<div1 type =
“Title Page” title = “History of the Christian Church”>
HISTORY
of
the
CHRISTIAN
CHURCH*
by
PHILIP
SCHAFF
Christianus sum.
Christiani nihil a me alienum puto
VOLUME
VI.
THE
MIDDLE AGES
From
BONIFACE VIII., 1294 to the Protestant Reformation, 1517
by
DAVID S. SCHAFF, D.D.
</div1><div1
type = “Preface”>
PREFACE
This
volume completes the history of the Church in the Middle Ages. Dr. Philip
Schaff on one occasion spoke of the Middle Ages as a terra incognita in the
United States,—a territory not adequately explored. These words would no longer
be applicable, whether we have in mind the instruction given in our
universities or theological seminaries. In Germany, during the last twenty
years, the study of the period has been greatly developed, and no period at the
present time, except the Apostolic age, attracts more scholarly and earnest attention
and research.
The
author has had no apologetic concern to contradict the old notion, perhaps
still somewhat current in our Protestant circles, that the Middle Ages were a
period of superstition and worthy of study as a curiosity rather than as a time
directed and overruled by an all-seeing Providence. He has attempted to depict
it as it was and to allow the picture of high religious purpose to reveal
itself side by side with the picture of hierarchical assumption and scholastic
misinterpretation. Without the mediaeval age, the Reformation would not have
been possible. Nor is this statement to be understood in the sense in which we
speak of reaching a land of sunshine and plenty after having traversed a
desert. We do well to give to St. Bernard and Francis d’Assisi, St. Elizabeth
and St. Catherine of Siena, Gerson, Tauler and Nicolas of Cusa a high place in
our list of religious personalities, and to pray for men to speak to our
generation as well as they spoke to the generations in which they lived.
Moreover,
the author has been actuated by no purpose to disparage Christians who, in the
alleged errors of Protestantism, find an insuperable barrier to Christian
fellowship. Where he has passed condemnatory judgments on personalities, as on
the popes of the last years of the 15th and the earlier years of the 16th
century, it is not because they occupied the papal throne, but because they
were personalities who in any walk of life would call for the severest
reprobation. The unity of the Christian faith and the promotion of fellowship
between Christians of all names and all ages are considerations which should
make us careful with pen or spoken word lest we condemn, without properly
taking into consideration that interior devotion to Christ and His kingdom -which
seems to be quite compatible with divergencies in doctrinal statement or
ceremonial habit.
On
the pages of the volume, the author has expressed his indebtedness to the works
of the eminent mediaeval historians and investigators of the day, Gregorovius,
Pastor, Mandell Creighton, Lea, Ehrle, Denifle, Finke, Schwab, Haller, Carl
Mirbt, R. Mueller Kirsch, Loserth, Janssen, Valois, Burckhardt-Geiger, Seebohm
and others, Protestant and Roman Catholic, and some no more among the living.
It
is a pleasure to be able again to express his indebtedness to the Rev. David E.
Culley, his colleague in the Western Theological Seminary, whose studies in
mediaeval history and accurate scholarship have been given to the volume in the
reading of the manuscript, before it went to the printer, and of the printed
pages before they received their final form.
Above
all, the author feels it to be a great privilege that he has been able to
realize the hope which Dr. Philip Schaff expressed in the last years of his
life, that his History of the Christian Church which, in four volumes, had
traversed the first ten centuries and, in the sixth and seventh, set forth the
progress of the German and Swiss Reformations, might be carried through the
fruitful period from 1050–1517.
David
S. Schaff.
The
Western Theological Seminary,
Pittsburg.
<added>
<insertContents
level = “3” />
</added>
<deleted>
CONTENTS.
FROM BONIFACE VIII. TO MARTIN LUTHER. A.D. 1294–1517.
The Sixth Period of Church Histyry.
§ 1.
Introductory Survey.
CHAPTER I.
THE DECLINE OF THE PAPACY AND THE AVIGNON
EXILE. A.D. 1294–1377.
§ 2.
Sources and Literature.
§ 3. Pope
Boniface VIII. 1294–1303.
§ 4.
Boniface VIII. and Philip the Fair of France.
§ 5.
Literary Attacks against the Papacy.
§ 6. The
Transfer of the Papacy to Avignon.
§ 7. The
Pontificate of John XXII 1316–1334.
§ 8. The
Papal Office Assailed.
§ 9. The
Financial Policy of the Avignon Popes.
§ 10. The
Later Avignon Popes.
§ 11. The
Re-establishment of the Papacy in Rome. 1377.
CHAPTER II.
THE PAPAL SCHISM AND THE REFORMATORY
COUNCILS.
1378–1449.
§ 12.
Sources and Literature.
§ 13. The
Schism Begun. 1378.
§ 14.
Further Progress of the Schism. 1378–1409.
§ 15. The
Council of Pisa.
§ 16. The
Council of Constance. 1414–1418.
§ 17. The
council of Basel. 1431–1449.
§ 18. The
Council of Ferrara-Florence. 1438–1445.
CHAPTER III.
LEADERS OF CATHOLIC THOUGHT.
§ 19.
Literature.
§ 20.
Ockam and the Decay of Scholasticism.
§ 21.
Catherine of Siena, the Saint.
§ 22.
Peter d’Ailly, Ecclesiastical Statesman.
§ 23. John
Gerson, Theologian and Church Leader.
§ 24.
Nicolas of Clamanges, the Moralist.
§ 25.
Nicolas of Cusa, Scholar and Churchman.
§ 26.
Popular Preachers.
CHAPTER IV.
THE GERMAN MYSTICS.
§ 27.
Sources and Literature.
§ 28. The
New Mysticism.
§ 29.
Meister Eckart.
§ 30. John
Tauler of Strassburg.
§ 31.
Henry Suso.
§ 32. The
Friends of God.
§ 33. John
of Ruysbroeck.
§ 34.
Gerrit de Groote and the Brothers of the Common Life.
§ 35. The
Imitation of Christ. Thomas à Kempis.
§ 36. The
German Theology.
§ 37.
English Mystics.
CHAPTER V.
REFORMERS BEFORE THE REFORMATION.
§ 38.
Sources and Literature.
§ 39. The
Church in England in the Fourteenth Century.
§ 40. John
Wyclif.
§ 41.
Wyclif’s Teachings.
§ 42.
Wyclif and the Scriptures.
§ 43. The
Lollards.
§ 44. John
Huss of Bohemia.
§ 45. Huss
at Constance.
§ 46.
Jerome of Prag.
§ 47. The
Hussites.
CHAPTER VI.
THE LAST POPES OF THE MIDDLE AGES. 1447–1521
§ 48.
Literature and General Survey.
§ 49.
Nicolas V. 1447–1455.
§ 50.
Aeneas Sylvius de’ Piccolomini, Pius II.
§ 51. Paul
II. 1464–1471.
§ 52.
Sixtus IV. 1471–1484.
§ 53.
Innocent VIII. 1484–1492.
§ 54. Pope
Alexander VI—Borgia. 1492–1503.
§ 55.
Julius II., the Warrior-Pope. 1503–1513.
§ 56. Leo
X. 1513–1521.
CHAPTER VII.
HERESY AND WITCHCRAFT.
§ 57.
Literature.
§ 58.
Heretical and Unchurchly Movements.
§ 59.
Witchcraft and its Punishment.
§ 60. The
Spanish Inquisition.
CHAPTER VIII.
THE RENAISSANCE.
§ 61.
Literature of the Renaissance.
§ 62. The
Intellectual Awakening.
§ 63.
Dante, Petrarca, Boccaccio.
§ 64.
Progress and Patrons of Classical Studies in the 15th Century.
§ 65.
Greek Teachers and Italian Humanists.
§ 66. The
Artists.
§ 67. The
Revival of Paganism.
§ 68.
Humanism in Germany.
§ 69.
Reuchlin and Erasmus.
§ 70.
Humanism in France.
§ 71.
Humanism in England.
CHAPTER IX.
THE PULPIT AND POPULAR PIETY.
§ 72.
Literature.
§ 73. The
Clergy.
§ 74.
Preaching.
§ 75.
Doctrinal Reformers.
§ 76.
Girolamo Savonarola.
§ 77. The
Study and Circulation of the Bible.
§ 78.
Popular Piety.
§ 79.
Works of Charity.
§ 80. The
Sale of Indulgences.
CHAPTER X.
THE CLOSE OF THE MIDDLE AGES.
§ 81. The
Close of the Middle Ages.
</deleted>
THE MIDDLE AGES.
THE DECLINE OF THE PAPACY AND THE
PREPARATION FOR MODERN
CHRISTIANITY.
FROM BONIFACE VIII. TO MARTIN LUTHER.
a.d. 1294-1517.
THE SIXTH PERIOD OF CHURCH HISTORY.
</div1><div3
type = "Section" n="1" title="Introductory
Survey">
§ 1.
Introductory Survey.
The
two centuries intervening between 1294 and 1517, between the accession of
Boniface VIII. and the nailing of Luther’s Ninety-five Theses against the
church door in Wittenberg, mark the gradual transition from the Middle Ages to
modern times, from the universal acceptance of the papal theocracy in Western
Europe to the assertion of national independence, from the supreme authority of
the priesthood to the intellectual and spiritual freedom of the individual. Old
things are passing away; signs of a new order increase. Institutions are seen
to be breaking up. The scholastic systems of theology lose their compulsive
hold on men’s minds, and even become the subject of ridicule. The abuses of the
earlier Middle Ages call forth voices demanding reform on the basis of the
Scriptures and the common well-being of mankind. The inherent vital energies in
the Church seek expression in new forms of piety and charitable deed.
The
power of the papacy, which had asserted infallibility of judgment and dominion
over all departments of human life, was undermined by the mistakes,
pretensions, and worldliness of the papacy itself, as exhibited in the policy
of Boniface VIII., the removal of the papal residence to Avignon, and the
disastrous schism which, for nearly half a century, gave to Europe the
spectacle of two, and at times three, popes reigning at the same time and all
professing to be the vicegerents of God on earth.
The
free spirit of nationality awakened during the crusades grew strong and
successfully resisted the papal authority, first in France and then in other
parts of Europe. Princes asserted supreme authority over the citizens within
their dominions and insisted upon the obligations of churches to the state. The
leadership of Europe passed from Germany to France, with England coming more
and more into prominence.
The
tractarian literature of the fourteenth century set forth the rights of man and
the principles of common law in opposition to the pretensions of the papacy and
the dogmatism of the scholastic systems. Lay writers made themselves heard as
pioneers of thought, and a practical outlook upon the mission of the Church was
cultivated. With unexampled audacity Dante assailed the lives of popes, putting
some of St. Peter’s successors into the lowest rooms of hell.
The
Reformatory councils of Pisa, Constance, and Basel turned Europe for nearly
fifty years, 1409–1450, into a platform of ecclesiastical and religious
discussion. Though they failed to provide a remedy for the disorders prevailing
in the Church, they set an example of free debate, and gave the weight of their
eminent constituency to the principle that not in a select group of hierarchs
does supreme authority in the Church rest, but in the body of the Church.
The
hopelessness of expecting any permanent reform from the papacy and the
hierarchy was demonstrated in the last years of the period, 1460–1517, when
ecclesiastical Rome offered a spectacle of moral corruption and spiritual fall
which has been compared to the corrupt age of the Roman Empire.
The
religious unrest and the passion for a better state of affairs found expression
in Wyclif, Huss, and other leaders who, by their clear apprehension of truth
and readiness to stand by their public utterances, even unto death, stood far
above their own age and have shone in all the ages since.
While
coarse ambition and nepotism, a total perversion of the ecclesiastical office
and violation of the fundamental virtues of the Christian life held rule in the
highest place of Christendom, a pure stream of piety was flowing in the Church
of the North, and the mystics along the Rhine and in the Lowlands were
unconsciously fertilizing the soil from which the Reformation was to spring
forth.
The
Renaissance, or the revival of classical culture, unshackled the minds of men.
The classical works of antiquity were once more, after the churchly
disparagement of a thousand years, held forth to admiration. The confines of
geography were extended by the discoveries of the continent in the West.
The
invention of the art of printing, about 1440, forms an epoch in human
advancement, and made it possible for the products of human thought to be
circulated widely among the people, and thus to train the different nations for
the new age of religious enfranchisement about to come, and the sovereignty of
the intellect.
To
this generation, which looks back over the last four centuries, the discovery
of America and the pathways to the Indies was one of the remarkable events in
history, a surprise and a prophecy. In 1453, Constantinople easily passed into
the hands of the Turk, and the Christian empire of the East fell apart. In the
far West the beginnings of a new empire were made, just as the Middle Ages were
drawing to a close.
At
the same time, at the very close of the period, under the direction and
protection of the Church, an institution was being prosecuted which has
scarcely been equalled in the history of human cruelty, the Inquisition,—now
papal, now Spanish,—which punished heretics unto death in Spain and witches in
Germany.
Thus
European society was shaking itself clear of long-established customs and
dogmas based upon the infallibility of the Church visible, and at the same time
it held fast to some of the most noxious beliefs and practices the Church had
allowed herself to accept and propagate. It had not the original genius or the
conviction to produce a new system of theology. The great Schoolmen continued
to rule doctrinal thought. It established no new ecclesiastical institution of
an abiding character like the canon law. It exhibited no consuming passion such
as went out in the preceding period in the crusades and the activity of the
Mendicant Orders. It had no transcendent ecclesiastical characters like St.
Bernard and Innocent III. The last period of the Middle Ages was a period of
intellectual discontent, of self-introspection, a period of intimation and of
preparation for an order which it was itself not capable of begetting.
</div3><div2 type =
"Chapter" n="I" title="The Decline Of The Papacy And
The Avignon Exile">
CHAPTER
I.
THE
DECLINE OF THE PAPACY AND THE AVIGNON EXILE.
a.d. 1294–1377.
<div3 type = "Section"
n="2" title="Sources and Literature">
§ 2.
Sources and Literature.
For
works covering the entire period, see V. 1. 1–3, such as the collections of
Mansi, Muratori, and the Rolls Series; Friedberg’s Decretum Gratiani, 2 vols.,
Leipzig, 1879–1881; Hefele-Knöpfler: Conciliengeschichte; Mirbt: Quellen zur
Geschichte des Papstthums, 2d ed., 1901; the works of Gregorovius and Bryce,
the General Church and Doctrinal Histories of Gieseler, Hefele, Funk,
Hergenröther-Kirsch, Karl Müller, Harnack Loofs, and Seeberg; the
Encyclopaedias of Herzog, Wetzer-Welte, Leslie Stephen, Potthast, and
Chévalier; the Atlases of F. W. Putzger, Leipzig, Heussi and Mulert, Tübingen,
1905, and Labberton, New York. L. Pastor: Geschichte der Papste, etc., 4 vols.,
4th ed., 1901–1906, and Mandell Creighton: History of the Papacy, etc., London,
1882–1894, also cover the entire period in the body of their works and their
Introductory Chapters. There is no general collection of ecclesiastical author
far this period corresponding to Migne’s Latin Patrology.
For
§§ 3, 4. Boniface VIII. Regesta Bonifatii in Potthast: Regesta pontificum rom.,
II., 1923–2024, 2133 sq. – Les Registres de Boniface VIII., ed. Digard, Fauçon
et Thomas, 7 Fasc., Paris, 1884–1903. – Hist. Eccles. of Ptolemaeus of Lucca,
Vitae Pontif. of Bernardus Guidonis, Chron. Pontif. of Amalricus Augers Hist.
rerum in Italia gestarum of Ferretus Vicentinus, and Chronica universale of
Villani, all in Muratori: Rerum Ital. Scriptores, III. 670 sqq., X. 690 sqq.,
XI. 1202 sqq., XIIL 348 sqq. – Selections from Villani, trans. by Rose E.
Selfe, ed. by P. H. Wicksteed, Westminster, 1897. – Finke: Aus den Tagen
Bonifaz VIII., Münster, 1902. Prints valuable documents pp. i-ccxi. Also Acta
Aragonensia. Quellen ... zur Kirchen und Kulturgeschichte aus der
diplomatischen Korrespondenz Jayme II, 1291–1327, 2 vols., Berlin, 1908. –
Döllinger: Beiträge zur politischen, kirchlichen und Culturgeschichte der
letzten 6 Jahrh., 3 vols., Vienna, 1862–1882. Vol. III., pp. 347–353, contains
a Life of Boniface drawn from the Chronicle of Orvieto by an eye-witness, and
other documents. – Denifle: Die Denkschriften der Colonna gegen Bonifaz VIII.,
etc., in Archiv für Lit. und Kirchengeschichte des M. A., 1892, V. 493 sqq. –
Dante: Inferno, XIX. 52 sqq., XXVII. 85 sqq.; Paradiso, IX. 132, XXVII. 22,
XXX. 147. Modern Works. – J. Rubeus: Bonif. VIII. e familia Cajetanorum, Rome,
1651. Magnifies Boniface as an ideal pope. – P Dupuy: Hist. du différend entre
le Pape Bon. et Philip le Bel, Paris, 1655. – Baillet (a Jansenist): Hist. des
désmelez du Pape Bon. VIII. avec Philip le Bel, Paris, 1718. – L. Tosti: Storia
di Bon. VIII. e de’suoi tempi, 2 vols., Rome, 1846. A glorification of
Boniface. – W. Drumann: Gesch. Bonifatius VIII. 2 vols., Königsberg, 1862. –
Cardinal Wiseman: Pope Bon. VIII. in his Essays, III. 161–222. Apologetic. –
Boutaric: La France sous Philippe le Bel, Paris, 1861. – R. Holtzmann: W. von
Nogaret, Freiburg, 1898. – E. Renan: Guil. de Nogaret, in Hist. Litt. de
France, XXVII. 233 sq.; also Études sur la politique Rel. du règne de Phil. Ie
Bel, Paris, 1899. – Döllinger: Anagni in Akad. Vorträge, III. 223–244. –
Heinrich Finke (Prof. in Freiburg): as above. Also Papsttum und Untergang des
Tempelordens, 2 vols., Münster, 1907. – J. Haller: Papsttum und Kirchenreform,
Berlin, 1903. – Rich. Scholz: Die Publizistik zur Zeit Philipps des Schönen und
Bonifaz VIII., Stuttgart, 1903. – The Ch. Histt. of Gieseler,
Hergenröther-Kirsch 4th ed., 1904, II. 582–598, F. X. Funk, 4th ed., 1902,
Hefele 3d ed., 1902, K. Müller, Hefele-Knöpfler: Conciliengeschichte, VI.
281–364. – Ranke: Univers. Hist., IX. – Gregorovius: History of the City of
Rome, V. – Wattenbach: Gesch. des röm. Papstthums, 2d ED., Berlin, 1876, pp.
211–226. – G. B. Adams: Civilization during the Middle Ages, New York, 1894,
ch. XIV. – Art. Bonifatius by Hauck in Herzog, III. 291–300.
For § 5. Literary Attacks upon the Papacy. Dante
Allighiere: De monarchia, ed. by Witte, Vienna, 1874; Giuliani, Florence, 1878; Moore, Oxford,
1894. Eng. trans. by F. C. Church, together with the essay on Dante by his
father, R. W. Church, London, 1878; P. H. Wicksteed, Hull, 1896; Aurelia Henry,
Boston, 1904. – Dante’s De monarchia, Valla’s De falsa donatione Constantini,
and other anti-papal documents are given in De jurisdictione, auctoritate et
praeeminentia imperiali, Basel, 1566. Many of the tracts called forth by the
struggle between Boniface VIII. and Philip IV. are found in Melchior Goldast:
Monarchia S. Romani imperii, sive tractatus de jurisdictione imperiali seu
regia et pontificia seu sacerdotali, etc., Hanover, 1610, pp. 756, Frankfurt,
1668. With a preface dedicated to the elector, John Sigismund of Brandenburg;
in Dupuy: Hist. du Différend, etc., Paris, 1655, and in Finke and Scholz. See
above. – E. Zeck: De recuperatione terrae Sanctae, Ein Traktat d. P. Dubois,
Berlin, 1906. For summary and criticism, S. Riezler: Die literarischen
Widersacher der Päpste zur Zeit Ludwig des Baiers, pp. 131–166. Leipzig, 1874.
– R. L. Poole: Opposition to the Temporal Claims of the Papacy, in his
Illustrations of the Hist. of Med. Thought, pp. 256–281, London, 1884. – Finke:
Aus den Tagen Bonifaz VIII., pp. 169 sqq., etc. – Denifle: Chartularium Un.
Parisiensis, 4 vols. – Haller: Papsttum. – Artt. in Wetzer-Welte, Colonna, III.
667–671, and Johann von Paris, VI. 1744–1746, etc. – Renan: Pierre Dubois in
Hist. Litt. de France, XXVI. 471–536. – Hergenröther-Kirsch: Kirchengesch., II.
754 sqq.
For § 6. Transfer Of The Papacy To Avignon. Benedict
XI.: Registre de Benoît XI., ed. C. Grandjean. – For Clement V., Clementis papae V. regestum
ed. cura et studio monachorum ord. S. Benedicti, 9 vols., Rome, 1885–1892. –
Etienne Baluze: Vitae paparum Avenoniensium 1305–1394, dedicated to Louis XIV.
and placed on the Index, 2 vols., Paris, 1693. Raynaldus: ad annum, 1304 sqq.,
for original documents. – W. H. Bliss: Calendar of Entries in the Papal
Registries relating to Great Britain and Ireland, I.-IV., London, 1896–1902. –
Giovanni and Matteo Villani: Hist. of Florence sive Chronica universalis, bks.
VIII. sq. – M. Tangl: Die päpstlichen Regesta von Benedict XII.-Gregor XI.,
Innsbruck, 1898. Mansi: Concil., XXV. 368 sqq., 389 sqq. – J. B. Christophe:
Hist. de la papauté pendant le XIVe siècle, 2 vols., Paris, 1853. – C. von
Höfler: Die avignonesischen Päpste, Vienna, 1871. – Fauçon: La Libraire Des
Papes d’Avignon, 2 vols., Paris, 1886 sq. – M. Souchon: Die Papstwahlen von
Bonifaz VIII.-Urban VI., Braunschweig, 1888. – A. Eitel: D. Kirchenstaat unter
Klemens V., Berlin, 1905. – Clinton Locke: Age of the Great Western Schism, pp.
1–99, New York, 1896. – J. H. Robinson: Petrarch, New York, 1898. – Schwab: J.
Gerson, pp. 1–7. – Döllinger-Friedrich: Das Papstthum, Munich, 1892. – Pastor:
Geschichte der Papste seit dem Ausgang des M. A., 4 vols., 3d and 4th ed., 1901
sqq., I. 67–114. – Stubbs: Const. Hist. of England. – Capes: The English Church
in the 14th and 15th Centuries, London, 1900. – Wattenbach: Röm. Papstthum, pp.
226–241. – Haller: Papsttum, etc. – Hefele-Knöpfler: VI. 378–936. – Ranke:
Univers. Hist., IX. – Gregorovius: VI. – The Ch. Histt. of Gieseler,
Hergenröther-Kirsch, II. 737–776, Müller, II. 16–42. – Ehrle: Der Nachlass Clemens
V. in Archiv für Lit. u. Kirchengesch., V. 1–150. For the fall of the Templars,
see for Lit. V. 1. p. 301 sqq., and especially the works of Boutaric, Prutz,
Schottmüller, Döllinger. – Funk in Wetzer-Welte, XI. 1311–1345. – LEA:
Inquisition, III. Finke: Papsttum und Untergang des Tempelordens, 2 vols.,
1907. Vol. II. contains Spanish documents, hitherto unpublished, bearing on the
fall of the Templars, especially letters to and from King Jayme of Aragon. They
are confirmatory of former views.
For § 7. The Pontificate of John XXII. Lettres
secrètes et curiales du pape Jean XXII. relative a la France, ed. Aug. Coulon, 3 Fasc., 1900 sq.
Lettres communes de p. Jean XXII., ed. Mollat, 3 vols, Paris, 1904–1906. – J.
Guérard: Documents pontificeaux sur la Gascogne. Pontificat de Jean XXII., 2
vols., Paris, 1897–1903. – Baluze: Vitae paparum. – V. Velarque: Jean XXII. sa
vie et ses aeuvres, Paris, 1883. – J. Schwalm, Appellation d. König Ludwigs des
Baiern v. 1324, Riezler: D. Lit. Widersacher. Also Vatikanische Akten zur
deutschen Gesch. zur Zeit Ludwigs des Bayern, Innsbruck, 1891. – K. Müller: Der
Kampf Ludwigs des Baiern mit der römischen Curie, 2 vols., Tübingen, 1879 sq. –
Ehrle: Die Spirituallen, ihr Verhältniss zum Franciskanerorden, etc., in Archiv
für Lit. und Kirchengesch., 1885, p. 509 sqq., 1886, p. 106 sqq., 1887, p. 553
sqq., 1890. Also P. J. Olivi: S. Leben und s. Schriften 1887, pp. 409–540. –
Döllinger: Deutschlands Kampf mit dem Papstthum unter Ludwig dem Bayer in Akad.
Vorträge, I. 119–137. – Hefele: VI. 546–579. – Lea: Inquisition, I. 242–304. –
The Artt. in Wetzer-Welte, Franziskanerorden, IV. 1650–1683, and Armut, I.
1394–1401. Artt. John XXII. in Herzog, IX. 267–270, and Wetzer-Welte, VIII. 828
sqq. – Haller: Papsttum, p. 91 sqq. – Stubbs: Const. Hist. of England. –
Gregorovius, VI. – PASTOR: I. 80 sqq.
For §
8. The Papal Office Assailed. Some of the tracts may be found in Goldast:
Monarchia, Hanover, 1610, e.g. Marsiglius of Padua, II. 164–312; Ockam’s Octo
quaestionum decisiones super potestate ac dignitate papali, II. 740 sqq., and
Dialogus inter magistrum et discipulum, etc., II., 399 sqq. Special edd. are
given in the body of the chap. and may be found under Alvarus Pelagius,
Marsiglius, etc., in Potthast: Bibl. med. aevi. – Un trattato inedito di Egidio
Colonna: De ecclesiae potestate, ed. G. U. Oxilia et G. Boffito, Florence,
1908, pp. lxxxi, 172. – Schwab: Gerson, pp. 24–28. – Müller: D. Kampf Ludwigs
des Baiern. – Riezler: Die Lit. Widersacher der Päpste, etc., Leipzig, 1874. –
Marcour: Antheil der Minoriten am Kampf zwischen Ludwig dem Baiern und Johann
XXII., Emmerich, 1874. – Poole: The Opposition to the Temporal Claims of the
Papacy, in Illust. of the Hist. of Med. Thought, pp. 256–281. – Haller:
Papsttum, etc., pp. 73–89. English trans. of Marsiglius of Padua, The Defence
of Peace, by W. Marshall, London, 1636. – M. Birck: Marsilio von Padua und
Alvaro Pelayo über Papst und Kaiser, Mühlheim, 1868. – B. Labanca, Prof. of
Moral Philos. in the Univ. of Rome: Marsilio da Padova, riformatore politico e
religioso, Padova, 1882, pp. 236. – L. Jourdan: Étude sur Marsile de Padoue,
Montauban, 1892. – J. Sullivan: Marsig. of Padua, in Engl. Hist. Rev., 1906,
pp. 293–307. An examination of the MSS. See also Döllinger-Friedrich:
Papstthum; Pastor, I. 82 sqq.; Gregorovius, VI. 118 sqq., the Artt. in
Wetzer-Welte, Alvarus Pelagius, I. 667 sq., Marsiglius, VIII., 907–911, etc.,
and in Herzog, XII. 368 370, etc. – N. Valois: Hist. Litt., Paris, 1900,
XXIII., 628–623, an Art. on the authors of the Defensor.
For §
9. The Financial System of the Avignon Popes. Ehrle: Schatz, Bibliothek und
Archiv der Päpste im 14ten Jahrh., in Archiv für Lit. u. Kirchengesch., I.
1–49, 228–365, also D. Nachlass Clemens V. und der in Betreff desselben von
Johann XXII. geführte Process, V. 1–166. – Ph. Woker: Das kirchliche
Finanzwesen der Päpste, Nördlingen, 1878. – M. Tangl: Das Taxenwesen der
päpstlichen Kanzlei vom 13ten his zur Mitte des 15ten Jahrh., Innsbruck, 1892.
– J. P. Kirsch: Die päpstl. Kollektorien in Deutschland im XIVten Jahrh.,
Paderborn, 1894; Die Finanzverwaltung des Kardinalkollegiums im XIII. u. XIV.
ten Jahrh., Münster, 1896; Die Rückkehr der Päpste Urban V. und Gregor XI. con
Avignon nach Rom. Auszüge aus den Kameralregistern des Vatikan. Archivs, Paderborn,
1898; Die päpstl. Annaten in Deutschland im XIV. Jahrh. 1323–1360, Paderborn,
1903. – P. M. Baumgarten: Untersuchungen und Urkunden über die Camera Collegii
Cardinalium, 1295–1437, Leipzig, 1898. – A. Gottlob: Die päpstl.
Kreuzzugsteuern des 13ten Jahrh., Heiligenstadt, 1892; Die Servitientaxe im
13ten Jahrh., Stuttgart, 1903. – Emil Goeller: Mittheilungen u. Untersuchungen
über das päpstl. Register und Kanzleiwesen im 14ten Jahrh., Rome, 1904; D.
Liber Taxarum d. päpstl. Rammer. Eine Studie zu ihrer Entstehung u. Anlage,
Rome, 1906, pp. 106. – Haller:
Papsttum u. Kirchenreform; also Aufzeichnungen über den päpstl. Haushalt aus
Avignonesischer Zeit; die Vertheilung der Servitia minuta u. die Obligationen
der Prälaten im 13ten u. 14ten Jahrh.; Die Ausfertigung der Provisionen, etc.,
all in Quellen u. Forschungen, ed. by the Royal Prussian Institute in Rome,
Rome, 1897, 1898. – C. Lux: Constitutionum apostolicarum de generali
beneficiorum reservatione, 1265–1378, etc., Wratislav, 1904. – A. Schulte: Die
Fugger in Rom, 1495–1523, 2 vols., Leipzig, 1904. – C. Samarin and G. Mollat:
La Fiscalité pontifen France au XIVe
siècle, Paris, 1905. – P. Thoman: Le droit de propriété des laïques sur
les églises et le patronat laïque au moy. âge, Paris, 1906. Also the work on
Canon Law by T. Hinschius, 6 vols., Berlin, 1869–1897, and E. Friedberg, 6th
ed., Leipzig, 1903.
For §
10. Later Avignon Popes. Lettres des papes d’Avignon se rappor-tant a la
France, viz. Lettres communes de Benoît XII., ed. J. M. Vidal, Paris, 1906;
Lettres closes, patentes et curiales, ed. G. Daumet, Paris, 1890; Lettres ...
de Clement VI., ed. E. Deprez, Paris, 1901; Excerpta ex registr. de Clem. VI.
et Inn. VI., ed. Werunsky, Innsbruck, 1886; Lettres ... de Pape Urbain V., ed.
P. Lecacheux, Paris, 1902. – J. H. Albans: Actes anciens et documents
concernant le bienheureux Urbain V., ed. by U. Chevalier, Paris, 1897. Contains
the fourteen early lives of Urban. – Baluze: Vitae paparum Avenionen-sium,
1693;– Muratori: in Rer. ital. scripp, XIV. 9–728. – Cerri: Innocenzo VI.,
papa, Turin, 1873. Magnan: Hist. d’ Urbain V., 2d ed., Paris, 1863. – Werunsky:
Gesch. karls IV. u. seiner Zeit, 3 vols., Innsbruck, 1880–1892. – Geo. Schmidt:
Der Hist. Werth der 14 alten Biographien des Urban V., Breslau, 1907. – Kirsch:
Rückkehr der Päpste, as above. In large part, documents for the first time
published. – Lechner: Das grosse Sterben in Deutschland, 1348–1351, 1884. – C.
Creighton: Hist. of Epidemics in England, Cambridge, 1891. F. A. Gasquet: The
Great Pestilence, London, 1893, 2d ed., entitled The Black Death, 1908. – A.
Jessopp: The Black Death in East Anglia in Coming of the Friars, pp. 166–261. –
Villani, Wattenbach, p. 226 sqq.; Pastor, I., Gregorovius, Cardinal Albornoz,
Paderborn, 1892.
For §
11. The Re-Establishment of the Papacy in Rome. The Lives of Gregory XI. in
Baluz, I. 426 sqq., and Muratori, III. 2, 645. – Kirsch: Rürkkehr, etc., as
above. – Leon Mirot: La politique pontif. et le rétour du S. Siege a Rome,
1376, Paris, 1899. – F. Hammerich: St. Brigitta, die nordische Prophetin u.
Ordenstifterin, Germ. ed., Gotha, 1872. For further Lit. on St. Brigitta, see
Herzog, III. 239. For works on Catherine of Siena, see ch. III. Also Gieseler,
II., 3, pp. 1–131; Pastor, I. 101–114; Gregorovius, VI. Lit. under §10.
</div3> <div3 type = "Section"
n="3" title="Pope Boniface VIII. 1294–1303">
§ 3.
Pope Boniface VIII. 1294–1303.
The
pious but weak and incapable hermit of Murrhone, Coelestine V., who abdicated
the papal office, was followed by Benedict Gaetani,—or Cajetan, the name of an
ancient family of Latin counts,—known in history as Boniface VIII. At the time
of his election he was on the verge of fourscore,1 but like Gregory IX. he was still
in the full vigor of a strong intellect and will. If Coelestine had the
reputation of a saint, Boniface was a politician, overbearing, implacable,
destitute of spiritual ideals, and controlled by blind and insatiable lust of
power.
Born
at Anagni, Boniface probably studied canon law, in which he was an expert, in
Rome.2 He was made cardinal in 1281, and
represented the papal see in France and England as legate. In an address at a
council in Paris, assembled to arrange for a new crusade, he reminded the
mendicant monks that he and they were called not to court glory or learning,
but to secure the salvation of their souls.3
Boniface’s
election as pope occurred at Castel Nuovo, near Naples, Dec. 24, 1294, the
conclave having convened the day before. The election was not popular, and a
few days later, when a report reached Naples that Boniface was dead, the people
celebrated the event with great jubilation. The pontiff was accompanied on his
way to Rome by Charles II. of Naples.4
The
coronation was celebrated amid festivities of unusual splendor. On his way to
the Lateran, Boniface rode on a white palfrey, a crown on his head, and robed
in full pontificals. Two sovereigns walked by his side, the kings of Naples and
Hungary. The Orsini, the Colonna, the Savelli, the Conti and representatives of
other noble Roman families followed in a body . The procession had difficulty
in forcing its way through the kneeling crowds of spectators. But, as if an
omen of the coming misfortunes of the new pope, a furious storm burst over the
city while the solemnities were in progress and extinguished every lamp and
torch in the church. The following day the pope dined in the Lateran, the two
kings waiting behind his chair.
While
these brilliant ceremonies were going on, Peter of Murrhone was a fugitive. Not
willing to risk the possible rivalry of an anti-pope, Boniface confined his
unfortunate predecessor in prison, where he soon died. The cause of his death
was a matter of uncertainty. The Coelestine party ascribed it to Boniface, and
exhibited a nail which they declared the unscrupulous pope had ordered driven
into Coelestine’s head.
With
Boniface VIII. began the decline of the papacy. He found it at the height of
its power. He died leaving it humbled and in subjection to France. He sought to
rule in the proud, dominating spirit of Gregory VII. and Innocent III.; but he
was arrogant without being strong, bold without being sagacious, high-spirited
without possessing the wisdom to discern the signs of the times.5 The times had changed. Boniface made no
allowance for the new spirit of nationality which had been developed during the
crusading campaigns in the East, and which entered into conflict with the old
theocratic ideal of Rome. France, now in possession of the remaining lands of
the counts of Toulouse, was in no mood to listen to the dictation of the power
across the Alps. Striving to maintain the fictitious theory of papal rights,
and fighting against the spirit of the new age, Boniface lost the prestige the
Apostolic See had enjoyed for two centuries, and died of mortification over the
indignities heaped upon him by France.
French
enemies went so far as to charge Boniface with downright infidelity and the
denial of the soul’s immortality. The charges were a slander, but they show the
reduced confidence which the papal office inspired. Dante, who visited Rome
during Boniface’s pontificate, bitterly pursues him in all parts of the Divina
Commedia. He pronounced him "the prince of modern Pharisees," a
usurper "who turned the Vatican hill into a common sewer of
corruption." The poet
assigned the pope a place with Nicholas III. and Clement V. among the simoniacs
in "that most afflicted shade," one of the lowest circles of hell.6 Its floor was perforated with holes
into which the heads of these popes were thrust.
"The
soles of every one in flames were wrapt —7
... whose upper parts are thrust below
Fixt
like a stake, most wretched soul
* * * * * * * * *
Quivering
in air his tortured feet were seen."
Contemporaries
comprehended Boniface’s reign in the description, "He came in like a fox,
he reigned like a lion, and he died like a dog, intravit ut vulpes, regnavit ut
leo, mortuus est sicut canis.
In
his attempt to control the affairs of European states, he met with less success
than failure, and in Philip the Fair of France he found his match.
In
Sicily, he failed to carry out his plans to secure the transfer of the realm
from the house of Aragon to the king of Naples.
In
Rome, he incurred the bitter enmity of the proud and powerful family of the
Colonna, by attempting to dictate the disposition of the family estates. Two of
the Colonna, James and Peter, who were cardinals, had been friends of
Coelestine, and supporters of that pope gathered around them. Of their number
was Jacopone da Todi, the author of the Stabat Mater, who wrote a number of
satirical pieces against Boniface. Resenting the pope’s interference in their
private matters, the Colonna issued a memorial, pronouncing Coelestine’s
abdication and the election of Boniface illegal.8 It exposed the haughtiness of Boniface, and represented him
as boasting that he was supreme over kings and kingdoms, even in temporal
affairs, and that he was governed by no law other than his own will.9 The document was placarded on the
churches and a copy left in St. Peter’s. In 1297 Boniface deprived the Colonna
of their dignity, excommunicated them, and proclaimed a crusade against them.
The two cardinals appealed to a general council, the resort in the next
centuries of so many who found themselves out of accord with the papal plans.
Their strongholds fell one after another. The last of them, Palestrina, had a
melancholy fate. The two cardinals with ropes around their necks threw
themselves at the pope’s feet and secured his pardon, but their estates were
confiscated and bestowed upon the pope’s nephews and the Orsini. The Colonna
family recovered in time to reap a bitter vengeance upon their insatiable
enemy.
The
German emperor, Albrecht, Boniface succeeded in bringing to an abject
submission. The German envoys were received by the haughty pontiff seated on a
throne with a crown upon his head and sword in his hand, and exclaiming,
"I, I am the emperor."
Albrecht accepted his crown as a gift, and acknowledged that the empire
had been transferred from the Greeks to the Germans by the pope, and that the
electors owed the right of election to the Apostolic See.
In
England, Boniface met with sharp resistance. Edward I., 1272–1307, was on the
throne. The pope attempted to prevent him from holding the crown of Scotland,
claiming it as a papal fief from remote antiquity.10 The English parliament, 1301, gave a
prompt and spirited reply. The English king was under no obligation to the
papal see for his temporal acts.11
The dispute went no further. The conflict between Boniface and France is
reserved for more prolonged treatment.
An
important and picturesque event of Boniface’s pontificate was the Jubilee Year,
celebrated in 1300. It was a fortunate conception, adapted to attract throngs
of pilgrims to Rome and fill the papal treasury. An old man of 107 years of
age, so the story ran, travelled from Savoy to Rome, and told how his father
had taken him to attend a Jubilee in the year 1200 and exhorted him to visit it
on its recurrence a century after. Interesting as the story is, the Jubilee
celebration of 1300 seems to have been the first of its kind.12 Boniface’s bull, appointing it,
promised full remission to all, being penitent and confessing their sins, who
should visit St. Peter’s during the year 1300.13 Italians were to prolong their sojourn 30 days, while for
foreigners 15 days were announced to be sufficient. A subsequent papal
deliverance extended the benefits of the indulgence to all setting out for the
Holy City who died on the way. The only exceptions made to these gracious provisions
were the Colonna, Frederick of Sicily, and the Christians holding traffic with
Saracens. The city wore a festal appearance. The handkerchief of St. Veronica,
bearing the imprint of the Saviour’s face, was exhibited. The throngs fairly
trampled upon one another. The contemporary historian of Florence, Giovanni
Villani, testifies from personal observation that there was a constant
population in the pontifical city of 200,000 pilgrims, and that 30,000 people
reached and left it daily. The offerings were so copious that two clerics stood
day and night by the altar of St. Peter’s gathering up the coins with rakes.
So
spectacular and profitable a celebration could not be allowed to remain a
memory. The Jubilee was made a permanent institution. A second celebration was
appointed by Clement VI. in 1350. With reference to the brevity of human life
and also to the period of our Lord’s earthly career, Urban VI. fixed its
recurrence every 33 years. Paul II., in 1470, reduced the intervals to 25
years. The twentieth Jubilee was celebrated in 1900, under Leo XIII.14
Leo extended the offered benefits to those who had the will and not the ability
to make the journey to Rome.
For
the offerings accruing from the Jubilee and for other papal moneys, Boniface
found easy use. They enabled him to prosecute his wars against Sicily and the
Colonna and to enrich his relatives. The chief object of his favor was his
nephew, Peter, the second son of his brother Loffred, the Count of Caserta. One
estate after another was added to this favorite’s possessions, and the vast sum
of more than 915,000,000 was spent upon him in four years.15 Nepotism was one of the offences for
which Boniface was arraigned by his contemporaries.
</div3> <div3 type = "Section"
n="4" title="Boniface VIII. and Philip the Fair of
France">
§ 4.
Boniface VIII. and Philip the Fair of France.
The
overshadowing event of Boniface’s reign was his disastrous conflict with Philip
IV. of France, called Philip the Fair. The grandson of Louis IX., this monarch
was wholly wanting in the high spiritual qualities which had distinguished his
ancestor. He was able but treacherous, and utterly unscrupulous in the use of
means to secure his ends. Unattractive as his character is, it is nevertheless
with him that the first chapter in the history of modern France begins. In his
conflict with Boniface he gained a decisive victory. On a smaller scale the
conflict was a repetition of the conflict between Gregory VII. and Henry IV.,
but with a different ending. In both cases the pope had reached a venerable
age, while the sovereign was young and wholly governed by selfish motives.
Henry resorted to the election of an anti-pope. Philip depended upon his
councillors and the spirit of the new French nation.
The heir of the theocracy of Hildebrand
repeated Hildebrand’s language without possessing his moral qualities. He
claimed for the papacy supreme authority in temporal as well as spiritual
matters. In his address to the cardinals against the Colonna he exclaimed:
"How shall we assume to judge kings and princes, and not dare to proceed
against a worm! Let them perish
forever, that they may understand that the name of the Roman pontiff is known
in all the earth and that he alone is most high over princes."16 The Colonna, in one of their
proclamations, charged Boniface with glorying that he is exalted above all
princes and kingdoms in temporal matters, and may act as he pleases in view of
the fulness of his power—plenitudo potestatis. In his official recognition of
the emperor, Albrecht, Boniface declared that as "the moon has no light
except as she receives it from the sun, so no earthly power has anything which
it does not receive from the ecclesiastical authority." These claims are asserted with most
pretension in the bulls Boniface issued during his conflict with France.
Members of the papal court encouraged him in these haughty assertions of
prerogative. The Spaniard, Arnald of Villanova, who served Boniface as
physician, called him in his writings lord of lords—deus deorum.
On
the other hand, Philip the Fair stood as the embodiment of the independence of
the state. He had behind him a unified nation, and around him a body of able
statesmen and publicists who defended his views.17
The
conflict between Boniface and Philip passed through three stages: (1) the brief
tilt which called forth the bull Clericis laicos; (2) the decisive battle,
1301–1303, ending in Boniface’s humiliation at Anagni; (3) the bitter
controversy which was waged against the pope’s memory by Philip, ending with
the Council of Vienne.18
The
conflict originated in questions touching the war between France and England.
To meet the expense of his armament against Edward I., Philip levied tribute
upon the French clergy. They carried their complaints to Rome, and Boniface
justified their contention in the bull Clericis laicos, 1296. This document was
ordered promulged in England as well as in France. Robert of Winchelsea,
archbishop of Canterbury, had it read in all the English cathedral churches.
Its opening sentence impudently asserted that the laity had always been hostile
to the clergy. The document went on to affirm the subjection of the state to
the papal see. Jurisdiction over the persons of the priesthood and the goods of
the Church in no wise belongs to the temporal power. The Church may make
gratuitous gifts to the state, but all taxation of Church property without the
pope’s consent is to be resisted with excommunication or interdict.
Imposts
upon the Church for special emergencies had been a subject of legislation at
the third and fourth Lateran Councils. In 1260 Alexander IV. exempted the
clergy from special taxation, and in 1291 Nicolas IV. warned the king of France
against using for his own schemes the tenth levied for a crusade. Boniface had
precedent enough for his utterances. But his bull was promptly met by Philip
with an act of reprisal prohibiting the export of silver and gold, horses,
arms, and other articles from his realm, and forbidding foreigners to reside in
France. This shrewd measure cut off French contributions to the papal treasury
and cleared France of the pope’s emissaries. Boniface was forced to reconsider
his position, and in conciliatory letters, addressed to the king and the French
prelates, pronounced the interpretation put upon his deliverance unjust. Its
purpose was not to deny feudal and freewill offerings from the Church. In cases
of emergency, the pope would also be ready to grant special subsidies. The
document was so offensive that the French bishops begged the pope to recall it
altogether, a request he set aside. But to appease Philip, Boniface issued
another bull, July 22, 1297, according thereafter to French kings, who had
reached the age of 20, the right to judge whether a tribute from the clergy was
a case of necessity or not. A month later he canonized Louis IX., a further act
of conciliation.
Boniface
also offered to act as umpire between France and England in his personal
capacity as Benedict Gaetanus. The offer was accepted, but the decision was not
agreeable to the French sovereign. The pope expressed a desire to visit Philip,
but again gave offence by asking Philip for a loan of 100, 000 pounds for
Philip’s brother, Charles of Valois, whom Boniface had invested with the command
of the papal forces.
In
1301 the flame of controversy was again started by a document, written probably
by the French advocate, Pierre Dubois,19 which showed the direction in
which Philip’s mind was working, for it could hardly have appeared without his
assent. The writer summoned the king to extend his dominions to the walls of
Rome and beyond, and denied the pope’s right to secular power. The pontiff’s
business is confined to the forgiving of sins, prayer, and preaching. Philip
continued to lay his hand without scruple on Church property; Lyons, which had
been claimed by the empire, he demanded as a part of France. Appeals against
his arbitrary acts went to Rome, and the pope sent Bernard of Saisset, bishop
of Pamiers, to Paris, with commission to summon the French king to apply the
clerical tithe for its appointed purpose, a crusade, and for nothing else.
Philip showed his resentment by having the legate arrested. He was adjudged by
the civil tribunal a traitor, and his deposition from the episcopate demanded.
Boniface’s
reply, set forth in the bull Ausculta fili — Give ear, my son—issued Dec. 5,
1301, charged the king with high-handed treatment of the clergy and making
plunder of ecclesiastical property. The pope announced a council to be held in
Rome to which the French prelates were called and the king summoned to be
present, either in person or by a representative. The bull declared that God
had placed his earthly vicar above kings and kingdoms. To make the matter
worse, a false copy of Boniface’s bull was circulated in France known as Deum
time,—Fear God,—which made the statements of papal prerogative still more
exasperating. This supposititious document, which is supposed to have been
forged by Pierre Flotte, the king’s chief councillor, was thrown into the
flames Feb. 11, 1302.20
Such treatment of a papal brief was unprecedented. It remained for
Luther to cast the genuine bull of Leo X. into the fire. The two acts had
little in common.
The
king replied by calling a French parliament of the three estates, the nobility,
clergy and representatives of the cities, which set aside the papal summons to
the council, complained of the appointment of foreigners to French livings, and
asserted the crown’s independence of the Church. Five hundred years later a
similar representative body of the three estates was to rise against French
royalty and decide for the abolition of monarchy. In a letter to the pope,
Philip addressed him as "your infatuated Majesty,"21
and declined all submission to any one on earth in temporal matters.
The
council called by the pope convened in Rome the last day of October, 1302, and
included 4 archbishops, 35 bishops, and 6 abbots from France. It issued two
bulls. The first pronounced the ban on all who detained prelates going to Rome
or returning from the city. The second is one of the most notable of all papal
documents, the bull Unam sanctam, the name given to it from its first words,
"We are forced to believe in one holy Catholic Church." It marks an epoch in the history of the
declarations of the papacy, not because it contained anything novel, but
because it set forth with unchanged clearness the stiffest claims of the papacy
to temporal and spiritual power. It begins with the assertion that there is
only one true Church, outside of which there is no salvation. The pope is the vicar
of Christ, and whoever refuses to be ruled by Peter belongs not to the fold of
Christ. Both swords are subject to the Church, the spiritual and the temporal.
The temporal sword is to be wielded for the Church, the spiritual by it. The
secular estate may be judged by the spiritual estate, but the spiritual estate
by no human tribunal. The document closes with the startling declaration that
for every human being the condition of salvation is obedience to the Roman
pontiff.
There
was no assertion of authority contained in this bull which had not been before
made by Gregory VII. and his successors, and the document leans back not only
upon the deliverances of popes, but upon the definitions of theologians like
Hugo de St. Victor, Bernard and Thomas Aquinas. But in the Unam sanctam the
arrogance of the papacy finds its most naked and irritating expression.
One
of the clauses pronounces all offering resistance to the pope’s authority
Manichaeans. Thus Philip was made a heretic. Six months later the pope sent a
cardinal legate, John le Moine of Amiens, to announce to the king his
excommunication for preventing French bishops from going to Rome. The bearer of
the message was imprisoned and the legate fled. Boniface now called upon the
German emperor, Albrecht, to take Philip’s throne, as Innocent III. had called
upon the French king to take John’s crown, and Innocent IV. upon the count of
Artois to take the crown of Frederick II. Albrecht had wisdom enough to decline
the empty gift. Philip’s seizure of the papal bulls before they could be
promulged in France was met by Boniface’s announcement that the posting of a
bull on the church doors of Rome was sufficient to give it force.
The
French parliament, June, 1308, passed from the negative attitude of defending
the king and French rights to an attack upon Boniface and his right to the
papal throne. In 20 articles it accused him of simony, sorcery, immoral
intercourse with his niece, having a demon in his chambers, the murder of
Coelestine, and other crimes. It appealed to a general council, before which
the pope was summoned to appear in person. Five archbishops and 21 bishops
joined in subscribing to this document. The university and chapter of Paris,
convents, cities, and towns placed themselves on the king’s side.22
One
more step the pope was about to take when a sudden stop was put to his career.
He had set the eighth day of September as the time when he would publicly, in
the church of Anagni, and with all the solemnities known to the Church,
pronounce the ban upon the disobedient king and release his subjects from
allegiance. In the same edifice Alexander III. had excommunicated Barbarossa,
and Gregory IX., Frederick II. The bull already had the papal signature, when,
as by a storm bursting from a clear sky, the pope’s plans were shattered and
his career brought to an end.
During
the two centuries and a half since Hildebrand had entered the city of Rome with
Leo IX., popes had been imprisoned by emperors, been banished from Rome by its
citizens, had fled for refuge and died in exile, but upon no one of them had a
calamity fallen quite so humiliating and complete as the calamity which now
befell Boniface. A plot, formed in France to checkmate the pope and to carry
him off to a council at Lyons, burst Sept. 7 upon the peaceful population of
Anagni, the pope’s country seat. William of Nogaret, professor of law at
Montpellier and councillor of the king, was the manager of the plot and was
probably its inventor. According to the chronicler, Villani,23
Nogaret’s parents were Cathari, and suffered for heresy in the flames in
Southern France. He stood as a representative of a new class of men, laymen,
who were able to compete in culture with the best-trained ecclesiastics, and
advocated the independence of the state. With him was joined Sciarra Colonna,
who, with other members of his family, had found refuge in France, and was
thirsting for revenge for their proscription by the pope. With a small body of
mercenaries, 300 of them on horse, they suddenly appeared in Anagni. The barons
of the Latium, embittered by the rise of the Gaetani family upon their losses,
joined with the conspirators, as also did the people of Anagni. The palaces of
two of Boniface’s nephews and several of the cardinals were stormed and seized
by Sciarra Colonna, who then offered the pope life on the three conditions that
the Colonna be restored, Boniface resign, and that he place himself in the
hands of the conspirators. The conditions were rejected, and after a delay of
three hours, the work of assault and destruction was renewed. The palaces one
after another yielded, and the papal residence itself was taken and entered.
The supreme pontiff, according to the description of Villani,24
received the besiegers in high pontifical robes, seated on a throne, with a
crown on his head and a crucifix and the keys in his hand. He proudly rebuked
the intruders, and declared his readiness to die for Christ and his Church. To
the demand that he resign the papal office, he replied, "Never; I am pope
and as pope I will die."
Sciarra was about to kill him, when he was intercepted by Nogaret’s arm.
The palaces were looted and the cathedral burnt, and its relics, if not
destroyed, went to swell the booty. One of the relics, a vase said to have
contained milk from Mary’s breasts, was turned over and broken. The pope and
his nephews were held in confinement for three days, the captors being
undecided whether to carry Boniface away to Lyons, set him at liberty, or put
him to death. Such was the humiliating counterpart to the proud display made at
the pope’s coronation nine years before!
In
the meantime the feelings of the Anagnese underwent a change. The adherents of
the Gaetani family rallied their forces and, combining together, they rescued
Boniface and drove out the conspirators. Seated at the head of his palace
stairway, the pontiff thanked God and the people for his deliverance.
"Yesterday," he said, "I was like Job, poor and without a
friend. To-day I have abundance of bread, wine, and water." A rescuing party from Rome conducted
the unfortunate pope to the Holy City, where he was no longer his own master.25 A month later, Oct. 11, 1303, his
earthly career closed. Outside the death-chamber, the streets of the city were
filled with riot and tumult, and the Gaetani and Colonna were encamped in
battle array against each other in the Campagna.
Reports
agree that Boniface’s death was a most pitiable one. He died of melancholy and
despair, and perhaps actually insane. He refused food, and beat his head
against the wall. "He was out of his head," wrote Ptolemy of Lucca,26
and believed that every one who approached him was seeking to put him in
prison.
Human
sympathy goes out for the aged man of fourscore years and more, dying in
loneliness and despair. But judgment comes sooner or later upon individuals and
institutions for their mistakes and offences. The humiliation of Boniface was
the long-delayed penalty of the sacerdotal pride of his predecessors and
himself. He suffered in part for the hierarchical arrogance of which he was the
heir and in part for his own presumption. Villani and other contemporaries
represent the pope’s latter end as a deserved punishment for his unblushing
nepotism, his pompous pride, and his implacable severity towards those who
dared to resist his plans, and for his treatment of the feeble hermit who
preceded him. One of the chroniclers reports that seamen plying near the
Liparian islands, the reputed entrance to hell, heard evil spirits rejoicing
and exclaiming, "Open, open; receive pope Boniface into the infernal regions."
Catholic
historians like Hergenröther and Kirsch, bound to the ideals of the past, make
a brave attempt to defend Boniface, though they do not overlook his want of
tact and his coarse violence of speech. It is certain, says Cardinal
Hergenröther,27 "that Boniface was not ruled by unworthy motives and that
he did not deviate from the paths of his predecessors or overstep the legal
conceptions of the Middle Ages."
Finke, also a Catholic historian, the latest learned investigator of the
character and career of Boniface, acknowledges the pope’s intellectual ability,
but also emphasizes his pride and arrogance, his depreciation of other men, his
disagreeable spirit and manner, which left him without a personal friend, his
nepotism and his avarice. He hoped, said a contemporary, to live till "all
his enemies were suppressed."
In
strong contrast to the common judgment of Catholic historians is the sentence
passed by Gregorovius. "Boniface was devoid of every apostolical virtue, a
man of passionate temper, violent, faithless, unscrupulous, unforgiving, filled
with ambitions and lust of worldly power." And this will be the judgment of those who feel no obligation
to defend the papal institution.
In
the humiliation of Boniface VIII., the state gained a signal triumph over the
papacy. The proposition, that the papal pretension to supremacy over the
temporal power is inconsistent with the rights of man and untaught by the law
of God, was about to be defended in bold writings coming from the pens of
lawyers and poets in France and Italy and, a half century later, by Wyclif.
These advocates of the sovereign independence of the state in its own domain
were the real descendants of those jurisconsults who, on the pIain of
Roncaglia, advocated the same theory in the hearing of Frederick Barbarossa.
Two hundred years after the conflict between Boniface and Philip the Fair,
Luther was to fight the battle for the spiritual sovereignty of the individual
man. These two principles, set aside by the priestly pride and theological
misunderstanding of the Middle Ages, belong to the foundation of modern
civilization.
Boniface’s
Bull, Unam Sanctam.
The
great importance of Boniface’s bull, Unam Sanctam, issued against Philip the
Fair, Nov. 18, 1302, justifies its reproduction both in translation and the
original Latin. It has rank among the most notorious deliverances of the popes
and is as full of error as was Innocent VIII.’s bull issued in 1484 against
witchcraft. It presents the theory of the supremacy of the spiritual power over
the temporal, the authority of the papacy over princes, in its extreme form.
The following is a translation: —
Boniface,
Bishop, Servant of the servants of God. For perpetual remembrance: —
Urged
on by our faith, we are obliged to believe and hold that there is one holy,
catholic, and apostolic Church. And we firmly believe and profess that outside
of her there is no salvation nor remission of sins, as the bridegroom declares
in the Canticles, "My dove, my undefiled, is but one; she is the only one
of her mother; she is the choice one of her that bare her." And this represents the one mystical
body of Christ, and of this body Christ is the head, and God is the head of
Christ. In it there is one Lord, one faith, one baptism. For in the time of the
Flood there was the single ark of Noah, which prefigures the one Church, and it
was finished according to the measure of one cubit and had one Noah for pilot
and captain, and outside of it every living creature on the earth, as we read,
was destroyed. And this Church we revere as the only one, even as the Lord
saith by the prophet, "Deliver my soul from the sword, my darling from the
power of the dog." He prayed
for his soul, that is, for himself, head and body. And this body he called one
body, that is, the Church, because of the single bridegroom, the unity of the
faith, the sacraments, and the love of the Church. She is that seamless shirt
of the Lord which was not rent but was allotted by the casting of lots.
Therefore, this one and single Church has one head and not two heads,—for had
she two heads, she would be a monster,—that is, Christ and Christ’s vicar,
Peter and Peter’s successor. For the Lord said unto Peter, "Feed my
sheep." "My," he
said, speaking generally and not particularly, "these and those," by
which it is to be understood that all the sheep are committed unto him. So,
when the Greeks or others say that they were not committed to the care of Peter
and his successors, they must confess that they are not of Christ’s sheep, even
as the Lord says in John, "There is one fold and one shepherd."
That
in her and within her power are two swords, we are taught in the Gospels,
namely, the spiritual sword and the temporal sword. For when the Apostles said,
"Lo, here,"—that is in the Church,—are two swords, the Lord did not
reply to the Apostles "it is too much," but "it is enough." It is certain that whoever denies that
the temporal sword is in the power of Peter, hearkens ill to the words of the
Lord which he spake, "Put up thy sword into its sheath." Therefore, both are in the power of the
Church, namely, the spiritual sword and the temporal sword; the latter is to be
used for the Church, the former by the Church; the former by the hand of the
priest, the latter by the hand of princes and kings, but at the nod and
sufferance of the priest. The one sword must of necessity be subject to the
other, and the temporal authority to the spiritual. For the Apostle said,
"There is no power but of God, and the powers that be are ordained of
God;" and they would not have been ordained unless one sword had been made
subject to the other, and even as the lower is subjected by the other for higher
things. For, according to Dionysius, it is a divine law that the lowest things
are made by mediocre things to attain to the highest. For it is not according
to the law of the universe that all things in an equal way and immediately
should reach their end, but the lowest through the mediocre and the lower
through the higher. But that the spiritual power excels the earthly power in
dignity and worth, we will the more clearly acknowledge just in proportion as
the spiritual is higher than the temporal. And this we perceive quite
distinctly from the donation of the tithe and functions of benediction and
sanctification, from the mode in which the power was received, and the
government of the subjected realms. For truth being the witness, the spiritual
power has the functions of establishing the temporal power and sitting in
judgment on it if it should prove to be not good.28 And to the Church and the Church’s power the prophecy of
Jeremiah attests: "See, I have set thee this day over the nations and the
kingdoms to pluck up and to break down and to destroy and to overthrow, to
build and to plant."
And
if the earthly power deviate from the right path, it is judged by the spiritual
power; but if a minor spiritual power deviate from the right path, the lower in
rank is judged by its superior; but if the supreme power [the papacy] deviate,
it can be judged not by man but by God alone. And so the Apostle testifies, "He
which is spiritual judges all things, but he himself is judged by no
man." But this authority,
although it be given to a man, and though it be exercised by a man, is not a
human but a divine power given by divine word of mouth to Peter and confirmed
to Peter and to his successors by Christ himself, whom Peter confessed, even
him whom Christ called the Rock. For the Lord said to Peter himself,
"Whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth," etc. Whoever, therefore,
resists this power so ordained by God, resists the ordinance of God, unless
perchance he imagine two principles to exist, as did Manichaeus, which we
pronounce false and heretical. For Moses testified that God created heaven and
earth not in the beginnings but "in the beginning."
Furthermore,
that every human creature is subject to the Roman pontiff,—this we declare,
say, define, and pronounce to be altogether necessary to salvation.
<foreign lang="la">Bonifatius, Episcopus,
Servus servorum Dei. Ad futuram rei memoriam.29
Unam
sanctam ecclesiam catholicam et ipsam apostolicam urgente fide credere cogimur
et tenere, nosque hanc frmiter credimus et simpliciter confitemur, extra quam
nec salus est, nec remissio peccatorum, sponso in Canticis proclamante: Una est
columba mea, perfecta mea. Una est matris suae electa genetrici suae [Cant.
6:9]. Quae unum corpus mysticum
repraesentat, cujus caput Christus, Christi vero Deus. In qua unus Dominus, una
fides, unum baptisma. Una nempe fuit diluvii tempore arca Noë, unam ecclesiam
praefigurans, quae in uno cubito consummata unum, Noë videlicet, gubernatorem
habuit et rectorem, extra quam omnia subsistentia super terram legimus fuisse
deleta.
Hanc
autem veneramur et unicam, dicente Domino in Propheta: Erue a framea, Deus,
animam meam et de manu canis unicam meam. [Psalm 22:20.] Pro anima enim, id est, pro se ipso,
capite simul oravit et corpore. Quod corpus unicam scilicet ecclesiam
nominavit, propter sponsi, fidei, sacramentorum et caritatis ecclesiae
unitatem. Haec est tunica illa Domini inconsutilis, quae scissa non fuit, sed
sorte provenit. [John 19.]
Igitur
ecclesiae unius et unicae unum corpus, unum caput, non duo capita, quasi
monstrum, Christus videlicet et Christi vicarius, Petrus, Petrique successor,
dicente Domino ipsi Petro: Pasce oves meas. [John 21:17.] Meas, inquit, generaliter, non
singulariter has vel illas: per quod commisisse sibi intelligitur universas.
Sive ergo Graeci sive alii se dicant Petro ejusque successoribus non esse
commissos: fateantur necesse est, se de ovibus Christi non esse, dicente Domino
in Joanne, unum ovile et unicum esse pastorem. [John 10:16.]
In
hac ejusque potestate duos esse gladios, spiritualem videlicet et temporalem,
evangelicis dictis instruimur. Nam dicentibus Apostolis: Ecce gladii duo hic
[Luke 22:38], in ecclesia scilicet, cum apostoli loquerentur, non respondit
Dominus, nimis esse, sed satis. Certe qui in potestate Petri temporalem gladium
esse negat, male verbum attendit Domini proferentis: Converte gladium tuum in
vaginam. [Matt. 26:52.] Uterque
ergo est in potestate ecclesiae, spiritualis scilicet gladius et materialis.
Sed is quidem pro ecclesia, ille vero ab ecclesia exercendus, ille sacerdotis,
is manu regum et militum, sed ad nutum et patientiam sacerdotis.
Oportet
autem gladium esse sub gladio, et temporalem auctoritatem spirituali subjici
potestati. Nam cum dicat Apostolus: Non est potestas nisi a Deo; quae autem
sunt, a Deo ordinata sunt [Rom. 13:1], non autem ordinata essent, nisi gladius
esset sub gladio, et tanquam inferior reduceretur per alium in suprema. Nam
secundum B. Dionysium lex dirinitatis est, infima per media in suprema reduci
.... Sic de ecclesia et ecclesiastica potestate verificatur vaticinium
Hieremiae [Jer. 1:10]: Ecce constitui te hodie super gentes et regna et cetera,
quae sequuntur.
Ergo,
si deviat terrena potestas, judicabitur a potestate spirituali; sed, si deviat
spiritualis minor, a suo superiori si vero suprema, a solo Deo, non ab homine
poterit judicari, testante Apostolo: Spiritualis homo judicat omnia, ipse autem
a nemine judicatur. [1 Cor. 2:16.]
Est autem haec auctoritas, etsi data sit homini, et exerceatur per
hominem, non humana, sed potius divina potestas, ore divino Petro data, sibique
suisque successoribus in ipso Christo, quem confessus fuit, petra firmata,
dicente Domino ipsi Petro: Quodcunque ligaveris, etc. [Matt. 16:19.] Quicunque igitur huic potestati a Deo sic
ordinatae resistit, Dei ordinationi resistit, nisi duo, sicut Manichaeus,
fingat esse principia, quod falsum et haereticum judicamus, quia, testante
Moyse, non in principiis, sed in principio coelum Deus creavit et terram. [<scripRef passage
= "Gen. 1:1">Gen. 1:1</scripRef>.]
Porro
subesse Romano Pontifici omni humanae creaturae declaramus dicimus, definimus
et pronunciamus omnino esse de necessitate salutis.</foreign>
The most astounding clause of this deliverance makes
subjection to the pope an essential of salvation for every creature. Some writers
have made the bold attempt to relieve the language of this construction, and
refer it to princes and kings. So fair and sound a Roman Catholic writer as
Funk30
has advocated this interpretation, alleging in its favor the close connection
of the clause with the previous statements through the particle porro,
furthermore, and the consideration that the French people would not have
resented the assertion that obedience to the papacy is a condition of
salvation. But the overwhelming majority of Catholic historians take the words
in their natural meaning.31
The expression "every human creature" would be a most unlikely
one to be used as synonymous with temporal rulers. Boniface made the same
assertion in a letter to the duke of Savoy, 1300, when he demanded submission
for every mortal,—omnia anima. Aegidius Colonna paraphrased the bull in these
words, "the supreme pontiff is that authority to which every soul must
yield subjection."32
That the mediaeval Church accepted this construction is vouched for by
the Fifth Lateran Council, 1516, which, in reaffirming the bull, declared
"it necessary to salvation that all the faithful of Christ be subject to
the Roman pontiff."33
</div3> <div3 type = "Section"
n="5" title="Literary Attacks against the Papacy">
§ 5.
Literary Attacks against the Papacy.
Nothing
is more indicative of the intellectual change going on in Western Europe in the
fourteenth century than the tractarian literature of the time directed against
claims made by the papacy. Three periods may be distinguished. In the first
belong the tracts called forth by the struggle of Philip the Fair and Boniface
VIII., with the year 1302 for its centre. Their distinguishing feature is the
attack made upon the pope’s jurisdiction in temporal affairs. The second period
opens during the pontificate of John XXII. and extends from 1320–1340. Here the
pope’s spiritual supremacy was attacked. The most prominent writer of the time
was Marsiglius of Padua. The third period begins with the papal schism toward
the end of the fourteenth century. The writers of this period emphasized the
need of reform in the Church and discussed the jurisdiction of general councils
as superior to the jurisdiction of the pope.34
The
publicists of the age of Boniface VIII. and Philip the Fair now defended, now
openly attacked the mediaeval theory of the pope’s lordship over kings and
nations. The body of literature they produced was unlike anything which Europe
had seen before. In the conflict between Gregory IX. and Frederick II., Europe
was filled with the epistolary appeals of pope and emperor, who sought each to
make good his case before the court of European public opinion, and more
especially of the princes and prelates. The controversy of this later time was
participated in by a number of writers who represented the views of an
intelligent group of clerics and laymen. They employed a vigorous style adapted
to make an impression on the public mind.
Stirred
by the haughty assertions of Boniface, a new class of men, the jurisconsults,
entered the lists and boldly called in question the old order represented by
the policy of Hildebrand and Innocent III. They had studied in the
universities, especially in the University of Paris, and some of them, like
Dubois, were laymen. The decision of the Bologna jurists on the field of
Roncaglia was reasserted with new arguments and critical freedom, and a step was
taken far in advance of that decision which asserted the independence of the
emperor. The empire was set aside as an antiquated institution, and France and
other states were pronounced sovereign within their own limits and immune from
papal dominion over their temporal affairs. The principles of human law and the
natural rights of man were arrayed against dogmatic assertions based upon
unbalanced and false interpretations of Scripture. The method of scholastic
sophistry was largely replaced by an appeal to common sense and regard for the
practical needs of society. The authorities used to establish the new theory
were Aristotle, the Scriptures and historic facts. These writers were John the
Baptists preparing the way for the more clearly outlined and advanced views of
Marsiglius of Padua and Ockam, who took the further step of questioning or
flatly denying the pope’s spiritual supremacy, and for the still more advanced
and more spiritual appeals of Wyclif and Luther. A direct current of influence
can be traced back from the Protestant Reformation to the anti-papal tracts of
the first decade of the fourteenth century.
The
tract writers of the reign of Philip the Fair, who defended the traditional
theory of the pope’s absolute supremacy in all matters, were the Italians
Aegidius Colonna, James of Viterbo, Henry of Cremona, and Augustinus Triumphus.
The writers who attacked the papal claim to temporal power are divided into two
groups. To the first belongs Dante, who magnified the empire and the station of
the emperor as the supreme ruler over the temporal affairs of men. The men of
the second group were associated more or less closely with the French court and
were, for the most part, Frenchmen. They called in question the authority of
the emperor. Among their leaders were John of Paris and Peter Dubois. In a
number of cases their names are forgotten or uncertain, while their tracts have
survived. It will be convenient first to take up the theory of Dante, and then
to present the views of papal and anti-papal writings which were evidently
called forth by the struggle started by Boniface.
Dante
was in nowise associated with the court of Philip the Fair, and seems to have
been moved to write his treatise on government, the De monarchia, by general
considerations and not by any personal sympathy with the French king. His
theory embodies views in direct antagonism to those promulged in Boniface’s
bull Unam sanctam, and Thomas Aquinas, whose theological views Dante followed,
is here set aside.35
The independence and sovereignty of the civil estate is established by
arguments drawn from reason, Aristotle, and the Scriptures. In making good his
position, the author advances three propositions, devoting a chapter to each:
(1) Universal monarchy or empire, for the terms are used synonymously, is
necessary. (2) This monarchy belongs to the Roman people. (3) It was directly
bequeathed to the Romans by God, and did not come through the mediation of the
Church.
The
interests of society, so the argument runs, require an impartial arbiter, and
only a universal monarch bound by no local ties can be impartial. A universal
monarchy will bring peace, the peace of which the angels sang on the night of
Christ’s birth, and it will bring liberty, God’s greatest gift to man.36 Democracy reduces men to slavery. The
Romans are the noblest people and deserve the right to rule. This is evident from
the fine manhood of Aeneas, their progenitor,37 from the evident miracles which
God wrought in their history and from their world-wide dominion. This right to
rule was established under the Christian dispensation by Christ himself, who
submitted to Roman jurisdiction in consenting to be born under Augustus and to
suffer under Tiberius. It was attested by the Church when Paul said to Festus,
"I stand at Caesar’s judgment seat, where I ought to be judged," <scripRef passage
= "Acts 25:10">Acts 25:10</scripRef>. There are two governing
agents necessary to society, the pope and the emperor. The emperor is supreme
in temporal things and is to guide men to eternal life in accordance with the
truths of revelation. Nevertheless, the emperor should pay the pope the
reverence which a first-born son pays to his father, such reverence as
Charlemagne paid to Leo III.38
In
denying the subordination of the civil power, Dante rejects the figure
comparing the spiritual and temporal powers to the sun and moon,39
and the arguments drawn from the alleged precedence of Levi over Judah on the
ground of the priority of Levi’s birth; from the oblation of the Magi at the
manger and from the sentence passed upon Saul by Samuel. He referred the two
swords both to spiritual functions. Without questioning the historical
occurrence, he set aside Constantine’s donation to Sylvester on the ground that
the emperor no more had the right to transfer his empire in the West than he
had to commit suicide. Nor had the pope a right to accept the gift.40 In the Inferno Dante applied to that
transaction the oft-quoted lines:41—
"Ah,
Constantine, of how much ill was cause,
Not thy
conversion, but those rich domains
Which
the first wealthy pope received of thee."
The
Florentine poet’s universal monarchy has remained an ideal unrealized, like the
republic of the Athenian philosopher.42 Conception of popular liberty as it is conceived in this
modern age, Dante had none. Nevertheless, he laid down the important principle
that the government exists for the people, and not the people for the
government.43
The
treatise De monarchia was burnt as heretical, 1329, by order of John XXII. and
put on the Index by the Council of Trent. In recent times it has aided the
Italian patriots in their work of unifying Italy and separating politics from
the Church according to Cavour’s maxim, "a free Church in a free
state."
In
the front rank of the champions of the temporal power of the papacy stood
Aegidius Colonna, called also Aegidius Romanus, 1247–1316.44 He was an Augustinian, and rose to be
general of his order. He became famous as a theological teacher and, in 1287,
his order placed his writings in all its schools.45 In 1295 he was made archbishop of Bourges, Boniface setting
aside in his favor the cleric nominated by Coelestine. Aegidius participated in
the council in Rome, 1301, which Philip the Fair forbade the French prelates to
attend. He was an elaborate writer, and in 1304 no less than 12 of his
theological works and 14 of his philosophical writings were in use in the
University of Paris.
The
tract by which Aegidius is chiefly known is his Power of the Supreme Pontiff—De
ecclesiastica sive de summit pontificis potestate. It was the chief work of its
time in defence of the papacy, and seems to have been called forth by the Roman
Council and to have been written in 1301.46 It was dedicated to Boniface VIII. Its main positions are
the following: —
The
pope judges all things and is judged by no man, <scripRef passage = "1 Cor.
2:15">1
Cor. 2:15</scripRef>. To him belongs plenary
power, plenitudo potestatis. This power is without measure, without number, and
without weight. 47 It extends over all Christians. The pope is above all laws and
in matters of faith infallible. He is like the sea which fills all vessels,
like the sun which, as the universally active principle, sends his rays into
all things. The priesthood existed before royalty. Abel and Noah, priests,
preceded Nimrod, who was the first king. As the government of the world is one
and centres in one ruler, God, so in the affairs of the militant Church there
can be only one source of power, one supreme government, one head to whom
belongs the plenitude of power. This is the supreme pontiff. The priesthood and
the papacy are of immediate divine appointment. Earthly kingdoms, except as
they have been established by the priesthood, owe their origin to usurpation,
robbery, and other forms of violence.48 In these views Aegidius followed Augustine: De civitate, IV.
4, and Gregory VII. The state, however, he declared to be necessary as a means
through which the Church works to accomplish its divinely appointed ends.
In
the second part of his tract, Aegidius proves that, in spite of <scripRef passage
= "Numb. 18:20, 21">Numb. 18:20, 21</scripRef>, and <scripRef passage
= "Luke 10:4">Luke 10:4</scripRef>, the Church has the right
to possess worldly goods. The Levites received cities. In fact, all temporal
goods are under the control of the Church.49 As the soul rules the body, so the pope rules over all
temporal matters. The tithe is a perpetual obligation. No one has a right to
the possession of a single acre of ground or a vineyard without the Church’s
permission and unless he be baptized.
The
fulness of power, residing in the pope, gives him the right to appoint to all
benefices in Christendom, but, as God chooses to rule through the laws of
nature, so the pope rules through the laws of the Church, but he is not bound
by them. He may himself be called the Church. For the pope’s power is
spiritual, heavenly and divine. Aegidius was used by his successors, James of
Viterbo, Augustinus Triumphus and Alvarus, and also by John of Paris and Gerson
who contested some of his main positions.50
The
second of these writers, defending the position of Boniface VIII., was James of
Viterbo,51
d. 1308. He also was an Italian, belonged to the Augustinian order, and gained
prominence as a teacher in Paris. In 1302 he was appointed by Boniface
archbishop of Beneventum, and a few months later archbishop of Naples. His
Christian Government—De regimine christiano — is, after the treatise of
Aegidius, the most comprehensive of the papal tracts. It also was dedicated to
Boniface VIII., who is addressed as "the holy lord of the kings of the
earth." The author distinctly
says he was led to write by the attacks made upon the papal prerogative.
To
Christ’s vicar, James says, royalty and priesthood, regnum et sacerdotium,
belong. Temporal authority was not for the first time conferred on him when
Constantine gave Sylvester the dominion of the West. Constantine did nothing
more than confirm a previous right derived from Christ, when he said,
"whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven." Priests are kings, and the pope is the
king of kings, both in mundane and spiritual matters.52 He is the bishop of the earth, the
supreme lawgiver. Every soul must be subject to him in order to salvation.53 By reason of his fulness of power, the
supreme pontiff can act according to law or against it, as he chooses.54
Henry
of Cassaloci, or Henry of Cremona, as he is usually called from his Italian
birthplace, d. 1312, is mentioned, contrary to the custom of the age, by name
by John of Paris, as the author of the tract, The Power of the Pope—De
potestate papae.55 He was a
distinguished authority in canon law and consulted by Boniface. He was
appointed, 1302, a member of the delegation to carry to Philip the Fair the two
notorious bulls, Salvator mundi and Ausculta fili. The same year he was
appointed bishop of Reggio.56
The papal defenders were well paid.
Henry
began his tract with the words of <scripRef passage = "Matt.
27:18">Matt.
27:18</scripRef>, "All power is given
unto me," and declared the attack against the pope’s temporal jurisdiction
over the whole earth a matter of recent date, and made by "sophists"
who deserved death. Up to that time no one had made such denial. He attempts to
make out his fundamental thesis from Scripture, the Fathers, canon law, and
reason. God at first ruled through Noah, the patriarchs, Melchizedec, and Moses,
who were priests and kings at the same time. Did not Moses punish Pharaoh? Christ carried both swords. Did he not
drive out the money-changers and wear the crown of thorns? To him the power was given to judge the
world. <scripRef
passage = "John 5:22">John 5:22</scripRef>. The same power was
entailed upon Peter and his successors. As for the state, it bears to the
Church the relation of the moon to the sun, and the emperor has only such power
as the pope is ready to confer. Henry also affirms that Constantine’s donation
established no right, but confirmed what the pope already possessed by virtue
of heavenly gift.57 The pope
transferred the empire to Charlemagne, and Innocent IV. asserted the papal
supremacy over kings by deposing Frederick II. If in early and later times the
persons of popes were abused, this was not because they lacked supreme
authority in the earth58 or were in anywise subject to earthly princes.
No emperor can legally exercise imperial functions without papal consecration.
When Christ said, "my kingdom is not of this world," he meant nothing
more than that the world refused to obey him. As for the passage, "render
to Caesar the things which are Caesar’s," Christ was under no obligation
to give tribute to the emperor, and the children of the kingdom are free, as
Augustine, upon the basis of <scripRef passage = "Matt.
27:26">Matt.
27:26</scripRef> sq., said.
The
main work of another defender of the papal prerogatives, Augustinus Triumphus,
belongs to the next period.59
An
intermediate position between these writers and the anti-papal publicists was
taken by the Cardinals Colonna and their immediate supporters.60 In their zeal against Boniface VIII.
they questioned the absolute power of the Church in temporal concerns, and placed
the supreme spiritual authority in the college of cardinals, with the pope as
its head.
Among
the advanced writers of the age was William Durante, d. 1381, an advocate of
Gallicanism.61 He was appointed
bishop of Mende before he had reached the canonical age. He never came under
the condemnation of the Church. In a work composed at the instance of Clement
V. on general councils and the reformation of Church abuses, De modo generalis
concilii celebrandi et corruptelis in ecclesiis reformandis, he demanded a
reformation of the Church in head and members,62 using for the first time this
expression which was so often employed in a later age. He made the pope one of
the order of bishops on all of whom was conferred equally the power to bind and
to loose.63 The bishops are
not the pope’s assistants, the view held by Innocent III., but agents directly
appointed by God with independent jurisdiction. The pope may not act out of
harmony with the canons of the early Church except with the approval of a general
council. When new measures are contemplated, a general council should be
convened, and one should be called every ten years.64
Turning
now to the writers who contested the pope’s right to temporal authority over
the nations, we find that while the most of them were clerics, all of them were
jurists. It is characteristic that besides appealing to Aristotle, the
Scriptures, and the canon law, they also appealed to the Roman law. We begin
with several pamphlets whose authorship is a matter of uncertainty.
The
Twofold Prerogative—Quaestio in utramque partem — was probably written in 1302,
and by a Frenchman.65
The tract clearly sets forth that the two functions, the spiritual and
the temporal, are distinct, and that the pope has plenary power only in the
spiritual realm. It is evident that they are not united in one person, from
Christ’s refusal of the office of king and from the law prohibiting the Levites
holding worldly possessions. Canon law and Roman law recognized the
independence of the civil power. Both estates are of God. At best the pope’s
temporal authority extends to the patrimony of Peter. The empire is one among
the powers, without authority over other states. As for the king of France, he
would expose himself to the penalty of death if he were to recognize the pope
as overlord.66
The
same positions are taken in the tract,67 The Papal Power,—Quaestio de
potestate papae. The author insists that temporal jurisdiction is incompatible
with the pope’s office. He uses the figure of the body to represent the Church,
giving it a new turn. Christ is the head. The nerves and veins are officers in
the Church and state. They depend directly upon Christ, the head. The heart is
the king. The pope is not even called the head. The soul is not mentioned. The
old application of the figure of the body and the soul, representing
respectively the regnum and the sacerdotium, is set aside. The pope is a
spiritual father, not the lord over Christendom. Moses was a temporal ruler and
Aaron was priest. The functions and the functionaries were distinct. At best,
the donation of Constantine had no reference to France, for France was distinct
from the empire. The deposition of Childerich by Pope Zacharias established no
right, for all that Zacharias did was, as a wise counsellor, to give the barons
advice.
A
third tract, one of the most famous pieces of this literature, the Disputation
between a Cleric and a Knight,68 was written to defend the sovereignty of the
state and its right to levy taxes upon Church property. The author maintains
that the king of France is in duty bound to see that Church property is
administered according to the intent for which it was given. As he defends the
Church against foreign foes, so he has the right to put the Church under
tribute.
In
the publicist, John of Paris, d. 1306, we have one of the leading minds of the
age.69 He was a Dominican, and enjoyed great
fame as a preacher and master. On June 26, 1303, he joined 132 other Parisian
Dominicans in signing a document calling for a general council, which the
university had openly favored five days before.70 His views of the Lord’s Supper brought upon him the charge
of heresy, and he was forbidden to give lectures at the university.71 He appealed to Clement V., but died
before he could get a hearing.
John’s
chief writing was the tract on the Authority of the Pope and King, —De
potestate regia et papali,72 — which almost breathes the atmosphere of
modern times.
John
makes a clear distinction between the "body of the faithful," which
is the Church, and the "body of the clergy."73 The Church has its unity in Christ, who
established the two estates, spiritual and temporal. They are the same in
origin, but distinguished on earth. The pope has the right to punish moral
offences, but only with spiritual punishments. The penalties of death,
imprisonment, and fines, he has no right to impose. Christ had no worldly
jurisdiction, and the pope should keep clear of "Herod’s old error."74 Constantine had no right to confer
temporal power on Sylvester. John adduced 42 reasons urged in favor of the
pope’s omnipotence in temporal affairs and offers a refutation for each of
them.
As
for the pope’s place in the Church, the pope is the representative of the
ecclesiastical body, not its lord. The Church may call him to account. If the
Church were to elect representatives to act with the supreme pontiff, we would
have the best of governments. As things are, the cardinals are his advisers and
may admonish him and, in case he persists in his error, they may call to their
aid the temporal arm. The pope may be deposed by an emperor, as was actually
the case when three popes were deposed by Henry III. The final seat of
ecclesiastical authority is the general council. It may depose a pope. Valid
grounds of deposition are insanity, heresy, personal incompetence and abuse of
the Church’s property.
Following
Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas, John derived the state from the family and not
from murder and other acts of violence.75 It is a community organized for defence and bodily
well-being. With other jurists, he regarded the empire as an antiquated
institution and, if it continues to exist, it is on a par with the monarchies,
not above them. Climate and geographical considerations make different
monarchies necessary, and they derive their authority from God. Thus John and
Dante, while agreeing as to the independence of the state, differ as to the
seat where secular power resides. Dante placed it in a universal empire, John
of Paris in separate monarchies.
The
boldest and most advanced of these publicists, Pierre Dubois,76
was a layman, probably a Norman, and called himself a royal attorney.77 As a delegate to the national council
in Paris, April, 1302, he represented Philip’s views. He was living as late as
1321. In a number of tracts he supported the contention of the French monarch
against Boniface VIII.78
France is independent of the empire, and absolutely sovereign in all
secular matters. The French king is the successor of Charlemagne. The pope is
the moral teacher of mankind, "the light of the world," but he has no
jurisdiction in temporal affairs. It is his function to care for souls, to stop
wars, to exercise oversight over the clergy, but his jurisdiction extends no farther.
The
pope and clergy are given to worldliness and self-indulgence. Boniface is a
heretic. The prelates squander the Church’s money in wars and litigations,
prefer the atmosphere of princely courts, and neglect theology and the care of
souls. The avarice of the curia and the pope leads them to scandalous simony
and nepotism.79 Constantine’s
donation marked the change to worldliness among the clergy. It was illegal, and
the only title the pope can show to temporal power over the patrimony of Peter
is long tenure. The first step in the direction of reforms would be for clergy
and pope to renounce worldly possessions altogether. This remedy had been
prescribed by Arnold of Brescia and Frederick II.
Dubois
also criticised the rule and practice of celibacy. Few clergymen keep their
vows. And yet they are retained, while ordination is denied to married persons.
This is in the face of the fact that the Apostle permitted marriage to all. The
practice of the Eastern church is to be preferred. The rule of single life is
too exacting, especially for nuns. Durante had proposed the abrogation of the
rule, and Arnald of Villanova had emphasized the sacredness of the marriage
tie, recalling that it was upon a married man, Peter, that Christ conferred the
primacy.80
Dubois
showed the freshness of his mind by suggestions of a practical nature. He
proposed the colonization of the Holy Land by Christian people, and the
marriage of Christian women to Saracens of station as a means of converting
them. As a measure for securing the world’s conversion, he recommended to
Clement the establishment of schools for boys and girls in every province,
where instruction should be given in different languages. The girls were to be
taught Latin and the fundamentals of natural science, and especially medicine
and surgery, that they might serve as female physicians among women in the more
occult disorders.
A
review of the controversial literature of the age of Philip the Fair shows the
new paths along which men’s thoughts were moving.81 The papal apologists insisted upon traditional
interpretations of a limited number of texts, the perpetual validity of
Constantine’s donation, and the transfer of the empire. They were forever
quoting Innocent’s famous bull, Per venerabilem.82 On the other hand, John of Paris, and the publicists who
sympathized with him, as also Dante, corrected and widened the vision of the
field of Scripture, and brought into prominence the common rights of man. The
resistance which the king of France offered to the demands of Boniface encouraged
writers to speak without reserve.
The
pope’s spiritual primacy was left untouched. The attack was against his
temporal jurisdiction. The fiction of the two swords was set aside. The state
is as supreme in its sphere as the Church in its sphere, and derives its
authority immediately from God. Constantine had no right to confer the
sovereignty of the West upon Sylvester, and his gift constitutes no valid papal
claim. Each monarch is supreme in his own realm, and the theory of the
overlordship of the emperor is abandoned as a thing out of date.
The
pope’s tenure of office was made subject to limitation. He may be deposed for
heresy and incompetency. Some writers went so far as to deny to him
jurisdiction over Church property. The advisory function of the cardinals was
emphasized and the independent authority of the bishops affirmed. Above all,
the authority residing in the Church as a body of believers was discussed, and
its voice, as uttered through a general council, pronounced to be superior to
the authority of the pope. The utterances of John of Paris and Peter Dubois on
the subject of general councils led straight on to the views propounded during
the papal schism at the close of the fourteenth century.83 Dubois demanded that laymen as well as
clerics should have a voice in them. The rule of clerical celibacy was
attacked, and attention called to its widespread violation in practice. Pope
and clergy were invoked to devote themselves to the spiritual well-being of
mankind, and to foster peaceable measures for the world’s conversion.
This
freedom of utterance and changed way of thinking mark the beginning of one of
the great revolutions in the history of the Christian Church. To these
publicists the modern world owes a debt of gratitude. Principles which are now
regarded as axiomatic were new for the Christian public of their day. A
generation later, Marsiglius of Padua defined them again with clearness, and
took a step still further in advance.
</div3> <div3 type = "Section"
n="6" title="The Transfer of the Papacy to Avignon">
§ 6. The
Transfer of the Papacy to Avignon.
The
successor of Boniface, Benedict XI., 1303–1304, a Dominican, was a
mild-spirited and worthy man, more bent on healing ruptures than on forcing his
arbitrary will. Departing from the policy of his predecessor, he capitulated to
the state and put an end to the conflict with Philip the Fair. Sentences
launched by Boniface were recalled or modified, and the interdict pronounced by
that pope upon Lyons was revoked. Palestrina was restored to the Colonna. Only
Sciarra Colonna and Nogaret were excepted from the act of immediate clemency
and ordered to appear at Rome. Benedict’s death, after a brief reign of eight
months, was ascribed to poison secreted in a dish of figs, of which the pope
partook freely.84
The
conclave met in Perugia, where Benedict died, and was torn by factions. After
an interval of nearly eleven months, the French party won a complete triumph by
the choice of Bertrand de Got, archbishop of Bordeaux, who took the name of
Clement V. At the time of his election, Bertrand was in France. He never
crossed the Alps. After holding his court at Bordeaux, Poictiers, and Toulouse,
he chose, in 1309, Avignon as his residence.
Thus
began the so-called Babylonian captivity, or Avignon exile, of the papacy,
which lasted more than seventy years and included seven popes, all Frenchmen,
Clement V., 1305–1314; John XXII., 1316–1334; Benedict XII., 1334–1342; Clement
VI., 1342–1352; Innocent VI., 1352–1362; Urban V., 1362–1370; Gregory XI.,
1370–1378. This prolonged absence from Rome was a great shock to the papal
system. Transplanted from its maternal soil, the papacy was cut loose from the
hallowed and historical associations of thirteen centuries. It no longer spake
as from the centre of the Christian world.
The
way had been prepared for the abandonment of the Eternal City and removal to
French territory. Innocent II. and other popes had found refuge in France.
During the last half of the thirteenth century the Apostolic See, in its
struggle with the empire, had leaned upon France for aid. To avoid Frederick
II., Innocent IV. had fled to Lyons, 1245. If Boniface VIII. represents a
turning-point in the history of the papacy, the Avignon residence shook the
reverence of Christendom for it. It was in danger of becoming a French
institution. Not only were the popes all Frenchmen, but the large majority of
the cardinals were of French birth. Both were reduced to a station little above
that of court prelates subject to the nod of the French sovereign. At the same
time, the popes continued to exercise their prerogatives over the other nations
of Western Christendom, and freely hurled anathemas at the German emperor and
laid the interdict upon Italian cities. The word might be passed around,
"where the pope is, there is Rome," but the wonder is that the grave
hurt done to his oecumenical character was not irreparable.85
The
morals of Avignon during the papal residence were notorious throughout Europe.
The papal household had all the appearance of a worldly court, torn by envies
and troubled by schemes of all sorts. Some of the Avignon popes left a good
name, but the general impression was bad—weak if not vicious. The curia was
notorious for its extravagance, venality, and sensuality. Nepotism, bribery,
and simony were unblushingly practised. The financial operations of the papal
family became oppressive to an extent unknown before. Indulgences, applied to
all sorts of cases, were made a source of increasing revenue. Alvarus Pelagius,
a member of the papal household and a strenuous supporter of the papacy, in his
De planctu ecclesiae, complained bitterly of the speculation and traffic in
ecclesiastical places going on at the papal court. It swarmed with
money-changers, and parties bent on money operations. Another contemporary,
Petrarch, who never uttered a word against the papacy as a divine institution,
launched his satires against Avignon, which he called "the sink of every
vice, the haunt of all iniquities, a third Babylon, the Babylon of the
West." No expression is too
strong to carry his biting invectives. Avignon is the "fountain of
afflictions, the refuge of wrath, the school of errors, a temple of lies, the
awful prison, hell on earth."86
But the corruption of Avignon was too glaring to make it necessary for
him to invent charges. This ill-fame gives Avignon a place at the side of the
courts of Louis XIV. and Charles II. of England.
During
this papal expatriation, Italy fell into a deplorable condition. Rome, which
had been the queen of cities, the goal of pilgrims, the centre towards which
the pious affections of all Western Europe turned, the locality where royal and
princely embassies had sought ratification for ambitious plans—Rome was now
turned into an arena of wild confusion and riot. Contending factions of nobles,
the Colonna, Orsini, Gaetani, and others, were in constant feud,87
and strove one with the other for the mastery in municipal affairs and were
often themselves set aside by popular leaders whose low birth they despised.
The source of her gains gone, the city withered away and was reduced to the
proportions, the poverty, and the dull happenings of a provincial town, till in
1370 the population numbered less than 20,000. She had no commerce to stir her
pulses like the young cities in Northern and Southern Germany and in Lombardy.
Obscurity and melancholy settled upon her palaces and public places, broken
only by the petty attempts at civic displays, which were like the actings of
the circus ring compared with the serious manoeuvres of a military campaign. The
old monuments were neglected or torn down. A papal legate sold the stones of
the Colosseum to be burnt in lime-kilns, and her marbles were transported to
other cities, so that it was said she was drawn upon more than Carrara.88 Her churches became roofless. Cattle
ate grass up to the very altars of the Lateran and St. Peter’s. The movement of
art was stopped which had begun with the arrival of Giotto, who had come to
Rome at the call of Boniface VIII. to adorn St. Peter’s. No product of
architecture is handed down from this period except the marble stairway of the
church of St. Maria, Ara Coeli, erected in 1348 with an inscription
commemorating the deliverance from the plague, and the restored Lateran church
which was burnt, 1308.89
Ponds and débris interrupted the passage of the streets and filled the air
with offensive and deadly odors. At Clement V.’s death, Napoleon Orsini assured
Philip that the Eternal City was on the verge of destruction and, in 1347, Cola
di Rienzo thought it more fit to be called a den of robbers than the residence
of civilized men.
The
Italian peninsula, at least in its northern half, was a scene of political
division and social anarchy. The country districts were infested with bands of
brigands. The cities were given to frequent and violent changes of government.
High officials of the Church paid the price of immunity from plunder and
violence by exactions levied on other personages of station. Such were some of
the immediate results of the exile of the papacy. Italy was in danger of
succumbing to the fate of Hellas and being turned into a desolate waste.
Avignon,
which Clement chose as his residence, is 460 miles southeast of Paris and lies
south of Lyons. Its proximity to the port of Marseilles made it accessible to
Italy. It was purchased by Clement VI., 1348, from Naples for 80, 000 gold
florins, and remained papal territory until the French Revolution. As early as
1229, the popes held territory in the vicinity, the duchy of Venaissin, which
fell to them from the domain of Raymond of Toulouse. On every side this free
papal home was closely confined by French territory. Clement was urged by
Italian bishops to go to Rome, and Italian writers gave as one reason for his
refusal fear lest he should receive meet punishment for his readiness to
condemn Boniface VIII.90
Clement’s
coronation was celebrated at Lyons, Philip and his brother Charles of Valois,
the Duke of Bretagne and representatives of the king of England being present.
Philip and the duke walked at the side of the pope’s palfrey. By the fall of an
old wall during the procession, the duke, a brother of the pope, and ten other
persons lost their lives. The pope himself was thrown from his horse, his tiara
rolled in the dust, and a large carbuncle, which adorned it, was lost. Scarcely
ever was a papal ruler put in a more compromising position than the new
pontiff. His subjection to a sovereign who had defied the papacy was a strange
spectacle. He owed his tiara indirectly, if not immediately, to Philip the
Fair. He was the man Philip wanted.91 It was his task to appease the king’s anger against the
memory of Boniface, and to meet his brutal demands concerning the Knights
Templars. These, with the Council of Vienne, which he called, were the chief
historic concerns of his pontificate.
The
terms on which the new pope received the tiara were imposed by Philip himself,
and, according to Villani, the price he made the Gascon pay included six
promises. Five of them concerned the total undoing of what Boniface had done in
his conflict with Philip. The sixth article, which was kept secret, was
supposed to be the destruction of the order of the Templars. It is true that the
authenticity of these six articles has been disputed, but there can be no doubt
that from the very outset of Clement’s pontificate, the French king pressed
their execution upon the pope’s attention.92 Clement, in poor position to resist, confirmed what Benedict
had done and went farther. He absolved the king; recalled, Feb. 1, 1306, the
offensive bulls Clericis laicos and Unam sanctam, so far as they implied
anything offensive to France or any subjection on the part of the king to the
papal chair, not customary before their issue, and fully restored the cardinals
of the Colonna family to the dignities of their office.
The
proceedings touching the character of Boniface VIII. and his right to a place
among the popes dragged along for fully six years. Philip had offered, among
others, his brother, Count Louis of Evreux, as a witness for the charge that
Boniface had died a heretic. There was a division of sentiment among the
cardinals. The Colonna were as hostile to the memory of Boniface as they were zealous
in their writings for the memory of Coelestine V. They pronounced it to be
contrary to the divine ordinance for a pope to abdicate. His spiritual marriage
with the Church cannot be dissolved. And as for there being two popes at the
same time, God was himself not able to constitute such a monstrosity. On the
other hand, writers like Augustinus Triumphus defended Boniface and pronounced
him a martyr to the interests of the Church and worthy of canonization.93 In his zeal against his old enemy
Philip had called, probably as early as 1305, for the canonization of Coelestine
V.94 A second time, in 1307, Boniface’s
condemnation was pressed upon Clement by the king in person. But the pope knew
how to prolong the prosecution on all sorts of pretexts. Philip represented
himself as concerned for the interests of religion, and Nogaret and the other
conspirators insisted that the assault at Avignon was a religious act, negotium
fidei. Nogaret sent forth no less than twelve apologies defending himself for
his part in the assault.95
In 1310 the formal trial began. Many witnesses appeared to testify
against Boniface,—laymen, priests and bishops. The accusations were that the
pope had declared all three religions false, Mohammedanism, Judaism and
Christianity, pronounced the virgin birth a tale, denied transubstantiation and
the existence of hell and heaven and that he had played games of chance.
Clement
issued one bull after another protesting the innocency of the offending parties
concerned in the violent measures against Boniface. Philip and Nogaret were
declared innocent of all guilt and to have only pure motives in preferring
charges against the dead pope.96
The bull, Rex gloriae, 1311, addressed to Philip, stated that the secular
kingdom was founded by God and that France in the new dispensation occupied
about the same place as Israel, the elect people, occupied under the old
dispensation. Nogaret’s purpose in entering into the agreement which resulted
in the affair at Anagni was to save the Church from destruction at the hands of
Boniface, and the plundering of the papal palace and church was done against
the wishes of the French chancellor. In several bulls Clement recalled all
punishments, statements, suspensions and declarations made against Philip and
his kingdom, or supposed to have been made. And to fully placate the king, he
ordered all Boniface’s pronouncements of this character effaced from the books
of the Roman Church. Thus in the most solemn papal form did Boniface’s
successor undo all that Boniface had done.97 When the Oecumenical Council of Vienne met, the case of
Boniface was so notorious a matter that it had to be taken up. After a formal
trial, in which the accused pontiff was defended by three cardinals, he was
adjudged not guilty. To gain this point, and to save his predecessor from
formal condemnation, it is probable Clement had to surrender to Philip
unqualifiedly in the matter of the Knights of the Temple.
After
long and wearisome proceedings, this order was formally legislated out of
existence by Clement in 1312. Founded in 1119 to protect pilgrims and to defend
the Holy Land against the Moslems, it had outlived its mission. Sapped of its
energy by riches and indulgence, its once famous knights might well have
disbanded and no interest been the worse for it. The story, however, of their
forcible suppression awakens universal sympathy and forms one of the most
thrilling and mysterious chapters of the age. Döllinger has called it "a
unique drama in history."98
The
destruction of the Templar order was relentlessly insisted upon by Philip the
Fair, and accomplished with the reluctant co-operation of Clement V. In vain
did the king strive to hide the sordidness of his purpose under the thin mask
of religious zeal. At Clement’s coronation, if not before, Philip brought
charges against it. About the same time, in the insurrection called forth by
his debasement of the coin, the king took refuge in the Templars’ building at
Paris. In 1307 he renewed the charges before the pope. When Clement hesitated,
he proceeded to violence, and on the night of Oct. 13, 1307, he had all the
members of the order in France arrested and thrown into prison, including
Jacques de Molay, the grand-master. Döllinger applies to this deed the strong language
that, if he were asked to pick out from the whole history of the world the
accursed day,—dies nefastus,—he would be able to name none other than Oct. 13,
1307. Three days later, Philip announced he had taken this action as the
defender of the faith and called upon Christian princes to follow his example.
Little as the business was to Clement’s taste, he was not man enough to set
himself in opposition to the king, and he gradually became complaisant.99 The machinery of the Inquisition was
called into use. The Dominicans, its chief agents, stood high in Philip’s
favor, and one of their number was his confessor. In 1308 the authorities of
the state assented to the king’s plans to bring the order to trial. The
constitution of the court was provided for by Clement, the bishop of each
diocese and two Franciscans and two Dominicans being associated together. A
commission invested with general authority was to sit in Paris.100
In
the summer of 1308 the pope ordered a prosecution of the knights wherever they
might be found.101
The charges set forth were heresy, spitting upon the cross, worshipping
an idol, Bafomet—the word for Mohammed in the Provençal dialect—and also the
most abominable offences against moral decency such as sodomy and kissing the
posterior parts and the navel of fellow knights. The members were also accused
of having meetings with the devil who appeared in the form of a black cat and
of having carnal intercourse with female demons. The charges which the lawyers
and Inquisitors got together numbered 127 and these the pope sent through
France and to other countries as the basis of the prosecution.
Under
the strain of prolonged torture, many of the unfortunate men gave assent to
these charges, and more particularly to the denial of Christ and the spitting
upon the cross. The Templars seem to have had no friends in high places bold
enough to take their part. The king, the pope, the Dominican order, the
University of Paris, the French episcopacy were against them. Many confessions
once made by the victims were afterwards recalled at the stake. Many denied the
charges altogether.102
In Paris 36 died under torture, 54 suffered there at one burning, May
10, 1310, and 8 days later 4 more. Hundreds of them perished in prison. Even
the bitterest enemies acknowledged that the Templars who were put to death
maintained their innocence to their dying breath.103
In
accordance with Clement’s order, trials were had in Germany, Italy, Spain,
Portugal, Cyprus and England. In England, Edward II. at first refused to apply
the torture, which was never formally adopted in that land, but later, at
Clement’s demand, he complied. Papal inquisitors appeared. Synods in London and
York declared the charges of heresy so serious that it would be impossible for
the knights to clear themselves. English houses were disbanded and the members
distributed among the monasteries to do penance. In Italy and Germany, the
accused were, for the most part, declared innocent. In Spain and Portugal, no
evidence was forthcoming of guilt and the synod of Tarragona, 1310, and other
synods favored their innocence.
The
last act in these hostile proceedings was opened at the Council of Vienne,
called for the special purpose of taking action upon the order. The large
majority of the council were in favor of giving it a new trial and a fair
chance to prove its innocence. But the king was relentless. He reminded Clement
that the guilt of the knights had been sufficiently proven, and insisted that
the order be abolished. He appeared in person at the council, attended by a
great retinue. Clement was overawed, and by virtue of his apostolic power
issued his decree abolishing the Templars, March 22, 1312.104 Clement’s reasons were that suspicions
existed that the order held to heresies, that many of the Templars had
confessed to heresies and other offences, that thereafter reputable persons
would not enter the order, and that it was no longer necessary for the defence
of the Holy Land. Directions were given for the further procedure. The guilty
were to be put to death; the innocent to be supported out of the revenues of
the order. With this action the famous order passed out of existence.
The
end of Jacques de Molay, the 22d and last grand-master of the order of
Templars, was worthy of its proudest days. At the first trial he confessed to
the charges of denying Christ and spitting upon the cross, and was condemned,
but afterwards recalled his confession. His case was reopened in 1314. With
Geoffrey de Charney, grand-preceptor of Normandy, and others, he was led in
front of Notre Dame Cathedral, and sentenced to perpetual imprisonment. Molay
then stood forth and declared that the charges against the order were false,
and that he had confessed to them under the strain of torture and instructions
from the king. Charney said the same. The commission promised to reconsider the
case the next day. But the king’s vengeance knew no bounds, and that night,
March 11, 1314, the prisoners were burned. The story ran that while the flames
were doing their grewsome (sic) work, Molay summoned pope and king to meet him
at the judgment bar within a year. The former died, in a little more than a
month, of a loathsome disease, though penitent, as it was reported, for his
treatment of the order, and the king, by accident, while engaged in the chase,
six months later. The king was only 46 years old at the time of his death, and
14 years after, the last of his direct descendants was in his grave and the
throne passed to the house of Valois.
As
for the possessions of the order, papal decrees turned them over to the Knights
of St. John, but Philip again intervened and laid claim to 260,000 pounds as a
reimbursement for alleged losses to the Temple and the expense of guarding the
prisoners.105 In Spain, they
passed to the orders of San Iago di Compostella and Calatrava. In Aragon, they
were in part applied to a new order, Santa Maria de Montesia, and in Portugal
to the Military Order of Jesus Christ, ordo militiae Jesu Christi. Repeated
demands made by the pope secured the transmission of a large part of their
possessions to the Knights of St. John. In England, in 1323, parliament granted
their lands to the Hospitallers, but the king appropriated a considerable share
to himself. The Temple in London fell to the Earl of Pembroke, 1313.106
The
explanation of Philip’s violent animosity and persistent persecution is his
cupidity. He coveted the wealth of the Templars. Philip was quite equal to a
crime of this sort.107
He robbed the bankers of Lombardy and the Jews of France, and debased
the coin of his realm. A loan of 500,000 pounds which he had secured for a
sister’s dowry had involved him in great financial straits. He appropriated all
the possessions of the Templars he could lay his hands upon. Clement V.’s
subserviency it is easy to explain. He was a creature of the king. When the
pope hesitated to proceed against the unfortunate order, the king beset him
with the case of Boniface VIII. To save the memory of his predecessor, the pope
surrendered the lives of the knights.108 Dante, in representing the Templars as victims of the king’s
avarice, compares Philip to Pontius Pilate.
"I
see the modern Pilate, whom avails
No
cruelty to sate and who, unbidden,
Into
the Temple sets his greedy sails."
Purgatory,
xx. 91.
The
house of the Templars in Paris was turned into a royal residence, from which
Louis XVI., more than four centuries later, went forth to the scaffold.
The Council of Vienne, the fifteenth in
the list of the oecumenical councils, met Oct. 16, 1311, and after holding
three sessions adjourned six months later, May 6, 1812. Clement opened it with
an address on <scripRef passage = "Psalm 111:1, 2">Psalm 111:1, 2</scripRef>, and designated three
subjects for its consideration, the case of the order of the Templars, the
relief of the Holy Land and Church reform. The documents bearing on the council
are defective.109 In addition to
the decisions concerning the Templars and Boniface VIII., it condemned the
Beguines and Beghards and listened to charges made against the Franciscan,
Peter John Olivi (d. 1298). Olivi belonged to the Spiritual wing of the order.
His books had been ordered burnt, 1274, by one Franciscan general, and a second
general of the order, Bonagratia, 1279, had appointed a commission which found
thirty-four dangerous articles in his writings. The council, without
pronouncing against Olivi, condemned three articles ascribed to him bearing on
the relation of the two parties in the Franciscan order, the Spirituals and
Conventuals.
The
council has a place in the history of biblical scholarship and university
education by its act ordering two chairs each, of Hebrew, Arabic, and Chaldee
established in Paris, Oxford, Bologna, and Salamanca.
While
the proceedings against Boniface and the Templars were dragging on in their
slow course in France, Clement was trying to make good his authority in Italy.
Against Venice he hurled the most violent anathemas and interdicts for
venturing to lay hands on Ferrara, whose territory was claimed by the Apostolic
See. A crusade was preached against the sacrilegious city. She was defeated in
battle, and Ferrara was committed to the administration of Robert, king of
Naples, as the pope’s vicar.
All
that he could well do, Clement did to strengthen the hold of France on the
papacy. The first year of his pontificate he appointed 9 French cardinals, and
of the 24 persons whom he honored with the purple, 23 were Frenchmen. He
granted to the insatiable Philip a Church tithe for five years. Next to the
fulfilment of his obligations to this monarch, Clement made it his chief
business to levy tributes upon ecclesiastics of all grades and upon vacant
Church livings.110
He was prodigal with offices to his relatives. This was a leading
feature of his pontificate. Five of his kin were made cardinals, three being
still in their youth. His brother he made rector of Rome, and other members of
his family received Ancona, Ferrara, the duchy of Spoleto, and the duchy of
Venaissin, and other territories within the pope’s gift.111 The administration and disposition of
his treasure occupied a large part of Clement’s time and have offered an
interesting subject to the pen of the modern Jesuit scholar, Ehrle. The papal
treasure left by Clement’s predecessor, after being removed from Perugia to
France, was taken from place to place and castle to castle, packed in coffers
laden on the backs of mules. After Clement’s death, the vast sums he had
received and accumulated suddenly disappeared. Clement’s successor, John XXII.,
instituted a suit against Clement’s most trusted relatives to account for the
moneys. The suit lasted from 1318–1322, and brought to light a great amount of
information concerning Clement’s finances.112
His
fortune Clement disposed of by will, 1312, the total amount being 814,000
florins; 300,000 were given to his nephew, the viscount of Lomagne and
Auvillars, a man otherwise known for his numerous illegitimate offspring. This
sum was to be used for a crusade; 314,000 were bequeathed to other relatives
and to servants. The remaining 200,000 were given to churches, convents, and
the poor. A loan of 160,000 made to the king of France was never paid back.113
Clement’s
body was by his appointment buried at Uzeste. His treasure was plundered. At
the trial instituted by John XXII., it appeared that Clement before his death
had set apart 70,000 florins to be divided in equal shares between his
successor and the college of cardinals. The viscount of Lomagne was put into
confinement by John, and turned over 300,000 florins, one-half going to the
cardinals and one-half to the pope. A few months after Clement’s death, the
count made loans to the king of France of 110,000 florins and to the king of
England of 60,000.
Clement’s
relatives showed their appreciation of his liberality by erecting to his memory
an elaborate sarcophagus at Uzeste, which cost 50,000 gold florins. The theory
is that the pope administers moneys coming to him by virtue of his papal office
for the interest of the Church at large. Clement spoke of the treasure in his
coffers as his own, which he might dispose of as he chose.114
Clement’s
private life was open to the grave suspicion of unlawful intimacy with the
beautiful Countess Brunissenda of Foix. Of all the popes of the fourteenth
century, he showed the least independence. An apologist of Boniface VIII.,
writing in 1308, recorded this judgment:115 "The Lord permitted Clement to be elected, who was more
concerned about temporal things and in enriching his relatives than was
Boniface, in order that by contrast Boniface might seem worthy of praise where
he would otherwise have been condemned, just as the bitter is not known except
by the sweet, or cold except by heat, or the good except by evil." Villani, who assailed both popes,
characterized Clement "as licentious, greedy of money, a simoniac, who
sold in his court every benefice for gold."116
By
a single service did this pope seem to place the Church in debt to his
pontificate. The book of decretals, known as the Clementines, and issued in part
by him, was completed by his successor, John XXII.
</div3> <div3 type = "Section"
n="7" title="The Pontificate of John XXII 1316–1334">
§ 7. The
Pontificate of John XXII 1316–1334.
Clement
died April 20, 1314. The cardinals met at Carpentras and then at Lyons, and
after an interregnum of twenty seven months elected John XXII., 1316–1334, to
the papal throne. He was then seventy-two, and cardinal-bishop of Porto.117 Dante had written to the conclave
begging that it elect an Italian pope, but the French influence was
irresistible.
Said
to be the son of a cobbler of Cahors, short of stature,118 with a squeaking voice, industrious and
pedantic, John was, upon the whole, the most conspicuous figure among the popes
of the fourteenth century, though not the most able or worthy one. He was a man
of restless disposition, and kept the papal court in constant commotion. The
Vatican Archives preserve 59 volumes of his bulls and other writings. He had
been a tutor in the house of Anjou, and carried the preceptorial method into
his papal utterances. It was his ambition to be a theologian as well as pope.
He solemnly promised the Italian faction in the curia never to mount an ass
except to start on the road to Rome. But he never left Avignon. His devotion to
France was shown at the very beginning of his reign in the appointment of eight
cardinals, of whom seven were Frenchmen.
The
four notable features of John’s pontificate are his quarrel with the German
emperor, Lewis the Bavarian, his condemnation of the rigid party of the
Franciscans, his own doctrinal heresy, and his cupidity for gold.
The
struggle with Lewis the Bavarian was a little afterplay compared with the
imposing conflicts between the Hohenstaufen and the notable popes of preceding
centuries. Europe looked on with slight interest at the long-protracted
dispute, which was more adapted to show the petulance and weakness of both
emperor and pope than to settle permanently any great principle. At Henry
VII.’s death, 1313, five of the electors gave their votes for Lewis of the
house of Wittelsbach, and two for Frederick of Hapsburg. Both appealed to the
new pope, about to be elected. Frederick was crowned by the archbishop of
Treves at Bonn, and Lewis by the archbishop of Mainz at Aachen. In 1317 John
declared that the pope was the lawful vicar of the empire so long as the throne
was vacant, and denied Lewis recognition as king of the Romans on the ground of
his having neglected to submit his election to him.
The
battle at Mühldorf, 1322, left Frederick a prisoner in his rival’s hands. This
turn of affairs forced John to take more decisive action, and in 1323 was
issued against Lewis the first of a wearisome and repetitious series of
complaints and punishments from Avignon. The pope threatened him with the ban,
claiming authority to approve or set aside an emperor’s election.119 A year later he excommunicated Lewis
and all his supporters.
In
answer to this first complaint of 1323, Lewis made a formal declaration at
Nürnberg in the presence of a notary and other witnesses that he regarded the
empire as independent of the pope, charged John with heresy, and appealed to a
general council. The charge of heresy was based on the pope’s treatment of the
Spiritual party among the Franciscans. Condemned by John, prominent Spirituals,
Michael of Cesena, Ockam and Bonagratia, espoused Lewis’ cause, took refuge at
his court, and defended him with their pens. The political conflict was thus
complicated by a recondite ecclesiastical problem. In 1324 Lewis issued a
second appeal, written in the chapel of the Teutonic Order in Sachsenhausen,
which again renewed the demand for a general council and repeated the charge of
heresy against the pope.
The
next year, 1325, Lewis suffered a severe defeat from Leopold of Austria, who
had entered into a compact to put Charles IV. of France on the German throne.
He went so far as to express his readiness, in the compact of Ulm, 1326, to
surrender the German crown to Frederick, provided he himself was confirmed in
his right to Italy and the imperial dignity. At this juncture Leopold died.
By
papal appointment Robert of Naples was vicar of Rome. But Lewis had no idea of
surrendering his claims to Italy, and, now that he was once again free by
Leopold’s death, he marched across the Alps and was crowned, January 1327,
emperor in front of St. Peter’s. Sciarra Colonna, as the representative of the
people, placed the crown on his head, and two bishops administered unction.
Villani120 expresses indignation at an imperial coronation conducted
without the pope’s consent as a thing unheard of. Lewis was the first mediaeval
emperor crowned by the people. A formal trial was instituted, and "James
of Cahors, who calls himself John XXII." was denounced as anti-christ and
deposed from the papal throne and his effigy carried through the streets and
burnt.121 John of Corbara,
belonging to the Spiritual wing of the Franciscans, was elected to the throne
just declared vacant, and took the name of Nicolas V. He was the first
anti-pope since the days of Barbarossa. Lewis himself placed the crown upon the
pontiff’s head, and the bishop of Venice performed the ceremony of unction.
Nicolas surrounded himself with a college of seven cardinals, and was accused
of having forthwith renounced the principles of poverty and abstemiousness in
dress and at the table which the day before he had advocated.
To
these acts of violence John replied by pronouncing Lewis a heretic and
appointing a crusade against him, with the promise of indulgence to all taking
part in it. Fickle Rome soon grew weary of her lay-crowned emperor, who had
been so unwise as to impose an extraordinary tribute of 10,000 florins each
upon the people, the clergy, and the Jews of the city. He retired to the North,
Nicolas following him with his retinue of cardinals. At Pisa, the emperor being
present, the anti-pope excommunicated John and summoned a general council to Milan.
John was again burnt in effigy, at the cathedral, and condemned to death for
heresy. In 1330 Lewis withdrew from Italy altogether, while Nicolas, with a
cord around his neck, submitted to John. He died in Avignon three years later.
In 1334, John issued a bull which, according to Karl Müller, was the rudest act
of violence done up to that time to the German emperor by a pope.122 This fulmination separated Italy from
the crown and kingdom—imperium et regnum — of Germany and forbade their being
reunited in one body. The reason given for this drastic measure was the
territorial separation of the two provinces. Thus was accomplished by a
distinct announcement what the diplomacy of Innocent III. was the first to make
a part of the papal policy, and which figured so prominently in the struggle
between Gregory IX. and Frederick II.
With
his constituency completely lost in Italy, and with only an uncertain support
in Germany, Lewis now made overtures for peace. But the pope was not ready for
anything less than a full renunciation of the imperial power. John died 1334,
but the struggle was continued through the pontificate of his successor,
Benedict XII. Philip VI. of France set himself against Benedict’s measures for
reconciliation with Lewis, and in 1337 the emperor made an alliance with
England against France. Princes of Germany, making the rights of the empire
their own, adopted the famous constitution of Rense,—a locality near Mainz,
which was confirmed at the Diet of Frankfurt, 1338. It repudiated the pope’s
extravagant temporal claims, and declared that the election of an emperor by
the electors was final, and did not require papal approval. This was the first
representative German assembly to assert the independence of the empire.
The
interdict was hanging over the German assembly when Benedict died, 1342. The
battle had gone against Lewis, and his supporters were well-nigh all gone from
him. A submission even more humiliating than that of Henry IV. was the only
thing left. He sought the favor of Clement VI., but in vain. In a bull of April
12, 1343, Clement enumerated the emperor’s many crimes, and anew ordered him to
renounce the imperial dignity. Lewis wrote, yielding submission, but the
authenticity of the document was questioned at Avignon, probably with the set
purpose of increasing the emperor’s humiliation. Harder conditions were laid
down. They were rejected by the diet at Frankfurt, 1344. But Germany was weary,
and listened without revulsion to a final bull against Lewis, 1346, and a
summons to the electors to proceed to a new election. The electors, John of
Bohemia among them, chose Charles IV., John’s son. The Bohemian king was the
blind warrior who met his death on the battlefield of Crécy the same year.
Before his election, Charles had visited Avignon, and promised full submission
to the pope’s demands. His continued complacency during his reign justified the
pope’s choice. The struggle was ended with Lewis’ death a year later, 1347,
while he was engaged near Munich in a bear-hunt. It was the last conflict of
the empire and papacy along the old lines laid down by those ecclesiastical
warriors, Hildebrand and Innocent III. and Gregory IX.
To
return to John XXII., he became a prominent figure in the controversy within
the Franciscan order over the tenure of property, a controversy which had been
going on from the earliest period between the two parties, the Spirituals, or
Observants, and the Conventuals. The last testament of St. Francis, pleading
for the practice of absolute poverty, and suppressed in Bonaventura’s Life of
the saint, 1263, was not fully recognized in the bull of Nicolas III., 1279,
which granted the Franciscans the right to use property as tenants, while
forbidding them to hold it in fee simple. With this decision the strict party,
the Spirituals, were not satisfied, and the struggle went on. Coelestine V.
attempted to bring peace by merging the Spiritual wing with the order of
Hermits he had founded, but the measure was without success.
Under
Boniface VIII. matters went hard with the Spirituals. This pope deposed the
general, Raymond Gaufredi, putting in his place John of Murro, who belonged to
the laxer wing. Peter John Olivi (d. 1298), whose writings were widely
circulated, had declared himself in favor of Nicolas’ bull, with the
interpretation that the use of property and goods was to be the "use of
necessity,"—usus pauper,—as opposed to the more liberal use advocated by
the Conventuals and called usus moderatus. Olivi’s personal fortunes were
typical of the fortunes of the Spiritual branch. After his death, the attack
made against his memory was, if possible, more determined, and culminated in
the charges preferred at Vienne. Murro adopted violent measures, burning
Olivi’s writings, and casting his sympathizers into prison. Other prominent
Spirituals fled. Angelo Clareno found refuge for a time in Greece, returning to
Rome, 1305, under the protection of the Colonna.
The
case was formally taken up by Clement V., who called a commission to Avignon to
devise measures to heal the division, and gave the Spirituals temporary relief
from persecution. The proceedings were protracted till the meeting of the
council in Vienne, when the Conventuals brought up the case in the form of an
arraignment of Olivi, who had come to be regarded almost as a saint. Among the
charges were that he pronounced the usus pauper to be of the essence of the
Minorite rule, that Christ was still living at the time the lance was thrust
into his side, and that the rational soul has not the form of a body. Olivi’s
memory was defended by Ubertino da Casale, and the council passed no sentence
upon his person.
In
the bull Exivi de paradiso,123 issued 1813, and famous in the history of
the Franciscan order, Clement seemed to take the side of the Spirituals. It
forbade the order or any of its members to accept bequests, possess vineyards,
sell products from their gardens, build fine churches, or go to law. It
permitted only "the use of necessity," usus arctus or pauper, and
nothing beyond. The Minorites were to wear no shoes, ride only in cases of
necessity, fast from Nov. 1 until Christmas, as well as every Friday, and
possess a single mantle with a hood and one without a hood. Clement ordered the
new general, Alexander of Alessandra, to turn over to Olivi’s followers the
convents of Narbonne, Carcassonne and Béziers, but also ordered the Inquisition
to punish the Spirituals who refused submission.
In
spite of the papal decree, the controversy was still being carried on within
the order with great heat, when John XXII. came to the throne. In the decretal
Quorumdam exegit, and in the bull Sancta romana et universalis ecclesia, Dec.
30, 1317, John took a positive position against the Spirituals. A few weeks
later, he condemned a formal list of their errors and abolished all the
convents under Spiritual management. From this time on dates the application of
the name Fraticelli124 to the Spirituals. They refused to submit,
and took the position that even a pope had no right to modify the Rule of St.
Francis. Michael of Cesena, the general of the order, defended them. Sixty-four
of their number were summoned to Avignon. Twenty-five refused to yield, and
passed into the hands of the Inquisition. Four were burnt as martyrs at
Marseilles, May 7, 1318. Others fled to Sicily.125
The
chief interest of the controversy was now shifted to the strictly theological
question whether Christ and his Apostles observed complete poverty. This
dispute threatened to rend the wing of the Conventuals itself. Michael of
Cesena, Ockam, and others, took the position that Christ and his Apostles not
only held no property as individuals, but held none in common. John, opposing
this view, gave as arguments the gifts of the Magi, that Christ possessed
clothes and bought food, the purse of Judas, and Paul’s labor for a living. In
the bull Cum inter nonnullos, 1323, and other bulls, John declared it heresy to
hold that Christ and the Apostles held no possessions. Those who resisted this
interpretation were pronounced, 1324, rebels and heretics. John went farther,
and gave back to the order the right of possessing goods in fee simple, a right
which Innocent IV. had denied, and he declared that in things which disappear
in the using, such as eatables, no distinction can be made between their use
and their possession. In 1326 John pronounced Olivi’s commentary on the
Apocalypse heretical. The three Spiritual leaders, Cesena, Ockam, and
Bonagratia were seized and held in prison until 1328, when they escaped and
fled to Lewis the Bavarian at Pisa. It was at this time that Ockam was said to
have used to the emperor the famous words, "Do thou defend me with the
sword and I will defend thee with the pen"—tu me depfendes gladio, ego te
defendam calamo. They were deposed from their offices and included in the ban fulminated
against the anti-pope, Peter of Corbara. Later, Cesena submitted to the pope,
as Ockam is also said to have done shortly before his death. Cesena died at
Munich, 1342 He committed the seal of the order to Ockam. On his death-bed he
is said to have cried out: "My God, what have I done? I have appealed against him who is the
highest on the earth. But look, O Father, at the spirit of truth that is in me
which has not erred through the lust of the flesh but from great zeal for the
seraphic order and out of love for poverty." Bonagratia also died in Munich.126
Later
in the fourteenth century the Regular Observance grew again to considerable
proportions, and in the beginning of the fifteenth century its fame was revived
by the flaming preachers Bernardino of Siena and John of Capistrano. The peace
of the Franciscan order continued to be the concern of pope after pope until,
in 1517, Leo X. terminated the struggle of three centuries by formally
recognizing two distinct societies within the Franciscan body. The moderate
wing was placed under the Master-General of the Conventual Minorite Brothers,
and was confirmed in the right to hold property. The strict or Observant wing
was placed under a Minister-General of the Whole Order of St. Francis.127 The latter takes precedence in processions
and at other great functions, and holds his office for six years.
If
the Spiritual Franciscans had been capable of taking secret delight in an
adversary’s misfortunes, they would have had occasion for it in the widely
spread charge that John was a heretic. At any rate, he came as near being a
heretic as a pope can be. His heresy concerned the nature of the beatific
vision after death. In a sermon on All Souls’, 1331, he announced that the
blessed dead do not see God until the general resurrection. In at least two
more sermons he repeated this utterance. John, who was much given to
theologizing, Ockam declared to be wholly ignorant in theology.128 This Schoolman, Cesena, and others
pronounced the view heretical. John imprisoned an English Dominican who
preached against him, and so certain was he of his case that he sent the
Franciscan general, Gerardus Odonis, to Paris to get the opinion of the university.
The
King, Philip VI., took a warm interest in the subject, opposed the pope, and
called a council of theologians at Vincennes to give its opinion. It decided
that ever since the Lord descended into hades and released souls from that
abode, the righteous have at death immediately entered upon the vision of the
divine essence of the Trinity.129
Among the supporters of this decision was Nicolas of Lyra. When official
announcement of the decision reached the pope, he summoned a council at Avignon
and set before it passages from the Fathers for and against his view. They sat
for five days, in December, 1333. John then made a public announcement, which
was communicated to the king and queen of France, that he had not intended to
say anything in conflict with the Fathers and the orthodox Church and, if he
had done so, he retracted his utterances.
The
question was authoritatively settled by Benedict XII. in the bull Benedictus
deus, 1336, which declared that the blessed dead—saints, the Apostles, virgins,
martyrs, confessors who need no purgatorial cleansing—are, after death and
before the resurrection of their bodies at the general judgment, with Christ
and the angels, and that they behold the divine essence with naked vision.130 Benedict declared that John died while
he was preparing a decision.
The
financial policy of John XXII. and his successors merits a chapter by itself.
Here reference may be made to John’s private fortune. He has had the
questionable fame of not only having amassed a larger sum than any of his
predecessors, but of having died possessed of fabulous wealth. Gregorovius
calls him the Midas of Avignon. According to Villani, he left behind him
18,000,000 gold florins and 7,000,000 florins’ worth of jewels and ornaments,
in all 25,000,000 florins, or $60,000,000 of our present coinage. This
chronicler concludes with the remark that the words were no longer remembered which
the Good Man in the Gospels spake to his disciples, "Lay up for yourselves
treasure in heaven."131
Recent investigations seem to cast suspicion upon this long-held view as
an exaggeration. John’s hoard may have amounted to not more than 750,000
florins, or $2,000,000132 of our money. If this be a safe estimate, it
is still true that John was a shrewd financier and perhaps the richest man in
Europe.
When
John died he was ninety years old.
</div3> <div3 type = "Section"
n="8" title="The Papal Office Assailed">
§ 8. The
Papal Office Assailed.
To the
pontificate of John XXII. belongs a second group of literary assailants of the
papacy. Going beyond Dante and John of Paris, they attacked the pope’s
spiritual functions. Their assaults were called forth by the conflict with
Lewis the Bavarian and the controversy with the Franciscan Spirituals. Lewis’
court became a veritable nest of antipapal agitation and the headquarters of
pamphleteering. Marsiglius of Padua was the cleverest and boldest of these
writers, Ockam—a Schoolman rather than a practical thinker—the most copious.
Michael of Cesena133 and Bonagratia also made contributions to
this literature.
Ockam
sets forth his views in two works, The Dialogue and the Eight Questions. The
former is ponderous in thought and a monster in size.134 It is difficult, if at times possible,
to detect the author’s views in the mass of cumbersome disputation. These views
seem to be as follows: The papacy is not an institution which is essential to
the being of the Church. Conditions arise to make it necessary to establish
national churches.135
The pope is not infallible. Even a legitimate pope may hold to heresy.
So it was with Peter, who was judaizing, and had to be rebuked by Paul,
Liberius, who was an Arian, and Leo, who was arraigned for false doctrine by
Hilary of Poictiers. Sylvester II. made a compact with the devil. One or the
other, Nicolas III. or John XXII., was a heretic, for the one contradicted the
other. A general council may err just as popes have erred. So did the second
Council of Lyons and the Council of Vienne, which condemned the true Minorites.
The pope may be pronounced a heretic by a council or, if a council fails in its
duty, the cardinals may pronounce the decision. In case the cardinals fail, the
right to do so belongs to the temporal prince. Christ did not commit the faith
to the pope and the hierarchy, but to the Church, and somewhere within the
Church the truth is always held and preserved. Temporal power did not
originally belong to the pope. This is proved by Constantine’s donation, for
what Constantine gave, he gave for the first time. Supreme power in temporal
and spiritual things is not in a single hand. The emperor has full power by
virtue of his election, and does not depend for it upon unction or coronation
by the pope or any earthly confirmation of any kind.
More
distinct and advanced were the utterances of Marsiglius of Padua. His writings
abound in incisive thrusts against the prevailing ecclesiastical system, and
lay down the principles of a new order. In the preparation of his chief work,
the Defence of the Faith,—Defensor pacis,—he had the help of John of Jandun.136 Both writers were clerics, but neither
of them monks. Born about 1270 in Padua, Marsiglius devoted himself to the
study of medicine, and in 1312 was rector of the University of Paris. In 1325
or 1326 he betook himself to the court of Lewis the Bavarian. The reasons are
left to surmisal. He acted as the emperor’s physician. In 1328 he accompanied
the emperor to Rome, and showed full sympathy with the measures taken to
establish the emperor’s authority. He joined in the ceremonies of the emperor’s
coronation, the deposition of John XXII. and the elevation of the anti-pope,
Peter of Corbara. The pope had already denounced Marsiglius and John of Jandun137
as "sons of perdition, the sons of Belial, those pestiferous individuals,
beasts from the abyss," and summoned the Romans to make them prisoners.
Marsiglius was made vicar of Rome by the emperor, and remained true to the
principles stated in his tract, even when the emperor became a suppliant to the
Avignon court. Lewis even went so far as to express to John XXII. his readiness
to withdraw his protection from Marsiglius and the leaders of the Spirituals.
Later, when his position was more hopeful, he changed his attitude and gave
them his protection at Munich. But again, in his letter submitting himself to
Clement VI., 1343, the emperor denied holding the errors charged against Marsiglius
and John, and declared his object in retaining them at his court had been to
lead them back to the Church. The Paduan died before 1343.138
The
personal fortunes of Marsiglius are of small historical concern compared with
his book, which he dedicated to the emperor. The volume, which was written in
two months,139 was as audacious as any of the earlier writings of Luther. For
originality and boldness of statement the Middle Ages has nothing superior to
offer. To it may be compared in modern times Janus’ attack on the doctrine of
papal infallibility at the time of the Vatican Council.140 Its Scriptural radicalism was in itself
a literary sensation.
In
condemning the work, John XXII., 1327, pronounced as contrary "to
apostolic truth and all law" its statements that Christ paid the stater to
the Roman government as a matter of obligation, that Christ did not appoint a
vicar, that an emperor has the right to depose a pope, and that the orders of
the hierarchy are not of primitive origin. Marsiglius had not spared epithets
in dealing with John, whom he called "the great dragon, the old
serpent." Clement VI. found
no less than 240 heretical clauses in the book, and declared that he had never
read a worse heretic than Marsiglius. The papal condemnations were reproduced
by the University of Paris, which singled out for reprobation the statements
that Peter is not the head of the Church, that the pope may be deposed, and
that he has no right to inflict punishments without the emperor’s consent.141
The
Defensor pacis was a manifesto against the spiritual as well as the temporal
assumptions of the papacy and against the whole hierarchical organization of
the Church. Its title is shrewdly chosen in view of the strifes between cities
and states going on at the time the book was written, and due, as it claimed,
to papal ambition and interference. The peace of the Christian world would
never be established so long as the pope’s false claims were accepted. The main
positions are the following:142 —
The
state, which was developed out of the family, exists that men may live well and
peaceably. The people themselves are the source of authority, and confer the
right to exercise it upon the ruler whom they select. The functions of the
priesthood are spiritual and educational. Clerics are called upon to teach and
to warn. In all matters of civil misdemeanor they are responsible to the civil
officer as other men are. They should follow their Master by self-denial. As
St. Bernard said, the pope needs no wealth or outward display to be a true
successor of Peter.
The
function of binding and loosing is a declarative, not a judicial, function. To
God alone belongs the power to forgive sins and to punish. No bishop or priest
has a right to excommunicate or interdict individual freedom without the
consent of the people or its representative, the civil legislator. The power to
inflict punishments inheres in the congregation "of the
faithful"—fidelium. Christ said, "if thy brother offend against thee,
tell it to the Church." He
did not say, tell it to the priest. Heresy may be detected as heresy by the priest,
but punishment for heresy belongs to the civil official and is determined upon
the basis of the injury likely to be done by the offence to society. According
to the teaching of the Scriptures, no one can be compelled by temporal
punishment and death to observe the precepts of the divine law.143
General
councils are the supreme representatives of the Christian body, but even
councils may err. In them laymen should sit as well as clerics. Councils alone
have the right to canonize saints.
As
for the pope, he is the head of the Church, not by divine appointment, but only
as he is recognized by the state. The claim he makes to fulness of power,
plenitudo potestatis, contradicts the true nature of the Church. To Peter was
committed no greater authority than was committed to the other Apostles.144 Peter can be called the Prince of the
Apostles only on the ground that he was older than the rest or more steadfast
than they. He was the bishop of Antioch, not the founder of the Roman
bishopric. Nor is his presence in Rome susceptible of proof. The pre-eminence
of the bishop of Rome depends upon the location of his see at the capital of
the empire. As for sacerdotal power, the pope has no more of it than any other
cleric, as Peter-had no more of it than the other Apostles.145
The
grades of the hierarchy are of human origin. Bishops and priests were
originally equal. Bishops derive their authority immediately from Christ.
False
is the pope’s claim to jurisdiction over princes and nations, a claim which was
the fruitful source of national strifes and wars, especially in Italy. If
necessary, the emperor may depose a pope. This is proved by the judgment passed
by Pilate upon Christ. The state may, for proper reasons, limit the number of
clerics. The validity of Constantine’s donation Marsiglius rejected, as Dante
and John of Paris had done before, but he did not surmise that the Isidorean
decretals were an unblushing forgery, a discovery left for Laurentius Valla to
make a hundred years later.
As
for the Scriptures, Marsiglius declares them to be the ultimate source of
authority. They do not derive that authority from the Church. The Church gets
its authority from them. In cases of disputed interpretation, it is for a
general council to settle what the true meaning of Scripture is.146 Obedience to papal decretals is not a
condition of salvation. If that were so, how is it that Clement V. could make
the bull Unam sanctam inoperative for France and its king? Did not that bull declare that
submission to the pope is for every creature a condition of salvation! Can a pope set aside a condition of
salvation? The case of Liberius
proves that popes may be heretics. As for the qualifications of bishops,
archbishops, and patriarchs, not one in ten of them is a doctor of theology.
Many of the lower clergy are not even acquainted with grammar. Cardinals and
popes are chosen not from the ranks of theologians, but lawyers, causidici.
Youngsters are made cardinals who love pleasure and are ignorant in studies.
Marsiglius
quotes repeatedly such passages as "My kingdom is not of this world,"
<scripRef
passage = "John 18:36">John 18:36</scripRef>, and "Render unto
Caesar the things which are Caesar’s and to God the things which are
God’s," <scripRef passage = "Matt. 22:21">Matt. 22:21</scripRef>. These passages and others,
such as <scripRef
passage = "John 6:15, 19:11">John 6:15, 19:11</scripRef>, <scripRef passage = "Luke
12:14">Luke
12:14</scripRef>, <scripRef passage = "Matt.
17:27">Matt.
17:27</scripRef>, <scripRef passage = "Rom.
13">Rom.
13</scripRef>, he opposes to texts which
were falsely interpreted to the advantage of the hierarchy, such as <scripRef passage
= "Matt. 16:19">Matt. 16:19</scripRef>, <scripRef passage = "Luke
22:38">Luke
22:38</scripRef>, <scripRef passage = "John
21:15–17">John
21:15–17</scripRef>.
If
we overlook his doctrine of the supremacy of the state over the Church, the
Paduan’s views correspond closely with those held in Protestant Christendom
to-day. Christ, he said, excluded his Apostles, disciples, and bishops or
presbyters from all earthly dominion, both by his example and his words.147 The abiding principles of the Defensor
are the final authority of the Scriptures, the parity of the priesthood and its
obligation to civil law, the human origin of the papacy, the exclusively
spiritual nature of priestly functions, and the body of Christian people in the
state or Church as the ultimate source of authority on earth.
Marsiglius
has been called by Catholic historians the forerunner of Luther and Calvin.148 He has also been called by one of them
the "exciting genius of modern revolution."149 Both of these statements are not
without truth. His programme was not a scheme of reform. It was a proclamation
of complete change such as the sixteenth century witnessed. A note in a Turin
manuscript represents Gerson as saying that the book is wonderfully well
grounded and that the author was most expert in Aristotle and also in theology,
and went to the roots of things.150
The
tractarian of Padua and Thomas Aquinas were only 50 years apart. But the
difference between the searching epigrams of the one and the slow, orderly
argument of the other is as wide as the East is from the West, the directness
of modern thought from the cumbersome method of mediaeval scholasticism. It
never occurred to Thomas Aquinas to think out beyond the narrow enclosure of
Scripture interpretation built up by other Schoolmen and mediaeval popes. He
buttressed up the regime he found realized before him. He used the old
misinterpretations of Scripture and produced no new idea on government.
Marsiglius, independent of the despotism of ecclesiastical dogma, went back to
the free and elastic principles of the Apostolic Church government. He broke
the moulds in which the ecclesiastical thinking of centuries had been cast, and
departed from Augustine in claiming for heretics a rational and humane
treatment. The time may yet come when the Italian people will follow him as the
herald of a still better order than that which they have, and set aside the
sacerdotal theory of the Christian ministry as an invention of man.151
Germany
furnished a strong advocate of the independent rights of the emperor, in Lupold
of Bebenburg, who died in 1363. He remained dean of Würzburg until he was made
bishop of Bamberg in 1353. But he did not attack the spiritual jurisdiction of
the Apostolic See. Lupold’s chief work was The Rights of the Kingdom and Empire—de
juribus regni et imperii,—written after the declarations of Rense. It has been
called the oldest attempt at a theory of the rights of the German state.152 Lupold appeals to the events of
history.
In
defining the rights of the empire, this author asserts that an election is
consummated by the majority of the electors and that the emperor does not stand
in need of confirmation by the pope. He holds his authority independently from
God. Charlemagne exercised imperial functions before he was anointed and
crowned by Leo. The oath the emperor takes to the pope is not the oath of
fealty such as a vassal renders, but a promise to protect him and the Church.
The pope has no authority to depose the emperor. His only prerogative is to
announce that he is worthy of deposition. The right to depose belongs to the
electors. As for Constantine’s donation, it is plain Constantine did not confer
the rule of the West upon the bishop of Rome, for Constantine divided both the
West and the East among his sons. Later, Theodosius and other emperors
exercised dominion in Rome. The notice of Constantine’s alleged gift to Sylvester
has come through the records of Sylvester and has the appearance of being
apocryphal.
The
papal assailants did not have the field all to themselves. The papacy also had
vigorous literary champions. Chief among them were Augustinus Triumphus and
Alvarus Pelagius.153
The first dedicated his leading work to John XXII., and the second wrote
at the pope’s command. The modern reader will find in these tracts the crassest
exposition of the extreme claims of the papacy, satisfying to the most
enthusiastic ultramontane, but calling for apology from sober Catholic
historians.154
Triumphus,
an Italian, born in Ancona, 1243, made archbishop of Nazareth and died at
Naples, 1328, was a zealous advocate of Boniface VIII. His leading treatise,
The Power of the Church,—Summa de potestate ecclesiastica,—vindicates John
XXII. for his decision on the question of evangelical poverty and for his
opposition to the emperor’s dominion in Italy.155 The pope has unrestricted power on the earth. It is so vast
that even he himself cannot know fully what he is able to do.156 His judgment is the judgment of God.
Their tribunals are one.157
His power of granting indulgences is so great that, if he so wished, he
could empty purgatory of its denizens provided that conditions were complied
with.158
In
spiritual matters he may err, because he remains a man, and when he holds to
heresy, he ceases to be pope. Council cannot depose him nor any other human
tribunal, for the pope is above all and can be judged by none. But, being a
heretic, he ceases, ipso facto, to be pope, and the condition then is as it
would be after one pope is dead and his successor not yet elected.
The
pope himself may choose an emperor, if he so please, and may withdraw the right
of election from the electors or depose them from office. As vicar of God, he
is above all kings and princes.
The
Spanish Franciscan, Alvarus Pelagius, was not always as extravagant as his
Augustinian contemporary.159
He was professor of law at Perugia. He fled from Rome at the approach of
Lewis the Bavarian, 1328, was then appointed papal penitentiary at Avignon, and
later bishop of the Portuguese diocese of Silves. His Lament over the
Church,—de planctu ecclesiae,160 — while exalting the pope to the skies,
bewails the low spiritual estate into which the clergy and the Church had
fallen. Christendom, he argues, which is but one kingdom, can have but one
head, the pope. Whoever does not accept him as the head does not accept Christ.
And whosoever, with pure and believing eye, sees the pope, sees Christ himself.161 Without communion with the pope there
is no salvation. He wields both swords as Christ did, and in him the passage of
<scripRef
passage = "Jer. 1:10">Jer. 1:10</scripRef> is fulfilled, "I have
this day set thee over the nations and over the kingdoms to pluck up and to
break down, to destroy and to overthrow, to build and to plant." Unbelievers, also, Alvarus asserts to
be legally under the pope’s jurisdiction, though they may not be so in fact,
and the pope may proceed against them as God did against the Sodomites.
Idolaters, Jews, and Saracens are alike amenable to the pope’s authority and
subject to his punishments. He rules, orders, disposes and judges all things as
he pleases. His will is highest wisdom, and what he pleases to do has the force
of law.162 Wherever the
supreme pontiff is, there is the Roman Church, and he cannot be compelled to
remain in Rome.163
He is the source of all law and may decide what is the right. To doubt
this means exclusion from life eternal.
As
the vicar of Christ, the pope is supreme over the state. He confers the sword
which the prince wields. As the body is subject to the soul, so princes are
subject to the pope. Constantine’s donation made the pope, in fact, monarch
over the Occident. He transferred the empire to Charlemagne in trust. The
emperor’s oath is an oath of fealty and homage.
The
views of Augustinus Triumphus and Alvarus followed the papal assertion and
practice of centuries, and the assent or argument of the Schoolmen. Marsiglius
had the sanction of Scripture rationally interpreted, and his views were
confirmed by the experiences of history. After the lapse of nearly 500 years,
opinion in Christendom remains divided, and the most extravagant language of
Triumphus and Alvarus is applauded, and Marsiglius, the exponent of modern
liberty and of the historical sense of Scripture, continues to be treated as a
heretic.
</div3> <div3 type = "Section"
n="9" title="The Financial Policy of the Avignon Popes">
§ 9. The
Financial Policy of the Avignon Popes.
The
most notable feature of the Avignon period of the papacy, next to its
subserviency to France, was the development of the papal financial system and
the unscrupulous traffic which it plied in spiritual benefits and
ecclesiastical offices. The theory was put into practice that every spiritual
favor has its price in money. It was John XXII.’s achievement to reduce the
taxation of Christendom to a finely organized system.
The
papal court had a proper claim for financial support on all parts of the Latin
Church, for it ministered to all. This just claim gave way to a practice which
made it seem as if Christendom existed to sustain the papal establishment in a
state of luxury and ease. Avignon took on the aspect of an exchange whose chief
business was getting money, a vast bureau where privileges, labelled as of
heavenly efficacy, were sold for gold. Its machinery for collecting moneys was
more extensive and intricate than the machinery of any secular court of the
age. To contemporaries, commercial transactions at the central seat of
Christendom seemed much more at home than services of religious devotion.
The
mind of John XXII. ran naturally to the counting-house and ledger system.164 He came from Cahors, the town noted for
its brokers and bankers. Under his favor the seeds of commercialism in the
dispensation of papal appointments sown in preceding centuries grew to ripe
fruitage. Simony was an old sin. Gregory VII. fought against it. John legalized
its practice.
Freewill
offerings and Peter’s pence had been made to popes from of old. States, held as
fiefs of the papal chair, had paid fixed tribute. For the expenses of the
crusades, Innocent III. had inaugurated the system of taxing the entire Church.
The receipts from this source developed the love of money at the papal court
and showed its power, and, no matter how abstemious a pope might be in his own
habits, greed grew like a weed in his ecclesiastical household. St. Bernard, d.
1153, complained bitterly of the cupidity of the Romans, who made every
possible monetary gain out of the spiritual favors of which the Vatican was the
dispenser. By indulgence, this appetite became more and more exacting, and
under John and his successors the exploitation of Christendom was reduced by the
curia to a fine art.
The
theory of ecclesiastical appointments, held in the Avignon period, was that, by
reason of the fulness of power which resides in the Apostolic See, the pope may
dispense all the dignities and benefices of the Christian world. The pope is
absolute in his own house, that is, the Church.
This
principle had received its full statement from Clement IV., 1265.165 Clement’s bull declared that the
supreme pontiff is superior to any customs which were in vogue of filling
Church offices and conflicted with his prerogative. In particular he made it a
law that all offices, dignities, and benefices were subject to papal
appointment which became vacant apud sedem apostolicam or in curia, that is,
while the holders were visiting the papal court. This law was modified by Gregory
X. at the Council of Lyons, 1274, in such a way as to restore the right of
election, provided the pope failed to make an appointment within a month.166 Boniface VIII., 1295, again extended
the enactment by putting in the pope’s hands all livings whose occupants died
within two days’ journey of the curia, wherever it might at the time be.167 Innocent IV. was the first pope to
exercise the right of reservation or collation on a large scale. In 1248, out
of 20 places in the cathedral of Constance, 17 were occupied by papal
appointees, and there were 14 "expectants" under appointment in
advance of the deaths of the occupants. In 1255, Alexander IV. limited the
number of such expectants to 4 for each church. In 1265, Clement IV forbade all
elections in England in the usual way until his commands were complied with,
and reserved them to himself. The same pontiff, on the pretext of disturbances going
on in Sicily, made a general reservation of all appointments in the realm,
otherwise subject to episcopal or capitular choice. Urban IV. withdrew the
right of election from the Ghibelline cities of Lombardy; Martin IV. and
Honorius IV. applied the same rule to the cathedral appointments of Sicily and
Aragon; Honorius IV. monopolized all the appointments of the Latin Church in
the East; and Boniface VIII., in view of Philip IV.’s resistance, reserved to
himself the appointments to all "cathedral and regular churches" in
France. Of 16 French sees which became vacant, 1295–1301, only one was filled
in the usual way by election.168
With
the haughty assumption of Clement IV.’s bull and the practice of later popes,
papal writers fell in. Augustinus Triumphus, writing in 1324, asserted that the
pope is above all canon law and has the right to dispose of all ecclesiastical
places.169 The papal system
of appointments included provisions, expectances, and reservations.170
In
setting aside the vested rights of chapters and other electors, the pope often
joined hands with kings and princes. In the Avignon period a regular election
by a chapter was the exception.171
The Chronicles of England and France teem with usurped cases of papal appointment.
In 1322 the pope reserved to himself all the appointments in episcopal,
cathedral, and abbey churches, and of all priors in the sees of Aquileja,
Ravenna, Milan, Genoa, and Pisa.172
In 1329 he made such reservation for the German dioceses of Metz, Toul,
and Verdun, and in 1339 for Cologne.173 There was no living in Latin Christendom which was safe from
the pope’s hands. There were not places enough to satisfy all the favorites of
the papal household and the applicants pressed upon the pope’s attention by
kings and princes. The spiritual and administrative qualities of the appointees
were not too closely scrutinized. Frenchmen were appointed to sees in England,
Germany, Denmark, and other countries, who were utterly unfamiliar with the
languages of those countries. Marsiglius complains of these "monstrosities
"and, among other unfit appointments, mentions the French bishops of
Winchester and Lund, neither of whom knew English or Danish. The archbishop of
Lund, after plundering his diocese, returned to Southern France.
To
the supreme right of appointment was added the supreme right to tax the clergy
and all ecclesiastical property. The supreme right to exercise authority over
kings, the supreme right to set aside canonical rules, the supreme right to
make appointments in the Church, the supreme right to tax Church property,
these were, in their order, the rights asserted by the popes of the Middle
Ages. The scandal growing out of this unlimited right of taxation called forth
the most vigorous complaints from clergy and laity, and was in large part the
cause which led to the summoning of the three great Reformatory councils of the
fifteenth century.174
Popes
had acted upon this theory of jurisdiction over the property of the Church long
before John XXII. They levied taxes for crusades in the Orient, or to free
Italy from rebels for the papal state. They gave their sanction to princes and
kings to levy taxes upon the Church for secular purposes, especially for wars.175 In the bull Clericis laicos, Boniface did
not mean to call in question the propriety of the Church’s contributing to the
necessities of the state. What he demanded was that he himself should be
recognized as arbiter in such matters, and it was this demand which gave
offence to the French king and to France itself. The question was much
discussed whether the pope may commit simony. Thomas Aquinas gave an
affirmative answer. Alvarus Pelagius176 thought differently, and
declared that the pope is exempt from the laws and canons which treat of
simony. Augustinus Triumphus took the same ground.177 The pope is not bound by laws. He is
above laws. Simony is not possible to him.
In
estimating the necessities of the papal court, which justified the imposition
of customs, the Avignon popes were no longer their own masters. They were the
creatures of the camera and the hungry horde of officials and sycophants whose
clamor filled the papal offices day and night. These retainers were not
satisfied with bread. Every superior office in Christendom had its value in
terms of gold and silver. When it was filled by papal appointment, a befitting
fee was the proper recognition. If a favor was granted to a prince in the
appointment of a favorite, the papal court was pretty sure to seize some new
privilege as a compensation for itself. Precedent was easily made a permanent
rule. Where the pope once invaded the rights of a chapter, he did not
relinquish his hold, and an admission fee once fixed was not renounced. We may
not be surprised at the rapacity which was developed at the papal court. That
was to be expected. It grew out of the false papal theory and the abiding
qualities of human nature.178
The
details governing the administration of the papal finances John set forth in
two bulls of 1316 and 1331. His scheme fixed the financial policy of the papacy
and sacred college.179
The sources from which the papacy drew its revenues in the fourteenth
century were: (1) freewill offerings, so called, given for ecclesiastical
appointments and other papal favors, called visitations, annates, servitia; and
(2) tributes from feudal states such as Naples, Sicily, Sardinia, and England,
and the revenues from the papal state in Italy.180 The moneys so received were apportioned between four
parties, the pope, the college of cardinals, and their two households. Under
John XXlI. the freewill offerings, so called, came to be regarded as obligatory
fees. Every papal gift had its compensation. There was a list of prices, and it
remained in force till changed on the basis of new estimates of the incomes of
benefices. To answer objections, John XXII., in his bull of 1331, insisted that
the prices set upon such favors were not a charge for the grace imparted, but a
charge for the labor required for writing the pertinent documents.181 But the declaration did not remove the
ill odor of the practice. The taxes levied were out of all proportion to the
actual cost of the written documents, and the privileges were not to be had
without money.
These
payments were regularly recorded in registers or ledgers kept by the papal
secretaries of the camera. The details of the papal exchequer, extant in the
Archives of the Vatican, have only recently been subjected to careful
investigation through the liberal policy of Leo XIII., and have made possible a
new chapter in works setting forth the history of the Church in this fourteenth
century.182
These
studies confirm the impression left by the chroniclers and tract-writers of the
fourteenth century. The money dealings of the papal court were on a vast scale,
and the transactions were according to strict rules of merchandise.183 Avignon was a great money centre.
Spiritual privileges were vouched for by carefully worded and signed contracts
and receipts. The papal commercial agents went to all parts of Europe.
Archbishop,
bishop, and abbot paid for the letters confirming their titles to their
dignities. The appointees to lower clerical offices did the same. There were
fees for all sorts of concessions, dispensations and indulgences, granted to
layman and to priest. The priest born out of wedlock, the priest seeking to be
absent from his living, the priest about to be ordained before the canonical
age, all had to have a dispensation, and these cost money.184 The larger revenues went directly into
the papal treasury and the treasury of the camera. The smaller fees went to
notaries, doorkeepers, to individual cardinals, and other officials. These intermediaries
stood in a long line with palms upturned. To use a modern term, it was an
intricate system of graft. The beneficiaries were almost endless. The large
body of lower officials are usually designated in the ledgers by the general
term "familiars" of the pope or camera.185 The notaries, or copyists, received stipulated sums for
every document they transcribed and service they performed. However exorbitant
the demands might seem, the petitioners were harried by delays and other petty
annoyances till in sheer weariness they yielded.
The
taxes levied upon the higher clergy were usually paid at Avignon by the parties
in person. For the collection of the annates from the lower clergy and of
tithes and other general taxes, collectors and subcollectors were appointed. We
find these officials in different parts of Europe. They had their fixed
salaries, and sent periodical reckonings to the central bureau at Avignon.186 The transmission of the moneys they
collected was often a dangerous business. Not infrequently the carriers were
robbed on their way, and the system came into vogue of employing merchant and
banking houses to do this business, especially Italian firms, which had
representatives in Northern and Central Europe. The ledgers show a great
diversity in the names and value of the coins. And it was a nice process to
estimate the values of these moneys in the terms of the more generally accepted
standards.187
The
offerings made by prelates at their visits to the papal see, called
visitationes,188 were divided equally between the papal treasury and the
cardinals. From the lists, it appears that the archbishops of York paid every
three years "300 marks sterling, or 1200 gold florins." Every two years the archbishops of
Canterbury paid "300 marks sterling, or 1500 gold florins;" the
archbishop of Tours paid 400 pounds Tournois; of Rheims, 500 pounds, Tournois;
of Rouen, 1000 pounds Tournois.189
The archbishop of Armagh, at his visitation in 1301, paid 60 silver
marks, or 250 gold florins. In 1350 the camera claimed from Armagh back
payments for fifty years.190
Presumably no bishop of that Irish diocese had made a visit in that
interval. Whether the claim was honored or not, is not known.
The
servitia communia, or payments made by archbishops, bishops, and abbots on
their confirmation to office, were also listed, according to a fixed scale. The
voluntary idea had completely disappeared before a fixed assessment.191 Such a dignitary was called an electus
until he had paid off the tax.192
In certain cases the tax was remitted on account of the poverty of the
ecclesiastic, and in the ledgers the entry was made, "not taxed on account
of poverty," non taxata propter paupertatem. The amount of this tax seems
to have varied, and was sometimes one-third of the income and sometimes a
larger portion.193
In the fourteenth century the following sees paid servitia as follows:
Mainz, 5,000 gold florins; Treves, 7, 000; Cologne, 10,000; Narbonne, 10,000.
On the basis of a new valuation, Martin V. in 1420 raised the taxation of the
sees of Mainz and Treves to 10,000 florins each, or $25,000 of our money, so
that they corresponded to the assessment made from of old upon Cologne.194 When an incumbent died without having
met the full tax, his successor made up the deficit in addition to paying the
assessment for his own confirmation.195
The
following cases will give some idea of the annoyances to which bishops and
abbots were put who travelled to Avignon to secure letters of papal
confirmation to their offices. In 1334, the abbot-elect of St. Augustine,
Canterbury, had to wait in Avignon from April 22 to Aug. 9 to get his
confirmation, and it cost him 148 pounds sterling. John IV., abbot-elect of St.
Albans, in 1302 went for consecration to Rome, accompanied by four monks. He
arrived May 6, presented his case to Boniface VIII. in person at Anagni, May 9,
and did not get back to London till Aug. 1, being all the while engaged in the
process of getting his papers properly prepared and certified to.196 The expense of getting his case through
was 2,585 marks, or 10,340 gold florins; or $25,000 of our money. The ways in
which this large sum was distributed are not a matter of conjecture. The exact
itemized statement is extant: 2,258 marks, or 9,032 florins, went to "the
Lord pope and the cardinals."
Of this sum 5,000 florins, or 1,250 marks, are entered as a payment for
the visitatio, and the remainder in payment of the servitium to the cardinals.
The remaining 327 marks, or 1,308 florins, were consumed in registration and
notarial fees and gifts to cardinals. To Cardinal Francis of St. Maria in
Cosmedin, a nephew of Boniface, a gift was made costing more than 10 marks, or
40 florins.
Another
abbot-elect of St. Albans, Richard II., went to Avignon in 1326 accompanied by
six monks, and was well satisfied to get away with the payment of 3,600 gold
florins. He was surprised that the tax was so reasonable. Abbot William of the
diocese of Autun, Oct. 22, 1316, obligated himself to pay John XXII., as
confirmation tax, 1,500 gold florins, and to John’s officials 170 more.197
The
fees paid to the lower officials, called servitia minuta, were classified under
five heads, four of them going to the officials, familiares of the pontiff, and
one to the officials of the cardinals.198 The exact amounts received on account of servitia or
confirmation fees by the pope and the college of cardinals, probably will never
be known. From the lists that have been examined, the cardinals between
1316–1323 received from this source 234,047 gold florins, or about 39,000
florins a year. As the yield from this tax was usually, though not always, divided
in equal shares between the pope and the cardinals, the full sum realized from
this source was double this amount.199
The
annates, so far as they were the tax levied by the pope upon appointments made
by himself to lower clerical offices and livings, went entirely into the papal
treasury, and seem to have been uniformly one-half of the first year’s income.200 They were designated as livings
"becoming vacant in curia," which was another way of saying, places
which had been reserved by the pope. The popes from time to time extended this
tax through the use of the right of reservation to all livings becoming vacant
in a given district during a certain period. In addition to the annate tax, the
papal treasury also drew an income during the period of their vacancy from the
livings reserved for papal appointment and during the period when an incumbent
held the living without canonical right. These were called the
"intermediate fruits"—medii fructus.201
Special
indulgences were an uncertain but no less important source of revenue. The
prices were graded according to the ability of the parties to pay and the
supposed inherent value of the papal concession. Queen Johanna of Sicily paid
500 grossi Tournois, or about $150, for the privilege of taking the oath to the
archbishop of Naples, who acted as the pope’s representative. The bull
readmitting to the sacraments of the Church Margaret of Maultasch and her
husband, Lewis of Brandenburg, the son of Lewis the Bavarian, cost the princess
2000 grossi Tournois. The king of Cyprus was poor, and secured for his subjects
indulgence to trade with the Egyptians for the modest sum of 100 pounds
Tournois, but had to pay 50 pounds additional for a ship sent with cargo to Egypt.202 There was a graduated scale for papal
letters giving persons liberty to choose their confessor without regard to the
parish priests.
To
these sources of income were added the taxes for the relief of the Holy
Land—pro subsidio terrae sanctae. The Council of Vienne ordered a tenth for six
years for this purpose. John XXII., 1333, repeated the substance of Clement’s
bull. The expense of clearing Italy of hostile elements and reclaiming papal
territory as a preliminary to the pope’s return to Rome was also made the
pretext for levying special taxes. For this object Innocent VI. levied a
three-years’ tax of a tenth upon the Church in Germany, and in 1366 Urban V.
levied another tenth upon all the churches of Christendom.203
It
would be a mistake to suppose that the Church always responded to these
appeals, or that the collectors had easy work in making collections. The
complaints, which we found so numerous in England in the thirteenth century, we
meet with everywhere during the fourteenth century. The resistance was
determined, and the taxes were often left unpaid for years or not paid at all.
The
revenues derived from feudal states and princes, called census, were divided
equally between the cardinals and the pope’s private treasury. Gregory X., in
1272, was the first to make such a division of the tribute from Sicily, which
amounted to 8000 ounces of gold, or about $90,000.204 In the pontificate of John XXII. there
is frequent mention of the amounts contributed by Sicily and their equal
partition. The sums varied from year to year, and in 1304 it was 3000 ounces of
gold. The tribute of Sardinia and Corsica was fixed in 1297 at the annual sum
of 2000 marks, and was divided between the two treasuries.205 The papal state and Ferrara yielded
uncertain sums, and the tribute of 1000 marks, pledged by John of England, was
paid irregularly, and finally abrogated altogether. Peter’s pence, which
belongs in this category, was an irregular source of papal income.206
The
yearly income of the papal treasury under Clement V. and John XXII. has been
estimated at from 200,000 to 250,000 gold florins.207 In 1353 it is known to have been at
least 260,000 florins, or more than $600,000 of our money
These
sources of income were not always sufficient for the expenses of the papal
household, and in cases had to be anticipated by loans. The popes borrowed from
cardinals, from princes, and from bankers. Urban V. got a loan from his
cardinals of 30, 000 gold florins. Gregory XI. got loans of 30,000 florins from
the king of Navarre, and 60, 000 from the duke of Anjou. The duke seems to have
been a ready lender, and on another occasion loaned Gregory 40,000 florins.208 It was a common thing for bishops and
abbots to make loans to enable them to pay the expense of their confirmation.
The abbot of St. Albans, in 1290, was assessed 1300 pounds for his servitium,
and borrowed 500 of it.209
The habit grew until the time of the Reformation, when the sums
borrowed, as in the case of Albrecht, archbishop of Mainz, were enormous.
The
transactions of the Avignon chancellory called forth loud complaints, even from
contemporary apologists for the papacy. Alvarus Pelagius, in his Lament over
the Church, wrote: "No poor man can approach the pope. He will call and no
one will answer, because he has no money in his purse to pay. Scarcely is a
single petition heeded by the pope until it has passed through the hands of
middlemen, a corrupt set, bought with bribes, and the officials conspire
together to extort more than the rule calls for." In another place he said that whenever
he entered into the papal chambers he always found the tables full of gold, and
clerics counting and weighing florins.210 Of the Spanish bishops he said that there was scarcely one
in a hundred who did not receive money for ordinations and the gift of
benefices. Matters grew no better, but rather worse as the fourteenth century
advanced. Dietrich of Nieheim, speaking of Boniface IX., said that "the
pope was an insatiable gulf, and that as for avarice there was no one to
compare with him."211
To effect a cure of the disease, which was a scandal to Christendom, the
popes would have been obliged to cut off the great army of officials who
surrounded them. But this vast organized body was stronger than the Roman
pontiff. The fundamental theory of the rights of the papal office was at fault.
The councils made attempts to introduce reforms, but in vain. Help came at last
and from an unexpected quarter, when Luther and the other leaders openly
revolted against the mediaeval theory of the papacy and of the Church.
</div3> <div3 type = "Section"
n="10" title="The Later Avignon Popes">
§ 10.
The Later Avignon Popes.
The
bustling and scholastic John XXII. was followed by the scholarly and upright
Benedict XII., 1334–1342. Born in the diocese of Toulouse, Benedict studied in
Paris, and arose to the dignity of bishop and cardinal before his elevation to
the papal throne. If Villani is to be trusted, his election was an accident.
One cardinal after another who voted for him did so, not dreaming he would be
elected. The choice proved to be an excellent one. The new pontiff at once
showed interest in reform. The prelates who had no distinct duties at Avignon
he sent home, and to his credit it was recorded that, when urged to enrich his
relatives, he replied that the vicar of Christ, like Melchizedek, must be
without father or mother or genealogy. To him belongs the honor of having begun
the erection of the permanent papal palace at Avignon, a massive and grim
structure, having the features of a fortress rather than a residence. Its walls
and towers were built of colossal thickness and strength to resist attack. Its
now desolated spaces are a speechless witness to perhaps the most singular of
the episodes of papal history. The cardinals followed Benedict’s example and
built palaces in Avignon and its vicinity.
Clement
VI., 1342–1352, who had been archbishop of Rouen, squandered the fortune
amassed by John XXII. and prudently administered by Benedict. He forgot his
Benedictine training and vows and was a fast liver, carrying into the papal
office the tastes of the French nobility from which he sprang. Horses, a
sumptuous table, and the company of women made the papal palace as gay as a
royal court.212 Nor were his
relatives allowed to go uncared for. Of the twenty-five cardinals’ hats which
he distributed, twelve went to them, one a brother and one a nephew. Clement
enjoyed a reputation for eloquence and, like John XXII., preached after he
became pope. Early in his pontificate the Romans sent a delegation, which
included Petrarch, begging him to return to Rome. But Clement, a Frenchman to
the core, preferred the atmosphere of France. Though he did not go to Rome, he
was gracious enough to comply with the delegation’s request and appoint a
Jubilee for the deserted and impoverished city.
During
Clement’s rule, Rome lived out one of the picturesque episodes of its mediaeval
history, the meteoric career of the tribune Cola (Nicolas) di Rienzo. Of
plebeian birth, this visionary man was stirred with the ideals of Roman
independence and glory by reading the ancient classics. His oratory flattered
and moved the people, whose cause he espoused against the aristocratic families
of the city. Sent to Avignon at the head of a commission, 1343, to confer the
highest municipal authority upon the pope, he won Clement’s attention by his
frank manner and eloquent speech. Returning to Rome, he fascinated the people
with visions of freedom and dominion. They invested him on the Capitol with the
signiory of the city, 1347. Cola assumed the democratic title of tribune.
Writing from Avignon, Petrarch greeted him as the man whom he had been looking
for, and dedicated to him one of his finest odes. The tribune sought to extend
his influence by enkindling the flame of patriotism throughout all Italy and to
induce its cities to throw off the yoke of their tyrants. Success and glory
turned his head. Intoxicated with applause, he had the audacity to cite Lewis
the Bavarian and Charles IV. before his tribunal, and headed his communications
with the magnificent superscription, "In the first year of the Republic’s
freedom." His success lasted
but seven months. The people had grown weary of their idol. He was laid by
Clement under the ban and fled, to appear again for a brief season under
Innocent V.
Avignon
was made papal property by Clement, who paid Joanna of Naples 80, 000 florins
for it. The low price may have been in consideration of the pope’s services in
pronouncing the princess guiltless of the murder of her cousin and first
husband, Andreas, a royal Hungarian prince, and sanctioning her second marriage
with another cousin, the prince of Tarentum.
This
pontiff witnessed the conclusion of the disturbed career of Lewis the Bavarian,
in 1347. The emperor had sunk to the depths of self-abasement when he swore to
the 28 articles Clement laid before him, Sept. 18, 1343, and wrote to the pope
that, as a babe longs for its mother’s breast, so his soul cried out for the
grace of the pope and the Church. But, if possible, Clement intensified the
curses placed upon him by his two predecessors. The bull, which he announced
with his own lips, April 13, 1346, teems with rabid execrations. It called upon
God to strike Lewis with insanity, blindness, and madness. It invoked the
thunderbolts of heaven and the flaming wrath of God and the Apostles Peter and
Paul both in this world and the next. It called all the elements to rise in
hostility against him; upon the universe to fight against him, and the earth to
open and swallow him up alive. It blasphemously damned his house to desolation
and his children to exclusion from their abode. It invoked upon him the curse
of beholding with his own eyes the destruction of his children by their
enemies.213
During
Clement’s pontificate, 1348–1349, the Black Death swept over Europe from
Hungary to Scotland and from Spain to Sweden, one of the most awful and
mysterious scourges that has ever visited mankind. It was reported by all the
chroniclers of the time, and described by Boccaccio in the introduction to his
novels. According to Villani, the disease appeared as carbuncles under the
armpits or in the groin, sometimes as big as an egg, and was accompanied with
devouring fever and vomiting of blood. It also involved a gangrenous
inflammation of the lungs and throat and a fetid odor of the breath. In
describing the virulence of the infection, a contemporary said that one sick
person was sufficient to infect the whole world.214 The patients lingered at most a day or two. Boccaccio
witnessed the progress of the plague as it spread its ravages in Florence.215 Such measures of sanitation as were
then known were resorted to, such as keeping the streets of the city clean and
posting up elaborate rules of health. Public religious services and processions
were appointed to stay death’s progress. Boccaccio tells how he saw the hogs
dying from the deadly contagion which they caught in rooting amongst cast-off
clothing. In England all sorts of cattle were affected, and Knighton speaks of
5000 sheep dying in a single district.216 The mortality was appalling. The figures, though they differ
in different accounts, show a vast loss of life.
A
large per cent of the population of Western Europe fell before the pestilence.
In Siena, 80,000 were carried off; in Venice, 100,000; in Bologna, two-thirds
of the population; and in Florence, three-fifths. In Marseilles the number who
died in a single month is reported as 57,000. Nor was the papal city on the
Rhone exempt. Nine cardinals, 70 prelates, and 17,000 males succumbed. Another
writer, a canon writing from the city to a friend in Flanders, reports that up
to the date of his writing one-half of the population had died. The very cats,
dogs, and chickens took the disease.217 At the prescription of his physician, Guy of Chauliac,
Clement VI. stayed within doors and kept large fires lighted, as Nicolas IV.
before him had done in time of plague.
No
class was immune except in England, where the higher classes seem to have been
exempt. The clergy yielded in great numbers, bishops, priests, and monks. At
least one archbishop of Canterbury, Bradwardine, was carried away by it. The
brothers of the king of Sweden, Hacon and Knut, were among the victims. The
unburied dead strewed the streets of Stockholm. Vessels freighted with cargoes
were reported floating on the high seas with the last sailor dead.218 Convents were swept clear of all their
inmates. The cemeteries were not large enough to hold the bodies, which were
thrown into hastily dug pits.219
The danger of infection and the odors emitted by the corpses were so
great that often there was no one to give sepulture to the dead. Bishops found
cause in this neglect to enjoin their priests to preach on the resurrection of
the body as one of the tenets of the Catholic Church, as did the bishop of
Winchester.220 In spite of the
vast mortality, many of the people gave themselves up without restraint to
revelling and drinking from tavern to tavern and to other excesses, as
Boccaccio reports of Florence.
In
England, it is estimated that one-half of the population, or 2,500,000 people,
fell victims to the dread disease.221 According to Knighton, it was introduced into the land
through Southampton. As for Scotland, this chronicler tells the grewsome story
that some of the Scotch, on hearing of the weakness of the English in consequence
of the malady, met in the forest of Selfchyrche—Selkirk—and decided to fall
upon their unfortunate neighbors, but were suddenly themselves attacked by the
disease, nearly 5000 dying. The English king prorogued parliament. The disaster
that came to the industries of the country is dwelt upon at length by the
English chroniclers. The soil became "dead," for there were no
laborers left to till it. The price per acre was reduced one-half, or even much
more. The cattle wandered through the meadows and fields of grain, with no one
to drive them in. "The dread fear of death made the prices of live stock
cheap." Horses were sold for
one-half their usual price, 40 solidi, and a fat steer for 4 solidi. The price
of labor went up, and the cost of the necessaries of life became "very
high."222 The effect upon
the Church was such as to interrupt its ministries and perhaps check its
growth. The English bishops provided for the exigencies of the moment by
issuing letters giving to all clerics the right of absolution. The priest could
now make his price, and instead of 4 or 5 marks, as Knighton reports, he could
get 10 or 20 after the pestilence had spent its course. To make up for the
scarcity of ministers, ordination was granted before the canonical age, as when
Bateman, bishop of Norwich, set apart by the sacred rite 60 clerks,
"though only shavelings" under 21. In another direction the evil
effects of the plague were seen. Work was stopped on the Cathedral of Siena,
which was laid out on a scale of almost unsurpassed size, and has not been
resumed to this day.223
The
Black Death was said to have invaded Europe from the East, and to have been
carried first by Genoese vessels.224 Its victims were far in excess of the loss of life by any
battles or earthquakes known to European history, not excepting the Sicilian
earthquake of 1908.
In
spite of the plague, and perhaps in gratitude for its cessation, the Jubilee
Year of 1350, like the Jubilee under Boniface at the opening of the century,
brought thousands of pilgrims to Rome. If they left scenes of desolation in the
cities and villages from which they came, they found a spectacle of desolation
and ruin in the Eternal City which Petrarch, visiting the same year, said was
enough to move a heart of stone. Matthew Villani225 cannot say too much in
praise of the devotion of the visiting throngs. Clement’s bull extended the
benefits of his promised indulgence to those who started on a pilgrimage
without the permission of their superiors, the cleric without the permission of
his bishop, the monk without the permission of his abbot, and the wife without
the permission of her husband.
Of
the three popes who followed Clement, only good can be said. Innocent VI.,
1352–1362, a native of the see of Limoges, had been appointed cardinal by
Clement VI. Following in the footsteps of Benedict XII., he reduced the
ostentation of the Avignon court, dismissed idle bishops to their sees, and
instituted the tribunal of the rota, with 21 salaried auditors for the orderly
adjudication of disputed cases coming before the papal tribunal. Before
Innocent’s election, the cardinals adopted a set of rules limiting the college
to 20 members, and stipulating that no new members should be appointed,
suspended, deposed, or excommunicated without the consent of two-thirds of
their number, and that no papal relative should be assigned to a high place.
