rome. As soon as he was secure in Naples, his restless and ambitious spirit looked out for a new sphere,

  and he determined to increase his dominions at the expense of the states of the Church. Boniface in his later days had looked upon him with growing suspicion, and so long as Boniface lived he did not venture to move. But he hastened to take advantage of the disturbance which broke out on the death of Boniface, and there is good ground for thinking that he fomented it.

  His plan was to set the pope and the Roman people against one another, and by helping now one and now the other, to get them both into his power. By this policy he hoped that Rome itself would soon fall into his hands. He trusted that the rebellious Romans would drive the pope from the city and would then be compelled to submit to himself. Against such a foe,

  Innocent VII was powerless. He had no option save to allow Ladislaus to settle matters between himself and the Romans. An agreement was accordingly made on October 27th, which was cleverly constructed to restore to the Romans much of their old freedom, to secure to Ladislaus a decisive position in the affairs of Rome,

  and to reserve to the pope a decent semblance of power. The senator was still to be appointed by the pope. The people were to elect seven governors of the city treasury, who were to hold office for two months, and were to take oath of office before the senator, to the seven, three were to be added by the appointment of the pope or of king Ladislaus,

  and the ten together were to manage the finances of the city. All magistrates were to be responsible at the end of their office to two syndics, one appointed by the pope and one elected by the people. The capital was to be surrendered to king Ladislaus and was to be turned into a public palace or law courts. Ladislaus might, if he chose, assign it as the official residence of the ten governors.

  It is obvious that by this agreement all that the strong hand of Boniface IX had won was lost to his successor, and that opportunities were carefully left for differences between the contracting parties, which Ladislaus must necessarily be called in to settle. Ladislaus had given perfidious aid to the pope, but had the audacity to claim a reward for it. Innocent gave him for five years the maratima and campania, by which he commanded free approach to Rome.

  Moreover, Ladislaus obtained from the pope a decree declaring that in any steps he might take toward restoring the unity of the church, the title of Ladislaus to Naples should be secured as a preliminary. This promise was sure to render all his measures useless, as France could not be expected expressly to abandon the claims of the House of Anjou. The unscrupulous Ladislaus was bent on turning the indolent innocent into a pliant tool.

  He still remained for a few days the pope's guest, so long as it suited him to continue his intrigues with Rome. Finally, he determined before his departure to impress the people by his splendor. Leaving the Vatican on November 14th, he crossed the Ponte Mole and entered Rome by the Porta del Popolo. He rode in triumph through the street of Torri del Conte to the Lateran, and on his way asserted his rights in Rome by dubbing knight

  one Gagliotto Normanni, who afterwards assumed the significant title of the Knight of Liberty. After spending the evening of November 4th at the Lateran, he departed next day for Naples. Not till he was gone did Innocent VII venture to be crowned on November 11th, and after his coronation rode amid the cheers of the people to take possession of the Lateran. It was not long, however, before matters turned out as Ladislaus had designed.

  The Romans had gained enough liberty to make them wish for more, and the easy good nature of the pope emboldened them to set him at defiance. The new constitution was rested to their own purposes, and the seven governors elected by the Romans seemed to have acted independently of the three appointed by the pope. Giovanni Colonna kept a body of troops in the neighborhood of Rome, ready to support the Romans.

  The pope with difficulty maintained himself in the Leonine city by the help of his troops under the condottieri general Mostarda. The state of things in Rome is described by Leonardo Bruni of Arezzo, who came at this time as papal secretary. The Roman people were making an extravagant use of the freedom which they had lately gained. Amongst the nobles, the Colonna and Savelli were the most powerful.

  The Orsini had sunk and were suspected by the people as partisans of the pope. The Curia was brilliant and wealthy. There were many cardinals, and they men of worth. The pope lived in the Vatican desirous of ease and content with the existing state of things, had he only been allowed to enjoy it.

  But such was the perversity of the leaders of the Roman people that there was no chance of quiet. The Romans pestered the pope with requests, and the more he granted, the more readily were new petitions preferred. They even begged for the office of cardinal for their relatives. One day the pope's patience was worn out.

  I have given you all you wished, he exclaimed. What more can I give you except this mantle? Matters went on becoming more and more difficult. In March, 1405, the Romans, led by Giovanni Colonna, made an expedition against Molara, a castle of the Annibaldi, a few miles distant from Rome.

  The siege caused much damage, and in the end of April the pope sent the prior of Santa Maria on the Aventine to make peace between the contending parties. His efforts were successful, and the Roman soldiers returned with him to the city. No sooner had he entered Rome than he was seized and executed as a traitor by the seven governors April 25th.

  But this was felt even by the Romans to be excessive, and innocent threatened to leave the city. On May 10th, the governors appeared before innocent in the guise of penitence, with candles in their hands to ask his forgiveness. After this submission there seemed for a time to be peace. On June 12th, innocent created 11 new cardinals, of whom five were Romans and one was Odo Colonna.

  He wished to do everything that he could to convince the Romans of his good intentions, and induce them to let him live in peace. Peace, however, was not what Lattice lost desired, and his adherents were active in Rome. It was notorious that he had in pay a number of the chief citizens, whose actions he guided at his pleasure.

  It was easy, therefore, to incite the Romans to another act of aggression. By the agreement made between pope and people, the care of the bridges of Rome was to belong to the citizens except the Ponte Mole, which commanded the approach to the Vatican on one side, while the costal of Sant'Angelo defended it from the other. The Romans professed to consider the possession of the Ponte Mole

  as necessary for the protection of the Latin hills. The pope refused to give it up to them, and it was guarded by papal soldiers. On the night of August 2nd, a body of Romans attempted to take it by surprise, but were driven back with considerable loss. It was a festival morning when they returned and the people had nothing to do.

  The bells of the capital rung out a summons to arms, and the excited crowd rushed to besiege the costal Sant'Angelo, which was vigorously defended by its garrison, who cast up earthworks. The night was spent by both sides under arms, but the morning brought reflections and negotiations were begun. Both parties at last agreed that the Ponte Mole should be broken down in the middle

  and so rendered useless. On August 6th, a deputation of the Romans waited on the pope, and treated him to a long speech in which they expressed their general views about his conduct. As they were riding back, unsuspecting, they were seized by the pope's nephew, Ludovico Migliorati, and were dragged into the hospital of San Spirito, where he had his quarters.

  Eleven of them were put to death, of whom two were magistrates, and eight were friends of the pope. Their dead bodies were flung out of the windows. This sanguinary deed awoke the passionate resentment of the people. The relatives of the murdered men thronged the Ponte de Sant'Angelo, clamoring for vengeance. In the city itself, the wildest excitement prevailed, and the whole populace was assembled in arms.

  Meanwhile, the luckless innocent sat tearfully in the Vatican, calling heaven to witness his innocence and bewailing his sad fortune. He was incapable of forming any plan of action, and those around him differed in opinion. Some urged immediate flight, and some advocated delay. But the troops of Naples might be expected to advance to the aid of the Romans.

  The fidelity of Antonio Tomaccelli, who held the costal Sant'Angelo, was doubtful, and it was believed that he was in the pay of Lattislaus. The walls of the Leonine city had fallen in many places, and were ill-fitted to stand a siege. Above all, supplies of food were wanting. It was hopeless to think of resistance. Flight alone was possible.

  Short time was given to the terrified cardinals to gather together their valuables, as on the evening of the same day the retreat began. First went a squadron of horse, then the baggage, next the pope and his attendants, and another squadron of horse brought up the rear to ward off attacks. They made all possible haste to escape, for the Romans were in pursuit.

  That night they reached Cesano, a distance of twelve miles. Next day they pressed on to Sutri, through the blazing heat of an Italian August. The third day they reached Viterbo. Thirty of Innocent's attendants died on the way through heat and thirst, or died soon afterwards through immoderate draughts of water.

  Innocent himself was more dead than alive. No sooner had the pope left Rome than Giovanni Colonna, at the head of his troops, burst into the Vatican, where he took up his quarters. The people laughed at his heirs of importance and called him John XXIII. The Vatican was sacked. Even the papal archives were pillaged,

  and bulls, letters, and registers were scattered about the streets. Many of these were afterwards restored, but the loss of historic documents must have been great. Everywhere in the city the arms of Innocent were destroyed or filled up with mud. The Romans loudly declared that they would no longer recognize him as pope,

  but would take measures for restoring the unity of the Church. The talk of the Romans was vain, and they were soon to find that Innocent was necessary to them. Ladislaus judged that his time had now come. The waters were sufficiently troubled, for one too fish who knew the art. He had a strong party among the Roman nobles and sent on August 20th, 1405,

  the Count of Troia with 5,000 horse, and two men already appointed to be governors of Rome in his name. This reinforcement was welcomed by Giovanni Colonna, but the Roman people had not striven to recover their liberties from the pope, that they might put them in the hands of the King of Naples. They besieged their treacherous magistrates in the capital and barred the Ponte de Sant'Angelo against the Neapolitans, in spite of the fire opened upon them from the castle.

  The Neapolitans could not force the barricades and obtain admission into the city. The capital surrendered on August 23rd to the citizens, who set up three new magistrates called the Buonomeni. In their new peril, the minds of the Romans went back to the pope, whom they had driven away. The members of the Curia, who had been imprisoned in the Tumult, were released, and much of the goods of ecclesiastics which had been sacked were

  restored by the magistrates. When men's minds grew calmer, they recognized that Innocent was blameless of his nephew's crime, and when submission to the rule of Vladislavs drew near, the Romans looked back with regret on the good-natured indolent pope. Envoys were at once dispatched to Viterbo to beg for aid, and on August 26th, the papal troops under Paolo Orsini and Mustarda advanced. The Neapolitans thought it wise to withdraw. They had missed their

  opportunity of seizing Rome, and it was not worthwhile to stay longer. Giovanni Colonna abandoned the Vatican and retreated. Only the Castel Sant'Angelo still held out for Vladislavs. On October 30th, Innocent appointed as Senator of Rome, Francesco de Panciatici of Pistoa. The attempt of Vladislavs only ended in re-establishing in Rome the papal power, which he had managed insidiously to sap. In June 1406, a deputation of the Romans begged Innocent

  VII to return to his capital, and on March 13th, 1405, he entered Rome amid shouts of triumph and festivities of rejoicing, which rarely greeted a papal return. His nephew, Ludo Vico, accompanied him, having undergone no severer punishment than a penance inflicted by the pope. The passions of the Romans were quick, but were easily appeased. A horrible crime had driven them to rebellion, but when their rebellion threatened to bring with it unpleasant consequences,

  they laid aside their thoughts of vengeance and condoned the offense. We cannot blame them, for they had to choose between two evils. But Innocent's sense of justice and of right must have been very dim, before he could ride through the streets of Rome by the side of the man who had wrought a treacherous deed of slaughter. How little Innocent counted the crimes of his nephew may be seen by the fact that he made him lord of Ancona and Forlì. The career of Innocent had been

  so eventful that he might safely plead inability to grapple with the great question of the schism. Each pope wished to seem to be doing something and to do nothing, to have a case sufficient to enable him to abuse his adversary if not to defend himself. Innocent VII began by summoning a synod to assemble at Rome on November 1, 1405. The disturbed state of the city gave him an excuse for deferring it to May 1, 1406. Benedict XIII on his side continued his plan of professing to

  negotiate for a meeting between the two popes and sent to ask for a safe conduct for his envoys. Innocent thought that the last envoys of Benedict had been troublesome enough, for compensation was demanded from him for the ransom they had to pay during the disturbances that preceded his election. He accordingly refused to save conduct to Viterbo. Benedict was now in a position to write letters declaiming against the obstinacy of Innocent, while Innocent answered by

  still longer letters denouncing the conduct of Benedict. No advance was made to a settlement, but public opinion turned more and more against both popes alike, and the petulant squabbling of two obstinate old men on small technical points awoke general disgust. Benedict XIII felt that his hold on France was insecure, and he was accordingly careful to have the Palace of Avignon enlarged and fortified. For this purpose he even had the Church of Notre Dame pulled down, though it was the

  burying place of his predecessors. To avoid bringing matters to a crisis, he announced his intention of proceeding toward Italy and endeavoring himself to come to some agreement with Innocent VII. In 1404 he removed from Pont de Saur to Nice. There he was enabled to win a triumph over his rival, as Genoa, under the influence of its French governor, Marshal Boussicot, deserted the obedience of Innocent and recognized Benedict. Pisa soon afterwards, under French influence, followed its

  example. The Genoese Cardinal de Flesco, who was papal-legged, joined his fellow citizens and transferred himself to the side of Benedict, by whom his dignity was recognized. Early in 1405, Benedict announced his intention of going to Genoa and imposed a tax of a tenth on the French clergy to provide money for his journey. The nobles supported the pope and the unhappy clergy were compelled to pay for what every one of them knew to be a mere pretext. On May 16th, 1405, Benedict

  landed at Genoa and was received with duppomp by the authorities, but without any enthusiasm from the people, who still believed in the title of the Roman pope. The Genoese were moreover suspicious and made Benedict understand that they could not admit his large armed escort into the city. They courteously assigned as the reason their national habit of jealousy, saying that the Genoese husbands could not endure the thought of possible rivalry in the affections of their wives.

  Benedict did not stay long in Genoa. On October 8th, he was driven to leave by an outbreak of the plague and took up his residence at Savona on the Riviera. Things did not prosper with him in France. Everyone was dissatisfied with his promises and the king of Castile sent an embassy to urge again that both popes should be compelled to resign. Benedict only embittered his adversaries by trying to set the duke of Paris against the university of Paris, which he denounced as a nest of tumult,

  which sent forth a headstrong brood. In France generally, all was in confusion. The king's madness increased and he sank almost to the condition of a wild beast, devouring food with insatiable rapidity and refusing to change his clothes or allow himself to be kept clean. The antagonism between the dukes of Burgundy and Orléans was daily becoming more intense and it was with difficulty that peace was kept between them. But in spite of political

  disturbances, the university of Paris returned to the charge against Benedict XIII in January 1406. The stream of public opinion again ran strongly against him and on May 17th, the university succeeded in obtaining from the royal council an audience in which they once more urged the withdrawal of the obedience of France. The council had too much on hand, in consequence of the disturbed state of the kingdom, to venture on the troubled sea of ecclesiastical discussion

  and they referred the university to the parliament. The pleadings began on June 7th and Pierre Plaon and Jean Petit refuted the arguments which had been put forward by the university of Toulouse against withdrawal from Benedict. They pointed out that he had not kept his promises and they denounced his exactions. The king's advocate, Jean Juvenal des Ursains, followed on the same side and complained against Benedict's conduct as injurious to the honor of France. Benedict's

  friends tried to get the matter deferred but the university pressed for a decision. At the end of July, the letter of the university of Toulouse was condemned as scandalous and pernicious, defaming the honor of the king and his subjects and was ordered to be burned at the gates of Toulouse. On September 11th, a further decision was given that the Gallican church should be free, thenceforth and forever, from all services, tithes, procurations and other subventions

  unduly introduced by the Roman church. This was a withdrawal from Benedict XIII of the important power of raising ecclesiastical revenues and contained also an assertion of the right of the national church to manage its own affairs under royal protection. The university had so far changed its tactics that it rested its complaint against Benedict XIII no longer solely on technical grounds but on grounds of national utility. Still it had no other remedy to suggest than the old plan,

  which had already been tried and failed, that of trying to force Benedict to resign by withdrawing from his obedience. It pressed for a decision on this point also but Benedict's friends sought to gain time and this question was deferred to a synod of prelates summoned for November 1st. Before this synod however met for the dispatch of business, November 18th, the news of the death of Innocent VII somewhat altered the aspect of affairs. Innocent did not live long after his

  return to Rome to enjoy his triumph. At first the Colonna and other barons of the party of Ladislaus held out against him and Antonio Tomaccelli maintained his position in the Castel Sant'Angelo. On June 18th, Innocent issued bowls against the Colonna, the Count of Shroia, and other barons of the Neapolitan faction and on June 20th, 1406, he deprived Ladislaus of his vicariate of Campania and the Maritima. Ladislaus was not in a position to have the pope for his

  declared enemy. His hold on Naples was not so secure that the Angevin faction might not again become troublesome if they were emboldened by the pope's help. He thought it wise to make peace and the pope's nephew Ludovico was sent to settle terms. On August 6th, peace was agreed to. The past was to be forgiven. The Castel Sant'Angelo was to be given up to the pope. Ladislaus was confirmed in all his rights and was moreover made protector and standard bearer of the

  church. Innocent was certainly trustful and forgiving. He did not profess to seek anything beyond the means of leading a quiet life in Rome and was prepared to take any steps which might secure that end. But he was not long to enjoy the tranquility which he sought. He had already had two slight attacks of apoplexy and a third proved fatal to him on November 6th. Innocent VII possessed the negative virtues which accompany an indolent disposition. The writers of the time speak more

  highly of him than he deserved because his good-natured carelessness contrasted favorably with the rapacious ambition of his predecessor. Personally he was courteous, affable, and gentle. He liked giving audiences, listening to grievances, and granting little favors, and he had not the strength of character to offend anyone if he could avoid it. He was averse from the simoneical practices of Boniface and is praised by the ecclesiastical writers for the doubtful virtue

  of abstinence from their grosser forms. But the indolent old man fell under the influence of his nephew and allowed violations of civil and moral law to pass unpunished. Moreover, he exercised no control over the Romans or even over his own soldiers who in irreverence surpassed their opponents. On St. Paul's Day, June 30th, says an eyewitness, I went to St. Paul's church and found it a stable for the horses of the pope's soldiers. No place was empty save the chapel of the high

  altar and the tribune. The palace and the entire space around the church were full of the horses of Paolo Orsini and other commanders of Holy Mother Church. As regards healing the schism, Innocent did nothing. Like his rival Benedict, he gained a reputation as a cardinal by expressing strong opinions on the subject. But after he became pope, his indolence made him averse from any decided steps, and the only thing which disturbed his equanimity and made him peevish

  was a mention of the schism in his presence. In quiet times, Innocent VII might have made a respectable pope. As it was, he was feeble and incompetent. End of section 17.

• 20 - Bk. I, Ch. 5: Gregory XII, Benedict XIII, Negotiations between the Rival Popes, 1406-1409, Pt. 1

  play_arrowPlaymenu_bookRead

  Section 20 of A History of the Papacy, Volume 1 by Mandel Creighton. This LibriVox recording is in the public domain, read by Pamela Nagami. Book 1, Chapter 5, Gregory XII, Benedict XIII, Negotiations Between the Rival Popes, 1406-1409, Part 1. The death of Innocent VII, again kindled in France, the lucid hopes of a peaceable ending of the schism. In a short tractate, Garçon set forth four possible courses.

  The recognition of Benedict XIII by the Roman Cardinals, a general council of the adherents of both parties to decide on the steps to be taken, recognition by Benedict's obedience of the rights of the Roman Cardinals, or a union of both colleges for a new election. On their side, the Roman Cardinals hesitated what course to pursue.

  If France succeeded in forcing Benedict to resign, a new election by the united colleges was the surest means of settling a dispute between two powers, which recognized no superior. But the procedure would be long, and meanwhile, what was to become of Rome, the Papal Dominions, and the Cardinals themselves? They shrank before the dangers of a doubtful future,

  and tried to discover a middle course by which they would at least be secure. The fourteen Cardinals who were in Rome entered the conclave on November 18th, 1406. After the doors were closed, there arrived an envoy from Florence, and a window was broken in the wall to allow him to address the Cardinals, who announced that they were not going to elect a pope,

  but a commissioner to restore the unity of the Church. They acted in the same spirit and resolved on November 23rd, after some discussions, to elect a pope who was solemnly bound to make the restoration of unity his chief duty. They set their hands to a document and took oaths upon the Gospels that he who was elected should resign his office whenever the anti-pope did so or died,

  that this promise should be announced to all the princes and prelates of Christendom within a month of the pope's enthronement, and that ambassadors should be sent within three months of that date to try and arrange for ending the schism. Meanwhile, no new Cardinals were to be created until after an interval of fifteen months, in case negotiations failed through the obstinacy of the anti-pope.

  The Cardinals showed their sincerity by the election which they made. They chose a man renowned for uprightness and sincerity, rather than for intelligence and cleverness, Angelo Coder, Cardinal of St. Mark of Anishin, whose character and age seemed to guarantee him as free from the promptings of ambition and self-seeking. He was nearly eighty years old, a man of old-fashioned severity and piety.

  The very appearance of Cardinal Coder seemed to carry conviction. He was tall, but so thin and worn that he seemed to be but skin and bones. The only objection to him was that he was scarcely likely to live long enough to accomplish his object. Coder had not been remarkable in his early years, but had acted as legate under Boniface IX and had been made Cardinal by Innocent VII, of whom he was a special favorite. His first steps were in

  accordance with his previous character. He took the name of Gregory XII and was enthroned on December 5th, when he preached a sermon from the text, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, and exhorted everyone to labor for unity. Before his coronation he publicly repeated the oath which he had taken in common with the other Cardinals. His talk was of nothing but unity. He eagerly declared that no small hindrances should stand in his way. If there was not a galley to take him to

  the place of conference with his rival, he would go in a fishing boat. If horses failed him, he would take his staff in his hand and go on foot. In the same spirit, on December 11th, he sent letters written by Leonardo Bruni to Benedict and to all the princes of Christendom. To Benedict, he wrote in a tone of kindly remonstrance. Let us both arise, he said, and come together into one desire for unity. Let us bring health to the Church that has been so long diseased.

  He declared himself ready to resign of Benedict Wood and proposed to send ambassadors to settle the place and manner in which the Cardinals on both sides should meet for a new election. These steps of the Roman Cardinals and their Pope produced a deep impression in Paris, where the French prelates were sitting to decide on the demand of the University that France should withdraw from the obedience of Benedict. The Synod set to work on November 18th,

  1406, but so bitter was the University against Benedict that Peter Dye and others were with difficulty allowed to plead in his behalf. The violence of the University damaged its cause. Some did not scruple to lay to Benedict's charge foul accusations for which there was not a shadow of proof. Peter Dye spoke with weight against such rash and violent procedure and advocated the summons of a council of Benedict's obedience. There was much heat in discussion and much

  difference of opinion. Benedict's friends wished to approach him by way of filial remonstrance. His opponents declared that many efforts had been made in vain to vanquish his obstinacy and that nothing remained but to withdraw from his obedience. It was not indeed easy to discover a way of getting rid of Benedict without diminishing the rights of the Church. Gradually a compromise was made and it was agreed to leave Benedict's

  spiritual power untouched but to deprive him of his revenues. A decree was prepared for withdrawing from the Pope the collation of all benefices in France until a general council should decide otherwise. It was signed by the King on January 7th, 1407, but was not immediately published as the Duke of Orléans wished to see the results of the proceedings of the Roman Pope. An edict was however signed forbidding the payment of annets and other dues.

  When Gregory XII's letters were known in Paris there was great rejoicing and some even talked of recognizing Gregory if Benedict still remained obstinate. But Benedict surprised all by the cordiality of his reply. He assured Gregory that his desire for union was sincere and that he was ready to agree to the proposal of a common resignation. We cannot disassemble our surprise, he adds, that your letter insinuates that you cannot come to the establishment of union by the

  way of justice. It never has been, is, or will be our doing that the justice and truth of this matter so far as concerns us is not seen and recognized. Some of the professors of the university look suspiciously at the last sentence, which was capable of two interpretations and might mean that Benedict was ready for discussion, not for resignation, of his claims. Accordingly, the King wrote on March 1st, 1407, to Benedict XIII, saying that as some expressions in his letter

  might mean that he wished to waste time in discussing the justice of his position, he besought him to lay aside all subterfuges and state openly his willingness to resign. At the same time, influential ambassadors headed by Simon Camot, patriarch of Alexandria, were appointed to confer with both popes, and a twentieth was levied on the French clergy to provide for the expenses of their journey. There was no lack of letters of ambassadors than

  of talk. Before the French ambassadors reached Marseille, where Benedict XIII had taken up his abode in the autumn of 1406, an embassy from Gregory XII had already been there. The appointment of this embassy gave the first reason to Gregory's cardinals for doubting the sincerity of the pope. According to the promise made on his election, he was bound to send an embassy within three months. Malatesta, Lord of Pesaro, offered to go as ambassador at his own expense.

  But Gregory declined his offer and waited till the day before the expiration of the term of three months, when he appointed as his envoys his nephew Antonio Correr, Bishop of Modan, the Bishop of Todi, and Antonio de Butrio, a learned jurist of Bologna. It was not a good augury that one who had a strong personal interest in keeping his uncle on the papal seat should be appointed to negotiate for his abdication. The cardinals urged Gregory to waste no time, but finished the great cause he

  had in hand. Gregory humbly asked them to help him to do so, as if, says Niem indignantly, they had anything to do with the matter. The cardinals began to suspect the pope of being a wolf in sheep's clothing. When Gregory's ambassadors reached Marseilles, there was much fierce discussion about the place where the two popes were to meet, the number of attendants each was to bring, the securities to be taken on each side, and such like points. The question of the place of meeting

  was of course the most important, as each pope demanded a place in his own obedience. At last, matters were referred, on Benedict's part, to a small committee which proposed Savona near Genoa on the Riviera. To everyone's surprise, Antonio Correr at once agreed, and drew from his pocket a paper in Gregory's handwriting, in which he declared himself ready to accept Ghent or Avignon, rather than let any difficulty about place stand in the way of peace. The acceptance of Savona was

  greatly in favor of Benedict. He was close to it, could go and return readily to a town which being in the hands of France was in his obedience. To Gregory, on the other hand, Savona was difficult to reach. The journey was costly, and the dangers on the way were considerable. We are driven to the conclusion that Antonio Correr was acting slyly in his own interests. By accepting Savona, he gave a touching proof of his uncle's readiness to do what was demanded of him, while the real chance of a

  conference at Savona was very slight. Still, an elaborate series of regulations as to arrangements for the conference was drawn up and signed on April 21st, and September 29th, or at the latest, November 1st, 1407, was fixed as the day of meeting. The agreement just made between the two popes can scarcely have been regarded as satisfactory by anyone outside France. If both popes seated at Savona and a new election was there made, France would have an overwhelming influence upon the

  choice of the cardinals. This would be hazardous to England, Naples, and to Venice, who would be sure to take steps to prevent it. France, while professing its zeal for the union of the Church, aimed at a return to the principles of the French papacy at Avignon. Europe might lament a schism, but would not consent to end the schism by restoring the French predominance over the papacy. Antonio Correr looked forward with a light heart to the failure of all expectations built on this

  plan. He left Marseille for Paris and on his way at Aix met the French ambassadors who besought him to return to Rome at once and prepare his uncle for the journey. They regarded with suspicion the agreement, which had just been signed, as it was over plausible, and left room for doubtful interpretations on many points. Correr did his best to reassure them. He repeated to them words which his uncle had spoken to him in private. Do you think, my dear nephew, that it is the obligation

  of my oath which makes me labor for peace? It is love rather than my oath which leads me to resign. Day by day my zeal for peace increases. When shall I see the happy day on which I shall have restored the unity of the Church? At the same time he warned the ambassadors that Benedict was a hard man who ought not to be irritated but rather allured by kindness. He begged them to treat him gently, or they would spoil all. Antonio's zeal was truly touching. Plausible hypocrisy could go no further.

  On May 10th, 1407, Benedict XIII received the ambassadors of France and at the audience the Patriarch of Alexandria besought him to go to the conference without any view of discussion, but to resolve on abdicating and to express himself on this point without any ambiguity. The Pope answered at once with great fluency and at great length, but divided his answer into so many heads and spoke with such obscurity that the ambassadors gazed at one another in silent hope

  that someone else might be more acute than himself at understanding the Pope's meaning. The next day they came before him with the demand that he would issue a bull declaring his intention of proceeding by way of abdicating and of putting all other ways aside. To this, Benedict replied with considerable dignity and also with much political wisdom. To settle this difficult matter, he said, confidence and freedom were necessary. Every mark of want of confidence in him would

  strengthen the hands of his adversary and tend to bring about the very discussion of trifles which they wished to avoid. He must go to the conference free and trusted above all things. The ambassadors felt that they had gone too far in allowing their distrust to be so clearly seen. The Pope perceived the impression that he had made and determined to improve his opportunity. After the public audience, he called aside the Patriarch of Alexandria and some other members of

  the embassy and gently spoke to them about the accusations which were rife in Paris against himself. All were moved with some sort of remorse and many broke into tears. The Patriarch threw himself at the Pope's feet and humbly asked pardon for his doubts and for his rash utterances in former days. Benedict generously forgave them all and dismissed them with his blessing. He had it rightly managed, by a moral appeal, to assert his superiority and had won a diplomatic victory

  which left the ambassadors of France in his hands. The ambassadors turned next to the cardinals who promised to do all they could to prevail on Benedict to issue a bold declaratory of his intentions and they were also aided by envoys from the Duke of Orléans. But nothing could alter Benedict's determination. He still refused to issue a bull and in the final audience of the ambassadors on May 18th, the Patriarch of Alexandria thanked him for his declaration of good intentions

  but added, as ambassadors of the King of France we cannot say that we are content for our instructions bade us insist with all humility to obtain your bulls on this matter. Benedict angrily answered that every Christian ought to be content, the King of France among the rest. If he were not, he did not love the Church. The ambassadors retired to X and deliberated whether to publish the withdrawal of allegiance from Benedict according to their instructions in case he refused to grant

  the bulls. The moderate men however were in a majority and judged that such a step would only hinder the progress of union. They resolved to hold their hand and the embassy was divided into three bodies, one of which returned to Paris to tell the King of their success, a second body went to Marseilles to keep watch over Benedict and a third detachment proceeded to Rome to strengthen the good resolutions of Gregory. Charles VI professed himself satisfied with what

  had been done but the university was loud in its complaints and urged on the King to carry out the withdrawal. When the King refused they threatened to shut up their schools and suspend their lectures and were with difficulty pacified. The ambassadors of Gregory entered Paris on June 10th headed by the nephew Antonio who in spite of the request that he should return to Rome was unable to give up his desire to visit Paris and experience the liberality of the French King. The ambassadors were received

  with great pomp and rejoicing which they repaid with fair words and cheap promises. Other news however awaited the French envoys who were dispatched to Rome. As they advanced through Italy they heard much that made them doubt of Gregory's sincerity. His old age had led the cardinals to suppose that he was free from personal ambition but they forgot that it made him liable to fall under the influence of others. Gregory's relatives gathered round him and when once they had tasted the sweets

  of power did all they could to make the poor old man forget his promises and cling to office. His nephews and their dependents took up their abode in the Vatican and spent the contents of the papal treasury in foolish extravagances. They had vast trains of horses and servants and indulged in childish luxuries. It is a satire on the old man's tastes that his household spent more in sugar than had sufficed to feed and clothe his predecessors. Moreover he treated the relatives

  of his patron Innocent VII with ingratitude and drove them from the Curia. He dispossessed Ludovico Migliorati of the March. He dismissed Innocent's chamberlain and appointed his own nephew Antonio in his stead. Such money as he had was squandered and then an appeal was made throughout his obedience for means to provide the expenses of his journey to Savona. Nor were they only personal motives at work to shake the old man's constancy. Ladislas of Naples saw with alarm

  the progress of negotiations toward unity of the church. So long as the schism lasted the Roman pope was necessarily bound to the party of Durazzo in Naples. Whereas a new pope over a united Christendom elected at Savona would fall under French influence and lend his way to the party of Anjou. Rome had quietly accepted the rule of Gregory and had submitted to the senator whom he had appointed. But Ladislas still had his friends amongst the Roman barons. On the night of June 17th

  a body of soldiers headed by the Colonna entered the city through the broken wall near the gate of San Lorenzo and tried to raise the people. Gregory XII followed by his nephews fled trembling into the Castel Sant'Angelo. The plot however failed owing to the energy of the pope's general Paolo Orsini who on the next day hastened with his soldiers from Castelvalca to Rome, joined the forces under the command of the pope's nephew and drove the conspirators out of the Porta di San Lorenzo

  with great slaughter. Many of the rebellious barons and citizens were made prisoners and some were put to death amongst them Galeotto Normani, Ladislas's unlucky knight of freedom. The attempt of Ladislas had again failed. He had aimed at throwing Rome into confusion, besieging Gregory in the Castel Sant'Angelo and so preventing his journey to Savona. Dietrich of Nîmes in his hatred of Gregory XII whom he calls Eurorius, a bad pun upon Gregorius, does not scruple to say that the

  pope's hasty flight into the castle was owing to confederacy in the plot. But Leonardo Bruni, a more impartial and discriminating authority, refuses to believe this of the pope but significantly adds that he has no doubt such a charge is true against the papal nephews. The feeble old man was used by his relatives as the material for every sort of intrigue. End of section 20.