Innocent no sooner became pontiff than he set it aside as not binding.
Soon
after the beginning of his reign, Innocent released Cola di Rienzo from
confinement226 and sent him and Cardinal Aegidius Alvarez of Albernoz to Rome
in the hope of establishing order. Cola was appointed senator, but only a few
months afterwards was put to death in a popular uprising, Oct. 8, 1354. He
dreamed of a united Italy, 500 years before the union of its divided states was
consummated, but his name remains a powerful impulse to popular freedom and
national unity in the peninsula.
Tyrants
and demagogues infested Italian municipalities and were sucking their
life-blood. The State of the Church had been parcelled up into petty
principalities ruled by rude nobles, such as the Polentas in Ravenna, the
Malatestas in Rimini, the Montefeltros in Urbino. The pope was in danger of
losing his territory in the peninsula altogether. Soldiers of fortune from
different nations had settled upon it and spread terror as leaders of predatory
bands. In no part was anarchy more wild than in Rome itself, and in the
Campagna. Albernoz had fought in the wars against the Moors, and had
administered the see of Toledo. He was a statesman as well as a soldier. He was
fully equal to his difficult task and restored the papal government.227
In
1355, Albernoz, as administrator of Rome, placed the crown of the empire on the
head of Charles IV. To such a degree had the imperial dignity been brought that
Charles was denied permission by the pope to enter the city till the day
appointed for his coronation. His arrival in Italy was welcomed by Petrarch as
Henry VII.’s arrival had been welcomed by Dante. But the emperor disappointed
every expectation, and his return from Italy was an inglorious retreat. He
placed his own dominion of Bohemia in his debt by becoming the founder of the
University of Prag.228
It was he also who, in 1356, issued the celebrated Golden Bull, which
laid down the rules for the election of the emperor. They placed this
transaction wholly in the hands of the electors, a majority of whom was
sufficient for a choice. The pope is not mentioned in the document. Frankfurt
was made the place of meeting. The electors designated were the archbishops of
Mainz, Treves, and Cologne, the Count Palatine, the king of Bohemia, the
Margrave of Brandenburg, and the duke of Saxony.229
Urban
V., 1362–1370, at the time of his election abbot of the Benedictine convent of
St. Victor in Marseilles, developed merits which secured for him canonization
by Pius IX., 1870. He was the first of the Avignon popes to visit Rome.
Petrarch, as he had written before to Benedict XII. and Clement VI., now, in
his old age, wrote to the new pontiff rebuking the curia for its vices and
calling upon him to be faithful to his part as Roman bishop. Why should Urban
hide himself away in a corner of the earth? Italy was fair, and Rome, hallowed by history and legend of
empire and Church, was the theocratic capital of the world. Charles IV. visited
Avignon and offered to escort the pontiff. But the French king opposed the plan
and was supported by the cardinals in a body. Only three Italians were left in
it. Urban started for the home of his spiritual ancestors in April, 1367. A
fleet of sixty vessels furnished by Naples, Genoa, Venice, and Pisa conducted
the distinguished traveller from Marseilles to Genoa and Corneto, where he was
met by envoys from Rome, who put into his hands the keys of the castle of St.
Angelo, the symbol of full municipal power. All along the way transports of
wine, fish, cheese, and other provisions, sent on from Avignon, met the papal
party, and horses from the papal stables on the Rhone were in waiting for the
pope at every stage of the journey.230
At
Viterbo, a riot was called forth by the insolent manners of the French, and the
pope launched the interdict against the city. The papal ledgers contain the
outlay by the apothecary for medicines for the papal servants who were wounded
in the melee. Here Albernoz died, to whom the papacy owed a large debt for his
services in restoring order to Rome. The legend runs that, when he was asked by
the pope for an account of his administration, he loaded a car with the keys of
the cities he had recovered to the papal authority, and sent them to him.
Urban
chose as his residence the Vatican in preference to the Lateran. The
preparations for his advent included the restoration of the palace and its
gardens. A part of the garden was used as a field, and the rest was overgrown
with thorns. Urban ordered it replanted with grape-vines and fruit trees. The
papal ledger gives the cost of these improvements as 6,621 gold florins, or
about $15,000. Roofs, floors, doors, walls, and other parts of the palace had
to be renewed. The expenses from April 27, 1367, to November, 1368, as shown in
the report of the papal treasurer, Gaucelin de Pradello, were 15,559 florins,
or $39,000.231
During
the sixty years that had elapsed since Clement V. fixed the papal residence in
France, Rome had been reduced almost to a museum of Christian monuments, as it
had before been a museum of pagan ruins. The aristocratic families had forsaken
the city. The Lateran had again fallen a prey to the flames in 1360. St. Paul’s
was desolate. Rubbish or stagnant pools filled the streets. The population was
reduced to 20,000 or perhaps 17,000.232 The return of the papacy was compared by Petrarch to Israel
returning out of Egypt.
Urban
set about the restoration of churches. He gave 1000 florins to the Lateran and
spent 5000 on St. Paul’s. Rome showed signs of again becoming the centre of
European society and politics. Joanna, queen of Naples, visited the city, and
so did the king of Cyprus and the emperor, Charles IV. In 1369 John V.
Palaeologus, the Byzantine emperor, arrived, a suppliant for aid against the
Turks, and publicly made solemn abjuration of his schismatic tenets.
The
old days seemed to have returned, but Urban was not satisfied. He had not the
courage nor the wide vision to sacrifice his own pleasure for the good of his
office. Had he so done, the disastrous schism might have been averted. He
turned his face back towards Avignon, where he arrived "at the hour of
vespers," Sept. 27, 1370. He survived his return scarcely two months, and
died Dec. 19, 1370, universally beloved and already honored as a saint.
</div3> <div3 type = "Section"
n="11" title="The Re-establishment of the Papacy in Rome.
1377">
§ 11.
The Re-establishment of the Papacy in Rome. 1377.
Of the
nineteen cardinals who entered the conclave at the death of Urban V., all but
four were Frenchmen. The choice immediately fell on Gregory XI., the son of a
French count. At 17 he had been made cardinal by his uncle, Clement VI. His
contemporaries praised him for his moral purity, affability, and piety. He
showed his national sympathies by appointing 18 Frenchmen cardinals and filling
papal appointments in Italy with French officials. In English history he is
known for his condemnation of Wyclif. His pontificate extended from 1370–1378.
With
Gregory’s name is associated the re-establishment of the papacy in its proper
home on the Tiber. For this change the pope deserves no credit. It was
consummated against his will. He went to Rome, but was engaged in preparations
to return to Avignon, when death suddenly overtook him.
That
which principally moved Gregory to return to Rome was the flame of rebellion which
filled Central and Northern Italy, and threatened the papacy with the permanent
loss of its dominions. The election of an anti-pope was contemplated by the
Italians, as a delegation from Rome informed him. One remedy was open to crush
revolt on the banks of the Tiber. It was the presence of the pope himself.233
Gregory
had carried on war for five years with the disturbing elements in Italy. In the
northern parts of the peninsula, political anarchy swept from city to city.
Soldiers of fortune, the most famous of whom was the Englishman, John Hawkwood,
spread terror wherever they went. In Milan, the tyrant Bernabo was all-powerful
and truculent. In Florence, the revolt was against the priesthood itself, and a
red flag was unfurled, on which was inscribed the word
"Liberty." A league of
80 cities was formed to abolish the pope’s secular power. The interdict hurled
against the Florentines, March 31, 1376, for the part they were taking in the
sedition, contained atrocious clauses, giving every one the right to plunder
the city and to make slaves of her people wherever they might be found.234 Genoa and Pisa followed Florence and
incurred a like papal malediction. The papal city, Bologna, was likewise
stirred to rebellion in 1376 by its sister city on the Arno.
Florence
fanned the flames of rebellion in Rome and the other papal towns, calling upon
them to throw off the yoke of tyranny and return to their pristine liberty.
What Italian, its manifesto proclaimed, "can endure the sight of so many
noble cities, serving barbarians appointed by the pope to devour the goods of Italy?"235 But Rome remained true to the pope, as
did Ancona. On the other hand, Perugia, Narni, Viterbo, and Ferrara, in 1375,
raised the banner of rebellion until revolt threatened to spread over the whole
of the papal patrimony. The bitter feeling against the French officials was
intensified by a detachment of 10,000 Breton mercenaries which the pope sent to
crush the revolution. They were under the leadership of Cardinal Robert of
Geneva,—afterward Clement VII.,—an iron-hearted soldier and pitiless priest. It
was as plain as day, Pastor says, that Gregory’s return was the only thing that
could save Rome to the papacy.
To
the urgency of these civil commotions were added the pure voices of
prophetesses, which rose above the confused sounds of revolt and arms, the
voices of Brigitta of Sweden and Catherine of Siena, both canonized saints.
Petrarch,
who for nearly half a century had been urging the pope’s return, now, in his
last days, replied to a French advocate who compared Rome to Jericho, the town
to which the man was going who fell among thieves, and stigmatized Avignon as
the sewer of the earth. He died 1374, without seeing the consuming desire of his
life fulfilled. Guided by patriotic instincts, he had carried into his appeals
the feeling of an Italian’s love of his country. Brigitta and Catherine made
their appeals to Gregory on higher than national grounds, the utility of
Christendom and the advantage of the kingdom of God. Emerging from visions and
ecstatic moods of devotion, they called upon the Church’s chief bishop to be
faithful to the obligations of his holy office.
On
the death of her husband, St. Brigitta left her Scandinavian home and joined
the pilgrims whose faces were set towards Rome in the Jubilee year of 1350.236 Arriving in the papal city, the hope of
seeing both the emperor and the pope once more in that centre of spiritual and
imperial power moved her to the devotions of the saint and the messages of the
seer. She spent her time in going from church to church and ministering to the
sick, or sat clad in pilgrim’s garb, begging. Her revelations, which were many,
brought upon her the resentment of the Romans. She saw Urban enter the city
and, when he announced his purpose to return again to France, she raised her
voice in prediction of his speedy death, in case he persisted in it. When
Gregory ascended the throne, she warned him that he would die prematurely if he
kept away from the residence divinely appointed for the supreme pontiff. But to
her, also, it was not given to see the fulfilment of her desire. The
worldliness of the popes stirred her to bitter complaints. Peter, she
exclaimed, "was appointed pastor and minister of Christ’s sheep, but the
pope scatters them and lacerates them. He is worse than Lucifer, more unjust
than Pilate, more cruel than Judas. Peter ascended the throne in humility,
Boniface in pride." To
Gregory she wrote, "in thy curia arrogant pride rules, insatiable cupidity
and execrable luxury. It is the very deepest gulf of horrible simony.237 Thou seizest and tearest from the Lord
innumerable sheep." And yet
she was worthy to be declared a saint. She died in 1373. Her daughter Catherine
took the body to Sweden.
Catherine
of Siena was more fortunate. She saw the papacy re-established in Italy, but
she also witnessed the unhappy beginnings of the schism. This Tuscan
prophetess, called by a sober Catholic historian, "one of the most
wonderful appearances in history,"238 wrote letter after letter to
Gregory XI. whom she called "sweet Christ on earth," appealing to him
and admonishing him to do his duty as the head of the Church, and to break away
from his exile, which she represented as the source of all the evils with which
Christendom was afflicted. "Be a true successor of St. Gregory," she
wrote. "Love God. Do not bind yourself to your parents and your friends.
Do not be held by the compulsion of your surroundings. Aid will come from
God." His return to Rome and
the starting of a new crusade against the Turks, she represented as necessary
conditions of efficient measures to reform the Church. She bade him return
"swiftly like a gentle lamb. Respond to the Holy Spirit who calls you. I
tell you, Come, come, come, and do not wait for time, since time does not wait
for you. Then you will do like the Lamb slain, whose place you hold, who,
without weapons in his hands, slew our foes. Be manly in my sight, not fearful.
Answer God, who calls you to hold and possess the seat of the glorious
shepherd, St. Peter, whose vicar you are."239
Gregory
received a letter purporting to come from a man of God, warning him of the
poison which awaited him at Rome and appealing to his timidity and his love of
his family. In a burning epistle, Catherine showed that only the devil or one
of his emissaries could be the author of such a communication, and called upon
him as a good shepherd to pay more honor to God and the well-being of his flock
than to his own safety, for a good shepherd, if necessary, lays down his life
for the sheep. The servants of God are not in the habit of giving up a
spiritual act for fear of bodily harm.240
In
1376, Catherine saw Gregory face to face in Avignon, whither she went as a
commissioner from Florence to arrange a peace between the city and the pope.
The papal residence she found not a paradise of heavenly virtues, as she
expected, but in it the stench of infernal vices.241 The immediate object of the mission was not accomplished;
but her unselfish appeals confirmed Gregory in his decision to return to Rome—a
decision he had already formed before Catherine’s visit, as the pope’s own last
words indicate.242
As
early as 1374, Gregory wrote to the emperor that it was his intention to
re-establish the papacyon the Tiber.243 A member of the papal household, Bertrand Raffini, was sent
ahead to prepare the Vatican for his reception. The journey was delayed. It was
hard for the pope to get away from France. His departure was vigorously
resisted by his relatives as well as by the French cardinals and the French
king, who sent n delegation to Avignon, headed by his brother, the duke of
Anjou, to dissuade Gregory from his purpose.
The
journey was begun Sept. 13, 1376. Six cardinals were left behind at Avignon to
take care of the papal business. The fleet which sailed from Marseilles was
provided by Joanna of Naples, Peter IV. of Aragon, the Knights of St. John, and
the Italian republics, but the vessels were not sufficient to carry the large
party and the heavy cargo of personal baggage and supplies. The pope was
obliged to rent a number of additional galleys and boats. Fernandez of Heredia,
who had just been elected grand-master of the Knights of St. John, acted as
admiral. A strong force of mercenaries was also required for protection by sea
and at the frequent stopping places along the coast, and for service, if
necessary, in Rome itself. The expenses of this peaceful Armada—vessels,
mercenaries, and cargo—are carefully tabulated in the ledgers preserved in
Avignon and the Vatican.244
The first entries of expense are for the large consignments of Burgundy
and other wines which were to be used on the way, or stored away in the vaults
of the Vatican.245
The cost of the journey was heavy, and it should occasion no surprise
that the pope was obliged to increase the funds at his control at this time by
borrowing 30,000 gold florins from the king of Navarre.246 The papal moneys, amounting to 85,713
florins, were carried from Avignon to Marseilles in twelve chests on pack
horses and mules, and in boats. To this amount were added later 41,527 florins,
or, in all, about $300,000 of our present coinage. The cost of the boats and
mercenaries was very large, and several times the boatmen made increased
demands for their services and craft to which the papal party was forced to
accede. Raymund of Turenne, who was in command of the mercenaries, received 700
florins a month for his "own person," each captain with a banner 24
florins, and each lance with three men under him 18 florins monthly. Nor were
the obligations of charity to be overlooked. Durandus Andreas, the papal
eleemosynary, received 100 florins to be distributed in alms on the journey,
and still another 100 to be distributed after the party’s arrival at Rome.247
The
elements seemed to war with the expedition. The fleet had no sooner set sail
from Marseilles than a fierce storm arose which lasted several weeks and made
the journey tedious. Urban V. was three days in reaching Genoa, Gregory
sixteen. From Genoa, the vessels continued southwards the full distance to
Ostia, anchorage being made every night off towns. From Ostia, Gregory went up
the Tiber by boat, landing at Rome Dec. 16, 1377. The journey was made by night
and the banks were lit up by torches, showing the feverish expectation of the
people. Disembarking at St. Paul’s, the pope proceeded the next day, Jan. 17,
to St. Peter’s, accompanied by rejoicing throngs. In the procession were bands
of buffoons who added to the interest of the spectacle and afforded pastime to
the populace. The pope abode in the Vatican and, from that time till this day,
it has continued to be the papal residence.
Gregory
survived his entrance into the Eternal City a single year. He spent the warmer
months in Anagni, where he must have had mixed feelings as he recalled the experiences
of his predecessor Boniface VIII., which had been the immediate cause of the
transfer of the papal residence to French soil. The atrocities practised at
Cesena by Cardinal Robert cast a dark shadow over the events of the year. An
uprising of the inhabitants in consequence of the brutality of his Breton
troops drove them and the cardinal to seek refuge in the citadel. Hawkwood was
called in, and, in spite of the cardinal’s pacific assurances, the mercenaries
fell upon the defenceless people and committed a butchery whose shocking
details made the ears of all Italy to tingle. Four thousand were put to death,
including friars in their churches, and still other thousands were sent forth
naked and cold to find what refuge they could in neighboring towns. But, in
spite of this barbarity, the pope’s authority was acknowledged by an enlarging
circle of Italian commonwealths, including Bologna. Florence, even, sued for
peace.
When
Gregory died, March 27, 1378, he was only 47 years old. By his request, his body
was laid to rest in S. Maria Nuova on the Forum. In his last hours, he is said
to have regretted having given his ear to the voice of Catherine of Siena, and
he admonished the cardinals not to listen to prophecies as he had done.248 Nevertheless, the monument erected to
Gregory at Rome two hundred years later is true to history in representing
Catherine of Siena walking at the pope’s side as if conducting him back to
Rome. The Babylonian captivity of the papacy had lasted nearly three-quarters
of a century. The wonder is that with the pope virtually a vassal of France,
Western Christendom remained united. Scarcely anything in history seems more
unnatural than the voluntary residence of the popes in the commonplace town on
the Rhone remote from the burial-place of the Apostles and from the centres of
European life.
</div3></div2><div2 type =
"Chapter" n="II" title="The Papal Schism And The
Reformatory Councils. 1378–1449">
CHAPTER
II.
THE
PAPAL SCHISM AND THE REFORMATORY COUNCILS. 1378–1449.
<div3 type = "Section"
n="12" title="Sources and Literature">
§ 12.
Sources and Literature.
For
§§ 13, 14. The Papal Schism.—Orig. documents in Raynaldus: Annal. Eccles.—C.E.
Bulaeus, d. 1678: Hist. univer. Parisiensis, 6 vols., Paris, 1665–1673, vol.
IV. —Van der Hardt, see § 15.—H. Denifle and A. Chatelain: Chartul.
universitatis Paris., 4 vols., Paris, 1889–1897, vols. III., IV., especially
the part headed de schismate, III. 552–639.—Theoderich of Nieheim (Niem): de
Schismate inter papas et antipapas, Basel, 1566, ed. by Geo. Erler, Leipzig,
1890. Nieheim, b. near Paderborn, d. 1417, had exceptional opportunities for
observing the progress of events. He was papal secretary—notarius sacri palatii
— at Avignon, went with Gregory XI. to Rome, was there at the breaking out of
the schism, and held official positions under three of the popes of the Roman
line. In 1408 he joined the Livorno cardinals, and supported Alexander V. and
John XXIII.—See H. V. Sauerland: D. Leben d. Dietrich von Nieheim nebst einer Uebersicht
über dessen Schriften, Göttingen, 1876, and G. Erler: Dietr. von Nieheim, sein
Leben u. s. Schriften, Leipzig, 1887. Adam of Usk: Chronicon, 1377–1421, 2d ed.
by E. M. Thompson, with Engl. trans., London, 1904.—Martin de Alpartils:
Chronica actitatorum temporibus Domini Benedicti XIII. ed. Fr. Ehrle, S. J.,
vol. I., Paderborn, 1906.—Wyclif’s writings, Lives of Boniface IX. and Innocent
VII. in Muratori, III. 2, pp. 830 sqq., 968 sq.—P. Dupuy: Hist. du schisme
1378–1420, Paris, 1654.—P. L. Maimbourg (Jesuit): Hist. du grand schisme d’
Occident, Paris, 1678.—Ehrle: Neue Materialien zur Gesch. Peters von Luna
(Benedict XIII.), in Archiv für Lit. und Kirchengesch., VI. 139 sqq., VII. 1
sqq.—L. Gayet: Le Grand schisme d’Occident, 2 vols., Florence and Berlin,
1889.—C. Locke: Age of the Great Western Schism, New York, 1896.—Paul Van Dyke:
Age of the Renascence an Outline of the Hist. of the Papacy, 1377–1527, New
York, 1897.—L. Salembier: Le grand schisme d’ Occident, Paris, 1900, 3d ed.,
1907. Engl. trans., London, 1907.—N. Valois: La France et le grand schisme
d’Occident, 4 vols., Paris, 1896–1901.—E. Goeller: König Sigismund’s
Kirchenpolitik vom Tode Bonifaz IX. bis zur Berufung d. Konstanzer Concils,
Freiburg, 1902.—M. Jansen: Papst Bonifatius IX. u. s. Beziehungen zur deutschen
Kirche, Freiburg, 1904.—H. Bruce: The Age of Schism, New York, 1907.—E. J.
Kitts: In the Days of the Councils. A Sketch of the Life and Times of
Baldassare Cossa, John XXIII., London, 1908.—Hefele-Knöpfler: Conciliengesch.,
VI. 727–936.—Hergenröther-Kirsch, II. 807–833.—Gregorovius, VI.
494–611.—Pastor, I. 115–175.—Creighton, I. 66–200.
For
§§ 15, 16. The Councils of Pisa and Constance.—Mansi: Concilia, XXVI.,
XXVII.—Labbaeus: Concilia, XI., XII. 1–259.—Hermann van der Hardt, Prof. of
Hebrew and librarian at Helmstädt, d. 1746: Magnum oecumenicum Constantiense
Concilium de universali ecclesiae reformatione, unione et fide, 6 vols.,
Frankfurt and Leipzig, 1696–1700. A monumental work, noted alike as a mine of
historical materials and for its total lack of order in their arrangement. In
addition to the acts and history of the Council of Constance, it gives many
valuable contemporary documents, e.g. the De corrupto statu eccles., also
entitled De ruina eccles., of Nicolas Of Clamanges; the De modis uniendi et
reformandi eceles. in concilio universali; De difficultate reformationis;and
Monita de necessitate reformationis Eccles. in capite et membris,—all probably
by Nieheim; and a Hist. of the Council, by Dietrich Vrie, an Augustinian, finished
at Constance, 1417. These are all in vol. I. Vol. II. contains Henry of
Langenstein’s Consilium pacis: De unione ac reformatione ecclesiae, pp. 1–60; a
Hist. of the c. of Pisa, pp. 61–156; Niehelm’s Invectiva in di, ffugientem
Johannem XXIII. and de vita Johan. XXIII. usque ad fugam et carcerem ejus, pp.
296–459, etc. The vols. are enriched with valuable illustrations. Volume V.
contains a stately array of pictures of the seals and escutcheons of the
princes and prelates attending the council in person or by proxy, and the
fourteen universities represented. The work also contains biogg. of D’Ailly,
Gerson, Zarabella, etc.—Langenstein’s Consilium pacis is also given in Du Pin’s
ed. of Gerson’s Works, ed. 1728, vol. II. 809–839. The tracts De difficultate
reformationis and Monita de necessitate, etc., are also found in Da Pin, II.
867–875, 885–902, and ascribed to Peter D’Ailly. The tracts De reformatione and
De eccles., concil. generalis, romani pontificis et cardinalium auctoritate,
also ascribed to D’Ailly in Du Pin, II. 903–915, 925–960.—Ulrich von Richental:
Das Concilium so ze Costenz gehalten worden, ed. by M. R. Buck, Tübingen,
1882.—Also Marmion: Gesch. d. Conc. von Konstanz nach Ul. von Richental,
Constance, 1860. Richental, a resident of Constance, wrote from his own
personal observation a quaint and highly interesting narrative. First publ.,
Augsburg, 1483. The MS. may still be seen in Constance.—*H. Finke: Forschungen
u. Quellen zur Gesch. des Konst. Konzils, Paderborn, 1889. Contains the valuable
diary of Card. Fillastre, etc.—*Finke: Actae conc. Constanciensis, 1410–1414,
Münster, 1906.—J. L’enfant (Huguenot refugee in Berlin, d. 1728): Hist. du
conc. de Constance, Amsterdam, 1714; also Hist. du conc. de Pisa, Amsterdam,
1724, Engl. trans., 2 vols., London, 1780.—B. Hübler Die Konstanzer Reformation
u. d. Konkordate von 1418, Leipzig, 1867.—U. Lenz: Drei Traktate aus d.
Schriftencyclus d. Konst. Konzils, Marburg, 1876. Discusses the authorship of
the tracts De modis, De necessitate, and De difficultate, ascribing them to
Nieheim.—B. Bess: Studien zur Gesch. d. Konst. Konzils, Marburg, 1891.—J. H.
Wylie: The Counc. of Const. to the Death of J. Hus, London, 1900.—*J. B.
Schwab: J. Gerson, Würzburg, 1868.—*P. Tschackert: Peter von Ailli, Gotha, 1877.—Döllinger-Friedrick:
D. Papstthum, new ed., Munich, 1892, pp. 154-l64. F. X. Funk: Martin V. und d.
Konzil von Konstanz in Abhandlungen u.Untersuchungen, 2 vols., Paderborn, 1897,
I. 489–498. The works cited in § 1, especially, Creighton, I. 200–420, Hefele,
VI. 992–1043, VII. 1–375, Pastor, I. 188–279, Valois, IV., Salembier, 250 sqq.;
Eine Invektive gegen Gregor xii., Nov. 1, 1408, in Ztschr. f. Kirchengesch.,
1907, p. 188 sq.
For § 17. The Council Of Basel.—Lives of Martin V.
and Eugenius IV. in Mansi: XXVIII. 975 sqq., 1171 sqq.; in Muratori: Ital. Scripp.,
and Platina: Hist. of the Popes, Engl. trans., II. 200–235.—Mansi, XXIX.-XXXI.;
Labbaeus, XII. 454—XIII. 1280. For C. of Siena, MANSI: XXVIII.
1058–1082.—Monum. concil. general. saec. XV., ed. by Palacky, 3 vols., Vienna,
1857–1896. Contains an account of C. of Siena by John Stojkoric of Ragusa, a
delegate from the Univ. of Paris. John de Segovia: Hist. gest. gener. Basil.
conc., new ed., Vienna, 1873. Segovia, a spaniard, was a prominent figure in
the Basel Council and one of Felix V.’s cardinals. For his writings, see
Haller’s Introd. Concil. Basiliense. Studien und Quellen zur Gesch. d. Concils
von Basel, with Introd. ed. by T. Haller, 4 vols., Basel, 1896–1903. Aeneas
Sylvius Piccolomini: Commentarii de gestis concil. Basil., written 1440 to
justify Felix’s election, ed. by Fea, Rome, 1823; also Hist. Frederici III.,
trans. by T. Ilgen, 2 vols., Leipzig. No date. Aeneas, afterward Pius II.,
"did not say and think the same thing at all times," says Haller,
Introd., p. 12.—See Voigt: Enea Sylvio de’ Piccolomini, etc., 3 vols., Berlin,
1856–1863.—Infessura: Diario della cittá di Roma, Rome, 1890, PP. 22–42.—F. P.
Abert: Eugenius IV., Mainz, 1884.—Wattenbach: Röm Papstthum, pp.
271–284.—Hefele-Knöpfler, VII. 375–849. Döllinger-Friedrich: Papstthum, 160
sqq.—Creighton, II. 3–273.—Pastor, I. 209—306.—Gregorovius, VI.-VII.—M. G.
Perouse: Louis Aleman et la fin du grand schisme, Paris, 1805. A detailed
account of the C. of Basel.
For §
18. The Ferrara-Florence Council.—Abram Of Crete: Historia, in Latin trans.,
Rome, 1521; the Greek original by order of Gregory XIII., Rome, 1577; new Latin
trans., Rome, 1612.—Sylv. Syropulos: Vera Hist. unionis non verae inter Graecos
et Latinos, ed. by Creyghton, Haag, 1660.—Mansi, XXXI., contains the documents
collected by Mansi himself, and also the Acts published by Horatius Justinian,
XXXI. 1355–1711, from a Vatican MS., 1638. The Greek and Latin texts are
printed side by side. —Labbaeus and Harduin also give Justinian’s Acts and
their own collections. —T. Frommann: Krit. Beiträge zur Gesch. d.
florentinischen Kircheneinigung, Hale, 1872.—Knöpfler, art. Ferrara-Florenz, in
Wetzer-Welte: IV. 1363–1380. Tschackert, art. Ferrara-Florenz, in Herzog, VI.
46 48.—Döllinger-Friedrich: Papstthum, pp. 166–171.
</div3> <div3 type = "Section"
n="13" title="The Schism Begun. 1378">
§ 13.
The Schism Begun. 1378.
The
death of Gregory XI. was followed by the schism of Western Christendom, which
lasted forty years, and proved to be a greater misfortune for the Church than
the Avignon captivity. Anti-popes the Church had had, enough of them since the
days of Gregory VII., from Wibert of Ravenna chosen by the will of Henry IV. to
the feeble Peter of Corbara, elected under Lewis the Bavarian. Now, two lines
of popes, each elected by a college of cardinals, reigned, the one at Rome, the
other in Avignon, and both claiming to be in the legitimate succession from St.
Peter.
Gregory
XI. foresaw the confusion that was likely to follow at his death, and sought to
provide against the catastrophe of a disputed election, and probably also to
insure the choice of a French pope, by pronouncing in advance an election
valid, no matter where the conclave might be held. The rule that the conclave
should convene in the locality where the pontiff died, was thus set aside.
Gregory knew well the passionate feeling in Rome against the return of the
papacy to the banks of the Rhone. A clash was almost inevitable. While the pope
lay a-dying, the cardinals at several sittings attempted to agree upon his
successor, but failed.
On
April 7, 1378, ten days after Gregory’s death, the conclave met in the Vatican,
and the next day elected the Neapolitan, Bartholomew Prignano, archbishop of
Bari. Of the sixteen cardinals present, four were Italians, eleven Frenchmen,
and one Spaniard, Peter de Luna, who later became famous as Benedict XIII. The
French party was weakened by the absence of the six cardinals, left behind at
Avignon, and still another was absent. Of the Italians, two were Romans,
Tebaldeschi, an old man, and Giacomo Orsini, the youngest member of the
college. The election of an Italian not a member of the curia was due to
factions which divided the French and to the compulsive attitude of the Roman
populace, which insisted upon an Italian for pope.
The
French cardinals were unable to agree upon a candidate from their own number.
One of the two parties into which they were split, the Limousin party, to which
Gregory XI. and his predecessors had belonged, numbered six cardinals. The
Italian mob outside the Vatican was as much a factor in the situation as the
divisions in the conclave itself. A scene of wild and unrestrained turbulence
prevailed in the square of St. Peter’s. The crowd pressed its way into the very
spaces of the Vatican, and with difficulty a clearing was made for the entrance
of all the cardinals. To prevent the exit of the cardinals, the Banderisi, or
captains of the thirteen districts into which Rome was divided, had taken
possession of the city and closed the gates. The mob, determined to keep the
papacy on the Tiber, filled the air with angry shouts and threats. "We
will have a Roman for pope or at least an ltalian."—Romano, romano, lo
volemo, o almanco Italiano was the cry. On the first night soldiers clashed
their spears in the room underneath the chamber where the conclave was met, and
even thrust them through the ceiling. A fire of combustibles was lighted under
the window. The next morning, as their excellencies were saying the mass of the
Holy Spirit and engaged in other devotions, the noises became louder and more
menacing. One cardinal, d’Aigrefeuille, whispered to Orsini, "better elect
the devil than die."
It
was under such circumstances that the archbishop of Bari was chosen. After the
choice had been made, and while they were waiting to get the archbishop’s
consent, six of the cardinals dined together and seemed to be in good spirits.
But the mob’s impatience to know what had been done would brook no delay, and
Orsini, appearing at the window, cried out "go to St. Peter." This was mistaken for an announcement
that old Tebaldeschi, cardinal of St. Peter’s, had been chosen, and a rush was
made for the cardinal’s palace to loot it, as the custom was when a cardinal
was elected pope. The crowd surged through the Vatican and into the room where
the cardinals had been meeting and, as Valois puts it, "the pillage of the
conclave had begun." To
pacify the mob, two of the cardinals, half beside themselves with fright,
pointed to Tebaldeschi, set him up on a chair, placed a white mitre on his
head, and threw a red cloak over his shoulders. The old man tried to indicate
that he was not the right person. But the throngs continued to bend down before
him in obeisance for several hours, till it became known that the successful
candidate was Prignano.
In
the meantime the rest of the cardinals forsook the building and sought refuge,
some within the walls of St. Angelo, and four by flight beyond the walls of the
city. The real pope was waiting for recognition while the members of the
electing college were fled. But by the next day the cardinals had sufficiently
regained their self-possession to assemble again,—all except the four who had
put the city walls behind them,—and Cardinal Peter de Vergne, using the customary
formula, proclaimed to the crowd through the window: "I announce to you a great joy. You have a pope, and he
calls himself Urban VI." The
new pontiff was crowned on April 18, in front of St. Peter’s, by Cardinal
Orsini.
The
archbishop had enjoyed the confidence of Gregory XI. He enjoyed a reputation
for austere morals and strict conformity to the rules of fasting and other
observances enjoined by the Church. He wore a hair shirt, and was accustomed to
retire with the Bible in his hand. At the moment of his election no doubt was
expressed as to its validity. Nieheim, who was in the city at the time,
declared that Urban was canonical pope-elect. "This is the truth," he
wrote, "and no one can honestly deny it."249 All the cardinals in Rome yielded Urban
submission, and in a letter dated May 8 they announced to the emperor and all
Christians the election and coronation. The cardinals at Avignon wrote
acknowledging him, and ordered the keys to the castle of St. Angelo placed in his
hands. It is probable that no one would have thought of denying Urban’s rights
if the pope had removed to Avignon, or otherwise yielded to the demands of the
French members of the curia. His failure to go to France, Urban declared to be
the cause of the opposition to him.
Seldom
has so fine an opportunity been offered to do a worthy thing and to win a great
name as was offered to Urban VI. It was the opportunity to put an end to the
disturbance in the Church by maintaining the residence of the papacy in its
ancient seat, and restoring to it the dignity which it had lost by its long
exile. Urban, however, was not equal to the occasion, and made an utter
failure. He violated all the laws of common prudence and tact. His head seemed
to be completely turned. He estranged and insulted his cardinals. He might have
made provision for a body of warm supporters by the prompt appointment of new
members to the college, but even this measure he failed to take till it was too
late. The French king, it is true, was bent upon having the papacy return to
French soil, and controlled the French cardinals. But a pope of ordinary
shrewdness was in position to foil the king. This quality Urban VI. lacked, and
the sacred college, stung by his insults, came to regard him as an intruder in
St. Peter’s chair.
In
his concern for right living, Urban early took occasion in a public allocution
to reprimand the cardinals for their worldliness and for living away from their
sees. He forbade their holding more than a single appointment and accepting
gifts from princes. To their demand that Avignon continue to be the seat of the
papacy, Urban brusquely told them that Rome and the papacy were joined
together, and he would not separate them. As the papacy belonged not to France
but to the whole world, he would distribute the promotions to the sacred
college among the nations.
Incensed
at the attack made upon their habits and perquisites, and upon their national
sympathies, the French cardinals, giving the heat of the city as the pretext,
removed one by one to Anagni, while Urban took up his summer residence at
Tivoli. His Italian colleagues followed him, but they also went over to the
French. No pope had ever been left more alone. Forming a compact body, the
French members of the curia demanded the pope’s resignation. The Italians, who
at first proposed the calling of a council, acquiesced. The French seceders
then issued a declaration, dated Aug. 2, in which Urban was denounced as an
apostate, and his election declared void in view of the duress under which it
was accomplished.250
It asserted that the cardinals at the time were in mortal terror from
the Romans. Now that he would not resign, they anathematized him. Urban replied
in a document called the Factum, insisting upon the validity of his election.
Retiring to Fondi, in Neapolitan territory, the French cardinals proceeded to a
new eIection, Sept. 20, 1378, the choice falling upon one of their number,
Robert of Geneva, the son of Amadeus, count of Geneva. He was one of those who,
four months before, had pointed out Tebaldeschi to the Roman mob. The three
Italian cardinals, though they did not actively participate in the election,
offered no resistance. Urban is said to have received the news with tears, and
to have expressed regret for his untactful and self-willed course. Perhaps he
recalled the fate of his fellow-Neapolitan, Peter of Murrhone, whose lack of
worldly wisdom a hundred years before had lost him the papal crown. To
establish himself on the papal throne, he appointed 29 cardinals. But it was
too late to prevent the schism which Gregory XI. had feared and a wise ruler
would have averted.
Robert
of Geneva, at the time of his election 36 years old, came to the papal honor
with his hands red from the bloody massacre of Cesena. He had the reputation of
being a politician and a fast liver. He was consecrated Oct. 31 under the name
of Clement VII. It was a foregone conclusion that he would remove the papal
seat back to Avignon. He first attempted to overthrow Urban on his own soil,
but the attempt failed. Rome resisted, and the castle of St. Angelo, which was
in the hands of his supporters, he lost, but not until its venerable walls were
demolished, so that at a later time the very goats clambered over the stones.
He secured the support of Joanna, and Louis of Anjou whom she had chosen as the
heir of her kingdom, but the war which broke out between Urban and Naples fell
out to Urban’s advantage. The duke of Anjou was deposed, and Charles of Durazzo,
of the royal house of Hungary, Joanna’s natural heir, appointed as his
successor. Joanna herself fell into Charles’ hands and was executed, 1882, on
the charge of having murdered her first husband. The duke of Brunswick was her
fourth marital attempt. Clement VII. bestowed upon the duke of Anjou parts of
the State of the Church and the high-sounding but empty title of duke of Adria.
A portion of Urban’s reward for crowning Charles, 1881, was the lordship over
Capria, Amalfi, Fondi, and other localities, which he bestowed upon his
unprincipled and worthless nephew, Francis Prignano. In the war over Naples,
the pope had made free use of the treasure of the Roman churches.
Clement’s
cause in Italy was lost, and there was nothing for him to do but to fall back
upon his supporter, Charles V. He returned to France by way of the sea and
Marseilles.
Thus
the schism was completed, and Western Europe had the spectacle of two popes
elected by the same college of cardinals without a dissenting voice, and each
making full claims to the prerogative of the supreme pontiff of the Christian
world. Each pope fulminated the severest judgments of heaven against the other.
The nations of Europe and its universities were divided in their allegiance or,
as it was called, their "obedience." The University of Paris, at first neutral, declared in favor
of Robert of Geneva,251 as did Savoy, the kingdoms of Spain,
Scotland, and parts of Germany. England, Sweden, and the larger part of Italy
supported Urban. The German emperor, Charles IV., was about to take the same
side when he died, Nov. 29, 1378. Urban also had the vigorous support of
Catherine of Siena. Hearing of the election which had taken place at Fondi she
wrote to Urban: "I have heard that those devils in human form have
resorted to an election. They have chosen not a vicar of Christ, but an
anti-Christ. Never will I cease, dear father, to look upon you as Christ’s true
vicar on earth."
The
papal schism which Pastor has called "the greatest misfortune that could
be thought of for the Church"252 soon began to call forth
indignant protests from the best men of the time. Western Christendom had never
known such a scandal. The seamless coat of Christ was rent in twain, and
Solomon’s words could no longer be applied, "My dove is but One."253 The divine claims of the papacy itself
began to be matter of doubt. Writers like Wyclif made demands upon the pope to
return to Apostolic simplicity of manners in sharp language such as no one had
ever dared to use before. Many sees had two incumbents; abbeys, two abbots;
parishes, two priests. The maintenance of two popes involved an increased
financial burden, and both papal courts added to the old practices new
inventions to extract revenue. Clement VII.’s agents went everywhere, striving
to win support for his obedience, and the nations, taking advantage of the
situation, magnified their authority to the detriment of the papal power.
The
following is a list of the popes of the Roman and Avignon lines, and the Pisan
line whose legitimacy has now no advocates in the Roman communion.
Roman
Line
Urban
VI., 1378–1389.
Boniface
IX., 1389–1404.
Innocent
VII., 1404–1406.
Gregory
XII., 1406–1415.
Deposed at Pisa, 1409. d. 1424 Resigned
at Constance, 1415, d. 1417.
Avignon
Line
Clement
VII., 1378–1394.
Benedict
XIII., 1394–1409.
Deposed at Pisa, 1409, and at
Constance, 1417,.
Pisan
Line
Alexander
V., 1409–1410.
John
XXIII., 1410–1415.
Martin
V., 1417–1431.
Acknowledged by the whole Latin Church.
The
question of the legitimacy of Urban VI.’s pontificate is still a matter of warm
dispute. As neither pope nor council has given a decision on the question,
Catholic scholars feel no constraint in discussing it. French writers have been
inclined to leave the matter open. This was the case with Bossuet, Mansi,
Martene, as it is with modern French writers. Valois hesitatingly, Salembier
positively, decides for Urban. Historians, not moved by French sympathies,
pronounce strongly in favor of the Roman line, as do Hefele, Funk,
Hergenröther-Kirsch, Denifle, and Pastor. The formal recognition of Urban by
all the cardinals and their official announcement of his election to the
princes would seem to put the validity of his election beyond doubt. On the
other hand, the declaratio sent forth by the cardinals nearly four months after
Urban’s election affirms that the cardinals were in fear of their lives when
they voted; and according to the theory of the canon law, constraint
invalidates an election as constraint invalidated Pascal II.’s concession to
Henry V. It was the intention of the cardinals, as they affirm, to elect one of
their number, till the tumult became so violent and threatening that to protect
themselves they precipitately elected Prignano. They state that the people had
even filled the air with the cry, "Let them be killed," moriantur. A
panic prevailed. When the tumult abated, the cardinals sat down to dine, and
after dinner were about to proceed to a re-election, as they say, when the
tumult again became threatening, and the doors of the room where they were
sitting were broken open, so that they were forced to flee for their lives.
To
this testimony were added the depositions of individual cardinals later. Had
Prignano proved complaisant to the wishes of the French party, there is no
reason to suspect that the validity of his election would ever have been
disputed. Up to the time when the vote was cast for Urban, the cardinals seem
not to have been under duress from fear, but to have acted freely. After the
vote had been cast, they felt their lives were in danger.254 If the cardinals had proceeded to a
second vote, as Valois has said, Urban might have been elected. The constant
communications which passed between Charles V. and the French party at Anagni
show him to have been a leading factor in the proceedings which followed and
the reconvening of the conclave which elected Robert of Geneva.255
On
the other hand, the same body of cardinals which elected Urban deposed him,
and, in their capacity as princes of the Church, unanimously chose Robert as
his successor. The question of the authority of the sacred college to exercise
this prerogative is still a matter of doubt. It received the abdication of
Coelestine V. and elected a successor to him while he was still living. In that
case, however, the papal throne became vacant by the supreme act of the pope
himself.
</div3> <div3 type = "Section"
n="14" title="Further Progress of the Schism.
1378–1409">
§ 14.
Further Progress of the Schism. 1378–1409.
The
territory of Naples remained the chief theatre of the conflict between the
papal rivals, Louis of Anjou, who had the support of Clement VII., continuing
to assert his claim to the throne. In 1383 Urban secretly left Rome for Naples,
but was there held in virtual confinement till he had granted Charles of
Durazzo’s demands. He then retired to Nocera, which belonged to his nephew. The
measures taken by the cardinals at Anagni had taught him no lesson. His insane
severity and self-will continued, and brought him into the danger of losing the
papal crown. Six of his cardinals entered into a conspiracy to dethrone him, or
at least to make him subservient to the curia. The plot was discovered, and
Urban launched the interdict against Naples, whose king was supposed to have
been a party to it. The offending cardinals were imprisoned in an old cistern,
and afterwards subjected to the torture.256 Forced to give up the town and to take refuge in the
fortress, the relentless pontiff is said to have gone three or four times daily
to the window, and, with candles burning and to the sound of a bell, to have
solemnly pronounced the formula of excommunication against the besieging
troops. Allowed to depart, and proceeding with the members of his household
across the country, Urban reached Trani and embarked on a Genoese ship which
finally landed him at Genoa, 1386. On the way, the crew threatened to carry him
to Avignon, and had to be bought off by the unfortunate pontiff. Was ever a
ruler in a worse predicament, beating about on the Mediterranean, than
Urban! Five of the cardinals who
had been dragged along in chains now met with a cruel end. Adam Aston, the
English cardinal, Urban had released at the request of the English king. But
towards the rest of the alleged conspirators he showed the heartless
relentlessness of a tyrant. The chronicler Nieheim, who was with the pope at
Naples and Nocera, declares that his heart was harder than granite. Different
rumors were afloat concerning the death the prelates were subjected to, one
stating they had been thrown into the sea, another that they had their heads
cut off with an axe; another report ran that their bodies were buried in a
stable after being covered with lime and then burnt.
In
the meantime, two of the prelates upon whom Urban had conferred the red hat,
both Italians, went over to Clement VII. and were graciously received.
Breaking
away from Genoa, Urban went by way of Lucca to Perugia, and then with another
army started off for Naples. Charles of Durazzo, who had been called to the
throne of Hungary and murdered in 1386, was succeeded by his young son
Ladislaus (1386~1414), but his claim was contested by the heir of Louis of
Anjou (d. 1384). The pontiff got no farther than Ferentino, and turning back
was carried in a carriage to Rome, where he again entered the Vatican, a few
months before his death, Oct. 15, 1389.
Bartholomew
Prignano had disappointed every expectation. He was his own worst enemy. He was
wholly lacking in common prudence and the spirit of conciliation. It is to his
credit that, as Nieheim urges, he never made ecclesiastical preferment the
object of sale. Whatever were his virtues before he received the tiara, he had
as pope shown himself in every instance utterly unfit for the responsibilities
of a ruler.
Clement
VII., who arrived in Avignon in June, 1379, stooped before the kings of France,
Charles V. (d. 1380) and Charles VI. He was diplomatic and versatile where his
rival was impolitic and intractable. He knew how to entertain at his table with
elegance.257 The distinguished
preacher, Vincent Ferrer, gave him his support. Among the new cardinals he
appointed was the young prince of Luxemburg, who enjoyed a great reputation for
saintliness. At the prince’s death, in 1387, miracles were said to be performed
at his tomb, a circumstance which seemed to favor the claims of the Avignon
pope.
Clement’s
embassy to Bohemia for a while had hopes of securing a favorable declaration
from the Bohemian king, Wenzil, but was disappointed.258 The national pride of the French was
Clement’s chief dependence, and for the king’s support he was obliged to pay a
humiliating price by granting the royal demands to bestow ecclesiastical
offices and tax Church property. As a means of healing the schism, Clement
proposed a general council, promising, in case it decided in his favor, to
recognize Urban as leading cardinal. The first schismatic pope died suddenly of
apoplexy, Sept. 16, 1394, having outlived Urban VI. five years.
Boniface
IX., who succeeded Urban VI., was, like him, a Neapolitan, and only thirty-five
at the time of his election. He was a man of fine presence, and understood the
art of ruling, but lacked the culture of the schools, and could not even write,
and was poor at saying the services.259 He had the satisfaction of seeing the kingdom of Naples
yield to the Roman obedience. He also secured from the city of Rome full
submission, and the document, by which it surrendered to him its republican
liberties, remained for centuries the foundation of the relations of the
municipality to the Apostolic See.260 Bologna, Perugia, Viterbo, and other towns of Italy which
had acknowledged Clement, were brought into submission to him, so that before
his death the entire peninsula was under his obedience except Genoa, which
Charles VI. had reduced. All men’s eyes began again to turn to Rome.
In
1390, the Jubilee Year which Urban VI. had appointed attracted streams of
pilgrims to Rome from Germany, Hungary, Bohemia, Poland, and England and other
lands, as did also the Jubilee of 1400, commemorating the close of one and the
beginning of another century. If Rome profited by these celebrations, Boniface
also made in other ways the most of his opportunity, and his agents throughout
Christendom returned with the large sums which they had realized from the sale
of dispensations and indulgences. Boniface left behind him a reputation for
avarice and freedom in the sale of ecclesiastical concessions.261 He was also notorious for his nepotism,
enriching his brothers Andrew and John and other relatives with offices and
wealth. Such offences, however, the Romans could easily overlook in view of the
growing regard throughout Europe for the Roman line of popes and the waning
influence of the Avignon line.
The
preponderant influence of Ladislaus secured the election of still another
Neapolitan, Cardinal Cosimo dei Migliorati, who took the name of Innocent VII.
He also was only thirty-five years old at the time of his elevation to the
papal chair, a doctor of both laws and expert in the management of affairs. The
members of the conclave, before proceeding to an election, signed a document
whereby each bound himself, if elected pope, to do all in his power to put an
end to the schism. The English chronicler, Adam of Usk, who was present at the
coronation, concludes the graphic description he gives of the ceremonies262
with a lament over the desolate condition of the Roman city. How much is Rome
to be pitied! he exclaims, "for, once thronged with princes and their
palaces, she is now a place of hovels, thieves, wolves, worms, full of desert
spots and laid waste by her own citizens who rend each other in pieces. Once
her empire devoured the world with the sword, and now her priesthood devours it
with mummery. Hence the lines —
"
’The Roman bites at all, and those he cannot bite, he hates.
Of rich
he hears the call, but ’gainst the poor he shuts his gates.’ "
Following
the example of his two predecessors, Innocent excommunicated the Avignon
anti-pope and his cardinals, putting them into the same list with heretics,
pirates, and brigands. In revenge for his nephew’s cold-blooded slaughter of
eleven of the chief men of the city, whose bodies he threw out of a window, he
was driven from Rome, and after great hardships he reached Viterbo. But the
Romans soon found Innocent’s rule preferable to the rule of Ladislaus, king of
Naples and papal protector, and he was recalled, the nephew whose hands were
reeking with blood making public entry into the Vatican with his uncle.
The
last pope of the Roman line was Gregory XII. Angelo Correr, cardinal of St.
Marks, Venice, elected 1406, was surpassed in tenacity as well as ability by
the last of the Avignon popes, elected 1394, and better known as Peter de Luna
of Aragon, one of the cardinals who joined in the revolt against Urban VI. and
in the election of Clement VII. at Fondi.
Under
these two pontiffs the controversy over the schism grew more and more acute and
the scandal more and more intolerable. The nations of Western Europe were weary
of the open and flagitious traffic in benefices and other ecclesiastical
privileges, the fulminations of one pope against the other, and the division of
sees and parishes between rival claimants. The University of Paris took the
leading part in agitating remedial measures, and in the end the matter was
taken wholly out of the hands of the two popes. The cardinals stepped into the
foreground and, in the face of all canonical precedent, took the course which
ultimately resulted in the reunion of the Church under one head.
Before
Gregory’s election, the Roman cardinals, numbering fourteen, again entered into
a compact stipulating that the successful candidate should by all means put an
end to the schism, even, if necessary, by the abdication of his office. Gregory
was fourscore at the time, and the chief consideration which weighed in his
choice was that in men arrived at his age ambition usually runs low, and that
Gregory would be more ready to deny himself for the good of the Church than a
younger man.
Peter
de Luna, one of the most vigorous personalities who have ever claimed the papal
dignity, had the spirit and much of the ability of Hildebrand and his namesake,
Gregory IX. But it was his bad star to be elected in the Avignon and not in the
Roman succession. Had he been in the Roman line, he would probably have made
his mark among the great ruling pontiffs. His nationality also was against him.
The French had little heart in supporting a Spaniard and, at Clement’s death,
the relations between the French king and the Avignon pope at once lost their
cordiality. Peter was energetic of mind and in action, a shrewd observer,
magnified his office, and never yielded an inch in the matter of papal
prerogative. Through the administrations of three Roman pontiffs, he held on
firmly to his office, outlived the two Reformatory councils of Pisa and
Constance, and yielded not up this mortal flesh till the close of the first
quarter of the fifteenth century, and was still asserting his claims and
maintaining the dignity of pope at the time of his death. Before his election,
he likewise entered into a solemn compact with his cardinals, promising to bend
every effort to heal the unholy schism, even if the price were his own
abdication.
The
professions of both popes were in the right direction. They were all that could
be desired, and all that remained was for either of them or for both of them to
resign and make free room for a new candidate. The problem would thus have been
easily settled, and succeeding generations might have canonized both pontiffs
for their voluntary self-abnegation. But it took ten years to bring Gregory to
this state of mind, and then almost the last vestige of power had been taken
from him. Peter de Luna never yielded.
Undoubtedly,
at the time of the election of Gregory XII., the papacy was passing through one
of the grave crises in its history. There were not wanting men who said, like
Langenstein, vice-chancellor of the University of Paris, that perhaps it was
God’s purpose that there should be two popes indefinitely, even as David’s
kingdom was divided under two sovereigns.263 Yea, and there were men who argued publicly that it made
little difference how many there were, two or three, or ten or twelve, or as
many as there were nations.264
At
his first consistory Gregory made a good beginning, when he asserted that, for
the sake of the good cause of securing a united Christendom, he was willing to
travel by land or by sea, by land, if necessary, with a pilgrim’s staff, by sea
in a fishing smack, in order to come to an agreement with Benedict. He wrote to
his rival on the Rhone, declaring that, like the woman who was ready to
renounce her child rather than see it cut asunder, so each of them should be
willing to cede his authority rather than be responsible for the continuance of
the schism. He laid his hand on the New Testament and quoted the words that
"he who exalteth himself shall be abased, and he that humbleth himself
shall be exalted." He
promised to abdicate, if Benedict would do the same, that the cardinals of both
lines might unite together in a new election; and he further promised not to
add to the number of his cardinals, except to keep the number equal to the
number of the Avignon college.
Benedict’s
reply was shrewd, if not equally demonstrative. He, too, lamented the schism,
which he pronounced detestable, wretched, and dreadful,265 but gently setting
aside Gregory’s blunt proposal, suggested as the best resort the via
discussionis, or the path of discussion, and that the cardinals of both lines
should meet together, talk the matter over, and see what should be done, and
then, if necessary, one or both popes might abdicate. Both popes in their
communications called themselves "servant of the servants of God." Gregory addressed Benedict as
"Peter de Luna, whom some peoples in this wretched—miserabili — schism
call Benedict XIII."; and Benedict addressed the pope on the Tiber as
"Angelus Correr, whom some, adhering to him in this most
destructive—pernicioso — schism, call Gregory XII." "We are both old men," wrote
Benedict. "Time is short; hasten, and do not delay in this good cause. Let
us both embrace the ways of salvation and peace."
Nothing
could have been finer, but it was quickly felt that while both popes expressed
themselves as ready to abdicate, positive as the professions of both were, each
wanted to have the advantage when the time came for the election of the new
pontiff to rule over the reunited Church.
As
early as 1381, the University of Paris appealed to the king of France to insist
upon the calling of a general council as the way to terminate the schism. But
the duke of Anjou had the spokesman of the university, Jean Ronce, imprisoned,
and the university was commanded to keep silence on the subject.
Prior
to this appeal, two individuals had suggested the same idea, Konrad of
Gelnhausen, and Henry of Langenstein, otherwise known as Henry of Hassia.
Konrad, who wrote in 1380,266 and whose views led straight on to the
theory of the supreme authority of councils,267 affirmed that there were two
heads of the Church, and that Christ never fails it, even though the earthly
head may fail by death or error. The Church is not the pope and the cardinals,
but the body of the faithful, and this body gets its inner life directly from
Christ, and is so far infallible. In this way he answers those who were forever
declaring that in the absence of the pope’s call there would be no council,
even if all the prelates were assembled, but only a conventicle.
In
more emphatic terms, Henry of Langenstein, in 1381, justified the calling of a
council without the pope’s intervention.268 The institution of the papacy by Christ, he declared, did
not involve the idea that the action of the pope was always necessary, either
in originating or consenting to legislation. The Church might have instituted
the papacy, even had Christ not appointed it. If the cardinals should elect a
pontiff not agreeable to the Church, the Church might set their choice aside.
The validity of a council did not depend upon the summons or the ratification
of a pope. Secular princes might call such a synod. A general council, as the
representative of the entire Church, is above the cardinals, yea, above the
pope himself. Such a council cannot err, but the cardinals and the pope may
err.
The
views of Langenstein, vice-chancellor of the University of Paris, represented
the views of the faculties of that institution. They were afterwards advocated
by John Gerson, one of the most influential men of his century, and one of the
most honored of all the centuries. Among those who took the opposite view was
the English Dominican and confessor of Benedict XIII., John Hayton. The
University of Paris he called "a daughter of Satan, mother of error, sower
of sedition, and the pope’s defamer, "and declared the pope was to be
forced by no human tribunal, but to follow God and his own conscience.
In
1394, the University of Paris proposed three methods of healing the schism269
which became the platform over which the issue was afterwards discussed,
namely, the via cessionis, or the abdication of both popes, the via
compromissi, an adjudication of the claims of both by a commission, and the via
synodi, or the convention of a general council to which the settlement of the
whole matter should be left. No act in the whole history of this famous
literary institution has given it wider fame than this proposal, coupled with
the activity it displayed to bring the schism to a close. The method preferred
by its faculties was the first, the abdication of both popes, which it regarded
as the simplest remedy. It was suggested that the new election, after the popes
had abdicated, should be consummated by the cardinals in office at the time of
Gregory XI.’s decease, 1378, and still surviving, or by a union of the
cardinals of both obediences.
The
last method, settlement by a general council, which the university regarded as
offering the most difficulty, it justified on the ground that the pope is
subject to the Church as Christ was subject to his mother and Joseph. The
authority of such a council lay in its constitution according to Christ’s
words, "where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in
the midst of them." Its
membership should consist of doctors of theology and the laws taken from the
older universities, and deputies of the orders, as well as bishops, many of
whom were uneducated,—illiterati.270
Clement
VII. showed his displeasure with the university by forbidding its further
intermeddling, and by condemning his cardinals who, without his permission, had
met and recommended him to adopt one of the three ways. At Clement’s death the
king of France called upon the Avignon college to postpone the election of a
successor, but, surmising the contents of the letter, they prudently left it
unopened until they had chosen Benedict XIII. Benedict at once manifested the
warmest zeal in the healing of the schism, and elaborated his plan for meeting
with Boniface IX., and coming to some agreement with him. These friendly
propositions were offset by a summons from the king’s delegates, calling upon
the two pontiffs to abdicate, and all but two of the Avignon cardinals favored the
measure. But Benedict declared that such a course would seem to imply
constraint, and issued a bull against it.
The
two parties continued to express deep concern for the healing of the schism,
but neither would yield. Benedict gained the support of the University of
Toulouse, and strengthened himself by the promotion of Peter d’Ailly,
chancellor of the University of Paris, to the episcopate. The famous
inquisitor, Nicolas Eymericus, also one of his cardinals, was a firm advocate
of Benedict’s divine claims. The difficulties were increased by the wavering
course of Charles VI., 1380–1412, a man of feeble mind, and twice afflicted
with insanity, whose brothers and uncles divided the rule of the kingdom
amongst themselves. French councils attempted to decide upon a course for the
nation to pursue, and a third council, meeting in Paris, 1398, and consisting
of 11 archbishops and 60 bishops, all theretofore supporters of the Avignon
pope, decided upon the so-called subtraction of obedience from Benedict. In spite
of these discouragements, Benedict continued loyal to himself. He was forsaken
by his cardinals and besieged by French troops in his palace and wounded. The
spectacle of his isolation touched the heart and conscience of the French
people, and the decree ordering the subtraction of obedience was annulled by
the national parliament of 1403, which professed allegiance anew, and received
from him full absolution.
When
Gregory XII. was elected in 1406, the controversy over the schism was at white
heat. England, Castile, and the German king, Wenzil, had agreed to unite with
France in bringing it to an end. Pushed by the universal clamor, by the
agitation of the University of Paris, and especially by the feeling which
prevailed in France, Gregory and Benedict saw that the situation was in danger
of being controlled by other hands than their own, and agreed to meet at Savona
on the Gulf of Genoa to discuss their differences. In October, 1407, Benedict,
attended by a military guard, went as far as Porto Venere and Savona. Gregory
got as far as Lucca, when he declined to go farther, on the plea that Savona
was in territory controlled by the French and on other pretexts. Nieheim
represents the Roman pontiff as dissimulating during the whole course of the
proceedings and as completely under the influence of his nephews and other
favorites, who imposed upon the weakness of the old man, and by his doting
generosity were enabled to live in luxury. At Lucca they spent their time in
dancing and merry-making. This writer goes on to say that Gregory put every
obstacle in the way of union.271
He is represented by another writer as having spent more in bonbons than
his predecessors did for their wardrobes and tables, and as being only a shadow
with bones and skin.272
Benedict’s
support was much weakened by the death of the king’s brother, the duke of
Orleans, who had been his constant supporter. France threatened neutrality, and
Benedict, fearing seizure by the French commander at Genoa, beat a retreat to
Perpignan, a fortress at the foot of the Pyrenees, six miles from the
Mediterranean. In May of the same year France again decreed
"subtraction," and a national French assembly in 1408 approved the
calling of a council. The last stages of the contest were approaching.
Seven
of Gregory’s cardinals broke away from him, and, leaving him at Lucca, went to
Pisa, where they issued a manifesto appealing from a poorly informed pope to a
better informed one, from Christ’s vicar to Christ himself, and to the decision
of a general council. Two more followed. Gregory further injured his cause by
breaking his solemn engagement and appointing four cardinals, May, 1408, two of
them his nephews, and a few months later he added ten more. Cardinals of the
Avignon obedience joined the Roman cardinals at Pisa and brought the number up
to thirteen. Retiring to Livorno on the beautiful Italian lake of that name,
and acting as if the popes were deposed, they as rulers of the Church appointed
a general council to meet at Pisa, March 25, 1409.
As
an offset, Gregory summoned a council of his own to meet in the territory
either of Ravenna or Aquileja. Many of his closest followers had forsaken him,
and even his native city of Venice withdrew from him its support. In the
meantime Ladislaus had entered Rome and been hailed as king. It is, however,
probable that this was with the consent of Gregory himself, who hoped thereby
to gain sympathy for his cause. Benedict also exercised his sovereign power as
pontiff and summoned a council to meet at Perpignan, Nov. 1, 1408.
The
word "council," now that the bold initiative was taken, was hailed as
pregnant with the promise of sure relief from the disgrace and confusion into
which Western Christendom had been thrown and of a reunion of the Church.
</div3> <div3 type = "Section"
n="15" title="The Council of Pisa">
§ 15.
The Council of Pisa.
The
three councils of Pisa, 1409, Constance, 1414, and Basel, 1431, of which the
schism was the occasion, are known in history as the Reformatory councils. Of
the tasks they set out to accomplish, the healing of the schism and the
institution of disciplinary reforms in the Church, the first they accomplished,
but with the second they made little progress. They represent the final
authority of general councils in the affairs of the Church—a view, called the
conciliary theory—in distinction from the supreme authority of the papacy.
The
Pisan synod marks an epoch in the history of Western Christendom not so much on
account of what it actually accomplished as because it was the first revolt in
council against the theory of papal absolutism which had been accepted for
centuries. It followed the ideas of Gerson and Langenstein, namely, that the
Church is the Church even without the presence of a pope, and that an
oecumenical council is legitimate which meets not only in the absence of his
assent but in the face of his protest. Representing intellectually the weight
of the Latin world and the larger part of its constituency, the assembly was a
momentous event leading in the opposite direction from the path laid out by
Hildebrand, Innocent III., and their successors. It was a mighty blow at the
old system of Church government.
While
Gregory XII. was tarrying at Rimini, as a refugee, under the protection of
Charles Malatesta, and Benedict XIII. was confined to the seclusion of
Perpignan, the synod was opened on the appointed day in the cathedral of Pisa.
There was an imposing attendance of 14 cardinals,—the number being afterwards
increased to 24,—4 patriarchs, 10 archbishops, 79 bishops and representatives
of 116 other bishops, 128 abbots and priors and the representatives of 200
other abbots. To these prelates were added the generals of the Dominican,
Franciscan, Carmelite, and Augustinian orders, the grand-master of the Knights
of St. John, who was accompanied by 6 commanders, the general of the Teutonic
order, 300 doctors of theology and the canon law, 109 representatives of
cathedral and collegiate chapters, and the deputies of many princes, including
the king of the Romans, Wenzil, and the kings of England, France, Poland, and
Cyprus. A new and significant feature was the representation of the
universities of learning, including Paris,273 Bologna, Oxford and
Cambridge, Montpellier, Toulouse, Angers, Vienna, Cracow, Prag, and Cologne.
Among the most important personages was Peter d’Ailly, though there is no
indication in the acts of the council that he took a prominent public part.
John Gerson seems not to have been present.
The
second day, the archbishop of Milan, Philargi, himself soon to be elected pope,
preached from <scripRef passage = "Judg. 20:7">Judg. 20:7</scripRef>: "Behold, ye are all
children of Israel. Give here your advice and counsel," and stated the
reasons which had led to the summoning of the council. Guy de Maillesec, the
only cardinal surviving from the days prior to the schism, presided over the
first sessions. His place was then filled by the patriarch of Alexandria, till
the new pope was chosen.
One
of the first deliverances was a solemn profession of the Holy Trinity and the
Catholic faith, and that every heretic and schismatic will share with the devil
and his angels the burnings of eternal fire unless before the end of this life
he make his peace with the Catholic Church.274
The
business which took precedence of all other was the healing of the schism, the
causa unionis, as, it was called, and disposition was first made of the rival
popes. A formal trial was instituted, which was opened by two cardinals and two
archbishops proceeding to the door of the cathedral and solemnly calling
Gregory and Benedict by name and summoning them to appear and answer for
themselves. The formality was gone through three times, on three successive
days, and the offenders were given till April 15 to appear.
By
a series of declarations the synod then justified its existence, and at the
eighth session declared itself to be "a general council representing the
whole universal Catholic Church and lawfully and reasonably called
together."275
It thought along the lines marked out by D’Ailly and Gerson and the
other writers who had pronounced the unity of the Church to consist in oneness
with her divine Head and declared that the Church, by virtue of the power
residing in herself, has the right, in response to a divine call, to summon a
council. The primitive Church had called synods, and James, not Peter, had
presided at Jerusalem.
D’Ailly,
in making definite announcement of his views at a synod, meeting at Aix, Jan.
1, 1409, had said that the Church’s unity depends upon the unity of her head,
Christ. Christ’s mystical body gets its authority from its divine head to meet
in a general council through representatives, for it is written, "where
two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of
them." The words are not
"in Peter’s name," or "in Paul’s name," but "in my
name." And when the faithful
assemble to secure the welfare of the Church, there Christ is in their midst.
Gerson
wrote his most famous tract bearing on the schism and the Church’s right to
remove a pope—De auferibilitate papae ab ecclesia — while the council of Pisa
was in session.276
In this elaborate treatment he said that, in the strict sense, Christ is
the Church’s only bridegroom. The marriage between the pope and the Church may
be dissolved, for such a spiritual marriage is not a sacrament. The pope may
choose to separate himself from the Church and resign. The Church has a similar
right to separate itself from the pope by removing him. All Church officers are
appointed for the Church’s welfare and, when the pope impedes its welfare, it
may remove him. It is bound to defend itself. This it may do through a general
council, meeting by general consent and without papal appointment. Such a
council depends immediately upon Christ for its authority. The pope may be
deposed for heresy or schism. He might be deposed even where he had no personal
guilt, as in case he should be taken prisoner by the Saracens, and witnesses
should testify he was dead. Another pope would then be chosen and, if the
reports of the death of the former pope were proved false, and he be released
from captivity, he or the other pope would have to be removed, for the Church
cannot have more than one pontiff.
Immediately
after Easter, Charles Malatesta appeared in the council to advocate Gregory’s
cause. A commission, appointed by the cardinals, presented forty reasons to
show that an agreement between the synod and the Roman pontiff was out of the
question. Gregory must either appear at Pisa in person and abdicate, or present
his resignation to a commission which the synod would appoint and send to
Rimini.
Gregory’s
case was also represented by the rival king of the Romans, Ruprecht,277
through a special embassy made up of the archbishop of Riga, the bishops of
Worms and Verden, and other commissioners. It presented twenty-four reasons for
denying the council’s jurisdiction. The paper was read by the bishop of Verden
at the close of a sermon preached to the assembled councillors on the admirable
text, "Peace be unto you." The most catching of the reasons was that,
if the cardinals questioned the legitimacy of Gregory’s pontificate, what
ground had they for not questioning the validity of their own authority,
appointed as they had been by Gregory or Benedict.
In
a document of thirty-eight articles, read April 24, the council presented
detailed specifications against the two popes, charging them both with having
made and broken solemn promises to resign.
The
argument was conducted by Peter de Anchorano, professor of both laws in
Bologna, and by others. Peter argued that, by fostering the schism, Gregory and
his rival had forfeited jurisdiction, and the duty of calling a representative
council of Christendom devolved on the college of cardinals. In certain cases
the cardinals are left no option whether they shall act or not, as when a pope
is insane or falls into heresy or refuses to summon a council at a time when
orthodox doctrine is at stake. The temporal power has the right to expel a pope
who acts illegally.
In
an address on <scripRef passage = "Hosea 1:11">Hosea 1:11</scripRef>, "and the children of
Judah and the children of Israel shall be gathered together and shall appoint
themselves one head," Peter Plaoul, of the University of Paris, clearly
placed the council above the pope, an opinion which had the support of his own
university as well as the support of the universities of Toulouse, Angers, and
Orleans. The learned canonist, Zabarella, afterwards appointed cardinal, took
the same ground.
The
trial was carried on with all decorum and, at the end of two months, on June 5,
sentence was pronounced, declaring both popes "notorious schismatics,
promoters of schism, and notorious heretics, errant from the faith, and guilty
of the notorious and enormous crimes of perjury and violated oaths."278
Deputies
arriving from Perpignan a week later, June 14, were hooted by the council when
the archbishop of Tarragona, one of their number, declared them to be "the
representatives of the venerable pope, Benedict XIII." Benedict had a short time before shown
his defiance of the Pisan fathers by adding twelve members to his cabinet. When
the deputies announced their intention of waiting upon Gregory, and asked for a
letter of safe conduct, Balthazar Cossa, afterwards John XXIII., the master of
Bologna, is said to have declared, "Whether they come with a letter or
without it, he would burn them all if he could lay his hands upon them."
The
rival popes being disposed of, it remained for the council to proceed to a new
election, and it was agreed to leave the matter to the cardinals, who met in
the archiepiscopal palace of Pisa, June 26, and chose the archbishop of Milan,
Philargi, who took the name of Alexander V. He was about seventy, a member of
the Franciscan order, and had received the red hat from Innocent VII. I. He was
a Cretan by birth, and the first Greek to wear the tiara since John VII., in
706. He had never known his father or mother and, rescued from poverty by the
Minorites, he was taken to Italy to be educated, and later sent to Oxford.
After his election as pope, he is reported to have said, "as a bishop I
was rich, as a cardinal poor, and as pope I am a beggar again."279
In
the meantime Gregory’s side council at Cividale, near Aquileja, was running its
course. There was scarcely an attendant at the first session. Later, Ruprecht
and king Ladislaus were represented by deputies. The assumption of the body was
out of all proportion to its size. It pronounced the pontiffs of the Roman line
the legitimate rulers of Christendom, and appointed nuncios to all the
kingdoms. However, not unmindful of his former professions, Gregory anew
expressed his readiness to resign if his rivals, Peter of Luna and Peter of
Candia (Crete), would do the same. Venice had declared for Alexander, and
Gregory, obliged to flee in the disguise of a merchant, found refuge in the
ships of Ladislaus.
Benedict’s
council met in Perpignan six months before, November, 1408. One hundred and
twenty prelates were in attendance, most of them from Spain. The council
adjourned March 26, 1409, after appointing a delegation of seven to proceed to
Pisa and negotiate for the healing of the schism.
After
Alexander’s election, the members lost interest in the synod and began to
withdraw from Pisa, and it was found impossible to keep the promise made by the
cardinals that there should be no adjournment till measures had been taken to
reform the Church "in head and members." Commissions were appointed to consider reforms, and
Alexander prorogued the body, Aug. 7, 1409, after appointing another council
for April 12, 1412.280
At
the opening of the Pisan synod there were two popes; at its close, three.
Scotland and Spain still held to Benedict, and Naples and parts of Central
Europe continued to acknowledge the obedience of Gregory. The greater part of
Christendom, however, was bound to the support of Alexander. This pontiff
lacked the strength needed for the emergency, and he aroused the opposition of
the University of Paris by extending the rights of the Mendicant orders to hear
confessions.281 He died at
Bologna, May 3, 1410, without having entered the papal city. Rumor went that
Balthazar Cossa, who was about to be elected his successor, had poison
administered to him.
As
a rule, modern Catholic historians are inclined to belittle the Pisan synod,
and there is an almost general agreement among them that it lacked oecumenical
character. Without pronouncing a final decision on the question, Bellarmin
regarded Alexander V. as legitimate pope. Gerson and other great contemporaries
treated it as oecumenical, as did also Bossuet and other Gallican historians
two centuries later. Modern Catholic historians treat the claims of Gregory XII.
as not affected by a council which was itself illegitimate and a high-handed
revolt against canon law.282
But
whether the name oecumenical be given or be withheld matters little, in view of
the general judgment which the summons and sitting of the council call forth.
It was a desperate measure adopted to suit an emergency, but it was also the
product of a new freedom of ecclesiastical thought, and so far a good omen of a
better age. The Pisan synod demonstrated that the Church remained virtually a unit
in spite of the double pontifical administration. It branded by their right
names the specious manoevres of Gregory and Peter de Luna. It brought together
the foremost thinkers and literary interests of Europe and furnished a platform
of free discussion. Not its least service was in preparing the way for the
imposing council which convened in Constance five years later.
</div3> <div3 type = "Section"
n="16" title="The Council of Constance. 1414–1418">
§ 16.
The Council of Constance. 1414–1418.
At
Alexander’s death, seventeen cardinals met in Bologna and elected Balthazar
Cossa, who took the name of John XXIII. He was of noble Neapolitan lineage,
began his career as a soldier and perhaps as a corsair,283 was graduated in
both laws at Bologna and was made cardinal by Boniface IX. He joined in the
call of the council of Pisa. A man of ability, he was destitute of every moral
virtue, and capable of every vice.
Leaning
for support upon Louis of Anjou, John gained entrance to Rome. In the battle of
Rocca Secca, May 14, 1411, Louis defeated the troops of Ladislaus. The captured
battle-flags were sent to Rome, hung up in St. Peter’s, then torn down in the
sight of the people, and dragged in the dust in the triumphant procession
through the streets of the city, in which John participated. Ladislaus speedily
recovered from his defeat, and John, with his usual faithlessness, made terms
with Ladislaus, recognizing him as king, while Ladislaus, on his part, renounced
his allegiance to Gregory XII. That pontiff was ordered to quit Neapolitan
territory, and embarking in Venetian vessels at Gaeta, fled to Dalmatia, and
finally took refuge with Charles Malatesta of Rimini, his last political ally.
The
Council of Constance, the second of the Reformatory councils, was called
together by the joint act of Pope John XXIII. and Sigismund, king of the
Romans. It was not till he was reminded by the University of Paris that John
paid heed to the action of the Council of Pisa and called a council to meet at
Rome, April, 1412. Its sessions were scantily attended, and scarcely a trace of
it is left.284 After ordering
Wyclif’s writings burnt, it adjourned Feb. 10, 1413. John had strengthened the
college of cardinals by adding fourteen to its number, among them men of the
first rank, as D’Ailly, Zabarella of Florence, Robert Hallum, bishop of
Salisbury, and Fillastre, dean of Rheims.
Ladislaus,
weary of his treaty with John and ambitious to create a unified Latin kingdom,
took Rome, 1413, giving the city over to sack. The king rode into the Lateran
and looked down from his horse on the heads of St. Peter and St. Paul, which he
ordered the canons to display. The very churches were robbed, and soldiers and
their courtesans drank wine out of the sacred chalices. Ladislaus left Rome,
struck with a vicious disease, rumored to be due to poison administered by an
apothecary’s daughter of Perugia, and died at Naples, August, 1414. He had been
one of the most prominent figures in Europe for a quarter of a century and the
chief supporter of the Roman line of pontiffs.
Driven
from Rome, John was thrown into the hands of Sigismund, who was then in
Lombardy. This prince, the grandson of the blind king, John, who was killed at
Crécy, had come to the throne of Hungary through marriage with its heiress. At
Ruprecht’s death he was elected king of the Romans, 1411. Circumstances and his
own energy made him the most prominent sovereign of his age and the chief
political figure in the Council of Constance. He lacked high aims and moral
purpose, but had some taste for books, and spoke several languages besides his
own native German. Many sovereigns have placed themselves above national
statutes, but Sigismund went farther and, according to the story, placed
himself above the rules of grammar. In his first address at the Council of
Constance, so it is said, he treated the Latin word schisma, schism, as if it
were feminine.285 When Priscian and
other learned grammarians were quoted to him to show it was neuter, he replied,
"Yes; but I am emperor and above them, and can make a new grammar." The fact that Sigismund was not yet
emperor when the mistake is said to have been made—for he was not crowned till
1433—seems to prejudice the authenticity of the story, but it is quite likely
that he made mistakes in Latin and that the bon-mot was humorously invented
with reference to it.
Pressed
by the growing troubles in Bohemia over John Huss, Sigismund easily became an
active participant in the measures looking towards a new council. Men
distrusted John XXIII. The only hope of healing the schism seemed to rest with
the future emperor. In many documents, and by John himself, he was addressed as
"advocate and defender of the Church"286 — advocatus et defensor
ecclesiae.287
Two
of John’s cardinals met Sigismund at Como, Oct. 13, 1413, and discussed the
time and place of the new synod. John preferred an Italian city, Sigismund the
small Swabian town of Kempten; Strassburg, Basel, and other places were
mentioned, but Constance, on German territory, was at last fixed upon. On Oct.
30 Sigismund announced the approaching council to all the prelates, princes,
and doctors of Christendom, and on Dec. 9 John attached his seal to the call.
Sigismund and John met at Lodi the last of November, 1413, and again at Cremona
early in January, 1414, the pope being accompanied by thirteen cardinals. Thus
the two great luminaries of this mundane sphere were again side by side.288 They ascended together the great
Torazzo, close to the cathedral of Cremona, accompanied by the lord of the
town, who afterwards regretted that he had not seized his opportunity and
pitched them both down to the street. Not till the following August was a
formal announcement of the impending council sent to the Kaufhaus
Gregory
XII., who recognized Sigismund as king of the Romans.289 Gregory complained to Archbishop Andrew
of Spalato, bearer of the notice, of the lateness of the invitation, and that
he had not been consulted in regard to the council. Sigismund promised that, if
Gregory should be deposed, he would see to it that he received a good life
position.290
The
council, which was appointed for Nov. 1, 1414, lasted nearly four years, and
proved to be one of the most imposing gatherings which has ever convened in
Western Europe. It was a veritable parliament of nations, a convention of the
leading intellects of the age, who pressed together to give vent to the spirit
of free discussion which the Avignon scandals and the schism had developed, and
to debate the most urgent of questions, the reunion of Christendom under one
undisputed head."291
Following
the advice of his cardinals, John, who set his face reluctantly towards the
North, reached Constance Oct. 28, 1414. The city then contained 5500 people,
and the beauty of its location, its fields, and its vineyards, were praised by
Nieheim and other contemporaries. They also spoke of the salubriousness of the
air and the justice of the municipal laws for strangers. It seemed to be as a
field which the Lord had blessed.292 As John approached Constance, coming by way of the Tirol, he
is said to have exclaimed, "Ha, this is the place where foxes are
trapped." He entered the town
in great style, accompanied by nine cardinals and sixteen hundred mounted horsemen.
He rode a white horse, its back covered with a red rug. Its bridles were held
by the count of Montferrat and an Orsini of Rome. The city council sent to the
pope’s lodgings four large barrels of Elsass wine, eight of native wine, and
other wines.293
The
first day of November, John attended a solemn mass at the cathedral. The
council met on the 5th, with fifteen cardinals present. The first public session
was held Nov. 16. In all, forty-five public sessions were held, the usual hour
of assembling being 7 in the morning. Gregory XII. was represented by two
delegates, the titular patriarch of Constantinople and Cardinal John Dominici
of Ragusa, a man of great sagacity and excellent spirit.
The
convention did not get into full swing until the arrival of Sigismund on
Christmas Eve, fresh from his coronation, which occurred at Aachen, Nov. 8, and
accompanied by his queen, Barbara, and a brilliant suite. After warming
themselves, the imperial party proceeded to the cathedral and, at cock-crowing
Christmas morning, were received by the pope. Services were held lasting eight,
or, according to another authority, eleven hours without interruption.
Sigismund, wearing his crown and a dalmatic, exercised the functions of deacon
and read the Gospel, and the pope conferred upon him a sword, bidding him use
it to protect the Church.
Constance
had become the most conspicuous locality in Europe. It attracted people of
every rank, from the king to the beggar. A scene of the kind on so great a
scale had never been witnessed in the West before. The reports of the number of
strangers in the city vary from 50,000 to 100,000. Richental, the indefatigable
Boswell of the council, himself a resident of Constance, gives an account of
the arrival of every important personage, together with the number of his
retainers. One-half of his Chronicle is a directory of names. He went from
house to house, taking a census, and to the thousands he mentions by name, he
adds 5000 who rode in and out of the town every day. He states that 80,000
witnessed the coronation of Martin V. The lodgings of the more distinguished
personages were marked with their coats of arms. Bakers, beadles, grooms,
scribes, goldsmiths, merchantmen of every sort, even to traffickers from the
Orient, flocked together to serve the dukes and prelates and the learned
university masters and doctors. There were in attendance on the council, 33
cardinals, 5 patriarchs, 47 archbishops, 145 bishops, 93 titular bishops, 217
doctors of theology, 361 doctors in both laws, 171 doctors of medicine, besides
a great number of masters of arts from the 37 universities represented, 83
kings and princes represented by envoys, 38 dukes, 173 counts, 71 barons, more
than 1500 knights, 142 writers of bulls, 1700 buglers, fiddlers, and players on
other musical instruments. Seven hundred women of the street practised their
trade openly or in rented houses, while the number of those who practised it
secretly was a matter of conjecture.294 There were 36,000 beds for strangers. Five hundred are said
to have been drowned in the lake during the progress of the council. Huss
wrote, "This council is a scene of foulness, for it is a common saying
among the Swiss that a generation will not suffice to cleanse Constance from
the sins which the council has committed in this city."295
The
English and Scotch delegation, which numbered less than a dozen persons, was
accompanied by 700 or 800 mounted men, splendidly accoutred, and headed by
fifers and other musicians, and made a great sensation by their entry into the
city. The French delegation was marked by its university men and other men of
learning.296
The
streets and surroundings presented the spectacle of a merry fair. There were
tournaments, dances, acrobatic shows, processions, musical displays. But in
spite of the congestion, good order seems to have been maintained. By order of
the city council, persons were forbidden to be out after curfew without a
light. Chains were to be stretched across some of the streets, and all shouting
at night was forbidden. It is said that during the council’s progress only two
persons were punished for street brawls. A check was put upon extortionate
rates by a strict tariff. The price of a white loaf was fixed at a penny, and a
bed for two persons, with sheets and pillows, at a gulden and a half a month,
the linen to be washed every two weeks. Fixed prices were put upon grains,
meat, eggs, birds, and other articles of food.297 The bankers present were a great number, among them the
young Cosimo de’ Medici of Florence.
Among
the notables in attendance, the pope and Sigismund occupied the chief place.
The most inordinate praise was heaped upon the king. He was compared to Daniel,
who rescued Susanna, and to David. He was fond of pleasure, very popular with
women, always in debt and calling for money, but a deadly foe of heretics, so
that whenever he roared, it was said, the Wyclifites fled.298 There can be no doubt that to Sigismund
were due the continuance and success of the council. His queen, Barbara, the
daughter of a Styrian count, was tall and fair, but of questionable reputation,
and her gallantries became the talk of the town.
The
next most eminent persons were Cardinals D’Ailly, Zabarella, Fillastre, John of
Ragusa, and Hallum, bishop of Salisbury, who died during the session of the
council, and was buried in Constance, the bishop of Winchester, uncle to the
English king, and John Gerson, the chief representative of the University of
Paris. Zabarella was the most profound authority on civil and canon law in
Europe, a professor at Bologna, and in 1410 made bishop of Florence. He died in
the midst of the council’s proceedings, Sept. 26, 1417. Fillastre left behind
him a valuable daily journal of the council’s proceedings. D’Ailly had been for
some time one of the most prominent figures in Europe. Hallum is frequently
mentioned in the proceedings of the council. Among the most powerful agencies
at work in the assemblies were the tracts thrown off at the time, especially
those of Diedrich of Nieheim, one of the most influential pamphleteers of the
later Middle Ages.299
The
subjects which the council was called together to discuss were the reunion of
the Church under one pope, and Church reforms.300 The action against heresy, including the condemnation of
John Huss and Jerome of Prag, is also conspicuous among the proceedings of the
council, though not treated by contemporaries as a distinct subject. From the
start, John lost support. A sensation was made by a tract, the work of an
Italian, describing John’s vices both as man and pope. John of Ragusa and
Fillastre recommended the resignation of all three papal claimants, and this
idea became more and more popular, and was, after some delay, adopted by
Sigismund, and was trenchantly advocated by Nieheim, in his tract on the
Necessity of a Reformation in the Church.
From
the very beginning great plainness of speech was used, so that John had good
reason to be concerned for the tenure of his office. December 7, 1414, the
cardinals passed propositions binding him to a faithful performance of his
papal duties and abstinence from simony. D’Ailly wrote against the
infallibility of councils, and thus furnished the ground for setting aside the
papal election at Pisa.
From
November to January, 1415, a general disposition was manifested to avoid taking
the initiative—the noli me tangere policy, as it was called.301 The ferment of thought and discussion
became more and more active, until the first notable principle was laid down
early in February, 1415, namely, the rule requiring the vote to be by nations.
The purpose was to overcome the vote of the eighty Italian bishops and doctors
who were committed to John’s cause. The action was taken in the face of John’s
opposition, and followed the precedent set by the University of Paris in the
government of its affairs. By this rule, which no council before or since has
followed, except the little Council of Siena, 1423, England, France, Italy, and
Germany had each a single vote in the affairs of the council. In 1417, when
Aragon, Castile, and Scotland gave in their submission to the council, a fifth
vote was accorded to Spain. England had the smallest representation. In the
German nation were included Scandinavia, Poland, and Hungary. The request of
the cardinals to have accorded to them a distinct vote as a body was denied.
They met with the several nations to which they belonged, and were limited to
the same rights enjoyed by other individuals. This rule seems to have been
pressed from the first with great energy by the English, led by Robert of
Salisbury. Strange to say, there is no record that this mode of voting was
adopted by any formal conciliar decree.302
The
nations met each under its own president in separate places, the English and
Germans sitting in different rooms in the convent of the Grey Friars. The vote
of the majority of the nations carried in the public sessions of the council.
The right to vote in the nations was extended so as to include the doctors of
both kinds and princes. D’Ailly advocated this course, and Fillastre argued in
favor of including rectors and even clergymen of the lowest rank. Why, reasoned
D’Ailly, should a titular bishop have an equal voice with a bishop ruling over
an extensive see, say the archbishopric of Mainz, and why should a doctor be
denied all right to vote who has given up his time and thought to the questions
under discussion? And why, argued
Fillastre, should an abbot, having control over only ten monks, have a vote,
when a rector with a care of a thousand or ten thousand souls is excluded? An ignorant king or prelate he called a
"crowned ass." Doctors
were on hand for the very purpose of clearing up ignorance.
When
the Italian tract appeared, which teemed with charges against John, matters
were brought to a crisis. Then it became evident that the scheme calling for
the removal of all three popes would go through, and John, to avoid a worse
fate, agreed to resign, making the condition that Gregory XII. and Benedict
should also resign. The formal announcement, which was read at the second
session, March 2, 1415, ran: "I, John XXIII., pope, promise, agree, and
obligate myself, vow and swear before God, the Church, and this holy council,
of my own free will and spontaneously, to give peace to the Church by
abdication, provided the pretenders, Benedict and Gregory, do the same."303 At the words "vow and swear,"
John rose from his seat and knelt down at the altar, remaining on his knees
till he finished the reading. The reading being over, Sigismund removed his
crown, bent before John, and kissed his feet. Five days after, John issued a
bull confirming his oath.
Constance
was wild with joy. The bells rang out the glad news. In the cathedral, joy
expressed itself in tears. The spontaneity of John’s self-deposition may be
questioned, in view of the feeling which prevailed among the councillors and
the report that he had made an offer to cede the papacy for 30,000 gulden.304
A
most annoying, though ridiculous, turn was now given to affairs by John’s
flight from Constance, March 20. Rumors had been whispered about that he was
contemplating such a move. He talked of transferring the council to Rizza, and
complained of the unhealthiness of the air of Constance. He, however, made the
solemn declaration that he would not leave the town before the dissolution of
the council. To be on the safe side, Sigismund gave orders for the gates to be
kept closed and the lake watched. But John had practised dark arts before, and,
unmindful of his oath, escaped at high noon on a "little horse," in
the disguise of a groom, wrapped in a gray cloak, wearing a gray cap, and
having a crossbow tied to his saddle.305 The flight was made while the gay festivities of a
tournament, instituted by Frederick, duke of Austria, were going on, and with
two attendants. The pope continued his course without rest till he reached
Schaffhausen. This place belonged to the duke, who was in the secret, and on
whom John had conferred the office of commander of the papal troops, with a
yearly grant of 6000 gulden. John’s act was an act of desperation. He wrote
back to the council, giving as the reason of his flight that he had been in
fear of Sigismund, and that his freedom of action had been restricted by the
king.306
So
great was the panic produced by the pope’s flight that the council would
probably have been brought to a sudden close by a general scattering of its
members, had it not been for Sigismund’s prompt action. Cardinals and envoys
despatched by the king and council made haste to stop the fleeing pope, who
continued on to Laufenburg, Freiburg, and Breisach. John wrote to Sigismund,
expressing his regard for him, but with the same pen he was addressing communications
to the University of Paris and the duke of Orleans, seeking to awaken sympathy
for his cause by playing upon the national feelings of the French. He attempted
to make it appear that the French delegation had been disparaged when the
council proceeded to business before the arrival of the twenty-two deputies of
the University. France and Italy, with two hundred prelates, had each only a
single vote, while England, with only three prelates, had a vote. God, he
affirmed, dealt with individuals and not with nations. He also raised the
objection that married laymen had votes at the side of prelates, and John Huss
had not been put on trial, though he had been condemned by the University of
Paris.
To
the envoys who found John at Breisach, April 23, he gave his promise to return
with them to Constance the next morning; but with his usual duplicity, he
attempted to escape during the night, and was let down from the castle by a
ladder, disguised as a peasant. He was soon seized, and ultimately handed over
by Sigismund to Louis III., of the Palatinate, for safe-keeping.
In
the meantime the council forbade any of the delegates to leave Constance before
the end of the proceedings, on pain of excommunication and the loss of
dignities. Its fourth and fifth sessions, beginning April 6, 1415, mark an
epoch in the history of ecclesiastical statement. The council declared that,
being assembled legitimately in the Holy Spirit, it was an oecumenical council
and representing the whole Church, had its authority immediately from Christ,
and that to it the pope and persons of every grade owed obedience in things
pertaining to the faith and to the reformation of the Church in head and
members. It was superior to all other ecclesiastical tribunals.307 This declaration, stated with more
precision than the one of Pisa, meant a vast departure from the papal theory of
Innocent III. and Boniface VIII.
Gerson,
urging this position in his sermon before the council, March 23, 1415, said308
the gates of hell had prevailed against popes, but not against the Church.
Joseph was set to guard his master’s wife, not to debauch her, and when the
pope turned aside from his duty, the Church had authority to punish him. A
council has the right by reason of the vivifying power of the Holy Spirit to
prolong itself, and may, under certain conditions, assemble without call of
pope or his consent.
The
conciliar declarations reaffirmed the principle laid down by Nieheim on the eve
of the council in the tract entitled the Union of the Church and its
Reformation, and by other writers.309 The Church, Nieheim affirmed, whose head is Christ, cannot
err, but the Church as a commonwealth,—respublica,—controlled by pope and
hierarchy, may err. And as a prince who does not seek the good of his subjects
may be deposed, so may the pope, who is called to preside over the whole Church
.... The pope is born of man, born in sin—clay of clay—limus de limo. A few
days ago the son of a rustic, and now raised to the papal throne, he is not
become an impeccable angel. It is not his office that makes him holy, but the
grace of God. He is not infallible; and as Christ, who was without sin, was
subject to a tribunal, 80 is the pope. It is absurd to say that a mere man has
power in heaven and on earth to bind and loose from sin. For he may be a
simoniac, a liar, a fornicator, proud, and worse than the devil—<foreign
lang="la">pejor
quam diabolus</foreign>. As for a council, the pope is under obligation to submit
to it and, if necessary, to resign for the common good—utilitatem communem. A
general council may be called by the prelates and temporal rulers, and is
superior to the pope. It may elect, limit, and depose a pope—and from its
decision there is no appeal—<foreign lang="la">potest papam eligere,
privare et deponere. A tali concilio nullus potest appellare.</foreign> Its canons are immutable,
except as they may be set aside by another oecumenical council.
These
views were revolutionary, and show that Marsiglius of Padua, and other
tractarians of the fourteenth century, had not spoken in vain.
Having
affirmed its superiority over the pope, the council proceeded to try John
XXIII. on seventy charges, which included almost every crime known to man. He
had been unchaste from his youth, had been given to lying, was disobedient to
his parents. He was guilty of simony, bought his way to the cardinalate, sold
the same benefices over and over again, sold them to children, disposed of the
head of John the Baptist, belonging to the nuns of St. Sylvester, Rome, to
Florence, for 50,000 ducats, made merchandise of spurious bulls, committed
adultery with his brother’s wife, violated nuns and other virgins, was guilty
of sodomy and other nameless vices.310 As for doctrine, he had often denied the future life.
When
John received the notice of his deposition, which was pronounced May 29, 1415,
he removed the papal cross from his room and declared he regretted ever having
been elected pope. He was taken to Gottlieben, a castle belonging to the bishop
of Constance, and then removed to the castle at Heidelberg, where two chaplains
and two nobles were assigned to serve him. From Heidelberg the count Palatine
transferred him to Mannheim, and finally released him on the payment of 30,000
gulden. John submitted to his successor, Martin V., and in 1419 was appointed
cardinal bishop of Tusculum, but survived the appointment only six months.
John’s accomplice, Frederick of Austria, was deprived of his lands, and was
known as Frederick of the empty purse—Friedrich mit der leeren Tasche. A
splendid monument was erected to John in the baptistery in Florence by Cosimo
de’ Medici, who had managed the pope’s money affairs.
While
John’s case was being decided, the trial of John Huss was under way. The
proceedings and the tragedy of Huss’ death are related in another place.
John
XXIII. was out of the way. Two popes remained, Gregory XII. and Benedict XIII.,
who were facetiously called in tracts and addresses Errorius, a play on
Gregory’s patronymic, Angelo Correr,311 and Maledictus. Gregory
promptly resigned, thus respecting his promise made to the council to resign,
provided John and Benedict should be set aside. He also had promised to
recognize the council, provided the emperor should preside. The resignation was
announced at the fourteenth session, July 4, 1415, by Charles Malatesta and
John of Ragusa, representing the Roman pontiff. Gregory’s bull, dated May 15,
1414, which was publicly read, "convoked and authorized the general
council so far as Balthazar Cossa, John XXIII., is not present and does not
preside." The words of
resignation ran, "I resign, in the name of the Lord, the papacy, and all
its rights and title and all the privileges conferred upon it by the Lord Jesus
Christ in this sacred synod and universal council representing the holy Roman
and universal Church."312
Gregory’s cardinals now took their seats, and Gregory himself was
appointed cardinal-bishop of Porto and papal legate of Ancona. He died at
Recanati, near Ancona, Oct. 18, 1417. Much condemnation as Angelo Correr
deserves for having temporized about renouncing the papacy, posterity has not
withheld from him respect for his honorable dealing at the close of his career.
The high standing of his cardinal, John of Ragusa, did much to make men forget
Gregory’s faults.
Peter
de Luna was of a different mind. Every effort was made to bring him into accord
with the mind of the councilmen in the Swiss city, but in vain. In order to
bring all the influence possible to bear upon him, Sigismund, at the council’s
instance, started on the journey to see the last of the Avignon popes face to
face. The council, at its sixteenth session, July 11, 1415, appointed doctors
to accompany the king, and eight days afterwards he broke away from Constance,
accompanied by a troop of 4000 men on horse.
Sigismund
and Benedict met at Narbonne, Aug. 15, and at Perpignan, the negotiations
lasting till December. The decree of deposition pronounced at Pisa, and
France’s withdrawal of allegiance, had not broken the spirit of the old man.
His dogged tenacity was worthy of a better cause.313 Among the propositions the pope had the temerity to make was
that he would resign provided that he, as the only surviving cardinal from the
times before the schism, should have liberty to follow his abdication by
himself electing the new pontiff. Who knows but that one who was 80 thoroughly
assured of his own infallibility would have chosen himself. Benedict persisted
in calling the Council of Constance the "congregation," or assembly.
On Nov. 14 he fled to Peñiscola, a rocky promontory near Valencia, again
condemned the Swiss synod, and summoned a legitimate one to meet in his
isolated Spanish retreat. His own cardinals were weary of the conflict, and
Dec. 13, 1415, declared him deposed. His long-time supporter, Vincent Ferrer,
called him a perjurer. The following month the kingdom of Aragon, which had
been Benedict’s chief support, withdrew from his obedience and was followed by
Castile and Scotland.
Peter
de Luna was now as thoroughly isolated as any mortal could well be. The council
demanded his unconditional abdication, and was strengthened by the admission of
his old supporters, the Spanish delegates. At the thirty-seventh session, 1417,
he was deposed. By Sigismund’s command the decision was announced on the
streets of Constance by trumpeters. But the indomitable Spaniard continued to
defy the synod’s sentence till his death, nine years later, and from the lonely
citadel of Peñiscola to sit as sovereign of Christendom. Cardinal Hergenröther
concludes his description of these events by saying that Benedict "was a
pope without a church and a shepherd without sheep. This very fact proves the
emptiness of his claims."
Benedict died, 1423,314 leaving behind him four cardinals. Three of
these elected the canon, Gil Sauduz de Munoz of Barcelona, who took the name of
Clement VIII. Five years later Gil resigned, and was appointed by Martin V.
bishop of Majorca, on which island he was a pope with insular jurisdiction.315 The fourth cardinal, Jean Carrier,
elected himself pope, and took the name of Benedict XIV. He died in prison,
1433.
It
remained for the council to terminate the schism of years by electing a new
pontiff and to proceed to the discussions of Church reforms. At the fortieth
session, Oct. 30, 1417, it was decided to postpone the second item until after
the election of the new pope. In fixing this order of business, the cardinals
had a large influence. There was a time in the history of the council when they
were disparaged. Tracts were written against them, and the king at one time, so
it was rumored, proposed to seize them all.316 But that time was past; they had kept united, and their
influence had steadily grown.
The
papal vacancy was filled, Nov. 11, 1417, by the election of Cardinal Oddo
Colonna, who took the name of Martin V. The election was consummated in the
Kaufhaus, the central commercial building of Constance, which is still
standing. Fifty-three electors participated, 6 deputies from each of the 5
nations, and 23 cardinals. The building was walled up with boards and divided
into cells for the electors. Entrance was had by a single door, and the three
keys were given, one to the king, one to the chapter of Constance, and one to
the council. When it became apparent that an election was likely to be greatly
delayed, the Germans determined to join the Italians in voting for an Italian
to avoid suspicion that advantage was taken of the synod’s location on German
soil. The Germans then secured the co-operation of the English, and finally the
French and Spaniards also yielded.317 The pope-elect was thus the creature of the council.
The
Western Church was again unified under one head. But for the deep-seated
conviction of centuries, the office of the universal papacy would scarcely have
survived the strain of the schism.318 Oddo Colonna, the only member of his distinguished house who
has worn the tiara, was a subdeacon at the time of his election. Even more
hastily than Photius, patriarch of Constantinople, was he rushed through the
ordination of deacon, Nov. 12, of priest, Nov. 13, and bishop, Nov. 14. He was
consecrated pope a week later, Nov. 21, Sigismund kissing his toe. In the
procession, the bridles of Martin’s horse were held by Sigismund and Frederick
the Hohenzollern, lately created margrave of Brandenburg. The margrave had paid
Sigismund 250,000 marks as the price of his elevation, a sum which the king
used to defray the expenses of his visit to Benedict.
Martin
at once assumed the presidency of the council which since John’s flight had
been filled by Cardinal Viviers. Measures of reform were now the order of the
day and some headway was made. The papal right of granting indulgences was
curtailed. The college of cardinals was limited to 24, with the stipulation
that the different parts of the church should have a proportionate representation,
that no monastic order should have more than a single member in the college,
and that no cardinal’s brother or nephew should be raised to the curia so long
as the cardinal was living. Schedules and programmes enough were made, but the
question of reform involved abuses of such long standing and so deeply
intrenched that it was found impossible to reconcile the differences of opinion
prevailing in the council and bring it to promptness of action. After sitting
for more than three years, the delegates were impatient to get away.
As
a substitute for further legislation, the so-called concordats were arranged.
These agreements were intended to regulate the relations of the papacy and the
nations one with the other. There were four of these distinct compacts, one
with the French, and one with the German nations, each to be valid for five
years, one with the English to be perpetual, dated July 21, 1418, and one with
the Spanish nation, dated May 13, 1418.319 These concordats set forth rules for the appointment of the
cardinals and the restriction of their number, limited the right of papal
reservations and the collection of annates and direct taxes, determined what
causes might be appealed to Rome, and took up other questions. They were the
foundation of the system of secret or open treaties by which the papacy has
since regulated its relations with the nations of Europe. Gregory VII. was the
first pope to extend the system of papal legates, but he and his successors had
dealt with nations on the arbitrary principle of papal supremacy and
infallibility.
The
action of the Council of Constance lifted the state to some measure of equality
with the papacy in the administration of Church affairs. It remained for Louis
XIV., 16431715, to assert more fully the Gallican theory of the authority of
the state to manage the affairs of the Church within its territory, so far as
matters of doctrine were not touched. The first decisive step in the assertion
of Gallican liberties was the synodal action of 1407, when France withdrew from
the obedience of Benedict XIII. By this action the chapters were to elect their
own bishops, and the pope was restrained from levying taxes on their sees. Then
followed the compact of the Council of Constance, the Pragmatic Sanction
adopted at Bourges, 1438, and the concordat agreed upon between Francis I. and
Leo X. at the time of the Reformation. In 1682 the French prelates adopted four
propositions, restricting the pope’s authority to spirituals, a power which is
limited by the decision of the Council of Constance, and by the precedents of
the Gallican Church, and declaring that even in matters of faith the pope is
not infallible. Although Louis, who gave his authority to these articles,
afterwards revoked them, they remain a platform of Gallicanism as against the
ultramontane theory of the infallibility and supreme authority of the pope, and
may furnish in the future the basis of a settlement of the papal question in
the Catholic communion.320
In
the deliverance known as Frequens, passed Oct. 9, 1417, the council decreed
that a general council should meet in five years, then in seven years, and
thereafter perpetually every ten years.321 This action was prompted by Martin in the bull Frequens,
Oct. 9, 1417. On completing its forty-fifth session it was adjourned by Martin,
April 22, 1418. The Basel-Ferrara and the Tridentine councils sat a longer
time, as did also the Protestant Westminster Assembly, 1643–1648. Before
breaking away from Constance, the pope granted Sigismund a tenth for one year
to reimburse him for the expense he had been to on account of the synod.
The
Council of Constance was the most important synod of the Middle Ages, and more
fairly represented the sentiments of Western Christendom than any other council
which has ever sat. It furnished an arena of free debate upon interests whose
importance was felt by all the nations of Western Europe, and which united
them. It was not restricted by a programme prepared by a pope, as the Vatican
council of 1870 was. It had freedom and exercised it. While the dogma of
transubstantiation enacted by the 4th Lateran, 1215, and the dogma of papal
infallibility passed by the Vatican council injected elements of permanent
division into the Church, the Council of Constance unified Latin Christendom
and ended the schism which had been a cause of scandal for forty years. The
validity of its decree putting an oecumenical council above the pope, after
being disputed for centuries, was officially set aside by the conciliar vote of
1870. For Protestants the decision at Constance is an onward step towards a
right definition of the final seat of religious authority. It remained for
Luther, forced to the wall by Eck at Leipzig, and on the ground of the error
committed by the Council of Constance, in condemning the godly man, John Huss,
to deny the infallibility of councils and to place the seat of infallible
authority in the Scriptures, as interpreted by conscience.
Note
on the Oecumenical Character of the Council of Constance.
Modern
Roman Catholic historians deny the oecumenical character and authority of the
Council of Constance, except its four last, 42d-45th sessions, which were
presided over by Pope Martin V., or at least all of it till the moment of
Gregory XII.’s bull giving to the council his approval, that is, after John had
fled and ceased to preside. Hergenröther-Kirsch, II. 862, says that before
Gregory’s authorization the council was without a head, did not represent the
Roman Church, and sat against the will of the cardinals, by whom he meant
Gregory’s cardinals. Salembier, p. 317, says, <foreign lang="fr">Il n’est devenu oecuménique
qu’après la trente-cinquième session, lorsque Grégoire III. eut donné sa
démission</foreign>, etc. Pastor, I. 198 sq.,
warmly advocates the same view, and declares that when the council in its 4th
and 6th sessions announced its superiority over the pope, it was not yet an
oecumenical gathering. This dogma, he says, was intended to set up a new
principle which revolutionized the old Catholic doctrine of the Church. Philip
Hergenröther, in Katholisches Kirchenrecht, p. 344 sq., expresses the same
judgment. The council was not a legitimate council till after Gregory’s
resignation.
The
wisdom of the council in securing the resignation of Gregory and deposing John
and Benedict is not questioned. The validity of its act in electing Martin V.,
though the papal regulation limiting the right of voting to the cardinals was
set aside, is also acknowledged on the ground that the council at the time of
Martin’s election was sitting by Gregory’s sanction, and Gregory was true pope
until he abdicated.
A
serious objection to the view, setting aside this action of the 4th and 5th
sessions, is offered by the formal statement made by Martin V. At the final
meeting of the council and after its adjournment had been pronounced, a
tumultuous discussion was precipitated over the tract concerning the affairs of
Poland and Lithuania by the Dominican, Falkenberg, which was written in defence
of the Teutonic Knights, and justified the killing of the Polish king and all
his subjects. It had been the subject of discussion in the nations, and its
heresies were declared to be so glaring that, if they remained uncondemned by
the council, that body would go down to posterity as defective in its testimony
for orthodoxy. It was during the tumultuous debate, and after Martin had
adjourned the council, that he uttered the words which, on their face, sanction
whatever was done in council in a conciliar way. Putting an end to the tumult,
he announced he would maintain all the decrees passed by the council in matters
of faith in a conciliar way—omnia et singula determinata et conclusa et decreta
in materiis fidei per praesens sacrum concilium generale Constantiense
conciliariter tenere et inviolabiliter observare volebat et nunquam
contravenire quoquomodo. Moreover,
he announced that he sanctioned and ratified acts made in a "conciliar way
and not made otherwise or in any other way." Ipsaque sic conciliariter facta approbat papa et ratificat
et non aliter nec alio modo. Funk, Martin V. und das Konzil zu Konstanz in
Abhandlungen, I. 489 sqq., Hefele, Conciliengesch., I. 62, and Küpper, in
Wetzer-Welte, VII. 1004 sqq., restrict the application of these words to the
Falkenberg incident. Funk, however, by a narrow interpretation of the words
"in matter of faith," excludes the acts of the 4th and 6th sessions
from the pope’s approval. Döllinger (p. 464), contends that the expression
conciliariter, "in a conciliar way," is opposed to nationaliter,
"in the nations." The
expression is to be taken in its simple meaning, and refers to what was done by
the council as a council.
The
only other statement made by Martin bearing upon the question occurs in his
bull Frequens, of Feb. 22, 1418, in which he recognized the council as
oecumenical, and declared its decrees binding which pertained to faith and the
salvation of souls—quod sacrum concilium Constant., universalem ecclesiam
representans approbavit et approbat in favorem fidei et salutem animarum, quod
hoc est ab universis Christi fidelibus approbandum et tenendum. Hefele and Funk
show that this declaration was not meant to exclude matters which were not of
faith, for Martin expressly approved other matters, such as those passed upon
in the 39th session. There is no record that Martin at any time said anything
to throw light upon his meaning in these two utterances.
In
the latter part of the fifteenth century, as Raynaldus, an. 1418, shows, the
view came to expression that Martin expressly intended to except the action of
the 4th and 6th sessions from his papal approval.
Martin
V.’s successor, Eugenius IV., in 1446, thirty years after the synod, asserted
that its decrees were to be accepted so far as they did not prejudice the law,
dignity, and pre-eminence of the Apostolic See — absque tamen praejudicio juris
et dignitatis et praeeminentiae Apost. sedis. The papacy had at that time
recovered its prestige, and the supreme pontiff felt himself strong enough to
openly reassert the superiority of the Apostolic See over oecumenical councils.
But before that time, in a bull issued Dec. 13, 1443, he formally accepted the
acts of the Council of Basel, the most explicit of which was the reaffirmation
of the acts of the Council of Constance in its 4th and 5th sessions.
It
occurs to a Protestant that the Council of Constance would hardly have elected
Oddo Colonna pope if he had been suspected of being opposed to the council’s
action concerning its own superiority. The council would have stultified itself
in appointing a man to undo what it had solemnly done. And for him to have
denied its authority would have been, as Döllinger says (p. 159), like a son
denying his parentage. The emphasis which recent Catholic historians lay upon
Gregory’s authorization of the synod as giving it for the first time an
oecumenical character is an easy way out of the difficulty, and this view
forces the recognition of the Roman line of popes as the legitimate successors
of St. Peter during the years of the schism.
</div3> <div3 type = "Section"
n="17" title="The council of Basel. 1431–1449">
§ 17.
The council of Basel. 1431–1449.
Martin
V. proved himself to be a capable and judicious ruler, with courage enough when
the exigency arose. He left Constance May 16, 1418. Sigismund, who took his
departure the following week, offered him as his papal residence Basel,
Strassburg, or Frankfurt. France pressed the claims of Avignon, but a Colonna
could think of no other city than Rome, and proceeding by the way of Bern,
Geneva, Mantua, and Florence, he entered the Eternal city Sept. 28, 1420.322 The delay was due to the struggle being
carried on for its possession by the forces of Joanna of Naples under Sforza,
and the bold chieftain Braccio.323
Martin secured the withdrawal of Joanna’s claims by recognizing that
princess as queen of Naples, and pacified by investing him with Assisi,
Perugia, Jesi, and Todi.
Rome
was in a desolate condition when Martin reached it, the prey of robbers, its
streets filled with refuse and stagnant water, its bridges decayed, and many of
its churches without roofs. Cattle and sheep were herded in the spaces of St.
Paul’s. Wolves attacked the inhabitants within the walls.324 With Martin’s arrival a new era was
opened. This pope rid the city of robbers, so that persons carrying gold might
go with safety even beyond the walls. He restored the Lateran, and had it
floored with a new pavement. He repaired the porch of St. Peter’s, and provided
it with a new roof at a cost of 50,000 gold gulden. Revolutions within the city
ceased. Martin deserves to be honored as one of Rome’s leading benefactors. His
pontificate was an era of peace after years of constant strife and bloodshed
due to factions within the walls and invaders from without. With him its
mediaeval history closes, and an age of restoration and progress begins. The
inscription on Martin’s tomb in the Lateran, "the Felicity of his
Times,"—temporum suorum felicitas,—expresses the debt Rome owes to him.
Among
the signs of Martin’s interest in religion was his order securing the transfer
to Rome of some of the bones of Monica, the mother of Augustine, and his bull
canonizing her. On their reception, Martin made a public address in which he
said, "Since we possess St. Augustine, what do we care for the shrewdness
of Aristotle, the eloquence of Plato, the reputation of Pythagoras? These men we do not need. Augustine is
enough. If we want to know the truth, learning, and religion, where shall we
find one more wise, learned, and holy than St. Augustine?"
As
for the promises of Church reforms made at Constance, Martin paid no attention
to them, and the explanation made by Pastor, that his time was occupied with
the government of Rome and the improvement of the city, is not sufficient to
exculpate him. The old abuses in the disposition and sale of offices continued.
The pope had no intention of yielding up the monarchical claims of the papal
office. Nor did he forget his relatives. One brother, Giordano, was made duke
of and another, Lorenzo, count of Alba. One of his nephews, Prospero, he
invested with the purple, 1426. He also secured large tracts of territory for
his house.325
The
council, appointed by Martin at Constance to meet in Pavia, convened April,
1423, was sparsely attended, adjourned on account of the plague to Siena, and,
after condemning the errors of Wyclif and Huss, was dissolved March 7, 1424.
Martin and his successors feared councils, and it was their policy to prevent,
if possible, their assembling, by all sorts of excuses and delays. Why should
the pope place himself in a position to hear instructions and receive
commands? However, Martin could
not be altogether deaf to the demands of Christendom, or unmindful of his pledge
given at Constance. Placards were posted up in Rome threatening him if he
summoned a council. Under constraint and not of free will, he appointed the
second council, which was to meet in seven years at Basel, 1481, but he died
the same year, before the time set for its assembling.
Eugenius
IV., the next occupant of the papal throne, 1431–1447, a Venetian, had been
made bishop of Siena by his maternal uncle, Gregory XII., at the age of
twenty-four, and soon afterwards was elevated to the curia. His pontificate was
chiefly occupied with the attempt to assert the supremacy of the papacy against
the conciliar theory. It also witnessed the most notable effort ever made for
the union of the Greeks with the Western Church.
By
an agreement signed in the conclave which elevated Eugenius, the cardinals
promised that the successful candidate should advance the interests of the
impending general council, follow the decrees of the Council of Constance in
appointing cardinals, consult the sacred college in matters of papal
administration, and introduce Church reforms. Such a compact had been signed by
the conclave which elected Innocent VI., 1352, and similar compacts by almost
every conclave after Eugenius down to the Reformation, but all with no result,
for, as soon as the election was consummated, the pope set the agreement aside
and pursued his own course.
On
the day set for the opening of the council in Basel, March 7, 1431, only a
single prelate was present, the abbot of Vezelay. The formal opening occurred
July 23, but Cardinal Cesarini, who had been appointed by Martin and Eugenius
to preside, did not appear till Sept. 9. He was detained by his duties as papal
legate to settle the Hussite insurrection in Bohemia. Sigismund sent Duke
William of Bavaria as protector, and the attendance speedily grew. The number
of doctors present was larger in comparison to the number of prelates than at
Constance. A member of the council said that out of 500 members he scarcely saw
20 bishops. The rest belonged to the lower orders of the clergy, or were
laymen. "Of old, bishops had settled the affairs of the Church, but now
the common herd does it."326
The most interesting personage in the convention was Aeneas Sylvius
Piccolomini, who came to Basel as Cardinal Capranica’s secretary. He sat on
some of its important commissions.
The
tasks set before the council were the completion of the work of Constance in
instituting reforms,327 and a peaceful settlement of the Bohemian
heresy. Admirable as its effort was in both directions, it failed of papal
favor, and the synod was turned into a constitutional battle over papal
absolutism and conciliar supremacy. This battle was fought with the pen as well
as in debate. Nicolas of Cusa, representing the scholastic element, advocated,
in 1433, the supremacy of councils in his Concordantia catholica. The
Dominican, John of Turrecremata, took the opposite view, and defended the
doctrine of papal infallibility in his Summa de ecclesia et ejus auctoritate.
For years the latter writing was the classical authority for the papal
pretension.
The
business was performed not by nations but by four committees, each composed of
an equal number of representatives from the four nations and elected for a
month. When they agreed on any subject, it was brought before the council in
public session.
It
soon became evident that the synod acknowledged no earthly authority above
itself, and was in no mood to hear the contrary principle defended. On the
other hand, Eugenius was not ready to tolerate free discussion and the synod’s
self-assertion, and took the unfortunate step of proroguing the synod to
Bologna, making the announcement at a meeting of the cardinals, Dec. 18, 1431.
The bull was made public at Basel four weeks later, and made an intense
sensation. The synod was quick to give its answer, and decided to continue its
sittings. This was revolution, but the synod had the nations and public opinion
back of it, as well as the decrees of the Council of Constance. It insisted
upon the personal presence of Eugenius, and on Feb. 15, 1432, declared for its
own sovereignty and that a general council might not be prorogued or
transferred by a pope without its own consent.
In
the meantime Sigismund had received the iron crown at Milan, Nov. 25, 1431. He
was at this period a strong supporter of the council’s claims. A French synod,
meeting at Bourges early in 1432, gave its sanction to them, and the University
of Paris wrote that Eugenius’ decree transferring the council was a suggestion
of the devil. Becoming more bold, the council, at its third session, April 29,
1432, called upon the pope to revoke his bull and be present in person. At its
fourth session, June 20, it decreed that, in case the papal office became
vacant, the election to fill the vacancy should be held in Basel and that, so
long as Eugenius remained away from Basel, he should be denied the right to
create any more cardinals. The council went still farther, proceeded to arraign
the pope for contumacy, and on Dec. 18 gave him 60 days in which to appear, on
pain of having formal proceedings instituted against him.
Sigismund,
who was crowned emperor in Rome the following Spring, May 31, 1433, was not
prepared for such drastic action. He was back again in Basel in October, but,
with the emperor present or absent, the council continued on its course, and
repeatedly reaffirmed its superior authority, quoting the declarations of the
Council of Constance at its fourth and fifth sessions. The voice of Western
Christendom was against Eugenius, as were the most of his cardinals. Under the
stress of this opposition, and pressed by the revolution threatening his
authority in Rome, the pope gave way, and in the decree of Dec. 13, 1433,
revoked his three bulls, beginning with Dec. 18, 1431, which adjourned the
synod. He asserted he had acted with the advice of the cardinals, but now
pronounced and declared the "General Council of Bagel legitimate from the
time of its opening." Any
utterance or act prejudicial to the holy synod or derogatory to its authority,
which had proceeded from him, he revoked, annulled, and pronounced utterly
void.328 At the same time the pope appointed
legates to preside, and they were received by the synod. They swore in their
own names to accept and defend its decrees.
No revocation
of a former decree could have been made more explicit. The Latin vocabulary was
strained for words. Catholic historians refrain from making an argument against
the plain meaning of the bull, which is fatal to the dogma of papal inerrancy
and acknowledges the superiority of general councils. At best they pass the
decree with as little comment as possible, or content themselves with the
assertion that Eugenius had no idea of confirming the synod’s reaffirmation of
the famous decrees of Constance, or with the suggestion that the pope was under
duress when he issued the document.329 Both assumptions are without warrant. The pope made no
exception whatever when he confirmed the acts of the synod "from its
opening." As for the explanation
that the decree was forced, it needs only to be said that the revolt made
against the pope in Rome, May, 1434, in which the Colonna took a prominent
part, had not yet broken out, and there was no compulsion except that which
comes from the judgment that one’s case has failed. Cesarini, Nicolas of Cusa,
Aeneas Sylvius, John, patriarch of Antioch, and the other prominent personages
at Basel, favored the theory of the supreme authority of councils, and they and
the synod would have resented the papal deliverance if they had surmised its
utterances meant something different from what they expressly stated. Döllinger
concludes his treatment of the subject by saying that Eugenius’ bull was the
most positive and unequivocal recognition possible of the sovereignty of the
council, and that the pope was subject to it.
Eugenius
was the last pope, with the exception of Pius IX., who has had to flee from
Rome. Twenty-five popes had been obliged to escape from the city before him.
Disguised in the garb of a Benedictine monk, and carried part of the way on the
shoulders of a sailor, he reached a boat on the Tiber, but was recognized and
pelted with a shower of stones, from which he escaped by lying flat in the
boat, covered with a shield. Reaching Ostia, he took a galley to Livorno. From
there he went to Florence. He remained in exile from 1434 to 1443.
In
its efforts to pacify the Hussites, the synod granted them the use of the cup,
and made other concessions. The causes of their opposition to the Church had
been expressed in the four articles of Prag. The synod introduced an altogether
new method of dealing with heretics in guaranteeing to the Hussites and their
representatives full rights of discussion. Having settled the question of its
own authority, the synod took up measures to reform the Church "in head
and members." The number of
the cardinals was restricted to 24, and proper qualifications insisted upon, a
measure sufficiently needed, as Eugenius had given the red hat to two of his
nephews. Annates, payments for the pallium, the sale of church dignities, and
other taxes which the Apostolic See had developed, were abolished. The right of
appeal to Rome was curtailed. Measures of another nature were the reaffirmation
of the law of priestly celibacy,330 and the prohibition of theatricals and other
entertainments in church buildings and churchyards. In 1439 the synod issued a
decree on the immaculate conception, by which Mary was declared to have always
been free from original and actual sin.331 The interference with the papal revenues affecting the
entire papal household was, in a measure, atoned for by the promise to provide
other sources. From the monarchical head of the Church, directly appointed by
God, and responsible to no human tribunal, the supreme pontiff was reduced to
an official of the council. Another class of measures sought to clear Basel of
the offences attending a large and promiscuous gathering, such as gambling,
dancing, and the arts of prostitutes, who were enjoined from showing themselves
on the streets.
Eugenius
did not sit idly by while his prerogatives were being tampered with and an
utterly unpapal method of dealing with heretics was being pursued. He
communicated with the princes of Europe, June 1, 1436, complaining of the
highhanded measures, such as the withdrawal of the papal revenues, the
suppression of the prayer for the pope in the liturgy, and the giving of a vote
to the lower clergy in the synod. At that juncture the union with the Greeks, a
question which had assumed a place of great prominence, afforded the pope the
opportunity for reasserting his authority and breaking up the council in the
Swiss city.
Overtures
of union, starting with Constantinople, were made simultaneously through
separate bodies of envoys sent to the pope and the council. The one met
Eugenius at Bologna; the other appeared in Basel in the summer of 1434. In
discussing a place for a joint meeting of the representatives of the two
communions, the Greeks expressed a preference for some Italian city, or Vienna.
This exactly suited Eugenius, who had even suggested Constantinople as a place
of meeting, but the synod sharply informed him that the city on the Bosphorus
was not to be considered. In urging Basel, Avignon, or a city in Savoy, the
Basel councilmen were losing their opportunity. Two delegations, one from the
council and one from the pope, appeared in Constantinople, 1437, proposing
different places of meeting.
When
the matter came up for final decision, the council, by a vote of 355 to 244,
decided to continue the meeting at Basel, or, if that was not agreeable to the
Greeks, then at Avignon. The minority, acting upon the pope’s preference,
decided in favor of Florence or Udine. In a bull dated Sept. 18, 1437, and
signed by eight cardinals, Eugenius condemned the synod for negotiating with
the Greeks, pronounced it prorogued, and, at the request of the Greeks, as it
alleged, transferred the council to Ferrara.332
The
synod was checkmated, though it did not appreciate its situation. The reunion
of Christendom was a measure of overshadowing importance, and took precedence
in men’s minds of the reform of Church abuses. The Greeks all went to Ferrara.
The prelates, who had been at Basel, gradually retired across the Alps,
including Cardinals Cesarini and Nicolas of Cusa. The only cardinal left at
Basel was d’Aleman, archbishop of Arles. It was now an open fight between the
pope and council, and it meant either a schism of the Western Church or the
complete triumph of the papacy. The discussions at Basel were characterized by
such vehemence that armed citizens had to intervene to prevent violence. The
conciliar theory was struggling for life. At its 28th session, October, 1437,
the council declared the papal bull null and void, and summoned Eugenius within
sixty days to appear before it in person or by deputy. Four months later, Jan.
24, 1488, it declared Eugenius suspended, and, June 25, 1439, at its 34th
session, "removed, deposed, deprived, and cast him down," as a
disturber of the peace of the Church, a simoniac and perjurer, incorrigible,
and errant from the faith, a schismatic, and a pertinacious heretic.333 Previous to this, at its 33d session,
it had again solemnly declared for the supreme jurisdiction of councils, and
denied the pope the right to adjourn or transfer a general council. The holding
of contrary views, it pronounced heresy.
In
the meantime the council at Ferrara had been opened, Jan. 8, 1438, and was
daily gaining adherents. Charles VII. took the side of Eugenius, although the
French people, at the synod of Bourges in the summer of 1438, accepted,
substantially, the reforms proposed by the council of Basel.334 This action, known as the Pragmatic
Sanction, decided for the superiority of councils, and that they should be held
every ten years, abolished annates and first-fruits, ordered the large
benefices filled by elections, and limited the number of cardinals to
twenty-four. These important declarations, which went back to the decrees of
the Council of Constance, were the foundations of the Gallican liberties.
The
attitude of the German princes and ecclesiastics was one of neutrality or of
open support of the council at Basel. Sigismund died at the close of the year
1437, and, before the election of his son-in-law, Albrecht II., as his
successor, the electors at Frankfurt decided upon a course of neutrality.
Albrecht survived his election as king of the Romans less than two years, and
his uncle, Frederick III., was chosen to take his place. Frederick, after
observing neutrality for several years, gave his adhesion to Eugenius.
Unwilling
to be ignored and put out of life, the council at Basel, through a commission
of thirty-two, at whose head stood d’Aleman, elected, 1439, Amadeus, duke of
Savoy, as pope.335
After the loss of his wife, 1435, Amadeus formed the order of St.
Mauritius, and lived with several companions in a retreat at Ripaille, on the
Lake of Geneva. He was a man of large wealth and influential family
connections. He assumed the name of Felix V., and appointed four cardinals. A
year after his election, and accompanied by his two sons, he entered Basel, and
was crowned by Cardinal d’Aleman. The tiara is said to have cost 30,000 crowns.
Thus Western Christendom again witnessed a schism. Felix had the support of
Savoy and some of the German princes, of Alfonso of Aragon, and the
universities of Paris, Vienna, Cologne, Erfurt, and Cracow. Frederick III. kept
aloof from Basel and declined the offer of marriage to Margaret, daughter of
Felix and widow of Louis of Anjou, with a dowry of 200,000 ducats.
The
papal achievement in winning Frederick III., king of the Romans, was largely due
to the corruption of Frederick’s chief minister, Caspar Schlick, and the
treachery of Aeneas Sylvius, who deserted one cause and master after another as
it suited his advantage. From being a vigorous advocate of the council, he
turned to the side of Eugenius, to whom he made a most fulsome confession, and,
after passing from the service of Felix, he became secretary to Frederick, and
proved himself Eugenius’ most shrewd and pliable agent. He was an adept in
diplomacy and trimmed his sails to the wind.
The
archbishops of Treves and Cologne, who openly supported the Basel assembly,
were deposed by Eugenius, 1446. The same year six of the electors offered
Eugenius their obedience, provided he would recognize the superiority of an
oecumenical council, and within thirteen months call a new council to meet on
German soil. Following the advice of Aeneas Sylvius, the pope concluded it wise
to show a conciliatory attitude. Papal delegates appeared at the diet, meeting
September, 1446, and Aeneas was successful in winning over the margrave of
Brandenburg and other influential princes. The following January he and other
envoys appeared in Rome as representatives of the archbishop of Mainz,
Frederick III., and other princes. The result of the negotiations was a concordat,—the
so-called princes’ concordat,—Fürsten Konkordat,—by which the pope restored the
two deposed archbishops, recognized the superiority of general councils, and
gave to Frederick the right during his lifetime to nominate the incumbents of
the six bishoprics of Trent, Brixen, Chur, Gurk, Trieste, and Pilsen, and to
him and his successors the right to fill, subject to the pope’s approval, 100
Austrian benefices. These concessions Eugenius ratified in four bulls, Feb.
5–7, 1447, one of them, the bull Salvatoria, declaring that the pope in the
previous three bulls had not meant to disparage the authority of the Apostolic
See, and if his successors found his concessions out of accord with the
doctrine of the fathers, they were to be regarded as void. The agreement was
celebrated in Rome with the ringing of bells, and was confirmed by Nicolas V.
in the so-called Vienna Concordat, Feb. 17, 1448.336
Eugenius
died Feb. 23, 1447, and was laid at the side of Eugenius III. in St. Peter’s.
He had done nothing to introduce reforms into the Church. Like Martin V., he
was fond of art, a taste he cultivated during his exile in Florence. He
succeeded in perpetuating the mediaeval view of the papacy, and in delaying the
reformation of the Church which, when it came, involved the schism in Western
Christendom which continues to this day.
The
Basel council continued to drag on a tedious and uneventful existence. It was
no longer in the stream of noticeable events. It stultified itself by granting
Felix a tenth. In June, 1448, it adjourned to Lausanne. Reduced to a handful of
adherents, and weary of being a synonym for innocuous failure, it voted to
accept Nicolas V., Eugenius’ successor, as legitimate pope, and then quietly
breathed its last, April 25, 1449. After courteously revoking his bulls
anathematizing Eugenius and Nicolas, Felix abdicated. He was not allowed to
suffer, much less obliged to do penance, for his presumption in exercising
papal functions. He was made cardinal-bishop of Sabina, and Apostolic vicar in
Savoy and other regions which had recognized his "obedience." Three of his cardinals were admitted to
the curia, and d’Aleman forgiven. Felix died in Geneva, 1451.337
The
Roman Church has not since had an anti-pope. The Council of Basel concluded the
series of the three councils, which had for their chief aims the healing of the
papal schism and the reformation of Church abuses. They opened with great
promise at Pisa, where a freedom of discussion prevailed unheard of before, and
where the universities and their learned representatives appeared as a new
element in the deliberations of the Church. The healing of the schism was
accomplished, but the abuses in the Church went on, and under the last popes of
the fifteenth century became more infamous than they had been at any time
before. And yet even in this respect these councils were not in vain, for they
afforded a warning to the Protestant reformers not to put their trust even in
ecclesiastical assemblies. As for the theory of the supremacy of general
councils which they had maintained with such dignity, it was proudly set aside
by later popes in their practice and declared fallacious by the Fifth Lateran
in 1516,338 and by the dogma of papal infallibility announced at the
Council of the Vatican, 1870.
</div3> <div3 type = "Section"
n="18" title="The Council of Ferrara-Florence.
1438–1445">
§ 18.
The Council of Ferrara-Florence. 1438–1445.
The
council of Ferrara witnessed the submission of the Greeks to the Roman see. It
did not attempt to go into the subject of ecclesiastical reforms, and thus vie
with the synod at Basel. After sixteen sessions held at Ferrara, Eugenius transferred
the council, February, 1439, to Florence. The reason given was the unhealthy
conditions in Ferrara, but the real grounds were the offer of the Florentines
to aid Eugenius in the support of his guests from the East and, by getting away
from the seaside, to lessen the chances of the Greeks going home before the
conclusion of the union. In 1442 the council was transferred to Rome, where it
held two sessions in the Lateran. The sessions at Ferrara, Florence, and Rome
are listed with the first twenty-five sessions of the council of Basel, and
together they are counted as the seventeenth oecumenical council.339
The
schism between the East and the West, dating from the middle of the ninth
century, while Nicolas I. and Photius were patriarchs respectively of Rome and
Constantinople, was widened by the crusades and the conquest of Constantinople,
1204. The interest in a reunion of the two branches of the Church was shown by
the discussion at Bari, 1098, when Anselm was appointed to set forth the
differences with Greeks, and by the treatments of Thomas Aquinas and other
theologians. The only notable attempt at reunion was made at the second council
of Lyons, 1274, when a deputation from the East accepted articles of agreement
which, however, were rejected by the Eastern churches. In 1369, the emperor
John visited Rome and abjured the schism, but his action met with unfavorable
response in Constantinople. Delegates appeared at Constance, 1418, sent by
Manuel Palaeologus and the patriarch of Constantinople,340 and, in 1422, Martin
V. despatched the Franciscan, Anthony Massanus, to the Bosphorus, with nine
articles as a basis of union. These articles led on to the negotiations
conducted at Ferrara.
Neither
Eugenius nor the Greeks deserve any credit for the part they took in the
conference. The Greeks were actuated wholly by a desire to get the assistance
of the West against the advance of the Turks, and not by religious zeal. So far
as the Latins are concerned, they had to pay all the expenses of the Greeks on
their way to Italy, in Italy, and on their way back as the price of the
conference. Catholic historians have little enthusiasm in describing the empty
achievements of Eugenius.341
The
Greek delegation was large and inspiring, and included the emperor and the
patriarch of Constantinople. In Venetian vessels rented by the pope, the
emperor John VI., Palaeologus reached Venice in February, 1438.342 He was accorded a brilliant reception,
but it is fair to suppose that the pleasure he may have felt in the festivities
was not unmixed with feelings of resentment, when he recalled the sack and
pillage of his capital, in 1204, by the ancestors of his entertainers. John
reached Ferrara March 6. The Greek delegation comprised 700 persons. Eugenius
had arrived Jan. 27. In his bull, read in the synod, he called the emperor his
most beloved son, and the patriarch his most pious brother.343 In a public address delivered by
Cardinal Cesarini, the differences dividing the two communions were announced
as four,—the mode of the procession of the Holy Spirit, the use of unleavened
bread in the eucharist, the doctrine of purgatory, and the papal primacy. The
discussions exhibit a mortifying spectacle of theological clipping and
patchwork. They betray no pure zeal for the religious interests of mankind. The
Greeks interposed all manner of dilatory tactics while they lived upon the
hospitality of their hosts. The Latins were bent upon asserting the supremacy
of the Roman bishop. The Orientals, moved by considerations of worldly policy,
thought only of the protection of their enfeebled empire.
Among
the more prominent Greeks present were Bessarion, bishop of Nice, Isidore,
archbishop of Russian Kief, and Mark Eugenicus, archbishop of Ephesus.
Bessarion and Isidore remained in the West after the adjournment of the
council, and were rewarded by Eugenius with the red hat. The archbishop of
Ephesus has our admiration for refusing to bow servilely to the pope and join
his colleagues in accepting the articles of union. The leaders among the Latins
were Cardinals Cesarini and Albergati, and the Spaniard Turrecremata, who was
also given the red hat after the council adjourned.
The
first negotiations concerned matters of etiquette. Eugenius gave a private
audience to the patriarch, but waived the ceremony of having his foot kissed.
An important question was the proper seating of the delegates, and the Greek
emperor saw to it that accurate measurements were taken of the seats set apart
for the Greeks, lest they should have positions of less honor than the Latins.344 The pope’s promise to support his
guests was arranged by a monthly grant of thirty florins to the emperor,
twenty-five to the patriarch, four each to the prelates, and three to the other
visitors. What possible respect could the more high-minded Latins have for ecclesiastics,
and an emperor, who, while engaged on the mission of Church reunion, were
willing to be the pope’s pensioners, and live upon his dole!
The
first common session was not held till Oct. 8, 1438. Most of it was taken up
with a long address by Bessarion, as was the time of the second session by a
still longer address by another Greek. The emperor did his share in promoting
delay by spending most of his time hunting. At the start the Greeks insisted
there could be no addition to the original creed. Again and again they were on
the point of withdrawing, but were deterred from doing so by dread of the Turks
and empty purses.345
A commission of twenty, ten Greeks and ten Latins, was appointed to
conduct the preliminary discussion on the questions of difference.
The
Greeks accepted the addition made to the Constantinopolitan creed by the synod
of Toledo, 589, declaring that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son,
but with the stipulation that they were not to be required to introduce the
filioque clause when they used the creed. They justified their course on the
ground that they had understood the Latins as holding to the procession from
the Father and the Son as from two principles. The article of agreement ran:
"The Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son eternally and
substantially as it were from one source and cause."346
In
the matter of purgatory, it was decided that immediately at death the blessed
pass to the beatific vision, a view the Greeks had rejected. Souls in purgatory
are purified by pain and may be aided by the suffrages of the living. At the
insistence of the Greeks, material fire as an element of purification was left
out.
The
use of leavened bread was conceded to the Greeks.
In
the matter of the eucharist, the Greeks, who, after the words, "this is my
body," make a petition that the Spirit may turn the bread into Christ’s
body, agreed to the view that transubstantiation occurs at the use of the
priestly words, but stipulated that the confession be not incorporated in the
written articles.
The
primacy of the Roman bishop offered the most serious difficulty. The article of
union acknowledged him as "having a primacy over the whole world, he
himself being the successor of Peter, and the true vicar of Christ, the head of
the whole Church, the father and teacher of all Christians, to whom, in Peter,
Christ gave authority to feed, govern and rule the universal Church."347 This remarkable concession was modified
by a clause in the original document, running, "according as it is defined
by the acts of the oecumenical councils and by the sacred canons."348 The Latins afterwards changed the
clause so as to read, "even as it is defined by the oecumenical councils
and the holy canons." The Latin falsification made the early oecumencial
councils a witness to the primacy of the Roman pontiff.
The
articles of union were incorporated in a decree349 beginning <foreign
lang="la">Laetentur
coeli et exultat terra</foreign>, "Let the heavens
rejoice and the earth be glad."
It declared that the middle wall of partition between the Occidental and
Oriental churches has been taken down by him who is the cornerstone, Christ.
The black darkness of the long schism had passed away before the ray of
concord. Mother Church rejoiced to see her divided children reunited in the
bonds of peace and love. The union was due to the grace of the Holy Ghost. The
articles were signed July 5 by 115 Latins and 33 Greeks, of whom 18 were
metropolitans. Archbishop Mark of Ephesus was the only one of the Orientals who
refused to sign. The patriarch of Constantinople had died a month before, but
wrote approving the union. His body lies buried in S. Maria Novella, Florence.
His remains and the original manuscript of the articles, which is preserved in
the Laurentian library at Florence, are the only relics left of the union.
On
July 6, 1439, the articles were publicly read in the cathedral of Florence, the
Greek text by Bessarion, and the Latin by Cesarini. The pope was present and
celebrated the mass. The Latins sang hymns in Latin, and the Greeks followed
them with hymns of their own. Eugenius promised for the defence of Constantinople
a garrison of three hundred and two galleys and, if necessary, the armed help
of Western Christendom. After tarrying for a month to receive the five months
of arrearages of his stipend, the emperor returned by way of Venice to his
capital, from which he had been absent two years.
The
Ferrara agreement proved to be a shell of paper, and all the parade and
rejoicing at the conclusion of the proceedings were made ridiculous by the
utter rejection of its articles in Constantinople.
On
their return, the delegates were hooted as Azymites, the name given in contempt
to the Latins for using unleavened bread in the eucharist. Isidore, after
making announcement of the union at Of en, was seized and put into a convent,
from which he escaped two years later to Rome. The patriarchs of Jerusalem,
Antioch, and Alexandria issued a letter from Jerusalem, 1443, denouncing the
council of Florence as a synod of robbers and Metrophanes, the Byzantine
patriarch as a matricide and heretic.
It
is true the articles were published in St. Sophia, Dec. 14, 1452, by a Latin
cardinal, but six months later, Constantinople was in the hands of the
Mohammedans. A Greek council, meeting in Constantinople, 1472, formally
rejected the union.
On
the other hand, the success of the Roman policy was announced through Western
Europe. Eugenius’ position was strengthened by the empty triumph, and in the
same proportion the influence of the Basel synod lessened. If cordial relations
between churches of the East and the West were not promoted at Ferrara and
Florence, a beneficent influence flowed from the council in another direction
by the diffusion of Greek scholarship and letters in the West.
Delegations
also from the Armenians and Jacobites appeared at Florence respectively in 1439
and 1442. The Copts and Ethiopians also sent delegations, and it seemed as if
the time had arrived for the reunion of all the distracted parts of
Christendom.350 A union with the
Armenians, announced Nov. 22, 1439, declared that the Eastern delegates had
accepted the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son and the Chalcedon
Council giving Christ two natures and by implication two wills. The uniate
Armenians have proved true to the union. The Armenian catholicos, Gregory IX.,
who attempted to enforce the union, was deposed, and the Turks, in 1461, set up
an Armenian patriarch, with seat at Constantinople. The union of the Jacobites,
proclaimed in 1442, was universally disowned in the East. The attempts to
conciliate the Copts and Ethiopians were futile. Eugenius sent envoys to the
East to apprise the Maronites and the Nestorians of the efforts at reunion. The
Nestorians on the island of Cyprus submitted to Rome, and a century later,
during the sessions of the Fifth Lateran, 1516, the Maronites were received
into the Roman communion.
On
Aug. 7, 1445, Eugenius adjourned the long council which had begun its sittings
at Basel, continued them at Ferrara and Florence, and concluded them in the
Lateran.
</div3></div2><div2 type =
"Chapter" n="III" title="Leaders Of Catholic
Thought">
CHAPTER
III.
LEADERS
OF CATHOLIC THOUGHT.
<div3 type = "Section"
n="19" title="Literature">
§ 19.
Literature.
For § 20. Ockam and the Decay of Scholasticism.—No
complete ed. of Ockam’s works exists. The fullest lists are given by Riezler, see below,
Little: Grey Friars of Oxford, pp. 226–234, and Potthast: II. 871–873.
Goldast’s Monarchia, II. 313–1296, contains a number of his works, e.g. opus
nonaginta dierum, Compendium errorum Johannis XXII., De utili dominio rerum
Eccles. et abdicatione bonorum temporalium, Super potestatem summi pontificis,
Quaestionum octo decisiones, Dial. de potestate papali et imperiali in tres
partes distinctus, (1) de haereticis, (2) de erroribus Joh. XXII., (3) de
potestate papae, conciliorum et imperatoris (first publ. 2 vols., Paris,
1476).—Other works: Expositio aurea super totam artem veterem, a com. on
Porphyry’s Isagoge, and Aristotle’s Elenchus, Bologna, 1496.—Summa logices,
Paris, 1488.—Super I V. Iibros sententiarum, Lyons, 1483.—De sacramento
altaris, Strassburg, 1491.—De praedestinatione et futuris contingentibus,
Bologna, 1496.—Quodlibeta septem, Paris, 1487.—Riezler: D. antipäpstlichen und
publizistischen Schriften Occams in his Die literar. Widersacher, etc.,
241–277.—Haureau: La philos. scolastique.—Werner: Die Scholastik des späteren
M. A., II., Vienna, 1883, and Der hl. Thos. von Aquino, III.—Stöckl: Die Philos.
des M. A., II. 986–1021, and art. Nominalismus in Wetzer-Welte, IX.—Baur: Die
christl. Kirche d. M. A., p. 377 sqq.—Müller: Der Kampf Ludwigs des Baiern.—R.
L. Poole in Dict. of Natl. Biog., XLI. 357–362.—R. Seeberg in Herzog, XIV.
260–280.—A. Dorner; D. Verhältniss von Kirche und Staat nach Occam in Studien
und Kritiken, 1886, pp. 672–722.—F. Kropatscheck: Occam und Luther in Beitr.
zur Förderung christl. Theol., Gütersloh, 1900.—Art. Nominalismus, by Stöckl in
Wetzer-Welte, IX. 423–427.
For §
21. Catherine of Siena.—Her writings. Epistole ed orazioni della seraphica
vergine s. Catterina da Siena, Venice, 1600, etc.—Best ed. 6 vols., Siena,
1707–1726.—Engl. trans. of the Dialogue of the Seraphic Virgin Cath. of Siena,
by Algar Thorold, London, 1896.—Her Letters, ed. by N. Tommaseo: Le lettere di
S. Caterina da Siena, 4 vols., Florence, 1860.—*Eng. trans. by Vida D. Scudder:
St. Cath. of Siena as seen in her Letters, London, 1906, 2d ed., 1906.—Her
biography is based upon the Life written by her confessor, Raymundo de Vineis
sive de Capua, d. 1399: vita s. Cath. Senensis, included in the Siena ed. of
her works and in the Acta Sanctt. III. 863–969.—Ital. trans. by Catherine’s
secretary, Neri De Landoccio, Fr. trans. by E. Cartier, Paris, 1863, 4th ed., 1877.—An
abbreviation of Raymund’s work, with annotations, Leggenda della Cat. da Siena,
usually called La Leggenda minore, by Tommaso d’antonio Nacci Caffarini,
1414.—K. Hase: Caterina von Siena, Ein Heiligenbild, Leipzig, 1804, new ed.,
1892.—J. E. Butler: Cath. of Siena, London, 1878, 4th ed., 1895.—Augusta T.
Drane, Engl. Dominican: The Hist. of Cath. of Siena, compiled from the Orig.
sources, London, 1880, 3d ed., 1900, with a trans. of the Dialogue.—St.
Catherine of Siena and her Times, by the author of Mademoiselle Mori (Margaret
D. Roberts), New York, 1906, pays little attention to the miraculous element,
and presents a full picture of Catherine’s age.—*E. G. Gardner: St. Catherine
of Siena: A Study in the Religion, Literature, and History of the fourteenth
century in Italy, London, 1907.
For §
22. Peter d’ailly.—Paul Tschackert: Peter von Ailli. Zur Gesch. des grossen
abendländischen Schismas und der Reformconcilien von Pisa und Constanz, Gotha,
1877, and Art. in Herzog, I. 274–280.—Salembier: Petrus de Alliaco, Lille,
1886.—Lenz: Drei Traktate aus d. Schriftencyclus d. Konst. Konz., Marburg,
1876.—Bess: Zur Gesch. des Konst. Konzils, Marburg, 1891.—Finke: Forschungen
und Quellen, etc., pp. 103–132.—For a list of D’Ailly’s writings, See
Tschackert, pp. 348–365.—Some of them are given in Van der Hardt and in Du
Pin’s ed. of Gerson’s Works, I. 489–804, and the De difficultate reform.
eccles., and the De necessitate reform. eccles., II. 867–903.
For §
23. John Gerson.—Works. Best ed. by L. E. Du Pin, Prof. of Theol. in Paris, 5
vols., Antwerp, 1706; 2d ed., Hague Com., 1728. The 2d ed. has been consulted
in this work and is pronounced by Schwab "indispensable." It contains the materials of Gerson’s life
and the contents of his works in an introductory essay, Gersoniana, I. i-cxlv,
and also writings by D’ailly, Langenstein, Aleman and other contemporaries. A
number of Gerson’s works are given in Goldast’s Monarchia and Van der Hardt.—A
Vita Gersonis is given in Hardt’s Conc. Const., IV. 26–57.—Chartul. Univ.
Paris., III., IV., under John Arnaud and Gerson.—J. B. Schwab: Johannes Gerson,
Prof. der Theologie und Kanzler der Universität Paris, Würzburg, 1858, an
exhaustive work, giving also a history of the times, one of the most thorough
of biographies and to be compared with Hurter’s Innocent III.—A. Masson: J.
Gerson, sa vie, son temps et ses oeuvres, Lyons, 1894.—A. Lambon: J. Gerson, sa
réforme de l’enseigement Theol. et de l’éducation populaire, Paris, 1888.—Bess:
Zur Gesch. d. Konstanz. Konzils; art. Gerson in Herzog, VI.
612–617.—Lafontaine: Jehas Gerson, 1363–1429, Paris, 1906, pp. 340.—J. Schwane:
Dogmengesch.—Werner: D. Scholastik d. späteren M. A., IV., V.
For §
24. Nicolas of Clamanges.—Works, ed. by J. M. Lydius, 2 vols., Leyden, 1013,
with Life.—The De ruina ecclesiae, with a Life, in Van der Hardt: Conc.
Constan., vol. I., pt. lII.—Writings not in Lydius are given by Bulaeus in
Hist. univ. Paris.—Baluzius: Miscellanea, and D’Achery: Spicilegium.—Life in Du
Pin’s Works of Gerson, I., p. xxxix sq.—A. Müntz: Nic. de Clem., sa vie et ses
écrits, Strassburg, 1846.—J. Schwab: J. Gerson, pp. 493–497.—Artt. by Bess in
Herzog, IV. 138–147, and by Knöpfsler in Wetzer-Welte, IX. 298–306.—G.
Schubert: Nic. von Clem. als Verfasser der Schrift de corrupto ecclesiae statu,
Grossenhain, 1888.
For §
25. Nicolas of Cusa.—Edd. of his Works, 1476 (place not given), as ed. by Faber
Stapulensis, 3 vols., 1514, Basel.—German trans. of a number of the works by F.
A. Schrapff, Freiburg, 1862.—Schrapff: Der Cardinal und Bischof Nic. von Cusa
Mainz, 1843; Nic. von Cusa als Reformator in Kirche, Reich und Philosophie des
15ten Jahrh., Tübingen, 1871.—J. M. Düx: Der deutsche Card. Nic. von Cusa und
die Kirche seiner Zeit, 2 vols., Regensburg, 1847.—J. Uebinger: D. Gotteslehre
des Nic. von Cusa, Münster, 1888.—J. Marx: Nik. von Cues und seine Stiftungen
au Cues und Deventer, Treves, 1906, pp. 115.—C. Schmitt: Card. Nic. Cusanus,
Coblenz, 1907. Presents him as astronomer, geographer, mathematician,
historian, homilete, orator, philosopher, and theologian.—Stöckl, III.
23–84.—Schwane, pp. 98–102.—Art. by Funk in Wetzer-Welte, IX. 306–315.
</div3> <div3 type = "Section"
n="20" title="Ockam and the Decay of Scholasticism">
<index
type = "globalSubject"
subject1 =
"Scholasticism" />
§ 20.
Ockam and the Decay of Scholasticism.
Scholasticism
had its last great representative in Duns Scotus, d. 1308. After him the
scholastic method gradually passed into disrepute. New problems were thrust
upon the mind of Western Europe, and new interests were engaging its attention.
The theologian of the school and the convent gave way to the practical
theological disputant setting forth his views in tracts and on the floor of the
councils. Free discussion broke up the hegemony of dogmatic assertion. The
authority of the Fathers and of the papacy lost its exclusive hold, and
thinkers sought another basis of authority in the general judgment of
contemporary Christendom, in the Scriptures alone or in reason. The new
interest in letters and the natural world drew attention away from labored
theological systems which were more adapted to display the ingenuity of the
theologian than to be of practical value to society. The use of the spoken
languages of Europe in literature was fitted to force thought into the mould of
current exigencies. The discussions of Roger Bacon show that at the beginning
of the fourteenth century men’s minds, sated with abstruse metaphysical
solutions of theological questions, great and trivial, were turning to a world
more real and capable of proof.
The
chief survivors of the dialectical Schoolmen were Durandus and William Ockam.
Gabriel Biel of Tübingen, who died just before the close of the fifteenth
century, is usually called the last of the Schoolmen.351 Such men as D’Ailly, Gerson and Wyclif,
sometimes included under the head of mediaeval scholastics, evidently belong to
another class.
A
characteristic feature of the scholasticism of Durandus and Ockam is the
sharper distinction they made between reason and revelation. Following Duns
Scotus, they declared that doctrines peculiar to revealed theology are not
susceptible of proof by pure reason. The body of dogmatic truth, as accepted by
the Church, they did not question.
A
second characteristic is the absence of originality. They elaborated what they
received. The Schoolmen of former periods had exhausted the list of theological
questions and discussed them from every standpoint.
The
third characteristic is the revival and ascendency of nominalism, the principle
Roscellinus advocated more than two hundred years before. The Nominalists were
also called Terminists, because they represent words as terms which do not
necessarily have ideas and realities to correspond to them. A universal is
simply a symbol or term for a number of things or for that which is common to a
number of things.352
Universality is nothing more than a mode of mental conception. The
University of Paris resisted the spread of nominalism, and in 1839 the four
nations forbade the promulgation of Ockam’s doctrine or listening to its being
expounded in private or public.353
In 1473, Louis XI. issued a mandate forbidding the doctors at Paris
teaching it, and prohibiting the use of the writings of Ockam, Marsiglius and
other writers. In 1481 the law was rescinded.
Durandus,
known as doctor resolutissimus, the resolute doctor, d. 1334, was born at
Pourçain, in the diocese of Clermont, entered the Dominican order, was
appointed by Fohn XXII. bishop of Limoux, 1317, and was later elevated to the
sees of Puy and Meaux. He attacked some of the rules of the Franciscans and
John XXII.’s theory of the beatific vision, and in 1333 was declared by a
commission guilty of eleven errors. His theological views are found in his
commentary on the Lombard, begun when he was a young man and finished in his
old age. He showed independence by assailing some of the views of Thomas
Aquinas. He went beyond his predecessors in exalting the Scriptures above
tradition and pronouncing their statements more authoritative than the dicta of
Aristotle and other philosophers.354 All real existence is in the individual. The universal is
not an entity which can be divided as a chunk of wood is cut into pieces. The
universal, the unity by which objects are grouped together as a class, is
deduced from individuals by an act of the mind. That which is common to a class
has, apart from the individuals of the class, no real existence.
On
the doctrine of the eucharist Durandus seems not to have been fully satisfied
with the view held by the Church, and suggested that the words "this is my
body," may mean "contained under"—contentum sub hoc. This marks
an approach to Luther’s view of consubstantiation. This theologian was held in
such high esteem by Gerson that he recommended him, together with Thomas Aquinas,
Bradwardine and Henry of Ghent, to the students of the college of Navarre.355
The
most profound scholastic thinker of the fourteenth century was the Englishman,
William Ockam, d. 1349, called doctor invincibilis, the invincible doctor, or,
with reference to his advocacy of nominalism, venerabilis inceptor, the
venerable inaugurator. His writings, which were more voluminous than lucid,
were much published at the close of the fifteenth century, but have not been
put into print for several hundred years. There is no complete edition of them.
Ockam’s views combined elements which were strictly mediaeval, and elements
which were adopted by the Reformers and modern philosophy. His identification
with the cause of the Spiritual Franciscans involved him in controversy with
two popes, John XXII. and Benedict XII. His denial of papal infallibility has
the appearance not 80 much of a doctrine proceeding from theological conviction
as the chance weapon laid hold of in time of conflict to protect the cause of
the Spirituals.
Of
the earlier period of Ockam’s life, little is known. He was born in Surrey,
studied at Oxford, where he probably was a student of Duns Scotus, entered the
Franciscan order, and was probably master in Paris, 1315–1320. For his advocacy
of the doctrine of Christ’s absolute poverty he was, by order of John XXII.,
tried and found guilty and thrown into confinement.356 With the aid of Lewis the Bavarian, he
and his companions, Michael of Cesena and Bonagratia, escaped in 1328 to Pisa.
from that time on, the emperor and the Schoolman, as already stated, defended
one another. Ockam accompanied the emperor to Munich and was excommunicated. At
Cesena’s death the Franciscan seal passed into his hands, but whatever
authority he possessed he resigned the next year into the hands of the
acknowledged Franciscan general, Farinerius. Clement VI. offered him absolution
on condition of his abjuring his errors. Whether he accepted the offer or not
is unknown. He died at Munich and is buried there. The distinguished Englishman
owes his reputation to his revival of nominalism, his political theories and
his definition of the final seat of religious authority.
His
theory of nominalism was explicit, and offered no toleration to the realism of
the great Schoolmen from Anselm on. Individual things alone have factual
existence. The universals are mere terms or symbols, fictions of the
mind—fictiones, signa mentalia, nomina, signa verbalia. They are like images in
a mirror. A universal stands for an intellectual act—actus intelligenda — and
nothing more. Did ideas exist in God’s mind as distinct entities, then the
visible world would have been created out of them and not out of nothing.357
Following
Duns Scotus, Ockam taught determinism. God’s absolute will makes things what
they are. Christ might have become wood or stone if God had so chosen. In spite
of Aristotle, a body might have different kinds of motion at the same time. In
the department of morals, what is now bad might have been good, if God had so
willed it.
In
the department of civil government, Ockam, advocating the position taken by the
electors at Rense, 1338, declared the emperor did not need the confirmation of
the pope. The imperial office is derived immediately from God.358 The Church is a priestly institution,
administers the sacraments and shows men the way of salvation, but has no civil
jurisdiction,359 potestas coactiva.
The
final seat of authority, this thinker found in the Scriptures. Truths such as
the Trinity and the incarnation cannot be deduced by argument. The being of God
cannot be proven from the so-called idea of God. A plurality of gods may be
proven by the reason as well as the existence of the one God. Popes and
councils may err. The Bible alone is inerrant. A Christian cannot be held to
believe anything not in the Scriptures.360
The
Church is the community of the faithful—communitas, or congregatio fidelium.361 The Roman Church is not identical with
it, and this body of Christians may exist independently of the Roman Church. If
the pope had plenary power, the law of the Gospel would be more galling than
the law of Moses. All would then be the pope’s slaves.362 The papacy is not a necessary
institution.
In
the doctrine of the eucharist, Ockam represents the traditional view as less
probable than the view that Christ’s body is at the side of the bread. This
theory of impanation, which Rupert of Deutz taught, approached Luther’s theory
of consubstantiation. However, Ockam accepted the Church’s view, because it was
the less intelligible and because the power of God is unlimited. John of Paris,
d. 1308, had compared the presence of Christ in the elements to the
co-existence of two natures in the incarnation and was deposed from his chair
at the University of Paris, 1304. Gabriel Biel took a similar view.363
Ockam’s
views on the authority of the civil power, papal errancy, the infallibility of
the Scriptures and the eucharist are often compared with the views of Luther.364 The German reformer spoke of the
English Schoolman as "without doubt the leader and most ingenious of the
Schoolmen"—<foreign lang="la">scholasticorum doctorum sine
dubio princeps et ingeniosissimus</foreign>. He called him his
"dear teacher," and declared himself to be of Ockam’s party—sum
Occamicae factionis.365
The two men were, however, utterly unlike. Ockam was a theorist, not a
reformer, and in spite of his bold sayings, remained a child of the mediaeval
age. He started no party or school in theological matters. Luther exalted
personal faith in the living Christ. He discovered new principles in the
Scriptures, and made them the active forces of individual and national belief
and practice. We might think of Luther as an Ockam if he had lived in the fourteenth
century. We cannot think of Ockam as a reformer in the sixteenth century. He
would scarcely have renounced monkery. Ockam’s merit consists in this that, in
common with Marsiglius and other leaders of thought, he imbibed the new spirit
of free discussion, and was bold enough to assail the traditional dogmas of his
time. In this way he contributed to the unsettlement of the pernicious
mediaeval theory of the seat of authority.
</div3> <div3 type = "Section"
n="21" title="Catherine of Siena, the Saint">
§ 21. Catherine
of Siena, the Saint.
Next
to Francis d’Assisi, the most celebrated of the Italian saints is Catherine of
Siena—Caterina da Siena—1347–1380. With Elizabeth of Thuringia, who lived more
than a century before her, she is the most eminent of the holy women of the
Middle Ages whom the Church has canonized. Her fame depends upon her
single-hearted piety and her efforts to advance the interests of the Church and
her nation. She left no order to encourage the reverence for her name. She was
the most public of all the women of the Middle Ages in Italy, and yet she
passed unscathed and without a taint through streets and in courts. Now, as the
daughter of an humble citizen of Siena, she ministers to the poor and the sick:
now, as the prophetess of heaven, she appeals to the conscience of popes and of
commonwealths. Her native Sienese have sanctified her with the fragrant name la
beata poplana, the blessed daughter of the people. Although much in her career,
as it has been handed down by her confessor and biographer, may seem to be
legendary, and although the hysterical element may not be altogether wanting
from her piety, she yet deserves and will have the admiration of all men who
are moved by the sight of a noble enthusiasm. It would require a fanatical
severity to read the account of her unwearied efforts and the letters, into
which she equally poured the fire of her soul, without feeling that the Sienese
saint was a very remarkable woman, the Florence Nightingale of her time or
more, "one of the most wonderful women that have ever lived," as her
most recent English biographer has pronounced her. Or, shall we join
Gregorovius, the thorough student of mediaeval Rome, in saying,
"Catherine’s figure flits like that of an angel: through the darkness of
her time, over which her gracious genius sheds a soft radiance. Her life is
more worthy and assuredly a more human subject for history than the lives of
the popes of her age."366
Catherine
Benincasa was the twenty-third of a family of twenty-five children. Her twin
sister, Giovanna, died in infancy. Her father was a dyer in prosperous
circumstances. Her mother, Monna Lapa, survived the daughter. Catherine treated
her with filial respect, wrote her letters, several of which are extant, and
had her with her on journeys and in Rome during her last days there. Catherine
had no school training, and her knowledge of reading and writing she acquired
after she was grown up.
As
a child she was susceptible to religious impressions, and frequented the
Dominican church near her father’s home. The miracles of her earlier childhood
were reported by her confessor and biographer, Raymund of Capua. At twelve her
parents arranged for her a marriage, but to avoid it Catherine cut off her
beautiful hair. She joined the tertiary order of the Dominicans, the women
adherents being called the mantellate from their black mantles. Raymund
declares "that nature had not given her a face over-fair," and her
personal appearance was marred by the marks of the smallpox. And yet she had a
winning expression, a fund of good spirits, and sang and laughed heartily. Once
devoted to a religious life, she practised great austerities, flagellating
herself three times a day,—once for herself, once for the living and once for
the dead. She wore a hair undergarment and an iron chain. During one Lenten
season she lived on the bread taken in communion. These asceticisms were
performed in a chamber in her father’s house. She was never an inmate of a
convent. Such extreme asceticisms as she practised upon herself she disparaged
at a later period.
At
an early age Catherine became the subject of visions and revelations. On one of
these occasions and after hours of dire temptation, when she was tempted to
live like other girls, the Saviour appeared to her stretched on the cross and
said: "My own daughter, Catherine, seest thou how much I have suffered for
thee? Let it not be hard for thee
to suffer for me." Thrilled
with the address, she asked: "Where wert thou, Lord, when I was tempted
with such impurity?" and He replied, "In thy heart." In 1367, according to her own
statement, the Saviour betrothed himself to her, putting a ring on her finger.
The ring was ever afterwards visible to herself though unseen by others. Five
years before her death, she received the stigmata directly from Christ. Their
impression gave sharp pain, and Catherine insisted that, though they likewise
were invisible to others, they were real to her.
In
obedience to a revelation, Catherine renounced the retired life she had been
living, and at the age of twenty began to appear in public and perform the
active offices of charity. This was in 1367. She visited the poor and sick, and
soon became known as the ministering angel of the whole city. During the plague
of 1374, she was indefatigable by day and night, healed those of whom the
physicians despaired, and she even raised the dead. The lepers outside the city
walls she did not neglect.
One
of the remarkable incidents in her career which she vouches for in one of her
letters to Raymund was her treatment of Niccolo Tuldo, a young nobleman
condemned to die for having uttered words disrespectful of the city government.
The young man was in despair, but under Catherine’s influence he not only
regained composure, but became joyful in the prospect of death. Catherine was
with him at the block and held his head. She writes, "I have just received
a head into my hands which was to me of such sweetness as no heart can think,
or tongue describe." Before
the execution she accompanied the unfortunate man to the mass, where he
received the communion for the first time. His last words were "naught but
Jesus and Catherine. And, so saying," wrote his benefactress, "I received
his head in my hands." She
then saw him received of Christ, and as she further wrote, "When he was at
rest, my soul rested in peace, in so great fragrance of blood that I could not
bear to remove the blood which had fallen on me from him."
The
fame of such a woman could not be held within the walls of her native city.
Neighboring cities and even the pope in Avignon heard of her deeds of charity
and her revelations. The guide of minds seeking the consolations of religion,
the minister to the sick and dying, Catherine now entered into the wider sphere
of the political life of Italy and the welfare of the Church. Her concern was
divided between efforts to support the papacy and to secure the amelioration of
the clergy and establish peace. With the zeal of a prophet, she urged upon
Gregory XI. to return to Rome. She sought to prevent the rising of the Tuscan
cities against the Avignon popes and to remove the interdict which was launched
against Florence, and she supported Urban VI. against the anti-pope, Clement
VII. With equal fervor she urged Gregory to institute a reformation of the
clergy, to allow no weight to considerations of simony and flattery in choosing
cardinals and pastors and "to drive out of the sheep-fold those wolves,
those demons incarnate, who think only of good cheer, splendid feasts and
superb liveries." She also
was zealous in striving to stir up the flames of a new crusade. To Sir John
Hawkwood, the freelance and terror of the peninsula, she wrote, calling upon
him that, as he took such pleasure in fighting, he should thenceforth no longer
direct his arms against Christians, but against the infidels. She communicated
to the Queen of Cyprus on the subject. Again and again she urged it upon
Gregory XI., and chiefly on the grounds that he "might minister the blood
of the Lamb to the wretched infidels," and that converted, they might aid
in driving pride and other vices out of the Christian world.367
Commissioned
by Gregory, she journeyed to Pisa to influence the city in his favor. She was
received with honors by the archbishop and the head of the republic, and won
over two professors who visited her with the purpose of showing her she was
self-deceived or worse. She told them that it was not important for her to know
how God had created the world, but that "it was essential to know that the
Son of God had taken our human nature and lived and died for our
salvation." One of the professors, removing his crimson velvet cap, knelt
before her and asked for forgiveness. Catherine’s cures of the sick won the
confidence of the people. On this visit she was accompanied by her mother and a
group of like-minded women.
A
large chapter in Catherine’s life is interwoven with the history of Florence.
The spirit of revolt against the Avignon regime was rising in upper Italy and,
when the papal legate in Bologna, in a year of dearth, forbade the
transportation of provisions to Florence, it broke out into war. At the
invitation of the Florentines, Catherine visited the city, 1375 and, a year
later, was sent as a delegate to Avignon to negotiate terms of peace. She was
received with honor by the pope, but not without hesitancy. The other members
of the delegation, when they arrived, refused to recognize her powers and
approve her methods. The cardinals treated her coolly or with contempt, and
women laid snares at her devotions to bring ridicule upon her. Such an attempt
was made by the pope’s niece, Madame de Beaufort Turenne, who knelt at her side
and ran a sharp knife into her foot so that she limped from the wound.
The
dyer’s daughter now turned her attention to the task of confirming the supreme
pontiff in his purpose to return to Rome and counteract the machinations of the
cardinals against its execution. Seeing her desire realized, she started back
for Italy and, met by her mother at Leghorn, went on to Florence, carrying a
commission from the pope. Her effort to induce the city to bow to the sentence
of interdict, which had been laid upon it, was in a measure successful. Her
reverence for the papal office demanded passive obedience. Gregory’s successor,
Urban VI., lifted the ban. Catherine then returned to Siena where she dictated
the Dialogue, a mystical treatise inculcating prayer, obedience, discretion and
other virtues. Catherine declared that God alone had been her guide in its
composition.
In
the difficulties, which arose soon after Urban’s election, that pontiff looked
to Siena and called its distinguished daughter to Rome. They had met in Avignon.
Accompanied by her mother and other companions, she reached the holy city in
the Autumn of 1378. They occupied a house by themselves and lived upon alms.368 Her summons to Urban "to battle
only with the weapons of repentance, prayer, virtue and love" were not
heeded. Her presence, however, had a beneficent influence, and on one occasion,
when the mob raged and poured into the Vatican, she appeared as a peacemaker,
and the sight of her face and her words quieted the tumult.
She
died lying on boards, April 29, 1380. To her companions standing at her side,
she said: "Dear children, let not my death sadden you, rather rejoice to
think that I am leaving a place of many sufferings to go to rest in the quiet
sea, the eternal God, and to be united forever with my most sweet and loving
Bridegroom. And I promise to be with you more and to be more useful to you,
since I leave darkness to pass into the true and everlasting light." Again and again she whispered, "I
have sinned, O Lord; be merciful to me." She prayed for Urban, for the whole Church and for her
companions, and then she departed, repeating the words, "Into thy hands I
commit my spirit."
At
the time of her death Catherine of Siena was not yet thirty-three years old. A
magnificent funeral was ordered by Urban. A year after, her head, enclosed in a
reliquary, was sent to her native Siena, and in 1461 she was canonized by the
city’s famous son, pope Pius II., who uttered the high praise "that none
ever approached her without going away better." In 1865 when Santa Maria sopra Minerva in Rome was reopened,
her ashes were carried through the streets, the silver urn containing them
being borne by four bishops. Lamps are kept ever burning at the altar dedicated
to her in the church. In 1866 Pius IX. elevated the dyer’s daughter to the
dignity of patron saint and protectress of Rome, a dignity she shares with the
prince of the Apostles. With Petrarch she had been the most ardent advocate of
its claims as the papal residence, and her zeal was exclusively religious.
In
her correspondence and Dialogue we have the biography of Catherine’s soul.
Nearly four hundred of her letters are extant.369 Not only have they a place of eminence as the revelations of
a saintly woman’s thoughts and inner life, but are, next to the letters written
by Petrarch, the chief specimens of epistolary literature of the fourteenth
century. She wrote to persons of all classes, to her mother, the recluse in the
cloister, her confessor, Raymund of Capua, to men and women addicted to the
pleasures of the world, to the magistrates of cities, queens and kings, to
cardinals, and to the popes, Gregory XI. and Urban VI., gave words of counsel,
set forth at length measures and motives of action, used the terms of entreaty
and admonition, and did not hesitate to employ threats of divine judgment, as
in writing to the Queen of Naples. They abound in wise counsels.
The
correspondence shows that Catherine had some acquaintance with the New
Testament from which she quotes the greater precepts and draws descriptions
from the miracle of the water changed into wine and the expulsion of the
moneychangers from the temple and such parables as the ten virgins and the
marriage-feast. One of her most frequent expressions is the blood of Christ,
and in truly mystical or conventual manner she bids her correspondents, even
the pope and the cardinals, bathe and drown and inebriate themselves in it,
yea, to clothe and fill themselves with it, "for Christ did not buy us
with gold or silver or pearls or other precious stones, but with his own
precious blood."370
To
Catherine the religious life was a subjection of the will to the will of God
and the outgoing of the soul in exercises of prayer and the practice of love.
"I want you to wholly destroy your own will that it may cling to Christ
crucified." So she wrote to a
mother bereft of her children. Writing to the recluse, Bartolomea della Seta,
she represented the Saviour as saying, "Sin and virtue consist in the
consent of the will, there is no sin or virtue unless voluntarily
wrought."
To
another she wrote, "I have already seen many penitents who have been
neither patient nor obedient because they have studied to kill their bodies but
not their wills."371
Her
sound religious philosophy showed itself in insisting again and again that
outward discipline is not the only or always the best way to secure the victory
of the spirit. If the body is weak or fallen into illness, the rule of
discretion sets aside the exercises of bodily discipline. She wrote, "Not
only should fasting be abandoned but flesh be eaten and, if once a day is not
enough, then four times a day."
Again and again she treats of penance as an instrument. "The little
good of penance may hinder the greater good of inward piety. Penance cuts
off," so she wrote in a remarkable letter to Sister Daniella of Orvieto,
"yet thou wilt always find the root in thee, ready to sprout again, but
virtue pulls up by the root."
Monastic
as Catherine was, yet no evangelical guide-book could write more truly than she
did in most particulars. And at no point does this noble woman rise higher than
when she declined to make her own states the standard for others, and condemned
those "who, indiscreetly, want to measure all bodies by one and the same
measure, the measure by which they measure themselves." Writing to her niece, Nanna Benincasa,
she compared the heart to a lamp, wide above and narrow below. A bride of
Christ must have lamp and oil and light. The heart should be wide above, filled
with holy thoughts and prayer, bearing in memory the blessings of God,
especially the blessing of the blood by which we are bought. And like a lamp,
it should be narrow below, "not loving or desiring earthly things in
excess nor hungering for more than God wills to give us."
To
the Christian virtues of prayer and love she continually returns. Christian
love is compared to the sea, peaceful and profound as God Himself, for
"God is love." This
passage throws light upon the unsearchable mystery of the Incarnate Word who,
constrained by love, gave Himself up in all humility. We love because we are
loved. He loves of grace, and we love Him of duty because we are bound to do
so; and to show our love to Him we ought to serve and love every rational
creature and extend our love to good and bad, to all kinds of people, as much
to one who does us ill as to one who serves us, for God is no respecter of
persons, and His charity extends to just men and sinners. Peter’s love before
Pentecost was sweet but not strong. After Pentecost he loved as a son, bearing
all tribulations with patience. So we, too, if we remain in vigil and continual
prayer and tarry ten days, shall receive the plenitude of the Spirit. More than
once in her letters to Gregory, she bursts out into a eulogy of love as the
remedy for all evils. "The soul cannot live without love," she wrote
in the Dialogue, "but must always love something, for it was created
through love. Affection moves the understanding, as it were, saying, ’I want to
love, for the food wherewith I am fed is love.’ "372
Such
directions as these render Catherine’s letters a valuable manual of religious
devotion, especially to those who are on their guard against being carried away
by the underlying quietistic tone. Not only do they have a high place as the
revelation of a pious woman’s soul. They deal with unconcealed boldness and
candor with the low conditions into which the Church was fallen. Popes are called
upon to institute reforms in the appointment of clergymen and to correct abuses
in other directions. As for the pacification of the Tuscan cities, a cause
which lay so close to Catherine’s heart, she urged the pontiff to use the
measures of peace and not of war, to deal as a father would deal with a
rebellious son,—to put into practice clemency, not the pride of authority. Then
the very wolves would nestle in his bosom like lambs.373
As
for the pope’s return to Rome, she urged it as a duty he owed to God who had
made him His vicar. In view of the opposition on the Rhone, almost holding him
as by physical force, she called upon him to "play the man," "to
be a manly man, free from fear and fleshly love towards himself or towards any
creature related to him by kin," "to be stable in his resolution and
to believe and trust in Christ in spite of all predictions of the evil to
follow his return to Rome."374
To this impassioned Tuscan woman, the appointment of unworthy shepherds
and bad rectors was responsible for the rebellion against papal authority,
shepherds who, consumed by self-love, far from dragging Christ’s sheep away
from the wolves, devoured the very sheep themselves. It was because they did
not follow the true Shepherd who has given His life for the sheep. Likening the
Church to a garden, she invoked the pope to uproot the malodorous plants full
of avarice, impurity and pride, to throw them away that the bad priests and
rulers who poison the garden might no longer have rule. To Urban VI. she
addressed burning words of condemnation. "Your sons nourish themselves on
the wealth they receive by ministering the blood of Christ, and are not ashamed
of being money-changers. In their great avarice they commit simonies, buying
benefices with gifts or flatteries or gold." And to the papal legate of Bologna, Cardinal d’Estaing, she
wrote, "make the holy father consider the loss of souls more than the loss
of cities, for God demands souls."
The
stress Catherine laid upon the pope’s responsibility to God and her passionate
reproof of an unworthy and hireling ministry, inclined some to give her a place
among the heralds of the Protestant Reformation. Flacius Illyricus included her
in the list of his witnesses for the truth—Catalogus testium veritatis.375 With burning warmth she spoke of a
thorough-going reformation which was to come upon the Church. "The bride,
now all deformed and clothed in rags," she exclaimed, "will then
gleam with beauty and jewels, and be crowned with the diadem of all virtues.