• 21 - Bk. I, Ch. 5: Gregory XII, Benedict XIII, Negotiations between the Rival Popes, 1406-1409, Pt. 2

  play_arrowPlaymenu_bookRead

  Section 21 of A History of the Papacy, Volume 1 by Mandel Creighton. This LibriVox recording is in the public domain, read by Pamela Nagami. Book 1, Chapter 5. Gregory XII. Benedict XIII. Negotiations between the rival popes, 1406 to 1409, Part 2.

  After the failure of this plot, Rome rapidly quieted down. On July 1, 1407, arrived the ambassadors of Benedict, and on July 5, those of the French king, who had traveled by land. Their colleagues, who came by sea, joined them on July 16. They were told that Gregory was in a state of doubt.

  The sight of the letters withdrawing obedience from Benedict, of which he had received copies from Paris, made him quail before this method of dealing with popes. He had received warnings not to trust himself to strangers. His relatives plied him with suggestions that his departure from Rome

  would mean the seizure of the patrimony by Lattice loss. In an audience given to Benedict's ambassadors on July 8, he first began to raise difficulties. He said he did not see how he was to go to Savona. It was true the Genoese had offered to lend their galleys,

  but he dared not trust himself to them. He could not afford to equip six or eight galleys himself. He had applied to the Venetians for ships, and they had refused them. He added also his dread of Lattice loss in case of his absence. On July 17, the French ambassadors offered him themselves

  hostages for his security, besides other hostages from Genoa. They reminded him that the Genoese galleys had been sent at the request of his own nephew. Gregory, in answering, disavowed his nephew, pleaded his poverty, and suggested that the French king

  should supply him with ships and money. At the request of the ambassadors, the cardinals endeavored to reason with Gregory, but the old man's mind kept vacillating from one point to another, and the cardinals could make nothing of him.

  The French ambassadors, to cut matters short, offered him, on the part of the French king, six galleys with pay for six months. The pope might put among their crews men of his own for more security, and the captain of these galleys agreed to leave as hostages

  his wife and children, a hundred of the chief Genoese citizens, and fifty from Savona should likewise be given as hostages. No fairer offer could have been made. It is a proof how anxiously France desired the conference at Savona, and the consequent advantage to herself in the new election.

  To gain that result, she was prepared to lay aside all punctilious feelings of dignity and pride. Gregory was sorely put to it for a means of refusing this offer. He quibbled about the exact wording of the treaty, which had stipulated the disarming of the Genoese vessels during the conference.

  He rebuked his nephew for imprudence, and disavowed what he had done. He said that he would willingly accept the offer if he himself only were concerned, but the honor of all his obedience would be compromised if he were to accept it. The Patriarch then offered, if the Pope preferred to go by land,

  to supply means for the journey, and put all the castles in the power of the French into Gregory's hands for the time, reserving the Genoese garrisons at present in them. Gregory evasively answered that he intended to approach by land

  nearer to Benedict. The French ambassadors, in an interview with the Senator and Magistrates of Rome, besought their assistance with the Pope, and assured them that France had no wish to remove the papacy from Rome. So fairly did they speak, that one of the Romans said privately

  that it was well the people did not hear them, or they would settle the matter by a sudden rising against Gregory. Jean Petit pointed out that the extinction of the schism would restore to Rome its old prosperity from the increase of pilgrims for indulgences,

  and would secure it protection from Latticellas. Still, neither Cardinals nor citizens had any weight against Gregory's greedy relatives, and the old man, now that he was sure of political support, clutched at everything which might keep him in office.

  On July 21, the ambassadors of Benedict asked for a definite answer. Gregory pleaded the difficulties of going to Savona, and asked that the place might be changed. The royal ambassadors suggested that Gregory might send commissioners to the conference, or that the two colleges of Cardinals should be allowed to settle the matter.

  Gregory sent for Dailly, Gerson, and others on July 28, and went through the weary round of equivocations and excuses which he had been so long in practicing. Dailly answered him point by point. At last, the pope burst into tears, and exclaimed,

  Oh, I will give you union, do not doubt it, and I will satisfy your king, but I pray you do not leave me, and let some of your number accompany me on my way, and comfort me. It seemed as though for the moment he recognized his weakness, and begged to be rescued from his nephew's clutches.

  But the nephews soon regained their power. On July 31, Benedict's ambassadors took their leave, with an uncertain answer that Gregory objected to go to Savona, but would try to be there by November 1. Soon after, the envoys of the French king followed,

  feeling that nothing had been decidedly settled. Soon Gregory himself found it advisable to leave Rome. Not only his nephews, but also the papal general Paolo Orsini, played upon the old man's timidity and feebleness. Since the repulse of the Neapolitans,

  Paolo Orsini had been too powerful in Rome. He obtained from the pope the Vicariate of Narni, and pressed him with demands for money to pay his troops. Troubles within and without oppressed the luckless pope, and he adopted a course which he hoped would for a time rid him from both.

  By removing from Rome, he would be free from the importunities of his greedy general, and would also be able to make some show of proceeding towards the promised congress. Leaving Cardinal Pietro Stefaneschi as his legate in Rome, he set out on August 9 for Viterbo. Then, on August 17, he wrote to the king of France,

  urging the need of a change of the place of congress from Savona, and complaining of the haughty tone of the French ambassadors, who on their part wrote to Gregory from Genoa, repeating their assurances about his personal safety at Savona, and expressing their objections to reopening the question of the place of congress

  as likely to lead into an endless labyrinth of negotiations. From Genoa, the French ambassadors passed on to Saint-Honorat, whither Benedict had retired before an outbreak of the plague. Benedict received them with the utmost appability. In proportion, as he saw Gregory raise difficulties,

  he expressed eagerness on his own part. He was too skillful a diplomatist not to see the advantage of throwing the blame of failure on Gregory when an opportunity was offered. We are both old men, he said to a messenger of Gregory's. God has given us a great opportunity.

  Let us accept it when offered, before we die. We must die soon, and another will obtain the glory if we protract the matter by delays. He assured the king's ambassadors that he meant punctually to abide by the treaty. Meanwhile, Gregory moved from Viterbo to Siena at the beginning of September.

  He succeeded in winning from the cardinal's permission to enrich his three lay nephews without breaking his oath at election, in reply to a memorial setting forth the sacrifices made and the losses sustained by them through their labors for union, and the prospect which faced them of being rapidly reduced to a private position,

  the pope allowed them to hold various lands and castles belonging to the church. The nephews seem also to have joined with Ladislaus, in a scheme to terrify the already frightened pope. Ladislaus, on Gregory's departure from Rome, took into his pay Ludovico Migliorati, whom Gregory had dispossessed of the march.

  By his aid, Oskolo and Firmo were captured, and Ladislaus showed himself ready to strike a blow at Rome. Gregory wrote to remonstrate against the seizure of Oskolo and Firmo. Ladislaus replied, in a taunting letter, that he was keeping those cities for the church. He reminded Gregory of his objections to Savona as a place of congress,

  and sneeringly suggested Paris as a fitter place. The nephews filled the pope's mind with suspicions about his personal safety. Fresh ambassadors were sent to press for a change of place, and on November 1, 1407, the day fixed for the congress, Gregory was still at Siena, and Benedict, with triumph in his heart,

  professed to await him at Savona. Gregory, by way of doing something, issued indulgences to all who should pray for the peace of the church, and from the pope at Siena, had his reasons for not going to Savona set forth at length. His cardinals urged him to abdicate without going to Savona,

  and solemn agreements were made what bishoprics he was to have, and what principalities were to be assigned to his nephews as the price of his retirement. More ambassadors passed between the popes. Benedict offered to advance to Porto Venere, at the end of the Gulf of Spezia, the southernmost extremity of the Genoese territory,

  if Gregory would advance to Petra Santa, the furthest point of the Lucese. The negotiations were endless and wearisome, and their general result is summed up by Leonardo Bruni. One pope, like a land animal, refused to approach the shore, the other, like a water beast, refused to leave the sea.

  All who were anxious for the union of the church were weary of these perpetual hesitations. Cardinal Valentin of Hungary had dragged his aged frame to Siena, in hopes of being present at the extinction of the long schism. He was soon disillusioned, and as he felt his strength failing him, and caught the hungry eye of Antonio Correr,

  cast upon his plate and horses, the old man rose in wrath from his sickbed. You shall have neither me nor my goods, he said, and in the depth of winter had himself conveyed to Venice and thence home, where he died in peace. Still, grievous as the delay might be from the ecclesiastical point of view,

  it was the inevitable result of the overreaching policy of France in urging the conference at Savona. Germany, England, Venice and Naples all looked on with suspicion, and the vacillation of Gregory was increased by the feeling that he had powerful support. In January 1408, Gregory moved to Lucca,

  where under pressure of the Florentines and Venetians, he wrote to Benedict on April 1, proposing Pisa as a place of meeting. He would approach it by land and Benedict by sea, each in a day's journey. It was well supplied with all necessities and was preferable to the small fortress which had been talked of before.

  It was now Benedict's turn to raise difficulties, and he refused to give a decisive answer. On April 16, the French ambassadors informed him that a personal conference, on which he seemed to set so much value, was not necessary for the purpose of a common abdication.

  If he considered it to be so, let him accept the guarantees offered and go to Pisa. Before, however, this point could be settled, Gregory took advantage of the disturbances in Rome to withdraw from his offer and enter upon a new course of policy. Matters in Rome had been growing worse and worse since the Pope's departure.

  The designs of Ladislas were plain, and there was no one in Rome to offer much resistance. Power was divided between the legate, the city magistrates, and Paolo Orsini, the leader of the troops. None knew how far the other was in the pay or in the interests of Ladislas.

  Disturbances and troubles of every kind came upon the city. On January 1, 1408, the legate imposed a heavy tax upon the Roman clergy, who met together and determined not to pay it. Meanwhile, they determined not to ring their church bells or celebrate Mass. The magistrates put down this clerical rebellion by imprisonment.

  Mass was again said, and the tax had to be paid. But the treasures of the churches were taken for that purpose. Statues of the saints and precious reliquaries were melted down into money. It was a hard winter, and there was a great scarcity of bread in Rome, which the legate in vain tried to ward off by processions

  and the display of the handkerchief of Santa Veronica. As was natural, outrages became common. Pilgrims were robbed and killed on their way to the city. Everything was in confusion, and the only desire of the chief men seems to have been to prepare the way for Ladislas.

  On April 11, the cardinal legate, as a means of shaking off his own responsibility, called into existence the old municipal organization of the Bondadesi, who took an oath of fidelity to the church before the legate and received from his hands the banners made after the ancient fashion.

  The restored officials had the satisfaction of a few ceremonials to the great joy of the people, but their rule was brief. The old Roman Republic had been galvanized into existence for a few days that it might endure the ignominy of surrender to the King of Naples. On April 16, Ladislas, with an army of 12,000 horse and his many foot,

  appeared before the walls of Ostia, which was traitorously surrendered to him on April 18. On the 20th, he appeared before Rome and pitched his camp by the Church of San Paolo. The city was still strong enough to resist a siege,

  but supplies had been neglected, and everywhere were helplessness and suspicion. Paolo Orsini began to negotiate with Ladislas, and the Bondadesi thought it wise to be beforehand with him. On April 21, Rome gave up to Ladislas all her fortresses.

  The cardinal legate hastened to leave the city. The luckless Bondadesi resigned their office, and the government was placed in the hands of a senator named by the King of Naples. On April 25, Ladislas entered Rome in triumph,

  and there was much shouting and magnificence. Ladislas had at length obtained his end and made himself Master of Rome. He stayed in the city for some time arranging its affairs. He appointed new magistrates, received the obedience of the neighboring towns

  Valetri, Tivoli, and Cori, and welcomed also the ambassadors of Florence, Siena, and Lucca, congratulating him on his triumph. His troops advanced into Umbria, where Perugia, Orte, Assisi, and other towns

  at once recognized his sway. The craft of Ladislas had gained its end, and the temporal power of the papacy had passed into his hands. Many of his predecessors on the throne of Naples had striven to enrich themselves at the expense of the states of the Church

  and to obtain influence in the city of Rome. Ladislas had succeeded not through any wisdom of his own policy, but through the hopeless weakness of his antagonists. The papacy was crippled and discredited. The freedom of the city of Rome had died away.

  There was no dauntless pope, backed by the public opinion of Europe, to oppose the spoiler. There was no sturdy body of burghers to man the walls in defense of the civic liberties.

  So utterly had the prestige of Rome and the memories of her glories passed away from men's minds that her sister Republic of Florence could send and congratulate Ladislas on the triumphal victory which God and his own manhood had given him in the city of Rome.

  End of Section 21.

• 22 - Bk. I, Ch. 5: Gregory XII, Benedict XIII, Negotiations between the Rival Popes, 1406-1409, Pt. 3

  play_arrowPlaymenu_bookRead

  Section 22 of A History of the Papacy, Volume 1 by Mandel Creighton. This LibriVox recording is in the public domain, read by Pamela Nagami. Book I, Chapter 5. Gregory XII. Benedict XIII. Negotiations between the rival popes, 1406-1409, Part 3. It would seem that the knowledge of the intentions of Ladislaus against Rome had stirred up the crafty mind of Benedict to a scheme on his own behalf. Benedict had always

  had some adherents in Rome and is said to have spent large sums of money in raising up a party in his favor. He managed to gain the favor of Marshal Boussicot, the French governor of Genoa, who sent out eleven Genoese galleys to forestall Ladislaus and make a dash upon Rome in Benedict's behalf. The attempt, however, was too late, for the galleys only sailed from Genoa on April 25, 1408, the day on which Ladislaus entered Rome. The knowledge of this bold design gave Gregory XII

  just grounds for distrusting his rival, and he could rejoice that Rome had fallen before Ladislaus rather than Benedict. He could now plead Benedict's perfidy and the momentous events which had happened in Rome as reasons why he could not at present proceed to a conference at Pisa. Political reasons had entirely overshadowed ecclesiastical obligations. His nephews had completely succeeded in dispelling from the old man's mind any further thoughts of his solemn oath to promote

  the union of the Church by his abdication. When a preacher at Lucca urged upon Gregory in a discourse before the cardinals his duty to labor for the restoration of unity, the nephew, Paulo Correr, seized the indiscreet orator even in the Church, flung him into prison, and only released him on a promise never to preach again. The legate Stefanisci, who had fled from Rome, was received at Lucca without reproof. Everyone believed that Gregory had a secret understanding with Ladislaus,

  and that all that had occurred in Rome had been done with his connivance as a means of averting any further talk of a conference. Ladislaus expressed his intention of being present to assert his rights at any conference that might be held. He urged on Gregory the further step of nominating new cardinals. Gregory XII again plucked up his courage and prepared to enter upon a new career. No longer as a commissioner for unity, but as a pope who was a political

  necessity to resist the policy of France. He spoke of the proposal for his abdication as a damnable and diabolical suggestion. He wrote to his envoy in France to desist from further negotiations, and resolved to follow the advice of Ladislaus, and strengthen himself for his new position by the creation of a batch of cardinals on whose support he might rely. This raised the entire question whether Gregory XII was to be held bound by his oath made at election,

  and the cardinals, who still held by their former policy, were strengthened by the advice of Florentine envoys in their determination to resist the pope. On May 4th, 1408, Gregory XII announced to the nine cardinals who were with him his intention of proceeding to a new creation. He declared that the events which had occurred gave him a just reason for supposing that the term mentioned in his oath at election had been reached. He ended by naming four cardinals,

  two of them as nephews, one of whom, Gabriele Condulmer, afterwards became Pope Eugenius IV. Wishing to cut off from the cardinals all opportunity of protest, the pope ended by saying, I order you all to keep your seats. They gazed in speechless indignation on one another. What is the meaning of such an order? asked the cardinal of Tusculum. Since I cannot act rightly with you, replied the pope, I wish to provide for the church.

  Rather you wish to destroy the church, was the retort. By this time others had recovered their courage. Let us die first, said the boldest of them, and rose to his feet to protest. There followed a scene of anger and expostulation which afforded Leonardo Bruni, who was present, an opportunity for a psychological study which the men of the early renaissance keenly enjoyed. Some grew pale, others turned red, some strove to bend the pope by entreaties,

  others assailed him with their wrath. One fell at his feet and besought him to change his mind. Another assailed him with menaces. A third alternated between soothing his colleagues and supplicating the pope. All was of no avail. Whatever I do you oppose was the wail of the querulous old man. At last Gregory dismissed the cardinals with a prohibition to quit Lucca to meet together without his leave or to have any dealings with the ambassadors of Benedict XIII.

  In vain the lord of Lucca with the chief citizens tried to make peace and the bishop of Lucca, who had been one of the newly nominated cardinals, was compelled to declare that under the existing circumstances he would never accept the office. Gregory XII persevered in his intention and summoned the cardinals to a consistory in which he was to publish his new creations. When they refused to come, he performed the ceremony in the presence of a few bishops and

  officials. The old cardinals declared that they would never recognize these intruders. They determined to leave Lucca where they could not be sure of their personal safety. On May 11th the cardinal of Liège set the example of flight. Paulo Correr sent soldiers to pursue him while he himself turned his attention to the seizure of his goods. When his men returned without the fugitives, Paulo vented his anger on the cardinal's servants

  till he was checked by the city magistrates through fear of the Florentines. Next day six more of the cardinals fled and all assembled at Pisa. Once they sent Gregory XII an appeal from himself to a general council and addressed an encyclical letter to all Christian princes declaring their zeal for the union of the church, the failure of Gregory to keep his promises and their hopes that all princes would aid them to establish the union which they desired.

  Gregory XII replied by accusing them of sacrilegious intrigues against his person and constant hindrance to his endeavors after union. The breach was thenceforth irreparable and a war of pamphlets on both sides embittered the hostility. Benedict, meanwhile, was not in a position to enjoy a triumph over his rival. The assassination of the Duke of Orléans, November 23rd, 1407, deprived him of his chief supporter in France and the University of Paris lost no time

  in urging the king to carry out the long-threatened withdrawal of obedience. The king wrote on January 12th, 1408, to Benedict saying that he was afraid the schism tended to grow worse instead of better and unless a union had been brought about before Ascension Day next, France would declare her new neutrality until one true and undoubted pope should be elected. Benedict had long foreseen this step and was prepared for it. He wrote the king that the threat of neutrality was equally opposed to

  the king's honor and to the will of God. He could not pass it over in silence. Let the king revoke his decision or he would fall under the censures of a bull which had been prepared some time ago though not yet published and which he now enclosed. The bull was dated May 19th, 1407, from Marseilles and pronounced excommunication against all who should hinder the union of the church by measures against the pope and cardinals, by withdrawal of obedience, or appeal against the papal decisions.

  The excommunication, if not heeded, was to be followed by an interdict. On May 14th, 1408, this bull was delivered to the king. It was Benedict's last move and Benedict had miscalculated its efficacy. He hoped no doubt that the feeble-minded king, who threw out all this matter, had merely been the mouthpiece of others, would shrink before the terrors of excommunication. He hoped that the disturbed state of the kingdom might make politicians pause before they added

  to its other troubles a contest with the pope. But Benedict did not realize how the prevarications of the last few years had destroyed his moral hold upon men's minds, and he had not yet learned the strength of the University of Paris. The bull contained nothing contrary to custom or to canon law, and the politicians in the king's council doubted what to do. But the university had no hesitation. It boldly pronounced those who brought the bull to be guilty of high treason, and demanded

  a public examination of its contents. This took place on May 21st, when a professor of theology, Jean Courtecuisse, impeached the bull as an attack upon the royal dignity and the national honor. Accused Benedict of promoting the schism, and declared him deserving of deposition. The university then presented their conclusions, which denounced Benedict as a schismatic and a heretic, to whom obedience was no longer due. His bull should be torn in pieces, and all who had

  brought or suggested it should be punished. The royal secretary cut the bull in two, and handed it to the rector of the university, who tore it into shreds before the assembly. Some of Benedict's friends were imprisoned on the suspicion of being previously acquainted with the contents of the bull. Even Peter Dyee only escaped by prudently absenting himself from Paris. The university again behaved with the same violence as it had shown in 1398, and even treated with injustice

  some of its most eminent sons. Nicolas de Clémence, as Benedict's secretary, was suspected of having written the bulls. And though he persistently denied it, he dared not enter France for some years, and when at length he returned, it was only to end his days in obscurity. Urged on by the university, the king proclaimed the neutrality of France, and wrote on May 22nd, to the cardinals of both parties, exhorting them to leave these popes, who had not been able to

  find any place in the world suitable for the discharge of their solemn oaths, and for the relief of the afflicted church. Four of the cardinals of Benedict XIII were sent to Livorno to confer with four of Gregory XII's cardinals. The result of their joint deliberations was that it was best to summon a general council, before which both popes might resign. Benedict's cardinals affirmed that they were commissioned by their master to accept this course, but Benedict denied

  that he had given them any such power. He felt, however, that he was not safe from personal danger in any land where French influence prevailed. He knew that Boussicot was again commissioned to seize him, and on June 15th he sailed away from Porto Venere, accompanied by four cardinals, and took refuge in his own land at Perpignan, in the county of Roussillon. Still he retained his dignity and his resolute will. Before his flight he wrote in a tone of lofty remonstrance

  to Gregory, and as the cry of Christendom was now for a council, he issued a summons to a general council to be held at Perpignan on November 1st. Gregory XII could do nothing but follow this example. He proclaimed a council to be held at Witsentide, 1409, in the province of Aquileia, or the ex-arcade of Ravenna. He could not be more precise, for he was uncertain where he could find shelter. On July 12th he issued an appeal to his rebellious cardinals,

  offering them forgiveness if they appeared and asked for pardon within the month of July. He did not, however, think it worthwhile to stay at Lucca and await them. On July 14th he quitted the city, and two of the cardinals who were still with him took advantage of the opportunity to join their colleagues at Pisa. Gregory went forth on his journey with a scanty band of followers, only one of his old cardinals still remained with him. He did not know where it was safe for him to

  go, as disquieting rumors reached him that the cardinal Baldassare Cossa, legate in Bologna, had publicly burned his bulls and was raising troops against him. Finally he took refuge in Siena, which was in close alliance with Lattislaus. From Siena, September 17th, he issued a bull revoking the legate in powers of Cardinal Cossa. It was a useless measure, as Cossa had already sent in his adhesion to the cardinals at Pisa. In September Gregory created ten new cardinals,

  and early in November left Siena for Rimini, where he put himself under the protection of the powerful Carlo Malatesta. Meanwhile, the cardinals at Livorno were agreed in maintaining their policy and on June 29th they entered into a solemn agreement to establish the unity of the Church by a general council after the abdication, death, or deposition of the two popes. On July 1st, Gregory's cardinals issued a letter to his entire obedience, calling upon all to

  withdraw from him and pay him no more of the dues of the Church, so that his obstinacy might be conquered. When Gregory issued his summons to a council, they declared that under existing circumstances he had no right to do so, as the unity of the Church could not be established by means of a council held by either pope. Benedict's cardinals rode in a similar strain. And finally on July 14th, the united cardinals issued to all bishops an invitation to a council

  to be held at Pisa on May 29th, 1409, and sent to all courts a request that they would take part in it. The Venetians, Florentines, and Sienese sent ambassadors to attempt a reconciliation between Gregory and his cardinals. Gregory asserted that he alone had the right to summon a council. The cardinals replied that he could in any case only summon a council of his own obedience and not of the universal Church. Yet to show their desire for peace, they would receive him with all

  honor. On October 11th, they issued an address to all prelates who still adhere to the pope, calling on them to leave him and share in their pious undertaking. Benedict's cardinals wrote on September 24th and besought him to join with them in summoning the council at Pisa and to recall his summons for a council at Perpigno. Benedict's reply was characteristic of his legal mind. He wondered at the steps they had taken without him. If they could show that their proceedings

  were in accordance with the canons, he would through love of peace agree with their wishes. Meanwhile, he could not revoke his council, as already many prelates were assembled. But with the help of God and his synod, he would soon frame a decree for ending the schism. Benedict's council met at Perpigno on November 1st, 1408 and was attended by about 120 prelates. The opening ceremonies went smoothly enough. All listened with sympathy to Benedict's

  justification of himself and account of all his labors to bring about the unity which he so much desired. A commission of 60, which afterwards was reduced to 30 and again to 10, was appointed to discuss this question. The council dwindled away before the commission had reported in favor of the abdication of Benedict and the sending of envoys to lay this proposal before the council of Pisa. Benedict received this report on February 12th, 1409 and agreed to act on it. Envoys were

  nominated accordingly, but through the misjudging zeal of the French, they were imprisoned at Nîmes and were deprived of their instructions. Benedict's conciliatory temper passed away and on March 5th, he answered the cardinal's summons to the council of Pisa by a solemn excommunication of them and their adherents. The course, however, of the two rival popes was run. They had wearied out the patience of Christendom with illusory promises and endless delays till men had ceased to pay much heed

  to them and their obedience had dwindled away to the few who had a direct interest in maintaining their power. It is impossible not to feel sympathy for them both as victims of circumstances which they had no part in creating. They lamented the schism, as did others, and would gladly have seen it end. But they were bound to consider the dignity and rights of the office which they claimed to hold. It was easy for those who framed crude plans for the solution of the difficulty to lay all the

  blame of failure on the obstinacy of the pope. Gregory XII had been elected pope on the ground of his integrity of character and the senile weakness which was rapidly growing upon him. The cardinals sought to protect their own interests by the choice of a pope who would retain office only long enough to enable them to make a good bargain for themselves. They forgot that the weakness which rendered their creature amenable to themselves made him equally subject to the

  influence of others who had more exclusive interests at stake. Gregory XII soon fell into the hands of his nephews who adroitly managed to identify his cause with that of opposition to the influence of France. For a time, Gregory XII had a position in the affairs of Europe. But when once the plan of a congress at Savona had been defeated and the cardinals in despair undertook a revolutionary scheme to restore unity to the church, Gregory's cause was abandoned and his position was gone.

  In public matters, Gregory XII was merely a puppet in the hands of others, his cardinals, his nephews, the king of Naples in turn. And his actions were merely a series of subterfuges and pretenses. Yet he himself retained his simplicity and uprightness of character so that many who disapproved of his conduct still reverenced the man. I followed the pope from Lucca, says Leonardo Bruni, rather through affection than because I approved his course. Yet Gregory had great integrity

  of life and character. Moreover, he was learned it in the scriptures and had subtle and true power of investigation. In short, he satisfied me in all things save in the matter of the union of the church. We feel pity rather than contempt for one of simple character who was set in a position beset with difficulties and temptations, which he had neither skill to grapple with nor strength to resist. Far different was the character of Benedict XIII. A man of trained and vigorous intellect,

  strong character and indomitable resoluteness. He failed through intellectual rather than moral faults. His mind was too abstract and his point of view too technical. He dealt in a dry legal spirit with a problem which concerned the very life of Christendom. He felt from the beginning that as a foreigner he had scant justice dealt him in France. He knew that he had no strong power to back him, no nation deeply interested in maintaining him. He was keenly alive to the personal element

  in all the proceedings of the university and court of France and he resented the thought that the dignity of the papal office should be impaired while in his hands. His position was legally as rightful as had been that of Clement VII. Why should language be used towards himself that had never been addressed to his predecessor? Why should he be treated as a criminal and be subjected to threats and persecutions? With dignity and astuteness he carried on an unequal struggle.

  He was always ready with an answer and it was impossible to take him at a disadvantage in argument. Wise and moderate men like Dailly and Clémence were on his side so long as it was possible and regretted the violence of the university which gave Benedict no loophole whence to escape with dignity. Moreover, Benedict himself never showed obstinacy till the last when his cause was hopeless. While a prisoner at Avignon, he issued no excommunications against his foes

  but bided his time patiently. He bore no ill will or rancor and his equanimity never gave way under the strain of the conflict. He was kindly to those around him and inspired strong personal attachment. He was a genuine student, a lover of books and of learned men, and was scrupulous in the discharge of his ecclesiastical duties. His many good qualities are worthy of admiration and he had all the elements of a great ecclesiastical statesman. Unfortunately, the problem with which he

  had to deal was one which statesmanship alone could not solve. Europe was weary of the schism and France had no interest in maintaining a Spanish pope. Benedict XIII contented himself with upholding the technical legality of his position against what he rightly thought an ill-considered attempt on the part of the University of Paris to solve a difficult problem by recourse to violent measures. The fault of Benedict XIII was that he had no plan of his own for meeting the growing desire

  for a union of the Church. It is his merit that he made a dignified resistance. He maintained an unequal struggle which prevented the settlement of the affairs of the Church from falling into the hands of the unstable government of France. A revolution headed by the Cardinals was preferable to the political intervention of the French Court. End of Section 22.

• 23 - Bk. 1, Ch. 6: The Council of Pisa, 1409, Pt. 1

  play_arrowPlaymenu_bookRead

  Section 23 of the History of the Papacy, Volume 1 by Mandel Creighton. This LibriVox recording is in the public domain, read by Pamela Nagami. Book 1, Chapter 6. The Council of Pisa, 1409, Part 1. Christendom had fallen away from the two refractory popes, and the cardinals had undertaken to heal the schism of the Church.

  All plans had failed which rested on either the voluntary or compulsory withdrawal of one or both of the contending popes. It was impossible to get rid of these two claimants to the papal dignity, and yet leave the foundations of that dignity itself unmoved. The bold theory of an appeal from the Vicar of Christ on earth, to Christ himself, residing in the whole body of the Church, was to be tried, and the long-forgotten name

  of a general council was again revived. The cardinals, however, knew that the weight of such a council would depend upon the fullness of its representation, and they did all they could to win the recognition of the princes of Europe. France, of course, was anxious for a council. Henry IV of England accepted it willingly, and even wrote to Rupert, King of the Romans, urging him to take part in it. The difficulty lay with Germany, where Rupert and Wenzel both

  claimed the imperial title. Wenzel offered to send ambassadors to the council if they were received as the ambassadors of the King of the Romans. When this was agreed to, he published on January 22, 1409, a declaration of neutrality throughout his dominions. This, however, had the effect of rendering Rupert uneasy. He was uncertain what view a new pope might take of his claims, which had been recognized by Boniface IX, and were bound up in the recognition of Gregory XII.

  At a Diet held at Frankfurt in January 1409, Cardinal Landulph of Bury maintained the cause of the cardinals and Gregory's nephew Antonio the cause of the pope. The majority of the princes were in favor of the cardinals, but Rupert still held to Gregory, and it was finally resolved that both parties should send envoys to the council to represent their views. Nor was it only in high political matters that the cardinals pursued their efforts for Gregory's

  overthrow. Pisa itself was a manufacturing of satires and invectives against him. One may be quoted as a remarkable instance of the medieval notions of reverence and of wit. Two of the cardinals died in Pisa in July 1408, and the letter purporting to give their experiences of the politics of the other world was found one morning affixed to the gates of the Cathedral of Pisa. It describes with rhetorical realism a consistory held by Christ in heaven, in which

  one of the saints rises and calls attention to the distracted state of the Church on Earth. He is made to describe the two popes and their followers with the vilest scurrility of personal spite. After hearing this speech, the cardinals meet with a friend who tells them that on his road to paradise he happened to miss his way and peep into the regions of punishment, where he saw a fiery chariot being prepared for Gregory, to which were harnessed the chief

  persecutors of the Church. He saw Urban VI and Clement VII made objects of mockery, even by their fellow sufferers in the abode of heretics, while Innocent VII was condemned to menial work in heaven, where he hid himself from shame at the thought that he had made Gregory a cardinal. Finally, the two cardinals were welcomed by the Almighty into the heavenly assemblage and are assured that a blessing will rest on the labors which they have begun. There were many such pamphlets,

  and much coarse wit was mingled with theological discussion. In one which issued from the University of Paris, Peter the Luna is reminded that if he were true to his name, he would be shining like the moon in a clear sky. As it is, he is eclipsed by clouds of vanity. Angelo Correr is informed that his name means angel, but he seems to be Satan transforming himself into an angel of light. The great question, however, for the cardinals was to

  strengthen themselves in Italy. It was clear that Lattislaus would maintain the cause of Gregory, and such was the power of Lattislaus in Italy that he might render insecure the position of the cardinals in Pisa and bring their counsel to naught. The cardinals looked for help to one of their own number, Baldassare Cossa, who in the days of Boniface IX had been made legate in Bologna, over which he established himself supreme. Cossa was a Neapolitan who began his career as a

  piratical adventurer in the naval war between Lattislaus and Louis-Yavon Joux. When the peace was made, his occupation was gone, and he determined to seek advancement in other ways, though his old habits never entirely left him, and he had a robber's custom of working all night and sleeping only when dawn appeared. He entered as a student in the University of Bologna, which he quitted for Rome, where Boniface IX soon recognized and esteemed his practical sagacity.

  He was made by Boniface one of his chamberlains, and his ingenuity in extorting money won the pope's admiration. Cossa would write to absent bishops, warning them with all friendly concern that the pope was indignant with them and intended to transfer them from their present posts to some unknown regions or districts in the hands of the Saracens. After thus exciting their fears, he proffered himself for the office of treasurer of the gifts which they eagerly sent to propitiate

  the pope. Besides this, he organized and superintended the vast army of papal officials who went out for the sale of indulgences. Boniface rewarded these merits by making him cardinal in 1402. And when on the death of Giangaliazzo Visconti there was an opportunity of extending the power of the church in Emilia, Cardinal Cossa was sent as legate, and established the pope's power in Bologna. Thenceforth he ruled the city and the district with firmness and

  severity. He knew how far to allow a plot to proceed before bringing it to light and punishing its authors. He knew how to involve in charges of treason those who stood in his way. And, while carefully strengthening the fortifications, he pleased the citizens by beautifying their city. He managed to turn to his own purposes the schemes of Alberigo da Barbiano, who was striving to win a principality in the Romagna. When Alberigo pressed on Faenza,

  Cardinal Cossa bought the signore for the church from the terrified Ettore de Manfredi, and occupied the territory. He borrowed the money from the city of Bologna, but he did not pay it to Manfredi, whom in November 1405 he invited to Faenza and put to death on the charge of attempted treason. At the same time died Ceccarelli Ordelaffi, lord of Forli, leaving a young son to succeed him. Cossa claimed Forli for the church on the ground

  that the grant of Boniface IX had been a personal grant to Cecca. The people of Forli rose and set up their old municipal government. For a while there was war, but in 1406 peace was made, and the Republic of Forli recognized their allegiance to the Roman church by accepting a Podesta and legate from Rome. These triumphs abroad improved Cossa's hold upon Bologna, which he ruled as an independent prince. Complaints were made against him to Innocent VII,

  but Cossa imprisoned the complainants, and Innocent was too feeble to do more than express his distrust. Cossa openly defied Gregory XII, and refused to admit his nephew Antonio to the possessions of the bishopric of Bologna which the pope conferred upon him. He pleaded that he needed them for his own expenses. It was not as a cardinal, but rather as an Italian prince, that he declared himself in favor of the Council of Pisa, and took the cardinals under his protection. It was said

  that he bore a deadly hatred to Ladislaus, who had captured and put to death two of his brothers, who had not been so wise as himself in desisting from piracy in good time. Without this motive of vindictiveness, Cossa had motives of self-interest to induce him to side with the cardinals. He became, at once, the most powerful man amongst them, and his support was necessary to enable them to carry out their council. Cossa saw the papacy henceforth dependent on himself. Cossa's first

  step was to secure Florence for the side of the cardinals, and Florence, which had always been on good terms with the pope at Avignon, was easily won over. Early in 1409, a council of Florentine ecclesiastics determined that they were in conscience bound to withdraw from allegiance to Gregory, and this determination was announced to take effect from March 26, in case he did not appear or send commissioners with full power to the Council of Pisa.

  Moreover, Cossa succeeded in establishing firmly a league between Florence and Siena, so as to secure the safety of the council against an attack of Ladislaus. Had it not been for Cossa's skill, the council might easily have been disturbed by the hostile demonstrations of Ladislaus, who was determined to uphold Gregory as long as possible, and meanwhile to get all he could from a pope who had no other refuge than himself. Gregory had sunk to

  the lowest pitch of degradation. He sold to Ladislaus for the small sum of 25,000 Florens, the entire states of the church and even Rome itself. After this bargain, Ladislaus set out for Rome, intending to proceed into Tuscany and break up the council. He entered Rome on March 12, and took up his abode in the Vatican, where he lived, in regal state, and appointed new magistrates for the city. On March 28, he left Rome for Viterbo, but was driven back by a violent tempest.

  And again set out on April 2, his standard Borodoguerol rhyme. With this assuring promise, he marched northwards and threatened Siena, which was too strong for assault, having been reinforced by a Florentine garrison. Florence, true to her policy of opposing the overweening might of any power, resolved to hold by the cardinals and further the election of a new pope, so as to have a barrier against the outspoken intentions of Ladislaus to seize the

  states of the church. Already they had warned Ladislaus that they could not recognize his sovereignty over the states of the church, and when he scornfully asked with what troops they would defend themselves, the Florentine ambassador Bartolomeo Valori answered, With yours. Ladislaus checked himself, for he knew that the wealth of the Florentine citizens could allure his followers from his ranks. It was lucky for Cosa's plans that on April 26,

  died Albarigo de Barbiano near Perugia, when on his way to join Ladislaus at Rome. Albarigo was full of indignation against Cosa, who had seized his castles in Romagna, and his death robbed Ladislaus of an important ally. To check the progress of Ladislaus, the Florentines engaged Malateste de Malatesti, lord of Pesaro, who being far outnumbered by Ladislaus, could only pursue a cautious policy of cutting off supplies and harassing the advance

  of the army. When Ladislaus found that he could not take Siena, he pressed on to Orezzo, which also closed its gates against him. Thence he made an attempt on Cortona, which was also unsuccessful. Though master of the country, he could not capture any fortified place, but only laid waste the fields. The peasants began to mock at him and gave him the nickname Drei Guastagrano, King Waste the Corn. A second attempt on Cortona was more successful,

  as the citizens, through hatred to their lord, plotted with Ladislaus and opened the gates to his troops on June 3. Meanwhile, the council was sitting peaceably at Pisa, and the attempt by Ladislaus to prevent its assembling had entirely failed. The luckless city of Pisa greeted with joy the meeting of the council within her walls. Once mistress of the trade in the Mediterranean and chief in wealth and importance among the Italian cities, she had sunk from her lofty position,

  overshadowed first by Genoa and then by Florence. Internal dissensions accomplished the work of her downfall. She passed from one lord to another, till in 1405 the once haughty city was sold as a chattel to Florence. Florentine rule was not established without a desperate struggle, in which the peasants were reduced only by famine, and in the hour of their uttermost despair were betrayed by him whom they had chosen leader of their last desperate defense. But though reduced,

  the peasants were not subdued, and their old spirit of independence was still strong within them. Pisa, in this condition of enforced quietude, with its many memories of departed glories, was well fitted to be the meeting place of the council which was to restore the peace of Christendom. The building, moreover, in which the council was held, is the noblest monument which Christendom contains of the aspirations and activity of the medieval church. Nowhere is a

  more vivid impression gained of the magnificent sobriety and earnestness of the Italian citizen than when first the Cathedral of Pisa strikes upon the eye. Away from the Arno, with its throng of ships and noise of sailors, away from the Exchange, where merchants congregate, away from the Piazza, where the people meet to manage the affairs of their city, away at the extremist verge of the city, where there is naught that can hinder the full force of their impressiveness, the peasants

  raised the noble buildings which tell the sincerity of their piety and the greatness of their municipal life. The stately simplicity of the vast basilica which was consecrated in 1118 shows how the rich fancy of the lombards enriched without destroying the purity and severity of the Roman forms. The graceful proportions of the baptistry which was begun in 1153 testify the increased freedom of handling among the peace and architects and the Campanile is a memorial of their determined

  spirit and joyous resoluteness in facing unforeseen difficulties. The exquisite gothic cloister of Giovanni Pizzano, surrounding the peaceful burying ground of their forefathers, tells of the poetic seriousness of the peas and people and the freshness of their great architects to receive new impulses. Nor was this all. Inside these splendid buildings were stored the treasures of Italy's earliest and most reflective art. The peas and school of sculpture put forth all its strength and grace and

  decorating the great church of the city. The most thoughtful and earnest of the flourishing school of painters at Siena unfolded in allegory on the walls of the Campo Santo, the great realities of human life. Such was the place, so full of many and varied associations, to which the assembled cardinals summoned the representatives of every land and Christendom. The council was opened on the festival of the Annunciation, March 25th, 1409. The long procession of its members formed

  in the monastery of San Michele and wound slowly through the streets to the cathedral. The number of those who attended the council was imposing, though all had not arrived at first. There were present twenty-two cardinals of both abediences, four patriarchs, ten archbishops, and sixty-nine bishops. Besides these, thirteen archbishops and eighty-two bishops sent their representatives. Seventy-one abbots were present. A hundred and eighteen sent proctors. There were

  also sixty priors, the generals of the great orders of the Dominicans, Franciscans, Carmelites, Augustinians, the grandmaster of the Knights of St. John, and the prior of the Teutonic Knights. Besides a hundred and nine representatives of cathedral and collegiate chapters, ambassadors were sent by Vensel, King of the Romans, the kings of England, France, Sicily, Poland, Cyprus, the dukes of Burgundy and Brabant, Cleves, Bavaria, Pomerania, the Landgraf of Turin,

  the Markgraf of Brandenburg, the universities of Paris, Toulouse, Angers, Montpellier, Vienna, Prague, Cologne, Krakow, Bologna, Cambridge, and Oxford. One hundred and twenty-three doctors of theology and more than two hundred doctors of law are said to have been there. It was computed that altogether ten thousand strangers visited Pisa during the period of the council. End of section 23.

• 24 - Bk. 1, Ch. 6: The Council of Pisa, 1409, Pt. 2

  play_arrowPlaymenu_bookRead

  Section 24 of A History of the Papacy, Volume 1 by Mandel Creighton. This LibriVox recording is in the public domain. Read by Pamela Nagami. Book 1, Chapter 6. The Council of Pisa.

  1409, Part 2. The first day of the Council, March 25, 1409, was devoted to the procession and opening service. Next day the Council assembled in the long nave of the Cathedral. After Mass, a sermon was preached by the Cardinal of Milan,

  then all knelt in silent prayer, which was followed by a litany, and then the Assembly, on their knees, raised through the vaulted roof the strain of the hymn veni creatur. The business of the Council then began, under the presidency of Guy Malissec, Cardinal of Poitiers,

  who was both venerable from his age and from the fact that he was the only Cardinal who had been created before the outbreak of the schism. The Archbishop of Pisa, in behalf of the Council, read a solemn profession of faith, and the better to assert its orthodoxy,

  ended with a declaration that it firmly held, that every heretic or schismatic must share with the Devil and his angels the burning of eternal fire, unless before the end of his life he be restored to the Catholic Church. The Council then elected its officials,

  marshals, auditors, advocates, promoters, notaries, who took the oaths of office. Immediately one of the advocates, Simon of Perugia, demanded that the letters of summons addressed to the two rival popes be read. When this ceremony had been gone through,

  he asked that steps be taken to discover whether these men, whom he nicknamed Benefictus and Eurorius, had been guilty of contumacy. With the ridiculous imitation of the forms of a law court, which had no relevancy to the present matter, two of the Cardinals, accompanied by an Archbishop, a Bishop, and several officials,

  advanced to the great doors of the Cathedral which were thrown open. Standing on the steps, they summoned the two popes and inquired of the gaping crowd if they had seen in the city any of the household of either of them. Then they solemnly returned and informed the Council

  that no one had answered to their summons. The advocate thereupon demanded that they should be declared contumacious. The proposition was submitted by the President to the other Cardinals, who gave their voices for delay until the morrow. The other members signified their ascent by cries of

  Placket, Placket, and the session came to an end. Next day, the same formalities were repeated with the same result, and the third session was fixed for March 30. After a third fruitless summons, the rival popes were declared contumacious. The one Cardinal, still adhering to Gregory, and the three who remained with Benedict,

  were called upon to be present at the next session, when further steps were to be taken against Gregory and Benedict, if they still refused to appear. To give them time to do so, the day of meeting was fixed for April 15. It was well for the Council to delay that its members might confer privately

  and assure themselves of the basis upon which their proceedings were to rest. It was one thing to wish to remedy the evils of the schism. It was another thing to settle the nature of the authority by which the schism was to be brought to an end. The papal monarchy had so entirely absorbed all the powers of the Church

  that its old mechanism had disappeared, and the very principles upon which it had rested were a matter of uncertainty. Opinions were eagerly sought upon this point. Pamphlets were freely published, and different views were set forward, which enabled us to judge of the difficulties in the way of obtaining the unanimity

  which was necessary before active steps could be taken. It is worthwhile to notice some of the principal views by which the freedom of conciliar action was vindicated. COSA caused the University of Bologna to express its opinion, which it did, with the cautious proviso,

  that if it said anything deviating from the traditions of the Church, it was to be counted as unsaid. It took for its starting point the proposition that schism of long duration passes into heresy. A pope elected under an oath to do away with the schism, if he fail, nourishes heresy, and those who are subject to him are therefore bound to withdraw their allegiance

  and seek a true pope who will extirpate the schism. If the cardinals whose chief duty it is do not call a council for that purpose, provincial synods and princes may take such steps as they think wise in the matter. This opinion, founded on canon law, was technical and formal, and admitted of technical and formal answer.

  It seems to have been supplemented at the time of its publication by a statement of more general principles deduced from the nature of the Church itself. Such as had been insisted upon by the University of Paris. True cardinals represent the universal Church in electing a pope and in all questions that concern the unity of the Church, for the object of the election of a pope is to embody that unity.

  All obligations that they imposed in making an election they imposed in the name of the universal Church and are bound to see them carried out. Otherwise, they incur the guilt of heresy. This additional opinion, which is compelled to fall back upon general principles, still does so with caution and shows an unwillingness to go further than was

  necessary to justify technically the summons of a council under existing circumstances. Its object is to show the existence of a legal obligation on the cardinals to proceed in the way which they had chosen. The Italian mind was clearly not much interested in the question. It was from France that the conciliar movement came, and it was French intellect which advocated

  general councils as a recurrence to primitive antiquity. Peter Dye and Jean Guerson codified their opinions for the good of the peas and fathers, and in their utterances we see the advance of opposition to the principles of the papal monarchy which this gism had brought about. Dye was loath to cut himself entirely off from obedience to Benedict,

  but he set the unity of the Church above personal feeling. The head of the Church, he writes, is Christ, and in unity with him, not necessarily with the Pope, does the unity of the Church consist. For Christ its head the Church has the authority to come together or summon a council to preserve its unity, for Christ said, where two or three are gathered together in my name,

  there am I in the midst. He said not in the name of Peter or in the name of the Pope, but in my name. Moreover, the law of nature prompts every living body to gather together its members and resist its own division or destruction. The primitive Church, as may be seen in the Acts of the Apostles, used this power of assembling

  councils, and in the Council of Jerusalem it was not Peter but James who presided. With the growth of the Church, this power was reasonably limited for the sake of order, so that councils were not called without the Pope's authority. But this limitation did not abolish the power which was inherent in the Church itself, and which in cases of necessity it was bound to use.

  It is true that positive laws of the Church are opposed to this conclusion, but in the present necessity they must be broadly construed. Without affecting the rights of the Pope when there is one canonical Pope universally recognized. To get over the existing difficulty, a general council may be called,

  not only by the Cardinals, but by any faithful men who have the power. Before this council, the rival popes are bound to appear, or better, to send their proctors, and if necessary, abdicate their position to promote the unity of the Church. If they refuse, the council can take action against them as promoters of schism, and proceed to a new election, which however would not be expedient unless the whole of

  Christendom were likely to agree to it. These conclusions of Dye were still further strengthened by a tractate of Garçon on the unity of the Church, which he sent from Paris before he was able personally to join the council. In this he examines all the objections on the ground of canon law which can be raised against the council.

  He asserts that the unity of the Church to one vicar of Christ need not be procured by a literal observance of the terms or ceremonies of positive law, but by the wider equity of a council in which resides the power of interpreting positive law and adapting it to the great end of promoting unity. The unity of the Church depends on divine law, natural law, canon law, and municipal law,

  but the last two must in cases of emergency be interpreted by the first two. A case has now arisen in which neither canon law nor municipal law can avail. The council, therefore, must use divine law and natural law to interpret them, but must do so with discretion and moderation so as not to injure their stability. Garçon agrees with Dye in urging that unless the council be unanimous about proceeding to a new

  election, such a course be deferred. Moreover, as the search for unity must be undertaken with prayers and penance, since the schism has its origin in sin, so must unity itself be established by a reformation of the Church in head and members, lest worse befall. In these utterances of Dye and Garçon, we see the root of all the efforts after reform which

  formed the ideal of thinking men for the next century and a half. We find ideas of the nature of the Church and the position of the papacy, which are founded on broad principles of historical fact and natural right. These ideas might long have been discussed as abstract problems in a few learned circles, but the schism made them articles of popular belief in every country.

  One great result of the schism was that it forced men to inquire into matters which otherwise would never have been investigated. Every Christian was driven to form an opinion on a subject of vital interest to Christendom. The letters of the rival popes and the statements made of their opponents were widely circulated and eagerly discussed. All parties appealed to the people and felt that their claims must rest, finally, on popular assent.

  Abster's questions, that ordinarily were discussed by scholars in the closet, were now noised abroad on the housetop. Schoolmen and legists might discuss, but it was clear that the Pisan Council must owe its power to the universality of its acceptance. It was true that the greater part of the Christian world had declared its allegiance, but some power still held aloof. The Spanish kingdoms were true to the obedience of Benedict.

  Ladislas would not give up so useful an instrument as Gregory. The northern nations stood aloof, as did Zigezmunt of Hungary. Venice maintained an attitude of cautious neutrality. And Carlo Malatesta, Lord of Romagna, still upheld Gregory. In Germany, Rupert opposed the council which his rival Wenzel supported. When the council met for its fourth session on April 15th, it had to face the existence of opposition to its authority. Four ambassadors from Rupert,

  the German king, attended the council. But though all were ecclesiastics, they did not appear in their vestments, nor did they take their seats among the others. As soon as the opening ceremonies were over, one of them, the bishop of Verdun, rose and in a lengthy speech propounded twenty-two objections to the council, all of which were of a narrow and technical character, mostly founded on an acute criticism of the terms of the summons to the council and difficulties concerning its

  dates. The ambassadors were requested to put their objections in writing, which they did the next day. And April 24th was fixed for the next session, when an answer must be given them. But the ambassadors did not think it worthwhile to await an answer. On April 21st, which was a Sunday, they attended mass in the cathedral and heard a sermon preached in refutation of their statements. The same evening they hurriedly left Pisa, after lodging an appeal from the council to a future

  council to be convoked by Gregory. In the same week there came to Pisa Carlo Malatesta, lord of Rimini, in whose dominions Gregory had taken shelter. Carlo had already sought to make terms between Gregory and the council, and had proposed a change of the place of the council to Bologna, Mantua, or Fortale, to any of which Gregory would promise to come. The cardinals had answered that having summoned the council to Pisa, they were no longer free to change the place.

  Now Carlo came to Pisa to try and make peace. The cardinals suggested that if Gregory would not abdicate, Carlo should cease his personesse schismatic and heretic. But Carlo was too honorable to entertain the suggestion. He was himself a learned and eloquent man of upright character, and answered that what he could do lawfully he was ready to do, but he could use no violence. He returned to Rimini on April 26th and informed Gregory of the state of affairs at Pisa.

  He added that unless the pope's righteousness exceeded the righteousness of the Pharisees, the church would never have peace. Gregory answered that difficulties beset him on every side. If he abdicated, what was to become of his cardinals and of King Lattislaus? If he did not, great danger beset the church. His only practical step was to hasten the meeting of the council which he had summoned. At Pisa, the fifth session of the council was held on April 24th. An advocate

  read a long statement which lasted for three hours of the charges against the two popes, and demanded that they should be adjudged heretical and deprived of their office. This document, which was drawn up by the cardinals, glided gently over the blame which they themselves had incurred by making their elections. It insisted on the pains which they had taken to induce the popes to yield, the bodily terror in which they stood of the violent temper of the

  popes, and the persistent obstinacy shown in neglecting their advice. The council appointed commissioners to examine witnesses as to the truth of the statements contained in the 38 charges so preferred. The same day arrived in Pisa the ambassadors of the King of France, headed by Simon Comel, Patriarch of Alexandria, and soon after came the English ambassadors headed by Robert Hallam, Bishop of Salisbury. The next session on April 30th seems to have been

  spent in welcoming them. Comel presided and Hallam addressed the council, urging them to united action and assuring them of the goodwill of the English King towards their efforts to restore unity. The bishop's speech lasted so long that nothing else could be done that day. At the seventh session, May 4th, a learned legist of Bologna, Piero d'Ancorano, rose to answer the objections made by Rupert's ambassadors. This he did with much legal skill

  and acuteness, but his argument was founded on the assumption that by the schism the church was without a head and that in the vacancy the cardinals were the rightful administrators of the papacy. The legal mind could not advance beyond the basis of law, which only opened up interminable questions of dispute. We see as we look through the objections of Rupert's ambassadors and the answers of d'Ancorano that the controversy on legal grounds might be protracted endlessly.

  Only by an adoption of the theoretical grounds of D'Ailly and Gerson that the supreme power vested in the church itself, which must act according to the laws of God and nature in cases of emergency, could the council be justified. It is not to be wondered at that the legal mind of the canonists, which saw in the papal monarchy over the church the only foundation of law and order, shrank from any assertion that might affect the basis of this authority.

  Yet without some such assertion the authority of the council could not be established and the schism could not be brought to an end. The eighth session on May 10th brought one of these technical difficulties to light. The advocate demanded a decree that the union of the two colleges had been duly and canonically effected. On this the bishop of Salisbury remarked that he did not understand how the two colleges were on the same footing, seeing that Gregory's had formally

  withdrawn their obedience while Benedict's had not. It was suggested that a decree be passed that it was lawful and also was a duty for everyone to withdraw from both popes since the time when it became clear that they had no intention of promoting the unity of the church by common abdication. To this some of the cardinals, especially those of Poitiers and Albano, demurred, but the council affirmed it by cries of plucket. Then the president, the patriarch of Alexandria,

  read out a decree of the council according to the advocate's demand, declaring approval of the union of the two colleges and affirming the council to be duly assembled as representative of the universal church and to have authority to decide all questions concerning the schism and the restoration of unity. Before the next session on May 17th the cardinals had been won over to accept the decree brought forward at the last session declaring the withdrawal of allegiance from both popes

  and the powers of the commissioners who had been appointed to examine witnesses about the charges against the popes were extended to allow them to get through their work more quickly. In the 10th and 11th sessions, May 22nd and 23rd, the articles against the two popes were read and their truth was attested by the archbishop of Pisa who declared each of them to be true and notorious and mentioned in the case of each the number of witnesses by whose testimony it was

  established. On the same day bulls from Benedict were brought to his cardinals who at first refused to receive them but the cardinal of Milan at length opened them at the instigation of Simon Cramot. The bulls contained an inhibition to proceed to a fresh election and pronounced excommunication against all who should withdraw from obedience to the Roman sea. These bulls of Benedict in the existing temper of the council were regarded as more convincing than many witnesses

  of his stubbornness and incapacity. At last in the 12th session on May 25th, Gregory and Benedict were declared contumacious and the charges against them were pronounced notoriously true. End of section 24.

• 25 - Bk. 1, Ch. 6: The Council of Pisa, 1409, Pt. 3

  play_arrowPlaymenu_bookRead

  Section 25 of A History of the Papacy, Volume 1 by Mandel Creighton. This LibriVox recording is in the public domain, read by Pamela Nagami. Book 1, Chapter 6. The Council of Pisa, 1409, Part 3. On May 28, the Doctors of Theology who were present at the Council, to the number of 120,

  gave their opinions that the two popes were schismatics and heretics, and might be excommunicated and deprived of their rights. At the session next day, Dr. Pierre Plaoul spoke in the name of the University of Paris, which he said was not only a representative of the French Kingdom, but had scholars from England, Germany and Italy, by whose cooperation its opinions were formed.

  He declared its view to be that the Church stood above the two claimants of the papal throne, who were both heretical and schismatic. The same opinion was held by the Universities of Angers, Toulouse and Orléans. Similar opinions were also expressed on behalf of the Universities of Bologna and Florence. On June 1, the Archbishop of Pisa read a summary of the articles against the two popes,

  and the evidence on which they were founded. Finally, on June 5, the Patriarch of Alexandria read the sentence of deposition against the two popes as schismatics and heretics. All the faithful were absolved from allegiance to them, and their censures were declared of no effect. The sentence was read before the open doors to the assembled crowd, and was received with rejoicing.

  The magistrates proclaimed it with the loud sound of trumpets and ordered a universal holiday. The bells of the cathedral peeled out joyously, and each church took up the peal, which spread from village to village, so that in four hours' time the news was carried in this way to Florence. The Council was not, however, very sure of its own position in spite of its lofty pretensions, if we may judge from the fact that in the same session it prohibited any of its members to depart

  till they had signed the decree of deposition. It seems to have felt that its authority, after all, would depend upon its numerical strength and unanimity. In the same spirit, at the next session, on June 10, letters were sent to the communities and lords of the Patriarchate of Aquileia, where Gregory had taken refuge, requiring them to use all diligence to restrain Gregory from holding a council.

  At the same time, the Cardinal of Chalon, who had at length departed from Benedict, was on the intercession of the Cardinal of Albano, allowed in silence to take his seat in the Council. The existing popes had been set aside by the authority of the Council. There remained the important question how a new pope was to be obtained. The proceedings of the Council really rested on popular assent.

  A disputed succession to the papal monarchy had led to the assembling of an ecclesiastical parliament to end the miseries of civil war. The authority of this parliament was necessary to put down the two claimants to the papal throne. But the ecclesiastical hierarchy was anxious to check any movement towards democracy. The Cardinals could elect a pope, but could not depose one.

  They were driven to have recourse to a council as the only means of getting rid of the two claimants for the headship of the Church. But they were anxious that the pretensions of the Council should extend no further. Now that the rival popes were gone, the Cardinals were prepared to revive the old custom and proceed quietly to the election of a new pope. With the view of giving assurance to the Council and preventing any interference in the election to the papacy, the Cardinals in the session on June 10th caused a paper to be read by the Archbishop of Pisa,

  in which they bound themselves in case any one of them should be elected pope, not to dissolve the Council until a due, reasonable and sufficient reform of the Church in head and members had been brought about. There were, in fact, different opinions about the procedure in the election of a new pope. Some were of opinion that as the Cardinals had been created during the schism, an election by the Council would be the best way of restoring legitimacy.

  But this seemed too revolutionary. And as a compromise, the representatives of the University of Paris urged that the Council should authorize the Cardinals to proceed to an election and should provide that a two-thirds majority of each college should be required. On the necessity of such an authorization, there was a difference of opinion even among the French prelates. Nevertheless, at the next session on June 14th, the Patriarch of Alexandria read an authorization of the Council without submitting the question to a vote.

  An oath was administered to the city magistrates that they would secure peace and order during the election. Ambassadors from the King of Aragon, who had just arrived with difficulty, obtained a hearing from the Council, whose interest now lay entirely in the election of a new pope. They demanded that the envoys from Benedict's Council of Perpignan should be heard by the Council, and received answer that it was now late in the day and was the eve of the conclave.

  Commissioners were, however, appointed to confer with them, before whom they appeared next day in the Church of San Martino, but were received with scant courtesy. The Bull of Deposition was read to them, and when the Archbishop of Tarragona persisted in calling himself the Envoy of Pope Benedict, there was a cry, You are an envoy of a heretic and a schismatic. A tumult arose, and the declaration of the city magistrates that they could not, in accordance with their oath, allow anything which might disturb the Council, rendered it useless for the envoys to stay longer.

  They asked for a safe conduct to go and confer with Gregory about peace, but were told by Cardinal Cosa that if they entered the district where he was legged, he would have them burned, safe conduct or no. The envoys in fear left the city. In this matter, the Council failed to act, either with dignity or fairness. It is true that they were wearied with fruitless embassies to the recalcitrant popes. It is true that this embassy came late, and that the Council had already decided on a course of conduct which no embassy could effect.

  Still, the restoration of unity to the Church could only be brought about by tact, by conciliation, by imposing dignity. It was necessary to prove the two popes hopelessly in the wrong, and leave them nothing to which they could appeal in their own defense. The ambassador of the King of Aragon informed the Patriarch afterwards that they had come with powers to tender Benedict's resignation, even though Gregory did not resign. A chance of reconciliation had been thrown away by the precipitate action of the Cardinals just at the last. The Cardinals were bent on the new election, and on June 15th they entered into conclave in the Archbishop's palace.