All believing nations will rejoice to have excellent shepherds, and the
unbelieving world, attracted by her glory, will be converted unto
her." Infidel peoples would
be brought into the Catholic fold,—ovile catholicum,—and be converted unto the
true pastor and bishop of souls. But Catherine, admirable as these sentiments
were, moved within the limits of the mediaeval Church. She placed piety back of
penitential exercises in love and prayer and patience, but she never passed beyond
the ascetic and conventual conception of the Christian life into the open air
of liberty through faith. She had the spirit of Savonarola, the spirit of fiery
self-sacrifice for the well-being of her people and the regeneration of
Christendom, but she did not see beyond the tradition of the past. Living a
hundred years and more before the Florentine prophet, she was excelled by none
in her own age and approached by none of her own nation in the century between
her and Savonarola, in passionate effort to save her people and help spread
righteousness. Hers was the voice of the prophet, crying in the wilderness,
"Prepare ye the way of the Lord."
In
recalling the women of the century from 1350 to 1450, the mind easily
associates together Catherine of Siena and Joan of Arc, 1411–1431, one the
passionate advocate of the Church, the other of the national honor of France.
The Maid of Orleans, born of peasant parentage, was only twenty when she was
burnt at the stake on the streets of Rouen, 1431. Differing from her Italian
sister by comeliness of form and robustness of constitution, she also, as she
thought, was the subject of angelic communications and divine guidance. Her
unselfish devotion to her country at first brought it victory, but, at last, to
her capture and death. Her trial by the English on the charges of heresy and
sorcery and her execution are a dark sheet among the pages of her century’s
history. Twenty-five years after her death, the pope revoked the sentence, and
the French heroine, whose standard was embroidered with lilies and adorned with
pictures of the creation and the annunciation, was beatified, 1909, and now
awaits the crown of canonization from Rome. The exalted passion of these two
women, widely as they differ in methods and ideals and in the close of their
careers, diffuses a bright light over the selfish pursuits of their time, and
makes the aims of many of its courts look low and grovelling.
</div3> <div3 type = "Section"
n="22" title="Peter d’Ailly,
Ecclesiastical Statesman">
§ 22. Peter
d’Ailly,
Ecclesiastical Statesman.
One of
the most prominent figures in the negotiations for the healing of the papal
schism, as well as one of the foremost personages of his age, was Peter
d’Ailly, born in Compiegne 1350, died in Avignon 1420. His eloquence, which
reminds us of Bossuet and other French orators of the court of Louis XIV., won
for him the title of the Eagle of France—aquila Francia.376
In
1372 he entered the College of Navarre as a theological student, prepared a
commentary on the Sentences of the Lombard three years later, and in 1380
reached the theological doctorate. He at once became involved in the measures
for the healing of the schism, and in 1381 delivered a celebrated address in
the name of the university before the French regent, the duke of Anjou, to win
the court for the policy of settling the papal controversy through a general
council. His appeal not meeting with favor, he retired to Noyon, from which he
wrote a letter purporting to come from the devil, a satire based on the
continuance of the schism, in which the prince of darkness called upon his
friends and vassals, the prelates, to follow his example in promoting division
in the Church. He warned them as their overlord that the holding of a council
might result in establishing peace and so bring eternal shame upon them. He
urged them to continue to make the Church a house of merchandise and to be
careful to tithe anise and cummin, to make broad the borders of their garments
and in every other way to do as he had given them an example.377
In
1384 D’Ailly was made head of the College of Navarre, where he had Gerson for a
pupil, and in 1389 chancellor of the university.
When
Benedict XIII. was chosen successor to Clement VII., he was sent by the French
king on a confidential mission to Avignon. Benedict won his allegiance and
appointed him successively bishop of Puy, 1395, and bishop of Cambray, 1397.
D’Ailly was with Benedict at Genoa, 1405, and Savona, 1407, but by that time
seems to have come to the conclusion that Benedict was not sincere in his
profession of readiness to resign, and returned to Cambray. In his absence
Cambray had decided for the subtraction of its allegiance from Avignon. D’Ailly
was seized and taken to Paris, but protected by the king, who was his friend.
Thenceforth he favored the assemblage of a general council.
At
Pisa and at Constance, D’Ailly took the position that a general council is
superior to the pope and may depose him. Made a cardinal by John XXIII., 1411,
he attended the council held at Rome the following year and in vain tried to
have a reform of the calendar put through. At Constance, he took the position
that the Pisan council? though it was called by the Spirit and represented the
Church universal, might have erred, as did other councils reputed to be general
councils. He declared that the three synods of Pisa, Rome and Constance, though
not one body, yet were virtually one, even as the stream of the Rhine at
different points is one and the same. It was not necessary, so he held, for the
Council of Constance to pass acts confirming the Council of Pisa, for the two
were on a par.378
In
the proceedings against John XXIII., the cardinal took sides against him. He
was the head of the commission which tried Huss in matters of faith, June 7, 8,
1415, and was present when the sentence of death was passed upon that Reformer.
At the close of the council he appears as one of the three candidates for the
office of pope, and his defeat was a disappointment to the French.379 He was appointed legate by Martin V.,
with his residence at Avignon, and spent his last days there.
D’Ailly
followed Ockam as a nominalist. To his writings in the departments of
philosophy, theology and Church government he added works on astronomy and
geography and a much-read commentary on Aristotle’s meteorology.380 His work on geography, The Picture of
the World,—imago mundi,—written 1410, was a favorite book with Columbus. A
printed copy of it containing marginal notes in the navigator’s own hand is
preserved in the biblioteca Colombina, Seville. This copy he probably had with
him on his third journey to America, for, in writing from Hayti, 1498, he
quoted at length the eighth chapter. Leaning chiefly upon Roger Bacon, the
author represented the coast of India or Cathay as stretching far in the
direction of Europe, so that, in a favorable wind, a ship sailing westwards
would reach it in a few days. This idea was in the air, but it is possible that
it was first impressed upon the mind of the discoverer of the New World by the
reading of D’Ailly’s work. Humboldt was the first to show its value for the
history of discovery.381
</div3> <div3 type = "Section"
n="23" title="John Gerson, Theologian and Church
Leader">
§ 23. John Gerson, Theologian and Church
Leader.
In
John Gerson, 1363–1429, we have the most attractive and the most influential
theological leader of the first half of the fifteenth century. He was
intimately identified with the University of Paris as professor and as its
chancellor in the period of its most extensive influence in Europe. His voice
carried great weight in the settlement of the questions rising out of the papal
schism.
Jean
Charlier Gerson, born Dec. 14, 1363, in the village of Gerson, in the diocese
of Rheims, was the oldest of twelve children. In a letter to him still extant,382
his mother, a godly woman, pours out her heart in the prayer that her children
may live in unity with each other and with God. Two of John’s brothers became
ecclesiastics. In 1377 Gerson went to Paris, entering the College of Navarre.
This college was founded by Johanna, queen of Navarre, 1304, who provided for 3
departments, the arts with 20 students, philosophy with 30 and theology with 20
students. Provision was made also for their support, 4 Paris sous weekly for
the artists, 6 for the logicians and 8 for the theologians. These allowances
were to continue until the graduates held benefices of the value respectively
of 30, 40 and 60 pounds. The regulations allowed the theological students a
fire, daily, from November to March after dinner and supper for one half-hour.
The luxury of benches was forbidden by a commission appointed by Urban V. in
1366. On the festival days, the theologians were expected to deliver a
collation to their fellow-students of the three classes. The rector at the head
of the college, originally appointed by the faculty of the university, was now
appointed by the king’s confessor. The students wore a special dress and the
tonsure, spoke Latin amongst themselves and ate in common.
Gerson,
perhaps the most distinguished name the University of Paris has on its list of
students, was a faithful and enthusiastic son of his alma mater, calling her
"his mother," "the mother of the light of the holy Church,"
"the nurse of all that is wise and good in Christendom," "a
prototype of the heavenly Jerusalem," "the fountain of knowledge, the
lamp of our faith, the beauty and ornament of France, yea, of the whole
world."383
In
1382, at the age of nineteen, he passed into the theological department, and a
year later came under the guidance of D’Ailly, the newly appointed rector,
remaining under him for seven years. Gerson was already a marked man, and was
chosen in 1383 procurator of the French "nation," and in 1387 one of
the delegation to appear before Clement VII. and argue the case against John of
Montson. This Dominican, who had been condemned for denying the immaculate
conception of Mary, refused to recant on the plea that in being condemned
Thomas Aquinas was condemned, and he appealed to the pope. The University of
Paris took up the case, and D’Ailly in two addresses before the papal
consistory took the ground that Thomas, though a saint, was not infallible. The
case went against De Montson; and the Dominicans, who refused to bow to the
decision, left the university and did not return till 1403.
Gerson
advocated Mary’s exemption from original as well as actual sin, and made a
distinction between her and Christ, Christ being exempt by nature, and
Mary—domina nostra — by an act of divine grace. This doctrine, he said, cannot
be immediately derived from the Scriptures,384 but, as the Apostles knew
more than the prophets, so the Church teachers know some things the Apostles
did not know.
At
D’Ailly’s promotion to the episcopate, 1395, his pupil fell heir to both his
offices, the offices of professor of theology and chancellor of the university.
In the discussion over the healing of the schism in which the university took
the leading part, he occupied a place of first prominence, and by tracts,
sermons and public memorials directed the opinion of the Church in this pressing
matter. The premise from which he started out was that the peace of the Church
is an essential condition to the fulfilment of its mission. This view he set
forth in a famous sermon, preached in 1404 at Tarascon before Benedict XIII.
and the duke of Orleans. Princes and prelates, he declared, both owe obedience
to law. The end for which the Church was constituted is the peace and
well-being of men. All Church authority is established to subserve the
interests of peace. Peace is so great a boon that all should be ready to
renounce dignities and position for it. Did not Christ suffer shame? Better for a while to be without a pope
than that the Church should observe the canons and not have peace, for there
can be salvation where there is no pope.385 A general council should be convened, and it was pious to
believe that in the treatment of the schism it would not err—pium est credere
non erraret. As Schwab has said, no one had ever preached in the same way to a
pope before. The sermon caused a sensation.
Gerson,
though not present at the council of Pisa, contributed to its discussions by
his important tracts on the Unity of the Church—<foreign lang="la">De unitate ecclesiastica</foreign> — and the Removal of a
Pope—<foreign
lang="la">De
auferbilitate papae ab ecclesia</foreign>. The views set forth were
that Christ is the head of the Church, and its monarchical constitution is
unchangeable. There must be one pope, not several, and the bishops are not
equal in authority with him. As the pope may separate himself from the Church,
so the Church may separate itself from the pope. Such action might be required
by considerations of self-defence. The papal office is of God, and yet the pope
may be deposed even by a council called without his consent. All Church offices
and officials exist for the good of the Church, that is, for the sake of peace
which comes through the exercise of love. If a pope has a right to defend
himself against, say, the charge of unchastity, why should not the Church have
a like right to defend itself? A
council acts under the immediate authority of Christ and His laws. The council
may pronounce against a pope by virtue of the power of the keys which is given
not only to one but to the body—unitati. Aristotle declared that the body has
the right, if necessary, to depose its prince. So may the council, and whoso
rejects a council of the Church rejects God who directs its action. A pope may
be deposed for heresy and schism, as, for example, if he did not bend the knee
before the sacrament, and he might be deposed when no personal guilt was
chargeable against him, as in the case already referred to, when he was a
captive of the Saracens and was reported dead.
At
the Council of Constance, where Gerson spoke as the delegate of the French
king, he advocated these positions again and again with his voice, as in his
address March 23, 1415, and in a second address July 21, when he defended the
decree which the synod had passed at its fifth session. He reasserted that the
pope may be forced to abdicate, that general councils are above the popes and
that infallibility only belongs to the Church as a body or its highest
representative, a general council.386
A
blot rests upon Gerson’s name for the active part he took in the condemnation
of John Huss. He was not above his age, and using the language of Innocent III.
called heresy a cancer.387
He declares that he was as zealous in the proceedings against Huss and
Wyclif as any one could be.388
He pronounced the nineteen errors drawn from Huss’ work on the Church
"notoriously heretical."
Heresy, he declared, if it is obstinate, must be destroyed even by the
death of its professors.389
He denied Huss’ fundamental position that nothing is to be accepted as
divine truth which is not found in Scripture. Gerson also condemned the appeal
to conscience, explicitly assuming the old position of Church authority and
canon law as final. The opinions of an individual, however learned he may be in
the Scriptures, have no weight before the judgment of a council.390
In
the controversy over the withdrawal of the cup from the laity, involved in the
Bohemian heresy, Gerson also took an extreme position, defending it by
arguments which seem to us altogether unworthy of a genuine theology. In a
tract on the subject he declared that, though some passages of Scripture and of
the Fathers favored the distribution of both wine and bread, they do not
contain a definite command, and in the cases where an explicit command is given
it must be understood as applying to the priests who are obliged to commune
under both kinds so as to fully represent Christ’s sufferings and death. But
this is not required of the laity who commune for the sake of the effect of
Christ’s death and not to set it forth. Christ commanded only the Apostles to
partake of both kinds.391
The custom of lay communion was never universal, as is proved by <scripRef passage
= "Acts 2:42, 46">Acts 2:42, 46</scripRef>. The essence of the
sacrament of the body and blood is more important than the elements, <scripRef passage
= "John 6:54">John 6:54</scripRef>. But the whole Christ is in
either element, and, if some of the doctors take a different view, the Church’s
doctrine is to be followed, and not they. From time immemorial the Church has
given the communion only in one form. The Council of Constance was right in
deciding that only a single element is necessary to a saving participation in
the sacrament. The Church may make changes in the outward observance when the
change does not touch the essence of the right in question. The use of the two
elements, once profitable, is now unprofitable and heretical.
To
these statements Gerson added practical considerations against the distribution
of the cup to laymen, such as the danger of spilling the wine, of soiling the
vessels from the long beards of laymen, of having the wine turn to vinegar, if
it be preserved for the sick and so it cease to be the blood of Christ—et ita
desineret esse sanguis Christi — and from the impossibility of consecrating in
one vessel enough for 10,000 to 20,000 communicants, as at Easter time may be
necessary. Another danger was the encouragement such a practice would give to
the notions that priest and layman are equal, and that the chief value of the
sacrament lies in the participation and not in the consecration of the elements.392 Such are some of the
"scandals" which this renowned teacher ascribed to the distribution
of the cup to the laity.
A
subject on which Gerson devoted a great deal of energy for many years was
whether the murder of tyrants or of a traitorous vassal is justifiable or not.
He advocated the negative side of the case, which he failed to win before the
Council of Constance. The question grew out of the treatment of the half-insane
French king, Charles VI. (1880–1422), and the attempt of different factions to
get control of the government.
On
Nov. 28, 1407, the king’s cousin, Louis, duke of Orleans, was murdered at the
command of the king’s uncle, John, duke of Burgundy. The duke’s act was
defended by the Franciscan and Paris professor, John Petit,—Johannes Parvus,—in
an address delivered before the king March 8, 1408. Gerson, who at an earlier
time seems to have advocated the murder of tyrants, answered Petit in a public
address, and called upon the king to suppress Petit’s nine propositions.393 The University of Paris made Gerson’s
cause its own. Petit died in 1411, but the controversy went on. Petit’s theory
was this, that every vassal plotting against his lord is deserving of death in
soul and body. He is a tyrant, and according to the laws of nature and God any
one has the right to put him out of the way. The higher such a person is in
rank, the more meritorious is the deed. He based his argument upon Thomas
Aquinas, John of Salisbury, Aristotle, Cicero and other writers, and referred
to Moses, Zambri and St. Michael who cast Lucifer out of heaven, and other
examples. The duke of Orleans was guilty of treason against the king, and the
duke of Burgundy was justified in killing him.
The
bishop of Paris, supported by a commission of the Inquisition and at the king’s
direction, condemned Petit and his views. In February, 1414, Gerson made a
public address defending the condemnation, and two days later articles taken
from Petit’s work were burnt in front of Notre Dame. The king ratified the
bishop’s judgment, and the duke of Burgundy appealed the case to Rome.394
The
case was now transferred to the council, which at its fifteenth session, July
6, 1415, passed a compromise measure condemning the doctrine that a tyrant, in
the absence of a judicial sentence, may and ought to be put to death by any
subject whatever, even by the use of treacherous means, and in the face of an
oath without committing perjury. Petit was not mentioned by name. It was this
negative and timid action, which led Gerson to say that if Huss had had a
defender, he would not have been found guilty. It was rumored that the
commission which was appointed to bring in a report, by sixty-one out of eighty
votes, decided for the permissibility of Petit’s articles declaring that Peter
meant to kill the high priest’s servant, and that, if he had known Judas’
thoughts at the Last Supper, he would have been justified in killing him. The
duke of Burgundy’s gold is said to have been freely used.395 The party led by the bishop of Arras
argued that the tyrant who takes the sword is to be punished with the sword.
Gerson, who was supported by D’Ailly replied that then the command "thou
shalt not kill" would only forbid such an act as murder, if there was
coupled with it an inspired gloss, "without judicial authority." The command means, "thou shalt not
kill the innocent, or kill out of revenge." Gerson pressed the matter for the last time in an address
delivered before the council, Jan. 17, 1417, but the council refused to go
beyond the decree of the fifteenth session.
The duke of Burgundy got possession of
Paris in 1418, and Gerson found the doors of France closed to him. Under the
protection of the duke of Bavaria he found refuge at Rattenberg and later in
Austria. On the assassination of the duke of Burgundy himself, with the
connivance of the dauphin, Sept. 10, 1419, he returned to France, but not to
Paris. He went to Lyons, where his brother John was, and spent his last years
there in monastic seclusion. The dauphin is said to have granted him 200 livres
in 1420 in recognition of his services to the crown.
It
remains to speak of Gerson as a theologian, a preacher and a patriot.
In
the department of theology proper Gerson has a place among the mystics.396 Mysticism he defines as "the art
of love," the "perception of God through experience." Such experience is reached by humility
and penance more than through the path of speculation. The contemplative life
is most desirable, but, following Christ’s example, contemplation must be
combined with action. The contemplation of God consists of knowledge as taught
in <scripRef
passage = "John 17:3">John 17:3</scripRef>, "This is life
eternal, to know Thee and Jesus Christ whom Thou hast sent." Such knowledge is mingled with love.
The soul is one with God through love. His mysticism was based, on the one
hand, on the study of the Scriptures and, on the other, on the study of
Bonaventura and the St. Victors. He wrote a special treatise in praise of Bonaventura
and his mystical writings. Far from having any conscious affinity with the
German mystics, he wrote against John of Ruysbroeck and Ruysbroeck’s pupil,
John of Schönhofen, charging them with pantheism.
While
Gerson emphasized the religious feelings, he was far from being a religious
visionary and wrote treatises against the dangers of delusion from dreams and
revelations. As coins must be tested by their weight, hardness, color, shape
and stamp, so visions are to be tested by the humility and honesty of those who
profess to have them and their readiness to teach and be taught. He commended
the monk who, when some one offered to show him a figure like Christ, replied,
"I do not want to see Christ on the earth. I am contented to wait till I
see him in heaven."
When
the negotiations were going on at the Council of Constance for the confirmation
of the canonization of St. Brigitta, Gerson laid down the principle that, if
visions reveal what is already in the Scriptures,397 then they are false, for God
does not repeat Himself, <scripRef passage = "Job
33:14">Job
33:14</scripRef>. People have itching ears
for revelations because they do not study the Bible. Later he warned398
against the revelations of women, as women are more open to deception than men.
The
Scriptures, Gerson taught, are the Church’s rule and guide to the end of the
world. If a single statement should be proved false, then the whole volume is
false, for the Holy Spirit is author of the whole. The letter of the text,
however, is not sufficient to determine their meaning, as is proved from the
translations of the Waldenses, Beghards and other secretaries.399 The text needs the authority of the
Church, as Augustine indicated when he said, "I would not believe the
Gospel if the authority of the Church did not compel me."
Great
as Gerson’s services were in other departments, it was, to follow his
sympathetic and scholarly biographer, Schwab, from the pulpit that he exercised
most influence on his generation.400 He preached in French as well as Latin, and his sermons had,
for the most part, a practical intent, being occupied with ethical themes such
as pride, idleness, anger, the commandments of the Decalogue, the marital
state. He held that the ordinary priest should confine himself to a simple
explanation of the Decalogue, the greater sins and the articles of faith.
During
the last ten years of his life, spent in seclusion at Lyons, he continued his
literary activity, writing more particularly in the vein of mystical theology.
His last work was on the Canticles.
The
tradition runs that the great teacher in his last years conducted a
catechetical school for children in St. Paul’s at Lyons, and that he taught
them to offer for himself the daily prayer, "God, my creator, have pity
upon Thy poor servant, Jean Gerson"—<foreign lang="fr">Mon Dieu, mon Createur, ayez
pitié de vostre pauvre serviteur</foreign>, Jean Gerson.401 It was for young boys and perhaps for
boys spending their first years in the university that he wrote his tractate
entitled Leading Children to Christ.402 It opens with an exposition of the words, "Suffer
little children to come unto me" and proceeds to show how much more seemly
it is to offer to God our best in youth than the dregs of sickly old age. The
author takes up the sins children should be admonished to avoid, especially
unchastity, and holds up to reprobation the principle that vice is venial if it
is kept secret, the principle expressed in the words si non caste tamen caute.
In
a threefold work, giving a brief exposition of the Ten Commandments, a
statement of the seven mortal sins and some short meditations on death and the
way to meet it, Gerson gives a sort of catechism, although it is not thrown
into the form of questions and answers. As the author states, it was intended
for the benefit of poorly instructed curates who heard confessions, for parents
who had children to instruct, for persons not interested in the public services
of worship and for those who had the care of the sick in hospitals.403
The
title, most Christian doctor—doctor christianissimus — given to John Gerson is intended to
emphasize the evangelical temper of his teaching. To a clear intellect, he
added warm religious fervor. With a love for the Church, which it would be hard
to find excelled, he magnified the body of Christian people as possessing the
mind and immediate guidance of Christ and threw himself into the advocacy of
the principle that the judgment of Christendom, as expressed in a general
council, is the final authority of religious matters on the earth.
He
opposed some of the superstitions inherited from another time. He emphasized
the authority of the sacred text. In these views as in others he was in
sympathy with the progressive spirit of his age. But he stopped short of the
principles of the Reformers. He knew nothing of the principles of individual
sovereignty and the rights of conscience. His thinking moved along churchly
lines. He had none of the bold original thought of Wyclif and little of that
spirit which sets itself against the current errors of the times in which we
live. His vote for Huss’ burning proves sufficiently that the light of the new
age had not dawned upon his mind. He was not, like them, a forerunner of the
movement of the sixteenth century.
The
chief principle for which Gerson contended, the supremacy of general councils,
met with defeat soon after the great chancellor’s death, and was set aside by
popes and later by the judgment of a general council. His writings, however,
which were frequently published remain the chief literary monuments in the
department of theology of the first half of the fourteenth century.404 Separated from the Schoolmen in spirit
and method, he stands almost in a class by himself, the most eminent theologian
of his century. This judgment is an extension of the judgment of the eminent
German abbot and writer, Trithemius, at the close of the fifteenth century:
"He was by far the chief divine of his age"405 Theologorum sui
temporis longe princeps.
</div3> <div3 type = "Section"
n="24" title="Nicolas of Clamanges, the Moralist">
§ 24. Nicolas of
Clamanges,
the Moralist.
The
third of the great luminaries who gave fame to the University of Paris in this
period, Nicolas Poillevillain de Clamanges, was born at Clamengis,406
Champagne, about 1367 and died in Paris about 1437. Shy by nature, he took a
less prominent part in the settlement of the great questions of the age than
his contemporaries, D’Ailly and Gerson. Like them, he was identified with the
discussions called forth by the schism, and is distinguished for the high value
he put on the study of the Scriptures and his sharp exposition of the
corruption of the clergy. He entered the College of Navarre at twelve, and had
D’Ailly and Gerson for his teachers. In theology he did not go beyond the
baccalaureate. It is probable he was chosen rector of the university 1393. With
Peter of Monsterolio, he was the chief classical scholar of the university and
was able to write that in Paris, Virgil, Terence and Cicero were often read in
public and in private.407
In
1394, Clamanges took a prominent part in preparing the paper, setting forth the
conclusions of the university in regard to the healing of the schism.408 It was addressed to the "most
Christian king, Charles VI., most zealous of religious orthodoxy by his
daughter, the university."
This, the famous document suggesting the three ways of healing the
schism,—by abdication, arbitration and by a general council,—is characterized by
firmness and moderation, two of the elements prominent in Clamanges’ character.
It pronounced the schism pestiferous, and in answer to the question who would
give the council its authority, it answered: "The communion of all the
faithful will give it; Christ will give it, who said: ’Where two or three are
gathered together in my name there am I in the midst of them.’ "
The
Paris professor was one of the men whom the keen-eyed Peter de Luna picked out,
and when he was elected pope, Clamanges supported him and wrote appealing to
him, as the one who no longer occupied the position of one boatman among
others, but stood at the rudder of the ship, to act in the interest of all
Christendom. He was called as secretary to the Avignon court, but became weary
of the commotion and the vices of the palace and the town.409 In 1406, he seems to have withdrawn
from Benedict at Genoa and retired to Langres, where he held a canon’s stall.
He did not, however, break with the pope, and, when Benedict in 1408 issued the
bull threatening the French court with excommunication, Clamanges was charged
with being its author. He denied the charge, but the accusation of want of
patriotism had made a strong impression, and he withdrew to the Carthusian
convent, Valprofonds, and later to Fontaine du Bosc. His seclusion he employed
in writing letters and treatises and in the study of the Bible which he now
expressed regret for having neglected in former years for classical studies.
To
D’Ailly he wrote on the advantages of a secluded life.—De fructu eremi. In
another tract—De fructu rerum adversarum — he presented the advantages of adversity.
One of more importance complained of the abuse of the Lord’s Day and of the
multiplication of festivals as taking the workman from his work while the
interests of piety were not advanced. In still another tract—De studio
theologico — addressed to a theologian at Paris who had inquired whether it was
better for him to continue where he was or to retire to a pastorate, he
emphasized the importance and delicacy of caring for souls, but advised the
inquirer to remain at the university and to concern himself chiefly with the
study of the Scriptures. He ascribed the Church’s decline to their neglect, and
pronounced the mass, processionals and festivals as of no account unless the
heart be purified by faith.
During
the sessions of the Council of Constance, which he did not attend, Clamanges
sent a letter to that body urging unity of thought and action. He expressed
doubt whether general councils were always led by the Holy Spirit. The Church,
which he defined as infallible, is only there where the Holy Spirit is, and
where the Church is, can be only known to God Himself. In 1425 he returned to
Paris and lectured on rhetoric and theology.
Clamanges’
reputation rests chiefly upon his sharp criticism of the corrupt morals of the
clergy. His residence in Avignon gave him a good opportunity for observation.
His tract on the prelates who were practising simony—De praesulibus simoniacis
— is a commentary on the words, "But ye have made it a den of thieves,"
<scripRef
passage = "Matt. 21:13">Matt. 21:13</scripRef>. A second tract on the
downfall of the Church—De ruina ecclesiae — is one of the most noted writings
of the age. Here are set forth the simony and private vices practised at
Avignon where all things holy were prostituted for gold and luxury. Here is
described the corruption of the clergy from the pope down to the lowest class
of priests. The author found ideal conditions in the first century, when the
minds of the clergy were wholly set on heavenly things. With possessions and
power came avarice and ambition, pride and luxury. The popes themselves were
guilty of pride in exalting their authority above that of the empire and by
asserting for themselves the right of appointing all prelates, yea of filling
all the benefices of Christendom. The evils arising from annates and
expectances surpass the power of statement. The cardinals followed the popes in
their greed and pride, single cardinals having as many as 500 livings. In order
to perpetuate their "tyranny," pope and curia had entered into league
with princes, which Clamanges pronounces an abominable fornication. Many of the
bishops drew large incomes from their sees which they administered through
others, never visiting them themselves. Canons and vicars followed the same
course and divided their time between idleness and sensual pleasure. The
mendicant monks corresponded to the Pharisees of the synagogue. Scarcely one
cleric out of a thousand did what his profession demanded. They were steeped in
ignorance and given to brawling, drinking, playing with dice and fornication.
Priests bought the privilege of keeping concubines. As for the nuns, Clamanges
said, he dared not speak of them. Nunneries were not the sanctuaries of God,
but shameful brothels of Venus, resorts of unchaste and wanton youth for the
sating of their passions, and for a girl to put on the veil was virtually to
submit herself to prostitution.410
The Church was drunken with the lust of power, glory and pleasures.
Judgment was sure to come, and men should bow humbly before God who alone could
rectify the evils and put an end to the schism. Descriptions such as these must
be used with discrimination, and it would be wrong to deduce from them that the
entire clerical body was corrupt. The diseases, however, must have been deep-seated
to call forth such a lament from a man of Clamanges’ position.
The
author did not call to open battle like the German Reformer at a later time,
but suggested as a remedy prayers, processions and fasts. His watchword was
that the Church must humble itself before it can be rebuilt.411
It was, however, a bold utterance and forms an important part of that body of
literature which so powerfully moulded opinion at the time of the Reformatory
councils.
The
loud complaints against the state of morals at the papal court and beyond
during the Avignon period increased, if possible, in strength during the time
of the schism. The list of abuses to be corrected which the Council of
Constance issued, Oct. 30, 1417, includes the official offences of the curia, such
as reservations, annates, the sale of indulgences and the unrestricted right of
appeals to the papal court. The subject of chastity it remained for individual
writers to press. In describing the third Babylon, Petrarch was even more
severe than Clamanges who wrote of conditions as they existed nearly a century
later and accused the papal household of practising adultery, rape and all
manners of fornication.412ois, La vie en France au moyen âge d’après
quelques moralistes du temps, Paris, 1908, pp. 320, 336, etc. Clamanges
declared that many parishes insisted upon the priests keeping concubines as a
precaution in defence of their own families. Against all canonical rules John
XXIII. gave a dispensation to the illegitimate son of Henry IV. of England, who
was only ten years old, to enter orders.413 The case of John XXIII. was
an extreme one, but it must be remembered, that in Bologna where he was sent as
cardinal-legate, his biographer, Dietrich of Nieheim, says that two hundred
matrons and maidens, including some nuns, fell victims to the future pontiff’s
amours. Dietrich Vrie in his History of the Council of Constance said:
"The supreme pontiffs, as I know, are elected through avarice and simony
and likewise the other bishops are ordained for gold. The old proverb; ’Freely
give, for freely ye have received’ is now most vilely perverted and runs
’Freely I have not received and freely I will not give, for I have bought my
bishopric with a great price and must indemnify myself impiously for my
outlay.’ ... If Simon Magus were now alive he might buy with money not only the
Holy Ghost but God the Father and Me, God the Son."414 But bad as was the
moral condition of the hierarchy and papacy at the time of the schism, it was
not so bad as during the last half century of the Middle Ages. The Reformatory
councils are the best, though by no means the only, proof that a deep moral
vitality existed in the Church. Their very summons and assembling were a
protest against clerical corruption and hypocrisy "in head and
members,"—from the pope down to the most obscure priest,—and at the same
time a most hopeful sign of future betterment.
</div3> <div3 type = "Section"
n="25" title="Nicolas of Cusa, Scholar and Churchman">
§ 25. Nicolas of
Cusa,
Scholar and Churchman.
Of the
theologians of the generation following Gerson and D’Ailly none occupies a more
conspicuous place than the German Nicolas of Cusa, 1401–1464. After taking a
prominent part in the Basel council in its earlier history, he went into the
service of Eugenius IV. and distinguished himself by practical efforts at
Church reform and by writings in theology and other departments of human
learning.
Born
at Cues near Treves, the son of a boatman, he left the parental home on account
of harsh treatment. Coming under the patronage of the count of Manderscheid, he
went to Deventer, where he received training in the school conducted by the
Brothers of the Common Life. He studied law in Padua, and reached the
doctorate, but exchanged law for theology because, to follow the statement of
his opponent, George of Heimburg, he had failed in his first case. At Padua he
had for one of his teachers Cesarini, afterwards cardinal and a prominent
figure in the Council of Basel.
In
1432 he appeared in Basel as the representative of Ulrich of Manderscheid,
archbishop-elect of Treves, to advocate Ulrich’s cause against his rivals
Rabanus of Helmstatt, bishop of Spires, whom the pope had appointed archbishop
of the Treves diocese. Identifying himself closely with the conciliar body,
Nicolas had a leading part in the proceedings with the Hussites and went with
the majority in advocating the superiority of the council over the pope. His
work on Catholic Unity,—De concordantia catholica,—embodying his views on this
question and dedicated to the council 1433, followed the earlier treatments of
Langenstein, Nieheim and Gerson. A general council, being inspired by the Holy
Spirit, speaks truly and infallibly. The Church is the body of the
faithful—unitas fidelium — and is represented in a general council. The pope
derives his authority from the consent of the Church, a council has power to
dethrone him for heresy and other causes and may not be prorogued or adjourned
without its own consent. Peter received no more authority from Christ than the
other Apostles. Whatever was said to Peter was likewise said to the others. All
bishops are of equal authority and dignity, whether their jurisdiction be
episcopal, archiepiscopal, patriarchal or papal, just as all presbyters are equal.415
In
spite of these views, when the question arose as to the place of meeting the
Greeks, Nicolas sided with the minority in favor of an Italian city, and was a
member of the delegations appointed by the minority which visited Eugenius IV.
at Bologna and went to Constantinople. This was in 1437 and from that time
forward he was a ready servant of Eugenius and his two successors. Aeneas
Sylvius, afterwards Pius II., called him the Hercules of the Eugenians. Aeneas
also pronounced him a man notable for learning in all branches of knowledge and
on account of his godly life.416
Eugenius
employed his new supporter as legate to arrange terms of peace with the German
Church and princes, an end he saw accomplished in the concordat of Vienna,
1447. He was rewarded by promotion to the college of cardinals, and in 1452 was
made bishop of Brixen in the Tyrol. Here he sought to introduce Church reforms,
and he travelled as the papal legate in the same interest throughout the larger
part of Germany.
By
attempting to assert all the mediaeval feoffal rights of his diocese, the
bishop came into sharp conflict with Siegmund, duke of Austria. Even the
interdict pronounced by two popes did not bring the duke to terms. He declared
war against the bishop and, taking him prisoner, forced from him a promise to
renounce the old rights which his predecessors for many years had not asserted.
Once released, the bishop treated his oath as null, on the ground that it had
been forced from him, and in this he was supported by Pius II. In 1460 he went
to Rome and died at Todi, Umbria, a few years later.
Nicolas
of Cusa knew Greek and Hebrew, and perhaps has claim to being the most
universal scholar of Germany up to his day since Albertus Magnus. He was
interested in astronomy, mathematics and botany, and, as D’Ailly had done
before, he urged, at the Council of Basel, the correction of the calendar. The
literary production on which he spent most labor was a discussion of the
problems of theology—De docta ignorantia. Here he attacked the scholastic
method and showed the influence upon his mind of mysticism, the atmosphere of
which he breathed at Deventer. He laid stress upon the limitations of the human
mind and the inability of the reason to find out God exhaustively. Faith, which
he defined as a state of the soul given of God’s grace, finds out truths the
intellect cannot attain to.417
His views had an influence upon Faber Stapulensis who edited the Cusan’s
works and was himself a French forerunner of Luther in the doctrine of
justification by faith.
His
last labors, in connection with the crusade against the Turks pushed by Pius
II., led him to studies in the Koran and the preparation of a tract,—De
cribatione Alcoran,—in which he declared that false religions have the true
religion as their basis.
It
is as an ecclesiastical mediator, and as a reformer of clerical and conventual
abuses that the cardinal has his chief place in history. He preached in the
vernacular. In Bamberg he secured the prohibition of new brotherhoods, in
Magdeburg the condemnation of the sale of indulgences for money. In Salzburg
and other places he introduced reforms in convents, and in connection with
other members of his family he founded the hospital at Cues with beds for 33
patients. He showed his interest in studies by providing for the training of 20
boys in Deventer. He dwelt upon the rotation of the earth on its axis nearly a
century before Copernicus. He gave reasons for regarding the donation of
Constantine spurious, and he also called in question the genuineness of other
parts of the Isidorian Decretals.
On
the other hand, the cardinal was a thorough churchman and obedient child of the
Church. As the agent of Nicolas V. he travelled in Germany announcing the
indulgence of the Jubilee Year, and through him, it is said, indulgences to the
value of 200,000 gulden were sold for the repair of St. Peter’s.
This
noble and many-sided man has been coupled together with Gutenberg by
Janssen,—the able and learned apologist of the Catholic Church in the closing
years of the Middle Ages,—the one as the champion of clerical and Church
discipline, the other the inventor of the printing-press. It is no
disparagement of the impulses and work of Nicolas to say that he had not the
mission of the herald of a new age in thought and religion as it was given to
Gutenberg to promote culture and civilization by his invention.418 He did not possess the gift of moral
and doctrinal conviction and foresight which made the monk of Wittenberg the
exponent and the herald of a radical, religious reformation whose permanent
benefits are borne witness to by a large section of Christendom.
</div3> <div3 type = "Section"
n="26" title="Popular Preachers">
§ 26.
Popular Preachers.
During
the century and a half closing with 1450, there were local groups of preachers
as well as isolated pulpit orators who exercised a deep influence upon
congregations. The German mystics with Eckart and John Tauler at their head
preached in Strassburg, Cologne and along the Rhine. D’Ailly and Gerson stood
before select audiences, and give lustre to the French pulpit. Wyclif, at
Oxford, and John Huss in Bohemia, attracted great attention by their sermons
and brought down upon themselves ecclesiastical condemnation. Huss was one of a
number of Bohemian preachers of eminence. Wyclif sought to promote preaching by
sending out a special class of men, his "pore preachers."
The
popular preachers constitute another group, though the period does not furnish
one who can be brought into comparison with the field-preacher, Berthold of
Regensburg, the Whitefield of his century, d. 1272. Among the popular preachers
of the time the most famous were Bernardino and John of Capistrano, both
Italians, and members of the Observant wing of the Franciscan order, and the
Spanish Dominican, Vincent Ferrer. To a later age belong those bright pulpit
luminaries, Savonarola of Florence and Geiler of Strassburg.
Bernardino
of Siena, 1380–1444, was praised by Pius II. as a second Paul. He made a marked
impression upon Italian audiences and was a favorite with pope Martin V. His
voice, weak and indistinct at first, was said to have been made strong and
clear through the grace of Mary, to whom he turned for help. He was the first
vicar-general of the Observants, who numbered only a few congregations in Italy
when he joined them, but increased greatly under his administration. In 1424 he
was in Rome and, as Infessura the Roman diarist reports,419 so influenced the
people that they brought their games and articles of adornment to the Capitol
and made a bonfire of them. Wherever he went to preach, a banner was carried
before him containing the monogram of Christ, IHS, with twelve rays centring in
the letters. He urged priests to put the monogram on the walls of churches and
public buildings, and such a monogram may still be seen on the city building of
Siena.420 The Augustinians
and Dominicans and also Poggio attacked him for this practice. In 1427, he
appeared in Rome to answer the charges. He was acquitted by Martin V., who gave
him permission to preach everywhere, and instructed him to hold an eighty-days’
mission in the papal city itself. In 1419, he appeared in the Lombard cities,
where the people were carried away by his exhortations to repentance, and often
burned their trinkets and games in the public squares. His body lies in Aquila,
and he was canonized by Nicolas V., 1450.
John
of Capistrano, 1386–1456, a lawyer, and at an early age intrusted with the
administration of Perugia, joined the Observants in 1416 and became a pupil of
Bernardino. He made a reputation as an inquisitor in Northern Italy, converting
and burning heretics and Jews. No one could have excelled him in the ferocity
of his zeal against heresy. His first appointment as inquisitor was made in
1426, and his fourth appointment 23 years later in 1449.421
As
a leader of his order, he defended Bernardino in 1427, and was made
vicar-general in 1443. He extended his preaching to Vienna and far up into
Germany, from Nürnberg to Dresden, Leipzig, Magdeburg and Breslau, making
everywhere a tremendous sensation. He used the Latin or Italian, which had to
be interpreted to his audiences. These are reported to have numbered as many as
thirty thousand.422
He carried relics of Bernardino with him, and through them and his own
instrumentality many miracles were said to have been performed. His attendants
made a note of the wonderful works on the spot.423 The spell of his preaching was shown by the burning of
pointed shoes, games of cards, dice and other articles of pleasure or vanity.
Thousands of heretics are also reported to have yielded to his persuasions. He
was called by Pius II. to preach against the Hussites, and later against the
Turks. He was present at the siege of Belgrade, and contributed to the
successful defence of the city and the defeat of Mohammed II. He was canonized
in 1690.
The
life of Vincent Ferrer, d. 1419, the greatest of Spanish preachers, fell during
the period of the papal schism, and he was intimately identified with the
controversies it called forth. His name is also associated with the gift of
tongues and with the sect of the Flagellants. This devoted missionary, born in
Valencia, joined the Dominican order, and pursued his studies in the
universities of Barcelona and Lerida. He won the doctorate of theology by his
tract on the Modern Schism in the Church—De moderno ecclesiae schismate.
Returning to Valencia, he gained fame as a preacher, and was appointed
confessor to the queen of Aragon, Iolanthe, and counsellor to her husband, John
I. In 1395, Benedict XIII. called him to be chief penitentiary in Avignon and
master of the papal palace. Two years later he returned to Valencia with the
title of papal legate. He at first defended the Avignon obedience with great
warmth, but later, persuaded that Benedict was not sincere in his professions
looking to the healing of the schism, withdrew from him his support and
supported the Council of Constance.
Ferrer’s
apostolic labors began in 1399. He itinerated through Spain, Northern Italy and
France, preaching two and three times a day on the great themes of repentance
and the nearness of the judgment. He has the reputation of being the most
successful of missionaries among the Jews and Mohammedans. Twenty-five thousand
Jews and eight thousand Mohammedans are said to have yielded to his persuasions.
Able to speak only Spanish, his sermons, though they were not interpreted, are
reported to have been understood in France and Italy. The gift of tongues was
ascribed to him by his contemporaries as well as the gift of miracles. Priests
and singers accompanied him on his tours, and some of the hymns sung were
Vincent’s own compositions. His audiences are given as high as 70,000, an
incredible number, and he is said to have preached twenty thousand times. He
also preached to the Waldenses in their valleys and to the remnant of the
Cathari, and is said to have made numerous converts. He himself was not above
the suspicion of heresy, and Eymerich made the charge against him of declaring
that Judas Iscariot hanged himself because the people would not permit him to
live, and that he found pardon with God.424 He was canonized by Calixtus III., 1455. The tale is that
Ferrer noticed this member of the Borgia family as a young priest in Valencia,
and made the prediction that one day he would reach the highest office open to
mortal man.425
On
his itineraries Ferrer was also accompanied by bands of Flagellants. He himself
joined in the flagellations, and the scourge with which he scourged himself
daily, consisting of six thongs, is said still to be preserved in the
Carthusian convent of Catalonia, scala coeli. Both Gerson and D’Ailly attacked
Ferrer for his adoption of the Flagellant delusion. In a letter addressed to
the Spanish preacher, written during the sessions of the Council of Constance,
Gerson took the ground that both the Old Testament and the New Testament forbid
violence done to the body, quoting in proof <scripRef passage = "Deut.
14:1">Deut.
14:1</scripRef>, "Ye shall not cut
yourselves." He invited him
to come to Constance, but the invitation was not accepted.426
</div3></div2><div2 type =
"Chapter" n="IV" title="The German Mystics">
CHAPTER
IV.
THE
GERMAN MYSTICS.
<div3 type = "Section"
n="27" title="Sources and Literature">
§ 27.
Sources and Literature.
General
Works.—*Franz Pfeiffer: Deutsche Mystiker, 2 vols., Leipzig, 1857, 2d ed of
vol. I., Göttingen, 1906.—*R. Langenberg: Quellen und Forschungen zur Gesch.
der deutschen Mystik, Bonn, 1902.—F. Galle: Geistliche Stimmen aus dem M. A.,
zur Erbauung, Halle, 1841.—Mrs. F. Bevan: Three Friends of God, Trees planted
by the River, London.—*W. R. Inge: Light, Life and Love, London, 1904.
Selections from Eckart, Tauler, Suso, Ruysbroeck, etc.—The works given under
Eckart, etc., in the succeeding sections. R. A. Vaughan: Hours with the
Mystics. For a long time the chief English authority, offensive by the dialogue
style it pursues, and now superseded.—W. Preger: Gesch. der deutschen Mystik im
Mittelalter, 3 vols., Leipzig, 1874–1893.—G. Ullmann: Reformatoren vor der
Reformation, vol. II., Hamburg, 1841.—*Inge: Christian Mysticism. pp. 148 sqq.,
London, 1899. — Eleanor C. Gregory: An Introd. to Christ. Mysticism, London,
1901.—W. R. Nicoll: The Garden of Nuts, London, 1905. The first four chapp.
give a general treatment of mysticism.—P. Mehlhorn: D. Blüthezeit d. deutschen
Mystik, Freiburg, 1907, pp. 64.—*S. M. Deutsch: Mystische Theol. in Herzog,
XIX. 631 sqq.—Cruel: Gesch. d. deutschen Predigt im M. A., pp. 370–414. A.
Ritschl: Gesch. d. Pietismus, 3 vols., Bonn, 1880–1886.—Harnack: Dogmengesch.,
III. 376 sqq.—Loofs: Dogmengesch., 4th ed., Halle, 1906, pp. 621–633.—W. James:
The Varieties of Relig. Experience, chs. XVI., XVII.
For § 29. Meister Eckart.—German Sermons bound in a
vol. with Tauler’s Sermons, Leipzig, 1498, Basel, 1521.—Pfeiffer: Deutsche Mystiker,
etc., vol. II., gives 110 German sermons, 18 tracts, and 60 fragments.—*Denifle:
M. Eckehart’s Lateinische Schriften und die Grundanschauung seiner Lehre, in
Archiv für Lit. und Kirchengesch., II. 416–652. Gives excerpts from his Latin
writings.—F. Jostes: M. Eckehart und seine Jünger, ungedruckte Texte zur Gesch.
der deutschen Mystik, Freiburg, 1895.—*H. Büttner: M. Eckehart’s Schriften und
Predigten aus dem Mittelhochdeutschen übersetzt, Leipzig, 1903. Gives 18 German
sermons and writings.—G. Landauer: Eckhart’s mystische Schriften in unsere
Sprache übertragen, Berlin, 1903.—H. Martensen: M. Eckart, Hamburg, 1842.—A.
Lasson: M. E. der Mystiker, Berlin, 1868. Also the section on Eckart by Lasson
in Ueberweg’s Hist. of Phil.—A. Jundt: Essai sur le mysticisme spéculatif d. M.
E., Strassburg, 1871; also Hist. du pathéisme populaire au moyen âge, 1876.
Gives 18 of Eckart’s sermons. Preger, I. 309–458.—H. Delacroix: Le mysticisme
spéculatif en Allemagne au 14e siècle, Paris, 1900.—Deutsch’s art. Eckart in
Herzog, V. 142–154.—Denifle: Die Heimath M. Eckehart’s in Archiv für Lit. und
K. Gesch. des M. A., V. 349–364, 1889.—Stöckl: Gesch. der Phil., etc., III.
1095–1120.—Pfleiderer: Religionsphilosophie, Berlin, 2d ed., 1883, p. 3
sqq.—INGE.—L. Ziegler: D. Phil. und relig. Bedeutung d. M. Eckehart in Preuss.
Jahrbücher, Heft 3, 1904.—See a trans. of Eckart’s sermon on John 6:44, by D.
S. Schaff, in Homiletic Rev., 1902, pp. 428–431
Note.—Eckart’s
German sermons and tracts, published in 1498 and 1521, were his only writings
known to exist till Pfeiffer’s ed., 1867. Denifle was the first to discover
Eckart’s Latin writings, in the convent of Erfurt, 1880, and at Cusa on the
Mosel, 1886. These are fragments on Genesis, Exodus, Ecclesiastes and the Book
of Wisdom. John Trithemius, in his De Scripp. Eccles., 1492, gives a list of
Eckart’s writings which indicates a literary activity extending beyond the
works we possess. The list catalogues four books on the Sentences, commentaries
on Genesis, Exodus, the Canticles, the Book of Wisdom, St. John, on the Lord’s
Prayer, etc.
For §
30. John Tauler.—Tauler’s Works, Leipzig, 1498 (84 sermons printed from MSS. in
Strassburg); Augsburg, 1508; Basel, 1521 (42 new sermons) and 1522;
Halberstadt, 1523; Cologne, 1543 (150 sermons, 23 being publ. for the first
time, and found in St. Gertrude’s convent, Cologne); Frankfurt, 1565; Hamburg,
1621; Frankfurt, 3 vols., 1826 (the edition used by Miss Winkworth); ed. by J.
Hamberger, 1864, 2d ed., Prag, 1872. The best. Hamberger substituted modern
German in the text and used a Strassburg MS. which was destroyed by fire at the
siege of the city in 1870; ed. by Kuntze und Biesenthal containing the Introdd.
of Arndt and Spener, Berlin, 1842.—*Engl. trans., Susanna Winkworth: The
History and Life of Rev. John Tauler with 25 Sermons, with Prefaces by Canon
Kingsley and Roswell D. Hitchcock, New York, 1858.—*The Inner Way, 36 Sermons
for Festivals, by John Tauler, trans. with Introd. by A. W. Huttons London,
1905.—C. Schmidt: J. Tauler von Strassburg, Hamburg, 1841, and Nicolas von
Basel, Bericht von der Bekehrung Taulers, Strassburg, 1875.—Denifle: D. Buch
von geistlicher Armuth, etc., Munich, 1877, and Tauler’s Bekehrung, Münster,
1879.—A Jundt: Les amis de Dieu au 14e siècle, Paris, 1879.—Preger, III.
1–244.—F. Cohrs: Art. Tauler in Herzog, XIX. 451–459.
Note.—Certain
writings once ascribed to Tauler, and printed with his works, are now regarded
as spurious. They are (1) The Book of Spiritual Poverty, ed. by Denifle,
Munich, 1877, and previously under the title Imitation of Christ’s Life of
Poverty, by D. Sudermann, Frankfurt, 1621, etc. Denifle pointed out the discord
between its teachings and the teachings of Tauler’s sermons. (2) Medulla
animae, consisting of 77 chapters. Preger decides some of them to be genuine.
(3) Certain hymns, including Es kommt ein Schiff geladen, which even Preger
pronounces spurious, III. 86. They are publ. by Wackernagel.
For §
31. Henry Suso,—Ed. of his works, Augsburg, 1482, and 1512.—*M. Diepenbrock: H.
Suso’s, genannt Amandus, Leben und Schriften, Regensburg, 1829, 4th ed., 1884,
with Preface by J. Görres.—H. Seuse Denifle: D. deutschen Schriften des seligen
H. Seuse, Munich, 1880.—*H. Seuse: Deutsche Schriften, ed. K. Bihlmeyer,
Stuttgart, 1907. The first complete edition, and based upon an examination of
many MSS.—A Latin trans. of Suso’s works by L. Surius, Cologne, 1555. French
trans. by Thirot: Ouvages mystiques du bienheureux H. Suso, 2 vols., Paris,
1899. Engl. extracts in Light, Life and Love, pp. 66–100.—Preger: D. Briefe H.
Suso’s nach einer Handschrift d. XV. Jahrh., Leipzig, 1867.—C. Schmidt: Der
Mystiker, H. Suso in Stud. und Kritiken, 1843, pp. 835 sqq.—Preger: Deutsche
Mystik, II. 309–419.—L. Kärcher: H. Suso aus d. Predigerorden, in Freiburger
Diöcesenarchiv, 1868, p. 187 sqq.—Cruel: Gesch. d. deutschen Predigt, 396 sqq.—Art.
in Wetzer- Welte, H. Seuse, V. 1721–1729.
For §
32. The Friends of God.—The works of Eckart, Tauler, Suso, Ruysbroeck.—Jundt:
Les Amis de Dieu, Paris, 1879.—Kessel: Art. Gottesfreunde in Wetzer-Welte, V.
893–900.—The writings of Rulman Merswin: Von den vier Jahren seines anfahenden
Lebens, ed. by Schmidt, in Reuss and Cinitz, Beiträge zu den Theol.
Wissenschaften, V., Jena, 1854.—His Bannerbüchlein given in Jundt’s Les
Amis.—Das Buch von den neun Felsen, ed. from the original MS. by C. Schmidt,
Leipzig, 1859, and in abbreviated form by Preger, III. 337–407, and
Diepenbrock: Heinrich Suso, pp. 505–572.—P. Strauch: Art. Rulman Merswin in
Herzog, XVII. 20–27.—For the "Friend of God of the Oberland" and his
writings. K. Schmidt: Nicolas von Basel: Leben und ausgewählte Schriften,
Vienna, 1866, and Nic. von Basel, Bericht von der Bekehrung Taulers,
Strassburg, 1876.—F. Lauchert: Des Gottesfreundes im Oberland Buch von den zwei
Mannen, Bonn, 1896.—C. Schmidt: Nic. von Basel und die Gottesfreunde, Basel,
1856.—Denifle: Der Gottesfreund im Oberland und Nic. von Basel. Eine krit.
Studie, Munich, 1875.—Jundt: Rulman Merswin et l’Ami de Dieu de l’Oberland,
Paris, 1890.—Preger, III. 290–337.—K. Rieder: Der Gottesfreund vom Oberland.
Eine Erfindung des Strassburger Johanniterbruders Nicolaus von Löwen,
Innsbruck, 1905.
For §
33. John Of Ruysbroeck.—Vier Schriften, ed. by Arnswaldt, with Introd. by
Ullmann, Hanover, 1848.—Superseded by J. B. David (Prof. in Louvaine), 6 vols.,
Ghent, 1857–1868. Contains 12 writings.—Lat. trans. by Surius, Cologne,
1549.—*F. A. Lambert: Drei Schriften des Mystikers J. van Ruysb., Die Zierde
der geistl. Hochzeit, Vom glanzenden Stein and Das Buch uon der höchsten
Wahrheit, Leipzig. No date; about 1906. Selections from Ruysbroeck in Light, Life
and Love, pp. 100–196.—*J. G. V. Engelhardt: Rich. von St. Victor u. J.
Ruysbroeck, Erlangen, 1838.—Ullmann: Reformatoren, etc., II. 35 sqq.—W. L. de
Vreese: Bijdrage tot de kennis van het leven en de werken van J. van Ruusbroec,
Ghent, 1896.—*M. Maeterlinck: Ruysbr. and the Mystics, with Selections from
Ruysb., London, 1894. A trans. by Jane T. Stoddart of Maeterlinck’s essay
prefixed to his L’Ornement des noces spirituelles de Ruysb., trans. by him from
the Flemish, Brussels, 1891.—Art. Ruysbroeck in Herzog, XVII. 267–273, by Van
Veen.
For §
34. Gerrit de Groote and the Brothers of the Common Life.—Lives of Groote,
Florentius and their pupils, by Thomas À Kempis: Opera omnia, ed, by Sommalius,
Antwerp, 1601, 3 vols., Cologne, 1759, etc., and in unpubl. MSS.— J. Busch, d.
1479: Liber de viris illustribus, a collection of 24 biographies of Windesheim
brethren, Antwerp, 1621; also Chronicon Windeshemense, Antwerp, 1621, both ed.
by Grube, Halle, 1886.—G. H. M. Delprat Verhandeling over de broederschap van
Geert Groote en over den involoed der fraterhuizen, Arnheim, etc., 1856.—J. G.
R. Acquoy (Prof. in Leyden): Gerhardi Magni epistolae XIV., Antwerp, 1857. G.
Bonet-Maury:: Gerhard de Groot d’après des documents onédites. Paris 1878.—*G.
Kettlewell: Thomas à Kempis and the Brothers of the Common Life, 2 vols, New
York, 1882.—*K. Grube: Johannes Busch, Augustinerpropst in Hildesheim. Ein
kathol. Reformator in 15ten Jahrh., Freiburg, 1881. Also G. Groote und seine
Stiftungen, Cologne, 1883.—R. Langenberg: Quellen and Forschungen, etc., Bonn,
1902.—Boerner: Die Annalen und Akten der Brüder des Gemainsamen Lebens im
Lichtenhofe zu Hildesheim, eine Grundlage der Gesch. d. deutschen Brüderhäuser
und ein Beitrag zur Vorgesch. der Reformation, Fürstenwalde, 1905.—The artt. by
K. Hirsche in Herzog, 2d ed., II. 678–760 and L. Schulze, Herzog, 3rd ed.,
III., 474–507, and P.A. Thijm in Wetzer-Welte, V. 1286–1289.—Ullmann:
Reformatoren, II. 1–201.—Lea: Inquisition, II. 360 sqq.—Uhlhorn: Christl.
Liebesthätigkeit im M. A., Stuttgart, 1884, pp. 350–375.
Note.—A
few of the short writings of Groote were preserved by Thomas à Kempis. To the
sermons edited by Acquoy, Langenberg, pp. 3–33, has added Groote’s tract on
simony, which he found in the convent of Frenswegen, near Nordhorn. He has also
found Groote’s Latin writings. The tract on simony—de simonia ad Beguttas — is
addressed to the Beguines in answer to the question propounded to him by some
of their number as to whether it was simony to purchase a place in a Beguine
convent. The author says that simony "prevails very much everywhere,"
and that it was not punished by the Church. He declares it to be simony to
purchase a place which involves spiritual exercises, and he goes on to apply
the principle to civil offices pronouncing it simony when they are bought for
money. The work is written in Low German, heavy in style, but interesting for
the light it throws on practices current at that time.
For §
35. The Imitation of Christ.—Edd. of À Kempis’ works, Utrecht, 1473 (15 writings,
and omitting the Imitation of Christ); Nürmberg, 1494 (20 writings), ed. by J.
Badius, 1520, 1521, 1528; Paris, 1549; Antwerp, 1574; Dillingen, 1676; ed. by
H. Sommalius, 3 vols., Antwerp, 1599, 3d ed. 1615; ed. by M. J. Pohl, 8 vols.
promised; thus far 5 vols, Freiburg im Br., 1903 sqq. Best and only complete
ed.—Thomas à Kempis hymns in Blume and Dreves: Analecta hymnica, XLVIII. pp.
475–514.—For biograph. and critical accounts.—Joh. Busch: Chron.
Windesemense.—H. Rosweyde: Chron. Mt. S. Agnetis, Antwerp, 1615, and cum
Rosweydii vindiciis Kempensibus, 1622.—J. B. Malou: Recherches historiq. et
critiq. sur le véritable auteur du livre de l’Imitat. de Jesus Chr., Tournay,
1848; 3d ed., Paris 1856.—*K. Hirsche: Prologomena zu einer neuen Ausgabe de
imitat. Chr. (with a copy of the Latin text of the MS. dated 1441), 1873, 1883,
1894.—C. Wolfsgruber: Giovanni Gersen sein Leben und sein Werk de Imitat. Chr.,
Augsburg, 1880.—*S. Kettlewell: Th. à Kempis and the Brothers of the Common
Life, 2 vols., London, 1882. Also Authorship of the de imitat, Chr., London,
1877, 2d ed., 1884.—F. R. Cruise: Th. à Kempis, with Notes of a visit to the
scenes in which his life was spent, with some account of the examination of his
relics, London, 1887.—L. A. Wheatley: Story of the Imitat. of Chr., London,
1891.—Dom Vincent Scully: Life of the Venerable Th. à Kempis, London, 1901.—J.
E. G. de Montmorency: Th. à Kempis, His Age and Book, London, 1906—*C. Bigg in
Wayside Sketches in Eccle. Hist., London, 1906, pp. 134–154.—D. B. Butler,
Thos. à Kempis, a Rel. Study, London, 1908.—Art. Thos. à Kempis in London
Quarterly Review, April, 1908, pp. 254–263.
First
printed ed. of the Latin text of the Imitat. of Christ, Augsburg, 1472. Bound
up with Jerome’s de viris illust. and writings of Augustine and Th. Aquinas.—Of
the many edd. in Engl. the first was by W. Atkynson, and Margaret, mother of
Henry VII., London, 1502, reprinted London, 1828, new ed. by J. K. Ingram,
London, 1893.—The Imitat. of Chr., being the autograph MS. of Th. à Kempis de
Imitat. Chr. reproduced in facsimile from the orig. in the royal libr. at
Brussels. With Introd. by C. Ruelens, London, 1879.—The Imitat. of Chr. Now for
the first time set forth in Rhythm and Sentences. With Pref. by Canon Liddon,
London, 1889.—Facsimile Reproduction of the 1st ed. of 1471, with Hist. Introd.
by C. Knox-Little, London, 1894.—The Imitat. of Chr., trans. by Canon W.
Benham, with 12 photogravures after celebrated paintings, London, 1905.—An ed.
issued 1881 contains a Pref. by Dean Farrar.—R. P. A. de Backer: Essai
bibliograph. sur le livre de imitat. Chr., Liège, 1864.—For further Lit. on the
Imitat. of Chr., see the Note at the end of § 35.
</div3> <div3 type = "Section"
n="28" title="The New Mysticism">
<index
type = "globalSubject"
subject1 = "Mysticism"
/>
§ 28.
The New Mysticism.
In joy
of inward peace, or sense
Of
sorrow over sin,
He is
his own best evidence
His
witness is within.
—Whittier,
Our Master.
At the
time when the scholastic method was falling into disrepute and the scandals of
the Avignon court and the papal schism were shaking men’s faith in the
foundations of the Church, a stream of pure pietism was watering the regions
along the Rhine, from Basel to Cologne, and from Cologne to the North Sea.
North of the Alps, voices issuing from convents and from the ranks of the laity
called attention to the value of the inner religious life and God’s immediate
communications to the soul.
To
this religious movement has recently been given the name, the Dominican
mysticism, on account of the large number of its representatives who belonged
to the Dominican order. The older name, German mysticism, which is to be
preferred, points to the locality where it manifested itself, and to the
language which the mystics for the most part used in their writings. Like the
Protestant Reformation, the movement had its origin on German soil, but, unlike
the Reformation, it did not spread beyond Germany and the Lowlands. Its chief
centres were Strassburg and Cologne; its leading representatives the speculative
Meister Eckart, d. 1327, John Tauler, d. 136l, Henry Suso, d. 1366, John
Ruysbroeck, d. 1381, Gerrit Groote, d. 1384, and Thomas à Kempis, d. 1471. The
earlier designation for these pietists was Friends of God. The Brothers of the
Common Life, the companions and followers of Groote, were of the same type, but
developed abiding institutions of practical Christian philanthropy. In
localities the Beguines and Beghards also breathed the same devotional and
philanthropic spirit. The little book called the German Theology, and the
Imitation of Christ, were among the finest fruits of the movement. Gerson and
Nicolas of Cusa also had a strong mystical vein, but they are not to be classed
with the German mystics. With them mysticism was an incidental, not the
distinguishing, quality.
The
mystics along the Rhine formed groups which, however, were not bound together
by any formal organization. Their only bond was the fellowship of a common
religious purpose.
Their
religious thought was not always homogeneous in its expression, but all agreed
in the serious attempt to secure purity of heart and life through union of the
soul with God. Mysticism is a phase of Christian life. It is a devotional
habit, in contradistinction to the outward and formal practice of religious
rules. It is a religious experience in contrast to a mere intellectual assent
to tenets. It is the conscious effort of the soul to apprehend and possess God
and Christ, and expresses itself in the words, "I live, and yet not I but
Christ liveth in me." It is
essentially what is now called in some quarters "personal
religion." Perhaps the shortest
definition of mysticism is the best. It is the love of God shed abroad in the
heart.427 The element of
intuition has a large place, and the avenues through which religious experience
is reached are self-detachment from the world, self-purgation, prayer and
contemplation.
Without
disparaging the sacraments or disputing the authority of the Church, the German
mystics sought a better way. They laid stress upon the meaning of such passages
as "he that believeth in me shall never hunger and he that cometh unto me
shall never thirst, " "he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father
"and "he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness." The word love figures most prominently
in their writings. Among the distinctive terms in vogue among them were
Abgeschiedenheit, Eckart’s word for self-detachment from the world and that
which is temporal, and Kehr, Tauler’s oft-used word for conversion. They laid
stress upon the new birth, and found in Christ’s incarnation a type of the
realization of the divine in the soul.
German
mysticism had a distinct individuality of its own. On occasion, its leaders
quoted Augustine’s Confessions and other works, Dionysius the Areopagite,
Bernard and Thomas Aquinas, but they did not have the habit of referring back
to human authorities as had the Schoolmen, bulwarking every theological
statement by patristic quotations, or statements taken from Aristotle. The
movement arose like a root out of a dry ground at a time of great corruption
and distraction in the Church, and it arose where it might have been least
expected to arise. Its field was the territory along the Rhine where the
heretical sects had had representation. It was a fresh outburst of piety, an
earnest seeking after God by other paths than the religious externalism
fostered by sacerdotal prescriptions and scholastic dialectics. The mystics led
the people back from the clangor and tinkling of ecclesiastical symbolisms to
the refreshing springs of water which spring up into everlasting life.
Compared
with the mysticism of the earlier Middle Ages and the French quietism of the
seventeenth century, represented by Madame Guyon, Fénelon and their predecessor
the Spaniard Miguel de Molinos, German mysticism likewise has its own
distinctive features. The religion of Bernard expressed itself in passionate
and rapturous love for Jesus. Madame Guyon and Fénelon set up as the goal of
religion a state of disinterested love, which was to be reached chiefly by
prayer, an end which Bernard felt it scarcely possible to reach in this world.
The
mystics along the Rhine agreed with all genuine mystics in striving after the
direct union of the soul with God. They sought, as did Eckart, the loss of our
being in the ocean of the Godhead, or with Tauler the undisturbed peace of the
soul, or with Ruysbroeck the impact of the divine nature upon our nature at its
innermost point, kindling with divine love as fire kindles. With this
aspiration after the complete apprehension of God, they combined a practical
tendency. Their silent devotion and meditation were not final exercises. They
were moved by warm human sympathies, and looked with almost reverential regard
upon the usual pursuits and toil of men. They approached close to the idea that
in the faithful devotion to daily tasks man may realize the highest type of
religious experience.
By
preaching, by writing and circulating devotional works, and especially by their
own examples, they made known the secret and the peace of the inner life. In
the regions along the lower Rhine, the movement manifested itself also in the
care of the sick, and notably in schools for the education of the young. These
schools proved to be preparatory for the German Reformation by training a body
of men of wider outlook and larger sympathies than the mediaeval convent was
adapted to rear.
For
the understanding of the spirit and meaning of German mysticism, no help is so
close at hand as the comparison between it and mediaeval scholasticism. This
religious movement was the antithesis of the theology of the Schoolmen; Eckart
and Tauler of Thomas Aquinas, the German Theology of the endless argumentation
of Duns Scotus, the Imitation of Christ of the cumbersome exhaustiveness of
Albertus Magnus. Roger Bacon had felt revulsion from the hairsplitting casuistries
of the Schoolmen, and given expression to it before Eckart began his activity
at Cologne. Scholasticism had trodden a beaten and dusty highway. The German
mystics walked in secluded and shady pathways. For a catalogue of dogmatic
maxims they substituted the quiet expressions of filial devotion and assurance.
The speculative element is still prominent in Eckart, but it is not indulged
for the sake of establishing doctrinal rectitude, but for the nurture of inward
experience of God’s operations in the soul. Godliness with these men was not a
system of careful definitions, it was a state of spiritual communion; not an
elaborate construction of speculative thought, but a simple faith and walk with
God. Not processes of logic but the insight of devotion was their guide.428 As Loofs has well said, German
mysticism emphasized above all dogmas and all external works the necessity of
the new birth.429 It also had its
dangers. Socrates had urged men not to rest hopes upon the Delphian oracle, but
to listen to the voice in their own bosoms. The mystics, in seeking to hear the
voice of God speaking in their own hearts, ran peril of magnifying
individualism to the disparagement of what was common to all and of mistaking
states of the overwrought imagination for revelations from God.430
Although
the German mystical writers have not been quoted in the acts of councils or by
popes as have been the theologies of the Schoolmen, they represented, if we
follow the testimonies of Luther and Melanchthon, an important stage in the
religious development of the German people, and it is certainly most
significant that the Reformation broke out on the soil where the mystics lived
and wrought, and their piety took deep root. They have a perennial life for
souls who, seeking devotional companionship, continue to go back to the leaders
of that remarkable pietistic movement.
The
leading features of the mysticism of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries may
be summed up in the following propositions.
1.
Its appeals were addressed to laymen as well as to clerics.
2.
The mystics emphasized instruction and preaching, and, if we except Suso,
withdrew the emphasis which had been laid upon the traditional ascetic
regulations of the Church. They did not commend buffetings of the body. The
distance between Peter Damiani and Tauler is world-wide.
3.
They used the New Testament more than they used the Old Testament, and the
words of Christ took the place of the Canticles in their interpretations of the
mind of God. The German Theology quotes scarcely a single passage which is not
found in the New Testament, and the Imitation of Christ opens with the
quotation of words spoken by our Lord. Eckart and Tauler dwell upon passages of
the New Testament, and Ruysbroeck evolves the fulness of his teaching from
Matthew 25:6, "Behold the Bridegroom cometh, go ye out to meet him."
4.
In the place of the Church, with its sacraments and priesthood as a saving
institution, is put Christ himself as the mediator between the soul and God,
and he is offered as within the reach of all.
5.
A pure life is taught to be a necessary accompaniment of the higher religious
experience, and daily exemplification is demanded of that humility which the
Gospel teaches.
6.
Another notable feature was their use of the vernacular in sermon and treatise.
The mystics are among the very earliest masters of German and Dutch prose. In
the Introduction to his second edition of the German Theology, Luther
emphasized this aspect of their activity when he said, "I thank God that I
have heard and find my God in the German tongue as neither I nor they [the
adherents of the old way] have found Him in the Latin and Hebrew
tongues." In this regard also
the mystics of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries were precursors of the
evangelical movement of the sixteenth century. Their practice was in plain
conflict with the judgment of that German bishop who declared that the German
language was too barbarous a tongue to be a proper vehicle of religious truth.
The
religious movement represented by German and Dutch mysticism is an encouraging
illustration that God’s Spirit may be working effectually in remote and
unthought-of places and at times when the fabric of the Church seems to be
hopelessly undermined with formalism, clerical corruption and hierarchical
arrogance and worldliness. It was so at a later day when, in the little and
remote Moravian town of Herrnhut, God was preparing the weak things of the
world, and the things which were apparently foolish, to confound the dead
orthodoxy of German Protestantism and to lead the whole Protestant Church into
the way of preaching the Gospel in all the world. No organized body survived
the mystics along the Rhine, but their example and writings continue to
encourage piety and simple faith toward God within the pale of the Catholic and
Protestant churches alike.
A
classification of the German mystics on the basis of speculative and practical
tendencies has been attempted, but it cannot be strictly carried out.431 In Eckart and Ruysbroeck, the
speculative element was in the ascendant; in Tauler, the devotional; in Suso,
the emotional; in Groote and other men of the Lowlands, the practical.
</div3> <div3 type = "Section"
n="29" title="Meister Eckart">
§ 29. Meister
Eckart.
Meister
Eckart, 1260–1327, the first in the line of the German mystics, was excelled in
vigor of thought by no religious thinker of his century, and was the earliest
theologian who wrote in German.432
The philosophical bent of his mind won for him from Hegel the title,
"father of German philosophy."
In spite of the condemnation passed upon his writings by the pope, his
memory was regarded with veneration by the succeeding generation of mystics.
His name, however, was almost forgotten in later times. Mosheim barely mentions
it, and the voluminous historian, Schroeckh, passes it by altogether. Baur, in
his History of the Middle Ages, devotes to Eckart and Tauler only three lines,
and these under the head of preaching, and makes no mention at all of German
mysticism. His memory again came to honor in the last century, and in the
German church history of the later Middle Ages he is now accorded a place of
pre-eminence for his freshness of thought, his warm piety and his terse German
style.433 With Albertus
Magnus and Rupert of Deutz he stands out as the earliest prominent
representative in the history of German theology.
During
the century before Eckart, the German church also had its mystics, and in the
twelfth century the godly women, Hildegard of Bingen and Elizabeth of Schoenau,
added to the function of prophecy a mystical element. In the thirteenth century
the Benedictine convent of Helfta, near Eisleben, Luther’s birthplace, was a
centre of religious warmth. Among its nuns were several by the names of
Gertrude and Mechthild, who excelled by their religious experiences, and wrote
on the devotional life. Gertrude of Hackeborn, d. 1292, abbess of Helfta, and
Gertrude the Great, d. 1302, professed to have immediate communion with the
Saviour and to be the recipients of divine revelations. When one of the
Mechthilds asked Christ where he was to be found, the reply was, "You may
seek me in the tabernacle and in Gertrude’s heart." From 1293 Gertrude the Great recorded
her revelations in a work called the Communications of Piety—Insinuationes
divinae pietatis. Mechthild of Magdeburg, d. 1280, and Mechthild of Hackeborn,
d. 1310, likewise nuns of Helfta, also had visions which they wrote out. The
former, who for thirty years had been a Beguine, Deutsch calls " one of
the most remarkable personalities in the religious history of thirteenth
century." Mechthild of
Hackeborn, a younger sister of the abbess Gertrude, in her book on special
grace,—Liber specialis gratiae,—sets forth salvation as the gift of grace
without the works of the law. These women wrote in German.434
David
of Augsburg, d. 1271, the inquisitor who wrote on the inquisition,—De
inquisitione haereticorum,—also wrote on the devotional life. These writings
were intended for monks, and two of them435 are regarded as pearls of
German prose.
In
the last years of the thirteenth century, the Franciscan Lamprecht of
Regensburg wrote a poem entitled "Daughter of Zion" (Cant. III. 11),
which, in a mystical vein, depicts the soul, moved by the impulse of love, and
after in vain seeking its satisfaction in worldly things, led by faith and hope
to God. The Dominicans, Dietrich of Freiburg and John of Sterngassen, were also
of the same tendency.436
The latter labored in Strassburg.
Eckart
broke new paths in the realm of German religious thought. He was born at Hochheim,
near Gotha, and died probably in Cologne.437 In the last years of the thirteenth century he was prior of
the Dominican convent of Erfurt, and provincial of the Dominicans in Thuringia,
and in 1300 was sent to Paris to lecture, taking the master’s degree, and later
the doctorate. After his sojourn in France he was made prior of his order in
Saxony, a province at that time extending from the Lowlands to Livland. In 1311
he was again sent to Paris as a teacher. Subsequently he preached in
Strassburg, was prior in Frankfurt, 1320, and thence went to Cologne.
Charges
of heresy were preferred against him in 1325 by the archbishop of Cologne,
Henry of Virneburg. The same year the Dominicans, at their general chapter held
in Venice, listened to complaints that certain popular preachers in Germany
were leading the people astray, and sent a representative to make
investigations. Henry of Virneburg had shown himself zealous in the prosecution
of heretics. In 1322, Walter, a Beghard leader, was burnt, and in 1325 a number
of Beghards died in the flames along the Rhine. It is possible that Eckart was
quoted by these sectaries, and in this way was exposed to the charge of heresy.
The
archbishop’s accusations, which had been sent to Rome, were set aside by
Nicolas of Strassburg, Eckart’s friend, who at the time held the position of
inquisitor in Germany. In 1327, the archbishop again proceeded against the suspected
preacher and also against Nicolas. Both appealed from the archbishop’s tribunal
to the pope. In February, Eckart made a public statement in the Dominican
church at Cologne, declaring he had always eschewed heresy in doctrine and
declension in morals, and expressed his readiness to retract errors, if such
should be found in his writings.438
In
a bull dated March 27, 1329, John XXII. announced that of the 26 articles
charged against Eckart, 15 were heretical and the remaining 11 had the savor of
heresy. Two other articles, not cited in the indictment, were also pronounced
heretical. The papal decision stated that Eckart had acknowledged the 17
condemned articles as heretical. There is no evidence of such acknowledgment in
the offenders extant writing.439
Among
the articles condemned were the following. As soon as God was, He created the
world.—The world is eternal.—External acts are not in a proper sense good and
divine.—The fruit of external acts does not make us good, but internal acts
which the Father works in us.—God loves the soul, not external acts. The two
added articles charged Eckart with holding that there is something in the soul
which is uncreated and uncreatable, and that God is neither good nor better nor
best, so that God can no more be called good than white can be called black.
Eckart
merits study as a preacher and as a mystic theologian.
As
a Preacher.—His sermons were delivered in churches and at conferences within
cloistral walls. His style is graphic and attractive, to fascination. The
reader is carried on by the progress of thought. The element of surprise is
prominent. Eckart’s extant sermons are in German, and the preacher avoids
dragging in Latin phrases to explain his meaning, though, if necessary, he
invents new German terms. He quotes the Scriptures frequently, and the New
Testament more often than the Old, the passages most dwelt upon being those
which describe the new birth, the sonship of Christ and believers, and love.
Eckart is a master in the use of illustrations, which he drew chiefly from the
sphere of daily observation,—the world of nature, the domestic circle and the
shop. Although he deals with some of the most abstruse truths, he betrays no
ambition to make a show of speculative subtlety. On the contrary, he again and
again expresses a desire to be understood by his hearers, who are frequently
represented as in dialogue with himself and asking for explanations of
difficult questions. Into the dialogue are thrown such expressions as "in
order that you may understand," and in using certain illustrations he on
occasion announces that he uses them to make himself understood.440
The
following is a resumé of a sermon on <scripRef passage = "John
6:44">John
6:44</scripRef>, "No man can come unto
me except the Father draw him."441 In drawing the sinner that He may convert him, God draws
with more power than he would use if He were to make a thousand heavens and
earths. Sin is an offence against nature, for it breaks God’s image in us. For
the soul, sin is death, for God is the soul’s true life. For the heart, it is
restlessness, for a thing is at rest only when it is in its natural state. Sin
is a disease and blindness, for it blinds men to the brief duration of time,
the evils of fleshly lust and the long duration of the pains of hell. It is
bluntness to all grace. Sin is the prison-house of hell. People say they intend
to turn away from their sins. But how can one who is dead make himself alive
again? And by one’s own powers to
turn from sin unto God is much less possible than it would be for the dead to
make themselves alive. God himself must draw. Grace flows from the Father’s
heart continually, as when He says, "I have loved thee with an everlasting
love."
There
are three things in nature which draw, and these three Christ had on the cross.
The first was his fellow-likeness to Us. As the bird draws to itself the bird
of the same nature, so Christ drew the heavenly Father to himself, so that the
Father forgot His wrath in contemplating the sufferings of the cross. Again
Christ draws by his self-emptiness. As the empty tube draws water into itself,
so the Son, by emptying himself and letting his blood flow, drew to himself all
the grace from the Father’s heart. The third thing by which he draws is the
glowing heat of his love, even as the sun with its heat draws up the mists from
the earth.
The
historian of the German mediaeval pulpit, Cruel, has said,442 "Eckart’s sermons hold the reader
by the novelty and greatness of their contents, by their vigor of expression
and by the genial frankness of the preacher himself, who is felt to be putting
his whole soul into his effort and to be giving the most precious things he is
able to give." He had his
faults, but in spite of them "he is the boldest and most profound thinker
the German pulpit has ever had,—a preacher of such original stamp of mind that
the Church in Germany has not another like him to offer in all the
centuries."
Eckart
as a Theological Thinker.—Eckart was still bound in part by the scholastic
method. His temper, however, differed widely from the temper of the Schoolmen.
Anselm, Hugo of St. Victor, Thomas Aquinas and Bonaventura, who united the
mystical with the scholastic element, were predominantly Schoolmen, seeking to
exhaust every supposable speculative problem. No purpose of this kind appears
in Eckart’s writings. He is dominated by a desire not so much to reach the
intellect as to reach the soul and to lead it into immediate fellowship with
God. With him the weapons of metaphysical dexterity are not on show; and in his
writings, so far as they are known, he betrays no inclination to bring into the
area of his treatment those remoter topics of speculation, from the
constitution of the angelic world to the motives and actions which rule and
prevail in the regions of hell. God and the soul’s relation to Him are the
engrossing subjects.443
The authorities upon whom Eckart relied most, if we are to judge by his
quotations, were Dionysius the Areopagite, and St. Bernard, though he also
quotes from Augustine, Jerome and Gregory the Great, from Plato, Avicenna and
Averrhoes. His discussions are often introduced by such expressions as
"the masters say," or "some masters say." As a mystical thinker he has much in
common with the mystics who preceded him, Neo-Platonic and Christian, but he
was no servile reproducer of the past. Freshness characterizes his fundamental
principles and his statement of them. In the place of love for Jesus, the
precise definitions of the stages of contemplation emphasized by the school of
St. Victor and the hierarchies and ladders and graduated stairways of
Dionysius, he magnifies the new birth in the soul, and sonship.444
As
for God, He is absolute being, Deus est esse. The Godhood is distinct from the
persons of the Godhead,—a conception which recalls Gilbert of Poictiers, or
even the quaternity which Peter the Lombard was accused of setting up. The
Trinity is the method by which this Godhood reveals itself by a process which
is eternal. Godhood is simple essence having in itself the potentiality of all
things.445 God has form, and
yet is without form, is being, and yet is without being. Great teachers say
that God is above being. This is not correct, for God may as little be called a
being, ein Wesen, as the sun may be called black or pale.446
All
created things were created out of nothing, and yet they were eternally in God.
The master who produces pieces of art, first had all his art in himself. The
arts are master within the master. Likewise the first Principle, which Eckart
calls Erstigkeit, embodied in itself all images, that is, God in God. Creation
is an eternal act. As soon as God was, He created the world. Without creatures,
God would not be God. God is in all things and all things are God—Nu sint all
Ding gleich in Gott und sint Got selber.447 Thomas Aquinas made a clear distinction between the being of
God and the being of created things. Eckart emphasized their unity. What he
meant was that the images or universals exist in God eternally, as he distinctly
affirmed when he said, "In the Father are the images of all
creatures."448
As
for the soul, it can be as little comprehended in a definition as God Himself.449 The soul’s kernel, or its ultimate
essence, is the little spark, Fünkelein, a light which never goes out which is
uncreated and uncreatable.450
Notwithstanding these statements, the German theologian affirms that God
created the soul and poured into it, in the first instance, all His own purity.
Through the spark the soul is brought into union with God, and becomes more
truly one with Him than food does with the body. The soul cannot rest till it
returns to God, and to do 80 it must first die to itself, that is, completely
submit itself to God.451
Eckart’s aim in all his sermons, as he asserts, was to reach this spark.
It
is one of Eckart’s merits that he lays so much stress upon the dignity of the
soul. Several of his tracts bear this title.452 This dignity follows from God’s love and regenerative
operation.
Passing
to the incarnation, it is everywhere the practical purpose which controls
Eckart’s treatment, and not the metaphysical. The second person of the Trinity
took on human nature, that man might become partaker of the divine nature. In
language such as Gregory of Nyssa used, he said, God became man that we might
become God. Gott ist Mensch worden
dass wir Gott wurden. As God was hidden within the human nature so that we saw
there only man, so the soul is to be hidden within the divine nature, that we
should see nothing but God.453
As certainly as God begets the Son from His own nature, so certainly
does He beget Him in the soul. God is in all things, but He is in the soul
alone by birth, and nowhere else is He so truly as in the soul. No one can know
God but the only begotten Son. Therefore, to know God, man must through the
eternal generation become Son. It is as true that man becomes God as that God
was made man.454
The
generation of the eternal Son in the soul brings joy which no man can take
away. A prince who should lose his kingdom and all worldly goods would still
have fulness of joy, for his birth outweighs everything else.455 God is in the soul, and yet He is not
the soul. The eye is not the piece of wood upon which it looks, for when the eye
is closed, it is the same eye it was before. But if, in the act of looking, the
eye and the wood should become one, then we might say the eye is the wood and
the wood is the eye. If the wood were a spiritual substance like the eyesight,
then, in reality, one might say eye and wood are one substance.456 The fundament of God’s being is the
fundament of my being, and the fundament of my being is the fundament of God’s
being. Thus I live of myself even as God lives of Himself.457 This begetment of the Son of God in the
soul is the source of all true life and good works.
One
of the terms which Eckart uses most frequently, to denote God’s influence upon
the soul, is durchbrechen, to break through, and his favorite word for the
activity of the soul, as it rises into union with God, is Abgeschiedenheit, the
soul’s complete detachment of itself from all that is temporal and seen. Keep
aloof, abgeschieden, he says, from men, from yourself, from all that cumbers.
Bear God alone in your hearts, and then practise fasting, vigils and prayer,
and you will come unto perfection. This Abgeschiedenheit, total self-detachment
from created things,458 he says in a sermon on the subject, is
"the one thing needful."
After reading many writings by pagan masters and Christian teachers,
Eckart came to consider it the highest of all virtues,—higher than humility,
higher even than love, which Paul praises as the highest; for, while love
endures all things, this quality is receptiveness towards God. In the person
possessing this quality, the worldly has nothing to correspond to itself. This
is what Paul had reference to when he said, "I live and yet not I, for
Christ liveth in me." God is
Himself perfect Abgeschiedenheit.
In
another place, Eckart says that he who has God in his soul finds God in all
things, and God appears to him out of all things. As the thirsty love water, so
that nothing else tastes good to them, even so it is with the devoted soul. In
God and God alone is it at rest. God seeks rest, and He finds it nowhere but in
such a heart. To reach this condition of Abgeschiedenheit, it is necessary for
the soul first to meditate and form an image of God, and then to allow itself
to be transformed by God.459
What,
then, some one might say, is the advantage of prayer and good works? In eternity, God saw every prayer and
every good work, and knew which prayer He could hear. Prayers were answered in
eternity. God is unchangeable and cannot be moved by a prayer. It is we who
change and are moved. The sun shines, and gives pain or pleasure to the eye,
according as it is weak or sound. The sun does not change. God rules
differently in different men. Different kinds of dough are put into the oven;
the heat affects them differently, and one is taken out a loaf of fine bread,
and another a loaf of common bread.
Eckart
is emphatic when he insists upon the moral obligation resting on God to operate
in the soul that is ready to receive Him. God must pour Himself into such a
man’s being, as the sun pours itself into the air when it is clear and pure.
God would be guilty of a great wrong—Gebrechen — if He did not confer a great
good upon him whom He finds empty and ready to receive Him. Even so Christ said
of Zaccheus, that He must enter into his house. God first works this state in
the soul, and He is obliged to reward it with the gift of Himself. "When I
am blessed, selig, then all things are in me and in God, and where I am, there
is God, and where God is, there I am."460
Nowhere
does Eckart come to a distinct definition of justification by faith, although
he frequently speaks of faith as a heavenly gift. On the other hand, he gives
no sign of laying stress on the penitential system. Everywhere there are
symptoms in his writings that his piety breathed a different atmosphere from
the pure mediaeval type. Holy living is with him the product of holy being. One
must first be righteous before he can do righteous acts. Works do not sanctify.
The righteous soul sanctifies the works. So long as one does good works for the
sake of the kingdom of heaven or for the sake of God or for the sake of
salvation or for any external cause, he is on the wrong path. Fastings, vigils,
asceticisms, do not merit salvation.461 There are places in the mystic’s writings where we seem to
hear Luther himself speaking.
The
stress which Eckart lays upon piety, as a matter of the heart and the denial to
good works of meritorious virtue, gave plausible ground for the papal
condemnation, that Eckart set aside the Church’s doctrine of penance, affirming
that it is not outward acts that make good, but the disposition of the soul
which God abidingly works in us. John XXII. rightly discerned the drift of the
mystic’s teaching.
In
his treatment of Mary and Martha, Eckart seems to make a radical departure from
the mediaeval doctrine of the superior value of pure contemplation. From the
time of Augustine, Rachel and Mary of Bethany had been regarded as the
representatives of the contemplative and higher life. In his sermon on Mary,
the German mystic affirmed that Mary was still at school. Martha had learned
and was engaged in good works, serving the Lord. Mary was only learning. She
was striving to be as holy as her sister. Better to feed the hungry and do
other works of mercy, he says, than to have the vision of Paul and to sit
still. After Christ’s ascension, Mary learned to serve as fully as did Martha, for
then the Holy Spirit was poured out. One who lives a truly contemplative life
will show it in active works. A life of mere contemplation is a selfish life.
The modern spirit was stirring in him. He saw another ideal for life than
mediaeval withdrawal from the world. The breath of evangelical freedom and joy
is felt in his writings.462
Eckart’s
speculative mind carried him to the verge of pantheism, and it is not
surprising that his hyperbolical expressions subjected him to the papal
condemnation. But his pantheism was Christian pantheism, the complete union of
the soul with God. It was not absorption in the divine being involving the loss
of individuality, but the reception of Godhood, the original principle of the
Deity. What language could better express the idea that God is everything, and
everything God, than these words, words adopted by Hegel as a sort of motto:
"The eye with which I see God is the same eye with which God sees me. My
eye and God’s eye are the same, and there is but one sight, one apprehension,
one love."463
And yet such language, endangering, as it might seem, the distinct
personality of the soul, was far better than the imperative insistence laid by
accredited Church teachers on outward rituals and conformity to sacramental
rites.
Harnack
and others have made the objection that the Cologne divine does not dwell upon
the forgiveness of sins. This omission may be overlooked, when we remember the
prominence given in his teaching to regeneration and man’s divine sonship. His
most notable departure from scholasticism consists in this, that he did not
dwell upon the sacraments and the authority of the Church. He addressed himself
to Christian individuals, and showed concern for their moral and spiritual
well-being. Abstruse as some of his thinking is, there can never be the inkling
of a thought that he was setting forth abstractions of the school and
contemplating matters chiefly with a scientific eye. He makes the impression of
being moved by strict honesty of purpose to reach the hearts of men.464 His words glow with the Minne, or love,
of which he preached so often. In one feature, however, he differed widely from
modern writers and preachers. He did not dwell upon the historical Christ. With
him Christ in us is the God in us, and that is the absorbing topic. With all
his high thinking he felt the limitations of human statement and, counselling
modesty in setting forth definitions of God, he said, "If we would reach
the depth of God’s nature, we must humble ourselves. He who would know God must
first know himself."465
Not a popular leader, not professedly a reformer, this early German
theologian had a mission in preparing the way for the Reformation. The form and
contents of his teaching had a direct tendency to encourage men to turn away
from the authority of the priesthood and ritual legalism to the realm of inner
experience for the assurance of acceptance with God. Pfleiderer has gone so far
as to say that Eckart’s "is the spirit of the Reformation, the spirit of
Luther, the motion of whose wings we already feel, distinctly enough, in the
thoughts of his older German fellow-citizen."466 Although he declared his readiness to
confess any heretical ideas that might have crept into his sermons and
writings, the judges at Rome were right in principle. Eckart’s spirit was
heretical, provoking revolt against the authority of the mediaeval Church and a
restatement of some of the forgotten verities of the New Testament.
</div3> <div3 type = "Section"
n="30" title="John Tauler of Strassburg">
§ 30. John Tauler
of Strassburg.
To do
Thy will is more than praise,
As
words are less than deeds;
And
simple trust can find Thy ways
We
miss with chart of creeds.
– Whittier. Our Master.
Among
the admirers of Eckart, the most distinguished were John Tauler and Heinrich
Suso. With them the speculative element largely disappears and the experimental
and practical elements predominate. They emphasized religion as a matter of
experience and the rule of conduct. Without denying any of the teachings or
sacraments of the Church, they made prominent immediate union with Christ, and
dwelt upon the Christian graces, especially patience, gentleness and humility.
Tauler was a man of sober mind, Suso poetical and imaginative.
John
Tauler, called doctor illuminatus, was born in Strassburg about 1300, and died
there, 1361. Referring to his father’s circumstances, he once said, "If,
as my father’s son, I had once known what I know now, I would have lived from
my paternal inheritance instead of resorting to alms."467 Probably as early as 1315, he entered the
Dominican order. Sometime before 1330, he went to Cologne to take the usual
three-years’ course of study. That he proceeded from there to Paris for further
study is a statement not borne out by the evidence. He, however, made a visit
in the French capital at one period of his career. Nor is there sufficient
proof that he received the title doctor or master, although he is usually
called Dr. John Tauler.
He
was in his native city again when it lay under the interdict fulminated against
it in 1329, during the struggle between John XXII. and Lewis the Bavarian. The
Dominicans offered defiance, continuing to say masses till 1339, when they were
expelled for three years by the city council. We next find Tauler at Basel,
where he came into close contact with the Friends of God, and their leader,
Henry of Nördlingen. After laboring as priest in Bavaria, Henry went to the
Swiss city, where he was much sought after as a preacher by the clergy and
laymen, men and women. In 1357, Tauler was in Cologne, but Strassburg was the
chief seat of his activity. Among his friends were Christina Ebner, abbess of a
convent near Nürnberg, and Margaret Ebner, a nun of the Bavarian convent of
Medingen, women who were mystics and recipients of visions.468 Tauler died in the guest-chamber of a
nunnery in Strassburg, of which his sister was an inmate.
Tauler’s
reputation in his own day rested upon his power as a preacher, and it is
probable that his sermons have been more widely read in the Protestant Church
than those of other mediaeval preachers. The reason for this popularity is the
belief that the preacher was controlled by an evangelical spirit which brought
him into close affinity with the views of the Reformers. His sermons, which
were delivered in German, are plain statements of truth easily understood, and
containing little that is allegorical or fanciful. They attempt no display of
learning or speculative ingenuity. When Tauler quotes from Augustine, Gregory
the Great, Dionysius, Anselm or Thomas Aquinas, as he sometimes does, though
not as frequently as Eckart, he does it in an incidental way. His power lay in
his familiarity with the Scriptures, his knowledge of the human heart, his
simple style and his own evident sincerity.469 He was a practical every-day preachers intent on reaching
men in their various avocations and trials.
If
we are to follow the History of Tauler’s Life and Conscience, which appeared in
the first published edition of his works, 1498, Tauler underwent a remarkable
spiritual change when he was fifty.470 Under the influence of Nicolas of Basel, a Friend of God
from the Oberland, he was then led into a higher stage of Christian experience.
Already had he achieved the reputation of an effective preacher when Nicolas,
after hearing him several times, told him that he was bound in the letter and that,
though he preached sound doctrine, he did not feel the power of it himself. He
called Tauler a Pharisee. The rebuked man was indignant, but his monitor
replied that he lacked humility and that, instead of seeking God’s honor, he
was seeking his own. Feeling the justice of the criticism, Tauler confessed he
had been told his sins and faults for the first time. At Nicolas’ advice he
desisted from preaching for two years, and led a retired life. At the end of
that time Nicolas visited him again, and bade him resume his sermons. Tauler’s
first attempt, made in a public place and before a large concourse of people,
was a failure. The second sermon he preached in a nunnery from the text, <scripRef passage
= "Matt. 25:6">Matt. 25:6</scripRef>, "Behold the bridegroom
cometh, go ye out to meet him," and so powerful was the impression that 50
persons fell to the ground like dead men. During the period of his seclusion,
Tauler had surrendered himself entirely to God, and after it he continued to
preach with an unction and efficiency before unknown in his experience.
Some
of Tauler’s expressions might give the impression that he was addicted to
quietistic views, as when he speaks of being "drowned in the Fatherhood of
God," of "melting in the fire of His love," of being
"intoxicated with God."
But these tropical expressions, used occasionally, are offset by the
sober statements in which he portrays the soul’s union with God. To urge upon
men to surrender themselves wholly to God and to give a practical
exemplification of their union with Him in daily conduct was his mission.
He
emphasized the agency of the Holy Spirit, who enlightens and sanctifies, who
rebukes sin and operates in the heart to bring it to self-surrender.471 The change effected by the Spirit,
which he called Kehr — conversion—he dwelt upon continually. The word, which
frequently occurs in his sermons, was almost a new word in mediaeval sermonic
vocabulary. Tauler also insisted upon the Eckartian Abgeschiedenheit,
detachment from the world, and says that a soul, to become holy, must become
"barren and empty of all created things," and rid of all that
"pertains to the creature."
When the soul is full of the creature, God must of necessity remain
apart from it, and such a soul is like a barrel that has been filled with
refuse or decaying matter. It cannot thereafter be used for good, generous wine
or any other pure drink.472
As
for good works, if done apart from Christ, they are of no avail. Tauler often
quoted the words of Isaiah 64:6. "All our righteousnesses are as a
polluted garment." By his own
power, man cannot come unto God. Those who have never felt anxiety on account
of their sins are in the most dangerous condition of all.473
The
sacraments suffer no depreciation at Tauler’s hands, though they are given a
subordinate place. They are all of no avail without the change of the inward
man. Good people linger at the outward symbols, and fail to get at the inward
truth symbolized. Yea, by being unduly concerned about their movements in the
presence of the Lord’s body, they miss receiving him spiritually. Men glide, he
says, through fasting, prayer, vigils and other exercises, and take so much
delight in them that God has a very small part in their hearts, or no part in
them at all.474
In
insisting upon the exercise of a simple faith, it seems almost impossible to
avoid the conclusion that Tauler took an attitude of intentional opposition to
the prescient and self-confident methods of scholasticism. It is better to
possess a simple faith—einfaltiger Glaube — than to vainly pry into the secrets
of God, asking questions about the efflux and reflux of the Aught and Nought,
or about the essence of the soul’s spark. The Arians and Sabellians had a
marvellous intellectual understanding of the Trinity, and Solomon and Origen
interested the Church in a marvellous way, but what became of them we know not.
The chief thing is to yield oneself to God’s will and to follow righteousness
with sincerity of purpose. "Wisdom is not studied in Paris, but in the
sufferings of the Lord," Tauler said. The great masters of Paris read
large books, and that is well. But the people who dwell in the inner kingdom of
the soul read the true Book of Life. A pure heart is the throne of the Supreme
Judge, a lamp bearing the eternal light, a treasury of divine riches, a
storehouse of heavenly sweetness, the sanctuary of the only begotten Son.475
A
distinctly democratic element showed itself in Tauler’s piety and preaching
which is very attractive. He put honor upon all legitimate toil, and praised
good and faithful work as an expression of true religion. One, he said,
"can spin, another can make shoes, and these are the gifts of the Holy
Ghost; and I tell you that, if I were not a priest, I should esteem it a great
gift to be able to make shoes, and would try to make them so well as to become
a pattern to all." Fidelity
in one’s avocation is more than attendance upon church. He spoke of a peasant
whom he knew well for more than forty years. On being asked whether he should
give up his work and go and sit in church, the Lord replied no, he should win
his bread by the sweat of his brow, and thus he would honor his own precious
blood. The sympathetic element in his piety excluded the hard spirit of
dogmatic complacency. "I would rather bite my tongue," Tauler said,
"till it bleed, than pass judgment upon any man. Judgment we should leave
to God, for out of the habit of sitting in judgment upon one’s neighbor grow
self-satisfaction and arrogance, which are of the devil."476
It
was these features, and especially Tauler’s insistence upon the religious
exercises of the soul and the excellency of simple faith, that won Luther’s
praise, first in letters to Lange and Spalatin, written in 1516. To Spalatin he
wrote that he had found neither in the Latin nor German tongue a more wholesome
theology than Tauler’s, or one more consonant with the Gospel.477
The
mood of the heretic, however, was furthest from Tauler. Strassburg knew what
heresy was, and had proved her orthodoxy by burning heretics. Tauler was not of
their number. He sought to call a narrow circle away from the formalities of
ritual to close communion with God, but the Church was to him a holy mother. In
his reverence for the Virgin, he stood upon mediaeval ground. Preaching on the
Annunciation, he said that in her spirit was the heaven of God, in her soul His
paradise, in her body His palace. By becoming the mother of Christ, she became
the daughter of the Father, the mother of the Son, the Holy Spirit’s bride. She
was the second Eve, who restored all that the first Eve lost, and Tauler does
not hesitate to quote some of Bernard’s passionate words pronouncing Mary the
sinner’s mediator with Christ. He himself sought her intercession. If any one
could have seen into her heart, he said, he would have seen God in all His
glory.478
Though
he was not altogether above the religious perversions of the mediaeval Church,
John Tauler has a place among the godly leaders of the Church universal, who
have proclaimed the virtue of simple faith and immediate communion with God and
the excellency of the unostentatious practice of righteousness from day to day.
He was an expounder of the inner life, and strikes the chord of fellowship in
all who lay more stress upon pure devotion and daily living than upon ritual
exercises. A spirit congenial to his was Whittier, whose undemonstrative piety
poured itself out in hearty appreciation of his unseen friend of the fourteenth
century. The modern Friend represents the mysterious stranger, who pointed out
to Tauler the better way, as saying:—
What
hell may be, I know not. This I know,
I
cannot lose the presence of the Lord.
One
arm, Humility, takes hold upon
His
dear humanity; the other, Love,
Clasps
His divinity. So where I go
He
goes; and better fire-walled hell with Him
Than
golden-gated Paradise without.
Said
Tauler,
My
prayer is answered. God hath sent the man,
Long
sought, to teach me, by his simple trust,
Wisdom
the weary Schoolmen never knew.
</div3> <div3 type = "Section"
n="31" title="Henry Suso">
§ 31. Henry Suso.
Henry
Suso, 1295?-1366, a man of highly emotional nature, has on the one hand been
treated as a hysterical visionary, and on the other as the author of the most
finished product of German mysticism. Born on the Lake of Constance, and
perhaps in Constance itself, he was of noble parentage, but on the death of his
mother, abandoned his father’s name, Berg, and adopted his mother’s maiden
name, Seuse, Suso being the Latin form.479 At thirteen, he entered the Dominican convent at Constance,
and from his eighteenth year on gave himself up to the most exaggerated and
painful asceticisms. At twenty-eight, he was studying at Cologne, and later at
Strassburg.
For
supporting the pope against Lewis the Bavarian, the Dominicans in Constance
came into disfavor, and were banished from the city. Suso retired to
Diessehoven, where he remained, 1339–1346, serving as prior. During this
period, he began to devote himself to preaching. The last eighteen years of his
life were spent in the Dominican convent at Ulm, where he died, Jan. 25, 1366.
He was beatified by Gregory XVI., 1831.
Suso’s
constitution, which was never strong, was undermined by the rigorous
penitential discipline to which he subjected himself for twenty-two years. An
account of it is given in his Autobiography. Its severity, so utterly contrary
to the spirit of our time, was so excessive that Suso’s statements seem at
points to be almost incredible. The only justification for repeating some of
the details is to show the lengths to which the penitential system of the
Mediaeval Church was carried by devotees. Desiring to carry the marks of the
Lord Jesus, Suso pricked into his bare chest, with a sharp instrument, the
monogram of Christ, IHS. The three letters remained engraven there till his
dying day and, "Whenever my heart moved," as he said, "the name
moved also." At one time he
saw in a dream rays of glory illuminating the scar.
He
wore a hair shirt and an iron chain. The loss of blood forced him to put the
chain aside, but for the hair shirt he substituted an undergarment, studded
with 150 sharp tacks. This he wore day and night, its points turned inwards
towards his body. Often, he said, it made the impression on him as if he were
lying in a nest of wasps. When he saw his body covered with vermin, and yet he
did not die, he exclaimed that the murderer puts to death at one stroke, "but
alas, O tender God, — zarter Gott,—what a dying is this of mine!" Yet this was not enough. Suso adopted
the plan of tying around his neck a part of his girdle. To this he attached two
leather pockets, into which he thrust his hands. These he made fast with lock
and key till the next morning. This kind of torture he continued to practise
for sixteen years, when he abandoned it in obedience to a heavenly vision. How
little had the piety of the Middle Ages succeeded in correcting the perverted
views of the old hermits of the Nitrian desert, whose stories this Swiss monk
was in the habit of reading, and whose austerities he emulated!
God,
however, had not given any intimation of disapproval of ascetic discipline, and
so Suso, in order further to impress upon his body marks of godliness, bound
against his back a wooden cross, to which, in memory of the 30 wounds of
Christ, he affixed 30 spikes. On this instrument of torture he stretched
himself at night for 8 years. The last year he affixed to it 7 sharp needles.
For a long time he went through 2 penitential drills a day, beating with his
fist upon the cross as it hung against his back, while the needles and nails
penetrated into his flesh, and the blood flowed down to his feet. As if this
were not a sufficient imitation of the flagellation inflicted upon Christ, he
rubbed vinegar and salt into his wounds to increase his agony. His feet became
full of sores, his legs swelled as if he had had the dropsy, his flesh became
dry and his hands trembled as if palsied. And all this, as he says, he endured
out of the great inner love which he had for God, and our Lord Jesus Christ,
whose agonizing pains he wanted to imitate. For 25 years, cold as the winter
might be, he entered no room where there was a fire, and for the same period he
abstained from all bathing, water baths or sweat baths—Wasserbad und
Schweissbad. But even with this list of self-mortifications, Suso said, the
whole of the story was not told.
In
his fortieth year, when his physical organization had been reduced to a wreck,
so that nothing remained but to die or to desist from the discipline, God
revealed to him that his long-practised austerity was only a good beginning, a
breaking up of his untamed humanity,—Ein Durchbrechen seines ungebrochenen
Menschen,—and that thereafter he would have to try another way in order to
"get right." And so he
proceeded to macerations of the inner man, and learned the lessons which
asceticisms of the soul can impart.
Suso
nowhere has words of condemnation for such barbarous self-imposed torture, a
method of pleasing God which the Reformation put aside in favor of saner rules
of piety.
Other
sufferings came upon Suso, but not of his own infliction. These he bore with
Christian submission, and the evils involved he sought to rectify by services
rendered to others. His sister, a nun, gave way to temptation. Overcoming his
first feelings of indignation, Suso went far and near in search of her, and had
the joy of seeing her rescued to a worthy life, and adorned with all religious
virtues. Another cross he had to bear was the charge that he was the father of
an unborn child, a charge which for a time alienated Henry of Nördlingen and
other close friends. He bore the insinuation without resentment, and even
helped to maintain the child after it was born.
Suso’s
chief writings, which abound in imagery and comparisons drawn from nature, are
an Autobiography,480 and works on The Eternal Wisdom—Büchlein von
der ewigen Weisheit — and the Truth—Büchlein von der Wahrheit. To these are to
be added his sermons and letters.
The
Autobiography came to be preserved by chance. At the request of Elsbet Staglin,
Suso told her a number of his experiences. This woman, the daughter of one of
the leading men of Zürich, was an inmate of the convent of Tosse, near
Winterthur. When Suso discovered that she had committed his conversations to
writing, he treated her act as "a spiritual theft," and burnt a part
of the manuscript. The remainder he preserved, in obedience to a supernatural
communication, and revised. Suso appears in the book as "The Servant of
the Eternal Wisdom."
The
Autobiography is a spiritual self-revelation in which the author does not
pretend to follow the outward stages of his career. In addition to the facts of
his religious experience, he sets forth a number of devotional rules containing
much wisdom, and closes with judicious and edifying remarks on the being of
God, which he gave to Elsbet in answer to her questions.481
The
Book of the Eternal Wisdom, which is in the form of a dialogue between Christ,
the Eternal Wisdom, and the writer, has been called by Denifle, who bore Suso’s
name, the consummate fruit of German mysticism. It records, in German,482
meditations in which use is made of the Scriptures. Here we have a body of
experimental theology such as ruled among the more pious spirits in the German
convents of the fourteenth century.
Suso
declares that one who is without love is as unable to understand a tongue that
is quick with love as one speaking in German is unable to understand a Fleming,
or as one who hears a report of the music of a harp is unable to understand the
feelings of one who has heard the music with his own ears. The Saviour is
represented as saying that it would be easier to bring back the years of the
past, revive the withered flowers or collect all the droplets of rain than to
measure the love—Minne — he has for men.
The
Servant, after lamenting the hardness of heart which refuses to be moved by the
spectacle of the cross and the love of God, seeks to discover how it is that
God can at once be so loving and so severe. As for the pains of hell, the lost
are represented as exclaiming, "Oh, how we desire that there might be a
millstone as wide as the earth and reaching to all parts of heaven, and that a
little bird might alight every ten thousand years and peck away a piece of
stone as big as the tenth part of a millet seed and continue to peck away every
ten thousandth year until it had pecked away a piece as big as a millet seed,
and then go on pecking at the same rate until the whole stone were pecked away,
so only our torture might come to an end; but that cannot be."
Having
dwelt upon the agony of the cross and God’s immeasurable love, the bliss of
heaven and the woes of hell, Suso proceeds to set forth the dignity of
suffering. He had said in his Autobiography that "every lover is a
martyr,"483 and here the Eternal Wisdom declares that if all hearts were
become one heart, that heart could not bear the least reward he has chosen to
give in eternity as a compensation for the least suffering endured out of love
for himself .... This is an eternal law of nature that what is true and good
must be harvested with sorrow. There is nothing more joyous than to have
endured suffering. Suffering is short pain and prolonged joy. Suffering gives
pain here and blessedness hereafter. Suffering destroys suffering—Leiden tödtet
Leiden. Suffering exists that the sufferer may not suffer. He who could weigh
time and eternity in even balances would rather he in a glowing oven for a
hundred years than to miss in eternity the least reward given for the least
suffering, for the suffering in the oven would have an end, but the reward is
forever.
After
dwelling upon the advantages of contemplation as the way of attaining to the
heavenly life, the Eternal Wisdom tells Suso how to die both the death of the
body and the soul; namely, by penance and by self-detachment from all the
things of the earth—Entbrechen von allen Dingen. An unconverted man is
introduced in the agonies of dying. His hands grow cold, his face pales, his
eyes begin to lose their sight. The prince of terrors wrestles with his heart
and deals it hard blows. The chill sweat of death creeps over his body and
starts haggard fears. "O angry countenance of the severe Judge, how sharp
are thy judgments!" he exclaims. In imagination, or with real sight, he
beholds the host of black Moors approaching to see whether he belongs to them,
and then the beasts of hell surrounding him. He sees the hot flames rising up
above the denizens of purgatory, and hears them cry out that the least of their
tortures is greater than the keenest suffering endured by martyr on the earth.
And that a day there is as a hundred years. They exclaim, "Now we roast,
now we simmer and now we cry out in vain for help." The dying man then passes into the
other world, calling out for help to the friends whom he had treated well on
the earth, but in vain.
The
treatise, which closes with excellent admonitions on the duty of praising God
continually, makes a profound spiritual impression, but it presents only one
side of the spiritual life, and needs to be supplemented and expurgated in
order to present a proper picture. Christ came into the world that we might
have everlasting life now, and that we might have abundance of life, and that
his joy might remain in us and our joy might be full. The patient endurance of
suffering purifies the soul and the countenance, but suffering is not to be
counted as always having a sanctifying power, much less is it to be courted. Macerations
have no virtue of themselves, and patience in enduring pain is only one of the
Christian virtues, and not their crown. Love, which is the bond of perfectness,
finds in a cheerful spirit, in hearty human fellowships and in well-doing also,
its ministries. The mediaeval type of piety turned the earth into a vale of
tears. It was cloistral. For nearly 30 years, as Suso tells us, he never once
broke through the rule of silence at table.484 Innocent III. could write, just before becoming world-ruler,
a treatise on the contempt of the world. The piety of the modern Church is of a
cheerful type, and sees good everywhere in this world which God created. Suso’s
piety was what the Germans have called the mysticism of suffering—die Mystik
des Leidens. His way of self-inflicted torture was the wrong way. In going,
however, with Suso we will not fail to reach some of the heights of religious
experience and to find nearness to God.
Suso
kept company with the Friends of God, and acknowledged his debt to Eckart,
"the high teacher," "his high and holy master," from whose
"sweet teachings he had taken deep draughts." As he says in his Autobiography, he
went to Eckart in a time of spiritual trial, and was helped by him out of the
hell of distress into which he had fallen. He uses some of Eckart’s distinctive
vocabulary, and after the Cologne rnystic’s death, Suso saw him "in
exceeding glory" and was admonished by him to submission. This quality
forms the subject of Suso’s Book on the Truth, which in part was meant to be a
defence of his spiritual teacher.
A
passage bearing on the soul’s union with Christ will serve as a specimen of
Suso’s tropical style, and may fitly close this chapter. The soul, so the Swiss
mystic represents Christ as saying—
"the
soul that would find me in the inner closet of a consecrated and self-detached
life,—abgeschiedenes Leben,—and would partake of my sweetness, must first be
purified from evil and adorned with virtues, be decked with the red roses of
passionate love, with the beautiful violets of meek submission, and must be
strewn with the white lilies of purity. It shall embrace me with its arms,
excluding all other loves, for these I shun and flee as the bird does the cage.
This soul shall sing to me the song of Zion, which means passionate love
combined with boundless praise. Then I will embrace it and it shall lean upon
my heart."485
</div3> <div3 type = "Section"
n="32" title="The Friends of God">
§ 32.
The Friends of God.
The
Friends of God attract our interest both by the suggestion of religious fervor
involved in their name and the respect with which the prominent mystics speak
of them. They are frequently met within the writings of Eckart, Tauler, Suso,
and Ruysbroeck, as well as in the pages of other writers of the fourteenth
century. Much mystery surrounds them, and efforts have failed to define with
precision their teachings, numbers and influence. The name had been applied to
the Waldenses,486 but in the fourteenth century it came to be a designation for
coteries of pietists scattered along the Rhine, from Basel to Strassburg and to
the Netherlands, laymen and priests who felt spiritual longings the usual
church services did not satisfy. They did not constitute an organized sect.
They were addicted to the study of the Scriptures, and sought close personal
fellowship with God. They laid stress upon a godly life and were bent on the
propagation of holiness. Their name was derived from <scripRef passage = "John
16:15">John
16:15</scripRef>, "Henceforth I call
you not servants, but I have called you friends." Their practices did not involve a
breach with the Church and its ordinances. They had no sympathy with heresy,
and antagonized the Brethren of the Free Spirit. The little treatise, called
the German Theology, at the outset marks the difference between the Friends of
God and the false, free spirits, especially the Beghards.487
A
letter written by a Friend to another Friend488 represents as succinctly as
any statement their aim when it says, "The soul that loves God must get
away from the world, from the flesh and all sensual desires and away from
itself, that is, away from its own self-will, and thus does it make ready to
hear the message of the work and ministry of love accomplished by our Lord
Jesus Christ." The house
which Rulman Merswin founded in Strassburg was declared to be a house of refuge
for honorable persons, priests and laymen who, with trust in God, choose to
flee the world and seek to improve their lives. The Friends of God regarded
themselves as holding the secret of the Christian life and as being the salt of
the earth, the instructors of other men.489
Among
the leading Friends of God were Henry of Nördlingen, Nicolas of Löwen, Rulman
Merswin and "the great Friend of God from the Oberland." The personality of the Friend of God
from the Oberland is one of the most evasive in the religious history of the
Middle Ages. He is presented as leader of great personal power and influence,
as the man who determined Tauler’s conversion and wrote a number of tracts, and
yet it is doubtful whether such a personage ever lived. Rulman Merswin affirms
that he had been widely active between Basel and Strassburg and in the region
of Switzerland, from which he got his name, the Oberland. In 1377, according to
the same authority, he visited Gregory XI. in Rome and, like Catherine of
Siena, petitioned the pontiff to set his face against the abuses of
Christendom. Rulman was in correspondence with him for a long period, and held
his writings secret until within four years of his (Rulman’s) death, when he
published them. They were 17 in number, all of them bearing on the nature and
necessity of a true conversion of heart.490
This
mystic from the Oberland, as Rulman’s account goes, led a life of prayer and
devotion, and found peace, performed miracles and had visions. He is placed by
Preger at the side of Peter Waldo as one of the most influential laymen of the
Middle Ages, a priest, though unordained, of the Church. After Rulman’s death,
we hear no more of him.
Rulman
Merswin, the editor of the Oberland prophet’s writings, was born in Stra6sburg,
1307, and died there, 1382. He gave up merchandise and devoted himself wholly
to a religious life. He had undergone the change of conversion—Kehr. For four
years he had a hard struggle against temptations, and subjected himself to
severe asceticisms, but was advised by his confessor, Tauler, to desist, at
least for a time. It was towards the end of this period that he met the man
from the Oberland. After his conversion, he purchased and fitted up an old
cloister, located on an island near Strassburg, called das grüne Wört, to serve
as a refuge for clerics and laymen who wished to follow the principles of the
Friends of God and live together for the purpose of spiritual culture. In 1370,
after the death of his wife, Rulman himself became an inmate of the house,
which was put under the care of the Knights of St. John a year later. Here he
continued to exhort by pen and word till his death. He lies buried at the side
of his wife in Strassburg.
Merswin’s
two chief writings are entitled Das Bannerbüchlein, the Banner-book, and Das
Buch von den neun Felsen, the Nine Rocks. The former is an exhortation to flee
from the banner of Lucifer and to gather under the blood-red banner of Christ.491 The Nine Rocks, written in the form of
a dialogue, 1352, opens with a parable, describing innumerable fishes swimming
down from the lakes among the hills through the streams in the valleys into the
deep sea. The author then sees them attempting to find their way back to the
hills. These processes illustrate the career of human souls departing from God
into the world and seeking to return to Him. The author also sees a
"fearfully high mountain," on which are nine rocks. The souls that
succeed in getting back to the mountain are so few that it seemed as if only
one out of every thousand reached it. He then proceeds to set forth the
condition of the eminent of the earth, popes and kings, cardinals and princes;
and also priests, monks and nuns, Beguines and Beghards, and people of all
sorts and classes. He finds the conditions very bad, and is specially severe on
women who, by their show of dress and by their manners, are responsible for men
going morally astray and falling into sin. Many of these women commit a hundred
mortal sins a day.
Rulman
then returns to the nine rocks, which represent the nine stages of progress
towards the source of our being, God. Those who are on the rocks have escaped
the devil’s net, and by climbing on up to the last rock, they reach perfection.
Those on the fifth rock have gained the point where they have completely given
up their own self-will. The sixth rock represents full submission to God. On
the ninth the number is so small that there seemed to be only three persons on
it. These have no desire whatever except to honor God, fear not hell nor
purgatory, nor enemy nor death nor life.
The
Friends of God, who are bent on something more than their own salvation, are
depicted in the valley below, striving to rescue souls from the net in which
they have been ensnared. The Brethren of the Free Spirit resist this merciful
procedure.
The
presentation is crude, and Scripture is not directly quoted. The biblical
imagery, however, abounds, and, as in the case of the ancient allegory of
Hermas, the principles of the Gospel are set forth in a way adapted, no doubt,
to reach a certain class of minds, even as in these modern days the methods of
the Salvation Army appeal to many for whom the discourses of Bernard or Gerson
might have little meaning. 492
Rulman
Merswin is regarded by Denifle, Strauch and other critics as the author of the
works ascribed to the Friend of God from the Oberland, and the inventor of this
fictitious personage.493
The reason for this view is that no one else knows of the Oberlander and
that, after Rulman’s death, attempts on the part of the Strassburg brotherhood
to find him, or to find out something about him, resulted in failure. On the
other hand, it is difficult to understand why Rulman did not continue to keep
his writings secret till after his own death, if the Oberlander was a
fictitious character.494
Whatever
may be the outcome of the discussion over the historic personality of the man
from the Oberland, we have in the writings of these two men a witness to the
part laymen were taking in the affairs of the Church.
</div3> <div3 type = "Section"
n="33" title="John of Ruysbroeck">
§ 33. John of
Ruysbroeck.
Independent
of the Friends of God, and yet closely allied with them in spirit, was Jan von
Ruysbroeck, 1293–1381. In 1350, he sent to the Friends in Strassburg his
Adornment of the Spiritual Marriage—Chierheit der gheesteleker Brulocht. He
forms a connecting link between them and the Brothers of the Common Life. The
founder of the latter brotherhood, de Groote, and also Tauler, visited him. He
was probably acquainted with Eckart’s writings, which were current in the
Lowlands.495
The
Flemish mystic was born in a village of the same name near Brussels, and became
vicar of St. Gudula in that city. At sixty he abandoned the secular priesthood
and put on the monastic habit, identifying himself with the recently
established Augustinian convent Groenendal,—Green Valley,—located near
Waterloo. Here he was made prior. Ruysbroeck spent most of his time in
contemplation, though he was not indifferent to practical duties. On his walks
through the woods of Soignes, he believed he saw visions and he was otherwise
the subject of revelations. He was not a man of the schools. Soon after his
death, a fellow-Augustinian wrote his biography, which abounds in the
miraculous element. The very trees under which he sat were illuminated with an
aureole. At his passing away, the bells of the convent rang without hands
touching them, and perfume proceeded from his dead body.
The
title, doctor ecstaticus, which at an early period was associated with
Ruysbroeck, well names his characteristic trait. He did not speculate upon the
remote theological themes of God’s being as did Eckart, nor was he a popular
preacher of every-day Christian living, like Tauler. He was a master of the
contemplative habit, and mused upon the soul’s experiences in its states of
partial or complete union with God. His writings, composed in his
mother-tongue, were translated into Latin by his pupils, Groote and William
Jordaens. The chief products of his pen are the Adornment of the Spiritual
Marriage, the Mirror of Blessedness and Samuel, which is a defence of the habit
of contemplation, and the Glistening Stone, an allegorical meditation on the
white stone of <scripRef passage = "Rev. 2:17">Rev. 2:17</scripRef>, which is interpreted to
mean Christ.
Ruysbroeck
laid stress upon ascetic exercises, but more upon love. In its highest stages
of spiritual life, the soul comes to God "without an
intermediary." The name and
work of Christ are dwelt upon on every page. He is our canon, our breviary, our
every-day book, and belongs to Laity and clergy alike. He was concerned to have
it understood that he has no sympathy with pantheism, and opposed the heretical
views of the Brethren of the Free Spirit and the Beghards. He speaks of four
sorts of heretics, the marks of one of them being that they despise the
ordinances and sacraments of the Catholic Church, the Scriptures and the
sufferings of Christ, and set themselves above God himself. He, however, did
not escape the charge of heresy. Gerson, who received a copy of the Spiritual
Marriage from a Carthusian monk of Bruges, found the third book teaching
pantheism, and wrote a tract in which he complained that the author, whom he
pronounced an unlearned man, followed his feelings in setting forth the secrets
of the religious life. Gerson was, however, persuaded that he had made a
mistake by the defence written by John of Schoenhofen, one of the brethren of
Groenendal. However, in his reply written 1408, he again emphasized that
Ruysbroeck was a man without learning, and complained that he had not made his
meaning sufficiently clear.496
The
Spiritual Marriage, Ruysbroeck’s chief contribution to mystical literature, is
a meditation upon the words of the parable, "Behold, the bridegroom
cometh, go ye out to meet him."
It sets forth three stages of Christian experience, the active, the inner
and the contemplative. In the active stage the soul adopts the Christian
virtues and practises them, fighting against sin, and thus it goes out "to
meet the bridegroom." We must
believe the articles of the Creed, but not seek to fully understand them. And
the more subtle doctrines of the Scripture we should accept and explain as they
are interpreted by the life of Christ and the lives of his saints. Man should
study nature, the Scriptures and all created things, and draw from them profit.
To understand Christ he must, like Zaccheus, run ahead of all the
manifestations of the creature world, and climb up the tree of faith, which has
twelve branches, the twelve articles of the Creed.
As
for the inner life, it is distinguished from the active by devotion to the
original Cause and to truth itself as against devotion to exercises and forms,
to the celebration of the sacrament and to good works. Here the soul separates
itself from outward relations and created forms, and contemplates the eternal
love of God. Asceticism may still be useful, but it is not essential.
The
contemplative stage few reach. Here the soul is transferred into a purity and
brightness which is above all natural intelligence. It is a peculiar adornment
and a heavenly crown. No one can reach it by learning and intellectual subtlety
nor by disciplinary exercises. In order to attain to it, three things are
essential. A man must live virtuously; he must, like a fire that never goes
out, love God constantly, and he must lose himself in the darkness in which men
of the contemplative habit no longer find their way by the methods known to the
creature. In the abyss of this darkness a light incomprehensible is begotten,
the Son of God, in whom we "see eternal life."
At
last the soul comes into essential unity with God, and, in the fathomless ocean
of this unity, all things are seized with bliss. It is the dark quiet in which
all who love God lose themselves. Here they swim in the wild waves of the ocean
of God’s being.497
He
who would follow the Flemish mystic in these utterances must have his spirit.
They seem far removed from the calm faith which leaves even the description of
such ecstatic states to the future, and is content with doing the will of God
in the daily avocations of this earthly life. Expressions he uses, such as
"spiritual intoxication,"498 are not safe, and the
experiences he describes are, as he declares, not intended for the body of
Christian people to reach here below. In most men they would take the forms of
spiritual hysteria and the hallucinations of hazy self-consciousness. It is
well that Ruysbroeck’s greatest pupil, de Groote, did not follow along this
line of meditation, but devoted himself to practical questions of every-day
living and works of philanthropy. The ecstatic mood is characteristic of this
mystic in the secluded home in Brabant, but it is not the essential element in
his religious thought. His descriptions of Christ and his work leave little to
be desired. He does not dwell upon Mary, or even mention her in his chief work.
He insists upon the works which proceed from genuine love to God. The chapter
may be closed with two quotations:—
"Even
devotion must give way to a work of love to the spiritual and to the physical
man. For even should one rise in prayer higher than Peter or Paul, and hear
that a poor man needed a drink of water, he would have to cease from the
devotional exercise, sweet though it were, and do the deed of love. It is well
pleasing to God that we leave Him in order to help His members. In this sense
the Apostle was willing to be banished from Christ for his brethren’s sake."
"Always
before thou retire at night, read three books, which thou oughtest always to
have with thee. The first is an old, gray, ugly volume, written over with black
ink. The second is white and beautifully written in red, and the third in
glittering gold letters. First read the old volume. That means, consider thine
own past life, which is full of sins and errors, as are the lives of all men.
Retire within thyself and read the book of conscience, which will be thrown
open at the last judgment of Christ. Think over how badly thou hast lived, how
negligent thou hast been in thy words, deeds, wishes and thoughts. Cast down
thy eyes and cry, ’God be merciful to me a sinner.’ Then God will drive away fear and anxious concern and will
give thee hope and faith. Then lay the old book aside and go and fetch from
memory the white book. This is the guileless life of Christ, whose soul was
pure and whose guileless body was bruised with stripes and marked with
rose-red, precious blood. These are the letters which show his real love to us.
Look at them with deep emotion and thank him that, by his death, he has opened
to thee the gate of heaven. And finally lift up thine eyes on high and read the
third book, written in golden script; that is, consider the glory of the life
eternal, in Comparison with which the earthly vanishes away as the light of the
candle before the splendor of the sun at midday."499
</div3> <div3 type = "Section"
n="34" title="Gerrit de Groote and the Brothers of the Common
Life">
§ 34.
Gerrit de Groote and the Brothers of the Common Life.
It was
fortunate for the progress of religion, that mysticism in Holland and
Northwestern Germany did not confine itself to the channel into which it had
run at Groenendal. In the latter part of the fourteenth century, and before
Ruysbroeck’s death, it associated with itself practical philanthropic
activities under the leadership of Gerrit Groote, 1340–1384, and Florentius
Radewyn, 1350–1400, who had finished his studies in Prag. They were the
founders of the Windesheim Congregation and the genial company known as the
Brothers of the Common Life, called also the Brothers of the New Devotion. To
the effort to attain to union with God they gave a new impulse by insisting
that men imitate the conduct of Christ. 500 Originating in Holland, they
spread along the Rhine and into Central Germany.
Groote
was born at Deventer, where his father had been burgomaster. After studying at
Paris, he taught at Cologne, and received the appointment of canon, enjoying at
least two church livings, one at Utrecht and one at Aachen. He lived the life
of a man of the world until he experienced a sudden conversion through the
influence of a friend, Henry of Kolcar, a Carthusian prior. He renounced his
ecclesiastical livings and visited Ruysbroeck, being much influenced by him.
Thomas à Kempis remarks that Groote could say, after his visits to Ruysbroeck,
"Thy wisdom and knowledge are greater than the report which I heard in my
own country."
At
forty he began preaching. Throngs gathered to hear him in the churches and
churchyards of Deventer, Zwolle, Leyden and other chief towns of the Lowlands.501 Often he preached three times a day.
His success stirred up the Franciscans, who secured from the bishop of Utrecht
an inhibition of preaching by laymen. Groote came under this restriction, as he
was not ordained. An appeal was made to Urban VI., but the pope put himself on
the side of the bishop. Groote died in 1384, before the decision was known.
Groote
strongly denounced the low morals of the clergy, but seems not to have opposed
any of the doctrines of the Church. He fasted, attended mass, laid stress upon
prayer and alms, and enforced these lessons by his own life. To quote an old
writer, he taught by living righteously—docuit sancte vivendo. In 1374, he gave
the house he had inherited from his father at Deventer as a home for widows and
unmarried women. Without taking vows, the inmates were afforded an opportunity
of retirement and a life of religious devotion and good works. They were to
support themselves by weaving, spinning, sewing, nursing and caring for the
sick. They were at liberty to leave the community whenever they chose. John
Brinkerinck further developed the idea of the female community.
The
origin of the Brothers of the Common Life was on this wise. After the
inhibition of lay preaching, Groote settled down at Deventer, spending much
time in the house of Florentius Radewyn. He had employed young priests to copy
manuscripts. At Radewyn’s suggestion they were united into a community, and
agreed to throw their earnings into a common fund. After Groote’s death, the
community received a more distinct organization through Radewyn. Other
societies were established after the model of the Deventer house, which was
called "the rich brother house,"—het rijke
fraterhuis,—as at Zwolle, Delft, Liége, Ghent, Cologne, Münster, Marburg
and Rostock, many of them continuing strong till the Reformation.502
A
second branch from the same stock, the canons Regular of St. Augustine,
established by the influence of Radewyn and other friends and pupils of Groote,
had as their chief houses Windesheim, dedicated 1387, and Mt. St. Agnes, near
Zwolle. These labored more within the convent, the Brothers of the Common Life
outside of it.
The
Brotherhood of the Common Life never reached the position of an order
sanctioned by Church authority. Its members, including laymen as well as
clerics, took no irrevocable vow, and were at liberty to withdraw when they
pleased. They were opposed to the Brethren of the Free Spirit, and were free
from charges of looseness in morals and doctrine. Like their founder, they
renounced worldly goods and remained unmarried. They supported the houses by
their own toil.503
To
gardening, making clothes and other occupations pertaining to the daily life,
they added preaching, conducting schools and copying manuscripts. Groote was an
ardent lover of books, and had many manuscripts copied for his library. Among
these master copyists was Thomas à Kempis. Classical authors as well as
writings of the Fathers and books of Scripture were transcribed. Selections
were also made from these authors in distinct volumes, called ripiaria — little
river banks. At Liege they were so diligent as copyists as to receive the name
Broeders van de penne, Brothers of the Quill. Of Groote, Thomas à Kempis
reports that he had a chest filled with the best books standing near his dining
table, so that, if a course did not please him, he might reach over to them and
give his friends a cup for their souls. He carried books about with him on his
preaching tours. Objection was here and there made to the possession of so many
books, where they might have been sold and the proceeds given to the poor.504 Translations also were made of the
books of Scripture and other works. Groote translated the Seven Penitential
Psalms, the Office for the Dead and certain Devotions to Mary. The houses were
not slow in adopting type, and printing establishments are mentioned in
connection with Maryvale, near Geissenheim, Windesheim, Herzogenbusch, Rostock,
Louvaine and other houses.
The
schools conducted by the Brothers of the Common Life, intended primarily for
clerics, have a distinguished place in the history of education. Seldom, if
ever before, had so much attention been paid to the intellectual and moral
training of youth. Not only did the Brothers, have their own schools. They
labored also in schools already established. Long lists of the teachers are
still extant. Their school at Herzogenbusch had at one time 1200 scholars, and
put Greek into its course at its very start, 1424. The school at Liége in 1524
had 1600 scholars.505
The school at Deventer acquired a place among the notable grammar
schools of history, and trained Nicolas of Cusa, Thomas à Kempis, John Wessel
and Erasmus, who became an inmate of the institution, 1474, and learned Greek
from one of its teachers, Synthis. Making the mother-tongue the chief vehicle
of education, these schools sent out the men who are the fathers of the modern
literature of Northwestern Germany and the Lowlands, and prepared the soil for
the coming Reformation.
Scarcely
less influential was the public preaching of the Brethren in the vernacular,
and the collations, or expositions of Scripture, given to private circles in
their own houses. Groote went to the Scriptures, so Thomas à Kempis says, as to
a well of life. Of John Celle, d. 1417, the zealous rector of the Zwolle
school, the same biographer writes: "He frequently expounded to the pupils
the Holy Scriptures, impressing upon them their authority and stirring them up
to diligence in writing out the sayings of the saints. He also taught them to
sing accurately, and sedulously to attend church, to honor God’s ministers and
to pray often."506
Celle himself played on the organ.
The
central theme of their study was the person and life of Christ. "Let the
root of thy study," said Groote, "and the mirror of thy life be
primarily the Gospel, for therein is the life of Christ portrayed."507 A period of each day was set apart for
reflection on some special religious subject,—Sunday on heaven, Monday on
death, Tuesday on the mercies of God, Wednesday on the last judgment, Thursday
on the pains of hell, Friday on the Lord’s passion and Saturday on sins. They
laid more stress upon inward purity and rectitude than upon outward
conformities to ritual.508
The
excellent people joined the other mystics of the fourteenth century in
loosening the hold of scholasticism and sacerdotalism, those two master forces
of the Middle Ages.509
They gave emphasis to the ideas brought out strongly from other
quarters,—the heretical sects and such writers as Marsiglius of Padua,—the idea
of the dignity of the layman, and that monastic vows are not the condition of
pure religious devotion. They were the chief contributors to the vigorous
religious current which was flowing through the Lowlands. Popular religious
literature was in circulation. Manuals of devotion were current, cordials and
praecordials for the soul’s needs. Written codes of rules for laymen were
passed from hand to hand, giving directions for their conduct at home and
abroad. Religious poems in the vernacular, such as the poem on the wise and
foolish virgins, carried biblical truth.
<foreign
lang="de">Van
viff juncfrou wen de wis weren
Unde
van vif dwasen wilt nu hir leren.
</foreign>
Some
of these were translations from Bernard’s Jesu dulcis memoria, and some
condemned festivities like the Maypole and the dance.510
Eugene
IV., Pius II., and Sistus IV. gave the Brothers marks of their approval, and
the great teachers, Cardinal Cusa, D’Ailly and John Gerson spoke in their
praise. There were, however, detractors, such as Grabon, a Saxon Dominican who
presented, in the last days of the Council of Constance, 1418, no less than
twenty-five charges against them. The substance of the charges was that the
highest religious life may not be lived apart from the orders officially
sanctioned by the Church. A commission appointed by Martin V., to which Gerson
and D’Ailly belonged, reported adversely, and Grabon was obliged to retract.
The commission adduced the fact that there was no monastic body in Jerusalem
when the primitive Church practised community of goods, and that conventual
walls and vows are not essential to the highest religious life. Otherwise the
pope, the cardinals and the prelates themselves would not be able to attain to
the highest reach of religious experience.511
With
the Reformation, the distinct mission of the Brotherhood was at an end, and
many of the communities fell in with the new movement. As for the houses which
maintained their old rules, Luther felt a warm interest in them. When, in 1532,
the Council of Hervord in Westphalia was proposing to abolish the local sister
and brother houses, the Reformer wrote strongly against the proposal as
follows: "Inasmuch as the Brothers and Sisters, who were the first to
start the Gospel among you, lead a creditable life, and have a decent and well-behaved
community, and faithfully teach and hold the pure Word, such monasteries and
brother-houses please me beyond measure." On two other occasions, he openly showed his interest in the
brotherhood of which Groote was the founder.512
</div3> <div3 type = "Section"
n="35" title="The Imitation of Christ. Thomas à Kempis">
§ 35.
The Imitation of Christ. Thomas à Kempis.
... mild saint
À
Kempis overmild.
—Lanier.
The
pearl of all the mystical writings of the German-Dutch school is the Imitation
of Christ, the work of Thomas à Kempis. With the Confessions of St. Augustine
and Bunyan’s Pilgrim’s Progress it occupies a place in the very front rank of
manuals of devotion, and, if the influence of books is to be judged by their
circulation, this little volume, starting from a convent in the Netherlands,
has, next to the Sacred Scriptures, been the most influential of all the
religious writings of Christendom. Protestants and Catholics alike have joined
in giving it praise. The Jesuits introduced it into their Exercises. Dr. Samuel
Johnson, once, when ill, taught himself Dutch by reading it in that language,
and said of its author that the world had opened its arms to receive his book.513 It was translated by John Wesley, was
partly instrumental in the conversion of John Newton, was edited by Thomas
Chalmers, was read by Mr. Gladstone "as a golden book for all times"
and was the companion of General Gordon. Dr. Charles Hodge, the Presbyterian
divine, said it has diffused itself like incense through the aisles and alcoves
of the Universal Church.514
The
number of counted editions exceeds 2000. The British Museum has more than 1000
editions on its shelves.515
Originally
written in the Latin, a French translation was made as early as 1447, which
still remains in manuscript. The first printed French copies appeared in
Toulouse, 1488. The earliest German translation was made in 1434 and is
preserved in Cologne, and printed editions in German begin with the Augsburg
edition of 1486. Men eminent in the annals of German piety, such as Arndt,
1621, Gossner, 1824, and Tersteegen, 1844, have issued editions with prefaces.
The work first appeared in print in English, 1502, the translation being partly
by the hand of Margaret, the mother of Henry VII. Translations appeared in
Italian in Venice and Milan, 1488, in Spanish at Seville, 1536, in Arabic at
Rome, 1663, in Arminian at Rome, 1674, and in other languages.516
The
Imitation of Christ consists of four books, and derives its title from the
heading of the first book, De imitatione Christi et contemptu omnium vanitatum
mundi, the imitation of Christ and the contempt of all the vanities of the
world. It seems to have been written in metre.517 The four books are not found in all the manuscripts nor
invariably arranged in the same order, facts which have led some to suppose
that they were not all written at the same time. The work is a manual of
devotion intended to help the soul in its communion with God. Its sententious
statements are pitched in the highest key of Christian experience. Within and
through all its reflections runs the word, self-renunciation. Its opening
words, "whoso followeth me, shall not walk in darkness but shall have the
light of life," <scripRef passage = "John
8:12">John
8:12</scripRef>, are a fitting announcement
of the contents. The life of Christ is represented as the highest study it is
possible for a mortal to take up. He who has his spirit has found the hidden
manna. What can the world confer without Jesus? To be without him is the direst hell; to be with him, the
sweetest paradise.
Here
are counsels to read the Scriptures, statements about the uses of adversity and
advice for submission to authority, warnings against temptations, reflections
upon death, the judgment and paradise. Here are meditations on Christ’s
oblation on the cross and the advantages of the communion, and also admonitions
to flee the vanities and emptiness of the world and to love God, for he that
loveth, knoweth God. Christ is more than all the wisdom of the schools. He
lifts up the mind in a moment of time to perceive more reasons for eternal
truth than a student might learn over books in ten years. He teaches without
confusion of words, without the clashing of opinions, without the pride of
reputation,—sine fastu honoris,—the contention of arguments. The concluding words
are: "My eyes are unto Thee. My God, in Thee do I put my trust, O Thou
Father of mercies. Accompany thy servant with Thy grace and direct him by the
path of peace to the land of unending light—patriam perpetuae claritatis."
The
plaintive minor key, the gently persuasive tone of the work are adapted to
attract serious souls seeking the inner chamber of religious peace and purity
of thought, but especially those who are under the shadow of pain and sorrow.
The praise of Christ is so unstinted, and the dependence upon him so
unaffected, that one cannot help but feel, in reading this book, that he is
partaking of the essence of the Gospel. The work, however, presents only one
side of the Christian life. It commends humility, submission, gentleness and the
passive virtues. It does not emphasize the manly virtues of courage and loyalty
to the truth, nor elaborate upon Christian activities to be done to our
fellow-men. To fall in completely with the spirit of Thomas à Kempis, and to
abide there, would mean to follow the best cloistral ideal of the Middle Ages,
or rather of the fourteenth century. Its counsels and reflections were meant
primarily for those who had made the convent their home, not for the busy
traffickers in the marts of the world, and in association with men of all
classes. It leans to quietism, and is calculated to promote personal piety for
those who dwell much alone rather than to fit men for engaging in the public
battles which fall to men’s usual lot. Its admonitions are adapted to help men to
bear with patience rather than to rectify the evils in the world, to be silent
rather than to speak to the throng, to live well in seclusion rather than set
an example of manly and womanly endeavor in the shop, on the street and in the
family. The charge has been made, and not without some ground, that the
Imitation of Christ sets forth a selfish type of religion.518 Its soft words are fitted to quiet the
soul and bring it to meek contentment rather than to stir up the combatant
virtues of courage and of assistance to others. Its message corresponds to the
soft glow of the summer evening, and not to the fresh hours filled with the
rays of the morning sun. This plaintive note runs through Thomas’ hymns, as may
be seen from a verse taken from "The Misery of this Life" :—
Most
wonderful would it be
If one
did not feel and lament
That in
this world to live
Is
toil, affliction, pain.519
Over
the pages of the book is written the word Christ. It is for this reason that
Protestants cherish it as well as Catholics. The references to mediaeval errors
of doctrine or practice are so rare that it requires diligent search to find
them. Such as they are, they are usually erased from English editions, so that
the English reader misses them entirely. Thomas introduces the merit of good
works, transubstantiation, IV. 2, the doctrine of purgatory, IV. 9, and the
worship of saints, I. 13, II. 9, II. 6, 59. But these statements, however, are
like the flecks on the marbles of the Parthenon.
The
author, Thomas à Kempis, 1380–1471, was born in Kempen, a town 40 miles
northwest of Cologne, and died at Zwolle, in the Netherlands. His paternal name
was Hemerken or Hämmerlein, Little Hammer. He was a follower of Groote. In
1395, he was sent to the school of Deventer, under the charge of Florentius
Radewyn and the Brothers of the Common Life. He became skilful as a copyist,
and was thus enabled to support himself. Later he was admitted to the Augustinian
convent of Mt. St. Agnes, near Zwolle, received priest’s orders, 1413, and was
made sub-prior, 1429. His brother John, a man of rectitude of life, had been
there before him, and was prior. Thomas’ life seems to have been a quiet one,
devoted to meditation, composition and copying. He copied the Bible no less
than four times, one of the copies being preserved at Darmstadt. His works
abound in quotations of the New Testament. Under an old picture, which is
represented as his portrait, are the words, "In all things I sought quiet,
and found it not save in retirement and in books."520 They fit well the author of the famous
Imitation of Christ, as the world thinks of him. He reached the high age of
fourscore years and ten. A monument was dedicated to his memory in the presence
of the archbishop of Utrecht in St. Michael’s Church Zwolle, Nov. 11, 1897. The
writings of à Kempis, which are all of a devotional character, include tracts
and meditations, letters, sermons, a Life of St. Lydewigis, a steadfast
Christian woman who endured a great fight of afflictions, and the biographies
of Groote, Florentius and nine of their companions. Works similar to the are
his prolonged meditation upon the Incarnation, and a meditation on the Life and
Blessings of the Saviour,521 both of which overflow with admiration for
Christ.
In
these writings the traces of mediaeval theology, though they are found, are not
obtrusive. The writer followed his mediaeval predecessors in the worship of
Mary, of whom he says, she is to be invoked by all Christians, especially by
monastics.522 He prays to her
as the "most merciful," the "most glorious" mother of God,
and calls her the queen of heaven, the efficient mediatrix of the whole world,
the joy and delight of all the saints, yea, the golden couch for all the
saints. She is the chamber of God, the gate of heaven, the paradise of
delights, the well of graces, the glory of the angels, the joy of men, the
model of manners, the brightness of virtues, the lamp of life, the hope of the
needy, the salvation of the weak, the mother of the orphaned. To her all should
flee as sons to a mother’s bosom.523
From
these tender praises of Mary it is pleasant to turn away to the code of
twenty-three precepts which the Dutch mystic laid down under the title, A Small
Alphabet for a Monk in the School of God.524 Here are some of them. Love to be unknown and to be reputed
as nothing. Love solitude and silence, and thou wilt find great quiet and a
good conscience. Where the crowd is, there is usually confusion and distraction
of heart. Choose poverty and simplicity. Humble thyself in all things and under
all things, and thou wilt merit kindness from all. Let Christ be thy life, thy
reading, thy meditation, thy conversation, thy desire, thy gain, thy hope and thy
reward. Zaccheus, brother, descend from the height of thy secular wisdom. Come
and learn in God’s school the way of humility, long-suffering and patience, and
Christ teaching thee, thou shalt come at last safely to the glory of eternal
beatitude.
NOTE.
– The Authorship of the Imitation of Christ. This question has been one of the
most hotly contested questions in the history of pure literature. National
sentiments have entered into the discussion, France and Italy contending for
the honor of authorship with the Lowlands. The work is now quite generally
ascribed to Thomas à Kempis, but among those who dissent from this opinion are
scholars of rank.
Among
the more recent treatments of the subject not given in the Literature, § 27,
are V. Becker: L’auteur de l’Imitat. et les documents néerlandais, Hague, 1882.
Also Les derniers travaux sur l’auteur de l’Imitat., Brussels, 1889.—Denifle:
Krit. Bemerk. zur Gersen-Kempis Frage, Zeitung für kath. Theol., 1882 sq.—A. O.
Spitzes: Th. à K. als schrijver der navolging, Utrecht, 1880. Also Nouvelle
défense en réponse du Denifle, Utrecht, 1884.—L. Santini: I diritti di Tommaso
da Kemp., 2 vols., Rome, 1879–1881.—F. X. Funk: Gerson und Gersen and Der
Verfasser der Nachfolge Christi in his Abhandlungen, Paderborn, 1899, II.
373–444.—P. E. Puyol: Descript. bibliogr. des MSS. et des princip. edd. du
livre de imitat., Paris, 1898. Also Paléographie, classement, généalogie du
livre de imitat., Paris, 1898. Also L’auteur du livre de imitat., 2 vols.,
Paris, 1899.—Schulze’s art. in Herzog.—G. Kentenich: Die Handschriften der
Imitat. und die Autorschaft des Thomas, in Brieger’s Zeitschrift, 1902, 18
sqq., 1903, 594 sqq.
Pohl
gives a list of no less than 35 persons to whom with more or less confidence
the authorship has been ascribed. The list includes the names of John Gerson,
chancellor of the University of Paris; John Gersen, the reputed abbot of
Vercelli, Italy, who lived about 1230; Walter Hylton, St. Bernard, Bonaventura,
David of Augsburg, Tauler, Suso and even Innocent III. The only claimants
worthy of consideration are Gerson, Gersen, and Thomas à Kempis, although
Montmorency is inclined to advance the claim of Walter Hylton. The uncertainty
arises from the facts (1) that a number of the MSS. and printed editions of the
fifteenth century have no note of authorship; (2) the rest are divided between
these, Gerson, Gersen, à Kempis, Hylton, and St. Bernard; (3) the MSS. copies
show important divergencies. The matter has been made more difficult by the
forgery of names and dates in MSS. since the controversy began, these forgeries
being almost entirely in the interest of a French or Italian authorship. A
reason for the absence of the author’s name in so many MSS. is found in the
desire of à Kempis, if he indeed be the author, to remain incognito, in
accordance with his own motto, ama nesciri, "love to be unknown."
Of
the Latin editions belonging to the fifteenth century, Pohl gives 28 as
accredited to Gerson, 12 to Thomas, 2 to St. Bernard, and 6 as anonymous. Or,
to follow Funk, p. 426, 40 editions of that century were ascribed to Gerson, 11
to à Kempis, 2 to Bernard, 1 to
Gersen, and 2 are anonymous. Spitzen gives 16 as ascribed to à Kempis. Most of
the editions ascribing the work to Gerson were printed in France, the remaining
editions being printed in Italy or Spain. The editions of the sixteenth century
show a change, 37 Latin editions ascribing the authorship to à Kempis, and 25
to Gerson. As for the MSS. dated before 1460, and whose dates may be said to be
reasonably above suspicion, all were written in Germany and the Lowlands. The
oldest, included in a codex preserved since 1826 in the royal library of
Brussels, probably belongs before 1420. The codex contains 9 other writings of
à Kempis besides the Imitation, and contains the note, Finitus et completus
MCCCCXLI per manus fratris Th. Kempensis in Monte S. Agnetis prope Zwollis
(finished and completed, 1441, by the hands of brother Thomas à Kempis of Mount
St. Agnes, near Zwolle). See Pohl, II. 461 sqq. So this is an autographic copy.
The text of the Imitation, however, is written on older paper than the other
documents, and has corrections which are found in a Dutch translation of the
first book, dating from 1420. For these reasons, Funk, p. 424, and others, puts
the MS. back to 1416–1420.
The
literary controversy over the authorship began in 1604, when Dom Pedro
Manriquez, in a work on the Lord’s Supper issued at Milan, and on the alleged
basis of a quotation by Bonaventura, declared the Imitation to be older than
that Schoolman. In 1606, Bellarmin, in his Descript. eccles., was more precise,
and stated it was already in existence in 1260. About the same time, the
Jesuit, Rossignoli, found in a convent at Arona, near Milan, a MS. without
date, but bearing the name of an abbot, John Gersen, as its author; the house
had belonged to the Benedictines once. In 1614 the Benedictine, Constantius
Cajetan, secretary of Paul V., issued his Gersen restitutus at Rome, and later
his Apparatus ad Gersenem restitutum, in which he defended the Italian’s claim.
This individual was said to have been a Benedectine abbot of Vercelli, in
Piedmont, in the first half of the thirteenth century. On the other hand, the
Augustinian, Rosweyde, in his vindiciae Kempenses, Antwerp, 1617, so cogently
defended the claims of à Kempis that Bellarmin withdrew his statement. In the
nineteenth century the claims of Gersen were again urged by a Piedmontese
nobleman, Gregory, in his Istoria della Vercellese letteratura, Turin, 1819,
and subsequent publications, and by Wolfsgruber of Vienna in a scholarly work,
1880. But Hirsche and Funk are, no doubt, right in pronouncing the name Gersen
a mistake for Gerson, and Funk, after careful criticism, declares the Italian
abbot a fictitious personage. The most recent Engl. writer on the subject,
Montmorency, p. xiii. says, "there is no evidence that there was ever an
abbot of Vercelli by the name of Gersen."
The
claims of John Gerson are of a substantial character, and France was not slow
in coming to the chancellor’s defence. An examination of old MSS., made in
Paris, had an uncertain issue, so that, in 1640, Richelieu’s splendid edition
of the Imitation was sent forth without an author’s name. The French
parliament, however, in 1652, ordered the book printed under the name of à
Kempis. The matter was not settled and, at three gatherings, 1671, 1674, 1687,
instituted by Mabillon, a fresh examination of MSS. was made, with the result
that the case went against à Kempis. Later, Du Pin, after a comparison of
Gerson’s writings with the Imitation, concluded that it was impossible to
decide with certainty between these two writers and Gersen. (See his 2d ed. of
Gerson’s Works, 1728, I. lix-lxxxiv) but in a special work. Amsterdam, 1706, he
had decided in favor of the Dutchman. French editions of the Imitation
continued to be issued under the name of Gerson, as, for example, those of
Erhard-Mezler, 1724, and Vollardt, 1758. On the other hand, the Augustinian,
Amort, defended the à Kempis authorship in his Informatio de statu controversiae,
Augsburg, 1728, and especially in his Scutum Kempense, Cologne, 1728. After the
unfavorable statement of Schwab, Life of Gerson, 1858, pp. 782–786, declaring
that the Imitation is in an altogether different style from Gerson’s works, the
theory of the Gerson authorship seemed to be finally abandoned. The first
collected edition of Gerson’s Works, 1483, knows nothing about the Imitation.
Nor did Gerson’s brother, prior of Lyons, mention it in the list he gave of the
chancellor’s works, 1423. The author of the Imitation was, by his own
statements, a monk, IV. 5, 11; III., 56. Gerson would have been obliged to
change his usual habit of presentation to have written in the monastic tone.
After
the question of authorship seemed to be pretty well settled in favor of à
Kempis, another stage in the controversy was opened by the publications of
Puyol in 1898, 1899. Puyol gives a description of 548 manuscripts, and makes a
sharp distinction between those of Italian origin and other manuscripts. He
also annotates the variations in 57, with the conclusion that the Italian text
is the more simple, and consequently the older and original text. He himself
based his edition on the text of Arona. Puyol is followed by Kentenich, and has
been answered by Pohl and others.
Walter
Hylton’s reputed authorship of the Imitation is based upon three books of that
work, having gone under the name De musica ecclesiastica in MSS. in England and
the persistent English tradition that Hylton was the author. Montmorency, pp.
xiv, 138–170, while he pronounces the Hylton theory of authorship untenable,
confesses his inability to explain it.
The
arguments in favor of the à Kempis authorship, briefly stated, are as follows:—
1.
External testimony. John Busch, in his Chronicon Windesemense, written 1464,
seven years before à Kempis’ death, expressly states that à Kempis wrote the
Imitation. To this testimony are to be added the testimonies of Caspar of
Pforzheim, who made a German translation of the work, 1448; Hermann Rheyd, who
met Thomas, 1454, and John Wessel, who was attracted to Windesheim by the
book’s fame. For other testimonies, see Hirsche and Funk, pp. 432–436.
2.
Manuscripts and editions. The number of extant MSS. is about 500. See
Kentenich, p. 294. Funk, p. 420, gives 13 MSS. dated before 1500, ascribing the
Imitation to à Kempis. The autograph copy, contained in the Brussels codex of
1441, has already been mentioned. It must be said, however, the conclusion
reached by Hirsche, Pohl, Funk, Schulze and others that this text is
autographic has been denied by Puyol and Kentenich, on the basis of its
divergences from other copies, which they claim the author could not have made.
A second autograph, in Louvaine (see Schulze, p. 730), seems to be nearly as
old, 1420, and has the note scriptus manibus et characteribus Thomae qui est
autor horum devotorum libellorum, "written by the hand of Thomas,"
etc. (Pohl, VI. 456 sq.). A third MS., stating that Thomas is the author, and
preserved in Brussels, is dated 1425.—As for the printed editions of the
fifteenth century, at least 13 present Thomas as the author, from the edition
of Augsburg, 1472, to the editions of Paris, 1493, 1500.
3.
Style and contents. These agree closely with à Kempis’ other writings, and the
flow of thought is altogether similar to that of his Meditation on Christ’s
Incarnation. Spitzen seems to have made it at least very probable that the
author was acquainted with the writings of Ruysbroeck, John of Schoenhoven, and
other mystics and monks of the Lowlands. Funk has brought out references to
ecclesiastical customs which fit the book into the time between the fourteenth
and fifteenth centuries. Hirsche laid stress on Germanisms in the style.
Among
recent German scholars, Denifle sets aside à Kempis’ claims and ascribes the
work to some unknown canon regular of the Lowlands. Karl Müller, in a brief
note, Kirchengesch., II. 122, and Loof’s Dogmengesch., 4th ed., p. 633,
pronounce the à Kempis authorship more than doubtful. On the other hand,
Schwab, Hirsche, Schulze and Funk agree that the claims of Thomas are almost
beyond dispute. It is almost impossible to give a reason why the Imitation
should have been ascribed to the Dutch mystic, if he were not indeed its author.
The explanation given by Kentenich, p. 603, seems to be utterly insufficient.
</div3> <div3 type = "Section"
n="36" title="The German Theology">
§ 36.
The German Theology.
The
evangelical teachings of the little book, known as The German Theology, led
Ullmann to place its author in the list of the Reformers before the
Reformation.525 The author was one of the Friends of God, and no writing
issuing from that circle has had a more honorable and useful career. Together
with the Imitation of Christ, it has been the most profitable of the writings
of the German mystics. Its fame is derived from Luther’s high praise as much as
from its own excellent contents. The Reformer issued two editions of it, 1516,
with a partial text, and 1518, in the second edition giving it the name which
remains with it to this day, Ein Deutsch Theologia — A German treatise of
Theology.526 Luther designated as its author a Frankfurt priest, a Teutonic
knight, but for a time it was ascribed to Tauler. The Preface of the oldest
MS., dated 1497, and found in 1850, made this view impossible, for Tauler is
himself quoted in ch. XIII. Here the author is called a Frankfurt priest and a
true Friend of God.
Luther
announced his high obligation to the teachings of the manual of the way of
salvation when he said that next to the Bible and St. Augustine, no book had
come into his hands from which he had learnt more of what God and man and all
things are and would wish to learn more. The author, he affirmed, was a pure
Israelite who did not take the foam from the surface, but drew from the bed of
the Jordan. Here, he continued, the teachings of the Scriptures are set forth
as plain as day which have been lying under the desk of the universities, nay,
have almost been left to rot in dust and muck. With his usual patriotism, he
declared that in the book he had found Christ in the German tongue as he and
the other German theologians had never found him in Greek, Latin or Hebrew.
The
German Theology sets forth man’s sinful and helpless condition, Christ’s
perfection and mediatorial work and calls upon men to have access to God
through him as the door. In all its fifty-four chapters no reference is made to
Mary or to the justifying nature of good works or the merit of sacramental
observances.527 It abounds as no
other writing of the German mystics did in quotations from the New Testament.
In its pages the wayfaring man may find the path of salvation marked out
without mystification.
The
book, starting out with the words of St. Paul, "when that which is perfect
is come, then that which is in part shall be done away," declares that
that which is imperfect has only a relative existence and that, whenever the
Perfect becomes known by the creature, then "the I, the Self and the like
must all be given up and done away."
Christ shows us the way by having taken on him human nature. In chs.
XV.-LIV., it shows that all men are dead in Adam, and that to come to the
perfect life, the old man must die and the new man be born. He must become
possessed with God and depossessed of the devil. Obedience is the prime
requisite of the new manhood. Sin is disobedience, and the more "of Self
and Me, the more of sin and wickedness and the more the Self, the I, the Me,
the Mine, that is, self-seeking and selfishness, abate in a man, the more doth
God’s I, that is, God Himself, increase." By obedience we become free. The life of Christ is the
perfect model, and we follow him by hearkening unto his words to forsake all.
This is nothing else than saying that we must be in union with the divine will
and be ready either to do or to suffer. Such a man, a man who is a partaker of
the divine nature, will in sincerity love all men and things, do them good and
take pleasure in their welfare. Knowledge and light profit nothing without
love. Love maketh a man one with God. The last word is that no man can come unto
the Father but by Christ.
In
1621 the Catholic Church placed the Theologia Germanica on the Index. If all
the volumes listed in that catalogue of forbidden books were like this one,
making the way of salvation plain, its pages would be illuminated with ineffable
light.528
</div3> <div3 type = "Section"
n="37" title="English Mystics">
§ 37.
English Mystics.
England,
in the fourteenth century, produced devotional writings which have been classed
in the literature of mysticism. They are wanting in the transcendental flights
of the German mystics, and are, for the most part, marked by a decided
practical tendency.
The
Ancren Riwle was written for three sisters who lived as anchoresses at Tarrant
Kaines, Dorsetshire.529
It was the custom in their day in England for women living a recluse
life to build a room against the wall of some church or a small structure in a
churchyard and in such a way that it had windows, but no doors of egress. This
little book of religious counsels was written at the request of the sisters,
and is usually ascribed to Simon of Ghent, bishop of Salisbury, d. 1315. The
author gives two general directions, namely, to keep the heart "smooth and
without any scar of evil," and to practise bodily discipline, which
"serveth the first end, and of which Paul said that it profiteth
little." The first is the
lady, the second the handmaid. If asked to what order they belonged, the
sisters were instructed to say to the Order of St. James, for James said,
"Pure religion and undefiled before our God and Father is this: to visit
the fatherless and widows in their affliction and to keep one’s self unspotted
from the world." It is
interesting to note that they are bidden to have warm clothes for bed and back,
and to wash "as often as they please." They were forbidden to lash themselves with a leathern
thong, or one loaded with lead except at the advice of their confessor. Richard
Rolle, d. 1349, the author of a number of devotional treatises, and also
translations or paraphrases of the Psalms, Job, the Canticles and Jeremiah,
suddenly left Oxford, where he was pursuing his studies, discontented with the
scholastic method in vogue at the university, and finally settled down as a
hermit at Hampole, near Doncaster. Here he attained a high fame for piety and
as a worker of miracles. He wrote in Latin and English, his chief works being
the Latin treatises, The Emendation of Life and The Fervor of Love. They were
translated in 1434, 1435, by Rich Misyn. His works are extant in many
manuscript copies. Rolle exalted the contemplative life, indulged in much
dreamy religious speculation, but also denounced the vice and worldliness of
his time. In the last state of the contemplative life he represents man as "seeing
into heaven with his ghostly eye."530
Juliana
of Norwich, who died 1443, as it is said, at the age of 100, was also an
anchoress, having her cell in the churchyard of St. Julian’s church, Norwich.
She received 16 revelations, the first in 1373, when she was 30 years old. At
that time, she saw "God in a point." She laid stress upon love, and presented the joyful aspect
of religion. God revealed Himself to her in three properties, life, light and
love. Her account of her revelations is pronounced by Inge "a fragrant
little book."531
The
Ladder of Perfection, written by Walter Hylton, an Augustinian canon of
Thurgarton, Nottinghamshire, who died 1396,532 depicts the different stages
of spiritual attainment from the simple knowledge of the facts of religion,
which is likened to the water of Cana which must be turned into wine, to the
last stages of contemplation and divine union. There is no great excellency,
Hylton says, "in watching and fasting till thy head aches, nor in running
to Rome or Jerusalem with bare feet, nor in building churches and
hospitals." But it is a sign
of excellency if a man can love a sinner, while hating the sin. Those who are
not content with merely saving their souls, but go on to the higher degrees of
contemplation, are overcome by "a good darkness," a state in which
the soul is free and not distracted by anything earthly. The light then arises
little by little. Flashes come through the chinks in the walls of Jerusalem,
but Jerusalem is not reached by a bound. There must be transformation, and the
power that transforms is the love of God shed abroad in the soul. Love proceeds
from knowledge, and the more God is known, the more is He loved. Hylton’s wide
reputation is proved by the ascription of Thomas à Kempis’ Imitation to him and
its identification in manuscripts with his De musica ecclesiastica.533
These
writings, if we except Rolle, betray much of that sobriety of temper which
characterizes the English religious thought. They contain no flights of hazy
mystification and no rapturous outbursts of passionate feeling. They emphasize
features common to all the mystics of the later Middle Ages, the gradual
transformation through the power of love into the image of God, and ascent
through inward contemplation to full fellowship with Him. They show that the
principles of the imitation of Christ were understood on the English side of
the channel as well as by the mystics of the Lowlands, and that true godliness
is to be reached in another way than by the mere practice of sacramental rites.
These
English pietists are to be regarded, however, as isolated figures who, so far
as we know, had no influence in preparing the soil for the seed of the
Reformation that was to come, as had the Pietists who lived along the Rhine.534
</div3></div2><div2 type =
"Chapter" n="V" title="Reformers Before The
Reformation">
CHAPTER
V.
REFORMERS
BEFORE THE REFORMATION.
<div3 type = "Section"
n="38" title="Sources and Literature">
§ 38.
Sources and Literature.
For § 39. Church and Society in England, etc.—Thomas
Walsingham: Hist. Anglicana,
ed. by Riley, Rolls Ser., London, 1869.—Walter de Heimburgh: Chronicon, ed. by
Hamilton, 2 vols., 1848 sq.—Adam Merimuth: Chronicon, and Robt. de Avesbury: De
gestis mirabilibus Edwardi III., ed. by Thompson with Introd., Rolls Ser.,
1889.—Chron. Angliae (1326–1388), ed. by Thompson, Rolls Ser., 1874.—Henry
Knighton: Chronicon, ed. by Lumby, Rolls Ser., 2 vols., 1895.—Ranulph Higden,
d. bef. 1400: Polychronicon, with trans. by Trevisa, Rolls Ser., 9 vols.,
1865–1886.—Thos. Rymer, d. 1713: Foedera, Conventiones et Litera, London,
1704–1715.—Wilkins: Concilia.—W. C. Bliss: Calendar of Entries in the Papal
Registers relating to G. Britain and Ireland, vols. II.-IV., London, 1897–1902.
Vol. II. extends from 1305–1342; vol. III., 1342–1362; vol. IV., 1362–1404. A
work of great value.—Gee and Hardy: Documents, etc.—Haddan and Stubbs: Councils
and Eccles. Doc’ts.—Stubbs: Constit. Hist. of Engl., III. 294–387.—The Histt.
of Engl., by Lingard, bks. III., IV., and Green, bk. IV.—Capes: The Engl. Ch.
in the 14th and 15th Centt., London, 1900.—Haller: Papsttum und Kirchenreform,
pp. 375–465.—Jessopp: The Coming of the Friars.—Creighton: Hist. of Epidemics in
England.—Gasquet: The Great Pestilence, 1893.—Rashdall and others: Histt. of
Oxford and Cambridge.—The Dict. of Nat. Biog.—Also Thos. Fuller’s Hist. of Gr.
Brit., for its general judgments and quaint statements.—Loserth: Studien zur
Kirchenpolitik Englands im 14 Jahrh. in Sitzungsberichte d. kaiserl. Akademie
d. Wissenschaften in Wien, Vienna, 1897.—G. Kriehn: Studies in the Sources of
the Social Revol. of 1381, Am. Hist. Rev., Jan.-Oct., 1902.—C. Oman: The Great
Revolt in 1381, Oxford, 1906.—Traill: Social Engl., vol. II., London,
1894.—Rogers: Six Centt. of Work and Wages.—Cunningham: Growth of Engl.
Industry.
For
§§ 40–42. John Wyclif.—I. The publication of Wyclif’s works belongs almost
wholly to the last twenty-five years, and began with the creation of the Wyclif
Society, 1882, which was due to a summons from German scholars. In 1858,
Shirley, Fasc., p. xlvi, could write, "Of Wyc’s Engl. writings nothing but
two short tracts have seen the light," and in 1883, Loserth spoke of his
tractates "mouldering in the dust." The MSS. are found for the most part in the libraries of
Oxford, Prag and Vienna. The Trialogus was publ. Basel, 1525, and Wycliffe’s
Wycket, in Engl., Nürnberg, 1546. Reprinted at Oxford, 1828.—Latin Works, ed.
by the Wyclif Soc., organized, 1882, in answer to Buddensieg’s appeal in the
Academy, Sept. 17, 1881, 31 vols., London, 1884–1907.—De officia pastorli, ed.
by Lechler, Leipzig, 1863.—Trialogus, ed. by Lechler, Oxford, 1869.—De veritate
sac. Scripturae, ed. by Rudolf Buddensieg, 3 vols., Leipzig, 1904.—De potestate
papae, ed. by Loserth, London, 1907.—Engl. Works: Three Treatises, by J.
Wyclffe, ed. by J. H. Todd, Dublin, 1851.—*Select Engl. Works, ed. by Thos.
Arnold, 3 vols., Oxford, 1869–1871.—*Engl. Works Hitherto Unprinted, ed. by F.
D. Matthew, London, 1880, with valuable Introd.—*Wyclif’s trans. of the Bible,
ed. by Forshall and Madden, 4 vols., Oxford, 1850.—His New Test. with Introd.
and Glossary, by W. W. Skeat, Cambridge, 1879.—The trans. of Job, Pss., Prov.,
Eccles. and Canticles, Cambridge, 1881.—For list of Wyclif’s works, see Canon
W. W. Shirley: Cat. of the Works of J. W., Oxford, 1865. He lists 96 Latin and
65 Engl. writings.—Also Lechler in his Life of Wiclif, II. 559–573, Engl.
trans., pp. 483–498.—Also Rashdall’s list in Dict. of Nat. Biog.—II.
Biographical.—Thomas Netter of Walden, a Carmelite, d. 1430: Fasciculi
zizaniorum Magistri Joh. Wyclif cum tritico (Bundles of tares of J. Wyc. with
the wheat), a collection of indispensable documents and narrations, ed. by Shirley,
with valuable Introd., Rolls Ser., London, 1858.—Also Doctrinale fidei
christianae Adv. Wicleffitas et Hussitas in his Opera, Paris, 1532, best ed., 3
vols., Venice, 1757. Walden could discern no defects in the friars, and
represented the opposite extreme from Wyclif. He sat in the Council of Pisa,
was provincial of his order in England, and confessor to Henry V.—The
contemporary works given above, Chron. Angliae, Walsingham, Knighton,
etc.—England in the Time of Wycliffe in trans. and reprints, Dept. of Hist.
Univ. of Pa., 1895.—John Foxe: Book of Martyrs, London, 1632, etc.— John Lewis:
Hist. of the Life and Sufferings of J. W., Oxford, 1720, etc., and 1820.—R.
Vaughan: Life and Opinions of J. de Wycliffe, 2 vols., London, 1828, 2d ed.,
1831.—V. Lechler: J. von Wiclif und die Vorgesch. der Reformation, 2 vols.,
Leipzig, 1873.—*Engl. trans., J. W. and his Engl. Precursors, with valuable
Notes by Peter Lorimer, 2 vols., London, 1878, new edd., 1 vol., 1881,
1884.—*R. Buddensieg: J. Wiclif und seine Zeit, Gotha, 1883. Also J. W. as
Patriot and Reformer, London, 1884.—E. S. Holt: J. de W., the First Reformer,
and what he did for England, London, 1884.—V. Vattier: J. W., sa vie, ses
oeuvres et sa doctrine, Paris, 1886.—*J. Loserth: Hus und Wiclif, Prag and Leipzig,
1883, Engl. trans., London, 1884. Also W.’s Lehre v. wahrem u. falschem
Papsttum, in Hist. Zeitschrift, 1907, p. 237 sqq.—L. Sergeant: John Wyclif, New
York, 1893.—H. B. Workman: The Age of Wyclif, London, 1901.—Geo. S. Innes: J.
W., Cin’ti.—J. C. Carrick: Wyc. and the Lollards, London, 1908.—C. Bigg, in
Wayside Sketches in Eccles. Hist., London, 1906.—For other Biogg., see Shirley:
Fasciculus, p. 531 sqq.—III. J. L. Poole: W. and Movements for Reform, London,
1889, and W.’s Doctr. of Lordship in
Illustr. of Med. Thought, 1884.—Wiegand: De Eccles. notione quid Wiclif
docuerit, Leipzig, 1891.—*G. M. Trevelyan: Engl. In The Age Of W., London, 2d
ed., 1899.—Powell and Trevelyan: The Peasants’ Rising and the Lollards, London,
1899.—H. Fürstenau: J. von W.’s Lehren v. d. Stellung d. weltl. Gewalt, Berlin,
1900.—Haddan and Stubbs: Councils and Eccles. Docts.—Gee and Hardy.—Stubbs:
Constit. Hist., III. 314–374.—The Histt. of Capes, Green and Lingard, vol.
IV.—The Histt. of the Engl. Bible, by Eadie, Westcott, Moulton, Stoughton,
Mombert, etc.—Matthew: Authorship of the Wycliffite Bible, Engl. Hist. Rev.,
January, 1895.—Gasquet: The Eve of the Reformation, new ed., London, 1905; The
Old Engl. Bible and Other Essays, London, 1908.—R. S. Storrs: J. Wyc. and the
First Engl. Bible in Sermons and Addresses, Boston, 1902. An eloquent address
delivered in New York on the 500th anniversary of the appearance of Wyclif’s
New Test.—Rashdall in Dict. of Natl. Biog., LXIII. 202–223.—G. S. Innis:
Wycliffe Cinti.
For §
43. Lollards.—The works noted above of Knighton, Walsingham, Rymer’s Foedera,
the Chron. Angliae, Walden’s Fasc. ziz., Foxe’s Book of Martyrs. Also Adam Usk:
Chronicle.—Thos. Wright: Polit. Poems and Songs, Rolls Ser., 2 vols., London,
1859.—Fredericq: Corp. inquis. Neerl., vols. I.-III.—Reginald Pecock: The
Repressor of overmuch Blaming of the Clergy, ed. by Babington, Rolls Ser., 2
vols., London, 1860.—The Histt. of Engl. and the Church of Engl.—A. M. Brown:
Leaders of the Lollards, London, 1848.—W. H. Summers: Our Lollard Ancestors,
London, 1904.—*James Gairdner: Lollardy and the Reform. in Engl., 2 vols.,
London, 1908.—E. P. Cheyney: The Recantations of the Early Lollards, Am. Hist.
Rev., April, 1899.—H. S. Cronin: The Twelve Conclusions of the Lollards, Engl.
Hist. Rev., April, 1907.—Art. Lollarden, by Buddensieg in Herzog, XI.
615–626.—The works of Trevelyan and Forshall and Madden, cited above, and
Oldcastle, vol. XLII. 86–93, and other artt. in Dict. of Nat. Biog.
For
§§ 44–46. John Huss. — Hist. et monumenta J. Hus atque Hieronymi Pragensis,
confessorum Christi, 2 vols., Nürnberg, 1558, Frankfurt, 1715. I have used the
Frankfurt ed.—W. Flajshans: Mag. J. Hus Expositio Decalogi, Prag, 1903; De
corpore Christi: De sanguine Christi, Prag, 1904; Sermones de sanctis, Prag,
1908; Super quatuor sententiarum, etc.—*Francis Palacky: Documenta Mag. J. Hus,
vitam, doctrinam, causam in Constantiensi actam consilio illustrantia,
1403–1418, pp. 768, Prag, 1869. Largely from unpublished sources. Contains the
account of Peter of Mladenowitz, who was with Huss at Constance.—K. J. Erben
(archivarius of Prag): Mistra Jana Husi sebrané spisy Czeske. A collection of
Huss’ Bohemian writings, 3 vols., Prag, 1865–1868.—Trans. of Huss’ Letters,
first by Luther, Wittenberg, 1536 (four of them, together with an account by
Luther of Huss’ trial and death), republ. by C. von Kügelgen, Leipzig,
1902.—Mackenzie: Huss’ Letters, Edinburgh, 1846.—*H. B. Workman and B. M. Pope:
Letters of J. Hus with Notes.—For works on the Council of Constance, see Mansi,
vol. XXVIII., Van der Hardt, Finke, Richental etc., see § 12.—C. von Höfler:
Geschichtsschreiber der hussitischen Bewegung, 3 vols., Vienna, 1856–1866.