  There were ten Cardinals of Benedict's obedience, fourteen of Gregory's. There was a controversy whether a term should be set within which the Cardinals should make an election, or the right of election should pass to the Council. But it was agreed to leave the Cardinals full liberty. Fears were entertained lest the election should be long deferred. But on June 26th it was announced that the unanimous choice of the Cardinals had fallen on Peter Filargi, Cardinal of Milan.

  Of the proceedings in the conclave we know nothing for certain. The Cardinals must have felt that they had a difficult task before them. It was necessary to elect someone who would awaken no national jealousy, and who would be capable of dealing energetically with the disturbances in the Papal States. It is said that at first their thoughts turned upon the vigorous legate of Bologna, Baldassare Cossa. But Cossa was alive to the difficulties which one so deeply concerned in Italian politics would have to face.

  He besought them to choose Filargi instead of himself as being a man of learning and of stainless character, a Greek by birth, who would be a compromise between contending nationalities, and who had no relatives whom he could wish to aggrandize at the expense of the Church. He promised that he himself would do all in his power to recover from usurpers the possessions of the Holy See. The Cardinals agreed and elected Filargi, who was over 70 years of age and seemed to promise only a short tenure of office. Filargi's election was hailed with joy.

  The bells were rung, the new pope was carried to the cathedral, and there enthroned. He took the name of Alexander V. Everyone was fairly satisfied with his election as being a judicious compromise which could offend no one. Born of a humble family in Crete, Peter Filargi knew neither father nor mother. As a beggar boy in the street, he was taken and educated by a friar minor.

  After his admission into the Franciscan Order, he went into Italy and thence proceeded as a student to the universities of Oxford and Paris, where he gained great reputation for his theological knowledge. Returning into Lombardy, he won the confidence of Giovanni Visconti, Lord of Milan, and was by him made tutor of his sons. Promotion rapidly followed. He was made bishop of Vicenza, then of Novara, next Archbishop of Milan. Innocent VII created him cardinal, and his authority in North Italy had been of great service in arranging the preliminaries of the council.

  He was universally popular for his affability, kindliness, and munificence, to the benefits of which everyone hastened at once to put in a claim. On July 1st, the new pope preached before the council, and then the cardinal of Bologna, Cosa, read in his behalf, decrees approving of everything that had been done by the cardinals from May 1408 up to the beginning of the council, and also uniting the two colleges into one, so that there should be no more question who were true cardinals and who were not. Whichever was the true college, as all had been unanimous in Alexander's election, he was indisputably a true pope, and could supply all defects either of law or fact.

  On July 7th was the solemn coronation of the pope, and on July 10th came ambassadors from Florence and Siena, who delivered complimentary speeches. The Sienese envoy urged the pope to hasten his return to Rome, withered the way now lay open by the retreat of Ladislaus. In fact, now that a pope was elected, political motives rapidly began to outweigh ecclesiastical. Cosa, who was the pope's chief advisor, pined to find a field for his adventurous spirit in the recovery of the states of the church. Louis of Anjou hastened to Pisa in hopes that this change in the papacy might bring again into prominence his claims to the Neapolitan crown.

  It was true that the cardinals had bound themselves before the election that the pope should proceed at once to a reform of the church, but this was a vague undertaking, and it was hard to know how to begin to carry it out. The times were stirring, and the pope, if he were to establish himself, must show a power of vigorous action. The session which was to begin the reform of the church had been fixed for July 15th, but the cardinals wavered, and on the excuse of the pope's illness, it was put off till the 20th, the 24th, and finally the 27th. Then, as the result of many conferences between the cardinals and the council, the archbishop of Pisa declared, in the pope's name, that he renounced all pecuniary claims that had been accruing during the vacancy up to the day of his election, and gave up reservations of the goods of deceased prelates and claims to the revenues of vacant benefices. The cardinals were asked to do the same as regarded their claims, and all except the cardinals of Albano and Naples assented.

  A series of decrees were passed securing in their benefices and possessions all who adhered to the council, confirming all their acts, and declaring that a general council was to be summoned by the pope or his successor in three years, that is, in the month of April 1412. In the last session, on August 7th, a few trivial decrees were promulgated, directing the holding of diocesan and provincial synods and chapters of monks. Plenary absolution, which was to avail, even in the hour of death, was given to all who had attended the council and to their attendants. Finally, the pope declared his intention of reforming the church in head and members. Much had already been done, but more remained, which, owing to the departure of prelates and ambassadors, could not now be undertaken. The pope therefore deferred further reforms to the future council, which was to be regarded as a continuation of the present one. There were some members of the council who wished to make their voice heard on the question of reform. The prelates and proctors of England, France, Germany, Poland, Bohemia, and Provence presented to the pope a list of grievances to which they called his attention, as deviating from the old laws and customs of the church.

  They enumerated translations of bishops against their will. Papal reservations and provisions. Destruction of the rights of patronage of bishops and chapters. The exaction of first fruits and tenths. Grants of exemption from the visitatorial power of bishops. The excessive liberty of appeal to the pope in cases which had not been heard in the inferior courts. They petitioned for a remission of debts to the papal camera, by which many churches were entirely overwhelmed. And for a simplification of the rules of the papal chancery, which were opposed to the common law and baffled even the learned. They prayed that the pope would not rashly alienate or mortgage the possessions of the Roman sea. To these requests, Alexander V returned fair answers, except in the matter of appeals, about which he only said that he would consider further. The promise of a future council enabled the pope to put aside for the present the question of reform. And the greed of the chief members of the council to seek their own promotion from a pope whose liberality and kindliness were well known, made them indifferent to anything beyond their own interest.

  The patriarch of Alexandria, who had been the leader of the council, was busily engaged in seeking to obtain his own nomination to the archbishop Brick of Reims, which had just fallen vacant. The members of the council of Pisa returned home convinced that they had at length given peace to the church and had healed the long schism. They had no doubt that their pope would prevail and that the others would sink into oblivion. Benedict XIII had never been very warmly supported by Aragon. After protesting against the council of Pisa and its proceedings, he retired to the rocky fortress of Peniscola on the coast and there shut himself up for safety. Gregory XII held a council in opposition to that at Pisa at Cividale, which was but scantily attended. However, it declared the election of Alexander V to be null and void, August 22nd. And before its dissolution, Gregory, on September 5th, made a magnanimous offer to abdicate provided Benedict and Alexander would do the same. He offered to meet them for this purpose at any place which might be agreed upon by Rupert, Ziggismund and Ladislaus.

  Such an offer might be specious, but was clearly illusory. Rupert, Ziggismund and Ladislaus were not at all likely to agree on the choice of a place, and if they did, there was no reason to suppose that Gregory's rivals would abide by their decision. But Gregory himself was in sore straits where to turn when his shadowy council was dissolved. The Patriarch of Aquileia was hostile to him, and he had difficulty in escaping safely from Cividale, but last in disguise, he managed to make his way to the coast and take refuge in two galleys of Ladislaus which conveyed him to Gaeta where he settled for a time. The adherents of Benedict and Gregory might be few, but so long as there were any, the object of the council had failed. It had met to restore unity to the Church but did not succeed in doing so. In fact, we are driven to admit that the council scarcely proceeded with the care, discretion or singleness of purpose which was necessary to enable it to perform the duty which it had undertaken. Its intention from the beginning seems to have been to override, not to conciliate the contending popes. In the first session, the advocate of the council was allowed to call them by the derisive names of Benefictus and Eurorius. The council entirely identified itself with the cardinals and accepted their procedure as its own.

  It did not enter into negotiations with the popes nor send to invite their presence, but it assumed at once that the summons of the cardinals was one which the popes were bound to obey and declared them contumacious for their refusal. It could hardly have been expected that the popes would submit themselves at once to the behest of their rebellious cardinals. If the council had taken up a position of its own, which could have been supported by all moderate men, it might have exerted such influence on the popes themselves or their supporters as to have reduced them to submission. Even if this had failed, the council should have remembered that its avowed object was the restoration of the outward unity of the Church and it was not possible that the authority of a council irregularly convoked should meet with such universal acceptance that its sentence of deposition would be received with entire unanimity by the whole Church. Both the popes were old. A new election could not be far removed. Judicious negotiations might have provided satisfactory measures to be taken when a vacancy occurred. It would have been safer to have ended the schism surely than to have aimed at ending it speedily. Moreover, the council did not sit long enough nor discuss matters with sufficient freedom to make its basis sure. The teaching of Dailly and Gerson had done much to justify the assembly of a council as an extraordinary step due to necessity.

  But the council proceeded to depose the popes without making out very clearly its right to do so. Don Corano had grounded its right on the assertion that the two popes, having failed to fulfill their promises to resign for the sake of promoting unity, had become schismatics and heretics. But this view was by no means universally accepted, nor did any very definite view prevail. We find next year that the Cardinal of Badí, before going on an embassy to Spain, submitted to Alexander V's successor 34 objections which might be taken to the proceedings of the council, and requested that they might be provided beforehand by the University of Bologna with answers wherewith to meet them. The council of Constance, by accepting Gregory's resignation and negotiating for that of Benedict, tacitly confessed that their deposition by the council of Pisa could not be regarded as lawful. The council of Pisa had been regarded as a dubious authority, very greatly no doubt, owing to its want of success. We cannot wonder that an assembly which dealt so hastily and so precipitately, with difficult and dangerous questions, should fail to obtain a permanent solution. The theory of the sovereignty of the Church as against the sovereignty of the Pope had been so ardently advocated by French theologians that it was accepted at Pisa as sufficient for all purposes without due explanation or consideration.

  The council forgot that the decisions of canonists and theologians are not at once universally accepted. If all Europe had been unanimous in withdrawing from the obedience of the rival popes, the decision of the council might have been acted upon as a means of obtaining a new settlement. As it was, there were too many political motives involved in upholding the existing claimants to make it possible that the council's pope should receive that universal acceptance which alone could bring the schism to an end. End of Section 25

• 26 - Bk. I, Ch. 7: Alexander V, 1409-1410

  play_arrowPlaymenu_bookRead

  Section 26 of A History of the Papacy, Volume 1 by Mandel Creighton. This LibriVox recording is in the public domain, read by Pamela Nagami. Book 1, Chapter 7. Alexander V. 1409 to 1410. It is not often that amidst the scanty records from which Medieval history has to be laboriously pieced together, we find anything that brings before us the more intimate facts of Medieval life.

  Someone, however, of the Fathers assembled at Pisa, luckily employed his spare time after the election of Alexander V. in drawing out an account of the papal household. Perhaps he thought that Alexander was inexperienced and might err through want of knowledge, as he could not inherit the establishment of a predecessor but would have to form his own anew. It is worthwhile to turn from more lofty matters and consider the composition of a household at this time.

  First among the officers of the household come the chamberlains, who are of three classes, some honorary, some prelates, generally four who are intimate with the pope, read the hours with him and serve at mass, some domestics, generally two, who sleep in his chamber and wait upon him. Of the prelates, one has charge of the pope's private letters and receives his instructions about the answers to be given. Another has the care of the pope's jewels, a third of the wardrobe, a fourth of the medicines and drugs.

  The prelates discharge the duties of their office without salary, except in cases when they are poor. The domestic chamberlains have board for themselves and two servants, and have an underling to sweep the rooms and do the dirty work. Besides these, two doorkeepers have charge of the audience chamber where they generally sleep. Next in importance is the controller of the household, who receives the pope's orders about his meals and entertainments,

  issues invitations and orders the service of the banquet. Every night he receives the keys of the palace when the gates are shut and lays them on the table at the pope's supper hour. Every night also he receives and examines the accounts of all subordinate officials, which after receiving his signature are presented weekly at the treasury.

  He is generally responsible for the order and decorum of the household and has under him a clerk and one or two servants. The pope's personal attendants are squires of honor, generally eight or ten in number, who receive pay or allowances and frequently hold some other office. For each article consumed in the household there is a separate department. Two ecclesiastics, each with two servants under him, hold office over the bakery and provide bread and fruit,

  have the care of the table linen, knives, forks and salt cellars, and have the duty of laying the table. In like manner, two ecclesiastics, each with two inferiors, discharge the office of butler, provide the wines, keep the cellar books, and take charge of the drinking vessels. One ecclesiastic is enough to have charge over the water, and the number of his subordinates varies according to the difficulties of obtaining it. His office extends to the care of wells and their cleansing.

  Another ecclesiastic with two inferiors has charge of the candles and candlesticks, and all that concerns the lighting of the palace. Another officer has care of the beds and tapestries. He has to arrange seats at consistories and see to the proper covering of the pope's chair at church and elsewhere. The keeper of the plate has the arduous duty of seeing that the plates and dishes are kept clean and are not stolen,

  every day after dinner the gates of the palace are kept closed until he has counted the dishes and has certified that all are there. The master of the kitchen supervises all the cooking arrangements. The steward does the marketing and hands over the produce to the keeper of the larder, who also receives all presents of game and such like that are made to the pope.

  The master of the hall arranges the tables, places the guests in order and sees they are properly served. Besides these officers the papal household contains a master of the works to see after the repairs of the palace, a confessor whose duty it is to regulate the services in the chapel and to vest the pope, a master of the palace generally a dominican friar who lectures on theology and proposes questions at the pope's bidding,

  an almoner and a choir master for the chapel services, cooks, doorkeepers, physicians, registrars, messengers and grooms make up the remainder of the pope's retinue. We do not find in these details any trace of undue luxury or extravagance. Many of these officials were without salaries and although the cost of the household must have been considerable, yet it was not larger than any noble of the period would have felt requisite.

  The regulation of his household may have employed Alexander the fifth for some little time at Pisa, but he was soon reminded of his political duties by the arrival of Louis of Anjou, whose claims on Naples he at once sanctioned. Cossus saw that the vital matter for the new pope was the possession of the city of Rome. It was also the great question of Italian politics.

  The overweening power of Ladislaus awoke universal alarm and the political feebleness of Gregory the 12th had been the chief reason why Italy had so readily abandoned him. The cause of the council's pope meant opposition to Neapolitan domination and a strong party gathered round Alexander the fifth. Cossa strengthened his league with Florence and Siena by the admission of Louis of Anjou

  and the Confederates proposed to march at once against Ladislaus, who had retired from Cortona to Naples, leaving Paolo Orsini to guard the places which he had seized. In September, the allied army under the command of the Florentine general, Malatesta de Malatesti, marched towards Rome. The prophecy of the Florentine ambassador to Ladislaus,

  that they would overcome him with his own troops, proved true. Paolo Orsini deserted from Ladislaus and his defection opened the road into the states of the church. Orvieto, Monte Fiascone, Viterbo, and other places opened their gates and the allied army appeared before Rome on October 1, 1409. But Ladislaus had taken measures to keep down the Romans. Many citizens opposed to his interests had been exiled and the Neapolitan

  faction was strong in the city. The allies gained possession of the Vatican and the castle of Sant'Angelo hoisted the flag of Alexander the fifth. But Rome itself, where the count of Troia was in command, offered a vigorous resistance. On October 10, the allies found themselves forced to quit the Leonin city and take up their position at Monte Rotondo. Louis of Anjou and Cosa returned to Pisa, leaving the siege in the hands of Malatesta.

  After a conference with the pope, Louis went off hurriedly to Provence to raise more money. The fortune of Ladislaus was still in the ascendant and if he had boldly marched to Rome with reinforcements, he might have maintained his hold upon the city. On December 28, Malatesta advanced with a portion of his army to San Lorenzo outside the walls. His men advanced to the gate calling to the people. Men of Rome, how is it that you do not cry the church and the people? At the same time,

  Paolo Orsini advanced again into the Leonin city. Attacked on both sides, the count of Troia determined to cut off his assailants when thus divided. On December 29, he fell upon Paolo Orsini but was defeated at the Porta Satimiana. Malatesta had been plotting with a party inside the walls in favor of Alexander. At the first failure of the Neapolitans, they rose against them with cries of Viva lo Popolo e la Chiesa. On January 1, 1410, Paolo Orsini entered the city by

  the Ponte dei Giudei and was hailed by the people who were glad to free themselves from the Neapolitan rule and asserted their liberties by electing their own magistrates. On January 5, the capital also surrendered but the strong towers by the gates still held out for Ladislaus and were only taken after a regular siege. The tower by the Porta Maggiore fell on February 15th and the capture of the Ponte Mole on May 1st destroyed the last remnant of the Neapolitan domination.

  Meanwhile, Alexander V stayed for some time at Pisa where on November 1, 1409, he issued a summons to Ladislaus to appear and answer all the charges made against him of faithlessness to his duty as a vassal of the Church. Driven to leave Pisa by the outbreak of a pestilence, he retired to Prato and thence to Pistoia. On the news of the capture of Rome, the Florentines at once sent an embassy begging the Pope to hasten to Rome and so assure the wavering allegiance of the neighboring

  cities in the states of the Church. The Sienese also offered their city as a residence for the Pope on his way but Alexander V was entirely in the hands of Cosa who ruled Pope and Cardinals alike. The Florentines and Sienese seemed to have been afraid of the growing power of Cosa and wished to see the Pope emancipated from his hands but their efforts were useless. Alexander answered that he would go to Rome when things were more settled. Meanwhile, Cosa would go there in his stead and he

  himself would reside at Bologna for the present. Cosa succeeded in making himself the most important man in Rome and kept the Pope in his power by settling the Curia at Bologna, whither Alexander went on January 12th, 1410 and took up his abode in the palace of the Anziani. On February 12th came an embassy from the Romans headed by the Count of Talia Cozzo bringing the keys and banner of the city to the Pope and praying him to take up his residence in Rome. The Florentines added their

  entreaties to those of the Romans but the influence of Cosa and perhaps the Pope's own sense of growing physical weakness kept him still at Bologna. He received from the Roman envoys the symbols of his dominion over Rome and confirmed the liberties of the city in a charter granted on March 1st but he was never to take possession of Rome itself. At the end of April he sickened and it was clear that his end drew near. On his deathbed he told the Cardinals the touching story of the poverty

  of his early life and laid before them the results of his mature wisdom. It was the usual lesson which life always teaches the old and which the young never learn save by experience. The lesson seek peace and ensue it. He addressed his Cardinals on the text, peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you. He declared his belief in the canonicity of the Council of Pisa and in his own position as Pope. He besought them by pacific measures to bring about the unity of

  the Church. The Cardinals wept at the touching words of the dying Pope but their conduct shows that they did not look forward to gain peace saved by the sword. On May 3rd Alexander V died and was buried in the Church of San Francesco at Bologna, the Church of the order to which he owed so much and which he loved so well. The one thing which Alexander V did in the matters of the Church was to issue a bull in favor of the friars who had hailed with joy his elevation to the papacy

  and lost no time in besieging him with their requests. The mendicant orders had been steadily growing in importance and power since the days of Francis and Dominic. The papacy, grateful for their aid, had constantly increased their privileges at the expense of the old machinery of the ecclesiastical system. The friars, supported by the papal authority, infringed the rights of parish priests and were exempt from any episcopal supervision. They preached, heard confessions,

  administered the sacraments, performed funerals wherever they chose, and threatened entirely to supersede the old parochial system. Naturally men preferred to confess to a wandering friar whom they had never seen before and hoped never to see again rather than to their parish priest whose rebukes and admonitions might follow them at times when the spirit of contrition was not so strong within them. It was natural that bishops and clergy should fight for their very existence

  against the usurping friars. A truce was made by Boniface VIII in 1300 on the conditions that the friars were not to preach in parish churches without the consent of the parish priest, that bishops were to have a veto over the individual friars who were to hear confessions within their diocese, and that the friars were to hand over to the parish church a quarter of all the funeral and other dues and offerings which came to them from the district.

  The universities also saw themselves invaded by the friars, who by their learning and energy rose to eminence, possessed themselves of theological chairs, and promulgated their own doctrines. In the University of Paris the conflict against the mendicants was vigorously carried on in the middle of the 13th century by Guillaume de Saint-Amour, who not only protested against their exceptional privileges but attacked their rule of life. An able-bodied man, he asserted,

  who can work for his livelihood commits nothing less than sacrilege if he lives on the alms of the poor. For St. Paul says, If a man will not work, neither let him eat. If it be urged that it is a council of perfection to live like Christ, it ought to be remembered that Christ's example teaches us to do good works, not to beg. If any man wishes to be perfect, let him work or enter a monastery. Thomas Aquinas and Bonaventura took up the defense of the mendicants, and with the help

  of the papacy, the friars maintained their position, though they were regarded with aversion and suspicion by the university. In 1321 a doctor of the Sorbonne, Jean de Poyy, was summoned before Pope John XXII, for having taught that those who confessed to friars were bound to confess the same sins again to their own parish priest, and no pope had the power to absolve them from this duty. His opinions were condemned, and he was compelled to retract them. In Oxford the controversy was

  renewed later by Richard Fitz Ralph, Archbishop of Armagh, who went to Avignon to answer for his opinions to Innocent IV, but no judgment was given against him. In both universities the opposition to the friars was manfully maintained in spite of the papal censures. In January 1409 the Sorbonne was strong enough to carry the war into the enemy's quarters, and a Franciscan, Jean de Gaurel, was compelled to retract his assertion that friars, as being of the institution of the

  primitive church, had a more essential right to preach and hear confessions than had parish priests who were of a later origin. On the accession of Alexander V, the mendicants judged that their hour of triumph was come. They hastened to procure from him a bull, Regnans in Ecclesia, dated from Pisa October 12, 1409, in which the pope condemned the chief propositions of the doctors of the university and affirmed most emphatically the condemnation issued by John

  the 22nd. The friars themselves seemed to have been afraid to use this bull when they had obtained it. Rumors of its existence reached Paris, and messengers were sent to inquire if rumor spoke truly. The cardinals denied that it had been issued with their counsel or consent, but the messengers saw the bull and its leaden seal. The university at once proceeded to vigorous measures. They expelled all the mendicants and prohibited them from preaching in Paris till they had

  produced the original bull and had renounced it. Garçon raised his powerful voice against it, and the government entirely sided with the university. The Dominicans and the Carmelites judged submission to be the wisest course. On March 1, 1410, the university went in solemn procession to the church of Saint-Martin-des-Champs, where one of the Dominicans preached a sermon in which he declared that the bull had been obtained without the consent of his order, nor did they

  approve of it but were content with their former privileges. The Franciscans refused to submit, and proclamation was made in front of their doors by a herald prohibiting the clergy in the king's name from allowing them to preach, hear confessions, or administer the sacraments. Alexander's successor found it wise to revoke the bull and put an end to this fruitless conflict with the university. From his conduct in this matter we may judge the character of Alexander

  V. Owing everything to his order, he was ready to be friended in any way, and at once complied with the requests which its advocates preferred without any consideration of their wisdom or expediency. His weakness was that he knew too little of the world and was too ready to gain praise by unreasoning liberality and munificence. He used to say of himself that he had been rich as a bishop, poor as a cardinal, but as a pope, a beggar. He was generally under the rule of the cardinals,

  only in granting this bull to his beloved order did he venture to act without their advice, and then he foolishly endeavored to act secretly because he had not the courage to face and overcome opposition. In his brief pontificate he had not time to show what he might have become. Some were won by his simple character to regard him as a saint, others were misled by the extravagance which his known liberality encouraged in his household to mistake him for a luxurious

  Sybarite. It would seem that both of these judgments were equally removed from the truth. Alexander V, like many men who rise to eminence from a humble origin, owed his good fortune to his negative qualities and was conscious to himself that he enjoyed a reputation beyond his deserts. Cosa rightly judged that when elevated to the papacy, Phylargi would of his own nature cling to one whose strength of character he recognized and would be the best of tools,

  for he would wish to submit to a stronger mind as a means of concealing his own incompetence. So entirely dependent on Cosa does he show himself by coming to Bologna that on his death, the story rapidly spread that he had been poisoned by Cosa, who wished to have the new election in a place where his power was supreme. End of section 26

• 27 - Bk. I, Ch. 8: John XXIII, 1410-1414, Pt. 1

  play_arrowPlaymenu_bookRead

  Section 27 of A History of the Papacy, Volume 1, by Mandel Creighton. This LibriVox recording is in the public domain, read by Pamela Nagami. Book 1, Chapter 8. John XXIII. 1410 to 1414, Part 1. Alexander V died on May 3, 1410, and before the eighteen cardinals, who were in Bologna, entered the conclave.

  Their minds were made up as to his successor. Louis of Anjou, who was preparing an expedition against Ladislaus, hoped that the energy of Cosa, which he had experienced in the previous year, would secure his success against Naples. He sent pressing admonitions to the French cardinals to procure Cosa's election, which indeed the political aspect of affairs seemed to render almost necessary.

  It was to no purpose that Carlo Malatesta sent envoys to beg the cardinals to defer their election in the hope of procuring the peace of the church. Cosa answered that Gregory was entirely in the hands of Ladislaus and nothing could be expected from him, that the cardinals could not abandon the cause of Louis of Anjou after encouraging him to proceed so far, and that in the present condition of affairs in Rome, a pope was absolutely necessary to keep the city from again

  falling into the hands of Ladislaus. Moreover, the cardinals themselves, if they did not elect a pope, would be without the necessaries of life and the curia would be dissolved. The envoys tried to alarm Cosa with the fear of a rival for the papacy. Cosa replied that he knew not how the votes might go.

  For his own part, though he was not a man of great knowledge, he had done for the church more than the rest. If a friend were elected, he would be satisfied. If a foe, it might be better for his own soul. Cardinal's envoys were worsted in the encounter with Cosa and could do no more than beseech the cardinals on the eve of the conclave to bind him who might be elected,

  to abdicate if his rivals abdicated, or to unite with them in summoning a general council. No heed was paid to Malatestas and Treaties. The place, the political situation, made Cosa for the time omnipotent. The cardinals entered the conclave on the evening of May 14th, and Cosa's election was announced on the 17th. He was enthroned in state in the Church of San Petronio on May 24th and took the title of John the 23rd.

  The cardinals cannot have hidden from themselves that the election of Cosa was not likely to be approved on any but political grounds. No one could look upon Cosa as an ecclesiastic, or as having any real interest in the spiritual affairs of the church. He was a man of vigor, possessing all the qualities of a successful condottieri general. He had kept down the city of Bologna, had extended his power over neighboring states, had protected the council of Pisa from Lattice loss, and was the firm ally of Louis of Anjou.

  But he was more at home in a camp than in a church. His private life exceeded even the bounds of military license. It was a grotesque and blasphemous incongruity to look upon such a man as the vicar of Christ. John the 23rd soon found that his lofty position was a hindrance rather than a help. His character was more fitted for decisive and energetic action as occasion offered, than for pursuing with astuteness a careful and deliberate policy.

  From the first things went contrary to him and his ally Louis of Anjou. The loss of Genoa by the French threw a great hindrance in the way of Louis. Genoa since 1396 had submitted to its French governor Jean le Maigre, Marshal Boussicaud, but gradually grew more and more discontented with his rule. As taxes weighed heavily, commerce did not prosper, and the Genoese found themselves involved in a policy which was alien to their old traditions and which might be in the interests of Boussicaud

  or of France, but was not in the interests of Genoa. Boussicaud's interference in the affairs of Milan especially angered the Genoese, till the Marquis of Montferrat, in Boussicaud's absence, marched to Genoa and was welcomed by the citizens who on September 6th threw off the French rule, declared themselves free, and chose the Marquis of Montferrat to be captain of their republic with all the powers of the old doges. When Genoa had thus thrown off the French yoke, it warmly espoused

  the cause of Lattes-Lasse against Louis, and from its commanding position at sea, rendered difficult to Louis the transport of soldiers. As was to be expected, John XXIII hastened to identify his cause with that of Louis. On May 25th, 1410, the day on which were dated the encyclical letters announcing his election, he issued also letters commending the cause of Louis to all archbishops, princes, and magistrates, exhorting them to receive him with all respect and lend him all the aid that he

  required. The Pope's admonition came too late so far as the Genoese were concerned, for on May 16th they had intercepted and destroyed five of the galleys in which Louis was bringing his forces for a new expedition. Louis with the rest of his squadron landed at Pisa, whence he went to Bologna, which he entered somewhat crestfallen on June 6th. Still his army was powerful, and great things were to be expected from the Pope's help. But John soon found that he was less powerful as Pope

  than he had been as legate. No sooner did the cities which he had subdued feel that the hand of their master was slackened by his elevation to a higher office than they hastened to throw off the yoke to which they had unwillingly submitted. On June 12th came the news that Giorgio D'Eliore had recovered for Lee, and on June 18th that Faenza had thrown off the papal rule and had taken Giovanni de Montfredi for its lord. These revolts were clearly due to the influence

  of Carlo Malatesta, who after protesting against John's election declared against him and sided with Ladislaus. John felt that for the present he was overmastered. He saw that he could not trust his mercenaries, nor when revolt was so near did he venture to leave Bologna, which he knew that he only held by force. On June 23rd, Louis set out for Rome without his friend and advisor, and the Pope, with rage in his heart, was compelled sorely against his will to stay behind. John's first

  endeavor was to win over Carlo Malatesta to his side, promising that if he would recognize him as Pope, he would exert all his influence on his behalf. Malatesta replied that though he had esteemed him as legate of Bologna, he could not in conscience recognize him as Pope, for which post he was unfit. He besought him to join with Gregory in a renunciation of the papacy. In that case, he promised to help him with all his power. John endeavored to protract the negotiations,

  but in Carlo Malatesta he had to deal with as strong a character as his own and a keener wit. In spite of his efforts, he could gain nothing. In Germany also, John had to watch events eagerly and struggle to hold his own against his rival Gregory. The schism in the papacy had been reproduced in the empire, and Rupert, who owed his position to the help of Boniface IX, refused to acknowledge the conciliar pope. This made Rupert's enemies more eager in the support

  of Alexander V, and a civil war seemed imminent in Germany when Rupert suddenly died on May 18, 1410. Wenzel's party was now anxious that no new election should be made and that Wenzel should be universally recognized as King of the Romans. His opponents, though determined to proceed to a new election, were divided between the rival popes. Rupert's son, the Elector Palatine, and the Archbishop of Trier were in favor of Gregory XII. The Archbishop of Mainz was on the

  side of John XXIII. Four only out of the seven electors met at Frankfurt on September 1st for a new election. Wenzel, who as King of Bohemia was an elector, of course kept the louf, as did also Rudolf of Saxony. It was doubtful who had the right to vote as Elector of Brandenburg, which Sigismund, King of Hungary, had mortgaged to his cousin, Joopst, Markgraf of Moravia. It soon became clear that the four electors differed too deeply on the ecclesiastical question to agree

  on the choice of a new King. On September 12th, the Archbishops of Mainz and Köln made preparations for departure, but the Archbishop of Trier and the Elector Palatine proceeded to an election. They recognized Sigismund as Elector of Brandenburg and accepted his representative, Frederick Burggraf of Nürnberg, as his proxy. Though the Archbishop of Mainz laid the city under an interdict and closed all the churches against them, they went through the accustomed ceremonies in the

  churchyard of the cathedral and on September 20th announced that they had elected Sigismund, King of the Romans. At this elevation of his younger brother, Wenzel felt himself doubly aggrieved and Joopst of Moravia wished to assert his claim to Brandenburg. They hastened to send representatives to support the recalcitrant Archbishops of Mainz and Köln, who thereon proceeded, on October 1st, to elect Joopst of Moravia, reserving to Wenzel as the price of his submission

  the title, though not the authority, of King of the Romans. There were now three claimants to the Empire as there were three claimants to the Papacy. It was said that three kings were again come to adore Christ, but they were not like the three wise men of old. John XXIII was anxious to secure Sigismund to his side, for Sigismund had remained neutral toward the Council of Pisa, and since then had shown signs of reconciliation with Gregory XII. John issued bowls declaring his

  affection for Sigismund, but still Sigismund's attitude remained ambiguous, till the death of Joopst on January 8th, 1411 made his position more sure. There was now no one to stand in his way if he could manage to reconcile his personal differences with the electors who had opposed him. The besotted Wenzel was won over by hopes of obtaining for himself the Imperial crown, and by Sigismund's promise to content himself during Wenzel's lifetime with the title of King

  of the Romans. The Archbishop of Mainz made his own terms with Sigismund, among them was the stipulation for the recognition of John. Finally, on July 21st, 1411, Sigismund was unanimously elected King of the Romans. Thenceforth, the doubtful allegiance of Germany was at an end, and the recognition of John XXIII as rightful Pope was at once carried out. In Naples, John's cause was not so successful. The expedition of Louis in 1410 came to nothing.