Contains Mladenowitz and other contemporary documents.—*Palacky, a descendant
of the Bohemian Brethren, d. 1876: Geschichte von Böhmen, Prag, 1836 sqq., 3d
ed., 5 vols., 1864 sqq. Vol. III. of the first ed. was mutilated at Vienna by
the censor of the press (the office not being abolished till 1848), on account
of the true light in which Huss was placed. Nevertheless, it made such an
impression that Baron Helfert was commissioned to write a reply, which
appeared, Prag, 1867, pp. 287. In 1870, Palacky publ. a second ed. of vol.
III., containing all the excerpted parts.—Palacky: Die Vorlaeufer des
Hussitenthums in Böhmen, Prag, 1869.—L. Köhler: J. Hus u. s. Zeit, 3 vols.,
Leipzig, 1846.—E. H. Gillett, Prof. in New York Univ., d. New York, 1876: Life
and Times of J. Huss, 2 vols., Boston, 1863, 3d ed., 1871.—W. Berger: J. Hus u.
König Sigismund, Augsburg, 1871.—Bonnechose: J. Hus u. das Concil zu Kostnitz,
Germ. trans., 3d ed., Leipzig, 1870.—F. v. Bezold: Zur Gesch. d. Husitenthums,
Munich, 1874.—E. Denis: Huss et la guerre des Hussites, Paris, l878.—A. H.
Wratislaw: J. Hus, London, 1882.—*J. Loserth: Wiclif and Hus, also Beiträge zur
Gesch. der Hussit. Bewegung, 5 small vols., 1877–1895, reprinted from
magazines. Also Introd. to his ed. of Wiclif’s De ecclesia. Also art. J. Huss
in Herzog, Encyc., VIII. 473–489.—Lechler: J. Hus, Leipzig, 1890.—*J. H. Wylie:
The Counc. of Constance to the Death of J. Hus, London, 1900.—*H. B. Workman:
The Dawn of the Reformation, The Age of Hus, London, 1902.—Lea: Hist. of the
Inquis., II. 431–566.—Hefele, vol. VII.—*J. B. Schwab: J. Gerson, pp.
527–609.—Tschackert: Von Ailli, pp. 218–235.—W. Faber and J. Kurth: Wie sah Hus
aus? Berlin, 1907.—Also J. Huss by
Lützow, N. Y., 1909, and Kuhr, Cinti.
For §
47. The Hussites.—Mansi, XXVII, XXIX.—Haller: Concil. Basiliense.—Bezold: König
Sigismund und d. Reichskriege gegen d. Husiten, 3 vols., Munich,
1872–1877.—*Jaroslav Goll: Quellen und Untersuchungen zur Gesch. der Böhmischen
Brüder, 2 vols., Prag, 1878–1882.—*L. Keller: Die Reformation und die aelteren
Reformparteien, Leipzig, 1885.—W. Preger: Ueber das Verhältniss der Taboriten
zu den Waldesiern des 14ten Jahrh., 1887.—Haupt: Waldenserthum und Inquisition
im südöstlichen, Deutschland, Freiburg i. Br., 1890.—H. Herre: Die
Husitenverhandlungen, 1429, in Quellen u. Forschungen d. Hist. Inst. von Rom,
1899.—*E. Müller: Böhm. Brüder, Herzog, III. 445–467.—E. De Schweinitz: The
Hist. of the Church known as the Unitas Fratrum, Bethlehem, 1885.—Also
Hergenröther-Kirsch: Kirchengesch., II. 886–903.
</div3> <div3 type = "Section"
n="39" title="The Church in England in the Fourteenth
Century">
§ 39.
The Church in England in the Fourteenth Century.
The
14th century witnessed greater social changes in England than any other century
except the 19th. These changes were in large part a result of the hundred
years’ war with France, which began in 1337, and the terrible ravages of the
Black Death. The century was marked by the legal adoption of the English tongue
as the language of the country and the increased respect for parliament, in
whose counsels the rich burgher class demanded a voice, and its definite
division into two houses, 1341. The social unrest of the land found expression
in popular harangues, poems, and tracts, affirming the rights of the villein
and serf class, and in the uprising known as the Peasants’ Revolt.
The
distinctly religious life of England, in this period, was marked by obstinate
resistance to the papal claims of jurisdiction, culminating in the Acts of
Provisors, and by the appearance of John Wyclif, one of the most original and
vigorous personalities the English Church has produced.
An
industrial revolution was precipitated on the island by the Great Pestilence of
1348. The necessities of life rose enormously in value. Large tracts of land
passed back from the smaller tenants into the hands of the landowners of the
gentry class. The sheep and the cattle, as a contemporary wrote, "strayed
through the fields and grain, and there was no one who could drive
them." The serfs and villeins
found in the disorder of society an opportunity to escape from the yoke of
servitude, and discovered in roving or in independent engagements the joys of a
new-found freedom. These unsettled conditions called forth the famous statutes
of Edward III.’s reign, 1327–1377, regulating wages and the prices of
commodities.
The
popular discontent arising from these regulations, and from the increased
taxation necessitated by the wars with France, took the form of organized
rebellion. The age of feudalism was coming to an end. The old ideas of labor
and the tiller of the soil were beginning to give way before more just modes of
thought. Among the agitators were John Ball, whom Froissart, with
characteristic aristocratic indifference, called "the mad priest of
Kent," the poet Longland and the insurgent leader, Watt Tyler. In his
harangues, Ball fired popular feeling by appeals to the original rights of man.
By what right, he exclaimed, "they, who are called lords, greater folk
than we? On what grounds do they
hold us in vassalage? Do not we
all come from the same father and mother, Adam and Eve?" The spirit of individual freedom
breathed itself out in the effective rhyme, which ran like wildfire, —
When
Adam delved and Eve span
Who was
then the gentleman?
The
rhymes, which Will Longland sent forth in his Complaint of Piers Ploughman,
ventilated the sufferings and demands of the day laborer and called for fair
treatment such as brother has a right to expect from brother. Gentleman and
villein faced the same eternal destinies. "Though he be thine underling,"
the poet wrote, "mayhap in heaven, he will be worthier set and with more
bliss than thou." The rising
sense of national importance and individual dignity was fed by the victory of
Crécy, 1346, where the little iron balls, used for the first time, frightened
the horses; by the battle of Poictiers ten years later; by the treaty of
Brétigny, 1360, whereby Edward was confirmed in the possession of large
portions of France, and by the exploits of the Black Prince. The spectacle of
the French king, John, a captive on the streets of London, made a deep
impression. These events and the legalization of the English tongue, 1362,535
contributed to develop a national and patriotic sentiment before unknown in
England.
The
uprising, which broke out in 1381, was a vigorous assertion of the popular
demand for a redress of the social inequalities between classes in England. The
insurgent bands, which marched to London, were pacified by the fair promises of
Richard II., but the Kentish band led by Watt Tyler, before dispersing, took
the Tower and put the primate, Sudbury, to death. He had refused to favor the
repeal of the hated decapitation tax. The abbeys of St. Albans and Edmondsbury
were plundered and the monks ill treated, but these acts of violence were a
small affair compared with the perpetual import of the uprising for the social
and industrial well-being of the English people. The demands of the insurgents,
as they bore on the clergy, insisted that Church lands and goods, after sufficient
allowance had been made for the reasonable wants of the clergy, should be
distributed among the parishioners, and that there should be a single bishop
for England. This involved a rupture with Rome.536
It
was inevitable that the Church should feel the effects of these changes. Its
wealth, which is computed to have covered one-third of the landed property of
the realm, and the idleness and mendicancy of the friars, awakened widespread
murmur and discontent. The ravages made among the clergy by the Black Death
rendered necessary extraordinary measures to recruit its ranks. The bishop of
Norwich was authorized to replace the dead by ordaining 60 young men before the
canonical age. With the rise of the staples of living, the stipends of the vast
body of the priestly class was rendered still more inadequate. Archbishop Islip
of Canterbury and other prelates, while recognizing in their pastorals the
prevalent unrest, instead of showing proper sympathy, condemned the covetousness
of the clergy. On the other hand, Longland wrote of the shifts to which they
were put to eke out a living by accepting secular and often menial employment
in the royal palace and the halls of the gentry class.
Parson
and parish priest pleyned to the bishop,
That
their parishes were pore sith the pestilence tym,
To have
a license and a leve at London to dwelle
And
syngen there for symonye, for silver is swete.
There
was a movement from within the English people to limit the power of the bishops
and to call forth spirituality and efficiency in the clergy. The bishops,
powerful as they remained, were divested of some of their prestige by the
parliamentary decision of 1370, restricting high offices of state to laymen.
The first lay chancellor was appointed in 1340. The bishop, however, was a
great personage, and woe to the parish that did not make fitting preparations
for his entertainment and have the bells rung on his arrival. Archbishop
Arundel, Foxe quaintly says, "took great snuff and did suspend all such as
did not receive him with the noise of bells." Each diocese had its own prison, into which the bishop
thrust refractory clerics for penance or severer punishment.
The
mass of the clergy had little learning. The stalls and canonries, with attractive
incomes, where they did not go to foreigners, were regarded as the proper
prizes of the younger sons of noblemen. On the other hand, the prelates lived
in abundance. The famous bishop of Winchester, William of Wykeham, counted
fifty manors of his own. In the larger ones, official residences were
maintained, including hall and chapel. This prelate travelled from one to the
other, taking reckonings of his stewards, receiving applications for the
tonsure and ordination and attending to other official business. Many of the
lower clergy were taken from the villein class, whose sons required special
exemption to attend school. The day they received orders they were manumitted.
The
benefit of clergy, so called, continued to be a source of injustice to the people
at large. By the middle of the 13th century, the Church’s claim to tithes was
extended not only to the products of the field, but the poultry of the yard and
the cattle of the stall, to the catch of fish and the game of the forests.
Wills almost invariably gave to the priest "the best animal" or the
"best quick good." The
Church received and gave not back, and, in spite of the statute of Mortmain,
bequests continued to be made to her. It came, however, to be regarded as a
settled principle that the property of Church and clergy was amenable to civil
taxation, and bishops, willingly or by compulsion, loaned money to the king.
The demands of the French campaigns made such taxation imperative.
Indulgences
were freely announced to procure aid for the building of churches, as in the
case of York Cathedral, 1396, the erection of bridges, the filling up of muddy
roads and for other public improvements. The clergy, though denied the right of
participating in bowling and even in the pastime of checkers, took part in
village festivities such as the Church-ale, a sort of mediaeval donation party,
in which there was general merrymaking, ale was brewed, and the people drank
freely to the health of the priest and for the benefit of the Church. As for
the morals of the clergy, care must always be had not to base sweeping
statements upon delinquencies which are apt to be emphasized out of proportion
to their extent. It is certain, however, that celibacy was by no means
universally enforced, and frequent notices occur of dispensations given to
clergymen of illegitimate birth. Bishop Quevil of Exeter complained that
priests with families invested their savings for the benefit of their marital
partners and their children. In the next period, in 1452, De la Bere, bishop of
St. David’s, by his own statement, drew 400 marks yearly from priests for the
privilege of having concubines, a noble, equal in value to a mark, from each
one.537 Glower, in his Vox clamantis, gave a
dark picture of clerical habits, and charges the clergy with coarse vices such
as now are scarcely dreamed of. The Church historian, Capes, concludes that
"immorality and negligence were widely spread among the clergy."538 The decline of discipline among the
friars, and their rude manners, a prominent feature of the times, came in for
the strictures of Fitzralph of Armagh, severe condemnation at the hands of
Wyclif and playful sarcasm from the pen of Chaucer. The zeal for learning which
had characterized them on their first arrival in England, early in the 13th
century, had given way to self-satisfied idleness. Fitzralph, who was fellow of
Balliol, and probably chancellor of the University of Oxford, before being
raised to the episcopate, incurred the hostility of the friars by a series of
sermons against the Franciscan theory of evangelical poverty. He claimed it was
not scriptural nor derived from the customs of the primitive Church. For his
temerity he was compelled to answer at Avignon, where he seems to have died
about the year 1360.539
Of the four orders of mendicants, the Franciscans, Dominicans,
Carmelites and Augustinians, Longland sang that they
Preached
the people for profit and themselve
Glosed
the Gospel as them good lyked,
For
covetis of copis construed it as they would.
Of
the ecclesiastics of the century, if we except Wyclif, probably the most noted
are Thomas Bradwardine and William of Wykeham, the one the representative of
scholarly study, the other of ecclesiastical power. Bradwardine, theologian,
phiIosopher, mathematician and astronomer, was a student at Merton College,
Oxford, 1325. At Avignon, whither he went to receive consecration to the see of
Canterbury, 1349, he had a strange experience. During the banquet given by
Clement VI. the doors were thrown open and a clown entered, seated on a
jackass, and humbly petitioned the pontiff to be made archbishop of Canterbury.
This insult, gotten up by Clement’s nephew Hugo, cardinal of Tudela, and other
members of the sacred college, was in allusion to the remark made by the pope
that, if the king of England would ask him to appoint a jackass to a bishopric,
he would not dare to refuse. The sport throws an unpleasant light upon the
ideals of the curia, but at the same time bears witness to the attempt which
was being made in England to control the appointment of ecclesiastics.
Bradwardine enjoyed such an enviable reputation that Wyclif and other English
contemporaries gave him the title, the Profound Doctor—doctor profundus.540 In his chief work on grace and
freewill, delivered as a series of lectures at Merton, he declared that the
Church was running after Pelagius.541 In the philosophical schools he had rarely heard anything
about grace, but all day long the assertions that we are masters of our own
wills. He was a determinist. All things, he affirmed, which occur, occur by the
necessity of the first cause. In his Nun’s Tale, speaking of God’s
predestination, Chaucer says:—
But he
cannot boult it to the bren
As can
the holie doctour, S. Austin,
Or
Boece (Boethius), or the Bishop Bradwardine.
Wykeham,
1324–1404, the pattern of a worldly and aristocratic prelate, was an unblushing
pluralist, and his see of Winchester is said to have brought him in £60,000 of
our money annually. In 1361 alone, he received prebends in St. Paul’s,
Hereford, Salisbury, St. David’s, Beverley, Bromyard, Wherwell Abergwili, and
Llanddewi Brewi, and in the following year Lincoln, York, Wells and Hastings.
He occupied for a time the chief office of chancellor, but fell into disrepute.
His memory is preserved in Winchester School and in New College, Oxford, which
he founded. The princely endowment of New College, the first stones of which
were laid in 1387, embraced 100 scholarships. These gifts place Wykeham in the
first rank of English patrons of learning at the side of Cardinal Wolsey. He
also has a place in the manuals of the courtesies of life by his famous words,
"Manners makyth man."542
The
struggles of previous centuries against the encroachment of Rome upon the
temporalities of the English Church was maintained in this period. The
complaint made by Matthew Paris543 that the English Church was kept between two
millstones, the king and the pope, remained true, with this difference,
however, the king’s influence came to preponderate. Acts of parliament emphasized
his right to dictate or veto ecclesiastical appointments and recognized his
sovereign prerogative to tax Church property. The evident support which the
pope gave to France in her wars with England and the scandals of the Avignon
residence were favorable to the crown’s assertion of authority in these
respects. Wyclif frequently complained that the pope and cardinals were
"in league with the enemies of the English kingdom"544
and the papal registers of the Avignon period, which record the appeals sent to
the English king to conclude peace with France, almost always mention terms
that would have made France the gainer. At the outbreak of the war, 1339,
Edward III. proudly complained that it broke his heart to see that the French troops
were paid in part with papal funds.545
The
three most important religious acts of England between John’s surrender of his
crown to Innocent III. and the Act of Supremacy, 1534, were the parliamentary
statutes of Mortmain, 1279, of Provisors, 1351, and for the burning of
heretics, 1401. The statute of Mortmain or Dead-hand forbade the alienation of
lands so as to remove them from the obligation of service or taxation to the
secular power. The statute of Provisors, renewed and enlarged in the acts of
Praemunire, 1353, 1390 and 1393, concerned the subject of the papal rights over
appointments and the temporalities of the English Church. This old bone of
contention was taken up early in the 14th century in the statute of Carlyle,
1307,546
which forbade aliens, appointed to visit religious houses in England, taking
moneys with them out of the land and also the payment of tallages and
impositions laid upon religious establishments from abroad. In 1343, parliament
called upon the pope to recall all "reservations, provisions and
collations" which, as it affirmed, checked Church improvements and the
flow of alms. It further protested against the appointment of aliens to English
livings, "some of them our enemies who know not our language." Clement VI., replying to the briefs of
the king and parliament, declared that, when he made provisions and
reservations, it was for the good of the Church, and exhorted Edward to act as
a Catholic prince should and to permit nothing to be done in his realm inimical
to the Roman Church and ecclesiastical liberty. Such liberty the pope said he
would "defend as having to give account at the last judgment." Liberty in this case meant the free and
unhampered exercise of the lordly claims made by his predecessors from
Hildebrand down.547
Thomas Fuller was close to the truth, when, defining papal provisions
and reservations, he wrote, "When any bishopric, abbot’s place, dignity or
good living (aquila non capit muscas — the eagle does not take note of flies)
was like to be void, the pope, by a profitable prolepsis to himself,
predisposed such places to such successors as he pleased. By this device he
defeated, when he so pleased, the legal election of all convents and rightful
presentation of all patrons."
The
memorable statute of Provisors forbade all papal provisions and reservations
and all taxation of Church property contrary to the customs of England. The act
of 1353 sought more effectually to clip the pope’s power by forbidding the
carrying of any suit against an English patron before a foreign tribunal.548
To
these laws the pope paid only so much heed as expediency required. This claim,
made by one of his predecessors in the bull Cupientes, to the right to fill all
the benefices of Christendom, he had no idea of abandoning, and, whenever it
was possible, he provided for his hungry family of cardinals and other
ecclesiastics out of the proverbially fat appointments of England. Indeed, the
cases of such appointments given by Merimuth, and especially in the papal books
as printed by Bliss, are so recurrent that one might easily get the impression
that the pontiff’s only concern for the English Church was to see that its
livings were put into the hands of foreigners. I have counted the numbers in
several places as given by Bliss. On one page, 4 out of 9 entries were papal
appointments. A section of 2½ pages announces "provisions of a canonry,
with expectation of a prebend" in the following churches: 7 in Lincoln, 5
in Salisbury, 2 in Chichester, and 1 each in Wells, York, Exeter, St.
Patrick’s, Dublin, Moray, Southwell, Howden, Ross, Aberdeen, Wilton.549 From 1342–1385 the deanery of York was
held successively by three Roman cardinals. In 1374, the incomes of the
treasurer, dean and two archdeaneries of Salisbury went the same way. At the
close of Edward III.’s reign, foreign cardinals held the deaneries of York,
Salisbury and Lichfield, the archdeanery of Canterbury, reputed to be the
richest of English preferments, and innumerable prebends. Bishops and
abbots-elect had to travel to Avignon and often spend months and much money in
securing confirmation to their appointments, and, in cases, the prelate-elect
was set aside on the ground that provision had already been made for his
office. As for sees reserved by the pope, Stubbs gives the following list,
extending over a brief term of years: Worcester, Hereford, Durham and
Rochester, 1317; Lincoln and Winchester, 1320; Lichfield, 1322; Winchester,
1328; Carlisle and Norwich, 1825; Worcester, Exeter and Hereford, 1827; Bath,
1829; Durham, Canterbury, Winchester and Worcester, 1334. Provisions were made
in full recognition of the plural system. Thus, Walter of London, the king’s
confessor, was appointed by the pope to the deanery of Wells, though, as stated
in the papal brief, he already held a considerable list of "canonries and
prebends," Lincoln, Salisbury, St. Paul, St. Martin Le Grand, London,
Bridgenorth, Hastings and Hareswell in the diocese of Salisbury.550 By the practice of promoting bishops
from one see to another, the pope accomplished for his favorites what he could
not have done in any other way. Thus, by the promotion of Sudbury in 1874 to
Canterbury, the pope was able to translate Courtenay from Hereford to London,
and Gilbert from Bangor to Hereford, and thus by a single stroke he was
enriched by the first-fruits of four sees.
In
spite of legislation, the papal collectors continued to ply their trade in
England, but less publicly and confidently than in the two preceding centuries.
In 1879, Urban VI. sent Cosmatus Gentilis as his nuncio and collector-in-chief,
with instructions that he and his subcollectors make speedy returns to Rome,
especially of Peter’s pence.551
In 1375, Gregory XI. had called upon the archbishops of Canterbury and
York to collect a tax of 60,000 florins for the defence of the lands of the
Apostolic see, the English benefices, however, held by cardinals being
exempted. The chronicler Merimuth, in a noteworthy paragraph summing up the
curial practice of foraging upon the English sees and churches, emphasizes the
persistence and shrewdness with which the Apostolic chair from the time of
Clement V. had extorted gold and riches as though the English might be treated
as barbarians. John XXII. he represents as having reserved all the good livings
of England. Under Benedict XII., things were not so bad. Benedict’s successor,
Clement VI., was of all the offenders the most unscrupulous, reserving for
himself or distributing to members of the curia the fattest places in England.
England’s very enemies, as Merimuth continues, were thus put into possession of
English revenues, and the proverb became current at Avignon that the English
were like docile asses bearing all the burdens heaped upon them.552 This prodigal Frenchman threatened
Edward III. with excommunication and the land with interdict, if resistance to
his appointments did not cease and if their revenues continued to be withheld.
The pope died in 1353, before the date set for the execution of his wrathful
threat. While France was being made English by English arms, the Italian and
French ecclesiastics were making conquest of England’s resources.
The
great name of Wyclif, which appears distinctly in 1366, represents the
patriotic element in all its strength. In his discussions of lordship,
presented in two extensive treatises, he set forth the theory of the headship
of the sovereign over the temporal affairs of the Church in his own dominions,
even to the seizure of its temporalities. In him, the Church witnessed an
ecclesiastic of equal metal with Thomas à Becket, a man, however, who did not
stoop, in his love for his order, to humiliate the state under the hand of the
Church. He represented the popular will, the common sense of mankind in regard
to the province of the Church, the New Testament theory of the spiritual
sphere. Had he not been practically alone, he would have anticipated by more
than two centuries the limitation of the pope’s power in England.
</div3> <div3 type = "Section"
n="40" title="John Wyclif">
§ 40. John Wyclif.
"A
good man was there of religioun
That
was a pore Persone of a town;
But
rich he was of holy thought and werk;
He was
also a lerned man, a clerk,
That
Christes gospel trewly wolde preche.
* * * * * * *
This
noble ensample to his shepe he gaf,
That
first he wrought and after that he taught.
* * * * * * *
A
better priest I trow that nowhere non is,
He
waited after no pompe ne reverence;
Ne
maked him no spiced conscience,
But
Christes lore and his apostles twelve
He
taught, but first he folwed it himselve."553
Chaucer.
The
title, Reformers before the Reformation, has been aptly given to a group of men
of the 14th and 15th centuries who anticipated many of the teachings of Luther
and the Protestant Reformers. They stand, each by himself, in solitary
prominence, Wyclif in England, John Huss in Bohemia, Savonarola in Florence,
and Wessel, Goch and Wesel in Northern Germany. To these men the sculptor has
given a place on the pedestal of his famous group at Worms representing the
Reformation of the 16th century. They differ, if we except the moral reformer,
Savonarola, from the group of the German mystics, who sought a purification of
life in quiet ways, in having expressed open dissent from the Church’s ritual
and doctrinal teachings. They also differ from the group of ecclesiastical
reformers, D’Ailly, Gerson, Nicolas of Clamanges, who concerned themselves with
the fabric of the canon law and did not go beyond the correction of abuses in
the administration and morals of the Church. Wyclif and his successors were
doctrinal reformers. In some views they had been anticipated by Marsiglius of
Padua and the other assailants of the papacy of the early half of the 14th century.
John
Wyclif, called the Morning Star of the Reformation, and, at the time of his
death, in England and in Bohemia the Evangelical doctor,554 was born about 1324
near the village of Wyclif, Yorkshire, in the diocese of Durham.555 His own writings give scarcely a clew
to the events of his career, and little can be gathered from his immediate
contemporaries. He was of Saxon blood. His studies were pursued at Oxford,
which had six colleges. He was a student at Balliol and master of that hall in
1361. He was also connected with Merton and Queen’s, and was probably master of
Canterbury Hall, founded by Archbishop Islip.556 He was appointed in succession to the livings of Fillingham,
1363, Ludgershall, 1368, and by the king’s appointment, to Lutterworth, 1374.
The living of Lutterworth was valued at £26 a year.
Wyclif
occupies a distinguished place as an Oxford schoolman, a patriot, a champion of
theological and practical reforms and the translator of the Scriptures into
English. The papal schism, occurring in the midst of his public career, had an
important bearing on his views of papal authority.
So
far as is known, he confined himself, until 1366, to his duties in Oxford and
his parish work. In that year he appears as one of the king’s chaplains and as
opposed to the papal supremacy in the ecclesiastial affairs of the realm. The
parliament of the same year refused Urban V.’s demand for the payment of the
tribute, promised by King John, which was back 33 years. John, it declared, had
no right to obligate the kingdom to a foreign ruler without the nation’s
consent. Wyclif, if not a member of this body, was certainly an adviser to it.557
In
the summer of 1374, Wyclif went to Bruges as a member of the commission
appointed by the king to negotiate peace with France and to treat with the
pope’s agents on the filling of ecclesiastical appointments in England. His
name was second in the list of commissioners following the name of the bishop
of Bangor. At Bruges we find him for the first time in close association with
John of Gaunt, Edward’s favorite son, an association which continued for
several years, and for a time inured to his protection from ecclesiastical
violence.558
On
his return to England, he began to speak as a religious reformer. He preached
in Oxford and London against the pope’s secular sovereignty, running about, as
the old chronicler has it, from place to place, and barking against the Church.559 It was soon after this that, in one of
his tracts, he styled the bishop of Rome "the anti-Christ, the proud,
worldly priest of Rome, and the most cursed of clippers and
cut-purses." He maintained
that-he "has no more power in binding and loosing than any priest, and
that the temporal lords may seize the possessions of the clergy if pressed by
necessity." The duke of
Lancaster, the clergy’s open foe, headed a movement to confiscate
ecclesiastical property. Piers Ploughman had an extensive public opinion behind
him when he exclaimed, "Take her lands, ye Lords, and let her live by
dimes (tithes)." The Good
Parliament of 1376, to whose deliberation Wyclif contributed by voice and pen,
gave emphatic expression to the public complaints against the hierarchy.
The
Oxford professor’s attitude had become too flagrant to be suffered to go
unrebuked. In 1377, he was summoned before the tribunal of William Courtenay,
bishop of London, at St. Paul’s, where the proceedings opened with a violent
altercation between the bishop and the duke. The question was as to whether
Wyclif should take a seat or continue standing in the court. Percy, lord
marshal of England, ordered him to sit down, a proposal the bishop pronounced
an unheard-of indignity to the court. At this, Lancaster, who was present,
swore he would bring down Courtenay’s pride and the pride of all the prelates
in England. "Do your best, Sir," was the spirited retort of the
bishop, who was a son of the duke of Devonshire. A popular tumult ensued,
Wyclif being protected by Lancaster.
Pope
Gregory XI. himself now took notice of the offender in a document condemning 19
sentences from his writings as erroneous and dangerous to Church and state. In
fact, he issued a batch of at least five bulls, addressed to the archbishop of
Canterbury, the bishop of London, the University of Oxford and the king, Edward
III. The communication to Archbishop Sudbury opened with an unctuous panegyric
of England’s past most glorious piety and the renown of its Church leaders,
champions of the orthodox faith and instructors not only of their own but of
other peoples in the path of the Lord’s commandments. But it had come to his
ears that the Lutterworth rector had broken forth into such detestable madness
as not to shrink from publicly proclaiming false propositions which threatened
the stability of the entire Church. His Holiness, therefore, called upon the
archbishop to have John sent to prison and kept in bonds till final sentence
should be passed by the papal court.560 It seems that the vice-chancellor of Oxford at least made a
show of complying with the pope’s command and remanded the heretical doctor to
Black Hall, but the imprisonment was only nominal.
Fortunately,
the pope might send forth his fulminations to bind and imprison but it was not
wholly in his power to hold the truth in bonds and to check the progress of
thought. In his letter to the chancellor of Oxford, Gregory alleged that Wyclif
was vomiting out of the filthy dungeon of his heart most wicked and damnable
heresies, whereby he hoped to pollute the faithful and bring them to the
precipice of perdition, overthrow the Church and subvert the secular estate.
The disturber was put into the same category with those princes among
errorists, Marsiglius of Padua and John of Jandun.561
The
archbishop’s court at Lambeth, before which the offender was now cited, was met
by a message from the widow of the Black Prince to stay the proceedings, and
the sitting was effectually broken up by London citizens who burst into the
hall. At Oxford, the masters of theology pronounced the nineteen condemned
propositions true, though they sounded badly to the ear. A few weeks later,
March, 1878, Gregory died, and the papal schism broke out. No further notice
was taken of Gregory’s ferocious bulls. Among other things, the nineteen
propositions affirmed that Christ’s followers have no right to exact temporal
goods by ecclesiastical censures, that the excommunications of pope and priest
are of no avail if not according to the law of Christ, that for adequate
reasons the king may strip the Church of temporalities and that even a pope may
be lawfully impeached by laymen.
With
the year 1378 Wyclif’s distinctive career as a doctrinal reformer opens. He had
defended English rights against foreign encroachment. He now assailed, at a
number of points, the theological structure the Schoolmen and mediaeval popes
had laboriously reared, and the abuses that had crept into the Church. The
spectacle of Christendom divided by two papal courts, each fulminating anathemas
against the other, was enough to shake confidence in the divine origin of the
papacy. In sermons, tracts and larger writings, Wyclif brought Scripture and
common sense to bear. His pen was as keen as a Damascus blade. Irony and
invective, of which he was the master, he did not hesitate to use. The
directness and pertinency of his appeals brought them easily within the
comprehension of the popular mind. He wrote not only in Latin but in English.
His conviction was as deep and his passion as fiery as Luther’s, but on the one
hand, Wyclif’s style betrays less of the vivid illustrative power of the great
German and little of his sympathetic warmth, while on the other, less of his
unfortunate coarseness. As Luther is the most vigorous tract writer that Germany
has produced, so Wyclif is the foremost religious pamphleteer that has arisen
in England; and the impression made by his clear and stinging thrusts may be
contrasted in contents and audience with the scholarly and finished tracts of
the Oxford movement led by Pusey, Keble and Newman, the one reaching the
conscience, the other appealing to the aesthetic tastes; the one adapted to
break down priestly pretension, the other to foster it.
But
the Reformer of the 14th century was more than a scholar and publicist. Like
John Wesley, he had a practical bent of mind, and like him he attempted to
provide England with a new proclamation of the pure Gospel. To counteract the
influence of the friars, whom he had begun to attack after his return from
Bruges, he conceived the idea of developing and sending forth a body of
itinerant evangelists. These "pore priests," as they were called,
were taken from the list of Oxford graduates, and seem also to have included
laymen. Of their number and the rules governing them, we are in the dark. The
movement was begun about 1380, and on the one side it associates Wyclif with
Gerrit de Groote, and on the other with Wesley and with his more recent
fellow-countryman, General Booth, of the Salvation Army.
Although
this evangelistic idea took not the form of a permanent organization, the
appearance of the pore preachers made a sensation. According to the old
chronicler, the disciples who gathered around him in Oxford were many and, clad
in long russet gowns of one pattern, they went on foot, ventilating their
master’s errors among the people and publicly setting them forth in sermons.562 They had the distinction of being
arraigned by no less a personage than Bishop Courtenay "as itinerant,
unauthorized preachers who teach erroneous, yea, heretical assertions publicly,
not only in churches but also in public squares and other profane places, and
who do this under the guise of great holiness, but without having obtained any
episcopal or papal authorization."
It
was in 1381, the year before Courtenay said his memorable words, that Walden
reports that Wyclif "began to determine matters upon the sacrament of the
altar."563 To attempt an
innovation at this crucial point required courage of the highest order. In 12
theses he declared the Church’s doctrine unscriptural and misleading. For the
first time since the promulgation of the dogma of transubstantiation by the
Fourth Lateran was it seriously called in question by a theological expert. It
was a case of Athanasius standing alone. The mendicants waxed violent. Oxford
authorities, at the instance of the archbishop and bishops, instituted a trial,
the court consisting of Chancellor Berton and 12 doctors. Without mentioning Wyclif
by name, the judges condemned as pestiferous the assertions that the bread and
wine remain after consecration, and that Christ’s body is present only
figuratively or tropically in the eucharist. Declaring that the judges had not
been able to break down his arguments, Wyclif went on preaching and lecturing
at the university. But in the king’s council, to which he made appeal, the duke
of Lancaster took sides against him and forbade him to speak any more on the
subject at Oxford. This prohibition Wyclif met with a still more positive
avowal of his views in his Confession, which closes with the noble words,
"I believe that in the end the truth will conquer."
The
same year, the Peasants’ Revolt broke out, but there is no evidence that Wyclif
had any more sympathy with the movement than Luther had with the Peasants’
Rising of 1525. After the revolt was over, he proposed that Church property be
given to the upper classes, not to the poor.564 The principles, however, which he enunciated were germs
which might easily spring up into open rebellion against oppression. Had he not
written, "There is no moral obligation to pay tax or tithe to bad rulers
either in Church or state. It is permitted to punish or depose them and to
reclaim the wealth which the clergy have diverted from the poor?" One hundred and fifty years after this
time, Tyndale said, "They said it in Wyclif’s day, and the hypocrites say
now, that God’s Word arouseth insurrection."565
Courtenay’s
elevation to the see of Canterbury boded no good to the Reformer. In 1382, he
convoked the synod which is known in English history as the Earthquake synod,
from the shock felt during its meetings. The primate was supported by 9
bishops, and when the earth began to tremble, he showed admirable courage by
interpreting it as a favorable omen. The earth, in trying to rid itself of its
winds and humors, was manifesting its sympathy with the body ecclesiastic.566 Wyclif, who was not present, made
another use of the occurrence, and declared that the Lord sent the earthquake
"because the friars had put heresy upon Christ in the matter of the
sacrament, and the earth trembled as it did when Christ was damned to bodily
death."567
The
council condemned 24 articles, ascribed to the Reformer, 10 of which were pronounced
heretical, and the remainder to be against the decisions of the Church.568 The 4 main subjects condemned as heresy
were that Christ is not corporally present in the sacrament, that oral
confession is not necessary for a soul prepared to die, that after Urban VI.’s
death the English Church should acknowledge no pope but, like the Greeks,
govern itself, and that it is contrary to Scripture for ecclesiastics to hold
temporal possessions. Courtenay followed up the synod’s decisions by summoning
Rygge, then chancellor of Oxford, to suppress the heretical teachings and
teachers. Ignoring the summons, Rygge appointed Repyngdon, another of Wyclif’s
supporters, to preach, and when Peter Stokys, "a professor of the sacred
page," armed with a letter from the archbishop, attempted to silence him,
the students and tutors at Oxford threatened the Carmelite with their drawn
swords.
But
Courtenay would permit no trifling and, summoning Rygge and the proctors to
Lambeth, made them promise on their knees to take the action indicated.
Parliament supported the primate. The new preaching was suppressed, but Wyclif
stood undaunted. He sent a Complaint of 4 articles to the king and parliament,
in which he pleaded for the supremacy of English law in matters of
ecclesiastical property, for the liberty for the friars to abandon the rules of
their orders and follow the rule of Christ, and for the view that on the Lord’s
table the real bread and wine are present, and not merely the accidents.569
The
court was no longer ready to support the Reformer, and Richard II. sent
peremptory orders to Rygge to suppress the new teachings. Courtenay himself
went to Oxford, and there is some authority for the view that Wyclif again met
the prelate face to face at St. Frideswides. Rigid inquisition was made for
copies of the condemned teacher’s writings and those of Hereford. Wyclif was
inhibited from preaching, and retired to his rectory at Lutterworth. Hereford,
Repyngdon, Aston and Bedeman, his supporters, recanted. The whole party
received a staggering blow and with it liberty of teaching at Oxford.570
Confined
to Lutterworth, Wyclif continued his labors on the translation of the Bible,
and sent forth polemic tracts, including the Cruciata,571 a vigorous
condemnation of the crusade which the bishop of Norwich, Henry de Spenser, was
preparing in support of Urban VI. against the Avignon pope, Clement VII. The
warlike prelate had already shown his military gifts during the Peasants’
Uprising. Urban had promised plenary indulgence for a year to all joining the
army. Mass was said and sermons preached in the churches of England, and large
sums collected for the enterprise. The indulgence extended to the dead as well
as to the living. Wyclif declared the crusade an expedition for worldly
mastery, and pronounced the indulgence "an abomination of desolation in
the holy place." Spenser’s
army reached the Continent, but the expedition was a failure. The most
important of Wyclif’s theological treatises, the Trialogus, was written in this
period. It lays down the principle that, where the Bible and the Church do not
agree, we must obey the Bible, and, where conscience and human authority are in
conflict, we must follow conscience.572
Two
years before his death, Wyclif received a paralytic stroke which maimed but did
not completely disable him. It is possible that he received a citation to
appear before the pope. With unabated rigor of conviction, he replied to the
supreme pontiff that of all men he was most under obligation to obey the law of
Christ, that Christ was of all men the most poor, and subject to mundane
authority. No Christian man has a right to follow Peter, Paul or any of the
saints except as they imitated Christ. The pope should renounce all worldly
authority and compel his clergy to do the same. He then asserted that, if in
these views he was found to err, he was willing to be corrected, even by death.
If it were in his power to do anything to advance these views by his presence
in Rome, he would willingly go thither. But God had put an obstacle in his way,
and had taught him to obey Him rather than man. He closed with the prayer that
God might incline Urban to imitate Christ in his life and teach his clergy to
do the same.
While
saying mass in his church, he was struck again with paralysis, and passed away
two or three days after, Dec. 29, 1384, "having lit a fire which shall
never be put out."573
Fuller, writing of his death, exclaims, "Admirable that a hare, so
often hunted with so many packs of dogs, should die quietly sitting in his
form."
Wyclif
was spare, and probably never of robust health, but he was not an ascetic. He
was fond of a good meal. In temper he was quick, in mind clear, in moral character
unblemished. Towards his enemies he was sharp, but never coarse or ribald.
William Thorpe, a young contemporary standing in the court of Archbishop
Arundel, bore testimony that "he was emaciated in body and well-nigh
destitute of strength, and in conduct most innocent. Very many of the chief men
of England conferred with him, loved him dearly, wrote down his sayings and
followed his manner of life."574
The
prevailing sentiment of the hierarchy was given by Walsingham, chronicler of
St. Albans, who characterized the Reformer in these words: "On the feast
of the passion of St. Thomas of Canterbury, John de Wyclif, that instrument of
the devil, that enemy of the Church, that author of confusion to the common
people, that image of hypocrites, that idol of heretics, that author of schism,
that sower of hatred, that coiner of lies, being struck with the horrible
judgment of God, was smitten with palsy and continued to live till St.
Sylvester’s Day, on which he breathed out his malicious spirit into the abodes
of darkness."
The
dead was not left in peace. By the decree of Arundel, Wyclif’s writings were
suppressed, and it was so effective that Caxton and the first English printers
issued no one of them from the press. The Lateran decree of February, 1413,
ordered his books burnt, and the Council of Constance, from whose members, such
as Gerson and D’Ailly, we might have expected tolerant treatment, formally
condemned his memory and ordered his bones exhumed from their resting-place and
"cast at a distance from the sepulchre of the church." The holy synod, so ran the decree,
"declares said John Wyclif to have been a notorious heretic, and
excommunicates him and condemns his memory as one who died an obstinate
heretic."575 In 1429, at the
summons of Martin IV., the decree was carried out by Flemmyng, bishop of
Lincoln.
The
words of Fuller, describing the execution of the decree of Constance, have
engraven themselves on the page of English history. "They burnt his bones
to ashes and cast them into Swift, a neighboring brook running hardby. Thus
this brook hath conveyed his ashes into Avon, Avon into Severn, Severn into the
narrow seas, they into the main ocean. And thus the ashes of Wicliffe are the
emblem of his doctrine, which now is dispersed the world over."
In
the popular judgment of the English people, John Wyclif, in company with John
Latimer and John Wesley, probably represents more fully than any other English
religious leader, independence of thought, devotion to conscience, solid
religious common sense, and the sound exposition of the Gospel. In the history
of the intellectual and moral progress of his people, he was the leading
Englishman of the Middle Ages.576
</div3> <div3 type = "Section"
n="41" title="Wyclif’s
Teachings">
§ 41.
Wyclif’s Teachings.
Wyclif’s
teachings lie plainly upon the surface of his many writings. In each one of the
eminent rôles he played, as schoolman, political reformer, preacher, innovator
in theology and translator of the Bible, he wrote extensively. His views show
progress in the direction of opposition to the mediaeval errors and abuses.
Driven by attacks, he detected errors which, at the outset, he did not clearly
discern. But, above all, his, study of the Scriptures forced upon him a system
which was in contradiction to the distinctively mediaeval system of theology.
His language in controversy was so vigorous that it requires an unusual effort
to suppress the impulse to quote at great length.
Clear
as Wyclif’s statements always are, some of his works are drawn out by much
repetition. Nor does he always move in a straight line, but digresses to this
side and to that, taking occasion to discuss at length subjects cognate to the
main matter he has in hand. This habit often makes the reading of his larger
works a wearisome task. Nevertheless, the author always brings the reader back
from his digression or, to use a modern expression, never leaves him
sidetracked.
I.
As a Schoolman.—Wyclif was beyond dispute the most eminent scholar who taught
for any length of time at Oxford since Grosseteste, whom he often quotes.577 He was read in Chrysostom, Augustine,
Jerome and other Latin Fathers, as well as in the mediaeval theologians from
Anselm to Duns Scotus, Bradwardine, Fitzralph and Henry of Ghent. His
quotations are many, but with increasing emphasis, as the years went on, he made
his final appeal to the Scriptures. He was a moderate realist and ascribed to
nominalism all theological error. He seems to have endeavored to shun the
determinism of Bradwardine, and declared that the doctrine of necessity does
not do away with the freedom of the will, which is so free that it cannot be
compelled. Necessity compels the creature to will, that is, to exercise his
freedom, but at that point he is left free to choose.578
II.
As a Patriot.—In this role the Oxford teacher took an attitude the very reverse
of the attitude assumed by Anselm and Thomas à Becket, who made the English
Church a servant to the pope’s will in all things. For loyalty to the
Hildebrandian theocracy, Anselm was willing to suffer banishment and à Becket
suffered death. In Wyclif, the mutterings of the nation, which had been heard
against the foreign regime from the days of William the Conqueror, and
especially since King John’s reign, found a stanch and uncompromising
mouthpiece. Against the whole system of foreign jurisdiction he raised his
voice, as also against the Church’s claim to hold lands, except as it
acknowledged the rights of the state. He also opposed the tenure of secular
offices by the clergy and, when Archbisbop Sudbury was murdered, declared that
he died in sin because he was holding the office of chancellor.
Wyclif’s
views on government in Church and state are chiefly set forth in the works on
Civil and Divine Lordship—De dominio divino, and De dominio civili — and in his
Dialogus.579 The Divine
Lordship discusses the title by which men hold property and exercise
government, and sets forth the distinction between sovereignty and stewardship.
Lordship is not properly proprietary. It is stewardship. Christ did not desire
to rule as a tenant with absolute rights, but in the way of communicating to
others.580 As to his
manhood, he was the most perfect of servants.
The
Civil Lordship opens by declaring that no one in mortal sin has a right to
lordship, and that every one in the state of grace has a real lordship over the
whole universe. All Christians are reciprocally lords and servants. The pope,
or an ecclesiastical body abusing the property committed to them, may be
deprived of it by the state. Proprietary right is limited by proper use. Tithes
are an expedient to enable the priesthood to perform its mission. The New
Testament does not make them a rule.
From
the last portion of the first book of the Civil Lordship, Gregory XI. drew most
of the articles for which Wyclif had to stand trial. Here is found the basis
for the charge ascribing to him the famous statement that God ought to obey the
devil. By this was meant nothing more than that the jurisdiction of every
lawful proprietor should be recognized.
III.
As a Preacher.—Whether we regard Wyclif’s constant activity in the pulpit, or
the impression his sermons made, he must be pronounced by far the most notable
of English preachers prior to the Reformation.581 294 of his English sermons and 224 of his Latin sermons have
been preserved. To these discourses must be added his English expositions of
the Lord’s prayer, the songs of the Bible, the seven deadly sins and other
subjects. With rare exceptions, the sermons are based upon passages of the New
Testament.
The
style of the English discourses is simple and direct. No more plainly did
Luther preach against ecclesiastical abuses than did the English Reformer. On
every page are joined with practical religious exposition stirring passages
rebuking the pope and worldly prelates. They are denounced as anti-christ and
the servants of the devil—the fiend—as they turn away from the true work of
pasturing Christ’s flock for worldly gain and enjoyment. The preacher condemns
the false teachings which are nowhere taught in the Scriptures, such as
pilgrimages and indulgences. Sometimes Wyclif seems to be inconsistent with
himself, now making light of fasting, now asserting that the Apostles commended
it; now disparaging prayers for the dead, now affirming purgatory. With special
severity do his sermons strike at the friars who preach out of avarice and
neglect to expose the sins of their hearers. No one is more idle than the rich
friars, who have nothing but contempt for the poor. Again and again in these
sermons, as in his other works, he urges that the goods of the friars be seized
and given to the needy classes. Wyclif, the preacher, was always the bold
champion of the layman’s rights.
His
work, The Pastoral Office, which is devoted to the duties of the faithful
minister, and his sermons lay stress upon preaching as the minister’s proper
duty. Preaching he declared the "highest service," even as Christ
occupied himself most in that work. And if bishops, on whom the obligation to
preach more especially rests, preach not, but are content to have true priests
preach in their stead, they are as those that murder Jesus. The same authority
which gave to priests the privilege of celebrating the sacrament of the altar
binds them to preach. Yea, the preaching of the Word is a more precious
occupation than the ministration of the sacraments.582
When
the Gospel was preached, as in Apostolic times, the Church grew. Above all
things, close attention should be given to Christ’s words, whose authority is
superior to all the rites and commandments of pope and friars. Again and again
Wyclif sets forth the ideal minister, as in the following description:—
"A
priest should live holily, in prayer, in desires and thought, in godly
conversation and honest teaching, having God’s commandments and His Gospel ever
on his lips. And let his deeds be so righteous that no man may be able with
cause to find fault with them, and so open his acts that he may be a true book
to all sinful and wicked men to serve God. For the example of a good life stirreth
men more than true preaching with only the naked word."
The
priest’s chief work is to render a substitute for Christ’s miracles by
converting himself and his neighbor to God’s law.583 The Sermon on the Mount, Wyclif pronounced sufficient for
the guidance of human life apart from any of the requirements and traditions of
men.
IV.
As a Doctrinal Reformer.—Wyclif’s later writings teem with denials of the
doctrinal tenets of his age and indictments against ecclesiastical abuses.
There could be no doubt of his meaning. Beginning with the 19 errors Gregory
XI. was able to discern, the list grew as the years went on. The Council of
Constance gave 45, Netter of Walden, fourscore, and the Bohemian John Lücke, an
Oxford doctor of divinity, 266. Cochlaeus, in writing against the Hussites,
went beyond all former computations and ascribed to Wyclif the plump sum of 303
heresies, surely enough to have forever covered the Reformer’s memory with
obloquy. Fuller suggests as the reason for these variations that some lists
included only the Reformer’s primitive tenets or breeders, and others reckoned
all the younger fry of consequence derived from them.
The
first three articles adduced by the Council of Constance584 had respect to the
Lord’s Supper, and charged Wyclif with holding that the substance of the bread
remains unchanged after the consecration, that Christ is not in the sacrament
of the altar in a real sense, and the accidents of a thing cannot remain after
its substance is changed. The 4th article accuses him with declaring that the
acts of bishop or priest in baptizing, ordaining and consecrating are void if
the celebrant be in a state of mortal sin. Then follow charges of other alleged
heresies, such as that after Urban VI. the papacy should be abolished, the
clergy should hold no temporal possessions, the friars should gain their living
by manual toil and not by begging, Sylvester and Constantine erred in endowing
the Church, the papal elections by the cardinals were an invention of the
devil, it is not necessary to salvation that one believe the Roman church to be
supreme amongst the churches and that all the religious orders were introduced
by the devil.
The
most of the 45 propositions represent Wyclif’s views with precision. They lie
on the surface of his later writings, but they do not exhaust his dissent from
the teachings and practice of his time. His assault may be summarized under
five heads: the nature of the Church, the papacy, the priesthood, the doctrine
of transubstantiation and the use of the Scriptures.
The
Church was defined in the Civil Lordship to be the body of the elect,—living,
dead and not yet born,—whose head is Christ. Scarcely a writing has come down
to us from Wyclif’s pen in which he does not treat the subject, and in his
special treatise on the Church, written probably in 1378, it is defined more
briefly as the body of all the elect—congregatio omnium predestinatorum. Of
this body, Christ alone is the head. The pope is the head of a local church.
Stress is laid upon the divine decree as determining who are the predestinate
and who the reprobate.585
Some
persons, he said, in speaking of "Holy Church, understand thereby prelates
and priests, monks and canons and friars and all that have the tonsure,—alle
men that han crownes,—though they live ever so accursedly in defiance of God’s
law." But so far from this
being true, all popes cardinals and priests are not among the saved. On the
contrary, not even a pope can tell assuredly that he is predestinate. This
knows no one on earth. The pope may be a prescitus, a reprobate. Such popes
there have been, and it is blasphemy for cardinals and pontiffs to think that
their election to office of itself constitutes a title to the primacy of the
Church. The curia is a nest of heretics if its members do not follow Christ, a
fountain of poison, the abomination of desolation spoken of in the sacred page.
Gregory XI. Wyclif called a terrible devil—horrendus diabolus. God in His mercy
had put him to death and dispersed his confederates, whose crimes Urban VI. had
revealed.586
Though
the English Reformer never used the terms visible and invisible Church, he made
the distinction. The Church militant, he said, commenting on John 10:26, is a
mixed body. The Apostles took two kinds of fishes, some of which remained in
the net and some broke away. So in the Church some are ordained to bliss and
some to pain, even though they live godly for a while.587 It is significant that in his English
writings Wyclif uses the term Christen men—Christian men—instead of the term
the faithful.
As
for the papacy, no one has used more stinging words against individual popes as
well as against the papacy as an institution than did Wyclif. In the treatises
of his last years and in his sermons, the pope is stigmatized as anti-Christ.
His very last work, on which he was engaged when death overtook him, bore the
title, Anti-christ, meaning the pope. He went so far as to call him the
head-vicar of the fiend.588
He saw in the papacy the revelation of the man of sin. The office is
wholly poisonous—totum papale officium venenosum. He heaped ridicule upon the
address "most holie fadir."
The pope is neither necessary to the Church nor is he infallible. If
both popes and all their cardinals were cast into hell, believers could be
saved as well without them. They were created not by Christ but by the devil.
The pope has no exclusive right to declare what the Scriptures teach, or
proclaim what is the supreme law. His absolutions are of no avail unless Christ
has absolved before. Popes have no more right to excommunicate than devils have
to curse. Many of them are damned—multi papae sunt dampnati. Strong as such
assertions are, it is probable that Wyclif did not mean to cast aside the
papacy altogether. But again and again the principle is stated that the
Apostolic see is to be obeyed only so far as it follows Christ’s law.589
As
for the interpretation of Matthew 16:18, Wyclif took the view that "the
rock" stands for Peter and every true Christian. The keys of the kingdom
of heaven are not metal keys, as popularly supposed, but spiritual power, and
they were committed not only to Peter, but to all the saints, "for alle
men that comen to hevene have these keies of God."590 Towards the pope’s
pretension to political functions, Wyclif was, if possible, more unsparing.
Christ paid tribute to Caesar. So should the pope. His deposition of kings is
the tyranny of the devil. By disregarding Peter’s injunction not to lord it
over God’s heritage, but to feed the flock, he and all his sect—tota secta —
prove themselves hardened heretics.
Constantine’s
donation, the Reformer pronounced the beginning of all evils in the Church. The
emperor was put up to it by the devil. It was his new trick to have the Church
endowed.591 Chapter after
chapter of the treatise on the Church calls upon the pope, prelates and priests
to return to the exercise of spiritual functions. They had become the prelates
and priests of Caesar. As the Church left Christ to follow Caesar, so now it
should abandon Caesar for Christ. As for kissing the pope’s toe, there it; no
foundation for it in Scripture or reason.
The
pope’s practice of getting money by tribute and taxation calls forth biting
invective. It was the custom, Wyclif said, to solemnly curse in the parish
churches all who clipped the king’s coins and cut men’s purses. From this it
would seem, he continued, that the proud and worldly priest of Rome and all his
advisers were the most cursed of clippers and out-purses,—cursed of clipperis
and purse-kerveris,—for they drew out of England poor men’s livelihoods and
many thousands of marks of the king’s money, and this they did for spiritual
favors. If the realm had a huge hill of gold, it would soon all be spent by
this proud and worldly priest-collector. Of all men, Christ was the most poor,
both in spirit and in goods and put from him all manner of worldly lordship.
The pope should leave his authority to worldly lords, and speedily advise his
clergy to do the same. I take it, as a matter of faith, that no man should
follow the pope, nor even any of the saints in heaven, except as they follow
Christ.592
The
priests and friars formed another subject of Wyclif’s vigorous attack. Clerics
who follow Christ are true priests and none other. The efficacy of their acts
of absolution of sins depends upon their own previous absolution by Christ. The
priest’s function is to show forgiveness, already pronounced by God, not to
impart it. It was, he affirmed, a strange and marvellous thing that prelates
and curates should "curse so faste," when Christ said we should bless
rather than reprove. A sentence of excommunication is worse than murder.
The
rule of auricular confession Wyclif also disparaged. True contrition of heart
is sufficient for the removal of sins. In Christ’s time confession of man to
man was not required. In his own day, he said, "shrift to God is put
behind; but privy (private) shrift, a new-found thing, is authorized as needful
for the soul’s health." He
set forth the dangers of the confessional, such as the unchastity of priests.
He also spoke of the evils of pilgrimages when women and men going together
promiscuously were in temptation of great "lecherie."593 Clerical celibacy, a subject the
Reformer seldom touched upon, he declared, when enforced, is against Scripture,
and as under the old law priests were allowed to marry, so under the new the
practice is never forbidden, but rather approved.
Straight
truth-telling never had a warmer champion than Wyclif. Addressing the clergy,
he devotes nearly a hundred pages of his Truth of Scripture to an elaboration
of this principle. Not even the most trifling sin is permissible as a means of
averting a greater evil, either for oneself or one’s neighbor. Under no
circumstances does a good intention justify a falsehood. The pope himself has
no right to tolerate or practice misrepresentation to advance a good cause. To
accomplish a good end, the priest dare not even make a false appeal to fear.
All lying is of itself sin, and no dispensation can change its character.594
The
friars called forth the Reformer’s keenest thrusts, and these increased in
sharpness as he neared the end of his life. Quotations, bearing on their vices,
would fill a large volume. Entire treatises against their heresies and
practices issued from his pen. They were slavish agents of the pope’s will;
they spread false views of the eucharist; they made merchandise of indulgences
and letters of fraternity which pretended to give the purchasers a share in
their own good deeds here and at the final accounting. Their lips were full of
lies and their hands of blood. They entered houses and led women astray; they
lived in idleness; they devoured England.595
The
Reformer had also a strong word to say on the delusion of the contemplative
life as usually practised. It was the guile of Satan that led men to imagine
their fancies and dreamings were religious contemplation and to make them an
excuse for sloth. John the Baptist and Christ both left the desert to live
among men. He also went so far as to demand that monks be granted the privilege
of renouncing the monkish rule for some other condition where they might be
useful.596
The
four mendicant orders, the Carmelites, Augustinians, Jacobites or Dominicans,
and Minorites or Franciscans gave their first letters to the word Caim, showing
their descent from the first murderer. Their convents, Wyclif called Cain’s castles.
His relentless indignation denounced them as the tail of the dragon, ravening
wolves, the sons of Satan, the emissaries of anti-christ and Luciferians and
pronounced them worse than Herod, Saul and Judas. The friars repeat that Christ
begged water at the well. It were to their praise if they begged water and
nothing else.597
With
the lighter hand of ridicule, Chaucer also held up the mendicants for
indictment. In the Prologue to his Canterbury Tales he represents the friar as
an—
... easy man to yeve penaunce,
Ther as
he wiste to have a good pitaunce
For
unto a powre order for to give
Is
signe that a man is well y-shrive.
* * * * * * *
His
wallet lay biforn him in his lappe
Bretful
of pardoun come from Rome all hoot,
A voys
he hadde as smal as hath a goot
Ne was
ther swich another pardonour
For in
his male he hadde a pilwe-beer [pillow]
Which
that, he seyde, was our Lady’s veyl:
And in
a glas he hadde a pigges bones.
Skeat’s ed., 4:7, 21.
If
it required boldness to attack the powerful body of the monks, it required
equal boldness to attack the mediaeval dogma of transubstantiation. Wyclif
himself called it a doctrine of the moderns and of the recent Church—novella
ecclesia. In his treatise on the eucharist, he praised God that he had been
delivered from its laughable and scandalous errors.598 The dogma of the transmutation of the
elements he pronounced idolatry, a lying fable. His own view is that of the
spiritual presence. Christ’s body, so far as its dimensions are concerned, is
in heaven. It is efficaciously or virtually in the host as in a symbol.599 This symbol
"represents"—vicarius est—the body.
Neither
by way of impanation nor of identification, much less by way of transmutation,
is the body in the host. Christ is in the bread as a king is in all parts of
his dominions and as the soul is in the body. In the breaking of the bread, the
body is no more broken than the sunbeam is broken when a piece of glass is
shattered: Christ is there sacramentally, spiritually,
efficiently—sacramentaliter, spiritualiter et virtualiter. Transubstantiation
is the greatest of all heresies and subversive of logic, grammar and all
natural science.600
The
famous controversy as to whether a mouse, partaking of the sacramental
elements, really partakes of Christ’s body is discussed in the first pages of
the treatise on the eucharist. Wyclif pronounces the primary assumption false,
for Christ is not there in a corporal manner. An animal, in eating a man, does
not eat his soul. The opinion that the priest actually breaks Christ’s body and
so breaks his neck, arms and other members, is a shocking error. What could be
more shocking,—horribilius,—he says, than that the priest should daily make and
consecrate the Lord’s body, and what more shocking than to be obliged to eat
Christ’s very flesh and drink his very blood. Yea, what could be thought of
more shocking than that Christ’s body may be burned or eructated, or that the
priest carries God in bodily form on the tips of his fingers. The words of
institution are to be taken in a figurative sense. In a similar manner, the
Lord spoke of himself as the seed and of the world as the field, and called
John, Elijah, not meaning that the two were one person. In saying, I am the
vine, he meant that the vine is a symbol of himself.
The
impossibility of the miracle of elemental transmutation, Wyclif based on the
philosophical principle that the substance of a thing cannot be separated from
its accidents. If accidents can exist by themselves, then it is impossible to
tell what a thing is or whether it exists at all. Transubstantiation would
logically demand transaccidentation, an expression the English Reformer used
before Luther. The theory that the accidents remain while the substance is
changed, he pronounced "grounded neither in holy writt ne reson ne wit but
only taughte by newe hypocritis and cursed heretikis that magnyfyen there own
fantasies and dremes."601
Another proof of Wyclif’s freedom of
mind was his assertion that the Roman Church, in celebrating the sacrament, has
no right to make a precise form of words obligatory, as the words of
institution differ in the different accounts of the New Testament. As for the
profitable partaking of the elements, he declared that the physical eating
profits nothing except the soul be fed with love. Announcing it as his
expectation that he would be set upon for his views, he closed his notable
treatise on the eucharist with the words, The truth of reason will prevail over
all things.
<foreign
lang="la">Super
omnia vincit veritas rationis.
</foreign>
In
these denials of the erroneous system of the mediaeval Church at its vital
points, Wyclif was far in advance of his own age and anticipated the views of
the Protestant Reformers.
</div3> <div3 type = "Section"
n="42" title="Wyclif and the Scriptures">
§ 42.
Wyclif and the Scriptures.
Wyclif’s
chief service for his people, next to the legacy of his own personality, was
his assertion of the supreme authority of the Bible for clergy and laymen alike
and his gift to them of the Bible in their own tongue. His statements, setting
forth the Scriptures as the clear and sufficient manual of salvation and
insisting that the literal sense gives their plain meaning, were as positive
and unmistakable as any made by Luther. In his treatise on the value and
authority of the Scriptures, with 1000 printed pages,602 more is said about the Bible as the
Church’s appointed guide-book than was said by all the mediaeval theologians
together. And none of the Schoolmen, from Anselm and Abaelard to Thomas Aquinas
and Duns Scotus, exalted it to such a position of preëminence as did he. With
one accord they limited its authority by coördinating with its contents
tradition, that is, the teachings of the Church. This man, with unexcelled
precision and cogency, affirmed its final jurisdiction, as the law of God,
above all authorities, papal, decretist or patristic. What Wyclif asserts in
this special treatise, he said over again in almost every one of his works,
English and Latin. If possible, he grew more emphatic as his last years went
on, and his Opus evangelicum, probably his very last writing, abounds in the
most positive statements language is capable of.
To
give the briefest outline of the Truth of Scripture will be to state in advance
the positions of the Protestant Reformers in regard to the Bible as the rule of
faith and morals. To Wyclif the Scriptures are the authority for every Catholic
tenet. They are the Law of Christ, the Law of God, the Word of God, the Book of
Life—liber vitae. They are the immaculate law of the Lord, most true, most
complete and most wholesome.603
All things necessary to belief for salvation are found in them. They are
the Catholic faith, the Christian faith,—fides christiana,—the primal rule of
human perfection, the primal foundation of the Christian proclamation.
This
book is the whole truth which every Christian should study.604 It is the measure and standard of all
logic. Logic, as in Oxford, changes very frequently, yea, every twenty years,
but the Scriptures are yea, yea and nay, nay. They never change. They stand to
eternity.605 All logic, all
law, all philosophy and all ethic are in them. As for the philosophy of the
pagan world, whatever it offers that is in accord with the Scriptures is true.
The religious philosophy which the Christian learns from Aristotle he learns
because it was taught by the authors of Scripture.606 The Greek thinker made mistakes, as
when he asserted that creation is eternal. In several places Wyclif confesses
that he himself had at one time been led astray by logic and the desire to win
fame, but was thankful to God that he had been converted to the full acceptance
of the Scriptures as they are and to find in them all logic.
All
through this treatise, and in other works, Wyclif contends against those who
pronounced the sacred writings irrational or blasphemous or abounding in errors
and plain falsehoods. Such detractors he labelled modern or recent
doctors—moderni novelli doctores. Charges such as these would seem well-nigh
incredible, if Wyclif did not repeat them over and over again. They remind us
of the words of the priest who told Tyndale, 150 years later, "It were
better to be without God’s laws than to be without the pope’s." What could be more
shocking,—horribilius,—exclaimed Wyclif, than to assert that God’s words are
false.607
The
supreme authority of the Scriptures appears from their contents, the beneficent
aim they have in view, and from the witness borne to them by Christ. God speaks
in all the books. They are one great Word of God. Every syllable of the two
Testaments is true, and the authors were nothing more than scribes or heralds.608 If any error seem to be found in them,
the error is due to human ignorance and perverseness. Nothing is to be believed
that is not founded upon this book, and to its teachings nothing is to be added.609
Wyclif
devotes much time to the principles of biblical exposition and brushes away the
false principles of the Fath-ers and Schoolmen by pronouncing the "literal
verbal sense" the true one. On occasion, in his sermons, he himself used
the other senses, but his sound judgment led him again and again to lay
emphasis upon the etymological meaning of words as final. The tropological,
anagogical and allegorical meanings, if drawn at all, must be based upon the
literal meaning. Wyclif confessed his former mistake of striving to distinguish
them with strict precision. There is, in fact, only one sense of Scripture, the
one God himself has placed in it as the book of life for the wayfaring man.610 Heresy is the contradiction of
Scripture. As for himself, Wyclif said, he was ready to follow its teachings,
even unto martyrdom, if necessary.611
For hundreds of years no eminent
teacher had emphasized the right of the laity to the Word of God. It was
regarded as a book for the clergy, and the interpretation of its meaning was
assumed to rest largely with the decretists and the pope. The Council of
Toulouse, 1229, had forbidden the use of the Bible to laymen. The condemned
sects of the 12th and 13th centuries, especially the Waldenses, had adopted
another rule, but their assailants, such as Alanus ab Insulis, had shown how
dangerous their principle was. Wyclif stood forth as the champion of an open
Bible. It was a book to be studied by all Christians, for "it is the whole
truth." Because it was given
to the Church, its teachings are free to every one, even as is Christ himself.612
To
withhold the Scriptures from the laity is a fundamental sin. To make them known
in the mother-tongue is the first duty of the priest. For this reason priests
ought always to be familiar with the language of the people. Wyclif held up the
friars for declaring it heresy to translate God’s law into English and make it
known to laymen. He argued against their position by referring to the gift of tongues
at Pentecost and to Jerome’s translation, to the practice of Christ and the
Apostles who taught peoples in their native languages and to the existence in
his own day of a French translation made in spite of all hindrances. Why, he
exclaims, "should not Englishmen do the same, for as the lords of England
have the Bible in French, it would not be against reason if they had the same
material in English." Through
an English Bible Englishmen would be enabled best "to follow Christ and
come to heaven."613
What could be more positive than the following words?
Christen
men and women, olde and young, shulden study fast in the New Testament, and no
simple man of wit shulde be aferde unmeasurably to study in the text of holy
Writ. Pride and covetise of clerks is cause of their blyndness and heresie and
priveth them fro verie understonding of holy Writ. The New Testament is of ful
autorite and open to understonding of simple men, as to the pynts that ben most
needful to salvation.
Wyclif
was the first to give the Bible to his people in their own tongue. He knew no
Hebrew and probably no Greek. His version, which was made from the Latin
Vulgate, was the outgrowth of his burning desire to make his English countrymen
more religious and more Christian. The paraphrastic translation of books which
proceeded from the pen of Richard Rolle and perhaps a verse of the New
Testament of Kentish origin and apparently made for a nunnery,614
must be considered as in no wise in conflict with the claim of priority made
for the English Reformer. In his task he had the aid of Nicolas Hereford, who
translated the Old Testament and the Apocryphal books as far as <scripRef
passage = "Baruch 3:20">Baruch 3:20</scripRef>. A revision was made of
Wyclif’s Bible soon after his death, by Purvey. In his prologue, Purvey makes
express mention of the "English Bible late translated," and affirms
that the Latin copies had more need of being corrected than it. One hundred and
seventy copies of these two English bibles are extant, and it seems strange
that, until the edition issued by Forshall and Madden in 1850, they remained
unprinted.615 The reason for
their not being struck off on the presses of Caxton and other early English
printers, who issued the Golden Legend, with its fantastic and often grewsome
religious tales, was that Wyclif had been pronounced a heretic and his version
of the Scriptures placed under the ban by the religious authorities in England.
A
manuscript preserved in the Bodleian, Forshall and Madden affirm to be without
question the original copy of Hereford himself. These editors place the dates
of the versions in 1382 and 1388. Purvey was a Lollard, who boarded under
Wyclif’s roof and, according to the contemporary chronicler, Knighton, drank
plentifully of his instructions. He was imprisoned, but in 1400 recanted, and
was promoted to the vicarage of Hythe. This preferment he resigned three years
later. He was imprisoned a second time by Archbishop Chichele, 1421, was alive
in 1427, and perhaps died in prison.
To
follow the description given by Knighton in his Chronicle, the gift of the
English Bible was regarded by Wyclif’s contemporaries as both a novel act and
an act of desecration. The irreverence and profanation of offering such a
translation was likened to the casting of pearls before swine. The passage in
Knighton, who wrote 20 years after Wyclif’s death, runs thus: —
The
Gospel, which Christ bequeathed to the clergy and doctors of the Church,—as
they in turn give it to lay and weaker persons,—this Master John Wyclif
translated out of the Latin into the Anglican tongue, not the Angelic tongue,
so that by him it is become common,—vulgare,—and more open to the lay folk and
to women, knowing how to read, than it used to be to clerics of a fair amount
of learning and of good minds. Thus, the Gospel pearl is cast forth and trodden
under foot of swine, and what was dear to both clergy and laity is now made a
subject of common jest to both, and the jewel of the clergy is turned into the
sport of the laity, so that what was before to the clergy and doctors of the
Church a divine gift, has been turned into a mock Gospel [or common thing].616
The
plain meaning of this statement seems to be that Wyclif translated at least
some of the Scriptures, that the translation was a novelty, and that the
English was not a proper language for the embodiment of the sacred Word. It was
a cleric’s book, and profane temerity, by putting it within the reach of the
laity, had vulgarized it.
The
work speedily received reprobation at the hands of the Church authorities. A
bill presented in the English parliament, 1891, to condemn English versions,
was rejected through the influence of the duke of Lancaster, but an Oxford
synod, of 1408, passed the ominous act, that upon pain of greater excommunication,
no man, by his own authority, should translate into English or any other
tongue, until such translation were approved by the bishop, or, if necessary,
by the provincial council. It distinctly mentions the translation "set
forth in the time of John Wyclif."
Writing to John XXIII., 1412, Archbishop Arundel took occasion to
denounce "that pestilent wretch of damnable memory, yea, the forerunner
and disciple of anti-christ who, as the complement of his wickedness, invented
a new translation of the Scriptures into his mother-tongue."617
In
1414, the reading of the English Scriptures was forbidden upon pain of
forfeiture "of land, cattle, life and goods from their heirs
forever." Such denunciations
of a common English version were what Wyclif’s own criticisms might have led us
to expect, and quite in consonance with the decree of the Synod of Toulouse,
1229, and Arundel’s reprobation has been frequently matched by prelatical
condemnation of vernacular translations of the Bible and their circulation down
to the papal fulminations of the 19th century against Bible societies, as by
Pius VII., 1816, who declared them "fiendish institutions for the
undermining of the foundation of religion." The position, taken by Catholic apologists, that the
Catholic hierarchy has never set itself against the circulation of the
Scriptures in the vernacular, but only against unauthorized translations, would
be adapted to modify Protestantism’s notion of the matter, if there were some
evidence of only a limited attempt to encourage Bible study among the laity of
the Catholic Church with the pages of Scripture open before them. If we go to
the Catholic countries of Southern Europe and to South America, where her away
has been unobstructed, the very opposite is true.
In
the clearest language, Wyclif charged the priestly authorities of his time with
withholding the Word of God from the laity, and denying it to them in the
language the people could understand. And the fact remains that, from his day
until the reign of Elizabeth, Catholic England did not produce any translations
of the Bible, and the English Reformers were of the opinion that the Catholic
hierarchy was irrevocably set against English versions. Tyndale had to flee
from England to translate his New Testament, and all the copies of the first
edition that could be collected were burnt on English soil. And though it is
alleged that Tyndale’s New Testament was burnt because it was an
"unauthorized" translation, it still remains true that the hierarchy
made no attempt to give the Bible to England until long after the Protestant
Reformation had begun and Protestantism was well established.
The
copies of Wyclif’s and Purvey’s versions seem to have been circulated in
considerable numbers in England, and were in the possession of low and high.
The Lollards cherished them. A splendid copy was given to the Carthusians of
London by Henry VI., and another copy was in the possession of Henry VII. Sir
Thomas More states distinctly that there was found in the possession of John
Hunne, who was afterwards burnt, a Bible "written after Wyclif’s copy and
by him translated into our tongue."618 While for a century and a half these volumes helped to keep
alive the spirit of Wyclif in England, it is impossible to say how far Wyclif’s
version influenced the Protestant Reformers. In fact, it is unknown whether
they used it at all. Some of its words, such as mote and beam and strait gate,
which are found in the version of the 16th century, seem to indicate, to say
the least, that these terms had become common property through the medium of
Wyclif’s version.619
The priceless heirloom which English-speaking peoples possess in the
English version and in an open Bible free to all who will read, learned and
unlearned, lay and cleric, will continue to be associated with the Reformer of
the 14th century. As has been said by one of the ablest of recent Wyclif
students, Buddensieg, the call to honor the Scriptures as the Word of God and
to study and diligently obey them, runs through Wyclif’s writings like a
scarlet thread.620
Without knowing it, he departed diametrically from Augustine when he
declared that the Scriptures do not depend for their authority upon the
judgment of the Church, but upon Christ.
In
looking over the career and opinions of John Wyclif, it becomes evident that in
almost every doctrinal particular did this man anticipate the Reformers. The
more his utterances are studied, the stronger becomes this conviction. He
exalted preaching; he insisted upon the circulation of the Scriptures among the
laity; he demanded purity and fidelity of the clergy; he denied infallibility
to the papal utterances, and went so far as to declare that the papacy is not
essential to the being of the Church. He defined the Church as the congregation
of the elect; he showed the unscriptural and unreasonable character of the
doctrine of transubstantiation; he pronounced priestly absolution a declarative
act. He dissented from the common notion about pilgrimages; he justified
marriage on biblical grounds as honorable among all men; he appealed for
liberty for the monk to renounce his vow, and to betake himself to some useful
work.
The
doctrine of justification by faith Wyclif did not state. However, he constantly
uses such expressions as, that to believe in Christ is life. The doctrine of
merit is denied, and Christ’s mediation is made all-sufficient. He approached
close to the Reformers when he pronounced "faith the supreme
theology,"—fides est summa theologia,—and that only by the study of the
Scriptures is it possible to become a Christian.621
Behind
all Wyclif’s other teaching is his devotion to Christ and his appeal to men to
follow Him and obey His law. It is scarcely an exaggeration to say that the
name of Christ appears on every page of his writings. To him, Christ was the
supreme philosopher, yea, the content of all philosophy.622
In
reaching his views Wyclif was, so far as we know, as independent as any teacher
can well be. There is no indication that he drew from any of the medieval
sects, as has been charged, nor from Marsiglius and Ockam. He distinctly states
that his peculiar views were drawn not from Ockam but from the Scriptures.623
The
Continental Reformers did not give to Wyclif the honor they gave to Huss. Had
they known more about him, they might have said more.624 Had Luther had access to the splendid
shelf of volumes issued by the Wyclif Society, he might have said of the
English Reformer what he said of Wessel’s Works when they were put into his
hands. The reason why no organized reformation followed Wyclif’s labors is best
given when we say, the time was not yet ripe. And, after all the parallelisms
are stated between his opinions and the doctrines of the Reformers, it will
remain true that, evangelical as he was in speech and patriotic as he was in
spirit, the Englishman never ceased to be a Schoolman. Luther was fully a man
of the new age.
Note.
– The Authorship of the First English Bible. Recently the priority of Wyclif’s
translation has been denied by Abbot Gasquet in two elaborate essays, The Old
English Bible, pp. 87–155. He also pronounces it to be very doubtful if Wyclif
ever translated any part of the Bible. All that can be attempted here is a
brief statement of the case. In addition to Knighton’s testimony, which seems
to be as plain as language could put it, we have the testimony of John Huss in
his Reply to the Carmelite Stokes, 1411, that Wyclif translated the whole Bible
into English. No one contends that Wyclif did as much as this, and Huss was no
doubt speaking in general terms, having in mind the originator of the work and
the man’s name connected with it. The doubt cast upon the first proposition,
the priority of Wyclif’s version, is due to Sir Thomas More’s statement in his
Dialogue, 1530, Works, p. 233. In controverting the positions of Tyndale and
the Reformers, he said, "The whole Bible was before Wyclif’s days, by
virtuous and well-learned men, translated into English and by good and godly
people, with devotion and soberness, well and reverently read." He also says that he saw such copies.
In considering this statement it seems very possible that More made a mistake
(1) because the statement is contrary to Knighton’s words, taken in their
natural sense and Huss’ testimony. (2) Because Wyclif’s own statements exclude
the existence of any English version before his own. (3) Because the Lollards
associated their Bible with Wyclif’s name. (4) Because before the era of the
Reformation no English writer refers to any translating except in connection
with Wyclif’s name and time. Sir Thomas More was engaged in controversy and
attempting to justify the position that the Catholic hierarchy had not been
opposed to translations of the Scriptures nor to their circulation among proper
classes of the laity. But Abbot Gasquet, after proposing a number of
conjectural doubts and setting aside the natural sense of Knighton’s and
Arundel’s statements, denies altogether the Wycliffite authorship of the Bible
ascribed to him and edited by Forshall and Madden, and performs the feat of
declaring this Bible one of the old translations mentioned by More. It must be
stated here, a statement that will be recalled later, that Abbot Gasquet is the
representative in England of the school of Janssen, which has endeavored to
show that the Catholic Church was in an orderly process of development before
Luther arose, and that Luther and the Reformers checked that development and
also wilfully misrepresented the condition of the Church of their day. Dr.
Gasquet, with fewer plausible facts and less literature at command than
Janssen, seeks to present the English Church’s condition in the later Middle
Ages as a healthy one. And this he does (1) by referring to the existence of an
English mediaeval literature, still in MSS., which he pronounces vast in its
bulk; (2) by absolutely ignoring the statements of Wyclif; (3) by setting aside
the testimonies of the English Reformers; (4) by disparaging the Lollards as a
wholly humble and illiterate folk. Against all these witnesses he sets up the
single witness, Sir Thomas More.
The
second proposition advocated by Dr. Gasquet that it is doubtful, and perhaps
very improbable, that Wyclif did nothing in the way of translating the Bible,
is based chiefly upon the fact that Wyclif does not refer to such a translation
anywhere in his writings. If we take the abbot’s own high priest among
authorities, Sir Thomas More, the doubt is found to be unjustifiable, if not
criminal. More, speaking of John Hunne, who was burnt, said that he possessed a
copy of the Bible which was "after a Wycliffite copy." Eadie, I. 6O sqq.; Westcott, Hist. of
the Eng. Bible. Gairdner who discusses the subject fairly in his Lollardy, I.
101–117, Capes, pp. 125–128, F. D. Matthew, in Eng. Hist. Rev., 1895, and Bigg,
Wayside Sketches, p. 127 sq., take substantially the position taken by the
author. Gasquet was preceded by Lingard, Hist. of Eng., IV. 196, who laid
stress upon More’s testimony to offset and disparage the honor given from time
immemorial to Wyclif in connection with the English Bible.
How
can a controversialist be deemed fair who, in a discussion of this kind, does
not even once refer to Wyclif’s well-known views about the value of a popular
knowledge of the Scriptures, and his urgency that they be given to all the
people through plain preaching and in translation? Dr. Gasquet’s attitude to "the strange personality of
Wyclif" may be gotten from these words, Old Eng. Bible, p. 88:
"Whatever we may hold as Catholics as to his unsound theological opinions,
about which there can be no doubt, or, as peace-loving citizens, about his wild
revolutionary social theories, on which, if possible, there can be less,"
etc.
The
following are two specimens of Wyclif’s versions:—
<scripRef passage = "Matt. 8:23–27">MATT. VIII. 23–27</scripRef>. And Jhesu steyinge vp in to a litel ship, his disciplis
sueden him. And loo! a grete steryng was made in the see, so that the litil
ship was hilid with wawis; but he slepte. And his disciplis camen nigh to hym,
and raysiden hym, sayinge, Lord, saue vs: we perishen. And Jhesus seith to hem,
What ben yhee of litil feith agast?
Thanne he rysynge comaundide to the wyndis and the see, and a grete
pesiblenesse is maad. Forsothe men wondreden, sayinge: What manere man is he
this, for the wyndis and the see obeishen to hym.
<scripRef passage = "Rom. 8:5–8">ROM. VIII. 5–8</scripRef>. For thei that ben aftir the fleisch saueren tho thingis that
ben of the fleisch, but thei that ben aftir the spirit felen tho thingis that
ben of the spirit. For the prudence of fleisch: is deeth, but the prudence of
spirit: is liif and pees. For the wisdom of fleische is enemye to God, for it
is not suget to the lawe of God: for nether it may. And thei that ben in
fleisch: moun not please to God.
</div3> <div3 type = "Section"
n="43" title="The Lollards">
§ 43.
The Lollards.
Although
the impulse which Wyclif started in England did not issue there in a compact or
permanent organization, it was felt for more than a century. Those who adopted
his views were known as Wycliffites or Lollards, the Lollards being associated
with the Reformer’s name by the contemporary chroniclers, Knighton and
Walsingham, and by Walden.625
The former term gradually gave way to the latter, which was used to
embrace all heretics in England.
The
term Lollards was transplanted to England from Holland and the region around
Cologne. As early as 1300 Lollard heretics were classed by the authorities with
the Beghards, Beguines, Fratricelli, Swestriones and even the Flagellants, as
under the Church’s ban. The origin of the word, like the term Huguenots, is a
matter of dispute. The derivation from the Hollander, "Walter
Lollard," who was burnt in Cologne, 1322, is now abandoned.626 Contemporaries derived it from
lolium,—tares,—and referred it to the false doctrine these sectarists were
sowing, as does Knighton, and probably also Chaucer, or, with reference to
their habit of song, from the Latin word laudare, to praise.627 The most natural derivation is from the
Low German, lullen or einlullen to sing to sleep, whence our English lullaby.
None of the Lollard songs have come down to us. Scarcely a decade after
Wyclif’s death a bull was issued by Boniface IX., 1396, against the
"Lullards or Beghards" of the Low Countries.
The
Wycliffite movement was suppressed by a rigid inquisition, set on foot by the
bishops and sanctioned by parliament. Of the first generation of these heretics
down to 1401, so far as they were brought to trial, the most, if not all, of
them recanted. The 15th century furnished a great number of Lollard trials and
a number of Lollard martyrs, and their number was added to in the early years
of the 16th century. Active measures were taken by Archbishop Courtenay; and
under his successor, Thomas, earl of Arundel, the full force of persecution was
let loose. The warlike bishop of Norwich, Henry Spenser, joined heartily in the
repressive crusade, swearing to put to death by the flames or by decapitation
any of the dissenters who might presume to preach in his diocese. The reason
for the general recantations of the first generation of Wyclif’s followers has
been found in the novelty of heresy trials in England and the appalling effect
upon the accused, when for the first time they felt themselves confronted with
the whole power of the hierarchy.628
In
1394, they were strong enough to present a petition in full parliament,
containing twelve Conclusions.629
These propositions called the Roman Church the stepmother of the Church
in England, declared that many who had priestly ordination were not ordained of
God, took up the evils growing out of enforced celibacy, denied Christ’s
material presence in the eucharist, condemned pilgrimages and image-worship,
and pronounced priestly confession and indulgences measures invented for the
profit of the clergy. The use of mitres, crosses, oil and incense was condemned
and also war, on the ground that warriors, after the first blood is let, lose
all charity, and so "go straight to hell." In addition to the Bible, the document quotes Wyclif’s
Trialogus by name.
From
about 1390 to 1425, we hear of the Lollards in all directions, so that the
contemporary chronicler was able to say that of every two men found on the
roads, one was sure to be a Lollard.630 With the accession of Henry IV. of Lancaster (1399–1413), a
severe policy was adopted. The culminating point of legislation was reached in
1401, when parliament passed the act for the burning of heretics, the first act
of the kind in England.631
The statute referred to the Lollards as a new sect, damnably thinking of
the faith of the Church in respect to the sacraments and, against the law of
God and the Church, usurping the office of preaching. It forbade this people to
preach, hold schools and conventicles and issue books. The violators were to be
tried in the diocesan courts and, if found guilty and refusing to abjure, were
to be turned over to the civil officer and burnt. The burning, so it was
stipulated, was to be on a high place where the punishment might be witnessed
and the onlookers be struck with fear.
The
most prominent personages connected with the earliest period of Wycliffism,
Philip Repyngdon, John Ashton, Nicolas Hereford and John Purvey, all recanted.
The last three and Wyclif are associated by Knighton as the four arch-heretics.
Repyngdon,
who had boldly declared himself at Oxford for Wyclif and his view of the
sacrament, made a full recantation, 1382. Subsequently he was in high favor,
became chancellor of Oxford, bishop of Lincoln and a cardinal, 1408. He showed
the ardor of his zeal by treating with severity the sect whose views he had
once espoused.
John
Ashton had been one of the most active of Wyclif’s preachers. In setting forth
his heretical zeal, Knighton describes him as "leaping up from his bed
and, like a dog, ready to bark at the slightest sound." He finally submitted in Courtenay’s
court, professing that he "believed as our modur, holy kirke, believes,"
and that in the sacrament the priest has in his hand Christ’s very body. He was
restored to his privileges as lecturer in Oxford, but afterwards fell again
into heretical company.632
Hereford,
Wyclif’s fellow-translator, appealed to Rome, was condemned there and cast into
prison. After two years of confinement, he escaped to England and, after being
again imprisoned, made his peace with the Church and died a Carthusian.
In
1389, nine Lollards recanted before Courtenay, at Leicester. The popular
preacher, William Swynderby, to whose sermons in Leicester the people flocked
from every quarter, made an abject recantation, but later returned to his old
ways, and was tried in 1891 and convicted. Whether he was burnt or died in
prison, Foxe says, he could not ascertain.
The
number suffering death by the law of 1401 was not large in the aggregate. The
victims were distributed through the 125 years down to the middle of Henry
VIII.’s reign. There were among them no clergymen of high renown like Ridley
and Latimer. The Lollards were an humble folk, but by their persistence showed
the deep impression Wyclif’s teachings had made. The first martyr, the poor
chaplain of St. Osythe, William Sawtré, died March 2, 1401, before the statute
for burning heretics was passed. He abjured and then returned again to his
heretical views. After trying him, the spiritual court ordered the mayor or
sheriff of London to "commit him to the fire that he be actually
burnt."633 The charges were
that he denied the material presence, condemned the adoration of the cross and
taught that preaching was the priesthood’s most important duty.
Among
other cases of burnings were John Badby, a tailor of Evesham, 1410, who met his
awful fate chained inside of a cask; two London merchants, Richard Turming and
John Claydon at Smithfield, 1415; William Taylor, a priest, in 1423 at Smithfield;
William White at Norwich, 1428; Richard Hoveden, a London citizen, 1430; Thomas
Bagley, a priest, in the following year; and in 1440, Richard Wyche, who had
corresponded with Huss. Peter Payne, the principal of St. Edmund’s College,
Oxford, took refuge in flight, 1417, and became a leader among the Hussites,
taking a prominent part as their representative at the Council of Basel.
According to Foxe there were, 1424–1480, 100 prosecutions for heresy in Norwich
alone. The menace was considered so great that, in 1427, Richard Flemmyng,
bishop of Lincoln, founded Lincoln College, Oxford, to counteract heresy. It
was of this college that John Wesley was a fellow, the man who made a great
breach in the Church in England.
The
case of William Thorpe, who was tried in 1397 and again before Arundel, 1407,
is of interest not only in itself, but for the statements that were made in the
second trial about Wyclif. The archbishop, after accusing Thorpe of having
travelled about in Northern England for 20 years, spreading the infection of
heresy, declared that he was called of God to destroy the false sect to which
the prisoner belonged, and pledged himself to "punish it so narrowly as
not to leave a slip of you in this land."634 Thorpe’s assertion that Wyclif was the greatest clerk of his
time evoked from Arundel the acknowledgment that he was indeed a great clerk
and, by the consent of many, "a perfect liver," but that many of the
conclusions of his learning were damned, as they ought to be.
Up
to the close of the 14th century, a number of laymen in high position at court
had favored Wycliffism, including Sir Lewis Clifford, Sir Richard Stury and Sir
John Clanvowe, all of the king’s council, Sir John Cheyne, speaker of the lower
house, the Lord Chancellor, Sir Thomas Erpingham and also the earl of
Salisbury.635 This support was
for the most part withdrawn when persecution took an active form. With Sir John
Oldcastle, otherwise known as Lord Cobham from his marriage with the heiress of
the Cobham estate, it was different. He held firm to the end, encouraged the
new preachers on his estates in Kent, and condemned the mass, auricular
confession and the worship of images. Arundel’s court, before which he appeared
after repeated citations, turned him over to the secular arm "to do him to
death." Oldcastle was
imprisoned in the Tower, but made his escape and was at large for four years.
In 1414, he was charged with being a party to an uprising of 20,000 Lollards
against the king. Declared an outlaw, he fled to Wales, where he was seized
three years later and taken to London to be hanged and burnt as a traitor and
heretic, Dec. 15, 1417.636
John Foxe saw in him "the blessed martyr of Christ, the good Lord
Cobham."
It
is a pleasant relief from these trials and puttings-to-death to find the
University of Oxford in 1406 bearing good testimony to the memory of its
maligned yet distinguished dead, placing on record its high sense of his purity
of life, power in preaching and diligence in studies. But fragrant as his
memory was held in Oxford, at least secretly, parliament was fixed in its
purpose to support the ecclesiastical authorities in stamping out his doctrine.
In 1414, it ordered the civil officer to take the initiative in ferreting out
heresy, and magistrates, from the Lord chancellor down, were called upon to use
their power in extirpating "all manner of heresies, errors and
lollardies." This oath
continued to be administered for two centuries, until Sir Edward Coke, Lord
High Sheriff of Buckinghamshire, refused to take it, with the name Lollard
included, insisting that the principles of Lollardy had been adopted by the
Church of England.637
Archbishop
Chichele seemed as much bent as his predecessor, Arundel, on clearing the realm
of all stain of heresy. In 1416 he enjoined his suffragans to inquire
diligently twice a year for persons under suspicion and, where they did not
turn them over to the secular court, to commit them to perpetual or temporary
imprisonment, as the nature of the case might require. It was about the same
time that an Englishman, at the trial of Huss in Constance, after a parallel
had been drawn between Wyclif’s views and those of the Bohemian, said, "By
my soul, if I were in your place I would abjure, for in England all the
masters, one after another, albeit very good men, when suspected of Wicliffism,
abjured at the command of the archbishop."638
Heresy
also penetrated into Scotland, James Resby, one of Wyclif’s poor priests, being
burnt at Perth, 1407, and another at Glasgow, 1422. In 1488, a Bohemian student
at St. Andrews, Paul Craw, suffered the same penalty for heresy.639 The Scotch parliament of 1425 enjoined
bishops to make search for heretics and Lollards, and in 1416 every master of
arts at St. Andrews was obliged to take an oath to defend the Church against
them.
Between
1450–1517, Lollardy was almost wholly restricted to the rural districts, and
little mention is made of it in contemporary records. At Amersham, one of its
centres, four were tried in 1462, and some suffered death, as William Barlowe
in 1466, and John Goose a few years later. In 1507, three were burnt there,
including William Tylsworth, the leading man of the congregation. At the
crucial moment he was deserted by the members, and sixty of them joined in
carrying fagots for his burning. This time of recantation continued to be known
in the district as the Great Abjuration. The first woman to suffer martyrdom in
England, Joan Broughton, was burnt at Smithfield, 1494, as was also her
daughter, Lady Young. Nine Lollards made public penance at Coventry, 1486, but,
as late as 1519, six men and one woman suffered death there. Foxe also mentions
William Sweeting and John Brewster as being burnt at Smithfield, 1511, and John
Brown at Ashford the same year. How extensively Wyclif’s views continued to be
secretly held and his writings read is a matter of conjecture. Not till 1559
was the legislation directed against Lollardy repealed.
Our
knowledge of the tenets and practices of the Lollards is derived from their
Twelve Conclusions and other Lollard documents, the records of their trials and
from the Repressor for over-much Blaming of the Clergy, an English treatise
written by Dr. Pecock, bishop of Chichester, and finished 1455. Inclined to
liberal thought, Bishop Pecock assumed a different attitude from Courtenay,
Arundel and other prelates, and sought by calm reasoning to win the Lollards
from their mistakes. He mentioned the designation of Known Men—<scripRef passage
= "1 Cor. 14:38">1 Cor. 14:38</scripRef>, <scripRef passage = "2 Tim.
2:19">2
Tim. 2:19</scripRef>—as being one of old
standing for them, and he also calls them "the lay party" or
"the Bible Men." He
proposed to consider their objections against 11 customs and institutions, such
as the worship of images, pilgrimages, landed endowments for the church,
degrees of rank among the clergy, the religious orders, the mass, oaths and
war. Their tenet that no statute is valid which is not found in the Scriptures
he also attempted to confute. In advance of his age, the bishop declared that
fire, the sword and hanging should not be resorted to till the effort had been
made "by clene wit to draw the Lollards into the consent of the true
faith." His sensible counsel
brought him into trouble, and in 1457 he was tried by Archbishop Bouchier and
offered the alternative of burning or public recantation. Pecock chose the
latter, and made abjuration at St. Paul’s Cross before the archbishop and
thousands of spectators. He was clothed in full episcopal robes, and delivered
up 14 of his writings to be burnt.640 He was forced to resign his see, and in 1459 was, at the
pope’s instance, remanded to close confinement in Thorney Abbey. His Repressor
had been twice burnt in Oxford.
There
seems to have been agreement among the Lollards in denying the material
presence of Christ in the eucharistic bread and in condemning pilgrimages, the
worship of images and auricular confession. They also held to the right of the
people to read the Scriptures in their own tongue.641 The expression, God’s law, was widely
current among them, and was opposed to the canon law and the decisions of the
Church courts. Some denied purgatory, and even based their salvation on faith,642
the words, "Thy faith hath saved thee," being quoted for this view.
Some denied that the marriage bond was dependent upon the priest’s act, and
more the scriptural warrant and expediency of priestly celibacy.643
Lollardy
was an anticipation of the Reformation of the sixteenth century, and did
something in the way of preparing the mind of the English people for that
change. Professed by many clerics, it was emphatically a movement of laymen. In
the early Reformation period, English Lutherans were at times represented as
the immediate followers of Wyclif. Writing in 1523 to Erasmus, Tonstall, bishop
of London, said of Lutheranism that "it was not a question of some
pernicious novelty, but only that new arms were being added to the great band
of Wycliffite heretics."644
</div3> <div3 type = "Section"
n="44" title="John Huss of Bohemia">
§ 44.
John Huss of Bohemia.
Across
the seas in Bohemia, where the views of Wyclif were transplanted, they took
deeper root than in England, and assumed an organized form. There, the English
Reformer was called the fifth evangelist and, in its earlier stages, the
movement went by the name of Wycliffism. It was only in the later periods that
the names Hussites and Hussitism were substituted for Wycliffites and
Wycliffism. Its chief spokesmen were John Huss and Jerome of Prag, who died at
the stake at Constance for their avowed allegiance to Wyclif.
Through
Huss, Prag became identified with a distinct stage in the history of religious
progress. Distinguished among its own people as the city of St. John of
Nepomuk, d. 1383, and in the history of armies as the residence of Wallenstein,
the Catholic leader in the Thirty Years’ War, Prag is known in the Western
world pre-eminently as the home of Huss. Through his noble advocacy, the
principles enunciated by Wyclif became the subject of discussion in oecumenical
councils, called forth armed crusades and furnished an imposing spectacle of
steadfast resistance against religious oppression. Wycliffism passed out of
view in England; but Hussitism, in spite of the most bitter persecution by the
Jesuits, has trickled down in pure though small streamlets into the religious
history of modern times, notably through the Moravians of Herrnhut.
During
the reign of Charles IV., king of Bohemia and emperor, 1346–1378, the Bohemian
kingdom entered upon the
[picture
with title below]
John
Huss of Bohemia
golden
era of its literary and religious history. In 1344, the archbishopric of Prag
was created, and the year 1347 witnessed an event of far more than local
importance in the founding of the University of Prag. The first of the German
universities, it was forthwith to enter upon the era of its brightest fame. The
Czech and German languages were spoken side by side in the city, which was
divided, at the close of the 14th century into five quarters. The Old Town,
inhabited chiefly by Germans, included the Teyn church, the Carolinum, the
Bethlehem chapel and the ancient churches of St. Michael and St. Gallus. Under
the first archbishop of Prag, Arnest of Pardubitz, and his successor Ocko of
Wlaschim, a brave effort was made to correct ecclesiastical abuses. In 1355,
the demand for popular instruction was recognized by a law requiring parish priests
to preach in the Czech. The popular preachers, Konrad of Waldhausen, d. 1369,
Militz of Kremsier, d. 1874, and Matthias of Janow, d. 1394, made a deep
impression. They quoted at length from the Scriptures, urged the habit of
frequent communion, and Janow, as reported by Rokyzana at the Council of Basel,
1433, seems to have administered the cup to the laity.645 When John Huss entered upon his career
in the university, he was breathing the atmosphere generated by these fervent
evangelists, although in his writings he nowhere quotes them.
Close
communication between England and Bohemia had been established with the
marriage of the Bohemian king Wenzel’s sister, Anne of Luxemburg, to Richard
II., 1382. She was a princess of cultivated tastes, and had in her possession
copies of the Scriptures in Latin, Czech and German. Before this nuptial event,
the philosophical faculty of the University of Prag, in 1367, ordered its
bachelors to add to the instructions of its own professors the notebooks of
Paris and Oxford doctors. Here and there a student sought out the English
university, or even went so far as the Scotch St. Andrews. Among those who
studied in Oxford was Jerome of Prag. Thus a bridge for the transmission of
intellectual products was laid from Wyclif’s lecture hall to the capital on the
Moldau.646 Wyclif’s views
and writings were known in Bohemia at an early date. In 1381 a learned Bohemian
theologian, Nicolas Biceps, was acquainted with his leading principles and made
them a subject of attack. Huss, in his reply to the English Carmelite, John
Stokes, 1411, declared that he and the members of the university had had
Wyclif’s writings in their hands and been reading them for 20 years and more.647 Five copies are extant of these
writings, made in Huss’ own hand, 1398. They were carried away in the Thirty
Years’ War and are preserved in the Royal Library of Stockholm.
John
Huss was born of Czech parents, 1369, at Husinec in Southern Bohemia. The word
Hus means goose, and its distinguished bearer often applied the literal meaning
to himself. For example, he wrote from Constance expressing the hope that the
Goose might be delivered from prison, and he bade the Bohemians, "if they
loved the Goose," to secure the king’s aid in having him released. Friends
also referred to him in the same way.648 His parents were poor and, during his studies in the
University of Prag, he supported himself by singing and manual services. He
took the degree of bachelor of arts in 1393 and of divinity a year later. In
1396 he incepted as master of arts, and in 1398 began delivering lectures in
the university. In 1402 he was chosen rector, filling the office for six
months.
With
his academic duties Huss combined the activity of a preacher, and in 1402 was
appointed to the rectorship of the Chapel of the Holy Innocents of Bethlehem.
This church, usually known as the Bethlehem church, was founded in 1391 by two
wealthy laymen, with the stipulation that the incumbent should preach every
Sunday and on festival days in Czech. It was made famous by its new rector as
the little church, Anastasia, in Constantinople, was made famous in the fourth
century by Gregory of Nazianzus, and by his discourses against the Arian
heresy.
As
early as 1402, Huss was regarded as the chief exponent and defender of
Wycliffian views at the university. Protests, made by the clergy against their
spread, took definite form in 1403, when the university authorities condemned
the 24 articles placed under the ban by the London council of 1382. At the same
time 21 other articles were condemned, which one of the university masters,
John Hübner, a Pole, professed to have extracted from the Englishman’s
writings. The decision forbade the preaching and teaching of these 45 articles.
Among Wyclif’s warm defenders were Stanislaus of Znaim and Stephen Paletz. The
subject which gave the most offence was his doctrine of the Lord’s Supper.
A
distinct stage in the religious controversies agitating Bohemia was introduced
by the election of Sbinko of Hasenburg to the see of Prag, 1403. In the earlier
years of his administration Huss had the prelate’s confidence, held the post of
synodal preacher and was encouraged to bring to the archbishop’s notice abuses
that might be reformed. He was also appointed one of a commission of three to
investigate the alleged miracles performed by the relic of Christ’s blood at
Wylsnak and attracting great throngs. The report condemned the miracles as a
fraud. The matter, however, became subject of discussion at the university and
as far away as Vienna and Erfurt, the question assuming the form whether Christ
left any of his blood on the earth. In a tract entitled the Glorification of
all Christ’s Blood,649 Huss took the negative side. In spite of him
and of the commission’s report, the miracles at Wylsnak went on, until, in
1552, a zealous Lutheran broke the pyx which held the relic and burnt it.
So
extensive was the spread of Wycliffism that Innocent VII., in 1405, called upon
Sbinko to employ severe measures to stamp it out and to seize Wyclif’s
writings. The same year a Prag synod forbade the propaganda of Wyclif’s views
and renewed the condemnation of the 45 articles. Three years later Huss—whose
activity in denouncing clerical abuses and advocating Wyclif’s theology knew no
abatement—was deposed from the position of synodal preacher. The same year the
University authorities, at the archbishop’s instance, ordered that no public
lectures should be delivered on Wyclif’s Trialogus and Dialogus and his
doctrine of the Supper, and that no public disputation should concern itself
with any of the condemned 45 articles.
The
year following, 1409, occurred the emigration from the university of the three
nations, the Bavarians, Saxons and Poles, the Czechs alone being left. The
bitter feeling of the Bohemians had expressed itself in the demand for three
votes, while the other nations were to be restricted to one each. When Wenzel
consented to this demand, 2000 masters and scholars withdrew, the Germans going
to Leipzig and founding the university of that city. The University of Prag was
at once reduced to a provincial school of 500 students, and has never since
regained its prestige.650
Huss,
a vigorous advocate of the use of the Czech, was the recognized head of the
national movement at the university, and chosen first rector under the new
régime. If possible, his advocacy of Wyclif and his views was more bold than
before. From this time forth, his Latin writings were filled with excerpts from
the English teacher and teem with his ideas. Wyclif’s writings were sown
broadcast in Bohemia. Huss himself had translated the Trialogus into Czech.
Throngs were attracted by preaching. Wherever, wrote Huss in 1410, in city or
town, in village or castle, the preacher of the holy truth made his appearance,
the people flocked together in crowds and in spite of the clergy.651
Following
a bull issued by Alexander V., Sbinko, in 1410, ordered Wyclif’s writings
seized and burnt, and forbade all preaching in unauthorized places. The papal
document called forth the protest of Huss and others, who appealed to John
XXIII. by showing the absurdity of burning books on philosophy, logic and other
non-theological subjects, a course that would condemn the writings of Aristotle
and Origen to the flames. The protest was in vain and 200 manuscript copies of
the Reformer’s writings were cast into the flames in the courtyard of the
archiepiscopal palace amidst the tolling of the church bells.652
Two
days after this grewsome act, the sentence of excommunication was launched
against Huss and all who might persist in refusing to deliver up Wyclif’s
writings. Defying the archbishop and the papal bull, Huss continued preaching
in the Bethlehem chapel. The excitement among all classes was intense and men
were cudgelled on the streets for speaking against the Englishman. Satirical
ballads were sung, declaring that the archbishop did not know what was in the
books he had set fire to. Huss’ sermons, far from allaying the commotion, were
adapted to increase it.
Huss
had no thought of submission and, through handbills, announced a defence of
Wyclif’s treatise on the Trinity before the university, July 27. But his case
had now passed from the archbishop’s jurisdiction to the court of the curia,
which demanded the offender’s appearance in person, but in vain. In spite of
the appeals of Wenzel and many Bohemian nobles who pledged their honor that he
was no heretic, John XXIII. put the case into the hands of Cardinal Colonna,
afterwards Martin V., who launched the ban against Huss for his refusal to
comply with the canonical citation.
Colonna’s
sentence was read from all the pulpits of Prag except two. But the offensive
preaching continued, and Sbinko laid the city under the interdict, which,
however, was withdrawn on the king’s promise to root out heresy from his realm.
Wenzel gave orders that "Master Huss, our beloved and faithful chaplain,
be allowed to preach the Word of God in peace." According to the agreement, Sbinko was also to write to the
pope assuring him that diligent inquisition had been made, and no traces of
heresy were to be found in Bohemia. This letter is still extant, but was never
sent.
Early
in September, 1411, Huss wrote to John XXIII. protesting his full agreement
with the Church and asking that the citation to appear before the curia be
revoked. In this communication and in a special letter to the cardinals653
Huss spoke of the punishment for heresy and insubordination. He, however, wrote
to John that he was bound to speak the truth, and that he was ready to suffer a
dreadful death rather than to declare what would be contrary to the will of
Christ and his Church. He had been defamed, and it was false that he had
expressed himself in favor of the remanence of the material substance of the
bread after the words of institution, and that a priest in mortal sin might not
celebrate the eucharist. Sbinko died Sept. 28, 1411. At this juncture the
excitement was increased by the arrival in Prag of John Stokes, a Cambridge
man, and well known in England as an uncompromising foe of Wycliffism. He had
come with a delegation, sent by the English king, to arrange an alliance with
Sigismund. Stokes’ presence aroused the expectation of a notable clash, but the
Englishman, although he ventilated his views privately, declined Huss’
challenge to a public disputation on the ground that he was a political
representative of a friendly nation.654
The
same year, 1411, John XXIII. called Europe to a crusade against Ladislaus of
Naples, the defender of Gregory XII., and promised indulgence to all
participating in it, whether by personal enlistment or by gifts. Tiem, dean of
Passau, appointed preacher of the holy war, made his way to Prag and opened the
sale of indulgences. Chests were placed in the great churches, and the traffic
was soon in full sway. As Wyclif, thirty years before, in his Cruciata, had
lifted up his voice against the crusade in Flanders, so now Huss denounced the
religious war and denied the pope’s right to couple indulgences with it. He
filled the Bethlehem chapel with denunciations of the sale and, in a public
disputation, took the ground that remission of sins comes through repentance
alone and that the pope has no authority to seize the secular sword. Many of
his paragraphs were taken bodily from Wyclif’s works on the Church and on the
Absolution from guilt and punishment.655 Huss was supported by Jerome of Prag.
Popular
opinion was on the side of these leaders, but from this time Huss’ old friends,
Stanislaus of Znaim and Stephen Paletz, walked no more with him. Under the
direction of Wok of Waldstein, John’s two bulls, bearing on the crusade and
offering indulgence, were publicly burnt, after being hung at the necks of two
students, dressed as harlots, and drawn through the streets in a cart.656 Huss was still writing that he abhorred
the errors ascribed to him, but the king could not countenance the flagrant
indignity shown to the papal bulls, and had three men of humble position
executed, Martin, John and Stanislaus. They had cried out in open church that
the bulls were lies, as Huss had proved. They were treated as martyrs, and
their bodies taken to the Bethlehem chapel, where the mass for martyrs was said
over them.
To
reaffirm its orthodoxy, the theological faculty renewed its condemnation of the
45 articles and added 6 more, taken from Huss’ public utterances. Two of the
latter bore upon preaching.657
The clergy of Prag appealed to be protected "from the ravages of
the wolf, the Wycliffist Hus, the despiser of the keys," and the curia
pronounced the greater excommunication. The heretic was ordered seized,
delivered over to the archbishop, and the Bethlehem chapel razed to the ground.
Three stones were to be hurled against Huss’ dwelling, as a sign of perpetual
curse. Thus the Reformer had against him the archbishop, the university, the
clergy and the curia, but popular feeling remained in his favor and prevented
the papal sentence from being carried out. The city was again placed under the
interdict. Huss appealed from the pope and, because a general council’s action
is always uncertain and at best tardy, looked at once to the tribunal of
Christ. He publicly asserted that the pope was exercising prerogatives received
from the devil.
To
allay the excitement, Wenzel induced Huss to withdraw from the city. This was
in 1412. In later years Huss expressed doubts as to whether he had acted wisely
in complying. He was moved not only by regard for the authority of his royal
protector but by sympathy for the people whom the interdict was depriving of
spiritual privileges. Had he defied the sentence and refused compliance with
the king’s request, it is probable he would have lost the day and been silenced
in prison or in the flames in his native city. In this case, the interest of
his career would have been restricted to the annals of his native land, and no
place would have been found for him in the general history of Europe. So Huss
went into exile, but there was still some division among the ecclesiastical
authorities of the kingdom over the merits of Wycliffism, and a national synod,
convoked February 13, 1413, to take measures to secure peace, adjourned without
coming to a decision.
Removed
from Prag, Huss was indefatigable in preaching and writing. Audiences gathered
to hear him on the marketplaces and in the fields and woods. Lords in their
strong castles protected him. Following Wyclif, he insisted upon preaching as
the indefeasible right of the priest, and wrote that to cease from preaching,
in obedience to the mandate of pope or archbishop, would be to disobey God and
imperil his own salvation.658
He also kept in communication with the city by visiting it several times
and by writing to the Bethlehem chapel, the university and the municipal synod.
This correspondence abounds in quotations from the Scriptures, and Huss reminds
his friends that Christ himself was excommunicated as a malefactor and
crucified. No help was to be derived from the saints. Christ’s example and his
salvation are the sufficient sources of consolation and courage. The high
priests, scribes, Pharisees, Herod and Pilate condemned the Truth and gave him
over to death, but he rose from the tomb and gave in his stead twelve other
preachers. So he would do again. What fear, he wrote, "shall part us from
God, or what death? What shall we
lose if for His sake we forfeit wealth, friends, the world’s honors and our
poor life?... It is better to die well than to live badly. We dare not sin to
avoid the punishment of death. To end in grace the present life is to be
banished from misery. Truth is the last conqueror. He wins who is slain, for no
adversity "hurts him if no iniquity has dominion over him." In this strain he wrote again and
again. The "bolts of anti-christ," he said, could not terrify him,
and should not terrify the "elect of Prag."659
Of
the extent of Huss’ influence during this period he bore witness at Constance
when, in answer to D’Ailly, he said:
I
have stated that I came here of my own free will. If I had been unwilling to
come, neither that king [referring to Wenzel] nor this king here [referring to
Sigismund] would have been able to force me to come, so numerous and so
powerful are the Bohemian nobles who love me, and within whose castles I should
have been able to lie concealed.
And
when D’Ailly rebuked the statement as effrontery, John of Chlum replied that it
was even as the prisoner said, "There are numbers of great nobles who love
him and have strong castles where they could keep him as long as they wished,
even against both those kings."
The
chief product of this period of exile was Huss’ work on the Church, De
ecclesia, the most noted of all his writings. It was written in view of the
national synod held in 1413, and was sent to Prag and read in the Bethlehem
chapel, July 8. Of this tractate Cardinal D’Ailly said at the Council of Constance
that by an infinite number of arguments, it combated the pope’s plenary
authority as much as the Koran, the book of the damned Mohammed, combated the
Catholic faith.660
In
this volume, next to Wyclif’s, the most famous treatment on the Church since
Cyprian’s work, De ecclesia, and Augustine’s writings against the Donatists,
Huss defined the Church and the power of the keys, and then proceeds to defend
himself against the fulminations of Alexander V. and John XXIII. and to answer
the Prag theologians, Stephen Paletz and Stanislaus of Znaim, who had deserted
him. The following are some of its leading positions.
The
Holy Catholic Church is the body or congregation of all the predestinate, the
dead, the living and those yet to be.661 The term ’catholic’ means universal. The unity of the Church
is a unity of predestination and of blessedness, a unity of faith, charity and
grace. The Roman pontiff and the cardinals are not the Church. The Church can
exist without cardinals and a pope, and in fact for hundreds of years there
were no cardinals.662
As for the position Christ assigned to Peter, Huss affirmed that Christ
called himself the Rock, and the Church is founded on him by virtue of
predestination. In view of Peter’s clear and positive confession, "the
Rock—Petra — said to Peter—Petro — ’I say unto thee, Thou art Peter, that is, a
confessor of the true Rock which Rock I am.’ And upon the Rock, that is, myself, I will build this
Church." Thus Huss placed
himself firmly on the ground taken by Augustine in his Retractations. Peter
never was the head of the Holy Catholic Church.663
He
thus set himself clearly against the whole ultramontane theory of the Church
and its head. The Roman bishop, he said, was on an equality with other bishops
until Constantine made him pope. It was then that he began to usurp authority.
Through ignorance and the love of money the pope may err, and has erred, and to
rebel against an erring pope is to obey Christ.664 There have been depraved and heretical popes. Such was Joan,
whose case Huss dwelt upon at length and refers to at least three times. Such
was also the case of Liberius, who is also treated at length. Joan had a son
and Liberius was an Arian.665
In
the second part of the De ecclesia, Huss pronounced the bulls of Alexander and
John XXIII. anti-christian, and therefore not to be obeyed. Alexander’s bull,
prohibiting preaching in Bohemia except in the cathedral, parish and monastic
churches was against the Gospel, for Christ preached in houses, on the seaside,
and in synagogues, and bade his disciples to go into all the world and preach.
No papal excommunication may be an impediment to doing what Christ did and
taught to be done.666
Turning
to the pope’s right to issue indulgences, the Reformer went over the ground he
had already traversed in his replies to John’s two bulls calling for a crusade
against Ladislaus. He denied the pope’s right to go to war or to make appeal to
the secular sword. If John was minded to follow Christ, he should pray for his
enemies and say, "My kingdom is not of this world." Then the promised wisdom would be given
which no enemies would be able to gainsay. The power to forgive sins belongs to
no mortal man anymore than it belonged to the priest to whom Christ sent the
lepers. The lepers were cleansed before they reached the priest. Indeed, many
popes who conceded the most ample indulgences were themselves damned.667 Confession of the heart alone is
sufficient for the soul’s salvation where the applicant is truly penitent.
In
denying the infallibility of the pope and of the Church visible, and in setting
aside the sacerdotal power of the priesthood to open and shut the kingdom of
heaven, Huss broke with the accepted theory of Western Christendom; he
committed the unpardonable sin of the Middle Ages. These fundamental ideas,
however, were not original with the Bohemian Reformer. He took them out of
Wyclif’s writings, and he also incorporated whole paragraphs of those writings
in his pages. Teacher never had a more devoted pupil than the English Reformer
had in Huss. The first three chapters of De ecclesia are little more than a
series of extracts from Wyclif’s treatise on the Church. What is true of this
work is also true of most of Huss’ other Latin writings.668 Huss, however, was not a mere copyist.
The ideas he got from Wyclif he made thoroughly his own. When he quoted
Augustine, Bernard, Jerome and other writers, he mentioned them by name. If he
did not mention Wyclif, when he took from him arguments and entire paragraphs,
a good reason can be assigned for his silence. It was well known that it was
Wyclif’s cause which he was representing and Wycliffian views that he was
defending, and Wyclif’s writings were wide open to the eye of members of the
university faculties. He made no secret of following Wyclif, and being willing
to die for the views Wyclif taught. As he wrote to Richard Wyche, he was
thankful that "under the power of Jesus Christ, Bohemia had received so
much good from the blessed land of England."669
The
Bohemian theologian was fully imbued with Wyclif’s heretical spirit. The great
Council of Constance was about to meet. Before that tribunal Huss was now to be
judged.
</div3> <div3 type = "Section"
n="45" title="Huss at Constance">
§ 45.
Huss at Constance.
Thou
wast their Rock, their fortress and their might;
Thou,
Lord, their captain in the well-fought fight;
Thou,
in the darkness drear, their light of light. Alleluia.
The
great expectations aroused by the assembling of the Council of Constance
included the settlement of the disturbance which was rending the kingdom of
Bohemia. It was well understood that measures were to be taken against the
heresy which had invaded Western Christendom. In two letters addressed to
Conrad, archbishop of Prag, Gerson bore witness that, in learned centres
outside of Bohemia, the names of Wyclif and Huss were indissolubly joined. Of
all Huss’ errors, wrote the chancellor, "the proposition is the most
perilous that a man who is living in deadly sin may not have authority and dominion
over Christian men. And this proposition, as is well known, has passed down to
Huss from Wyclif."670
To
Constance Sigismund, king of the Romans and heir of the Bohemian crown, turned
for relief from the embarrassment of Hussitism; and from Lombardy he sent a
deputation to summon Huss to attend the council at the same time promising him
safe conduct. The Reformer expressed his readiness to go, and had handbills
posted in Prag announcing his decision. Writing to Wenzel and his queen, he
reaffirmed his readiness, and stated he was willing to suffer the penalty
appointed for heretics, should he be condemned.671
Under
date of Sept. 1, 1414, Huss wrote to Sigismund that he was ready to go to
Constance "under safe-conduct of your protection, the Lord Most High being
my defender." A week later,
the king replied, expressing confidence that, by his appearance, all imputation
of heresy would be removed from the kingdom of Bohemia.
Huss
set out on the journey Oct. 11, 1414, and reached Constance Nov. 3. He was
accompanied by the Bohemian nobles, John of Chlum, Wenzel of Duba and Henry
Lacembok. With John of Chlum was Mladenowitz, who did an important service by
preserving Huss’ letters and afterwards editing them with notes. Huss’
correspondence, from this time on, deserves a place in the choice
autobiographical literature of the Christian centuries. For pathos, simplicity
of expression and devotion to Christ, the writings of the Middle Ages do not
furnish anything superior.
In
a letter, written to friends in Bohemia on the eve of his departure, Huss
expressed his expectation of being confronted at Constance by bishops, doctors,
princes and canons regular, yea, by more foes than the Redeemer himself had to
face. He prayed that, if his death would contribute aught to God’s glory, he
might be enabled to meet it without sinful fear. A second letter was not to be
opened, except in case of his death. It was written to Martin, a disciple whom
the writer says he had known from childhood. He binds Martin to fear God, to be
careful how he listened to the confessions of women, and not to follow him in
any frivolity he had been guilty of in other days, such as chess-playing.
Persecution was about to do its worst because he had attacked the greed and
incontinence of the clergy. He willed to Martin his gray cloak and bade him, in
case of his death, give to the rector his white gown and to his faithful
servant, George, a guinea.
The
route was through Nürnberg. Along the way Huss was met by throngs of curious
people. He sat down in the inns with the local priests, talking over his case
with them. At Nürnberg the magistrates and burghers invited him to meet them at
an inn. Deeming it unnecessary to go out of its way to meet Sigismund, who was
at Spires, the party turned its face directly to the lake of Constance. Arrived
on its upper shore, they sent back most of their horses for sale, a wise measure,
as it proved, in view of the thousands of animals that had to be cared for at
Constance.672
Arrived
at Constance, Huss took lodgings with a "second widow of Sarepta,"
who had kept the bakery to the White Pigeon. The house is still shown. His
coming was a great sensation, and he entered the town, riding through a large
crowd. The day after, John of Chlum and Baron Lacembok called upon pope John
XXIII., who promised that no violence should be done their friend, nay, even
though he had killed the pope’s own brother. He granted him leave to go about
the city, but forbade him to attend high mass. Although he was under sentence
of excommunication, Huss celebrated mass daily in his own lodgings. The cardinals
were incensed that a man charged openly with heresy should have freedom, and
whatever misgivings Huss had had of unfair dealing were to be quickly
justified. Individual liberty had no rights before the bar of an ecclesiastical
court in the 15th century when a heretic was under accusation. Before the month
had passed, Huss’ imprisonment began, a pretext being found in an alleged
attempt to escape from the city concealed in a hay-wagon.673 On November 28, the two bishops of
Trent and Augsburg entered his lodgings with a requisition for him to appear
before the cardinals. The house was surrounded by soldiers. Huss, after some
hesitation, yielded and left, with the hostess standing at the stairs in tears.
It was the beginning of the end.
After
a short audience with the cardinals, the prisoner was taken away by a guard of
soldiers, and within a week he was securely immured in the dungeon of the
Dominican convent. Preparations had been going on for several days to provide
the place with locks, bolts and other strong furnishings.
In
this prison, Huss languished for three months. His cell was hard by the
latrines. Fever and vomiting set in, and it seemed likely they would quickly do
their dismal work. John XXIII. deserves some credit for having sent his
physician, who applied clysters, as Huss himself wrote. To sickness was added
the deprivation of books, including the Bible. For two months we have no
letters from him. They begin again, with January, 1415, and give us a clear
insight into the indignities to which he was exposed and the misery he
suffered. These letters were sent by the gaoler.
What
was Sigismund doing? He had issued
the letter of safe-conduct, Oct. 18. On the day before his arrival in
Constance, Dec. 24th, John of Chlum posted up a notice on the cathedral,
protesting that the king’s agreement had been treated with defiance by the
cardinals. Sigismund professed to be greatly incensed, and blustered, but this
was the end of it. He was a time-serving prince who was easily persuaded to
yield to the arguments of such ecclesiastical figures as D’Ailly, who insisted
that little matters like Huss’ heresy should not impede the reformation of the
church, the council’s first concern, and that error unreproved was error
countenanced.674 All good
churchmen prayed his Majesty might not give way to the lies and subtleties of
the Wycliffists. The king of Aragon wrote that Huss should be killed off at
once, without having the formality of a hearing.
During
his imprisonment in the Black Friars’ convent, Huss wrote for his gaoler,
Robert, tracts on the Ten Commandments, the Lord’s Prayer, Mortal Sin and
Marriage. Of the 13 letters preserved from this time, the larger part were
addressed to John of Chlum, his trusty friend. Some of the letters were written
at midnight, and some on tattered scraps of paper.675 In this correspondence four things are
prominent: Huss’ reliance upon the king and his word of honor, his consuming
desire to be heard in open council, the expectation of possible death and his
trust in God. He feared sentence would be passed before opportunity was given
him to speak with the king. "If this is his honor, it is his own
lookout," he wrote.676
In
the meantime the council had committed the matter of heresy to a commission,
with D’Ailly at its head. It plied Huss with questions, and presented heretical
articles taken from his writings. Stephen Paletz, his apostate friend, badgered
him more than all the rest. His request for a "proctor and advocate"
was denied. The thought of death was continually before him. But, as the Lord
had delivered Jonah from the whale’s belly, and Daniel from the lions, so, he
believed, God would deliver him, if it were expedient.
Upon
John XXIII.’s flight, fears were felt that Huss might be delivered by his
friends, and the keys of the prison were put into the hands of Sigismund. On
March 24th the bishop of Constance had the prisoner chained and transferred by
boat to his castle, Gottlieben. There he had freedom to walk about in his
chains by day, but he was handcuffed and bound to the wall at night. The
imprisonment at Gottlieben lasted seventy-three days, from March 24th-June 5th.
If Huss wrote any letters during that time none have survived. It was a strange
freak of history that the runaway pontiff, on being seized and brought back to
Constance, was sent to Gottlieben to be fellow-prisoner with Huss, the one, the
former head of Christendom, condemned for almost every known misdemeanor; the
other, the preacher whose life was, by the testimony of all contemporaries,
almost without a blemish. The criminal pope was to be released after a brief
confinement and elevated to an exalted dignity; the other was to be contemned
as a religious felon and burnt as an expiation to orthodox theology.
At
Gottlieben, Huss suffered from hemorrhage, headache and other infirmities, and
at times was on the brink of starvation. A new commission, appointed April 6,
with D’Ailly at its head, now took up seriously the heresy of Huss and Wyclif, whom
the council coupled together.677
Huss’ friends had not forgotten him, and 250 Moravian and Bohemian
nobles signed a remonstrance at Prag, May 13, which they sent to Sigismund, protesting
against the treatment "the beloved master and Christian preacher" was
receiving, and asked that he might be granted a public hearing and allowed to
return home. Upon a public hearing Huss staked everything, and with such a
hearing in view he had gone to Constance.
In
order to bring the prisoner within more convenient reach of the commission, he
was transferred in the beginning of June to a third prison,—the Franciscan
friary. From June 5–8 public hearings were had in the refectory, the room being
crowded with cardinals, archbishops, bishops, theologians and persons of lesser
degree. Cardinal D’Ailly was present and took the leading part as head of the
commission. The action taken May 4th condemning 260 errors and heresies
extracted from Wyclif’s works was adapted to rob Huss of whatever hope of
release he still indulged. Charges were made against him of holding that Christ
is in the consecrated bread only as the soul is in the body, that Wyclif was a
good Christian, that salvation was not dependent upon the pope and that no one
could be excommunicated except by God Himself. He also had expressed the hope
his soul might be where Wyclif’s was.678 When a copy of his book on the Church was shown, they
shouted, "Burn it."
Whenever Huss attempted to explain his positions, he was met with
shouts, "Away with your sophistries. Say, Yes or No." The Englishman, John Stokes, who was
present, declared that it seemed to him as if he saw Wyclif himself in bodily
form sitting before him.
On
the morning of June 7th, Huss exclaimed that God and his conscience were on his
side. But, Said D’Ailly, "we cannot go by your conscience when we have
other evidence, and the evidence of Gerson himself against you, the most
renowned doctor in Christendom."679 D’Ailly and an Englishman attempted to show the logical
connection of the doctrine of remanence with realism. When Huss replied that
such reasoning was the logic of schoolboys, another Englishman had the courage
to add, Huss is quite right: what have these quibbles to do with matters of faith? Sigismund advised Huss to submit,
saying that he had told the commission he would not defend any heretic who was
determined to stick to his heresy. He also declared that, so long as a single
heretic remained, he was ready to light the fire himself with his own hand to
burn him. He, however, promised that Huss should have a written list of charges
the following day.
That
night, as Huss wrote, he suffered from toothache, vomiting, headache and the
stone. On June 8th, 39 distinct articles were handed to him, 26 of which were
drawn from his work on the Church. When he demurred at some of the statements,
D’Ailly had the pertinent sections from the original writings read. When they
came to the passage that no heretic should be put to death, the audience shouted
in mockery. Huss went on to argue from the case of Saul, after his disobedience
towards Agag, that kings in mortal sin have no right to authority. Sigismund
happened to be at the moment at the window, talking to Frederick of Bavaria.
The prelates, taking advantage of the avowal, cried out, "Tell the king
Huss is now attacking him."
The emperor turned and said, "John Huss, no one lives without
sin." D’Ailly suggested that
the prisoner, not satisfied with pulling down the spiritual fabric, was
attempting to hurl down the monarchy likewise. In an attempt to break the force
of his statement, Huss asked why they had deposed pope John. Sigismund replied
that Baldassarre was real pope, but was deposed for his notorious crimes.
The
39 articles included the heretical assertions that the Church is the totality
of the elect, that a priest must continue preaching, even though he be under
sentence of excommunication, and that whoso is in mortal sin cannot exercise
authority. Huss expressed himself ready to revoke statements that might be
proved untrue by Scripture and good arguments, but that he would not revoke any
which were not so proved. When Sigismund remonstrated, Huss appealed to the
judgment bar of God. At the close of the proceedings, D’Ailly declared that a compromise
was out of the question. Huss must abjure.680
As
Huss passed out in the charge of the archbishop of Riga, John of Chlum had the
courage to reach out his hand to him. The act reminds us of the friendly words
Georg of Frundsberg spoke to Luther at Worms. Huss was most thankful, and a day
or two afterward wrote how delightful it had been to see Lord John, who was not
ashamed to hold out his hand to a poor, abject heretic, a prisoner in irons and
the butt of all men’s tongues. In addressing the assembly after Huss’
departure, Sigismund argued against accepting submission from the prisoner who,
if released, would go back to Bohemia and sow his errors broadcast. "When
I was a boy," he said, "I remember the first sprouting of this sect,
and see what it is today. We should make an end of the master one day, and when
I return from my journey we will deal with his pupil. What’s his
name?" The reply was, Jerome.
Yes, said the king, I mean Jerome.
Huss,
as he himself states, was pestered in prison by emissaries who sought to entrap
him, or to "hold out baskets" for him to escape in. Some of the
charges made against him he ascribes to false witnesses. But many of the
charges were not false, and it is difficult to understand how he could expect
to free himself by a public statement, in view of the solemn condemnation
passed upon the doctrines of Wyclif. He was convinced that none of the articles
brought against him were contrary to the Gospel of Christ, but canon law ruled
at councils, not Scripture. A doctor told him that if the council should affirm
he had only one eye, he ought to accept the verdict. Huss replied if the whole
world were to tell him so, he would not say so and offend his conscience, and
he appealed to the case of Eleazar in the Book of the Maccabees, who would not
make a lying confession.681
But he was setting his house in order. He wrote affecting messages to
his people in Bohemia and to John of Chlum. He urged the Bohemians to hear only
priests of good report, and especially those who were earnest students of Holy
Writ. Martin he adjured to read the Bible diligently, especially the New
Testament.
On
June 15th, the council took the far-reaching action forbidding the giving of
the cup to laymen. This action Huss condemned as wickedness and madness, on the
ground that it was a virtual condemnation of Christ’s example and command. To
Hawlik, who had charge of the Bethlehem chapel, he wrote, urging him not to
withhold the cup from the laity.682
He saw indisputable proof that the council was fallible. One day it
kissed the feet of John, as a paragon of virtue, and called him "most
holy," and the next it condemned him as "a shameful homicide, a
sodomite, a simoniac and a heretic."
He quoted the proverb, common among the Swiss, that a generation would
not suffice to cleanse Constance from the sins the body had committed in that
city.
The
darkness deepened around the prisoner. On June 24th, by the council’s orders,
his writings were to be burnt, even those written in Czech which, almost in a
tone of irony, as he wrote, the councillors had not seen and could not read. He
bade his friends not be terrified, for Jeremiah’s books, which the prophet had
written at the Lord’s direction, were burnt.
His
affectionate interest in the people of "his glorious country" and in
the university on the Moldau, and his feeling of gratitude to the friends who
had supported him continued unabated. A dreadful death was awaiting him, but he
recalled the sufferings of Apostles and the martyrs, and especially the agonies
endured by Christ, and he believed he would be purged of his sins through the
flames. D’Ailly had replied to him on one occasion by peremptorily saying he
should obey the decision of 50 doctors of the Church and retract without asking
any questions. "A wonderful piece of information," he wrote, "As
if the virgin, St. Catherine, ought to have renounced the truth and her faith
in the Lord because 50 philosophers opposed her."683 In one of his last letters, written to
his alma mater of Prag, he declared he had not recanted a single article.
On
the first day of July, he was approached by the archbishops of Riga and Ragusa
and 6 other prelates, who still had a hope of drawing from him a recantation. A
written declaration made by Huss in reply showed the hope vain.684 Another effort was made July 5th,
Cardinals D’Ailly and Zabarella and bishop Hallum of Salisbury being of the
party of visiting prelates. Huss closed the discussion by declaring that he
would rather be burnt a thousand times than abjure, for by abjuring he said he
would offend those whom he had taught.685
Still
another deputation approached him, his three friends John of Chlum, Wenzel of
Duba and Lacembok, and four bishops. They were sent by Sigismund. As a layman,
John of Chlum did not venture to give Huss advice, but bade him, if he felt
sure of his cause, rather than to be against God, to stand fast, even to death.
One of the bishops asked whether he presumed to be wiser than the whole
council. No, was the reply, but to retract he must be persuaded of his errors
out of the Scriptures. "An obstinate heretic!" exclaimed the bishops.
This was the final interview in private. The much-desired opportunity was at
hand for him to stand before the council as a body, and it was his last day on
earth.
After
seven months of dismal imprisonment and deepening disappointment, on Saturday,
July 6th, Huss was conducted to the cathedral. It was 6 A. M., and he was kept
waiting outside the doors until the celebration of mass was completed. He was
then admitted to the sacred edifice, but not to make a defence, as he had come
to Constance hoping to do. He was to listen to sentence pronounced upon him as
an ecclesiastical outcast and criminal. He was placed in the middle of the
church on a high stool, set there specially for him.686 The bishop of Lodi preached from Rom.
6:6, "that the body of sin may be destroyed." The extermination of heretics was
represented as one of the works most pleasing to God, and the preacher used the
time-worn illustrations from the rotten piece of flesh, the little spark which
is in danger of turning into a great flame and the creeping cancer. The more
virulent the poison the swifter should be the application of the cauterizing
iron. In the style of Bossuet in a later age, before Louis XIV., he pronounced
upon Sigismund the eulogy that his name would be coupled with song and triumph
for all time for his efforts to uproot schism and destroy heresy.
The
commission, which included Patrick, bishop of Cork, appointed to pronounce the
sentence, then ascended the pulpit. All expressions of feeling with foot or
hand, all vociferation or attempt to start disputation were solemnly forbidden
on pain of excommunication. 30 articles were then read, which were pronounced
as heretical, seditious and offensive to pious ears. The sentence coupled in
closest relation Wyclif and Huss.687 The first of the articles charged the prisoner with holding
that the Church is the totality of the predestinate, and the last that no civil
lord or prelate may exercise authority who is in mortal sin. Huss begged leave
to speak, but was hushed up.
The
sentence ran that "the holy council, having God only before its eye,
condemns John Huss to have been and to be a true, real and open heretic, the
disciple not of Christ but of John Wyclif, one who in the University of Prag
and before the clergy and people declared Wyclif to be a Catholic and an
evangelical doctor—vir catholicus et doctor evangelicus." It ordered him degraded from the
sacerdotal order, and, not wishing to exceed the powers committed unto the
Church, it relinquished him to the secular authority.
Not
a dissenting voice was lifted against the sentence. Even John Gerson voted for
it. One incident has left its impress upon history, although it is not vouched
for by a contemporary. It is said that, when Huss began to speak, he looked at
Sigismund, reminding him of the safe-conduct. The king who sat in state and
crowned, turned red, but did not speak.
The
order of degradation was carried out by six bishops, who disrobed the condemned
man of his vestments and destroyed his tonsure. They then put on his head a cap
covered over with pictures of the devil and inscribed with the word,
heresiarch, and committed his soul to the devil. With upturned eyes, Huss
exclaimed, "and I commit myself to the most gracious Lord Jesus."
The
old motto that the Church does not want blood—ecclesia non sitit sanguinem —
was in appearance observed, but the authorities knew perfectly well what was to
be the last scene when they turned Huss over to Sigismund. "Go, take him
and do to him as a heretic" were the words with which the king remanded
the prisoner to the charge of Louis, the Count Palatine. A guard of a thousand
armed men was at hand. The streets were thronged with people. As Huss passed
on, he saw the flames on the public square which were consuming his books. For
fear of the bridge’s breaking down, the greater part of the crowd was not
allowed to cross over to the place of execution, called the Devil’s Place.
Huss’ step had been firm, but now, with tears in his eyes, he knelt down and
prayed. The paper cap falling from his head, the crowd shouted that it should
be put on, wrong side front.
It
was midday. The prisoner’s hands were fastened behind his back, and big neck
bound to the stake by a chain. On the same spot sometime before, so the
chronicler notes, a cardinal’s worn-out mule had been buried. The straw and
wood were heaped up around Huss’ body to the chin, and rosin sprinkled upon
them. The offer of life was renewed if he would recant. He refused and said,
"I shall die with joy to-day in the faith of the gospel which I have
preached." When Richental,
who was standing by, suggested a confessor, he replied, "There is no need
of one. I have no mortal sin."
At the call of bystanders, they turned his face away from the East, and
as the flames arose, he sang twice, Christ, thou Son of the living God, have
mercy upon me. The wind blew the fire into the martyr’s face, and his voice was
hushed. He died, praying and singing. To remove, if possible, all chance of
preserving relics from the scene, Huss’ clothes and shoes were thrown into the
merciless flames. The ashes were gathered up and cast into the Rhine.
While
this scene was being enacted, the council was going on with the transaction of
business as if the burning without the gates were only a common event. Three
weeks later, it announced that it had done nothing more pleasing to God than to
punish the Bohemian heretic. For this act it has been chiefly remembered by
after generations.
Not
one of the members of the Council of Constance, after its adjournment, so far
as we know, uttered a word of protest against the sentence. No pope or
oecumenical synod since has made any apology for it. Nor has any modern
Catholic historian gone further than to indicate that in essential theological
doctrines Huss was no heretic, though his sentence was strictly in accord with
the principles of the canon law. So long as the dogmas of an infallible Church
organization and an infallible pope continue to be strictly held, no apology
can be expected. It is of the nature of Protestant Christianity to confess
wrongs and, as far as is possible, make reparation for them. When the
Massachusetts court discovered that it had erred in the case of the Salem
witchcraft in 1692, it made full confession, and offered reparation to the
surviving descendants; and Judge Sewall, one of the leaders in the prosecution,
made a moving public apology for the mistake he had committed. The same court
recalled the action against Roger Williams. In 1903, the Protestants of France
reared a monument at Geneva in expiation of Calvin’s part in passing sentence
upon Servetus. Luther, in his Address to the German Nobility, called upon the
Roman Church to confess it had done wrong in burning Huss. That innocent man’s
blood still cries from the ground.
Huss
died for his advocacy of Wycliffism. The sentence passed by the council coupled
the two names together.688
The 25th of the 30 Articles condemned him for taking offence at the
reprobation of the 45 articles, ascribed to Wyclif. How much this article was
intended to cover cannot be said. It is certain that Huss did not formally deny
the doctrine of transubstantiation, although he was charged with that heresy.
Nor was he distinctly condemned for urging the distribution of the cup to the
laity, which he advocated after the council had positively forbidden it. His
only offence was his definition of the Church and his denial of the
infallibility of the papacy and its necessity for the being of the Church.
These charges constitute the content of all the 30 articles except the 25th.
Luther said brusquely but truly, that Huss committed no more atrocious sin than
to declare that a Roman pontiff of impious life is not the head of the Church
catholic.689
John
Huss struck at the foundations of the hierarchical system. He interpreted our
Lord’s words to Peter in a way that was fatal to the papal theory of Leo,
Hildebrand and Innocent III.690
His conception of the Church, which he drew from Wyclif, contains the
kernel of an entirely new system of religious authority. He made the Scriptures
the final source of appeal, and exalted the authority of the conscience above
pope, council and canon law as an interpreter of truth. He carried out these
views in practice by continuing to preach in spite of repeated sentences of
excommunication, and attacking the pope’s right to call a crusade. If the
Church be the company of the elect, as Huss maintained, then God rules in His
people and they are sovereign. With such assertions, the teachings of Thomas
Aquinas were set aside.
The
enlightened group of men who shared the spirit of Gerson and D’Ailly did not
comprehend Wycliffism, for Wycliffism was a revolt against an alleged divine
institution, the visible Church. Gerson denied that the appeal to conscience
was an excuse for refusing to submit to ecclesiastical authority. Faith, with
him, was agreement with the Church’s system. The chancellor not only voted for
Huss’ condemnation, but declared he had busily worked to bring the sentence
about. Nineteen articles he drew from Huss’ work on the Church, he pronounced
"notoriously heretical."
However, at a later time, in a huff over the leniency shown to Jean
Petit, he stated that if Huss had been given an advocate, he would never have
been convicted.691
In
starting out for Constance, Huss knew well the punishment appointed for
heretics. The amazing thing is that he should ever have thought it possible to
clear himself by a public address before the council. In view of the procedure
of the Inquisition, the council showed him unheard-of consideration in allowing
him to appear in the cathedral. This was done out of regard for Sigismund, who
was on the eve of his journey to Spain to induce Benedict of Luna to abdicate.692
As
for the safe-conduct—salvo-conductus — issued by Sigismund, all that can be
said is that a king did not keep his word. He was more concerned to be regarded
as the patron of a great council than to protect a Bohemian preacher, his
future subject. Writing with reference to the solemn pledge, Huss said,
"Christ deceives no man by a safe-conduct. What he pledges he fulfils.
Sigismund has acted deceitfully throughout."693 The plea, often made, that the king had no intention of
giving Huss an unconditional pledge of protection, is in the face of the
documentary evidence. In September, 1415, the Council of Constance took formal
notice of the criticisms floating about that in Huss’ execution a solemn
promise had been broken, and announced that no brief of safe-conduct in the
case of a heretic is binding. No pledge is to be observed which is prejudicial
to the Catholic faith and ecclesiastical jurisdiction.694
The
safe-conduct was in the ordinary form, addressed to all the princes and
subjects of the empire, ecclesiastical and secular, and informing them that
Huss should be allowed to pass, remain and return without impediment. Jerome,
according to the sentence passed upon him by the council, declared that the
safe-conduct had been grossly violated, and when, in 1433, the legates of the
Council of Basel attempted to throw the responsibility for Huss’ condemnation
on false witnesses, so called, Rokyzana asked how the Council of Constance
could have been moved by the Holy Ghost if it were controlled by perjurers, and
showed that the violation of the safe-conduct had not been forgotten. When the
Bohemian deputies a year earlier had come to Basel, they demanded the most
carefully prepared briefs of safe-conduct from the Council of Basel, the cities
of Eger and Basel and from Sigismund and others. Frederick of Brandenburg and
John of Bavaria agreed to furnish troops to protect the Hussites on their way
to Basel, at Basel, and on their journey home. A hundred and six years later,
Luther profited by Huss’ misfortune when he recalled Sigismund’s perfidy,
perfidy which the papal system of the 16th century would have repeated, had
Charles V. given his consent.695
In
a real sense, Huss was the precursor of the Reformation. It is true, the
prophecy was wrongly ascribed to him, "To-day you roast a goose—Huss—but a
hundred years from now a swan will arise out of my ashes which you shall not
roast." Unknown to
contemporary writers, it probably originated after Luther had fairly entered
upon his work. But he struck a hard blow at hierarchical assumption before Luther
raised his stronger arm. Luther was moved by Huss’ case, and at Leipzig, forced
to the wall by Eck’s thrusts, the Wittenberg monk made the open avowal that
oecumenical councils also may err, as was done in putting Huss to death at
Constance. Years before, at Erfurt, he had taken up a volume of the Bohemian
sermons, and was amazed that a man who preached so evangelically should have
been condemned to the stake. But for fear of the taint of heresy, he quickly
put it down.696 The accredited
view in Luther’s time was given by Dobneck in answer to Luther’s good opinion,
when he said that Huss was worse than a Turk, Jew, Tartar and Sodomite. In his
edition of Huss’ letters, printed 1537, Luther praised Huss’ patience and
humility under every indignity and his courage before an imposing assembly as a
lamb in the midst of wolves and lions. If such a man, he wrote, "is to be
regarded as a heretic, then no person under the sun can be looked upon as a
true Christian."
A
cantionale, dating from 1572, and preserved in the Prag library, contains a
hymn to Huss’ memory and three medallions which well set forth the relation in
which Wyclif and Huss stand to the Reformation. The first represents Wyclif
striking sparks from a stone. Below it is Huss, kindling a fire from the
sparks. In the third medallion, Luther is holding aloft the flaming torch. his
is the historic succession, although it is true Luther began his career as a
Reformer before he was influenced by Huss, and continued his work, knowing
little of Wyclif.
To
the cause of religious toleration, and without intending it, John Huss made a
more effectual contribution by his death than could have been made by many
philosophical treatises, even as the deaths of Blandina and other martyrs of
the early Church, who were slaves, did more towards the reduction of the evils
of slavery than all the sentences of Pagan philosophers. Quite like his English
teacher, he affirmed the sovereign rights of the truth. It was his habit, so he
stated, to conform his views to the truth, whatever the truth might be. If any
one, he said, "can instruct me by the sacred Scriptures or by good
reasoning, I am willing to follow him. From the outset of my studies, I have
made it a rule to joyfully and humbly recede from a former opinion when in any
matter I perceive a more rational opinion."697
</div3> <div3 type = "Section"
n="46" title="Jerome of Prag">
§ 46.
Jerome of Prag.
A year
after Huss’ martyrdom, on May 30, 1416, his friend Jerome of Prag was condemned
by the council and also suffered at the stake. He shared Huss’ enthusiasm for
Wyclif, was perhaps his equal in scholarship, but not in steadfast constancy.
Huss’ life was spent in Prag and its vicinity. Jerome travelled in Western
Europe and was in Prag only occasionally. Huss left quite a body of writings,
Jerome, none.
Born
of a good family at Prag, Jerome studied in his native city, and later at
Oxford and Paris. At Oxford he became a student and admirer of Wyclif’s
writings, two of which, the Trialogus and the Dialogus, he carried with him
back to Bohemia not later than 1402. In Prag, he defended the English doctor as
a holy man "whose doctrines were more worthy of acceptance than Augustine
himself," stood with Huss in the contest over the rights of the Bohemian
nation, and joined him in attacking the papal indulgences, 1412.
Soon
after arriving in Constance, Huss wrote to John of Chlum not to allow Jerome on
any account to go to join him. In spite of this warning, Jerome set out and
reached Constance April 4th, 1415, but urged by friends he quit the city. He
was seized at Hirschau, April 15, and taken back in chains. There is every
reason for supposing he and Huss did not see one another, although Huss
mentions him in a letter within a week before his death,698 expressing the hope
that he would die holy and blameless and be of a braver spirit in meeting pain
than he was. Huss had misjudged himself. In the hour of grave crisis he proved
constant and heroic, while his friend gave way.
On
Sept. 11, 1415, Jerome solemnly renounced his admiration for Wyclif and
professed accord with the Roman church and the Apostolic see and, twelve days
later, solemnly repeated his abjuration in a formula prepared by the council.699
Release
from prison did not follow. It was the council’s intention that Jerome should
sound forth his abjuration as loudly as possible in Bohemia, and write to
Wenzel, the university and the Bohemian nobles; but he disappointed his judges.
Following Gerson’s lead, the council again put the recusant heretic on trial.
The sittings took place in the cathedral, May 23 and 26, 1416. The charge of
denying transubstantiation Jerome repudiated, but he confessed to having done
ill in pledging himself to abandon the writings and teachings of that good man
John Wyclif, and Huss. Great injury had been done to Huss, who had come to the
council with assurance of safe-conduct. Even Judas or a Saracen ought under
such circumstances to be free to come and go and to speak his mind freely.
On
May 30, Jerome was again led into the cathedral. The bishop of Lodi ascended
the pulpit and preached a sermon, calling upon the council to punish the
prisoner, and counselling that against other such heretics, if there should be
any, any witnesses whatever should be allowed to testify,—ruffians, thieves and
harlots. The sermon being over, Jerome mounted a bench—bancum ascendens — and
made a defence whose eloquence is attested by Poggio and others who were
present. Thereupon, the, holy synod "pronounced him a follower of Wyclif
and Huss, and adjudged him to be cast off as a rotten and withered
branch—palmitem putridum et aridum.700
Jerome
went out from the cathedral wearing a cheerful countenance. A paper cap was put
on his head, painted over with red devils. No sentence of deposition was
necessary or ceremony of disrobing, for the condemned man was merely a laic.701 He died on the spot where Huss
suffered. As the wood was being piled around him, he sang the Easter hymn,
salva festa dies, Hail, festal day. The flames were slow in putting an end to
his miseries as compared with Huss. His ashes were thrown into the Rhine. And
many learned people wept, the chronicler Richental says, that he had to die,
for he was almost more learned than Huss. After his death, the council joined
his name with the names of Wyclif and Huss as leaders of heresy.
Poggio
Bracciolini’s description of Jerome’s address in the cathedral runs thus:—
It
was wonderful to see with what words, with what eloquence, with what arguments,
with what countenance and with what composure, Jerome replied to his
adversaries, and how fairly he put his case .... He advanced nothing unworthy
of a good man, as though he felt confident—as he also publicly asserted—that no
just reason could be found for his death .... Many persons he touched with
humor, many with satire, many very often he caused to laugh in spite of the sad
affair, jesting at their reproaches .... He took them back to Socrates,
unjustly condemned by his fellow-citizens. Then be mentioned the captivity of
Plato, the flight of Anaxagoras, the torture of Zeno and the unjust
condemnation of many other Pagans .... Thence he passed to the Hebrew examples,
first instancing Moses, the liberator of his people, Joseph, sold by his
brethren, Isaiah, Daniel, Susannah .... Afterwards, coming down to John the
Baptist and then to the Saviour, he showed how, in each case, they were
condemned by false witnesses and false judges .... Then proceeding to praise
John Huss, who had been condemned to be burnt, he called him a good man, just
and holy, unworthy of such a death, saying that he himself was prepared to go
to any punishment whatsoever .... He said that Huss had never held opinions
hostile to the Church of God, but only against the abuses of the clergy,
against the pride, the arrogance and the pomp of prelates .... He displayed the
greatest cleverness,—for, when his speech was often interrupted with various
disturbances, he left no one unscathed but turned trenchantly upon his accusers
and forced them to blush, or be still .... For 340 days he lay in the bottom of
a foul, dark tower. He himself did not complain at the harshness of this
treatment, but expressed his wonder that such inhumanity could be shown him. In
the dungeon, he said, he had not only no facilities for reading, but none for
seeing .... He stood there fearless and unterrified, not alone despising death
but seeking it, so that you would have said he was another Cato. O man, worthy
of the everlasting memory of men!
I praise not that which he advanced, if anything contrary to the
institutions of the Church; but I admire his learning, his eloquence, his
persuasiveness of speech, his adroitness in reply .... Persevering in his
errors, he went to his fate with joyful and willing countenance, for he feared
not the fire nor any kind of torture or death .... When the executioners wished
to start the fire behind his back that he might not see it, he said, ’Come here
and light the fire in front of me. If I had been afraid of it, I should never
have come to this place.’ In this
way a man worthy, except in respect of faith, was burnt .... Not Mutius himself
suffered his arm to burn with such high courage as did this man his whole body.
Nor did Socrates drink the poison so willingly as be accepted the flames.702
Aeneas
Sylvius, afterwards Pius II., bore similar testimony to the cheerfulness which
Huss and Jerome displayed in the face of death, and said that they went to the
stake as to a feast and suffered death with more courage than any philosopher.703
</div3> <div3 type = "Section"
n="47" title="The Hussites">
§ 47.
The Hussites.
The
news of Huss’ execution stirred the Bohemian nation to its depths. Huss was
looked upon as a national hero and a martyr. The revolt, which followed,
threatened the very existence of the papal rule in Bohemia. No other dissenting
movement of the Middle Ages assumed such formidable proportions. The Hussites,
the name given to the adherents of the new body, soon divided into two
organized parties, the Taborites and the Calixtines or Utraquists. They agreed
in demanding the distribution of the cup to the laity. A third body, the Unitas
Fratrum, or Bohemian Brethren, originated in the middle of the 15th century,
forty years after Huss’ death. When it became known that Huss had perished in
the flames, the populace of Prag stoned the houses of the priests unfriendly to
the martyr; and the archbishop himself was attacked in his palace, and with
difficulty eluded the popular rage by flight. King Wenzel at first seemed about
to favor the popular party.
The
Council of Constance, true to itself, addressed a document to the bishop and
clergy of Prag, designating Wyclif, Huss and Jerome as most unrighteous,
dangerous and shameful men,704 and calling upon the Prag officials to put
down those who were sowing their doctrines.
The
high regard in which Huss was held found splendid expression at the Bohemian
diet, Sept. 2, 1415, when 452 nobles signed an indignant remonstrance to the
council for its treatment of their "most beloved brother," whom they
pronounced to be a righteous and catholic man, known in Bohemia for many years
by his exemplary life and honest preaching of the law of the Gospel. They concluded
the document by announcing their intention to defend, even to the effusion of
blood, the law of Christ and his devoted preachers.705 Three days later, the nobles formed a
league which was to remain in force for six years, in which they bound
themselves to defend the free preaching of the Gospel on their estates, and to
recognize the authority of prelates only so far as they acted according to the
Scriptures.
To
this manifesto the council, Feb. 20, 1416, replied by citing the signers to
appear before it within 50 days, on pain of being declared contumacious.
Huss’
memory also had honor at the hands of the university, which, on May 23, 1416,
sent forth a communication addressed to all lands, eulogizing him as in all
things a master whose life was without an equal.706 In omnibus Magister vitae sine pari.
Upon
the dissolution of the council, Martin V., who, as a member of the curia, had
excommunicated Huss, did not allow the measures to root out Hussitism drag. In
his bull Inter cunctos,707 Feb. 22, 1418, he ordered all of both sexes
punished as heretics who maintained "the pestilential doctrine of the
heresiarchs, John Wyclif, John Huss and Jerome of Prag." Wenzel announced his purpose to obey the
council, but many of his councillors left the court, including the statesman,
Nicolas of Pistna, and the military leader, the one-eyed John Zizka. The
popular excitement ran so high that, during a Hussite procession, the crowd
rushed into the council-house and threw out of the window seven of the
councillors who had dared to insult the procession.
Affairs
entered a new stage with Wenzel’s death, 1419. With considerable unanimity the
Bohemian nobles acceded to his successor Sigismund’s demand that the cup be
withheld from the laity, but the nation at large did not acquiesce, and civil
war followed. Convents and churches were sacked. Sigismund could not make
himself master of his kingdom, and an event occurred during his visit in
Breslau which deepened the feeling against him. A merchant, John Krasa,
asserting on the street the innocence of Huss, was dragged at a horse’s tail to
the stake and burnt. Hussite preachers inveighed against Sigismund, calling him
the dragon of the Apocalypse.
Martin
V. now summoned Europe to a crusade against Bohemia, offering the usual
indulgences, as Innocent III. had done two centuries before, when he summoned a
crusade against the Cathari in Southern France. In obedience to the papal mandate,
150,000 men gathered from all parts of Europe. All the horrors of war were
perpetrated, and whole provinces desolated. Five times the holy crusaders
entered the land of Huss, and five times they were beaten back. In 1424 the
Hussites lost their bravest military leader, John Zizka, but in 1427, under his
successor, Procopius Rasa, called the Great, the most influential priest of
Prag, they took the offensive and invaded Germany.
While
they were winning victories over the foreign intruders, the Hussites were
divided among themselves in regard to the extent to which the religious
reformation should be carried. The radical party, called the Taborites, from
the steep hill Tabor, 60 miles south of Prag, on which they built a city,
rejected transubstantiation, the worship of saints, prayers for the dead,
indulgences and priestly confession and renounced oaths, dances and other
amusements. They admitted laymen, including women, to the office of preaching,
and used the national tongue in all parts of the public service. Zizka, their
first leader, held the sword in the spirit of one of the Judges. After his
death, the stricter wing of the Taborites received the name of the Orphans.
The
moderate party was called now Pragers, from the chief seat of their influence,
now Calixtines,—from the word calix or cup,—or Utraquists from the expression
sub utraque specie, "under both forms," from their insisting upon the
administration of the cup to the laity. The University of Prag took sides with
the Calixtines and, in 1420, the four so-called Prag articles were adopted.
This compact demanded the free preaching of the Gospel, the distribution of the
cup to the laity, the execution of punishment for mortal sins by the civil
court, and the return of the clergy to the practice of Apostolic poverty. The
Calixtines confined the use of Czech at the church service to the Scripture
readings.708
After
the disastrous rout of the Catholic army, led by Cardinal Cesarini at Tauss,
Aug. 14, 1431, the history of the Bohemian movement passed into a third stage,
marked by the negotiations begun by the Council of Basel and the almost
complete annihilation of the Taborite party. It was a new spectacle for an
oecumenical council to treat with heretics as with a party having rights.
Unqualified submission was the demand which the Church had heretofore made. On
Oct. 15, 1431, the council invited the Bohemians to a conference and promised
delegates safe-conduct. This promise assured them that neither guile nor deceit
would be resorted to on any ground whatsoever, whether it be of authority or
the privileges of canon law or of the decisions of the Councils of Constance
and Siena or any other council.709
Three hundred delegates appointed by the Bohemian diet appeared in
Basel. On the way, at Eger, and in the presence of the landgrave of Brandenburg
and John, duke of Bavaria, they laid down their own terms, which were sent
ahead and accepted by the council.710 These terms, embodied in thirteen articles, dealt with the
method of carrying on the negotiations, the cessation of the interdict during
the sojourn of the delegates in the Swiss city and the privilege of practising
their own religious rites. The leaders of the Bohemian delegation were John
Rokyzana of the Utraquist party and the Taborite, Procopius. Rokyzana was the
pastor of the Teyn Church in Prag.
The
council recognized the austere principles of the Hussites by calling upon the
Basel authorities to prohibit all dancing and gambling and the appearance of
loose women on the streets. On their arrival, Jan. 4, 1433, the Bohemians were
assigned to four public taverns, and a large supply of wine and provisions
placed at their disposal. Delegations from the council and from the city bade
them formal welcome. They followed their own rituals, the Taborites arousing
most curiosity by the omission of all Latin from the services and discarding
altar and priestly vestments.
On
the floor of the council, the Bohemians coupled praise with the names of Wyclif
and Huss, and would tolerate no references to themselves as heretics. The
discussions were prolonged to a wearisome length, some of their number
occupying as much as two or three days in their addresses. Among the chief
speakers was the Englishman, Peter Payne, whose address consumed three days.
The final agreement of four articles, known as the Campactata, was ratified by
deputies of the council and of the three Bohemian parties giving one another
the hand. The main article granted the use of the cup to the laity, where it
was asked, but on condition that the doctrine be inculcated that the whole
Christ is contained in each of the elements. The use of the cup was affirmed to
be wholesome to those partaking worthily.711 The Compacts were ratified by the Bohemian diet of Iglau,
July 5, 1436. All ecclesiastical censures were lifted from Bohemia and its
people. The abbot of Bonnival, addressing the king of Castile upon the progress
of the Council of Basel, declared that the Bohemians at the start were like
ferocious lions and greedy wolves, but through the mercy of Christ and after
much discussion had been turned into the meekest lambs and accepted the four
articles.712
Although
technically the question was settled, the Taborites were not satisfied. The
Utraquists approached closer to the Catholics. Hostilities broke out between
them, and after a wholesale massacre in Prag, involving, it is said, 22,000
victims, the two parties joined in open war. The Taborites were defeated in the
battle at Lipan, May 30, 1434, and Procopius slain. This distinguished man had
travelled extensively, going as far as Jerusalem before receiving priestly
orders. He was a brilliant leader, and won many successes in Austria, Moravia
and Hungary. The power of the Taborites was gone, and in 1452 they lost Mt.
Tabor, their chief stronghold.
The
emperor now entered upon possession of his Bohemian kingdom and granted full
recognition to the Utraquist priests, promising to give his sanction to the
elections of bishops made by the popular will and to secure their ratification
by the pope. Rokyzana was elected archbishop of Prag by the Bohemian diet of
1435. Sigismund died soon after, 1437, and the archbishop never received papal
recognition, although he administered the affairs of the diocese until his
death, 1471.
Albert
of Austria, son-in-law of Sigismund and an uncompromising Catholic, succeeded
to the throne. In 1457 George Podiebrad, a powerful noble, was crowned by
Catholic bishops, and remained king of Bohemia till 1471. He was a consistent
supporter of the national party which held to the Compactata. The papal
authorities, refusing to recognize Rokyzana, despatched emissaries to subdue
the heretics by the measures of preaching and miracles. The most noted among
them were Fra Giacomo and John of Capistrano. John, whose miraculous agency
equalled his eloquence, succumbed to a fever after the battle of Belgrade.
In
1462 the Compacts were declared void by Pius II., who threatened with
excommunication all priests administering the cup to the laity. George
Podiebrad resisted the papal bull. Four years later, a papal decree sought to
deprive that "son of perdition" of his royal dignity, and summoned
the Hungarian king, Matthias Corvinus, to take his crown.713 Matthias accepted the responsibility,
the cross and invaded Moravia. The war was still in progress when Podiebrad
died. By the peace of Kuttenberg 1485 and an agreement made in 1512, the
Utraquists preserved their right to exist at the side of their Catholic
neighbors. Thus they continued till 1629, when the right of communion in both
kinds was withdrawn by Ferdinand II. of Austria, whose hard and bloody hand put
an end to all open dissent in Bohemia.714
The
third outgrowth from the Hussite stock, the Unitas Fratrum, commonly called the
Bohemian Brethren, has had an honorable and a longer history than the Taborites
and Calixtines. This body still has existence in the Moravians, whose
missionary labors, with Herrnhut as a centre, have stirred all Protestant
Christendom. Its beginnings are uncertain. It appears distinctly for the first
time in 1457, and continued to grow till the time of the Reformation. Its synod
of 1467 was attended by 60 Brethren. The members in Prag were subjected to
persecution, and George Podiebrad gave them permission to settle on the estate,
Lititz, in the village corporation of Kunwald.715 Martin, priest at Königgraetz, with a part of his flock affiliated
himself with them, and other congregations were soon formed. They were a
distinct type, worshipping by themselves, and did not take the sacraments from
the Catholic priests. They rejected oaths, war and military service and
resorted, apparently from the beginning, to the lot. They also rejected the
doctrine of purgatory and all services of priests of unworthy life.
The
exact relation which this Hussite body bore to the Taborites and to the
Austrian Waldenses is a matter which has called forth much learned discussion,
and is still involved in uncertainty. But there seems to be no doubt that the
Bohemian Brethren were moved by the spirit of Huss, and also that in their
earliest period they came into contact with the Waldenses. Pressing up from
Italy, the followers of Peter Valdez had penetrated into Bohemia in the later
part of the 14th century, and had Frederick Reiser as their leader.716 This Apostolic man was present at the
Council of Basel, 1435, and styled himself, "the bishop of the faithful in
the Romish church, who reject the donation of Constantine." With Anna Weiler, he suffered at the
stake in Strassburg, 1458. One of the earliest names associated with the
Bohemian Brethren is the name of Peter Chelcicky, a marked religious personage
in his day in Bohemia. We know he was a man of authority among them, but little
more.717
Believing
that the papal priesthood had been corrupt since Constantine’s donation to
Sylvester, the Brethren, at the synod of 1467, chose Michael, pastor of
Senftenburg, "presbyter and bishop," and sent him to the Waldensian
bishop Stephen for sanction or consecration.718 It seems probable that Stephen had received orders at Basel
from bishops in the regular succession. On his return, Michael consecrated
Matthias of Kunwald, while he himself, for a time and for a reason not known,
was not officially recognized. The synod had resorted to the lot and placed the
words "he is" on 3 out of 12 ballots, 9 being left blank. Matthias
chose one of he printed ballots.719
Matthias, in turn, ordained Thomas and Elias bishops, men who had drawn
the other two printed ballots.
By
1500, the Bohemian Brethren numbered 200,000 scattered in 300 or 400
congregations in Bohemia and Moravia. They had their own confession, catechism
and hymnology.720 Of the 60
Bohemian books printed 1500–1510, 50 are said to have been by members of the
sect. A new period in their history was introduced by Lucas of Prag, d. 1528, a
voluminous writer. He gave explanations of the Brethren’s doctrine of the Lord’s
Supper to Luther. Brethren, including Michael Weiss, the hymnwriter, visited
the German Reformer, and in 1521 he had in his possession their catechism.
The
merciless persecutions of the Brethren and the other remaining Hussite
sectarists were opened under the Austrian rule of Ferdinand I. in 1549, and
continued, with interruptions, till the Thirty Years’ War when, under
inspiration of the Jesuits, the government resorted to measures memorable for
their heartlessness to blot out heresy from Bohemia and Moravia.
The
Church of the Brethren had a remarkable resurrection in the Moravians, starting
with the settlement of Christian David and other Hussite families in 1722 on
land given by Count Zinzendorf at Herrnhut. They preserve the venerable name of
their spiritual ancestry, Unitas Fratrum, and they have made good their
heritage by their missionary labors which have carried the Gospel to the
remotest ends of the earth, from Greenland to the West Indies and Guiana, and
from the leper colony of Jerusalem to Thibet and Australia. In our own land,
David Zeisberger and other Moravian missionaries have shown in their labors
among the Indian tribes the godly devotion of John Huss, whose body the flames
at Constance were able to destroy, but not his sacred memory and influence.
</div3></div2><div2 type =
"Chapter" n="VI" title="The Last Popes Of The Middle
Ages. 1447–152">
CHAPTER
VI.
THE
LAST POPES OF THE MIDDLE AGES. 1447–1521
<div3 type = "Section"
n="48" title="Literature and General Survey">
§ 48.
Literature and General Survey.
Works
on the Entire Chapter.—Bullarium, ed. by Tomasetti, 5 vols., Turin, 1859
sq.—Mansi: Councils, XXXI., XXXII.—Muratori: Rerum ital. scriptores. Gives
Lives of the popes.—Stefano Infessura: Diario della città di Roma, ed. by O. Tommasini,
Rome, 1890. Extends to 1494, and is the journal of an eye-witness. Also in
Muratori.—Joh. Burchard: Diarium sive rerum urbanarum commentarii, 1483–1506,
ed. by L. Thuasne, 3 vols., Paris, 1883–1885. Also in Muratori.—B. Platina, b.
1421 in Cremona, d. as superintendent of the Vatican libr., 1481: Lives of the
Popes to the Death of Paul II., 1st Lat. ed., Venice, 1479, Engl. trans. by W.
Benham in Anc. and Mod. Libr. of Theol. No date.—Sigismondo Dei Conti da
Foligno: Le storie de suoi tempi 1475–1510, 2 vols., Rome, 1883. Lat. and Ital.
texts in parallel columns.—Pastor: Ungedruckte Akten zur Gesch. der Päpste,
vol. I., 1376–1464, Freiburg, 1904.—Ranke: Hist. of the Popes.—A. von Reumont:
Gesch. d. Stadt Rom., vol. III., Berlin, 1870.—*Mandell Creighton, bp. of
London: Hist. of the Papacy during the Period of the Reformation, II. 235-IV.,
London, 1887.—*Gregorovius: Hist. of the City of Rome, Engl. trans., VII.,
VIII.—*L. Pastor, R. Cath. Prof. at Innsbruck: Gesch. der Päpste im Zeitalter
der Renaissance, 4 vols., Freiburg, 1886–1906, 4th ed., 1901–1906, Engl. trans.
F. I. Ambrosius, etc., 8 vols., 1908.—Wattenbach: Gesch. des röm. Papstthums,
2d ed., Berlin, 1876, pp. 284–300.—Hefele-Hergenröther: Conciliengeschichte,
VIII. Hergenröther’s continuation of Hefele’s work falls far below the previous
vols. by Hefele’s own hand as rev. by Knöpfler.—The Ch. Histt. of
Hergenröther-Kirsch, Hefele, Funk, Karl Müller.—H. Thurston: The Holy Year of
Jubilee. An Account of the Hist. and Ceremonial of the Rom. Jubilee, London,
1900.—Pertinent artt. in Wetzer-Welte and Herzog. The Histt. of the Renaissance
of Burckhardt and Symonds.—For fuller lit., see the extensive lists prefixed to
Pastor’s first three vols. and for a judicious estimate of the contemporary
writers, see Creighton at the close of his vols.
Note.
– The works of Creighton, Gregorovius and Pastor are very full. It is doubtful
whether any period of history has been treated so thoroughly and satisfactorily
by three contemporary historians. Pastor and Gregorovius have used new
documents discovered by themselves in the archives of Mantua, Milan, Modena,
Florence, the Vatican, etc. Pastor’s notes are vols. of erudite investigation.
Creighton is judicial but inclined to be too moderate in his estimate of the
vices of the popes, and in details not always reliable. Gregorovius’ narration
is searching and brilliant. He is unsparing in his reprobation of the
dissoluteness of Roman society and backs his statements with authorities.
Pastor’s masterly and graphic treatment is the most extensive work on the
period. Although written with ultramontane prepossessions, it is often
unsparing when it deals with the corruption of popes and cardinals, especially
Alexander VI., who has never been set forth in darker colors since the 16th
century than on its pages.
§ 49. Nicholas V.—Lives
by Platina and in Muratori, especially Manetti.—Infessura: pp. 46–59.—Gibbon: Hist. of
Rome, ch. LXVIII. For the Fall of Constantinople.—Gregorovius: VII.
101–160.—Creighton: II. 273–365.—Pastor: I. 351–774.—Geo. Findlay: Hist. of
Greece to 1864, 7 vols., Oxford, 1877, vols. IV., V.—Edw. Pears: The
Destruction of the German Empire and the Story of the Capture of Constantinople
by the Turks, London, 1903, pp. 476.
§ 50.
Pius II.—Opera omnia, Basel, 1551, 1571, 1589.—Opera inedita, by I. Cugnoni,
Rome, 1883.—His Commentaries, Pii pontif. max. commentarii rerum memorabilium
quae temporibus suis contigerunt, with the continuation of Cardinal Ammanati,
Frankfurt, 1614. Last ed. Rome, 1894.—Epistolae, Cologne, 1478, and often. Also
in opera, Basel, 1551. A. Weiss: Aeneas Sylvius als Papst Pius II. Rede mit 149
bisher ungedruckten Briefen, Graz, 1897.—Eine Rede d. Enea Silvio vor d. C. zu
Basel, ed. J. Haller in Quellen u. Forschungen aus ital. Archiven, etc., Rome,
1900, III. 82–102.—Pastor: II. 714–747 gives a number of Pius’ letters before
unpubl.—Orationes polit. et eccles. by Mansi, 3 vols., Lucae,
1755–1759.—Historia Frid. III. Best ed. by Kollar, Vienna, 1762, Germ. trans.
by Ilgen, 2 vols., in Geschichtschreiber der deutschen Vorzeit., Leipzig, 1889
sq.—Addresses at the Congress of Mantua and the bulls Execrabilis and In
minoribus in Mansi: Concil., XXXII., 191–267.—For full list of edd. of Pius’
Works, see Potthast, I. 19–25.—Platina: Lives of the Popes.—Antonius Campanus:
Vita Pii II, in Muratori, Scripp., III. 2, pp. 969–992.—G. Voigt: Enea Silvio
de’ Piccolomini als Papst Pius II. und sein Zeitalter, 3 vols., Berlin,
1856–1863.—K. Hase: Aen. Syl. Piccolomini, in Rosenvorlesungen, pp. 56–88,
Leipzig, 1880.—A. Brockhaus: Gregor von Heimburg, Leipzig, 1861.—K. Menzel:
Diether von Isenberg, als Bischof von Mainz, 1459–1463, Erlangen,
1868.—Gregorovius: VII. 160–218.—Burckhardt.—Creighton: II. 365–500.—Pastor:
II. 1–293. Art. Pius II. by Benrath in Herzog, XV. 422–435.
§ 51.
Paul II.—Lives by Platina, Gaspar Veronensis, and M. Canensius of Viterbo, both
in Muratori, new ed., 1904, III., XVI., p. 3 sqq., with Preface, pp. i-xlvi.—A.
Patritius: Descriptio adventus Friderici III. ad Paulum II., Muratori, XXIII.
205–215.—Ammanati’s Continuation of Pius lI.’s Commentaries, Frankfurt ed.,
1614. Gaspar Veronensis gives a panegyric of the cardinals and Paul’s
relatives, and stops before really taking up Paul’s biography. Platina, from
personal pique, disparaged Paul II. Canensius’ Life is in answer to Platina,
and the most important biography.—Gregorovius: VII.—Creighton: III.—Pastor: II.
§§
52, 53. Sixtus IV., Innocent VIII.—Infessura, pp. 75–283.—Burchard, in
Thuasne’s ed., vol. I.—J. Gherardi da Volterra: Diario Romano, 1479–1484, in
Muratori, Scripp., XXIII. 3, also the ed. of 1904.—Platina in Muratori, III.,
p. 1053, etc. (accepted by Pastor as genuine and with some question by
Creighton).—Sigismondo dei Conti da Foligno: vol. I. Infessura is severe on Sixtus
IV. and Innocent VIII. Volterra, who received an office from Sixtus, does not
pronounce a formal judgment. Sigismondo, who was advanced by Sixtus, is partial
to him.—A. Thuasne: Djem, Sultan, fils de Mohammed II. d’après les documents
originaux en grande partie inédits, Paris, 1892.—Gregorovius: VII.
241–340.—Pastor: II. 451-III. 284.—Creighton: III. 56–156.—W. Roscoe: Life of
Lorenzo the Magnificent, 2 vols., Liverpool, 1795, 6th ed., London, 1825, etc.
§ 54.
Alexander VI.—Bulls in Bullarium Rom.—The Regesta of Alex., filling 113 vols.,
in the Vatican, Nos. 772–884. After being hidden from view for three centuries,
they were opened, 1888, by Leo XIII. to the inspection and use of Pastor.—See
Pastor’s Preface in his Gesch. der Päpste, Infessura. Stops at Feb. 26,
1494.—Burchard: vols. II., III.—Sigismondo de’ Conti: Le storie, etc.—Gordon:
Life of Alex. VI., London, 1728.—Abbé Ollivier: Le pape Alex. VI. et les
Borgia, Paris, 1870.—V. Nemec: Papst Alex. VI., eine Rechtfertigung,
Klagenfurt, 1879. Both attempts to rescue this pope from infamy.—Leonetti: Papa
Aless. VI., 3 vols., Bologna, 1880.—M. Brosch: Alex. VI. u. seine Söhne,
Vienna, 1889.—C. von Höfler: Don Rodrigo de Borgia und seine Söhne, Don Pedro
Luis u. Don Juan, Vienna, 1889.—Höfler: D. Katastrophe des herzöglichen Hauses
des Borgias von Gandia, Vienna, 1892.—Schubertsoldem: D. Borgias u. ihre Zeit,
1907.—Reumont: Gesch. der Stadt Rom. Also art. Alex. VI. in Wetzer-Welte, I.
483–491.—H. F. Delaborde: L’expédition de Chas. VIII. en Italie, Paris,
1888.—Ranke: Hist. of the Popes.—Roscoe: Life of Lorenzo.—Gregorovius: Hist. of
City of Rome, vol. VII. Also Lucrezia Borgia, 3d ed., Stuttgart, 1875. Engl.
trans. by J. L. Garner, 2 vols., New York, 1903.—Creighton: III.—Pastor:
III.—Hergenröther-Kirsch: III. 982–988.—* P. Villari: Machiavelli and his
times, Engl. trans., 4 vols., London, 1878–1883.—Burckhardt and Symonds on the
Renaissance.—E. G. Bourne: Demarcation Line Of Alex. Vi. In Essays In Hist.
Criticism.—Lord Acton: The Borgias and their Latest Historian, in North Brit.
Rev., 1871, pp. 351–367.
§ 55.
Julius II. Bullarium IV.—Burchard: Diarium to May, 1506.—Sigismondo: vol.
II.—Paris de Grassis, master of ceremonies at the Vatican, 1504 sqq.: Diarium
from May 12, 1504, ed. by L. Frati, Bologna, 1886, and Döllinger in Beitäge zur
pol. Kirchl. u. Culturgesch. d. letzen 6 Jahrh., 3 vols., Vienna, 1863–1882,
III. 363–433.—A. Giustinian, Venetian ambassador: Dispacci, Despatches,
1502–1505, ed. by Villari, 3 vols., Florence, 1876, and by Rawdon Browning in
Calendar of State Papers, London, 1864 sq.—Fr. Vettori: Sommario delta storia
d’Italia 1511–1527, ed. by Reumont in Arch. Stor. Itat., Append. B., pp.
261–387.—Dusmenil: Hist. de Jules II., Paris, 1873.—* M. Brosch: Papst Julius
II. und die Gründung des Kirchenstaats, Gotha, 1878.—P. Lehmann: D. pisaner
Konzit vom Jahre, 1511, Breslau, 1874.—Hefele-Hergenröther: VIII.
392–592.—Benrath: Art. Julius II., in Herzog, IX. 621–625.—Villari:
Machiavelli.—Ranke: I. 36–59.—Reumont: III., Pt. 2, pp. 1–49. Gregorovius:
VIII.—Creighton: IV. 54–176.—Pastor: III.
§ 56.