  He entered Rome and displayed himself to the citizens who always liked to have a distinguished guest within their walls, but he had no money for his soldiers and could not keep together the different elements of which his army was composed. After waiting helpless in Rome till the end of the year, he set out for Bologna to beg the Pope to come to Rome and help him, a request which was echoed by the Roman people. John by this time saw that Carlo Malatesta could only be reduced to

  obedience if he were deprived of his ally Ladislaus. He determined to leave Bologna to its fate and help Louis to prosecute the war against Ladislaus with vigor. On March 31st, 1411, John left Bologna and moved towards Rome, accompanied by his cardinals and attended by a brilliant escort of French and Italian nobles. On April 11th, he reached San Pancrazio and on April 12th entered the city amid the acclamations of the people. On April 14th, the city magistrates

  to the number of 46 appeared before him with lighted torches in their hands and did him obeisance. On April 23rd, 1411, the banners of the Pope, King Louis and Paolo Orsini were blessed with great pomp and ceremony. On April 28th, John had the proud satisfaction of seeing the greatest force that Italy could raise set forth to drive Ladislaus from the throne of Naples. The chief leaders of the condottieri had all been won over by John to the side of Louis

  and the Neapolitans heard with terror that the four best generals in the world, Braccio da Montone, Sforza da Cottignola, Paolo Orsini and Gentile da Monterno, were marching against them. Ladislaus advanced to Rocaseca and took up a strong position on the heights above the little river Melfa. Louis pitched his camp opposite and for eight days the two armies faced one another. At last on the evening of May 19th, the troops of Louis

  crossed the river in the evening and fell upon the enemy unexpectedly as they were at supper. The route was complete. Many of the chiefs were taken prisoners in their tents. Ladislaus, with difficulty, escaped to San Germano. All his possessions fell into the enemy's hands. John received with joy the news of this victory which was soon followed by trophies from the battlefield, the standards of Ladislaus and Gregory. He caused them to be hung from the

  campanile of San Peter in derision. Nor was this enough to gratify his pride. On May 25th, he rode with his cardinals, followed by all the clergy and people to the church of San Giovanni and Laterano. Four archbishops and bishops bore the holy relic of the head of Saint John Baptist and with strange incongruity the procession was brought up by the banners of Ladislaus and Gregory trailed in the dust. The wiser members of the Curia looked with disgust on this premature display

  of insolent triumph which was neither judicious nor befitting the head of the church. Their feeling was well founded, for it soon appeared that though Louis's victory was complete, he did not know how to use it. After the battle his generals differed. Sforza urged the immediate pursuit of Ladislaus. Orsini exclaimed that enough had been done for one day. The soldiers meanwhile betook themselves to plunder the camp. Delay was fatal as the prisoners were unable to negotiate their ransoms

  and even buy back their arms from the victors. Ladislaus himself said that on the day of the battle the enemy were masters both of his person and his kingdom. The next day, though they had missed him, they might have seized his kingdom. The third day they could neither take him nor his kingdom. In fact, Ladislaus bought back his army from the needy soldiers of Louis and again manned the defiles which led towards Naples. In the camp of Louis there were contentions between the

  generals, want of food, sickness, and clamors for pay. On July 12th Louis returned with his victorious army to Rome having gained nothing. Men began to see that his cause was hopeless and when on August 3rd he took ship on the Ripe Grande to return to Provence, none of the Roman nobles who had been so obsequious to him on his arrival thought it worthwhile to escort him on his departure. They were right in their judgment. Louis died in 1417 without making any further attempts on the

  Neapolitan kingdom. John the 23rd had been entirely disappointed of his hopes when they seemed on the very verge of attainment. Moreover, by moving to Rome to help Louis he lost Bologna. Scarcely had he left it when on May 12th the cry was raised, Viva il popolo e learti. The cardinal of Naples who had been left as legate was driven out. The people elected their own magistrates, set up again their old republican form of government, and vigorously repulsed Carlo

  Malatesta who had fomented the rising in hopes of gaining possession of the city. Before this also, Ladislaus had managed to detach Florence and Siena from their league with the pope by selling to the Florentines Cortona and saving their honor by the easy promise that he would not occupy Rome nor any other place in the direction of Tuscany. John found himself left alone to face Ladislaus who was smarting under the sense of his late defeat. Of course he excommunicated him,

  deprived him of his kingdom, and proclaimed a crusade against him, but these did Ladislaus little harm. John's only hope was in the fidelity of the condodier generals who were in his pay, and he soon found how slender were his grounds for trusting them. In May 1412, Sforza, who was carrying on the war in Naples, deserted the sight of the pope and took service with Ladislaus. From this time forward, Sforza becomes one of the chief figures in Italian history. We have seen how

  Alberigo da Barbiano was the first to form a soldier band of his countrymen to take the place of the lawless companies of foreign mercenaries who had since the decay of the citizen militia made Italy their prey. The last and greatest of the foreign captains was an Englishman, Sir John Hockwood, whose adventurous career was closed at Florence in 1394. The Florentines paid due honor to the great general, whose equestrian portrait, painted by the hand of Paolo Uccelli

  and one of the masterpieces of early realism and art, still adorns the wall of the Florentine Cathedral. Though a skillful soldier, Hockwood, as might be expected, was merely an adventurer whose trade was plunder. His tenor of mind is well illustrated by a tale of the old Florentine storyteller Franco Sacchetti. One day, when Hockwood was at his castle of Montecchio, two friars approached him with the usual greeting, God give you peace. God take away your alms,

  was Hockwood's reply. The astonished friars asked why he answered thus. Why spake you as you did, was the question. Sire, we thought that we said well. How thought you that you said well, exclaimed Hockwood, when you wished that God might make me die of hunger? Know you not that I live on war and that peace would undo me? I live on war as you live on alms, and so I returned your greeting and like sword as you gave it. Sacchetti adds that Hockwood knew well how to cause that there should

  be no peace in Italy in his days. With the formation of native companies, warfare became more humane and pillage less terrible. The Italian soldiers were connected with their leaders by other ties than those simply of pillage. They were gradually brought under more systematic discipline and became trained armies rather than troops of plundering adventurers. Alborigo da Barbiano did much to bring about this result, and the two great generals of the generation that followed

  his death in 1409 had both been trained under his command. End of section 27.

• 28 - Bk. I, Ch. 8: John XXIII, 1410-1414, Pt. 2

  play_arrowPlaymenu_bookRead

  Section 28 of A History of the Papacy, Volume 1 by Mandel Creighton. This LibriVox recording is in the public domain, read by Pamela Nagami. Book 1, Chapter 8, John XXIII, 1410-1414, Part 2. The early life of Sforza is characteristic both of the man and of the times. Muzio Attendolo was born in Cotignola, a little town in the Romagna, in 1369.

  He was of a peasant stock and worked in the fields, when one day there passed a band of soldiers and inquired away. Struck by his stalwart aspect, one of them asked why he did not follow their example instead of pursuing his dreary toil. The peasant waited before replying, then seeking for an augury, threw his hoe into a tree, resolving that if it fell to the ground he would take it up again. If it remained in the tree, he would follow the soldiers.

  The hoe stuck and the peasant joined the army in the humble position of follower to one of the soldiers. After four years of camp life he returned to his native place and there raised a number of men like-minded with himself, with whom he joined the company of Alberigo de Barbiano. In the lawless life of a camp he was the most lawless, and one day a quarrel in which he was engaged about the division of plunder attracted the attention of Alberigo, who interposed to settle the dispute.

  But the fiery peasant did not lay aside his threatening attitude even at his captain's presence. You looks at Alberigo as if you would use violence, Sforzare, to me also. Have then the name of violent. From this time the peasant was known among his comrades as Sforza, a name which was to descend to a princely house. He was a man rather above the ordinary height with broad shoulders, though his figure narrowed at the flanks.

  His swarthy face had a bluish hue, which with his deep-sunk restless eyes gave him rather a sinister aspect. For sometimes Sforza served under Alberigo de Barbiano. Then he led a band of his own and fought for Florence in its war against Pisa. John XXIII took him into his pay for the war against Naples and conferred on him in 1411 the lordship of his native town of Cotignola. But Sforza quarreled with Paolo Orsini, who he saw was likely to get more from the pope than himself.

  He listened to the overtures of Ladislaus, and when in the beginning of May 1412 John summoned his generals to Rome that he might consult with them about future operations, Sforza abruptly retired from the city and took up a position at Colonna. The pope in alarm sent a cardinal with 36,000 ducats to urge him to return. Sforza inquired whether he was to look upon this sum as arrears of old pay or earnest for new service. When the cardinal answered that it was prepayment for a fresh engagement,

  Sforza replied, Then I will not take it. I left Rome because I could not trust Paolo Orsini. On May 19th he quitted the pope's service, declared himself on the side of Ladislaus, and after making a hostile demonstration against Ostia, rode off to Naples. John took his revenge by hanging Sforza in effigy from all the bridges and gates of the city. The figure was suspended by the right foot and in one hand held a hoe, in the other a paper with the legend,

  I am Sforza, peasant of Cotignola, traitor, who 12 times have betrayed the church against my honor, promises, compacts, agreements have I broken. The pope's humor was coarse, but he knew the manners of the camp and could answer condottieri after their own fashion. He had his own reasons for thinking that he might do so with safety, for already he had advanced far in negotiations for peace with Ladislaus.

  Both had something to gain as Ladislaus wished to be free from the claims of Louis, John from those of Gregory II. Ladislaus had no object in maintaining Gregory any longer. In fact, his support of Gregory only gave his enemies a plausible handle against him and isolated him from the other European kingdoms. Moreover, the breach between John XXIII and Louis, if once made, would be irreparable,

  while Ladislaus, who needed a breathing space, could prosecute his designs against the states of the church whenever occasion offered. John was at his wit's end to raise money. The cardinals and the senator alike were used to extort benevolences from the wealthy. The imposts were so heavy that corn was sold in the city at nine times its ordinary price. The coinage was debased and there was almost a famine,

  till John was driven to withdraw his most oppressive taxes through fear of a rebellion. The prefect of Vico attacked the city, John was helpless and peace was necessary at any price. Already on June 18th, 1412, the news spread in Rome that the Neapolitan Cardinal Brancacci had arranged a compact between John and Ladislaus. On June 30th, its terms were known in Venice.

  They were that John recognized Ladislaus' king not only of Naples but of Sicily, which was in the hands of an Aragonese prince, that he appointed him gond falloniere of the church and engaged to pay him 120,000 ducats within two years, giving him meanwhile ascoli, viterbo, perugia and benavento to hold and pledge, and to remit all arrears due from Naples to the church.

  Ladislaus on his part engaged to keep 1,000 lances for the service of the church and undertook to treat with Gregory XII that he should renounce the papacy within three months on condition of being appointed legate of the March of Ancona, receiving 50,000 ducats and having three of his cardinals confirmed in their office. If Gregory refused to accept these terms, Ladislaus has to send him prisoner to Provence.

  The position of both parties in this compact was equally disgraceful. Each of them gave up an ally to whom he was bound by the most solemn engagements and who had endured much for his sake. Each threw to the winds all considerations of honor. Ladislaus for his part tried to make his change of attitude toward Gregory as little ignominious as might be. He called a synod of bishops and theologians at Naples,

  before whom he laid a statement of the doubts which beset him about the validity of supporting Gregory when other princes had accepted John. The synod of course declared its willingness to abandon Gregory and on October 16th Ladislaus wrote to John XXIII announcing that by the grace of the Holy Spirit he recognized him a lawful pontiff. He sent a message to Gregory at Gaeta ordering him to leave his dominions in a few days. Gregory, whose suspicions had been quieted

  by the express assurance of Ladislaus that they were unfounded, had taken no measures to provide himself with a refuge. The chance arrival of two Venetian merchantmen on their homeward voyage gave him the means to flee. The citizens who loved the pope bought up the cargoes of the ships that they might be at liberty to take him on board. He embarked on October 31st, 1412 with the three cardinals who still clung to him of whom one was his nephew Gabriele Condulmier

  who afterwards became Pope Eugenius IV. In dread of enemies and pirates he sailed round Italy and reached the Slavonian coast. Thence five small boats brought him and his attendants to Cezena where he was met by Carlo Malatesta and was conducted with all respect to Rimini. Carlo Malatesta was too high-minded to follow the example of Ladislaus and abandon an ally in adversity. Though he knew that so long as Gregory was in his territory he would be exposed to the

  incessant hostility of John, he still did not hesitate to declare himself the sole supporter of the helpless wanderer. Carlo Malatesta is the only Italian who awakens our admiration by his honesty and integrity of purpose in endeavoring to end the schism of the church. Meanwhile, John XXIII felt himself so far bound by the promise of his predecessor to summon a council for the purpose of carrying on the work of performing the church begun at Pisa

  that he issued a summons on April 29th, 1411 for a council to be held at Rome on April 1st of the following year. The summons however bore on the face of it marks that it was not meant to be taken in earnest. The pope narrated the necessity under which he was placed of coming to Rome, abused Ladislaus, praised the advantages of Rome as the place for a council, and excommunicated anyone who hindered prelates from coming. With a view of strengthening his

  hands, John in June 1411 created fourteen new cardinals who were wisely chosen from the most influential men in every kingdom. Amongst them were Peter Dye, Bishop of Cambrai, and two Englishmen, Thomas Langley, Bishop of Durham, and Robert Hallam, Bishop of Salisbury. In the hazardous position of affairs at the beginning of 1412 the council was deferred and finally met on February 10th, 1413. It was but scantily attended as was natural for no one believed that

  anything would be done and nothing could be done in Rome at such a troubled time. It is said that the pope used his soldiers to prevent those whom he did not trust from coming to the council at all. The only thing which the council did was to condemn the writings of Wycliffe, which were solemnly burned on the top of the steps of St. Peter's. When some proposals were made to go further than this in the work of reforming the church, Cardinal Zabarella rose and talked the

  matter out. A ludicrous incident is chronicled about this council and the fact that it is recorded shows the horror with which the pope's character was regarded. One evening while the pope was at Vespers in his chapel, as the hymn Veni Creator Spiritus was begun, came a screech owl and settled on the pope's head. A strange shape for the Holy Ghost, said a cardinal and tittered, but John was dismayed. It is an evil omen, said he, and those present agreed with him. The council was soon

  dissolved on account of its numerical insignificance, but John did not dare to let all mention of a council drop. The University of Paris was too strong to be offended and it still clung to the hope of a genuine reformation of the church by means of a general council. Moreover, Zigezmunt, the king of the Romans, who had begun to take an interest in Italian affairs, listened to the representations of Carlo Malatesta and urged on John the summoning of a council.

  Accordingly, in dismissing the few prelates who ventured to come to Rome, John issued a summons on March 3rd for a council to be held in December in some fitting and suitable place of which notice was to be given in three months' time. He little thought that events would force him to keep his hypocritical promise. Ladislaus of Naples had only made peace with John to gain a short breathing time for himself and drive the pope out of Rome with greater ease.

  In the beginning of May, his preparations were made and he found adherents in plenty among the Romans themselves who were groaning under John's exactions. The opportunity had come for wiping away the disgrace of the defeat of Rulca Seca and for advancing once more his pretensions over the city of Rome. The scheme of forming an Italian kingdom floated before the eyes of Ladislaus, as it had done before so many other Italian princes. He, like the rest, found the states of

  the church thrust like a wedge between north and south Italy. But the papacy was less formidable than it had been in former times. It no longer had its roots so deep in the politics of Europe as to be able to raise armies for its defense. Ladislaus might hope to succeed where others had failed and by repeated assaults on Rome, when occasion offered, destroy the prestige of the papal power and habituate the citizens to the idea of Neapolitan rule. When Rome had fallen,

  the only opposition which he need dread was that of Florence. In May 1413, Ladislaus detached Sforza against Paolo Orsini, who was in the march of Ancona. Sforza, eager to pursue his hated rival, took Paolo Orsini by surprise and shut him up in Rocca Contrata. It was believed that the pope was dissatisfied with Orsini and had secretly betrayed him to Ladislaus. If so, Ladislaus caught the pope in his own toils. He entered the Roman territory with an army, May 3, on the ground that as the

  pope proposed to leave the city for the purpose of holding a council, it was necessary that he should provide for its protection during his absence. John was helpless. He could not trust his mercenaries. The people hated him on account of his oppressive imposts. The very members of the Curia were so suspicious of him that they were not sure whether the movements of Ladislaus were made in concert with the pope or not. At every step in John's career, we find the same impression of

  distrust produced even on those who saw him most. As Ladislaus drew nearer, John tried, when it was too late, to win the Roman people to his side. On June 4, he abolished his detested tax on wine. Next day he tried to galvanize into life the old Roman Republic and solemnly restored to the citizens their old liberties and their old form of government. A comedy of exalted patriotism was performed between the pope and the people. John pompously addressed them,

  I place you once more upon your feet. I entreat you to do what is for the good of the church and to be faithful now if ever. Fear not, King Ladislaus, nor any man in the world, for I am ready to die with you in defense of the church and the Roman people. The citizens were not to be outdone in theatrical declamation. Holy Father, they answered, doubt not that the Roman people is prepared to die with you in defense of the church and your holiness.

  Next day, June 6, they held a council in the capital and unanimously resolved, we Romans are determined to feed on our own children rather than submit to the Dragon of Ladislaus. A crowd of enthusiastic patriots announced this valiant resolution to the delighted pope. Next day John left the Vatican and rode with his cardinals to the Palace of Count Orasini of Manupello on the other side of the river. He wished to take up his abode in the

  city to declare his confidence in the people. But on the night of June 8, the troops of Ladislaus broke down part of the wall of the Church of Santa Croce in Jerusalem and led by the Condottieri Tartaglia entered the city. They did not venture to advance in the night, and in the morning the citizens did not venture to attack them. Patriotism and enthusiasm were too precious in word to be rudely expressed in deed. The cry was raised, King Ladislaus and peace.

  No opposition was made and Tartaglia was in possession of Rome. John the 23rd did not think it wise to expose his patriotism to a ruder shock than did the Romans. As soon as the news of Tartaglia's entry reached him, he hastened to leave Rome with his cardinals by the gate of Sant'Angelo and hurried towards Sutri. The horsemen of Ladislaus pursued the unhappy fugitives, whose age and luxurious habits made them unfit for a hasty flight in the mid-heat of summer.

  Many were plundered and ill-treated. Even the pope's mercenaries took part in plundering instead of protecting them. Many died on the way of thirst. Old men who could rarely endure to ride even for exercise before were seen running on foot to save their lives. Even in Sutri, John did not think himself safe, but pressed on in the night to Viterbo and after a rest of two days to Monte Fiescone. It was harvest time and the peasants were fearful for their crops if Ladislaus was

  to march in pursuit of the pope. John did not think it wise to trust to their loyalty, but passed to Siena on June 17th and then San June 21st to Florence. Even Florence was not prepared to quarrel with Ladislaus without due deliberation. The pope was not admitted inside the city at first, but was lodged in the monastery of Sant'Antonio outside the Porta San Gallo. There he abode till the beginning of November, hearing the news of the entire subjugation of Rome by Ladislaus,

  whose triumphant army advanced northwards through the states of the church. End of Section 28.

• 29 - Bk. I, Ch. 8: John XXIII, 1410-1414, Pt. 3

  play_arrowPlaymenu_bookRead

  Section 29 of A History of the Papacy, Volume 1 by Mandel Creighton. This LibriVox recording is in the public domain, read by Pamela Nagami. Book 1, Chapter 8, John XXIII, 1410 to 1414, Part 3. In vain John wrote melancholy letters to the princes of Christendom, detailing the enormities of Ladislaus and imploring their help.

  The only one who lent an ear to his complaints was Zigesmunt, king of the Romans. Zigesmunt had reached this dignity at the age of 43, after an adventurous life, in which he had generally played an ignominious part. He plunged, while still a youth, into the troubles of Hungary, of which he claimed the kingdom through his wife.

  To raise money for Hungarian adventures, he pledged Brandenburg to his cousin Jobst. He led a Hungarian army in the ill-fated expedition against the Turks, which ended in the disastrous defeat of Nicopolis. His Hungarian subjects rebelled against him and even made him prisoner. His attitude towards his worthless elder brother Wenzel was one of cautious self-seeking,

  which had nothing heroic. The circumstances which preceded his election as king of the Romans were not such as to redound to his credit. He was a needy, shifty man, always busy, but whose schemes seemed to lack the elements of greatness and decision

  which are necessary for success. On his accession to the dignity of king of the Romans, Zigesmunt recognized that an opportunity was offered for making a fresh start. The teaching of experience had not been thrown away upon him. He had learned that the cruelty by which he had alienated his Hungarian subjects was unprofitable.

  He had learned to restrain his immoderate sensual appetites. He had learned that a policy of peace was better than one of continual war. He set himself to realize the duties of his new position, to vindicate the old glories of the imperial dignity, to seek the peace and well-being of Christendom,

  to labor for the unity of the Church. With many failings, with a ludicrous incongruity between his pretensions and his resources, Zigesmunt nevertheless nourished a lofty ideal, which he perseveringly and conscientiously labored to carry out. When he was elected king of the Romans,

  Zigesmunt was involved in a dispute with Venice about the possession of Zara on the Dalmatian coast. The Republic had bought it from Ladislaus as king of Hungary, without inquiring into his title to sell it to them. As king of the Romans, Zigesmunt complained of the infringement of the imperial rights by the Venetian conquests on the mainland.

  If he were to go to Rome for coronation as emperor, he must command an entrance into Italy through Friuli, which Venice had seized. War against Venice was undertaken in 1411. Zigesmunt's forces were at first successful, but Carlo Malatesta, fighting for the Venetians,

  checked their advance, and the war lingered on without any decisive results. John XXIII in vain attempted to mediate. At last, exhaustion caused both parties to wish for a truce, which was concluded on April 17th, 1413. Zigesmunt then proceeded into Lombardy,

  in hopes of gaining back from Milan some of the lost possessions of the empire. But he came too late. Lombardy, after a disastrous period of disunion, which followed on the death of John Galeazzo Visconti in 1402, had again become united in 1412 under Filippo Maria Visconti,

  after the violent death of his two brothers. So strong was Filippo Maria's position, that Zigesmunt found it impossible to gain enough allies to attack him. But if he was disappointed in his hopes of winning glory by an attack on Milan, fortune threw in his way the more lofty undertaking of directing the fortunes of the Church.

  The empire, which had fallen from its great pretensions, and saw its old claims one by one ignored, was yet to find itself in the hands of Zigesmunt, hailed once more by Christendom as the restorer of the Church and the arbiter of the papacy. As Zigesmunt abode at Como, John XXIII,

  terrified by the success of Ladislaus, the coldness of Florence, and the sense of his own helplessness, at last resolved to trust himself to the King of the Romans and submit to his condition of summoning a general council.

  John saw the dangers of such a course, but trusted to his own capacity to overcome them. It would be easy for a quick-witted Italian to find some means of eluding a promise made to a clumsy tootent like Zigesmunt. His secretary, Leonardo Bruni, tells us how the Pope talked the question over with him.

  The whole point of the council, he said, lies in the place. I will take care that it is not held where the Emperor will be more powerful than myself. I will give my ambassadors the most ample powers which they may openly show for the sake of appearances, but secretly I will restrict my commission to certain places. Such was John's intention,

  and when the time came for the departure of his ambassadors, the Cardinals Challent and Zabarella, the Pope took them apart and discoursed with them long upon the momentous nature of their mission. He assured them how entirely he trusted their wisdom and fidelity. He said that they knew better than himself what ought to be done.

  Like many strong and eager natures, John's feelings were easily roused and he was easily carried away by them. Persuaded by his own eloquence, he abandoned all precaution. See, he exclaimed,

  I had determined to name certain places to which you should be bound, but I have changed my opinion and leave all to your prudence. Do you consider on my behalf what would be safe and what dangerous? So saying, he tore in pieces the secret instructions which he had prepared and dismissed his ambassadors to carry on their negotiations unfettered.

  This, says Leonardo Bruni, was the beginning of the Pope's ruin. When the Pope's ambassadors, accompanied by the learned Greek scholar Emanuele Chrysolatus, met Ziggismont at Como, he at once proposed to them Constance as the place for the meeting of the Council.

  In spite of their endeavors to fix some place in Italy, he stood firm. He urged that Constance was admirably adapted for the purpose, being an imperial city where he could guarantee peace and order, in a central position for France, Germany and Italy, easy of access to the northern nations,

  in a healthy situation on the shores of a lake, roomy and commodious for the accommodation of crowds of visitors, situated in the midst of a fertile region whence provisions could easily be obtained. These arguments admitted of no objection. The ambassadors were unprepared to find Ziggismont so decided.

  As he would not give way, they hesitated to break off negotiations, considering the helpless condition of the Pope and the hopes which he placed on Ziggismont's protection. Perhaps they also had a lingering wish for a Council which should be a reality, and were not sorry to find themselves in a position to commit the Pope to a decided step.

  At all events, in the Pope's name they accepted Constance as the place of a Council to be held in a year's time, on November 1, 1414. Ziggismont lost no time in making his triumph known. Before the Pope could hear of the agreement that had been made, Ziggismont, on October 30, issued a letter announcing the time and place of the Council,

  summoning to it all princes and prelates, and promising that he would be there himself to provide for its full security and liberty. John was thunderstruck when he heard what his legates had done. He cursed his own folly for having trusted their discretion. He was keenly alive to the danger of putting himself in Ziggismont's hands,

  but he had been irrevocably committed, and his destitute condition gave him no hopes of escape. He soon, however, recovered his courage and trusted to his own skill to win over Ziggismont and prevail upon him to change the place fixed for the Council. For this purpose he sought a personal interview, and early in November left Florence for Bologna, where he arrived on November 12.

  Bologna had soon grown tired of its Republican rule. The nobles had risen and put down the popular party, and the city returned to its allegiance to the Pope in August 1412. It was not, however, a safe place of refuge for him, as Carlo Malatesta, acting again in conjunction with Ladislaus,

  advanced into the Bolognese territory and threatened the city. John left Bologna on November 25 for Lodi. Ziggismont advanced to Piacenza to meet him, and they entered Lodi together, where they were entertained in royal state. John, however, found that all his artifices were of no avail to overcome Ziggismont's intention.

  He resisted all proposals to change the seat of the Council from Constance to some Lombard city. John was obliged to stand by the luckless undertaking of his legates, and with a heavy heart, issued from Lodi on December 9, his summons to the Council to be held at Constance in the next November. Ziggismont sent also summonses to Gregory XII, Benedict XIII, and the kings of France and Aragon.

  Once more the old imperial pretensions were revived, and the rule of Christendom by the joint action of the temporal and spiritual power was set forward. At Lodi, John and Ziggismont stayed for a month in amicable relations and celebrated with royal and papal pomp the festival of Christmas. From Lodi they passed on together to Cremona, then under the lordship of Gabrino Fondolo,

  a man characteristic of the political condition of Italy in that age. He had won his way to the lordship of Cremona by the murder of his masters, the brothers Cavalcavo, whom he had instigated previously to assassinate their uncle so as to accelerate their own accession to power. Now that he had the pope and the king of the Romans in his city, his heart swelled with pride, and he wished to immortalize himself.

  The thought flashed through his mind that he might do a deed which would make his name more renowned than that of Empedocles. He had in his power the two heads of Christendom, and if he put them to death, the exploit would give his name an undying memory. One day, when he had taken his distinguished guests to the top of the Torazzo, the Campanile of the Duomo of Cremona, famous as being the loftiest tower in Italy of that date,

  he felt a powerful temptation to hurl them down as they were unsuspiciously feasting their eyes on the splendid panorama of the fruitful plain of Lombardy watered by the Po, and closed in by the mountain chains of the Alps and Apennines. The news that the Venetian ambassador, Tomaso Mochenigo, who had come to Cremona to greet the pope, had been elected Doge of Venice, put a third noble victim in Fondolo's hands. Though he resisted the temptation at the time, so strongly had the idea impressed itself on his imagination

  that eleven years later, when his blood-stained career was cut short, when he was put to death by the Duke of Milan, he looked back regretfully on the opportunity which he had missed. When he reflected on the barren results of his adventurous life, he confessed the project which he had once entertained of gaining immortality, and grieved that he had not had the courage to carry it into execution. So powerful a motive was the desire for fame, however, acquired, to the wild and soaring characters

  which the plastic nature and adventurous politics of the Italian states had developed. Though neither John nor Ziggismund knew the extent of the danger which they had run, yet they did not feel comfortable in the hands of Fondolo. John passed on to Mantua on January 16th, to see if any help could be gained from Giovanni Francesco Gonzaga. There he stayed for a month and went to Ferrara on February 16th,

  where he went over to his side the Marquis Niccolò d'Este, whom Ladislaus had tried to bribe. On February 26th he arrived in Bologna, where he intended to make his position secure. He restored the castle of Porta Galliera, and razed around it an earthwork surmounted by a palisade. There was need of John's precautions, for the implacable Ladislaus was moved to anger at the news of John's negotiations with Ziggismund. He declared in wrath that he would drive him out of Bologna, as he had driven him out of Rome.

  On March 14th Ladislaus entered Rome with his army, and showed his haughty contempt for all things human and divine, by riding into the church of San Giovanni in Ladurano, where the priests brought forth their holiest relics, the heads of St. Peter and St. Paul, and humbly displayed them to the king, who remained seated on his war horse. After a month's stay in Rome he moved northwards. Florence, terrified at his advance, negotiated for peace, which was concluded at Perugia on June 22nd, on condition that Ladislaus proceeded no further.

  The interposition of Florence, which dreaded a disturbance so near her own territory, saved John for the time. Ladislaus slowly retired toward Rome, smitten with a mortal disease, the results of his own debauchery. He was born and allitered to San Paolo outside the walls, and thence to the sea, where a galley carried him to Naples. With him he took in chains Paolo Orasini, against whom he had conceived some suspicion. He purposed to have him put to death at Naples, but did not live long enough to carry his purpose into effect.

  His sister Giovanna, who was his successor, judged it better to spare so useful a general, and Ladislaus was soothed in his last hours by the false belief that his sanguinary commands had been executed. He died on August 6th, 1414, and the body of this mighty king was hurriedly buried by night, unhonored and ungraced, in the church of San Giovanni Carbonara, which he had himself restored and enlarged. The monument of Ladislaus, raised by his sister Queen Giovanna II, is one of the grandest monumental works of Italian sculpture,

  and gives a powerful impression of the desire felt by Italian princes to commemorate their name and their achievements. Striving after massive grandeur, the sculptors who worked in Naples created no new form of monument, but magnified into a vast piece of architecture the simple conception of the effigy of the dead reclining on a slab, which for convenience was raised from the ground, and received an ornamental base. The whole east end of the church behind the high altar is filled with the tomb of Ladislaus.

  Colossal figures of virtues support an architrave which holds the inscription. Above that are seated in a niche, figures of Ladislaus and Giovanna II, with crown, scepter and imperial eagle in royal state dispensing justice. Above that rises another tier holding the sarcophagus of Ladislaus, from before whose sculptured figure, two angels in the Tuscan fashion, are softly drawing the curtains which shroud the dead. On the top of the arch which closes the sarcophagus stands an equestrian statue of Ladislaus, drawn sword in hand,

  in such guise as often he had led his men to battle. The barbaric vastness and luxuriance of the tomb of Ladislaus with its inscriptions, is characteristic of the man and of the time. Ladislaus had the strong will and the strong arm of a born ruler. He reduced to order and obedience the turbulent barons of Naples,

  by playing off against one another the rival factions of Anjou and Durazzo. His plan of secularizing the states of the church, as the first step towards forming a great Italian kingdom, was one which long floated before the eyes of the more adventurous politicians of Italy. He was an excellent general, a man of unfailing resolution and boundless daring. But his character was barbarous and brutal.

  He was alike destitute of religion and morality. Neither in public nor private life was he guided by any consideration of honor, and no means were too base or treacherous for him to employ. So long as he lived, all Italy was in terror of his ambitious schemes. When he died and his power passed into the hands of his foolish and profligate sister Giovanna II,

  the Italian cities began to breathe again with a new sense of freedom. On the news of the death of Ladislaus, Rome rose against the Neapolitan senator and raised the old cry, Viva lo popolo! Sforza hastened to put down the rising, but the people raised barricades in the streets and Sforza was compelled to retire. John XXIII's hopes had revived on the death of his dreaded foe, and he sent to Rome as his legate, Cardinal Isolani of Bologna.

  The old republican feeling of Rome had been too far weakened to be sure of its own position. On the legate's approach, the cry was raised, Viva lo popolo e la chiesa! And on October 19th, Isolani, without a battle, took possession of the city in the name of the pope. Had this success occurred a month sooner, John would have returned to Rome instead of going to Constance, as it was, it came too late. For his course had been determined before he was sure of possessing Rome.

  For some time he hesitated to begin his journey to Constance, but the cardinals urged that his word was pledged, the summons was issued, and it was too late to go back. He spoke of sending representatives to the council and going himself to Rome. The cardinals reminded him that a pope should settle spiritual matters in person and temporal matters by deputy. Meanness and fear of danger were not amongst John's faults. He still believed in his own power to cope successfully with difficulties, and he was attracted by the prospect of presiding over a council gathered from the whole of Christendom.

  Before beginning his journey, he obtained through Zigezmunt, an undertaking from the magistrates of Constance, that he should be received with honor and recognized as the one true pope, that the curia should be respected and the papal jurisdiction be freely exercised, that he should be at liberty to remain in Constance or withdraw at pleasure. His intention was to preside a few months over the council and then return to Rome. On October 1st, John set out for Constance, traveling through Verona and Trent. There he met Frederick of Austria, lord of the Tyrol, who was no friend of Zigezmunt, and saw many advantages to be gained by an alliance with the pope.

  John was eager to form a party of his own, and at Méran, on October 15th, appointed Frederick captain general of his forces and honorary chamberlain with a yearly pension of 6,600 ducats. Frederick was lord of much of the territory that lay around Constance, and John had the caution to assure himself of an ally, who could afford him refuge or give him means of escape if need should be. Moreover, Frederick was related by marriage to the duke of Burgundy, who had a strong motive for preventing the council from sitting long, as he knew that the Gallican party intended to press a question which closely concerned his own honor. From Méran, the journey was tedious and perilous. On the alberg, the pope's carriage broke down, and he was tumbled in the snow. When his attendants anxiously inquired if he was hurt, he made the unchristian answer, Here I lie in the devil's name.

  When he reached the summit of the pass and looked down upon the lake of Constance, girt in by mountains and hills, he exclaimed with a shudder, A trap for foxes. At last, the perils of the journey were over and its sweets began, but true to his policy of making useful friends, John conferred on the Abbot of Kreuzlingen, a monastery just outside the walls of Constance, the privilege of wearing a mitre. On October 28th, he made his entry into Constance attended by nine cardinals and followed by 600 attendants. He was received by the city magistrates with all due pomp and reverence. End of Section 29.

• 30 - Book II: The Council of Constance, 1414-1418, Ch. 1: The Council of Constance and John XXIII, 1414-1415, Pt. 1

  play_arrowPlaymenu_bookRead

  Section 30 of A History of the Papacy Volume 1 by Mandel Creighton. This LibriVox recording is in the public domain. Read by Pamela Nagami. Book 2. The Council of Constance, 1414-1418. Chapter 1. The Council of Constance and John the 23rd, 1414-1415. Part 1. At the time of the assembling of the Council of Constance, there was a widespread and serious desire throughout Europe for a reformation of the

  ecclesiastical abuses which this schism had forced into such luxuriant growth. Not only was unity to be restored to the headship of the Church, but a remedy must also be found for the evils which beset the entire body. The gross extortions of the Pope and Curia must be checked and their occasion done away. The papal invasion of ecclesiastical patronage all over Christendom must be stopped. The ordinary machinery of Church government, which had been weakened by the constant interference of

  the Pope, must be again restored. The clergy, whose knowledge, morality, and zeal had all declined, must be brought back to discipline so that their waning influence over earnest men might be reestablished. If we would understand aright the force of the feelings that made the papacy hateful till the hatred broke out into open revolt, it is worthwhile to gather a few of the impassioned utterances of this time. Dietrich Free, a German monk who went to Constance,

  in a Latin poem more remarkable for its vigor than its grace, puts the following language into the mouth of the disconsolate Church. The Pope, once the wonder of the world has fallen, and with him fell the heavenly temples by members. Now is the reign of Simon Magus, and the riches of this world prevent just judgment. The papal court nourishes every kind of scandal and turns God's houses into a market. The sacraments are basely sold. The rich is honored, the poor is despised. He who gives

  most is best received. Golden was the first age of the papal court. Then came the baser age of silver. Next, the iron age, long set its yoke on the stubborn neck. Then came the age of clay. Could aught be worse? Ay, dung! And in dung sits the papal court. All things are degenerate, the papal court is rotten, the Pope himself, head of all wickedness, plots every kind of disgraceful scheme, and while absolving others, hurries himself to death. Free's history of the

  Council of Constance begins with the denunciation of the simony, the avarice, the ambition, and the luxury of the Pope, the bishops, and the entire clergy. What shall I say of their luxury when the facts themselves cry out most openly on the shameless life of prelates and priests? They spare neither condition nor sex, maidens and married men, and those living in the world are all alike to them. Benefices, he complains, which ought to provide alms for the poor,

  have become the patrimony of the rich. One holds eighteen, another twenty, a third twenty-four. While the poor man is despised, his knowledge and his holy life are of no account. An infant, newly born, is provided by his careful parents with ecclesiastical benefices. We will hand him to such a bishop who is our friend or whom we have served that we may be enriched from the goods of the Lord and our inheritance be not divided amongst so many children. Another is nurtured with more

  than fatherly affection by some dean or provost that he may succeed him, is nurtured in luxury and sin. Another, perhaps the son of a prince, is worthy of an archdeaconry, much more so is if he be a bishop's nephew. Another eagerly seeks a place on every side, flatters, cringes, dissembles, nay, does not blush to beg, crawling on hands and knees, provided that by any guile he may creep into the patrimony of the crucified one. If these utterances of free be thought

  rhetorical, the more sober spirit of Nicolas de Clémange, doctor of the University of Paris and secretary to Benedict XIII, gives no very different account. Nowadays, in undertaking a cure of souls, no mention is made of divine services, of the salvation or edification of those entrusted to the priest's care. The only question is about the revenue. Nor do men count the revenue to be the value of the benefits to one who is resident and serves the Church. But what it will yield to one

  who is far away and perhaps never intends to visit it? No one obtains a benefit soever great his merit without constant and repeated asking for it. The popes, in their desire for money, have drawn all manner of elections into their own hands and appoint ignorant and useless men, provided they are rich and can afford to pay large sums. The rights of bishops and patrons are said it not. Grants of benefits in expectancy are given to men who come from the plough and do

  not know A from B. The claims of the popes for first fruits or the first year's revenue on presentation to a benefits and other dues have become intolerable. Papal collectors devastate the land and excommunicate or suspend those who do not satisfy their demands. Hence churches fall into ruins and the church plate is sold. Priests leave their benefits and take to secular occupations. Ecclesiastical causes are drawn into the papal court on every kind of pretext and judgment is

  given in favor of those who pay the most. The papal curia alone is rich and benefits are heaped on cardinals who devour their revenues in luxury and neglect their duties. In this state of things, claimants proceeds. The chief care of the clergy is of their pockets, not of their flocks. They strive, scold, litigate, and would endure with greater calmness the loss of ten thousand souls than of ten thousand shillings. If by chance there arise a pastor who does not walk in this way,

  who despises money or condemns avarice, who does not wring gold justly or unjustly from his people, but strives by wholesome exhortation to benefit their souls and meditates on the law of God more than the laws of men, forthwith the teeth of all are wedded against him. They cry out that he is entirely senseless and unworthy of the priesthood. He is ignorant of the law and does not know how to defend his rights or rule his people or restrain them by canonical censures. He knows

  nothing save idle preaching, which is more fitting for friars who have none of the cares of temporal administration. The study of Holy Writ and its professors are openly turned to ridicule, especially by the popes, who set up their traditions far above the divine commands. The sacred and noble duty of preaching is held so cheap among them that they count nothing less befitting their dignity. Episcopal jurisdiction is useless. Priests condemned for theft, homicide,

  rape, sacrilege, or any other serious offense are only condemned to imprisonment on a diet of bread and water and are imprisoned only till they have paid enough money when they walk away scot-free. On the other hand, the Episcopal jurisdiction is eagerly extended over harmless rustics, and summoners scour the land to pry out offenses against canon law, for which the luckless victims are harassed by a protracted process and are driven to pay heavy fines to

  escape. Bishops do not hesitate to sell to priests licenses to keep concubines. No care is taken to ordain proper persons to the priesthood. Men who are lazy and do not choose to work, but who wish to live in idleness, fly to the priesthood. As priests, they frequent brothels and taverns and spend their time in drinking, reveling, and gambling, fight and brawl in their cups, and with their polluted lips blaspheme the name of God and the saints,

  and from the embraces of prostitutes hurry to the altar. Bishops are rarely resident in their seas and are generally engaged in political or temporal pursuits, yet they are of such a character that their absence is better than their presence. Chapters in their canons are no better than bishops. Monks are undisciplined and dissolute, idle and good for nothing. The friars, on the other hand, are active enough, but active only in rapacity and voluptuousness. Nunneries are so

  sunk in shame, so openly given up to evil, that it is scarcely possible to speak of them. Clay Munch admits that there are some good men among the clergy, but scarcely one in a thousand sincerely does what his profession requires. The schism is the scourge of God on these abuses, and unless a reformation be wrought, worse ills will follow and the church will be destroyed. Denunciations to the same effect might be quoted from writers of almost every land.

  Lamentations over the corruptions of the church were not confined to a few enthusiasts. Men of high ecclesiastical position and of undoubted orthodoxy spoke openly of the abuses which everywhere prevailed. It was not wonderful that heresy spread, that the doctrines of Wycliffe and Huss made many converts. Men went to Constance with three aims in view, to restore the unity of the church, to reform it in head and members, and to purge it of erroneous

  doctrines. These objects were to be attained by means of a general council, though the exact scope of its power was yet to be determined. The foundation of the council's authority was the theory that the plenitude of ecclesiastical power vested in the universal church, whose head was Christ and of which the pope was the chief minister. The executive power in the church rested generally with the pope, but a council had a concurrent jurisdiction in all important

  matters, a corrective power in case of abuses, and a power of removing the pope in case of necessity. For these purposes a council had a power of compulsion and of punishment against the pope. Such was the general result of the teaching of the Parisian theologians, which had been turned into practice by the Council of Pisa. But the Parisian theologians did not wish to push these principles too far. In practice, they only aimed at rescuing the papal primacy from the evils of

  the schism, restoring its unity, regulating its powers, and then reinstating it in its former position. There was a school of German reformers who had a more ideal system before their eyes, who aimed at diminishing the plenitude of the papal primacy and making it dependent on the recognition of the church. Their views were fully expressed in a treatise written in 1410, most probably the work of Dietrich Avneem, who well knew the ways of the Roman Curia,

  about the means of unity and reforming the church. Beginning with the Creed, the writer asserts his belief in one Catholic and apostolic church. The Catholic Church consists of all who believe in Christ, who is its only head, and it can never err. The apostolic church is a particular and private church consisting of pope, cardinals, and prelates. Its head is supposed to be the pope, and it can err. The Catholic Church cannot be divided, but for the

  sake of its members we must labor for the unity of the apostolic church, which stands to the Catholic Church as a genus to a species. As the object of all society is the common good, a pope can have no rights as against the well-being of the church. The papal primacy has been won by guile and fraud and usurpation, but the idea that a pope cannot be judged by any is contrary, alike to reason and scripture. The pope is a man, born of man, subject to sin.

  A few days ago, a peasant's son. How is he to become impeccable and infallible? He is bound to resign or even to die if the common good should require it. The unity of the church must be secured by the abdication of two of the three popes, or, if necessary, by the compulsory abdication of all of them. Union with a particular pope is no part of the faith of the Catholic Church, nor is it necessary for salvation. Rather, popes contending for their private goods are

  in mortal sin and have no claim on the allegiance of Christians. A general council represents the universal church, and when the question to be settled is the resignation of a pope, it does not belong to the pope to summon the council, but to prelates and princes who represent the community. The pope is bound to obey such a council which can make new laws and rescind old ones. The council must make a general reform in the church, must sweep away simony, and amend the

  ways of pope, cardinals, prelates, and other clergy. For this purpose, it must limit the power of the pope, who has invaded the rights of bishops, drawn all matters to the curia, and overthrown the original constitution of the church. The authority of the pope must be reduced to its ancient limits. The abuses of the cardinals must be checked, and the prelates and clergy purified. The writer of this treatise admits that there are many difficulties in the way.

  Difficulties arising from self-interest and conservative prejudice. A council can only succeed if supported by the emperor, who holds from God a power over the bodies of all men. The work concludes with defining the business of the council to be, one, the reincorporation of the members of the universal church, two, the establishment of one undoubted and good pope, three, limitation of the papal power, four, restoration of the ancient rights of the primitive

  church, five, provisions concerning pope and cardinals which may prevent future schism, and finally, six, the removal of all abuses in the government of the church. Such was the large plan of the reforming party in Germany. It was to be decided in the council assembled at Constance how much of it should be carried into actual effect. The quiet city of Constance was now to be the center of European politics, for the council held in it was looked upon as a congress

  rather than a synod. Every nation in Europe felt itself more or less helpless and in need of assistance. Italy was in a condition of hopeless confusion. The Greek empire was in its decrepitude, menaced by the Turks, whom Hungary also had just reason to dread. Bohemia was torn by civil and religious discord. The empire was feeble and divided. In France, the madness of King Charles VI gave an opportunity to the bloody feuds of the Burgundians and Armagnacs. England had gathered

  strength a little under Henry IV, but was disturbed by the Lollards and was on the brink of war with France. Europe was hopelessly distracted and longed to realize its unity in some worthy work. The disunion of the ecclesiastical system was a symbol of the civil discord which everywhere prevailed. Men looked back longingly upon a more peaceful past and Zygismund's appeal to old traditions met with a ready answer. The Council of Pisa had been an assemblage of prelates.

  Through Zygismund's participation, the Council of Constance became the meeting place of all the national interests of Christendom. Slowly but sincerely, all the wisest in Europe prepared to set their faces towards Constance. Men did not assemble at once, though the last there had been doubts whether the Pope would come. In June came the Bishop of Augsburg and the Count of Nellenburg to make preparation on Zygismund's part. It was not till August 12, 1414, that the Cardinal of

  Vivier arrived on behalf of the Pope and preparations were made in earnest. The magistrates and citizens of Constance set themselves diligently to work to provide lodgings, lay up stores of provisions, take measures for the safety and order of the city, and make all the numerous changes which were necessary to enable them to fulfill the honorable duty which had fallen upon them. At first, however, prelates arrived slowly, chiefly from Italy in obedience to the Pope.

  On November 1, owing to the scanty attendance, John deferred the opening of the Council till the 3rd, and in so doing pronounced the Council to be a continuation of the Council of Pisa. On November 3, the opening was again deferred till the 5th, when the Pope, with 15 Cardinals, 2 Patriarchs, 23 Archbishops, and a good number of other prelates, solemnly opened the Council by a service in the Cathedral, after which the first session was fixed for the 16th. Now that the

  Council had begun, arrivals became more frequent. Still chiefly from Italy, once the good news of the recovery of Rome filled the Pope's heart with joy, meanwhile the theologians were busy in drawing up proposals for the procedure of the Council. They suggested that proctors and promoters be appointed, as at Pisa, who should lay matters before the Council. Besides them was to be chosen a number of doctors who between the sessions should receive suggestions and determine

  the form in which business should be brought forward. It was generally agreed that the first question should be the restoration of the unity of the Church, by procuring, if possible, the abdication of Gregory XII and Benedict XIII. At the first session on November 16, John XXIII preached a sermon on the text, Speak ye, every man the truth, after which a bull was read detailing the circumstances of the summoning of the Council and its connection with the Councils of Pisa and

  Rome, exhorting the members to root out the errors of Wycliffe and reform the Church, and promising to all entire freedom of consultation and action. Nothing more was done that day, as yet the Pope and the Council were watching each other, and no one was ready to take a decided step. Those amongst the Germans and Italians who wished something to be done were waiting for the French and English prelates to lead them. End of Section 30.

• 31 - Bk. II, Ch. 1: The Council of Constance and John XXIII, 1414-1415, Pt. 2

  play_arrowPlaymenu_bookRead

  Section 31 of A History of the Papacy, Volume 1 by Mandel Creighton. This LibriVox recording is in the public domain, read by Pamela Nagami. Book 2, Chapter 1. The Council of Constance and John XXIII, 1414-1415, Part 2. With the arrival of Peter D'Ailly, Bishop of Cambrai, on November 17th, 1414,

  begins the first formation of an opposition to the Pope, which a trivial incident soon brought to light. On November 18th, lodgings were prepared in the Augustinian monastery for the Cardinal of Ragusa, Legate of Gregory XII. According to custom, the legate's arms were put up above the door,

  and with them the arms of Gregory XII. On the following night, the arms were ignominiously torn down, without doubt, by the orders of John XXIII. This sobered action awoke at once a feeling among the members of the Council, and a congregation was called to consider the matter.

  It was urged that Gregory, having been deposed by the Council of Pisa, could not have any claim to be acknowledged as Pope. But the general opinion was against any decision on this broad ground, and merely agreed that the arms should not be replaced, because Gregory XII was not himself present, but only his legates.

  Soon after this, on November 28th, came a letter from Zigezmunt, telling of his coronation at Aachen, and announcing his speedy arrival at the Council. John was compelled in courtesy to answer by a letter urging him to come as soon as possible, but he was ill at ease.

  His plans for managing the Council did not seem to prosper. He had hoped to overbear opposition by the multitude of Italian bishops dependent on himself, but this intention was so openly displayed that the Council, in spite of John's efforts to the contrary, began to talk of organizing itself by nations,

  so as to do away with the numerical preponderance of the Italians, and to allow each separate kingdom to bring forward its own special grievances. Indeed, John was not a skillful diplomat. He could not disguise his uneasiness, and was too transparent in his intrigues. He gained secret information from his partisans of everything that was talked about,

  and then was not discreet enough to keep his own Council. The opposition between the Pope and the Council was day by day increasing, and he was anxious to have a secure position before Zigezmunt came. Accordingly, in a congregation of cardinals and prelates held in the Pope's palace, though in the Pope's absence on December 7th,

  the Italian or Papal Party brought forward a schedule to regulate the business of the Council. This schedule laid down that matters concerning the Faith were to take precedence over other matters, that the first step should be to confirm the acts of the Council of Pisa, and empower the Pope to proceed against Gregory XII and Benedict XIII, if possible by compact, if not by force,

  that the Pope should summon a general council every ten years, should abolish simony, and agree to a few obvious regulations. The object of this proposal was to recognize the acts of the Council of Pisa, so far as the deposition of Gregory and Benedict were concerned, but to give the Council of Constance an independent existence,

  so far as regarded the Reformation of the Church. Questions relating to Faith, the opinions of Wycliffe and Huss, were first to be discussed, and no doubt they would take up time enough till the Council dissolved, and all discussions of reform, except on a few trivial points, might be again put off. This proposal of the Italians was opposed by Peter Dye and other French prelates,

  who objected that the present Council was a continuation of the Council of Pisa, for the purpose of proceeding with the Union and Reformation of the Church. Until that had been accomplished, it must rest on the basis of the Pisan Council, and could not confirm it. Whoever spoke of dissolving or proroguing this Council was a favorer of schism and heresy.

  A third proposal was made by four of the old Cardinals, which was directly aimed against the Pope. It set forth bluntly and straightforwardly the reforms which were needed in the Pope's household and personal conduct. The Pope, it laid down, ought to have fixed hours in the day for religious duties, which ought not to be slurred over nor neglected. He must show diligence in business and avoid simony.

  He should appear in public in papal attire, and should conduct himself with gravity and word and gesture. He must take care that the papal dignity be not counted cheap in the eyes of the nations flocking to the Council, and must remember the saying that careless masters make lazy servants. He should not waste his time in idle talk with irresponsible persons, but should act with proper advice, regulate everything that goes on in the Council, and honestly work with it.

  There was certainly no want of plain speaking, and John might have perceived, had he been wise, how dangerous was his position between those who, like Peter Dyee, wished to set to work at the Reformation of the Church, and those who were convinced that no Reformation of the Church was possible, till there had been a very decided Reformation in the Pope. No conclusion was arrived at from this discussion, but a few days later,

  Dyee and a general congregation in the Pope's presence, read a memoir in favor of proceeding mildly against Gregory and Benedict as the surest way of promoting the cause of union. Resignation ought to be made easy to them in every way. A committee might be appointed by the Council, chosen from the different nations to confer with them, and arrange terms for their resignation.

  This view of Dyee's was vehemently attacked, both by those who were partisans of John XXIII, and by those who wished to maintain to the letter the authority of the Peas in Council. Dyee answered the arguments of both parties, and in so doing laid down a principle which was fruitful in later times. Although the Peas in Council, he said, is believed with probability to have represented the Universal Church, which is ruled by the Holy Spirit and cannot err,

  still every Christian is not bound to believe that that Council could not err, seeing that there have been many former Councils, account to general, which we read have err'd. For according to some great doctors, a general Council can err not only in deed, but also in law, and what is more, in faith. For it is only the Universal Church, which has the privilege that it cannot err in faith. To meet the general suspicion with which the proceedings of the Council of Pisa were regarded,

  Dyee laid down the weighty principle that the faith of Christendom was to be found graven on the heart of Christendom, and the infallibility of Councils was to depend on their decrees embodying the Universal Consciousness of the Truth. These differences of opinion prevented any definite conclusion, and further proceedings were deferred till the arrival of Zigezmunt. The second session, which John had announced for December 17th, was not held until March 2nd, 1415. On the morning of Christmas Day, amid the glare of torches,

  Zigezmunt arrived in Constance with his Queen, Barbara of Silie, Queen Elizabeth of Hungary, the Countess of Wurttemberg, and Rudolf of Saxony. He scarcely had time to change his raiment before he made his first public appearance at early Mass on Christmas morning. The Markgraf of Brandenburg bore the royal scepter, the Elector of Saxony the drawn sword, and the Count of Silie the golden apple of the Empire. Zigezmunt acted as deacon at the Mass and read with Majesty the Gospel. There went out a decree from Caesar Augustus. The Pope, after the Mass was over, handed the King his sword with a charge to use it in the protection of the Church, which Zigezmunt swore to do.

  Zigezmunt had a love of pomp and outward magnificence, and had timed his arrival at the Council so as to gratify it to the full. Once having secured his position, he was sure to receive due respect afterwards. The staunch adherence of the Council offered extravagant incense to the Imperial dignity. He was addressed as the second Messiah, come to ransom and restore the desolate Church. Zigezmunt's arrival was the signal to all who had yet delayed to hasten their journey to Constance.

  Day by day, princes and prelates, nobles and theologians from every court and every nation of Europe had been streaming into the little town on the borders of the Bodensee. From Italy, France and Germany, from England, Sweden, Denmark, Poland, Hungary, Bohemia, even from Constantinople, flocked the representatives of power and learning. In their train came a motley crew of sightseers and adventurers of every kind. The novels of the next generation show us how Constance was regarded as the metropolis of every kind of enjoyment, gallantry and intrigue. The number of strangers present in Constance during the Council seems to have varied between 50,000 and 100,000,

  amongst whom were counted 1,500 prostitutes and 1,400 flute players, monta banks and suchlike. 30,000 horses were stalled in the city, beds were provided for 36,000 men, and boys made fortunes by raking up the hay that fell from the carts which thronged the streets with fodder. Excellent precautions were taken under the direction of the Falsgrave Louis for the supply of provisions and maintenance of order. In spite of the crowd, there was no lack of food, nor did the prices rise owing to the pressure.

  2,000 men sufficed to preserve order, and the utmost decorum marked all the proceedings of the Council, though we read that during the session of the Council, 500 men disappeared by drowning in the lake. This vast number of attendants lent splendor and magnificence to all the proceedings, and gave an overpowering sense of their importance. The number of prelates was 29 cardinals, 3 patriarchs, 33 archbishops, about 150 bishops, 100 abbots, 50 provosts, 300 doctors of theology, and 1,800 priests. More than 100 dukes and earls and 2,400 knights are recorded as present, together with 116 representatives of cities.

  The Pope's Suite alone consisted of 600 horsemen, and a simple priest like Huss had 8 attendants. The enumeration of such details shows both the pomp and luxury of the age, and also the surprising power of organization, which enabled a little city like Constance, whose ordinary population cannot have exceeded 7,000, to accommodate so vast a multitude. The Council awaited Ziegelsmund's arrival before deciding what business was first to be taken in hand. John XXIII and the Italians wished to begin with the condemnation of Wycliffe's opinions and the trial of Huss.

  The French, headed by Peter Dye, wished to take in hand first the restoration of unity to the Church. In an Advent sermon, preached before Ziegelsmund's arrival, on the text, There shall be signs in the sun, and in the moon, and in the stars, Dye defined clearly the position of the Council. The sun, he explained, represents the papal majesty. The moon, the imperial power.

  The stars, the different orders of ecclesiastics. In this Council all came together to represent the Universal Church. There must be one good pope who lives rightly and governs well, not three in impious mockery of the Trinity. The emperor, with clemency and justice, must carry out the decrees of the Council. The clergy, summoned by the pope, must assist him with their wisdom.

  Three things are to be done. The past must be amended, that is, the Church must be reformed. The present must be duly ordered by attaining unity, and provision must be made for the future by wise precautions. Such was the policy which Dye advocated with all his zeal and learning. He laid it down that there could be no real union without reformation, and no real reformation without union.

  Zygmunt at once fell in with Dye's policy, and his first steps show that he wished to proceed first with the restoration of unity. On December 29th he laid before the Council a statement of his embassies to Gregory XII, to Benedict XIII, and to the King of Aragon, and asked the Council to wait for the arrival of their envoys. On January 4th, 1415, the question was discussed whether the envoys of the anti-popes were to be received as cardinals or no. John's faction strongly opposed the concession by the Council of any such distinction to the envoys of those who had been deposed at the Council of Pisa. Peter Dye, true to his principle of proceeding with all possible gentleness, and throwing no hindrances in the way of a union, succeeded in carrying his point that they should be received in their cardinal acts.

  This was a severe blow to John, and showed him that he had not much to expect from Zygmunt's help. On January 12th, the ambassadors of Benedict and Aragon proposed that Zygmunt should advance to Nice, and there confer with Benedict and the King of Aragon about means to end the schism. To this request, no answer was given at the time. On January 25th, Gregory's ambassadors were honorably received by Zygmunt and the Council, as they were under the protection of Louis of Bavaria, who next day presented a memoir undertaking on behalf of himself and Gregory's adherents to procure Gregory's abdication, and themselves joined the Council, provided John did not preside and Gregory was invited to attend. To this, John's partisans answered that the abdication of Gregory and Benedict, according to the provisions of the Council of Pisa, was desirable, but that the question of John's presidency could not be discussed, as he was the lawful pope, whom all were bound to obey, and he was willing to labor with all his power for the reformation of the Church.

  John XXIII felt that the toils were closing round him. He had not been present at the assemblies for some time, but he was carefully informed of everything that passed. He was glad to find an opportunity of making a public appearance, and preside at the solemn ceremony of the canonization of a saint. A Swedish lady, Bridget, who instituted a new monastic order and died at Rome in 1373, had been canonized already by Boniface IX. But as this had occurred during the time of this gism, the representatives of the northern nations were desirous of having the authenticity of their countrywoman's title placed beyond dispute.

  The canonization took place on February 1st. A Danish archbishop, after Mass was over, raised a silver image of the saint to popular adoration. The tedium was raised by those present, and the day closed with splendid festivities. But ceremonies and festivities did not prevent the expression of what everyone had in his mind. It was clear that the union of the Church could only be accomplished by the resignation of all the three popes.

  And the offer of Gregory's abdication brought forward prominently the desirability of John's resignation as well. The first to break the ice and venture to express the general idea was Guillaume Filastre, a learned French prelate whom John had made Cardinal. Filastre circulated a memoir in which he pointed out that the surest and quickest means of procuring union was the mutual abdication of all three popes. If this was so, John was bound to adopt that method. For if the Good Shepherd would lay down his life for his sheep, much more ought the pope to lay down his dignities.

  If he was bound to do so, the council might compel him to do so. But he should first be asked humbly to adopt this course, and should be assured of an honorable position in the Church if he complied. Ziegismund expressed his approval of this memoir, which was largely circulated, and soon reached the pope, who had not expected to be attacked by his own cardinals, and was greatly enraged. Filastre, however, put on a bold face, visited the pope, and assured him that he had acted to the best of his knowledge for the good of the Church. Filastre's memoir drew forth several answers, urging that the course which he proposed destroyed the validity of the Council of Pisa, and that it was unjust to rank a legitimate pope with men who had been condemned as schismatics and heretics.

  In a matter of so great delicacy, it was judged wise to proceed by means of written memoirs, and not to enter into a public discussion till considerable unanimity had been obtained. Peter Dye again came forward to defend the original scheme of the University of Paris, and removed by subtle arguments founded on expediency the formal objections urged against John's resignation. He recognized John as the lawful pope, and allowed the validity of all that had been done at Pisa. But he argued the adherents of Benedict and Gregory do not agree, and all the arguments in favor of promoting union by voluntary abdication, which were urged at Pisa, apply with still greater force when there are three popes instead of two. In the proposal for John's abdication, he is not ranked with the popes who were deposed, but is set above these by being summoned to perform an act which is for the good of the Church.