Leo X.—Regesta to Oct. 16, 1515, ed. by Hergenröther, 8 vols., Rome,
1884–1891.—Mansi: XXXII. 649–1001.—Paris de Grassis, as above, and ed. by
Armellini: Il diario de Leone X., Rome, 1884. Vettori: Sommario.—M. Sanuto,
Venetian ambassador: Diarii, I.-XV., Venice, 1879 sqq.—*Paulus Jovius, b. 1483,
acquainted with Leo: De Vita Leonis, Florence, 1549. The only biog. till
Fabroni’s Life, 1797.—* L. Landucci: Diario Fiorentino 1450–1516, continued to
1542, ed. by Badia, Florence, 1883.—*W. Roscoe: Life and Pontificate of Leo X.,
4 vols., Liverpool, 1805, 6th ed. rev. by his son, London, 1853. The book took
high rank, and its value continues. Apologetic for Leo, whom the author
considers the greatest pope of modern times. Put on the Index by Leo XII., d.
1829. A Germ. trans. by Glaser and Henke, with valuable notes, 3 vols.,
Leipzig, 1806–1808. Ital. trans. by Count L. Bossi, Milan, 1816 sq.—E. Muntz:
Raphael, His Life, Work, and Times, Engl. trans., W. Armstrong, London,
1896.—E. Armstrong: Lor. de’ Medici, New York, 1896.—H. M. Vaughan: The Medici
Popes (Leo X. and Clement VII.), London, 1908. Hefele-Hergenröther: VIII.
592–855.—Reumont: III. Pt. 2, pp. 49–146. Villari: Machiavelli.—Creighton:
IV.—Gregorovius: VIII.—Pastor: IV.—Köstlin: Life of Luther, I. 204–525.—*A.
Schulte: Die Fugger in Rom. 1495–1523, 2 vols., Leipzig,
1904.—Burckhardt.—Symonds.
Popes.—Nicolas
V., 1447–1455; Calixtus III., 1455–1458; Pius II., 1458–1464; Paul II.,
1464–1471; Sixtus IV., 1471–1484; Innocent VIII., 1484–1492; Alexander VI.,
1492–1503; Pius III., 1503; Julius II., 1503–1513; Leo X., 1513–1521.
The
period of the Reformatory councils, closing with the Basel-Ferrara synod, was
followed by a period notable in the history of the papacy, the period of the
Renaissance popes. These pontiffs of the last years of the Middle Ages were men
famous alike for their intellectual endowments, the prostitution of their
office to personal aggrandizement and pleasure and the lustre they gave to Rome
by their patronage of letters and the fine arts. The decree of the Council of
Constance, asserting the supreme authority of oecumenical councils, treated as
a dead letter by Eugenius IV., was definitely set aside by Pius II. in a bull
forbidding appeals from papal decisions and affirming finality for the pope’s
authority. For 70 years no general assembly of the Church was called.
The
ten pontiffs who sat on the pontifical throne, 1450–1517, represented in their
origin the extremes of fortune, from the occupation of the fisherman, as in the
case of Sixtus IV., to the refinement of the most splendid aristocracy of the
age, as in the case of Leo X. of the family of the Medici. In proportion as
they embellished Rome and the Vatican with the treasures of art, did they seem
to withhold themselves from that sincere religious devotion which would
naturally be regarded as a prime characteristic of one claiming to be the chief
pastor of the Christian Church on earth. No great principle of administration
occupied their minds. No conspicuous movement of pious activity received their
sanction, unless the proposed crusade to reconquer Constantinople be accounted
such, but into that purpose papal ambition entered more freely than devotion to
the interests of religion.
This
period was the flourishing age of nepotism in the Vatican. The bestowment of
papal favors by the pontiffs upon their nephews and other relatives dates as a
recognized practice from Boniface VIII. In vain did papal conclaves, following
the decree of Constance, adopt protocols, making the age of 30 the lowest limit
for appointment to the sacred college, and putting a check on papal favoritism.
Ignoring the instincts of modesty and the impulse of religion, the popes
bestowed the red hat upon their young nephews and grandnephews and upon the
sons of princes, in spite of their utter disqualification both on the ground of
intelligence and of morals. The Vatican was beset by relatives of the pontiffs,
hungry for the honors and the emoluments of office. Here are some of those who
were made cardinals before they were 30: Calixtus III. appointed his nephews,
Juan and Rodrigo Borgia (Alexander VI.), the latter 25, and the little son of
the king of Portugal; Pius II., his nephew at 23, and Francis Gonzaga at 17; Sixtus
IV., John of Aragon at 14, his nephews, Peter and Julian Rovere, at 25 and 28,
and his grandnephew, Rafaelle Riario, at 17; Innocent VIII., John Sclafenatus
at 23, Giovanni de’ Medici at 13; Alexander VI., in 1493, Hippolito of Este at
15, whom Sixtus had made archbishop of Strigonia at 8, his son, Caesar Borgia,
at 18, Alexander Farnese (Paul III.), brother of the pope’s mistress, at 25,
and Frederick Casimir, son of the king of Poland, at 19; Leo X., in 1513, his
nephew, Innocent Cibo, at 21, and his cousin, the illegitimate Julius de’
Medici, afterwards Clement VII., and in 1517 three more nephews, one of them
the bastard son of his brother, also Alfonzo of Portugal at 7, and John of
Loraine, son of the duke of Sicily, at 20. This is an imperfect list.721 Bishoprics, abbacies and other
ecclesiastical appointments were heaped upon the papal children, nephews and other
favorites. The cases in which the red hat was conferred for piety or learning
were rare, while the houses of Mantua, Ferrara and Modena, the Medici of
Florence, the Sforza of Milan, the Colonna and the Orsini had easy access to
the Apostolic camera.
The
cardinals vied with kings in wealth and luxury, and their palaces were enriched
with the most gorgeous furnishings and precious plate, and filled with
servants. They set an example of profligacy which they carried into the Vatican
itself. The illegitimate offspring of pontiffs were acknowledged without a
blush, and the sons and daughters of the highest houses in Italy, France and
Spain were sought in marriage for them by their indulgent fathers. The Vatican
was given up to nuptial and other entertainments, even women of ill-repute
being invited to banquets and obscene comedies performed in its chambers.
The
prodigal expenditures of the papal household were maintained in part by the
great sums, running into tens of thousands of ducats, which rich men were willing
to pay for the cardinalate. When the funds of the Vatican ran low, loans were
secured from the Fuggers and other banking houses and the sacred things of the
Vatican put in pawn, even to the tiara itself. The amounts required by
Alexander VI. for marriage dowries for his children, and by Leo X. for nephews,
were enormous.
Popes,
like Sixtus IV. and Alexander VI., had no scruple about involving Italy in
internecine wars in order to compass the papal schemes either in the
enlargement of papal domain or the enrichment of papal sons and nephews. Julius
II. was a warrior and went to the battle-field in armor. No sovereign of his
age was more unscrupulous in resorting to double dealing in his diplomacy than
was Leo X. To reach the objects of its ambition, the holy see was ready even to
form alliances with the sultan. The popes, so Döllinger says, from Paul II. to
Leo X., did the most it was possible to do to cover the papacy with shame and
disgrace and to involve Italy in the horrors of endless wars.722 The Judas-like betrayal of Christ in
the highest seat of Christendom, the gayeties, scandals and crimes of popes as
they pass before the reader in the diaries of Infessura, Burchard and de
Grassis and the despatches of the ambassadors of Venice, Mantua and other
Italian states, and as repeated by Creighton, Pastor and Gregorovius, make this
period one of the most dramatic in human annals. The personal element furnished
scene after scene of consuming interest. It seems to the student as if history
were approaching some great climax.
Three
events of permanent importance for the general history of mankind also occurred
in this age, the overthrow of the Byzantine empire, 1453, the discovery of the
Western world, 1492, and the invention of printing. It closed with a general
council, the Fifth Lateran, which adjourned only a few months before the
Reformer in the North shook the papal fabric to its base and opened the door of
the modern age.
</div3> <div3 type = "Section"
n="49" title="Nicolas V. 1447–1455">
§ 49.
Nicolas V. 1447–1455.
Nicolas
V., 1447–1455, the successor of Bugenius IV., was ruled by the spirit of the
new literary culture, the Renaissance, and was the first Maecenas in a line of
popes like-minded. Following his example, his successors were for a century
among the foremost patrons of art and letters in Europe. What Gregory VII. was
to the system of the papal theocracy, that Nicolas was to the artistic revival
in Rome. Under his rule, the eternal city witnessed the substantial beginnings
of that transformation, in which it passed from a spectacle of ruins and
desertion to a capital adorned with works of art and architectural
construction. He himself repaired and beautified the Vatican and St. Peter’s,
laid the foundation of the Vatican library and called scholars and artists to
his court.723
Thomas
Parentucelli, born 1397, the son of a physician of Sarzana, owed nothing of his
distinction to the position of his family. His father was poor, and the son was
little of stature, with disproportionately short legs. What he lacked, however,
in bodily parts, he made up in intellectual endowments, tact and courtesies of
manner. His education at Bologna being completed, his ecclesiastical preferment
was rapid. In 1444, he was made archbishop of Bologna and, on his return from
Germany as papal legate, 1446, he was honored with the red hat. Four months
later he was elevated to the papal throne, and according to Aeneas Sylvius,
whose words about the eminent men of his day always have a diplomatic flavor,
Thomas was so popular that there was no one who did not approve his election.
To
Nicolas was given the notable distinction of witnessing the complete reunion of
Western Christendom. By the abdication of Felix V., whom he treated with
discreet and liberal generosity, and by Germany’s abandonment of its attitude
of neutrality, he could look back upon papal schism and divided obediences as matters
of the past.
The
Jubilee Year, celebrated in 1450, was adapted to bind the European nations
closely to Rome, and to stir up anew the fires of devotion which had languished
during the ecclesiastical disputes of nearly a century.724 So vast were the throngs of pilgrims
that the contemporary, Platina, felt justified in asserting that such
multitudes had never been seen in the holy city before. According to Aeneas,
40,000 went daily from church to church. The handkerchief of St. Veronica,—lo
sudario,—bearing the outline of the Lord’s face, was exhibited every Sabbath,
and the heads of St. Peter and St. Paul every Saturday. The large sums of money
which the pilgrims left, Nicolas knew well how to use in carrying out his plans
for beautifying the churches and streets of the city.
The
calamity, which occurred on the bridge of St. Angelo, and cast a temporary
gloom over the festivities of the holy year, is noticed by all the contemporary
writers. The mule belonging to Peter Barbus, cardinal of St. Mark’s, was
crushed to death, so dense were the crowds, and in the excitement two hundred
persons or more were trodden down or drowned by being pushed or throwing
themselves into the Tiber. To prevent a repetition of the disaster, the pope
had several buildings obstructing the passage to the bridge pulled down.725
In
the administration of the properties of the holy see, Nicolas was discreet and
successful. He confirmed the papal rule over the State of the Church, regained
Bolsena and the castle of Spoleto, and secured the submission of Bologna, to
which he sent Bessarion as papal legate. The conspiracy of Stephen Porcaro, who
emulated the ambitions of Rienzo, was put down in 1453 and left the pope
undisputed master of Rome. In his selection of cardinals he was wise, Nicolas
of Cusa being included in the number. The appointment of his younger brother,
Philip Calandrini, to the sacred college, aroused no unfavorable criticism.
Nicolas’
reign witnessed, in 1452, the last coronation in Rome of a German emperor,
Frederick III. This monarch, who found in his councillor, Aeneas Sylvius, an
enthusiastic biographer, but who, by the testimony of others, was weak and
destitute of martial spirit and generous qualities, was the first of the
Hapsburgs to receive the crown in the holy city, and held the imperial office
longer than any other of the emperors before or after him. With his coronation
the emperor combined the celebration of his nuptials to Leonora of Portugal.
Frederick’s
journey to Italy and his sojourn in Rome offered to the pen of Aeneas a rare
opportunity for graphic description, of which he was a consummate master. The
meeting with the future empress, the welcome extended to his majesty, the
festivities of the marriage and the coronation, the trappings of the soldiery,
the blowing of the horns, the elegance of the vestments worn by the emperor and
his visit to the artistic wonders of St. Peter’s,—these and other scenes the
shrewd and facile Aeneas depicted. The Portuguese princess, whose journey from
Lisbon occupied 104 days, disembarked at Leghorn, February, 1452, where she was
met by Frederick, attended by a brilliant company of knights. After joining in
gay entertainments at Siena, lasting four days, the party proceeded to Rome.
Leonora, who was only sixteen, was praised by those who saw her for her rare
beauty and charms of person. She was to become the mother of Maximilian and the
ancestress of Charles V.726
On
reaching the gates of the papal capital, Frederick was met by the cardinals,
who offered him the felicitations of the head of Christendom, but also demanded
from him the oath of allegiance, which was reluctantly promised. The
ceremonies, which followed the emperor’s arrival, were such as to flatter his
pride and at the same time to confirm the papal tenure of power in the city.
Frederick was received by Nicolas on the steps of St. Peter’s, seated in an
ivory chair, and surrounded by his cardinals, standing. The imperial visitor
knelt and kissed the pontiff’s foot. On March 16, Nicolas crowned him with the
iron crown of Lombardy and united the imperial pair in marriage. Leonora then
went to her own palace, and Frederick to the Vatican as its guest. The reason
for his lodging near the pope was that Nicolas might have opportunity for
frequent communication with him or, as rumor went, to prevent the Romans
approaching him under cover of darkness with petitions for the restoration of
their liberties.727
Three days later, March 19, the crown of the empire was placed upon
Frederick’s head.728
With his consort he then received the elements from the pope’s hand. The
following week Frederick proceeded to Naples.729
Scarcely
in any pontificate has so notable and long-forecasted an event occurred as the
fall of Constantinople into the hands of the Turks, which took place May 29,
1453. The last of the Constantines perished in the siege, fighting bravely at the
gate of St. Romanos. The church of Justinian, St. Sophia, was turned into a
mosque, and a cross, surmounted with a janissary’s cap, was carried through the
streets, while the soldiers shouted, "This is the Christian’s God."
This historic catastrophe would have been regarded in Western Europe as
appalling, if it had not been expected. The steady advance of the Turks and
their unspeakable atrocities had kept the Greek empire in alarm for centuries.
Three hundred years before, Latin Christendom had been taught to expect defeats
at the hands of the Mohammedans in the taking of Edessa, 1145, and the fatal
battle of Hattin and the loss of Jerusalem, 1187.
In
answer to the appeals of the Greeks, Nicolas despatched Isidore as legate to
Constantinople with a guard of 200 troops, but, as a condition of helping the
Eastern emperor, he insisted that the Ferrara articles of union be ratified in
Constantinople. In a long communication, dated Oct. 11, 1451, the Roman pontiff
declared that schisms had always been punished more severely than other evils.
Korah, Dathan and Abiram, who attempted to divide the people of God, received a
more bitter punishment than those who introduced idolatry. There could not be
two heads to an empire or the Church. There is no salvation outside of the one
Church. He was lost in the flood who was not housed in Noah’s ark. Whatever
opinion it may have entertained of these claims, the Byzantine court was in too
imminent danger to reject the papal condition, and in December, 1452, Isidore,
surrounded by 300 priests, announced, in the church of St. Sophia, the union of
the Greek and Latin communions. But even now the Greek people violently
resented the union, and the most powerful man of the empire, Lucas Notaras,
announced his preference for the turban to the tiara. The aid offered by
Nicolas was at best small. The last week of April, 1453, ten papal galleys set
sail with some ships from Naples, Venice and Genoa, but they were too late to
render any assistance.730
The
termination of the venerable and once imposing fabric on the Bosphorus by the
Asiatic invader was the only fate possible for an empire whose rulers, boasting
themselves the successors of Constantine, Theodosius and Justinian, Christian
in name and most Christian by the standard of orthodox professions, had heaped
their palaces full of pagan luxury and excess. The government, planted in the
most imperial spot on the earth, had forfeited the right to exist by an insipid
and nerveless reliance upon the traditions of the past. No elements of revival
manifested themselves from within. Religious formulas had been substituted for
devotion. Much as the Christian student may regret the loss of this last
bulwark of Christianity in the East, he will be inclined to find in the
disaster the judgment realized with which the seven churches of the Apocalypse
were threatened which were not worthy. The problem which was forced upon Europe
by the arrival of the Grand Turk, as contemporaries called Mohammed II., still
awaits solution from wise diplomacy or force of arms or through the slow and
silent movement of modern ideas of government and popular rights.
The
disaster which overtook the Eastern empire, Nicolas V. felt would be regarded
by after generations as a blot upon his pontificate, and others, like Aeneas
Sylvius, shared this view.731
He
issued a bull summoning the Christian nations to a crusade for the recovery of
Constantinople, and stigmatized Mohammed II. as the dragon described in the
Book of Revelation. Absolution was offered to those who would spend six months
in the holy enterprise or maintain a representative for that length of time.
Christendom was called upon to contribute a tenth. The cardinals were enjoined
to do the same, and all the papal revenues accruing from larger and smaller
benefices, from bishoprics, archbishoprics and convents, were promised for the
undertaking.
Feeble
was the response which Europe gave. The time of crusading enthusiasm was
passed. The Turk was daring and to be dreaded. An assembly called by Frederick
III., at Regensburg in the Spring of 1454, at which the emperor himself did not
put in an appearance, listened to an eloquent appeal by Aeneas, but adjourned
the subject to the diet to meet in Frankfurt in October. Again the emperor was
not present, and the diet did nothing. Down to the era of the Reformation the
crusade against the Turk remained one of the chief official concerns of the
papacy.
If
Nicolas died disappointed over his failure to influence the princes to
undertake a campaign against the Turks, his fame abides as the intelligent and
genial patron of letters and the arts. In this rôle he laid after generations
under obligation to him as Innocent III., by his crusading armies, did not. He
lies buried in St. Peter’s at the side of his predecessor, Eugenius IV.732
The
next pontiff, the Spaniard, Calixtus III., 1455–1458, had two chief concerns,
the dislodgment of the Turks from Constantinople and the advancement of the
fortunes of the Borgia family, to which he belonged. Made cardinal by Eugenius
IV., he was 77 years old when he was elected pope. From his day, the Borgias
played a prominent part in Rome, their career culminating in the ambitions and
scandals of Rodrigo Borgia, for 30 years cardinal and then pope under the name
of Alexander VI.
Calixtus
opened his pontificate by vowing "to Almighty God and the Holy Trinity, by
wars, maledictions, interdicts, excommunications and in all other ways to
punish the Turks."733
Legates were despatched to kindle the zeal of princes throughout Europe.
Papal jewels were sold, and gold and silver clasps were torn from the books of
the Vatican and turned into money. At a given hour daily the bells were rung in
Rome that all might give themselves to prayer for the sacred war. But to the
indifference of most of the princes was added active resistance on the part of
France. Venice, always looking out for her own interests, made a treaty with
the Turks. Frederick III. was incompetent. The weak fleet the pope was able to
muster sailed forth from Ostia under Cardinal Serampo to empty victories. The
gallant Hungarian, Hunyady, brought some hope by his brilliant feat in
relieving Belgrade, July 14, 1456, but the rejoicing was reduced by the news of
the gallant leader’s death. Scanderbeg, the Albanian, who a year later was
appointed papal captain-general, was indeed a brave hero, but, unsupported by
Western Europe, he was next to powerless.
Calixtus’
unblushing nepotism surpassed anything of the kind which had been known in the
papal household before. Catalan adventurers pressed into Rome and stormed their
papal fellow-countrymen with demands for office. Upon the three sons of two of
his sisters, Juan of Milan, son of Catherine Borgia, and Pedro Luis and
Rodrigo, sons of Isabella, he heaped favor after favor. Adopted by their uncle,
Pedro and Rodrigo were the objects of his sleepless solicitude. Gregorovius has
compared the members of the Borgia family to the Roman Claudii. By the
endowment of nature they were vigorous and handsome, and by nature and
practice, sensual, ambitious, and high-handed,—their coat of arms a bull. Under
protest from the curia, Rodrigo and Juan of Milan were made cardinals, 1457,
both the young men still in their twenties.
Their
unsavory habits were already a byword in Rome. Rodrigo was soon promoted over
the heads of the other members of the sacred college to the place of
vice-chancellor, the most lucrative position within the papal gift. At the same
time, the little son—figliolo — of the king of Portugal, as Infessura calls
him, was given the red hat.
With
astounding rapidity Pedro Luis, who remained a layman, was advanced to the
highest positions in the state, and made governor of St. Angelo and duke of
Spoleto, and put in possession of Terni, Narni, Todi and other papal fiefs.734 It was supposed that it was the fond
uncle’s intention, at the death of Alfonso of Naples, to invest this nephew
with the Neapolitan crown by setting aside Alfonso’s illegitimate son, Don
Ferrante.
Calixtus’
death was the signal for the flight of the Spanish lobbyists, whose houses were
looted by the indignant Romans. Discerning the coming storm, Pedro made the
best bargain he could by selling S. Angelo to the cardinals for 20,000 ducats,
and then took a hasty departure.
Like
Honorius III., Calixtus might have died of a broken heart over his failure to
arouse Europe to the effort of a crusade, if it had not been for this consuming
concern for the fortunes and schemes of his relatives. From this time on, for
more than half a century, the gift of dignities and revenues under papal
control for personal considerations and to unworthy persons for money was an
outstanding feature in the history of the popes.
</div3> <div3 type = "Section"
n="50" title="Aeneas Sylvius de’ Piccolomini, Pius
II">
§ 50.
Aeneas Sylvius de’ Piccolomini, Pius II.
The
next pontiff, Pius II., has a place among the successful men of history.
Lacking high enthusiasms and lofty aims, he was constantly seeking his own
interests and, through diplomatic shrewdness, came to be the most conspicuous
figure of his time. He was ruled by expediency rather than principle. He never
swam against the stream.735
When he found himself on the losing side, he was prompt in changing to
the other.
Aeneas
Sylvius de’ Piccolomini was born in 1405 at Corsignano, a village located on a
bold spur of the hills near Siena. He was one of 18 children, and his family,
which had been banished from Siena, was poor but of noble rank. At 18, the son
began studying in the neighboring city, where he heard Bernardino preach. Later
he learned Greek in Florence. It was a great opportunity when Cardinal
Capranica took this young man with him as his secretary to Basel, 1431.
Gregorovius has remarked that it was the golden age of secretaries, most of the
Humanists serving in that capacity. Later, Aeneas went into the service of the
bishop of Novaro, whom he accompanied to Rome. The bishop was imprisoned for
the part he had taken in a conspiracy against Eugenius IV. The secretary escaped
a like treatment by flight. He then served Cardinal Albergati, with whom he
travelled to France. He also visited England and Scotland.736
Returning
to Basel, Aeneas became one of the conspicuous personages in the council, was a
member, and often acted as chairman of one of the four committees, the
committee on faith, and was sent again and again on embassies to Strassburg, Frankfurt,
Trent and other cities. The council also appointed him its chief abbreviator.
In 1440 he decided in favor of the rump-synod, which continued to meet in
Basel, and espoused the cause of Felix V., who made him his secretary. The same
year he wrote the tract on general councils.737 Finding the cause of the anti-pope waning, he secured a
place under Frederick III., and succeeded to the full in ingratiating himself
in that monarch’s favor. His Latin epigrams and verses won for him the
appointment of poet-laureate, and his diplomatic cleverness and versatility the
highest place in the royal council. At first he joined with Schlick, the
chancellor, in holding Frederick to a neutral attitude between Eugenius and the
anti-pope, but then, turning apostate to the cause of neutrality, gracefully
and unreservedly gave in his submission to the Roman pontiff. While on an
embassy to Rome, 1445, he excused himself before Eugenius for his errors at
Basel on the plea of lack of experience. He at once became useful to the pope,
and a year later received the appointment of papal secretary. By his
persuasion, Frederick transferred his obedience to Eugenius, which Aeneas was
able to announce in person to the pope a few days before his death. From
Nicolas V. he received the sees of Trieste, 1447, and Siena, 1450, and in 1456
promotion to the college of cardinals.
At
the time of his election as pope, Aeneas was 53 years old. He had risen by tact
and an accurate knowledge of men and European affairs. He was a thorough man of
the world, and capable of grasping a situation in a glance. He had been
profligate, and his love affairs were many. A son was born to him in Scotland,
and another, by an Englishwoman, in Strassburg. In a letter to his father,
asking him to adopt the second child, he described, without concealment and
apparently without shame, the measures he took to seduce the mother. He spoke
of wantonness as an old vice. He himself was no eunuch nor without passion. He
could not claim to be wiser than Solomon nor holier than David. Aeneas also
used his pen in writing tales of love adventures. His History of Frederick III.
contains prurient details that would not be tolerated in a respectable author
to-day. He was even ready to instruct youth in methods of self-indulgence, and
wrote to Sigismund, the young duke of the Tyrol, neither to neglect literature
nor to deny himself the blandishments of Venus.738 This advice was recalled to his face by the canonist George
von Heimburg at the Congress of Mantua. The famous remark belongs to Aeneas
that the celibacy of the clergy was at one time with good reason made subject
of positive legislation, but the time had come when there was better reason for
allowing priests to marry. He himself did not join the clerical order till
1446, when he was consecrated subdeacon. Before Pius’ election,739 the conclave bound the coming pope to
prosecute the war against the Turk, to observe the rules of the Council of
Constance about the sacred college and to consult its members before making new
appointments to bishoprics and the greater abbeys. Nominations of cardinals
were to be made to the camera, and their ratification to depend upon a majority
of its votes. Each cardinal whose income did not amount to 4,000 florins was to
receive 100 florins a month till the sum of 4,000 was reached. This solemn
compact formed a precedent which the cardinals for more than half a century
followed.
Aeneas’
constitution was already shattered. He was a great sufferer from the stone, the
gout and a cough, and spent many months of his pontificate at Viterbo and other
baths. His rule was not distinguished by any enduring measures. He conducted
himself well, had the respect of the Romans, received the praise of
contemporary biographers, and did all he could to further the measures for the
expulsion of the Turks from Europe. He appointed the son of his sister,
Laodamia, cardinal at the age of 23, and in 1461 he bestowed the same dignity
on Francis Gonzaga, a youth of only 17. These appointments seem to have
awakened no resentment.
To
advance the interest of the crusade against the Turks, Pius called a congress
of princes to meet in Mantua, 1460. On his way thither, accompanied by
Bessarion, Borgia and other cardinals, he visited his birthplace, Corsignana,
and raised it to a bishopric, changing its name to Pienza. He also began the
construction of a palace and cathedral which still endure. Siena he honored by
conferring the Golden Rose on its signiory, and promoting the city to the
dignity of a metropolitan see. He also enriched it with one of John the
Baptist’s arms. Florence arranged for the pope’s welcome brilliant
amusements,—theatrical plays, contests of wild beasts, races between lions and
horses, and dances,—worldly rather than religious spectacles, as Pastor
remarks.
The
princes were slow in arriving in Mantua, and the attendance was not such as to
justify the opening of the congress till Sept. 26. Envoys from Thomas
Palaeologus of the Morea, brother of the last Byzantine emperor, from Lesbos,
Cyprus, Rhodes and other parts of the East were on hand to pour out their
laments. In his opening address, lasting three hours, Pius called upon the
princes to emulate Stephen, Peter, Andrew, Sebastian, St. Lawrence and other
martyrs in readiness to lay down their lives in the holy war. The aggression of
the Turks had robbed Christendom of some of its fairest seats,—Antioch, where
the followers of Christ for the first time received the name Christians,
Solomon’s temple, where Christ so often preached, Bethlehem, where he was born,
the Jordan, in which he was baptized, Tabor, on which he was transfigured,
Calvary, where he was crucified. If they wanted to retain their own
possessions, their wives, their children, their liberty, the very faith in
which they were baptized, they must believe in war and carry on war. Joshua
continued to have victory over his enemies till the sun went down; Gideon, with
300, scattered the Midianites; Jephthah, with a small army, put to flight the
swarms of the Ammonites; Samson had brought the proud Philistines to shame;
Godfrey, with a handful of men, had destroyed an innumerable number of the
enemy and slaughtered the Turks like cattle. Passionately the papal orator
exclaimed, O! that Godfrey were once more present, and Baldwin and Eustache and
Bohemund and Tancred, and the other mighty men who broke through the ranks of
the Turks and regained Jerusalem by their arms.740
The
assembly was stirred to a great heat, but, so a contemporary says, the ardor
soon cooled. Cardinal Bessarion followed Pius with an address which also lasted
three hours. Of eloquence there was enough, but the crusading age was over. The
conquerors of Jerusalem had been asleep for nearly 400 years. Splendid orations
could not revive that famous outburst of enthusiasm which followed Urban’s
address at Clermont. In this case the element of romance was wanting which the
conquest of the Holy Sepulchre had furnished. The prowess of the conquering
Turks was a hard fact.
During
the Congress of Mantua the controversy broke out between the German lawyer,
Gregor of Heimburg, and Pius. They had met before at Basel. Heimburg,
representing the duke of the Tyrol, who had imprisoned Nicolas of Cusa spoke
against the proposed crusade. He openly insulted the pope by keeping on his hat
in his presence, an indignity he jokingly explained as a precaution against the
catarrh. From the sentence of excommunication, pronounced against his ducal
master, he appealed to a general council, August 13, 1460. He himself was
punished with excommunication, and Pius called upon the city of Nürnberg to
expel him as the child of the devil and born of the artifice of lies. Heimburg
became a wanderer until the removal of the ban, 1472. He was the strongest
literary advocate in Germany of the Basel decrees and the superiority of
councils, and has been called a predecessor of Luther and precursor of the
Reformation.741 Diether,
archbishop of Mainz, another advocate of the conciliar system, who entered into
compacts with the German princes to uphold the Basel decrees and to work for a
general council on German soil, was deposed, 1461, as Hermann, archbishop of
Cologne, was deposed a hundred years later for undertaking measures of reform
in his diocese.
Pius
left Mantua the last of January, 1461, stopping on the return journey a second
time at his beloved Siena, and canonizing its distinguished daughter, Catherine.742 Here Rodrigo Borgia’s gayeties were so
notorious as to call forth papal rebuke. The cardinal gave banquets to which
women were invited without their husbands. In a severe letter to the future
supreme pontiff, Pius spoke of the dancing at the entertainments as being
performed, so he understood, with "all licentiousness."
The
ease with which Pius, when it was to his interest, renounced theories which he
once advocated is shown in two bulls. The first, the famous bull, Execrabilis,
declared it an accursed and unheard-of abuse to make appeal to a council from
the decisions of the Roman pontiff, Christ’s vicar, to whom it was given to
feed his sheep and to bind and loose on earth and in heaven. To rid the Church
of this pestiferous venom,—pestiferum virus,—it announced the papal purpose to
damn such appeals and to lay upon the appellants a curse from which there could
be no absolution except by the Roman pontiff himself and in the article of
death.743 Thus the solemn
principle which had bloomed so promisingly in the fair days of the councils of
Constance and Basel, and for which Gerson and D’Ailly had so zealously contended,
was set aside by one stroke of the pen. Thenceforward, the decree announced,
papal decisions were to be treated as final.
Three
years later, April 26, 1463, the theory of the supremacy of general councils
was set aside in still more precise language.744 In an elaborate letter addressed to the rector and scholars
of the University of Cologne, Pius pronounced for the monarchical form of
government in the church—monarchicum regimen — as being of divine origin, and
the one given to Peter. As storks follow one leader, and as the bees have one
king, so the militant church has in the vicar of Christ one who is moderator
and arbiter of all. He receives his authority directly from Christ without
mediation. He is the prince—praesul — of all the bishops, the heir of the
Apostles, of the line of Abel and Melchisedek. As for the Council Of Constance,
Pius expressed his regard for its decrees so far as they were approved by his
predecessors, but the definitions of general councils, he affirmed, are subject
to the sanction of the supreme pontiff, Peter’s successor. With reference to
his former utterances at Basel, he expressly revoked anything he had said in
conflict with the positions taken in the bull, and ascribed those statements to
immaturity of mind, the imprudence of youth and the circumstances of his early
training. Quis non errat mortalis—what mortal does not make mistakes, he
exclaimed. Reject Aeneas and follow Pius—Aeneam rejicite, Pium recipite — he
said. The first was a Gentile name given by parents at the birth of their son;
the second, the name he had adopted on his elevation to the Apostolic see.745
It
would not be ingenuous to deny to Pius II., in making retractation, the virtue
of sincerity. A strain of deep feeling runs through its long paragraphs which
read like the last testament of a man speaking from the heart. Inspired by the
dignity of his office, the pope wanted to be in accord with the long line of
his predecessors, some of whom he mentioned by name, from Peter and Clement to
the Innocents and Boniface. In issuing the decree of papal infallibility four
centuries later, Pius IX. did not excel his predecessor in the art of
composition; but he had this advantage over him that his announcement was
stamped with the previous ratification of a general council. The two documents
of the two popes of the name Pius reach the summit of papal assumption and
consigned to burial the theories of the final authority of general councils and
the infallibility of their decrees.
Scarcely
could any two things be thought of more incongruous than Pius II.’s culture and
the glorious reception he gave in 1462 to the reputed head of the Apostle
Andrew. This highly prized treasure was brought to Italy by Thomas Palaeologus,
who, in recognition of his pious benevolence toward the holy see, was given the
Golden Rose, a palace in Rome and an annual allowance of 6,000 ducats. The
relic was received with ostentatious signs of devotion. Bessarion and two other
members of the sacred college received it at Narni and conveyed it to Rome. The
pope, accompanied by the remaining cardinals and the Roman clergy, went out to
the Ponte Molle to give it welcome. After falling prostrate before the
Apostle’s skull, Pius delivered an appropriate address in which he
congratulated the dumb fragment upon coming safely out of the hands of the
Turks to find at last, as a fugitive, a place beside the remains of its brother
Apostles. The address being concluded, the procession reformed and, with Pius
borne in the Golden Chair, conducted the skull to its last resting-place. The
streets were decked in holiday attire, and no one showed greater zeal in draping
his palace than Rodrigo Borgia. The skull was deposited in St. Peter’s, after,
as Platina says, "the sepulchres of some of the popes and cardinals, which
took up too much room, had been removed." The ceremonies were closed by
Bessarion in an address in which he expressed the conviction that St. Andrew
would join with the other Apostles as a protector of Rome and in inducing the
princes to combine for the expulsion of the Turks.746
In
his closing days, Pius II. continued to be occupied with the crusade. He had
written a memorable letter to Mohammed II. urging him to follow his mother’s
religion and turn Christian, and assuring him that, as Clovis and Charlemagne
had been renowned Christian sovereigns, so he might become Christian emperor
over the Bosphorus, Greece and Western Asia. No reply is extant. In 1458, the
year before the Mantuan congress assembled, the crescent had been planted on
the Acropolis of Athens. All Southern Greece suffered the indignity and horrors
of Turkish oppression. Servia fell into the hands of the invaders, 1459, and
Bosnia followed, 1462.
Pius’
bull of 1463, summoning to a crusade, was put aside by the princes, but the
pontiff, although he was afflicted with serious bodily infirmities, the stone
and the gout, was determined to set an example in the right direction. Like
Moses, he wanted, at least, to watch from some promontory or ship the battle
against the enemies of the cross. Financial aid was furnished by the discovery
of the alum mines of Tolfa, near Civita Vecchia, in 1462, the revenue from
which passed into the papal treasury and was specially devoted by the conclave
of 1464 to the crusade. But it availed little. Pius proceeded to Ancona on a
litter, stopping on the way at Loreto to dedicate a golden cup to the Virgin.
Philip of Burgundy, upon whom he had placed chief reliance, failed to appear.
From Frederick III. nothing was to be expected. Venice and Hungary alone
promised substantial help. The supreme pontiff lodged on the promontory in the
bishop’s palace. But only two vessels lay at anchor in the harbor, ready for
the expedition. To these were added in a few days 14 galleys sent by the doge.
Pius saw them as they appeared in sight. The display of further heroism was
denied him by his death two days later. A comparison has been drawn by the
historian between the pope, with his eye fixed upon the East, and another, a
born navigator, who perhaps was even then turning his eyes towards the West,
and before many years was to set sail in equally frail vessels to make his
momentous discovery.
On
his death-bed, Pius had an argument whether extreme unction, which had been
administered to him at Basel during an outbreak of the plague, might be
administered a second time. Among his last words, spoken to Cardinal Ammanati,
whom he had adopted, were, "pray for me, my son, for I am a sinner. Bid my
brethren continue this holy expedition." The body was carried to Rome and laid
away in St. Peter’s.
The
disappointment of this restless and remarkable man, in the closing undertaking
of his busy career, cannot fail to awaken human sympathy. Pius, whose aims and
methods had been the most practical, was carried away at last by a romantic
idea, without having the ability to marshal the forces for its realization. He
misjudged the times. His purpose was the purpose of a man whose career had
taught him never to tolerate the thought of failure. In forming a general
estimate, we cannot withhold the judgment that, if he had made culture and
literary effort prominent in the Vatican, his pontificate would have stood out
in the history of the papacy with singular lustre. It will always seem strange
that he did not surround himself with literati, as did Nicolas V., and that his
interest in the improvement of Rome showed itself only in a few minor
constructions. His biographer, Campanus, declares that he incurred great odium
by his neglect of the Humanists, and Filelfo, his former teacher of Greek,
launched against his memory a biting philippic for this neglect. The great
literary pope proved to be but a poor patron.747 Platina’s praise must not be forgotten, when he says,
"The pope’s delight, when he had leisure, was in writing and reading,
because he valued books more than precious stones, for in them there were
plenty of gems." What he delighted in as a pastime himself, he seems not
to have been concerned to use his high position to promote in others. He was
satisfied with the diplomatic mission of the papacy and deceived by the ignis
fatuus of a crusade to deliver Constantinople.
Platina
describes Pius at the opening of his pontificate as short, gray-haired and
wrinkled of face. He rose at daybreak, and was temperate at table. His industry
was noteworthy. His manner made him accessible to all, and he struck the Romans
of his age as a man without hypocrisy. Looked at as a man of culture, Aeneas
was grammarian, geographer, historian, novelist and orator. Everywhere he was
the keen observer of men and events. The plan of his cosmography was laid out
on a large scale, but was left unfinished.748 His Commentaries, extending from his birth to the time of
his death, are a racy example of autobiographic literature. His strong hold
upon the ecclesiastics who surrounded him can only be explained by his
unassumed intellectual superiority and a certain moral ingenuousness. He is one
of the most interesting figures of his century.749
</div3> <div3 type = "Section"
n="51" title="Paul II. 1464–1471">
§ 51.
Paul II. 1464–1471.
The
next occupant of the papal throne possessed none of the intellectual
attractiveness of his predecessor, and displayed no interest in promoting the
war against the Turks. He was as difficult to reach as Pius had been
accessible, and was slow in attending to official business. The night he turned
into day, holding his audiences after dark, and legates were often obliged to
wait far into the night or even as late as three in the morning before getting
a hearing.
Pietro
Barbo, the son of a sister of Eugenius IV., was born in Venice, 1418. He was
about to set sail for the East on a mercantile project, when the news reached
Venice of his uncle’s election to the papacy. Following his elder brother’s
advice, he gave up the quest of worldly gain and devoted himself to the Church.
Eugenius’ favor assured him rapid promotion, and he was successively appointed
archdeacon of Bologna, bishop of Cervia, bishop of Vicenza, papal pronotary and
cardinal. On being elected to the papal chair, the Venetian chose the name of
Formosus and then Mark, but, at the advice of the conclave, both were given up,
as the former seemed to carry with it a reference to the pontiff’s fine
presence, and the latter was the battle-cry of Venice, and might give political
offence. So he took the name, Paul.
Before
entering upon the election, the conclave again adopted a pact which required
the prosecution of the crusade and the assembling of a general council within
three years. The number of cardinals was not to exceed 24, the age of
appointment being not less than 30 years, and the introduction of more than one
of the pope’s relatives to that body was forbidden.750
This
solemn agreement, Paul proceeded at once summarily to set aside. The cardinals
were obliged to attach their names to another document, whose contents the pope
kept concealed by holding his hand over the paper as they wrote. The veteran
Carvajal was the only member of the curia who refused to sign. From the
standpoint of papal absolutism, Paul was fully justified. What right has any
conclave to dictate to the supreme pontiff of Christendom, the successor of St.
Peter! The pact was treason to the
high papal theory, and meant nothing less than the substitution of an oligarchy
for the papal monarchy. Paul called no council, not even a congress, to discuss
the crusade against the Turks, and appointed three of his nephews cardinals,
Marco Barbo, his brother’s son, and Battista Zeno and Giovanni Michïel, sons of
two sisters.751 His ordinances
for the city included sumptuary regulations, limiting the prices to be paid for
wearing apparel, banquets and entertainments at weddings and funerals, and
restricting the dowries of daughters to 800 gold florins.
A
noteworthy occurrence of Paul’s pontificate was the storm raised in Rome, 1466,
by his dismissal of the 70 abbreviators, the number to which Pius II. had
limited the members of that body. This was one of those incidents which give
variety to the history of the papal court and help to make it, upon the whole,
the most interesting of all histories. The scribes of the papal household were
roughly divided into two classes, the secretaries and the abbreviators. The
business of the former was to take charge of the papal correspondence of a more
private nature, while the latter prepared briefs of bulls and other more solemn
public documents.752
The dismissal of the abbreviators got permanent notoriety by the
complaints of one of their number, Platina, and the sufferings he was called upon
to endure. This invaluable biographer of the popes states that the dispossessed
officials, on the plea that their appointment had been for life, besieged the
Vatican 20 nights before getting a hearing. Then Platina, as their spokesman,
threatened to appeal to the princes of Europe to have a general council called
and see that justice was done. The pope’s curt answer was that he would rescind
or ratify the acts of his predecessors as he pleased.
The
unfortunate abbreviator, who was more of a scholar than a politician, was
thrown into prison and held there during the four months of Winter without fire
and bound in chains. Unhappily for him, he was imprisoned a second time,
accused of conspiracy and heretical doctrine. In these charges the Roman
Academy was also involved, an institution which cultivated Greek thought and
was charged with having engaged in a propaganda of Paganism. There was some
ground for the charge, for its leader, Pomponius Laeto, who combined the care
of his vineyard with ramblings through the old Roman ruins and the perusal of
the ancient classics, had deblaterated against the clergy. This antiquary was
also thrown into prison. Platina relates how he and a number of others were put
to the torture, while Vienesius, his Holiness’ vice-chancellor, looked on for
several days as the ordeal was proceeding, "sitting like another Minos
upon a tapestried seat as if he had been at a wedding, a man in holy orders
whom the canons of the Church forbade to put torture upon laymen, lest death should
follow, as it sometimes does." On his release he received a promise from
Paul of reappointment to office, but waited in vain till the accession of
Sixtus IV., who put him in charge of the Vatican library.753
Paul
pursued an energetic policy against Podiebrad and the Utraquists of Bohemia
and, after ordering all the compacts with the king ignored, deposed him and
called upon Matthias of Hungary to take his throne. Paul had rejected
Podiebrad’s offer to dispossess the Turk on condition of being recognized as
Byzantine emperor.754
In
1468, Frederick, III. repeated his visit to Rome, accompanied by 600 knights,
but the occasion aroused none of the high expectation of the former visit, when
the emperor brought with him the Portuguese infanta. There was no glittering
pageant, no august papal reception. On receiving the communion in the basilica
of St. Peter’s, he received from the pontiff’s hand the bread, but not the
"holy blood," which, as the contemporary relates, Paul reserved to
himself as an object-lesson against the Bohemians, though it was customary on
such occasions to give both the elements. The successor of Charlemagne and
Barbarossa was then given a seat at the pope’s side, which was no higher than
the pope’s feet.755
Patritius, who describes the scene, remarks that, while the respect paid
to the papal dignity had increased, the imperium of the Roman empire had fallen
into such decadence that nothing remained of it but its name. Without
manifesting any reluctance, the Hapsburg held the pope’s stirrup.
Paul
was not without artistic tastes, although he condemned the study of the
classics in the Roman schools,756 and was pronounced by Platina a great enemy
and despiser of learning. He was an ardent collector of precious stones, coins,
vases and other curios, and took delight in showing his jewels to Frederick
III. Sixtus IV. is said to have found 54 silver chests filled with pearls
collected by this pontiff, estimated to be worth 300,000 ducats. The two
tiaras, made at his order, contained gems said to have been worth a like
amount. At a later time, Cardinal Barbo found in a secret drawer of one of
Paul’s chests sapphires valued at 12,000 ducats.757 Platina was probably repeating only a common rumor, when he
reports that in the daytime Paul slept and at night kept awake, looking over
his jewels.
To
this diversion the pontiff added sensual pleasures and public amusements.758 He humored the popular taste by
restoring heathen elements to the carnival, figures of Bacchus and the fauna,
Diana and her nymphs. In the long list of the gayeties of carnival week are
mentioned races for young men, for old men and for Jews, as well as races
between horses, donkeys and buffaloes. Paul looked down from St. Mark’s and
delighted the crowds by furnishing a feast in the square below and throwing
down amongst them handfuls of coins. In things of this kind, says Infessura,
the pope had his delight.759
He was elaborate in his vestments and, when he appeared in public, was
accustomed to paint his face.
The
pope’s death was ascribed to his indiscretion in eating two large melons. Asked
by a cardinal why, in spite of the honors of the papacy, he was not contented,
Paul replied that a little wormwood can pollute a whole hive of honey. The
words belong in the same category as the words spoken 300 years before by the
English pope, Adrian, when he announced the failure of the highest office in
Christendom to satisfy all the ambitions of man.
</div3> <div3 type = "Section"
n="52" title="Sixtus IV. 1471–1484">
§ 52.
Sixtus IV. 1471–1484.
The
last three popes of the 15th century, Sixtus IV., Innocent VIII. and Alexander
VI., completely subordinated the interests of the papacy to the advancement of
their own pleasure and the enrichment and promotion of their kindred.760 The avenues of the Vatican were filled
with upstarts whose only claim to recognition was that they were the children
or the nephews of its occupant, the supreme pontiff.
The
chief features of the reign of Sixtus IV., a man of great decision and ability,
were the insolent rule of his numerous nephews and the wars with the states of
Italy in which their intrigues and ambitions involved their uncle. At the time
of his election, Francesco Rovere was general of the order of the Franciscans. Born
1414, he had risen from the lowest obscurity, his father being a fisherman near
Savona. He took the doctor’s degree in theology at Padua, and taught
successively in Bologna, Pavia, Siena, Florence and Perugia. Paul II. appointed
him cardinal. In the conclave strong support is said to have come to him
through his notorious nephew, Peter Riario, who was active in conducting his
canvas and making substantial promises for votes.
The
effort to interest the princes in the Turkish crusade was renewed, but soon abandoned.
Cardinals were despatched to the various courts of Europe, Bessarion to France,
Marco Barbo to Germany, and Borgia to Spain, but only to find these governments
preoccupied with other concerns or ill-disposed to the enterprise. In 1472, a
papal fleet of 18 galleys actually set sail, with banners blessed by the pope
in St. Peter’s, and under the command of Cardinal Caraffa. It was met at Rhodes
by 30 ships from Naples and 36 from Venice and, after some plundering exploits,
returned with 25 Turkish prisoners of war and 12 camels,—trophies enough to
arouse the curiosity of the Romans. Moneys realized from some of Paul II.’s
gems had been employed to meet the expenditure.
Sixtus’
relatives became the leading figures in Rome, and in wealth and pomp they soon
rivalled or eclipsed the old Roman families and the older members of the sacred
college. Sixtus was blessed or burdened with 16 nephews and grandnephews. All
that was in his power to do, he did, to give them a good time and to establish
them in affluence and honor all their days. The Sienese had their day under
Pius II., and now it was the turn of the Ligurians. The pontiff’s two brothers
and three, if not four, sisters, as well as all their progeny, had to be taken
care of. The excuse made for Calixtus III. cannot be made for this indulgent
uncle, that he was approaching his dotage. Sixtus was only 56 when he reached
the tiara. And desperate is the suggestion that the unfitness or unwillingness
of the Roman nobility to give the pope proper support made it necessary for him
to raise up another and a complacent aristocracy.761
Sixtus
deemed no less than five of his nephews and a grandnephew deserving of the red
hat, and sooner or later eight of them were introduced into the college of
cardinals. Two nephews in succession were appointed prefects of Rome. The
nephews who achieved the rank of cardinals were Pietro Riario at 25, and Julian
della Rovere at 28, in 1471, both Franciscan monks; Jerome Basso and
Christopher Rovere, in 1477; Dominico Rovere, Christopher’s brother, in 1478;
and the pope’s grandnephew, Raphael Sansoni, at the age of 17, in 1477. The two
nephews made prefects of Rome were Julian’s brother Lionardo, who died in 1475,
and his brother Giovanni, d. 1501. Lionardo was married by his uncle to the
illegitimate daughter of Ferrante, king of Naples.762
Upon
Peter Riario and Julian Rovere he heaped benefice after benefice. Julian, a man
of rare ability, afterwards made pope under the name of Julius II., was
appointed archbishop of Avignon and then of Bologna, bishop of Lausanne,
Constance, Viviers, Ostia and Velletri, and placed at the head of several
abbeys. Riario, who, according to popular hearsay, was the pope’s own child,
was bishop of Spoleto, Seville and Valencia, Patriarch of Constantinople, and
recipient of other rich places, until his income amounted to 60,000 florins or
about 2,500,000 francs. He went about with a retinue of 100 horsemen. His
expenditures were lavish and his estate royal. His mistresses, whom he did not
attempt to conceal, were dressed in elegant fabrics, and one of them wore
slippers embroidered with pearls. Dominico received one after the other the bishoprics
of Corneto, Tarentaise, Geneva and Turin.
The
visit of Leonora, the daughter of Ferrante, in Rome in 1473, while on her way
to Ferrara to meet her husband, Hercules of Este, was perhaps the most splendid
occasion the city had witnessed since the first visit of Frederick III. It
furnished Riario an opportunity for the display of a magnificent hospitality.
On Whitsunday, the Neapolitan princess was conducted by two cardinals to St.
Peter’s, where she heard mass said by the pope and then at high-noon witnessed
the miracle play of Susanna and the Elders, acted by Florentine players. The
next evening she sat down to a banquet which lasted 3 hours and combined all
the skill which decorators and cooks could apply. The soft divans and costly
curtainings, the silk costumes of the servants and the rich courses are
described in detail by contemporary writers. In anticipation of modern
electrical fans, 3 bellows were used to cool and freshen the atmosphere. In
such things, remarks Infessura, the treasures of the Church were squandered.763
In
1474, on the death of Peter Riario, a victim of his excesses and aged only 28,764
his brother Jerome, a layman, came into supreme favor. Sixtus was ready to put
all the possessions of the papal see at his disposal and, on his account, he
became involved in feuds with Florence and Venice. He purchased for this
favorite Imola, at a cost of 40,000 ducats, and married him to the illegitimate
daughter of the duke of Milan, Catherine Sforza. The purchase of Imola was
resented by Florence, but Sixtus did not hesitate to further antagonize the
republic and the Medici. The Medici had established a branch banking-house in
Rome and become the papal bankers. Sixtus chose to affront the family by
patronizing the Pazzi, a rival banking-firm. At the death of Philip de’Medici,
archbishop of Pisa, in 1474, Salviati was appointed his successor against the
protest of the Medici. Finally, Julian de’ Medici was denied the cardinalship.
These events marked the stages in the progress of the rupture between the
papacy and Florence. Lorenzo, called the Magnificent, and his brother Julian
represented the family which the fiscal talents of Cosmo de’Medici had founded.
In his readiness to support the ambitions of his nephew, Jerome Riario, the
pope seemed willing to go to any length of violence. A conspiracy was directed
against Lorenzo’s life, in which Jerome was the chief actor,—one of the most
cold-blooded conspiracies of history. The pope was conversant with the plot and
talked it over with its chief agent, Montesecco and, though he may not have
consented to murder, which Jerome and the Pazzi had included in their plan, he
fully approved of the plot to seize Lorenzo’s person and overthrow the republic.765
The
terrible tragedy was enacted in the cathedral of Florence. When Montesecco, a
captain of the papal mercenaries, hired to carry out the plot, shrank from
committing sacrilege by shedding blood in the church of God, its execution was
intrusted to two priests, Antonio Maffei da Volterra and Stefano of Bagnorea,
the former a papal secretary. While the host was being elevated, Julian
de’Medici, who was inside the choir, was struck with one dagger after another
and fell dead. Lorenzo barely escaped. As he was entering the sanctuary, he was
struck by Maffei and slightly wounded, and made a shield of his arm by winding
his mantle around it, and escaped with friends to the sacristy, which was
barred against the assassins. The bloody deed took place April 26, 1478.
The
city proved true to the family which had shed so much lustre upon it, and quick
revenge was taken upon the agents of the conspiracy. Archbishop Salviati, his
brother, Francesco de’ Pazzi and others were hung from the signoria windows.766 The two priests were executed after
having their ears and noses cut off. Montesecco was beheaded. Among those who
witnessed the scene in the cathedral was the young cardinal, Raphael, the
pope’s grandnephew, and without having any previous knowledge of the plot. His
face, it was said, turned to an ashen pallor, which in after years he never
completely threw off.
With
intrepid resolution, Sixtus resented the death of his archbishop and the
indignity done a cardinal in the imprisonment of Raphael as an accomplice. He
hurled the interdict at the city, branding Lorenzo as the son of iniquity and
the ward of perdition,—iniquitatis filius et perditionis alumnus,—and entered
into an alliance with Naples against it. Louis XI. of France and Venice and
other Italian states espoused the cause of Florence. Pushed to desperation,
Lorenzo went to Naples and made such an impression on Ferrante that he changed
his attitude and joined an alliance with Florence. The pope was checkmated. The
seizure of Otranto on Italian soil by the Turks, in 1480, called attention away
from the feud to the imminent danger threatening all Italy. In December of that
year, Sixtus absolved Florence, and the legates of the city were received in
front of St. Peter’s and touched with the rod in token of forgiveness. Six
months later, May 26, 1481, Rome received the news of the death of Mohammed
II., which Sixtus celebrated by special services in the church, Maria del
Popolo,767 and the Turks abandoned the Italian coast.
Again,
in the interest of his nephew, Jerome, Sixtus took Forli, thereby giving
offence to Ferrara. He joined Venice in a war against that city, and all Italy
became involved. Later, the warlike pontiff again saw his league broken up and
Venice and Ferrara making peace, irrespective of his counsels. He vented his
mortification by putting the queen of the Adriatic under the interdict.
In
Rome, the bloody pope fanned the feud between the Colonna and the Orsini, and
almost succeeded in blotting out the name of the Colonna by assassination and
judicial murder.
Sixtus
has the distinction of having extended the efficacy of indulgences to souls in
purgatory. He was most zealous in distributing briefs of indulgence.768 The Spanish Inquisition received his
solemn sanction in 1478. Himself a Franciscan, he augmented the privileges of
the Franciscan order in a bull which that order calls its great ocean—mare
magnum. He canonized the official biographer of Francis d’Assisi, Bonaventura.
He
issued two bulls with reference to the worship of Mary and the doctrine of the
immaculate conception, but he declared her sinlessness from the instant of
conception a matter undecided by the Roman Church and the Apostolic see—nondum
ab ecclesia romana et apostolica sede decisum.769 In all matters of ritual and outward religion, he was of all
men most punctilious. The chronicler, Volterra, abounds in notices of his acts
of devotion. Asa patron of art, his name has a high place. He supported Platina
with four assistants in cataloguing the archives of the Vatican in three
volumes.
Such
was Sixtus IV., the unblushing promoter of the interests of his relatives, many
of them as worthless as they were insolent, the disturber of the peace of
Italy, revengeful, and yet the liberal patron of the arts. The enlightened
diarist of Rome, Infessura,770 calls the day of the pontiff’s decease that
most happy day, the day on which God liberated Christendom from the hand of an
impious and iniquitous ruler, who had before him no fear of God nor love of the
Christian world nor any charity whatsoever, but was actuated by avarice, the
love of vain show and pomp, most cruel and given to sodomy.771
During
his reign, were born in obscure places in Saxony and Switzerland two men who
were to strike a mighty blow at the papal rule, themselves also of peasant
lineage and the coming leaders of the new spiritual movement.
</div3> <div3 type = "Section"
n="53" title="Innocent VIII. 1484–1492">
§ 53.
Innocent VIII. 1484–1492.
Under
Innocent VIII. matters in Rome were, if anything, worse than under his
predecessor, Sixtus IV. Innocent was an easy-going man without ideals,
incapable of conceiving or carrying out high plans. He was chiefly notable for
his open avowal of an illegitimate family and his bull against witchcraft.
At
Sixtus’ death, wild confusion reigned in Rome. Nobles and cardinals barricaded
their residences. Houses were pillaged. The mob held carnival on the streets.
The palace of Jerome Riario was sacked. Relief was had by an agreement between
the rival families of the Orsini and Colonna to withdraw from the city for a
month and Jerome’s renunciation of the castle of S. Angelo, which his wife had
defended, for 4,000 ducats. Not till then did the cardinals feel themselves
justified in meeting for the election of a new pontiff.
The
conclaves of 1484 and 1492 have been pronounced by high catholic authority
among the "saddest in the history of the papacy."772 Into the conclave of 1484, 25 cardinals
entered, 21 of them Italians. Our chief account is from the hand of the diarist,
Burchard, who was present as one of the officials.
His
description goes into the smallest details. A protocol was again adopted, which
every cardinal promised in a solemn formula to observe, if elected pope. Its
first stipulation was that 100 ducats should be paid monthly to members of the
sacred college, whose yearly income from benefices might not reach the sum of
4,000 ducats (about 200,000 francs in our present money). Then followed
provisions for the continuance of the crusade against the Turks, the reform of
the Roman curia in head and members, the appointment of no cardinal under 30
for any cause whatever, the advancement of not more than a single relative of
the reigning pontiff to the sacred college and the restriction of its
membership to 24.773
Rodrigo
Borgia fully counted upon being elected and, in expectation of that event, had
barricaded his palace against being looted. Large bribes, even to the gift of
his palace, were offered by him for the coveted prize of the papacy. Cardinal
Barbo had 10 votes and, when it seemed likely that he would be the successful
candidate, Julian Rovere and Borgia, renouncing their aspirations, combined
their forces, and during the night, went from cell to cell, securing by
promises of benefices and money the votes of all but six of the cardinals.
According to Burchard, the pope about to be elected sat up all night signing
promises. The next morning the two cardinals aroused the six whom they had not
disturbed, exclaiming, "Come, let us make a pope." "Who?"
they said. "Cardinal Cibo." "How is that?" they asked.
"While you were drowsy with sleep, we gathered all the votes except
yours," was the reply.
The
new pope, Lorenzo Cibo, born in Genoa, 1432, had been made cardinal by Sixtus
IV., 1473. During his rule, peace was maintained with the courts of Italy, but
in Rome clerical dissipation, curial venality and general lawlessness were
rampant. "In darkness Innocent was elected, in darkness he lives, and in
darkness he will die," said the general of the Augustinians.774 Women were carried off in the night.
The murdered were found in the streets in the morning. Crimes, before their
commission, were compounded for money. Even the churches were pilfered. A piece
of the true cross was stolen from S. Maria in Trastavere. The wood was reported
found in a vineyard, but without its silver frame. When the vice-chancellor,
Borgia, was asked why the laws were not enforced, he replied, "God desires
not the death of a sinner, but rather that he should pay and live."775 The favorite of Sixtus IV., Jerome
Riario, was murdered in 1488. His widow, the brave and masculine Catherine
Sforza, who was pregnant at the time, defended his castle at Forli and defied
the papal forces besieging it, declaring that, if they put her children to
death who were with her, she yet had one left at Imola and the unborn child in
her womb. The duke of Milan, her relative, rescued her and put the besiegers to
flight.
All
ecclesiastical offices were set for sale. How could it be otherwise, when the
papal tiara itself was within the reach of the highest bidder?776 The appointment of 18 new papal
secretaries brought 62,400 ducats into the papal treasury. The bulls creating
the offices expressly declared the aim to be to secure funds. 52 persons were
appointed to seal the papal bulls, called plumbatores, from the leaden ball or
seal they used, and the price of the position was fixed at 2,500 ducats. Even
the office of librarian in the Vatican was sold, and the papal tiara was put in
pawn. In a time of universal traffic in ecclesiastical offices, it is not
surprising that the fabrication of papal documents was turned into a business.
Two papal notaries confessed to having issued 50 such documents in two years,
and in spite of the pleas of their friends were hung and burnt, 1489.777
Innocent’s
children were not persons of marked traits, or given to ambitious intrigues.
Common rumor gave their number as 16, all of them children by married women.778 Franceschetto and Theorina seem to have
been born before the father entered the priesthood. Franceschetto’s marriage to
Maddalena, a daughter of Lorenzo the Magnificent, was celebrated in the
Vatican, Jan. 20, 1488. Ten months later, the pope’s granddaughter, Peretta,
child of Theorina, was also married in the Vatican to the marquis of Finale.
The pontiff sat with the ladies at the table, a thing contrary to all the
accepted proprieties. In 1492, another grandchild, also a daughter of Theorina,
Battistana, was married to duke Louis of Aragon.779
The
statement of Infessura is difficult to believe, although it is made at length,
that Innocent issued a decree permitting concubinage in Rome both to clergy and
laity. The prohibition of concubinage was declared prejudicial to the divine
law and the honor of the clergy, as almost all the clergy, from the highest to
the lowest, had concubines, or mistresses. According to the Roman diarist,
there were 6,800 listed public courtezans in Rome besides those whose names
were not recorded.780
To say the least, the statement points to the low condition of clerical
morals in the holy city and the slight regard paid to the legislation of
Gregory VII. Infessura was in position to know what was transpiring in Rome.
What
could be expected where the morals of the supreme pontiff and the sacred senate
were so loose? The lives of many
of the cardinals were notoriously scandalous. Their palaces were furnished with
princely splendor and filled with scores of servants. Their example led the
fashions in extravagance in dress and sumptuous banquetings. They had their
stables, kennels and falcons. Cardinal Sforza, whose yearly income is reported
to have been 30,000 ducats, or 1,500,000 francs, present money, excelled in the
chase. Cardinal Julian made sport of celibacy, and had three daughters.
Cardinal Borgia, the acknowledged leader in all gayeties, was known far and
wide by his children, who were prominent on every occasion of display and
conviviality. The passion for gaming ran high in the princely establishments.
Cardinal Raphael won 8,000 ducats at play from Cardinal Balue who, however, in
spite of such losses, left a fortune of 100,000 ducats. This grandnephew of
Sixtus IV. was a famous player, and in a single night won from Innocent’s son,
Franceschetto, 14,000 ducats. The son complained to his father, who ordered the
fortunate winner to restore the night’s gains. But the gay prince of the church
excused himself by stating that the money had already been paid out upon the
new palace he was engaged in erecting.
The
only relative whom Innocent promoted to the sacred college was his illegitimate
brother’s son, Lorenzo Cibo. The appointment best known to posterity was that
of Giovanni de’ Medici, son of Lorenzo the Magnificent, afterwards Leo X.
Another
appointment, that of D’Aubusson, was associated with the case of the Mohammedan
prince, Djem. This incident in the annals of the papacy would seem incredible,
if it were not true. A writer of romance could hardly have invented an episode
more grotesque. At the death of Mohammed II., his son, Djem, was defeated in
his struggle for the succession by his brother Bajazet, and fled to Rhodes for
protection. The Knights of St. John were willing to hold the distinguished
fugitive as prisoner, upon the promise of 45,000 ducats a year from the sultan.
For safety’s sake, Djem was removed to one of the Hospitaller houses in France.
Hungary, Naples, Venice, France and the pope,—all put in a claim for him. Such
competition to pay honor to an infidel prince had never before been heard of in
Christendom. The pope won by making valuable ecclesiastical concessions to the
French king, among them the bestowal of the red hat on D’Aubusson.
The
matter being thus amicably adjusted, Djem was conducted to Rome, where he was
received with impressive ceremonies by the cardinals and city officials. His
person was regarded as of more value than the knowledge of the East brought by
Marco Polo had been in its day, and the reception of the Mohammedan prince
created more interest than the return of Columbus from his first journey to the
West. Djem was escorted through the streets by the pope’s son, and rode a white
horse sent him by the pope. The ambassador of the sultan of Egypt, then in
Rome, had gone out to meet him, and shed tears as he kissed his feet and the
feet of his horse. The popes had not shrunk from entering into alliances with
Oriental powers to secure the overthrow of Mohammed II. and his dynasty. Djem,
or the Grand Turk, as he was called, was welcomed by the pope surrounded by his
cardinals. The proud descendant of Eastern monarchs, however, refused to kiss
the supreme pontiff’s foot, but made some concession by kissing his shoulder.
He was represented as short and stout, with an aquiline nose, and a single good
eye, given at times inordinately to drink, though a man of some intellectual
culture. He was reported to have put four men to death with his own hand. But
Djem was a dignitary who signified too much to be cast aside for such offences.
Innocent assigned him to elegantly furnished apartments in the Vatican, and
thus the strange spectacle was afforded of the earthly head of Christendom
acting as the host of one of the chief living representatives of the faith of
Islam, which had almost crushed out the Christian churches of the East and
usurped the throne on the Bosphorus.
Bajazet
was willing to pay the pope 40,000 ducats for the hospitality extended to his
rival brother, and delegations came from him to Rome to arrange the details of
the bargain. The report ran that attempts were made by the sultan to poison
both his brother and the pope by contaminating the wells of the Vatican. When
the ambassador brought from Constantinople the delayed payment of three years,
120,000 ducats, Djem insisted that the Turk’s clothes should be removed and his
skin be rubbed down with a towel, and that he should lick the letter "on
every side," as proof that he did not also carry poison.781 Djem survived his first papal
entertainer, Innocent VIII., three years, and figured prominently in public
functions in the reign of Alexander VI. He died 1495, still a captive.
Another
curious instance was given in Innocent’s reign of the hold open-mouthed
superstition had in the reception given to the holy lance. This pretended
instrument, with which Longinus pierced the Saviour’s side and which was found
during the Crusades by the monk Barthélemy at Antioch, was already claimed by
two cities, Nürnberg and Paris. The relic made a greater draft upon the
credulity of the age than St. Andrew’s head. The latter was the gift of a
Christian prince, howbeit an adherent of the schismatic Greek Church; the lance
came from a Turk, Sultan Bajazet.
Some
question arose among the cardinals whether it would not be judicious to stay
the acceptance of the gift till the claims of the lance in Nürnberg had been
investigated. But the pope’s piety, such as it was, would not allow a question
of that sort to interfere. An archbishop and a bishop were despatched to Ancona
to receive the iron fragment, for only the head of the lance was extant. It was
conducted from the city gates by the cardinals to St. Peter’s, and after mass
the pope gave his blessing. The day of the reception happened to be a fast,
but, at the suggestion of one of the cardinals, some of the fountains along the
streets, where the procession was appointed to go, were made to throw out wine
to slake the thirst of the populace. After a solemn service in S. Maria del
Popolo, on Ascension Day, 1492, the Turkish present, encased in a receptacle of
crystal and gold, was placed near the handkerchief of St. Veronica in St.
Peter’s.782
The
two great stains upon the pontificate of Innocent VIII., the crusade he called
to exterminate the Waldenses, 1487, and his bull directed against the witches
of Germany, 1484, which inaugurated two horrible dramas of cruelty, have
treatment in another place.
Innocent
was happy in being permitted to join with Europe in rejoicings over the
expulsion of the last of the Moors from Granada, 1492. Masses were said in
Rome, and a sermon preached in the pontiff’s presence in celebration of the
memorable event.783
With characteristic national gallantry, Cardinal Borgia showed his
appreciation by instituting a bull-fight in which five bulls were killed, the
first but not the last spectacle of the kind seen in the papal city. In his
last sickness, Innocent was fed by a woman’s milk.784 Several years before, when he was
thought to be dying, the cardinals found 1,200,000 ducats in his drawers and
chests. They now granted his request that 48,000 ducats should be taken from
his fortune and distributed among his relatives.
</div3> <div3 type = "Section"
n="54" title="Pope Alexander VI—Borgia. 1492–1503">
§ 54.
Pope Alexander VI—Borgia. 1492–1503.
The
pontificate of Alexander VI., which coincides with the closing years of the
15th century and the opening of the 16th, may be compared with the pontificate
of Boniface VIII., which witnessed the passage from the 13th to the 14th
centuries. Boniface marked the opening act in the decline of the papal power
introduced by the king of France. Under Alexander, when the French again
entered actively into the affairs of Italy, even to seizing Rome, the papacy
passed into its deepest moral humiliation since the days of the pornocracy in
the 10th century.
Alexander
VI., whom we have before known as Cardinal Rodrigo Borgia, has the notorious
distinction of being the most corrupt of the popes of the Renaissance period.
Even in the judgment of Catholic historians, his dissoluteness knew no
restraint and his readiness to abase the papacy for his own personal ends, no
bounds.785 His intellectual
force, if used aright, might have made his pontificate one of the most
brilliant in the annals of the Apostolic see. The time was ripe. The conditions
offered the opportunity if ever period did. But moral principle was wanting.
Had Dante lived again, he would have written that Alexander VI. made a greater
refusal than the hermit pope, Coelestine V., and deserved a darker doom than
the simoniac pope, Boniface VIII.
At
Innocent VIII.’s death, 23 cardinals entered into the conclave which met in the
Sistine chapel. Borgia and Julian Rovere were the leading candidates. They were
rivals, and had been candidates for the papal chair before. Everything was to
be staked on success in the pending election. Openly and without a blush,
ecclesiastical offices and money were offered as the price of the spiritual
crown of Christendom. Julian was supported by the king of France, who deposited
200,000 ducats in a Roman bank and 100,000 more in Genoa to secure his
election. If Borgia could not outbid him he was, at least, the more shrewd in
his manipulations. There were only five cardinals, including Julian, who took
nothing. The other members of the sacred college had their price. Monticelli
and Soriano were given to Cardinal Orsini and also the see of Cartagena, and
the legation to the March; the abbey of Subiaco and its fortresses to Colonna;
Civita Castellana and the see of Majorca to Savelli; Nepi to Sclafetanus; the
see of Porto to Michïel; and rich benefices to other cardinals. Four mules
laden with gold were conducted to the palace of Ascanio Sforza, who also
received Rodrigo’s splendid palace and the vice-chancellorship. Even the
patriarch of Venice, whose high age—for he had reached 95—might have been
expected to lift him above the seduction of filthy lucre, accepted 5,000
ducats. Infessura caustically remarks that Borgia distributed all his goods
among the poor.786
The
ceremonies of coronation were on a scale which appeared to the contemporaries
unparalleled in the history of such occasions. A figure of a bull, the emblem
of the Borgias, was erected near the Palazzo di S. Marco on the line of the
procession, from whose eyes, nostrils and mouth poured forth water, and from
the forehead wine. Rodrigo was 61 years of age, had been cardinal for 37 years,
having received that dignity when he was 25. His fond uncle, Calixtus III., had
made him archbishop of Valencia, heaped upon him ecclesiastical offices,
including the vice-chancellorship, and made him the heir of his personal
possessions. His palace was noted for the splendor of its tapestries and
carpets and its vessels of gold and silver.787 The new pope possessed conspicuous personal attractions. He
was tall and well-formed, and his manners so taking that a contemporary,
Gasparino of Verona, speaks of his drawing women to himself more potently than
the magnet attracts iron.788
The reproof which his gallantries of other days called forth from Pius
II. at Siena has already been referred to.
The
pre-eminent features of Alexander’s career, as the supreme pontiff of
Christendom, were his dissolute habits and his extravagant passion to exalt the
worldly fortunes of his children. In these two respects he seemed to be
destitute at once of all regard for the solemnity of his office and of common
conscience. A third feature was the entry of Charles VIII. and the French into
Italy and Rome. During his pontificate two events occurred whose world-wide
significance was independent of the occupant of the papal throne,—the one
geographical, the other religious,—the discovery of America and the execution
of the Florentine preacher, Savonarola. As in the reign of Calixtus III., so
now Spaniards flocked to Rome, and the Milanese ambassador wrote that ten
papacies would not have been able to satisfy their greed for official
recognition. In spite of a protocol adopted in the conclave, a month did not
pass before Alexander appointed his nephew, Juan of Borgia, cardinal, and in
the next years he admitted four more members of the Borgia family to the sacred
college, including his infamous son, Caesar Borgia, at the age of 18.789
Alexander’s
household and progeny call for treatment first. It soon became evident that the
supreme passion of his pontificate was to advance the fortunes of his children.790 His parental relations were not merely
the subject of rumor; they are vouched for by irresistible documentary proof.
Alexander
was the acknowledged father of five children by Vanozza de Cataneis: Pedro
Luis, Juan, Caesar, Lucretia, Joffré and, perhaps, Pedro Ludovico. The briefs
issued by Sixtus IV. legitimating Caesar and Ludovico are still extant.791
Two bulls were issued by Alexander
himself in 1493, bearing on Caesar’s parentage. The first, declaring him to be
the son of Vanozza by a former husband, was intended to remove the objections
the sacred college naturally felt in admitting to its number one of uncertain
birth. In the second, Alexander announced him to be his own son.792 Tiring of Vanozza, who was 11 years his
junior, Alexander put her aside and saw that she was married successively to
three husbands, himself arranging for the first relationship and making
provision for the second and the third.793 In her later correspondence with Lucretia she signed
herself, thy happy and unhappy mother—la felice ed infelice matre.
These
were not the only children Alexander acknowledged. His daughters Girolama and
Isabella were married 1482 and 1483.794 Another daughter, Laura, by Julia Farnese, born in 1492, he
acknowledged as his own child, and in 1501 the pope formally legitimated, as
his own son, Juan, by a Roman woman. In a first bull he called the boy
Caesar’s, but in a second he recognized him as his own offspring.795
Among
Alexander’s mistresses, after he became pope, the most famous was cardinal
Farnese’s sister, Julia Farnese, called for her beauty, La Bella. Infessura
repeatedly refers to her as Alexander’s concubine. Her legal husband was
appeased by the gift of castles.
The
gayeties, escapades, marriages, worldly distinctions and crimes of these
children would have furnished daily material for paragraphs of a nature to
satisfy the most sensational modern taste. Don Pedro Luis, Alexander’s eldest
son, and his three older brothers began their public careers in the service of
the Spanish king, Ferdinand, who admitted them to the ranks of the higher
nobility and sold Gandia, with the title of duke, to Don Pedro. This gallant
young Borgia died in 1491 at the age of 30, on the eve of his journey from Rome
to Spain to marry Ferdinand’s cousin. His brother, Don Juan, fell heir to the
estate and title of Gandia and was married with princely splendor in Barcelona
to the princess to whom Don Pedro had been betrothed.
Alexander’s
son, Caesar Borgia was as bad as his ambition was insolent. The annals of Rome
and of the Vatican for more than a decade are filled with his impiety, his
intrigues and his crimes. At the age of six, he was declared eligible for
ordination. He was made protonotary and bishop of Pampeluna by Innocent VIII.
At his father’s election he hurried from Pisa, where he was studying, and on
the day of his father’s coronation was appointed archbishop of Valencia. He was
then sixteen.
Don
Joffré was married, at 13, to a daughter of Alfonso of Naples and was made
prince of Squillace.
The
personal fortunes of Alexander’s daughter, Lucretia, constitute one of the
notorious and tragic episodes of the 15th century.
The
most serious foreign issue in Alexander’s reign was the invasion of Charles
VIII., king of France. The introductory act in what seemed likely to be the
complete transformation of Italy was the sale of Cervetri and Anguillara to
Virginius Orsini for 40,000 ducats by Franceschetto, the son of Innocent VIII.
This papal scion was contented with a life of ease and retired to Florence. The
transfer of these two estates was treated by the Sforza as disturbing the
balance of power in the peninsula, and Ludovico and Ascanio Sforza pressed
Alexander to check the influence of Ferrante, king of Naples, who was the
supporter of the Orsini. Ferrante, a shrewd politician, by ministering to Alexander’s
passion to advance his children’s fortunes, won him from the alliance with the
Sforza. He promised to the pope’s son, Joffré, Donna Sancia, a mere child, in
marriage. Ludovico Sforza, ready to resort to any measure likely to promote his
own personal ambition, invited Charles VIII. to enter Italy and make good his
claim to the crown of Naples on the ground of the former Angevin possession. He
also applauded the French king’s announced purpose to reduce Constantinople
once more to Christian dominion.
On
Ferrante’s death, 1494, Alfonso II. was crowned king of Naples by Alexander’s
nephew, Cardinal Juan Borgia. Charles, then only 22, was short, deformed, with
an aquiline nose and an inordinately big head. He set out for Italy at the head
of a splendid army of 40,000 men, equipped with the latest inventions in
artillery. Julian Rovere, who had resisted Alexander’s policy and fled to
Avignon, joined with other disaffected cardinals in supporting the French and
accompanying the French army. Charles’ march through Northern Italy was a
series of easy and almost bloodless triumphs. Milan threw open its gates to
Charles. So did Pisa. Before entering Florence, the king was met by Savonarola,
who regarded him as the messenger appointed by God to rescue Italy from her
godless condition. Rome was helpless. Alexander’s ambassadors, sent to treat
with the invader, were either denied audience or denied satisfaction. In his
desperation, the pope resorted to the Turkish sultan, Bajazet, for aid. The
correspondence that passed between the supreme ruler of Christendom and the
leading sovereign of the Mohammedan world was rescued from oblivion by the
capture of its bearer, George Busardo.796 40,000 ducats were found on Busardo’s person, a payment sent
by Bajazet to Alexander for Djem’s safe-keeping. Alexander had indicated to the
sultan that it was Charles’ aim to carry Djem off to France and then use him as
the admiral of a fleet for the capture of Constantinople. In reply, Bajazet
suggested that such an issue would result in even greater damage to the pope
than to himself. His papal friend, whom he addressed as his
Gloriosity—gloriositas, might be pleased to lift the said prisoner, Djem, out
of the troubles of this present world and transfer his soul into another, where
he would enjoy more quiet.797
For performing such a service, he stood ready to give him the sum of
300,000 ducats, which, as he suggested, the pope might use in purchasing
princedoms for his children.
On
the last day of 1494, the French army entered the holy city, dragging with it
36 bronze cannon. Such military discipline and equipment the Romans had not
seen, and they looked on with awe and admiration. To the king’s demand that the
castle of S. Angelo be surrendered, Alexander sent a refusal declaring that, if
the fortress were attacked, he would take his position on the walls surrounded
with the most sacred relics in Rome. Cardinals Julian Rovere, Sforza, Savelli
and Colonna, who had ridden into the city with the French troops, urged the
king to call a council and depose Alexander for simony. But when it came to the
manipulation of men, Alexander was more than a match for his enemies. Charles
had no desire to humiliate the pope, except so far as it might be necessary for
the accomplishment of his designs upon Naples. A pact was arranged, which
included the delivery of Djem to the French and the promise that Caesar Borgia
should accompany the French troops to Naples as papal legate. In the meantime
the French soldiery had sacked the city, even to Vanozza’s house. Henceforth
the king occupied quarters in the Vatican, and the disaffected cardinals, with
the exception of Julian, were reconciled to the pope.
On
his march to Naples, which began Jan. 25, 1495, Charles took Djem with him.
That individual passed out of the gates of Rome, riding at the side of Caesar.
These two personages, the Turkish pretender and the pontiff’s son, had been on
terms of familiarity, and often rode on horseback together. Within a month
after leaving Rome, and before reaching Naples, the Oriental died. The capital
of Southern Italy was an easy prize for the invaders. Caesar had been able to
make his escape from the French camp. His son’s shrewdness and good luck
afforded Alexander as much pleasure as did the opportunity of joining the king
of Spain and the cities of Northern Italy in an alliance against Charles. In
1496, the alliance was strengthened by the accession of Henry VII. of England.
After abandoning himself for several months to the pleasures of the Neapolitan
capital, the French king retraced his course and, after the battle of Fornuovo,
July 6, 1495, evacuated Italy. Alexander had evaded him by retiring from Rome,
and sent after the retreating king a message to return to his proper dominions
on pain of excommunication. The summons neither hastened the departure of the
French nor prevented them from returning to the peninsula again in a few years.798
The
misfortunes and scandals of the papal household were not interrupted by the
French invasion, and continued after it. In the summer of 1497, occurred the
mysterious murder of Alexander’s son, the duke of Gandia, then 24 years old. It
was only a sample of the crimes being perpetrated in Rome. The duke had supped
with Caesar, his brother, and Cardinal Juan Borgia at the residence of Vanozza.
The supper being over, the two brothers rode together as far as the palace of
Cardinal Sforza. There they separated, the duke going, as he said, on some
private business, and accompanied by a masked man who had been much with him
for a month past. The next day, Alexander waited for his son in vain. In the
evening, unable to bear the suspense longer, he instituted an investigation.
The man in the mask had been found mortally wounded. A charcoal-dealer deposed
that, after midnight, he had seen several men coming to the brink of the river,
one of them on a white horse, over the back of which was thrown a dead man.
They backed the horse and pitched the body into the water. The pope was
inconsolable with grief, and remained without food from Thursday to Sunday. He
had recently made his son lord of the papal patrimony and of Viterbo,
standard-bearer of the church and duke of Benevento. In reporting the loss to
the consistory of cardinals, the father declared that he loved Don Juan more
than anything in the world, and that if he had seven papacies he would give
them all to restore his son’s life.
The
origin of the murder was a mystery. Different persons were picked out as the
perpetrators. It was surmised that the deed was committed by some lover who had
been abused by the gay duke. Suspicion also fastened on Ascanio Sforza, the
only cardinal who did not attend the consistory. But gradually the conviction
prevailed that the murderer was no other than Caesar Borgia himself, and the Italian
historian, Guicciardini, three years later adopted the explanation of
fratricide. Caesar, it was rumored, was jealous of the place the duke of Gandia
held in his father’s affections, and hankered after the worldly honors which
had been heaped upon him.
When
the charcoal-dealer was asked why he did not at once report the dark scene, he
replied that such deeds were a common occurrence and he had witnessed a hundred
like it.799
In
the first outburst of his grief, Alexander, moved by feelings akin to
repentance, appointed a commission of six cardinals to bring in proposals for
the reformation of the curia and the Church. His reforming ardor was, however,
soon spent, and the proposals, when offered, were set aside as derogatory to
the papal prerogative. For the next two years, the marriages and careers of his
children, Caesar and Lucretia, were treated as if they were the chief concern
of Christendom.
Lucretia,
born in 1480, had already been twice betrothed to Spaniards, when the father
was elected pope and sought for her a higher alliance. In 1493, she was married
to John Sforza, lord of Pesaro, a man of illegitimate birth. The young princess
was assigned a palace of her own near the Vatican, where Julia Farnese ruled as
her father’s mistress. It was a gay life she lived, as the centre of the young
matrons of Rome. Accompanied by a hundred of them at a time, she rode to church.
She was pronounced by the master of ceremonies of the papal chapel most fair,
of a bright disposition, and given to fun and laughter.800 The charges of incest with her own
father and brother Caesar made against her on the streets of the papal city, in
the messages of ambassadors and by the historian, Guicciardini, seem too
shocking to be believed, and have been set aside by Gregorovius, the most
brilliant modern authority for her life. The distinguished character of her
last marriage and the domestic peace and happiness by which it was marked seem
to be sufficient to discredit the damaging accusations.
The
marriage with the lord of Pesaro was celebrated in the Vatican, after a sermon
had been preached by the bishop of Concordia. Among the guests were 11
cardinals and 150 Roman ladies. The entertainment lasted till 5 in the morning.
There was dancing, and obscene comedies were performed, with Alexander and the
cardinals looking on. And all this, exclaims a contemporary," to the honor
and praise of Almighty God and the Roman church!"801
After
spending some time with her husband on his estate, Lucretia was divorced from
him on the charge of his impotency, the divorce being passed upon by a
commission of cardinals. After spending a short time in a convent, the princess
was married to Don Alfonso, duke of Besiglia, the bastard son of Alfonso II. of
Naples. The Vatican again witnessed the nuptial ceremony, but the marriage was,
before many months, to be brought to a close by the duke’s murder.
In
the meantime Donna Sancia, the wife of Joffré, had come to the city, May, 1496,
and been received at the gates by cardinals, Lucretia and other important
personages. The pope, surrounded by 11 cardinals, and with Lucretia on his right
hand, welcomed his son and daughter-in-law in the Vatican. According to
Burchard, the two princesses boldly occupied the priests’ benches in St.
Peter’s. Later, it was said, Sancia’s two brothers-in-law, the duke of Gandia
and Caesar, quarrelled over her and possessed her in turn. Alexander sent her
back to Naples, whether for this reason or not is not known. She was afterwards
received again in Rome.
Caesar,
in spite of his yearly revenues amounting to 35,000 ducats, had long since
grown tired of an ecclesiastical career. Bishop and cardinal-deacon though he
was, he deposed before his fellow-cardinals that from the first he had been
averse to orders, and received them in obedience to his father’s wish. These
words Gregorovius has pronounced to be perhaps the only true words the prince
ever spoke. Caesar’s request was granted by the unanimous voice of the sacred
college. Alexander, whose policy it now was to form a lasting bond between
France and the papacy, looked to Louis XII., successor of Charles VIII., for a
proper introduction of his son upon a worldly career.802 Louis was anxious to be divorced from
his deformed and childless wife, Joanna of Valois, and to be united to Charles’
young widow, Anne, who carried the dowry of Brittany with her. There were
advantages to be gained on both sides. Dispensation was given to the king, and
Caesar was made duke of Valentinois and promised a wife of royal line.
The
arrangements for Caesar’s departure from Rome were on a grand scale. The
richest textures were added to gold and silver vessels and coin, so that, when
the young man departed from the city, he was preceded by a line of mules
carrying goods worth 200,000 ducats on their backs. The duke’s horses were shod
with silver. The contemporary writer gives a picture of Alexander standing at
the window, watching the cortege, in which were four cardinals, as it passed
towards the West. The party went by way of Avignon. After some disappointment
in not securing the princess whom Caesar had picked out, Charlotte d’Albret,
then a young lady of sixteen, and a sister of the king of Navarre, was chosen.
When the news of the marriage, which was celebrated in May, 1499, reached Rome,
Alexander and the Spaniards illuminated their houses and the streets in honor
of the proud event. The advancement of this abandoned man, from this time
forth, engaged Alexander VI.’s supreme energies. The career of Caesar Borgia
passes, if possible, into stages of deeper darkness, and the mind shrinks back
from the awful sensuality, treachery and cruelty for which no crime was too
revolting. Everything had to give way that stood in the hard path of his vulgar
ambition and profligate greed. And at last his father, ready to sacrifice all
that is sacred in religion and human life to secure his son’s promotion, became
his slave, and in fear dared not to offer resistance to his plans.
The
duke was soon back in Italy, accompanying the French army led by Louis XII. The
reduction of Milan and Naples followed. The taking of Milan reduced Alexander’s
former ally and brought captivity to Ascanio Sforza, the cardinal, but it was
welcome news in the Vatican. Alexander was bent, with the help of Louis, upon
creating a great dukedom in central Italy for his son, with a kingly dominion
over all the peninsula as the ultimate act of the drama. The fall of Naples was
due in part to the pope’s perfidy in making an alliance with Louis and deposing
the Neapolitan king, Frederick.
Endowed
by his father with the proud title of duke of the Romagna and made
captain-general of the church, Caesar, with the help of 8,000 mercenaries, made
good his rights to Imola, Forli, Rimini and other towns, some of the victories
being celebrated by services in St. Peter’s. At the same time, Lucretia was
made regent of Nepi and Spoleto. As a part of the family program, the indulgent
father proceeded to declare war against the Gaetani house and to despoil the
Colonna, Savelli and Orsini. No obstacle should be allowed to remain in the
ambitious path of the unscrupulous son. Upon him was also conferred that emblem
of purity of character or of high service to the Church, the Golden Rose.
The
celebration of the Jubilee in the opening year of the new century, which was to
be so eventful, brought hundreds of thousands of pilgrims to the holy city, and
the great sums which were collected were reserved for the Turkish crusade, or
employed for the advancement of the Borgias. The bull announcing the festival
offered to those visiting Rome free indulgence for the most grievous sins.803 On Christmas eve, 1499, Alexander
struck the Golden Gate with a silver mallet, repeating the words of Revelation,
"He openeth and no man shutteth."
In
glaring contrast to the religious ends with which the Jubilee was associated in
the minds of the pilgrims, Caesar entered Rome, in February, surrounded with
all the trappings of military conquest. Among the festivities provided to
relieve the tedium of religious occupations was a Spanish bull-fight. The
square of St. Peter’s was enclosed with a railing and the spectators looked on
while the pope’s son, Caesar, killed five bulls. The head of the last he
severed with a single stroke of his sword.
Another
of the fearful tragedies of the Borgia family filled the atmosphere of this
holy year with its smothering fumes, the murder of Lucretia’s husband, the duke
of Besiglia, to whom she had borne a son.804 On returning home at night he was fallen upon at the steps
of St. Peter’s and stabbed. Carried to his palace, he was recovering, when
Caesar, who had visited him several times, at last had him strangled, August
18, 1500. The pope’s son openly declared his responsibility, and gave as an
explanation that he himself was in danger from the prince.
With
such scenes the new century was introduced in the papal city. But the end was
not yet. The appointment of cardinals had been prostituted into a convenient
device for filling the papal coffers and advancing the schemes of the papal
family. In 1493 Alexander added 12 to the sacred college, including Alexander
Farnese, afterwards Paul III., and brother to the pope’s mistress. From these
creations more than 100,000 ducats are said to have been realized.805 In 1496 four more were added, all
Spaniards, including the pope’s nephew, Giovanni Borgia, and making 9 Spaniards
in Alexander’s cabinet. When 12 cardinals were appointed, Sept. 28, 1500, Caesar
reaped 120,000 ducats as his reward. He had openly explained that he needed the
money for his designs in the Romagna. In 1503, just before his father’s death,
the duke received 130,000 more for 9 red hats. He raised 64,000 by the
appointment of new abbreviators. Nor were the dead to go free. At the death of
Cardinal Ferrari, 50,000 ducats were seized from his effects, and when Cardinal
Michïel died, nephew of Paul II., 150,000 ducats were transferred to the duke’s
account.
One
iniquity only led to another, Cardinal Orsini, while on a visit to the pope,
was taken prisoner. His palace was dismantled, and other members of the family
seized and their castles confiscated. The cardinal’s mother, aged fourscore,
secured from Alexander, upon the payment of 2,000 ducats and a costly pearl
which Orsini’s mistress had in her possession and, dressed as a man, took to
Alexander,806 the privilege of supplying her son with a daily dole of bread.
But the unfortunate man’s doom was sealed. He came to his death, as it was
believed, by poison prepared by Alexander.807
The
last of Alexander’s notable achievements for his family was the marriage of
Lucretia to Alfonso, son of Hercules, duke of Ferrara, 1502. The young duke was
24, and a widower. The prejudices of his father were removed through the good
offices of the king of France and a reduction of the tribute due from Ferrara,
as a papal fief, from 400 ducats to 100 florins, the college of cardinals
giving their assent. While the negotiations were going on, Alexander, during an
absence of three months from Rome, confided his correspondence and the
transaction of his business to the hands of his daughter. This appointment made
the college of cardinals subject to her.
Lucretia
entered with zest into the settlement of the preliminaries leading up to the
betrothal and into the preparations for the nuptials. When the news of the
signing of the marriage contract reached Rome, early in September, 1501, she
went to S. Maria del Popolo, accompanied by 300 knights and four bishops, and
gave public thanks. On the way she took off her cloak, said to be worth 300
ducats, and gave it to her buffoon. Putting it on, he rode through the streets
crying out, "Hurrah for the most illustrious duchess of Ferrara. Hurrah
for Alexander VI."808
For three hours the great bell on the capitol was kept ringing, and
bonfires were lit through the city to "incite everybody to joy." The
pope’s daughter, although she had been four times betrothed and twice married,
was only 21 at the time of her last engagement. According to the Ferrarese
ambassador, her face was most beautiful and her manners engaging.809 In the brilliant escort sent by
Hercules to conduct his future daughter-in-law to her new home, were the duke’s
two younger sons, who were entertained at the Vatican. Caesar and 19 cardinals,
including Cardinal Hippolytus of Este, met the escort at the Porto del Popolo.
Night after night, the Vatican was filled with the merriment of dancing and
theatrical plays. At her father’s request, Lucretia performed special dances.
The formal ceremony of marriage was performed, December 30th, in St. Peter’s,
Don Ferdinand acting as proxy for his brother. Preceded by 50 maids of honor, a
duke on each side of her, the bride proceeded to the basilica. Her approach was
announced by musicians playing in the portico. Within on his throne sat the
pontiff, surrounded by 13 cardinals. After a sermon, which Alexander ordered
made short, a ring was put on Lucretia’s finger by Duke Ferdinand. Then the
Cardinal d’Este approached, laying on a table 4 other rings, a diamond, an
emerald, a turquoise and a ruby, and, at his order, a casket was opened which
contained many jewels, including a head-dress of 16 diamonds and 150 large
pearls. But with exquisite courtesy, the prelate begged the princess not to
spurn the gift, as more gems were awaiting her in Ferrara.
The
rest of the night was spent in a banquet in the Vatican, when comedies were
rendered, in which Caesar was one of the leading figures. To their credit be it
said, that some of the cardinals and other dignitaries preferred to retire
early. The week which followed was filled with entertainments, including a
bull-fight on St. Peter’s square, in which Caesar again was entered as a
matador.
The
festivities were brought to a close Jan. 6th, 1502. 150 mules carried the
bride’s trousseau and other baggage. The lavish father had told her to take
what she would. Her dowry in money was 100,000 ducats. A brilliant cavalcade,
in which all the cardinals and ambassadors and the magistrates of the
municipality took part, accompanied the party to the city gates and beyond,
while Cardinal Francesco Borgia accompanied the party the whole journey. In
this whole affair, in spite of ourselves, sympathy for a father supplants our
indignation at his perfidy in violating the sacred vows of a Catholic priest
and the pledge of the supreme pontiff. Alexander followed the cavalcade as far
as he could with his eye, changing his position from window to window. But no
mention is made by any of the writers of the bride’s mother. Was she also a
witness of the gayeties from some concealed or open standing-place?
Lucretia
never returned to Rome. And so this famous woman, whose fortunes awaken the
deepest interest and also the deepest sympathy, passes out from the realm of
this history and she takes her place in the family annals of the noble house of
Este. She gained the respect of the court and the admiration of the city,
living a quiet, domestic life till her death in 1519. Few mortals have seen
transpire before their own eyes and in so short a time so much of dissemblance
and crime as she. She was not forty when she died. The old representation,
which made her the heroine of the dagger and the poisoned cup and guilty of
incest, has given way to the milder judgment of Reumont and Gregorovius, with
whom Pastor agrees. While they do not exonerate her from all profligacy, they
rescue her from being an abandoned Magdalen, and make appeal to our considerate
judgment by showing that she was made by her father an instrument of his
ambitions for his family and that at last she exhibited the devotion of a wife
and of a mother. Her son, Hercules, who reigned till 1559, was the husband of
Renée, the princess who welcomed Calvin and Clement Marot to her court.
Death
finally put an end to the scandals of Alexander’s reign. After an entertainment
given by Cardinal Hadrian, the pope and his son Caesar were attacked with
fever. It was reported that the poison which they had prepared for a cardinal
was by mistake or intentionally put into the cups they themselves used.810 The pontiff’s sickness lasted less than
a week. The third day he was bled. On his death-bed he played cards with some
of his cardinals. At the last, he received the eucharist and extreme unction
and died in the presence of five members of the sacred college. It is
especially noted by that well-informed diarist, Burchard, that during his
sickness Alexander never spoke a single word about Lucretia or his son, the
duke. Caesar was too ill to go to his father’s sick-bed but, on hearing of his
death, he sent Micheletto to demand of the chamberlain the keys to the papal
exchequer, threatening to strangle the cardinal, Casanova, and throw him out of
the window in case he refused. Terrified out of his wits,—perterritus,—the
cardinal yielded, and 100,000 ducats of gold and silver were carried away to
the bereaved son.
In
passing an estimate upon Alexander VI., it must be remembered that the popular
and also the carefully expressed judgments of contemporaries are against him.811 The rumor was current that the devil
himself was present at the death-scene and that, paying the price he had
promised him for the gift of the papacy 12 years before, Alexander replied to
the devil’s beckonings that he well understood the time had come for the final
stage of the transaction.812
Alexander’s
intellectual abilities have abundant proof in the results of his diplomacy by
which be was enabled to plot for the political advancement of Caesar Borgia,
with the support of France, at whose feet he had at one time been humbled, by
his winning back the support of the disaffected cardinals, and by his immunity
from personal hurt through violence, unless it be through poison at last. That
which marks him out for unmitigated condemnation is his lack of principle.
Mental ability, which is ascribed to the devil himself, is no substitute for
moral qualities. Perfidy, treachery, greed, lust and murder were stored up in
Alexander’s heart.813
While he shrank from the commission of no crime to reach the objects of
his ambition, he was wont to engage in the solemn exercises of devotion, and
even to say the mass with his own lips. To measure his iniquity, as has been
said, one need only compare his actions with the simple statement of the
precepts, "Thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not commit adultery, thou shalt
not steal." Elevation to a position of responsibility usually has the
effect of sobering a man’s spirit, but Rodrigo Borgia degraded the highest
office in the gift of Christendom for his own carnal designs. The moral
qualities and aims of Gregory VII. and Innocent III., however much we may
dissent from those aims, command respect. Alexander VI. was sensual, and his
ability to govern men, no matter how great it was, should not moderate the abhorrence
which his depraved aims arouse. The man with brute force can hold others in
terror, but he is a brute, nevertheless. The standards, it must be confessed,
of life in Rome were low when Rodrigo was made cardinal, and a Roman chronicler
could say that every priest had his mistress and almost all the Roman
monasteries had been turned into lupinaria — brothels.814 But holy traditions still lingered
around the sacred places of the city; the solemn rites of the Christian ritual
were still performed; the dissoluteness of the Roman emperors still seemed
hellish when compared with the sacrifice of the cross. And yet, two years
before Alexander’s death, October 31, 1501, an orgy took place in the Vatican
by Caesar’s appointment whose obscenity the worst of the imperial revels could
hardly have surpassed. 50 courtezans spent the night dancing, with the servants
and others present, first with their clothes on and then nude, the pope and
Lucretia looking on. The women, still naked, and going on their hands and feet,
picked up chestnuts thrown on the ground, and then received prizes of cloaks,
shoes, caps and other articles.815
To
Alexander nothing was sacred,—office, virtue, marriage, or life. As cardinal he
was present at the nuptials of the young Julia Farnese, and probably at that
very moment conceived the purpose of corrupting her, and in a few months she
was his acknowledged mistress. The cardinal of Gurk said to the Florentine
envoy, "When I think of the pope’s life and the lives of some of his
cardinals, I shudder at the thought of remaining in the curia, and I will have
nothing to do with it unless God reforms His Church." It was a biting
thrust when certain German knights, summoned to Rome, wrote to the pontiff that
they were good Christians and served the Count Palatine, who worshipped God,
loved justice, hated vice and was never accused of adultery. "We
believe," they went on, "in a just God who will punish with eternal
flames robbery, sacrilege, violence, abuse of the patrimony of Christ,
concubinage, simony and other enormities by which the Christian Church is being
scandalized."816
It
is pleasant to turn to the few acts of this last pontificate of the 15th
century which have another aspect than pure selfishness or depravity. In 1494,
Alexander canonized Anselm without, however, referring to the Schoolman’s great
treatise on the atonement, or his argument for the existence of God.817 He promoted the cult of St. Anna, the
Virgin Mary’s reputed mother, to whom Luther was afterwards devoted.818 He almost blasphemously professed
himself under the special protection of the Virgin, to whom he ascribed his
deliverance from death on several occasions, by sea and in the papal palace.
In
accord with the later practice of the Roman Catholic Church, Alexander
restricted the freedom of the press, ordering that no volume should be
published without episcopal sanction.819 His name meets the student of Western discovery in its
earliest period, but his treatment of America shows that he was not informed of
the purposes of Providence. In two bulls, issued May 4th and 5th, 1493, he
divided the Western world between Portugal and Spain by a line 100 leagues west
of the Azores, running north and south. These documents mention Christopher
Columbus as a worthy man, much to be praised, who, apt as a sailor, and after
great perils, labors and expenditures, had discovered islands and
continents—terras firmas — never before known. The possession of the lands in
the West, discovered and yet to be discovered, was assigned to Spain and
Portugal to be held and governed in perpetuity,—in perpetuum,—and the pope
solemnly declared that he made the gift out of pure liberality, and by the
authority of the omnipotent God, conceded to him in St. Peter, and by reason of
the vicarship of Jesus Christ, which he administered on earth.820 Nothing could be more distinctly
stated. As Peter’s successor, Alexander claimed the right to give away the
Western Continent, and his gift involved an unending right of tenure. This
prerogative of disposing of the lands in the West was in accordance with
Constantine’s invented gift to Sylvester, recorded in the spurious Isidorian
decretals.821
If
any papal bull might be expected to have the quality of inerrancy, it is the
bull bearing so closely on the destinies of the great American continent, and
through it on the world’s history. But the terms of the bull of May 4th were
set aside a year after its issue by the political treaty of Tordesillas, June
7, 1494, which shifted the line to a distance 370 leagues west of the Cape
Verde Islands. And the centuries have rudely overturned the supreme pontiff’s
solemn bequest until not a foot of land on this Western continent remains in
the possession of the kingdoms to which it was given. Putting aside the
distinctions between doctrinal and disciplinary decisions, which are made by
many Catholic exponents of the dogma of papal infallibility, Alexander’s bull
conferring the Americas, as Innocent III.’s bull pronouncing the stipulations
of the Magna Charta forever null, should afford a sufficient refutation of the
dogma.
The
character and career of Alexander VI. afford an argument against the theory of
the divine institution and vicarial prerogatives of the papacy which the
doubtful exegesis of our Lord’s words to Peter ought not to be allowed to
counteract. If we leave out all the wicked popes of the 9th and 10th centuries,
forget for a moment the cases of Honorius and other popes charged with heresy,
and put aside the offending popes of the Renaissance period and all the bulls
which sin against common reason, such as Innocent VIII.’s bull against
witchcraft, Alexander is enough to forbid that theory. Could God commit his
Church for 12 years to such a monster?
It is fair to recognize that Catholic historians feel the difficulty,
although they find a way to explain it away. Cardinal Hergenröther says that,
Christendom was delivered from a great offence by Alexander’s death, but even
in his case, unworthy as this pope was, his teachings are to be obeyed, and in
him the promise made to the chair of St. Peter was fulfilled (Matt. 23:2, 3).
In no instance did Alexander VI. prescribe to the Church anything contrary to
morals or the faith, and never did he lead her astray in disciplinary decrees
which, for the most part, were excellent."822
In
like strain, Pastor writes:823
In spite of Alexander, the purity of the Church’s teaching continued
unharmed. It was as if Providence wanted to show that men may injure the
Church, but that it is not in their power to destroy it. As a bad setting does
not diminish the value of the precious stone, so the sinfulness of a priest
cannot do any essential detriment either to his dispensation of her sacraments
or to the doctrines committed to her. Gold remains gold, whether dispensed by
clean hands or unclean. The papal office is exalted far above the personality
of its occupants, and cannot lose its dignity or gain essential worth by the
worthiness or unworthiness of its occupants. Peter sinned deeply, and yet the
supreme pastoral office was committed to him. It was from this standpoint that
Pope Leo the Great declared that the dignity of St. Peter is not lost, even in
an unworthy successor. Petri dignitas etiam in indigno haeredo non
deficit." Leo’s words Pastor adopts as the motto of his history.
In
such reasoning, the illustrations beg the question. No matter how clean or
unclean the hands may be which handle it, lead remains lead, and no matter
whether the setting be gold or tin, an opaque stone remains opaque which is
held by them. The personal opinion of Leo the Great will not be able to stand
against the growing judgment of mankind, that the Head of the Church does not
commit the keeping of sacred truth to wicked hands or confide the pastorate
over the Church to a man of unholy and lewd lips. The papal theory of the
succession of Peter, even if there were no other hostile historic testimony,
would founder on the personality of Alexander VI., who set an example of all
depravity. Certainly the true successors of Peter will give in their conduct
some evidence of the fulfilment of Christ’s words "the kingdom of heaven
is within you." Who looks for
an illustration of obedience to the mandates of the Most High to the last
pontiff of the 15th century!824
</div3> <div3 type = "Section"
n="55" title="Julius II., the Warrior-Pope. 1503–1513">
§ 55.
Julius II., the Warrior-Pope. 1503–1513.
Alexander’s
successor, Pius III., a nephew of Pius II., and a man of large family,
succumbed, within a month after his election, to the gout and other
infirmities. He was followed by Julian Rovere, Alexander’s old rival, who, as
cardinal, had played a conspicuous part for more than 30 years. He proved to be
the ablest and most energetic pontiff the Church had had since the days of
Innocent III. and Gregory IX. in the 13th century.
At
Alexander’s death, Caesar Borgia attempted to control the situation. He
afterwards told Machiavelli that he had made provision for every exigency
except the undreamed-of conjunction of his own and his father’s sickness.825 Consternation ruled in Rome, but with
the aid of the ambassadors of France, Germany, Venice and Spain, Caesar was
prevailed upon to withdraw from the city, while the Orsini and the Colonna
families, upon which Alexander had heaped high insult, entered it again.
The
election of Julian Rovere, who assumed the name of Julius II., was accomplished
with despatch October 31, 1503, after bribery had been freely resorted to. The
Spanish cardinals, 11 in number and still in a measure under Caesar’s control,
gave their votes to the successful candidate on condition that Caesar should be
recognized as gonfalonier of the church. The faithful papal
master-of-ceremonies, whose Diary we have had occasion to draw on so largely,
was appointed bishop of Orta, but died two years later. Born in Savona of
humble parentage and appointed to the sacred college by his uncle, Sixtus IV.,
Julius had recently returned to Rome after an exile of nearly 10 years. The
income from his numerous bishoprics and other dignities made him the richest of
the cardinals. Though piety was not one of the new pontiff’s notable traits,
his pontificate furnished an agreeable relief from the coarse crimes and
domestic scandals of Alexander’s reign. It is true, he had a family of three
daughters, one of whom, Felice, was married into the Orsini family in 1506,
carrying with her a splendid dowry of 15,000 ducats. But the marriage
festivities were not appointed for the Vatican, nor did the children give
offence by their ostentatious presence in the pontifical palace. Julius also
took care of his nephews. Two of them were appointed to the sacred college,
Nov. 29, 1503, and later two more were honored with the same dignity. For
making the Spanish scholar, Ximenes, cardinal, Julius deserved well of other
ages as well as his own. He was a born ruler. He had a dignified and imposing
presence and a bright, penetrating eye. Under his white hair glowed the
intellectual fire of youth. He was rapid in his movements even to impetuosity,
and brave even to daring. Defeats that would have disheartened even the bravest
seemed only to intensify Julius’ resolution. If his language was often violent,
the excuse is offered that violence of speech was common at that time. As a
cardinal he had shown himself a diplomat rather than a saint, and as pope he
showed himself a warrior rather than a priest. When Michael Angelo, who was
ordered to execute the pope’s statue in bronze, was representing Julius with
his right hand raised, the pope asked, "What are you going to put into the
left?" "It may be a
book," answered the artist. "Nay, give me a sword, for I am no
scholar," was the pope’s reply. Nothing could be more characteristic.826
Julius’
administration at once brought repose and confidence to the sacred college and
Rome. If he did not keep his promise to abide by the protocol adopted in the
conclave calling for the assembling of a council within two years, he may be
forgiven on the ground of the serious task he had before him in strengthening
the political authority of the papal see. This was the chief aim of his
pontificate. He deserves the title of the founder of the State of the Church, a
realm that, with small changes, remained papal territory till 1870. This end
being secured, he devoted himself to redeeming Italy from its foreign invaders.
Three foes stood in his way, Caesar and the despots of the Italian cities, the
French who were intrenched in Milan and Genoa, and the Spaniards who held
Naples and Sicily. His effort to rescue Italy for the Italians won for him the
grateful regard due an Italian patriot. Like Innocent III., he closed his reign
with an oecumenical council.
Caesar
Borgia returned to Rome, was recognized as gonfalonier and given apartments in
the Vatican. Julius had been in amicable relations with the prince in France
and advanced his marriage, and Caesar wrote that in him he had found a second
father. But Caesar now that Alexander was dead, was as a galley without a
rudder. He was an upstart; Julius a man of power and far-reaching plans.
Prolonged co-operation between the two was impossible. The one was sinister,
given to duplicity; the other frank and open to brusqueness. The encroachment
of Venice upon the Romagna gave the occasion at once for Caesar’s fall and for
the full restoration of papal authority in that region. Supporters Caesar had
none who could be relied upon in the day of ill success. He no longer had the
power which the control of patronage gives. Julius demanded the keys of the
towns of the Romagna as a measure necessary to the dislodgment of Venice.
Caesar yielded, but withdrew to Ostia, meditating revenge. He was seized, carried
back to Rome and placed in the castle of S. Angelo, which had been the scene of
his dark crimes. He was obliged to give up the wealth gotten at his father’s
death and to sign a release of Forli and other towns. Liberty was then given
him to go where be pleased. He accepted protection from the Spanish captain,
Gonsalvo de Cordova, but on his arrival in Naples the Spaniard, with despicable
perfidy, seized the deceived man and sent him to Spain, August, 1504. For two
years he was held a prisoner, when he escaped to the court of his
brother-in-law, the king of Navarre. He was killed at the siege of Viana, 1507,
aged 31. Thus ended the career of the man who had once been the terror of Rome,
whom Ranke calls "a virtuoso in crime," and Machiavelli chose as the
model of a civil ruler. This political writer had met Caesar after Julius’
elevation, and in his Prince827 says, "It seems good to me to propose
Caesar Borgia as an example to be imitated by all those who through fortune and
the arms of others have attained to supreme command. For, as he had a great
mind and great ambitions, it was not possible for him to govern
otherwise." Caesar had said to the theorist, "I rob no man. I am here
to act the tyrant’s part and to do away with tyrants." Only if to obtain
power by darkness and assassination is worthy of admiration, and if to crush
all individual liberty is a just end of government, can the Machiavellian ideal
be regarded with other feelings than those of utter reprobation. There is
something pathetic in the recollection that, to the end, this inhuman brother
retained the affection of his sister, Lucretia. She pled for his release from
imprisonment in Spain, and Caesar’s letter to her announcing his escape is
still extant.828 When the rumor
came of his death, Lucretia despatched her servant, Tullio, to Navarre to find
out the truth, and gave herself up to protracted prayer on her brother’s
behalf. This beautiful example of a sister’s love would seem to indicate that
Caesar possessed by nature some excellent qualities.
Julius
was also actively engaged in repairing some of the other evils of Alexander’s
reign and making amends for its injustices. He restored Sermoneta to the dukes
of Gaetani. The document which pronounced severe reprobation upon Alexander
ran, "our predecessor, desiring to enrich his own kin, through no zeal for
justice, but by fraud and deceit, sought for causes to deprive the Gaetani of
their possessions." With decisive firmness, he announced his purpose to
assert his lawful authority over the papal territory and, accompanied by 9 cardinals,
he left Rome at the head of 500 men and proceeded to make good the
announcement. Perugia was quickly brought to terms; and, aided by the French,
the pope entered Bologna, against which he had launched the interdict.
Returning to Rome, he was welcomed as a conqueror. The victorious troops passed
under triumphal arches, including a reproduction of Constantine’s arch erected
on St. Peter’s square; and, accompanied by 28 members of the sacred college,
Julius gave solemn thanks in St. Peter’s.829
The
next to be brought to terms was Venice. In vain had the pope, through letters
and legates, called upon the doge to give up Rimini, Faenza, Forli and other
parts of the Romagna upon which he had laid his hand. In March, 1508, he joined
the alliance of Cambrai, the other parties being Louis XII. and the emperor
Maximilian, and later, Ferdinand of Spain. This agreement decided in cold blood
upon the division of the Venetian possessions, and bound the parties to a war
against the Turk. France was confirmed in the tenure of Milan, and given
Cremona and Brescia. Maximilian was to have Verona, Padua and Aquileja; Naples,
the Venetian territories in Southern Italy; Hungary, Dalmatia; Savoy, Cyprus;
and the Apostolic see, the lands of which it had been dispossessed. It was
high-handed robbery, even though a pope was party to it. Julius, who had
promised to add the punishments of the priestly office to the force of arms,
proceeded with merciless severity, and placed the republic under the interdict,
April 27, 1509. In vain did Venice appeal to God and a general council. Past
sins enough were written against her to call for severe treatment. She was
forced to surrender Rimini, Faenza and Ravenna, and was made to drink the cup
of humiliation to its dregs. The city renounced her claim to nominate to
bishoprics and benefices and tax the clergy without the papal consent. The
Adriatic she was forced to open to general commerce. Her envoys, who appeared
in Roma to make public apology for the sins of the proud state, were subjected
to the insult of listening on their knees to a service performed outside the
walls of St. Peter’s and lasting an hour; at every verse of the Miserere the
pope and 12 cardinals, each with a golden rod, touched them. Then, service
over, the doors of the cathedral were thrown open and absolution pronounced.830 The next time Venice was laid under the
papal ban, the measure failed.
Julius’
plans were next directed against the French, the impudent invaders of Northern
Italy and claimants of sovereignty over it. Times had changed since the pope,
as cardinal Julian Rovere, had accompanied the French army under Charles VIII.
The absolution of Venice was tantamount to the pope’s withdrawal from the
alliance of Cambrai. By making Venice his ally, he hoped to bring Ferrara again
under the authority of the holy see. The duchy had flourished under the warm
support of the French.
Julius
now made a far-reaching stroke in securing the help of the Swiss, who had been
fighting under the banners of France. The hardy mountaineers, who now find it
profitable to entertain tourists from all over the world, then found it
profitable to sell their services in war. With the aid of their vigorous
countryman, Bishop Schinner of Sitten, afterwards made cardinal, the pope
contracted for 6,000 Swiss mercenaries for five years. The localities sending
them received 13,000 gulden a year, and each soldier 6 francs a month, and the
officers, twice that sum. As chaplain of the Swiss troops, Zwingli went to Rome
three times, a course of which his patriotism afterwards made him greatly
ashamed. The descendants of these Swiss mercenaries defended Louis XVI., and
their heroism is commemorated by Thorwaldsen’s lion, cut into the rock at
Lucerne. Swiss guards, dressed in yellow suits, to this day patrol the
approaches and halls of the Vatican.831
The
French king, Louis XII. (1498–1515), sought to break Julius’ power by adding to
the force of arms the weight of a religious assembly and, at his instance, the
French bishops met in council at Tours, September, 1510, and declared that the
pope had put aside the keys of St. Peter, which his predecessors had employed,
and seized the sword of Paul. They took the ground that princes were justified
in opposing him with force, even to withdrawing obedience and invading papal
territory.832 As in the reign
of Philip the Fair, so now moneys were forbidden transferred from France to
Rome, and a call was made by 9 cardinals for a council to meet at Pisa on Sept.
1st, 1511. This council of Tours denounced Julius as "the new
Goliath," and Louis had a coin struck off with the motto, I will destroy
the name of Babylon—perdam Babylonis nomen. Calvin, in the year of his death,
sent to Renée, duchess of Ferrara, one of these medals which in his letter,
dated Jan. 8, 1564, he declared to be the finest present he had it in his power
to make her. Renée was the daughter of Louis XII. Julius excommunicated
Alfonso, duke of Ferrara, as a son of iniquity and a root of perdition. Thus we
have the spectacle of the supreme priest of Christendom and the most Christian
king, the First Son of the Church, again engaged in war with one another.
At
the opening of the campaign, Julius was in bed with a sickness which was
supposed to be mortal; but to the amazement of his court, he suddenly arose
and, in the dead of Winter, January, 1511, betook himself to the camp of the
papal forces. His promptness of action was in striking contrast to the dilatory
policy of Louis, who spent his time writing letters and summoning ecclesiastical
assemblies when he ought to have been on the march. From henceforth till his
death, the pope wore a beard, as he is represented in Raphael’s famous
portrait.833 Snow covered the
ground, but Julius set an example by enduring all the hardships of the camp. To
accomplish the defeat of the French, he brought about the Holy League, October,
1511, Spain and Venice being the other parties. Later, these three allies were
joined by Maximilian and Henry VIII. of England. Henry had been honored with
the Golden Rose.834
Henry’s act was England’s first positive entrance upon the field of
general European politics.
In
the meantime the French were carrying on the Council of Pisa. The pope
prudently counteracted its influence by calling a council to meet in the
Lateran. Christendom was rent by two opposing ecclesiastical councils as well
as by two opposing armies. The armies met in decisive conflict under the walls
of the old imperial city of Ravenna. The leader of the French, Gaston de Foix,
nephew of the French king, though only 24, approved himself, in spite of his
youth, one of the foremost captains of his age. Bologna had fallen before his
arms, and now Ravenna yielded to the same necessity after a bloody battle. The
French army numbered 25,000, the army of the League 20,000. In the French camp
was the French legate, Cardinal Sanseverino, mounted and clad in steel armor,
his tall form towering above the rest. Prominent on the side of the allied army
was the papal legate, Cardinal de’ Medici, clad in white, and Giulio Medici,
afterwards Clement VII. The battle took place on Easter Day, 1512. Gaston de
Foix, thrown to the ground by the fall of his horse, was put to death by some
of the seasoned Spanish soldiers whom Gonsalvo had trained. The victor, whose
battle cry was "Let him that loves me follow me," was borne into the
city in his coffin. Rimini, Forli and other cities of the Romagna opened their
gates to the French. Cardinal Medici was in their hands.
The
papal cause seemed to be hopelessly lost, but the spirit of Julius rose with
the defeat. He is reported to have exclaimed, "I will stake 100,000 ducats
and my crown that I will drive the French out of Italy," and the victory
of Ravenna proved to be another Cannae. The hardy Swiss, whose numbers Cardinal
Schinner had increased to 18,000, and the Venetians pushed the campaign, and
the barbarians, as Julius called the French, were forced to give up what they
had gained, to surrender Milan and gradually to retire across the Alps. Parma
and Piacenza, by virtue of the grant of Mathilda, passed into his hands, as did
also Reggio. The victory was celebrated in Rome on an elaborate scale. Cannons
boomed from S. Angelo, and thanks were given in all the churches. In
recognition of their services, the pope gave to the Swiss two large banners and
the permanent title of Protectors of the Apostolic see—auxiliatores sedis
apostolicae. Such was the end of this remarkable campaign.
Julius
purchased Siena from the emperor for 30,000 ducats and, with the aid of the
seasoned Spanish troops, took Florence and restored the Medici to power. In
December, 1513, Maximilian, who at one time conceived the monstrous idea of
combining with his imperial dignity the office of supreme pontiff, announced
his support of the Lateran council, the pope having agreed to use all the
spiritual measures within his reach to secure the complete abasement of Venice.
The further execution of the plans was prevented by the pope’s death. In his
last hours, in a conversation with Cardinal Grimani, he pounded on the floor
with his cane, exclaiming, "If God gives me life, I will also deliver the
Neapolitans from the yoke of the Spaniards and rid the land of them."835
The
Pisan council had opened Sept. 1, 1511, with only two archbishops and 14
bishops present. First and last 6 cardinals attended, Carvajal, Briçonnet,
Prie, d’Albret, Sanseverino and Borgia. The Universities of Paris Toulouse and
Poictiers were represented by doctors. After holding three sessions, it moved
to Milan, where the victory of Ravenna gave it a short breath of life. When the
French were defeated, it again moved to Asti in Piedmont, where it held a ninth
session, and then it adjourned to Lyons, where it dissolved of itself.836 Hergenröther, Pastor and other Catholic
historians take playful delight in calling the council the little council—conciliabulum—and
a conventicle, terms which Julius applied to it in his bulls.837 Among its acts were a fulmination
against the synod Julius was holding in the Lateran, and it had the temerity to
cite the pope to appear, and even to declare him deposed from all spiritual and
temporal authority. The synod also reaffirmed the decrees of the 5th session of
the Council of Constance, placing general councils over the pope.
Very
different in its constitution and progress was the Fifth Lateran, the last
oecumenical council of the Middle Ages, and the 18th in the list of oecumenical
councils, as accepted by the Roman Catholic Church. It lasted for nearly five
years, and closed on the eve of the nailing of the XCV theses on the church door
in Wittenberg. It is chiefly notable for what it failed to do rather than for
anything it did. The only one of its declarations which is of more than
temporary interest was the deliverance, reaffirming Boniface’s theory of the
supremacy of the Roman pontiff over all potentates and individuals whatsoever.
In
his summons calling the council, Julius deposed the cardinals, who had entered
into the Pisan synod, as schismatics and sons of darkness.838 The attendance did not compare in
weight or numbers with the Council of Constance. At the 1st session, held May
3, 1512, there were present 16 cardinals, 12 patriarchs, 10 archbishops, 70
bishops and 3 generals of orders. The opening address by Egidius of Viterbo,
general of the Augustinian order, after dwelling upon the recent glorious
victories of Julius, magnified the weapons of light at the council’s disposal,
piety, prayers, vows and the breastplate of faith. The council should devote
itself to placating all Christian princes in order that the arms of the
Christian world might be turned against the flagrant enemy of Christ, Mohammed.
The council then declared the adherents of the Pisan conventicle schismatics
and laid France under the interdict. Julius, who listened to the eloquent
address, was present at 4 sessions.
At
the 2d session, Cajetan dilated at length on the pet papal theory of the two
swords.
In
the 4th session, the Venetian, Marcello, pronounced a eulogy upon Julius which
it would be hard to find excelled for fulsome flattery in the annals of
oratory. After having borne intolerable cold, so the eulogist declared, and
sleepless nights and endured sickness in the interests of the Church, and
having driven the French out of Italy, there remained for the pontiff the
greater triumphs of peace. Julius must be pastor, shepherd, physician, ruler,
administrator and, in a word, another God on earth.839
At
the 5th session, held during the pope’s last illness, a bull was read, severely
condemning simony at papal elections. The remaining sessions of the council
were held under Julius’ successor.
When
Julius came to die, he was not yet 70. No man of his time had been an actor in
so many stirring scenes. On his death-bed he called for Paris de Grassis, his
master of ceremonies, and reminded him how little respect had been paid to the
bodies of deceased popes within his recollection. Some of them had been left
indecently nude. He then made him promise to see to it that he should have
decent care and burial.840
The cardinals were summoned. The dying pontiff addressed them first in
Latin, and implored them to avoid all simony in the coming election, and
reminded them that it was for them and not for the council to choose his
successor. He pardoned the schismatic cardinals, but excluded them from the
conclave to follow his death. And then, as if to emphasize the tie of birth, he
changed to Italian and besought them to confirm his nephew, the duke of Urbino,
in the possession of Pesaro, and then he bade them farewell. A last remedy,
fluid gold, was administered, but in vain. He died Feb. 20, 1513.841
The
scenes which ensued were very different from those which followed upon the
death of Alexander VI. A sense of awe and reverence filled the city. The dead
pontiff was looked upon as a patriot, and his services to civil order in Rome
and its glory counterbalanced his deficiencies as a priest of God.842
It
was of vast profit that the Vatican had been free from the domestic scandals
which had filled it so long. From a worldly standpoint, Julius had exalted the
papal throne to the eminence of the national thrones of Europe. In the terrific
convulsion which Luther’s onslaughts produced, the institution of the papacy
might have fallen in ruins had not Julius re-established it by force of arms.
But in vain will the student look for signs that Julius II. had any intimation
of the new religious reforms which the times called for and Luther began. What
measures this pope, strong in will and bold in execution, might have employed
if the movement in the North had begun in his day, no one can surmise. The monk
of Erfurt walked the streets of Rome during this pontificate for the first and
only time. While Luther was ascending the scala santa on his knees and running
about to the churches, wishing his parents were in purgatory that he might pray
them out, Julius was having perfected a magnificently jewelled tiara costing
200,000 ducats, which he put on for the first time on the anniversary of his
coronation, 1511. These two men, both of humble beginnings, would have been
more a match for each other than Luther and Julius’ successor, the Medici, the
man of luxurious culture.843
Under
Julius II. the papal finances flourished. Great as were the expenditures of his
campaigns, he left plate and coin estimated to be worth 400,000 ducats. A
portion of this fund was the product of the sale of indulgences. He turned the
forgiveness of sins for the present time and in purgatory into a matter of
merchandise.844
In
another place, Julius will be presented from the standpoint of art and culture,
whose splendid patron he was. What man ever had the privilege of bringing
together three artists of such consummate genius as Bramante, Michael Angelo
and Raphael! His portrait in the
Pitti gallery, Florence, forms a rich study for those who seek in the lines and
colors of Raphael’s art the secret of the pontiff’s power.845 The painter has represented Julius as
an old man with beard, and with his left hand grasping the arm of the chair in
which he sits. His fingers wear jewelled rings. The forehead is high, the lips
firmly pressed, the eyes betokening weariness, determination and commanding
energy.
In the history of the Western Continent,
Julius also has some place. In 1504 he created an archbishopric and two
bishoprics of Hispaniola, or Hayti. The prelates to whom they were assigned
never crossed the seas. Seven years later, 1511, he revoked these creations and
established the sees of San Domingo and Concepcion de la Vega on the island of
Hayti and the see of San Juan in Porto Rico, all three subject to the
metropolitan supervision of the see of Seville.
</div3> <div3 type = "Section" n="56"
title="Leo X. 1513–1521">
§ 56.
Leo X. 1513–1521.
The
warlike Julius II. was followed on the pontifical throne by the voluptuary, Leo
X.,—the prelate whose iron will and candid mind compel admiration by a prince
given to the pursuit of pleasure and an adept in duplicity. Leo loved ease and
was without high aims. His Epicurean conception of the supreme office of
Christendom was expressed in a letter he sent a short time after his election
to his brother Julian. In it were these words, "Let us enjoy the papacy,
for God has given it to us."846 The last pontificate of the Middle Ages corresponded to the
worldly philosophy of the pontiff. Leo wanted to have a good time. . The idea
of a spiritual mission never entered his head. No effort was made, emanating
from the Vatican, to further the interests of true religion.
Born
in Florence, Dec. 11, 1475, Giovanni de’ Medici, the second son of Lorenzo the
Magnificent, had every opportunity which family distinction, wealth and learned
tutors, such as Poliziano, could give. At 7 he received the tonsure, and at
once the world of ecclesiastical preferment was opened to the child. Louis XI.
of France presented him with the abbey of Fonte Dolce, and at 8 he was
nominated to the archbishopric of Aix, the nomination, however, not being
confirmed. A canonry in each of the cathedral churches of Tuscany was set apart
for him, and his appointments soon reached the number of 27, one of them being
the abbacy of Monte Cassino, and another the office of papal pronotary.847
The
highest dignities of the Church were in store for the lad and, before he had
reached the age of 14, he was made cardinal-deacon by Innocent VIII., March 9,
1489. Three years later, March 8, 1492, Giovanni received in Rome formal
investment into the prerogatives of his office. The letter, which Lorenzo wrote
on this latter occasion, is full of the affectionate counsels of a father and
the prudent suggestions of the tried man of the world, and belongs in a
category with the letters of Lord Chesterfield to his son. Lorenzo reminded
Giovanni of his remarkable fortune in being made a prince of the church, all
the more remarkable because he was not only the youngest member of the college
of cardinals, but the first cardinal to receive the dignity at so tender an
age. With pardonable pride, he spoke of it as the highest honor ever conferred
upon the Medicean house. He warned his son that Rome was the sink of all
iniquities and exhorted him to lead a virtuous life, to avoid ostentation, to
rise early, an admonition the son never followed, and to use his opportunities
to serve his native city. Lorenzo died a few months later.848 Forthwith the young prelate was
appointed papal legate to Tuscany, with residence in his native city.
When
Julius died, Giovanni de’ Medici was only 37. In proceeding to Rome, he was
obliged to be carried in a litter, on account of an ulcer for which an
operation was performed during the meeting of the conclave. Giovanni, who
belonged to the younger party, had won many friends by his affable manners and
made no enemies, and his election seems to have been secured without any
special effort on his part. The great-grandson of the banker, Cosimo, chose the
name of Leo X. He was consecrated to the priesthood March 17, 1513, and to the
episcopate March 19. The election was received by the Romans with every sign of
popular approval. On the festivities of the coronation 100,000 ducats, or
perhaps as much as 150,000 ducats, were expended, a sum which the frugality of
Julius had stored up.
The
procession was participated in by 250 abbots, bishops and archbishops. Alfonso
of Este, whom Julius II. had excommunicated, led the pope’s white horse, the
same one he had ridden the year before at Ravenna. On the houses and
[picture
with title below]
Pope
Leo X
on
the arches, spanning the streets, might be seen side by side statues of Cosmas
and Damian, the patrons of the Medicean house, and of the Olympian gods and
nymphs. On one arch at the Piazza di Parione were depicted Perseus, Apollo,
Moses and Mercury, sacred and mythological characters conjoined, as Alexander
Severus joined the busts of Abraham and Orpheus in his palace in the third century.
A bishop, afterwards Cardinal Andrea della Valle, placed on his arch none but
ancient divinities, Apollo, Bacchus, Mercury, Hercules and Venus, together with
fauns and Ganymede. Antonio of San Marino, the silversmith, decorated his house
with a marble statue of Venus, under which were inscribed the words—
Mars
ruled; then Pallas, but Venus will rule forever.849
As
a ruler, Leo had none of the daring and strength of his predecessor. He pursued
a policy of opportunism and stooped to the practice of duplicity with his
allies as well as with his enemies. On all occasions he was ready to shift to
the winning side. To counteract the designs of the French upon Northern Italy,
he entered with Maximilian, Henry VIII. and Ferdinand of Spain into the treaty
of Mechlin, April 5, 1513. He had the pleasure of seeing the French beaten by
Henry VIII. at the battle of the Spurs850 and again driven out of
Italy by the bravery of the Swiss at Novara, June 6. Louis easily yielded to
the pope’s advances for peace and acknowledged the authority of the Lateran
council. The deposed cardinals, Carvajal and Sanseverino, who had been active
in the Pisan council, signed a humiliating confession and were reinstated. Leo
remarked to them that they were like the sheep in the Gospel which was lost and
was found. A secret compact, entered into between the pontiff and King Louis,
and afterwards joined by Henry VIII., provided for the French king’s marriage
with Mary Tudor, Henry’s younger sister, and the recognition of his claims in
Northern Italy. But at the moment these negotiations were going on, Leo was
secretly engaged in the attempt to divorce Venice from the French and to defeat
the French plans for the reoccupation of Milan. Louis’ career was suddenly cut
short by death, Jan. 1, 1515, at the age of 52, three months after his nuptials
with Mary, who was sixteen at the time of her marriage.
The
same month Leo came to an understanding with Maximilian and Spain, whereby
Julian de’ Medici, the pope’s brother, should receive Parma, Piacenza and
Reggio. Leo purchased Modena from the emperor for 40,000 ducats, and was
sending 60,000 ducats monthly for the support of the troops of his secret
allies.
At
the very same moment, faithless to his Spanish allies, the pope was carrying on
negotiations with Venice to drive them out of Italy.
Louis’
son-in-law and successor, Francis I., a warlike and enterprising prince, held
the attention of Europe for nearly a quarter of a century with his campaigns
against Charles V., whose competitor he was for the imperial crown. Carrying
out Louis’ plans, and accompanied by an army of 35,000 men with 60 cannon, he
marched in the direction of Milan, inflicting at Marignano, Sept., 1515, a
disastrous defeat upon the 20,000 Swiss mercenaries.851 At the first news of the disaster, Leo
was thrown into consternation, but soon recovered his composure, exclaiming in
the presence of the Venetian ambassador, "We shall have to put ourselves into
the hands of the king and cry out for mercy." The victory, was the reply, "will not inure to your
hurt or the damage of the Apostolic see. The French king is a son of the
Church." And so it proved to be. Without a scruple, as it would seem, the
pope threw off his alliances with the emperor and Ferdinand and hurried to get
the best terms he could from Francis.
They
met at Bologna. Conducted by 20 cardinals, Francis entered Leo’s presence and,
uncovering his head, bowed three times and kissed the pontiff’s hand and foot.
Leo wore a tiara glittering with gems, and a mantle, heavy with cloth of gold.
The French orator set forth how the French kings from time immemorial had been
protectors of the Apostolic see, and how Francis had crossed the mountains and
rivers to show his submission. For three days pontiff and king dwelt together
in the same palace. It was agreed that Leo yield up Parma and Piacenza to the
French, and a concordat was worked out which took the place of the Pragmatic
Sanction. This document, dating from the Council of Basel, and ratified by the
synod of Bourges, placed the nomination to all French bishoprics, abbeys and
priories in the hands of the king, and this clause the concordat preserved. On
the other hand, the clauses in the Pragmatic Sanction were omitted which made
the pope subject to general councils and denied to him the right to collect
annates from French benefices higher and lower.
The
election of a successor to the emperor Maximilian, who died Jan., 1519, put
Leo’s diplomacy to the severest test. Ferdinand the Catholic, who had seen the
Moorish domination in Spain come to an end and the Americas annexed to his
crown, and had been invested by Julius II. in 1510 with the kingdom of Naples,
died in 1516, leaving his grandson, Charles, heir to his dominions. Now, by the
death of his paternal grandfather Maximilian, Charles was heir of the
Netherlands and the lands of the Hapsburgs and natural claimant of the imperial
crown. Leo preferred Francis, but Charles had the right of lineage and the
support of the German people. To prevent Charles’ election, and to avoid the
ill-will of Francis, he agitated through his legate, Cajetan, the election of
either Frederick the Wise, elector of Saxony, or the elector of Brandenburg.
Secretly he entered into the plans of Francis and allowed the archbishops of
Treves and Cologne to be assured of their promotion to the sacred college,
provided they would cast their electoral vote for the French king. But to be
sure of his ground, no matter who might be elected, Leo entered also into a
secret agreement with Charles. Both candidates had equal reason for believing
they had the pope on their side.852
Finally, when it became evident that Francis was out of the race, and
after the electors had already assembled in Frankfurt, Leo wrote to Cajetan
that it was no use beating one’s head against the wall and that he should fall
in with the election of Charles. Leo had stipulated 100,000 ducats as the price
of his support of Charles.853
He sent a belated letter of congratulation to the emperor-elect, which
was full of tropical phrases, and in 1521, at the Diet of Worms, the assembly
before which Luther appeared, he concluded with Charles an alliance against his
former ally, Francis. The agreement included the reduction of Milan, Parma and
Piacenza. The news of the success of Charles’ troops in taking these cities
reached Leo only a short time before his death, Dec. 1, 1521. For the cause of
Protestantism, the papal alliance with the emperor against France proved to be
highly favorable, for it necessitated the emperor’s absence from Germany.
In
his administration of the papacy, Leo X. was not unmindful of the interests of
his family. Julian, his younger brother, was made gonfalonier of the Church,
and was married to the sister of Francis I.’s mother. For a time he was in
possession of Parma, Piacenza and Reggio. Death terminated his career, 1516.
His only child, the illegitimate Hippolytus, d. 1535, was afterwards made
cardinal.
The
worldly hopes of the Medicean dynasty now centred in Lorenzo de’ Medici, the
son of Leo’s older brother. After the deposition of Julius’ nephew, he was
invested with the duchy of Urbino. In 1518 he was married to Madeleine de la
Tour d’Auvergne, a member of the royal house of France. Leo’s presents to the
marital pair were valued at 300,000 ducats, among them being a bedstead of
tortoise-shell inlaid with mother-of-pearl and precious stones. They took up
their abode at Florence, but both husband and wife died a year after the
marriage, leaving behind them a daughter who, as Catherine de’ Medici, became
famous in the history of France and the persecution of the Huguenots. With
Lorenzo’s death, the last descendant of the male line of the house founded by
Cosimo de’ Medici became extinct.
In
1513 Leo admitted his nephew, Innocent Cibo, and his cousin, Julius, to the
sacred college. Innocent Cibo, a young man of 21, was the son of Franceschetto
Cibo, Innocent VIII.’s son, and Maddelina de’ Medici, Leo’s sister. His low
morals made him altogether unfit for an ecclesiastical dignity. Julius de’
Medici, afterwards Clement VII., was the bastard son of Leo’s uncle, who was
killed in the Pazzi conspiracy under Sixtus IV., 1478. The impediment of the
illegitimate birth was removed by a papal decree.854 Two nephews, Giovanni Salviati and Nicolas Ridolfi, sons of
two of Leo’s sisters, were also vested with the red hat, 1517. On this occasion
Leo appointed no less than thirty-one cardinals. Among them were Cajetan, the
learned general of the Dominicans, Aegidius of Viterbo, who had won an enviable
fame by his address opening the Lateran council, and Adrian of Utrecht, Leo’s
successor in the papal chair. Of the number was Alfonso of Portugal, a child of
7, but it was understood he was not to enter upon the duties of his office till
he had reached the age of 14. Among the other appointees were princes entirely
unworthy of any ecclesiastical office.855
The
Vatican was thrown into a panic in 1517 by a conspiracy directed by Cardinal
Petrucci of Siena, one of the younger set of cardinals with whom the pope had
been intimate. Embittered by Leo’s interference in his brother’s administration
of Siena and by the deposition of the duke of Urbino, Petrucci plotted to have
the pope poisoned by a physician, Battesta de Vercelli, a specialist on ulcers.
The plot was discovered, and Petrucci, who came to Rome on a safe-conduct
procured from the pope by the Spanish ambassador, was cast into the Marroco,
the deepest dungeon of S. Angelo. On being reminded of the safe-conduct, Leo
replied to the ambassador that no one was safe who was a poisoner. Cardinals
Sauli and Riario were entrapped and also thrown into the castle-dungeons. Two
other cardinals were suspected of being in the plot, but escaped. Petrucci and
the physician were strangled to death; Riario and Sauli were pardoned. Riario,
who had witnessed the dastardly assassination in the cathedral of Florence 40
years before, was the last prominent representative of the family of Sixtus IV.
Torture brought forth the confession that the plotters contemplated making him
pope. Leo set the price of the cardinal’s absolution high,—150,000 ducats to be
paid in a year, and another 150,000 to be paid by his relatives in case Riario
left his palace. He finally secured the pope’s permission to leave Rome, and
died, 1521, at Naples.
One
of the sensational pageants which occurred during Leo’s pontificate was on the
arrival of a delegation from Portugal, 1514, to announce to the pope the
obedience of its king, Emmanuel. The king sent a large number of presents,
among them horses from Persia, a young panther, two leopards and a white
elephant. The popular jubilation over the procession of the wild beasts reached
its height when the elephant, taking water into his proboscis, spurted it over
the onlookers.856 In recognition of
the king’s courtesy, the pope vested in Portugal all the lands west of Capes
Bojador and Non to the Indies.
The
Fifth Lateran resumed its sessions in April, 1513, a month after Leo’s
election. The council ratified the concordat with France, and at the 8th
session, Dec. 19, 1513, solemnly affirmed the doctrine of the soul’s
immortality.857 The affirmation
was called forth by the scepticism of the Arabic philosophers and the Italian
pantheists. A single vote recorded against the decree came from the bishop of
Bergamo, who took the ground that it is not the business of theologians to
spend their time sitting in judgment upon the theories of philosophers.
The
invention of printing was recognized by the council as a gift from heaven
intended for the glory of God and the propagation of good science, but the
legitimate printing of books was restricted to such as might receive the
sanction of the master of the palace in Rome or, elsewhere, by the sanction of
the bishop or inquisitors who were charged with examining the contents of
books.858 The condemnation
of all books, distasteful to the hierarchy, was already well under way.
The
council approved the proposed Turkish crusade and levied a tenth on
Christendom. Its collection was forbidden in England by Henry VIII. Cajetan
presented the cause in an eloquent address at the Diet of Augsburg, 1518.
Altogether the most significant of the council’s deliverances was the bull,
Pater aeternus, labelled as approved by its authority and sent out by Leo,
1516.859 Here the position is reaffirmed—the
position taken definitely by Pius II. and Sixtus IV.—that it is given to the
Roman pontiff to have authority over all Church councils and to appoint,
transfer and dissolve them at will. This famous deliverance expressly renewed
and ratified the constitution of Boniface VIII., the Unam sanctam, asserting it
to be altogether necessary to salvation for all Christians to be subject to the
Roman pontiff.860 To this was added
the atrocious declaration that disobedience to the pope is punishable with
death. Innocent III. had quoted Deut. 17:12 in favor of this view, falsifying
the translation of the Vulgate, which he made to read, "that whoever does
not submit himself to the judgment of the high-priest, him shall the judge put
to death." The council, in separating the quotations, falsely derived it
from the Book of the Kings.861
Nor
should it be overlooked that in his bull the infallible Leo X. certified to a
falsehood when he expressly declared that the Fathers, in the ancient councils,
in order to secure confirmation for their decrees, "humbly begged the
pope’s approbation." This he
affirmed of the councils of Nice, 325, Ephesus, Chalcedon, Constantinople, 680,
and Nice, 787. 214 years before, when Boniface VIII. issued his bull, Philip
the Fair was at hand to resist it. The French sovereign now on the throne,
Francis I., made no dissent. The concordat had just been ratified by the
council.
The
council adjourned March 16, 1517, a bare majority of two votes being for adjournment.
Writers of Gallican sympathies have denied its oecumenical character. On the
other hand, Cardinal Hergenröther regrets that the Church has taken a position
to it of a stepmother to her child. Pastor says there was already legislation
enough before the Fifth Lateran sat to secure all the reforms needed. Not laws
but action was required. Funk expresses the truth when he says, what the
council did for Church reform is hardly worth noting down.862
In
passing judgment upon Leo X., the chief thing to be said is that he was a
worldling. Religion was not a serious matter with him. Pleasure was his daily
concern, not piety. He gave no earnest thought to the needs of the Church. It
would scarcely be possible to lay more stress upon this feature in the life of
Louis XIV., or Charles II., than does Pastor in his treatment of Leo’s career.
Reumont863 says it did not enter Leo’s head that it was the task and duty
of the papacy to regenerate itself, and so to regenerate Christendom. Leo’s
personal habits are not a matter of conjecture. They lie before us in a number
of contemporary descriptions. In his reverend regard for the papal office,
Luther did Leo an unintentional injustice when he compared him to Daniel among
the lions. The pope led the cardinals in the pursuit of pleasure and in
extravagance in the use of money. To one charge, unchasteness, Leo seems not to
have exposed himself. How far this was a virtue, or how far it was forced upon
him by nature, cannot be said.
The
qualities, with which nature endowed him, remained with him to the end. He was
good-humored, affable and accessible. He was often found playing chess or cards
with his cardinals. At the table he was usually temperate, though he spent vast
sums in the entertainment of others. He kept a monk capable of swallowing a
pigeon at one mouthful and 40 eggs at a sitting. To his dress he gave much
attention, and delighted to adorn his fingers with gems.
The
debt art owes to Leo X. may be described in another place. Rome became what
Paris afterwards was, the centre of luxury, art and architectural improvement.
The city grew with astonishing rapidity. "New buildings," said an
orator, "are planted every day. Along the Tiber and on the Janicular hill
new sections arise." Luigi Gradenigo, the Venetian ambassador, reports
that in the ten years following Leo’s election, 10,000 buildings had been put
up by persons from Northern Italy. The palaces of bankers, nobles and cardinals
were filled with the richest furniture of the world. Artists were drawn from
France and Spain as well as Italy, and every kind of personality who could
afford amusement to others.
The
Vatican was the resort of poets, musicians, artists, and also of actors and
buffoons. Leo joined in their conversation and laughed at their wit. He even
vied with the poets in making verses off-hand. Musical instruments ornamented
with gold and silver he purchased in Germany. With almost Oriental abandon he
allowed himself to be charmed with entertainments of all sorts.
Among
Leo’s amusements the chase took a leading place, though it was forbidden by
canonical law to the clergy. Fortunately for his reputation, he was not bound,
as pope, by canon law. As Louis XIV. said, "I am the state," so the
pope might have said, "I am the canon law." Portions of the year he
passed booted and spurred. He fished in the lake of Bolsena and other waters.
He takes an inordinate pleasure in the chase, wrote the Venetian ambassador. He
hunted in the woods of Viterbo and Nepi and in the closer vicinity of Rome, but
with most pleasure at his hunting villa, Magliana. He reserved for his own use
a special territory. The hunting parties were often large.864 At a meet, prepared by Alexander
Farnese, the pope found himself in the midst of 18 cardinals, besides other
prelates, musicians, actors and servants. A pack of sixty or seventy dogs aided
the hunters. Magliana was five miles from Rome, on the Tiber. This favorite
pleasure castle is now a desolate farmhouse. In strange contrast to his own
practice, the pope, at the appeal of the king of Portugal, forbade the
privileges of the chase to the Portuguese clergy.
The
theatre was another passion to which Leo devoted himself. He attended plays in
the palaces of the cardinals and rich bankers and in S. Angelo, and looked on
as they were performed in the Vatican itself. Bibbiena, one of the favorite
members of his cabinet, was a writer of salacious comedies. One of these, the
Calandria, Leo witnessed performed in 1514 in his palace. The ballet was freely
danced in some of these plays, as in the lascivious Suppositi by Ariosto,
played before the pope in S. Angelo on Carnival Sunday. Another of the plays
was the Mandragola, by Machiavelli, to modern performances of which in Florence
young people are not admitted.865
An account given of one of these plays by the ambassador of Ferrara,
Paolucci, represented a girl pleading with Venus for a lover. At once, eight
monks appeared on the scene in their gray mantles. Venus bade the girl give
them a potion. Amor then awoke the sleepers with his arrow. The monks danced
round Amor and made love to the girl. At last they threw aside their monastic
garb and all joined in a moresca. On the girl’s asking what they could do with
their arms, they fell to fighting, and all succumbed except one, and he
received the girl as the prize of his prowess.866 And Leo was the high-priest of Christendom, the professed
successor of Peter the Apostle!
Festivities
of all sorts attracted the attention of the good-natured pope. With 14
cardinals he assisted at the marriage of the rich Sienese banker, Agostino
Chigi, to his mistress. The entertainment was given at Chigi’s beautiful house,
the Farnesina. This man was considered the most fortunate banker of his day in
Rome. The kings of Spain and France and princes of Germany sent him presents,
and sought from him loans. Even the sultan was said to have made advances for
his friendship. His income was estimated at 70,000 ducats a year, and he left
behind him 800,000 ducats. This Croesus was only fifty-five when death
separated him from his fortune. At one of his banquets, the gold plates were thrown
through the windows into the Tiber after they were used at the table, but
fortunately they were saved from loss by being caught in a net which had been
prepared for them. On another occasion, when Leo and 18 cardinals were present,
each found his own coat-of-arms on the silver dishes he used. At Agostino’s
marriage festival, Leo held the bride’s hand while she received the ring on one
of her fingers. The pontiff then baptized one of Chigi’s illegitimate children.
Cardinals were not ashamed to dine with representatives of the demi-monde, as
at a banquet given by the banker Lorenzo Strozzi.867 But in scandals of this sort Alexander’s pontificate could
not well be outdone.
With
the easy unconcern of a child of the world, spoiled by fortune, the
light-hearted de’ Medici went on his way as if the resources of the papal
treasury were inexhaustible. Julius was a careful financier. Leo’s finances
were managed by incompetent favorites.868 In 1517 his annual income is estimated to have been nearly
600,000 ducats. Of this royal sum, 420,000 ducats were drawn from state
revenues and mines. The alum deposits at Tolfa yielded 40,000; Ravenna and the
salt mines of Cervia, 60,000; the river rents in Rome, 60,000; and the papal domains
of Spoleto, Ancona and the Romagna, 150,000. According to another contemporary,
the papal exchequer received 160,000 ducats from ecclesiastical sources. The
vendable offices at the pope’s disposal at the time of his death numbered
2,150, yielding the enormous yearly income of 328,000 ducats.869
Two
years after Leo assumed the pontificate, the financial problem was already a
serious one. All sorts of measures had to be invented to increase the papal
revenues and save the treasury from hopeless bankruptcy. By augmenting the
number of the officials of the Tiber—porzionari di ripa — from 141 to 612,
286,000 ducats were secured. The enlargement of the colleges of the cubiculari
and scudieri, officials of the Vatican, brought in respectively 90,000 and
112,000 ducats more. From the erection of the order of the Knights of St.
Peter,—cavalieri di San Pietro,—with 401 members, the considerable sum of
400,000 ducats was realized, 1,000 ducats from each knight. The sale of
indulgences did not yield what it once did, but the revenue from this source
was still large.870
The highest ecclesiastical offices were for sale, as in the reign of
Alexander. Cardinal Innocent Cibo paid 30,000 ducats or, at; another report
went, 40,000, for his hat, and Francesco Armellini bought his for twice that
amount.871
The
shortages were provided for by resort to the banker and the usurer and to rich
cardinals. Loan followed loan. Not only were the tapestries of the Vatican and
the silver plate given as securities, but ecclesiastical benefices, the gems of
the papal tiara and the rich statues of the saints were put in pawn. Sometimes
the pope paid 20 per cent for sums of 10,000 ducats and over.872 It occasions no surprise that Leo’s
death was followed by a financial collapse, and a number of cardinals passed
into bankruptcy, including Cardinal Pucci, who had lent the pope 150,000
ducats. From the banker, Bernado Bini, Leo had gotten 200,000 ducats. His debts
were estimated as high as 800,000 ducats. It was a common joke that Leo
squandered three pontificates, the legacy Julius left and the revenues of his
successor’s pontificate, as well as the income of his own.
For
the bankers and all sorts of money dealers the Medicean period was a
flourishing time in Rome. No less than 30 Florentines are said to have opened
banking institutions in the city, and, at the side of the Fuggers and Welsers,
did business with the curia. The Florentines found it to be a good thing to
have a Medicean pope, and swarmed about the Vatican as the Spaniards had done
in the good days of Calixtus III. and Alexander VI., the Sienese, during the
reign of Pius II., and the Ligurians while Sixtus IV. of Savona was pope. They
stormed the gates of patronage, as if all the benefices of the Church were
intended for them.873
Leo’s
father, Lorenzo, said of his three sons that Piero was a fool, Giuliano was
good and Giovanni shrewd. The last characterization was true to the facts. Leo
X. was shrewd, the shrewdness being of the kind that succeeds in getting
temporary personal gain, even though it be by the sacrifice of high and
accessible ends. His amiability and polish of manners made him friends and
secured for him the tiara. He was not altogether a degenerate personality like
Alexander VI., capable of all wickedness. But his outlook never went beyond his
own pleasures. The Vatican was the most luxurious court in Europe; it performed
no moral service for the world. The love of art with Leo was the love of color,
of outline, of beauty such as a Greek might have had, not a taste controlled by
regard for spiritual grace and aims. In his treatment of the European states
and the Italian cities, his diplomacy was marked by dissimulation as despicable
as any that was practised by secular courts. Without a scruple be could
solemnly make at the same moment contradictory pledges. Perfidy seemed to be as
natural to him as breath.874
At
the same time, Leo followed the rubrics of religion. He fasted, so it is
reported, three times a week, abstained from meat on Wednesday and Friday,
daily read his Breviary and was accustomed before mass to seek absolution from
his confessor. But he was without sanctity, without deep religious conviction.
The issues of godliness had no appreciable effect upon him in the regulation of
his habits. Even in his patronage of art and culture, he forgot or ignored
Ariosto, Machiavelli, Guicciardini and Erasmus. What a noble substitution it
would have been, if these men had found welcome in the Vatican, and the jesters
and buffoons and gormandizers been relegated to their proper place! The high-priest of the Christian world
is not to be judged in the same terms we would apply to a worldly prince ruling
in the closing years of the Middle Ages. The Vatican, Leo turned into a house
of revelling and frivolity, the place of all others where the step and the
voice of the man of God should have been heard. The Apostle, whom he had been
taught to regard as his spiritual ancestor, accomplished his mission by
readiness to undergo, if necessary, martyrdom. Leo despoiled his high office of
its sacredness and prostituted it into a vehicle of his own carnal
propensities. Had he followed the advice of his princely father, man of the
world though he was, Leo X. would have escaped some of the reprobation which
attaches to his name.
There
is no sufficient evidence that Leo ever used the words ascribed to him,
"how profitable that fable of Christ has been to us."875 Such blasphemy we prefer not to
associate with the de’ Medici. Nevertheless, no sharper condemnation of one
claiming to be Christ’s vicar on earth could well be thought of than that which
is carried by the words of Sarpi, the Catholic historian of the Council of
Trent,876 who said, "Leo would have been a perfect pope, if he had
combined with his other good qualities a moderate knowledge of religion and a
greater inclination to piety, for neither of which he shewed much
concern." Before Leo’s death, the papacy had lost a part of its European
constituency, and that part which, in the centuries since, has represented the
furthest progress of civilization. The bull which this pontiff hurled at Martin
Luther, 1520, was consumed into harmless ashes at Wittenberg, ashes which do
not speak forth from the earth as do the ashes of John Huss. To the despised
Saxon miner’s son, the Protestant world looks back for the assertion of the
right to study the Scriptures, a matter of more importance than all the
circumstance and rubrics of papal office and sacerdotal functions. Not seldom
has it occurred that the best gifts to mankind have come, not through a long
heritage of prerogatives but through the devotion of some agent of God humbly
born. It seemed as if Providence allowed the papal office at the close of the
mediaeval age to be filled by pontiffs spiritually unworthy and morally
degenerate, that it might be known for all time that it was not through the
papacy the Church was to be reformed and brought out of its mediaeval formalism
and scholasticism. What popes had refused to attempt, another group of men with
no distinction of office accomplished.
</div3></div2><div2 type =
"Chapter" n="VII" title="Heresy And
Witchcraft">
CHAPTER
VII.
<index type =
"globalSubject"
subject1
= "Heresy" />
<index type =
"globalSubject"
subject1
= "Witchcraft" />
HERESY
AND WITCHCRAFT.
<div3 type = "Section"
n="57" title="Literature">
§ 57.
Literature.
For §
58.—For the Brethren of the Free Spirit, Fredericq: Corpus doc. haer.
pravitalis, etc., vols. I-III.—Haupt, art. in Herzog, III. 467–473, Brüder des
Freien Geistes. See lit., vol. V., I. p. 459.—For the Fraticelli F. Ehrle: Die
Spiritualen. Ihr Verhältniss zum Francis-kanerorden u. zu d. Fraticellen in
Archiv f. K. u. Lit. geschichte, 1885, pp. 1509–1570; 1886, pp. 106–164; 1887,
pp. 553–623.—Döllinger: Sektengesch., II.—Lea: Inquisition, III. 129 sqq.,
164–175.—Wetzer-Welte, IV, 1926–1985.—For the Waldenses, see lit., vol. V., I.
p. 459.—Also, W. Preger: Der Traktat des Dav. von Augsburg fiber die Waldenser,
Munich, 1878.—Hansen: Quellen, etc., Bonn, 1901, 149–181, etc. See full title
below.—For the Flagellants, see lit., vol. V., I. p. 876. Also Paul Runge: D.
Lieder u. Melodien d. Geissler d. Jahres 1349, nach. d. Aufzeichnung Hugo’s von
Reutlingen nebst einer Abhandlung über d. ital. Geisslerlieder von H.
Schneegans u. einem Beitrage über d. deutschen u. niederl. Geissler von H.
Pfannenschmid, Leipzig, 1900.
§ 59. Witchcraft.—For
the treatments of the Schoolmen and other med. writers, see vol. V., I. p. 878.—Among
earlier modem writers, see J. Bodin: Magorum Daemonomania, 1579.—Reg. Scott:
Discovery of Witchcraft, London, 1584.—P. Binsfeld: De confessionibus
maleficarum et sagarum, Treves, 1596.—M. Delrio: Disquisitiones magicae,
Antwerp, 1599, Cologne, 1679.—Erastus, of Heidelberg: Repititio disputationis
de lamiis seu strigibus, Basel, 1578.—J. Glanvill: Sadducismus triumphatus,
London, 1681.—R. Baxter: Certainty of the World of Spirits, London,
1691.—Recent writers.—* T. Wright: Narrative of Sorcery and Magic, 2 vols.,
London, 1851.—G. Roskoff: Gesch. des Teufels, 2 vols., Leipzig, 1869.—W. G.
Soldan: Gesch. der Hexenprocesse, Stuttgart, 1843; new ed., by Heppe, 2 vols.,
Stuttgart, 1880.—Lea: History of the Inquisition, III. 379–550.—*Lecky: History
of the Rise and Influence of the Spirit of Rationalism in Europe, ch.
I.—Döllinger-Friedrich: D. Papstthum, pp. 123–131.—a.d. White, History of the
Warfare of Science and Theology in Christendom, 2 vols., New York, 1898.—*J.
Hansen: Zauberwahn, Inquisition und Hezenprocess im Mittelalter und die
Entstehung der grossen Hexenverfolgung, Munich, 1900; *Quellen und
Untersuchungen zur Gesch. des Hexenwahns und der Hexenverfolgung im M. A.,
Leipzig, 1901.—Graf von Hoensbroech: D. Papstthum in seiner sozialkulturellen
Wirksamkeit, Leipzig, 2 vols., 1900; 4th ed., 1901, I. 380–599.—J. Diefenbach: Der
Hexenwahn, vor u. nach Glaubenspaltung in Deutschland, Mainz, 1886 (the last
chapter—on the conciones variae—gives sermons on the weather, storms, winds,
dreams, mice, etc.); also, Besessenheit, Zauberei u. Hexenfabeln, Frankfurt,
1893; also, Zauberglaube des 16ten Jahrh. nach d. Katechismen M. Luthers und d.
P. Canisius, Mainz, 1900. Binz: Dr. Joh. Weyer, Bonn, 1885, 2d ed., Berlin,
1896. A biography of one of the early opponents of witch-persecution, with
sketches of some of its advocates.—Baissac: Les grands jours de la sorcellerie,
Paris, 1890.—H. Vogelstein and P. Rieger, Gesch. d. Juden in Rom, 2 vols.,
Berlin, 1895 sq.—S. Riezler: Gesch. d. Hexenprocesse in Baiern, Stuttgart,
1896.—C. Lempens: D. grösste Verbrechen aller Zeiten. Pragnatische Gesch. d.
Hexenprocesse, 2d ed., 1904.—Janssen-Pastor: Gesch. d. deutschen Volkes, etc.,
vol. VIII., 531–751.—The Witch-Persecutions, in Un. of Pa. Transll. and
Reprints, vol. III.
§ 60.
The Spanish Inquisition.—See lit., V. I. p. 460 sqq. Hefele: D. Cardinal Ximines
und d. Kirchl. Zustände in Spanien am Ende d. 15 u. Anfang d. 16. Jahrh.,
Tübingen, 1844, 2d ed., 1851. Also, art. Ximines in Wetzer-Welte, vol. XII.—C.
V. Langlois: L’inq., d’après les travaux récents, Paris, 1902.—H. C. Lea: Hist.
of the Inquisition of Spain, 4 vols., New York, 1906 sq. Includes Sicily,
Sardinia, Mexico and Peru, but omits Holland.—E. Vacandard: The Inquisition. A
criticism and history. Study of the Coercive Power of the Church, transl. by B.
L. Conway, London, 1908.—C. G. Ticknor: Hist. of Spanish Literature, I. 460
sqq.—Pastor: Gesch. d. Päpste, III. 624–630.
Dr.
Lea’s elaborate work is the leading modern treatment of the subject and is
accepted as an authority In Germany. See Benrath in Lit-Zeitung, 1908, pp.
203–210. The author has brought out as never before the prominent part the
confiscation of property played in the Spanish tribunal. The work of Abbé
Vacandard, the author of the Life of St. Bernard, takes up the positions laid
down in Dr. Lea’s general work on the Inquisition and attempts to break the
force of his statements. Vacandard admits the part taken by the papacy in
prosecuting heresy by trial torture and even by the death penalty, but reduces
the Church’s responsibility on the ground of the ideas prevailing in the Middle
Ages, and the greater freedom and cruelty practised by the state upon its
criminals. He denies that Augustine favored severe measures of compulsion
against heretics and sets forth, without modification, the unrelenting
treatment of Thomas Aquinas.
</div3> <div3 type = "Section"
n="58" title="Heretical and Unchurchly Movements">
§ 58.
Heretical and Unchurchly Movements.
In the
14th and 15th centuries, the seat of heresy was shifted from Southern France
and Northern Italy to Bohemia and Northern Germany, the Netherlands and
England. In Northern and Central Europe, the papal Inquisition, which had been
so effective in exterminating the Albigenses and in repressing or scattering
the Waldenses, entered upon a new period of its history, in seeking to crush
out a new enemy of the Church, witchcraft. The rise and progress of the two
most powerful and promising forms of popular heresy, Hussitism and Lollardy,
have already been traced. Other sectarists who came under the Church’s ban were
the Beghards and Beguines, who had their origin in the 13th century,877
the Brethren of the Free Spirit, the Fraticelli, the Flagellants and the
Waldenses.
It
is not possible to state with exactness the differences between the Beghards,
Beguines, the Brethren of the Free Spirit and the Fraticelli as they appeared
from 1300 to 1500. The names were often used interchangeably as a designation
of foes of the established Church order.878 The court records and other notices that have come down to
us indicate that they were represented in localities widely separated, and
excited alarm which neither their numbers nor the station of their adherents
justified. The orthodox mind was easily thrown into a panic over the deviations
from the Church’s system of doctrine and government. The distribution of the
dissenters proves that a widespread religious unrest was felt in Western
Christendom. They may have imbibed some elements from Joachim of Flore’s
millenarianism, and in a measure partook of the same spirit as German
mysticism. There was a spiritual hunger the Church’s aristocratic discipline
and its priestly ministrations did not satisfy. The Church authorities had
learned no other method of dealing with heresy than the method in vogue in the
days of Innocent III. and Innocent IV., and sought, as before, by
imprisonments, the sword and fire, to prevent its predatory ravages.
The
Brethren of the Free Spirit879 were infected with pantheistic notions and
manifested a tendency now to free thought, now to libertinism of conduct. At
times they are identified with the Beghards and Beguines. The pantheistic
element suggests a connection with Amaury of Bena or Meister Eckart, but of
this the extant records of trials furnish no distinct evidence. To the Beghards
and Beguines likewise were ascribed pantheistic tenets.
To
the general class of free thinkers belonged such individuals as Margaret of
Henegouwen, usually known as Margaret of Porete, a Beguine, who wrote a book
advocating the annihilation of the soul in God’s love, and affirmed that, when
this condition is reached, the individual may, without qualm of conscience,
yield to any indulgence the appetites of nature call for. After having several
times relapsed from the faith, she was burnt, together with her books, in the
Place de Grève, Paris, 1310.880
Here belong also the Men of Reason,—homines intelligentiae,—who appeared
at Brussels early in the 14th century and were charged with teaching the final
restoration of all men and of the devil.881
The
Fraticelli, also called the Fratricelli,—the Little Brothers,—represented the
opposite tendency and went to an extravagant excess in insisting upon a rigid
observance of the rule of poverty. Originally followers of the Franciscan
Observants, Peter Olivi, Michael Cesena and Angelo Clareno, they offered
violent resistance to the decrees of John XXII., which ascribed to Christ and
the Apostles the possession of property. Some were given shelter in legitimate
Franciscan convents, while others associated themselves in schismatic groups of
their own. They were active in Italy and Southern France, and were also
represented in Holland and even in Egypt and Syria, as Gregory XI., 1375,
declared; but it would be an error to regard their number as large. In his
bull, Sancta romana, issued in 1317, John XXII. spoke of "men of the profane
multitude, popularly called Fraticelli, or brethren of the poor life, Bizochi
or Beguines or known by other names." This was not the first use of the
term in an offensive sense. Villani called two men Fraticelli, a mechanic of
Parma, Segarelli and his pupil Dolcino of Novara, both of whom were burnt,
Segarelli in 1300 and Dolcino some time later. Friar Bonato, head of a small
Spiritual house in Catalonia, after being roasted on one side, proffered
repentance and was released, but afterwards, 1335, burnt alive.882 Wherever the Fraticelli appeared, they
were pursued by the Inquisition. A number of bulla of the 14th century attacked
them for denying the papal edicts and condemned them to rigorous prosecution. A
formula, which they were required to profess, ran as follows: "I swear
that I believe in my heart and profess that our Lord Jesus Christ and his
Apostles, while in mortal life, held in common the things the Scriptures
describe them as having and that they had the right of giving, selling and
alienating them."
In
localities they seem to have carried their opposition to the Church so far as
to set up a hierarchy of their own.883 The regular priests they denounced as simonists and
adulterers. In places they were held in such esteem by the populace that the
Inquisition and the civil courts found themselves powerless to bring them to
trial. Nine were burnt under Urban V. at Viterbo, and in 1389 Fra Michaele
Berti de Calci, who had been successful in making converts, met the same fate
at Florence. In France also they yielded victims to the flames, among them,
Giovanni da Castiglione and Francese d’Arquata at Montpellier, 1354, and Jean
of Narbonne and Maurice at Avignon. These enthusiasts are represented as having
met death cheerfully.
Early
in the 15th century, we find the Fraticelli again the victims of the
Inquisition. In 1424 and 1426, Martin V. ordered proceedings against certain of
their number in Florence and in Spain. The vigorous propaganda of the papal
preachers, John of Capistrano and James of the Mark, succeeded in securing the
return of many of these heretics to the Church, but, as late as the reign of
Paul II., 1466, they were represented in Rome, where six of their number were
imprisoned and subjected to torture. The charges against them were the denial
of the validity of papal decrees of indulgence other than the Portiuncula
decree.884 In Northern
Europe the Fraticelli were classified with the Lollards and Beghards or
identified with these heretics. The term, however, occurs seldom. Walter, the
Lollard, was styled, the most wicked heresiarch of the Fraticelli, a man full
of the devil and most perverse in his errors."885
Of
far more interest to this age are the Flagellants who attracted attention by
the strange outward demonstrations in which their religious fervor found
expression. Theirs was a militant Christianity. They made an attempt to do
something. They correspond more closely to the Salvation Army of the 19th
century than any other organization of the Middle Ages. There is no record that
the beating of drums played any part in the movement, but they used popular
songs, a series of distinctive physical gestures and peculiar vociferations,
uniforms and some of the discipline of the camp. Their campaigns were
penitential crusades in which the self-mortifications of the monastery were
transferred to the open field and the public square, and were adapted to
impress the impenitent to make earnest in the warfare against the passions of
the flesh. The Flagellants buffeted the body if they did not always buffet
Satan.
An
account has already been given of the first outbreak of the enthusiasm in Italy
in 1259, which, starting in Perugia, spread to Northern Italy and extended
across the Alps to Austria, Prag and Strassburg.886 Similar outbreaks occurred in 1296, 1333, 1349, 1399, and
again at the time of the Spanish evangelist, Vincent Ferrer.
From
being regarded as harmless fanatics they came to be treated as disturbers of
the ecclesiastical peace, and in Northern Europe were classed with Beghards,
Lollards, Hussites and other unchurchly or heretical sectarists.
The
movement of 1333 was led by an eloquent Dominican, Venturino of Bergamo, and is
described at length by Villani. Ten thousand followed this leader, wearing
head-bands inscribed with the monogram of Christ, IHS, and on their chests a
dove with an olive-branch in her mouth. Venturino led his followers as far as
Rome and preached on the Capitoline. The penniless enthusiasts soon became a
laughing-stock, and Venturino, on going to Avignon, gained absolution and died
in Smyrna, 1346.
The
earlier exhibitions of Flagellant zeal were as dim candlelights compared with
the outbursts of 1349, during the ravages of the Black Death, which in
contemporary chronicles and the Flagellant codes was called the great death—das
grosse Sterben, pestis grandis, mortalitas magna. Bands of religious
campaigners suddenly appeared in nearly all parts of Latin Christendom,
Hungary, Bohemia, Italy, France, Germany and the Netherlands. John du Fayt,
preaching before Clement VI., represented them as spread through all parts—per
omnes provincias—and their numbers as countless. The exact numbers of the
separate bands are repeatedly given, as they appeared in Ghent, Tournay, Dort,
Bruges, Liége and other cities.887
Even bishops and princes took part in them. There were also bands of
women.
Our
knowledge of the German and Lowland Flagellants is most extensive. While the
accounts of chroniclers differ in details, they agree in the main features. The
Flagellants clad themselves in white and wore on their mantles, before and
behind, and on their caps, a red cross, from which they got the name, the
Brothers of the Cross. They marched from place to place, stopping only a single
day and night at one locality, except in case of Sunday, when they often made
an exception. In the van of their processions were carried crosses and banners.
They sang hymns as they marched. The public squares in front of churches and
fields, near-by towns, were chosen for their encampments and disciplinary
drill, which was repeated twice a day with bodies bared to the waist. A special
feature was the reading of a letter which, so it was asserted, was originally
written on a table of stone and laid by an angel on the altar of St. Peter’s in
Jerusalem.888 It represented
Christ as indignant at the world’s wickedness, and, more especially, at the
desecration of Sunday and the prevalence of usury and adultery, but as
promising mercy on condition that the Flagellants gather and make pilgrimages
of penance lasting 33½ days, a period corresponding to the years of his earthly
life.
The
letter being read, the drill began in earnest. It consisted of their falling on
their knees and on the ground three times, in scourging themselves and in
certain significant gestures to indicate to what sin each had been specially
addicted. Every soldier carried a whip, or scourge, which, as writers are
careful to report, was tipped with pieces of iron. These were often so sharp as
to justify their comparison to needles, and the blood was frequently seen
trickling down the bodies of the more zealous, even to their loins.889 The blows were executed to the rhythmic
music of hymns, and the ruddy militiamen, milites rubicundi,—as they were
sometimes called, believed that the blood which they shed was one with Christ’s
blood or was mixed with it. They found a patron in St. Paul, whose stigmata
they thought of, not as scars of conscience but bodily wounds.890 At each genuflection they sang a hymn,
four hymns being sung during the progress of a drill. The first calling to the
drill began with the words: —
<foreign
lang="de">Nun
tretet herzu wer buesen welle
Fliehen
wir die heisse Hölle.
Lucifer
ist bös Geselle
Wen er
habet mit Pech er ihn labet.
Darum
fliehen wir mit ihm zu sein.
Wer
unser Busse wolle pflegen
Der
soll gelten und wieder geben.
</foreign>
Now
join us all who will repent
Let’s
flee the fiery heat of hell.
Lucifer
is a bad companion
Whom he
clutches, he covers with pitch.
Let us
flee away from him.
Whoso
will through our penance go
Let him
restore what he’s taken away.891
In
falling flat on the ground, they stretched out their arms to represent the arms
of the cross. The fourth hymn, sung at the third genuflection, was a lament
over the punishment of hell to which the Usurer, the liar, the murderer, the
road-robber, the man who neglected to fast on Friday and to keep Sunday, were
condemned, and with this was coupled a prayer to Mary.
<foreign
lang="de">Das
Hilf uns Maria Königin,
Dass
wir deines Kindes Huld gewin.
</foreign>
Mary,
Queen, help us, pray,
To win
the favor of thy child.892
Each
penitent indicated his besetting sin. The hard drinker put his finger to his
lips. The perjurer held up his two front fingers as if swearing an oath. The
adulterer fell on his belly. The gambler moved his hand as if in the act of
throwing dice.
During the ravages of the Black Death a
contingent of 120 of these penitential warriors crossed the channel from
Holland and marched through London and other English towns, wearing red crosses
and having their scourges pointed with pieces of iron as sharp as needles.893 But they failed to secure a following.
It
was inevitable that the Flagellants should incur opposition from the Church
authorities. The mediaeval Church as little tolerated independence in ritual or
organization as in doctrine. In France, they were opposed from the first. The
University of Paris issued a deliverance against them, and Philip VI. forbade
their manoeuvres on French soil under pain of death. A harder blow was struck
by the head of Christendom, Clement VI., who fulminated his sweeping bull Oct.
20, 1349. Flagellants starting from Basel appeared in Avignon to the number,
according to one document, of 2000. Before issuing his bull, Clement and his
cardinals listened to the sermon on the subject preached by the Paris doctor,
John du Fayt. The preacher selected 13 of the Flagellant tenets and practices
for his reprobation, including the shedding of their own blood, a practice, he
declared, fit for the priests of Baal, and the murder of Jews for their
supposed crime of poisoning the wells, in which was sought the origin of the
Black Plague. Clement pronounced the Flagellant movement a work of the devil
and the angelic letter a forgery. He condemned the warriors for repudiating the
priesthood and treating their penances as equivalent to the journey to the
jubilee in Rome, set for 1350.894
The bull was sent to the archbishops of England, France, Poland, Germany
and Sweden, and it called upon them to invoke, if necessary, the secular arm to
put down the new rebellion against the ordinances of the Church.
Against
such opposition the Flagellants could not be expected to maintain themselves
long. Sharp enactments were directed against them by the Fleming cities and by
archbishops, as in Prag and Magdeburg. Strassburg forbade public scourgings on
its streets. As late as 1353, the archbishop of Cologne found it necessary to
order all priests who had favored them to confess on pain of excommunication.895
We
are struck with four features of the Flagellant movement during the Black
Death,—its organization, the part assumed in it by the laity, the use of music
and, in general, its strong religious and ethical character. In Italy, before
this time, these people had their organizations. There was scarcely an Italian
city which did not have one or more such brotherhoods. Padua had six, Perugia
and Fabiano three, but the movement does not seem to have developed opposition
to Church authority. In some of the outbreaks priests were the leaders, and the
permanent organizations seem to have formed a close association with the
Dominicans and Franciscans and to have devoted themselves to the care of the
poor and sick.
On
the other hand, in the North, a spirit of independence of the clergy manifested
itself. This is evident from the Flagellant codes of the German and Dutch
groups, current at the time of the great pestilence and in after years. The
conditions of membership included reconciliation with enemies, the consent of
husband or wife or, in the case of servants, the consent of their masters,
strict obedience to the leaders, who were called master or rector, and ability
to pay their own expenses. During the campaigns, which lasted 33½ days, they
were to ask no alms nor to wash their persons or their clothing, nor cut their
beards nor speak to women, nor to lie on feather beds. They were forbidden to
carry arms or to pursue the flagellation to the limit where it might lead to
sickness or death.896
Five
pater nosters and ave Marias were prescribed to be said before and after meals,
and it was provided that, so long as they lived, they should flagellate
themselves every Friday three times during the day and once at night. The
associations were called brotherhoods, and the members were bidden to call each
other not chum—socium — but brother, "seeing that all were created out of
the same element and bought with the same price."897
The
leaders of the fraternities were laymen, and, as just indicated, the equality
of the members before God and the cross was emphasized. The movement was
essentially a lay movement, an expression of the spirit of dissatisfaction in
Northern Germany and the Lowlands with the sacerdotal class.898 Some of the codes condemn the worship
of images, the doctrine of transubstantiation, indulgences, priestly unction
and, in cases, they substituted the baptism of blood for water baptism. One of
these, containing 50 articles, expressly declared that the body of Christ is
not in the sacrament, and that "indulgences amount to nothing and together
with priests are condemned of God." The 26th article said, "It is
better to die with a skin tanned with dust and sweat than with one smeared with
a whole pound of priestly ointment."899
The
German hymns as well as the codes of the Flagellants urge the duty of prayer
and the mortification of the flesh and the preparation for death, the
abandonment of sin, the reconciliation of enemies and the restoration of goods
unjustly acquired. These sentiments are further vouched for by the chroniclers.
To
these religionists belongs the merit of having revived the use of popular
religious song. Singing was a feature of the earliest Flagellant movement,
1259.900 Their hymns are in Latin, Italian,
French, German and Dutch. In Italian they went by the name of laude, and in
German leisen. The Italian hymns, like the German, agree that sins have brought
down the judgment of God and in appealing to the Virgin Mary, and call upon the
"brethren" to castigate themselves, to confess their sins and to live
in peace and brotherhood. They beseech the Virgin to prevail upon her son to
stop "the hard death and pestilence—Gesune tolga via l’ aspra morte e
pistilentia.901 Most of these
hymns are filled with the thought of death and the woes of humanity, but the
appeals to Mary are full of tenderness, and every conceivable allegory is applied
to her from the dove to the gate of paradise, from the rose to a true medicine
for every sickness. The songs of the Italian and the Northern Flagellants seem
to have been independent of each other.902
The
cohorts in the North agreed in using the same penitential song at their drills,
but they had a variety of scores and songs for their marches.903 While the most of the words of their
songs have been known, it is only recently that some of the music has been
found to which the Flagellants sang their hymns. A manuscript of Hugo of
Reutlingen, dating from 1349 and discovered at St. Petersburg, gives 8 such
tunes, together with the words and an account of the movement.904 The hearers, in describing the
impression made upon them by the melodies, mention their sweetness, their
orderly rhythm,—ordine miro hymnos cantabant,—and their pathos capable of
"moving hearts of stone and bringing tears to the eyes of the most
stolid."905
Altogether,
the Flagellant movement during the Black Death, 1349, must be regarded as a
genuinely popular religious movement.
The
next outbreak of Flagellant zeal, which occurred in 1399, was confined for the
most part to Italy. The Flagellants, who were distinguished by mantles with a
red cross, appeared in Genoa, Piacenza, Modena, Rome and other Italian cities.
A number of accounts have come down to us, now favorable as the account of the
"notary of Pistoja," now unfavorable as the account of von Nieheim.
According to the Pistojan writer, the movement had its origin in a vision seen
by a peasant in the Dauphiné, which is of interest as showing the relative
places assigned in the popular worship to Christ and Mary. After a midday meal,
the peasant saw Christ as a young man. Christ asked him for bread. The peasant
told him there was none left, but Christ bade him look, and behold! he saw
three loaves. Christ then bade him go and throw the loaves into a spring a
short distance off. The peasant went, and was about to obey, when a woman, clad
in white and bathed in tears, appeared, telling him to go back to the young man
and say that his mother had forbidden it. He went, and Christ repeated his
command, but at the woman’s mandate the peasant again returned to Christ.
Finally he threw in one of the loaves, when the woman, who was Mary, informed
him that her Son was exceedingly angry at the sinfulness of the world and had
determined to punish it, even to destruction. Each loaf signified one-third of
mankind and the destruction of one-third was fixed, and if the peasant should
cast in the other two loaves, all mankind would perish. The man cast himself on
his knees before the weeping Virgin, who then assured him that she had prayed
her Son to withhold judgment, and that it would be withheld, provided he and
others went in processions, flagellating themselves and crying
"mercy" and "peace," and relating the vision he had seen.906
The
peasant was joined by 17 others, and they became the nucleus of the new
movement. The bands slept in the convents and church grounds, sang
hymns,—laude,—from which they were also called laudesi, and scourged themselves
with thongs as their predecessors had done. Miracles were supposed to accompany
their marches. Among the miracles was the bleeding of a crucifix, which some of
the accounts, as, for example, von Nieheim’s, explain by their pouring blood
into a hole in the crucifix and then soaking the wood in oil and placing it in
the sun to sweat. According to this keen observer, the bands traversed almost
the whole of the peninsula. Fifteen thousand, accompanied by the bishop of
Modena, marched to Bologna, where the population put on white. Not only were
the people and clergy of Rome carried away by their demonstrations, but also
members of the sacred college and all classes put on sackcloth and white. The
pope went so far as to bestow upon them his blessing and showed them the
handkerchief of St. Veronica. Nieheim makes special mention of their singing
and their new songs — nova carmina. But the historian of the papal schism could
see only evil and fraud in the movement,907 and condemns their lying
together promiscuously at night, men and women, boys and girls. On their
marches they stripped the trees bare of fruit and left the churches and
convents, where they encamped, defiled by their uncleanness. An end was put to
the movement in Rome by the burning of one of the leading prophets.
The
bull of Clement VI. was followed, in l372, by the fulmination of Gregory XI.,
who associated the Flagellants with the Beghards, and by the action of the
Council of Constance. In a tract presented to the council in 1417, Gerson
asserted that the sect made scourging a substitute for the sacrament of penance
and confession.908
He called upon the bishops to put down its cruel and sanguinary members
who dared to shed their own blood and regarded themselves as on a par with the
old martyrs. The laws of the decalogue were sufficient without the imposition
of any new burdens, as Christ himself taught, when he said, "If thou wilt
enter into life, keep the commandments." This judgment of the theologians
the Flagellants might have survived, but the merciless probe of the Inquisition
to which they were exposed in the 15th century took their life. Trials were
instituted against them in Thuringia under the Dominican agent, Schönefeld,
1414. At one place, Sangerhausen, near Erfurt, 91 were burnt at one time and,
on another occasion, 22 more. The victims of the second group died, asserting
that all the evils in the Church came from the corrupt lives of the clergy.
The
Flagellant movement grew out of a craving which the Church life of the age did
not fully meet. Excesses should not blind the eye to its good features. Hugo of
Reutlingen concludes his account of the outbreak of 1349 with the words:
"Many good things were associated with the Flagellant brothers, and these
account for the attention they excited."
A
group of sectaries, sometimes associated by contemporary writers with the
Flagellants, was known as the Dancers. These people appeared at Aachen and
other German and Dutch towns as early as 1374. In Cologne they numbered 500.
Like the Flagellants, they marched from town to town. Their dancing and
jumping—dansabant et saltabant — they performed half naked, sometimes bound
together two and two, and often in the churches, where they had a preference
for the spaces in front of the images of the Virgin. Cases occurred where they
fell dead from exhaustion. In Holland, the Dancers were also called Frisker or
Frilis, from frisch,—spry,—the word with which they encouraged one another in
their terpsichorean feats.909
To
another class of religious independents belong the Waldenses, who, in spite of
their reputation as heretics, continued to survive in France, Piedmont and
Austria. They were still accused of allowing women to preach, denying the real
presence and abjuring oaths, extreme unction, infant baptism and also of
rejecting the doctrines of purgatory and prayers for the dead.910
With
occasional exceptions, the Waldensians of Italy and France were left unmolested
until the latter part of the 15th century and the dukes of Savoy were inclined
to protect them in their Alpine abodes. But the agents of the Inquisition were
keeping watch, and the Franciscan Borelli is said to have burned, in 1393, 150
at Grenoble in the Dauphiné in a single day. It remained for Pope Innocent
VIII. to set on foot a relentless crusade against this harmless people as his
predecessor of the same name, Innocent III., set on foot the crusade against
the Albigenses. His notorious bull of May 5, 1487, called upon the king of
France, the duke of Savoy and other princes to proceed with armed expeditions
against them and to crush them out "as venomous serpents."911 It opened with the assertion that his
Holiness was moved by a concern to extricate from the abyss of error those for
whom the sovereign Creator had been pleased to endure sufferings. The striking
difference seems not to have occurred to the pontiff that the Saviour, to whose
services he appealed, gave his own life, while he himself, without incurring
any personal danger, was consigning others to torture and death.
Writing
of the crusade which followed, the Waldensian historian, Leger, says that all
his people had suffered before was as "flowers and roses" compared to
what they were now called upon to endure. Charles VIII. entered heartily into
the execution of the decree, and sent his captain, Hugo de la Palu. The
crusading armies may have numbered 18,000 men.
The
mountaineer heretics fled to the almost inaccessible platform called Pré du
Tour, where their assailants could make no headway against their arrows and the
stones they hurled. On the French side of the Alps the crusade was successful.
In the Val de Louise, 70, or, according to another account, 3000, who had fled
to the cave called Balme de Vaudois, were choked to death by smoke from fires
lit at the entrance. Many of the Waldenses recanted, and French Waldensianism
was well-nigh blotted out. Their property was divided between the bishop of
Embrun and the secular princes. As late as 1545, 22 villages inhabited by
French Waldenses were pillaged and burnt by order of the parliament of Provence.
With the unification of Italy in 1870, this ancient and respectable people was
granted toleration and began to descend from its mountain fastnesses, where it
had been confined for the half of a millennium.
in
Austria, the fortunes of the Waldensians were more or less interwoven with the
fortunes of the Hussites and Bohemian Brethren. In parts of Northern Germany,
as in Brandenburg in 1480, members of the sect were subjected to severe
persecutions. In the Lowlands we hear of their imprisonment, banishment and
death by fire.912
The
mediaeval horror of heresy appears in the practice of ascribing to heretics
nefarious performances of all sorts. The terms Waldenses and Waldensianism were
at times made synonymous with witches and witchcraft. Just how the terms
Vauderie, Vaudoisie, Vaudois, Waudenses and Valdenses came to be used in this
sense has not been satisfactorily explained. But such usage was in vogue from
Lyons to Utrecht, and the papal bull of Eugenius IV., 1440, refers to the
witches in Savoy as being called Waldenses.913 An elaborate tract entitled the Waldensian Idolatry,914
— Valdenses ydolatrae,—written in 1460 and giving a description of its
treatment in Arras, accused, the Waldenses with having intercourse with demons
and riding through the air on sticks, oiled with a secret unguent.
</div3> <div3 type = "Section"
n="59" title="Witchcraft and its Punishment">
§ 59.
Witchcraft and its Punishment.
Perhaps
no chapter in human history is more revolting than the chapter which records
the wild belief in witchcraft and the merciless punishments meted out for it in
Western Europe in the century just preceding the Protestant Reformation and the
succeeding century.915
In the second half of that century, the Church and society were thrown
into a panic over witchcraft, and Christendom seemed to be suddenly infested
with a great company of bewitched people, who yielded themselves to the
irresistible discipline of Satan. The mania spread from Rome and Spain to
Bremen and Scotland. Popes, lawyers, physicians and ecclesiastics of every
grade yielded their assent, and the only voices lifted up in protest which have
come down to us from the Middle Ages were the voices of victims who were
subjected to torture and perished in the flames. No Reformer uttered a word
against it. On the contrary, Luther was a stout believer in the reality of
demonic agency, and pronounced its adepts deserving of the flames. Calvin
allowed the laws of Geneva against it to stand. Bishop Jewel’s sermon before
Queen Elizabeth in 1562 was perhaps the immediate occasion of a new law on the
subject.916 Baxter proved the
reality of witchcraft in his Certainty of the World of Spirits. On the shores
of New England the delusion had its victims, at Salem, 1692, and a century
later, 1768, John Wesley, referring to occurrences in his own time, declared
that "giving up witchcraft was, in effect, giving up the Bible."
In
the establishment of the Inquisition, 1215, Innocent III. made no mention of
sorcery and witchcraft. The omission may be explained by two considerations.
Provision was made for the prosecution of sorcerers by the state, and heretical
depravity, a comparatively novel phenomenon for the Middle Ages, was in
Innocent’s age regarded as the imminent danger to which the Church was exposed.
Witchcraft
was one of the forms of maleficium, the general term adopted by the Middle Ages
from Roman usage for demonology and the dark arts, but it had characteristic
features of its own.917
These were the transport of the bewitched through the air, their
meetings with devils at the so-called sabbats and indulgence in the lowest
forms of carnal vice with them. Some of these features were mentioned in the
canon episcopi,—the bishop’s canon,—which appeared first in the 10th century
and was incorporated by Gratian in his collection of canon law, 1150. But this
canon treated as a delusion the belief that wicked women were accustomed to
ride together in troops through the air at night in the suite of the Pagan goddess,
Diana, into whose service they completely yielded themselves, and this in spite
of the fact that women confessed to this affinity.918 The night-riding, John of Salisbury, d.
1182, treated as an illusion with which Satan vexed the minds of women; but
another Englishman, Walter Map, in the same century, reports the wild orgies of
demons with heretics, to whom the devil appeared as a tom-cat.919
From
the middle of the 13th century the distinctive features of witchcraft began to
engage the serious attention of the Church authorities. During the reign of
Gregory IX., 1227–1241, it became evident to them that the devil, not satisfied
with inoculating Western Europe with doctrinal heresy, had determined to vex
Christendom with a new exhibition of his malice in works of sorcery and
witchcraft. Strange cases were occurring which the inquisitors of heresy were
quick to detect. The Dominican Chantimpré tells of the daughter of a count of
Schwanenburg, who was carried every night through the air, even eluding the
strong hold of a Franciscan who one night tried to hold her back. In 1275 a
woman of Toulouse, under torture, confessed she had indulged in sexual intercourse
with a demon for many years and given birth to a monster, part wolf and part
serpent, which for two years she fed on murdered children. She was burnt by the
civil tribunal.
But
it is not till the 15th century that the era of witchcraft properly begins.
From about 1430 it was treated as a distinct cult, carefully defined and made
the subject of many treatises. The punishments to be meted out for it were
carefully laid down, as also the methods by which witches should be detected
and tried. The cases were no longer sporadic and exceptional; they were
regarded as being a gild or sect marshalled by Satan to destroy faith from the
earth.
It
is probable that the responsibility for the spread of the wild witch mania
rests chiefly with the popes. Pope after pope countenanced and encouraged the
belief. Not a single utterance emanated from a pope to discourage it.920 Pope after pope called upon the
Inquisition to punish witches.
The
list of papal deliverances opened in 1233, when Gregory IX., addressing the
bishops of Mainz and Hildesheim, accepted the popular demonology in its crudest
forms.921 The devil, so
Gregory asserted, was appearing in the shapes of a toad, a pallid ghost and a
black cat. In language too obscene to be repeated, he described at length the
orgies which took place at the meetings of men and women with demons. Where
medicines did not cure, iron and fire were to be used. The rotting flesh was to
be cut out. Did not Elijah slay the four hundred priests of Baal and Moses put
idolaters to death?
Before
the close of the 13th century, popes themselves were accused of having familiar
spirits and practising sorcery, as John XXI., 1276, and Boniface VIII. Boniface
went so far, 1303, as to order the trial of an English bishop, Walter of
Coventry and Lichfield, on the charge of having made a pact with the devil and
habitually kissing the devil’s posterior parts. Under his successor, Clement,
the gross charges of wantonness with the devil were circulated against the
Knights of the Temple. In his work, De maleficiis, Boniface VIII.’s physician,
Arnold of Villanova, stated with scientific precision the satanic devices for
disturbing and thwarting the marital relation. Among the popes of the 14th
century, John XXII. is distinguished for the credit he gave to all sorts of
malefic arts and his instructions to the inquisitors to proceed against persons
in league with the devil.922
Side
by side with the papal utterances went the authoritative statements of the
Schoolmen. Leaning upon Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, d. 1274, accepted as real
the cohabitation of human beings with demons, and declared that old women had
the power by the glance of their eye of injecting into young people a certain
evil essence. If the horrible beliefs of the Middle Ages on the subject of
witchcraft are to be set aside, then the bulls of Leo XIII. and Pius X.923
pronouncing Thomas the authoritative guide of Catholic theology must be
modified.
The
definitions of the Schoolmen justified the demand which papal deliverances
made, that the Church tribunal has at least equal jurisdiction with the
tribunal of the state in ferreting out and prosecuting the adepts of the dark
arts. Manuals of procedure in cases of sorcery used by the Inquisition date
back at least to 1270.924
The famous Interrogatory of Bernard Guy of 1320 contains formulas on the
subject. The canonists, however, had difficulty in defining the point at which
maleficium became a capital crime. Oldradus, professor of canon law in turn at
Bologna, Padua and Avignon, sought, about 1325, to draw a precise distinction
between the two, and gave the opinion that, only when sorcery savors strongly of
heresy, should it be dealt with as heresy was dealt with, the position assumed
before by Alexander IV., 1258–1260. The final step was taken when Eymericus, in
his Inquisitorial Directory and special tracts, 1370–1380, affirmed the close
affinity between maleficium and heresy, and threw the door wide open for the
most rigorous measures against malefics.
To
such threefold authorization was added the weight of the great influence of the
University of Paris, which, in 1378, two years after the issue of Eymericus’
work, sent out 28 articles affirming the reality of maleficium.
Proceeding
to the second period in the history of our subject, beginning with 1430, it is
found to teem with tracts and papal deliverances on witchcraft.
Gerson,
the leading theologian of his age, said it was heresy and impiety to question
the practice of the malefic arts, and Eugenius IV., in several deliverances,
beginning with 1434, spoke in detail of those who made pacts with demons and
sacrificed to them.925
Witchcraft was about to take the place in men’s minds which heresy had
occupied in the age of Innocent III. The frightful mania was impending which
spread through Latin Christendom under the Renaissance popes, from Pius II. to
Clement VII., and without a dissenting voice received their sanction. Of the
Humanist, Pius II., better things might have been expected, but he also, in
1459, fulminated against the malefics of Brittany. To what length the Vatican
could go in sanctioning the crassest superstition is seen from Sixtus IV.’s
bull, 1471, in which that pontiff reserved to himself the right to manufacture
and consecrate the little waxen figures of lambs, the touch of which was
pronounced to be sufficient to protect against fire and shipwreck, storm and
hail, lightning and thunder, and to preserve women in the hour of parturition.926
Among
the documents on witchcraft, emanating from papal or other sources, the place
of pre-eminence is occupied by the bull, Summis desiderantes issued by Innocent
VIII., 1484. This notorious proclamation, consisting of nearly 1000 words, was
sent out in answer to questions proposed to the papal chair by German
inquisitors, and recognizes in clearest language the current beliefs about
demonic bewitchment as undeniable. It had come to his knowledge, so the pontiff
wrote, that the dioceses of Mainz, Cologne, Treves, Salzburg and Bremen teemed
with persons who, forsaking the Catholic faith, were consorting with demons. By
incantations, conjurations and other iniquities they were thwarting the
parturition of women and destroying the seed of animals, the fruits of the
earth, the grapes of the vine and the fruit of the orchard. Men and women,
flocks and herds, trees and all herbs were being afflicted with pains and
torments. Men could no longer beget, women no longer conceive, and wives and
husbands were prevented from performing the marital act. In view of these
calamities, the pope authorized the Dominicans, Heinrich Institoris and Jacob
Sprenger, professors of theology, to continue their activity against these
malefics in bringing them to trial and punishment. He called upon the bishop of
Salzburg to see to it that they were not impeded in their work and, a few
months later, he admonished the archbishop of Mainz to give them active
support. In other documents, Innocent commended Sigismund, archbishop of
Austria, the count of the Tyrol and other persons for the aid they had rendered
to these inquisitors in their effort to crush out witchcraft.
The
burning of witches was thus declared the definite policy of the papal see and
the inquisitors proceeded to carry out its instructions with untiring and
merciless severity.927
Innocent’s
communication, so abhorrent to the intelligent judgment of modern times, would
seem of itself to sweep away the dogma of papal infallibility, even if there
were no cases of Liberius, the Arian, or Honorius, the Monothelite. The
argument is made by Pastor and Cardinal Hergenröther that Innocent did not
officially pronounce on the reality of witchcraft when, proceeding upon the
basis of reports, he condemned it and ordered its punishment.928 However, in case this explanation be
not regarded as sufficient, these writers allege that the decision, being of a
disciplinary nature, would have no more binding force than any other papal
decision on non-dogmatic subjects. This distinction is based upon the
well-known contention of Catholic canonists that the pope’s inerrancy extends
to matters of faith and not to matters of discipline. Leaving these
distinctions to the domain of theological casuistry, it remains a historic fact
that Innocent’s bull deepened the hold of a vicious belief in the mind of
Europe and brought thousands of innocent victims to the rack and to the flames.
The statement made by Dr. White is certainly not far from the truth when he
says that, of all the documents which have issued from Rome, imperial or papal,
Innocent’s bull first and last cost the greatest suffering.929 Innocent might have exercised his
pontifical infallibility in denying, or at least doubting, the credibility of
the witnesses. A simple word from him would have prevented untold horrors. No
one of his successors in the papal chair has expressed any regret for his
deliverance, much less consigned to the Index of forbidden books the Malleus
maleficarum, the inquisitors’ official text-book on witchcraft, most of the
editions of which printed Innocent’s bull at length.
Innocent’s
immediate successors followed his example and persons or states opposing
repressive measures against witches were classed with malefactors and, as in the
case of Venice, the state was threatened by Leo X. with the fulminations of the
Church if it did not render active assistance. At the papal rebuke, Brescia
changed its attitude and in a single year sentenced 70 to the flames.
Next
to Innocent’s bull, the Witches Hammer,—Malleus maleficarum,—already referred
to, is the most important and nefarious legacy the world has received on
witchcraft. Dr. Lea pronounces it "the most portentous monument of
superstition the world has produced."930 These two documents were the official literature which
determined the progress and methods of the new crusade.
The
Witches Hammer, published in 1486, proceeded from the hands of the Dominican
Inquisitors, Heinrich Institoris, whose German name was Kraemer, and Jacob
Sprenger. The plea cannot be made that they were uneducated men. They occupied
high positions in their order and at the University of Cologne. Their book is
divided into three parts: the first proves the existence of witchcraft; the second
sets forth the forms in which it manifested itself; the third describes the
rules for its detection and prosecution. In the last quarter of the 15th
century the world, so it states, was more given over to the devil than in any
preceding age. It was flooded with all kinds of wickedness. In affirming the
antics of witches and other malefics, appeal is made to the Scriptures and to
the teachings of the Church and especially to Augustine and Thomas Aquinas.
Witches and sorcerers, whose father is the devil, are at last bound together in
an organized body or sect. They meet at the weekly sabbats and do the devil
homage by kissing his posterior parts. He appears among them as a tom-cat,
goat, dog, bull or black man, as whim and convenience suggest. Demons of both
sexes swarm at the meetings. Baptism and the eucharist are subjected to
ridicule, the cross trampled upon. After an abundant repast the lights are
extinguished and, at the devil’s command "Mix, mix," there follow
scenes of unutterable lewdness. The devil, however, is a strict disciplinarian
and applies the whip to refractory members.
The
human members of the fraternity are instructed in all sorts of fell arts. They
are transported through the air. They kill unbaptized children, keeping them in
this way out of heaven. At the sabbats such children are eaten. Of the carnal
intercourse, implied in the words succubus and incubus, the authors say, there
can be no doubt. To quote them, "it is common to all sorcerers and witches
to practise carnal lust with demons."931 To this particular subject are devoted two full chapters,
and it is taken up again and again.
In evidence
of the reality of their charges, the authors draw upon their own extensive
experience and declare that, in 48 cases of witches brought before them and
burnt, all the victims confessed to having practised such abominable whoredoms
for from 10 to 30 years.
Among
the precautions which the book prescribed against being bewitched, are the
Lord’s Prayer, the cross, holy water and salt and the Church formulas of
exorcism. It also adds that inner grace is a preservative.932
The
directions for the prosecution of witches, given in the third part of the
treatise, are set forth with great explicitness. Public rumor was a sufficient
cause for an indictment. The accused were to be subjected to the indignity of
having the hair shaved off from their bodies, especially the more secret parts,
lest perchance some imp or charm might be hidden there. Careful rules were
given to the inquisitors for preserving themselves against being bewitched, and
Institoris and Sprenger took occasion to congratulate themselves that, in their
long experience, they had been able to avoid this calamity. In case the
defender of a witch seemed to show an excess of zeal, this was to be treated as
presumptive evidence that he was himself under the same influence. One of the
devices for exposing guilt was a sheet of paper of the length of Christ’s body,
inscribed with the seven words of the cross. This was to be bound on the
witch’s body at the time of the mass, and then the ordeal of torture was
applied. This measure almost invariably brought forth a confession of guilt.
The ordeal of the red-hot iron was also recommended, but it was to be used with
caution, as it was the trick of demons to cover the hands of witches with a
salve made from a vegetable essence which kept them from being burnt. Such a
case happened in Constance, the woman being able to carry the glowing iron six
paces and thus going free.
Of
all parts of this manual, none is quite so infamous as the author’s vile
estimate of woman. If there is any one who still imagines that celibacy is a
sure highway to purity of thought, let him read the testimonies about woman and
marriage given by mediaeval writers, priests and monks, themselves celibate and
presumably chaste. Their impurities of expression suggest a foul atmosphere of
thought and conversation. The very title of the Malleus maleficarum—the Hammer
of the Female Malefics—is in the feminine because, as the authors inform their
readers, the overwhelming majority of those who were behagged and had
intercourse with demons were women.933 In flat contrast to our modern experience of the religious
fidelity of women, the authors of this book derive the word femina — woman—from
fe and minus, that is, fides minus, less in faith. Weeping and spinning and
deceiving they represent as the very essence of her nature. She deceives,
because she was formed from Adam’s rib and that was crooked.
A
long chapter, I. 6, is devoted to showing woman’s inferiority to man and the
subject of her alliance with demons is dwelt upon, apparently with delight. The
cohabitation with fiends was in earlier ages, the authors affirm, against the
will of women, but in their own age it was with their full consent and by their
ardent desire. They thank God for being men. Few of their sex, they say,
consent to such obscene relations,—one man to ten women. This refusal was due to
the male’s natural vigor of mind, vigor rationis. To show the depravity of
woman and her fell agency in history, Institoris and Sprenger quote all the bad
things they can heap up from authors, biblical and classic, patristic and
scholastic, Cato, Terence, Seneca, Cicero, Jerome. Jesus Sirach’s words are
frequently quoted, "Woman is more bitter than death." Helen, Jezebel
and Cleopatra are held forth as examples of pernicious agency which wrought the
destruction of kingdoms, such catastrophes being almost invariably due to
woman’s machinations.
It
was the common representation of the writers of the outgoing century of the
Mediaeval Age that God permits the intervention of Satan’s malefic agency
through the marriage bed more than through any other medium, and for the reason
that the first sin was carried down through the marital act. On this point,
Thomas Aquinas is quoted by one author after the other.934 Preachers, as well as writers on
witchcraft, took this disparaging view of woman. Geiler of Strassburg gave as
the reason for ten women being burnt to one man on the charge of witchcraft,
woman’s loquacity and frivolity. He quoted Ambrose that woman is the door to
the devil and the way of iniquity—janua diaboli et via iniquitatis. Another
noted preacher of the 15th century, John Nider, gave ten cases in which the
cohabitation of man and woman is a mortal sin and, in a Latin treatise on moral
leprosy, included the marriage state.935 A century earlier, in his De planctu ecclesiae, written from
Avignon, Bishop Alvarez of Pelayo enumerated 102 faults common to women, one of
these their cohabitation with the denizens of hell. From his own experience,
the prelate states, he knew this to be true. It was practised, he says, in a
convent of nuns and vain was his effort to put a stop to it.
Experts
gave it as their opinion that "the new sect of witches" had its
beginning about the year 1300.936
But the writers of the 15th and 16th centuries were careful to prove
that their two characteristic performances, the flight through the air and
demonic intercourse, were not illusions of the imagination, but palpable
realities.937 To the
testimonies of the witches themselves were added the ocular observations of
church officials.938
Other devilish performances dwelt upon, were the murder of children
before baptism, the eating of their flesh after it had been consecrated to the
devil and the trampling upon the host.939 One woman, in 1457, confessed she had been guilty of the
last practice 30 years.
The
more popular places of the weekly sabbats were the Brocken, Benevento, Como and
the regions beyond the Jordan. Here the witches and demons congregated by the
thousands and committed their excesses. The witches went from congregation to
congregation as they pleased940 and, according to Prierias, children as
young as eight and ten joined in the orgies.
Sometimes
it went hard with the innocent, though prurient, onlookers of these scenes, as
was the case with the inquisitor of Como, Bartholomew of Homate, and some of
his companions. Determined to see for themselves, they looked on at a sabbat in
Mendrisio from a place of concealment. As if unaware of their presence, the
presiding devil dismissed the assembly, but immediately calling the revellers
back, had them drag the intruders forth and the demons belabored them so
lustily that they survived only 15 days.941 The forms the devil usually assumed were those of a large
tom-cat or a goat. If the meeting was in a building, he was wont to descend by
a ladder, tail foremost. The witches kissed his posterior parts and, after
indulging in a feast, the lights were put out and wild revels followed. As
early as 1460, pictures were printed representing women riding through the air,
straddling stocks and broomsticks, on goats or carried by demons. In Normandy,
the obsessed were called broom-riders—scobaces.942 Taught by demons, they made a salve of the ashes of a toad
fed on the wafer, the blood of murdered children and other ingredients, which
they applied to their riding sticks to facilitate their flights. According to
the physician, John Hartlieb, who calls this salve the "unguent of
Pharelis"—Herodias—it was made from seven different herbs, each gathered
on a different day of the week and mixed with the fat of birds and animals.943
The
popularity of the witch-delusion as a subject of literary treatment is shown by
the extracts Hansen gives from 70 writings, without exhausting the list.944 Most of the writers were Dominicans.
The Witches Hammer was printed in many editions, issued 13 times before 1520
and, from 1574–1669, 16 times. The most famous of these writers in the earlier
half of the 15th century was John Nider, d. 1438, in his Formicarius or
Ant-Industry. He was a member of the Dominican order, professor of theology in
Vienna and attended the Council of Basel. Writers like Jacquier were not
satisfied with sending forth a single treatise.945 Writers like Sylvester Prierias, d. 1523, known in the
history of Luther, and Bartholomew Spina, d. 1546, occupied important positions
at the papal court.946
These two men expounded Innocent VIII.’s bull, and quote the Witches
Hammer. Geiler of Strassburg repeated from the pulpit the vilest charges
against witches. Pico della Mirandola, the biographer of Savonarola, filled a
book with material of the same sort, and declared that one might as well call
in question the discovery of America as the existence of witches.947
The
prosecution of witches assumed large proportions first in Switzerland and
Northern Italy and then in France and Germany. In Rome, the first reported
burning was in 1424.948
In the diocese of Como, Northern Italy, 41 were burnt the year after the
promulgation of Innocent VIII.’s bull. Between 1500–1525 the yearly number of
women tried in that district was 1000 and the executions averaged 100. In 1521,
Prierias declared that the Apennine regions were so full of witches that they
were expected soon to outnumber the faithful.
In
France, one of the chief victims, the Carmelite William Adeline, was professor
in Paris and had taken part in the Council of Basel. Arraigned by the
Inquisition, 1453, he confessed to being a Vaudois, and having habitually
attended their synagogues and done homage to the devil. In spite of his
abjurations, he was kept in prison till he died.949 In Briançon, 1428–1447, 110 women and 57 men were executed
for witchcraft in the flames or by drowning.
In
Germany, Heidelberg, Pforzheim, Nürnberg, Würzburg, Bamberg, Vienna, Cologne,
Metz and other cities were centres of the craze and witnessed many executions.
It was during the five years preceding 1486 that Heinrich Institoris and
Sprenger sent 48 to the stake. The Heidelberg court-preacher, Matthias Widman,
of Kemnat, pronounced the "Cathari or heretical witches" the most
damnable of the sects, one which should be subjected to "abundance of fire
and without mercy." He reports that witches rode on broomsticks, spoons,
cats, goats and other objects, and that he had seen many of them burnt in
Heidelberg. In 1540, six years before Luther’s death, four witches and
sorcerers were burnt in Protestant Wittenberg. And in 1545, 34 women were burnt
or quartered in Geneva. In England the law for the burning of heretics, 1401,
was applied to these unfortunate people, not a few of whom were committed to
the flames. But the persecution in the mediaeval period never took on the
proportions on English soil it reached on the Continent; and there, it was not
the Church but the state that dealt with the crime of sorcery.
According
to the estimate of Louis of Paramo, himself a distinguished inquisitor of
Sicily who had condemned many to the flames, there had been during the 150
years before 1597, the date of his treatise on the Origin and Progress of the
Inquisition, 30,000 executions for witchcraft.950
The
judgments passed upon witches were whipping, banishment and death by fire, or,
as in Cologne, Strassburg and other places, by drowning. The most common forms
of torture were the thumb-screw and the strappado. In the latter the prisoner’s
hands were bound behind his back with a rope which was drawn through a pulley
in the ceiling. The body was slowly lifted up, and at times left hanging or
allowed to suddenly drop to the floor. In our modern sense, there was no
protection of law for the accused. The suspicion of an ecclesiastical or civil
court was sufficient to create an almost insurmountable presumption of guilt.
Made frantic by the torture, the victims were willing to confess to anything,
however untrue and repulsive it might be. Death at times must have seemed, even
with the Church’s ban, preferable to protracted agonies, for the pains of death
at best lasted a few hours and might be reduced to a few minutes. As Lecky has
said, these unfortunate people did not have before them the prospect of a
martyr’s crown and the glory of the heavenly estate. They were not buoyed up by
the sympathies and prayers of the Church. Unpitied and unprayed for, they
yielded to the cold scrutiny of the inquisitor and were consumed in the flames.
Persons
who took the part of the supposed witch, or ventured to lift up their voices
against the trials for witchcraft, did so at the risk of their lives. In 1598,
the Dutch priest, Cornelius Loos Callidus, was imprisoned at Treves for
declaring that women, making confession under torture to witch devices,
confessed to what was not true. And four years before, 1589, Dr. Dietrich
Flade, a councillor of Treves, was burnt for attacking the prosecution of
witchcraft.951
The
belief in demonology and all manner of malefic arts was a legacy handed down to
the Church from the old Roman world and, where the influence of the Northern
mythologies was felt, the belief took still deeper roots. But it cannot be
denied that cases and passages taken from the Scriptures, especially the Old
Testament, were adduced to justify the wild dread of malign spirits in the
Middle Ages. Saul’s experience with the witch of Endor, the plagues brought by
the devil upon Job, the representations in Leviticus and Deuteronomy, incidents
from the Apocrypha and the cases of demonic agency in the New Testament were
dwelt upon and applied with literal and relentless rigor.
It
is a long chapter which begins with the lonely contests the old hermits had
with demons, recounts the personal encounters of mediaeval monks in chapel and
cell and relates the horrors of the inquisitorial process for heresy. Our more
rational processes of thought and our better understanding of the Christian law
of love happily have brought this chapter to a close in enlightened countries.
The treatment here given has been in order to show how greatly a Christian
society may err, and to confirm in this generation the feeling of gratitude for
the better sentiments which now prevail. It is perhaps also clue to those who
suffered, that a general description of the injustice done them should be
given. The chapter may not unfitly be brought to a close by allowing one of the
victims to speak again from his prison-cell, the burgomaster of Bamberg, though
he suffered a century after the Middle Ages had closed, 1628. After being
confronted by false witnesses he confessed, under torture, to having indulged
in the practices ascribed to the bewitched and he thus wrote to his daughter: —
Many
hundred good nights, dearly beloved daughter, Veronica. Innocent have I come
into prison, innocent must I die. For whoever comes into a witch-prison must
become a witch or be tortured till he invents something out of his head and—God
pity him—bethinks himself of something. I will tell you how it has gone with me
.... Then came the executioner and put the thumbscrews on me, both hands bound
together, so that the blood ran out at the nails and everywhere, so that for
four weeks I could not use my hands, as you can see from the writing .... Then
they stripped me, bound my hands behind my back and drew me up. I thought
heaven and earth were at an end. Eight times did they do this and let me drop
again so that I suffered terrible agony .... [Here follows a rehearsal of the
confessions he was induced to make.] ... Now, dear child, you have all my
confessions for which I must die. They are sheer lies made up. All this I was
forced to say through fear of the rack, for they never leave off the torture
till one confesses something .... Dear child, keep this letter secret so that
people may not find it or else I shall be tortured most piteously and the
jailers be beheaded .... I have taken several days to write this for my hands
are both lame. Good night, for your father Johannes Junius will never see you
more.952
Innocent
VIII’s Bull, Summit desiderantes. December 5, 1484: In Part:953
<foreign lang="la">Innocentius episcopus,
servus servorum dei, ad perpetuam rei memoriam. Summis desiderantes affectibus,
prout pastoralis sollicitudinis cura requirit, ut fides catholica nostris
potissime temporibus ubique augeatur et floreat ac omnis haeretica pravitas de
finibus fidelium procul pellatur, es libenter declaramus ac etiam de novo
concedimus per quae hujusmodi pium desiderium nostrum votivum sortiatur
effectum; cunctisque propterea, per nostrae operationis ministerium, quasi per
providi operationis saeculum erroribus exstirpatis, eiusdem fidei zelus et
observantia in ipsorum corda fidelium fortium imprimatur.
Sane
nuper ad nostrum non sine ingenti molestia pervenit auditum, quod in nonnullis
partibus Alemaniae superioris, necnon in Maguntinensi, Coloniensi, Treverensi,
Saltzumburgensi, et Bremensi, provinciis, civitatibus, terris, locis et
dioecesibus complures utriusque sexus personae, propriae salutis immemores et a
fide catholica deviantes, cum daemonibus, incubis et succubis abuti, ac suis
incantationibus, carminibus et coniurationibus aliisque nefandis
superstitiosis, et sortilegis excessibus, criminibus et delictis, mulierum
partus, animalium foestus, terra fruges, vinearum uvas, et arborum fructus;
necnon homines, mulieres, pecora, pecudes et alia diversorum generam animalia;
vineas quoque, pomeria, prata, pascua, blada, frumenta et alia terra legumina
perirs, suffocari et extingui facere et procurare; ipsosque homines, mulieres,
iumenta, pecora, pecudes et animalia diris tam intrinsecis quam extrinsecis
doloribus et tormentis afficere et excruciare; ac eosdem homines ne gignere, et
mulieres ne concipere, virosque, ne uxoribus, et mulieres, ne viris actus
coniugales reddere valeant, impedire; fidem praeterea ipsam, quam in sacri
susceptione baptismi susceperunt, ore sacrilego abnegare, aliaque quam plurima
nefanda, excussus et crimina, instigante humani generis inimico, committere et
perpetrare non verentur in animarum suarum periculum, divines maiestatis
offensam ac perniciosum exemplum ac scandulum plurimorum. Quodque licet dilecti
filii Henrici Institoris in praedictis partibus Alemaniae superioris ... necnon
Iacobus Sprenger per certas partes lineae Rheni, ordinis Praedicatorum et
theologiae professores, haeretics pravitatis inquisitores per literas
apostolicas deputati fuerunt, prout adhuc existunt; tamen nonnulli clerici et laici
illarum partium, quaerentes plura sapere quam oporteat, pro eo quod in literis
deputationis huiusmodi provinciae, civitates dioeceses terrae et alia loca
praedicta illarumque personae ac excessus huiusmodi nominatim et specifice
expressa non fuerunt, illa sub eisdem partibus minime contineri, et propterea
praefatis inquisitoribus in provinciis, civitatibus, dioecesibus, terris et
locis praedictis huiusmodi inquisitionis officium exequi non licere; et ad
personarum earundem super excessibus et criminibus antedictis punitionem,
incarcerationem et correctionem admitti non debere, pertinaciter asserere non
erubescunt ... Huiusmodi inquisitions officium exequi ipsasque personas, quas
in praemissis culpabiles reperierint, iuxta earum demerita corrigere, incarcerare,
punire et mulctare .... Quotiens opus fuerant, aggravare et reaggravare
auctoritate nostra procuret, invocato ad hoc, si opus fuerit, auxilio brachii
saecularis.
</foreign>
</div3> <div3 type = "Section"
n="60" title="The Spanish Inquisition">
<index
type = "globalSubject"
subject1 =
"Inquisition" />
§ 60.
The Spanish Inquisition.
Torquemada’s
name, with clouds o’ercast,
Looms
in the distant landscape of the past
Like a
burnt tower upon a blackened heath,
Lit by
the fires of burning woods beneath.
Longfellow.
The
Inquisition of Spain is one of the bywords of history. The horrors it
perpetrated have cast a dark shadow over the pages of Spanish annals. Organized
to rid the Spanish kingdoms of the infection of heresy, it extended its methods
to the Spanish dependencies in Europe, Sicily and Holland and to the Spanish
colonies of the new world. After the marriage of Philip II. with Mary Tudor it
secured a temporary recognition in England. In its bloody sacrifices, Jews,
Moors, Protestants and the practitioners of the dark arts were included. No
country in the world was more concerned to maintain the Catholic faith pure
than was Spain from the 15th to the 18th century, and to no Church organization
was a more unrestricted authority given than to the Spanish Inquisition.
Agreeing with the papal Inquisition established by Innocent III. in its
ultimate aim, the eradication of heresy, it differed from that earlier
institution by being under the direction of a tribunal appointed by the Spanish
sovereign, immediately amenable to him and acting independently of the bishops.
The papal Inquisition was controlled by the Apostolic see, which appointed
agents to carry its rules into effect and whose agency was to a certain extent
subject to the assent of the bishops.
Engaged
in the wars for the dispossession of the Pagan Moors, the Spanish kingdoms had
shown little disposition to yield to the intrusion of Catharan and other heresy
from the North. The menace to its orthodox repose came from the Jews, Jews who
held firmly to their ancestral faith and Jews who had of their own impulse or
through compulsion adopted the Christian rites. In no part of Europe was the
number of Jews so large and nowhere had they been more prosperous in trade and
reached such positions of eminence as physicians and as counsellors at court.
The Jewish literature of mediaeval Spain forms a distinct and notable chapter
in Hebrew literary history. To rid the land of the Jews who persisted in their
ancestral belief was not within the jurisdiction of the Church. That belonged
to the state, and, according to the canon law, the Jew was not to be molested
in the practice of his religion. But the moment Jews or Moors submitted to
baptism they became amenable to ecclesiastical discipline. Converted Jews in
Spain were called conversos, or maranos — the newly converted—and it was with
them, in its first period, that the Spanish Inquisition had chiefly to do.
After Luther’s doctrines began to spread it addressed itself to the extirpation
of Protestants, but, until the close of its history, in 1834, the Jewish
Christians constituted most of its victims.
From
an early time Spanish legislation was directed to the humiliation of the Jews
and their segregation from the Christian population. The oecumenical Council of
Vienne, 1312, denounced the liberality of the Spanish law which made a Jewish
witness necessary to the conviction of a Jew. Spanish synods, as those of
Valladolid and Tarragona, 1322, 1329, gave strong expression to the spirit of
intolerance with which the Spanish church regarded the Jewish people. The
sacking and wholesale massacre of their communities, which lived apart in
quarters of their own called Juderias, were matters of frequent occurrence, and
their synagogues were often destroyed or turned into churches. It is estimated
that in 1391, 50,000 Jews were murdered in Castile, and the mania spread to
Aragon.954
The
explanation of this bitter feeling is to be sought in the haughty pride of the
descendants of Abraham according to the flesh, their persistent observance of
their traditions and the exorbitant rates of usury which they charged. Not
content with the legal rate, which in Aragon was 20% and in Castile 331/3% they
often compelled municipalities to pay even higher rates. The prejudice and
fears of the Christian population charged them with sacrilege in the use of the
wafer and the murder of baptized children, whose blood was used in preparations
made for purposes of sorcery. Legislation was made more exacting. The old rules
were enforced enjoining a distinctive dress and forbidding them to shave their
beards or to have their hair cut round. All employment in Christian households,
the practice of medicine and the occupation of agriculture were denied them.
Scarcely any trade was left to their hand except the loaning of money, and that
by canon law was illegal for Christians.
The
joint reign of Ferdinand, 1452–1516, and Isabella, 1451–1504, marked an epoch
in the history of the Jews in Spain, both those who remained true to their
ancestral faith and the large class which professed conversion to the Christian
Church.955
In conferring
the title "Catholic" upon Ferdinand and Isabella, 1495, Alexander VI.
gave as one of the reasons the expulsion of the Jews from Spain, 1492. The
institution of the Spanish Inquisition, which began its work twelve years
before, was directed primarily against the conversos, people of Jewish blood
and members of the Church who in heart and secret usage remained Jews.
The
papal Inquisition was never organized in Castile, and in Aragon it had a feeble
existence. With the council of Tortosa, 1429, complaints began to be made that
the conversos neglected to have their children baptized, and by attending the
synagogues and observing the Jewish feasts were putting contempt upon their
Christian faith. That such hypocrisy was practised cannot be doubted in view of
the action of the Council of Basel which put its brand upon it. In 1451 Juan
II. applied to the papal court to appoint a commission to investigate the
situation. At the same time the popular feeling was intensified by the frantic
appeals of clerics such as Friar Alfonso de Espina who in his Fortalicium fidei
— the Fortification of the Faith—brought together a number of alleged cases of
children murdered by Jews and argued for the Church’s right to baptize Jewish
children in the absence of the parents’ consent.956 The story ran that before Isabella’s accession her confessor
Torquemada, that hammer of heretics, secured from her a vow to leave no measure
untried for the extirpation of heresy from her realm. Sometime later, listening
to this same ecclesiastic’s appeal, Ferdinand and his consort applied to the
papal see for the establishment of the Inquisition in Castile.
Sixtus
IV., who was then occupying the chair of St. Peter, did not hesitate in a
matter so important, and on Nov. 1, 1478, issued the bull sanctioning the fell
Spanish tribunal. It authorized the Spanish sovereigns to appoint three bishops
or other ecclesiastics to proceed against heretics and at the same time
empowered them to remove and replace these officials as they thought fit. After
a delay of two years, the commission was constituted, 1480, and consisted of
two Dominican theologians, Michael de Morillo and John of St. Martin, and a
friar of St. Pablo, Seville. A public reception was given to the commission by
the municipal council of Seville. The number of prisoners was soon too large
for the capacity of St. Pablo, where the court first established itself, and it
was removed to the chief stronghold of the city, the fortress of Triana, whose
ample spaces and gloomy dungeons were well fitted for the dark work for which
it had been chosen.
Once
organized, the Inquisition began its work by issuing the so-called Edict of
Grace957
which gave heretics a period of 30 or 40 days in which to announce themselves
and, on making confession, assured them of pardon. Humane as this measure was,
it was also used as a device for detecting other spiritual criminals, those
confessing, called penitentes, being placed under a vow to reveal the names of
heretics. The humiliations to which the penitents were subjected had exhibition
at the first auto de fe held in Toledo, 1486, when 750 penitents of both sexes
were obliged to march through the city carrying candles and bare-headed; and,
on entering the cathedral, were informed that one-fifth of their property had
been confiscated, and that they were thenceforth incapacitated to hold public
office. The first auto de fe was held in Seville, Feb. 6, 1481, six months
after the appointment of the tribunal, when six men and women were cremated
alive. The ghastly spectacle was introduced with a sermon, preached by Friar
Alfonso de Hojeda. A disastrous plague, which broke out in the city, did not
interrupt the sittings of the tribunal, which established itself temporarily at
Aracena, where the first holocaust included 23 men and women. According to a
contemporary, by Nov. 4, 1491, 298 persons had been committed to the flames and
79 condemned to perpetual imprisonment.958 The tribunal established at Ciudad Real, 1483, burnt 52
heretics within two years, when it was removed, in 1485, to Toledo. In Avila,
from 1490–1500, 75 were burnt alive, and 26 dead bodies exhumed and cast into
the flames. In cases, the entire conversos population was banished, as in
Guadalupe, by the order of the inquisitor-general, Deza, in 1500. From Castile,
the Inquisition extended its operations to Aragon, where its three chief
centres were Valencia, Barcelona and Saragossa, and then to the Balearic
Islands, where it was especially active. The first burning in Saragossa took
place, 1484, when two men were burnt alive and one woman in effigy, and at
Barcelona in 1488, when four persons were consumed alive.
The
interest of Sixtus IV. continued to follow the tribunal he had authorized and,
in a letter addressed to Isabella, Feb. 13, 1483, he assured the queen that its
work lay close to his heart. The same year, to render the tribunal more
efficient, it was raised by Ferdinand to the dignity of the fifth council of
the state with the title, Concejo de la Suprema y General Inquisicion. Usually
called the suprema, this body was to have charge of the Holy Office throughout
the realm. The same end was promoted by the creation of the office of
inquisitor-general, 1483, to which the power was consigned of removing and
appointing inquisitorial functionaries. The first incumbent was Thomas de
Torquemada, at that time prior of Santa Cruz in Segovia. This fanatical
ecclesiastic, whose name is a synonym of uncompromising religious intolerance
and heartless cruelty, had already been appointed, in 1482, an inquisitor by
the pope. He brought to his duties a rare energy and formulated the rules
characteristic of the Spanish Inquisition.
With
Torquemada at its head, the Holy Office became, next to royalty itself, the
strongest power in Spain. Its decisions fell like the blow of a great iron
hammer, and there was no power beneath the sovereign that dared to offer them
resistance. In 1507, at the death of Deza, third inquisitor-general, Castile
and Aragon were placed under distinct tribunals. Cardinal Ximenes, 1436–1517, a
member of the Franciscan order and one of the foremost figures in Spanish
church history, was elevated to the office of supreme inquisitor of Castile.
His distinction as archbishop of Toledo pales before his fame as a scholar and
patron of letters. He likewise was unyielding in the prosecution of the work of
ridding his country of the taint of heresy, but he never gave way to the
temptation of using his office for his own advantage and enriching himself from
the sequestrated property of the conversos, as Torquemada was charged with
doing.
Under
Adrian of Utrecht, at first inquisitor-general of Aragon, the tribunals of the
two kingdoms were again united in 1518, and, by the addition of Navarre, which
Ferdinand had conquered, the whole Iberian peninsula, with the exception of
Portugal, came under the jurisdiction of a single supreme official. Adrian had
acted as tutor to Charles V., and was to succeed Leo X. on the papal throne.
From his administration, the succession of inquisitors-general continued
unbroken till 1835, when the last occupant of the office died, Geronimo
Castellan y Salas, bishop of Tarazona.959
The
interesting question has been warmly discussed, whether the Inquisition of
Spain was a papal institution or an institution of the state, and the attempt
has been made to lift the responsibility for its organization and
administration from the supreme pontiff. The answer is, that it was
predominantly an ecclesiastical institution, created by the authority of Sixtus
IV. and continuously supported by pontifical sanction. On the other hand, its
establishment was sought after by Ferdinand and Isabella, and its operations,
after the papal authorization had been secured, was under the control of the
Spanish sovereign. So far as we know, the popes never uttered a word in protest
against the inhuman measures which were practised by the Spanish tribunals.
Their only dissent arose from the persistence with which Ferdinand kept the
administrative agency in his own hands and refused to allow any interference
with his disposition of the sequestrated estates.960 The hearty approbation of the Apostolic see is vouched for
in many documents, and the responsibility for the Spanish tribunal was
distinctly assumed by Sixtus V., Jan. 22, 1588, as an institution established
by its authority. Sixtus IV. and his successors sought again and again to get
its full management into their own hands, but were foiled by the firmness of
Ferdinand. When, for example, in a bull dated April 18, 1482, the pope ordered
the names of the witnesses and accusers to be communicated to the suspects,
that the imprisonments should be in episcopal gaols, that appeal might be taken
to the Apostolic chair and that confessions to the bishop should stop all
prosecution, Ferdinand sharply resented the interference and hinted that the
suggestion had started with the use of conversos gold in the curia. This papal
action was only a stage in the battle for the control of the Holy Office.961 Ferdinand was ready to proceed to the
point of rupture with Rome rather than allow the principle of appeals which
would have reduced the power of the suprema to impotence. Sixtus wrote a
compromising reply, and a year later, October, 1483, Ferdinand got all he asked
for, and the appointment of Torquemada was confirmed.
The
royal management of the Inquisition was also in danger of being fatally
hampered by letters of absolution, issued according to custom by the papal
penitentiary, which were valid not only in the court of conscience but in
stopping public trials. Ferdinand entered a vigorous protest against their use
in Spain, when Sixtus, 1484, confirmed the penitentiary’s right; but here also
Sixtus was obliged to retreat, at least in part, and Alexander VI. and later
Clement VII., 1524, made such letters invalid when they conflicted with the
jurisdiction of the Spanish tribunal. Spain was bent on doing things in its own
way and won practical independence of the curia.962
The
principle, whereby in the old Inquisition the bishops were co-ordinate in
authority with the inquisitors or superior to them, had to be abandoned in
Spain in spite of the pope’s repeated attempts to apply it. Innocent VIII.,
1487, completely subjected the bishops to the inquisitorial organization, and
when Alexander, 1494, annulled this bull and required the inquisitors to act in
conjunction with the bishop, Ferdinand would not brook the change and, under
his protection, the suprema and its agents asserted their independence to
Ferdinand.
Likewise,
in the matter of confiscations of property, the sovereign claimed the right to
dictate their distribution, now applying them for the payment of salaries to
the inquisitors and their agents, now appropriating them for the national
exchequer, now for his own use or for gifts to his favorites.
No
concern of his reign, except the extension of his dominions, received from
Ferdinand more constant and sympathetic attention than the deletion of heresy.
With keen delight he witnessed the public burnings as adapted to advance the
Catholic faith. He scrutinized the reports sent him by inquisitors and, at
times, he expressed his satisfaction with their services by gifts of money. In
his will, dated the day before his death, he enjoined his heir, Charles V., to
be strenuous in supporting the tribunal. As all other virtues, so this
testament ran, "are nothing without faith by which and in which we are
saved, we command the illustrious prince, our grandson, to labor with all his
strength to destroy and extirpate heresy from our kingdoms and lordships,
appointing ministers, God-fearing and of good conscience, who will conduct the
Inquisition justly and properly for the service of God and the exaltation of
the Catholic faith, and who will also have a great zeal for the destruction of
the sect of Mohammed."963
Without doubt, the primary motive in the establishment of the tribunal
was with Ferdinand, and certainly with Isabella, religious.
There
seems at no time to have been any widespread revolt against the procedure of
the Inquisition. In Aragon, some mitigation of its rigors and rules was
proposed by the Cortes of Barcelona, 1512, such as the withdrawal from the
inquisitors of the right to carry weapons and the exemption of women from the
seizure of their property, in cases where a husband or father was declared a
heretic, but Ferdinand and Bishop Enguera, the Aragonese inquisitor-general,
were dispensed by Leo X., 1514, from keeping the oath they had taken to observe
the rules. At Charles V.’s accession, an effort was made to have some of the
more offensive evils abolished, such as the keeping of the names of witnesses
secret, and in 1520 the Cortes of Valladolid and Corunna made open appeal for
the amendment of some of the rules. Four hundred thousand ducats were offered,
presumably by conversos, to the young king if he would give his assent, and, as
late as 1528, the kingdom of Granada, in the same interest, offered him 50,000
ducats. But the appeals received no favorable action and, under the influence
of Ximines, in 1517, the council of Castile represented to Charles that the
very peace of Spain depended upon the maintenance of the Inquisition. The
cardinal wrote a personal letter to the king, declaring that interference on
his part would cover his name with infamy.964
The
most serious attempt to check the workings of the Inquisition occurred in
Saragossa and resulted in the assassination of the chief inquisitor, Peter
Arbues, an act of despair laid at the door of the conversos. Arbues was
murdered in the cathedral Jan. 25, 1485, the fatal blow being struck from
behind, while the priest was on his knees engaged in prayer. He knew his life
was threatened and not only wore a coat of mail and cap of steel, but carried a
lance. He lingered twenty-four hours. Miracles wrought at the coffin vouched
for the sanctity of the murdered ecclesiastic. The sacred bell of Villela
tolled unmoved by hands. Arbues’ blood liquefied on the cathedral floor two
weeks after the deed. Within two years, the popular veneration showed itself in
the erection of a splendid tomb to the martyr’s memory and the Catholic Church,
by the bull of Pius IX., June 29, 1867, has given him the honors of
canonization. As the assassination of the papal delegate, Peter of Castelnau,
at the opening of the crusade against the Albigenses, 1208, wrought to
strengthen Innocent in his purpose to wipe out heresy, even with the sword,
likewise the taking off of Arbues only tightened the grip of the Spanish
Inquisition in Aragon. His murderers and all in any way accessory to the crime were
hunted down, their hands were cut off at the portal of the cathedral and their
bodies dragged to the market-place, where they were beheaded and quartered or
burnt alive.965
Next
to the judicial murders perpetrated by the Inquisition, its chief evil was the
confiscation of estates. The property of the conversos offered a tempting prize
to the cupidity of the inquisitors and to the crown. The tribunal was expected
to live from the spoils of the heretics. Torquemada’s Instructions of 1484
contained specific rules governing the disposition of goods held by heretics.
There was no limit put upon their despoilment, except that lands transferred
before 1479 were exempted from seizure, a precaution to avoid the disturbance
of titles. The property of dead heretics, though they had lain in their graves
fifty years, was within the power of the tribunal. The dowries of wives were
mercifully exempted whose husbands were adjudged heretical, but wives whose fathers
were found to be heretics lost their dowries. The claims of the children of
heretic fathers might have been expected to call for merciful consideration,
but the righteousness of their dispossession had no more vigorous advocates
than the clergy. To such property, as the bishop of Simancas argued, the old
Christian population had a valid moral claim. The Instructions of 1484 direct
that, if the children were under age at the time of the confiscation, they were
to be distributed among pious families, and announced it as the king’s
intention, in case they grew up good Christians, so to endow them with alms,
especially the girls, that they might marry or enter religion.966
The
practice of confiscation extended to the bedding and wearing apparel of the
victims. One gracious provision was that the slaves of condemned heretics
should receive freedom. Lands were sold at auction 30 days after their
sequestration, but the low price which they often brought indicates that
purchasers enjoyed special privileges of acquisition. Ferdinand and his
successor, Charles, were profuse in their disposition of such property. Had the
moneys been used for the wars against the Moors, as at first proposed by
Torquemada, the plea might be made that the tribunal was moved by unselfish
considerations, but they were not. Not only did Ferdinand take money for his
bankrupt treasury, but he appropriated hunting horses, pearls and other objects
for his own use. The Flemish favorites of Charles V., in less than ten months,
sent home 1,100,000 ducats largely made up of bequests derived from the
exactions of the sacred court.967
Dr. Lea, whose merit it is to have shown the vast extent to which the
sequestration of estates was carried, describes the money transactions of the
Inquisition as "a carnival of plunder." It was even found to be not
incompatible with a purpose to maintain the purity of the faith to enter into
arrangements whereby, for a sufficient consideration, communities received
protection from inquisitorial charges. The first such bargain was made at
Valencia, 1482. The king, however, did not hesitate on occasion to violate his
pact and allow unfortunate conversos, who had paid for exemption, to be
arraigned and condemned. No law existed requiring faith to be kept with a
heretic. It also happened that condemned conversos purchased freedom from
serving in the galleys or wearing the badge of heresy, the sanbenito.968
As
early as 1485, Ferdinand and Isabella were able to erect a royal palace at
Guadalupe, costing 2,732,333 maravedis, with the proceeds of sequestrated
property and, in a memorial address to Charles V., 1524, Tristan de Leon
asserted that these sovereigns had received from the possessions of heretics no
less than 10,000,000 ducats. Torquemada also was able to spend vast sums upon
his enterprises, such as the conventual building of St. Thomas at Avila, which
it was supposed were drawn from the victims whom his religious fervor condemned
to the loss of their goods and often of their lives.969 When the heretical mine was showing
signs of exhaustion in Spain, the Spanish colonies of Mexico and Peru poured in
their spoils to enable the Holy Office to maintain the state to which it had
been accustomed. At an early period, it began to take care for its own
perpetuation by making investments on a large scale.970
After
Ferdinand’s death, the suprema’s power increased, and it demanded a respect
only less than that which was yielded to the crown. Its arrogance and insolence
in administration kept pace with the high pretension it made to sacredness of
aim and divine authority. The institution was known as the Holy Office, the
building it occupied was the holy house, casa santa, and the public solemnity
at which the tribunal appeared officially before the public and announced its
decisions was called the act of faith, auto de fe.
The
suprema acted upon the principle started by Paramo, that the inquisitor was the
chief personage in his district. He represented both the pope and king.971 On the one hand, he claimed the right
to arrest at will and without restriction from the civil authority; on the
other, he demanded freedom for his officials from all arrest and violence.
In
trading and making exports, the Holy Office claimed exemption from the usual
duties levied upon the people at large. Immunity from military service and the
right to carry deadly weapons by day and night were among other privileges to
which it laid claim. A deliverance of the Apostolic see, 1515, confirmed it in
its right to arrest the highest noble in the land who dared to attack its
prerogatives or agents and, in case of need, to protect itself by resort to
bloodshed. Its jurisdiction extended not only to the lower orders of the
clergy, but also to members of the orders, a claim which, after a long
struggle, was confirmed by the edicts of Pius IV. and V., 1559, 1561. A single
class was exempted from the rules of its procedure, the bishops. However, the
exemption was rather apparent than real, for the Holy Office exercised the
right of arraigning bishops under suspicion before the papal chair. The first
cases of this kind were prelates of Jewish extraction, Davila of Segovia, 1490,
and Aranda of Calahorra, 1498. Both were tried in Rome, the former being
exonerated, and Aranda kept in prison in S. Angelo, where he is supposed to
have died, 1500. The most famous of the episcopal suspects, the archbishop of
Toledo, Bartholomew of Carranza, 1503–1576, was kept in prison for 17 years,
partly in Spain and partly in Rome. The case enjoyed a European reputation.
Carranza
had the distinction of administering the last rites to Charles V. and was for a
time a favorite of Philip II., but that sinister prince turned against him.
Partly from jealousy of Carranza’s honors, as has been surmised, and chiefly on
account of his indiscretions of speech, the inquisitor-general Valdes decided
upon the archbishop’s prosecution, and when his Commentary on the Catechism
appeared in Spanish, he was seized under authorization from the Apostolic see,
1559. For two years the prelate was kept in a secret prison and then brought to
trial. After delay, Pius IV., 1564, appointed a distinguished commission to
investigate the case and Pius V. forced his transfer in 1567 to Rome, where he
was confined in S. Angelo for nine years. Under Pius V.’s successor, Gregory
XIII., Carranza was compelled to abjure alleged errors, suspended from his seat
for five years and remanded to confinement in a Roman convent, where he
afterwards died. The boldness and vast power of the Inquisition could have no
better proof than the indignity and punishment placed upon a primate of Spain,
The
procedure of the Holy Office followed the rules drawn by Torquemada, 1484,
1485, called the Instructions of Seville, and the Instructions of Valladolid
prepared by the same hand, 1488 and 1498. These early codes were afterwards
known as the Instructiones antiguas, and remained in force until superseded by
the code of 1561 prepared by the inquisitor-general, Valdes.
Torquemada
lodged the control of the Inquisition in the suprema, to which all district
tribunals were subordinated. Permanent tribunals were located at Seville,
Toledo, Valladolid, Madrid (Corte), Granada, Cordova, Murcia Llerena, Cuenca,
Santiago, Logroño and the Canaries under the crown of Castile and at Saragossa,
Valencia, Barcelona and Majorca under the crown of Aragon.972
The
officials included two inquisitors an assessor or consulter on modes of
canonical procedure, an alguazil or executive officer, who executed the
sentences of the tribunal, notaries who kept the records, and censors or
califadores who pronounced elaborate opinions on points of dispute. To these
was added an official who appraised and took charge of confiscated property. A
large body of subordinates, such as the familiars or confidential agents,
complete the list of officials. Laymen were eligible to the office of
inquisitor, provided they were unmarried, and a condition made for holding any
of these places was parity of blood, limpieza, freedom from all stain of
Morisco, Jewish or heretic parentage and of ancestral illegitimacy. This
peculiar provision led to endless investigation of genealogical records before
appointments were made.973
Each
tribunal had a house of its own, containing the audience chamber, rooms for the
inquisitors, a library for the records, le secreto de la Inquisicion,—a chamber
of torture and secret prisons. The familiars have a dark fame. They acted as a
body of spies to detect and report cases of heresy. Their zeal made them the
terror of the land, and the Cortes of Monzon, 1512, called for the reduction of
their number.
In
its procedure, the Inquisition went on the presumption that a person accused
was guilty until he had made out his innocence. The grounds of arrest were
rumor or personal denunciation. Informing on suspects was represented to the
people as a meritorious act and inculcated even upon children as a duty. The
instructions of 1484 prescribed a mitigated punishment for minors who informed
on heretical fathers, and Bishop Simancas declared it to be the sacred
obligation of a son to bring his father, if guilty, to justice.974 The spiritual offender was allowed an
advocate. Secrecy was a prime feature in the procedure. After his arrest, the
prisoner was placed in one of the secret prisons,—carceres secretas,—and
rigidly deprived of all intercourse with friends. All papers bearing upon his
case were kept from him. The names of his accusers and of witnesses for his
prosecution were withheld. In the choice of its witnesses the Inquisition
allowed itself great liberty, even accepting the testimony of persons under the
Church’s sentence of excommunication, of Jews who remained in the Hebrew faith
and of heretics. Witnesses for the accused were limited to persons zealous for
the orthodox faith, and none of his relatives to the fourth generation were
allowed to testify. Heresy was regarded as a desperate disorder and to be
removed at all costs. On the other hand, the age of amenability was fixed at 12
for girls and 14 for boys. The age of fourscore gave no immunity from the grim
rigors of the exacting tribunal.975
The
charges, on which victims were arraigned, included the slightest deflection in
word or act from strict Catholic usage, such as the refusal to eat pork on a
single occasion, visiting a house where Moorish notions were taught, as well as
saying that the Virgin herself and not her image effected cures, and that Jews
and Moors would be saved if they sincerely, believed the Jewish and the Moorish
doctrines to be true.976
Recourse was had to torture, not only to secure evidence of guilt. Even
when the testimony of witnesses was sufficient to establish guilt, resort was
had to torture to extract a confession from the accused that thereby his soul
might be delivered from the burden of secret guilt, to extract information of
accomplices, and that a wholesome influence might be exerted in deterring
others from heresy by giving them an example of punishment. The modes of
torture most in use were the water ordeal and the garruche. In the water-cure,
the victim, tightly bound, was stretched upon a rack or bed, and with the body
in an inclined position, the head downward. The jaws were distended, a linen
cloth was thrust down the victim’s throat and water from a quart jar allowed to
trickle through it into his inward parts.977 On occasion, seven or eight such jars were slowly emptied.
The garrucha, otherwise known as the strappade, has already been described. In
its application in Spain it was customary to attach weights to the feet and to
suspend the body in such a manner that the toes alone touched the ground, and
the Spanish rule required that the body be raised and lowered leisurely so as
to increase the pain.
The
final penalties for heresy included, in addition to the spiritual impositions
of fasting and pilgrimage, confiscation of goods, imprisonment, public
scourging, the galleys, exile and death. Confiscation and burning extended to
the dead, against whom the charge of heresy could be made out. At Toledo, July
25, 1485, more than 400 dead were burnt in effigy. Frequently at the autos no
living victims suffered. In cases of the dead their names were effaced from
their tombstones, that "no memory of them should remain on the face of the
earth except as recorded in our sentence." Their male descendants,
including the grandchildren, were incapacitated from occupying benefices and
public positions, from riding on horseback, carrying weapons and wearing silk
or ornaments.
The
penalty of scourging was executed in public on the bodies of the victims, bared
to the waist, by the public executioner. Women of 86 to girls of 13 were
subjected to such treatment. Galley labor as a mode of punishment was
sanctioned by Alexander VI., 1503. The sentence of perpetual imprisonment was
often relaxed, either from considerations of mercy or for financial reasons. Up
to 1488, there had been 5000 condemnations to lasting imprisonment.978
The
saco bendito, or sanbenito, another characteristic feature of the Spanish
Inquisition, was a jacket of gray or yellow texture, furnished before and
behind with a large cross as prescribed by Torquemada. This galling humiliation
was aggravated by the rule that, after they were laid aside, the sanbenitos
should be hung up in the churches, together with a record of the wearer’s name
inscribed and his sentence. To avoid the shame of this public display,
descendants often sought to change their names, a practice the law soon
checked. The precedent for the sanbenito was found in the covering our first
parents wore to hide their nakedness, or in the sackcloth worn in the early
Church as a mark of penance.
The
auto de fe, the final act in the procedure of the Inquisition, shows the
relentlessness of this tribunal, and gave the spectators a foretaste of the
solemnities of the day of judgment. There heretics, after being tried by the
inquisitorial court, were exposed to public view,979 and received the first
official notice of their sentence. The ceremonial took place on the public
squares, where platforms and staging were erected at municipal expense, and
such occasions were treated as public holidays. On the day appointed, the
prisoners marched in procession, led by Dominicans and others bearing green and
white crosses, and followed by the officials of the Holy Office. Arrived at the
square, they were assigned seats on benches. A sermon was then preached and an
oath taken from the people and also from the king, if present, to support the
Inquisition. The sentences were then announced. Unrepentant heretics were
turned over to the civil officers. Wearing benitos, inscribed with their name,
they were conducted on asses to the brasero, or place of burning, which was
usually outside the city limits, and consigned to the flames. The other
heretics were then taken back to the prisons of the Inquisition. Inquisitorial
agents were present at the burnings and made a record of them for the use of
the religious tribunal. The solemnities of the auto de fe were usually begun at
6 in the morning and often lasted into the afternoon.
Theoretically,
the tribunal did not pass the sentence of blood. The ancient custom of the
Church and the canon law forbade such a decision. Its authority ceased with the
abandonment—or, to use the technical expression, the relaxation—of the offender
to the secular arm. By an old custom in passing sentence of incorrigible
heresy, it even prayed the secular officer to avoid the spilling of blood and
to exercise mercy. The prayer was an empty form. The state well understood its
duty, and its failure to punish with death heretics convicted by the spiritual
court was punishable with excommunication. It did not presume to review the
case, to take new evidence or even to require a statement of the evidence on
which the sentence of heresy was reached. The duty of the secular officer was
ministerial, not judicial. The sentence of heresy was synonymous with burning
at the stake. The Inquisition, however, did not stop with turning heretics over
to the state, but, as even Vacandard admits, at times pronounced the sentence
of burning.980
So
honorable to the state and to religion were the autos de fe regarded that kings
attended them and they were appointed to commemorate the marriage of princes or
their recovery from sickness. Ferdinand was in the habit of attending them. On
the visit of Charles V. to Valencia, 1528, public exhibition was given at which
13 were relaxed in person and 10 in effigy. Philip II.’s marriage, in 1560, to
Isabella of Valois was celebrated by an auto in Toledo and, in 1564, when this
sovereign was in Barcelona, a public exhibition was arranged in his honor, at
which eight were sentenced to death. Such spectacles continued to be witnessed
by royal personages till 1701, when Philip V. set an example of better things
by refusing to be present at one.
The
last case of an execution by the Spanish Inquisition was a schoolmaster,
Cayetano Ripoll, July 26, 1826. His trial lasted nearly two years. He was
accused of being a deist, and substituting in his school the words "Praise
be to God" for "Ave Maria purissima." He died calmly on the
gibbet after repeating the words, "I die reconciled to God and to
man."981
Not
satisfied with putting heretical men out of the world, the Inquisition also
directed its attention to noxious writings.982 At Seville, in 1490, Torquemada burnt a large number of
Hebrew copies of the Bible, and a little later, at Salamanca, he burnt 6000
copies. Ten years later, 1502, Ferdinand and Isabella promulgated a law forbidding
books being printed, imported and sold which did not have the license of a
bishop or certain specified royal judges. All Lutheran writings were ordered by
Adrian, in 1521, delivered up to the Inquisition. Thenceforth the Spanish
tribunal proved itself a vigorous guardian of the purity of the press. The
first formal Index, compiled by the University of Louvain, 1546, was approved
by the inquisitor-general Valdes and the suprema, and ordered printed with a
supplement. This was the first Index Expurgatorius printed in Spain. All copies
of the Scriptures in Spanish were seized and burnt, and the ferocious law of
1558 ordered booksellers keeping or selling prohibited books punished with
confiscation of goods or death. Strict inquisitorial supervision was had over
all libraries in Spain down into the 19th century. Of the effect of this
censorship upon Spanish culture, Dr. Lea says: "The intellectual
development which in the 16th century promised to render Spanish literature and
learning the most illustrious in Europe was stunted and starved into atrophy,
the arts and sciences were neglected, and the character which Spain acquired
among the nations was tersely expressed in the current saying that Africa began
at the Pyrenees."
The
"ghastly total" of the victims consigned by the Spanish Inquisition
to the flames or other punishments has been differently stated. Precise tables
of statistics are of modern creation, but that it was large is beyond question.
The historian, Llorente, gives the following figures: From 1480–1498, the date
of Torquemada’s death, 8800 were burnt alive, 6500 in effigy and 90,004
subjected to other punishments. From 1499–1506, 1664 were burnt alive, 832 in
effigy and 32,456 subjected to other punishments. From 1507–1517, during the
term of Cardinal Ximines, 2536 were burnt alive, 1368 in effigy and 47,263
subjected to other penalties. This writer gives the grand totals up to 1524 as
14,344 burnt alive, 9372 in effigy and 195,937 condemned to other penalties or
released as penitents. In 1524, an inscription was placed on the fortress of
Triana Seville, running: "In the year 1481, under the pontificate of
Sixtus IV. and the rule of Ferdinand and Isabella, the Inquisition was begun
here. Up to 1524, 20,000 heretics and more abjured their awful crime on this
spot and nearly 1000 were burnt." From records still extant, the victims
in Toledo before 1501 are found to have numbered 297 burnt alive and 600 in
effigy, and 5400 condemned to other punishment or reconciled. The documents,
however, are not preserved or, at any rate, not known from which a full
estimate could be made. In any case the numbers included thousands of victims
burnt alive and tens of thousands subjected to other punishments.983
The
rise of the Spanish Inquisition was contemporary with Spain’s advance to a
foremost place among the nations of Europe. After eight centuries, her
territory was for the first time completely free from the government of the
Mohammedan. The renown of her regiments was soon to be unequalled. Spanish
ships opened the highways of the sea and returned from the New World freighted
with its wealth. Spanish diplomacy was in the ascendant in Italy. But the decay
of her vital forces her religious zeal did not check. Spain’s Catholic
orthodoxy was assured, but Spain placed herself outside the current of modern
culture and progress. By her policy of religious seclusion and pride, she
crushed independence of thought and virility of moral purpose. One by one, she
lost her territorial acquisitions, from the Netherlands and Sicily to Cuba and
the Philippines in the far Pacific. Heresy she consumed inside of her own
precincts, but the paralysis of stagnation settled down upon her national life
and institutions, and peoples professing Protestantism, which she still calls
heresy, long since have taken her crown in the world of commerce and culture,
invention and nautical enterprise. The present map of the world has faint
traces of that empire on which it was the boast of the Spaniard of the 16th
century that the sun never set. This reduction of territory and resources calls
forth no spirit of denunciation. Nay, it attracts a sympathetic consideration
which hopes for the renewed greatness of the land of Ferdinand and Isabella,
through the introduction of that intellectual and religious freedom which has
stirred the energies of other European peoples and kept them in the path of
progress and new achievement.
</div3></div2><div2 type =
"Chapter" n="VIII" title="The Renaissance">
CHAPTER
VIII.
<index type =
"globalSubject"
subject1
= "The Renaissance" />
THE
RENAISSANCE.
<div3 type = "Section"
n="61" title="Literature of the Renaissance">
§ 61.
Literature of the Renaissance.
For
an extended list of literature, see Voigt: Wiederbelebung des elam. Alterthums,
II. 517–529, bringing it down to 1881, and Pastor: Gesch. der Päpste, I., pp.
xxxii-lxiii, III., pp. xlii-lxix. Also this vol., pp. 400 sqq. Geiger adds Lit.
notices to his Renaissance und Humanismus, pp. 564 sqq. The edd. of most of the
Humanists are given in the footnotes.—M. Whitcomb: A Lit. Source-Book of the
Ital. Renaiss., Phila., 1898, pp. 118.
Genl.
Works.—*G. Tiraboschi, a Jesuit and librarian of the duke of Modena, d. 1794:
Storia della Letteratura Italiana, 18 vols., Modena, 1771–1782; 9 vols., Roma,
1782–1785; 16 vols., Milan, 1822–1826. Vol. V. of the Roman ed. treats of
Dante, Petrarca and Boccaccio.—Heeren: Gesch. d. class. Lit., etc., 2 vols.,
Götting., 1797–1802.—Roscoe: Life of Lorenzo De’ Medici and Life and
Pontificate of Leo X. — J. Ch. L. Sismondi, d. 1842: Hist. des Républiques
Itat., Paris, 1807–1818, 5th ed., 10 vols., 1840–1844. Engl. trsl., Lond.,
1832, and Hist. de la renaiss. de la liberté en Italie, 2 vols., 1832.—J.
Michelet, d. 1874: Renaissance, the 7th vol. of his Hist. de France, Paris,
1867.—*J. Burckhardt, Prof. in Basel, d. 1897: Die Cultur der Renaissance in
Italien, Basel, 1860; 3rd ed. by L. Geiger, 1878. 9th ed., 1904. A series of
philosophico-historical sketches on the six aspects of the Italian Renaissance,
namely, the new conception of the state, the development of the individual, the
revival of classic antiquity, the discovery of the world and of man, the new
formation of society and the transformation of morals and religion. Engl. trsl.
by Middlemore from the 3rd ed., 2 vols., Lond., 1878, 1 vol., 1890. Also his
Cicerone; Anleitung zum Genuss der Kunstwerke Itat., 4th ed. by Bode, Leipz.,
1879; 9th ed., 2 vols., 1907.—*G. Voigt: Wiederbelebung des classischen
Alterthums oder das erste Jahrhundert des Humanismus, 1859; 2 vols., 3rd ed.,
1893.—T. D. Woolsey, Pres. of Yale Col., d. 1889: The Revival of Letters in the
14th and 15th Centuries. A series of valuable articles in the line of Voigt’s
first ed., in the New Englander for 1864 and 1865.—M. Monnier: La Renaiss. de
Dante à Luther, Paris, 1884. Crowned by the French Acad.—*P. Villari: Nic.
Machiavelli e i suoi tempi, 3 vols., Flor., 1877–1882; Engl. trsl. by the
author’s wife, 4 vol., Lond., 1878–1883. An introd. chap. on the Renaiss. New
ed., 2 vols. 1891.—J. A. Symonds: Renaissance in Italy, Lond., 1877 sqq.; 2d,
cheaper ed., 7 vols., 1888. Part I., The Age of the Despots; Part II., The
Revival of Learning; Part III., The Fine Arts; Part IV., Ital. Literature, 2
vols.; Part V., The Cath. Reaction, 2 vols. The most complete Engl. work on the
subject and based upon the original sources, but somewhat repetitious. Also his
Life of Michelangelo, etc. See below.—G. Koerting: Gesch. der Lit. Italiens im
Zeitalter der Renaiss., Leipz., Vol. I., 1878, Petrarca; Vol. II., 1880,
Boccaccio; Vol. III., 1884, the forerunners and founders of the
Renaissance.—*L. Geiger, Prof. in Berlin: Renaissance u. Humanismus in Ital.
und Deutschland, Berlin, 1882, 2nd ed., 1899. Part of Oncken’s Allg.
Gesch.—Mrs. Oliphant: The Makers of Florence, Lond., 1888. Sketches of Dante,
Giotto, Savonarola, Michelangelo.—P. Schaff: The Renaissance, N. Y., 1891, pp.
182.—*Gregorovius: Hist. of the City of Rome, vols. vi-viii.—*Pastor: Gesch. d.
Päpste, especially vols. I. 3–63; III. 3–172.—Creighton: Hist. of the
Papacy.—P. and H. van Dyke: The Age of the Renascence, 1377–1527, N. Y.,
1897.—K. Brandi: D. Renaiss. in Florenz u. Rom 2nd ed., Leipz., 1900.—W. S.
Lilly: Renaiss. Types, Lond., 1901.—E. Steinmann: Rom u. d. Renaiss., von Nik.
V.—Leo X., 2nd ed., Leipz., 1902. *John Owen: The Skeptics of the Ital.
Renaiss., Lond., 1893.—J. Klaczko: Rome and the Renaiss., trsl. by Dennie, N.
Y., 1903.—P. van Dyke: Aretino, Th. Cromwell and Maximilian I, N. Y., 1905.—L.
Schmidt: D. Renaiss. in Briefen v. Dichtern, Künstlern, Staatsmännern u.
Frauen.—J. S. Sandys — Hist. of Class. Scholarship, 3 vols.—A. Baudrillart: The
Cath. Ch., the Renais. and Protestantism, Lond., 1908.—Imbart de la Tour:
L’église cathol: la crise et la renaiss., Paris, 1909.
For §
63.—For Dante. Best Italian text of the Div. Commedia is by Witte. The ed. of
Fraticelli, Flor., 1881, to used In this vol. See also Toynbee’s text, Lond.,
1900. The latest and best Ital. commentaries by Scartazzini, Leipz., 3 vols.,
1874–1894, 3rd, small ed., 1899, P. G. Campi, Turin, 1890 sqq., and W. W.
Vernon, based on Benvenuto da Imola, 2 vols., Lond., 1897,—Engl. trsll. of
Dante’s Div. Com.: In verse by Rev. H. F. Cary, 1805, etc., amended ed. by O.
Kuhns, N. Y., 1897.—J. C. Wright, Lond., 1843, etc.; Longfellow, 3 vols., 1867,
etc.; E. H. Plumptre, 2 vols., Lond., 1887 sqq.; T. W. Parsons, Bost, 1896.—H.
K. Haselfoot, Lond., 1899.—M. R Vincent, N. Y., 1904.—In prose: J. A. Carlyle Lond.,
1848, etc.; W. S. Dugdale, Purgatorio, Lond., 1883.—A. J. Butler, Lond.,
1894.—G. C. Norton, Boston, 1892, new ed., 1901.—P. H. Wicksteed, Lond., 1901
sqq.—H. P. Tozer, Lond., 1904.—*G. A. Scartazzini, a native of the Grisons,
Reformed minister: Prolegomeni della Div. Com., etc., Leipz., 1890. Engl. trsl.
A Companion to Dante, by A. J. Butler, Lond., 1893; Dante Handbuch, etc., Engl.
trsl. Hdbook. to Dante, etc., by T. Davidson, Bost., 1887.—E. A. Fay:
Concordance to the Div. Com., Cambr., Mass., 1880.—P. Schaff: Dante and the
Div. Com., in Literature and Poetry, 1890, pp. 279–429, with list of Dante lit,
pp. 328–337.—Tozer: Engl. Concordance on Dante’s Div. Com., Oxf., 1907.—*E.
Moore: Studies in Dante, 3 vols., Lond., 1896–1903.—Lives of Dante: Dante and
his Early Biographers, being a résumé by E. Moore of five, Lond., 1880. A trsl.
of Boccaccio’s and Bruni’s Lives, by Wicksteed, Hull, 1898.—F. X. Kraus, Berl.,
1897.—P. Villari: The First Two Centt. of Florent. Hist. The Republic, and
Parties at the Time of Dante. Engl. trsl. by L. Villari.—*Witte: Essays on
Dante, trsl. by Lawrence and Wicksteed.—Essays on Dante by *R. W. Church, 1888,
and *Lowell.—M. F. Rossetti: Shadow of Dante, Edin., 1884.—Owen: Skeptics of
the Ital. Renaiss.—J. A. Symonds: Introd. to the Study of Dante, Lond.,
1893.—D. G. C. Rossetti: Dante and Ital. Poets preceding him, 1100–1300,
Boston, 1893.—C. A. Dinsmore: The Teachings of Dante, Bost., 1901.—C.E.
Laughlin: Stories of Authors’ Loves, Phila., 1902.—A. H. Strong: Dante, in Great
Poets and their Theol., Phila., 1897, pp. 105–155.—Art. Dante with Lit. in the
Schaff-Herzog, III. 853 sqq. by M. R. Vincent.
For
Petrarca: Opera omnia, Venice, 1503; Basel, 1554, 1581.—Epistolae ed. in Lat.
and Ital. by Fracasetti, Flor., 1859–1870, in several vols. The Canzoniere or
Rime in Vita e Morte di Mad. Laura often separately edited by Marsand,
Leopardi, Carducci and others, and in all collections of the Ital.
classics.—Sonnets, Triumphs and other Poems, with a Life by T. Campbell Lond.,
1889–1890.—Lives by Blanc, Halle, 1844.—Mézières, Paris, 1868, 2d ed.,
1873.—Geiger, Leipz., 1874,—Koerting, Leipz., 1878, pp. 722.—Mary A. Ward,
Bost., 1891.—F. Horridge, 1897.—*J. H. Robinson and R. W. Rolfe, N. Y.,
1898.—L. O. Kuhns, Great Poets of Italy, 1904.—E. J. Mills: Secret of Petr.,
1904.—R. de Nolhac: Petr. and the Art World, 1907.
For
Boccaccio: Opere volgari, ed. by Moutier, 17 vols., Flor., 1827–1834, Le
Lettere edite ed inedite, trsl. by Fr. Corragini, Flor., 1877.—Lives of
Boccaccio by Manetti, Baldelli, Landau, Koerting, Leipz., 1880. Geiger:
Renaissance, pp. 448–474.—*Owen: Skeptics, etc., pp. 128–147.—N. H. Dole:
Boccaccio and the Novella in A Teacher of Dante, etc., N. Y., 1908.
For §
64.—For Lives of the popes, see pp. 401–403. Lives of Cosimo de’ Medici by
Fabroni, Pisa, 1789; K. D. Ewart, Lond., 1899; and of Lorenzo by Fabroni, 2
vols., Pisa, 1784; Roscoe; von Reumont; B. Buser Leipz., 1879;Castelnau, 2
vols., Paris, 1879.—Vaughan: The Medici Popes, 1908.—G. F. Young: The Medici,
1400–1743, Lond., 1909.—Lor. de’ Medici: Opere, 4 vols., Flor., 1825, Poesie,
ed. by Carducci, Flor., 1859.—E. L. S. Horsburgh: Lor. the Magnificent, Lond.,
1909.
For §
66.—G. Vasari, pupil of Michelangelo, d. 1574; Lives of the More Celebrated
Painters, Sculptors and Architects, 1550; best ed. by Milanesi, 9 vols., Flor.,
1878–1885. Small ed., 1889. Engl. trsl., new ed., 1878, 5 vols. in Bohn’s
Library. Vasari is the basis of most works in this department.—Benvenuto
Cellini, goldsmith and sculptor at Florence, d. 1570: Vita scritta da lui
medesimo. An autobiog. giving a lively picture of the life of an Ital. artist
of that period. German trsl. by Goethe; Engl. trsll. by Roscoe and Symonds,
Lond., 1890.—A. Luigi Lanza, d. 1810: The Hist. of Painting in Italy, from the Period
of the Revival of the Fine Arts to 1800. Trsl. by T. Roscoe, 3 vols., Lond.,
1852.—W. Lübke: Hist. of Sculpture, Engl. trsl. by Bunnett, 2 vols., 1872;
Outlines of the Hist. of Art, ed. by R. Sturgis, 2 vols., N. Y., 1904.—J. A.
Crowe and G. B. Cavalcaselle: Hist. of Painting in Italy, etc., to the 16th
Cent., Lond., 1864–1867, ed. by Douglass, Lond., 3 vols., 1903–1908.—Mrs.
Jameson and Lady Eastlake: Hist. of our Lord as exemplified in Works of
Art.—Mrs. Jameson: Legends of the Madonna as repres. in the Fine Arts; Sacr.
and Leg. Art; Legends of the Monastis Orders as expressed in the Fine Arts.—H.
Taine: Lectures on Art, Paris, 1865 sq.—1st series: The Philos. of Art. 2nd
series: Art in Italy, etc. Trsl. by Durand, N. Y., 1875.—A. Woltmann and K. Woermann:
Hist. of Anc., Early Christian and Med. Painting. Trsl. by Colvin, Lond., 1880,
iIIus.—E. Müntz: Hist. de l’Art pendant la Renaiss., 5 vols., Paris, 1889–1905.
The first 3 vols. are devoted to Italy, the 4th to France, the 5th to other
countries. Les Antiquités de la ville de Rom, 1300–1600, Paris, 1886.—Histt. of
Archit. by Ferguson and R. Sturgis.—C. H. Moore: Character of Renaiss. Archit.,
N. Y., 1905.—R. Lanciani: Golden Days of the Renaiss. in Rome, 1906.—A. K.
Porter: Med. Archit. Its Origin and Development, 2 vols., N. Y., 1909.—Lives of
Michelangelo by *H. Grimm, 2 vols., Berl., 1860, 5th ed., 1879. Engl. trsl. by
Bunnett, 12th ed., 2 vols., Bost., 1882; A. Sprenger: Raffaele u. Michelangelo,
2nd ed., 1883; C. Clement, Lond., 1883; J. A. Symonds, 2 vols., N. Y., 1892; F.
Horridge, 1897; C. Holroyd, 1903.—Lives of Raphael by Ruland, Lond., 1870;
Lübke, Dresden, 1881; Müntz, trsl. by Armstrong, 1888; Crowe and Cavalcaselle,
2 vols., Lond., 1882–1888; Minghetti, Ger. ed., Breslau, 1887; *H. Grimm trsl.
by S. H. Adams, Bost, 1888; Knackfuss, trsl. by Dodgson, N. Y., 1899.
For
§§ 68, 69.—K. Hagen: Deutschland literarische und religiöse Verhältnisse im
Reformations-Zeitalter, Erlang., 1841–1844, 38 vols., 2d ed., Frankf., 1868.—T.
Janssen-Pastor: Gesch. des deutschen Volkes, 18th ed., I. 77–166, II. Comp. his
alphab. list of books, I., pp. xxxi-lv.—Geiger: Renaiss. u. Humanismus, pp.
323–580.—Zarncke: D. deutschen Universitäten im MA., Leip., 1857.—Paulsen:
Germ. Universities, etc., trsl. by Perry, Lond., 1895.—G. Kaufmann: Gesch. d.
deutschen Universitäten, 2 vols., Stuttg., 1888–1896.—For monographs on the
universities, see Lit. in Rashdall and Schmid, pp. 51–54.
For
Reuchlin: Briefwechsel, ed. L. Geiger, Tübing., 1875. Monographs on Reuchlin by
Mayerhof, Berl., 1830; Lamay, Pforzheim, 1855; Geiger, Leipz., 1871; A.
Horawitz, Vienna, 1877.—On Reuchlin’s conflict with the Dominicans of Cologne
and Hutten’s part in it, see Strauss: U. von Hutten, pp. 132–164; Böcking, II.
55–156.—N. Paulus: D. deutschen Dominikaner im Kampfe mit Luther, Freib., 1903,
p. 94 sqq., 119 sqq.—Janssen, II. 40 sqq.
For
Erasmus: Opera, ed. B. Rhenanus, 9 vols., Basel,1540, by Le Clerc, 10 vols.,
Leyden, 1703–1706.—Epistolä, ed. Allen, Oxf., 1906. In Engl. trsl. by *F. M.
Nichols, 2 vols., Lond., 1901–1904. In Engl. trsl., Praise of Folly, Lond.,
1876. Colloquies, Lond., 1724, new ed., 2 vols., 1878. Enchiridion, Lond.,
1905.—Bibl. Erasmania, 5 vols, Ghent, 1897–1907 sqq. Lives of Erasmus, by H.
Durand de Laur: Er. précurseur et initiateur de l’esprit mod., 2 vols., Paris,
1872.—*R. B. Drummond, 2 vols., Lond., 1873.—*F. Seebohm: The Oxf. Reformers,
Lond., 1887, etc.—Amiel, Paris, 1889.—J. A. Froude, 1896.—*E Emerton, N. Y.,
1899.—A. B. Pennington, Lond., 1875, 1901.—E. F. H. Capey, Lond., 1903.—*J. A.
Faulkner, Cin’ti, 1907.—A. Richter: Erasmienstudien, Dresden, 1901.—Geiger, 526
sqq.—Janssen, II. 1–24.
For
general education: Rashdall Universities, II., pp. 211–285—K. A. Schmid: Gesch.
d. Erziehung, Stuttg., 1892, II. 51–126.—J. Müller: Quellenschriften zur Gesch.
d. deutschsprachl. Unterrichts his zur Mitte d. 16. Jahrh., Gotha, 1882.
For
Ulrich von Hutten: E. Böcking: Ulrichi Hutteni opp., 7 vols., Leipz.,
1859–1870.—S. Szamatolski: Huttens deutsche Schriften, 1891.—D. F. Strauss,
author of the Life of Jesus: U. von Hutten, 3vols., Leipz., 1858, 1 vol., 1871,
Engl. trsl., Lond., 1874. Also Gespräche von U. von Hut., the Epp. obscurorum
virorum in German, Leipz., 1860.—J. Deckert: Ul. v. Hutten’s Leben u. Wirken,
Vienna, 1901.
For §
70.—Imbart de la Tour, Prof. at Bordeaux: L’église catholique: la crise et la
renaissance, Paris, 1909, being vol. II. of Les origines de la réforme, vol.
I., La France moderne, 1905. To be completed in 4 vols.—Schmid: Gesch. d.
Erziehung, II., 40 sqq.—H. M. Baird: Hist. of the Huguenots, I. 1–164.—Bonet
Maury, art. Faber In Herzog, V. 715 sqq.—Works on the Univ. of Paris and French
Lit.; H. van Laun: Hist. of French Lit., 3 vols. in one, N. Y., 1895, pp.
259–296.—The Histt. of France by Martin and Guizot.
For §
71.—F. Seebohm: The Oxford Reformers, Colet, Erasmus, More, Lond.,
1887.—Colet’s writings ed. with trsl. and notes by Lupton, 5 vols., Lond.,
1867–1876.—Lives of Colet, by S. Knight, 1823.—J. H. Lupton: Life of Dean
Colet, Lond., 1887, new ed., 1908.—Artt. in Dict. Natl. Biogr., Colet, Fisher,
etc.—Histt. of Engl. by Lingard and Green.—Histt. of the Engl. Ch. by Gairdner
and by Capes.—Ward-Waller: Cambr. Hist. of Engl. Lit., vol. III., Cambr.,
1909.—H. Morley: Engl. Writers, vol. VII., 1891.—Mullinger: Hist. of Univ. of
Cambridge.—For edd. of Sir Thos. More’s Works, see Dict. Natl. Biogr.,
XXXVIII., 445 sqq.—Lives of More by Roper, written in Mary Tudor’s reign, publ.
Paris, 1626, Stapleton, Douay, 1588; E. More, a grandson, 1627; T. E. Bridgett,
Rom. Cath., 2nd ed., 1892: W. H. Hutton, 1895.—W. S. Lilly: Renaiss. Types,
1901, III., Erasmus, IV., More.—L. Einstein: The Ital. Renaiss. in
England.—a.d. Innes: Ten Tudor Statesmen, Lond., 1906. More is treated pp.
76–111.—A. F. Leach: Engl. Schools at the Reformation, Lond., 1896.—Eng. Works
of Bp. J. Fisher, ed. Major, Lond., 1876.—Life of Fisher, by Bridgett, 1888.
</div3> <div3 type = "Section"
n="62" title="The Intellectual Awakening">
§ 62.
The Intellectual Awakening.
The
discussions, which issued in the Reformatory councils and which those councils
fostered, were a worthy expression of an awakening freedom of thought in the
effort to secure relief from ecclesiastical abuses. The movement, to which the
name Renaissance has been given, was a larger and far more successful effort,
achieving freedom from the intellectual bondage to which the individual man had
been subjected by the theology and hierarchy of the Church. The intelligence of
Italy, and indeed of Western Europe as a whole, had grown weary of the monastic
ideal of life, and the one-sided purpose of the scholastic systems to exalt
heavenly concerns by ignoring or degrading things terrestrial. The Renaissance
insisted upon the rights of the life that now is, and dignified the total
sphere for which man’s intellect and his aesthetic and social tastes by nature
fit him. It sought to give just recognition to man as the proprietor of the
earth. It substituted the enlightened observer for the monk; the citizen for
the contemplative recluse. It honored human sympathies more than conventual
visions and dexterous theological dialectics. It substituted observation for
metaphysics. It held forth the achievements of history. It called man to admire
his own creations, the masterpieces of classical literature and the monuments
of art. It bade him explore the works of nature and delight himself in their
excellency. How different from the apparent or real indifference to the
beauties of the natural world as shown, for example, by the monk, St. Bernard,
was the attitude of Leon Battista Alberti, d. 1472, who bore testimony that the
sight of a lovely landscape had more than once made him well of sickness.984
In
the narrower sense, the Renaissance may be confined to the recovery of the
culture of Greece and Rome and the revival of polite literature and art, and it
is sometimes designated the Revival of Letters. After having been taught for
centuries that the literature of classic antiquity was full of snares and
dangers for a Christian public, men opened their eyes and revelled with
childlike delight in the discovery of ancient authors and history. Virgil sang
again the Aeneid, Homer the Iliad and Odyssey. Cicero once more delivered his
orations and Plato taught his philosophy. It was indeed an intellectual and
artistic new birth that burst forth in Italy, a regeneration, as the word
Renaissance means. But it was more. It was a revolt against monastic asceticism
and scholasticism, the systems which cramped the free flow of bodily enthusiasm
and intellectual inquiry.985
It called man from morbid self-mortifications as the most fitting
discipline of mortal existence here below, and offered him the satisfaction of
all the elements of his nature as his proper pursuit.
Beginning
in Italy, this new enthusiasm spread north to Germany and extended as far as
Scotland. North of the Alps, it was known as Humanism and its representatives
as Humanists, the words being taken from literae humanae, or humaniores, that
is, humane studies, the studies which develop the man as the proprietor of this
visible sphere. In the wider sense, it comprehends the revival of literature
and art, the development of rational criticism, the transition from feudalism
to a new order of social organization, the elevation of the modern languages of
Europe as vehicles for the highest thought, the emancipation of intelligence,
and the expansion of human interests, the invention of the printing-press, the
discoveries of navigation and the exploration of America and the East, and the
definition of the solar system by Copernicus and Galileo,—in one word, all the
progressive developments of the last two centuries of the Middle Ages,
developments which have since been the concern of modern civilization.
The
most discriminating characterization of this remarkable movement came from the
pen of Michelet, who defined it as the discovery of the world and man. In this
twofold aspect, Burckhardt, its leading historian for Italy, has treated the
Renaissance with deep philosophical insight.
The
period of the Renaissance lasts from the beginning of the 14th to the middle of
the 16th century, from Roger Bacon, d. 1294, and Dante, d. 1321, to Raphael, d.
1520, and Michelangelo, d. 1564, Reuchlin, d. 1522, and Erasmus, d. 1536. For
more than a century it proceeded in Italy without the patronage of the Church.
Later, from the pontificate of Nicolas V. to the Medicean popes, Leo X. and
Clement VII., it was fostered by the papal court. For this reason the last
popes of the Middle Ages are known as the Renaissance popes. The movement in
the courts may be divided into three periods: the age of the great Italian
literati, Dante, Petrarca and Boccaccio, the age from 1400–1460, when the
interest in classic literature predominated, and the age from 1460–1540, when
the pursuit of the fine arts was the predominant feature. The first age
contributed immortal works to literature. In the second, Plato and the other
classics were translated and sedulously studied. In the last, the fine arts and
architecture offered their array of genius in, Italy.
To
some writers it has occurred to go back as far as Frederick II. for the
beginnings of the movement. That sovereign embodied in himself a varied culture
and a versatility of intellect rare in any age. With authorship and a knowledge
of a number of languages, he combined enlightened ideas in regard to government
and legislation, the patronage of higher education and the arts. For the varied
interests of his mind, he has been called the first modern man.986 However, the literary activity of his
court ceased at his death. Italy was not without its poets in the 13th century,
but it is with the imposing figure of Dante that the revival of culture is to
be dated. That a Renaissance should have been needed is a startling fact in the
history of human development and demands explanation. The ban, which had been
placed by the Church upon the study of the classic authors of antiquity and
ancient institutions, palsied polite research and reading for a thousand years.
Even before Jerome, whose mind had been disciplined in the study of the
classics, at last pronounced them unfit for the eye of a Christian,
Tertullian’s attitude was not favorable. Cassian followed Jerome; and Alcuin,
the chief scholar of the 9th century, turned away from Virgil as a collection
of lying fables. At the close of the 10th century, a pope reprimanded Arnulf of
Orleans by reminding him that Peter was unacquainted with Plato, Virgil and
Terence, and that God had been pleased to choose as His agents, not
philosophers and rhetoricians, but rustics and unlettered men. In deference to
such authorities the dutiful churchman turned from the closed pages of the old
Romans and Greeks. Only did a selected author like Terence have here and there
in a convent a clandestine though eager reader.
In
the 12th century, it seemed as if a new era in literature was impending, as if
the old learning was about to flourish again. The works of Aristotle became
more fully known through the translations of the Arabs. Schools were started in
which classic authors were read. Abaelard turned to Virgil as a prophet. The
Roman law was discovered and explained at Bologna and other seats of learning.
John of Salisbury, Grosseteste, Peter of Blois and other writers freely quoted
from Cicero, Livy, Tacitus, Suetonius, Ovid and other Latin authors. But the
head of Western Christendom discerned in this movement a grave menace to
theology and religion, and was quick to blight the new shoot with his curse, and
in its early statutes, forced by the pope, the University of Paris excluded the
literature of Rome from its curriculum.
But
this arbitrary violence could not forever hold the mind of Europe in bonds. The
satisfaction its intelligence was seeking, it did not find in the subtle
discussions of the Schoolmen or the dismal pictures of the monastics. When the
new movement burst forth, it burst forth in Italy, that beautiful country, the
heir of Roman traditions. The glories of Italy’s past in history and in literature
blazed forth again as after a long eclipse, and the cult of the beautiful, for
which the Italian is born, came once more into free exercise. In spite of
invasion after invasion the land remained Italian. Lombards, Goths, Normans had
occupied it, but the invaders were romanized much more than the Italians were
teutonized. The feudal system and Gothic architecture found no congenial soil
south of the Alps. In the new era, it seemed natural that the poets and orators
of old Italy should speak again in the land which they had witnessed as the
mistress of all nations. The literature and law of Greece and Rome again became
the educators of the Latin and also of the Teutonic races, preparing them to
receive the seeds of modern civilization.
The
tap-root of the Renaissance was individualism as opposed to sacerdotal
authority. Its enfranchising process manifested itself in Roger Bacon, whose
mind turned away from the rabbinical subtleties of the Schoolmen to the secrets
of natural science and the discoveries of the earth reported by Rubruquis or
suggested by his own reflection, and more fully in Dante, Marsiglius of Padua
and Wyclif, who resisted the traditional authority of the papacy. It was active
in the discussions of the Reformatory councils. And it received a strong
impetus in the administration of the Lombard cities which gloried in their
independence. With their authority the imperial policy of Frederick Barbarossa
and Frederick II. had clashed. Partly owing to the loose hold of the empire and
partly owing to the papal policy, which found its selfish interests subserved
better by free contending states and republics than by a unified kingdom of
Italy under a single temporal head, these independent municipalities took such
deep root that they withstood for nearly a thousand years the unifying process
which, in the case of France, Great Britain and Spain, resulted in the
consolidation of strong kingdoms soon after the era of the Crusades closed.
Upon an oligarchical or a democratic basis, despots and soldiers of fortune
secured control of their Italian states by force of innate ability.
Individualism pushed aside the claims of birth, and it so happened in the 14th
and 15th centuries that the heads of these states were as frequently men of
illegitimate birth as of legitimate descent. In our change-loving Italy, wrote
Pius II., "where nothing is permanent and no old dynasty exists, servants
easily rise to be kings."987
It
was in the free republic of Florence, where individualism found the widest
sphere for self-assertion, that the Renaissance took earliest root and brought
forth its finest products. That municipality, which had more of the modern
spirit of change and progress than any other mediaeval organism, invited and
found satisfaction in novel and brilliant works of power, whether they were in
the domain of government or of letters or even of religion, as under the spell
of Savonarola. There Dante and Lionardo da Vinci were born, and there
Machiavelli exploited his theories of the state and Michelangelo wrought. The
Medici gave favor to all forms of enterprise that might bring glory to the
city. After Nicolas V. ascended the papal throne, Rome vied with its northern
neighbor as a centre of the arts and culture. The new tastes and pursuits also
found a home in Ferrara, Urbino, Naples, Milan and Mantua.
Glorious
the achievement of the Renaissance was, but it was the last movement of
European significance in which Italy and the popes took the lead. Had the
current of aesthetic and intellectual enthusiasm joined itself to a stream of
religious regeneration, Italy might have kept in advance of other nations, but
she produced no safe prophets. No Reformer arose to lead her away from dead
religious forms to living springs of spiritual life, from ceremonies and relics
to the New Testament.
In
spreading north to Germany, Holland and England, the movement took on a more
serious aspect. There it produced no poets or artists of the first rank, but in
Reuchlin and Erasmus it had scholars whose erudition not only attracted the
attention of their own but benefited succeeding generations and contributed
directly to the Reformation. South of the Alps, culture was the concern of a special
class and took on the form of a diversion, though it is true all classes must
have looked with admiration upon the works of art that were being produced.
It
was, then, the mission of the Renaissance to start the spirit of free inquiry,
to certify to the mind its dignity, to expand the horizon to the faculties of
man as a citizen of the world, to recover from the dust of ages the literary
treasures and monuments of ancient Greece and Rome, to inaugurate a style of
fresh description, based on observation, in opposition to the dialectic
circumlocution of the scholastic philosophy, to call forth the laity and to
direct attention to the value of natural morality and the natural relationships
of man with man. To the monk beauty was a snare, woman a temptation, pleasure a
sin, the world vanity of vanities. The Humanist taught that the present life is
worth living. The Renaissance breathed a cosmopolitan spirit and fostered
universal sympathies. In the spirit of some of the yearnings of the later Roman
authors, Dante exclaimed again, "My home is the world."988
</div3> <div3 type = "Section"
n="63" title="Dante, Petrarca, Boccaccio">
§ 63. Dante, Petrarca, Boccaccio.
Dante,
Petrarca and Boccaccio represent the birth and glory of Italian literature and
ushered in the new literary and artistic age. Petrarca and Boccaccio belong
chiefly to the department of literary culture; Dante equally to it and the
realm of religious thought and composition. The period covered by their lives
extends over more than a hundred years, from Dante’s birth in 1265 to
Boccaccio’s death, 1375.
Dante
Alighieri, 1265–1321, the first of Italian and the greatest of mediaeval poets,
has given us in his Divina Commedia, the Divine Comedy, conceived in 1300, a
poetic view of the moral universe under the aspect of eternity,—sub specie
aeternitatis. Born in Florence, he read under his teacher Brunetto Latini, whom
in later years he praised, Virgil, Horace, Ovid and other Latin authors. In the
heated conflict of parties, going on in his native city, he at first took the
side of the Guelfs as against the Ghibellines, who were in favor of the
imperial régime in Italy. In 1300, he was elected one of the priori or chief
magistrates, approved the severe measures then employed towards political
opponents and, after a brief tenure of office, was exiled. The decree of exile
threatened to burn him alive if he ventured to return to the city. After
wandering about, going to Paris and perhaps further west, he settled down in
Ravenna, where he died and where his ashes still lie. After his death, Florence
accorded the highest honors to his memory. Her request for his body was refused
by Ravenna, but she created a chair for the exposition of the Divine Comedy,
with Boccaccio as its first occupant, and erected to her distinguished son
an-imposing monument in the church of Santa Croce and a statue on the square in
front. In 1865, all Italy joined Florence in celebrating the 6th centenary of
the poet’s birth. Never has study been given to Dante’s great poem as a work of
art by wider circles and with more enthusiasm than to-day, and it will continue
to serve as a prophetic voice of divine judgment and mercy as long as religious
feeling seeks expression.
Dante
was a layman, married and had seven children. An epoch in his life was his
meeting, as a boy of nine years, with Beatrice, who was a few months younger
than himself, at a festival given in her father’s house, where she was tenderly
called, as Boccaccio says, Bice. The vision of Beatrice—for there is no record
that they exchanged words—entered and filled Dante’s soul with an effluence of
purity and benignity which cleared away all evil thoughts.989 After an interval of nine years he saw
her a second time, and then not again till, in his poetic dream, he met her in
paradise. Beatrice married and died at 24, 1290.
With
this vision, the new life began for Dante, the vita nuova which he describes in
the book of that name. Beatrice’s features illuminated his path and her pure
spirit was his guide. At the first meeting, so the poet says, "she
appeared to me clothed in a most noble color, a modest and becoming crimson,
garlanded and adorned in such wise as befitted her very youthful age." The
love then begotten, says Charles Eliot Norton, "lasted from Dante’s
boyhood to his death, keeping his heart fresh, spite of the scorchings of
disappointment, with the springs of perpetual solace."990 The last glimpse the poet gives of her
was as he saw her at the side of Rachel in the highest region of heaven.
The
third in order, underneath her, lo!
Rachel
with Beatrice.—Par., xxxii. 6.
Had
Dante written only the tract against the temporal power of the papacy, the De
monarchia, his name would have been restricted to a place in the list of the
pamphleteers of the 14th century. His Divine Comedy exalts him to the eminence
of the foremost poetic interpreter of the mediaeval world. This immortal poem
is a mirror of mediaeval Christianity and civilization and, at the same time, a
work of universal significance and perennial interest. It sums up the religious
concepts of the Middle Ages and introduces the free critical spirit of the
modern world.991 It is Dante’s
autobiography and reflects his own experiences: —
All the
pains by me depicted, woes and tortures, void of pity,
On this
earth I have encountered—found them all in Florence City.992
It
brings into view the society of mediaeval Italy, a long array of its
personages, many of whom had only a local and transient interest. At the same
time, the Comedy is the spiritual biography of man as man wherever he is found,
in the three conditions of sin, repentance and salvation. It describes a
pilgrimage to the world of spirits beyond this life, from the dark forest of
temptation, through the depths of despair in hell, up the terraces of
purification in purgatory, to the realms of bliss. Through the first two
regions the poet’s guide is Virgil, the representative of natural reason, and
through the heavenly spaces, Beatrice, the type of divine wisdom and love. The
Inferno reflects sin and misery; the Purgatorio, penitence and hope; the
Paradiso, holiness and happiness. The first repels by its horrors and laments;
the second moves by its penitential tears and prayers; the third enraptures by its
purity and peace. Purgatory is an intermediate state, constantly passing away,
but heaven and hell will last forever. Hell is hopeless darkness and despair;
heaven culminates in the beatific vision of the Holy Trinity, beyond which
nothing higher can be conceived by man or angel. Here are depicted the extremes
of terror and rapture, of darkness and light, of the judgment and the love of
God. In paradise, the saints are represented as forming a spotless white rose,
whose cup is a lake of light, surrounded by innocent children praising God.
This sublime conception was probably suggested by the rose-windows of Gothic
cathedrals, or by the fact that the Virgin Mary was called a rose by St.
Bernard and other mediaeval divines and poets.
Following
the geocentric cosmology of the Ptolemaic system, the poet located hell within
the earth, purgatory in the southern hemisphere, and heaven in the starry
firmament. Hell is a yawning cavity, widest at the top and consisting of ten
circles. Purgatory is a mountain up which souls ascend. The heavenly realm
consists of nine circles, culminating in the empyrean where the pure divine
essence dwells.
Among
these regions of the spiritual and future world, Dante distributes the
best-known characters of his and of former generations. He spares neither Guelf
nor Ghibelline, neither pope nor emperor, and gives to all their due. He adapts
the punishment to the nature of the sin, the reward to the measure of virtue,
and shows an amazing ingenuity and fertility of imagination in establishing the
correspondence of outward condition to moral character. Thus the cowards and
indifferentists in the vestibule of the Inferno are driven by a whirling flag
and stung by wasps and flies. The licentious are hurried by tempestuous winds
in total darkness, with carnal lust still burning, but never gratified.
The
infernal hurricane, that never rests
Hurtles
the spirits onward in its rapine,
Whirling
them round; and smiting, it molests them;
It
hither, thither, downward, upward, drives them.
Inferno, V. 31–43.
The
gluttonous lie on the ground, exposed to showers of hail and foul water;
blasphemers supine upon a plain of burning sand, while sparks of fire, like
flakes of snow in the Alps, slowly and constantly descend upon their bodies.
The wrathful are forever tearing one another.
And I,
who stood intent upon beholding,
Saw
people mud-besprent in that lagoon,
All of
them naked and with angry look.
They
smote each other not alone with hands,
But
with the head and with the breast and feet
Tearing
each other piecemeal with their teeth.
Inferno, VII. 100 sqq.
The
simonists, who sell religion for money and turn the temple of God into a den of
thieves, are thrust into holes, head downwards, with their feet protruding and
tormented with flames. The arch-heretics are held in red-hot tombs, and tyrants
in a stream of boiling blood, shot at by the centaurs whenever they attempt to
rise. The traitors are immersed in a lake of ice with Satan, the arch-traitor
and the embodiment of selfishness, malignity and turpitude. Their very tears
turn to ice, symbol of utter hardness, and Satan is forever consuming in his
three mouths the three arch-traitors, Judas, Brutus and Cassius. Milton
represents Satan as the archangel who even in hell exalts himself and in pride
exclaims, "Better to reign in hell than serve in heaven," and the
poet leaves the mind of the reader disturbed by a feeling of admiration for
Lucifer’s untamed ambition and superhuman power. Dante’s Satan awakens disgust
and horror, and the inscription over the entrance to hell makes the reader
shudder: —
Through
me ye enter the abode of woe;
Through
me to endless sorrow are brought;
Through
me amid the souls accurst ye go.
* * * * * * *
All
hope abandon—ye who enter here!
Per me
si va nella città dolente;
Per me
si va nell’ eterno dolore;
Per me
si va tra la perduta gente.
* * * * * * *
Lasciate
ogni speranza, voi ch’ entrate.
Passing
out from the domain of gloom and dole, Virgil leads the poet to purgatory,
where the dawn of day breaks. This realm, as has been said, comes nearer to our
common life than hell or paradise.993 Hope dwells here. Song, not wailing, is heard. A ship
appears, moved by an angel and filled with spirits, singing the hymn of
redemption. Cato approaches and urges the guide and Dante to wash themselves on
the shore from all remainders of hell and to hurry on. In purgatory, they pass
through seven stages, which correspond to the seven mortal sins, the two
lowest, pride and envy, the highest, wantonness and luxury. All the penitents
have stamped on their foreheads seven P’s,—the first letter of the word
peccata, sins,—which are effaced only one by one, as they pass from stage to
stage, "enclasped with scorching fire," until they are delivered
through penal fire from all stain. A similar correspondence exists between sin
and punishments as in the Inferno, but with the opposite effect, for here sins
are repented of and forgiven, and the woes are disciplinary until "the
wound that healeth last is medicined." Thus the proud, in the first and
lowest terrace, are compelled to totter under huge weights, that they may learn
humility. The indolent, in the fourth terrace, are exercised by constant and
rapid walking. The avaricious and prodigal, with hands and feet tied together,
lie with their faces in the dust, weeping and wailing. The gluttons suffer
hunger and thirst that they may be taught temperance. The licentious wander
about in flames that their sensual passions may be consumed away.
Arriving
at paradise, the Roman poet can go no further, and Beatrice takes his place as
Dante’s guide. The spirits are distributed in glory according to their different
grades of perfection. Here are passed in review theologians, martyrs,
crusaders, righteous princes and judges, monks and contemplative mystics. In
the 9th heaven Beatrice leaves the poet to take her place at the side of
Rachel, after having introduced him to St. Bernard. Dante looks again and sees
Mary and Eve and Sarah,
… and
the gleaner-maid
Meek
ancestress of him, who sang the songs
Of sore
repentance in his sorrowful mood;
Gabriel,
Adam, Moses, John the Baptist, Peter, St. Augustine and other saints. Then he
is led by the devout mystic to Mary, who, in answer to his prayer, shows him
the Deity in the empyrean, but what he saw was not for words to utter. Alike
are all the saints in enjoying the same reward of the beatific vision.
Dante
was in full harmony with the orthodox faith of his age, and followed closely
the teachings of Thomas Aquinas’ great book of divinity.994 He accepted all the distinctive tenets
of mediaeval Catholicism—purgatory, the worship of Mary, the intercession of
saints, the efficacy of papal indulgences and the divine institution of the
papacy. He paid deep homage to the monastic life and accords exalted place to
Benedict, St. Francis and Dominic. But he cast aside all traditions in dealing
freely with the successors of Peter in the Apostolic see. Here, too, he was
under the direction of the beloved Beatrice. The evils in the Church he traced
to her temporal power and he condemned to everlasting punishment Anastasius II.
for heresy, Nicolas III., Boniface VIII. and Clement V. for simony, Coelestine
V. for cowardice in abdicating the pontifical office, and a squad of other
popes for avarice.
Following
the theology of Augustine and Thomas Aquinas, he put into hell the whole
heathen world except two solitary figures, Cato of Utica, who sacrificed life
for liberty and keeps watch at the foot of purgatory, and the just emperor,
Trajan, who, 500 years after his death, was believed to have been prayed out of
hell by Pope Gregory I. To the region of the Inferno, also, though on the outer
confines of it, a place is assigned to infants who die in infancy without being
baptized, whether the offspring of Christian or heathen parents. Theirs is no
conscious pain, but they remain forever without the vision of the blessed. In
the same vicinity the worthies of the old dispensation were detained until
Christ descended after his crucifixion and gave them release. There, John the
Baptist had been kept for two years after his pains of martyrdom, Par. xxxii.
25. In the upper regions of the hopeless Inferno a tolerably comfortable place
is also accorded to the noble heathen poets, philosophers, statesmen and
warriors, while unfaithful Christians are punished in the lower circles
according to the degrees of their guilt. The heathen, who followed the light of
nature, suffer sorrow without pain. As Virgil says: —
In the
right manner they adored not God.
For
such defects, and not for other guilt,
Lost
are we, and are only so far punished,
That
without hope we live on, in desire.
Dante
began his poem in Latin and was blamed by Giovanni del Virgilio, a teacher of
Latin literature in Bologna, because he abandoned the language of old Rome for
the vulgar dialect of Tuscany. Poggio also lamented this course. But the poet
defended himself in his unfinished book, Eloquence in the Vernacular, De
vulgari eloquio,995 and, by writing the Commedia, the Vita
nuova, the Convivio and his sonnets in his native Florentine tongue, he became
the father of Italian literature and opened the paths of culture to the laity.
Within three years of the poet’s death, commentaries began to be written on the
Divina Commedia, as by Graziuolo de’ Bambagliolo, 1324, and within 100 years
chairs were founded for its exposition at Florence, Venice, Bologna and Pisa.
A
second service which Dante rendered in his poem to the coming culture was in
bringing antiquity once more into the foreground and treating pagan and
Christian elements side by side, though not as of the same value, and interweaving
mythological fables with biblical history, classical with Christian
reminiscences. By this tolerance he showed himself a man of the new age, while
he still held firmly to the mediaeval theology.996
Dante’s
abiding merit, however, was his inspiring portrayal of the holiness and love of
God. Sin, the perversion of the will, is punished with sin continuing in the
future world and pain. Salvation is through the "Lamb of God who takes
away our sins and suffered and died that we might live." This poem, like a
mighty sermon, now depresses, now enraptures the soul, or, to use the lines of
the most poetic of his translators, Longfellow,
Thy
sacred song is like the trump of doom;
Yet in
thy heart what human sympathies,
What
soft compassion glows.
Francesco
Petrarca, 1304–1374, was the most cultured man of his time. His Italian sonnets
and songs are masterpieces of Italian poetic diction, but he thought lightly of
them and hoped to be remembered by his Latin writings.997 He was an enthusiast for the literature
of antiquity and gave a great impulse to its study. His parents, exiled from
Florence, removed to Avignon, then the seat of the papacy, which remained
Francesco’s residence till 1333. He was ordained to the priesthood but without
an inward call. He enjoyed several ecclesiastical benefices as prior, canon and
archdeacon, which provided for his support without burdening him with duties.
He courted and enjoyed the favor of princes, popes and prelates. He abused the
papal residence on the Rhone as the Babylon of the West, urged the popes to
return to Rome and hailed Cola da Rienzo as an apostle of national liberty. His
writings contain outbursts of patriotism but, on the other hand, the author
seems to contradict himself in being quick to accept the hospitality of the
Italian despots of Mantua, Padua, Rimini and Ferrara, and the viconti of Milan.
In 1350, he formed a friendship with Boccaccio which remained warm until his
death.
In
spite of his priestly vows, Petrarca lived with concubines and had at least two
illegitimate children, Giovanni and Francesca, the stain of whose birth was
removed by papal bulls. In riper years, and more especially after his
pilgrimage to Rome in the Jubilee year, 1350, he broke away from the slavery of
sin. "I now hate that pestilence," he wrote to Boccaccio,
"infinitely more than I loved it once, so that in turning over the thought
of it in my mind, I feel shame and horror. Jesus Christ, my liberator, knows
that I say the truth, he to whom I often prayed with tears, who has given to me
his hand in pity and helped me up to himself." He took great delight in
the Confessions of St. Augustine, a copy of which he carried about with him.
In
his De contemptu mundi,—the Contempt of the World, written in 1343, Petrarca confesses
as his greatest fault the love of glory and the desire for the immortality of
his name. This, the besetting sin of the ancient Greeks and Romans, the
Humanists inherited. It became with them a ruling passion. They found it in
Cicero, the most read of all the Latin classics. Dante strove after the poet’s
laurel and often returned to the theme of fame as a motive of action—lo grand
disio della eccelenza.998
Petrarca, after much seeking on his own part, was offered the poet’s
crown by the University of Paris and the Roman senate. He took it from the
latter, and was crowned on the Capitoline Hill at Rome, April 8, 1341, Robert,
king of Sicily, being present on the occasion. This he regarded as the proudest
moment of his life, the excelling glory of his career. In ostentatious piety
the poet carried his crown to St. Peter’s, where he laid it on the altar of the
Apostle.
Petrarca
has been called the first modern scholar and man of letters, the inaugurator of
the Italian Renaissance. Unlike Dante, he despised scholastic and mystic learning
and went further back to the well of pagan antiquity. He studied antiquity, not
as a philologist or antiquarian, but as a man of taste.999 He admired the Greek and Roman authors
for their eloquence, grace and finish of style. Cicero and Virgil were his
idols, the fathers of eloquence, the eyes of the Latin language. He turned to
Plato. He made a distinction between the religion of the New Testament as
interpreted by Augustine and as interpreted by the Schoolmen. Petrarca also
opened the period of search and discovery of ancient books and works of art. He
spared no pains to secure old manuscripts. In 1345, he found several of
Cicero’s letters at Verona, and also a portion of Quintilian which had been
unknown since the 10th century. A copy of Homer he kept with care, though be
could not read its contents. All the Greek he knew was a few rudiments learned
from a faithless Calabrian, Barlaam. He was the first to collect a private
library and had 200 volumes. His first thought in passing old convents was to
hunt up books. He accumulated old coins and medals and advocated the
preservation of ancient monumenta. He seems also to have outlined the first
mediaeval map of Italy.1000
Few
authors have more fully enjoyed the benefit of their labors than Petrarca. He
received daily letters of praise from all parts of Italy, from France, Germany
and England. He expressed his satisfaction that the emperor of Byzantium knew
him through his writings. Charles IV. invited him three times to Germany that
he might listen to his eloquence and learn from him lessons of wisdom; and Pope
Gregory XI. on hearing of his death, ordered good copies of all his books. The
next generation honored him, not as the singer of Laura, the wife of another,
whose beauty and loveliness he praised in passionate verse,1001 but as the scholar and sage.
The
name of Giovanni Boccaccio, 1313–1375, the third of the triumvirate of the
Italian luminaries of the 14th century, has also a distinct place in the
transition from the Middle Ages to the age of the Renaissance. With his two
great predecessors he was closely linked, with Dante as his biographer, with
Petrarca as his warm friend. It was given to him to be the founder of easy and
elegant Italian prose. The world has had few writers who can equal him in
realistic narration.1002
There is ground for the saying that Dante is admired, Petrarca praised,
Boccaccio read. He also wrote poetry, but it does not constitute his claim to
distinction.
Certaldo,
twenty miles from Florence, was probably Boccaccio’s birthplace. He was the
illegitimate son of a Florentine father and a Parisian mother. After spending
six years in business and giving six to the law,—the whole period being looked
upon by him later as lost time,—he devoted himself to literature. Several years
he spent at the court of Naples, where he fell in love with Maria, the married
daughter of King Robert, who yielded her honor to his advances. Later, he
represented her passion for him in L’amorosa Fiammetta. Thus the three great
Italian literati commemorate the love of women who were bound in matrimony to
others, but there is a wide gulf between the inspiring passion of Dante for
Beatrice and Boccaccio’s sensual love.1003 Boccaccio was an unmarried layman and freely indulged in
irregular love. His three children of unknown mothers died before him.
In
his old age he passed, like Petrarca, through a certain conversion, and, with a
preacher’s fervor, warned others against the vanity, luxury and seductive arts
of women. He would fain have blotted out the immoralities of his writings when
it was too late. The conversion was brought about by a Carthusian monk who
called upon him at Certaldo. Upon the basis of another monk’s vision, he
threatened Boccaccio with speedy death, if he did not abandon his godless
writing. Terrified with the prospect, he determined to renounce the pen and
give himself up to penance. Petrarca, on hearing of his state of mind, wrote to
him to accept what was good in the monk’s advice, but not to abandon studies
which he pronounced the nutriment of a healthy mind.
In
zeal for the ancient classics, Boccaccio vied with his contemporary. Many of
them he copied with his own hand, and bequeathed them to his father-confessor
in trust for the Augustinian convent of the Holy Spirit in Florence. He learned
the elements of Greek and employed a Greek of Calabria, Leontius Pilatus, to
make a literal translation of the Iliad and Odyssey for learners. An insight
into his interest in books is given to us in his account of a visit to Monte
Casino. On asking to see the library, a monk took him to a dusty room without a
door to it, and with grass growing in its windows. Many of the manuscripts were
mutilated. The monks, as his guide told him, were in the habit of tearing out
leaves to be used by the children as psalters or to be sold to women for
amulets for their arms.
In
1373, the signoria of Florence appointed him to the lectureship on the Divina
Commedia, with a salary of 100 guldens gold. He had gotten only as far as the
17th canto of the Inferno when he was overtaken by death.
Boccaccio’s
Latin works are mostly compilations from ancient mythology—De genealogia deorum
— and biography, and also treat the subject of geography—De montium, silvarum,
lacuum et marium nominibus. In his De claris mulieribus, he gave the
biographies of 104 distinguished women, including Eve, the fictitious popess,
Johanna, and Queen Johanna of Naples, who was still living. His most popular
work is the Decamerone, the Ten Days’ Book—which in later years he would have
destroyed or purged of its immoral and frivolous elements. It is his poetry in
prose and may be called a Commedia Humana, as contrasted with Dante’s Commedia
Divina. It contains 100 stories, told by ten young persons, seven ladies and
three men of Florence, during the pestilence of 1348. After listening to a
description of the horrors of the plague, the reader is transferred to a
beautiful garden, several miles from the city, where the members of the
company, amid laughter and tears, relate the stories which range from moral
tales to indecent love intrigues. One of the well-known stories is of the Jew,
Abraham, who, refusing to comply with the appeals to turn Christian, went to
Rome to study the question for himself. Finding the priestly morals most corrupt,
cardinals with concubines and revelling in riches and luxury, he concluded
Christianity must have a divine origin, or it would not have survived when the
centre of Christendom was so rotten, and he offered himself for baptism. The
Decamerone reveals a low state of morals among priests and monks as well as
laymen and women. It derides marriage, the confessional, the hypocrisy of
monkery and the worship of relics. The employment of wit and raillery against
ecclesiastical institutions was a new element in literature, and Boccaccio
wrote in a language the people understood. No wonder that the Council of Trent
condemned the work for its immoralities, and still more for its anticlerical
and antimonastic ridicule; but it could not prevent its circulation. A curious
expurgated edition, authorized by the pope, appeared in Florence in 1573, which
retained the indecencies, the impure personages, but substituted laymen for the
priests and monks, thus saving the honor of the Church.1004
Dante,
Petrarca and Boccaccio led the way to a recognition of the worth of man’s
natural endowment by depicting the passions of his heart. To them also it
belonged to have an ardent love for nature and to reproduce it in description.
Thus Petrarca described the mountains and the gulfs of the sea as well as Rome,
Naples and other Italian places where he loved to be.1005 His description of his delight in
ascending a mountain near Vaucluse, it has been suggested, was the first of its
kind in literature. In these respects, the appreciation of man and the world,
they stood at the opening of the new era.
</div3> <div3 type = "Section"
n="64" title="Progress and Patrons of Classical Studies in the
15th Century">
§ 64.
Progress and Patrons of Classical Studies in the 15th Century.
The
enthusiasm for classical studies and the monuments of antiquity reached its
high pitch in Italy in the middle and latter half of the 15th century. Many
distinguished classical students appeared, none of whom, however, approached in
literary eminence the three Italian literati of the preceding century. Admirable
as was their zeal in promoting an acquaintance with the writers of Greece and
Rome, they were in danger of becoming mere pedants and imitators of the past.
The whole field of ancient literature was searched, poetry and philosophy,
letters and works of geography and history. Italy seemed to be bent on setting
aside all other studies for the ancient classics. Cicero was taken as the
supreme model of style, and his age was referred to as "that immortal and
almost heavenly age."1006
The
services of the Italian Humanists in reviving an interest in ancient literature
and philosophy were, however, quite enough to give distinction to their era,
though their own writings have ceased to be read. One new feature of abiding
significance was developed in the 15th century, the science of literary and
historical criticism. This was opened by Salutato, d. 1406, who contended that
Seneca could not have been the author of the tragedies ascribed to him, and
culminated in Laurentius Valla and the doubts that scholar cast upon the
authorship of the Apostles’ Creed and the Donation of Constantine. The Fall of
Constantinople in 1453, with which the middle of the century was signalized,
cannot be regarded as more than an incident in the history of the spread of
Greek letters in the West, which would have been accomplished had the city
remained under the Greek emperors.
To
the discovery and copying of manuscripts, led by such men as Poggio or the monk
Nicolas of Treves, who in 1429 brought to Rome 12 hitherto unpublished comedies
of Plautus, were added the foundation of princely libraries in Florence, Rome,
Urbino and other cities. Numerous were the translations of Greek authors made
into Latin, and more numerous the translations from both languages into
Italian. By the recovery of a lost or half-forgotten literature, the Italian
Renaissance laid the modern world under a heavy debt. But in its restless
literary activity, it went still further, imitating the literary forms received
from antiquity. Orations became a marked feature of the time, pompous and
stately. The envoys of princes were called orators and receptions, given to
such envoys, were opened with classical addresses. Orations were also delivered
at the reception of relics, at funerals and—the epithalamials—and even at the
consecration of bishops. At a betrothal, Filelfo opened his address with the
words, "Aristotle, the peripatetic teacher." The orations of this
Latinist, most eminent in his day, are pronounced by Geiger a disgusting
mixture of classic and biblical quotations.1007 Not seldom these ornate productions were extended to two or
three hours. Pius II.’s fame for oratory helped him to the papal throne.
All
forms of classic poetry were revived—from the epic to the epigram, from tragedy
to satire. Petrarca’s Africa, an epic on Scipio, and Boccaccio’s Theseid led
the way. Attempts were even made to continue or restore ancient literary works.
Maffeo Vegio, under Martin V., composed a 13th book of Virgil, Bruni restored the
second decade of Livy. The poets not only revived the ancient mythologies but
peopled Italy with new gods and nymphs. Especially active were they in
celebrating the glories of the powerful men of their age, princes and popes. A
Borgiad was dedicated to Alexander VI., a Borsead to Borso, duke of Este, a
Sforzias to one of the viconti of Milan and the Laurentias to Lorenzo de’
Medici. The most offensive panegyric of all was the poetical effusion of Ercole
Strozzi at the death of Caesar Borgia. In this laudation, Roma is represented
as having placed her hopes in the Borgias, Calixtus III. and Alexander VI., and
last of all in Caesar, whose deeds are then glorified.
In
historic composition also, a new chapter was opened. The annals of cities and
the careers of individuals were studied and written down. The histories of
Florence, first in Latin by Lionardo Bruni and then down to 1362 by the
brothers Villani, who wrote in Italian, and then by Poggio to 1455, were
followed by other histories down to the valuable Diaries of Rome by Infessura
and Burchard, the History of Venice, 1487–1513, by Bembo, and the works of
Machiavelli and Guicciardini, who wrote in Italian. In 1463, Flavio Biondo
compiled his encyclopaedic work in three parts on the history, customs, topography
and monuments of Rome and Italy, Roma instaurata, Roma triumphans and Italia
illustrata. Lionardo Bruni wrote Lives of Cicero and Aristotle in Latin and of
Dante and Petrarca in Italian. The passion for composition was displayed in the
despatches of Venetian, Mantuan and other ambassadors at the courts of Rome or
Este and by the elaborate letters, which were in reality finished essays, for
the most part written in Latin and introducing comments on books and matters of
literary interest, by Politian, Bembo and others, a form of writing revived by
Petrarca. The zeal for Latin culture also found exhibition in the habit of
giving to children ancient names, such as Agamemnon and Achilles, Atalanta and
Pentesilea. A painter called his daughter Minerva and his son Apelles. The
habit also took root of assuming Latin names. A Sanseverino, howbeit of
illegitimate birth, proudly called himself Julius Pomponius Laetus. This custom
extended to Germany, where Schwarzerd gave up his original German patronymic
for Melanchthon, Hausschein for Oecolampadius, Reuchlin for Capnio, Buchmann
for Bibliander; Hutten, Luther, Zwingli, who were more patriotic, adhered to
their vernacular names. Pedants adopted a more serious change when they
paganized sacred terms and substituted mythological for Christian ideas. The
saints were called dii and deae; their statues, simulacra sancta deorum; holy
images of the gods, Peter and Paul, dii titulares Romae or S. Romulus and S.
Remus; the nuns, vestales virgines; heaven, Olympus; cardinals, augurs, and the
College of Cardinals, Senatus sacer; the pope, pontifex maximus, and his
thunders, dirae; the tiara, infula Romulea; and God, Jupiter optimus Maximus!1008 Erasmus protested against such absurd
pedantry as characterizing Humanism in its dotage. Another sign of the cult of
the ancients was the imitation of Roman burial usages even in the churches. At
Bruni’s death in 1443, the priors of Florence decreed him a public, funeral
"after the manner of the ancients." Before the laying-away of his
body in S. Croce, Manetti pronounced a funeral oration and placed the crown of
laurel on the deceased author’s head.
The
high veneration of antiquity was also shown in the regard which cities and
individuals paid to the relics of classical writers. Padua thought she had the
genuine bones of Livy, and Alfonso of Naples considered himself happy in
securing one of the arms of the dead historian. Naples gloried in the real or
supposed tomb of Virgil. Parma boasted of the bones of Cassius. Como claimed
both the Plinies, but Verona proved that the elder belonged to it. Alfonso of
Naples, as he was crossing over the Abruzzi, saluted Sulmona, the birthplace of
Ovid.
The
larger Italian towns were not without Latin schools. Among the renowned
teachers were Vittorino da Feltre, whom Gonzaga of Mantua called to his court,
and Guarino of Verona. Children of princes from abroad went to Mantua to sit at
the feet of Feltre, who also gave instruction to as many as 70 poor and
talented children at a time. Latin authors were committed to memory and
translated by the pupils, and mathematics and philosophy were taught. To his
literary curriculum Feltre added gymnastic exercises and set his pupils a good
example by his chastity and temperance. He was represented as a pelican which
nourishes her young with her own blood. Pastor, who calls this teacher the
greatest Italian pedagogue of the Renaissance period, is careful to notice that
he had mass said every morning before beginning the sessions of the day.
The
Humanists were fortunate in securing the encouragement of the rich and
powerful. Literature has never had more liberal and intelligent patrons than it
had in Italy in the 15th century. The munificence of Maecenas was equalled and
surpassed by Cosimo and Lorenzo de’Medici in Florence and Nicolas V. in Rome.
Other cities had their literary benefactors, but some of these were most noted
for combining profligacy with their real or affected interest in literary
culture. Humanists were in demand. Popes needed secretaries, and princes
courted orators and poets who could conduct a polished correspondence, write
addresses, compose odes for festive occasions and celebrate their deeds.
Lionardo Bruni, Valla, Bembo, Sadoleto and other Humanists were secretaries or
annotators at the papal court under Nicolas V. and his successors.
Cosimo
de’ Medici, d. 1464, the most munificent promoter of arts and letters that
Europe had seen for more than a thousand years, was the richest banker of the
republic of Florence, scholarly, well-read and, from taste and ambition, deeply
interested in literature. We have already met him at Constance during the
council. He travelled extensively in France and Germany and ruled Florence,
after a temporary exile, as a republican merchant-prince, for 30 years. He
encouraged scholars by gifts of money and provided for the purchase of
manuscripts, without assuming the air of condescension which spoils the
generosity of the gift, but with a feeling of respect for superior merit. His
literary minister, Nicolo de’ Niccoli, 1364–1437, was a centre of attraction to
literary men in Florence and collected and, in great part, copied 800 codices.
Under his auspices, Poggio searched some of the South German convents and found
at St. Gall the first complete Quintilian. Niccoli’s library, through Cosimo’s
mediation, was given to S. Marco, and forms a part of the Medicean library.
With the same enlightened liberality, Cosimo also encouraged the fine arts. He
was a great admirer of the saintly painter, Fra Angelico, whom he ordered to
paint the history of the crucifixion on one of the walls of the chapter-house
of S. Marco. Among the scholars protected in Florence under Cosimo’s
administration were the Platonist Ficino, Lionardo Bruni and Poggio. During the
last year of his life, Cosimo had read to him Aristotle’s Ethics and Ficino’s
translation of Plato’s The Highest Good. He also contributed to churches and
convents, and by the erection of stately buildings turned Florence into the Italian
Athens.
Cosimo’s
grandson and worthy successor, Lorenzo de’ Medici, d. 1492, was well educated
in Latin and Greek by Landino, Argyropulos and Ficino. He was a man of polite
culture and himself no mean poet, whose songs were sung on the streets of
Florence. His family life was reputable. He liked to play with his children and
was very fond of his son Giovanni, afterwards Leo X. Michelangelo and Pico
della Mirandola were among the ornaments of his court. By his lavish
expenditures he brought himself and the republic to the brink of bankruptcy in
1490.
Federigo
da Montefeltro, duke of Urbino, d. 1482, and Alfonso of Naples also deserve
special mention as patrons of learning. Federigo, a pupil of Vittorino da
Feltre, was a scholar and an admirer of patristic as well as classical
learning. He also cultivated a taste for music, painting and architecture,
employed 30 and 40 copyists at a time, and founded, at an expense of 40,000
ducats, a library which, in 1657, was incorporated in the Vatican.
Alfonso
was the special patron of the skeptical Laurentius Valla and the licentious
Beccadelli, 1394–1471, and also had at his court the Greek scholars, George of
Trebizond and the younger Chrysoloras. He listened with delight to literary,
philosophical and theological lectures and disputes, which were held in his
library. He paid large sums for literary work, giving Beccadelli 1000 gold
guldens for his Hermaphrodita, and Fazio, in addition to his yearly stipend of
500 guldens, 1,500 guldens for his Historia Alphonsi. When he took Manetti to
be his secretary, he is reported to have said he would be willing to divide his
last crust with scholars.
With
Nicolas V., 1447–1455, Humanism triumphed at the centre of the Roman Church. He
was the first and best pope of the Renaissance and its most liberal supporter.
However, Humanism never struck as deep root in Rome as it did in Florence. It
was always more or less of an exotic in the papal city.1009 Nicolas caught the spirit of the
Renaissance in Florence, where he served as private tutor. For 20 years he
acted as the secretary of Cardinal Niccolo Abergati, and travelled in France,
England, Burgundy, Germany and Northern Italy. On these journeys he collected
rare books, among which were Lactantius, Gregory of Nazianzus, Irenaeus, 12
epistles of Ignatius and an epistle of Polycarp. Many manuscripts he copied
with his own hand, and he helped to arrange the books Cosimo collected. His
pontificate was a golden era for architects and authors. With the enormous sums
which the year of Jubilee, 1450, brought to Rome, he was able to carry out his
double passion for architecture and literature. In the bank of the Medici
alone, 100,000 florins were deposited to the account of the papacy. Nicolas
gave worthy scholars employment as transcribers, translators or secretaries,
but he made them work night and day. He sent agents to all parts of Italy and
to other countries, even to Russia and England, in search of rare books, and
had them copied on parchment and luxuriously bound and clasped with silver
clasps. He thus collected the works of Homer, Herodotus, Thucydides, Xenophon,
Plato, Aristotle, Polybius, Diodorus Siculus, Appian, Philo Judaeus, and the
Greek Fathers, Eusebius, Basil, Gregory of Nazianzus, Chrysostom, Cyril and
Dionysius the Areopagite. He kindled a feverish enthusiasm for the translation
of Greek authors, and was determined to enrich the West with versions of all
the surviving monuments of Hellenic literature. As Symonds puts it, Rome became
a factory of translations from Greek into Latin. Nicolas paid to Valla 500
scudi for a Latin version of Thucydides and to Guarino 1,500 for his
translation of Strabo. He presented to Nicolas Perotti for his translation of
Polybius a purse of 500 new papal ducats,—a ducat being the equivalent of 12
francs,—with the remark that the sum was not equal to the author’s merits. He
offered 5,000 ducats for the discovery of the Hebrew Matthew and 10,000 gold
gulden for a translation of Homer, but in vain; for Marsuppini and Oratius only
furnished fragments of the Iliad, and Valla’s translation of the first 16 books
was a paraphrase in prose. He gave Manetti, his secretary and biographer,
though absent from Rome, a salary of 600 ducats. No such liberal and
enlightened friend of books ever sat in the chair of St. Peter.
Nicolas
found an enduring monument in the Vatican Library, which, with its later
additions, is the most valuable collection in the world of rare manuscripts in
Oriental, Greek, Latin and ecclesiastical literature. Among its richest
treasures is the Vatican manuscript of the Greek New Testament. There had been
older pontifical libraries and collections of archives, first in the Lateran,
afterwards in the Vatican palace, but Nicolas well deserves to be called the
founder of the Vatican Library. He bought for it about 5,000 volumes of
valuable classical and biblical manuscripts,—an enormous collection for those
days,—and he had besides a private library, consisting chiefly of Latin classics.
No other library of that age reached 1,000 volumes. Bessarion had only 600
volumes, Niccoli in Florence 800, Federigo of Urbino 772. The Vatican now
contains 30,000 manuscripts and about 100,000 printed works. Free access was
offered to its archives for the first time by Leo XIII.
The
interest of the later popes of the Renaissance period was given to art and
architecture rather than to letters. The Spaniard, Calixtus III., according to
the doubtful report of Vespasiano, regarded the accumulation of books by his
predecessor as a waste of the treasures of the Church of God, gave away several
hundred volumes to the old Cardinal Isidore of Kiew and melted the silver
ornaments, with which many manuscripts were bound, into coin for his proposed
war against the Turks.
From
the versatile diplomatist and man of letters, Pius II., the Humanists had a
right to expect much, but they got little. This, however, was not because Eneas
Sylvius had reason to fear rivalry. After being elected pope, he was carried
about the city of Rome and to Tusculum, Alba, Ostia and other localities,
tracing the old Roman roads and water conduits and examining other monuments.
He was a poet, novelist, controversialist, historian, cosmographer. He had a
heart for everything, from the boat-race and hunting-party to the wonders of
great cities, Florence and Rome. His faculty of observation was as keen as his
interests were broad. Nothing seems to have escaped his eye. Everything that
was human had an interest for him, and his description of cities and men, as in
his Frederick III and History of Bohemia, hold the reader’s attention by their
clever judgments and their appreciation of characteristic and entertaining
details.1010 Pius’ novels and
odes breathe a low moral atmosphere, and his comedy, Chrisis, in the style of
Terence, deals with women of ill-repute and is equal to the most lascivious of
the Humanistic productions. His orations fill three volumes, and over 500 of
his letters are still extant.
Under
Paul II., the Humanists of the papal household had hard times, as the treatment
of Platina shows. Sixtus IV., 1471–1484, has a place in the history of the
Vatican library, which he transferred to four new and beautiful halls. He
endowed it with a permanent fund, provided for Latin, Greek and Hebrew
copyists, appointed as librarians two noted scholars, Bussi and Platina, and
separated the books from the archives.1011 The light-hearted Leo X., a normal product of the
Renaissance, honored Bembo and other literati, but combined the patronage of
frivolous with serious literature. In a letter printed in the first edition of
the first six books of the Annals of Tacitus, 1515,—discovered in the
Westphalian convent of Corbay, 1508,—he wrote that "from his earliest
years he had been accustomed to think that, if we except the knowledge and
worship of God Himself, nothing more excellent or more useful had been given by
the Creator to mankind than classical studies which not only lead to the
ornament and guidance of human life, but are applicable and useful to every
particular situation."
As
a characteristic development of the Italian Renaissance must be mentioned the
so-called academies of Florence, Rome and Naples. These institutions
corresponded somewhat to our modern scientific associations. The most noted of
them, the Platonic Academy of Florence, was founded by Cosimo de’ Medici, and
embraced among its members the principal men of Florence and some strangers. It
celebrated the birthday of Plato, November 13, with a banquet and a discussion
of his writings. It revived and diffused the knowledge of the sublime truths of
Platonism, and then gave way to other academies in Florence of a more literary
and social character.1012
Its brightest fame was reached under Lorenzo.
The
academy at Rome, which had Pomponius Laetus for its founder, did not confine
itself to the study of Plato and philosophy, but had a more general literary
aim. The meetings were devoted to classical discussions and the presentation of
orations and plays. Although Laetus was half a pagan, Alexander VI. was
represented at his funeral, 1498, by members of his court. Cardinal Sadoleto in
the 16th century reckoned the Roman academy among the best teachers of his
youth. The academy at Naples, developed by Jovianus Pontanus, devoted itself
chiefly to matters of style. The Florentine academy has been well characterized
by Professor Jebb as predominantly philosophic, the Roman as antiquarian and
the Neapolitan as literary.1013
</div3> <div3 type = "Section"
n="65" title="Greek Teachers and Italian Humanists">
§ 65.
Greek Teachers and Italian Humanists.
The
revival of the study of Greek, which had been neglected for eight centuries or
more, was due, not to an interest in the original text of the New Testament,
but to a passion to become acquainted with Homer, Plato and other classic Greek
authors. Not even had Gregory the Great any knowledge of the language. The
erection of chairs for its study was recommended by the Council of Vienne, but
the recommendation came to nothing. The revival of the study of the language
was followed by the discovery of Greek manuscripts, the preparation of grammars
and dictionaries and the translation of the Greek classics.
If
we pass by such itinerating and uncertain teachers as the Calabrians, from whom
Petrarca and Boccaccio took lessons, the list of modern teachers of Greek opens
with Emanuel Chrysoloras, 1350–1415. He taught in Florence, Milan, Padua,
Venice and Rome and, having conformed to the Latin Church, was taken as
interpreter to the council at Constance, where he died. He wrote the first
Greek grammar, printed in 1484. The first lexicon was prepared by a Carmelite
monk, Giovanni Crastone of Piacenza, and appeared in 1497. Provided as we are
with a full apparatus for the study of Greek, we have little conception of the
difficulty of acquiring a book-knowledge of that language without the
elementary helps of grammar and dictionary.
A
powerful impetus was given to Greek studies by the Council of Ferrara, 1439,
with its large delegation from the Eastern Church and its discussions over the
doctrinal differences of Christendom. Its proceedings appeared in the two
languages. Among those who attended the council and remained in the West for a
period or for life, were Plethon, whose original name was Georgios Gemistos,
1355–1450, and Bessarion, 1403–1472. Cosimo de’ Medici heard Plethon often and
was led by his lectures on Plato to conceive the idea of the Platonic Academy
in Florence.
Bessarion,
bishop of Nicaea, became a fixture in the Latin Church and was admitted to the
college of cardinals by Eugenius IV. The objection made in conclave to his
candidacy for the papal chair by the cardinal of Avignon was that he was a
Greek and wore a beard. He died in Ravenna. Like all Greeks, Bessarion was a
philosophical theologian, and took more interest in the metaphysical mystery of
the eternal procession of the Spirit than the practical work of the Spirit upon
the hearts of men. He vindicated Plato against the charges of immorality and
alleged hostility to orthodox doctrines, pointed to that philosopher’s belief
in the creation and the immortality of the soul, quoted the favorable opinions
of him given by Basil, Augustine and other Fathers, and represented him as a
bridge from heathenism to Christianity. Bessarion’s palace in Rome was a
meeting-place of scholars. At an expense of 15,000 ducats or, as Platina says,
30,000, he collected a valuable library which he gave, in 1468, to the republic
of Venice.1014
George
of Trebizond, 1395–1484, came to Italy about 1420, conformed to the papal
church, taught eloquence and the Aristotelian philosophy in Venice and Rome,
and was appointed an apostolic scribe by Nicolas V. He was a conceited,
disputatious and irascible man and quarrelled with Valla, Poggio, Theodore of
Gaza, Bessarion and Perotti. The 50 scudi which Sixtus IV. gave him for the translation
of Aristotle’s History of Animals, he contemptuously threw into the Tiber. His
chief work was a comparison of Aristotle and Plato, to the advantage of the
former.
Theodore
of Gaza, George’s rival, was a native of Thessalonica, reached Italy 1430, taught
in Ferrara and then passed into the service of Pope Nicolas. He was a zealous
Platonist, and translated several Greek works into Latin and some of Cicero’s
works into Greek and also wrote a Greek grammar.
John
Argyropulos, an Aristotelian philosopher and translator, taught 15 years with
great success at Florence, and then at Rome, where Reuchlin heard him lecture
on Thucydides. His death, 1486, was brought about by excess in eating melons.
The
leading Greeks, who emigrated to Italy after the fall of Constantinople, were
Callistus, Constantine Lascaris and his son John. John Andronicus Callistus
taught Greek at Bologna and at Rome, 1454–1469, and took part in the disputes
between the Platonists and Aristotelians. Afterwards he removed to Florence and
last to France, in the hope of better remuneration. He is said to have read all
the Greek authors and imported six chests of manuscripts from Greece.
Constantine Lascaris, who belonged to a family of high rank in the Eastern
empire, gave instruction in the Greek language to Ippolita, the daughter of
Francis Sforza, and later the wife of Alfonso, son of Ferdinand I. of Naples.
He composed a Greek grammar for her, the first book printed in Greek, 1476. In
1470, he moved to Messina, where he established a flourishing school, and died
near the close of the century. Among his pupils was Cardinal Bembo of Venice.
His
son, John Lascaris, 1445–1535, was employed by Lorenzo de’ Medici to collect
manuscripts in Greece, and superintended the printing of Greek books in Florence.
He accompanied Charles VIII. to France. In 1513, he was called by Leo X. to
Rome, and opened there a Greek and Latin school. In 1518, he returned to France
and collected a library for Francis I. at Fontainebleau.
Among
those who did distinguished service in collecting Greek manuscripts was
Giovanni Aurispa, 1369–1459, who went to Constantinople in his youth to study
Greek, and bought and sold with the shrewdness of an experienced bookseller. In
1423, he returned from Constantinople with 238 volumes, including Sophocles,
Aeschylus, Plato, Xenophon, Plutarch, Lucian. Thus these treasures were saved
from ruthless destruction by the Turks, before the catastrophe of 1453 overtook
Constantinople.
The
study of Greek suffered a serious decline in Italy after the close of the 15th
century, but was taken up and carried to a more advanced stage by the Humanists
north of the Alps.
The
study of Hebrew, which had been preserved in Europe by Jewish scholars, notably
in Spain, was also revived in Italy in the 15th century, but its revival met
with opposition. When Lionardo Bruni heard that Poggio was learning the
language, he wrote contending that the study was not only unprofitable but
positively hurtful. Manetti, the biographer of Nicolas V., translated the
Psalms out of Hebrew and made a collection of Hebrew manuscripts for that
pontiff. The Camalduensian monk, Traversari, learned the language and, in 1475,
began the printing of Hebrew books on Italian presses. Chairs for the study of
Hebrew were founded at Bologna, 1488, and in Rome 1514.
Passing
from the list of the Greek teachers to the Italian Humanists, it is possible to
select for mention here only a few of the more prominent names, and with
special reference to their attitude to the Church.
Lionardo
Bruni, 1369–1444, a pupil of Chrysoloras, gives us an idea of the extraordinary
sensation caused by the revival of the Greek language. He left all his other
studies for the language of Plato and Demosthenes. He was papal secretary in
Rome and for a time chancellor of Florence, and wrote letters, orations,
histories, philosophical essays and translations from the Greek, among them
Aristotle’s Ethics, Politics and Economies, and Plato’s Phaedo, Crito, Apology,
Phaedrus and Gorgias and his Epistles and six of Plutarch’s Lives. Foreigners
went to Florence expressly to see his face. He was a pious Catholic.1015
Francesco
Poggio Bracciolini, 1380–1459, was secretary of Martin V., then of Nicolas V.,
and lived mostly in Florence and Rome.1016 He was the most widely known Humanist of his day and had an
unbounded passion for classical antiquity and for literary controversy. He
excelled chiefly in Latin, but knew also Greek and a little Hebrew. He was an
enthusiastic book-hunter. He went to Constance as papal secretary and, besides
discovering a complete copy of Quintilian’s Institutes, made search in the
neighboring Benedictine abbeys of Reichenau and Weingarten for old manuscripts.
In Cluny and other French convents he discovered new orations of Cicero. He
also visited "barbarous England." Although in the service of the
curia for nearly 50 years, Poggio detested and ridiculed the monks and
undermined respect for the church which supported him. In his Dialogue against
Hypocrisy, he gathered a number of scandalous stories of the tricks and frauds
practised by monks in the name of religion. His bold description of the
martyrdom of the heretic Jerome of Prag has already been cited. When Felix was
elected, Poggio exhausted the dictionary for abusive terms and called the
anti-pope another Cerberus, a golden calf, a roaring lion, a high-priest of
malignity; and he did equally well for the Council of Basel, which had elected
Felix. Poggio’s self-esteem and quick temper involved him in endless quarrels,
and invectives have never had keener edge than those which passed between him
and his contestants. To his acrid tongue were added loose habits. He lived with
a concubine, who bore him 14 children, and, when reproached for it, he
frivolously replied that he only imitated the common habit of the clergy. At
the age of 54, he abandoned her and married a Florentine maiden of 18, by whom
he had 4 children. His Facetiae, or Jest-Book, a collection of obscene stories,
acquired immense popularity.
The
general of the Camalduensian order, Ambrogio Traversari, 1386–1439, combined
ascetic piety with interest in heathen literature. He collected 238 manuscripts
in Venice and translated from the Greek Fathers. He was, perhaps, the first
Italian monk from the time of Jerome to his own day who studied Hebrew.
Carlo
Marsuppini, of Arezzo, hence called Carlo Aretino, belonged to the same circle,
but was an open heathen, who died without confession and sacrament. He was
nevertheless highly esteemed as a teacher and as chancellor of Florence, and
honorably buried in the church of S. Croce, 1463, where a monument was erected
to his memory.
Francesco
Filelfo, 1398–1481, was one of the first Latin and Greek scholars, and much
admired and much hated by his contemporaries. He visited Greece, returned to
Italy with a rich supply of manuscripts, and was professor of eloquence and
Greek in the University of Florence. He combined the worst and best features of
the Renaissance. He was conceited, mean, selfish, avaricious. He thought himself
equal if not superior to Virgil and Cicero. In malignity and indecency of
satire and invective be rivalled Poggio. His poisonous tongue got him into
scandalous literary feuds with Niccolo, Poggio, members of the Medici family
and others. He was banished from Florence, but, recalled in his old days by
Lorenzo, he died a few weeks after his return, aged 83. He was always begging
or levying contributions on princes for his poetry, and he kept several
servants and six horses. His 3 wives bore him 24 children. He was ungrateful to
his benefactors and treacherous to his friends.1017
Marsilio
Ficino, 1433–1499, one of the circle who made the court of Lorenzo the
Magnificent famous, was an ordained priest, rector of two churches and canon of
the cathedral of Florence. He eloquently preached the Platonic gospel to his
"brethren in Plato," and translated the Orphic hymns, the Hermes
Trismegistos, and some works of Plato and Plotinus,—a colossal task for that
age. He believed that the divine Plotinus had first revealed the theology of
the divine Plato and "the mysteries of the ancients," and that these
were consistent with Christianity. Yet he was unable to find in Plato’s writings
the mystery of the Trinity. He wrote a defence of the Christian religion, which
he regarded as the only true religion, and a work on the immortality of the
soul, which he proved with 15 arguments as against the Aristotelians. He was
small and sickly, and kept poor by dishonest servants and avaricious relations.
Politian,
to his edition of Justinian’s Pandects, added translations of Epictetus,
Hippocrates, Galen and other authors, and published among lecture-courses those
on Ovid, Suetonius, Pliny and Quintilian. His lecture-room extended its
influence to England and Germany, and Grocyn, Linacre and Reuchlin were among
his hearers.
Three
distinguished Italian Humanists whose lives overlap the first period of the
Reformation were cardinals, Pietro Bembo, 1470–1547, Giacopo Sadoleto,
1477–1547, and Aleander, 1480–1542. All were masters of an elegant Latin style.
For 22 years Bembo lived in concubinage, and had three children. Cardinal
Sadoleto is best known for his polite and astute letter calling upon the Genevans
to abandon the Reformation, to which Calvin replied.1018
Not
without purpose have the two names, Laurentius Valla, 1406–1457, and Pico della
Mirandola, 1463–1494, been reserved for the last. These men are to be regarded
as having, among the Humanists of the 15th century, the most points of contact
with our modern thought,—the one the representative of critical scholarship,
the other of broad human sympathies coupled with a warm piety.
Laurentius
Valla, the only Humanist of distinction born in Rome, taught at Pavia, was
secretary to the king of Naples, and at last served at the court of Nicolas V.1019 He held several benefices and was
buried in the Lateran, but was a sceptic and an indirect advocate of Epicurean
morality. He combined classical with theological erudition and attained an
influence almost equal to that enjoyed by Erasmus several generations later. He
was a born critic, and is one of the earliest pioneers of the right of private
judgment. He broke loose from the bondage of scholastic tradition and an
infallible Church authority, so that in this respect Bellarmin called him a
forerunner of Luther. Luther, with an imperfect knowledge of Valla’s works,
esteemed him highly, declaring that in many centuries neither Italy nor the
universal Church could produce another like him.1020 He narrowly escaped the Inquisition. He denied to the monks
the monopoly of being "the religious," and attacked their threefold
vow. In his Annotations to the New Testament, published by Erasmus, 1505, he
ventured to correct Jerome’s Vulgate. He doubted the genuineness of the
writings attributed to Dionysius the Areopagite and rejected as a forgery
Christ’s letter to King Abgarus which Eusebius had accepted as genuine. When he
attacked the Apostolic origin of the Apostles’ Creed and, about 1440, exposed
the Donation of Constantine as a fiction, he was calling in question the firm
belief of centuries. In pronouncing the latter "contradictory, impossible,
stupid, barbarous and ridiculous,"1021 he was wrenching a
weapon, long used, out of the hand of the hierarchy. His attack was based on
the ground of authentic history, inherent improbability and the mediaeval
character of the language. Not satisfied with refuting its genuineness, Valla
made it an occasion of an assault upon the whole temporal power of the papacy.
He thus struck at the very bulwarks of the mediaeval theocracy. In boldness and
violence Valla equalled the anti-papal writings of Luther. He went, indeed, not
so far as to deny the spiritual power and divine institution of the papacy, but
he charged the bishop of Rome with having turned Peter into Judas and having
accepted the devil’s offer of the kingdoms of this world. He made him
responsible for the political divisions and miseries of Italy, for rebellions
and civil wars, herein anticipating Machiavelli. He maintained that the princes
had a right to deprive the pope of his temporal possessions, which he had long
before forfeited by their abuse. The purity of Valla’s motives are exposed to
suspicion. At the time he wrote the tract he was in the service of Alfonso, who
was engaged in a controversy with Eugenius IV.
Unfortunately,
Valla’s ethical principles and conduct were no recommendation to his theology.
His controversy with Poggio abounds in scandalous personalities. In the course
of it, Valla was charged with seduction and pederasty.1022 His Ciceronian Dialogues on Lust,
written perhaps 1431, are an indirect attack upon Christian morality. Valla
defended the Platonic community of wives. What nature demands is good and
laudable, and the voice of nature is the voice of God. When he was charged by
Poggio with having seduced his brother-in-law’s maid, he admitted the charge
without shame.
Pico
della Mirandola, the most precocious genius that had arisen since Duns Scotus,
was cut down when he was scarcely 30 years of age. The Schoolman was far beyond
him in dialectic subtlety, but was far inferior to him in independence of
thought and, in this quality, Pico anticipated the coming age. He studied canon
law, theology, philosophy and the humanities in Ferrara and learned also
Hebrew, Chaldee and Arabic.1023
In his twenty-third year, he went to Rome and published 900 theses on
miscellaneous topics, in which he anticipated some of the Protestant views; for
example, that no image or cross should be adored and that the words "This
is my body" must be understood symbolically,—significative,—not
materially. He also maintained that the science of magic and the Cabbala
confirm the doctrine of the Trinity and the deity of Christ. These opinions
aroused suspicion, and 13 of his theses were condemned by Innocent VIII. as
heretical; but, as he submitted his judgment to the Church, he was acquitted of
heresy, and Alexander VI. cleared him of all charges.
To
his erudition, Pico added sincere faith and ascetic tendencies. In the last
years of his short life, he devoted himself to the study of the Bible with the
purpose of preaching Christ throughout the world. He was an admirer of
Savonarola, who blamed him for not becoming a full monk and thought he went to
purgatory. Of all Humanists he had the loftiest conception of man’s dignity and
destiny. In his De dignitate hominis, he maintained that God placed man in the
midst of the world that he might the more easily study all that therein is, and
endowed him with freewill, by which he might degenerate into the condition of
the beast or rise to a godlike existence. He found the highest truth in the
Christian religion. He is the author of the famous sentence: Philosophia
veritatem quaerit, theologia invenit, religio possidet,—philosophy seeks the
truth, theology finds it, religion has it.
Mirandola
had a decided influence on John Reuchlin, who saw him in 1490 and was persuaded
by him of the immense wisdom hid in the Cabbala. He also was greatly admired by
Zwingli. He was the only one, says Burckhardt, "who, in a decided voice,
fought for science and the truth of all the ages against the one-sided emphasis
of classic antiquity. In him it is possible to see what a noble change Italian
philosophy would have undergone, if the counter-Reformation had not come in and
put an end to the whole higher intellectual movement."1024 Giordano Bruno, one of the last
representatives of the philosophical Renaissance, was condemned as a heretic by
the Roman Inquisition and burnt on the Campo de’ Fiori in 1600. To the great
annoyance of Pope Leo XIII., his admirers erected a statue to his memory on the
same spot in 1889.
</div3> <div3 type = "Section"
n="66" title="The Artists">
§ 66.
The Artists.
Haec
est Italia diis sacra.—Pliny.
Italian
Humanism reproduced the past. Italian art was original. The creative
productions of Italy in architecture, sculpture and painting continue to render
it the world’s chief centre of artistic study and delight. Among Italian
authors, Dante alone has a place at the side of Michelangelo, Raphael and
Lionardo da Vinci. The cultivation of art began in the age of Dante with Cimabue
and Giotto, but when Italian Humanism was declining Italian painting and
sculpture were celebrating their highest triumphs. Such a combination and
succession of men of genius in the fine arts as Italy produced, in a period
extending over three centuries, has nowhere else been known. They divided their
triumphs between Florence and Rome, but imparted their magic touch to many
other Italian cities, including Venice, which had remained cold to the literary
movement. Here again Rome drew upon Florence for painters such as Giotto and
Fra Angelico, and for sculptors such as Ghiberti, Donatello, Brunelleschi and
Michelangelo.
While
the Italy of the 15th century—or the quattrocento, as the Italians call it—was
giving expression to her own artistic conceptions in color and marble and
churchly dome, masterpieces of ancient sculpture, restless, in the graves where
for centuries they had had rude sepulture, came forth to excite the admiring
astonishment of a new generation. What the age of Nicolas V. was for the discovery
of manuscripts, the age of Julius II. was for the discovery of classic Greek
statuary. The extensive villa of the Emperor Hadrian at Tivoli, which extended
over several miles and embraced a theatre, lyceum, temple, basilica, library,
and race-course, alone furnished immense treasures of art. Others were found in
the bed of the Tiber or brought from Greece or taken from the Roman baths,
where their worth had not been discerned. In Alexander VI.’s pontificate the
Apollo Belvedere was found; under Julius II. the torso of Hercules, the Laocoön
group1025 and the Vatican Venus. The Greek ideals of human beauty were
again revealed and kindled an enthusiasm for similar achievements.
Petrarca’s
collections were repeated. Paul II. deposited his rich store of antiquities in
his palace of San Marco. In Florence, Lorenzo de’ Medici was active in securing
pieces of ancient art. The museum on the Capitoline Hill in Rome, where Nicolas
V. seems to have restored the entire palace of the senate, dates from 1471, one
of its earliest treasures being the statue of Marcus Aurelius. The Vatican
museum was the creation of Julius II. To these museums and the museums in
Florence were added the galleries of private collectors.
In
architecture, the Renaissance artists never adopted the stern Gothic of the
North. In 1452, Leon Battista Alberti showed to Nicolas V. a copy of his De re
aedificatoria, a work on architecture, based upon his studies of the Roman
monuments. Nicolas opened the line of great builders in Rome and his plans were
on a splendid scale.
The
art of the Renaissance blends the glorification of mediaeval Catholicism with
the charms of classical paganism, the history of the Bible with the mythology
of Greece and Rome. The earlier painters of the 14th and 15th centuries were
more simple, chaste and devout than those of the 16th, who reached a higher
distinction as artists. The Catholic type of piety is shown in the
preponderance of the pictures of the Madonna holding the infant Saviour in her
arms or on her lap and in the portraiture of St. Sebastian and other saints.
Heavenly beauty and earthly sensuality meet side by side, and the latter often
draws attention away from the former. The same illustrious painters, says
Hawthorne, in the Marble Faun, "seem to take up one task or the other—the
disrobed woman whom they called Venus, or the type of highest and tenderest
womanhood in the mother of their Saviour—with equal readiness, but to achieve
the former with far more satisfactory success." One moment the painter represented Bacchus wedding Ariadne
and another depicted Mary on the hill of Calvary. Michelangelo now furnished
the Pietà for St. Peter’s, now designed the Rape of Ganymede for Vittoria
Colonna and the statue of the drunken Bacchus for the Roman Jacopo Galli.
Titian’s Magdalen in the Pitti gallery, Florence, exhibits in one person the
voluptuous woman with exposed breasts and flowing locks and the penitent saint
looking up to heaven. Of Sandro Botticelli, Vasari said that "in many
homes he painted of naked women a plenty." If, however, the Christian religion furnished only to a
single writer, Dante, the subject of his poem, it furnished to all the painters
and sculptors many subjects from both Testaments and also from Church history,
for the highest productions of their genius.
In
looking through the long list of distinguished sculptors, painters and
architects who illuminated their native Italy in the Renaissance period, one is
struck with the high age which many of them reached and, at the same time, with
the brief period in which some of them acquired undying fame. Michelangelo
lived to be 89, while Correggio died before he was 44. Titian, had he lived one
year longer, would have rounded out a full century, while death took the brush
out of Raphael’s hand before he was 37, a marvellous example of production in a
short period, to be compared with Mozart in the department of music and Blaise
Pascal in letters. And again, several of the great artists are remarkable
examples of an extraordinary combination of talents. Lionardo da Vinci and
Michelangelo excelled alike as architects, sculptors, painters and poets.
Lionardo was, besides being these, a chemist, engineer, musician, merchant and
profound thinker, yea, "the precocious originator of all modern wonders
and ideas, a subtle and universal genius, an isolated and insatiate
investigator," and is not unjustly called, on his monument at Milan,
"the restorer of the arts and sciences."1026 His mural picture of the Last Supper in
Milan, best known by the engraving of Raphael Morghen, in spite of its defaced
condition, is a marvellous reproduction of one of the sublimest events, adapted
to the monks seated around their refectory table (instead of the reclining
posture on couches), and every head a study. As for Michelangelo, he has been
classed by Taine with Dante, Shakespeare and Beethoven among the four great
intellects in the world of art and literature.
Distinguishing
in the years between 1300–1550 two periods, the earlier Renaissance to 1470 and
the high Renaissance, from that date forward, we find that Italian art had its
first centre in Florence, and its most glorious exhibition under Julius II. and
Leo X. in Rome.1027
The earlier period began with Cimabue, who died about 1302, and Giotto,
1276–1336, the friend of Dante. According to the story, Cimabue found Giotto,
then ten years old, drawing sheep on a stone with a piece of charcoal and, with
his father’s consent, took the lad to Florence. These two artists employed their
genius in the decoration of the cathedral erected to the memory of St. Francis
in Assisi. The visitor to S. Croce and other sacred places in Florence looks
upon the frescos of Giotto. His Dante, like Guido Reni’s Beatrice Cenci, once
seen can never be forgotten. Symonds has remarked that it may be said, without
exaggeration, that Giotto and his scholars, within the space of little more
than half a century, painted upon the walls of the churches and the public
places of Italy every great conception of the Middle Ages.1028 Fra Angelico da Fiesole, 1387–1455, is
the most religious of the painters of this period, and his portraiture of
saints and angels is so pure as to suggest no other impression than
saintliness.
The
mind is almost stunned by the combination of brilliant artistic achievement, of
which the pontificate of Julius II. may be taken as the centre. There
flourished in that age Perugino, 1446–1524,—Raphael’s teacher,—Lionardo da
Vinci, 1452–1519, Raphael, 1483–1520, Michelangelo, 1475–1564, Correggio,
1493–1534, Andrea del Sarto, 1487–1531, and Titian, 1477–1576, all Italians.
Of
Raphael, his German biographer has said his career is comprised in four words,
"he lived, he loved, he worked, he died young."1029 He was an attractive and amiable
character, free from envy and jealousy, modest, magnanimous, patient of
criticism, as anxious to learn as to teach, always ready to assist poor
artists. Michelangelo and he labored in close proximity in the Vatican,
Michelangelo in the Sistine chapel, Raphael in the stanze and loggie. Their
pupils quarrelled among themselves, each depreciating the rival of his master;
but the masters rose above the jealousy of small minds. They form a noble pair,
like Schiller and Goethe among poets. Raphael seemed almost to have descended
from a higher world. Vasari says that he combined so many rare gifts that he
might be called a mortal god rather than a simple man. The portraits, which
present him as an infant, youth and man, are as characteristic and impressive
as Giotto’s Dante and Guido Reni’s Beatrice Cenci.
Like
Goethe, Raphael was singularly favored by fortune and was free from the ordinary
trials of artists—poverty, humiliation and neglect. He held the appointment of
papal chamberlain and had the choice between a cardinal’s hat and marriage to a
niece of Cardinal Bibbiena, with a dowry of three thousand gold crowns. But he
put off the marriage from year to year, and preferred the dangerous freedom of
single life. His contemporary and admirer, Vasari, says, when Raphael felt
death approaching, he "as a good Christian dismissed his mistress from his
house, making a decent provision for her support, and then made his last
confession."
The
painter’s best works are devoted to religious characters and events. On a visit
to Florence after the burning of Savonarola, he learned from his friend Fra
Bartolomeo to esteem the moral reformer and gave him, as well as Dante, a place
among the great teachers of the Church in his fresco of the Theologia in the
Vatican. His Madonnas represent the perfection of human loveliness and purity.
In the Madonna di San Sisto at Dresden, so called because Sixtus IV. is introduced
into the picture, the eye is divided between the sad yet half-jubilant face of
the Virgin Mother, the contemplative gaze of the cherubs and the pensive and
sympathetic expression of the divine child.
Grimm
says, Raphael’s Madonnas are not Italian faces but women who are lifted above
national characteristics. The Madonnas of da Vinci, Correggio, Titian, Murillo
and Rubens contain the features of the nationality to which these painters
belonged. Raphael alone has been able to give us feminine beauty which belongs
to the European type as such.1030
The
last, the greatest, and the purest of Raphael’s works is the Transfiguration in
the Vatican. While engaged on it, he died, on Good Friday, his birthday. It was
suspended over his coffin and carried to the church of the Pantheon, where his
remains repose in his chosen spot near those of his betrothed bride, Maria di
Bibbiena. In that picture we behold the divinest figure that ever appeared on
earth, soaring high in the air, in garments of transparent light, and with arms
outspread, adored by Moses on the right hand and by Elijah on the left, who
represent the Old Covenant of law and promise. The three favorite disciples are
lying on the ground, unable to face the dazzling splendor from heaven. Beneath
this celestial scene we see, in striking contrast, the epileptic boy with
rolling eyes, distorted features, and spasmodic limbs, held by his agonized
father and supported by his sister; while the mother imploringly appeals to the
nine disciples who, in their helplessness, twitted by scribes, point up to the
mountain where Jesus had gone. In connecting the two scenes, the painter
followed the narrative of the Gospels, Matt. xvii. 1–14; Mark ix. 2–14; Luke
ix. 28–37. The connection is being continually repeated in Christian
experience. Descending from the Mount of Transfiguration, we are confronted
with the misery of earth and, helpless in human strength, we look to heaven as
the only source of help.
Earth
has no sorrow that heaven cannot heal.
Michelangelo
Buonarroti was 10 years older than Raphael, and survived him 44 years. He drew
the inspiration for his sculptures and pictures from the Old Testament, from
Dante and from Savonarola. He praised Dante in two sublime sonnets and heard Savonarola’s
thrilling sermons against wickedness and vice, and witnessed his martyrdom.