  If he refused, the Council as representing the Church may compel him to lay aside his office, though no charge be made against him, simply as a means of effecting the unity which the Church longs for. End of Section 31

• 32 - Bk. II, Ch. 1: The Council of Constance and John XXIII, 1414-1415, Pt. 3

  play_arrowPlaymenu_bookRead

  Section 32 of A History of the Papacy, Volume 1 by Mandel Creighton. This LibriVox recording is in the public domain, read by Pamela Nagami. Book 2, Chapter 1, The Council of Constance and John XXIII, 1414-1415, Part 3. John now clearly saw the issue which lay before him, but he still had hopes of escaping. Memoirs might be circulated and discussions carried on amongst the theologians assembled in Constance,

  but when matters came to voting he would be safe. He had spent money freely to secure votes. The crowd of needy Italian prelates were all dependent on him. He had created fifty new bishops with a view to their votes in the council. John's adversary saw this also, and boldly raised the question, who had the right to vote?

  According to old custom there was no doubt that this right had been exercised only by bishops and abbots, and John's adherents demanded that the old custom should be followed. But Dye answered with his usual learning and clearness of judgment, that in the most ancient times, as may be found in the Acts of the Apostles and Eusebius, the object was to represent in councils the Christian community.

  Only bishops and abbots voted because they were thoroughly representative. At present, priors and heads of congregations had a greater right to vote than titular abbots who represented no one. Moreover, doctors of theology and law were not heard of in old times because there were no universities. They ought now to be admitted, as they had been at Pisa, on account of their position as teachers and representatives of learning.

  Also, as the question under discussion was the unity of the Church, it was absurd to exclude kings and princes, or their ambassadors, since they were especially affected. Philostre went further than Dye. He demanded that all the clergy should be allowed to vote. An ignorant king or bishop, he said, is no better than a crowned ass. He urged that the status of all priests was the same, though their rank might differ.

  This extremely democratic view did not meet with much favor, and Dye's suggestions were practically adopted by the council. Moreover, the large crowd of Italians, dependent on the pope, possessed the numerical superiority which was out of proportion to the interests which they represented. There had been some discussions of this point amongst the Germans,

  but the arrival of the English representatives on January 21st gave the question new prominence. The English were few in number. Their voting power, if votes were to be counted by heads, was insignificant. The chief of the English prelates, Robert Hallam, bishop of Salisbury, faced this fact and proposed to the Germans a scheme for solving the difficulty. He suggested that it would be well for the council to adopt the same system as prevailed

  in the universities and organize itself by nations. A session of the council had been fixed for February 6th, but the English and Germans rose and protested against the procedure by individual voting. They demanded that an equal number of deputies from each nation should have the ultimate decision on all important matters. Next day the French gave in their adhesion to the plan, and the Italians were powerless to resist. Thus, without any definite decree of the council,

  a new form of constitution was established which made the prospect of uniting the church much more hopeful. Henceforth, every matter was first discussed by each nation separately, and their conclusions were communicated to one another. When by this means an agreement had been reached, a general congregation of the four nations was held, and the conclusions were put into a final shape. A general session of the council then gave formal validity to the decree.

  John XXIII's hopes of being able to lead the council were now entirely frustrated. He had to consider how he might best escape destruction. The plan of a common abdication of all three popes was proposed in a congregation of the English, Germans, and French on February 15th, and was by them laid before the Italians, who gave a reluctant assent. John's courage was entirely upset by hearing that a memoir had been circulated by some Italian, containing a list of

  his crimes and vices, and demanding that an inquiry be instituted into the truth of the charges. Doubtless John's life had not been such that he would wish its details to be exposed to the eyes of assembled Christendom. He had done many things that ill befitted a priestly character, and enough could be substantiated against him to make the blackest charges seem credible on very slight evidence. John was entirely unnerved at the prospect. He consulted with his cardinals

  whether he had not better at once confessed to the council the frailties from which, as a man, he had not been exempt. They advised him to wait a while and think over it before committing himself. John's relief was great when he heard that many of the English and Germans opposed an inquiry into his character from a wish to spare the reputation of the papacy, and advocated that he be urged to abdicate. This plan had now received such unanimous assent that it was impossible for John to oppose

  it openly. He professed to accept it readily, but he hoped to do so in terms so vague as to lead to no results. His first schedule was rejected as too dubious in meaning. The second met with no better success, as it indulged in needless condemnation of Gregory and Benedict as heretics. The Germans passed a series of strong resolutions which pressed hard upon John. They declared that the council had supreme authority to end the schism, and that John was bound under the penalty

  of mortal sin to accept a formula of resignation offered by the three nations. On February 28th, the formula was drawn up. In it, John was made to undertake and promise to resign, if and as far as Gregory and Benedict did the same. The representatives of the University of Paris suggested that this only imposed a civil obligation, which it would be well to strengthen by a religious one. They proposed the addition of the words swear and vow, which were unanimously

  accepted. On March 1st, 1415, this formula was presented to the pope in the presence of Zigezmunt and deputies from the nations. John received it with a good grace. First he read it to himself, and then remarking that he had only come to Constance for the purpose of giving peace to the Church, read it aloud with a clear voice. Tears of joy streamed down many faces at the accomplishment of this first step towards the union of the Church. The assembled prelates

  raised the taideum, but more wept than sang, and many did both. In the city, the bells rang joyously, and the utmost delight prevailed at this first result of the council, which had sat four months and had achieved nothing. Next day John read the same formula publicly in the cathedral. At the solemn words of promise, he bowed before the altar and laid his hand upon his breast. Zigezmunt rose from his throne, laid aside his crown, and kneeling before the pope, kissed his

  foot in token of gratitude. The Patriarch of Alexandria thanked him in the name of the council. The unanimity between John and the council seemed to be complete. But when the first outburst of joy was over, John's resignation seemed to be too good news to be true. There was a wish to bind him more completely, and it was suggested that he should embody his resignation in a bull. At first he refused, but Zigezmunt's influence obtained the bull on March 7th. The council was anxious

  to be quite sure of its own position, as it was now in a position to authorize the interview which Benedict's ambassadors had suggested between their master and Zigezmunt at Nice. When preparations were being made for this purpose, it was suggested that John should name as his proctors, with full power to resign in his behalf, Zigezmunt and the prelates who were to accompany him. This was a vital point on which John could not give way. If he did, his chances were entirely lost,

  and his resignation, which was at present only conditional, would be irrevocably accomplished. He adroitly proposed that he should go himself to meet Benedict. But the council remembered the innumerable obstacles which had been found to prevent the meeting of Gregory and Benedict, nor did they desire to let John leave Constance, lest he should at once dissolve the council. Mutual distrust blazed up in an instant. Frederick of Austria had come to Constance on February 18th,

  and though he studiously avoided the pope, rumors were rife of an understanding between them, and suspicions were keen. John made a last attempt to soften Zigezmunt by presenting him on March 10th with the Golden Rose, which according to old custom, the popes consecrated, when they chose, three weeks before Easter, and presented to kings whom they delighted to honor. Zigezmunt received the gift with due respect and bore it in solemn procession through the city. But it was significant

  that he did not keep it for himself, but offered it to the Virgin in the cathedral. Zigezmunt soon showed that he was not moved by this touching mark of papal affection. Next day, March 11th, he presided at a congregation in which some members spoke of electing a new pope after securing the abdication of the three claimants. The archbishop of Mainz rose and protested that he could obey no one except John XXIII. Words ran high. The old accusations against John were again

  brought up, and the assembly dispersed in confusion. It was clear that there was a war between Zigezmunt and the pope. John did not mean to take any steps to accomplish his resignation. Zigezmunt was resolved to hold him to his promise. As John would not give way, it was clear that he must be proposing to leave Constance. Zigezmunt gave orders that the gates should be closely guarded. When one of the cardinals attempted to pass, he was turned back. John summoned the great

  lords and magistrates of the city and loudly complained to the council with good reason of this violation of the safe conduct under which they were all assembled. The burgomaster of Constance pleaded Zigezmunt's orders. Frederick of Austria stood forward and declared that for his part he intended to keep the safe conduct which he had promised. Next day, March 14th, Zigezmunt summoned a congregation of the French, Germans, and English

  who sent to the pope a renewed demand that he would appoint proctors to carry out his abdication. They added a request that he would promise not to dissolve the council or allow anyone to leave Constance till union had been achieved. With these demands, Zigezmunt sent his excuse about the watch over the gate. He said that he had said it at the request of some of the cardinals who feared lest the council should melt away. He wished, however, in all things to stand by his

  safe conduct. John agreed not to dissolve the council but suggested its transference to some place in the neighborhood of Nice where he might more conveniently meet Benedict and perform his resignation in person. Matters were now in a very awkward position. Zigezmunt and the three Transalpine nations stood opposed to the pope and the Italians. John's resistance clearly indicated an intention of quitting Constance. This made his opponents more eager to deprive him by any means

  of the power of harming them. In a congregation on March 17th, the Germans and English were for insisting on the appointment of proctors by the pope, but the French were opposed to driving matters to extremities and voted for adjournment. The French already had had experience of the difficulties in the way of using violence to a pope. They had also a stronger sense of decorum than the Teutons and seemed to have resented the high-handed way in which Zigezmunt managed

  matters. The close alliance between the English and the Germans somewhat annoyed them, for though the mission of the council was a peaceful one, national animosity could not be entirely silenced, and the French knew that England was on the brink of waging an unjust war of invasion against their country. No sooner was there the faintest sign of a breach in the serried front of the Transalpine nations than the Italians hastened to take advantage of it. They sent five cardinals to

  detach the French from the English and Germans. Amongst them was Peter Dye, for the cardinals, as Italian prelates, formed part of the Italian nation. Dye, who had been the most prominent man in the beginning of the council, disapproved of the violent and revolutionary spirit which had been developing since Zigezmunt's arrival. He now used his influence with the French to induce them not to join with the Germans and English in their scheme of forcing the pope to appoint proctors.

  He also begged them to withdraw from the method of voting by nations and advocate the old method of personal voting. Though Dye had argued strongly in favor of extending the franchise, he was not prepared to admit an entire change in the method of voting. The prospect of a union between the French and the Italians enraged still more the Germans and English. At a congregation on March 19th, the English proposed that John be seized and made

  prisoner. Zigezmunt, followed by the English and Germans, proceeded with this demand to an assembly where the French were sitting in conference with the five cardinals deputed by the Italians. If the French had before resented Zigezmunt's conduct, they now blazed up at this unwarranted interference and angrily demanded that their deliberations should be left undisturbed. The English and Germans withdrew, but Zigezmunt and his lords remained. The French demanded

  that the lords also should withdraw, and Zigezmunt lost his temper, for the majority of those who sat amongst the French were his subjects. He angrily exclaimed, Now it will be seen who is for union and faithful to the Roman Empire. Peter Dyee, indignant at this attempted coercion, rose and left the room. The other four cardinals protested that they were not free to deliberate. On the king's departure, messengers were sent to ask if the French were to consider themselves free.

  Zigezmunt had now recovered his equanimity and answered that they were perfectly free. He had spoken in haste. At the same time he ordered all who did not belong to the French nation to quit their assembly on pain of imprisonment. The quarrel seemed to have become serious. But the ambassadors of the French king, who had arrived on March 5th, entered the French assembly and said that the French king wished that the pope should appoint proctors and should not

  leave Constance nor dissolve the council. This calmed the wrath of the French, who now separated themselves again from the Italians, and joined the Germans and English. There now seemed to be no hope for John XXIII, but the sense of his danger at length spurred him to take the desperate step of fleeing from Constance. He had bound to himself Frederick of Austria, a young and adventurous prince who hated Zigezmunt, feared the council, and hoped to gain much from the pope. He had come

  to Constance and there found his pride outraged by the commanding position assigned to Zigezmunt. He had been called upon by Zigezmunt to do homage for his lands, and though at first he refused, was driven to do so by the good terms on which the king stood with the Swiss cantons, the hereditary foes of the Austrian house. He strove to detach Zigezmunt from the Swiss by offering aid for a war against them, but Zigezmunt was too wily for him and gave the Swiss information of his proposals.

  When the Swiss envoys arrived in Constance, Zigezmunt confronted them with Frederick and offered his services to settle any disputes which might exist between them. Outwitted and filled with shame and rage, Frederick stammered out excuses and had to arrange matters with the Swiss by pleading that he had been misinformed, but Frederick's humiliation made him burned with desire to upset Zigezmunt's triumphal progress at the council. He knew that he would not stand alone and that

  John still had powerful friends. The duke of Burgundy wished by all means to dissolve the council. The archbishop of Mainz was Zigezmunt's foe and a staunch adherent of John. The Markgraf of Baden had been won over to John's side by the substantial argument of a gift of 16,000 florins. John and Frederick laid their plans cautiously and skillfully, yet not without awakening some suspicion. Zigezmunt thought it well to visit the pope and reassure him. He found him in the evening lying

  on his bed and inquired about his health. John answered that the heir of Constance did not agree with him. Zigezmunt said that there were many pleasant residences near Constance where he might go for change of heir and offered to accompany him. He begged him not to think of leaving Constance secretly. John answered that he had no intention of leaving till the council was dissolved. Men afterwards regarded this answer as framed like an oracle of old. John meant that by his departure

  he would dissolve the council. No sooner was the king gone than John in the hearing of his attendants called him a beggar, a drunkard, a fool, and a barbarian. He accused Zigezmunt of sending to demand a bribe for keeping him in his papal office. Most likely John here laid his finger on Zigezmunt's weak point. Zigezmunt was poor and may have demanded money for the expenses of the council from the pope, whom he was laboring to drive from his office. John's attendants wondered

  to hear such plain speaking. Their master's tongue was loosened by the thought that he would soon be rid of the necessity of the intolerable self-restraint under which he had been lately living. Next day, March 20th, a tournament was held outside the walls in which Frederick of Austria had challenged the son of the Count of Sealy to break a lance with him. The town was emptied of the throng, which flocked to the spectacle. In the general confusion, the pope, disguised as a groom,

  mounted on a sorry nag, covered by a gray cloak and a hat slouched over his face, with a bow hanging from his saddle, passed out unperceived. He slowly made his way to Ermatingen an der Untersee, where a boat was waiting to convey him to Schaffhausen, a town belonging to Frederick. In the midst of the tournée, a servant whispered the news into Frederick's ear. He continued to joust for a while and gracefully allowed his adversary to win the

  prize. Then he took horse and rode off the same evening to join the pope at Schaffhausen. End of Section 32.

• 33 - Bk. II, Ch. 2: Deposition of John XXIII, 1415, Pt. 1

  play_arrowPlaymenu_bookRead

  Section 33 of A History of the Papacy, Volume 1 by Mandel Creighton. This LibriVox recording is in the public domain, read by Pamela Nagami. Book 2, Chapter 2. Deposition of John XXIII. 1415. Part 1. Great was the tumult in Constance, when at nightfall the flight of the Pope became known. The mob rushed to plunder the Pope's palace. Merchants began to pack their goods and prepare

  to defend themselves against a riot. Most men thought that the council had come to an end. The prelates who had spoken against John looked on themselves as ruined. Those who were zealous for the reform of the Church saw their hopes entirely overthrown. But Siegesmund showed energy and determination in this crisis. He ordered the burglmaster to call the citizens under arms and maintain order, and the Italian merchants saw with wonder the ease with which quiet was restored.

  Next day Siegesmund accompanied by Louis of Bavaria rode through the city, and with his own mouth exhorted all men to quietness and courage. He made proclamation that if John were fled, he knew how to bring him back. Meanwhile, anyone was free to follow him who chose. In a general congregation he held the same language, affirming that he would protect the council and would labor for union, even to death. He accused Frederick of Austria of abetting the Pope's flight, and cited him to

  appear in answer for his deeds. The College of Cardinals chose three of their number as a deputation to John to beg him not to dissolve the council, but appoint proctors to carry out his resignation. The same day brought a letter from John to Siegesmund. By the grace of God, we are free, an agreeable atmosphere at Schaffhausen, where we came unknown to our son Frederick of Austria, with no intention of going back from our promise of abdicating to promote the peace of the Church,

  but that we may carry it out in freedom and with regard to our health. The needless lie about Frederick of Austria, who's not calculated to carry much conviction of the truth of the Pope's promises, before the departure of the Cardinals, the council wishing to have a clear definition of their authority so as not to depend entirely on the influence of Siegesmund, requested Gershon, as the most learned theologian present, to preach upon the subject. Gershon's sermon on March 23,

  1415, laid down the general principles that the Church is united to its one head, Christ, and that a general council representing the Church is the authority or rule guided by the Holy Ghost, ordained by Christ, which all, even the Pope, are bound to obey. The Pope is not so far above positive law as to set aside the decrees of a council which can limit, though not abolish, the Pope's power. The representatives of the University of Paris extended these principles

  of Gershon and asserted that the council could not be dissolved, but might continue itself and invoke the secular arm against all who refused to obey it. Some went further than the majority would admit and asserted that the council was in all points above the Pope and was not bound to obey him. The Cardinals now found themselves in a difficult position. They did not wish to break with the council. Yet so long as John professed his willingness to abdicate, they had not sufficient

  grounds for shaking off their allegiance to him. They thought it wiser not to be present at Gershon's sermon, though they were informed by Zigezmunt of its purport, which the three Cardinal deputies, accompanied by the Archbishop of Reims, communicated to the Pope at Schaffhausen. Meanwhile, John had written letters to the University of Paris, the King of France, and the Duke of Orléans, explaining the reasons of his flight. In them he artfully tried to play

  upon the hatred of the French to the English and on the French king's jealousy of Zigezmunt. He complained that the English and Germans had leagued themselves together to carry matters with a high hand, and that Zigezmunt had tried to make himself master of the council. For these reasons, he had retired to Schaffhausen, but was ready to accomplish his abdication and wished to journey through France on his way to meet Benedict. These letters were written to no purpose,

  as they were only referred back to the council. On the same day, John sent to Constance a peremptory order to all the officers of the Curia to join him at Schaffhausen within six days, under pain of excommunication. Seven cardinals left Constance next day and went to Schaffhausen, as did the greater part of the Curia. On March 25th, the Archbishop of Reims returned with letters from the Pope to Zigezmunt, saying that he had gone to Schaffhausen merely for change of air,

  not through any fear of danger. He offered to appoint as proctors to accomplish his resignation in case Gregory and Benedict also resigned. The whole body of cardinals, or three of them and four prelates, one out of each nation, of whom three should be empowered to act. But the council was full of suspicion of John and of his cardinals. It resolved to go its own way, according to the principles laid down by Gerson, and to pay no further heed to the Pope. So strong was the council

  that it refused to consider the reasonable difficulties of the cardinals, who felt themselves bound to hold by John until he openly set himself in opposition to the council. The cardinals, like all moderate men, who tried to guide their conduct by ordinary rules and extraordinary crises, were regarded with suspicion by both sides. They were not summoned to the assembly of nations held on March 26th to discuss decrees which were to be submitted to a session of the

  council on the same day. The resolutions were only handed to them to read over before the session of the council opened. They demanded that the session be deferred till the return of their envoys from the Pope. They were told that Zigezmunt and the council were weary of subterfuges. They were in sore perplexity. A wave of revolutionary spirit threatened to sweep away Pope and cardinals at the same time. It seemed to some sufficiently dreadful that a session of the council should

  be held without the Pope, though for this at least the precedent of the council of Pisa could be claimed. But it was an unheard of innovation that the council should meet in spite of Pope and cardinals. The exclusive aristocracy, which had been willing to weaken the monarchical system of the church, found that its own position was almost lost as well. Some of the cardinals at once retired to John. Many thought it wise to pretend illness and watch how events turned out. Only two determined

  to make a last effort to save the dignities of the cardinals from the violence of the council. Peter Dye and Zabarella presented themselves at the session and succeeded in obtaining the respect due to their rank. Dye celebrated the Mass and presided. Zabarella read the decrees, which affirmed that the council had been duly summoned to Constance, was not dissolved by the Pope's flight, and ought not to be dissolved till the schism was ended and the church reformed. Meanwhile,

  the council would not be transferred to another place without its own assent, nor should prelates leave the council till its work was done. A loud cry of placket followed the reading of these decrees. Then Zabarella went on to read a protest in behalf of himself and Dye, saying that so long as John labored for the peace of the church, they must hold by him. They could have wished that this session had been deferred, but as the council determined otherwise, they thought it right to be present,

  in the hope that what was done would be confirmed by the Pope. The skillful and courageous behavior of the two cardinals saved the prestige of the sacred college and prevented an irrevocable breach between the council and the old traditions of the church, which would have strengthened the hands of John XXIII. On the same evening, the envoys of the cardinals returned from Schaffhausen, and next day, March 27th, before a general congregation, reported the Pope's offer to

  appoint the cardinals as his proctors so that two of them could carry out his resignation, even against his will. He promised not to dissolve the council till there was a perfect union of the church. He demanded security for his own person and indemnity for the Duke of Austria, but the council was too suspicious of John to trust to any fair promises, nor did the attitude of the cardinals who had come from Schaffhausen tend to confirm their confidence. In the discussion

  that followed, some of them ventured to hint that the Pope's withdrawal had dissolved the council. They were angrily answered that the Pope was not above the council but subject to it. The suspicions entertained against the cardinals were increased by the fact that a copy of John's summons to his curia to attend him at Schaffhausen had been posted on the doors of the Cathedral of Constance, clearly at the instigation of some of the cardinals

  who had returned from visiting the Pope. The publication next day, March 25th, of a prolongation of the period within which they were bound to leave Constance, only increased the irritation of the council. Congregations of the nations set to work busily to frame decrees establishing the authority of the council without the Pope, and the cardinals in alarm saw the opinions of the most advanced advocates of the reforming party being adopted with enthusiasm by the entire council.

  In vain, they endeavored to arrest the current of opinion by offering new concessions on behalf of the Pope. Zigesmunt should be joined as proctor to the cardinals, and the summons to the curia to leave Constance should be entirely withdrawn. It was too late. The distrust of John XXIII and the cardinals was too deep-seated and had been too well deserved. Under the excitement of the last few days, the council had risen to a sense of its own importance and was determined to assert itself

  in spite of Pope or cardinals. John XXIII, who was kept well informed of what was passing, grew alarmed at the turn which affairs were taking. Before the council had asserted its power, he thought it wise to remove himself to a more secure spot than Schaffhausen. The position of Frederick of Austria seemed precarious. The Swiss Confederates were preparing to attack him. Many of his own vassals renounced their allegiance. Schaffhausen would not be safe against an attack.

  So on March 29th, on a rainy day, John left Schaffhausen. Outside the gate he paused and caused the notary to draw up a protest that all his oaths, vows, and promises made at Constance had been drawn from him through fear of violence. Then he galloped off to the strong castle of Laufenberg, some thirty miles higher up the Rhine. He did not take with him even the cardinals who were at Schaffhausen, and they returned ignominiously to Constance, where they were received with

  decorous contempt. John had now thrown off the veil and justified the suspicions of his adversaries. His policy of chicanery and prevarication had been baffled by the resolute attitude of the council, and he was driven at last to try the chances of open war. The cardinals still desperately strove to check the alarming advance of the pretensions of the council. They saw, and saw rightly, that an unmodified assertion of the supremacy of a general council over the pope meant the introduction of a

  new principle into the existing government of the church. They threatened to absent themselves from the session to be held on March 30th, unless the articles to be proposed were modified. Zygmunt offered to lay their views before the nations and gave them vague hopes that some slight changes might be made. They prevailed on the French ambassadors and the deputies of the university to join with them in begging Zygmunt to lay aside his intention of making war on Frederick

  of Austria, but Zygmunt was inexorable. After much anxious deliberation, all the cardinals who were in Constance except Peter Dye and the cardinal of Vivier presented themselves at the session held on March 30th. Cardinal Ordesini presided. Zygmunt appeared in royal robes accompanied by several lords and about 200 fathers. The decrees were given to the cardinal Zabarella to read, They set forth that this synod lawfully assembled in the Holy Ghost, forming a general council

  representing the Catholic Church militant, has its power immediately from Christ, and all men of every rank and dignity, even the pope, are bound to obey it in matters pertaining to the faith and the extirpation of the present schism. So far Zabarella read, but seeing that the words went on, and general reformation of the Church of God and head and members, he paused, and saying that they were contrary to general opinion, omitted them, and passed on to the next decrees, declaring that the

  pope could not dissolve the council, and that all acts done by him to the detriment of the council should be null and void. The cardinals were willing to admit the supremacy of the council over the pope for the immediate purpose of ending the schism, but they were not willing that it should extend to the matter which more closely concerned themselves, that of the reformation of the Church. In the tumult that followed his omission of the words of the decree,

  it was not sure how much he read afterwards. The session broke up in confusion, and the wrath of the council against the cardinals blazed higher. A pamphlet written by some German prelate attacked them in no measured language. They had been in league with the pope against the council. Many of them had followed him to Schaffhausen and had only returned because they were not satisfied with the cookery there. Their character might be seen by that of

  the pope whom they elected, a tyrant, a homicide, a somaniac, steeped in unmentionable vices. If they chose him as being the best among their number, what was to be thought of the rest? Yet the council behaved with dignity. It named deputies to confer with Zabarella, but it refused to reconsider the decrees themselves. On April 6th, another session was held in which the former decrees were again submitted and approved, on being read by the

  bishop of Posen, with two additions, that anyone refusing to obey the decrees of the council might be punished, and that John XXIII had enjoyed full liberty while at Constance. This last decree was an answer to John's plea on leaving Schaffhausen that he had fled from Constance through fear of violence. On this point, his cunning had overreached itself, as the moral force which a plea of coercion might have possessed was lost by his first excuse that he left for the sake of change of air.

  He published a further allegation on April 7th that he fled lest the obvious violence to which he was exposed at Constance might afford a pretext to Gregory and Benedict for withdrawing their offers of resignation. John was much too plausible, and failed entirely to see that he could not establish his moral character in the face of Europe by putting forward pleas which no one could profess to believe. John was soon driven to feel his helplessness. On April 6th, the council besought

  Zigezmunt to bring back the pope to Constance. On April 7th, the ban of the empire was issued against Frederick of Austria, and the excommunication of the council was pronounced against the disturber of its peace. The hope of booty made many willing to carry out the behests of the king and the council. Frederick, borgraf of Nürnberg, led an army into Schwabia, where strong towns fell before him. Schaffhausen, too weak to endure a siege, had once submitted to Zigezmunt. Another

  army was gathered from Bavaria and overran the Tyrol. Still, Frederick of Austria might have held out securely if the Swiss had maintained neutrality, as at first they intended to do in accordance with a 50-years peace which they had made with Austria in 1412. But Zigezmunt urged that an engagement was not binding in the case of an excommunicated man. He held before them the prospect of increase of territory at Frederick's expense. He promised to make no peace with Frederick that did not guarantee

  their safety. The fathers of the council added a threat of excommunication if they did not lend their aid to the cause of the church. Then the scruples of the Swiss were overcome. They poured their levies into the Austrian possessions and advanced victoriously to the walls of Baden. On another side, the false Graf Lewis overran Alsace. Frederick of Austria in Freiburg, where he had fled for safety, received nothing but messages of calamity. John XXIII himself went to

  Freiburg on April 10th and was convinced that he could gain aid from the Duke of Burgundy. He strove in vain to encourage Frederick to hold out till suckers came. He placed all his treasury at Frederick's disposal, promised him the aid of Italian condottieri, held out hopes of help from Venice and Milan, if Frederick would but resist for a time. But Frederick's spirit was broken. He thought only of making his peace on any terms with Sigismund and regarded John's person as a

  valuable pledge by which he might appease the storm which he had drawn upon his own head. Meanwhile, the council went its way with stately decorum. On April 17th, a general session approved a letter addressed to all the kings and princes of Europe, recounting the circumstances of the pope's flight, dwelling upon his entire freedom of action at Constance, lamenting the fortunes of the church under such an unworthy shepherd, announcing the intention of the council to send

  envoys to demand John's return. The council appointed as its envoys Cardinals Filastre and Zabarella and drew up a document for John to sign, appointing proctors to carry out his resignation. John was to be required within two days to return to Constance or take up his abode at Ulm, Ravensburg or Basel, till his resignation was accomplished. In this session also the ill-concealed hatred against the Cardinals found expression in a proposal to exclude them from the sittings of

  the council. A memoir probably written by Dietrich of Nîmes was read, arguing that if the object of the council were the reformation of its head and members, that is the pope and the Cardinals, the Cardinals ought not to be judges in their own cause. By their election of John the 23rd, they had sufficiently scandalized the church and had shown themselves ready to aid him in thwarting the council. No conclusion was come to on this point, but we see how high feeling must

  have run by the fact that the council found it necessary to forbid the publication of libelous or defamatory documents under pain of excommunication. End of section 33.

• 34 - Bk. II, Ch. 2: Deposition of John XXIII, 1415, Pt. 2

  play_arrowPlaymenu_bookRead

  Section 34 of A History of the Papacy, Volume 1 by Mandel Creighton. This LibriVox recording is in the public domain, read by Pamela Nagami. Book 2, Chapter 2. Deposition of John XXIII, 1415, Part 2. Next day, April 18th,

  the Cardinals presented a series of propositions affirming the authority and headship of the Roman Church over a general council. Even over the universal church, the Roman Church, or the Pope, has authority immediately from God as much as a general council. Indeed, the Roman Church forms the principal part of a general council,

  over which the Pope presides, and in his absence the Cardinals. Without the assent of the Roman Church, nothing could be decided by a council. The theologians set themselves to answer this document, clause by clause, but we see that they were hard-pressed in doing so. Throughout the discussions of the last thirty years,

  the arguments in favor of a council had owed their force to the schism and its evils, had been founded on a plea of present necessity. But the arguments against schismatic Popes lost much of their power when applied to the united College of Cardinals. The advocates of the council had been unable to set up the claims of the universal church

  against those of the Roman Church, because the unity of the Roman Church was destroyed by the doubt as to its head. But no one ventured to impugn the validity of the position of the College of Cardinals, and when they asserted themselves as the rightful representatives of the Roman Church, and took their stand upon its privileges, the theologians of the council were in a straight.

  They answered the pleas of the Cardinals hesitatingly, rather carping at the expressions used than venturing to attack the conclusions. The Church of Rome, they admit, is head of all the churches, yet not for the sake of nourishing schism. There is a difference between a council summoned to decide matters of faith,

  and one summoned to extinguish a schism caused by the Cardinals themselves. Whatever power the Cardinals might have in the first case, they ought not in the second case to judge their own cause. We see in this the weakness of the councilier argument. Taking advantage of a disputed succession in the papal monarchy,

  it attempted to raise, in a time of anarchy, a cry for a representative system in the government of the Church. Against the distracted monarchy, it could make good its position. But when the nobles of the court asserted in their own defense the principles on which the monarchy was founded, the advocates of the representative system did not dare directly

  to dispute them. The council did not decree the exclusion of the Cardinals, but practically they were rendered powerless by the fact that the conclusions of the assemblies of the nations were only handed to them a short while before the sessions of the council, so that they had no time to influence the final decisions. On May 2, they demanded the power to organize themselves like the nations,

  urging that the English nation was only represented by twenty. The council, however, refused, and bade them each join their own nation. Finally, at the session, on May 25, we find the College of Cardinals ranking by the side of the nations, though the understanding between them was never cordial. On April 19, the Cardinals Filastre and Zabarella left Constance to bear the council's proposals to John XXIII. They found that

  he had left Freiburg for Breisach, still holding to his plan of drawing nearer to the territory of the Duke of Burgundy, who he hoped would send an escort to conduct him to Avignon. But with the fate of Frederick of Austria before his eyes, John of Burgundy hesitated to incur the hostility of the council. John XXIII remained at Breisach, where the envoys found him on April 23, and laid before him the council's demands. John promised to answer them next day,

  but next day they learned with astonishment that he had fled in the early dawn to Neuenburg. The envoys accordingly retraced their steps to Freiburg, where to their surprise they again found the pope on April 27. John XXIII's course was now run. Frederick of Austria had taken the first steps toward reconciliation with Zigezmunt and knew that for this purpose he must be prepared to deliver over John to his foes. John was accordingly summoned by Frederick to take

  refuge in Freiburg for greater safety, and with a heavy heart was compelled to obey. There he had to listen again to the demands of the envoys of the council, and sullenly answered that he would send his proctors in a few days. On the return of the legates to Constance, April 29, it was resolved to cite John to appear. Next day Frederick of Austria came humbly to Constance to beg Zigezmunt's forgiveness, and John's proctor, bearing his demands and reservations,

  was not thought worthy of notice. The council was now omnipotent and determined to give John XXIII no quarter. In a session on May 2, a citation was issued summoning him to appear and answer charges of heresy, schism, simony, maladministration, waste of church property, and scandals caused to the church by his life and character. On May 4, the citation was affixed to the gates of Constance, and next day the humiliation of Frederick of Austria before Zigezmunt gave the

  council a foretaste of its triumph. In the refectory of the Franciscan monastery, Zigezmunt sat on his throne surrounded by deputies of the four nations and the ambassadors of the Italian states who were present in Constance. The Duke of Austria was introduced as a humble suppliant by Frederick of Nürnberg and Louis of Bavaria, who in his behalf supplicated for pardon and submitted his lands and person to the royal grace. Zigezmunt asked Frederick if he is sent to this prayer.

  On bended knee, with broken voice, Frederick repeated his request for mercy. Zigezmunt raised him from his knees saying, I am sorry that you have brought this upon yourself. Then Frederick swore fealty to Zigezmunt, resigned his lands into Zigezmunt's hands to hold at his good pleasure, promised to bring back Pope John to Constance and to remain as hostage till his promises were fulfilled. The heart of Zigezmunt swelled with pride at his triumph. Turning to the Italian

  ambassadors, he exclaimed, you know what mighty men the Dukes of Austria are? See now what a German king can do. It was a pardonable boast and Zigezmunt deserved a triumph for his skill in seizing the opportunity of raising the dignity of the empire on the weakness of the church. The council did not entirely trust to Frederick's power of bringing John to Constance. On May 9th, the Burgraaff of Nürnberg with 300 armed men escorted to Freiburg,

  envoys of the council, who begged John to return. John put a good face on the matter and professed his readiness, but took no steps beyond sending a secret commission to the cardinals Dye, Filastre and Zabarella to act as proctors in his defense. After some hesitation, they refused to act on his behalf. And the council in session on May 13th ruled that the citation had been addressed to him in person and that he was bound to appear himself. Next day he was condemned

  for contumacy and was declared suspended from the papal office. Commissioners were appointed to examine witnesses and draw up charges against John and they were not long in discharging their office. A terrible list of 70 articles was drawn out against John, though these were for very shame reduced to 54 before they were laid before the council. They covered John's whole life and left him no shred of virtue, no vestige of reputation. From the days of his youth he was steeped in vice,

  of evil disposition, lying, disobedient to his parents. Each step in his career had been gained by underhand means. He had poisoned his predecessor, had despised the rights of religion like a pagan, was an oppressor of the poor, a robber of churches, stained by carnal indulgences, a vessel of every kind of sin. Besides these general terms of abuse, the specific charges against him range from incest to an offer to sell the Florentines the sacred relic of the head of

  John the Baptist belonging to the monastery of San Silvestro at Rome. Amidst this overwhelming mass of accusations there is only one thing of which we feel convinced, that John certainly had the power of inspiring deep animosity. Meanwhile John himself was brought by Frederick of Nuremberg to Radov Cel, eight miles from Constance. He refused to go any further. His spirit was broken and he was only anxious to escape the shame of a personal humiliation. He was accordingly left at

  Radov Cel strictly guarded. On May 20th envoys of the council announced to him his suspension from the papacy and demanded the insignia of his office, the seal, and the fisherman's ring. John submitted with tears and expressions of contrition. On May 25th the articles against him were laid before the council with a statement of the number and nature of the witnesses on each head. They received the solemn approval of a proctor nominated by each nation. The council was terribly

  unanimous. Even the contest with the cardinals was laid aside and the college at last was allowed to organize itself as a nation, for we find the cardinal of Vivier acting as proctor to convey the assent of the college. Five cardinals were sent to announce to John that his deposition was imminent. John did not trust himself to reply in words but handed them a writing in which he declared that he was willing to submit to the council in all things and would not object to

  its decision, whatever it might be, he only asked them to respect his honor in person. The council was gratified by this unqualified submission but thought it well to take all precautions. Next day five commissioners were sent to carry to John the articles on which he was accused and summon him to answer in person if he thought fit. John refused to read the articles and repeated his previous answer that he submitted to the council which could not err.

  In its infallibility was his one defense. He only asked that his honor be spared as much as possible. He sent a letter to Ziegismund, his only hope after God, reminding him of their past relations, begging him by the bowels of compassion of Jesus Christ to be mindful of your plighted word by which you gave us hope and entreating him to use his influence with the council on the side of mercy. John's submission disarmed the extreme bitterness felt against him and the sentence of deprivation

  pronounced against him on May 29th was couched in much milder terms than the articles would have warranted. It set forth the evils with which John's flight from Constance had threatened the unity of the church and then proceeded. Our Lord Pope John was moreover a notorious simmoniac, a waster of the goods and rights not only of the Roman church but others, an evil administrator both of the spiritualities and temporalities of the church, causing notorious scandal to the Church of God

  and Christian people by his detestable and unseemly life and manners both before and since his accession to the papacy. In spite of frequent munitions he persisted in his evil course and therefore is now deposed as unworthy, useless and harmful. All Christians are freed from their allegiance and are forbidden to recognize him any longer as Pope. After the deposition of John, care was taken for the future by a decree that no new election should be made in case of vacancy

  without the express consent of the council and that none of the three contending claimants should be re-elected. A solemn procession of the whole council around the city of Constance celebrated this final assurance of their triumph. The deposed pope, now called once more by his former name of Baldessare Cossa, was brought for safe keeping into the strong castle of Gottleben close to Constance. But there was a suspicion that some discontented spirits had again opened

  correspondence with him and Sigismund handed him over to the custody of the Pfalzgraff Lewis, who held the office of protector of the council. Lewis sent him to the castle of Heidelberg, where he remained so long as the council sat, attended only by Germans, whose language he did not understand and with whom he communicated only by signs. Thus fell John XXIII undefended, and it would seem, unpitied. Nor has posterity reversed the verdict of the council.

  Yet it is difficult not to feel that John had hard measure dealt to him in the exceptional obloquy which has been his lot. Elected to the papacy in return for his signal services in the council of Pisa, he was ignominiously deposed by the council which claimed to be the continuation of that of Pisa. Here is elsewhere the revolution swallowed up its own child, and John's character has met with the fate which always befalls those whom everyone is interested to malign and no one is

  interested to defend. In his early career he established his reputation for courage and political sagacity by his administration of Bologna, but his capacities were those of a soldier of fortune, and few looked upon him seriously as a priest. As the chief man in North Italy, he had it in his power to dispose of the fortunes of the council of Pisa, and the cardinals could scarcely help rewarding him for his services by the gift of the papacy.

  But in his exalted position everything went amiss with John, and his entire want of success in Italian affairs compelled him, sorely against his will, to appeal to the sympathies of Christendom. His previous training in a life of military adventure made him light-hearted in running into danger. His entire ignorance of the religious feeling of Europe made him utterly unable to cope with his danger when once it gathered round him. It was one thing to play off against one another

  condodieri generals and win by trickery the towns of Fortale and Fienza. It was another thing to guide the deliberations of an assembly of theologians profoundly convinced of their own powers. John had neither learning nor moral character to enable him to hold his own in the face of the council. He had nothing but intrigue, which he managed so ill as to make it impossible for anyone to hold by him through respect for the papal dignity. Betrayed first by Zygismund and then by

  Frederick of Austria, he lost all self-command and self-confidence. When force of character rests neither upon moral nor intellectual principles, it rapidly decays under adverse circumstances. When John found that his first endeavors to manage the council were unsuccessful, he began to lose his nerve and then blundered more and more lamentably. The council took advantage of each of his mistakes and drove him remorselessly from point to point. John contested each point in

  detail with the weapons of mean subterfuge and thus entirely ruined his prestige in the eyes of Europe. Everything went against him and when he fell there was no one interested to save him or even to give him shelter. Everyone felt that such a man never ought to have been elected pope. He was nothing more or less than an Italian military adventurer and his camp life had been scandalous enough to make any stories against him sound credible. Yet it was not to the moral

  indignation caused by his character that John XXIII owed his fall, but to the policy of Zygismund and the council, who were bent upon restoring unmistakably the outward unity of the church. When John threw difficulties in the way of their plan of a common abdication of the three contending claimants of the papacy, a civil war followed in which victory declared against John. His rebellion was signally punished and it was necessary not only to depose him but to render it impossible for

  anyone to revive his claims. John had few friends and they could do nothing for him. The council was omnipotent and suddenly applied to him a moral standard which would have condemned many of his predecessors. At Constance every tongue and pen was turned against John. A calm Italian observer blamed John for trusting himself to a council composed of turbulent spirits who wished to turn the world upside down. He admired his versatility and capacity. In his youth a student, he afterwards

  distinguished himself greatly as a general and administrator. Unfortunately he meddled in ecclesiastical matters which he did not understand and his ability was forgotten in the contemplation of his misfortunes. This seems to have been the prevailing opinion in Italy. Cosimo de' Medici, who was not likely to befriend an utterly worthless man, retained both affection and respect for the deposed Baldassare Cosa and gave him shelter in his last days. Still it must be admitted that

  whatever good qualities John possessed they were useless to him as pope and his ignorance and heedlessness of the spiritual duties of his sacred office gave the council a handle against him. No remorse was felt in making him a victim to the zeal for the union of the distracted church. End of section 34.

• 35 - Bk. II, Ch. 3: Religious Movements in England and Bohemia

  play_arrowPlaymenu_bookRead

  Section 35 of A History of the Papacy, Volume 1 by Mandel Creighton. This LibriVox recording is in the public domain. Read by Pamela Nagami. Book 2, Chapter 3. Religious Movements in England and Bohemia.

  When the dispossessed Baldessare Cosa was taken as prisoner to the castle of Gotlieben, there was another prisoner of the council within its walls, a Bohemian priest, John Huss, who was accused of heresy. At the beginning of the council it had been a question keenly disputed whether the promotion of the unity or the purification of the faith of the church should take precedence.

  Both matters had in some degree progressed, and the two prisoners at Gotlieben, Cosa and Huss, were witnesses of the two sides of the council's energy. The form of heresy which engaged its attention was one with which the council might have been expected to feel some sympathy, for it had its root in a deep-seated moral repugnance to the existing abuses in the ecclesiastical system and a longing for their reform.

  It had the same aim as the council itself. But though men were all convinced of the need of reform, they differed widely in the basis which they were ready to adopt. Abuses were so widespread that everyone wished to remedy them. But some merely wished to remove the abuses of the existing system,

  others wished to remodel the system itself. The system of the church had grown with the life of Christendom, and the individual Christian recognized his religious life as forming part of the corporate life of the church, so far as the ecclesiastical system, under the political exigencies of the papal monarchy, had strayed from its original purpose and, through stumbling blocks in the way

  of the spiritual power of the church itself, so far were the fathers of the council of Constance anxious for reform. But the troubled times of the schism and the misuse of the papal power drove others to criticize the nature and basis of the ecclesiastical system itself, and had led them to the conclusion that it was inadequate to the needs of the individual soul, and ought to be reorganized

  on a new basis. The leading spirits at Constance were eager to reform the church system, but they looked with horror on those who wished to create it afresh. Part of the work which they had before them was the extirpation of the errors of Wycliffe and Huss, was the purification of the faith of England and Bohemia.

  We have spoken of Wycliffe in the three phases of his career, as an upholder of the rights of the kingdom against papal aggression, as a reformer of the morals of the clergy, and as a critic of the system and doctrine of the church. In the first phase, all Englishmen went with him. In the second, he was in accord not only with the best minds amongst his own countrymen,

  but with the best minds in Europe. But when he attacked in unmeasured terms the foundations of the ecclesiastical system, it was felt that he threatened the existence of the church and even of civil society. It must be owned that the moral sense of the individual was set up by Wycliffe in dangerous superiority over law, and that his dialectical subtlety led him to indulge in theories and

  maxims which were capable of wider extension than he intended. We cannot be surprised that the English hierarchy set their faces against Wycliffe's teaching, and did their utmost to put down a movement which menaced their own existence. After Wycliffe's death, the party of the Lollards, or Cantors, as they were called, formed a compact body and grew in numbers and influence.

  They had always been favored by the discontented gentry, and numbered among their adherents several men of rank. In 1395, during Richard II's absence in Ireland, the Lollards presented to Parliament a petition for the reform of the Church in which they expressed themselves with astonishing boldness. They set forth the decay of the Church owing to its temporal grandeur

  and the consequent corruption of the clergy. The ordinary Roman priesthood, it set forth, is no longer the true priesthood ordained by Christ. The pretended miracle of a mass leads men to idolatry. The enforced celibacy of the clergy causes immoral living. The use of needless benedictions and exorcisms savers of necromancy rather than theology.

  Prayers for the dead are merely means of gaining alms. Auricular confession only exalts the pride of the priest. Pilgrimages to deaf images and relics are akin to idol worship. Monastic vows lead to much social disorder. War and homicide are contrary to the law of Christ, and occupations serving only for luxury

  are sinful. Inasmuch as the Church of England has gone astray in these matters following its stepmother, the Church of Rome, the petitioners pray for its reformation and restoration to primitive perfection. We have here a plan of social as well as ecclesiastical reform, founded upon Wycliffe's principles and expressed for the most part in Wycliffe's language.

  So important did Richard II consider this movement to be that he hastily returned from Ireland and demanded from the chiefs of the Lollard party an oath of abjuration of their opinions. They seem to have given way at once, a proof that the movement had amongst its most influential followers no real meaning, but expressed rather general discontent than any scheme which they seriously hoped to realize.

  The petition of the Lollards naturally awakened the indignation of the leaders of the clergy. In 1396, Archbishop Courtney, who had shown little or no disposition for repression, was succeeded by Thomas Arendl, who resolved to take vigorous measures against the insolence of the Lollards. At a provincial synod held in February 1397, 18 propositions of Wycliffe were condemned. They were drawn from the triologus by some learned member of the University of

  Oxford, which was now anxious to restore its reputation for orthodoxy. The condemned propositions consist of ten which tend to weaken the sacramental system of the Church, five which disparage the clerical order, and the legitimacy of temporal possessions by the Church. The other three assert the superiority of Scripture over ecclesiastical tradition, the moral basis of authority, and the philosophic doctrine of necessity. Not only did the ecclesiastical synod condemn these doctrines,

  but a trained controversialist, a Franciscan friar William Woodford, wrote a refutation of them at the Archbishop's bidding. Archbishop Arendl had thus prepared the way for stringent measures against the Lollards. The clergy condemned them, the learned refuted them, but before he could strike a blow he was himself stricken. Political questions swallowed up ecclesiastical disputes. The nation was too busy with other things to attend either to the Lollards or to the clergy.

  The earls of Arendl and Gloucester were put to death. The Archbishop himself was impeached by the submissive commons and was condemned to banishment. Pope Boniface IX did not choose to quarrel with the King about an Archbishop and translated Arendl to the See of St. Andrews, but Richard II's triumph was short-lived and Arendl took a leading part in the events which set Henry of Lancaster upon the English throne. Under Henry IV, Arendl was more powerful than

  ever and was resolute in his hostility to the Lollards. Public opinion seems to have turned decidedly against them, for many of their chief supporters had been staunch adherents of the fallen tyrant. Henry IV was greatly indebted to the help of the clergy for his easy accession to the throne and had many promises to fulfill. He was poor and needed money. He was weak and needed political support. He was, moreover, fervently orthodox and may not have been sorry to dissociate himself

  at once from his father's unworthy intrigues with the Lollard party. Accordingly, in 1401 a petition was addressed to the King by the clergy, praying for legislative measures against the Lollards who escaped ecclesiastical jurisdiction. The petition received the assent of Kings, Lords, and Commons, and a clause was inserted in the statute for the year enacting that a heretic convicted in a spiritual court was to be handed over to the secular arm to be burnt. Immediately after this,

  a Lollard preacher, William Sauter, met his doom as a heretic. The country as a whole had now pronounced its opinion against Lollardism, which henceforth became more and more an expression of political and social discontent and lost much of its religious meaning. In 1406, another petition was presented to Parliament setting forth that the Lollards were dangerous to public order in matters temporal and spiritual alike. They disseminated disquieting rumors and aimed at upsetting

  the peace of the kingdom. No fresh steps were taken, but the revolutionary attempt of the Lollard leader Sir John Oldcastle at the beginning of the reign of Henry V led to a more severe act against Lollardism in 1414. By it, the secular power was empowered to inquire after heretics and on suspicion hand them over for trial to the spiritual courts. From this time, Lollardism gradually disappeared. The French war found employment for adventurous minds. Political parties afterwards

  had many grounds for contention without sheltering themselves behind religious factions. The thirst for free inquiry died away in the universities. England entered upon a career of administrative helplessness and personal selfishness in high places, which left no room for discussion of abstract principles. The smoldering discontent with society into which Lollardism passed away still lingered and at times blazed forth, but it had none of the elements of a serious religious

  movement. The teaching of Wycliffe produced no deep impression in England. Partly this was due to his own character. Wycliffe was a keen, acute dialectician, but his spirit was too critical, his teaching too negative to inspire deep enthusiasm or supply a position around which men would rally to the death. Wycliffe himself had none of the spirit of a martyr and his followers were ready to recant rather than to suffer. The movement was in its origin academic rather than

  popular and was used at once for party purposes from the traces of which it never quite escaped. It lent colorable countenance to socialist doctrines and awakened hostility as being subversive to society. In short, its force was frittered away in various directions. There was no great national interest with which it decidedly identified. Perhaps the condition of English politics was unfavorable to a great religious movement.

  There was no decided popular party, no place for political action founded upon broad principles. Still, though Wycliffe set in motion no great movement and left no lasting impression of his definite opinions, he did much to awaken controversy and by his translation of the Bible he spread among the people a knowledge of the Scriptures. He thus prepared the way for the testing and reception of new opinions in the 16th century, and it is not an exaggeration to date from the

  time of Wycliffe that reverence for the exact words of Scripture which has always been the special characteristic of English religious life. The immediate importance of Wycliffe in the history of the world lies in the fact that in the remote country of Bohemia his writings became one element of the first great national movement toward a new religious system. There was much in the early traditions of the Bohemian kingdom to dispose it to revolt from the Papal Dominion. The history

  of Bohemia was that of a Slavonic tribe thrown into the midst of German peoples. The wave of German conquest flowed around it and it saw in the Holy Roman Empire merely a means of extending the power of the invading Germans. Christianity came to Bohemia from two sides, from Germany and Byzantium, but the Slavs listened to the preaching of the Greek monks Cyril and Methodius, though the papacy reaped the fruit of these conversions and behaved wisely in humoring the prejudices of the

  new converts. Moravia was made into a separate diocese and the use of a Slavonic liturgy was allowed. The German church resented this ecclesiastical organization of the Slavonic peoples and the cohesion of the Slavs was soon destroyed by the terrible invasion of Madjars, which severed the Slavic peoples and left Bohemia a helpless prey to German influences. The liturgy of Cyril and Methodius was suppressed and gradually disappeared, though it lingered in some obscure

  places to the middle of the 14th century. In its very origin, Latin Christianity in Bohemia was forced upon the unwilling Czechs and was a badge of Teutonic supremacy. The soil was ready to receive opinions contrary to the ecclesiastical system and nowhere did the heretical sects of the 13th century, the Bogomelians and Waldensis, take deeper root than in Bohemia. The reign of Charles IV, 1346 to 1378, forms a decisive epic in Bohemian history. The Pfaffenkaiser,

  raised to the empire by the influence of the church, was bound to use his power in the church's behalf. Charles IV has been differently judged according to different conceptions of his duty. To the political theorist or reformer, who looked to the emperor to inspire Europe with a new spirit, Charles IV seemed an indolent and self-indulgent ruler. To the Germans, Charles IV seemed destitute of dignity, weak and incapable, a king who did not care to maintain his prerogatives

  against the encroachments of his nobles, but regarded Germany as a province annexed to Bohemia. It is true that Charles IV paid no heed to the empire and allowed Germany to go its own way, but he devoted himself to the interests of his Bohemian subjects so that his reign is the golden age of their national annals. A model of a father to Bohemia and a model of a stepfather to Germany, the emperor Maximilian called him in later years. He made Prague, said an admirer, what Rome and

  Constantinople had been. He adorned his capital, elevated it into the seat of an archbishopric, and founded a university which soon took its place by the side of the great universities of Paris, Oxford and Bologna. These steps of Charles IV, so far as they strengthened the organization of the church, increased the influence of the Germans. But besides increasing the power of the church, Charles IV's zeal led him to wish for a reform in the clergy, and round the cry for reform which

  Charles IV fostered, the national spirit of the Czechs slowly and unconsciously rallied. The church in Bohemia was wealthy and powerful. The archbishop of Prague was lord of 329 towns and villages. The cathedral at Prague maintained 300 ecclesiastics. There were at least 110 convents in the land. Simony was rife, and as a consequence, negligence of duty, exaction, and corruption of manners prevailed among the clergy. A visitation held in 1379 convicted of immorality 16 clergymen

  out of 30 who were visited. Charles IV and the archbishop Ernest of Pardubuk were anxious to restore the zeal and morality of the Bohemian clergy. Charles's reforming zeal led him to summon from Austria an earnest preacher, Conrad of Waldhausen, who came to Prague in 1360 and began to denounce pride, luxury, and avarice with such effect that crowds thronged to his preaching and showed the power of his words by returning to simplicity of life. Conrad was led to ask himself

  how it was that he succeeded where the ordinary ministrations of the clergy failed. His meditations led him to attack the simony and other vices of the clergy and especially of the friars. It was in vain that the clergy accused Conrad of heresy. The king and the archbishop upheld him against their attacks, and it is by the irony of fate that in his zeal for the purity of the Bohemian church, the orthodox king set on foot a movement which involved his son in bloody war

  against his people and made Bohemia a hotbed of heresy. The earnestness of Conrad of Waldhausen raised up followers, chief of whom was Milic of Kramjerisch in Moravia, who in 1363 set aside his canonry at Prague to devote himself to the work of preaching to the poor. The teaching of Conrad had only been addressed to the Germans, but Milic preached in the Bohemian language and by his fiery mysticism appealed to the imagination of the people. He expounded prophecy and terrified his

  hearers by his denunciations. The tone of his preaching became more mystical and the visions of the apocalypse filled his imagination. One day his zeal carried him so far that preaching before Charles IV, he denounced him as Antichrist. But the emperor forgave him, and when he was accused of heresy and appealed to Pope Urban V in 1367, Charles warmly recommended him to the pope. Milic went to Rome, but while waiting for the pope's return, affixed a notice to the door of St.

  Peter's that he was ready to prove in a sermon the speedy coming of Antichrist. For this he was imprisoned, but Urban V on his arrival released him and treated him kindly. Milic returned to Prague, justified against his accusers, but ceased afterwards to preach about Antichrist. His saintly character impressed all who came near him, and he was the consoler of many troubled hearts. The wonders wrought by his preaching and the growing number of converts who laid aside their

  evil courses and submitted themselves to his guidance soon kindled the jealousy of the clergy, who again denounced him as a heretic to the pope. The charges against him were chiefly his preaching of the Antichrist, his abuse of the clergy, disregard of excommunication, and excessive puritanism in several points. He was summoned to Avignon by Gregory XI and died there in 1374. Milic had succeeded in kindling the imagination and awakening the religious enthusiasm of the

  Bohemians. By his words and by his actions, he had set before them a lofty idea of personal holiness and purity. He was, says one of his followers, the image and son of our Lord Jesus Christ, the express similitude of his apostles. He quickened religious zeal, deepened men's grasp on spiritual truth, and left behind him a band of devoted followers bent on walking in his steps. But what he had expressed in the form of mysticism, in stirring appeals to men's feelings,

  his followers, chief amongst them, Matthias Savyanov and Thomas Shtitny, worked out in their writings into dogmatic forms. Matthias Savyanov was not so much a preacher as a theologian, and in his work De Regulis Weteris et Noi Testamenti grew out from the Bible alone, disregarding the works of the Fathers and the traditions of the Church, the rules of a holy and Christian life. He insisted upon the sufficiency of the scriptures.

  He urged the need of having Christ in the heart and not merely on the lips. He dwelt upon the danger of ceremonies and hiding from men's eyes the sufficiency of Christ as the sole Redeemer, who suffices for the salvation of all who believe in him. In urging these conclusions, Matthias had no consciousness of a breach with the existing ecclesiastical system, but he nonetheless struck blows against it, which sapped its hold upon the minds of men.

  Matthias, however, wrote in Latin, and so addressed himself only to the more educated and intelligent. Thomas of Shtitny, a Bohemian nobleman, followed in the steps of Milich, and wrote for the Bohemian people. In clear and simple language he carried home to men's minds the same truths as Matthias insisted upon. The need of faith founded on the word of God, showing itself in good works and not resting on ceremonial observances.

  This spiritual movement in Bohemia would have died away as so many others had done, if it had not found in the University of Prague an organized body which gave it stability and force. Founded in 1348, the University of Prague under the fostering care of Charles IV rapidly increased in importance, so that in 1372 it counted 4,000 students. Its constitution was a matter of some difficulty, and the faculties of theology and jurisprudence

  strove for supremacy, till in 1372 the jurists formed themselves into a separate university. Following the example of Paris, the University of Prague divided itself into four nations, Bohemian, Bavarian, Saxon, and Polish. At the end of the 14th century the foundation of the universities of Krakow, Vienna, Heidelberg, Köln, and Erfurt in some degree diminished the importance of Prague, but it still remained the chief center of intellectual life among the Germans and Slavonic

  peoples. The Poles, however, were few in number, and their vote was practically exercised by the Germans of Silesia. The Czechs found themselves in a minority in the university which had been founded in their behalf, and the struggle of nationalities which prevailed throughout Bohemia raged fiercely in academic matters. The Czechs claimed exclusive possession of the colleges, which as elsewhere were foundations to encourage research. Their claims were supported by King

  Wenzel, who with all his failings was true to the Bohemian people, and by their help maintained himself upon the throne. We may gather from Wenzel's conduct to the Archbishop John of Jenshteyn how slight was the hold which the clergy had upon the popular favor. How deep was the impression produced by the reforming preachers? John of Jenshteyn was made Archbishop of Prague in 1378 because he had won Wenzel's favor by his pleasant manners and skill in the chase.

  The story of Becket and Henry II was almost reproduced. A change came over the Archbishop, he became a rigid aesthetic, and his new sense of duty brought him into frequent collisions with the king. The quarrel came to a crisis in 1393 when John of Jenshteyn hastened to fill up the vacant abyssi of Klonruby, though he knew that the king was applying to the pope to suppress it for the purpose of founding a new bishopric. Wenzel's wrath was ungovernable. He summoned

  John to Prague and passionately ordered him and three of his followers to be seized and imprisoned. Two of them were tortured and Wenzel ordered all of them to be drowned. But when his rage passed away he bethought himself of the consequences which might follow from drowning an archbishop and reluctantly ordered his prisoners to be released. One of them, John of Pomuk, was so severely injured by the torture that his life was hopeless and Wenzel ordered him to be thrown into

  the moldow. Archbishop John was driven to humble himself before Wenzel. He met with no support from the clergy or the people and at last fled to Rome where Boniface the Ninth refused to take any steps that might lead to a quarrel with Wenzel from whom at that time he looked for help in Italy. John was driven to resign as archbishopric and died in Rome in 1400. That Wenzel should with impunity and success offer such violence to the metropolitan of the Bohemian Church

  is a striking evidence that the clergy were looked upon with indifference if not with dislike. The death of John of Pomuk caused no commotion in Bohemia. The University of Prague showed no desire to interfere in the quarrel between Wenzel and the archbishop. Hus was accused afterwards of openly expressing his approval of the murder of John of Pomuk. His answer that he only said that the drowning or imprisoning of a priest was no reason for putting the kingdom under interdict

  shows that he certainly made no protest or raised his voice against Wenzel's conduct. It is a curious point in later history that this John of Pomuk was chosen by the Jesuits to supplant the memory of Hus as a martyr in the minds of the Bohemians. But legend gathered round John's history. He was confused with a confessor of Wenzel's queen and was said to have been thrown into the Moldau because he refused to violate the secrets of the

  confessional at the bidding of a jealous and tyrannical husband. The legend took root in Bohemia in the dark days of the Catholic reaction and the imaginary confessor was canonized in 1729 under the name of Saint John Nepomuken. He answered his purpose in providing Bohemia with a national saint and in substituting a more poetical martyr for John Hus, who was only burnt at the stake for his theological opinions. There were in Bohemia, at the end of the 14th century, many political

  elements which favored a revolutionary movement. There was an ill-concealed jealousy of the Czechs against the German middle classes, which tended to combine with the Puritan movement against the abuses of the clergy. The rising of the German nobles against Wenzel and the pretensions of Rupert to replace him in the empire identified his cause still more strongly with that of the Czech nationality. In the University of Prague, the reforming party became similarly identified

  with the Czechs, who were striving to maintain their privileges against the Germans. Soon a new impulse and a more definite form was given to the energies of the reformers by the spread in the University of Prague of the writings of Wycliffe. The keen clear criticisms of ecclesiastical dogmas which had not taken root in England because they were associated with no national or political interest supplied a form to the religious aspirations which were in Bohemia associated

  with a widespread popular movement. The connection between Bohemia and England, which followed on Richard II's marriage with Wenzel's sister Anne, increased the natural intercourse which existed in those days between universities. From Oxford, the writings of Wycliffe were brought to Prague as early as 1385 by Jerome of Prague, who was himself a student at Oxford. The questions which they raised, especially the question of transubstantiation, were eagerly discussed by

  an increasing party in the university, of whom John Huss became the chief representative. Read by Pamela Nagami MD in Encino, California August 2023. End of the History of the Papacy from The Great Schism to the Sack of Rome Volume 1 by Mandel Creighton