Vasari and Condivi both bear witness to his spotless morality. He deplored the
corruptions of the papal court.
For
Rome still slays and sells Christ at the court,
Where
paths are closed to virtue’s fair increase.1031
The
artist’s works have colossal proportions, and refuse to be judged by ordinary
rules. They are divided between painting, as the frescos in the Sistine chapel
of St. Peter’s, architecture as in St. Peter’s dome, and works of statuary, as
Moses in Rome and David in Florence. His Pietà in St. Peter’s, a marble group
representing the Virgin Mary holding the crucified Saviour in her arms, raised
him suddenly to the rank of the first sculptor of Italy.1032 His Last Judgment, on the altar wall of
the Sistine chapel, represents the dominant conception of the Middle Ages of
Christ as an angry judge, and is as Dantesque as Dante’s Inferno itself.1033 The artist’s last work in marble was
the unfinished Pietà, in the cathedral of Florence; his last design a picture
of the crucifixion. In his last poems, he took farewell of the fleeting
pleasures of life, turned to God as the only reality and found in the crucified
Saviour his only comfort. This is the core of the evangelical doctrine of
justification rightly understood.
The
day of Michelangelo’s death was the day of Galileo Galilei’s birth in Florence.
The golden age of art had passed: the age of science was at hand.
Among
the greater churches of Italy,—the cathedrals of Milan, Venice, Pisa, Siena,
Florence and Rome,—St. Peter’s stands pre-eminent in dimensions, treasures of
art and imposing ecclesiastical associations.1034 This central cathedral of Christendom was not dedicated till
1626 by Urban VIII. Its reconstruction was planned on a colossal scale by
Nicolas V., but little was done till Julius II. took up the work. Among the
architects who gave to the building their thought, Bramante and Michelangelo
did most. On April 18, 1506, Julius II. laid the first stone according to
Bramante’s design. A mass being said by Cardinal Soderini, the old pope
descended by a ladder into the trench which had been dug at the spot where the
statue of St. Veronica now stands. There was much fear, says Paris de Grassis,
that the ground would fall in and the pope, before consecrating the
foundations, cried out to those above not to come too near the edge. Under Leo
X., Raphael was appointed sole architect, and was about to deviate from
Bramante’s plan, when death stayed his hand. Michelangelo, taking up the task
in 1535, gave to the structure its crowning triumph in the dome, the noblest in
Western Europe, and the rival of the dome of St. Sophia.
That
vast and wondrous dome,
To
which Diana’s marvel was a cell, —
Christ’s
mighty shrine above his martyr’s tomb.1035
</div3> <div3 type = "Section"
n="67" title="The Revival of Paganism">
§ 67.
The Revival of Paganism.
The
revival of letters and the cultivation of art brought no purification of morals
to Italy nor relief from religious formalism. The great modern historians of
the period,—Voigt, Burckhardt, Gregorovius, Pastor, Creighton and
Symonds,—agree in depicting the decline of religion and the degeneracy of
morals in dark colors, although Pastor endeavors to rescue the Church from the
charge of total neglect of its duty and to clear the mediaeval hierarchy and
theology from the charge of being responsible for the semi-paganism of the
Renaissance.
The
mediaeval theology had put the priesthood in the place of the individual
conscience. Far from possessing any passion to rescue Italy from a religious
formalism which involved the seeds of stagnation of thought and moral
disintegration, the priesthood was corrupt at heart and corrupt in practice in
the highest seats of Christendom.1036 Finding the clerical mind of Italy insincere and the moral
condition of the Church corrupt, Humanism not only made no serious effort to
amend this deplorable state but, on the contrary, it contributed to the further
decadence of morals by a revival of paganism, now Epicurean, now Stoical,
attested both in the lives and the writings of many of its chief leaders.
Gregorovius has felt justified in pronouncing the terrible sentence that the
sole end of the Italian Renaissance was paganism.1037
The
worship of classical forms led to the adoption of classical ideas. There were
not wanting Humanists and artists who combined culture with Christian faith,
and devoted their genius to the cause of truth and virtue. Traversari strictly
observed the rules of his monastic order; Manetti, Lionardo Bruni, Vittorino da
Feltre, Ficino, Sadoleto, Fra Angelico, Fra Bartolomeo, Michelangelo and others
were devout Christian believers. Traversari at first hesitated to translate
classic authors and, when he did, justified himself on the ground that the more
the Pagan writers were understood, the more would the excellence of the
Christian system be made manifest. But Poggio, Filelfo, Valla and the majority
of the other writers of the Renaissance period, such as Ariosto, Aretino,
Machiavelli, were indifferent to religion, or despised it in the form they saw
it manifested. Culture was substituted for Christianity, the worship of art and
eloquence for reverence for truth and holiness. The Humanists sacrificed in
secret and openly to the gods of Greece and Rome rather than to the God of the
Bible. Yet, they were not independent enough to run the risk of an open rupture
with orthodoxy, which would have subjected them to the Inquisition and death at
the stake.1038 Yea, those who
were most flagrant in their attacks upon the ecclesiastics of their time often
professed repentance for their writings in their last days, as Boccaccio and
Bandello, and applied for extreme unction before death. So it was with
Machiavelli, who died with the consolations of the Church which he undermined
with his pen, with the half-Pagan Pomponius Laetus of Rome and the infamous
Sigismondo Malatesta of Rimini, who joined to his patronage of culture the
commission of every crime.
Dangerous
as it may be to pronounce a final judgment upon the moral purity of a
generation, even though, as in the case of the 15th century, it reveals itself
clearly in its literature and in the lives of the upper classes, literary men,
popes and princes, nevertheless this it is forced upon us to do. The
Renaissance in Italy produced no Thomas à Kempis. No devout mystics show signs
of a reform movement in her convents and among her clergy, though, it is true,
there were earnest preachers who cried out for moral reform, as voices crying
in the wilderness. Nor are we unmindful of the ethical disintegration of the
Church and society at other periods and in other countries, as in France under
Louis XIV., when we call attention to the failure of religion in the country of
the popes and at a time of great literary and artistic activity to bear fruits
in righteousness of life.
The
Humanists were the natural enemies of the monks. For this they cannot be
blamed. As a class, the monks hated learning, boasted of superior piety, made a
display of their proud humility and yet were constantly quarrelling with each
other. Boccaccio and the novelists would not have selected monks and nuns as
heroes and heroines of their obscene tales if monastic life had not been in a
degenerate state. Poggio, Filelfo, Valla, Bandello, Machiavelli, Ariosto,
Aretino and Erasmus and the writers of the Epistolae virorum obscurorum
chastised with caustic irony and satire the hypocrisy and vices of the monastic
class, or turned its members into a butt of ridicule. To the charges of
unchastity and general hypocrisy was added the imposition of false miracles
upon the ignorant and credulous. It was common rumor that the nuns were the
property of the monks.1039
The literature of the 15th century teems with such charges, and
Savonarola was never more intense than when he attacked the clergy for their
faithlessness and sins. Machiavelli openly declared "we Italians are of
all most irreligious and corrupt," and he adds, "we are so because
the representatives of the Church have shown us the worst example." Pastor has suggested that Humanists,
who were themselves leading corrupt lives, were ill-fitted to sit in judgment
upon the priesthood. This in a sense is true, and their representations, taken
alone, would do no more than create an unfavorable presumption, but their
statements are confirmed by the scandals of the papal court and the social conditions
in Rome; and Rome was not worse than Venice, Florence and other Italian towns.
The same distinguished historian seeks to parry the attacks of Humanistic
writers and to offset the lives of the hierarchy by a long list of 89 saints of
the calendar who lived 1400–1520.1040 The number is imposing, but outside of Bernardino da Siena,
Fra Angelico, Jacopo della Marca and John of Capistrano, few of the names are
known to general history, and the last two showed traits which the common
judgment of mankind is not inclined to regard as saintly. Pastor also adduces
the wills of the dying, in which provision was made for ecclesiastical objects,
but these may indicate superstitious fear as well as intelligent piety. After
all is said, it remains true that the responsibility and the guilt were with
the clergy, who were rightly made the targets of the wits, satirists and
philosophers of the time.
But
while the Humanists were condemning the clerical class, many, yea, the most of
them, lived in flagrant violation of the moral code themselves and inclined to
scepticism or outright paganism. In their veneration of antiquity, they made
the system of Plato of equal authority with the Christian system, or placed its
authority above the Christian scheme. They advocated a return to the dictates
of nature, which meant the impulses of the natural and sensuous man. The
watchword, sequere naturam, "follow nature," was launched as a
philosophical principle. The hard-fought controversy which raged over the
relative merits of the two Greek thinkers, Aristotle and Plato, was opened by
Plethon, who accused Aristotle of atheism. The battle was continued for many
years, calling forth from contestants the bitterest personal assaults. In
defending Plato, Ficino set the philosopher so high as to obscure the superior
claims of the Christian religion, and it was seriously proposed to combine with
the Scripture readings of the liturgy excerpts from Plato’s writings.1041
The
immortality of the soul was formally questioned by Pietro Pomponazzi, a popular
teacher of the Aristotelian philosophy in Padua and Bologna. His tract,
published in 1516, was burnt by the Franciscans at Venice, but was saved from a
like fate in Rome and Florence by the intervention of Bembo and Julius de’
Medici. So widespread was the philosophy of materialism that the Fifth Lateran
three years before, Dec. 19, 1513, deemed it necessary to reaffirm the doctrine
of the soul’s immortality and to instruct professors at the universities to
answer the arguments of the materialists. In the age of Julius II. and Leo X.,
scepticism reigned universally in Rome, and the priests laughed among
themselves over their religious functions as the augurs once did in the ancient
city.1042
The
chief indictment against Humanism is, that it lacked a serious moral sense,
which is an essential element of the Christian system. Nor did it at any time
show a purpose of morally redeeming itself or seek after a regenerative code of
ethics. It declined into an intellectual and aesthetic luxury, a habit of
self-indulgence for the few, with no provision for the betterment of society at
large and apparently no concern for such betterment. The Humanists were
addicted to arrogance, vanity, and lacked principle and manly dignity. They
were full of envy and jealousy, engaged in disgraceful personal quarrels among
themselves and stooped to sycophancy in the presence of the rich and powerful.
Politian, Filelfo and Valla agreed in begging for presents and places in terms
of abject flattery. While they poured contempt upon the functionaries of
religion, they failed to imitate the self-denying virtues which monasticism
enjoined and that regard for the rights of others which Christian teaching
commands. Under the influence of the Renaissance was developed that delusive
principle, called honor, which has played such an extensive rôle in parts of
Europe and under which a polished culture may conceal the most refined
selfishness.1043
No
pugilistic encounter could be more brutal than the literary feuds between
distinguished men of letters. Poggio and Filelfo fought with poisoned daggers.
To sully these pages, says Symonds, "with Poggio’s rank abuse would be
impossible." Poggio, not
content with thrusts at Filelfo’s literary abilities, accused him of the worst
vices, and poured out calumnies on Filelfo’s wife and mother. In Poggio’s
contest with George of Trebizond, the two athletes boxed each other’s ears and
tore one another’s hair. George had accused Poggio of taking credit for
translations of Xenophon and Diodorus which did not belong to him. Between
Valla and Fazio eight books of invectives were exchanged. Bezold is forced to
say that such feuds revealed perhaps more than the cynicism of the Italian
poetry the complete moral decay.1044
To
the close of the period, the Renaissance literature abounds in offences against
morality and decency. Poggio was already 70 years of age when he published his
filthy Facetiae, Jest-book, which appeared 26 times in print before 1500 and in
3 Italian translations. Of Poggio’s works, Burckhardt says, "They contain
dirt enough to create a prejudice against the whole class of Humanists." Filelfo’s epigrams, De jocis et seriis,
are declared by his biographer, Rosmini, to contain "horrible obscenities
and expressions from the streets and the brothels." Beccadelli and Aretino openly preached
the emancipation of the flesh, and were not ashamed to embellish and glorify
licentiousness in brilliant verses, for which they received the homage of
princes and prelates. Beccadelli’s Hermaphroditus was furiously attacked by the
monks in the pulpit, but applauded by the Humanists. Cosimo allowed the
indecent work to be dedicated to himself, and the author was crowned by the
Emperor Sigismund in Siena, 1433, and died old and popular at Naples, 1471. The
critics of his obscenities, Beccadelli pointed to the ancient writers. Nicolas
was loaned a copy of his notorious production, kept it for nine days and then
returned the work without condemning it. Pietro Aretino, d. 1557, the most
obscene of the Italian poets, was called il divino Aretino, honored by Charles
V., Francis I. and Clement VII., and even dared to aspire to a cardinal’s hat,
but found a miserable end. Bandello, d. 1562, in his Facetiae, paints society
in dissolution. Moral badness taints every one’s lips. Debauchery in convents
is depicted as though it were a common occurrence. And he was a bishop!1045
Machiavelli,
the Florentine politician and historian, a worshipper of ability and power, and
admirer of Caesar Borgia, built upon the basis of the Renaissance a political
system of absolute egotism; yet he demands of the prince that he shall guard
the appearance of five virtues to deceive the ignorant.1046 Under the cover of Stoicism, many
Humanists indulged in a refined Epicureanism.
The
writers of novels and plays not only portrayed social and domestic immorality
without a blush, but purposely depicted it in a dress that would call forth
merriment and laughter. Tragedy was never reached by the Renaissance writers.
The kernel of this group of works was the faithlessness of married women, for
the unmarried were kept under such close supervision that they were with
difficulty reached. The skill is enlarged upon with which the paramour works
out his plans and the outwitted husband is turned into an object of ridicule.
Here we are introduced to courtesans and taken to brothels.1047
In
the Mandragola by Machiavelli, Callimaco, who has been in Paris, returns to
Florence determined to make Lucrezia, of whose charms he has heard, his
mistress. Assuming the roll of a physician, he persuades her husband, who is
anxious for an heir, to allow him to use a potion of mandragora, which will
relieve his wife of sterility and at the same time kill the paramour. Working
upon the husband’s mind through the mother-in-law and Lucrezia’s confessor, who
consents to the plot for a bribe, he secures his end. Vice and adultery are
glorified. And this was one of the plays on which Leo X. looked with
pleasure! In 1513, in face of the
age-long prohibition of the theatre by the Church, this pontiff opened the
playhouse on the Capitol. A few years later he witnessed the performance of
Ariosto’s comedy the Suppositi. The scenery had been painted by Raphael. The
spectators numbered 2,000, Leo looking on from a box with an eye-glass in his
hand. The plot centres around a girl’s seduction by her father’s servant. One
of the first of the cardinals to open his palace to theatrical representations
was Raffaele Riario.
Intellectual
freedom in Italy assumed the form of unrestrained indulgence of the sensual
nature. In condemning the virginity extolled by the Church, Beccadelli
pronounced it a sin against nature. Nature is good, and he urged men to break
down the law by mixing with nuns.1048 The hetaerae were of greater service to mankind than
monastic recluses. Illegitimacy, as has already been said, was no bar to high
position in the state or the Church. Aeneas Sylvius declared that most of the
rulers in Italy had been born out of wedlock,1049 and when, as pope, he arrived in Ferrara, 1459, he was met
by eight princes, not a single one of them the child of legitimate marriage.
The appearance of the Gallic disease in Italy at the close of the 15th century
may have made men cautious; the rumor went that Julius II., who did not cross
his legs at public service on a certain festival, was one of its victims.1050 Aretino wrote that the times were so
debauched that cousins and kinsfolk of both sexes, brothers and sisters,
mingled together without number and without a shadow of conscientious scruple.1051
What
else could be expected than the poisoning of all grades of society when, at the
central court of Christendom, the fountain was so corrupt. The revels in the
Vatican under Alexander VI. and the levity of the court of Leo X. furnished a spectacle
which the most virtuous principles could scarcely be expected to resist. Did
not a harlequin monk on one occasion furnish the mirth at Leo’s table by his
extraordinary voracity in swallowing a pigeon whole, and consuming forty eggs
and twenty capons in succession!
Innocent VIII.’s son was married to a daughter of the house of the
Medici, and Alexander’s son was married into the royal family of France and his
daughter Lucrezia into the scarcely less proud family of Este. Sixtus IV. taxed
and thereby legalized houses of prostitution for the increase of the revenues
of the curia. The 6,800 public prostitutes in Rome in 1490, if we accept
Infessura’s figures, were an enormous number in proportion to the population.
This Roman diarist says that scarcely a priest was to be found in Rome who did
not keep a concubine "for the glory of God and the Christian
religion." All parts of Italy
and Spain contributed to the number of courtesans. They lived in greater
splendor in Rome than the hetaerae in Athens, and bore classical names, such as
Diana, Lucrezia, Camilla, Giulia, Costanza, Imperia, Beatrice. They were
accompanied on their promenades and walks to church by poets, counts and
prelates, but usually concluded their gilded misery in hospitals after their beauty
had faded away.1052
The
almost nameless vice of the ancient world also found its way into Italy, and
Humanists and sons of popes like the son of Paul III., Pierluigi Farnese, if
not popes themselves, were charged with pederasty. In his 7th satire, Ariosto,
d. 1533, went so far as to say it was the vice of almost all the Humanists. For
being addicted to it, a Venetian ambassador lost his position, and the charge
was brought against the Venetian annalist, Sanuto. Politian, Valla and Aretino
and the academicians of Rome had the same accusation laid at their door. The
worst cannot be told, so abhorrent to the prime instincts of humanity do the
crimes against morality seem. No wonder that Symonds speaks of "an
enervation of Italian society in worse than heathen vices."1053
To
licentiousness were added luxury, gaming, the vendetta or the law of
blood-revenge, and murder paid for by third parties. Life was cheap where
revenge, a licentious end or the gain of power was a motive. Cardinals added
benefice to benefice in order to secure the means of gratifying their luxurious
tastes.1054 In the middle of
the 16th century, Italy, says Burckhardt, was in a moral crisis, out of which
the best men saw no escape. In the opinion of Symonds, who has written seven
volumes on the Renaissance, it is "almost impossible to overestimate the
moral corruption of Rome at the beginning of the 16th century. And Gregorovius
adds that "the richest intellectual life blossomed in a swamp of
vices."1055
Of
open heresy and attacks upon the papal prerogatives, popes were intolerant
enough, as was quickly proved, when Luther appeared and Savonarola preached,
but not of open immorality and secret infidelity. In the hierarchical interest
they maintained the laws of sacerdotal celibacy, but allowed them to be broken
by prelates in their confidence and employ, and openly flaunted their own
bastard children and concubines. And unfortunately, as has been said, not only
did the Humanists, with some exceptions, fall in with the prevailing
licentiousness: there even was nothing in their principles to prevent its
practice. As a class, the artists were no better than the scholars and, if
possible, even more lax in regard to sexual license. Such statements are made
not in the spirit of bitterness toward the Church of the Middle Ages, but in
deference to historic fact, which ought at once to furnish food for reflection
upon the liability of an ecclesiastical organization to err and even to foster
vice as well as superstition by its prelatical constitution and unscriptural
canons, and also to afford a warning against the captivating but fallacious
theory that literature and art, not permeated by the principles of the
Christian faith, have the power to redeem themselves or purify society. They
did not do it in the palmy days of Greece and Rome, nor did they accomplish any
such end in Italy.
In
comparing our present century with the period of the Renaissance, there is at
least one ground for grateful acknowledgment.1056 The belief in astrology, due largely to the rise of
astronomical science, has been renounced. Thomas Aquinas had decided that
astrology was a legitimate art when it is used to forecast natural events, such
as drought and rain, but when used to predict human actions and destiny it is a
daemonic cult.1057
At an early period it came to be classed with heresy, and was made
amenable to the Inquisition. In 1324, Cecco d’Ascoli, who had shown that the
position of libra rendered the crucifixion of Christ inevitable, was obliged to
abjure, and his astrolabe and other instruments were burnt, 1327, by the
tribunal at Florence. In spite of Petrarca’s ridicule, the cult continued. The
Chancellor D’Ailly gave it credit. Scarcely a pope or Italian prince or
republic of the latter part of the Renaissance period who did not have his
astrologer or yield to the delusion in a larger or smaller measure, as, for
example, Sixtus IV., Julius II. and Leo X., as well as Paul III. at a period a
little later. Julius II. delayed his coronation several weeks, to Nov. 26,
1503, the lucky day announced by the astrologer. Ludovico of Milan waited upon
favorable signs in the heavens before taking an important step.1058
On
the other hand, Savonarola condemned the belief, and was followed by Pico della
Mirandola and Erasmus.1059
To the freedom of human action astrology opposed a fatalistic view of
the world. This was felt at the time, and Matteo Villani said more than once
that "no constellation is able to compel the free-will of man or thwart
God’s decree." Before the
15th century had come to a close, the cult was condemned to extinction in
France, 1494, but in Germany, in spite of the spread of the Copernican system,
it continued to have its followers for more than a century. The great Catholic
leader in the Thirty Years’ War, Wallenstein, continued, in the face of
reverses, to follow the supposed indications of the heavenly bodies, and
Schiller puts into his mouth the words:
The
stars he not; what’s happened
Has
turned out against the course of star and fate;
Art
does not play us false. The false heart
’Tis,
which drags falsehood into the truth-telling heavens.
The
revolt against the ascendancy of mediaeval priestcraft and scholastic dialectic
was a great and necessary movement demanded by the sane intents of mankind. The
Italian Renaissance led the revolt. It gave liberty to the individual and so
far its work was wholesome, but it was liberty not bound by proper restraints.
It ran wild in an excess of indulgence, so that Machiavelli could say,
"Italy is the corruption of the world." When the restraint came, it came from the North as it had
come centuries before, in the days of the Ottos, in the 10th century. When
studies in Italy set aside the ideals of Christianity, when religion seemed to
be in danger of expiring and social virtue of altogether giving way, then the
voice was raised in Wittenberg which broke with monastic asceticism and
scholasticism and, at the same time, asserted an individualism under the
control of conscience and reverence for God.
</div3> <div3 type = "Section"
n="68" title="Humanism in Germany">
§ 68.
Humanism in Germany.
Humanistic
studies were late in finding entrance into Germany. They were opposed not so
much by priestly ignorance and prejudice, as was the case in Italy, as by the
scholastic theology which reigned at the universities. German Humanism may be
dated from the invention of the printing-press about 1450. Its flourishing
period began at the close of the 15th century and lasted only till about 1520,
when it was absorbed by the more popular and powerful religious movement, the
Reformation, as Italian Humanism was superseded by the papal
counter-Reformation. Marked features distinguished the new culture north of the
Alps from the culture of the Italians. The university and school played a much
more important part than in the South. The representatives of the new
scholarship were teachers, even Erasmus, who taught in Cambridge, and was on
intimate terms with the professors at Basel. During the progress of the
movement new universities sprang up, from Basel to Rostock. Again, in Germany,
there were no princely patrons of arts and learning to be compared in
intelligence and munificence to the Renaissance popes and the Medici. Nor was
the new culture here exclusive and aristocratic. It sought the general spread
of intelligence, and was active in the development of primary and grammar
schools. In fact, when the currents of the Italian Renaissance began to set
toward the North, a strong, independent, intellectual current was pushing down
from the flourishing schools conducted by the Brothers of the Common Life. In
the Humanistic movement, the German people was far from being a slavish
imitator. It received an impulse from the South, but made its own path. Had
Italy been careful to take lessons from the pedagogy of the North, it is
probable her people would to-day be advanced far beyond what they are in
intelligence and letters.
In
the North, Humanism entered into the service of religious progress. German
scholars were less brilliant and elegant, but more serious in their purpose and
more exact in their scholarship than their Italian predecessors and
contemporaries. In the South, the ancient classics absorbed the attention of
the literati. It was not so in the North. There was no consuming passion to
render the classics into German as there had been in Italy. Nor did Italian
literature, with its loose moral teachings, find imitators in the North.
Boccaccio’s Decameron was first translated into German by the physician, Henry
Stainhöwel, who died in 1482. North of the Alps, the attention was chiefly
centred on the Old and New Testaments. Greek and Hebrew were studied, not with
the purpose of ministering to a cult of antiquity, but to more perfectly reach
the fountains of the Christian system. In this way, preparation was made for
the constructive work of the Protestant Reformation.
And
what was true of the scholarship of Germany was also true of its art. The
painters, Albrecht Dürer, who was born and died at Nürnberg, 1471–1528, Lukas
Kranach, 1472–1553, and for the most part Hans Holbein, 1497–1543, were free
from the pagan element and contributed to the spread of the Reformation.
Kranach lived in Wittenberg after 1504 and painted portraits of Luther,
Melanchthon and other leaders of the German Reformation. Holbein gave
illustrations for some of the new writings and painted portraits of Erasmus and
Melanchthon. His Madonna, now at Darmstadt, has a German face and wears a crown
on her head, while the child in her arms reflects his concern for the world in
the sadness of his countenance.
If
any one individual more than another may be designated as the connecting link
between the learning of Italy and Germany, it is Aeneas Sylvius. By his
residence at the court of Frederick III. and at Basel, as one of the secretaries
of the council, he became a well-known character north of the Alps long before
he was chosen pope. The mediation, however, was not effected by any single
individual. The fame of the Renaissance was carried over the pathways of trade
which led from Northern Italy to Augsburg, Nürnberg, Constance and other German
cities. The visits of Frederick III. and the campaigns of Charles VIII. and the
ascent of the throne of Naples by the princes of Aragon carried Germans,
Frenchmen and Spaniards to the greater centres of the peninsula. A constant
stream of pilgrims itinerated to Rome and the Spanish popes drew to the city
throngs of Spaniards. As the fame of Italian culture spread, scholars and
artists began to travel to Venice, Florence and Rome, and caught the
inspiration of the new era.
To
the Italians Germany was a land of barbarians. They despised the German people
for their ignorance, rudeness and intemperance in eating and drinking. Aeneas
found that the German princes and nobles cared more for horses and dogs than
for poets and scholars and loved their wine-cellars better than the muses.
Campanus, a witty poet of the papal court, who was sent as legate to the Diet
of Regensburg by Paul II., and afterwards was made a bishop by Pius II., abused
Germany for its dirt, cold climate, poverty, sour wine and miserable fare. He
lamented his unfortunate nose, which had to smell everything, and praised his
ears, which understood nothing. Such impressions were soon offset by the sound
scholarship which arose in Germany and Holland. And, if Italy contributed to
Germany an intellectual impulse, Germany sent out to the world the
printing-press, the most important agent in the history of intellectual culture
since the invention of the alphabet.
Before
the first swell of the new movement was felt, the older German universities
were already established: Prag in 1347, Vienna 1365, Heidelberg 1386, Cologne
1388, Erfurt 1392, Würzburg 1402, Leipzig 1409 and Rostock 1419. During the
last half of the 15th century, there were quickly added to this list
universities at Greifswald and Freiburg 1456, Treves 1457, Basel 1459,
Ingolstadt 1472, Tübingen and Mainz 1477, and Wittenberg 1502. Ingolstadt lost
its distinct existence by incorporation in the University of Munich, 1826, and Wittenberg
by removal to Halle. Most of these universities had the four faculties,
although the popes were slow to give their assent to the sanction of the
theological department, as in the case of Vienna and Rostock, where the charter
of the secular prince authorized their establishment. Strong as the religious
influences of the age were, the social and moral habits of the students were by
no means such as to call for praise. Parents, Luther said, in sending their
sons to the universities, were sending them to destruction, and an act of the
Leipzig university, dating from the close of the 15th century, stated that
students came forth from their homes obedient and pious, but "how they
returned, God alone knew."1060 In 1510, the student-body at Erfurt were so turbulent that
the citizens and the peasant-folk turned cannons upon the collegiate building
and, after the students had fled, battered down its walls and did great damage
to university archives and library.
The
theological teaching was ruled by the Schoolmen, and the dialectic method
prevailed in all departments. In clashing with the scholastic method and
curricula, the new teaching met with many a repulse, and in no case was it
thoroughly triumphant till the era of the Reformation opened. Erfurt may be
regarded as having been the first to give the new culture a welcome. In 1466,
it received Peter Luder of Kislau, who had visited Greece and Asia Minor, and
had been previously appointed to a chair in Heidelberg, 1456. He read on Virgil,
Jerome, Ovid and other Latin writers. There Agricola studied and there Greek
was taught by Nicolas Marschalck, under whose supervision the first Greek book
printed in Germany issued from the press, 1501. There John of Wesel taught. It
was Luther’s alma mater and, among his professors, he singled out Trutvetter
for special mention as the one who directed him to the study of the Scriptures.1061
Heidelberg,
chartered by the elector Ruprecht I. and Pope Urban VI., showed scant sympathy
with the new movement. However, the elector-palatine, Philip, 1476–1508,
gathered at his court some of its representatives, among them Reuchlin.
Ingolstadt for a time had Reuchlin as professor and, in 1492, Konrad Celtis was
appointed professor of poetry and eloquence.
In
1474, a chair of poetry was established at Basel. Founded by Pius II., it had
among its early teachers two Italians, Finariensis and Publicius. Sebastian
Brant taught there at the close of the century and among its notable students
were Reuchlin and the Reformers, Leo Jud and Zwingli. In 1481, Tübingen had a
stipend of oratoria. Here Gabriel Biel taught till very near the close of the
century. The year after Biel’s death, Heinrich Bebel was called to lecture on
poetry. One of Bebel’s distinguished pupils was Philip Melanchthon, who studied
and taught in the university, 1512–1518. Reuchlin was called from Ingolstadt to
Tübingen, 1521, to teach Hebrew and Greek, but died a few months later.
Leipzig
and Cologne remained inaccessible strongholds of scholasticism, till Luther
appeared, when Leipzig changed front. The last German university of the Middle
Ages, Wittenberg, founded by Frederick the Wise and placed under the patronage
of the Virgin Mary and St. Augustine, acquired a world-wide influence through
its professors, Luther and Melanchthon. Not till 1518, did it have instruction
in Greek, when Melanchthon, soon to be the chief Greek scholar in Germany, was
called to one of its chairs at the age of 21. According to Luther, his
lecture-room was at once filled brimful, theologians high and low resorting to
it.
As
seats of the new culture, Nürnberg and Strassburg occupied, perhaps, even a
more prominent place than any of the university towns. These two cities, with
Basel and Augsburg, had the most prosperous German printing establishments. At
the close of the 15th century, Nürnberg, the fountain of inventions, had four
Latin schools and was the home of Albrecht Dürer the painter and Willibald
Pirkheimer, a patron of learning.
Popular
education, during the century before the Reformation, was far more advanced in
Germany than in other nations. The chief schools, conducted by the Brothers of
the Common Life, were located at Zwolle, Deventer, Herzogenbusch and Liége. All
the leading towns had schools.1062
The attendance at Deventer ran as high as 2,200. Melanchthon attended
the Latin school at Pforzheim, now in Baden. Here Reuchlin found his young
grand-nephew and gave him a Greek grammar, promising him a Vocabulary, provided
Melanchthon would have ready some verses in Latin on his return. It is needless
to say that the boy was ready and received the book. The town of Schlettstadt
in Alsace was noted as a classical centre. Here Platter found Sapidus teaching,
and he regarded it as the best school he had found. In 1494, there were five
pedagogues in Wesel, teaching reading, writing, arithmetic and singing. One
Christmas the clergy of the place entertained the pupils, giving them each
cloth for a new coat and a piece of money.1063 The primary or trivial schools, as they were called from
teaching the trivium,—grammar, rhetoric and dialectic,—gradually extended their
courses and, before the Reformation, such schools as Liége and Schlettstadt had
eight classes.1064
Greek was begun with the 4th class.
Among
the noted schoolmasters was Alexander Hegius, who taught at Deventer for nearly
a quarter of a century, till his death in 1498. At the age of 40 he was not
ashamed to sit at the feet of Agricola. He made the classics central in
education and banished the old text-books. Trebonius, who taught Luther at
Eisenach, belonged to a class of worthy men. The penitential books of the day
called upon parents to be diligent in keeping their children off the streets
and sending them to school.1065
It remained for Luther to issue a stirring appeal to the magistrates of
the Saxon towns to establish schools for both girls and boys and he called for
a curriculum, which included not only history and Latin but vocal and
instrumental music.
The
chief Humanists of Germany were Rudolph Agricola, Reuchlin and Erasmus. To the
last two a separate treatment is given as the pathfinders of biblical learning,
the venerabiles inceptores of modern biblical research.
Agricola,
whose original name was Roelef Huisman, was born near Groningen, 1443, and died
1485. He enjoyed the highest reputation in his day as a scholar and received
unstinted praise from Erasmus and Melanchthon. He has been regarded as doing
for Humanism in Germany what was done for Italy by Petrarca, the first life of
whom, in German, Agricola prepared. He was far in advance of the Italian poet
in the purity of his life. After studying in Erfurt, Louvain and Cologne, Agricola
went to Italy, spending some time at the universities in Pavia and Ferrara. He
declined a professor’s chair in favor of an appointment at the court of Philip
of the Palatinate in Heidelberg. He made Cicero and Quintilian his models. In
his last years, he turned his attention to theology and studied Hebrew. Like
Pico della Mirandola, he was buried in the cowl of a monastic order. The
inscription on his tomb in Heidelberg stated that he had studied what is taught
about God and the true faith of the Saviour in the books of Scripture.
Another
Humanist was Jacob Wimpheling, 1450–1528, of Schlettstadt, who taught in
Heidelberg. He was inclined to be severe on clerical abuses but, at the close
of his career, wanted to substitute for the study of Virgil and Horace,
Sedulius and Prudentius. The poetic Sebastian Brant, 1457–1521, the author of
the Ship of Fools, began his career as a teacher of law in Basel. Mutianus
Rufus, d. at Gotha 1526, in his correspondence, went so far as to declare that
Christianity is as old as the world and that Jupiter, Apollo, Ceres and Christ
are only different names of the one hidden God.1066
A
name which deserves a high place in the German literature of the last years of
the Middle Ages is John Trithemius, 1462–1505, abbot of a Benedictine convent
at Sponheim, which, under his guidance, gained the reputation of a learned
academy. He gathered a library of 2,000 volumes and wrote a patrology, or
encyclopaedia of the Fathers, and a catalogue of the renowned men of Germany.
Prelates and nobles visited him to consult and read the Latin and Greek authors
he had collected. These men and others contributed their part to that movement
of which Reuchlin and Erasmus were the chief lights and which led on easily to
the Protestant Reformation.1067
</div3> <div3 type = "Section"
n="69" title="Reuchlin and Erasmus">
§ 69. Reuchlin and Erasmus.
In
his fresco of the Reformation on the walls of the Berlin museum, Kaulbach has
given a place of great prominence to Reuchlin and Erasmus. They are represented
in the group of the Humanists, standing side by side, with books under their
arms and clad in scholar’s cap and gown, their faces not turned toward the
central figure on the platform, Martin Luther. The artist has presented the
truth of history. These two most noteworthy German scholars prepared the way
for the Reformation and the modern study of the Greek and Hebrew Scriptures,
but remained and died in the Roman Church in which they were born. Rightly did
Ulrich von Hutten call them "the two eyes of Germany." To them, and more especially to
Erasmus, did all the greater Reformers owe a debt, Luther, Calvin, Zwingli,
Oecolampadius, Melanchthon and Beza.
John
Reuchlin, 1455–1522, known also by the Latin name Capnion,1068 was born in
Pforzheim and studied at Schlettstadt, Freiburg, Paris, Basel, Orleans,
Poictiers, Florence and Rome. He learned Greek from native Greeks, Hebrew from
John Wessel and from Jewish rabbis in Germany and Italy. He bought many Hebrew
and rabbinical books, and marked down the time and place of purchase to remind
him of the happiness their first acquaintance gave him. A lawyer by profession,
he practised law in Stuttgart and always called himself legum doctor. He was
first in the service of Eberhard, count of Würtemberg, whom he accompanied to
Italy in 1482 as he later accompanied his son, 1490. He served on diplomatic
missions and received from the Emperor Maximilian the rank of a count of the
Palatinate. At Eberhard’s death he removed to Heidelberg, 1496, where he was
appointed by the elector Philip chief tutor in his family. His third visit to
Rome, 1498, was made in the elector’s interest. Again he returned to Stuttgart,
from which he was called in 1520 to Ingolstadt as professor of Greek and Hebrew
at a salary of 200 gulden. In 1521, he was driven from the city by the plague
and was appointed lecturer in Tübingen. His death occurred the following spring
at Liebenzell in the Black Forest.
Reuchlin
recommended Melanchthon as professor of Greek in the University of Wittenberg,
and thus unconsciously secured him for the Reformation. He was at home in
almost all the branches of the learning of his age, but especially in Greek and
Hebrew. He translated from Greek writings into Latin, and a part of the Iliad
and two orations of Demosthenes into German. His first important work appeared
at Basel when he was 20, the Vocabularius breviloquus, a Latin lexicon which
went through 25 editions, 1475–1504. He also prepared a Greek Grammar. His
chief distinction, however, is as the pioneer of Hebrew learning among Christians
in Northern Europe. He gave a scientific basis for the study of this language
in his Hebrew Grammar and Dictionary, the De rudimentis hebraicis, which he
published in 1506 at his own cost at Pforzheim. Its circulation was slow and,
in 1510, 750 copies of the edition of 1,000 still remained unsold. The second
edition appeared in 1537. The author proudly concluded this work with the words
of Horace, that he had reared a monument more enduring than brass.1069 In 1512, he issued the Penitential
Psalms with a close Latin translation and grammatical notes, a work used by
Luther. The printing of Hebrew books had begun in Italy in 1475.
Reuchlin
pronounced Hebrew the oldest of the tongues—the one in which God and angels
communicated with man. In spite of its antiquity it is the richest of the
languages and from it other languages drew, as from a primal fountain. He
complained of the neglect of the study of the Scriptures for the polite study
of eloquence and poetry.1070
Reuchlin studied also the philosophy of the Greeks and the Neo-Platonic
and Pythagorean mysticisms. He was profoundly convinced of the value of the
Jewish Cabbala, which he found to be a well of hidden wisdom. In this rare
branch of learning he acknowledged his debt to Pico della Mirandola, whom he
called "the greatest scholar of the age." He published the results of his studies in two works—one, De
verbo mirifico, which appeared at Basel in 1494, and passed through eight
editions; and one, De arte cabbalistica, 1517. "The wonder-working word
"is the Hebrew tetragrammaton Ihvh, the unpronounceable name of God, which
is worshipped by the celestials, feared by the infernals and kissed by the soul
of the universe. The word Jesu, Ihsvh, is only an enlargement of Ihvh by the
letter s. The Jehovah- and Jesus-name is the connecting link between God and
man, the infinite and the finite. Thus the mystic tradition of the Jews is a
confirmation of the Christian doctrine of the trinity and the divinity of
Christ. Reuchlin saw in every name, in every letter, in every number of the old
Testament, a profound meaning. In the three letters of the word for create,
bara, Gen. 1:1, he discerned the mystery of the Trinity; in one verse of
Exodus, 72 inexpressible names of God; in Prov. 30:31, a prophecy that
Frederick the Wise, of Saxony, would follow Maximilian as emperor of Germany, a
prophecy which was not fulfilled. We may smile at these fantastic vagaries; but
they stimulated and deepened the zeal for the hidden wisdom of the Orient,
which Reuchlin called forth from the grave.
Through
his interest in the Jews and in rabbinical literature, Reuchlin became involved
in a controversy which spread over all Europe and called forth decrees from
Cologne and other universities, the archbishop of Mainz, the inquisitor-general
of Germany, Hoogstraten, the emperor, Maximilian, and Pope Leo X. The monks
were his chief opponents, led by John Pfefferkorn, a baptized Jew of Cologne.
The controversy was provoked by a tract on the misery of the Jews, written by
Reuchlin, 1505—Missive warumb die Juden so lang im Elend sind. Here the author made the obstinacy of
the Jews in crucifying Christ and their persistence in daily blaspheming him
the just cause of their sorrows, but, instead of calling for their persecution,
he urged a serious effort for their conversion. In a series of tracts,
Pfefferkorn assaulted this position and demanded that his former
coreligionists, as the sworn enemies of Christ, should be compelled to listen
to Christian preaching, be forbidden to practise usury and that their false
Jewish books should be destroyed.1071 The flaming anti-Semite prosecuted his case with the vigor
with which a few years later Eck prosecuted the papal case against Luther.
Maximilian, whose court he visited three times to present the matter,
Hoogstraten and the University of Cologne took Pfefferkorn’s side, and the emperor
gave him permission to burn all Jewish books except, of course, the Old
Testament. Called upon to explain his position by the archbishop of Mainz, with
whom Maximilian left the case, Reuchlin exempted from destruction the Talmud,
the Cabbala and all other writings of the Jews except the Nizahon and the
Toledoth Jeshu, which, after due examination and legal decision, might be
destroyed, as they contained blasphemies against Christ, his mother and the
Apostles. He advised the emperor to order every university in Germany to
establish chairs of Hebrew for ten years.1072
Pfefferkorn,
whom Reuchlin had called a "buffalo or an ass," replied in a violent
attack, the Handmirror—Handspiegel wider und gegen die Juden — 1511. Both
parties appeared before the emperor, and Reuchlin replied in the
Spectacles—Augenspiegel,—which in its turn was answered by his antagonist in
the Burning Glass—Brandspiegel. The sale of the Spectacles was forbidden in
Frankfurt. Reuchlin followed in a Defense against all Calumniators, 1513, and
after the manner of the age cudgelled them with such epithets as goats, biting
dogs, raving wolves, foxes, hogs, sows, horses, asses and children of the
devil.1073 An appeal he
made to Frederick the Wise called forth words of support from Carlstadt and
Luther. The future Reformer spoke of Reuchlin as a most innocent and learned
man, and condemned the inquisitorial zeal of the Cologne theologians who
"might have found worse occasions of offence on all the streets of
Jerusalem than in the extraneous Jewish question." The theological faculty of Cologne,
which consisted mostly of Dominicans, denounced 43 sentences taken from
Reuchlin as heretical, 1514. The Paris university followed suit. Cited before
the tribunal of the Inquisition by Hoogstraten, Reuchlin appealed to the pope.
Hoogstraten had the satisfaction of seeing the Augenspiegel publicly burnt at
Cologne, Feb. 10, 1514. The young bishop of Spires, whom Leo X. appointed to
adjudicate the case, cleared Reuchlin and condemned Hoogstraten to silence and
the payment of the costs, amounting to 111 gulden, April 24, 1514.1074 But the indomitable inquisitor took
another appeal, and Leo appointed Cardinal Grimani and then a commission of 24
to settle the dispute. All the members of the commission but Sylvester Prierias
favored Reuchlin, who was now supported by the court of Maximilian, by the
German "poets" as a body and by Ulrich von Hutten, but opposed by the
Dominican order. When a favorable decision was about to be rendered, Leo
interposed, June 23, 1520, and condemned Reuchlin’s book, the Spectacles, as a
work friendly to the Jews, and obligated the author to pay the costs of trial
and thereafter to keep silence. The monks had won and Pfefferkorn, with papal
authority on his side, could celebrate his triumph over scholarship and
toleration in a special tract, 1521.
With
the Reformation, which in the meantime had broken out at Wittenberg, the great
Hebrew scholar showed no sympathy. He even turned away from Melanchthon and
cancelled the bequest of his library, which he had made in his favor, and gave
it to his native town, Pforzheim. He prevented, however, Dr. Eck, during his
brief sojourn at Ingolstadt, from burning Luther’s writings. His controversy
with Pfefferkorn had shown how strong in Germany the spirit of obscurantism
was, but it had also called forth a large number of pamphlets and letters in
favor of Reuchlin. The Hebrew pathfinder prepared a collection of such
testimonies from Erasmus, Mutianus, Peutinger, Pirkheimer, Busch, Vadianus,
Glareanus, Melanchthon, Æcolampadius, Hedio and others,—in all, 43 eminent
scholars who were classed as Reuchlinists.
Among
the writings of the Reuchlinists against the opponents of the new learning, the
Letters of Unfamed Men—Epistolae virorum obscurorum — occupy the most prominent
place. These epistles are a fictitious correspondence of Dominican monks who
expose their own old-fogyism, ignorance and vulgarity to public ridicule in
their barbarous German-Latin jargon, which is called kitchen-Latin,
Küchenlatein, and which admits of no adequate translation. They appeared
anonymously, but were chiefly written by Ulrich von Hutten and Crotus Rubeanus
whose German name was Johannes Jaeger. The authors were friends of Luther, but
Crotus afterwards fell out with the Reformation, like Erasmus and other
Humanists.
Ulrich
von Hutten, 1488–1523, after breaking away from the convent in which his father
had placed him six years before, pursued desultory studies in the University of
Cologne, developed a taste for the Humanistic culture and travelled in Italy.
In 1517, he returned to Germany and had a position at the court of the
pleasure-loving Albrecht, archbishop of Mainz, a patron of the new learning. He
was crowned with the poet’s crown by Maximilian and was hailed as the future
great epic poet of Germany by Erasmus, but later incurred the hostility of that
scholar who, after Hutten’s death, directed against his memory the shafts of
his satire. He joined Franz von Sickingen in standing ready to protect Luther
at Worms. Placed under the ban, he spent most of his time after 1520, till his
death, in semi-concealment at Schlettstadt, Basel and at Zürich under the
protection of Zwingli.
Hutten’s
life at Cologne and in Rome gave him opportunity enough to find out the
obscurantism of the Dominicans and other foes of progress as well as the
conditions prevailing at the papal court. In 1517, he edited Valla’s tract on
the spurious Donation of Constantine and, with inimitable irony, dedicated it
to Leo X. In ridicule and contempt it excelled everything, Janssen says, that
had been written in Germany up to that time against the papacy. As early as
1513, Hutten issued epigrams from Italy, calling Julius II. "the corrupter
of the earth, the plague of mankind."1075 His Latin poem, the Triumph of Reuchlin, 1518, defended the
Hebrew scholar, and called for fierce punishment upon Pfefferkorn. It contained
a curious woodcut, representing Reuchlin’s triumphal procession to his native
Pforzheim, and his victory over Hoogstraten and Pfefferkorn with their four
idols of superstition, barbarism, ignorance and envy.1076
The
10 Epistles of the Unfamed Men, written first in Latin and then translated by
Hutten into German, with genial and not seldom coarse humor, demanded the
restriction of the pope’s tyranny, the dissolution of the convents, the
appropriation of annates and lands of abolished convents and benefices for the
creation of a fund for the needy. The amorous propensities of the monks are not
spared. The author called the holy coat of Treves a lousy old rag, and declared
the relics of the three kings of Cologne to be the bodies of three Westphalian
peasants. In the 4th letter, entitled the Roman trinity, things are set forth
and commented upon which were found in three’s in Rome. Three things were
considered ridiculous at Rome: the example of the ancients, the papacy of Peter
and the last judgment. There were three things of which they had a
superabundance in the holy city: antiquities, poison and ruins; three articles
were kept on sale: Christ, ecclesiastical places and women; three things which
gave the Romelings pain: the unity among the princes, the growing intelligence
of the people and the revelation of their frauds; three things which they
disliked most to hear about: a general council, a reformation of the clerical
office and the opening of the eyes of the Germans; three things held as most
precious: beautiful women, proud horses and papal bulls. These were some of the
spectacles which Rome offered. Had not Hutten himself been in Rome, when the
same archbishop’s pall was sold twice in a single day! The so-called "gracious expectations,"
which the pope distributed, were a special mark of his favor to the Germans.1077 Hutten’s wit reached the popular heart,
drew laughter from the educated and stirred up the wrath of the self-satisfied
advocates of the old ways. As a knight, he touched a new chord, the national
German pride, a chord on which Luther played as a master.
What
Reuchlin did for Hebrew learning, Erasmus, who was twelve years his junior,
accomplished for Greek learning and more. He established the Greek
pronunciation which goes by his name; he edited and translated Greek classics
and Church Fathers and made them familiar to northern scholars, and he
furnished the key to the critical study of the Greek Testament, the magna
charta of Christianity. He was the contemporary of the Protestant Reformers and
was an invaluable aid to the movement led by them through his edition of the
New Testament, his renunciation of scholastic subtlety in its interpretation
and his attacks on the ceremonial religiosity of his age. But, when the time
came for him to take open sides, he protested his aversion to the course which
the Reformers had taken as a course of violence and revolution. He died in
isolation, without a party. The Catholics would not claim him; the Protestants
could not.1078
Desiderius
Erasmus, 1466–1536, was born at Rotterdam out of wedlock, his father probably a
priest at the time.1079
His school life began at Deventer when he was nine years old, Hegius
then being in charge. His parents died when he was 13 and, in 1481, he was in
the school at Herzogenbusch where he spent three years, a period he speaks of
as lost time. His letters of after years refer to his school experiences
without enthusiasm or gratitude. After wandering about, he was persuaded
against his will to enter a convent at Steyn. This step, in later years, he
pronounced the most unfortunate calamity of his life. To his experience in the
convent he ascribed the physical infirmity of his manhood. But he certainly
went forth with the great advantage of having become acquainted with conventual
life on its inside, and wholesome moral influence must have been exerted from
some quarter in his early life to account for the moral discrimination of his
later years. His ability secured for him the patronage of the bishop of
Cambray, who intended taking him as his interpreter to Italy, where he hoped to
receive the cardinal’s hat. So far as Italy went, the young scholar was
disappointed, but the bishop sent him to Paris, without, however, providing him
with much financial assistance. He was able to support himself from the
proceeds of instruction he gave several young Englishmen and, through their
mediation, Erasmus made his first visit to England, 1499. This visit seems to
have lasted only two or three months.1080
At
Oxford, the young scholar met Colet and Sir Thomas More and, through the
influence of the former, was induced to give more attention to the Greek than
he had been giving. The next years he spent in France and Holland writing his
book of Proverbs,—Adagia,—issued 1500, and his Manual of the Christian soldier,
—Enchiridion militis Christiani,—issued in 1502. In 1505, he was back in
England, remaining there for three years. He then embraced an opportunity to
travel in Italy with the two sons of Henry VII.’s Genoese physician, Battista
Boerio. At Turin, he received the doctor’s degree, spent a number of months in
Venice, turning out work for the Aldine presses, and visited Bologna, Rome and
other cities. There is no indication in his correspondence that he was moved by
the culture, art or natural scenery of Italy, nor does he make a single
reference to the scenery of the Alps which he crossed.
Expecting
lucrative appointment from Henry VIII., Erasmus returned to England, 1509,
remaining there five years. On his way, he wrote for diversion his Praise of
Folly,—Encomium moriae,—a book which received its title from the fact that he
was thinking of Sir Thomas More when its conception took form in his mind. The
book was completed in More’s house and was illustrated with life-like pictures
by Holbein.1081 During part of
this sojourn in England, Erasmus was entered as "Lady Margaret’s Professor
of Divinity" at Cambridge and taught Greek. The salary was 65 dollars a
year, which Emerton calls "a respectable sum." He was on intimate terms with Colet,
now dean of St. Paul’s, More, Fisher, bishop of Rochester, Archbishop Warham
and other Englishmen. Lord Mountjoy provided him with an annuity and Archbishop
Warham with the living of Aldington in 1411, which Erasmus retained for a while
and then exchanged for an annuity of £20 from the archbishop.1082
From
1515–1521, he had his residence in different cities in the Lowlands, and it was
at this time he secured complete dispensation from the monastic vow which had
been granted in part by Julius II. some years earlier.1083 Erasmus’ fame now exceeded the fame of
any other scholar in Europe. Wherever he went, he was received with great
honors. Princes joined scholars and prelates in doing him homage. Melanchthon
addressed to him a poem, "Erasmus the best and greatest," Erasmum
optimum, maximum. His edition of the Greek New Testament appeared in 1516, and
in 1518 his Colloquies, a collection of familiar relations of his experiences
with men and things.
When
persecution broke out in the Netherlands after Leo’s issuance of his bull
against Luther, Erasmus removed to Basel, where some of his works had already
been printed on the Froben presses. At first be found the atmosphere of his new
home congenial, and published one edition after the other of the
Fathers,—Hilary 1523, Irenaeus 1526, Ambrose 1527, Augustine 1528, Epiphanius
1529, Chrysostom 1530. But when the city, under the influence of Oecolampadius,
went Protestant and Erasmus was more closely pushed to take definite sides or
was prodded with faithlessness to himself in not going with the Reformers, he
withdrew to the Catholic town of Freiburg in Breisgau, 1529. The circulation of
his Colloquies had been forbidden in France and burnt in Spain, and his
writings were charged by the Sorbonne with containing 82 heretical teachings.
On the other hand, he was offered the red hat by Paul III., 1535, but declined
it on account of his age.
After
the death of Oecolampadius, he returned to Basel, 1535, broken down with the
stone and catarrh. The last work on which he was engaged was an edition of
Origen. He died calling out, "Oh, Jesus Christ, thou Son of God, have
mercy on me," but without priest or extreme unction,—sine lux, sine crux, sine
Deus, as the Dominicans of Cologne in their joy and bad Latin expressed it. He
was buried in the Protestant cathedral of Basel, carried to the grave, as his
friend and admirer, Beatus Rhenanus, informs us, on the shoulders of students.
The chief magistrate of the city and all the professors and students were
present at the burial.
Erasmus
was the prince of Humanists and the most influential and useful scholar of his
age. He ruled with undisputed sway as monarch in the realm of letters. He
combined brilliant genius with classical and biblical learning, keen wit and
elegant taste. He rarely wrote a dull line. His extensive travels made him a
man of the world, a genuine cosmopolitan, and he stood in correspondence with
scholars of all countries who consulted him as an oracle. His books had the
popularity and circulation of modern novels. When the rumor went abroad that
his Colloquies were to be condemned by the Sorbonne, a Paris publisher hurried
through the press an edition of 24,000 copies. To the income from his writings
and an annuity of 400 gulden which he received as counsellor of Charles V.—a
title given him in 1516—were added the constant gifts from patrons and
admirers.1084
Had
Erasmus confined himself to scholarly labors, though he secured eminence as the
first classicist of his age, his influence might have been restricted to his
time and his name to a place with the names of Politian of Italy and Budaeus of
France, whose works are no longer read. But it was otherwise. His labors had a
far-reaching bearing on the future. He was a leading factor in the emancipation
of the mind of Europe from the bondage of ignorance and superstition, and he
uncovered a lifeless formalism in religion. He unthawed the frost-bitten
intellectual soil of Germany. The spirit of historical criticism which
Laurentius Valla had shown in the South, he represented north of the Alps, and
of Valla he spoke as "unrivalled both in the sharpness of his intelligence
and the tenacity of his memory."1085 But the sweep of his influence is due to the mediation of
his pupils and admirers, Zwingli, Oecolampadius and Luther.
Erasmus’
break with the old mediaeval ecclesiasticism was shown in a fourfold way. He
scourged the monks for their ignorance, pride and unchastity, and condemned
that ceremonialism in religion which is without heart; he practised the
critical method in the treatment of Scripture; he issued the first Greek New
Testament; be advocated the translation of the Bible into the languages spoken
in his day.
In
almost every work that he wrote, Erasmus, in a vein of satire or in serious
statement, inveighed against the hypocritical pretension of the monkery of his
time and against the uselessness of hollow religious rites. In his edition of
the New Testament, he frequently returns to these subjects. For example, in a
note on Matt. 19:12 he speaks of the priests "who are permitted to
fornicate and may freely keep concubines but not have a wife."1086 Nowhere is his satire more keen on the
clergy than in the Praise of Folly. In this most readable book, Folly
represented as a female, delivers an oration to an audience of all classes and
conditions and is most explicit and elaborate when she discourses on the
priests, monks, theologians and the pope. After declaring with consummate irony
that of all classes the theologians were the least dependent upon her, Folly
proceeds to exhibit them as able to give the most exquisite solutions for the
most perplexing questions, how in the wafer accidents may subsist without a
subject, how long a time it required for the Saviour to be conceived in the
Virgin’s womb, whether God might as easily have become a woman, a devil, a beast,
an herb or a stone as a man. In view of such wonderful metaphysics, the
Apostles themselves would have needed a new illuminating spirit could they have
lived again.
As
for the monks, whose name signifies solitude, they were to be found in every
street and alley. They were most precise about their girdles and hoods and the
cut of their crowns, yet they easily provoked quarrels, and at last they would
have to search for a new heaven, for entrance would be barred them to the old
heaven prepared for such as are true of heart. As for the pope, Luther’s
language never pictured more distinctly the world-wide gulf between what the
successor of St. Peter should be and really was, than did the biting sentences
of Erasmus. Most liberal, he said, were the popes with the weapons of the
Spirit,—interdicts, greater and lesser excommunications, roaring bulls and the
like,—which they launch forth with unrestrained vehemence when the authority of
St. Peter’s chair is attacked. These are they who by their lusts and wickedness
grieve the Holy Spirit and make their Saviour’s wounds to bleed afresh.1087 In the Enchiridion, he says,
"Apostle, pastor and bishop" are names of duties not of government,
and papa, pope, and abbas, abbot, are titles of love. The sale of indulgences,
saint worship and other mediaeval abuses came in for Erasmus’ poignant thrusts.
In
addition to his own Annotations and Paraphrases of the New Testament, he edited
the first printed edition of Valla’s Annotations, which appeared in Paris,
1505. It was his great merit to call attention to the plain meaning of
Scripture and to urge men "to venerate the living and breathing picture of
Christ in the sacred books, instead of falling down before statues of wood and
stone of him, adorned though they were with gold. What were Albertus Magnus,
Thomas Aquinas and Ockam compared with him, whom the Father in heaven called
His beloved Son!" As for the
Schoolmen, he said, "I would rather be a pious divine with Jerome than
invincible with Scotus. Was ever a heretic converted by their subtleties!"1088
The
appearance of Erasmus’ edition of the Greek Testament at Basel, 1516, marked an
epoch in the study and understanding of the Scriptures. It was worth more for
the cause of religion than all the other literary works of Erasmus put
together, yea, than all the translations and original writings of all the
Renaissance writers. The work contained a dedication to Leo X., a man whom
Erasmus continued to flatter, as in the epistle dedicating to him his edition
of Jerome, but who of all men was destined to oppose the proclamation of the
true Gospel. The volume, 672 pages in all, contained the Greek text in one
column and Erasmus’ own Latin version in the other, together with his
annotations. It was hurried through the press in order to anticipate the
publication of the New Testament of the Complutensian Polyglot, which was
actually printed in 1514, but was not given to the public till 1520. The editor
used three manuscripts of the 12th century, which are still preserved in the
university library of Basel and retain the marginal notes of Erasmus and the
red lines of the printer to indicate the corresponding pages of the printed
edition. Erasmus did not even take the trouble to copy the manuscripts, but
sent them, with numerous marginal corrections, to the printer.1089 The manuscript of the Apocalypse was
borrowed from Reuchlin, and disappeared, but was rediscovered, in 1861, by Dr.
Delitzsch in the library of Oettingen-Wallerstein at Mayhingen, Bavaria. It was
defective on the last leaf and supplemented by Erasmus, who translated the last
six verses from the Vulgate into indifferent Greek, for he was a better
Latinist than Hellenist.
In
all, Erasmus published five editions of the Greek Testament-1516, 1519, 1522,
1527 and 1535. Besides, more than 30 unauthorized reprints appeared in Venice,
Strassburg, Basel, Paris and other cities. He made several improvements, but
his entire apparatus never exceeded eight MSS. The 4th and the 5th editions
were the basis of the textus receptus, which ruled supreme till the time of
Lachmann and Tregelles. His notes and paraphrases on the New Testament, the
Apocalypse excepted, were translated into English, and a copy given to every
parish in 1547. Zwingli copied the Pauline Epistles from the 1st Greek edition
with his own hand in the convent at Einsiedeln, 1516. From the 2d edition of
1519, Luther prepared his German translation on the Wartburg, 1522, and Tyndale
his English version, 1526.
Thus
Erasmus directly contributed to the preparation of the vernacular versions
which he so highly commended in his Preface to the 1st edition of his Greek
Testament. He there expressed the hope that the Scriptures might be translated
into every tongue and put into the hands of every reader, to give strength and
comfort to the husbandman at his plough, to the weaver at his shuttle, to the
traveller on his journey and to the woman at her distaff. He declared it a
miserable thing that thousands of educated Christians had never read the New
Testament. In editing the Greek original, it was his purpose, so he says, to
enable the theologians to study Christianity at its fountain-head. It was high
praise when Oecolampadius confessed he had learned from Erasmus that "in
the Sacred Books nothing was to besought but Christ," <foreign
lang="la">nihil
in sacris scripturis praeter Christum quaerendum</foreign>.1090
It
was a common saying, to which Erasmus himself refers, that he laid the egg
which Luther hatched. His relations to the Wittenberg Reformer and to the
movement of the Reformation is presented in the 6th volume of this series. Here
it is enough to say that Erasmus desired a reformation by gradual education and
gentle persuasion within the limits of the old Church system. He disapproved of
the violent measures of Luther and Zwingli, and feared that they would do much
harm to the cause of learning and refined culture, which he had more at heart
than religion.
He
and Luther never met, and he emphatically disavowed all responsibility for
Luther’s course and declared he had had no time to read Luther’s books. And
yet, in a letter to Zwingli, he confessed that most of the positions taken by
Luther he had himself taken before Luther’s appearance. The truth is that
Erasmus was a critical scholar and not a man of action or of deep fervor of
conviction. At best, he was a moralist. He went through no such religious
experiences as Luther, and Luther early wrote to Lange that he feared Erasmus
knew little of the grace of God. The early part of the 16th century was a
period when the critic needed to be supplemented. Erasmus had no mind for the
fray of battle. His piety was not deep enough to brave a rupture with the old
order. He courted the flattery of the pope, though his pen poured forth
ridicule against him. And nowhere is the difference of the two men shown in
clearer light than in their treatment of Leo X., whom, when it was to his
advantage, Erasmus lauded as a paragon of culture.1091 He did not see that something more was
needed than literature and satire to work a change. The times required the
readiness for martyrdom, and Erasmus’ religious conviction was not sufficient
to make him ready to suffer for principle. On most controverted points, Emerton
well says he had one opinion for his friends and another for the world. He
lacked both the candor and the courage to be a religious hero. "Erasmus is
a man for himself" was the
apt characterization often repeated in the Letters of Unfamed Men.
Luther spoke to the German people and fought for them. Erasmus awakened the
admiration of the polite by his scholarship and wit. The people knew him not.
Luther spoke in German: Erasmus boasted that he knew as little Italian as
Indian and that he was little conversant with German, French or English. He
prided himself on his pure Latinity.
Erasmus
never intended to separate from Rome any more than his English friends, John
Colet and Thomas More. He declared he had never departed from the judgment of
the Church, nor could he. "Her consent is so important to me that I would
agree with the Arians and Pelagians if the Church should approve what they
taught." This he wrote in
1526 after the open feud with Luther in the controversy over the freedom of the
will. The Catholic Church, however, never forgave him. All his works were
placed on the Index by two popes, Paul IV. in 1559 and Sixtus V., 1590, as
intentionally heretical. In 1564, by the final action of the Council of Trent,
this sweeping judgment was revoked and all the writings removed from the Index
except the Colloquies, Praise of Folly, Christian Marriage and one or two
others, a decision confirmed by Clement VIII., 1596. And there the matter has
rested since.1092
The
Catholic historian of the German people, Janssen, in a dark picture of Erasmus,
presents him as vain and conceited, ungrateful to his benefactors, always ready
to take a neutral attitude on disputed questions and, for the sake of presents,
flattering to the great. Janssen calls attention to his delight over the gold
and silver vessels and other valuables he had received in gifts. My drawers,
Erasmus wrote, "are filled with presents, cups, bottles, spoons, watches,
some of them of pure gold, and rings too numerous to count." In only one respect, says Janssen, did
he go beyond his Italian predecessors in his attack upon the Church. The
Italians sneered and ridiculed, but kept their statements free from
hypocritical piety, which Erasmus often resorted to after be had driven his
dagger into his opponent’s breast.1093 In England, the old Puritan, Tyndale, also gave Erasmus no
quarter, but spoke of him as one "whose tongue maketh little gnats great
elephants and lifteth up above the stars whosoever giveth him a little
exhibition."1094
But no one has ever understood Erasmus and discerned what was his
mission better than Luther. That Reformer, who had once called him "our
ornament and hope—decus nostrum et spes,"—expressed the whole truth when,
in a letter to Oecolampadius, 1523, he said: "Erasmus has done what he was
ordained to do. He has introduced the ancient languages in place of the
pernicious scholastic studies. He will probably die like Moses in the land of
Moab .... He has done enough to overcome the evil, but to lead to the land of
promise is not, in my judgment, his business."
</div3> <div3 type = "Section"
n="70" title="Humanism in France">
§ 70.
Humanism in France.
Humanism
in France found its way from Italy, but did not become a distinct movement
until the 16th century was well on its way. Budaeus, 1467–1540, was the chief
representative of classical studies; Faber Stapulensis, or, to use his French
name, Lefèvre d’Etaples, of Christian culture, 1469–1536, both of them living
well into the period of the Reformation.1095 In France, as in Germany, the pursuit of the classics never
went to the point of intoxication as it did in Italy. In France, the
Renaissance did not reach its maturity till after the Reformation was well advanced
in Germany, the time at which the springs of the movement in the Italian
peninsula were dried up.
On
the completion of the 100 years’ war between France and England, the
intellectual currents began to start. In 1464, Peter Raoul composed for the
duke of Bourgogne a history of Troy. At that time the French still regarded
themselves as descendants of Hector. If we except Paris, none of the French
universities took part in the movement. Individual writers and printing-presses
at Paris, Lyons, Rouen and other cities became its centres and sources. William
Fichet and Gaguin are usually looked upon as the first French Humanists. Fichet
introduced "the eloquence of Rome" at Paris and set up a press at the
Sorbonne. He corresponded with Bessarion and had in his library volumes of
Petrarca, Guarino of Verona and other Italians. Gaguin copied and corrected
Suetonius in 1468 and other Latin authors. Poggio’s Jest-book and some of
Valla’s writings were translated into French. In the reign of Louis XI., who
gloried in the title "the first Christian king," French poets
celebrated his deeds. The homage of royalty took in part the place among the
literary men of France that the cult of antiquity occupied in Italy.1096
Greek,
which had been completely forgotten in France, had its first teachers in
Gregory Tifernas, who reached Paris, 1458, John Lascaris, who returned with
Charles VIII., and Hermonymus of Sparta, who had Reuchlin and Budaeus among his
scholars. An impetus was given to the new studies by the Italian, Aleander,
afterwards famous for his association with Luther at Worms. He lectured in
Paris, 1509, on Plato and issued a Latino-Greek lexicon. In 1512 his pupil,
Vatable, published the Greek grammar of Chrysoloras. William Budaeus, perhaps
the foremost Greek scholar of his day, founded the Collège de France, 1530, and
finally induced Francis I. to provide for instruction in Hebrew and Greek. The
University of Paris at the close of the 14th century was sunk into a low
condition and Erasmus bitterly complained of the food, the morals and the
intellectual standards of the college of Montague which he attended. Budaeus
urged the combination of the study of the Scriptures with the study of the
classics and exclaimed of the Gospel of John, "What is it, if not the
almost perfect sanctuary of the truth!"1097 He persisted in setting himself against the objection that
the study of the languages of Scripture led on to Lutheranism.
Lefèvre
studied in Paris, Pavia, Padua and Cologne and, for longer or shorter periods,
tarried in the greater Italian cities. He knew Greek and some Hebrew. From
1492–1506 he was engaged in editing the works of Aristotle and Raymundus Lullus
and then, under the protection of Briçonnet, bishop of Meaux, he turned his
attention to theology. It was his purpose to offset the Sentences of Peter the
Lombard by a system of theology giving only what the Scriptures teach. In 1509,
he published the Psalterum quintuplex, a combination of five Latin versions of
the Psalms, including a revision and a commentary by his own hand. In 1512, he
issued a revised Latin translation of the Pauline Epistles with commentary. In
this work, he asserted the authority of the Bible and the doctrine of
justification by faith, without appreciating, however, the far-reaching
significance of the latter opinion.1098 He also called in question the merit of good works and
priestly celibacy. In his Preface to the Psalms Lefèvre said, "For a long
time I followed Humanistic studies and I scarcely touched my books with things
divine, but then these burnt upon me with such light, that profane studies
seemed to be as darkness in comparison." Three years after the appearance of Luther’s New Testament,
Lefèvre’s French translation appeared, 1523. It was made from the Vulgate, as
was his translation of the Old Testament, 1528. In 1522 and 1525, appeared his
commentaries on the four Gospels and the Catholic Epistles. The former was put
on the Index by the Sorbonne. The opposition to the free spirit of inquiry and
to the Reformation, which the Sorbonne stirred up and French royalty adopted,
forced him to flee to Strassburg and then to the liberal court of Margaret of
Angoulême.
Among
those who came into contact with Lefèvre were Farel and Calvin, the Reformers
of Geneva. In the meantime Clement Marot, 1495–1544, the first true poet of the
French literary revival, was composing his French versification of the Psalms
and of Ovid’s Metamorphoses. The Psalms were sung for pleasure by French
princes and later for worship in Geneva and by the Huguenots. When Calvin
studied the humanities and law at Bourges, Orleans and Paris, about 1520, he
had for teachers Cordier and L’Etoile, the canonists, and Melchior Wolmar,
teacher of Greek, whose names the future Reformer records with gratitude and
respect. He gave himself passionately to Humanistic studies and sent to Erasmus
a copy of his work on Seneca’s Clemency, in which he quoted frequently from the
ancient classics and the Fathers. Had he not adopted the new religious views,
it is possible he would now be known as an eminent figure in the history of
French Humanism.
</div3> <div3 type = "Section"
n="71" title="Humanism in England">
§ 71.
Humanism in England.
Use
well temporal things: desire eternal things.
—John
Colet.
Humanism
reached England directly from Italy, but was greatly advanced by Erasmus during
his three sojourns at Oxford and Cambridge and by his close and abiding
friendship with the leading English representatives of the movement. Its
history carries us at once to the universities where the conflict between the
new learning and the old learning was principally fought out and also to St. Paul’s
school, London, founded by Colet. It was marked with the usual English
characteristics of caution and reserve, and never manifested any of the
brilliant or paganizing traits of the Italian literary movement, nor did it
reach the more profound classical scholarship of the German Humanists. In the
departments of the fine arts, if we except printing, it remained unresponsive
to the Continental leadership. English Humanism, like the theology of the
English Reformation, adopted the work of others. It was not creative. On the
other hand, it laid more distinctive emphasis upon the religious and ethical
elements than the Humanistic circles of Italy, though not of Germany. Its chief
leaders were John Colet and Sir Thomas More, with whom Erasmus is also to be
associated. It had patrons in high places in Archbishop Warham of Canterbury,
Cardinal Wolsey and John Fisher, bishop of Rochester.1099
The
English revival of letters was a direct precursor of the English Reformation,
although its earliest leaders died in the Catholic Church. Its first distinct
impetus was received in the last quarter of the 15th century through English
students who visited Italy. It had been the custom for English archdeacons to
go to Italy for the study of the canon law. Richard de Bury and Peter de Blois
had shown interest in books and Latin profane authors. Italians, Poggio and
Polidore Virgil1100 among them, tarried and some of them
taught in England, but the first to introduce the new movement were William
Sellyng, Thomas Linacre and William Grocyn.
Sellyng,
of All Souls’ College, Oxford, and afterwards prior of Christ Church,
Canterbury, 1471–1495, made a visit to Italy in 1464 and at Bologna was a pupil
of Politian. From this tour, or from a later one, he brought back with him some
Greek MSS. and he introduced the studying of Greek in Canterbury. Linacre, d.
1524, the most celebrated medical man of his day in England, studied under
Sellyng at Christ Church and then in Oxford, where he took Greek under Cornelio
Vitelli, the first to publicly teach that language in England in the later
Middle Ages. He then went to Florence, Rome and Padua, where he graduated in
medicine. On returning to England, he was ordained priest and later made
physician to Henry VIII. He translated the works of Galen into English.1101
While
Linacre was studying in Florence, Grocyn arrived in that city. He was teaching
Greek in Oxford before 1488 and, on his return from the Continent, he began,
1491, to give Greek lectures in that university. With this date the historian,
Green, regards the new period as opening. Grocyn lectured on pseudo-Dionysius
and, following Laurentius Valla, abandoned the tradition that he was the
Areopagite, the pupil of St. Paul. He and Linacre were close friends of
Erasmus, and that scholar couples them with Colet and More as four representatives
of profound and symmetrical learning.1102
At
the close of the 15th century, the English were still a "barbarous"
people in the eyes of the Italians.1103 According to Erasmus, who ought to have known what a good
school was, the schoolteachers of England were "shabby and broken down
and, in cases, hardly in their senses." At the universities, the study of Duns Scotus ruled and the
old method and text-books were in use. The Schoolmen were destined, however,
soon to be displaced and the leaves of the Subtle Doctor to be scattered in the
quadrangles of Oxford and trodden under foot.
As
for the study of Greek, there were those, as Wood says, who preached against it
as "dangerous and damnable" and, long after the new century had
dawned, Sir Thomas More wrote to the authorities at Oxford condemning them for
opposition to Greek.1104
A course of sermons, to which More refers, had been preached in Lent not
only against the study of the Greek classics but also the Latin classics. What
right, he went on to say, "had a preacher to denounce Latin of which he
knew so little and Greek of which he knew nothing? How can he know theology, if he is ignorant of Hebrew, Greek
and Latin? "In closing the
letter, More threatened the authorities with punishment from Warham, Wolsey and
even the king himself, if they persisted in their course. Of the clergy’s alarm
against the new learning, More took notice again and again. To Lily, the
headmaster of St. Paul’s school, he wrote, "No wonder your school raises a
storm; it is like the wooden horse for the ruin of barbarous Troy." But, if there were those who could see
only danger from the new studies, there were also men like Fisher of Rochester
who set about learning Greek when he was 60. For the venerable Sentences of the
Lombard, the Scriptures were about to be instituted as the text-book of
theology in the English universities.
The
man who contributed most to this result was John Colet. Although his name is
not even so much as mentioned in the pages of Lingard, he is now recognized, as
he was by Tyndale, Latimer and other Reformers of the middle of the 16th
century, as the chief pioneer of the new learning in England and as an exemplar
of noble purposes in life and pure devotion to culture.
The
son of Sir Henry Colet, several times lord mayor of London, the future dean of
St. Paul’s was one of 22 children. He survived all the members of his family
except his mother, to whom he referred, when he felt himself growing old, with
admiration for her high spirits and happy old age. As we think of her, we may
be inclined to recall the good mother of John Wesley. After spending 3 years at
Oxford, 1493–1496,1105 young Colet, "like a merchantman
seeking goodly wares," as Erasmus put it, went to Italy. For the places
where he studied, we are left to conjecture, but Archbishop Parker two
generations later said that he studied "a long time in foreign countries
and especially the Sacred Scriptures." On his return to Oxford, although not yet ordained to the
priesthood, he began expounding St. Paul’s Greek epistles in public, the
lectures being given gratuitously. At this very moment the Lady Margaret
professor of divinity was announcing for his subject the Quodlibets of Duns
Scotus. Later, Colet expounded also the First Epistle to the Corinthians.
At
this period, he was not wholly freed from the old academic canons and was
inclined to reject the reading of classic authors whose writings did not
contain a "salutatory flavor of Christ and in which Christ is not set
forth .... Books, in which Christ is not found, are but a table of
devils."1106
Of the impression made by his exposition, a proof is given in Colet’s
own description of a visit he had from a priest. The priest, sitting in front
of Colet’s fire, drew forth from his bosom a small copy of the Epistles, which
he had transcribed with his own hand, and then, in answer to his request, his
host proceeded to set forth the golden things of the 1st chapter of Romans.1107 His expositions abound in
expressions of admiration for Paul.
At
Oxford, in 1498, Colet met Erasmus, who was within a few months of being of the
same age, and he also came into contact with More, whom he called "a rare
genius." The fellowship with
these men confirmed him in his modern leanings. He lectured on the Areopagite’s
Hierarchies, but he soon came to adopt Grocyn’s view of their late date. The
high estimate of Thomas Aquinas which prevailed, he abandoned and pronounced
him "arrogant for attempting to define all things" and of
"corrupting the whole teaching of Christ with his profane philosophy."1108 Some years later, writing to Erasmus,
he disparaged the contemporary theologians as spending their lives in mere
logical tricks and dialectic quibbles. Erasmus, replying to him, pronounced the
theology which was once venerable "become, almost dumb, poor and in
rags."
As
dean of St. Paul’s, an appointment he received in 1504, Colet stands forth as a
reformer of clerical abuses, a bold preacher and a liberal patron of education.
The statutes he issued for the cathedral clergy laid stress upon the need of
reformation "in every respect, both in life and religion." The old code, while it was particular
to point out the exact plane the dean should occupy in processions and the
choir, did not mention preaching as one of his duties. Colet had public
lectures delivered on Paul’s Epistles, but it was not long till he was at odds
with his chapter. The cathedral school did not meet his standard, and the funds
he received on his father’s death he used to endow St. Paul’s school, 1509.1109 The original buildings were burnt down
in the London fire, and new buildings reared in 1666. The statutes made the
tuition free, and set the number of pupils at 153, since increased threefold.
They provided for instruction in "good literature, both Latin and
Greek," but especially for Christian authors that "wrote their wisdom
with clean and chaste Latin."
The founder’s high ideal of a teacher’s qualifications, moral as well as
literary, set forth in his statutes for the old cathedral school, was
"that he should be an upright and honorable man and of much and
well-attested learning."
Along with chaste literature, he was expected "to imbue the tender
minds of his pupils with holy morals and be to them a master, not of grammar
only, but of virtue."1110
St.
Paul’s has the distinction of being the first grammar-school in England where
Greek was taught. The list of its masters was opened by William Lily, one of
the few Englishmen of his age capable of teaching Greek. After studying at
Oxford, he made a journey to Jerusalem, and returned to England by way of
Italy. He died in 1522. By his will, Colet left all his books, "imprinted
and in paper," to poor students of the school.
As
a preacher, the dean of St. Paul’s was both bold and Scriptural. Among his
hearers were the Lollards. Colet himself seems to have read Wyclif’s writings
as well as other heretical works.1111 Two of his famous sermons were delivered before convocation,
1511, and on Wolsey’s receiving the red hat. The convocation discourse, which
has come down to us entire, is a vigorous appeal for clerical reform.1112 The text was taken from Rom. xii:2.
"Be ye not conformed to this world but be ye reformed." The pride and ambition of the clergy were
set forth and their quest of preferment in Church and state condemned. Some
frequented feasts and banquetings and gave themselves to sports and plays, to
hunting and hawking.1113
If priests themselves were good, the people in their turn would be good
also. "Our goodness," exclaimed the preacher, "would urge them
on in the right way far more efficaciously than all your suspensions and
excommunications. They should live a good and holy life, be properly learned in
the Scriptures and chiefly and above all be filled with the fear of God and the
love of the heavenly life."
According
to the canons of the age, the preacher went beyond the limits of prudence and
Fitz-James, bishop of London, cited him for trial but the case was set aside by
the archbishop. The charges were that Colet had condemned the worship of images
and declared that Peter was a poor man and enjoyed no episcopal revenues and
that, in condemning the reading of sermons, Colet had meant to give a thrust to
Fitz-James himself, who was addicted to that habit. Latimer, who was at
Cambridge about that time, said in a sermon some years later, that, in those
days Doctor Colet was in trouble and should have been burned, if God had not
turned the king’s heart to the contrary."
When
Erasmus’ Greek Testament appeared, Colet gave it a hearty welcome. In a letter
to the Dutch scholar acknowledging the receipt of a copy, he expressed his
regret at not having a sufficient knowledge of Greek to read it and his desire
to be his disciple in that tongue. It was here he made the prediction that
"the name of Erasmus will never perish." Erasmus had written to Colet that he had dipped into Hebrew
but gone no further, "frightened by the strangeness of the idiom and in
view of the insufficiency of the human mind to master a multitude of
subjects."1114
A much younger scholar at Tübingen, Philip Melanchthon, had put his
tribute to the Novum instrumentum in Greek verse which was transmitted to
Erasmus by Beatus Rhenanus. Fox, bishop of Winchester, pronounced the book more
instructive to him than 10 commentaries.
Not
long before his death, Colet determined to retire to a religious retreat at
Shene, a resolution based upon his failing health and the troubles in which his
freedom of utterance had involved him. He did not live to carry out his
resolution. He was buried in St. Paul’s. It is noteworthy that his will
contained no benefactions to the Church or provision for masses for his soul.
Erasmus paid the high tribute to his friend, while living, that England had not
"another more pious or one who more truly knew Christ." And, writing after Colet’s death to a
correspondent, he exclaimed, "What a man has England and what a friend I
have lost!" Colet had often
hearkened to Erasmus’ appeals in times of stringency.1115 No description in the Colloquies has
more interest for the Anglo-Saxon people than the description of the journey
which the two friends made together to the shrines of Thomas à Becket and of
Our Lady of Walsingham. And the best part of the description is the doubting
humor with which they passed criticism upon Peter’s finger, the Virgin’s milk,
one of St. Thomas’ shoes and other relics which were shown them.
Far
as Colet went in demanding a reform of clerical habits, welcoming the revival
of letters, condemning the old scholastic disputation and advocating the study
of the Scriptures, it is quite probable he would not have fallen in with the
Reformation.1116
He was fifty when it broke out. The best word that can be spoken of him
is, that he seems to have conformed closely to the demand which he made of
Christian men to live good and upright lives for, of a surety, he said,
"to do mercy and justice is more pleasant to God, than to pray or do
sacrifice to Him."1117
What higher tribute could be paid than the one paid by Donald Lupton in
his History of Modern Protestant Divines, 1637, "This great dean of St.
Paul’s taught and lived like St. Paul."1118
Sir
Thomas More, 1478–1535, not only died in the Catholic Church, but died a
martyr’s death, refusing to acknowledge the English king’s supremacy so far as
to impugn the pope’s authority. After studying in Oxford, be practised law in
London, rising to be chancellor of the realm. It is not for us here to follow
his services in his profession and to the state, but to trace his connection
with the revival of learning and the religious movement in England. More was a
pattern of a devout and intelligent layman. He wore a hair shirt next to his
skin and yet he laughed at the superstition of his age. On taking office, he
stipulated that, he should first look to God and after God to the
king." At the same time, he
entered heartily with his close friends, Erasmus and Colet, into the construction
of a new basis for education in the study of the classics, Latin and Greek. He
was firmly bound to the Church, with the pope as its head, and yet in his
Utopia he presented a picture of an ideal society in which religion was to be
in large part a matter of the family, and confession was not made to the priest
nor absolution given by the priest.
With
the exception of the Utopia, all of More’s genuine works were religious and the
most of them were controversial treatises, intended to confute the new doctrines
of the Reformation which had found open advocates in England long before More’s
death. More was beheaded in 1535 and, if we recall that Tyndale’s English New
Testament was published in 1526, we shall have a standard for measuring the
duration of More’s contact with the Protestant upheaval. Tyndale himself was
strangled and burnt to death a year after More’s execution. In answer to Simon
Fish’s work, The Supplication of Beggars, a bitter attack against purgatory,
More sent forth the Supplication of Souls or Poor Seely (simple) Souls pewled
out of Purgatory. Here souls are represented as crying out not to be left in
their penal distress by the forgetfulness of the living. Fish was condemned to
death and burnt, 1533. As the chief controversialist on the old side, More also
wrote against John Fryth, who was condemned to the stake 1533, and against
Tyndale, pronouncing his translation of the New Testament "a false English
translation newly forged by Tyndale." He also made the strange declaration that "Wyclif,
Tyndale and Friar Barnes and such others had been the original cause why the
Scripture has been of necessity kept out of lay people’s hands."1119 More said heretical books were imported
from the Continent to England, in vats full." He called Thomas Hylton, a priest of Kent, one of the
heretics whom he condemned to the flames, "the devil’s stinking
pot." Hylton’s crime was the
denial of the five sacraments and he was burnt 1530.1120 As was the custom of the time, More’s
controversial works abound in scurrilous epithets. His opponents he
distinguishes by such terms as "swine," "hellhounds that the
devil hath in his kennel," "apes that dance for the pleasure of Lucifer."1121 In his works against Tyndale and Fryth,
he commended pilgrimages, image-worship and indulgences. He himself, so the
chancellor wrote, had been present at Barking, 1498, when a number of relics
were discovered which "must have been hidden since the time when the abbey
was burnt by the infidels," and he declared that the main thing was that
such relics were the remains of holy men, to be had in reverence, and it was a
matter of inferior import whether the right names were attached to them or
not."1122
And
yet, More resisted certain superstitions, as of the Franciscan monk of Coventry
who publicly preached, that "whoever prayed daily through the Psalter to
the Blessed Virgin could not be damned." He denied the Augustinian teaching that infants dying
without baptism were consigned to eternal punishment and he could write to
Erasmus, that Hutten’s Epistolae obscurorum virorum delighted every one in
England and that "under a rude scabbard the work concealed a most
excellent blade."1123
His intimacy with Colet and Erasmus led to an attempt on the part of the
monks, in 1519, to secure his conversion.
More
was beatified by Leo XIII., 1886, and with St. Edmund, Bishop Fisher and Thomas
à Becket is the chief English martyr whom English Catholics cultivate. He died
"unwilling to jeopardize his soul to perpetual damnation" and
expressing the hope that, "as St. Paul and St. Stephen met in heaven and
were friends, so it might be with him and his judges." Gairdner is led to remark that "no
man ever met an unjust doom in a more admirable spirit."1124 We may concur in this judgment and yet
we will not overlook the fact that More, gentleman as he was in heart, seems to
us to have been unrelenting to the men whom he convicted as heretics and, in
his writings, piled upon them epithets as drastic as Luther himself used. Aside
from this, he is to be accorded praise for his advocacy of the reform in
education and his commendation of Erasmus’ Greek Testament. He wrote a special
letter to the Louvain professor, Dorpius, upbraiding him for his attack upon
the critical studies of Erasmus and upon the revision of the old Latin text as
unwarranted.
More’s
Utopia, written in Latin and published in 1516 with a preface by Budaeus, took
Europe by storm. It was also called Nusquama or Nowhere. With Plato’s Republic
as a precedent, the author intended to point out wherein European society and
especially England was at fault. In More’s ideal commonwealth, which was set up
on an island, treaties were observed and promises kept, and ploughmen,
carpenters, wagoners, colliers and other artisans justly shared in the rewards
of labor with noblemen, goldsmiths and usurers, who are called the unproductive
classes. "The conspiracy of the rich procuring their own commodities under
the name and title of the commonwealth" was not allowed. In Utopia, a
proper education was given to every child, the hours of physical labor were
reduced to six, the streets were 20 feet wide and the houses backed with
gardens and supplied with freshwater. The slaughtering was done outside the
towns. All punishment was for the purpose of reform and religion, largely a
matter of family. The old religions continued to exist on the island, for
Christianity had but recently been introduced, but More, apparently belying his
later practice as judge, declared that "no man was punished for his
religion." Its priests were
of both sexes and "overseers and orderers of worship" rather than
sacerdotal functionaries. Not to them but to the heads of families was
confession made, the wife prostrate on the ground confessing to her husband,
and the children to both parents. The priests were married.
Little
did More suspect that, within ten years of the publication of his famous book,
texts would be drawn from it to support the Peasants’ Revolt in Germany.1125 In it are stated some of the
sociological hopes and dreams of this present age. The author was voicing the
widespread feeling of his own generation which was harassed with laws
restricting the wages of labor, with the enclosures of the commons by the rich,
the conversion of arable lands into sheep farms and with the renewed warfare on
the Continent into which England was drawn.1126
John
Fisher, who suffered on the block a few months before More for refusing to take
the oath of supremacy, and set aside the succession of Catherine of Aragon’s
offspring, was 79 years old when he died. Dean Perry has pronounced him
"the most learned, the most conscientious and the most devout of the
bishops of his day." In 1511,
he recommended Erasmus to Cambridge to teach Greek. On the way to the place of
beheadal, this good man carried with him the New Testament, repeating again and
again the words, "This is life eternal to know Thee and Jesus Christ whom
thou hast sent." "That
was learning enough for him," he said.
To
Grocyn, Colet, More and Fisher the Protestant world gives its reverent regard.
It is true, they did not fully apprehend the light which was spreading over
Europe. Nevertheless, they went far as pioneers of a more rational system of
education than the one built up by the scholastic method and they have a
distinct place in the history of the progress of religious thought.1127
In
Scotland, the Protestant Reformation took hold of the nation before the
Renaissance had much chance to exercise an independent influence. John Major,
who died about 1550, wrote a commentary on the Sentences of Peter the Lombard
and is called "the last of the Schoolmen." He is, however, a connecting link with the new movement in
literature through George Buchanan, his pupil at St Andrews. Major remained
true to the Roman communion. Buchanan, after being held for six months in
prison as a heretic in Portugal, returned to Scotland and adopted the
Reformation. According to Professor Hume-Brown, his Latin paraphrase of the
Psalms in metre "was, until recent years, read in Scotland in every school
where Latin was taught."1128
Knox’s History of the Reformation was the earliest model of prose
literature in Scotland.
</div3></div2><div2 type =
"Chapter" n="IX" title="The Pulpit And Popular
Piety">
CHAPTER
IX.
THE
PULPIT AND POPULAR PIETY.
<div3 type = "Section"
n="72" title="Literature">
§ 72.
Literature.
For
§§73, 74.—The works of Erasmus, Colet, Tyndale, Geller of Strassburg and other
sources quoted in the notes.—Lea: Hist. of Cler. Celibacy. Also Hist. of Span.
Inq.—Histt. Of The Engl. Ch. by Capes and Gairdnertraill: Social Hist. of
Engl., vol. II.—Seebohm: Oxf. Reformers.—Gasquet: The Old Engl. Bible and Other
Essays, Lond., 2d ed., 1907. Also The Eve of the Reformation, pp. 245
sqq.—Cruel: Gesch. d. deutschen Predigt, im MA, pp. 431–663, Detmold,
1879.—Kolde: D. relig. Leben in Erfurt am Ausgange d. MA, 1898.—Landmann: D.
Predigttum in Westphalen In d. letzten Zeiten d. MA, pp. 256.—Schön: art.
Predigt in Herzog, XV. 642–656. Janssen-Pastor: Hist. of the Ger. People, vol.
I.—Pastor: Gesch. d. Päpste, I. 31 sqq., III. 133 sqq.—Hefele-Hergenröther:
Conciliengesch., vol. VIII.
For §
75.—Ullmann: Reformers before the Reformation, 2 vols., Hamb., 1841 sq., 2d
ed., Gotha, 1866, Engl. trsl, 2 vols., Edinb., 1855; Also J. Wessel, ein
Vorgänger Luthers, Hamb., 1834.—Gieseler, II., Part IV. 481–503. Copious
excerpts from their writings.—Hergenröther-Kirsch, II., 1047–1049.—Janssen-Pastor:
I. 745–747.—Harnack: Dogmengesch., III. 518, etc.—Loofs: Dogmengesch., 4th ed.,
655–658.—For Goch: His De libertate christ., etc., ed. by Corn. Graphaeus,
Antw., 1520–1523.—O. Clemen: Joh. Pupper von Goch, Leip., 1896 and artt. In
Herzog, VI. 740–743, and In Wetzer-Welte, VI. 1678–1684.—For Wesel: his Adv.
indulgentias in Walch’s Monumenta medii aevi Götting., 1757.—The proceedings of
his trial, in Aeneas Sylvius: Commentarium de concilio Basileae and D’argentré:
Col. Nov. judiciorum de erroribus novis, Paris, 1755, and Browne: Fasciculus,
2d ed., Lond., 1690.—Artt. in Herzog by Clemen, xxi, 127–131, and Wetzer-Welte,
VI. 1786–1789.—For Wessel: 1st ed. of his works Farrago rerum theol., a
collection of his tracts, appeared in the Netherlands about 1521, 2d ed.,
Wittenb., 1522, containing Luther’s letter, 3d and 4th edd., Basel, 1522, 1523.
Complete ed. of his works containing Life, by A. Hardenberg (preacher in
Bremen, d. 1574), Groningen, 1614.—Muurling: Commentatio historico-Theol. de
Wesseli cum vita tum meritis, Trajecti ad Rhenum, 1831; also de Wesseli
principiis ac virtutibus, Amsterd., 1840.—J. Friedrich, Rom. Cath.: J. Wessel,
Regensb., 1862.—Artt. Wessel in Herzog, by Van Veen, xxi. 131–147, and
Wetzer-Welte, XII. 1339–1343.—P. Hofstede de Groot: J. Wessel Ganzevoort,
Groningen, 1871.
For §
76.—Nicolas of Lyra: Postillae sive Commentaria brevia in omnia biblia, Rome,
1541–1543, 5 vols., Introd.—Wyclif: De veritate scrip. Sac., ed. by Buddensieg,
3 vols., Leipzig, 1904.—Gerson: De sensu litterali scrip: sac., Du Pin’s ed.,
1728, I. 1 sqq.—Erasmus: Introd. to Gr. Test., 1516.—L. Hain: Repertorium
bibliographicum, 4 vols., Stuttg., 1826–1838. Ed. Reuss, d. 1891: D. Gesch. d.
heil. Schriften N. T., 6th ed., Braunschweig, 1887, pp. 603 sqq.—F. W. Farrar:
Hist. of Interpretation, Lond., 1886, pp. 254–303.—S. Berger: La Bible
Française au moyen âge, Paris, 1884. Gasquet: The Old Engl. Bible, etc.; the
Eve of the Reformation.—F. Falk: Bibelstudien, Bibelhandschriften und
Bibeldrucken, Mainz, 1901: Die Bibel am Ausgange des MA, ihre Kenntnis und ihre
Verbreitung, Col., 1905.—W. Walther: D. deutschen Bibelübersetzungen des MA,
Braunschweig, 1889–1892.—A. Coppinger: Incunabula bibl. or the First Half Cent.
of the Lat. Bible, 1450–1500, with 54 facsimiles, Lond., 1892.—The Histt. of
the Engl. Bible, by Westcott, Eadie, Moulton, Kenyon, etc.—Janssen-Pastor:
Gesch. des deutschen Volkes, I. 9 sqq.—Bezold: Gesch. der Reformation, pp. 109
sqq.—R. Schmid: Nic. of Lyra, In Herzog XII. 28–30.—Artt. Bibellesen und Bibelverbot
and Bibelübersetzungen in Herzog II. 700 sqq., III. 24 sqq. Other works cited
in the notes.
For §
77.—I. Sources: Savonarola’s Lat. and Ital. writings consist of sermons,
tracts, letters and a few poems. The largest collection of MSS. and original
edd. is preserved in the National Library of Florence. It contains 15 edd. of
the Triumph of the Cross issued in the 15th and 16th centt. Epp. spirituales et
asceticae, ed. Quétif, Paris, 1674. The sermons were collected by a friend,
Lorenzo Vivoli, and published as they came fresh from the preacher’s lips. Best
ed. Sermoni a Prediche, Prato, 1846. Also ed. by G. Baccini, Flor., 1889. A
selection, ed. by Villari and Casanova: Scelta di prediche e scritti, G. Sav.,
Flor., 1898.—Germ. trsl. of 12 sermons and the poem de ruina mundi by H.
Schottmüller: Berlin, 1901, pp. 132. A. Gherardi: Nuovi documenta e studii
intorno a Savon., 1876, 2d ed., Flor., 1887.—The Triumph of the Cross, ed. in
Lat. and Ital. by L. Ferretti, O. P., Milan, 1901. Engl. trsl. from this ed. by
J. Procter, Lond., 1901, pp. 209.—Exposition of Ps. LI and part of Ps. XXXII,
Lat. text with Engl. trsl. by E. H. Perowne, Lond., 1900, pp. 227.—Sav.’s
Poetry, ed. by C. Guasti, Flor., 1862, pp. xxii, 1864.—Rudelbach, Perrens and
Villari give specimens in the original.—E. C. Bayonne: Oeuvres spir. choisies
de Sav., 3 vols., Paris, 1880.—Oldest biographies by P. Burlamacchi, d. 1519,
founded on an older Latin Life, the work of an eye-witness, ed. by Mansi, 1761:
G. F. Pico Della Mirandola (nephew of the celebrated scholar of that name),
completed 1520, publ. 1530, ed. by Quétif, 2 vols., Paris, 1674. On these three
works, see Villari, Life of Sav., pp. xxvii sqq.—Also J. Nardi (a
contemporary): Le storie della cittá di Firenze, 1494–1531, Flor., 1584. Luca
Landucci, a pious Florentine apothecary and an ardent admirer of Sav.: Diario
Fiorentino, 1450–1516, Florence, 1883. A realistic picture of Florence and the
preaching and death of Savonarola.
II.
Modern Works.—For extended lit., see Potthast: Bibl. Hist. med., II. 1564
sqq.—Lives by Rudelbach, Hamb., 1835.—Meier, Berl., 1836.—K. Hase in Neue
Propheten, Leip., 1851.—F. T. Perrens, 2 vols., Paris, 1853, 3d ed.,
1859.—Madden, 2 vols., Lond., 1854.—Padre V. Marchese, Flor., 1855.—*Pasquale
Villari: Life and Times of Savon., Flor., 1859–1861, 2d ed., 1887, 1st Engl.
trsl. by L. Horner, 2d Engl. trsl. by Mrs. Villari, Lond., 2 vols., 1888, 1
vol. ed., 1899.—Ranke in Hist. biogr. Studien, Leip., 1877.—Bayonne: Paris,
1879.—E. Warren, Lond., 1881.—W. Clark, Prof. Trinity Col., Toronto, Chicago,
1891.—J. L. O’Neil, O. P.: Was Sav. really excommunicated? Bost, 1900; *H. Lucas, St. Louis,
1900.—G. McHardy, Edinb., 1901.—W. H. Crawford: Sav. the Prophet in Men of the
Kingdom series.—*J. Schnitzer: Quellen und Forschungen zur Gesch. Savon., 3
vols., Munich, 1902–1904. Vol. II., Sav. und die Fruerprobe, pp. 175.—Also
Savon. im Lichte der neuesten Lit. in Hist.-pol. Blätter, 1898–1900.—H. Riesch:
Savon. U. S. Zeit, Leip., 1906.—Roscoe in Life of Lorenzo the Magnificent.—E.
Comba: Storia della riforma in Italia, Flor., 1881.—P. Schaff, art. Savon. in
Herzog II., 2d ed., XIII. 421–431, and Benrath in 3d ed., XVII.
502–513.—Creighton: vol. III.—Gregorovius: VII. 432 sqq.—*Pastor: 4th ed., III.
137–148, 150–162, 396–437: Zur Beurtheilung Sav., pp. 79, Freib. im Br., 1896.
This brochure was in answer to sharp attacks upon Pastor’s treatment of
Savonarola in the 1st ed. of his Hist., especially those of Luotto and
Feretti.—P. Luotto: Il vero Savon. ed il Savon. di L. Pastor, Flor., 1897, p.
620. Luotto also wrote Dello studio di scrittura sacra secondo G. Savon. e Léon
XIII., Turin, 1896.—Feretti: Per la causa di Fra G. Savon., Milan, 1897.—Mrs.
Oliphant: Makers of Florence. Godkin: The Monastery of San Marco, Lond., 1901.—G.
Biermann: Krit. Studie zur Gesch. des Fra G. Savon., Rostock, 1901.—Brie:
Savon. und d. deutsche Lit., Breslau, 1903.—G. Bonet-Maury: Les Précurseurs de
la Réforme et de la liberté de conscience ... du XIIe et XIIIe siècle, Paris,
1904, contains sketches of Waldo, Bernard of Clairvaux, Peter the Venerable,
St. Francis, Dante, Savonarola, etc.—Savonarola has been made the subject of
romantic treatment by Lenau In his poem Savonarola, 1844, Geo. Eliot in Romola,
and by Alfred Austin in his tragedy, Savonarola, Lond., 1881, with a long
preface in which an irreverent, if not blasphemous, parallel is drawn between
the Florentine preacher and Christ.
For §
78.—See citations In the Notes.
For §
79.—G. Uhlhorn: Die christl. Liebesthätigkeit im MA, Stuttg., 1884.—P. A
Thiejm: Gesch. d. Wohlthätigkeitsanstalten in Belgien, etc., Freib., 1887.—L.
Lallemand: Hist. de la charité, 3 vols., Paris, 1906. Vol. 3 covers the
10th-16th century.—T. Kolde: Art. Bruderschaften, in Herzog, III. 434–441.—A.
Blaize: Des monts-de-piété et des banques de prêt sur gage, Paris, 1856.—H.
Holzapfel: D. Anfänge d. montes pietatis 1462–1515, Munich, 1903.—Toulmin
Smith: Engl. Gilds, Lond., 1870.—Thorold Rogers: Work and Wages, ch. XI.
sqq.—W. Cunningham: Growth of Engl. Industry and Commerce, bk. II., ch. III.
sqq.—Lecky: Hist. of Europ. Morals, II.—Stubbs: Const. Hist., ch. XXI.—W. von
Heyd: Gesch. d. Levantenhandels im MA, 2 vols., Stuttg., 1879.—Artt. Aussatz
and Zins u. Wucher In Wetzer-Welte, I. 1706 sqq., XII. 1963–1975.—Janssen-Pastor,
I. 451 sqq.—Pastor: Gesch. d. Päpste., III.
For §
60.—The Sources are Thomas Aquinas, the papal bulls of indulgence and
treatments by Wyclif, Huss, Wessel, John of Paltz, James of Jüterbock, etc.
Much material is given by W. Köhler: Dokumente zum Ablassstreit, Tüb., 1902,
and A. Schulte: D. Fugger in Rom, 2 vols., Leipz., 1904. Vol. II contains
documents.—The authoritative Cath. work is Fr. Beringer: Die Ablässe, ihr Wesen
u. Gebrauch, pp. 860 and 64, 13th ed., Paderb., 1906.—Also Nic. Paulus: J.
Tetzel, der Ablassprediger, Mainz, 1899.—Best Prot. treatments, H. C. Lea:
Hist. of Auric. Conf. and Indulgences in the Lat. Ch., 3 vols., Phil., 1896.—T.
Brieger, art. Indulgenzen in Herzog, IX. 76–94, and Schaff-Herzog, V. 485 sqq.
and D. Wesen d. Ablasses am Ausgange d. MA, a university address. Brieger has
promised an extended treatment in book form.—Schaff: Ch. Hist., V., I. p. 729
sqq., VI. 146 sqq.
</div3> <div3 type = "Section"
n="73" title="The Clergy">
§ 73.
The Clergy.
Both
in respect of morals and education the clergy, during the period following the
year 1450, showed improvement over the age of the Avignon captivity and the
papal schism. Clerical practice in that former age was so lo that it was
impossible for it to go lower and any appearance of true religion remain. One
of the healthy signs of this latter period was that, in a spirit of genuine
religious devotion, Savonarola in Italy and such men in Germany as Busch,
Thomas Murner, Geiler of Strassburg, Sebastian Brant and the Benedictine abbot,
Trithemius, held up to condemnation, or ridicule, priestly incompetency and
worldliness. The pictures, which they joined Erasmus in drawing, were dark
enough. Nevertheless, the clergy both of the higher and lower grades included
in its ranks many men who truly sought the well-being of the people and set an
example of purity of conduct.
The
first cause of the low condition, for low it continued to be, was the
impossible requirement of celibacy. The infraction of this rule weakened the
whole moral fibre of the clerical order. A second cause is to be looked for in
the seizure of the rich ecclesiastical endowments by the aristocracy as its
peculiar prize and securing them for the sons of noble parentage without regard
to their moral and intellectual fitness. To the evils arising from these two
causes must be added the evils arising from the unblushing practice of
pluralism. No help came from Rome. The episcopal residences of Toledo,
Constance, Paris, Mainz, Cologne and Canterbury could not be expected to be
models of domestic and religious order when the tales of Boccaccio were being
paralleled in the lives of the supreme functionaries of Christendom at its
centre.
The
grave discussions of clerical manners, carried on at the Councils of Constance
and Basel, revealed the disease without providing a cure. The proposition was
even made by Cardinal Zabarella and Gerson, in case further attempts to check
priestly concubinage failed, to concede to the clergy the privilege of
marriage.1129 In the programme
for a reformation of the Church, offered by Sigismund at Basel, the concession
was included and Pius II., one of the attendants on that synod, declared the
reasons for restoring the right of matrimony to priests to be stronger in that
day than were the reasons in a former age for forbidding it. The need of a
relaxation of the rigid rule found recognition in the decrees of Eugenius IV.,
1441, and Alexander VI., 1496, releasing some of the military orders from the
vow of chastity. Here and there, priests like Lallier of Paris at the close of
the 15th century, dared to propose openly, as Wyclif had done a century before,
its full abolition. But, for making the proposal, the Sorbonne denied to
Lallier the doctorate.
In
Spain, the efforts of synods and prelates to put a check upon clerical
immorality accomplished little. Finally, the secular power intervened and
repeated edicts were issued by Ferdinand and Isabella against priestly
concubinage, 1480, 1491, 1502, 1503. So energetic was the attempt at
enforcement that, in districts, clerics complained that the secular officials
made forcible entrance into their houses and carried off their women
companions.1130 In his History
of the Spanish Inquisition, Dr. Lea devotes a special chapter to clerical
solicitation at the confessional. Episcopal deliverances show that the priests
were often illiterate and without even a knowledge of Latin. The prelates were
given to worldliness and the practice of pluralism. The revenues of the see of
Toledo were estimated at from 80,000 to 100,000 ducats, with patronage at the
disposal of its incumbent amounting to a like sum. A single instance must
suffice to show the extent to which pluralism in Spain was carried. Gonzalez de
Mendoza, while yet a child, held the curacy of Hita, at twelve was archdeacon
of Guadalajara, one of the richest benefices of Spain, and retained the
bishopric of Seguenza during his successive administrations of the
archbishoprics of Seville and Toledo. Gonzalez was a gallant knight and, in
1484, when he led the army which invaded Granada, he took with him his bastard
son, Rodrigo, who was subsequently married in great state in the presence of
Ferdinand and Isabella to Ferdinand’s niece. In 1476, when the archbishopric of
Saragossa became vacant, king Juan II. applied to Sixtus IV. to appoint his
son, Alfonzo, a child of six, to the place. Sixtus declined, but after a spirited
controversy preserved the king’s good-will by appointing the boy perpetual
administrator of the see.
In
France, the bishop of Angers, in an official address to Charles VIII., 1484,
declared that the religious orders had fallen below the level of the laity in
their morals.1131
To give a case of extravagant pluralism, John, son of the duke of
Lorraine, 1498–1550, was appointed bishop-coadjutor of Metz, 1501, entering
into full possession seven years later, and, one after the other, he united
with this preferment the bishoprics of Toul, 1517, and Térouanne, 1518, Valence
and Die, 1521, Verdun, 1523, Alby, 1536, Macon soon after, Agen, 1541 and
Nantes, 1542. To these were added the archbishoprics of Narbonne, 1524, Rheims,
1533, and Lyons, 1537. He also held at least nine abbeys, including Cluny. He
resigned the sees of Verdun and Metz to a nephew, but resumed them in 1548 when
this nephew married Marguerite d’Egmont.1132 In 1518, he received the red hat. During the 15th century
one boy of 10 and another of 17 filled the bishopric of Geneva. A loyal
Romanist, Soeur Jeanne de Jussie, writing after the beginning of the 16th century,
testifies to the dissoluteness of the bishops and clergy of the Swiss city and
charged them with living in adultery.1133
In
Germany, although as a result of the labors of the Mystics the ecclesiastical
condition was much better, the moral and intellectual unfitness was such that
it calls forth severe criticism from Catholic as well as Protestant historians.
The Catholic, Janssen, says that "the profligacy of the clergy at German
cathedrals, as well as their rudeness and ignorance, was proverbial. The
complaints which have come down to us from the 15th century of the bad morals
of the German clergy are exceedingly numerous." Ficker, a Protestant, speaks of "the extraordinary
immorality to which priests and monks yielded themselves." And Bezold, likewise a Protestant, says
that "in the 15th century the worldliness of the clergy reached a height
not possible to surpass."1134
The contemporary Jacob Wimpheling, set forth probably the true state of
the case. He was severe upon the clergy and yet spoke of many excellent
prelates, canons and vicars, known for their piety and good works. He knew of a
German cleric who held at one time 20 livings, including 8 canonries. To the
archbishopric of Mainz, Albrecht of Hohenzollern added the see of Halberstadt
and the archbishopric of Magdeburg. For his promotion to the see of Mainz he
paid 30,000 gulden, money he borrowed from the Fuggers.
The
bishops were charged with affecting the latest fashions in dress and wearing
the finest textures, keeping horses and huntings dogs, surrounding themselves
with servants and pages, allowing their beards and hair to grow long, and going
about in green- and red-colored shoes and shoes punctured with holes through
which ribbons were drawn. They were often seen in coats of mail, and accoutred
with helmets and swords, and the tournament often witnessed them entered in the
lists.1135
The
custom of reserving the higher offices of the Church for the aristocracy was widely
sanctioned by law. As early as 1281 in Worms and 1294 in Osnabruck, no one
could be dean who was not of noble lineage. The office of bishop and prebend
stalls were limited to men of noble birth by Basel, 1474, Augsburg, 1475,
Münster and Paderborn, 1480, and Osnabruck, 1517. The same rule prevailed in
Mainz, Halberstadt, Meissen, Merseburg and other dioceses. At the beginning of
the 16th century, it was the established custom in Germany that no one should
be admitted to a cathedral chapter who could not show 16 ancestors who had
joined in the tournament and, as early as 1474, the condition of admission to
the chapter of Cologne was that the candidate should show 32 members of his
family of noble birth. Of the 228 bishops who successively occupied the 32
German sees from 1400–1517, all but 13 were noblemen. The eight occupants of
the see of Münster, 1424–1508, were all counts or dukes. So it was with 10
archbishops of Mainz, 1419–1514, the 7 bishops of Halberstadt, 1407–1513, and
the 5 archbishops of Cologne, 1414–1515.1136 This custom of keeping the high places for men of noble
birth was smartly condemned by Geiler of Strassburg and other contemporaries.
Geiler declared that Germany was soaked with the folly that to the bishoprics,
not the more pious and learned should be promoted but only those who, "as
they say, belong to good families."
It remained for the Protestant Reformation to reassert the democratic
character of the ministry.
A
high standard could not be expected of the lower ranks of the clergy where the
incumbents of the high positions held them, not by reason of piety or
intellectual attainments but as the prize of birth and favoritism. The wonder
is, that there was any genuine devotion left among the lower priesthood. Its
ranks were greatly overstocked. Every family with several sons expected to find
a clerical position for one of them and often the member of the family, least
fitted by physical qualifications to make his way in the world, was set apart
for religion. Here again Geiler of Strassburg applied his lash of indignation,
declaring that, as people set apart for St. Velten the chicken that had the pox
and for St. Anthony the pig that was affected with disease, so they devoted the
least likely of their children to the holy office.
The
German village clergy of the period were as a rule not university bred. The
chronicler, Felix Faber of Ulm, in 1490 declared that out of 1000 priests
scarcely one had ever seen a university town and a baccalaureate or master was
a rarity seldom met with. With a sigh, people of that age spoke of the
well-equipped priest of, the good old times."
From
the Alps to Scandinavia, concubinage was widely practised and in parts of
Germany, such as Saxony, Bavaria, Austria and the Tirol, it was general. The
region, where there was the least of it, was the country along the Rhine. In
parts of Switzerland and other localities, parishes, as a measure of
self-defence, forced their young pastors to take concubines. Two of the Swiss
Reformers, Leo Jud and Bullinger, were sons of priests and Zwingli, a prominent
priest, was given to incontinence before starting on his reformatory career. It
was a common saying that the Turk of clerical sensualism within was harder to
drive out than the Turk from the East.
How
far the conscientious effort, made in Germany in the last years of the Middle
Ages to reform the convents, was attended with success is a matter of doubt.
John Busch labored most energetically in that direction for nearly fifty years
in Westphalia, Thuringia and other parts. The things that he records seem
almost past belief. Nunneries, here and there, were no better than brothels. In
cases, they were habitually visited by noblemen. The experience is told of one
nobleman who was travelling with his servant and stopped over night at a
convent. After the evening meal, the nuns cleared the main room and, dressed in
fine apparel, amused their visitor by exhibitions of dancing.1137 Thomas Murner went so far as to say
that convents for women had all been turned into refuges for people of noble
birth.1138 The dancing
during the sessions of the Diet of Cologne, 1505, was opened by the archbishop
and an abbess, and nuns from St. Ursula’s and St. Mary’s, the king Maximilian
looking on. Preachers, like Geiler of Strassburg, cried out against the moral
dangers which beset persons taking the monastic vow.1139 The cloistral life came to be known as
"the compulsory vocation."
As the time of the Reformation approached, there was no lessening of the
outcry against the immorality of the clergy and convents, as appears from the
writings of Ulrich von Hutten and Erasmus.
The
practice of priestly concubinage, uncanonical though it was, bishops were quite
ready to turn into a means of gain, levying a tax upon it. In the diocese of
Bamberg, a toll of 5 gulden was exacted for every child born to a priest and,
in a single year, the tax is said to have brought in the considerable sum of
1,500 gulden. In 1522, a similar tax of 4 gulden brought into the treasury of
the bishop of Constance, 7,500 gulden. The same year, complaint was made to the
pope by the Diet of Nürnberg of the reckless lawlessness of young priests in
corrupting women and of the annual tax levied in most dioceses upon all the clergy
without distinction whether they kept concubines or not.1140 It is not surprising, in view of these
facts, that Luther called upon monks and nuns unable to avoid incontinence of
thought, to come forth from the monasteries and marry. On the other hand, it
must not be forgotten that no plausible charge of incontinence was made against
the Reformer.
If
we turn to England, we are struck with the great dearth of contemporary
religious literature, 1450–1517, as compared with Germany.1141 Few writings have come down to us from
which to form a judgment of the condition of the clergy. Our deductions must be
drawn in part from the testimonies of the English Humanists and Reformers and
from the records of the visitations of monasteries and also their suppression
under Henry VIII. In a document, drawn up at the request of Henry V. by the
University of Oxford, 1414, setting forth the need of a reformation of the
Church, one of the articles pronounced the "undisguised profligacy of the clergy
to be the scandal of the Church."1142 In the middle of the century, 1455, Archbishop Bourchier’s
Commission for Reforming the Clergy spoke of the marriage and concubinage of
the secular clergy and the gross ignorance which, in quarters, marked them. In
the latter part of the century, 1489, the investigation of the convents,
undertaken by Archbishop Morton, uncovered an unsavory state of affairs. The
old abbey of St. Albans, for example, had degenerated till it was little better
than a house of prostitution for monks. In two priories under the abbey’s
jurisdiction, the nuns had been turned out to give place to avowed courtesans.
The Lollards demanded the privilege of wedlock for priests. When, in 1494, 30
of their number were arraigned by Robert Blacater, archbishop of Glasgow, one
of the charges against them was their assertion that priests had wives in the
primitive Church.1143
Writing at the very close of the 15th century, Colet exclaimed,
"Oh, the abominable impiety of those miserable priests, of whom this age
of ours contains a great multitude, who fear not to rush from the arms of some
foul harlot into the temple of the Church, to the altar of Christ, to the
mysteries of God."1144
The famous tract, the Beggars’ Petition, written on the eve of the
British Reformation, accused the clergy of having no other serious occupation
than the destruction of the peace of family life and the corruption of women.1145
As
for the practice of plural livings, it was perhaps as much in vogue in England
as in Germany. Dr. Sherbourne, Colet’s predecessor as dean of St. Paul’s, was a
notable example of a pluralist, but in this respect was exceeded by Morton and
Wolsey. As for the ignorance of the English clergy, it is sufficient to refer
to the testimony of Bishop Hooper who, during his visitation in Gloucester,
1551, found 168 of 811 clergymen unable to repeat the Ten Commandments, 40 who
could not tell where the Lord’s Prayer was to be found and 31 unable to give
the author.1146
In
Scotland, the state of the clergy in pre-Reformation times was probably as low
as in any other part of Western Europe.1147 John IV.’s bastard son was appointed bishop of St. Andrews
at 16 and the illegitimate sons of James V., 1513–1542, held the five abbeys of
Holyrood, Kelso, St. Andrews, Melrose and Coldingham. Bishops lived openly in
concubinage and married their daughters into the ranks of the nobility. In the
marriage document, certifying the nuptials of Cardinal Beaton’s eldest daughter
to the Earl of Crawford, 1546, the cardinal called her his child. On the night
of his murder, he is said to have been with his favorite mistress, Marion
Ogilvie.
Side
by side with the decline of the monastic institutions, there prevailed among
the monks of the 15th century a most exaggerated notion of the sanctifying
influence of the monastic vow. According to Luther, the monks of his day
recognized two grades of Christians, the perfect and the imperfect. To the
former the monastics belonged. Their vow was regarded as a second baptism which
cleared those who received it from all stain, restored them to the divine image
and put them in a class with the angels. Luther was encouraged by his superiors
to feel, after he had taken the vow, that he was as pure as a child. This
second regeneration had been taught by St. Bernard and Thomas Aquinas. Thomas
said that it may with reason be affirmed that any one "entering
religion," that is, taking the monastic vow, thereby received remission of
sins.1148
</div3> <div3 type = "Section"
n="74" title="Preaching">
§ 74.
Preaching.
The
two leading preachers of Europe during the last 50 years of the Middle Ages
were Jerome Savonarola of Florence and John Geiler of Strassburg. Early in the
15th century, Gerson was led by the ignorance of the clergy to recommend a
reduction of preaching,1149 but in the period just before the
Reformation there was a noticeable revival of the practice of preaching in
Germany and a movement in that direction was felt in England. Erasmus, as a cosmopolitan
scholar made an appeal for the function of the pulpit, which went to all
portions of Western Europe.
In
Germany, the importance of the sermon was emphasized by synodal decrees and
homiletic manuals. Such synods were the synods of Eichstädt, 1463, Bamberg,
1491, Basel, 1503, Meissen, 1504. Surgant’s noted Handbook on the Art of
Preaching praised the sermon as the instrument best adapted to lead the people
to repentance and inflame Christian love and called it "the way of life,
the ladder of virtue and the gate of paradise."1150 It was pronounced as much a sin to let
a word from the pulpit fall unheeded as to spill a drop of the sacramental
wine. In the penitential books and the devotional manuals of the time, stress
was laid upon the duty of attending preaching, as upon the mass. Those who left
church before the sermon began were pronounced deserving excommunication.
Wolff’s penitential manual of 1478 made the neglect of the sermon a violation
of the 4th commandment. The efficacy of sermons was vouched for in the
following story. A good man met the devil carrying a bag full of boxes packed
with salves. Holding up a black box, the devil said that he used it to put people
to sleep during the preaching service. The preachers, he continued, greatly
interfered with his work, and often by a single sermon snatched from him
persons he had held in his power for 30 or 40 years.1151
By
the end of the 15th century, all the German cities and most of the larger towns
had regular preaching.1152
It was a common thing to endow pulpits, as in Mainz, 1465, Basel, 1469,
Strassburg, 1478, Constance, Augsburg, Stuttgart and other cities. The popular
preachers drew large audiences. So it was with Geiler of Strassburg, whose
ministry lasted 30 years. 10,000 are said to have gathered to hear the sermons
of the barefooted monk, Jacob Mene of Cologne, when he held forth at Frankfurt,
the people standing in the windows and crowding up against the organ to hear
him. It was Mene’s practice to preach a sermon from 7–8 in the morning, and
again after the noon meal. On a certain Good Friday he prolonged his effort
five hours, from 3–8 P. M. According to Luther, towns were glad to give
itinerant monks 100 gulden for a series of Lenten discourses.
Other
signs of the increased interest felt in sermons were the homiletic cyclopaedias
of the time furnishing materials derived from the Bible, the Fathers, classic
authors and from the realm of tale and story. To these must be added the
plenaria, collections from the Gospels and Epistles with glosses and comments.
The plenarium of Guillermus, professor in Paris, went through 75 editions
before 1500. Collections of model sermons were also issued, some of which had
an extensive circulation. The collection of John Nider, d. 1439, passed through
17 editions. His texts were invariably subjected to a threefold division. The
collection of the Franciscan, John of Werden, who died at Cologne about 1450,
passed through 25 editions. John Herolt’s volume of Sermons of a Disciple —
Sermones discipuli — went through 41 editions before 1500 and is computed to
have had a circulation of no less than 40,000 copies.1153 One of the most popular of the collections
called Parati sermones—The Ready Man’s Sermons — appeared anonymously. Its
title was taken from 1 Peter 4:6, "ready—paratus — to judge the quick and
the dead" and Ps. 119:60, "I made haste [ready] and delayed not to
observe thy commandments." In
setting forth the words "Be not unwise but understanding what the will of
the Lord is" the author says that such wisdom is taught by the animals. 1.
By the lion who brushes out his paw-prints with his tail so that the hunter is
thrown off the track. So we should with penance erase the marks of our sins
that the devil may not find us out. 2. The serpent which closes both ears to
the seducer, one ear with his tail and the other by holding it to the ground.
Against the devil we should shut our ears by the two thoughts of death and
eternity. 3. The ant from which we learn industry in making provision for the
future. 4. A certain kind of fish which sucks itself fast to the rock in times
of storm. So we should adhere closely to the rock, Christ Jesus, by thoughts of
his passion and thus save ourselves from the surging of the waves of the world.
Such materials show that the homiletic instinct was alert and the preachers
anxious to catch the attention of the people and impart biblical truth.
The
sermons of the German preachers of the 15th century were written now in Latin,
now in German. The more famous of the Latin sermonizers were Gabriel Biel,
preacher in Mainz and then professor in Tübingen, d. 1495, and Jacob Jüterbock,
1883–1465, Carthusian prior in Erfurt and professor in the university in that
city.1154 Among the
notable preachers who preached in German were John Herolt of Basel, already
mentioned; the Franciscan John Gritsch whose sermons reached 26 editions before
1500; the Franciscan, John Meder of Basel whose Lenten discourses on the
Prodigal Son of the year 1494 reached 36 editions and Ulrich Krafft, pastor in
Ulm, 1500 to 1516, and author of the two volumes, The Spiritual Battle and
Noah’s Ark.
More
famous than all others was Geiler of Strassburg, usually called from his
father’s birthplace, Geiler of Kaisersberg, born in Schaffhausen, 1445, died in
Strassburg, 1510. He and his predecessor, Bertholdt of Regensburg, have the
reputation of being the most powerful preachers of mediaeval Germany. For more
than a quarter of a century he stood in the cathedral pulpit of Strassburg, the
monarch of preachers in the North. After pursuing his university studies in
Freiburg and Basel, Geiler was made professor at Freiburg, 1476. His pulpit
efforts soon made him a marked man. In accepting the call as preacher in the
cathedral at Strassburg, he entered into a contract to preach every Sunday and
on all festival and fast days. He continued to fill the pulpit till within two
months of his death and lies interred in the cathedral where he preached.1155
"The
Trumpet of Strassburg," as Geiler was called, gained his fame as a
preacher of moral and social reforms. He advocated no doctrinal changes. Called
upon, 1500, to explain his public declaration that the city councillors were
"all of the devil," he issued 21 articles demanding that games of
chance be prohibited, drinking halls closed, the Sabbath and festival days
observed, the hospitals properly cared for and monkish mendicancy regulated.
He
was a preacher of the people and now amused, now stung them, by anecdotes,
plays on words, descriptions, proverbs, sallies of wit, humor and sarcasm.1156 He attacked popular follies and
fashions and struck at the priests "many of whom never said mass,"
and at the convents in which "neither religion nor virtue was found and
the living was lax, lustful, dissolute and fall of all levity."1157 Mediaeval superstition he served up to
his hearers in good doses. He was a firm believer in astrology, ghosts and
witches.
Geiler’s
style may seem rude to the polite age in which we live, but it reached the ear
of his own time. The high as well as the low listened. Maximilian went to hear
Geiler when he was in Strassburg. No one could be in doubt about the preacher’s
meaning. In a series of 65 passion sermons, he elaborated a comparison between
Christ and a ginger cake—the German Lebkuchen. Christ is composed of the bean
meal of the deity, the old fruit meal of the body and the wheat meal of the
soul. To these elements is added the honey of compassion. He was thrust into
the oven of affliction and is divided by preachers into many parts and
distributed among the people. In other sermons, he compared perfect Christians
to sausages.
In
seven most curious discourses on Der Hase im Pfeffer an idiomatic expression
for That’s the Rub—based on Prov. 30:26, "The coney is a weak folk,"
he made 14 comparisons between the coney and the good Christian. The coney runs
better up hill than down, as a good Christian should do. The coney has long
ears as also a Christian should have, especially monastics, attending to what
God has to say. The coney must be roasted; and so must also the Christian pass
through the furnace of trial. The coney being a lank beast must be cooked in
lard, so also must the Christian be surrounded with love and devotion lest he
be scorched in the furnace. In 64 discourses, preached two years before his
death, Geiler brought out the spiritual lessons to be derived from ants and in
another series he elaborated the 25 sins of the tongue. In a course of 20
sermons to business men, he depicted the six market days and the devil as a
pedler(sic) going about selling his wares. He preached 17 sermons on the lion
in which the king of beasts was successively treated as the symbol of the good
man, the worldly man, Christ and the devil; 12 of these sermons were devoted to
the ferocious activities of the devil. A series on the Human Tree comprised no
less than 163 discourses running from the beginning of Lent, 1495, to the close
of Lent, 1496.
During
the last two years of the 15th century, Geiler preached 111 homilies on
Sebastian Brant’s Ship of Fools Narren-schiff — all drawn from the text Eccles.
1:15 as it reads in the Vulgate, "the fools are without number." Through Geiler’s intervention Brant had
been brought to Strassburg from Basel, where he was professor. His famous work,
which is a travesty upon the follies of his time, employed the figure of a ship
for the transport of his fools because it was the largest engine of
transportation the author knew of. Very humorously Brant placed himself in the
moderator’s chair while all the other fools were gathered in front of him. He
himself took the rôle of the Book-fool. Among other follies which are censured
are the doings of the mendicants, the traffic in relics and indulgences and the
multiplication of benefices in single hands.1158 Geiler’s homilies equal Brant’s poetry in humor. Both were
true to life. No preacher of the Middle Ages held the popular ear so long as
Geiler of Strassburg and no popular poet, not even Will Langland, more
effectually wrote for the masses than Sebastian Brant.
In
this period, the custom came to be quite general to preach from the nave of the
church instead of from the choir railing. Preachers limited their discourses by
hour-glasses, a custom later transplanted to New England.1159 Sermons were at times unduly extended.
Gerhard Groote sometimes preached for three hours during Lent and John Gronde
extended some of his discourses to six hours, mercifully, however, dividing
them into two parts with a brief breathing-spell between, profitable as may
well be surmised alike to the preacher and the hearers. Geiler, who at one time
had been inclined to preach on without regard to time, limited his discourses
to a single hour.
The
criticisms which preachers passed upon the customs of the day show that human
nature was pretty much the same then as it is now and that the "good old
times" are not to be sought for in that age. All sorts of habits were held
up to ridicule and scorn. Drunkenness and gluttony, the dance and the street
comedy, the dress of women and the idle lounging of rich men’s sons, usury and
going to church to make a parade were among the subjects dwelt upon. Again and
again, Geiler of Strassburg returned to the lazy sons of the rich who spent
their time in retailing scandals and doing worse, more silly in their dress
than the women, fops who "thought themselves somebody because their
fathers were rich." He also
took special notice of women and their fripperies. He condemned their belts,
sometimes made of silk and adorned with gold, costing as much as 40 or 50
gulden, their padded busts and their extensive wardrobes, enabling them to wear
for a week at a time two different garments each day and a third one for a
dancing party or the play. He launched out against their long hair, left to
fall down over the back and crowned with ribbons or small caps such as the men
wore. As examples of warning, Absalom and Holofernes were singled out, the
former caught by his hair in the branches of the tree and Holofernes ensnared
by the adornments of Judith. Geiler called upon the city authorities to come to
the help of society and the preacher and legislate against such evils.1160
Another
preacher, Hollen, condemned the long trails which women wore as "the
devil’s wagon," for neither men nor angels but only the devil has a caudal
appendage. As for dancing, especially the round dances, the devil was the head
concertmaster at such entertainments and the higher the dancers jumped, the
deeper their fall into hell and, the more firmly they held on to each other
with their hands, the more closely did the devil tighten his hold upon them.
Dancing was represented by the preachers as an occasion of much profligacy.
In
ridiculing the preaching of his day, Erasmus held forth the preachers’
ignorance, their incongruous introductions, their use of stories from all
departments without any discrimination, their old women’s tales and the
frivolous topics they chose—aniles fabulae et questiones frivolse. A famous
passage in which the great scholar disparages the preaching of the monks and
friars begins with the words: —
All
their preaching is mere stage-playing, and their delivery the very transports
of ridicule and drollery. Good Lord! how mimical are these gestures! What heights and falls in their voice! What toning, what bawling, what singing,
what squeaking, what grimaces, making of months, apes’ faces, and distorting of
their countenance; and this art of oratory as a choice mystery, they convey
down by tradition to one another.1161
Erasmus
deserves credit for discerning the need of the times, and recommending the
revival of the practice of preaching and the mission of preachers to the
heathen nations. His views were set forth in the Ecclesiastes or Preacher, a
work written during the Freiburg period and filling 275 pages,1162
each double the size of the pages of the hardcopy volume. The chief purpose of
preaching he defined to be instruction. Every preacher is a herald of Christ,
who was himself the great preacher. The office of preaching is superior in
dignity to the office of kings. "Among the charisms of the Spirit, none is
more noble and efficacious than preaching. To be a dispenser of the celestial
philosophy and a messenger of the divine will is excelled by no office in the
church." It is quite in
accord with Erasmus’ high regard for the teaching function, that he magnifies
the instructional element of the sermon. Writing to Sapidus, 1516, he said,
"to be a schoolmaster is next to being a king."1163
Of
the English pulpit, there is little to say. We hear of preaching at St. Paul’s
Cross and at other places, but there is no evidence that preaching was usual.
No volumes of English sermons issued from the printing-press. Colet is the only
English preacher of the 15th century of historical importance. The churchly
counsel given to priests to impart instruction to the people, issued by the
Lambeth synod of 1281, stands almost solitary. In 1466, Archbishop Nevill of
York did no more than to repeat this legislation.
In
Scotland the history of the pulpit begins with Knox. Dr. Blaikie remarks that,
for the three centuries before the Reformation, scarcely a trace of Christian
preaching can be found in Scotland worthy the name. The country had no Wyclif,
as it had no Anselm.1164
Hamilton and Wishart, Knox’s immediate forerunners, were laymen.
The
Abbé Dr. Gasquet in a chapter on A Forgotten English Preacher in his Old Eng.
Bible and other Essays gives extracts from the MS. sermon of Thomas Branton,
Bishop of Rochester, 1372–1389. After saying that we know very little about
mediaeval preaching in England, Dr. Gasquet, p. 54, remarks that it is perhaps
just as well, as the sermons were probably dull and that "the modern
sermon" has to be endured as a necessary evil. In his chapter on Teaching
and Preaching, pp. 244–284, in his Eve of the Reformation, the same author
returns to the subject, but the chapter itself gives the strongest evidence of
the literary barrenness of the English Church in the closing years of the
Middle Ages and the dearth of preaching and public instruction. By far the
larger part of the chapter, pp. 254–280, is taken up with quotations from Sir
Thomas More, the tract Dives and Pauper and other tracts, to show that the
doctrine of the worship of images and saints was not taught in its crass form
and with a statement of the usefulness of miracle-plays as a means of popular
religious instruction. Dr. Gasquet lays stress upon the "simple
instruction" given by the English priesthood in the Middle Ages as opposed
to formal sermons which he confesses "were probably by no means so
frequent as in these times."
He makes the astounding assertion, p. 245, that religions instruction as
a means of social and moral improvement was not one of the primary aims of the
Reformation. The very opposite is proved by the efforts of Luther, Calvin and
Knox to secure the establishment of schools in every hamlet and the catechisms
which the two former prepared and the numerous catechisms prepared by their
fellow Reformers. And what of their habit of constant preaching? Luther preached day after day. One of
the first signs of the Reformation in Geneva was that St. Pierre and St.
Gervaise were opened for preaching daily. Calvin incorporated into his
ecclesiastical polity as one of the orders the ministry, the teaching body.
</div3> <div3 type = "Section"
n="75" title="Doctrinal Reformers">
§ 75.
Doctrinal Reformers.
A
group of theologians appeared in Northwestern Germany who, on the one hand,
were closely associated by locality and training with the Brothers of the
Common Life and, on the other, anticipated the coming age by the doctrinal
reforms which they proposed. On the latter account, John of Goch, John of Wesel
and Wessel of Gansfort have been properly classed with Wyclif and Huss as
Reformers before the Reformation.1165 Erasmus has no place at their side for, with his satire on
ceremonies and church conditions, the question is always raised of his
sincerity. Savonarola suggested no doctrinal changes. Among the new views emphasized
by one or all of these three men were the final authority of the Scriptures,
the fallibility of the pope, the sufficiency of divine grace for salvation
irrespective of priestly mediation, and the distinction between the visible and
the invisible Church. However, but for the Protestant Reformation, it is not
probable their voices would have been heard beyond the century in which they
lived.
John
Pupper, 1400–1475, usually called John of Goch from his birthplace, a hamlet on
the lower Rhine near Cleves, seems to have been trained in one of the schools
of the Brothers of the Common Life, and then studied in Cologne and perhaps in
Paris. He founded a house of Augustinians near Mecheln, remaining at its head
till his death. His writings were not published till after the beginning of the
Reformation. He anticipated that movement in asserting the supreme authority of
the Bible. The Fathers are to be accepted only so far as they follow the
canonical Scriptures. In contrast to the works of the philosophers and the
Schoolmen, the Bible is a book of life; theirs, books of death.1166 He also called in question the merit of
monastic vows and the validity of the distinction between the higher and lower
morality upon which monasticism laid stress. What is included under the higher
morality is within the reach of all Christians and not the property of monks
only. He renounced the Catholic view of justification without stating with
clearness the evangelical theory.1167
John
Ruchrath von Wesel, d. 1481, attacked the hierarchy and indulgences and was
charged on his trial with calling in question almost all the distinctive Roman
Catholic tenets. He was born in Oberwesel on the Rhine between Mainz and Coblentz.
He taught at the University of Erfurt and, in 1458, was chosen its vice-rector.
Luther bore testimony to his influence when he said, "I remember how
Master John Wesalia ruled the University of Erfurt by his writings through the
study of which I also became a master."1168 Leaving Erfurt, he was successively professor in Basel and
cathedral preacher in Mainz and Worms.
In
1479, Wesel was arraigned for heresy before the Inquisition at Mainz.1169 Among the charges were that the
Scriptures are alone a trustworthy source of authority; the names of the
predestinate are written in the book of life and cannot be erased by a priestly
ban; indulgences do not profit; Christ is not pleased with festivals of
fasting, pilgrimages or priestly celibacy; Christ’s body can be in the bread
without any change of the bread’s substance: pope and councils are not to be
obeyed if they are out of accord with the Scriptures; he whom God chooses will
be saved irrespective of pope and priests, and all who have faith will enjoy as
much blessedness as prelates. Wesel also made the distinction between the
visible and the invisible Church and defined the Church as the aggregation of
all the faithful who are bound together by love—collectio omnium fidelium
caritate copulatorum. In his trial, he was accused of having had communication
with the Hussites. In matters of historical criticism, he was also in advance
of his age, casting doubt upon some of the statements of the Athanasian Creed,
abandoning the application of the term Catholic to the Apostles’ Creed and
pronouncing the addition of the filioque clause—and from the Son—unwarranted.
The doctrines of indulgences and the fund of merit he pronounced unscriptural
and pious frauds. The elect are saved wholly through the grace of God—<foreign
lang="la">sola
Dei gratia salvantur electi</foreign>.
At
the request of Diether of Isenburg, archbishop of Mainz, the Universities of
Cologne and Heidelberg sent delegates to the trial. The accused was already an
old man, leaning on his staff, when he appeared before the tribunal. Lacking
strength to stand by the heretical articles, he agreed to submit "to
mother Church and the teachings of the doctors." A public recantation in the cathedral followed, and his
books were burnt.1170
These punishments were not sufficient to expiate his offence and he was
sentenced to imprisonment for life in the Augustinian convent of Mainz, where
he died.
Among
Wesel’s reported sayings, which must have seemed most blasphemous to the devout
churchman of the time, are the following: "The consecrated oil is not
better than the oil used for your cakes in the kitchen." "If you are hungry, eat. You may
eat a good capon on Friday."
"If Peter established fasting, it was in order that he might get
more for his fish" on fast days. To certain monastics, he said, "Not
religion" (that is, monastic vows) "but God’s grace saves," <foreign
lang="la">religio
nullum salvat sed gratia Dei</foreign>.
A
still nearer approach to the views of the Reformers was made by Wessel
Gansfort, commonly called John Wessel,1171 born in Groningen, 1420, died
1489. In his Preface to Wessel’s writings, 1522, Luther said, "If I had
read Wessel earlier, my enemies might have said that Luther drew everything
from Wessel, so well do our two minds agree." Wessel attended school at Zwolle, where he met Thomas à Kempis
of the neighboring convent of Mt. St. Agnes. The story ran that when Thomas
pointed him to the Virgin, Wessel replied, "Father, why did you not rather
point me to Christ who calls the heavy-laden to himself?" He continued his studies in Cologne, where
he took Greek and Hebrew, in Heidelberg and in Paris. He declined a call to
Heidelberg. In 1470, we find him in Rome. The story went that, when Sixtus IV.
invited him to follow the common custom of visitors to the Vatican and make a
request, the German student replied that he would like to have a Hebrew or
Greek manuscript of the Bible from the Vatican. The pope, laughing, said,
"Why did you not ask for a bishopric, you fool?" Wessel’s reply was "Because I do
not need it."
Wessel
spent some time in Basel, where he met Reuchlin. In 1473, the bishop of Utrecht
wrote that many were seeking his life and invited him back to Holland. His last
years, from 1474 on, Wessel spent with the Brothers of the Common Life at Mt.
St. Agnes, and in the nuns’ convent at Groningen. There, in the place of his
birth, he lies buried. His last words were, "I know no one save Jesus, the
Crucified."
Wessel
enjoyed a reputation for great learning. He escaped arraignment at the hands of
the Inquisition, but was violently attacked after his death in a tract on
indulgences, by Jacob Hoeck, Dean of Naaldwyk. None of Wessel’s writings were
published till after the outbreak of the Reformation. Although he did not reach
the doctrine of justification by faith, he declared that pope and councils may
err and he defined the Church to be the communion of the saints. The unity of
the Church does not lie in the pope—unitas ecclesiae sub uno papa tantum
accidentalis est, adeo ut non sit necessaria. He laid stress upon the faith of
the believer in partaking of the eucharist or, rather, upon his hunger and
thirst after the sacrament. But he did not deny the sacrifice of the mass or
the validity of the communion under one kind. He gave up the judicial element
in priestly absolution.1172
There is no such thing as works of supererogation, for each is under
obligation to do all he can and to do less is to sin. The prerogative of the
keys belongs to all believers. Plenary indulgences are a detestable invention
of the papacy to fill its treasury.
In
1522, a Dutch lawyer, von Hoen, joining with other Netherlanders, sent Luther a
copy of some of Wessel’s writings.1173 In the preface which the Reformer wrote for the Wittenberg
edition, he said that, as Elijah of old, so he had felt himself to be the only
one left of the prophets of God but he had found out that God had also had his
prophets in secret like Wessel.
These
three German theologians, Goch, Wesel and Wessel, were quietly searching after
the marks of the true Church and the doctrine of justification by faith in
Christ alone. Without knowing it, they were standing on the threshold of the
Reformation.
</div3> <div3 type = "Section"
n="76" title="Girolamo Savonarola">
§ 76.
Girolamo Savonarola.
<foreign
lang="la">Ecce
gladius Domini super terram cito et velociter.
</foreign>
In the
closing decade of the 15th century the city of Florence seemed to be on the eve
of becoming a model municipality, a pattern of Christian morals, a theocracy in
which Christ was acknowledged as sovereign. In the movement looking towards
this change, the chief actor was Jerome Savonarola, prior of the
[picture
with title below]
Savonarola
Dominican
convent of St. Mark’s, the most imposing preacher of the Middle Ages and one of
the most noteworthy preachers of righteousness since St. Paul. Against the dark
moral background of his generation he appears as a broad sheet of northern
light with its coruscations, mysterious and protentous, but also quickly
disappearing. His message was the prophet’s cry, "Who shall abide the day
of His coming and who shall stand when He appeareth?"
Savonarola,
born in Ferrara Sept. 21, 1452, died in Florence May 23, 1498, was the third of
seven children. Choosing his grandfather’s profession, he entered upon the
study of medicine, from which he was turned away by a deepening impression of
the corruption of society and disappointment at the refusal of a family of
Strozzi, living at Ferrara, to give him their daughter in marriage. At the age
of 23, he secretly left his father’s house and betook himself to Bologna, where
he assumed the Dominican habit. Two days after his arrival in Bologna, he wrote
thus to his father explaining the reason of his abrupt departure.
I
could not endure any longer the wickedness of the blinded peoples of Italy.
Virtue I saw despised everywhere and vices exalted and held in honor. With
great warmth of heart, I made daily a short prayer to God that He might release
me from this vale of tears. ’Make known to me the way,’ I cried, ’the way in
which I should walk for I lift up my soul unto Thee,’ and God in His infinite
mercy showed me the way, unworthy as I am of such distinguishing grace.1174
He
begged his father to console his mother and referred him to a poem by his pen
on the contempt of the world, which he had left among his papers. In this
letter and several letters to his mother, which are extant, is shown the young
monk’s warm affection for his parents and his brothers and sisters.
In
the convent, the son studied Augustine and Thomas Aquinas and became familiar
with the Scriptures, sections of which he committed to memory. Two copies of
the Bible are extant in Florence, containing copious notes in Savonarola’s own
handwriting, made on the margin, between the printed lines and on added leaves.1175 After his appointment as provincial, he
emphasized the study of the Bible in Hebrew and Greek.
In
1481, he was sent to Florence, where he became an inmate of St. Mark’s. The
convent had been rebuilt by Cosimo de Medici and its walls illuminated by the
brush of Fra Angelico. At the time of Savonarola’s arrival, the city was at the
height of its fame as a seat of culture and also as the place of lighthearted
dissipation under the brilliant patronage of Lorenzo the Magnificent.
The
young monk’s first efforts in the pulpit in Florence were a failure. The
congregation at San Lorenzo, where he preached during the Lenten season, fell
to 25 persons. Fra Mariano da Gennazzano, an Augustinian, was the popular
favorite. The Dominican won his first fame by his Lenten sermons of 1486, when
he preached at Brescia on the Book of Revelation. He represented one of the 24
elders rising up and pronouncing judgments upon the city for its wickedness. In
1489, he was invited back to Florence by Lorenzo at the suggestion of Pico
della Mirandola, who had listened to Savonarola’s eloquence at Reggio. During
the remaining nine years of his life, the city on the Arno was filled with
Savonarola’s personality. With Catherine of Siena, he shares the fame of being
the most religious of the figures that have walked its streets. During the
first part of this short period, he had conflict with Lorenzo and, during the
second, with Alexander VI., all the while seeking by his startling warnings and
his prophecies to bring about the regeneration of the city and make it a model
of civic and social righteousness. From Aug. 1, 1490, when he appeared in the
pulpit of St. Mark’s, the people thronged to hear him whether he preached there
or in the cathedral. In 1491, he was made prior of his convent. To preaching he
added writings in the department of philosophy and tracts on humility, prayer
and the love of Jesus. He was of middle height, dark complexion, lustrous eyes
dark gray in color, thick lips and aquiline nose. His features, which of
themselves would have been called coarse, attracted attention by the serious
contemplative expression which rested upon them, and the flash of his eye.
Savonarola’s
sermons were like the flashes of lightning and the reverberations of thunder.
It was his mission to lay the axe at the root of dissipation and profligacy
rather than to depict the consolations of pardon and communion with God. He
drew more upon the threatenings of the divine wrath than upon the refreshing
springs of the divine compassion. Tender descriptions of the divine love and
mercy were not wanting in his sermons, but the woes pronounced upon the
sinfulness of his time exceeded the gentle appeals. He was describing his own
method, when he said, "I am like the hail. Cover thyself lest it come down
upon thee, and strike thee. And remember that I said unto thee, Cover thy head
with a helmet, that is clothe thyself with virtue and no hail stone will touch
thee."1176
In
the time of his greatest popularity, the throngs waited hours at the doors of
the cathedral for the preacher’s arrival and it has been estimated by Villari,
that audiences of 10,000 or 12,000 hung on his discourses. Like fields of grain
under the wind, the feelings of his audiences were swayed by the preacher’s
voice. Now they burned with indignation: now they were softened to tears.
"I was overcome by weeping and could not go on." So wrote the reporter while taking down
a sermon, and Savonarola himself felt the terrible strain of his efforts and
often sank back into his seat completely exhausted. His message was directed to
the clergy, high and low, as well as to the people and the flashes of his
indignation often fell upon the palace of Lorenzo. The clergy he arraigned for
their greed of prebends and gold and their devotion to outer ceremonies rather
than to the inner life of the soul. Florence he addressed in endearing terms as
the object of his love. "My Florence," he was wont to exclaim. Geneva
was no more the city of Calvin or Edinburgh of Knox than was Florence the city
of Savonarola. Portraying the insincerity of the clergy, he said: —
In
these days, prelates and preachers are chained to the earth by the love of
earthly things. The care of souls is no longer their concern. They are content
with the receipt of revenue. The preachers preach to please princes and to be
praised by them. They have done worse. They have not only destroyed the Church
of God. They have built up a new Church after their own pattern. Go to Rome and
see! In the mansions of the great
prelates there is no concern save for poetry and the oratorical art. Go thither
and see! Thou shalt find them all
with the books of the humanities in their hands and telling one another that
they can guide mens’ souls by means of Virgil, Horace and Cicero ... The
prelates of former days had fewer gold mitres and chalices and what few they
possessed were broken up and given to relieve the needs of the poor. But our
prelates, for the sake of obtaining chalices, will rob the poor of their sole
means of support. Dost thou not know what I would tell thee! What doest thou, O Lord! Arise, and come to deliver thy Church
from the hands of devils, from the hands of tyrants, from the hands of
iniquitous prelates.1177
Dizzy
flights of fancy abounded in Savonarola’s discourses and took the place of calm
and logical exposition. On the evening before he preached his last sermon in
Advent, 1492, Savonarola beheld in the middle of the sky a hand holding a sword
with the inscription, Behold the sword of the Lord will descend suddenly and
quickly upon the earth—Ecce gladius Domini super terram cito et velociter.
Suddenly the sword was turned toward the earth, the sky was darkened, swords,
arrows and flames rained down. The heavens quaked with thunder and the world
became a prey to famine and death. The vision was ended by a command to the preacher
to make these things known. Again and again, in after years did he refer to
this prophetic vision.1178
Its memory was also preserved by a medal, representing on one side
Savonarola and on the other a sword in the heavens held by a hand and pointing
to a city beneath.
The
inscription on the heavenly sword well represents the style of Savonarola’s
preaching. It was impulsive, pictorial, eruptive, startling, not judicial and
instructive. And yet it made a profound impression on men of different classes.
Pico della Mirandola the elder has described its marvellous effect upon
himself. On one occasion, when he announced as his text Gen. 6:17, "Behold
I will bring the flood of waters upon the earth," Pico said he felt a cold
shudder course through him, and his hair, as it were, stand on end. One is
reminded of some of the impressions made by the sermons of Christmas Evans, the
Welsh preacher, and the impression made by Whitefield’s oratory upon Lord
Chesterfield and Franklin. But the imagery of the sermon, brilliant and weird
as it was, is no sufficient explanation of the Florentine preacher’s power. The
preacher himself was burning with religious passion. He felt deeply and he was
a man of deep devotion. He had the eye of the mystic and saw beneath the
external and ritual to the inner movements of spiritual power.
The
biblical element was also a conspicuous feature of his preaching. Defective as
Savonarola’s exegesis was, the biblical element was everywhere in control of
his thought and descriptions. His famous discourses were upon the ark, Exodus,
and the prophets Haggai, Ezekiel, Amos and Hosea, and John’s Revelation. He
insisted upon the authority of Scripture. "I preach the regeneration of
the Church," he said, "taking the Scriptures as my sole guide."1179
Another
element which gave to Savonarola’s sermons their virility and power was the
prophetic element. Savonarola was not merely the expounder of righteousness. He
claimed to be a prophet revealing things which, to use his own words, "are
beyond the scope of the knowledge which is natural to any creature." This element would have been a sign of
weakness, if it had not been associated with a great personality, bent on noble
ends. The severity of his warnings was often so fearful that the preacher
himself shrank back from delivering them. On one occasion, he spent the entire
night in vigils and prayer that he might be released from the duty of making
known a message, but in vain. The sermon, he then went forth to preach, he
called a terrific sermon.
Savonarola’s
confidence in his divine appointment to be the herald of special communications
from above found expression not only from the pulpit but was set forth more
calmly in two works, the Manual of Revelations, 1495, and a Dialogue concerning
Truth and Prophecy, 1497. The latter tract with a number of Savonarola’s
sermons were placed on the Index. In the former, the author declared that for a
long time he had by divine inspiration foretold future things but, bearing in
mind the Saviour’s words, "Give not that which is holy unto the
dogs," he had practised reserve in such utterances. He expressed his
conception of the office committed to him, when he said, "The Lord has put
me here and has said to me, ’I have placed thee as a watchman in the centre of
Italy ... that thou mayest hear my words and announce them,’ " <scripRef passage
= "Ezek. 3:17">Ezek. 3:17</scripRef>. If we are inclined to
regard Savonarola as having made a mistake in claiming prophetic foresight, we
easily condone the mistake on the ground of his impassioned fervor and the pure
motives by which he was animated. To his prophecies he applied Christ’s own
words, that no jot or tittle should fail till they were fulfilled.
None
of his messages was more famous than the one he received on his visit to
paradise, March, 1495. Before starting on his journey, a number of ladies
offered to be his companions. Philosophy and Rhetoric he declined. Accepting
the company of Faith, Simplicity, Prayer and Patience, he was met on his way by
the devil in a monk’s garb.1180
Satan took occasion to present to him objections against the
supernatural character of his predictions. Savonarola ought to have stopped
with preaching virtue and denouncing vices and left prophecy alone. A prophet
was always accredited by miracles. True prophets were holy men and the devil
asked Savonarola whether he felt he had reached a high grade of saintliness. He
then ventured to show that Savonarola’s prophecies had not always been
fulfilled. By this time they had arrived at the gates of paradise where
prudently Satan took his leave. The walls of paradise—so Savonarola described
them—were of diamonds and other precious stones. Ten banners surmounted them
inscribed with the prayers of Florence. Hierarchies and principalities appeared
on every side. With the help of angels, the visitor mounted a ladder to the
throne of the Virgin who gave him a crown and a precious stone and then, with
Jesus in her arms, supplicated the Trinity for Savonarola and the Florentines.
Her request was granted and the Florentines promised an era of prosperity
preceded by a period of sorrows. In this new time, the city would be more
powerful and rich than ever before.
The
question arises whether Savonarola was a genuine prophet or whether he was
self-deluded, mistaking for the heated imaginations of his own religious
fervor, direct communications from God.1181 Alexander VI. made Savonarola’s "silly declaration of
being a prophet" one of the charges against him.1182 In his Manual of Revelations,
Savonarola advanced four considerations to prove that he was a true prophet—his
own subjective certainty, the fulfilment of his predictions, their result in
helping on the cause of moral reform in Florence and their acceptance by good
people in the city. His prophecies, he said, could not have come from astrology
for he rejected it, nor from a morbid imagination for this was inconsistent
with his extensive knowledge of the Scriptures, nor from Satan for Satan hated
his sermons and does not know future events.
For
us, the only valid test is historical fact. Were Savonarola’s prophecies
fulfilled? The two prophecies,
upon whose fulfilment stress is laid, were the political revolution in
Florence, which occurred, and the coming of Charles VIII. from across the Alps.
Savonarola saw in Charles a Cyrus whose advent would release Florence from her
political bondage and introduce an era of civil freedom . He also predicted
Charles’ subsequent retreat. Commines, who visited Savonarola in the convent of
St. Mark’s after the trials which followed Charles’ advent in Italy had begun,
went away impressed with the friar’s piety and candor, and declared that he
predicted with certainty to him and to the king, "things which no one
believed at the time and which have all been fulfilled since."1183 On the other hand, such solemn
prognostications failed of fulfilment, as the extension of Florentine dominion
even to the recovery of Pisa, made May 28, 1495, and the speedy conversion of
the Turks and Moors, made May 3, 1495. The latter purported to be a revelation
from the Virgin on his visit to paradise. Where a certain number of solemn,
prophetic announcements remained unfulfilled, it is fair to suspect that the
remainder were merely the predictions of a shrewd observer watching the
progress of events. Many people trusted the friar as a prophet but, as
conditions became more and more involved, they demanded with increasing
insistence that he should substantiate his prophetic claim by a miracle. Even
the predictions which came true in part, such as the coming of Charles VIII.
across the Alps, received no fulfilment in the way of a permanent improvement
of conditions, such as Savonarola expected. The statement of Prof. Bonet-Maury
expresses the case well. Savonarola’s prophetic gift, so-called, was nothing
more than political and religious intuition.1184 Some of his predictions were not in the line of what
Christian prophecies might be expected to be, such as the rehumiliation of
Pisa. The Florentines felt flattered by the high honor which the prophet paid
to their city, and his predictions of her earthly dominion as well as heavenly
glory. In his Manual of Revelations he exclaims, "Whereas Florence is
placed in the midst of Italy, like the heart in the midst of the body, God has
chosen to select her, that she may be the centre from which this prophetic
announcement should be spread abroad throughout all Italy."
No
scene in Savonarola’s career excels in moral grandeur and dramatic interest his
appearance at the death-bed of Lorenzo the Magnificent, in 1492. History has
few such scenes to offer. When it became apparent to the brilliant ruler of the
Florentine state that his days were numbered, he felt unwilling to face the
mysteries of death and the future without the absolution priestly prerogative
pretends to be competent to confer. Savonarola and Lorenzo loved Florence with
an equal love, though the one sought its glory through a career of
righteousness and the other through a career of worldly dominion and glittering
culture. The two leaders found no terms of agreement. Lorenzo had sought to win
the preacher by personal attention and blandishments. He attended mass at St.
Mark’s. Savonarola held himself back as from an elegant worldling and the enemy
of the liberties of Florence. "You see," said Lorenzo, "a stranger
has come into my house, yet he will not stoop to pay me a visit." "He does not ask for me; let him
go or stay at his pleasure," replied the friar to those who told him that
Lorenzo was in the convent garden.
Five
influential citizens of Florence called and suggested to the friar that he
modify his public utterances. Recognizing that they had come at Lorenzo’s
instance, he bade them tell the prince to do penance for his sins, for the Lord
is no respecter of persons and spares not the mighty of the earth. Lorenzo called
upon Fra Mariano to publicly take Savonarola to task. This he did from the
pulpit on Ascension Day, 1491. Lorenzo himself was present, but the preacher’s
charges overshot the mark, and Savonarola was more popular than ever. The prior
of St. Mark’s exclaimed, "Although I am a stranger in the city, and
Lorenzo the first man in the state, yet shall I stay here and it is he who will
go hence."
When
the hour of death approached, Lorenzo was honest with himself. In vain did the
physician, Lazzaro of Pavia, resort to the last medical measure, a potion of
distilled gems. Farewell was said to Pico della Mirandola and other literary
friends, and Lorenzo gave his final counsels to his son, Piero. The solemn
rites of absolution and extreme unction were all that remained for man to
receive from man. Lorenzo’s confessor was within reach but the prince looked to
St. Mark’s. "I know of no honest friar save this one," he exclaimed.
And so Savonarola was summoned to the bedside in the villa Careggi, two miles
from the city. The dying man wanted to make confession of three misdeeds: the
sack of Volterra, the robbery of Monte delle Fanciulle and the merciless
reprisals after the Pazzi conspiracy. The spiritual messenger then proceeded to
present three conditions on which his absolution depended. The first was a
strong faith in God’s mercy. The dying man gave assent. The second was that he
restore his ill-gotten wealth, or charge his sons to do it. To this assent was
also given. The third demand required that he give back to Florence her
liberties. To this Lorenzo gave no response and turned his face to the wall.
The priest withdrew and, in a few hours, April 8, 1492, the ruler of Florence
passed into the presence of the omnipotent Judge who judgeth not according to
the appearance but according to the heart and whose mercy is everlasting.
The
surmisal has been made that, if Savonarola had been less rigid, he might have
exercised an incalculable influence for good upon the dying prince who was
still susceptible of religious impressions.1185 But who can with probability conjecture the secrets of the
divine purpose in such cases?
Perhaps, Savonarola’s relentless demands awakened in Lorenzo a serious
impression showing itself in a cry to God for absolution, while the extreme
unction of the priest might have lulled the dying man’s conscience to sleep
with a false sense of security. At any rate, the influence of the friar of St.
Mark’s with the people increased.
During
the years, beginning with 1494, Savonarola’s ascendancy was at its height and
so cold a witness as Guicciardini reports his influence as extraordinary. These
years included the invasion of Charles VIII., the banishment of the Medici from
Florence and the establishment of a theocratic government in the city.
"He
will come across the Alps against Italy like Cyrus," Savonarola had
prophesied of the French king, Charles VIII. And, when the French army was
approaching the confines of Florence, he exclaimed, "Behold, the sword has
come upon you. The prophecies are fulfilled, the scourge begun! Behold these hosts are led of the
Lord! O Florence, the time of
singing and dancing is at an end. Now is the time to shed floods of tears for
thy sins."
Florence
listened eagerly. Piero de’ Medici went to the French camp and yielded to the
king’s demand for 200,000 florins, and the cession of Pisa, Leghorn and Sarzana.
But Savonarola thundered and pled from the pulpit against the Medicean house.
The city decreed its banishment and sent commissioners to Charles, with
Savonarola among them. In his address, which is preserved, the friar reminded
his Majesty that he was an instrument sent by the Lord to relieve Italy of its
woes and to reform the Church. Charles entered Florence but, moved by
Savonarola’s intercession, reduced the tribute to 120,000 florins and
restrained the depredations of the French soldiery. The king also seems to have
listened to the friar’s stern words when he said to him, "Hearken unto the
voice of God’s servant and pursue thy journey onward without delay."
When
Charles, after sacking Rome and occupying Naples, returned to Northern Italy,
Savonarola wrote him five letters threatening that, if he did not do for
Florence the things about which he had spoken to him, God’s wrath would be
poured out upon his head. These things were the recognition of the liberties of
Florence and the return of Pisa to her dominion. In his letter of May 25, 1495,
bidding Charles favor the city of Florence, he asserted, "God has chosen
this city and determined to magnify her and raise her up and, whoso toucheth
her, toucheth the apple of His eye."
Certainly, from the standpoint of the welfare of Italy, the French
invasion was not of Providential origin. Although the banners of his army were
inscribed with the words Voluntas Dei — the Will of God—and Missus Dei — the
legate of God—Charles was bent on territorial aggrandizement and not on
breaking the bonds of civic despotism.
The
time had now come to realize in Florence Savonarola’s ideal of government, a
theocracy with Christ at its head. The expulsion of the Medici made possible a
reorganization of the state and the new constitution, largely a matter of
Savonarola’s creation, involved him inextricably in civic policies and the war
of civic factions. However, it should not be forgotten that his municipal
constitution secured the commendation of Guicciardini and other Italian
political writers. It was a proof of the friar’s remarkable influence that, at
his earnest advice, a law was passed which prevented retaliatory measures
against the followers of the Medici. Landucci wrote in his diary that, but for
Savonarola, the streets would have been bathed in blood. In his great sermons
on Haggai, during the Advent season of 1494, and on the Psalms in 1495,
Savonarola definitely embarked as a pilot on the political sea. "The Lord
has driven my bark into the open ocean," he exclaimed from the pulpit.
Remonstrating with God for imposing this duty upon him, he declared, ’I will
preach, if so I must, but why need I meddle with the government of
Florence.’ And the Lord said, ’If
thou wouldst make Florence a holy city, thou must establish her on firm
foundations and give her a government which cherishes righteousness.’ Thus the preacher was committed. He
pronounced from the pulpit in favor of virtue as the foundation of a sound
government and democracy as its form. "Among northern nations," he
affirmed, where there is great strength and little intellect, and among
southern nations where there is great intellect and little strength, the rule
of a single despot may sometimes be the best of governments. But in Italy and,
above all in Florence, where both strength and intellect abound,—where men have
keen wits and restless spirits,—the government of the one can only result in
tyranny."
In
the scheme, which he proposed, he took for his model the great council of
Venice, leaving out its head, the doge, who was elected for life. The great
council of Florence was to consist of, at least, 1500 men, who had reached the
age of 29, paid their taxes and belonged to the class called beneficiati, that
is, those who held a civil office themselves or whose father, grandfather, or
great-grandfather had held a civil office. A select council of 80 was to be
chosen by it, its members to be at least forty years of age. In criminal cases,
an appeal from a decision of the signory was allowed to the great council, which
was to meet once a week and to be a voting rather than a deliberative body.
The
place of the supreme doge or ruler, Savonarola gave to God himself. "God
alone," he exclaimed from the pulpit, "God alone will be thy king, O
Florence, as He was king of Israel under the old Covenant." "Thy new head shall be Jesus
Christ,"—this was the ringing cry with which he closed his sermons on
Haggai. Savonarola’s recent biographer, Villari, emphasizes "the masterly
prudence and wisdom shown by him in all the fundamental laws he proposed for
the new state." He had no
seat in the council and yet he was the soul of the entire people.1186
In
the last chapter of his career Savonarola was pitted against Alexander VI. as
his contestant. The conflict began with the demand made by the pope July 25,
1495, that Savonarola proceed to Rome and answer charges. Then followed papal
inhibitions of his preaching and the decree of excommunication, and the
conflict closed with the appointment of a papal commission which condemned
Savonarola to death as a heretic.
Alexander’s
order, summoning the friar to Rome, was based on his announcement that his
predictions of future events came by divine revelation.1187 At the same time, the pope expressed
his great joy over the report that of all the workers in the Lord’s vineyard,
Savonarola was the most zealous, and he promised to welcome him to the eternal
city with love and fraternal affection. Savonarola declined the pontiff’s
summons on the ground of ill-health and the dangers that would beset him on the
way to Rome. His old rival in the pulpit, Fra Mariano de Gennazzano, and other
enemies were in Rome intriguing against him, and the Medici were fast winning
the pope’s favor.
Alexander’s
first letter inhibiting him from preaching, Sept. 9, 1495, condemned
Savonarola’s insane folly in mixing up with Italian political affairs and his
announcement that he was a special messenger sent from God. In his reply
Savonarola answered the charges and, at the invitation of the signory, continued
to preach. In his third brief, Oct. 16, 1495, the pontiff forbade him to preach
openly or in private. Pastor remarks, "It was as clear as the sun that
Savonarola was guilty of rank disobedience to the papal authority."1188
For
five months, the friar held himself aloof in his convent but, Feb. 17, 1496, at
the call of the signory to preach the Lenten sermons, he again ascended the
pulpit. He took the bold position that the pope might err. "The
pope," he said, "may command me to do something that contravenes the
law of Christian love or the Gospel. But, if he did so command, I would say to
him, thou art no shepherd. Not the Roman Church, but thou errest." From
that time on, he lifted his voice against the corruptions of the papal city as
he had not done before. Preaching on Amos 4:1, Feb. 28, 1496, he exclaimed,
"Who are the fat kine of Bashan on the mountains of Samaria? I say they are the courtesans of Italy
and Rome. Or, are there none? A
thousand are too few for Rome, 10,000, 12,000, 14,000 are too few for Rome.
Prepare thyself, O Rome, for great will be thy punishments."1189
Finding
threats would not stop Savonarola’s mouth, Alexander resorted to bribery, an
art in which he was well skilled. Through a Dominican sent to Florence, he
offered to the friar of St. Mark’s the red hat. But Alexander had mistaken his
man and, in a sermon delivered August, 1496, Savonarola declared that neither
mitres nor a cardinal’s hat would he have, but only the gift God confers on His
saints—death, a crimson hat, a hat reddened with blood. Lucas, strangely
enough, ascribes the offer of the red hat, not to vicious shrewdness but to the
alleged good purpose of Alexander to show his appreciation of, an earnest but
misguided man."
The
carnival season of 1496 and the seasons of the next two years gave remarkable
proofs of the hold Savonarola had on the popular mind. The carnival, which had
been the scene of wild revelries, was turned into a semi-religious festival.
The boys had been accustomed to carry their merriment to rude excesses, forcing
their demands for money upon older persons, dancing around bonfires at night
and pelting people and houses promiscuously with stones. For this
"festival of the stones," which the signory had been unable to
abolish Savonarola and his co-helpers substituted a religious celebration. It
was called the reform of the boys. Savonarola had established boys’ brigades in
different wards of the city and arranged tiers of seats for them against the
walls of the cathedral. These "boys of Fra Girolamo," as Landucci
calls them, marched up and down the streets singing hymns which Savonarola and
Benivieni composed and taking their places at stands, erected for the purpose,
received collections for the poor.
On
the last day of the carnival of 1497, occurred the burning of the vanities, as
it was called. The young men, who had been stirred to enthusiasm by
Savonarola’s sermons, went through the city, knocking from door to door and
asking the people to give up their trinkets, obscene books such as Ovid and
Boccaccio, dice, games of chance, harps, mirrors, masks, cosmetics and
portraits of beautiful women, and other objects of luxury. These were piled up
in the public square in a pyramid, 60 feet high and 240 feet in circumference
at the base. The morning of that day, throngs listened to the mass said by
Savonarola. The young men went in procession through the streets and reaching
the pile of vanities, they with others joined hands and danced around the pile
and then set fire to it amid the singing of religious songs. The sound of bells
and trumpets added to the effect of the strange spectacle. Men thought of the
books and philters, burnt at Ephesus under the spell of Paul’s preaching. The
scene was repeated the last year of Savonarola’s life,1498.
Savonarola
has been charged with having no sympathy with the Renaissance and the charge it
is not easy to set aside. As Burckhardt, the historian of that movement, says,
he remained a monastic. In one writing, he sets forth the dangers of
literature. Plato and Aristotle are in hell. And this was the judgment
expressed in the city of the Platonic Academy! Virgil and Cicero he tolerated, but Catullus, Ovid and
Terence he condemned to banishment.1190
At
one time, under the spell of the prior’s preaching, all Florence seemed to be
going to religion. Wives left their husbands and betook themselves to convents.
Others married, taking the vow of nuptial abstinence and Savonarola even
dreamed that the city might reach so perfect a condition that all marrying
would cease. People took the communion daily and young men attended mass and
received the eucharistic emblem. Fra Bartolomeo threw his studies of naked
figures into the fire and for a time continued to think it sinful to use the
hands in painting which ought to be folded continually in prayer. It was
impossible that such a tension should continue. There was enthusiasm but not
regeneration. A reaction was sure to come and the wonder is that Savonarola
retained so much of the popular confidence, almost to the end of his life.
Alexander
would have none of the Florentine reforms and was determined to silence
Savonarola at any cost. Within the city, the air was full of rumors of plots to
restore the Medici and some of the conspirators were executed. Enemies of the
republic avowed their purpose to kill Savonarola and circulated sheets and
poems ridiculing and threatening him. Insulting placards were posted up against
the walls of his convent and, on one occasion, the pulpit of the cathedral was
defiled with ordure and draped in an ass’ skin, while spikes were driven into
the place where the preacher was accustomed to strike his hand. Landucci speaks
of it as a "great scandal."
Assassins even gathered in the cathedral and were only cowed by guards
posted by the signory. The friar of St. Mark’s seemed not to be appalled. It
was ominous, however, that the signory became divided in his support.
If
possible, Savonarola became more intense in his arraignment of the evils of the
Church. He exclaimed: "O prostrate Church, thou hast displayed thy
foulness to the whole earth. Thou hast multiplied thy fornications in Italy, in
France, in Spain and all other regions. Thou hast desecrated the sacraments
with simony. Of old, priests called their bastards nephews, now they call them
outright sons." Alexander
could not mistake the reference nor tolerate such declamations. The integrity
of the supreme seat of Christendom was at stake. A prophetic function superior
to the papacy Eugenius III. might recognize, when it was administered in the
admonitions of a St. Bernard, but the Florentine prophet had engaged in
denunciation even to personal invective. The prophet was losing his balance. On
May 12,1497, for "his failure to obey our Apostolic admonitions and
commands" and as "one suspected of heresy" Alexander declared
him excommunicate. All were forbidden to listen to the condemned man or have
converse with him.1191
In
a letter addressed a month later "to all Christians, the elect of
God," Savonarola again affirmed his readiness to yield to the Church’s
authority, but denied that he was bound to submit to the commands of his
superiors when these were in conflict with charity and God’s law.
"Henceforth," exclaimed the Puritan contemporary, Landucci, "we
were deprived of the Word of God."
The signory wrote to Alexander in support of Savonarola, affirming his
purity of character and soundness of doctrine, and friends, like Pico della
Mirandola the younger, issued defences of his conduct. The elder Pico della
Mirandola and Politian, both of whom had died a year or two before, showed
their reverence for Savonarola by assuming the Dominican garb on their
death-beds.
At
this time, Savonarola sent forth his Triumph of the Cross, in which were set
forth the verity and reasonableness of the Catholic faith.1192 After proving from pure reason God’s
existence and the soul’s immortality, the work proceeds to expound the Trinity,
which is above man’s reason, and articles of the Apostles’ Creed, and to set
forth the superior excellency of the lives of Christians, on which much stress
is laid. It closes with a confutation of Mohammedanism and other false forms of
religion.
Savonarola
kept silence in the pulpit and refrained from the celebration of the sacrament
until Christmas day of 1497, when he celebrated the mass at St. Mark’s three
times. On the 11th of February, he stood again in the pulpit of the duomo. To a
vast concourse he represented the priest as merely an instrument of the
Almighty and, when God withdraws His presence, prelate and pope are but as
"a broken iron tool."
"And, if a prelate commands what is contrary to godly living and
charity, he is not only not to be obeyed but deserves to be
anathema." On another occasion,
he said that not only may the pope be led into error by false reports but also
by his own badness, as was the case with Boniface VIII. who was a wicked pope,
beginning his pontificate like a fox and ending it like a dog.1193 Many, through reverence for the Church,
kept away from Savonarola’s preaching from this time on. Among these was the
faithful Landucci, who says, "whether justly or unjustly, I was among
those who did not go. I believed in him, but did not wish to incur risk by
going to hear him, for he was under sentence of excommunication." Savonarola’s enemies had made the words
of Gregory the Great their war-cry, Sententia pastoris sive justa sive unjusta
timenda est.—"The sentence of the shepherd is to be respected, whether it
be just or unjust."1194
His denunciations of the corruption prevailing in the Church became more
bold. The tonsure, he cried, is the seat of all iniquity. It begins in Rome
where the clergy make mock of Christ and the saints; yea, are worse than Turks
and worse than Moors. They traffic in the sacraments. They sell benefices to
the highest bidder. Have not the priests in Rome courtesans and grooms and
horses and dogs? Have they not
palaces full of tapestries and silks, of perfumes and lackeys? Seemeth it, that this is the Church of
God?
Every
Roman priest, he said, had his concubine. No longer do they speak of nephews
but of their sons and daughters. Savonarola even sought to prove from the
pulpit that the papal brief of excommunication proceeded from the devil,
inasmuch as it was hostile to godly living.
It
was becoming evident that the preacher was fighting a losing battle. His
assaults against the morals of the clergy and the Vatican stirred up the powers
in the Church against him; his political attitude, factions in Florence. His
assertions, dealing more and more in exaggerations, were developing an
expectant and at the same time a critical state of mind in the people which no
religious teacher could permanently meet except through the immediate and
startling intervention of God. He called heaven to witness that he was
"ready to die for His God" and invited God to send him to the fires
of hell, if his motives were not pure and his work inspired. On another
occasion, he invoked the Lord to strike him dead on the spot, if he was not
sincere. Landucci reports some of these wild protestations which he heard with
his own ears.
One
weapon still remained to the pope to bring Savonarola to terms,—the interdict.
This he threatened to fulminate over Florence, unless the signory sent this
"son of the evil one" to Rome or cast him into prison. In case the
first course was pursued, Alexander promised to treat Savonarola as a father
would treat a son, provided he repented, for he "desired not the death of
a sinner but that he might turn from his way and live."1195 He urged the signory not to allow
Savonarola to be as the fly in the milk, disturbing its relations with Rome or
"to tolerate that pernicious worm fostered by their warmth."
Through
epistolary communications and legates, the signory continued its attempts to
remove Alexander’s objections and protect Savonarola. But, while all the
members continued to express confidence in the friar’s purity of motive, the
majority came to take the position that it was more expedient to silence the
preacher than to incur the pope’s ban. At the public meeting, called by the
signory March 9,1498, to decide the course of action to be taken, the
considerations pressed were those of expediency. The pope, as the vicar of
Christ, has his authority directly from God and ought to be obeyed. A second
consideration was the financial straits of the municipality. A tenth was needed
and this could only be ordered through the pope. Some proposed to leave the
decision of the matter to Savonarola himself. He was the best man the world had
seen for 200 years. Others boldly announced that Alexander’s letters were
issued through the machinations of enemies of Florence and the censures they
contained, being unjust, were not to be heeded.1196 On March 17,1498, the signory’s decision was communicated to
Savonarola that he should thenceforth refrain from preaching and the next day
he preached his last sermon.
In
his last sermon, Savonarola acknowledged it as his duty to obey the mandate. A
measure had been worked out in his mind which was the last open to a churchman.
Already had he hinted from the pulpit at the convention of a general council as
a last resort. The letters are still extant which he intended to send to the
kings of Spain, England, France, Germany and Hungary, calling upon them to
summon a council. In them, he solemnly declared that Alexander was no pope.
For, aside from purchasing his office and from his daily sale of benefices, his
manifest vices proved him to be no Christian. The letters seem never to have
been received. Individuals, however, despatched preliminary communications to
friends at the different courts to prepare the way for their appeal.1197 One, addressed to Charles VIII., was
intercepted at Milan and sent to the pope. Alexander now had documentary proof
of the Florentine’s rebellion against papal authority. But suddenly a wholly
unexpected turn was given to the course of events.
Florence
was startled by the rumor that resort was to be had to ordeal by fire to decide
the genuineness of Savonarola’s claims.1198 The challenge came from a Franciscan, Francesco da Puglia,
in a sermon at S. Croce in which he arraigned the Dominican friar as a heretic
and false prophet. In case Savonarola was not burnt, it would be a clear sign
that Florence was to follow him. The challenge was accepted by Fra Domenico da
Pescia, a monk of St. Mark’s and close friend of Savonarola’s, a man of
acknowledged purity of life. He took his friend’s place, holding that
Savonarola should be reserved for higher things. Francesco da Puglia then
withdrew and a Franciscan monk, Julian Rondinelli, reluctantly took his place.
Savonarola himself disapproved the ordeal. It was an appeal to the miraculous.
He had never performed a miracle nor felt the importance of one. His cause, he
asserted, approved itself by the fruits of righteousness. But to the people, as
the author of Romola has said, "the fiery trial seemed a short and easy
argument" and Savonarola could not resist the popular feeling without
forfeiting his popularity. The history of Florence could show more than one
case of saintly men whose profession had been tested by fire. So it was, during
the investiture controversy, with St. John Gualberti, in Settimo close by, and
with the monk Peter in 1068, and so it was, a half century later, with another
Peter who cleared himself of the charge of contemning the cross by walking
unhurt over nine glowing ploughshares.1199
The
ordeal was authorized by the signory and set for April 7. It was decided that,
in case Fra Domenico perished, Savonarola should go into exile within three
hours. The two parties, Domenico and Rondinelli, filed their statements with
the signory. The Dominican’s included the following points. The Church stands
in need of renovation. It will be chastened. Florence will be chastened. These
chastisements will happen in our day. The sentence of excommunication against
Savonarola is invalid. No one sins in ignoring it.1200
The
ordeal aroused the enthusiasm of Savonarola’s friends. When he announced it in
a sermon, many women exclaimed, "I, too, I, too." Other monks of St. Mark’s and hundreds
of young men announced their readiness to pass through the flames out of regard
for their spiritual guide.
Alexander
VI. waited with intense interest for the last bulletins from Florence. His
exact state of mind it is difficult to determine. He wrote disapproving of the
ordeal and yet he could not but feel that it afforded an easy way of getting
rid of the enemy to his authority. After the ordeal was over, he praised
Francesco and the Franciscans in extravagant terms and declared the Franciscans
could not have done anything more agreeable to him.1201
The
coming trial was looked for with the most intense interest. There was scarcely
any other topic of conversation in Florence or in Rome. Great preparations were
made. Two pyres of thorns and other wood were built on the public square about
60 feet in length, 3 feet wide at the base and 3 or 4 feet high,1202
the wood soaked with pitch and oil. The distance between the pyres was two
feet, just wide enough for a man to pass through. All entrances to the square
were closed by a company of 300 men under Marcuccio Salviatis and two other
companies of 500 each, stationed at different points. The people began to
arrive the night before. The windows and roofs of the adjoining houses were
crowded with the eager spectators.
The
solemnity was set for eleven o’clock. The Dominicans made a solemn impression
as they marched to the appointed place. Fra Domenico, in the van, was clothed
in a fiery red velvet cope. Savonarola, clad in white and carrying a monstrance
with the host, brought up the rear of the body of monks and these were followed
by a great multitude of men, women and children, holding lighted tapers. When
the hour arrived for the procession to start, Savonarola was preaching. He had
again told the people that his work required no miracle and that he had ever
sought to justify himself by the signs of righteousness and declared that, as
on Mt. Carmel, miraculous intervention could only be expected in answer to
prayer and humility.
Later
mediaeval history has few spectacles to offer to the eye and the imagination
equal in interest to the spectacle offered that day. There, stood the greatest
preacher of his time and the most exalted moral figure since the days of John
Huss and Gerson. And there, the ancient method of testing innocency was once
more to be tried, a novel spectacle, indeed, to that cultured generation of
Florentines. The glorious pageants of Medicean times had afforded no entertainment
more attractive.
The
crowds were waiting. The hour was past. There was a mysterious moving of monks
in and out of the signory-palace. The whole story of what occurred was later
told by Savonarola himself as well as by other eyewitnesses. The Franciscans
refused to allow Fra Domenico to enter the burning pathway wearing his red cope
or any of the other garments he had on, on the ground that they might be
bewitched. So he was undressed to his skin and put on another suit. On the same
ground, they also insisted that he keep at a distance from Savonarola. The
impatience of the crowds increased. The Franciscans again passed into the
signory-hall and had a long conference. They had discerned a wooden crucifix in
Domenico’s hands and insisted upon its being put away for fear it might also
have been bewitched. Savonarola substituted the host but the Franciscans
insisted that the host should not be carried through the flames. The signory
was appealed to but Savonarola refused to yield, declaring that the accidents
might be burnt like a husk but that the essence of the sacred wafer would
remain unconsumed. Suddenly a storm came up and rain fell but it as suddenly
stopped. The delay continued. The crowds were growing unruly and threatening.
Nightfall was at hand. The signory called the ordeal off.
Savonarola’s
power was gone. The spell of his name had vanished. The spectacle was felt to
be a farce. The popular menace grew more and more threatening and a guard
scarcely prevented violence to Savonarola’s person, as the procession moved
back to St. Mark’s.
There
is much in favor of the view that on that day Savonarola’s political enemies,
the Arrabbiati, were in collusion with the Franciscans and that the delay on
the square, occasioned by interposing objections, was a trick to postpone the
ordeal altogether.1203
It was said daggers were ready to put Savonarola out of the way. The
populace, however, did not stop to consider such questions. Savonarola had not
stood the test. And, it reasoned, if he was sincere and confident of his cause,
why did he not enter the flaming pathway himself and brave its fiery perils. If
he had not gone through unharmed, he at any rate, in dying, would have shown
his moral heroism. It was Luther’s readiness to stand the test at Worms which
brought him the confidence of the people. Had he shrunk in 1521 in the presence
of Charles V., he would have lost the popular regard as Savonarola did in 1498
on the piazza of Florence. The judgment of modern times agrees with the popular
judgment of the Florentines. Savonarola showed himself wanting in the qualities
of the hero. Better for him to have died, than to have exposed himself to the
charge of cowardice.
Florence
felt mad anger at having been imposed upon. The next day St. Mark’s was stormed
by the mob. The signory voted Savonarola’s immediate banishment. Landucci, who
wept and continued to pray for him, says "that hell seemed to have opened
its doors." Savonarola made
an address, bidding farewell to his friends. Resistance of the mob was in vain.
The convent was broken into and pillaged. Fra Domenico and the prior were bound
and taken before the galfonier amidst insults and confined in separate apartments.
A day or two later Fra Silvestro, whose visions had favored the ordeal, was
also seized. "As for saying a word in Savonarola’s favor," wrote
Landucci, "it was impossible. One would have been killed."
The
pope, on receiving the official news of the occurrences in Florence, sent word
congratulating the signory, gave the city plenary absolution and granted it the
coveted tithes for three years. He also demanded that Savonarola be sent to
Rome for trial, at the same time, however, authorizing the city to proceed to
try the three friars, not neglecting, if necessary, the use of torture.1204 A commission was appointed to examine
the prisoners. Torture was resorted to. Savonarola was bound to a rope drawn
through a pulley and, with his hands behind his back, was lifted from the floor
and then by a sudden jerk allowed to fall. On a single day, he was subjected to
14 turnings of the rope. There were two separate trials conducted by the
municipality, April 17 and April 21–23. In the delirious condition, to which
his pains reduced him, the unfortunate man made confessions which, later in his
sane moments, he recalled as untrue.1205 He even denied that he was a prophet. The impression which
this denial made upon such ardent admirers as Landucci, the apothecary, was
distressing. Writing April 19,1498, he says:—
I
was present at the reading of the proceedings against Savonarola, whom we all
held to be a prophet. But he said he is no prophet and that his prophecies were
not from God. When I heard that, I was seized with wonder and amazement. A deep
pain took hold of my soul, when I saw such a splendid edifice fall to the
ground, because it was built upon the sorry foundation of a falsehood. I looked
for Florence to become a new Jerusalem whose laws and example of a good
life—buona vita — would go out for the renovation of the Church, the conversion
of infidels and the comfort of the good and I felt the contrary and took for
medicine the words, "in thy will, O Lord, are all things placed"—in
voluntate tua, Domine, omnia sunt posita. Diary, p. 173.
Alexander
despatched a commission of his own to conduct the trial anew, Turriano, the
Venetian general of the Dominicans and Francesco Romolino, the bishop of
Ilerda, afterwards cardinal. Letters from Rome stated that the commission had
instructions "to put Savonarola to death, even if he were another John the
Baptist." Alexander was quite
equal to such a statement. Soon after his arrival in Florence, Romolino
announced that a bonfire was impending and that he carried the sentence with
him ready, prepared in advance.
Fra
Domenico bore himself most admirably and persisted in speaking naught but
praise of his friend and ecclesiastical superior. Fra Silvestro, yielding to
the agonies of the rack, charged his master with all sorts of guilt. Other
monks of St. Mark’s wrote to Alexander, making charges against their prior as
an impostor. So it often is with those who praise in times of prosperity. To
save themselves, they deny and calumniate their benefactors. They received
their reward, the papal absolution.
The
exact charges, upon which Savonarola was condemned to death, are matter of some
uncertainty and also matter of indifference, for they were partly trumped up
for the occasion. Though no offender against the law of God, he had given
offence enough to man. He was accused by the papal commissioners with being a
heretic and schismatic. He was no heretic. The most that can be said is, that
he was a rebel against the pope’s authority and went in the face of Pius II.’s
bull Execrabilis, when he decided to appeal to a council.1206
The
intervals between his torture, Savonarola spent in composing his Meditations
upon the two penitential Psalms, the 32d and the 51st. Here we see the gloss of
his warm religious nature. The great preacher approaches the throne of grace as
a needy sinner and begs that he who asks for bread may not be turned away with
a stone. He appeals to the cases of Zaccheus, Mary Magdalene, the woman of
Canaan, Peter and the prodigal son. Deliver me, he cries, "as Thou hast delivered
countless sinners from the grasp of death and the gates of hell and my tongue
shall sing aloud of thy righteousness." Luther, who published the expositions with a notable
preface,1523, declared them "a piece of evangelical teaching and Christian
piety. For, in them Savonarola is seen entering in not as a Dominican monk,
trusting in his vows, the rules of his order, his cowl and masses and good
works but clad in the breastplate of righteousness and armed with the shield of
faith and the helmet of salvation, not as a member of the Order of Preachers
but as an everyday Christian."1207
At
their own request the three prisoners, after a separation of six weeks, were
permitted to meet face to face the night before the appointed execution. The
meeting occurred in the hall of the signory. When Savonarola returned to his
cell, he fell asleep on the lap of Niccolini of the fraternity of the Battuti,
a fraternity whose office it was to minister to prisoners. Niccolini reported
that the sleep was as quiet as the sleep of a child. On awaking, the condemned
man passed the remaining hours of the night in devotions. The next morning, the
friends met again and partook together of the sacrament.
The
sentence was death by hanging, after which the bodies were to be burnt that
"the soul might be completely separated from the body." The execution took place on the public
square where, two months before, the crowds had gathered to witness the ordeal
by fire. Savonarola and his friends were led forth stripped of their robes,
barefooted and with hands bound. Absolution was pronounced by the bishop of
Verona under appointment from the pope. In pronouncing Savonarola’s deposition,
the prelate said, "I separate thee from the Church militant and the Church
triumphant"—separo te ab ecclesia militante et triumphante. "Not from
the Church triumphant," replied Savonarola, "that is not thine to
do"—militante, non triumphante: hoc enim tuum non est. In silence he
witnessed the deaths of Fra Domenico and Fra Silvestro, whose last words were
"Jesus, Jesus," and then ascended the platform of execution. There
were still left bystanders to fling insults. The bodies were burnt and, that no
particle might be left to be used as a relic, the ashes were thrown into the
Arno.
Savonarola
had been pronounced by Alexander’s commission "that iniquitous
monster—omnipedium nequissimum — call him man or friar we cannot, a mass of the
most abominable wickedness."
The pious Landucci, in thinking of his death, recalled the crucifixion
and, at the scene of the execution, again lamented the disappointment of his
hopes for the renovation of the Church and the conversion of the infidel—la
novazione della chiesa e la conversione degli infedeli.
Savonarola
was one of the most noteworthy figures Italy has produced. The modern Christian
world, Catholic and Protestant, joins him in close fellowship with the flaming
religious luminaries of all countries and all centuries. He was a preacher of
righteousness and a patriot. Among the religious personalities of Italy, he
occupies a position of grandeur by himself, separate from her imposing popes,
like Gregory VII. and Innocent III.; from Dante, Italy’s poet and the world’s;
from St. Francis d’Assisi and from Thomas Aquinas. Italy had other
preachers,—Anthony of Padua, Bernardino of Siena,—but their messages were local
and ecclesiastical. With Arnold of Brescia, Savonarola had something in common.
Both had a stirring message of reform. Both mixed up political ideals with
their spiritual activity and both died by judicial sanction of the papal see.
Savonarola’s
intellectual gifts and attainments were not extraordinary. He was great by
reason of moral conviction, his eloquence, his disinterested love of his
country, his whole-souled devotion to the cause of righteousness. As an
administrator, he failed. He had none of the sagacity or tact of the statesman
and it was his misfortune to have undertaken to create a new government, a task
for which he was the least qualified of all men.1208 He was a preacher of righteousness and has a place in the
"goodly fellowship of the prophets." He belonged to the order of Ezekiel and Isaiah, Nathan and
John the Baptist,—the company in which the Protestant world also places John
Knox.
Savonarola
was a true Catholic. He did not deny a single dogma of the mediaeval Church.
But he was more deeply rooted in the fundamental teachings of Christ than in
ecclesiastical formulas. In the deliverance of his message, he rose above
rituals and usages. He demanded regeneration of heart. His revolt against the
authority of the pope, in appealing to a council, is a serious stumbling-block
to Catholics who are inclined to a favorable judgment of the Friar of St.
Mark’s. Julius II.’s bull Cum tanto divino,1505, pronounced every election to
the papacy secured by simony invalid. If it was meant to be retroactive, then
Alexander was not a true pope.1209
The
favorable judgments of contemporaries were numerous. Guicciardini called him
the saviour of his country—salvatore di patria — and said that "Never was
there so much goodness and religion in Florence as in his day and, after his
death, it was seen that every good thing that had been done was done at his
suggestion and by his advocacy."
Machiavelli thus expressed himself: "The people of Florence seemed
to be neither illiterate nor rude, yet they were persuaded that God spake
through Savonarola. I will not decide, whether it was so or not, for it is due
to speak of so great a man with reverence."
The
day after Savonarola’s death, women were seen praying at the spot where he
suffered and for years flowers were strewn there. Pico della Mirandola closed
his biography with an elaborate comparison between Savonarola and Christ. Both
were sent from God. Both suffered in the cause of righteousness between two
others. At the command of Julius II., Raphael,12 years after Savonarola’s
death, placed the preacher among the saints in his Disputa. Philip Neri and
Catherine de Ricci 1210 revered him, and Benedict XIV. seems to
have regarded him worthy of canonization.1211
Within
the Dominican order, the feeling toward its greatest preacher has undergone a
great change. Respect for the papal decision led it, for a hundred years after
Savonarola’s death, to make official effort to retire his name to oblivion. The
Dominican general, Sisto Fabri of Lucca, in 1585, issued an order forbidding
every Dominican monk and nun mentioning his name and commanded them to give up
any article to their superiors which kept warm admiration for him or aroused
it. In the latter half of the 19th century, as the 400th anniversary of his
execution approached, Catholics, and especially Dominicans, in all parts of the
world defended his memory and efforts were made to prepare the way for his
canonization. In the attempt to remove all objections, elaborate arguments have
been presented to prove that Alexander’s sentence of excommunication was in
fact no excommunication at all.1212 The sound and judicious Catholic historians,
Hefele-Knöpfler, do not hesitate to pronounce his death a judicial murder.1213
By
the general consent of Protestants, Jerome Savonarola is numbered among the
precursors of the Reformation,—the view taken by Ranke. He was not an advocate
of its distinguishing tenet of justification by faith. The Roman church was for
him the mother of all other churches and the pope its head. In his Triumph of
the Cross, he distinctly asserts the seven sacraments as an appointment of
Christ and that Christ is "wholly and essentially present in each of the
eucharistic elements."
Nevertheless, he was an innovator and his exaltation of divine grace
accords with the teaching of the Reformation. Here all Protestants would have
fellowship with him as when he said:1214 —
It
is untrue that God’s grace is obtained by pre-existing works of merit as though
works and deserts were the cause of predestination. On the contrary, these are
the result of predestination. Tell me, Peter; tell me, O Magdalene, wherefore
are ye in paradise? Confess that
not by your own merits have ye obtained salvation, but by the goodness of God.
Passages
abound in his Meditations like this one. "Not by their own deservings, O
Lord, or by their own works have they been saved, lest any man should be able
to boast, but because it seemed good in Thy sight." Speaking of Savonarola’s Exposition of
the Psalms, Luther said that, although some clay still stuck to Savonarola’s
theology, it is a pure and beautiful example of what is to be believed, trusted
and hoped from God’s mercy and how we come to despair of works. And the
whole-souled German Reformer exclaimed, "Christ canonizes Savonarola
through us even though popes and papists burst to pieces over it."1215
The
sculptor has given him a place at the feet of Luther and at the side of Wyclif
and Huss in the monument of the Reformation at Worms. When Catholics, who heard
that this was proposed, wrote to show the impropriety of including the
Florentine Dominican in such company, Rietschel consulted Hase on the subject.
The venerable Church historian replied, "It makes no difference whether
they counted Savonarola a heretic or a saint, he was in either case a precursor
of the Reformation and so Luther recognized him."1216
The
visitor in Florence to-day finds two invisible personalities meeting him
everywhere, Dante, whom the city banished, and Savonarola, whom it executed.
The spirit of theexecutioner has vanished and the mention of Savonarola’s name
strikes in all Florentines a tender chord of admiration and love. In 1882, the
signory placed his statue in the Hall of the Five Hundred. There, a few yards
from the place of his execution, he stands in his Dominican habit and cowl,
with his left hand resting on a lion’s head and holding aloft in his right hand
a crucifix, while his clear eye is turned upwards. Again, on May 22,1901, the
city honored the friar by setting a circular bronze tablet with portrait on the
spot where he suffered death. A great multitude attended the dedication and one
of the wreaths of flowers bore the name of the Dominicans.
In
Savonarola’s cell in St. Mark’s has been placed a medallion head of the friar,
and still another on the cloistral wall over the spot where he was seized and
made prisoner, and the visitor will often find there a fresh wreath of flowers,
a proof of the undying memory of the Florentine preacher and patriot.
This
was he,
Savonarola,—the
star-look shooting from the cowl.
—Browning,
Casa Guido Windows.
</div3> <div3 type = "Section"
n="77" title="The Study and Circulation of the Bible">
§ 77.
The Study and Circulation of the Bible.
The only
biblical commentary of the Middle Ages, conforming in any adequate sense to our
modern ideas of exegesis, was produced by Nicolas of Lyra, who died 1340. The
exegesis of the Schoolmen was a subversion of Scripture rather than an
exposition. In their hands, it was made the slave of dogma. Of grammatical and
textual criticism they had no conception and they lacked all equipment for the
grammatical study of the original Hebrew and Greek. What commentaries were
produced in the flourishing era of Scholasticism, were either collections of
quotations from the Fathers, called Chains,—catenae, the most noted of which
was the catena on the Gospels by Thomas Aquinas,—or, if original works, they
teemed with endless suggestions of the fancy and were like continents of
tropical vine-growths through which it is next to impossible to find a clear
path to Jesus Christ and the meaning of human life. The bulky expositions of
the Psalms, Job and other biblical books by such theologians as Rupert of
Deutz, Bonaventura and Albertus Magnus, are to-day intellectual curiosities or,
at best, manuals from which piety of the conventual type may be fed. They bring
out every other meaning but the historical and plain sense intended by the
biblical authors. Especially true is this of the Song of Songs, which the
Schoolmen made a hunting-ground for descriptions of the Virgin Mary.1217 It is said, Thomas Aquinas was engaged
on the exposition of this book when he died.
The
traditional mediaeval formula of interpretation reduced Tychonius’ seven senses
to four,—the literal, allegorical, moral and anagogical. The formula ran:—
<foreign
lang="la">Litteralis
gesta docet; quid credas, allegoria,
Moralis
quid agas; quo tendas anagogia.
</foreign>
Thomas
Aquinas, fully in accord with this method, said that "the literal sense of
Scripture is manifold, its spiritual sense, threefold, viz., allegorical, moral
and anagogical."1218
The literal sense teaches the things which have happened, the
allegorical what we are to believe, the moral what we are to do and the
anagogical directs to things to be awaited. The last three senses correspond to
faith, hope and charity. Hugo of Cher compared them to the four coverings of
the tabernacle, the four winds, the four wings of the cherubim, the four rivers
of paradise, the four legs of the Lord’s table. Here are specimens: Jerusalem,
literally, is a city in Palestine; allegorically, it is the Church; morally,
the faithful soul; anagogically, the heavenly Jerusalem. The Exodus from Egypt
is, historically, a fact; allegorically, the redemption of Christ; morally, the
soul’s conversion; anagogically, the departure for the heavenly land. In his
earliest years, Dean Colet followed this method. From Savonarola we would
expect it. The literal heaven, earth and light of <scripRef passage = "Genesis
1:1,2">Genesis
1:1,2</scripRef>, he expounded as meaning
allegorically, Adam, Eve and the light of grace or the Hebrews, Gentiles and
Jesus Christ; morally, the soul, body and active intelligence; anagogically,
angels, men and the vision of God. In his later years, Colet, in answer to a
letter from Erasmus, who insisted upon the fecundity of meanings of Scripture
texts, abandoned his former position and declared that their fecundity
consisted not in their giving birth to many senses but to one only and that the
truest.1219 In his better
moods, Erasmus laid stress upon the one historical, sense, applying to the
interpretation of the Bible the rule that is applied to other books.
After
the Reformation was well on its way, the old irrational method continued to be
practised and Bishop Longland, in a sermon on <scripRef passage = "Prov.
9:1,2">Prov.
9:1,2</scripRef>, preached in 1525,
explained the words "she hath furnished her table" to mean, that
wisdom had set forth in her spiritual banquet the four courses of history,
tropology, anagogy and allegory.1220 Three years later,1528, Tyndale, the translator of the
English Bible, had this to say of the mediaeval system of exegesis and the new
system which sought out the literal sense of Scripture: —
The
papists divide the Scripture into four senses, the literal, tropological,
allegorical and anagogical. The literal sense has become nothing at all, for
the pope hath taken it clean away and hath made it his possession. He hath
partly locked it up with the false and counterfeited keys of his traditions,
ceremonies and feigned lies. Thou shalt understand that the Scripture hath but
one sense, which is the literal sense, and this literal sense is the root and
ground of all and the anchor that never faileth whereunto, if thou cleave, thou
canst never err or go out of the way.1221
A
decided step in the direction of the, new exegesis movement was made by Nicolas
of Lyra in his Postillae, a brief commentary on the entire Bible.1222 This commentator, called by Wyclif the
elaborate and skilful annotator of Scripture,—tamen copiosus et ingeniosus
postillator Scripturae,1223 was born in Normandy, about 1270, and
became professor in Paris where he remained till his death. He knew Greek and
learned Hebrew from a rabbi and his knowledge of that tongue gave rise to the
false rumor that he had a Jewish mother. Lyra made a new Latin translation,
commented directly on the original text and ventured at times to prefer the
comments of Jewish commentators to the comments of the Fathers. As he
acknowledged in his Introduction, he was much influenced by the writings of
Rabbi Raschi.
Lyra’s
lasting merit lies in the stress he laid upon the literal sense which he
insisted should alone be employed in establishing dogma. In practice, however,
he allowed a secondary sense, the mystical or typical, but he declared that it
had been put to such abuse as to have choked out—suffocare — the literal sense.
The language of Scripture must be understood in its natural sense as we would
expect our words to be understood.1224 His method aided in undermining the fanciful and pernicious
exegetical system of the Schoolmen who knew neither Greek nor Hebrew and
prepared the way for a new period of biblical exposition. He was used not only
by Wyclif and Gerson,1225 but also by Luther, who acknowledged his
services in insisting upon the literal sense.
Although
Wyclif wrote no commentaries on books of Scripture, he gave expositions of the
Lord’s Prayer and the Decalogue and of many texts, which are thoroughly
practical and popular. In his treatise on the Truth of Scripture, he seems at
times to pronounce the discovery of the literal sense the only object of a
sound exegesis.1226
A generation later Gerson showed an inclination to lay stress upon the
literal sense as fundamental but went no further than to say that it is to be
accepted so far as it is found to be in harmony with the teachings of the
Church.1227
Later
in the 15th century, the free critical spirit which the Revival of Letters was
begetting found pioneers in the realm of exegesis in Laurentius Valla and
Erasmus, Colet, Wesel and Wessel. As has already been said, Valla not only
called in question the genuineness of Constantine’s donation, but criticised
Jerome’s Vulgate and Augustine. Erasmus went still farther when he left out of
his Greek New Testament,1516, the spurious passage about the three witnesses, 1
John 5:7, though he restored it in the edition of 1522. He pointed out the
discrepancy between a statement in Stephen’s speech and the account in Genesis
and questioned the authorship of the Epistle to the Hebrews, the Apostolic
origin of 2d and 3rd John and the Johannine authorship of the Apocalypse.
In
opposition to such views the Sorbonne, in 1526, declared it an error of faith
to call in question the authorship of any of the books of the New Testament.
Erasmus recommended for the student of the Scriptures a fair knowledge of
Latin, Greek and Hebrew and also that he be versed in other studies, especially
the knowledge of natural objects such as the animals, trees, precious stones
and geography of Scripture.1228
The
nearest approach to the exegetical principles as well as doctrinal positions of
the Reformers was made by the Frenchman, Lefèvre d’Etaples, whose translations
of the New Testament and the Old Testament carry us into the period introduced
by Luther. It remained for Luther and the other Reformers to give to the
literal or historical sense its due weight, and especially from the sane
grammatical exegesis of John Calvin is a new period in the exposition of the
sacred writings to be dated.
The
early printing-presses, from Lyons to Paris and from Venice and Nürnberg to
Cologne and Lübeck, eagerly turned out editions of the entire Bible or parts of
it, the vast majority of which, however, gave the Latin text. The first printed
Latin Bible, which appeared at Mainz without date and in two volumes, belongs
before 1455 and bears the name of the Gutenberg Bible from the printer or the
Mazarin Bible from the copy which was found in the library of Cardinal Mazarin.
Before 1520, no less than 199 printed editions of the entire volume appeared.
Of these,156 were Latin,17 German,—3 of the German editions being in Low
German,—11 Italian, 2 Bohemian and one Russian.1229 Spain produced two editions, a Limousin version at
Valencia,1478, and the Complutensian Bible of Cardinal Ximenes,1514–1517.
England was far behind and her first printed English New Testament did not
appear till 1526, although Caxton had setup his printing-press at Westminster
in 1477.
To
the printed copies of the whole Scriptures must be added the parts which
appeared in plenaria and psalteria,—copies of the Gospels and of the Psalms,1230
— and in the postillae which contained the Scripture text with annotations.
From 1470–1520 no less than 103 postillae appeared from the press.1231
The
number of copies of the Bible sent off in a single edition is a matter of
conjecture as must also be the question whether copies were widely held by
laymen.1232
The
new path which Erasmus struck out in his edition of the New Testament was
looked upon in some quarters as a dangerous path. Dorpius, one of the Louvain
professors, in 1515, anticipated the appearance of the book by remonstrating
with Erasmus for his bold project and pronounced the received Vulgate text free
"from all mixture of falsehood and mistake." This, he alleged, was evident from its
acceptance by the Church in all ages and the use the Fathers had made of it.
Another member of the Louvain faculty, Latromus, employed his learning in a
pamphlet which maintained that a knowledge of Greek and Hebrew was not
necessary for the scholarly study of the Scriptures. In England, Erasmus’ New
Testament was attacked on a number of grounds by Lee, archbishop of York; and
Standish, bishop of St. Asaph, preached a furious sermon in St. Paul’s
churchyard on Erasmus’ temerity in undertaking the issue of such a work. The
University of Cologne was especially outraged by Erasmus’ attempt and Conrad of
Hersbach wrote:1233 —
They
have found a language called Greek, at which we must be careful to be on our guard.
It is the mother of all heresies. In the hands of many persons I see a book,
which they call the New Testament. It is a book full of thorns and poison. As
for Hebrew my brethren, it is certain that those who learn it will sooner or
later turn Jews.
But
among the men who read Erasmus’ text was Martin Luther, and he was studying it
to settle questions which started in his soul. About one of these he asked his
friend Spalatin to consult Erasmus, namely the final meaning of the
righteousness of the law, which he felt the great scholar had misinterpreted in
his annotations on the Romans in the Novum instrumentum. He believed, if
Erasmus would read Augustine’s works, he would change his mind. Luther
preferred Augustine, as he said, with the knowledge of one tongue to Jerome
with his knowledge of five.
Down
to the very end of its history, the mediaeval Church gave no official
encouragement to the circulation of the Bible among the laity. On the contrary,
it uniformly set itself against it. In 1199 Innocent III., writing to the
diocese of Metz where the Scriptures were being used by heretics, declared that
as by the old law, the beast touching the holy mount was to be stoned to death,
so simple and uneducated men were not to touch the Bible or venture to preach
its doctrines.1234
The article of the Synod of Toulouse,1229, strictly forbidding the Old
and New Testaments to the laity either in the original text or in the
translation1235 was not recalled or modified by papal or synodal action.
Neither after nor before the invention of printing was the Bible a free book.
Gerson was quite in line with the utterances of the Church, when he stated,
that it was easy to give many reasons why the Scriptures were not to be put
into the vulgar tongues except the historical sections and the parts teaching
morals.1236 In Spain,
Ferdinand and Isabella represented the strict churchly view when, on the eve of
the Reformation, they prohibited under severe penalties the translation of the
Scriptures and the possession of copies. The positive enactment of the English
archbishop, Arundel, at the beginning of the 15th century, forbidding the
reading of Wyclif’s English version, was followed by the notorious
pronouncement of Archbishop Bertholdt of Mainz against the circulation of the
German Bible, at the close of the same century,1485. The position taken by
Wyclif that the Scriptures, as the sole source of authority for creed and life,
should be freely circulated found full response in the closing years of the
Middle Ages only in the utterances of one scholar, Erasmus, but he was under
suspicion and always ready to submit himself to the judgment of the Church
hierarchic. If Wyclif said, "God’s law should be taught in that tongue
that is more known, for this wit [wisdom] is God’s Word," Erasmus in his
Paraclesis1237 uttered the equally bold words: —
I
utterly dissent from those who are unwilling that the sacred Scriptures should
be read by the unlearned translated into their own vulgar tongue, as though the
strength of the Christian religion consisted in men’s ignorance of it. The
counsels of kings are much better kept hidden but Christ wished his mysteries
to be published as openly as possible. I wish that even the weakest woman
should read the Gospel and the epistles of Paul. And I wish they were
translated into all languages, so that they might be read and understood, not
only by Scots and Irishmen but also by Turks and Saracens, I long that the
husbandman should sing portions of them to himself as he follows the plow, that
the weaver should hum them to the tune of his shuttle, that the traveller
should beguile with their stories the tedium of his journey.
The
utterances of Erasmus aside, the appeals made 1450–1520 for the circulation of
the Scriptures among all classes are very sparse and, in spite of all pains,
Catholic controversialists have been able to bring together only a few. And
yet, the few that we have show that, at least in Germany and the Netherlands,
there was a popular hunger for the Bible in the vernacular. Thus, the Preface
to the German Bible, issued at Cologne,1480, called upon every Christian to
read the Bible with devotion and honest purpose. Though the most learned may
not exhaust its wisdom, nevertheless its teachings are clear and uncovered. The
learned may read Jerome’s Vulgate but the unlearned and simple folk could and
should use the Cologne edition which was in good German. The devotional manual,
Die Himmelsthür,—Door of Heaven,—1513, declared that listening to sermons ought
to stir up people to read diligently in the German Bible. In 1505, Jacob
Wimpheling spoke of the common people reading both Testaments in their
mother-tongue and made this the ground of an appeal to priests not to neglect
to read the Word of God themselves.1238
Such
testimonies are more than offset by warnings against the danger attending the
popular use of Scriptures. Brant spoke strongly in this vein and so did Geiler
of Strassburg, who asserted that putting the Scriptures into the hands of
laymen was like putting a knife into the hands of children to cut bread. He
added that it "was almost a wicked thing to print the sacred text in
German."1239
Archbishop Bertholdt’s fulmination against German versions of the Bible
and their circulation among the people no doubt expressed the general mind of
the hierarchy in Germany and all Europe.1240 In this celebrated edict, the German primate pronounced the
German language too barbarous a tongue to reproduce the high thoughts expressed
by Greek and Latin writers, writing of the Christian religion. The Scriptures
are not to be given to simple and unlearned men and, above all, are not to be
put into the hands of women.1241
He spoke of the fools who were using the divine gift of printing to send
forth things proscribed to the public and declared, that the printers of the
sacred text were moved by the vain love of fame or by greed. In his zeal, the
archbishop went so far as to forbid the translation of all works whatsoever, of
Greek and Latin authorship, or their sale without the sanction of the doctors
of the Universities of Mainz or Erfurt. The punishment for the violation of the
edict was excommunication, confiscation of books and a fine of 100 gulden.
The
decree was so effective that, after 1488, only four editions of the German
Bible appeared until 1522, when Luther issued his New Testament, when the old
German translations seemed to be suddenly laid aside.1242 In England, Arundel’s inhibition so
fully expressed the mind of the nation that for a full century no attempt was
made to translate the Bible into English and it was not till after 1530 that
the first copy of the English Scriptures was published on English soil.1243 Sir Thomas More, it is true, writing on
the threshold of the English Reformation, interpreted Arundel’s decree as
directed against corrupt translations and sought to make it appear that it was
on account of errors that Wyclif’s version had been condemned. He was striving
to parry the charge that the Church had withheld the Bible from popular use,
but, whatever the interpretation put upon his words may be (see this volume, p.
348), the fact remains that the English were slow in getting any printed
version of their own and that the Catholic party issued none till the close of
the 16th century.
Distinct
witness is borne by Tyndale to the unwillingness of the old party to have the
Bible in English, in these words: "Some of the papists say it is
impossible to translate the Scriptures into English, some that it is not lawful
for the layfolk to have it in the mother-tongue, some that it would make them
all heretics."1244
After the new views were quite prevalent in England, the English Bible
had a hard time in winning the right to be read. Tyndale’s version, for the
printing of which he found no room in England, was at Wolsey’s instance
proscribed by Henry VIII. and the famous burning of 1527 in St. Paul’s
churchyard of all the copies Bishop Tonstall could lay his hands on will always
rise up to rebuke those who try to make it appear that the circulation of the
Word of God was intended by the Church authorities to be free. Tyndale declared
that, "in burning the New Testament, the papists did none other thing than
I looked for; no more shall they do if they burn me also." Any fears he may have had were realized
in his execution at Vilvorde,1536.1245 No doubt, the priest represented a large class when he
rebuked Tyndale for proposing to translate the Bible in the words, "We were better without God’s laws
than the pope’s." The martyr
Hume’s body was hung when an English Bible was found on his person. In 1543,
the reading of the Scriptures was forbidden in England except to persons of
quality. The Scotch joined the English authorities when the Synod of St.
Andrews,1529, forbade the importation of Bibles into Scotland.
In
France, according to the testimony of the famous printer Robert Stephens, who
was born in 1503, the doctors of the Sorbonne, in the period when he was a
young man, knew about the New Testament only from quotations from Jerome and
the Decretals. He declared that he was more than 50 years old before he knew
anything about the New Testament. Luther was a man before he saw a copy of the
Latin Bible. In 1533, Geneva forbade its citizens to read the Bible in German
or French and ordered all translations burnt.1246 The strict inquisition of books would have passed to all
countries, if the hierarchy had had its way. In 1535, Francis I. closed the
printing-presses and made it a capital offence in France to publish a religious
book without authorization from the Sorbonne. The attitude of the Roman
Catholic hierarchy, since the Reformation as well as during the Reformation,
has been against the free circulation of the Bible. In the 19th century, one
pope after another anathematized Bible societies. In Spain, Italy and South
America, the punishments visited upon Bible colporteurs and the frequent
burning of the Bible itself have been quite in the line of the decrees of
Arundel and Bertholdt and the treatment of Bishop Tonstall. Nor will it be
forgotten that, at the time Rome was made the capital of Italy in 1870, a papal
law required that copies of the Bible found in the possession of visitors to
the papal city be confiscated.
On
the other hand, through the agency of the Reformers, the book was made known
and offered freely to all classes. What use the Reformers hoped to make of
printing for the dissemination of religion and intelligence is tersely and
quaintly expressed by the martyrologist, Foxe, in these words:1247
—
Either
the pope must abolish printing or he must seek a new world to reign over, for
else, as the world stands, printing will abolish him. The pope and all the
cardinals must understand this, that through the light of printing the world
begins now to have eyes to see and heads to judge .... God hath opened the
press to preach, whose voice the pope is never able to stop with all the
puissance of the triple crown. By printing as by the gift of tongues and as by
the singular organ of the Holy Ghost, the doctrine of the Gospel sounds to all
nations and countries under heaven and what God reveals to one man, is
dispersed to many and what is known to one nation is opened to all.
Note:
– Both Janssen and Abbot Gasquet spend much pains in the attempt to show that
the mediaeval Church was not opposed to the circulation of the Bible in popular
versions or the Latin Vulgate. The proofs they bring forward must be regarded
as strained and insufficient. They ignore entirely the vast mass of testimony
on the other side, as, for example, the testimony involved in the popular
reception given to the German and English Scriptures when they appeared from
the hands of the Reformers and the mass of testimony given by the Reformers on
the subject. Gasquet endeavors to break the force of the argument drawn from
Arundel’s edict, but he has nothing to say of the demand Wyclif made for the
popular dissemination of the Bible, a demand which implied that the Bible was
withheld from the people. Dr. Barry who belongs to the same school, in the
Cambr. Mod. Hist., I. 640, speaks of "the enormous extent the Bible was
read in the 15th century" and that it was not "till we come within
sight of the Lutheran troubles that preachers, like Geiler of Kaisersberg, hint
their doubts on the expediency of unrestrained Bible-reading in the
vernacular." What is to be
said of such an exaggeration in view of the fact that the vast majority of
Bibles were in Latin, a language which the people could not read, that Geiler
died in 1510, seven years before Luther ceased to be a pious Augustinian monk,
and that he did very much more than hint doubts! He expressed himself unreservedly against Bible-reading.
Janssen-Pastor,—I. 23 sqq., 72 sqq., VII. 535 sqq.—have a place for stray
testimonies between 1480–1520 in favor of the popular reading of the
Scriptures, but, go far as I can see, do not refer to the warnings of Brant,
Geiler and others against their use by laymen, and the only reference they make
to Bertholdt’s notorious decree is to the clause in which the archbishop
emphasizes the divine art of printing, divina quaedam ars imprimendi, I. 15.
</div3> <div3 type = "Section"
n="78" title="Popular Piety">
§ 78.
Popular Piety.
During
the last century of the Middle Ages, the religious life of the laity was
stimulated by some new devices, especially in Germany. There, the effort to
instruct the laity in the matters of the Christian faith was far more vital and
active than in any other part of Western Christendom.
The
popular need found recognition in the illustrations, furnished in many editions
of the early Bibles. The Cologne Bible of 1480, the Lübeck Bible of 1494 and
the Venice Bible of Malermi,1497, are the best examples of this class of books.
Fifteen of the 17 German Bibles, issued before the Reformation, were
illustrated.
A
more distinct recognition of this need was given in the so-called biblia
pauperum,—Bibles for the poor,—first single sheets and then books, containing
as many as 40 or 50 pictures of biblical scenes.1248 In the first instance, they seem to have been intended to
aid priests in giving instruction. Side by side, they set scenes from the two
Testaments, showing the prophetic types and their fulfilments. Thus the
circumcisions of Abraham, Jacob and Christ are depicted in three separate
pictures, the priest being represented in the very act of circumcising Christ.
Explanations in Latin, German or French accompany the pictures.
An
extract will give some idea of the kind of information furnished by this class
of literature. When Adam was dying, he sent Seth into the garden to get
medicine. The cherub gave him a branch from the tree of life. When Seth
returned, he found his father dead and buried. He planted the branch and in
4000 years it grew to be the tree on which the Saviour was crucified.
The
best executed of these biblical picture-books are those in Constance,1249
St. Florian, Austria and in the libraries of Munich and Vienna. The name, biblia
pauperum, may have been derived from Bonaventura or the statement of Gregory
the Great, that pictures are the people’s bible. In 1509, Lukas Kranach issued
the passion in a series of pictures at Wittenberg.
A
marked and most hopeful novelty in Germany were the numerous manuals of
devotion and religious instruction which were issued soon after the invention
of printing. This literature bears witness to the intelligent interest taken in
religious training, although its primary purpose was not for the young but to
furnish a guide-book for the confessional and to serve priest and layman in the
hour of approaching death.1250
These books are, for the most part, in German, and probably had a wide
circulation. They show common Christians what the laws of God are for daily
life and what are the chief articles of the Church’s faith. Some of the titles
give us an idea of the intent,—The Soul’s Guide, Der Seelenführer; Path to
Heaven, Die Himmelstrasse; The Soul’s Comfort, Der Seelentrost; The Heart’s
Counsellor, Der Herzmahner; The Devotional Bell, Das andächtige Zeitglöcklein;
The Foot-Path to Eternal Bliss, Der Fusspfad zur ewigen Seligkeit; The Soul’s
Vegetable Garden, Das Seelenwürzgärtlein; The Soul’s Vineyard, Der Weingarten
der Seele; The Spiritual Chase, Die geistliche Jagd. Others were known by the
general title of Beichtbüchlein—libri di penitentia — or penitential books.
A
compendious statement of their intent is given in the title of the
Seelenführer,1251 namely "The Soul’s Guide, a useful
book for every Christian to practise a pious life and to reach a holy
death." This literature
deserves closer attention both because it represents territory hitherto largely
neglected by students of the later Middle Ages and because it bears witness to
the zeal among the German clergy to spread practical religion among the people.
The Himmelwagen, the Heavenly Carriage, represents the horses as faith, love,
repentance, patience, peace, humility and obedience. The Trinity is the driver,
the carriage itself God’s mercy.
With
variations, these little books explain the 10 Commandments, the 14 articles of
the Creed—the number into which it was then divided—the Lord’s Prayer, the
Beatitudes, mortal sins, the 5 senses, the works of mercy and other topics. The
Soul’s Comfort, which appeared in 16 editions,1474–1523,1252 takes up the 10
Commandments, 7 sacraments, 8 Beatitudes, 6 works of mercy, the 7 spiritual
gifts, 7 mortal sins and 7 cardinal virtues and "what God further thinks
me worthy of knowing." Most
useful as this little book was adapted to be, it sometimes states truth under
strange forms, as when it tells of a man whose soul after death was found, not
in his body but in his money-chest and of a girl who, while dancing on Friday,
was violently struck by the devil but recovered on giving her promise to amend
her ways.
The
Path to Heaven contains 52 chapters. The first two set forth faith and hope,
the joys of the elect and the pains of the lost and it closes with 4 chapters
describing a holy death, the devil’s modes of tempting the dying and questions
which are to be put to sick people. Dietrich Kolde’s Mirror of a Christian Man,
one of the most popular of the manuals, in the first two of its 46 chapters,
took up the Apostles’ Creed and, in the last, the marks of a good Christian
man. The first edition appeared before 1476; the 23d at Delfft,1518.1253
Many
of the manuals expressly set forth the value of the family religion and call
upon parents to teach their children the Creed, the 10 Commandments, the Lord’s
Prayer, to have them pray morning and evening and to take them to church to
hear the mass and preaching. The Soul’s Guide says, "The Christian home
should be the first school for young children and their first church."
The
Path to Heaven,1254 written by Stephen von Landskron or
Lanzkranna, dean of Vienna, d. 1477, presents a very attractive picture of a
Christian household. As a model for imitation, the head of a family is
represented as going to church with his wife, children and servants every
Sunday and listening to the preaching. On returning home, he reviews the
subject of the sermon and hears them recite the Commandments, Lord’s Prayer and
Creed and the 7 mortal sins. Then, after he has refreshed himself with a
draught, Trinklein, they sing a song to God or Mary or to one of the saints.
The Soul’s Comfort counsels parents to examine their households about the
articles of faith and the precepts the children had learned at school and at
church. The Table of a Christian Life1255 urges the parents to keep
their children off the streets, send them to school, making a selection of
their teachers and, above all, to live well themselves and "go
before" their children in the practice of all the virtues.
Of
the penitential books, designed distinctly as manuals of preparation for the
confessional, the work of John Wolff is the most elaborate and noteworthy. This
good man, who was chaplain at St. Peter’s, Frankfurt, wrote his book 1478.1256 He was deeply interested in the
impartation of religious instruction. His tombstone, which was unearthed in
1895, calls him the "doctor of the 10 Commandments" and gives a
representation of the 10 Commandments in 10 pictures, each Commandment being
designated by a hand with one or more fingers uplifted. Such tables it was not
an uncommon thing, in the last years of the Middle Ages, to hang on the walls
of churches.
Wolff’s
book, which is a guide for daily Christian living, sets forth at length the 10
Commandments and the acts and inward thoughts which are in violation of them,
and puts into the mouth of the offender an appropriate confession. Thus,
confessing to a violation of the 4th Commandment, the offender says, "I
have done on Friday rough work, in farming, dunging the fields, splitting wood,
spinning, sewing, buying and selling, dancing, striking people at the dance,
playing games and doing other sinful things. I did not hear mass or preaching
and was remiss in the service of Almighty God." Upon the exposition of the Decalogue follow lists of the five
baser sins,—usury, killing, stealing, sodomy and keeping back wages,—the 6 sins
against the Holy Ghost, the 7 works of mercy such as visiting the sick,
clothing the naked and burying the dead, the sacraments, the Beatitudes, the 7
gifts of the Holy Ghost and an exposition of repentance. The work closes with a
summary of the advantages to be derived from the frequent repetition of the 10
Commandments and mentions 13 excuses, given for not repeating them, such as
that the words are hard to remember and the unwillingness to have them as a
perpetual monitor.
These
manuals, having in view the careful instruction of adults and children,
indicate a new era in the history of religious training. No catechisms have
come down to us from the ancient Church. The catechumens to whom Augustine and
Cyril addressed their catechetical discourses were adults. In the 13th century,
synods began to call for the preparation of summaries of religious knowledge
for laymen. So a synod at Lambeth,1281, Prag,1355, and Lavaur, France,1368. The
Synod of Tortosa,1429, ordered its prelates to secure the preparation of a
brief compendium containing in concise paragraphs all that it was necessary for
the people to know and that might be explained to them every Sunday during the
year by their pastors. Gerson approached the catechetical method (see this
volume, p. 216 sq.) and, after long years of activity made the statement that
the reformation of the church must begin with children, a parvulis ecclesiae
reparatio et ejus cultura incipienda.1257 In his Tripartite work he presents the Ten Commandments,
confession and thoughts for the dying. The catechetical form of question and
answer was not adopted till after the Lutheran Reformation was well on its way.
The term, catechism, as a designation of such a manual was first used by
Luther,1525, and the first book to bear the title was Andreas Althammer’s
Catechism, which appeared in 1528. Luther’s two catechisms were issued one year
later. The first Catholic book to bear the title was prepared by George
Wicelius,1535.
In
England, we have something similar to the German penitential books in the
Prymers,1258 the first copy of which dates from 1410. They were circulated
in Latin and English, and were intended for the instruction of the laity. They
contained the calendar, the Hours of our Lady, the litany, the Lord’s Prayer,
Creed, Ten Commandments, 7 Penitential Psalms, the 7 deadly sins, prayers and
other matters. The book is referred to by Piers Plowman, and frequently in the
15th century, as one well known.1259 The Horn-book also deserves mention. This device for
teaching the alphabet and the Lord’s Prayer consisted of a rectangular board
with a handle, to be held like a modern hand-mirror. On one or both sides were
cut or printed the letters of the alphabet and the Lord’s Prayer. Horn-books
were probably not in general use till the close of the 16th century, but they
date back to the middle of the 15th. They probably got their name from a piece
of animal horn with which the face of the written matter was covered as a
protection against grubby fingers.1260
A
nearer approach to the catechetical idea was made by Colet in his rudiments of
religious knowledge appended to his elementary grammar, and intended for use in
St. Paul’s School. It contains the Apostles’ Creed, the Lord’s Prayer, an
exposition of the love due God and our fellowmen, 46 special "precepts of
living," and two prayers, and is generally known as the Catecheyzon.1261
Religious
instruction was also given through the series of pictures known as the Dance of
Death, and through the miracle plays.1262 In the Dance of Death, a perpetual memento mori, death was
represented in the figure of a skeleton appearing to persons in every avocation
of life and of every class. None were too holy or too powerful to evade his
intrusion and none too humble to be beyond his notice. Death wears now a
serious, now a comic aspect, now politely leads his victim, now walks arm in
arm with him, now drags him or beats him. An hour-glass is usually found
somewhere in the pictures, grimly reminding the onlooker that the time of life
is certain to run out. These pictures were painted on bridges, houses, church
windows and convent walls. Among the oldest specimens are those in Minden,1383,
at Paris in the churchyard of the Franciscans,1425, Dijon,1436, Basel,1441,
Croyden, the Tower of London, Salisbury Cathedral,1460, Lübeck,1463.1263
In
the fifteenth century, the religious drama was in its bloom in Germany and
England.1264 The acting was
now turned over to laymen and the public squares and streets were preferred for
the performances. The people looked on from the houses as well as from the
streets. In 1412, while the play of St. Dorothea was being acted in the
market-place at Bautzen, the roof of one of the houses fell and 33 persons were
killed. The introduction of buffoonery and farce had become a recognized
feature and lightened the impression without impairing the religious usefulness
of the plays. The devil was made a subject of perpetual jest and fun. The
people found in them an element of instruction which, perhaps, the priest did
not impart. The scenes enacted reached from the Creation and the fall of
Lucifer to the Last Judgment and from Abel’s death and Isaac’s sacrifice to the
crucifixion and resurrection.
Set
forth by living actors, the miracle plays and moralities were to the Middle
Ages what the Pilgrim’s Progress was to Puritans. They were performed from Rome
to London, at the marriage and visits of princes and for the delectation of the
people. We find them presented before Sigismund and prelates during the solemn discussions
of the Council of Constance, as when the play of the Nativity and the Slaughter
of the Innocents was acted at the Bishop of Salisbury’s lodgings,1417, and at
St. Peter’s, as when the play of Susannah and the Elders was performed in honor
of Leonora, daughter of Ferrante of Naples,1473. At a popular dramatization of
the parable of the 10 Virgins in Eisenach,1324, the margrave, Friedrich, was so
moved by the pleas of the 5 foolish maidens and the failure to secure the aid
of Mary and the saints, that he cried out, "What is the Christian religion
worth, if sinners cannot obtain mercy through the intercession of
Mary?" The story went, that
he became melancholy and died soon afterwards.
Of
the four English cycles of miracle plays, York, Chester, Coventry and Towneley
or Wakefield, the York cycle dates back to 1360 and contained from 48 to 57
plays. Chester and Coventry were the traditional centres of the religious
drama. The stage or pageant, as it was called, was wheeled through the streets.
The playing was often in the hands of the guilds, such as the barbers, tanners,
plasterers, butchers, spicers, chandlers.1265 The paying of actors dates from the 14th century.
Chester
cycles was Noah’s Flood, a subject popular everywhere in mediaeval Europe.
After God’s announcement to the patriarch, his 3 sons and their wives offered
to take hand in the building of the ark. Noah’s wife alone held out and scolded
while the others worked. In spite of Noah’s well-known quality of patience, her
husband exclaimed: —
Lord,
these women be crabbed, aye
And
none are meke, I dare well says.
Nothing
daunted, however, the patriarch went on with his hammering and hewing and
remarked: —
These
bordes heare I pinne togither
To bear
us saffe from the weither,
That we
may rowe both heither and theither
And
saffe be from the fludde.1266
The
ark finished, each party brought his portion of animals and birds. But when
they were housed, Noah’s help-meet again proved a disturbing element. Noah bade
Shem go and fetch her.
Sem,
sonne, loe! thy mother is wrawe
(angry).
Shem
told her they were about to set sail, but still she resisted entreaty and all
hands were called to join together and "fetch her in."
One
of the best of the English plays, Everyman, has for its subject the
inevitableness of death and the judgment.1267 God sends Death to Everyman and, in his attempt to withstand
his message, Everyman calls upon his friends Fellowship, Riches, Strength,
Beauty and Good Works for help or, at least, to accompany him on his pilgrimage.
This with one consent they refused to do. He then betook himself to Penance,
and has explained to him the powers of the priesthood: —
God
hath to priest more power given
Than to
any angel that is in heaven.
With
five words, he may consecrate
God’s
body in flesh and blood to take
And handleth
his Maker between his hands:
The
priest bindeth and unbindeth all bands
Both in
earth and in heaven,
He
ministers all the sacraments seven.
Such
plays were impressive sermons, a popular summer-school of moral and religious
instruction, the mediaeval Chatauqua. They continued to be performed in England
till the 16th century and even till the reign of James I., when the modern
drama took their place. The last survival of the religious drama of the Middle
Ages is the Passion Play given at Oberammergau in the highlands of Bavaria. In
obedience to a vow, made during a severe epidemic in 1684, it has been acted
every ten years since and more often in recent years. Since 1860, the
performances have attracted throngs of spectators from foreign lands, a performance
being set for 1910. Writers have described it as a most impressive sermon on
the most momentous of scenes, as it is a solemn act of worship for the
simple-hearted, pious Catholics of that remote mountain village.
Pilgrimages
and the worship of relics were as popular in the 16th century as they had been
in previous periods of the Middle Ages.1268 Guide-books for pilgrims were circulated in Germany and
England and contained vocabularies as well as items of geography and other
details.1269 Jerusalem
continued to attract the feet of princes and prelates as well as persons of
less exalted estate. Frederick the Wise of Saxony, Luther’s cautious but firm
friend, was one of these pilgrims in the last days of the Middle Ages. William
Wey of England, who in 1458 and 1462, went to the Holy Land, tells us how the
pilgrims sang "O city dear Jerusalem," Urbs beata, as they landed at
Joppa. Sir Richard Torkington and Sir Thomas Tappe, both ecclesiastics, made
the journey the same year that Luther nailed up the Theses,1517. The journeys
to Rome during the Jubilee Years of 1450,1500, drew vast throngs of people,
eager to see the holy city and concerned to secure the religious benefits
promised by the supreme pontiff. Local shrines also attracted constant streams
of pilgrims.
Among
the popular shrines in Germany were the holy blood at Stemberg from 1492, the
image of Mary at Grimmenthal from 1499, as a cure for the French sickness, the
head of St. Anna at Düren from 1500, this relic having been stolen from Mainz.
The holy coat of Treves was brought to light in 1512. As in the flourishing
days of the Crusades, so again, pilgrimage-epidemics broke out among the
children of Germany, as in 1457 when large bands went to St. Michael’s in
Normandy and in 1475 to Wilsnack, where, in spite of the exposure by Nicolas of
Cusa, the blood was still reputed holy.1270 The most noted places of pilgrimage in Germany were Cologne
with the bodies of the three Magi-kings and Aachen, where Mary’s undergarment,
Jesus’ swaddling-cloth and the loin-cloth he wore on the cross and other
priceless relics are kept. Some idea of the popularity of pilgrimages may be
had from the numbers that are given, though it is possible they are
exaggerated. In 1466, 130,000 attended the festival of the angels at
Einsiedeln, Switzerland, and in 1496 the porter at the gate of Aachen counted
146,000.1271 In the 14 days,
when the relics were displayed, 85,000 gulden were left in the money-boxes of
St. Mary’s, Aachen.
Imposing
religious processions were also popular, such as the procession at Erfurt,1483,
in a time of drought. It lasted from 5 in the morning till noon, the ranks
passing from church to church. Among those who took part were 948 children from
the schools, the entire university-body comprising 2,141 persons, 812 secular
priests, the monks of 5 convents and a company of 2,316 maidens with their hair
hanging loosely down their backs and carrying tapers in their hands. German
synods called attention to the abuses of the pilgrimage-habit and sought to
check it.1272
English
pilgrims, not satisfied with going to Rome, Jerusalem and the sacred places on
their own island, also turned their footsteps to the tomb of St. James of
Compostella, Spain. In 1456, Wey conducted 7 ship-loads of pilgrims to this
Spanish locality. Among the popular English shrines were St. Edmund of Bury,
St. Ethelred of Ely, the holy hood of Boxley, the holy blood of Hailes and, more
popular than all, Thomas à Becket’s tomb at Canterbury and our Blessed Lady of
Walsingham. So much frequented was the road to Walsingham that it was said,
Providence set the milky way in the place it occupies in the heavens that it
might shine directly upon it and direct the devout to the sacred spot. These
two shrines were visited by unbroken processions of religious itinerants,
including kings and queens as well as people less distinguished. Reference has
already been made to Erasmus’ description, which he gives in his Colloquies. At
Walsingham, he was shown the Virgin’s shrine rich with jewels and ornaments of
silver and gold and lit up by burning candles. There, was the wicket at which
the pilgrim had to stoop to pass but through which, with the Virgin’s aid, an
armed knight on horseback had escaped from his pursuer. The Virgin’s congealed
milk, the cool scholar has described with particular precision. Asking what
good reason there was for believing it was genuine, the verger replied by
pointing him to an authentic record hung high up on the wall. Walsingham was
also fortunate enough to possess the middle joint of one of Peter’s fingers.
At
Canterbury, Erasmus and Colet looked upon Becket’s skull covered with a silver
case except at the spot where the fatal dagger pierced it and Colet, remarking
that Thomas was good to the poor while on earth, queried whether now being in
heaven he would not be glad to have the treasures, stored in his tomb,
distributed in alms. When a chest was opened and the monk held up the rags with
which the archbishop had blown his nose, Colet held them only a moment in his
fingers and let them drop in disgust. It was said by Thomas à Kempis, that
rarely are they sanctified who jaunt about much on pilgrimages—raro
sanctificantur, qui multum peregrinantur.1273 One of the German penitential books exclaimed, "Alas!
how seldom do people go on pilgrimages from right motives." Twenty-five years after the visits of
Erasmus and Colet, the canons of Walsingham, convicted of forging relics, were
dragged by the king’s order to Chelsea and burnt and the tomb of St. Thomas was
rifled of its contents and broken up.
Saints
continued to be in high favor. Every saint has his distinct office allotted to
him, said Erasmus playfully. One is appealed to for the toothache, a second to
grant easy delivery in childbirth, a third to lend aid on long journeys, a
fourth to protect the farmer’s live stock. People prayed to St. Christopher
every morning to be kept from death during the day, to St. Roche to be kept
from contagion and to St. George and St. Barbara to be kept from falling into
the hands of enemies. He suggested that these fabulous saints were more prayed
to than Peter and Paul and perhaps than Christ himself.1274 Sir Thomas More, in his defence of the
worship of saints, expressed his astonishment at the "madness of the
heretics that barked against the custom of Christ’s Church."
The
encouragement, given at Rome to the worship of relics, had a signal
illustration in the distinguished reception accorded the head of St. Andrew by
the Renaissance pope, Pius II. In Germany, princes joined with prelates in
making collections of sacred bones and other objects in which miraculous virtue
was supposed to reside and whose worship was often rewarded by the almost
infinite grace of indulgence. In Germany, in the 15th century as in Chaucer’s
day in England, the friars were the indefatigable purveyors of this sort of
merchandise, from the bones of Balaam’s ass to the straw of the manger and
feathers from St. Michael’s wings. The Nürnberger, Nicolas Muffel, regretted that,
after the effort of 33 years, he had only been able to bring together 308
specimens. Unfortunately this did not keep him from the crime of theft and the
penalty of the gallows.1275
In Vienna, were shown such rarities as a piece of the ark, drops of
sweat from Gethsemane and some of the incense offered by the Wise Men from the
East. Albrecht, archbishop of Mainz, helped to collect no less than 8,138
sacred fragments and 42 entire bodies of saints. This collection, which was
deposited at Halle, contained the host—that is, Christ’s own body—which Christ
offered while he was in the tomb, a statue of the Virgin with a full bottle of
her milk hanging from her neck, several of the pots which had been used at Cana
and a portion of the wine Jesus made, as well as some of the veritable manna
which the Hebrews had picked up in the desert, and some of the earth from a
field in Damascus from which God made Adam.
A
most remarkable collection was made by no less a personage than Frederick the
Wise of Saxony.1276
A rich description of its treasures has been preserved from the hand of
Andreas Meinhard, then a new master of arts. On his way to Wittenberg,1507, he
met a raw student about to enter the university, Reinhard by name. The elector
had made good use of the opportunities his pilgrimages to Jerusalem furnished
and succeeded in obtaining the very respectable number of 5,005 sacred pieces.
The collection was displayed for over a year in the Schlosskirche, where
Meinhard and his travelling companion looked at it with wondering eyes and
undoubting confidence. Among the pieces were a thorn from the crown of thorns,
a tunic belonging to John the Evangelist, milk from the Virgin’s breast, a
piece of Mt. Calvary, a piece of the table on which the Last Supper was eaten,
fragments of the stones on which Christ stood when he wept over Jerusalem and
as he was about to ascend to heaven, the entire body of one of the Bethlehem
Innocents, one of the fingers of St. Anna, "the most blessed of
grandmothers,"—beatissimae aviae,—pieces of the rods of Aaron and Moses, a
piece of Mary’s girdle and some of the straw from the Bethlehem manger. Good
reason had Meinhard to remark that, if the grandfathers had been able to arise
from the dead, they would have thought Rome itself transferred to Wittenberg.
Each of these fragments was worth 100 days of indulgence to the worshipper. The
credulity of Frederick, the collector, and the people betrays the atmosphere in
which Luther was brought up and the struggle it must have cost him to attack
the deep-seated beliefs of his generation.
The
religious reverence paid to the Virgin could not well go beyond the stage it
reached in the age of the greater Schoolmen nor could more flattering epithets
be heaped upon her than were found in the works of Albertus Magnus and
Bonaventura. Mary was more easily entreated than her Son. The Horticulus
animae,—Garden of the Soul,—tells the story of a cleric, accustomed to say his
Ave Marias devoutly every day, to whom the Lord appeared and said, that his
mother was much gratified at the priest’s prayers and loved him much but that
he should not forget also to direct prayers to himself. The book, Heavenly
Wagon, called upon sinners to take refuge in her mantle, where full mercy and
pardon would be found.1277
Erasmus remarked that Mary’s blind devotees, praying to her on all
occasions, considered it manners to place the mother before the Son.1278 In 1456, Calixtus III. commended the
use of the Ave Maria as a protection against the Turks. English Prymers
contained the salutations,
Blessid
art thou virgyn marie, that hast born the lord maker of the world: thou hast
getyn hym that made thee, and thou dwellist virgyne withouten ende. Thankis to
god.
Heil
sterre of the see, hooli goddis modir, alwei maide, blesful gate of heuene.1279
The
doctrine of the Immaculate Conception in its extreme form, exempting Mary from
the beginning from all taint of original sin, was defined by the Council of
Basel1280 but the decision has no oecumenical authority. Sixtus
IV.,1477 and 1483, declared the definition of the dogma still an open question,
the Holy See not having pronounced upon the subject. But the University of
Paris,1497, in emphatic terms decided for the doctrine and bound its members to
the tenet by an oath. Erasmus, comparing the subtlety of the Schoolmen with the
writings of the Apostles, observed that, while the former hotly contended over
the Immaculate Conception, the Apostles who knew Mary well never undertook to
prove that she was immune from original sin.1281
To
the worship of Mary was added the worship of Anna, Mary’s reputed mother. The
names of Mary’s parents, Anna and Joachim, were received from the Apocryphal
Gospels of James and the Infancy. Jerome and Augustine had treated the
information with suspicion as also the further information that the couple were
married in Bethlehem and lived in Nazareth, had angelic announcements of the
birth of Mary and that, upon Joachim’s death, Anna married a second and a third
time. The Crusaders brought relics of her with them to Western Europe and
gradually her claim found recognition. Her cult spread rapidly. In Alexander
VI. she found a distinguished devotee. Churches and hospitals were built to her
memory. Trithemius wrote a volume in her praise and artists, like Albrecht
Dürer, joined her with Mary on the canvas.1282 She was claimed as a patron saint by women in childbirth and
by the copper miners. Luther himself was one of her ardent worshippers. Both
Albrecht of Mainz and Frederick the Wise were fortunate enough to have in their
collections of relics, each, one of the fingers of the saint.1283
If
sacred poetry is any test of the devotion paid to a saint, then the Virgin Mary
was far and away the chief personage to whom worshippers in the last centuries
of the Middle Ages looked for help. The splendid collection issued by Blume and
Dreves,—Analecta hymnica,—filling now nearly 8,000 pages, gives the material from
which a judgment can be formed as to the relative amount of attention writers
of hymns and sequences paid to the Godhead, to Mary and to the other saints.
Number XLII., containing 336 hymns, gives 37 addressed to Christ,110 to Mary
and 189 to other saints. Number XLVI. devotes 102 to Mary. These numbers are
taken at random. Here are introductory verses from several of the thousands of
hymns which were composed in praise of her virtues and the efficacy of her
intercession:—
<foreign
lang="la">Pulchra
regis regia
Regens
regentem omnia 1284
Sal
deitatis cella
Virgo virginum
Maria,
nostra consolatrix.1285
Materaltissimi
regis
Tu
humani altrix gregis
Advocata
potissima
In hora
mortis ultima.1286</foreign>
Anna
also has a large place in the hymns of the later Middle Ages and the 16th
century.1287 Here are the
opening verses of two of them:
<foreign
lang="la">Dulcis
Jesu matris pater
Joachim,
et Anna mater
Justi,
natu nobiles.1288
Gaude,
mater Anna
Gaude,
mater sancta
Cum sis
Dei facta
Genetrix
avia.1289</foreign>
In
England, singing sacred songs seems to have been little cultivated before the
16th century. The singing of Psalms in the days of Anne Boleyn was a novelty
and was greatly enjoyed at the court as it was later in Elizabeth’s reign, on
the streets. The vast numbers of sacred pieces, written in Germany, France and
the Lowlands, were intended for conventual devotions not for popular use.1290 Singing, however, was practised
extensively in pilgrimages and processions and also in churches, and the Basel
synod at its 21st session complained that the public services were interrupted
by hymns in the vernacular. Germany took the lead in sacred popular music. From
1470–1520, nearly 100 hymns were printed from German presses, many of them with
original tunes. Sometimes the hymns were in German from beginning to end,
sometimes they were a mixture of Latin and German. As the Middle Ages drew to a
close, religious song increased. The Reformation established congregational
singing and begat the congregational hymnbook.1291
These
adjuncts and elements of Christian worship and training were added to the usual
service of the churches, the celebration of the mass, which was central, the
confessional and preaching. The age was religious but doubt was growing. A
writer of the 16th century says of England:1292
There
are many who have various opinions concerning religion but all attend mass
every day and say many pater nosters in public, the women carrying long
rosaries in their hands and any who can read taking the Hours of our Lady with
them and reciting them in church verse by verse in a low voice is the manner of
the religious. They always hear mass in their parish church on Sunday and give
liberal alms nor do they omit any form incumbent upon good Christians.
The
age of a more intelligent piety was still to come, though it was to prove itself
less submissive to human authority.
</div3> <div3 type = "Section"
n="79" title="Works of Charity">
§ 79.
Works of Charity.
Benevolence
and philanthropy, which are of the very essence of the Christian religion,
flourished in the later Middle Ages. In the endeavor to provoke his generation
to good works, Luther asserted that "in the good old papal times everybody
was merciful and kind. Then it snowed endowments and legacies and
hospitals."1293
Institutions were established to care for the destitute and sick,
colleges and bursaries were endowed and protection given to the dependent
against the rapacity of unscrupulous money-lenders.
The
modern notion of stamping out sickness by processes of sanitation scarcely
occurred to the mediaeval municipalities. Although the population of Europe was
not 1/10 of what it is to-day, disease was fearfully prevalent. No epidemics so
fatal as the Black Death appeared in Europe but, even in England, the return of
plagues was frequent, as in 1406,1439,1464,1477. The famine of 1438, called the
Great Famine, was followed the next year by the Great Pestilence, called also
the pestilence sans merci. In 1464, to follow the Chronicle of Croyland,
thousands, "died like slaughtered sheep." The sweating sickness of 1485 reappeared in 1499 and 1504.
In the first epidemic, 20,000 died in London and, in 1504, the mayor of the
city succumbed. The disease took people suddenly and was marked by a chill,
which was followed by a fiery redness of the skin and agonizing thirst that led
the victims to drink immoderately. Drinking was succeeded by sweating from
every pore.1294
Provision
was made for the sick and needy through the monasteries, gilds and brotherhoods
as well as by individual assistance and state collections. The care of the poor
was in England regarded as one of the primary functions of the Church.
Archbishop Stratford,1342, ordered that a portion of the tithe should be
invariably set apart for their needs. The neglect of the poor was alleged as
one of the crying omissions of the alien clergy.
Doles
for the poor, a common form of charity in England, were often provided for on a
large scale. During the 40 days the duke of Gaunt’s body was to remain
unburied, 50 marks were to be distributed daily until the 40th day, when the
amount was to be increased to 500 marks. Bishop Skirland wanted 200 given away
between his death and his interment. A draper of York gave by will 100 beds
with furniture to as many poor folk. A cloth-maker made a doubtful charity when
he left a suit of his own make to 13 poor people, with the condition that they
should sit around his coffin for 8 days. There were houses, says Thorold
Rogers, where doles of bread and beer were given to all wayfarers, houses where
the sick were treated, clothed and fed, particularly the lepers. One of the
hospitals that survives is St. Crow at Winchester for old and indigent people.1295 The cook Ketel, a Brother of the Common
Life, whose biography Thomas à Kempis wrote, said it would be better to sell
all the books of the house at Deventer and give more to the poor.
Hospitals,
in the earlier part of our period, were the special concern of the knights of
the Teutonic Order and continued throughout the whole of it to engage the
attention of the Beguines. It became the custom also for the Beguines to go as
nurses to private houses as in Cologne, Frankfurt, Treves, Ulm and other German
cities, receiving pay for their services.1296 The Beguinages in Bruges, Ghent, Antwerp andother cities of
Belgium and Holland date back to this period. The 15th century also witnessed
the growth of municipal hospitals, a product of the civic spirit which had
developed in North-Europe. Cities like Cologne, Lübeck and Augsburg had several
hospitals. The Hotel de Dieu, Paris, did not come under municipal control till
1505. In cases, admission to hospitals was made by their founders conditional
on ability to say the Lord’s Prayer, the Creed and the Ave Maria, as for
example to St. Anthony’s, Augsburg. In this case, the founder took care to
provide for himself, requiring the inmates on entering to say 100 Pater nosters
and 100 Ave Marias over his grave and every day to join in saying over it 15 of
each.1297 Damian of Löwen
and his wife, who endowed a hospital at Cologne,1450, stipulated that "the
very poorest and sickest were to be taken care of whether they belonged to
Cologne or were strangers."
Rome
had more than one hospital endowment. The foundation of Cardinal John Colonna
at the Lateran, made 1216, still remains. In his History of the Popes (III.
51), Pastor has given a list of the hospitals and other institutions of mercy
in the different states of Italy and justly laid stress upon this evidence of
the power of Christianity. The English gilds, organized, in the first instance,
for economic and industrial purposes, also pledged relief to their own sick and
indigent members. The gild of Corpus Christi at York provided 8 beds for poor
people and paid a woman by the year 14 shillings and fourpence to keep them.
The gild of St. Helena at Beverley cared constantly for 3 or 4 poor folk.1298
Leprosy
decreased during the last years of the Middle Ages, but hospitals for the
reception of lepers are still extensively found,—the lazarettos, so called
after Lazarus, who was reputed to have been afflicted with the disease. Houses
for this malady had been established in England by Lanfranc, Mathilda, queen of
Henry I. at St. Giles, by King Stephen at Burton, Leicestershire and by others
till the reign of John. St. Hugh of Lincoln, as well as St. Francis d’Assissidistinguished
themselves by their solicitude for lepers. But the disease seems to have died
out in England in the 14th century and it was hard to fill the beds endowed for
this class of sufferers. In 1434, it was ordered that beds be kept for 2 lepers
in the great Durham leper hospital "provided they could be found in these
parts." Originally the
hospital had beds for 60.1299
Late in the 16th century there were still lepers in Germany. Thomas
Platter wrote, "When we came to Munich, it was so late that we could not
enter the city, but had to remain in the leperhouse."1300
Begging
was one of the curses of England and Germany as it continues to be of Southern
Europe to-day. It was no disgrace to ask alms. The mendicant friars by their
example consecrated a nuisance with the sacred authority of religion. Pilgrims
and students also had the right of way as beggars. Sebastian Brant gave a list
of the different ecclesiastical beggars who went about with sacks, into which
they put with indiscriminate greed apples, plums, eggs, fish, chickens, meat,
butter and cheese,—sacks which had no bottom.
<foreign
lang="de">Der
Bettler Sack wird nimmer voll;
Wie man
ihn füllt, so bleibt er hohl.
</foreign>
In
Germany, towns gave franchises to beg.1301 The habit of mendicancy, which Brant ridiculed, Geiler of
Strassburg called upon the municipality to regulate or forbid altogether. In
England, mendicancy was a profession recognized in law.
With
the decay of the monastic endowments and the legal maintenance of wages at a
low rate, the destitution and vagrancy increased. The English statutes of
laborers at the close of this period,1495 and 1504, ordered beggars, not able
to work, to return to their own towns where they might follow the habit of
begging without hindrance.1302
At
a time when in Germany, the richest country of Europe, church buildings were
multiplying with great rapidity, many churches in England, on account of the
low economic conditions, were actually left to go to ruin or turned into
sheepcotes and stables, a transmutation to which Sir Thomas More as well as
others refers. The rapacity of the nobles and abbots in turning large areas
into sheep-runs deprived laborers of employment and brought social distress
upon large numbers. On the other hand, parliament passed frequent statutes of
apparel, as in 1463 and 1482, restricting the farmer and laborer in his
expenditure on dress. The different statutes of laborers, enacted during the
15th century, had the effect of depressing and impoverishing the classes
dependent upon the daily toil of their hands.1303
In
spite of the strict synodal rules, repeated again and again, usury was
practised by Christians as well as by Jews. All the greater Schoolmen of the
13th century had discussed the subject of usury and pronounced it sin, on the
ground of Luke 6:34, and other texts. They held that charges of interest
offended against the law of love to our neighbor and the law of natural
fairness, for money does not increase with use but rather is reduced in weight
and value. It is a species of greed which is mortal sin.1304 It was so treated by mediaeval councils
when practised by Christians and the contrary opinion was pronounced heretical
by the oecumenical council of Vienne. Geiler of Strassburg expounded the
official church view when he pronounced usury always wicked. It was wrong for a
Christian to take back more than the original principal. And the substitution
of a pig or some other gift in place of a money payment he also denounced.
The
rates of the Jews were exorbitant. In Florence, they were 20% in 1430 and, in
1488, 32½%.1305 In Northern
Europe they were much higher, from 431/3 to 80 or even 100%. Municipalities
borrowed. Clerics, convents and churches mortgaged their sacred vessels. City
after city in Germany and Switzerland expelled the Jews,—from Spires and
Zürich,1435, to Geneva,1490, and Nürnberg, Ulm and Nördlingen,1498–1500. The
careers of the great banking-houses in the second half of the fifteenth century
show the extensive demand for loans by popes and prelates, as well as secular
princes.
To
afford relief to the needy, whose necessities forced them to borrow, a measure
of real philanthropy was conceived in the last century of the Middle Ages, the
montes pietatis, or charitable accumulations.1306 They were benevolent loaning funds. The idea found
widespread acceptance in Italy, where the first institutions were founded at
Perugia,1462, and Orvieto,1463. City councils aided such funds by
contributions, as at Perugia, when it gave 3,000 gulden. But in this case,
finding itself unable to furnish the full amount, it mulcted the Jews for 1,200
gulden, Pius II. giving his sanction to the constraint. In cases, bishops
furnished the capital, as at Pistoja,1473, where Bishop Donato de’ Medici gave
3,000 gulden. At Lucca, a merchant, who had grown rich through commercial
affiliation with the Jews, donated the princely capital of 40,000 gold gulden.
At Gubbio, a law taxed all inheritances one per cent in favor of the local
fund, and neglect to pay was punished with an additional tax of one per cent.
The
popes showed a warm interest in the new benevolence by granting to particular
funds their sanction and offering indulgences to contributors. From 1463 to
1515 we have records of 16 papal authorizations from such popes as Pius II.,
Sixtus IV., Innocent VIII., Alexander VI., Julius II. and Leo X. The sanction
of Innocent VIII., given to the Mantua fund,1486, called upon the preachers to
summon the people to support the fund, promised 10 years full indulgence to
donors, and excommunicated all who opposed the project. Sixtus IV., in
commending the fund for his native town of Savona,1479, pronounced its worthy
object to be to aid not only the poor but also the rich who had pawned their
goods. He offered a plenary indulgence on the collection of every 100 gulden.
In 1490, the Savona fund had 22,000 gulden and the limit of loans was raised to
100 ducats.1307
The
administration of these bureaus of relief was in the hands of directors,
usually a mixed body of clergymen and laymen, and often appointed by municipal
councils. The accounts were balanced each month. In Perugia, the rate, which
was 12% in 1463, was reduced to 8% a year later. In Milan it was reduced from
10% to 5%, in 1488. Five per cent was the appointed rate fixed at Padua,
Vicenza and Pisa, and 4% at Florence. The loans were made upon the basis of
property put in pawn. The benevolent efficacy of these funds cannot be
questioned and to them, in part, is due the reduction of interest from 40% to 4
and 10% in Italy, before the close of the 15th century.1308 They met, however, with much opposition
and were condemned as contravening the traditional law against usury.
A
foremost place in advancing the movement was taken by the Franciscans and in
the Franciscan Bernardino da Feltre,1439–1494, it had its chief apostle. This
popular orator canvassed all the greater towns of Northern Italy,—Mantua,
Florence, Parma, Padua, Milan, Lucca, Verona, Brescia. Wherever he went, he was
opposed from the pulpit and by doctors of the canon law. At Florence, so warmly
was the controversy conducted in the pulpits that a public discussion was
ordered at which Lorenzo de’ Medici, doctors of the law, clerics and many
laymen were present, with the result that the archbishop forbade opposition to
the mons on pain of excommunication. The Deuteronomic injunction, 24:12 sq.,
ordering that, if a man borrow a coat, it should be restored before sundown and
the Lord’s words, Luke 6, were quoted by the opposition. But it was replied,
that the object of loaning to the poor was not to enrich the fund or
individuals but to do the borrower good. Savonarola gave the institution his
advocacy.1309 The Fifth
Lateran commended it and in this it was followed, 50 years later, by the
Council of Trent.
The
attempt to transplant the Italian institution in Germany was unsuccessful and
was met by the establishment of banks by municipal councils, as at Frankfurt.1310 In England also, it gained no foothold.
So strong was the feeling against lending out money at interest that, at
Chancellor Morton’s importunity, parliament proceeded against it with severe
measures, and a law of Henry VII.’s reign made all lending of money at interest
a criminal offence and the bargain between borrower and lender null and void.
Notable
expression was also given to the practice of benevolence by the religious
brotherhoods of the age. These organizations developed with amazing rapidity
and are not to be confounded with the gilds which were organizations of
craftsmen, intended to promote the production of good work and also to protect
the master-workers in their monopoly of trade. They were connected with the
Church and were, in part, under the direction of the priesthood, although from
some of them, as in Lübeck, priests were distinctly excluded. Like the gilds,
their organization was based upon the principle of mutual aid1311
but they emphasized the principle of unselfish sympathy for those in distress.
Luther once remarked, there was no chapel and no saint without a brotherhood.
In fact, nothing was so sure to make a saint popular as to name a brotherhood
after him. By 1450, there was not a mendicant convent in Germany which had not
at least one fraternity connected with it. Cities often had a number of these
organizations. Wittenberg had 21, Lübeck 70, Frankfurt 31, Hamburg 100. Every
reputable citizen in German cities belonged to one or more.1312 Luther belonged to 3 at Erfurt, the
brotherhoods of St. Augustine, St. Anna and St. Catherine.
The
dead, who had belonged to them, had the distinct advantage of being prayed for.
Their sick were cared for in hospitals, containing beds endowed by them.
Sometimes they incorporated the principle of mutual benefit or assurance
societies, and losses sustained by the living they made good. At Paderborn, in
case a brother lost his horse, every member contributed one or two shillings
or, if he lost his house, his fellow-members contributed three shillings each
or a load of lumber.
As
there were gilds of apprentices as well as of master-workmen, so there were brotherhoods
of the poor and humble as well as of those in comfortable circumstances. Even
the lepers had fraternities, and one of these clans had fief rights to a spring
at Wiesbaden. So also had the beggars and cripples at Zülpich, founded 1454.
The entrance fee in the last case was 8 shillings, from which there was a
reduction of one-half for widows.1313
In
the case of the Italian brotherhoods, it is often difficult to distinguish
between a society organized for a benevolent purpose and a society for the cult
of some saint. The gilds of Northern Italy, as a rule, laid emphasis upon
religious duties such as attendance upon mass, confession of sins and
refraining from swearing. The Roman societies had their patron saints,—the
blacksmith and workers in gold, St. Eligius, the millers Paulinus of Nola, the
barrel-makers St. James, the inn-keepers St. Blasius and St. Julian, the masons
St. Gregory the Great, the barbers and physicians St. Cosmas and St. Damian,
the painters St. Luke and the apothecaries St. Lawrence. The popes encouraged
the confraternities and elevated some of them to the dignity of archfraternities,
as St. Saviour in Rome, the first to win this distinction. Florence was also
good soil for religious brotherhoods. At the beginning of the 16th century,
there were no less than 73 within its bounds, some of them societies of
children.1314
Society
did not wait for the present age to apply the principle of Christian charity.
The development of organizations and bureaus in the 15th century was not
carried as far as it is to-day, and for the good reason that the same demand
for it did not exist. The cities were small and it was possible to carry out
the practice of individual relief with little fear of deception.
</div3> <div3 type = "Section"
n="80" title="The Sale of Indulgences">
§ 80. The
Sale of Indulgences.
Nowhere,
except in the lives of the popes themselves, did the humiliation of the Western
Church find more conspicuous exhibition than in the sale of indulgences. The
forgiveness of sins was bought and sold for money, and this sacred privilege
formed the occasion of the rupture of Western Christendom as, later, the Lord’s
Supper became the occasion of the chief division between the Protestant
churches.
Originally
an indulgence was the remission of a part or all of the works of satisfaction
demanded by the priest in the sacrament of penance. This is the definition
given by Roman Catholic authorities to-day.1315 In the 13th century, it came to be regarded as a remission
of the penalty of sin itself, both here and in purgatory. At a later stage, it
was regarded, at least in wide circles, as a release from the guilt of sin as
well as from its penalty. The fund of merits at the Church’s
disposition—thesaurus meritorum — as defined by Clement VI., in 1343, is a
treasury of spiritual assets, consisting of the infinite merits of Christ, the
merits of Mary and the supererogatory merits of the saints, which the Church
uses by virtue of the power of the keys. One drop of Christ’s blood, so it was
argued, was sufficient for the salvation of the world, and yet Christ shed all
his blood and Mary was without stain. From the vast surplus accumulation supplied
by their merits, the Church had the right to draw in granting remission to
sinners from the penalties resulting from the commission of sin. The very term
"keys," it was said, implies a treasure which is looked away and to
which the keys give access.1316
The authority to grant indulgences was shared by the pope and the
bishops. The law of Innocent III., intended to check its abuse, restricted the
time for which bishops might grant indulgence to 40 days, the so-called
quarantines. By the decree of Pius X., issued Aug. 28,1903, cardinals, even
though they are not priests, may issue indulgences in their titular churches
for 200 days, archbishops for 100 and bishops for 50 days.
The
application of indulgence to the realm of purgatory by Sixtus IV. was a natural
development of the doctrine that the prayers and other suffrages of the living
inure to the benefit of the souls in that sphere. As Thomas Aquinas clearly
taught, such souls belong to the jurisdiction of the Church on earth. And, if
indulgences may be granted to the living, certainly the benefit may be extended
to the intermediate realm, over which the Church also has control.
Sixtus’
first bull granting indulgence for the dead was issued 1476 in favor of the
church of Saintes. Here was offered to those who paid a certain sum—certam
pecuniam — for the benefit of the building, the privilege of securing a
relaxation of the sufferings of the purgatorial dead, parents for their
children, friend for friend. The papal deliverance aroused criticism and in a
second bull, issued the following year, the pontiff states that such
relaxations were offered by virtue of the fulness of authority vested in the
pope from above plenitudo potestatis — to draw upon the fund of merits..1317
To
the abuse, to which this doctrine opened the door, was added the popular belief
that letters of indulgence gave exemption both from the culpability and penalty
of sin. The expression, "full remission of sins," plena or plenissima
remissio peccatorum, is found again and again in papal bulls from the famous
Portiuncula indulgence, granted by Honorius III. to the Franciscans, to the
last hours of the undisputed sway of the pope in the West. It was the merit of
the late Dr. Lea to have called attention to this almost overlooked element of
the mediaeval indulgence. Catholic authorities of to-day, as Paulus and
Beringer, without denying the use of the expression, a poena et culpa, assert
that it was not the intent of any genuine papal message to grant forgiveness
from the guilt of sin without contrition of heart.1318 The expression was in current use in
tracts and in common talk.1319
John of Paltz, in his Coelifodina, an elaborate defence of indulgences
written towards the close of the 15th century, affirmed that an indulgence is
given by virtue of the power of the keys whereby guilt is remitted and penalty
withdrawn. These keys open the fund of the Church to its sons.1320 Luther was only expressing the popular
view when, writing to Albrecht of Mainz,1517, he complained that men accepted
the letters of indulgence as giving them exemption from all penalty and guilt—<foreign
lang="la">homo
per istas indulgentias liber sit ab omni poena et culpa</foreign>. Not only on the Continent
but also in England were such forms of indulgence circulated. For example, Leo
X.’s indulgence for the hospital S. Spirito in Rome ran in its English
translation, "Holy and great indulgence and pardon of plenary remission a
culpa et poena."1321
The popular mind did not stop to make the fine distinction between guilt
and its punishment and, if it had, it would have been quite satisfied to be
made free from the sufferings entailed by sin. If by a papal indulgence a soul
in purgatory could be immediately released and given access to heavenly
felicity, the question of guilt was of no concern.
Long
before the days of Tetzel, Wyclif and Huss had condemned the use of the
formula, "from penalty and guilt," as did also John Wessel. In
denouncing the bulls of indulgence for those joining in a crusade against
Ladislaus, issued 1412, Huss copied Wyclif almost word for word.1322 Wyclif fiercely condemned the papal
assumption in granting full indulgence for the crusade of Henry de Spenser.
Priests, he asserted, have no authority to give absolution without proper works
of satisfaction and all papal absolution is of no avail, where the offenders
are not of good and worthy life. If the pope has power to absolve
unconditionally, he should exercise his power to excuse the sins of all men.
The English Reformer further declared that, to the Christian priest it was
given, to do no more than announce the forgiveness of sins just as the old
priests pronounced a man a leper or cured of leprosy, but it was not possible
for him to effect a cure. He spoke of, the fond fantasy of spiritual treasure
in heaven, that each pope is made dispenser of the treasure at his own will, a
thing dreamed of without ground."1323 Such power would make the pope master of the saints and
Christ himself. He condemned the idea that the pope could "clear men of
pain and sin both in this world and the other, so that, when they die, they
flee to heaven without pain. This is for blind men to lead blind men and both
to fall into the lake." As
for the pardoning of sin for money, that would imply that righteousness may be
bought and sold. Wyclif gave it as a report, that Urban VI. had granted an
indulgence for 2,000 years.1324
Indulgences
found an assailant in Erasmus, howbeit a genial assailant. In his Praise of
Folly, he spoke of the "cheat of pardons and indulgences." These lead the priests to compute the
time of each soul’s residence in purgatory and to assign them a longer or
shorter continuance according as the people purchase more or fewer of these
salable exemptions. By this easy way of purchasing pardon any notorious
highwayman, any plundering bandit or any bribe-taking judge may for a part of
their unjust gains secure atonement for perjuries, lusts, bloodsheds,
debaucheries and other gross impieties and, having paid off arrears, begin upon
a new score. The popular idea was no doubt stated by Tyndale in answer to Sir Thomas
More when he said, that "men might quench almost the terrible fire of hell
for three halfpence."1325
It
is fair to say that, while the last popes of the Middle Ages granted a great
number of indulgences, the exact expression, "from guilt and
penalty," does not occur in any of the extant papal copies1326
although some of their expressions seem fully to imply the exemption from
guilt. Likewise, it must be said that they also contain the usual expressions
for penitence as a condition of receiving the grace—"being truly penitent
and confessing their sins"—<foreign lang="la">vere poenitentibus et
confessio</foreign>.
Indulgences
in the last century of the Middle Ages were given for all sorts of benevolent
purposes, crusades against the Turks, the building of churches and hospitals,
in connection with relics, for the rebuilding of a town desolated by fire, as
Brüx, for bridges and for the repair of dikes, such an indulgence being asked
by Charles V. The benefits were received by the payment of money and a portion
of the receipts, from 33% to 50%, was expected to go to Rome. The territory
chiefly, we may say almost exclusively, worked for such enterprises was
confined to the Germanic peoples of the Continent from Switzerland and Austria
to Norway and Sweden. England, France and Spain were hardly touched by the
traffic. Cardinal Ximenes set forth the damage done to ecclesiastical
discipline by the practice and, as a rule, it was under other pretexts that
papal moneys were received from England.1327
In
the transmission of the papal portions of the indulgence-moneys, the house of
the Fuggers figures conspicuously. Sometimes it charged 5%, sometimes it
appropriated amounts not reckoned strictly on the basis of a fixed per cent.
The powerful banking-firm, also responding cheerfully to any request made to
them, often secured the grant of indulgences in Rome. The custodianship of the
chests, into which the indulgence-moneys were cast, was also a matter of much
importance and here also the Fuggers figured prominently. Keys to such chests
were often distributed to two or three parties, one of whom was apt to be the
representative of the bankers.
Among
the more famous indulgences for the building of German churches were those for
the construction of a tower in Vienna,1514, for the rebuilding of the Cathedral
of Constance, which had suffered great damage from fire,1511, the building of
the Dominican church in Augsburg,1514, the restoration of the Cathedral of
Treves,1515, and the building of St. Annaberg church,1517, in which Duke George
of Saxony was much interested. One-half of the moneys received for these
constructions went to Rome. In most of these cases, the Fuggers acted as agents
to hold the keys of the chest and transmit the moneys to the papal exchequer.
The sees of Constance, Chur, Augsburg and Strassburg were assigned as the
territory in which indulgences might be sold for the cathedral in Constance. No
less than four bulls of indulgence were issued in 1515 for the benefit of
Treves, including one for those who visited the holy coat which was found 1512
and was to be exhibited every 7 years.1328
Among
the noted hospitals to which indulgences were issued—that is, the right to
secure funds by their sale—were hospitals in Nürnberg,1515, Strassburg,1518 and
S. Spirito, Rome,1516.
Both
of the churches in Wittenberg were granted indulgences and a special indulgence
was issued for the reliquary-museum which the elector Frederick had collected.
An indulgence of 100 days was attached to each of the 5,005 specimens and
another 100 to each of the 8 passages between the cases that held them. With
the 8,133 relics at Halle and the 42 entire bodies, millions and billions of
days of indulgence were associated, a sort of anticipation of the geologic
periods moderns demand. To be more accurate, these relics were good for pardons
covering 39,245,120 years and 220 days and the still further period of
6,540,000 quarantines, each of 40 days.
In
Rome, the residence of the supreme pontiffs, as we might well have expected,
the offer of indulgences was the most copious, almost as copious as the drops
on a rainy day. According to the Nürnberger relic-collector, Nicolas Muffel,
every time the skulls of the Apostles were shown or the handkerchief of St.
Veronica, the Romans who were present received a pardon of 7,000 days, other
Italians 10,000 and foreigners 14,000. In fact, the grace of the ecclesiastical
authorities was practically boundless. Not only did the living seek
indulgences, but even the dying stipulated in their wills that a representative
should go to Assisi or Rome or other places to secure for their souls the
benefit of the indulgences offered there.
Prayers
also had remarkable offers of grace attached to them. According to the
penitential book, The Soul’s Joy, the worshipper offering its prayers to Mary
received 11,000 years indulgence and some prayers, if offered, freed 15 souls
from purgatory and as many earthly sinners from their sins. It professed to
give one of Alexander Vl.’s decrees, according to which prayer made three times
to St. Anna secured 1,000 years indulgence for mortal sins and 20,000 for
venial. The Soul’s Garden claimed that one of Julius II.’s indulgences granted
80,000 years to those who would pray a prayer to the Virgin which the book
gave. No wonder Siebert, a Roman Catholic writer, is forced to say that
"the whole atmosphere of the later Middle Ages was soaked with the
indulgence-passion."1329
An
indulgence issued by Alexander VI., in 1502, was designed to secure aid for the
knights of the Teutonic Order against the Russians. The latter was renewed by
Julius II. and Cologne, Treves, Mainz, Bremen, Bamberg and other sees were
assigned as the territory. Much money was collected, the papal treasury
receiving one-third of the returns. The preaching continued till 1510 and
Tetzel took a prominent part in the campaign.1330
It
remains to speak of the most important of all of the indulgences, the
indulgence for the construction of St. Peter’s in Rome. This interest was
pushed by two notable popes, Julius II. and Leo X., and called forth the
protest of Luther, which shook the power of the papacy to its foundations. It
seems paradoxical that the chief monument of Christian architecture should have
been built in part out of the proceeds of the scandalous traffic in
absolutions.
On
April 18,1506, soon after the laying of the cornerstone of St. Peter’s, Julius
II. issued a bull promising indulgence to those who would contribute to its
construction, fabrica, as it was called. Eighteen months later, Nov. 4,1507, he
commissioned Jerome of Torniello, a Franciscan Observant, to oversee the
preaching of the bull in the so-called 25 Cismontane provinces, which included
Northern Italy, Austria, Bohemia and Poland. By a later decree Switzerland was
added.1331 Germany was not
included and probably for the reason that a number of indulgence bulls were
already in force in most of its territory. A special rescript appointed Warham,
archbishop of Canterbury, as chief overseer of the business in England. At
Julius’ death, the matter was taken up by Leo X. and pushed.
The
preaching of indulgences in Germany for the advantage of St. Peter’s began in
the pontificate of Leo X. and is closely associated with the elevation of
Albrecht of Hohenzollern to the sees of Mainz, Magdeburg and Halberstadt. Albrecht,
a brother of Joachim, elector of Brandenburg, was chosen in 1513 to the
archbishopric of Magdeburg and the bishopric of Halberstadt. The objections on
the ground of his age and the combination of two sees—a thing, however, which
was true of Albrecht’s predecessor—were set aside by Leo X., after listening to
the arguments made by the German embassies.
In
1514, Albrecht was further honored by being elected archbishop of Mainz. The
last incumbent, Uriel of Gemmingen, died the year before. The archdiocese had
been unfortunate with its bishops. Berthold of Henneberg had died 1504 and
James of Liebenstein in 1508. These frequent changes necessitated a heavy
burden of taxation to enable the prelates to pay their tribute to the Holy See,
which amounted to 10,000 ducats in each case, with sundry additions. By the
persuasion of the elector Joachim and the Fuggers, Leo sanctioned Albrecht’s
election to the see of Mainz. He was given episcopal consecration and thus the
three sees were joined in the hands of a man who was only 24.
But
Albrecht’s confirmation as archbishop was not secured without the payment of a
high price. The price,10,000 ducats, was set by the authorities in Rome and did
not originate with the German embassy, which had gone to prosecute the case.
The proposition came from the Vatican itself and at the very moment the Lateran
council was voting measures for the reform of the Church. It carried with it
the promise of a papal indulgence for the archbishop’s territories. The elector
Joachim expressed some scruples of conscience over the purchase, but it went
through. Schulte exclaims that, if ever a benefice was sold for gold, this was
true in the case of Albrecht.1332
The
bull of indulgences was issued March 31,1516, and granted the young German
prelate the right to dispose of pardons throughout the half part of Germany,
the period being fixed at 8 years. The bull offered, "complete
absolution—plenissimam indulgentiam — and remission of all sins," sins
both of the living and the dead. A private paper, emanating from Leo and dated
two weeks later, April 15, mentions the 10,000 ducats proposed by the Vatican
as the price of Albrecht’s confirmation as having been already placed in Leo’s
hands.1333 To enable him to
pay the full amount of 30,000 ducats his ecclesiastical dignities had cost,
Albrecht borrowed from the Fuggers and, to secure funds, he resorted to a
two-years’ tax of two-fifths which he levied on the priests, the convents and
other religious institutions of his dioceses. In 1517, "out of regard for
his Holiness, the pope, and the salvation and comfort of his people,"
Joachim opened his domains to the indulgence-hawkers. It was his preaching in
connection with this bull that won for Tetzel an undying notoriety. Oldecop,
writing in 1516, of what he saw, said that people, in their eagerness to secure
deliverance from the guilt and penalty of sin and to get their parents and
friends out of purgatory, were putting money into the chest all day long.
The
description of Tetzel’s sale of indulgences and Luther’s protest are a part of
the history of the Reformation. It remains, however, yet to be said, as
belonging to the mediaeval period, that the grace of indulgences was popularly
believed to extend to sins, not yet committed. Such a belief seems to have been
encouraged by the pardon-preachers, although there is no documentary proof that
any papal authorities made such a promise. In writing to the archbishop of
Mainz, Oct. 31,1517, Luther had declared that it was announced by the
indulgence-hawkers that no sin was too great to be covered by the indulgence,
nay, not even the sin of violating the Virgin, if such a thing had been
possible. And late in life,1541, the Reformer stated that the pardoner
"also sold sins to be committed."1334 The story ran that a Saxon knight went to Tetzel and offered
him 10 thaler for a sin he had in mind to commit. Tetzel replied that he had
full power from the pope to grant such an indulgence, but that it was worth 80
thaler. The knight paid the amount, but some time later waylaid Tetzel and took
all his indulgence-moneys from him. To Tetzel’s complaints the robber replied,
that thereafter he must not be so quick in giving indulgence from sins, not yet
committed.1335
The
traffic in ecclesiastical places and the forgiveness of sins constitutes the
very last scene of mediaeval Church history. On the eve of the Reformation, we
have the spectacle of the pope solemnly renewing the claim to have rule over
both spheres, civil and ecclesiastical, and to hold in his hand the salvation of
all mankind, yea, and actually supporting the extravagant luxuries of his
worldly court with moneys drawn from the trade in sacred things. How
deep-seated the pernicious principle had become was made manifest in the bull
which Leo issued, Nov. 9,1518, a full year after the nailing of the Theses on
the church door at Wittenberg, in which all were threatened with
excommunication who failed to preach and believe that the pope has the right to
grant indulgences.1336
</div3></div2><div2 type =
"Chapter" n="X" title="The Close Of The Middle
Ages">
CHAPTER
X.
Lit.
– The following treatments may be consulted for this chapter. Haller: Papstthum
u. Kirchenreform.—Döllinger-Friedrich: D. Papstaum.—G. Krüger: The Papacy,
Engl. trsl., N. Y.,1909.—Lea: The Eve of the Reformation, In Cambr. Hist., I:
653–692.—Bezold: Gesch. d. deutschen Reformation, pp. 1–244.—Janssen-Pastor:
vol. I., II.—Pastor: Gesch. d. Päpste, III. 3–150, etc.—Gregorovius: vols.
VII., VIII.—G. Ficker: Das ausgehende MA u. sein Verhältniss zur Reformation,
Leipz.,1903. A. Schulte.: Kaiser Maximilian als Kandidat für d. päpstlichen
Stuhl 1511, Leipz.,1906.—O. Smeaton: The Medici and the Ital. Renaissance,
Cin’ti.—The works already cited of Th. Rogers and Cunningham.—W. H. Heyd:
Gesch. d. Levantenhandels, 2 vols., Stuttg.,1859.
Many
great regions are discovered
Which
to late age were ne’er mentioned,
Who
ever heard of th’ Indian Peru
Or who,
in venturous vessel, measured
The
Amazon huge river, now found true?
Or
fruitfullest Virginia who did ever view?
Yet all
these were when no man did them know,
Yet
have from wisest ages hidden been.
And
later times things more unknown shall show.
Why
then should witless man so much misween,
That
nothing is but that which he hath seen.
—Spenser,
Faerie Queene.
No
period in the history of the Christian Church has a more clear date set for its
close than the Middle Ages. In whatever light the Protestant Reformation is regarded
there can be no doubt that a new age began with the nailing of the Theses on
the church doors in Wittenberg. All attempts to find another date for the
beginning of modern history have failed, whether the date be the reign of
Philip the Fair or the Fall of Constantinople,1453, or the invention of
printing. Much as the invention of movable type has done for the spread of
intelligence, the personality and conduct of Luther must always be looked upon
as the source from which the new currents of human thought and action in
Western Europe emanated.1337
Not
so easy, however, is it to fix a satisfactory date for the opening of the
Middle Ages. They have been dated from Charlemagne, the founder of the Holy
German Empire, the patron of learning, the maker of codes of law. The better
starting-point is the pontificate of Gregory the Great, who is well called the
last of the Fathers and the first of the mediaeval popes. From that date, the
rift between the Eastern and the Western Churches, which was already wide as a
result of the arrogance of the bishops of Rome, rapidly grew to be unhealable.
The
Middle Ages, with their limits, fall easily into 3 periods, but it must be
confessed that the first, extending from 600–1050, is a period of warring
elements, with no orderly development. Hildebrand properly opens the Middle
Ages as a period of great ideas, conscious of its power and begetting movements
which have exerted a tremendous influence upon the history of the Church. From
the moment that monk entered Rome, the stream of ecclesiastical affairs
proceeded on its course between well-defined banks. During the 500 years that
followed, the voice of the supreme pontiff was heard above all other voices and
controlled every movement emanating from the Church. In this period, the
doctrinal system, which is distinctively known as the mediaeval, came to its
full statement. It was the period of great corporate movements, of the
Crusades, the Mendicant orders, of the cathedrals and universities, of the
canon law and the sacramental combination and of the Reformatory councils.
The
third period of the Middle Ages, which this volume traverses, is at once the
product of the former period of Gregory VII. and Innocent III. and, at the same
time, the germinative seed-plot of new forces. The sacerdotal keeps its hold
and the papacy remains the central tribunal and court of Europe, but protests
were heard—vigorous and startling from different quarters, from Prag, Paris,
Oxford—which, without overthrowing old institutions, shook the confidence in
their Apostolic appointment and perpetuity. These last two centuries of the
mediaeval world betray no consuming passion like the Crusades, for all efforts
of the pope to stir the dead nerves of that remarkable impulse were futile. And
Pius II., looking from the bluffs of Ancona out upon the sea in the hope of
discerning ships rigged to undertake the reconquest of the East, furnishes a
pathetic spectacle of an attempt to call forth energies to achieve the dreams
of the past, when for practical minds the illusion itself has already
disappeared.
The
Reformatory councils endeavored to undo what Hildebrand and Innocent III. had
built up and Thomas Aquinas had sanctioned, the control of the Church and
society by the will of the supreme pontiff. The system of the Schoolmen broke
down. Wyclif, himself endowed with scholastic acuteness, belonged to that
modern class of men who find in practical considerations a sufficient reason to
ignore the contentions of dialectic philosophy. And, finally, the Renaissance
completely set aside some of the characteristic notions of the Middle Ages,
stirring the interest of man in all the works of God, and honoring those who in
this earthly sphere of action wrought out the products of intellectual endeavor
in literature and art, on the platform and in the department of state.
This
last period of the Middle Ages appears to the student of general history as a
period of presentiments—and efforts on the part of scattered thinkers, to reach
a more free and rational mode of thought and living than the mode they had
inherited from the past. The period opening with Hildebrand and extending to
Boniface VIII. furnished more imposing personalities,—architects compelling by
the force of intellectual assertion,—but fewer useful men. It created a
dogmatic unity and triumphed by a policy of force, but the rights of the
individual and the principle of liberty of thought and conscience, with which
God has chosen to endow mankind, it could not consign to permanent burial.
However,
in spite of the efforts put forth in the closing period of the Middle Ages to
shake off the fetters of the rigid ecclesiastical compulsion, it failed. The
individual reformers and prophets prepared the way for a new time, but were
unable to marshal forces enough in their own age to inaugurate the new order.
This it was the task of Luther to do.
In
a retrospect of the marked features of the closing centuries of the Middle
Ages, we are struck first of all with the process by which the nations of
Western Europe became consolidated until they substantially won the limits
which they now occupy. The conquest of the weary Byzantine empire seemed to
open the way for the Turks into all Europe. The acropolis of Athens was
occupied in 1458. Otranto on the Italian coast was seized and Vienna itself
threatened. All Europe felt as Luther did when he offered the prayer,
"from the murderous cruelty of the Turk, Good Lord deliver us." Much as the loss of the city on the
Bosphorus was lamented at this time, it cannot but be felt that there was no
force in Eastern Christendom which gave any promise of progress, theological or
civil.
The
papacy, claiming to be invested with plenitude of authority, abated none of its
claims, but by its history proved that those very claims are fictitious and
have no necessary place in the divine appointment.
Seldom
has a more impressive spectacle been furnished than was furnished by the
Reformatory councils. Following the Avignon period and the age of the papal
schism, they struggled to correct the abuses of the papal system and to define
its limitations. The first oecumenical council held on German soil, the Council
of Constance, made such an authoritative decision. Its weight was derived from
its advocates, the most distinguished theologians and canonists of the time,
and the combined voice of the universities and the nations of Latin
Christendom. But the decision proved to be no stronger than a spider’s web. The
contention, which had been made by that long series of pungent tracts which was
opened with the tract of Gelnhausen, was easily set aside by the dexterous hand
of the papacy itself. Gelnhausen had declared that the way to heal the troubles
in the papal household was to convoke a general council.1338 To this mode of statement Pius II.
opposed his bull, Execrabilis, and his successors went on untroubled by the
outcry of Latin Christendom for some share in the government of the Church.
But
the appeal for a council was an ominous portent. It had been made by Philip the
Fair and the French Parliament,1303. It was made by the Universities of Paris
and Oxford and the great churchmen of France. It was made by Wyclif, by Huss
and Savonarola. In vain, to be sure, but the body of the Church was thinking and
the arena of free discussion was extending.
The
most extravagant claims of the papacy still had defenders. Augustus Triumphus
and Alvarus Pelayo declared there could be no appeal from the pope to God,
because the pope and God were in agreement. He who looks upon the pope with
intent and trusting eye, looks upon Christ, and wherever the pope is, there is
the Church. Yea, the pope is above canon law. But these men were simply
repeating what was current tradition. Dante struck another note, when he put
popes in the lowest regions of hell, and Marsiglius of Padua, when he cast
doubt upon Peter’s ever having been in Rome and insisted that the laity are
also a part of the Church.
The
scandalous lives of the popes whose names fill the last paragraph of the
history of the Middle Ages would have excluded them from decent modern circles
and exposed them to sentence as criminals. They were perjurers, adulterers.
Avarice, self-indulgence ruled their life. They had no mercy. The charges of
murder and vicious disease were laid to their door. They were willing to set
the states of Italy one over against the other and to allow them to lacerate
each other to extend their own territory or to secure power and titles for
their own children and nephews. Luther was not far out of the way when, in his
Appeal to the German Nobility, he declared "Roman avarice is the greatest
of robbers that ever walked the earth. All goes into the Roman sack, which has
no bottom, and all in the name of God." In all history, it would be difficult to discover a more
glaring inconsistency between profession and practice than is furnished by the
careers of the last popes of the Middle Ages.
Upon
freedom of thought, the papacy continued to lay the mortmain of alleged divine
appointment. Dante’s De monarchia was burnt by John XXII. The evangelical
text-book, the Theologia Germanica has been put on the index. Erasmus’ writings
were put on the Index. Curses were hurled against a German emperor by Clement
VI. which it would almost be sacrilege to repeat with the lips. Eckart was
declared a heretic. Wyclif’s bones were dug up and cast into the flames. Huss
was burnt. Savonarola was burnt. And, from nameless graves in Spain and Germany
rises the protest against the papacy as a divine institution.
Valla
said again and again that the papacy was responsible for all the misfortunes of
Italy, its worst enemy. To such a low plane was that institution brought that
the Emperor Maximilian I. seriously considered having himself elected pope and
combining in himself the two sovereignties of Church and state. That such a
thought was possible is proof of the actual state of affairs. A most Catholic
historian, Janssen (III. 77), says: "The court of Leo X., with its
extravagant expenditure in card-playing, theatres and all manner of worldly
amusements, was still more flagrantly opposed to the position of chief overseer
of the Church than the courts of the German ecclesiastical princes, notably
Albrecht of Mainz. The iniquity of Rome exceeded that of the ecclesiastical
princes of Germany." And was
not the chief idea, which some of the aspirants after the highest office in
Christendom had in mind, well embodied in the words with which Leo followed his
election, "Let us enjoy the papacy"? If the lives of these latter popes were unworthy, their
treatment of the spiritual prerogatives was sacrilegious. Rome encouraged the
Crusades but sent no Crusaders. In Rome everything was for sale. The
forgiveness of sins itself was offered for money.
And,
within papal circles, there was no movement towards reform. As well might men
have looked for a burnt field to furnish food. It is not improbable that the
very existence of the papacy was saved by the Reformation. This is the view to
which Burckhardt chooses to give expression twice in the same work.1339 It discredited by its incumbents every
high claim asserted for it. And yet, with abounding self-confidence, in the
last hours of the Middle Ages, it solemnly reaffirmed the claim of supreme
jurisdiction over the souls and bodies of men, the Church and the state. And
after the Reformation had begun, Prierias, Master of the palace, declared the
pope’s superiority to the Scriptures in these words: "Whoever does not
rest upon the doctrine of the Roman Church and the Roman pope as an infallible
rule of faith, from which even the Holy Scriptures derive their authority, is a
heretic." And to be a heretic
meant to be an outlaw. Prierias was the man who spoke of Luther as "the
brute with the deep eyes and strange fantasies."
Forces
of another character were working. In quiet pathways, the mystics walked with
God and, though they did not repudiate the sacramental system, they called
attention to the religion of the heart as the seat of religion. The Imitation
of Christ was written once, for all ages. The Church had found its proper
definition as the body of the elect and that idea stood in direct antithesis to
the theory the hierarchy worked upon. The preaching of the Waldenses had been
condemned by the Fourth Lateran Council, but there was a growing popular demand
for instruction as well as the spectacle of the mass, and the catechetical
manuals laid stress upon the sermon. The Albigenses had been completely blotted
out, but the principles of Lollardism and Hussitism continued to flow, though
as little rills. The Inquisition was still doing its work, but in Germany
schools for all classes of children were being taught. The laity was asserting
its rights in the domain of learning and culture. These influences were
silently preparing the soil for the new teachings.
In
the 15th century, a potent force stirred Europe as Europe had never been
stirred by it before,—Commerce. The industrial change, then going on, deserves
more than a passing reference as a factor preparing the mind for intellectual
and religious innovation. This, at least, is true of the German people.
Explorations and the extension of commerce have, in more periods than one,
preceded a revival of missionary enterprise. But, of all the centuries, none is
so like the 19th as the last century of the Middle Ages,—vital with humanistic
forces of all kinds. It was a time of revolution in the methods of trade and the
comforts and prices of living. The world could never be again just what it had
been before. There was marked restlessness among the artisan and peasant
classes. This industrial unrest was adapted to encourage and to beget unrest in
things ecclesiastical and to accustom the mind to the thought of change there.
From
Italy, whose harbors were the outfitting points for fleets during the Crusades,
the centre of trade had shifted to the cities north of the Alps and to the
Portuguese coast. Nürnberg, Ulm, Augsburg and Constance in Southern Germany;
Bruges, Antwerp and other cities along the lower Rhine and in Flanders; and the
cities of the Hanseatic League were bustling marts, turning out new and
wonderful products of manufacture and drawing the products of the outside world
through London, Lisbon, Lyons and Venice. Energy and enterprise were making
Germany rich and her mercantile houses had their representatives and depots in
Venice, Antwerp and other ports.1340
Methods
of business, such as to-day are suggesting grave problems to the political
economist and moralist, were introduced and flourished. Trading companies and
monopolies came upon the stage and startled the advocates of the old feudal
ways by the extent and boldness of their operations. Trusts flourished in
Augsburg and other German cities.1341 Individuals and corporations cornered the import trade, the
grain crop, the wine harvest, the silver, copper and iron product, sugar,
linen, leather, pepper, even soap, for they used soap also in those days. The
Höchstetters, the Ebners and the Fuggers were among the great speculative and
trading firms of the age. They carried things with a high hand. Ambrose
Höchstetter of Augsburg, for example, one season bought up all the ash wood,
another all the grain and another all the wine. Nor was the art of adulteration
left for these later, and often discredited, times to practice. They
condescended to small things, even to the mixing of brick-dust with pepper.
Commodities rose suddenly in price. In Germany, wine rose, in 1510, 49 per cent
and grain 32 per cent. Imperial diets took cognizance of these conditions and
tried to correct the evils complained of by regulating the prices of goods.1342 Municipalities did the same. Preachers,
like Geiler of Strassburg, charged the monopolists with fearing neither God nor
man and called upon the cities to banish them. Professors of jurisprudence, for
there was at that time no department of social science, inveighed against
monopolies as spiders’ webs to ensnare the innocent.1343 It was a fast age. There was no
precedent for what was going on. Men sighed for the good old times. Speculation
was rampant and the prospect of quick gains easily captivated the people. They
took shares in the investment companies and often lost everything. It was
noticed that the directors of the companies were able to avoid losses which the
common and unsuspecting investor had to bear. The confusion was increased by
the readiness of town aldermen and city councillors to take stock in the
concerns. It also happened that the great traders, whose ventures involved
others in loss, were conspicuous in church affairs.
To
the wealth, arising from manufactures and foreign commerce, were added the
riches which were being dug up from the newly opened mines of silver, copper
and iron in Bohemia and Saxony. Avarice was cried down as the besetting sin of
the age and, in some quarters, commerce was denounced as being carried on in
defiance of the simplest precepts of the Gospel.1344
With
wealth came extravagance in dress and at the table. Municipalities legislated against
it and imperial parliaments sought to check it by arbitrary rules. Wimpheling
says, table services of gold were not unusual and that he himself had eaten
from golden plates at Cologne. Complaint was frequently made at the diets that
men were being brought to poverty by their expenditures for dress upon
themselves and the expenditures of the female members of their households.
In
Germany, peasants were limited to a certain kind of cloth for their outer
garments and to a maximum price.1345 The women had their share in making the disturbance and
dignified town councils sat in judgment upon the number of gowns and other
articles of apparel and ornament the ladies of the day might possess without
detriment to the community or hurt to the solvency of their indulgent husbands.
The council of Ratisbon, for example, in 1485 made it a rule that the wives and
daughters of distinguished burghers should be limited to 8 dresses, 6 long
cloaks, 3 dancing gowns, one plaited mantle with not more than 3 sets of
sleeves of silk velvet and brocade, 2 pearl hair bands not to cost more than 12
florins, one tiara of gold set with pearls, not more than three veils costing 8
florins each, etc. But why enumerate the whole list of articles? It is supposable the women conformed,
even if they were inclined to criticise the aldermen for not sticking to their
legitimate municipal business. Geiler of Strassburg had his word to say for
these innovations of an extravagant age, the women with two dresses for a
single day, their long trains trailing in the dust, the cocks’ feathers worn in
the women’s hats and the long hair falling down over their shoulders. The times
were cried down as bad. It is, however, pleasant to recall that a contemporary
annalist commended as praiseworthy the habit of bathing at least "once
every two weeks."
Among
the artisans and the peasants, the unrest asserted itself in strikes and
uprisings, strikes for shorter hours, for better food and for better wages.
Sometimes a municipality and a gild were at strife for years. Sometimes a city
was bereft at one stroke of all the workers of a given craft, as was Nürnberg
of her tin workers in 1475. The gilds of tailors are said to have been most
given to strikes.
The
new social order involved the peasant class in more hardship than any other.
The peasants were made the victims of the rapacity and violence of the
landowners, who encroached upon their fields and their traditional but
unwritten rights, and deprived them of the right to fish and hunt and gather
wood in the forests. The Church also came in for its share of condemnation.
One-fifth of the soil of Germany was in the possession of convents and other
religious establishments and the peasant leaders called upon the monks and
priests to distribute their lands. In their marching songs they appealed to
Christ to keep them from putting the priests to death. The Peasant War of 1525
was not the product of the abuse of the principle of personal freedom
introduced by the Reformation. It was one of a long series of uprisings and it
has been said that, if the Reformation had not come and diverted the attention
of the people, it is likely Germany would have been shaken by such a social
revolution in the 16th century as the world has seldom seen.1346
In
England, the restlessness was scarcely less demonstrative and the condition of
the laboring classes scarcely less deplorable. Their hardships in the 14th
century called forth the rebellion of Watt Tyler. The famous statute of
laborers of 1350 fixed the wages of reapers at 8 pence a day; the statute of
1444, a century later, raised it to 5 pence. The laws of 1495, Cunningham says,
were intended to keep down the wages of the daily toiler. English legislation
was habitually bent on preventing an artificial enhancement of prices. At the
very close of the Middle Ages,1515, a regulation fixed the day’s work from 5 in
the morning until 7 or 8 in the evening in summer and during the hours of
daylight during the winter. Legislation was sought to put a limit on prices
against the inflation of combinations. Frauds and adulterations in articles
offered for sale, bad work and false weights were officially condemned in 1504.
Against the proclivity of the gilds to fix the prices of their wares at
unreasonable figures, Henry VII. set himself with determination. With the
development of sheep-walks farm hands lost their employment.1347 To the author of Utopia the act of
parliament in 1515, fixing wages, seemed to be "nothing else than a
conspiracy of the rich against the poor," and, the laboring man was doomed
to a life so wretched that even a beast’s life in comparison seemed to be
enviable."
The
discoveries in the New World and the nautical exploits, which carried
Portuguese sailors around the Cape of Good Hope, also stimulated this feeling
of restlessness. While the horizon of the natural world was being enlarged and
new highways of commerce were being opened, thoughtful men had questions
whether the geography of the spiritual world, as outlined in the scholastic
systems, did not need revision. The resurrection of the Bible as a popular book
stimulated the curiosity and questioning. The Bible also was a new world. The
trade, the enterprise, the thought awakened during the last 70 years of the
Middle Ages were incomparably more vital than had been awakened by the Crusades
and the Crusaders’ tales. When the Reformation came, the chief centres of
business in Germany and England became, for the most part, seats of the new
religious movement, Nürnberg, Ulm, Augsburg, Geneva, Strassburg, Frankfurt,
Lübeck and London.
The
Renaissance, as has already been set forth, was another potent factor
contributing to the forward impulse of the last century of the Middle Ages. All
the faculties of man were to be recognized as worthy of cultivation. Europe
arose as out of a deep sleep. Men opened their eyes and saw, as Mr. Taine put
it. The Renaissance made the discovery of man and the earth. The Schoolmen had
forgotten both. Here also a new world was revealed to view and Ulrich von
Hutten, referring to it and to the age as a whole could exclaim, "O
century, studies flourish, spirits are awaking. It is a pleasure to live!"
But
in the Renaissance Providence seems to have had the design of showing again
that intellectual and artistic culture may flourish, while the process of moral
and social decline goes on. No regenerating wave passed over Italy’s society or
cleansed her palaces and convents. The outward forms of civilization did not
check the inward decline. The Italian character, says Gregorovius, "in the
last 30 years of the 15th century displays a trait of diabolical passion.
Tyrannicide, conspiracies and deeds of treachery were universal." In the period of Athenian greatness,
the process of the intellectual sublimation of the few was accompanied by the
process of moral decay in the many. So now, art did not purify. The Renaissance
did not find out what repentance was or feel the need of it. Savonarola’s
admiring disciple, Pico della Mirandola, presented a memorial to the Fifth
Lateran which declared that, if the prelates "delayed to heal the wounds
of the Church, Christ would cut off the corrupted members with fire and sword.
Christ had cast out the money-changers, why should not Leo exile the
worshippers of the many golden calves?" In Italy, remarks Ranke, "no one counted for a cultured
person who did not cherish some erroneous views about Christianity."
The
North had no Dante and Petrarca and Boccaccio or Thomas Aquinas, but it had its
Tauler and Thomas à Kempis and its presses sent forth the first Greek New
Testament. This was a positive preparation for the coming age as much as the
Greek language was a preparation for the spread of Christianity through
Apostolic preaching in the 1st century. German printers went to Rome in 1467
and as far as Barcelona. In his work on the new invention,1507, Wimpheling1348
declared "that as the Apostles went forth of old, so now the disciples of
the sacred art go forth from Germany into all lands and their printed books
become heralds of the Gospel, preachers of the truth and wisdom." Germany became the intellectual market
of Europe and its wares went across the North Sea to that little kingdom which
was to become the chief bulwark of Protestantism. In vain did Leo X. set
himself against the free circulation of literature.1349
The
Greek edition of the New Testament and the printing-press,—that invention which
cleaves all the centuries in two and yet binds all the centuries together—were
the two chief providential instruments made ready for Martin Luther. But he had
to find them. They did not make him a reformer, the leader of the new age.
Erasmus, whom Janssen mercilessly condemns, remained a moralizer. He lacked
both the passion and the heroism of the religious reformer. The religious
reformer must be touched from above. Reuchlin, Erasmus and Gutenberg prepared
the outward form of the Greek and Hebrew Bible. Luther discovered its contents,
and made them known.
Such
were the complex forces at work in the closing century of the Middle Ages. The
absolute jurisdiction of the papacy was solemnly reaffirmed. The hierarchy
virtually constituted the Church. Religious dissent was met with compulsion and
force, not by persuasion and instruction. Coercion was substituted for
individual consent. Popular piety remained bound in the old forms and was
strong. But there were sounds of refreshing rills, flowing from the fresh
fountain of the water of life, running at the side of the old ceremonials,
especially in the North. The Revival of Letters aroused the intellect to a
sense of its sovereign rights. The movement of thought was greatly accelerated
by the printed page. The development of trade communicated unrest. But the
lives of the popes, as we look back upon the age, forbade the expectation of any
relief from Rome. The Reformatory councils had contented themselves with
attempts to reform the administration of the Church. Nevertheless, though men
did not see it, driftwood as from a new theological continent was drifting
about and there were prophetic voices though the princes of the Church listened
not to them. What was needed was not government, was not regulations but
regeneration. This the hierarchy could not give, but only God alone.1350
The
facts, set forth in this volume, leave no room for the contention of the recent
class of historians in the Roman Church,—Janssen, Denifle, Pastor, Nicolas,
Paulus, Dr. Gasquet—who have devoted themselves to the task of proving that an
orderly reform-movement was going on when the Reformation broke out. That
movement, they represent as an unspeakable calamity for civilization, an
apostasy from Christianity, an insurrection against divinely constituted
authority. It violently checked the alleged current of progress and popes, down
to Pius IX. and Leo XIII., have anathematized Protestantism as a poisonous
pestilence and the mother of all modem evils in Church and state. In the
attempt to make good this judgment, these recent writers not only have laid
stress upon "the good old times,"—a description which the people of
the 16th century would have repudiated,1351 — but have resorted to
the defamation of the German Reformer’s character, setting aside the
contemporaries who knew him best, and violently perverting Luther’s own words.
Imbart de la Tour, the most recent French historian of this school, on reaching
the year 1517, exclaims, "The era of peaceful reforms was at an end; the
era of religious revolution was about to open."1352
Lefèvre
d’Etaples was not alone when he uttered the famous words: —
The
signs of the times announce that a reformation of the Church is near at hand
and, while God is opening new paths for the preaching of the Gospel by the
discoveries of the Portuguese and the Spaniards, we must hope that He will also
visit His Church and raise her from the abasement into which she has now
fallen.
The
Philosophy of Christ,—the name which Erasmus gave to the Gospel in his
Paraclesis, prefixed to his edition of the New Testament,—was to a large degree
covered over by the dialectical theology of the Schoolmen. What men needed was
the Gospel and the bishop of Isernia, preaching at the Fifth Lateran council in
its 12th session, spoke better than he knew when he exclaimed: "The Gospel
is the fountain of all wisdom, of all knowledge. From it has flowed all the
higher virtue, all that is divine and worthy of admiration. The Gospel, I say
the Gospel." The words were
spoken on the very eve of the Reformation and the council of the Middle Ages
failed utterly to offer any real remedy for the religious degeneracy. The
Reformer came from the North, not from Rome and as from another Nazareth. The
angel of God had to descend again and trouble the waters and a single
personality touched in conscience proved himself mightier than the wisdom of
theology and wiser than the rulers of the visible Church.
Remarkable
the Middle Ages were for their bold enterprises in thought and action and they
are an important part of the history of the Church. We acknowledge our debt,
but their superstitions and errors we set aside as we move on in the pathway of
a more intelligent devotion and broader human, sympathies, towards an age when
all who profess the Gospel shall unite together in the unity of the faith in
the Son of God.
Remarkable
the Middle Ages were for their bold enterprises in thought and action and they
are an important part of the history of the Church. We acknowledge our debt,
but their superstitions and errors we set aside as we move on in the pathway of
a more intelligent devotion and broader human, sympathies, towards an age when
all who profess the Gospel shall unite together in the unity of the faith in
the Son of God.
</div2></ThML.body>
* Schaff, Philip, History of the Christian Church, (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.) 1997. This material has been carefully compared, corrected¸ and emended (according to the 1910 edition of Charles Scribner's Sons) by The Electronic Bible Society, Dallas, TX, 1998.
1 Drumann, p. 4, Gregorovius, etc. Setting aside the testimony of the contemporary Ferretus of Vicenza, and on the ground that it would be well-nigh impossible for a man of Boniface’s talent to remain in an inferior position till he was sixty, when he was made cardinal, Finke, p. 3 sq., makes Boniface fifteen years younger when he assumed the papacy.
2 Not at Paris, as Bulaeus, without sufficient authority, states. See Finke, p. 6.
3 Finke discovered this document and gives it pp. iii-vii.
4 There is no doubt about the manifestation of popular joy over the rumor of the pope’s death. Finke, p. 46. At the announcement of the election, the people are said to have cried out, "Boniface is a heretic, bad all through, and has in him nothing that is Christian."
5 Gregorovius, V. 597, calls Boniface "an unfortunate reminiscence" of the great popes.
6
"Where Simon Magus hath his curst abode
To depths profounder thrusting Boniface." —Paradiso, xxx. 147 sq.
7 Inferno, xix. 45 sq. 118.
8 Dupuy, pp. 225-227.
9 Super reges et regna in temporalibus etiam presidere se glorians, etc., Scholz, p. 338.
10 Tytler, Hist. of Scotland, I. 70 sqq.
11 Edward removed from Scone to Westminster the sacred stone on which Scotch kings had been consecrated, and which, according to the legend, was the pillow on which Jacob rested at Bethel.
12 So Hefele VI. 315, and other Roman Catholic historians.
13 Potthast, 24917. The bull is reprinted by Mirbt, Quellen, p. 147 sq. The indulgence clause runs: non solum plenam sed largiorem immo plenissimam omnium suorum veniam peccatorum concedimus. Villani, VIII. 36, speaks of it as "a full and entire remission of all sins, both the guilt and the punishment thereof."
14 Leo’s bull, dated May 11, 1899, offered indulgence to pilgrims visiting the basilicas of St. Peter, the Lateran, and St. Maria Maggiore. A portion of the document runs as follows: "Jesus Christ the Saviour of the world, has chosen the city of Rome alone and singly above all others for a dignified and more than human purpose and consecrated it to himself." The Jubilee was inaugurated by the august ceremony of opening the porta santa, the sacred door, into St. Peter’s, which it is the custom to wall up after the celebration. The special ceremony dates from Alexander VI. and the Jubilee of 1600. Leo performed this ceremony in person by giving three strokes upon the door with a hammer, and using the words aperite mihi, open to me. The door symbolizes Christ, opening the way to spiritual benefits.
15 See Gregorovius, V. 299, 584, who gives an elaborate list of the estates which passed by Boniface’s grace into the hands of the Gaetani. Adam of Usk, Chronicon, 1377-1421, ad ed., London, 1904, p. 259, "the fox, though ever greedy, ever remaineth thin, so Boniface, though gorged with simony, yet to his dying day was never filled."
16 Quomodo presumimus judicare reges et principes orbis terrarum et vermiculum aggredi non audemus, etc.; Denifle, Archiv, etc., V. 521. For these and other quotations, see Finke, Aus den Tagen Bon., etc., p. 152 sqq.
17 Contemporary writers spoke of the modern or recent French nation as opposed to the nation of a preceding period. So the author of the Tractate of 1308 in defence of Boniface VIII., Finke, p. lxxxvi. He said "the kings of the modern French people do not follow in the footsteps of their predecessors"—reges moderni gentis Francorum, etc. The same writer compared Philip to Nebuchadnezzar rebelling against the higher powers.
18 See Scholz, Publizistik, VIII. p. 3 sqq.
19 Summaria brevis et compendiosa doctrina felicis expeditionis et abbreviationis guerrarum ac litium regni Francorum. See Scholz, p. 415.
20 See Scholz, p. 357. The authenticity of the bull Ausculta was once called in question, but is now universally acknowledged. The copy in the Vatican bears the erasure of Clement V., who struck out the passages most offensive to Philip. Hefele gives the copy preserved in the library of St. Victor.
21 Sciat maxima tua fatuitas in temporalibus nos alicui non subesse, etc. Hefele, VI. 332, calls in question the authenticity of this document, at the same time recognizing that it was circulated in Rome in 1802, and that the pope himself made reference to it. The original phrase is ascribed to Pierre Flotte, Scholz, p. 357. Flotte was an uncompromising advocate of the king’s sovereignty and independence of the pope. He made a deep impression by an address at the parliament called by Philip, 1302. He was probably the author of the anti-papal tract beginning Antequam essent clerici, the text of which is printed by Dupuy, pp. 21-23. Here he asserts that the Church consists of laymen as well as clerics, Scholz, p. 361, and that taxes levied upon Church property are not extortions.
22 The university declared in favor of a general council June 21, 1303, Chartul. Univ. Par. II. 101 sq.
23 VIII. 63. See Scholz, pp. 363-375, and Holtzmann: W. von Nogaret.
24 VIII. 63. Döllinger, whose account is
very vivid, depends chiefly upon the testimony of three eye-witnesses, a member
of the curia, the chronicler of Orvieto and Nogaret himself. He sets aside much
of Villani’s report, which Reumont, Wattenbach, Gregorovius, and other
historians adopt. Dante and Villani, who both condemn the pope’s arrogance and
nepotism, resented the indignity put upon Boniface at Anagni, and rejoiced over
his deliverance as of one who, like Christ, rose from the dead. Dante omits all
reference to Sciarra Colonna and other Italian nobles as participants in the
plot. Dante’s description is given in Paradiso, xx. 86 sqq.
"I
see the flower-de-luce Alagna [Anagni] enter,
And Christ in his own vicar captive made."
25 Ferretus of Vicenza, Muratori: Scriptores, IX. 1002, reports that Boniface wanted to be removed from St. Peter’s to the Lateran, but the Colonna sent word he was in custody.
26 Extra mentem positus. Ferretus relates that Boniface fell into a rage and, after gnawing his staff and striking his head against the wall, hanged himself. Villani, VIII. 63, speaks of a "strange malady" begotten in the pope so that he gnawed at himself as if he were mad. The chronicler of Orvieto, see Döllinger: Beiträge, etc., III. 353, says Boniface died weighed down by despondency and the infirmities of age, ubi tristitia et senectutis infirmitate gravatus mortuus est. It is charitable to suppose that the pope’s old enemy, the stone, returned to plague him, the malady from which the Spanish physician Arnald of Villanova had given him relief. See Finke, p. 200 sqq.
27 Kirchengesch., II. 597 sq. Boniface called the French "dogs" and Philip garçon, which had the meaning of street urchin. A favorite expression with him was ribaldus, rascal, and he called Charles of Naples "meanest of rascals," vilissimus ribaldus. See Finke, p. 292 sq. Finke’s judgment is based in part upon new documents he found in Barcelona and other libraries.
28 This passage is based almost word for word upon Hugo de St. Victor, De Sacramentis, II. 2, 4.
29 The text is taken from W. Römer: Die Bulle, unam sanctam, Schaffhausen, 1889. See also Mirbt: Quellen, p. 148 sq.
30 In his Kirchengeschichtliche Abhandlungen, I. 483-489. This view is also taken by J. Berchtold: Die Bulle Unam sanctam ihre wahre Bedeutung und Tragweite Staat und Kirche, Munich, 1887. An attempt was made by Abbé Mury, La Bulle Unam sanctam, in Rev. des questions histor. 1879, on the ground of the bull’s stinging affirmations and verbal obscurities to detect the hand of a forger, but Cardinal Hergenröther, Kirchengesch., II. 694, pronounces the genuineness to be above dispute.
31 So Hergenröther-Kirsch, Hefele-Knöpfler: Kirchengesch., p. 380, and Conciliengesch., VI. 349 sq. Every writer on Boniface VIII. and Philip the Fair discusses the meaning of Boniface’s deliverance. Among the latest is W. Joos: Die Bulle Unam sanctam, Schaffhausen, 1896. Finke: Aus den Tagen Bonifaz VIII., p. 146 sqq., C-CXLVI. Scholz: Publizistik, p. 197 sqq.
32 Summus pontifex ... est illa potestas cui omnisanima debet esse subjecta.
33 De necessitate esse salutis omnes Christi fideles romani pontifici subesse. The writer in Wetzer-Welte, XII. 229 sqq., pronounces the view impossible which limits the meaning of the clause to temporal rulers.
34 I have followed closely in this chapter the clear and learned presentations of Richard Scholz and Finke and the documents they print as well as the documents given by Goldast. See below. A most useful contribution to the study of the age of Boniface VIII. and the papal theories current at the time would be the publication of the tracts mentioned in this section and others in a single volume.
35 The date of the De monarchia is a matter of uncertainty. There are no references in the treatise to Dante’s own personal affairs or the contemporary events of Europe to give any clew (sic). Witte, the eminent Dante student, put it in 1301; so also R. W. Church, on the ground that Dante makes no reference to his exile, which began in 1301. The tendency now is to follow Boccaccio, who connected the treatise with the election of Henry VII. or Henry’s journey to Rome, 1311. The treatise would then be a manifesto for the restoration of the empire to its original authority. For a discussion of the date, see Henry: Dante’s de monarchia, XXXII. sqq.
36 Libertus est maximum donum humanae naturae a Deo collatum, I. 14. It is a striking coincidence that Leo XIII. began his encyclical of June 20, 1888, with these similar words, libertas praestantissimum naturae donum, "liberty, the most excellent gift of nature."
37 ii. 3. Dante appeals to the testimony of
Virgil, his guide through hell and purgatory. He also quotes Virgil’s proud
lines:—
"Tu regere imperii populos, Romane, memento.
Haec tibi
erunt artes, pacisque imponere morem
Parcere
subjectis et debellare superbos."
Roman, remember that it was given to thee to rule the nations. Thine it is to establish peace, spare subject peoples and war against the proud.
38 ii. 12, 13; iii. 13, 16.
39 This last section of the book has the heading auctoritatem imperii immediate dependere a Deo.
40 iii. 10, Constantinus alienare non poterat imperii dignitatem nec ecclesia recipere.
41 xix. 115 sqq.
Ahi, Constantin, di quanto mal fu matre,
Non la tua
conversion, ma quella dote
Che da te
prese il primo ricco padre!
In the Purgatorio, xvi. 106-112, Dante deplores the union of the crozier and the sword.
42 With reference to the approaching termination of the emperor’s influence in Italian affairs, Bryce, ch. XV., sententiously says that Dante’s De monarchia was an epitaph, not a prophecy.
43 Non cives propter consules nec gens propter regem sed e converso consules propter cives, rex propter gentem, iii. 14.
44 Scholz, pp. 32-129.
45 Chartul. Univ. Paris., II. 12.
46 Jourdain, in 1858, was the first to call attention to the manuscript, and Kraus the first to give a summary of its positions in the Oesterr. Vierteljahrsschrift, Vienna, 1862, pp. 1-33. Among Aegidius’ other tracts is the "Rule of Princes,"—De regimine principum —1285, printed 1473. It was at once translated into French and Italian and also into Spanish, Portuguese, English, and even Hebrew. The "Pope’s Abdication"—De renunciatione papae sive apologia pro Bonifacio VIII.—1297, was a reply to the manifesto of the Colonna, contesting a pope’s right to resign his office. For a list of Aegidius’ writings, see art. Colonna Aegidius, in Wetzer-Welte, III. 667-671. See Scholz, pp. 46, 126.
47 Aegidius quotes the Wisdom of Solomon 2:21
48 See Scholz, p. 96 sqq. This author says the de regimine principum of Aegidius presents a different view, and following Aristotle, derives the state from the social principle.
49 Sub dominio et potestate ecclesiae.
50 Scholz, p. 124.
51 See Finke, pp. 163-166; Scholz, pp. 129-153.
52 Scholz, pp. 135, 145, 147. These two prerogatives are called potestas ordinis and potestas jurisdictionis.
53 Scholz, p. 148.
54 Potest agere et secundum leges quas ponit et praeter illas, ubi opportunum esse judicaverit. Finke, p. 166.
55 Finke, pp. 166-170; Scholz, pp. 162-1S6. Finke was the first to use this Tract. Scholz describes two MSS. in the National Library of Paris, and gives the tract entire, pp. 459-471.
56 A contemporary notes that the consistory was reminded that the nominee was the author of the De potestate papae, "a book which proves that the pope was overlord in temporal as well as spiritual matters." Scholz, p. 155. The tract was written, as Scholz thinks, not later than 1301, or earlier than 1298, as it quotes the Liber sextus.
57 Constantinus non dedit sed recognovit ab ecclesia se tenere—confitetur se ab ecclesia illud tenere. See Scholz, p. 467.
58 Non defectus juris, sed potentiae.
59 Four of his smaller tracts are summarized by Scholz, pp. 172-189. See § 8.
60 Scholz, pp. 198-207.
61 Scholz, pp. 208-223.
62 Tam in capite quam in membris. Scholz, pp. 211, 220. The tract was reprinted at the time of the Council of Trent and dedicated to Paul III.
63 The words Matt. 16:19, were addressed to the whole Church, he says, and not to Peter alone.
64 Scholz, p. 214.
65 This date is made very probable by Scholz, p. 225 sqq. Riezler, p. 141, wrongly put it down to 1364-1380. Scheffer-Boichorst showed that the author spoke of the canonization of Louis IX., 1297, as having occurred "in our days," and that he quoted the Liber sextus, 1298, as having recently appeared. The tract is given in Goldast: Monarchia, II. 195 sqq.
66 Scholz, p. 239. On Feb. 28, 1302, Philip made his sons swear never to acknowledge any one but God as overlord.
67 It is bound up in MS. with the former tract and with the work of John of Paris. It is printed in Dupuy, pp. 663-683. It has been customary to regard Peter Dubois as the author, but Scholz, p. 257, gives reasons against this view.
68 Disputatio inter clericum et militem. It was written during the conflict between Boniface and Philip, and not by Ockam, to whom it was formerly ascribed. Recently Riezler, p. 146, has ascribed it to Peter Dubois. It was first printed, 1476, and is reprinted in Goldast: Monarchia, I. 13 sqq. MSS. are found in Paris, Oxford, Cambridge, and Prag. See Scholz, p. 336 sqq. An English translation appeared with the following title: A dialogue betwene a knight and a clerke concerning the Power Spiritual and temporal, by William Ockham, the great philosopher, in English and Latin, London, 1540.
69 Finke, pp. 170-177; Scholz, pp. 275-333.
70 Chartul. Univ. Paris., II. 102.
71 De modo existendi corporis Christi in sacramento altaris. Chartul. II. 120.
72 First printed in Paris, 1506, and is found in Goldast, II. 108 sqq. For the writings ascribed to John, see Scholz, p. 284 sq. Finke, p. 172, says, ein gesundes beinahe modernes Empfinden zeichnet ihn aus. His tract belongs to 1302-1303. So Scholz and Finke. John writes as though Boniface were still living. He quotes "the opinions of certain moderns" and Henry of Cremona by name. The last chapter of John’s tract is largely made up of excerpts from Aegidius’ De renuntiatione papae. Scholz, p. 291, thinks it probable that Dante used John’s tract.
73 Congregatio fidelium ... congregatio clericorum.
74 Scholz, p. 315.
75 Finke, p. 72; Scholz, p. 324.
76 See Renan: Hist. Litt. XXVI. 471-536; Scholz, pp. 374-444.
77 Advocatus regalium causarum.
78 For these tracts, see Renan, p. 476 sq.; Scholz, p. 385 sqq.
79 Scholz, p. 398.
80 Contulit conjugato scilicet beato Petro primatum ecclesiae, Finke, p. clxxiii. Arnald is attacking the Minorites and Dominicans for publicly teaching that the statements of married people in matters of doctrine are not to be believed, conjugato non est credendum super veritate divina.
81 See the summary of Scholz, pp. 444-458.
82 It is quoted again and again by Henry of Cremona. See the text in Scholz, p. 464 sq., etc. For the text of the bull, see Mirbt: Quellen, pp. 127-130.
83 Scholz, p. 322; Schwab: Life of Gerson, p. 133.
84 Ferretus of Vicenza, Muratori, IX. 1013. Villani, VIII. 80. As an example of Benedict’s sanctity it was related that after he was made pope he was visited by his mother, dressed in silks, but he refused to recognize her till she had changed her dress, and then he embraced her.
85 See Pastor, I. 75-80. He calls Clement’s decision to remain in France der unselige Entschluss, "the unholy resolve," and says the change to Avignon had the meaning of a calamity and a fall, die Bedeutung einer Katastrophe, eines Sturzes. Hefele-Knöpfler, Kirchengeschichte, p. 458, pronounces it "a move full of bad omen." Baur, Kirchengesch. d. M. A., p. 265, said, "The transference of the papal chair to Avignon was the fatal turning-point from which the papacy moved on to its dramatic goal with hasty step." See also Haller, p. 23. Pastor, p. 62, making out as good a case as he can for the Avignon popes, lays stress upon the support they gave to missions in Asia and Africa. Clement VI., 1342-1352, appointed an archbishop for Japan.
86 Petrarch speaks of it "as filled with every kind of confusion, the powers of darkness overspreading it and containing everything fearful which had ever existed or been imagined by a disordered mind." Robinson: Petrarch, p. 87. Pastor, I. p. 76, seeks to reduce the value of Petrarch’s testimony on the ground that he spoke as a poet, burning with the warm blood of his country, who, notwithstanding his charges, preferred to live in Avignon.
87 The children did not escape the violence of this mad frenzy. The little child, Agapito Colonna, was found in the church, where it had been taken by the servant, strangled by the Orsini.
88 Pastor, p. 78, with note.
89 John XXII. paid off the cost incurred for this restoration with the price of silver vessels left by Clement V. for the relief of the churches in Rome. See Ehrle, V. 131.
90 See Finke: Quellen, p. 92.
91 Döllinger says Clement passed completely into the service of the king, er trat ganz in den Dienst des Königs. Akad. Vorträge, III. 254.
92 Mansi was the first to express doubts concerning these articles, reported by Villani, VIII. 80. Döllinger: Akad. Vorträge, III. 254, and Hefele, following Bouteric, deny them altogether. Hefele, in a long and careful statement, VI. 394-403, gives reasons for regarding them as an Italian invention. Clement distinctly said that he knew nothing of the charges against the Templars till the day of his coronation. On the other hand, Villani’s testimony is clear and positive, and at any rate shows the feeling which prevailed in the early part of the fourteenth century. Archer is inclined to hold on to Villani’s testimony, Enc. Brit., XXIII. 164. The character of pope and king, and the circumstances under which Clement was elected, make a compact altogether probable.
93 Dupuy, pp. 448-465. See Finke and Scholz, pp. 198-207. Among those who took sides against the pope was Peter Dubois. In his Deliberatio super agendis a Philippo IV. (Dupuy, pp. 44-47), he pronounced Boniface a heretic. This tract was probably written during the sessions of the National Assembly in Paris, April, 1302. See Scholz, p. 386. In another tract Dubois (Dupuy, pp. 214-19) called upon the French king to condemn Boniface as a heretic.
94 This is upon the basis of a tractate found and published by Finke, Aus den Tagen Bon. VIII., pp. lxix-c, and which he puts in the year 1308. See pp. lxxxv, xcviii. Scholz, p. 174, ascribes this tract to Augustinus Triumphus.
95 Holtzmann: W. von Nogaret, p. 202 sqq.
96 The tract of 1308 attempts to prove some of the charges against Boniface untrue, or that true sayings attributed to him did not make him a heretic. For example, it takes up the charges that Boniface had called the Gauls dogs, and had said he would rather be a dog than a Gaul. The argument begins by quoting Eccles. 3:19, p. lxx. sqq.
97 The condemned clauses were in some cases erased, but Boniface’s friends succeeded in keeping some perfect copies of the originals. See Hefele-Knöpfler, VI. 460.
98 Döllinger’s treatment, Akad. Vorträge, III. 244-274, was the last address that distinguished historian made before the Munich Academy of the Sciences. In his zeal to present a good case for the Templars, he suggests that if they had been let alone they might have done good service by policing the Mediterranean, with Cyprus as a base.
99 In the bull Pastoralis praeeminentiae, 1307. Augustinus Triumphus, in his tract on the Templars, de facto Templarorum, without denying the charges of heresy, denied the king’s right to seize and try persons accused of heresy on his own initiative and without the previous consent of the Church. See the document printed by Scholz, pp. 508-516.
100 It consisted of the archbishop of Narbonne, the bishops of Mende, Bayeux, and Limoges and four lesser dignitaries. The place of sitting was put at Paris at the urgency of Philip.
101 In the bull Faciens misericordiam. In this document the pope made the charge that the grand-master and the officers of the order were in the habit of granting absolution, a strictly priestly prerogative. It was to confirm the strict view of granting absolution that Alexander III. provided for the admission of priests to the Military Orders. See Lea’s valuable paper. The Absolution Formula of the Templars. See also on this subject Finke I. 395-397. Funk, p. 1330, saysder Pabst kam von jetzt an dem König mehr und mehr entgegen und nachdem er sich von dem gewaltigsten und rücksichtsiosigsten Fürsten seiner Zeit hatte ungarnen lassen, war ein Entkommen aus seiner Gewalt kaum mehr möglich.
102 These practices have been regarded by Prutz, Loiscleur (La doctrine secrète des Templiers, Paris, 1872) and others as a part of a secret code which came into use in the thirteenth century. But the code has not been forthcoming and was not referred to in the trials. Frederick II. declared that the Templars received Mohammedans into their house at Jerusalem and preferred their religious rites. This statement must be taken with reserve, in view of Frederick’s hostility to the order for its refusal to help him on his crusade. See M. Paris, an. 1244.
103 At the trial before the bishop of Nismes in 1309, out of 32, all but three denied the charges. At Perpignan, 1310, the whole number, 26, denied the charges. At Clermont 40 confessed the order guilty, 28 denied its guilt. With such antagonistic testimonies it is difficult, if at all possible, to decide the question of guilt or innocence.
104 Per viam provisionis seu ordinationis apostolicae is the language of the bull, that is, as opposed to de jure or as a punishment for proven crimes. This bull, Vox clamantis, was found by the Benedictine, Dr. Gams, in Spain, in 1865. See Hefele-Knöpfler, VI. 625 sqq. It is found in Mirbt: Quellen, p. 149 sq. Clement asserts he issued the order of abolition "not without bitterness and pain of heart," non sine cordis amaritudine et dolore. Two other bulls on the Templars and the disposition of their property followed in May.
105 The wealth of the Templars has been greatly exaggerated. They were not richer in France than the Hospitallers. About 1300 the possessions of each of these orders in that country were taxed at 6000 pounds. See Döllinger, p. 267 sq. Thomas Fuller, the English historian, quaintly says, "Philip would never have taken away the Templars’ lives if he might have taken away their lands without putting them to death. He could not get the honey without burning the bees." The Spanish delegation to the Council of Vienne wrote back to the king of Aragon that the chief concern at the council and with the king in regard to the Templars was the disposition of their goods, Finke, I. 360, 374. Finke, I. 111, 115, etc., ascribes a good deal of the animosity against the order to the revelations made by Esquin de Floyran to Jayme of Aragon in 1306. But the charges he made were already current in France.
106 In 1609 the benchers of the Inner and Middle Temple received the buildings for a small annual payment to the Crown, into whose possession they had passed under Henry VIII.
107 Dante and Villani agree that the Templars were innocent. In this judgment most modern historians concur. Funk declares the sentence of innocence to be "without question the right one," p. 1341. Döllinger, with great emphasis, insists that nowhere did a Templar make a confession of guilt except under torture, p. 257. More recently, 1907, Finke (I. p. ix. 326 sq. 337) insists upon their innocence and the untrustworthiness of the confessions made by the Templars. He declares that he who advocates their guilt must accept the appearances of the devil as a tom-cat. Prutz, in his earlier works, decided for their guilt. Schottmüller, Döllinger, Funk, and our own Dr. Lea strongly favor their innocence. Ranke: Univ. Hist., VIII. 622, wavers and ascribes to them the doctrinal standpoint of Frederick II. and Manfred. In France, Michelet was against the order; Michaud, Guizot, Renan and Boutaric for it. Hallam: Middle Ages, I. 142-146, is undecided.
108 See Döllinger, p. 255, and Gregorovius. Lea gives as excuse for the length at which he treats the trial and fate of the unfortunate knights, their helplessness before the Inquisition.
109 Ehrle,Archiv für Lit. und Kirchengesch. IV. 361-470, published a fragmentary report which he discovered in the National Library in Paris. For the best account of the proceedings, see Hefele-Knöpfler, VI. 514-554.
110 Haller, p. 46 sqq.
111 Ehrle, V. 139 sq.
112 Ehrle, p. 147, calculates that Clement’s yearly income was between 200,000 and 250,000 gold florins, and that of this amount he spent 100,000 for the expenses of his court and saved the remainder, 100,000 or 160,000. Ehrle, p. 149, gives Clement’s family tree.
113 Ehrle, pp. 126, 135.
114 Clement’s grave is reported to have been opened and looted by the Calvinists in 1568 or 1577. See Ehrle, p. 139.
115 Finke: Aus den Tagen Bon. VIII., p. Ixxxviii.
116 Chronicle, IX. 59. Villani tells the story that at the death of one of Clement’s nephews, a cardinal, Clement, in his desire to see him, consulted a necromancer. The master of the dark arts had one of the pope’s chaplains conducted by demons to hell, where he was shown a palace, and in it the nephew’s soul laid on a bed of glowing fire, and near by a place reserved for the pope himself. He also relates that the coffin, in which Clement was laid, was burnt, and with it the pope’s body up to the waist.
117 Villani, IX: 81, gives the suspicious report that the cardinals, weary of their inability to make a choice, left it to John. Following the advice of Cardinal Napoleon Orsini, he grasped his supreme chance and elected himself. He was crowned at Lyons.
118 Villani’s statement that he was the son of a cobbler is doubted. Ferretus of Vicenza says he was "small like Zaccheus."
119 See Müller: Kampf Ludwigs, etc., I. 61 sqq. Examinatio, approbatio ac admonitio, repulsio quoque et reprobatio.
120 X. 55.
121 The grounds on which John was deposed were his decisions against the Spirituals, the use of money and ships, intended for a crusade, to reduce Genoa, appropriation of the right of appointment to clerical offices, and his residence away from Rome. The document is found in Muratori, XIV., 1167-1173. For a vivid description of the enthronement and character of John of Corbara, see Gregorovius, VI. 153 sqq.
122 336 sqq., 376 sqq., 406.
123 It is uncertain whether this bull was made a part of the proceedings of the Oecumenical Council of Vienne. See Hefele, VI. 550, who decides for it, and Ehrle, Archiv, 1885, p. 540 sqq.
124 Hefele, VI. 581. Ehrle: Die Spiritualen in Archiv, 1885, pp. 509-514.
125 Ehrle: Archiv, pp. 156-158. He adduces acts of Inquisition against the Spirituals in Umbria, in the vicinity of Assisi, as late as 1341.
126 See Riezler, p. 124.
127 Magister-generalis fratrum minorum conventualium and minister-generalis totius ordinis S. Francesci. The Capuchins, who are Franciscans, were recognized as a distinct order by Paul V., 1619. Among the other schismatic Franciscan orders are the Recollect Fathers of France, who proceeded from the Recollect Convent of Nevers, and were recognized as a special body by Clement VIII., 1602. These monks were prominent in mission work among the Indians in North America.
128 In facultate theologiae omnino fait ignarus. See Müller: Kampf, etc., I. 24, note.
129 Mansi, XXV. 982-984.
130 Divinam essentiam immediate, se bene et clare et aperte illis ostendentem. Mansi, XXV. 986.
131 XI. 20. Another writer, Galvaneus de La Flamma, Muratori, XII. 1009 (quoted by Haller, Papsttum, p. 104), says, John left 22,000,000 florins besides other "unrecorded treasure." This writer adds, the world did not have a richer Christian in it than John XXII.
132 This is the figure reached by Ehrle, Die 25 Millionen im Schatz Johann XXII., Archiv, 1889, pp. 155-166. It is based upon the contents of 15 coffers, opened in the year 1342 at the death of Benedict XII. These coffers contained John’s treasure, and at that time yielded 750,000 florins. But it is manifestly uncertain how far John’s savings had been reduced by Benedict, or whether these coffers were all that were left by John. For example, at his consecration, Benedict gave 100,000 florins to his cardinals, and 150,000 to the churches at Rome, and it is quite likely he drew upon John’s hoard. The gold mitres, rings, and other ornaments which John’s thrift amassed, were stored in other chests. Villani got his report from his brother, a Florentine banker in the employ of the curia at Avignon. It is difficult to understand how, in making his statement, he should have gone so wide of the truth as Ehrle suggests.
133 Riezler, p. 247 sq. Three of these writings are in Goldast’s Monarchia II., 1236 sqq. Riezler’s work, Die literarischen Widersacher der Päpste is the best treatment of the subject of this chapter.
134 The Dialogue, which is printed in Goldast, is called by Riezler an almost unreadable monster, ein kaum übersehbares Monstrum.
135 Quod non est necesse, ut sub Christo sit unus rector totius ecclesiae sed sufficit quod sint plures diversas regentes provincias. Quoted by Haller, p. 80.
136 Müller, I. 368, upon the basis of a note in a MS. copy in Vienna, places its composition before June 24, 1324; Riezler between 1324-1326. John of Jandun’s name is associated with the composition of the book in the papal bulls. However, the first person singular, ego, is used throughout. According to Innocent VI., Marsiglius was much influenced by Ockam, then the leading teacher in France. This is inherently probable from their personal association in Paris and at the emperor’s court and the community of many of their views. See Haller, p. 78. John of Jandun died probably 1328. See Riezler, p. 56.
137 See the bull of Oct. 23, 1327, Mirbt, Quellen, p. 152.
138 In that year Clement spoke of Marsiglius as dead, Riezler, p. 122. With Ockam, Marsiglius defended the marriage of Lewis’ son to Margaret of Maultasch, in spite of the parties being within the bounds of consanguinity forbidden by the Church. His defence is found in Goldast, II. 1383-1391. For Ockam’s tract, see Riezler, p. 254.
139 Riezler, p. 36. It contains 150 folio pages in Goldast. Riezler, 193 sq., gives a list of MS. copies. Several French translations appeared. Gregory XI. in 1376 complained of one of them. An Italian translation of 1363 is found in a MS. at Florence, Engl. Hist. Rev., 1905, p. 302. The work was translated into English under the title The Defence of Peace translated out of Latin into English by Wyllyam Marshall, London, R. Wyer, 1535.
140 Hergenröther-Kirsch, II. 755, says: Unerhört in der christlichen Welt waren die kühnen Behauptungen die sie zu Gunsten ihres Beschützers aufstellten. Pastor, I. 85, says that Marsiglius’ theory of the omnipotence of the state cut at the root of all individual and Church liberty and surpassed in boldness, novelty, and keenness all the attacks which the position claimed by the Church in the world had been called upon to resist up to that time.
141 Chartul. Univ. Paris., II. 301.
142 Mirbt: Quellen, pp. 150-152, presents a convenient summary of Part III. of the Defensor. In this part a resumé is given by the author of the preceding portion of the work. Marsiglius quotes Aristotle and other classic writers, Augustine and other Fathers, Hugo of St. Victor and other Schoolmen, but he ignores Thomas Aquinas, and never even mentions his name.
143 Ad observanda praecepta divinae legis poena vel supplicio temporali nemo evangelica scriptura compelli praecipitur, Part III. 3.
144 Nullam potestatem eoque minus coactivam jurisdictionem habuit Petrus a Deo immediate super apostolos reliquos, II. 15. This is repeated again and again.
145 Non plus sacerdotalis auctoritatis essentialis habet Rom. episcopus, quam alter sacerdos quilibet sicut neque beatus Petrus amplius ex hac habuit ceteris apostolis, II. 14.
146 Interpretatio ex communi concilio fidelium facta, etc., Part III. 1.
147 Exclusit se ipsum et app. ac discipulos etiam suos ipsorumque successores, consequenter episcopos seu presbyteros, ab omni principatu seu mundano regimine exemplo et sermone, II. 4.
148 Döllinger: Kirchengesch. II. 259, 2d ed., 1843, says, "In the Defensor the Calvinistic system was in respect to Church power and constitution, already marked out." Pastor, 1. 85, says, "If Calvin depended upon any of his predecessors for his principles of Church government, it was upon the keen writer of the fourteenth century."
149 Pastor, I. 84, shifts this notoriety from Huss to Marsiglius. Riezler, p. 232, and Haller, p. 77, compare Marsiglius’ keenness of intellect with the Reformers’, but deny to him their religious warmth.
150 Est liber mirabiliter bene fundatus. Et fuit homo multum peritus in doctrina Aristoteleia, etc., Enyl. Hist. Rev. p. 298. The Turin MS. dates from 1416, that is, contemporary with Gerson. In this MS, John of Paris’ De potestate is bound up with the Defensor.
151 Compared with Wyclif, a pamphleteer as keen as he, Marsiglius did not enter into the merits of distinctly theological doctrine nor see the deep connection between the dogma of transubstantiation and sacramental penance and papal tyranny as the English reformer did. But so far as questions of government are concerned, he went as far as Wyclif or farther. See the comparison, as elaborated by Poole, p. 275.
152 Der älteste Versuch einer Theorie des deutschen Staatsrechts, Riezler, p. 180. Two other works by Lupold have come down to us. See Riezler, pp. 180-192.
153 For the papal tracts by Petrus de Palude
and Konrad of Megenberg, d. 1374, see Riezler, p. 287 sqq. The works are still
unpublished. Konrad’s Planctus ecclesiae is addressed to Benedict in
these lines, which make the pope out to be the summit of the earth, the wonder
of the world, the doorkeeper of heaven, a treasury of delights, the only sun
for the world.
"Flos et apex mundi, qui totius esse rotundi
Nectare
dulcorum conditus aromate morum
Orbis papa
stupor, clausor coeli et reserator,
Tu sidus
clarum, thesaurus deliciarum
Sedes sancta polus, tu mundo sol modo solus."
154 Pastor, I. 85. Hergenröther-Kirsch, II. 757, complains that these two authors push matters beyond the limits of truth, "making the pope a semi-god, the absolute ruler of the world." See Haller, p. 82 sq. Haller says it is a common thing among the common people in Italy for a devout man to call the pope a god upon earth, un Dio in terra. One of the smaller tracts already referred to is printed by Finke in Aus den Tagen, etc., LXIX-XCIX, and three others by Scholz, Publizistik, pp. 486-516. See Scholz’s criticism, pp. 172-189. Finke, p. 250, is in doubt about the authorship.
155 For edd. of Triumphus’ tract, see Potthast, Bibl. Hist. under Triumphus. Riezler, p. 286, dates the tract 1324-1328, Haller, p. 83, 1322, Scholz, p. 172, 1320. See Poole, 252 sq.
156 Nec credo,quod papa possit scire totum quod potest facere per potentiam suam, 32. 3, quoted by Döllinger, Papstthum, p. 433.
157 This famous passage runs sententia papae sententia Dei una sententia est, quia unum consistorium est ipsius papal et ipsius Dei ... cujus consistorii claviger et ostiarius est ipse papa. See Schwab, Gerson, p. 24.
158 Totum purgatorium evacuare potest, 3. 28. Döllinger, p. 451, says of Triumphus’ tract that on almost every page the Church is represented as a dwarf with the head of a giant, that is, the pope.
159 He incorporated into his work entire sections from James of Viterbo, De regimine christiano, Scholz, p. 151.
160 Döllinger, p. 433, places its composition in 1329, Riezler, 1331, Haller, between 1330-1332. Alvaras issued three editions, the third at Santiago, 1340.
161 Vere papa representat Christum in terris, ut qui videt cum oculo contemplativo et fideli videat et Christum, I. 13.
162 Apud eum est pro ratione roluntas, et quod ei placet legis habet viogorem, I. 45.
163 Unum est consistonum et tribunal Christi et papae, I. 29. Ubicunque est papa, ibi est Eccles. Rom .... Non cogitur stare Romae, I. 31.
164 Haller says, p. 103, the characteristic of John’s pontificate was finance, der Fiskalismus. Tangl, p. 40, compares his commercial instincts to the concern for high ideals which animated Gregory VII., Alexander III., and Innocent III. See vol. V, I., pp. 787, sqq.
165 Licet ecclesiarum. See Lib. sextus, III. 4, 2. Friedberg’s ed., II. 102, Lux, p. 5, says romanus pontifex supremus collator, ad quem plenaria de omnibus totius orbis beneficiis eccles. dispositio jure naturo pertinet, etc.
166 Lux, p. 12; Hefele: Conciliengesch. VI. 151.
167 Lux, p. 13; Friedberg: Reservationen in Herzog, XVI. 672.
168 Lux, p. 17 sqq., and Haller, p. 38, with authorities.
169 Verum super ipsum jus, potest dispensare, etc. Quoted by Gieseler, II. 123.
170 A provision that is providere ecclesiae de episcopo signified in the first instance a promotion, and afterwards the papal right to supersede appointments made in the usual way by the pope’s own arbitrary appointment. The methods of papal appointment are given in Liber sextus, I. 16, 18; Friedberg’s ed., II. 969. See Stubbs, Const. Hist., III. 320. "Collations" was also used as a general term to cover this papal privilege. The formulas of this period commonly ran de apostol. potestatis plenitudine reservamus. See John’s bull of July 30, 1322, Lux, p. 62 sq. Rogare, monere, precipere are the words generally used by pope Innocent III., 1198-1216, see Hinschius, II. 114 sq. Alexander III. used the expression ipsum commendamus rogantes et rogando mandantes and others like it. Hinschius, III. 116, dates insistence on reservations as a right from the time of Lucius III., 1181-1185.
171 Haller, p, 107.
172 Lux, p. 61 sq. This author, pp. 59-106, gives 57 documents not before published, containing reservations by John XXII. and his successors.
173 Kirsch: Kollektorien, p. xxv sq.
174 See Hergenröther-Kirsch, II. 762. K. Müller: Kirchengesch., II. 45. Kirsch: Finanzverwaltung, p. 70. Pastor, in the 1st ed. of his Hist. of the Popes, I. 63, said das unheilvolle System der Annaten, Reservationen und Expektanzen hat seit Johann XXII. zur Ausbildung gelangt.
175 The course of Clement V., in allowing grants to Philip the Fair, Charles of Valois, and other princes, was followed by John. In 1316 he granted to the king of France a tenth and annates for four years, in 1326 a tenth for two years, and in 1333 a tenth for six years. The English king, in 1317, was given a share of the tenth appointed by the Council of Vienne for a crusade and at the same time one-half of the annates. Again, in the years 1319, 1322, 1330, a tenth was accorded to the same sovereign. See Haller, p. 116 sq.
176 De planctu eccles., II. 14, papa legibus loquentibus de simonia et canonibus solutus est.
177 V. 3, certum est, summum pontificem canonicam simoniam a jure positivo prohibitam non posse committere, quia ipse est supra jus et eum jura positiva non ligant.
178 Kirsch: Kollektorien, p. xii sq. and other Catholic writers make some defence of John’s financial measures on the ground that the sources of income from the State of the Church dried up when the papacy was transferred to Avignon.
179 For the details, see Tangl, p. 20 sqq.
180 See vol. V. 1, p. 787 sqq.
181 Non habita consideratione ad valorem beneficii, de quo fiet gratia sed ad laborem scripturae dumtaxat. See Tangl, p. 21.
182 Woker took up the study in 1878, and has been followed by a number of scholars such as Tangl, Gottlob, Goeller, Haller, Baumgarten, Schulte, and especially Dr. Kirsch, professor of church history in the Catholic University of Freiburg, Switzerland. See, for a full description, Baumgarten, pp. v-xiii. The subject involves a vast array of figures and commercial briefs of all kinds, and includes the organization of the camera, the system of collection, the graduated scales of prices, the transmission of moneys to Avignon, the division of the receipts between the pope and the cardinals, the values of the numerous coins, etc. Garampi, a keeper of the Vatican Archives, in the eighteenth century arranged these registers according to countries. See Kirsch, Kollektorien, p. vii, and Rückkehr, p. xli-l; Tangl, vi sqq.; Baumgarten, viii, x sqq.
183 Kirsch: Kollektorien, p. vii, note, gives four different headings under which the moneys were recorded, namely: (1) census and visitations; (2) bulls; (3) servitia communia; (4) sundry sources. He also gives the entries under which disbursements were entered, such as the kitchen, books and parchments, palfreys, journeys, wars, etc.
184 Tangl, 74 sq
185 As an example of the host of these officials who had to be fed, see Tangl, pp. 64-67. He gives a list of the fees paid by agents of the city of Cologne, which was seeking certain bulls in 1393. The title "secretary" does not occur till the reign of Benedict XII., 1338. Goeller, p. 46.
186 One of the allowances made by John XXII. for collectors was 5 gold florins a day. Kirsch: Kollektorien, VII. sqq., XLIX. sqq. Kirsch gives the official ledgers of papal collectors in Basel, pp. 4-32, and other sees of Germany. Sometimes the bishop acted as collector in his diocese, Goeller, p. 71.
187 For elaborate comparisons of the value of the different coins of the fourteenth century, see Kirsch, Kollektorien, LXXVIII. and Rückkehr, p. xli sqq. Gottlob, pp. 133, 174 sq., etc. Baumgarten, CCXI sqq. The silver mark, the gold florin and the pound Tournois were among the larger coins most current. One mark was worth 4 or 6 gold florins, or 8 pounds Tournois. The grossus Turonensis was equal to about 26 cents of our value. See Tangl, 14. For the different estimates of marks in florins, see Baumgarten, CXXI. The gold florin had the face value of $2.50 of our money, or nearly 10 marks German coinage. See Kirsch, Kollektorien, p. Ixx; Rückkehr, p. xlv; Gottlob, Servitientaxe, p. 176; Baumgarten, p. ccxiii; Tangl, 14, etc. Kirsch gives the purchasing price of money in the fourteenth century as four times what it now is, Finanzerverwaltung p. 56. The gold mark in 1370 was worth 62 gold florins the silver mark 5 florins, Kirsch: Rückkehr, p. xlv. Kirsch: Rückkehr, pp. l-lxi, gives a very elaborate and valuable list of the prices of commodities and wages in 1370 from the Vatican ledger accounts. Urban V.’s agents bought two horses for 117 florins gold and two mules for 90 florins. They paid 1 gold florin for 12 pairs of shoes and 1 pair of boots. A salma of wheat—equal to 733 loaves of bread—cost 4 florins, or $10 in our money. The keeper of the papal stables received 120 gold florins a year. The senator of Rome received from Gregory XI. 600 gold florins a month. A watchman of the papal palace, 7 gold florins a month. Carpenters received from 12-18 shillings Provis, or 60-80 cents, 47 of these coins being equal to 1 gold florin.
188 Visitationes ad limina apostolorum, that is, visits to Rome.
189 See Baumgarten, CXXI.; Kirsch: Finanzverwaltung, p. 22 sq.
190 Baumgarten, p. cxxii.
191 Gottlob, Servitien, p. 30 sqq., 75-93; Baumgarten, p. xcvii sqq.
192 Gottlob, p. 130.
193 Kirsch: Finanzverwaltung, and Baumgarten, p. xcvii, make it one-third. Gottlob, p. 120 says it was sometimes more.
194 Baumgarten, p. cvi, Schulte, p. 97 sq. Cases are also reported of the reduction of the assessment upon a revaluation of the property. In 1326 the assessment of the see of Breslau was reduced from 4, 000 to 1, 786 gold florins. Kirsch: Finanzverwaltung, p. 8.
195 For cases, see Baumgarten, p. cviii. Attempts to get rid of this assessment were unavailing. The bishop of Bamberg, in 1335, left Avignon without a bull of confirmation because he had not made the prescribed payment. The reason is not recorded, but the statement is spread on the ledger entry that episcopal confirmation should not be granted to him till the Apostolic letters pertaining to it were properly registered and delivered by the Apostolic camera. Goeller, p. 69.
196 Gesta Abb. monaster. S. Albani, II. 55 sq. See Gottlob, Servitien, p. 174 sqq. for the full list of his expenses.
197 The contract is printed entire by Kirsch, Finanzerverwaltung, pp. 73-77, and Gottlob, p. 162 sqq.
198 See Gottlob, pp. 102-118; Schulte, p. 13 sqq.
199 Baumgarten, p. cxx.
200 John XXII., 1316, Benedict XII, 1335, Clement VI., 1342, and Boniface IX., 1392, issued bulls requiring such appointees to pay one-half the first year’s income into the papal treasury. See, on this subject, Kirsch, Kollektorien, p. xxv sqq. He mentions the papal collector, Gerardus, who gives a continuous list for the years 1343-1360, of such payments of annates, fructus beneficiorum vacantium ad Cameram Apostolicam pertinentes. The annates, or annalia, were originally given to the bishops when livings became vacant, but were gradually reserved for the papal treasury. See Friedberg, Kirchliche Abgaben, in Herzog, I. 95.
201 Kirsch: Kollektorien, p. xxvi. Benedict, 1335, appropriated these payments to the papal treasury.
202 Tangl, pp. 31, 32, 37
203 Kirsch: Kollektorien, pp. xx, xxi.
204 Kirsch: Finanzverwaltung, p. 3; Rückkehr, p. xv. The payment to Urban V. in 1367 and its division into equal shares is a matter of record. In a ledger account begun in 1317, and now in the Vatican, an ounce of gold was estimated at 5 florins, a pound of gold at 96 florins. See Kirsch, Finanzverwaltung, p. 71; Baumgarten, p. ccxi.
205 Baumgarten, p. cxlii sq.
206 Baumgarten, CXXVI. sqq.
207 Ehrle: Process über d. Nachlass Klemens V., in Archiv, etc., V. 147. The revenue of Philip the Fair amounted in 1301 to 267,900 pounds. See Gottlob, Servitien, 133. Gottlob, p. 134, says the cardinals received as much more as their share.
208 Haller, p. 138.
209 Walter de Gray, bishop of Worcester, is said to have borrowed 10,000 pounds at his elevation, 1215. Roger de Wendover, as quoted by Gottlob, p. 136. The passage runs obligatus in curia Romana de decem millibus libris, etc. Gottlob understands this to refer to Roman bankers, not to the Roman curia.
210 De planctu eccl. II. 7, quum saepe intraverim in cameram camerarii domni papae, semper ibi vidi nummularios et mensas plenas auro, et clericos computantes et trutinantes florenos. See Döllinger-Friedrich, pp. 86, 420.
211 Insatiabilis vorago et in avaricia nullus ei similis. De schismate, Erler’s ed., p. 119. The sacra auri fames prevailed at Avignon.
212 Pastor, I. 76, says, "Luxury and fast living prevailed to the most flagrant degree under Clement’s rule." For detailed description of Avignon and the papal palace, see A. Penjon, Avignon, la ville et le palais des papes, pp. 134, Avignon, 1878; F. Digonnet: Le palais des papes en Avignon, Avignon, 1907.
213 This awful denunciation runs: Veniat ei laqueus quem ignorat, et cadat in ipsum. Sit maledictus ingrediens, sit maledictus egrediens. Percutiat eum dominus amentia et caecitate ac mentis furore. Coelum super eum fulgura mittat. Omnipotentis dei ira et beatorum Petri et Pauli ... in hoc et futuro seculo exardescat in ipsum. Orbis terrarum pugnet contra eum, aperiatur terra et ipsum absorbeat vivum. Mirbt: Quellen, p. 153. See Müller: Kampf Ludwigs, etc., II. 214.
214 Quoted by Gasquet, Black Death, p. 46.
215 Whitcomb, Source Book of the Renaissance, pp. 15-18, gives a translation.
216 Knighton’s account, Chronicon, Rolls Series II. 58-65.
217 Quoted by Gasquet, p. 46 sqq.
218 Gasquet, p. 40.
219 Thorold Rogers saw the remains of a number of skeletons at the digging for the new divinity school at Cambridge, and pronounced the spot the plague-pit of this awful time. Six Centuries of Work and Wages, I. 157.
220 Gasquet, p. 128.
221 These are the figures of Jessopp, Coming of the Friars, Gasquet, p. 226, and Cunningham, Growth of English Industries and Commerce, p. 275. Thorold Rogers, however, in Six Centuries of Work, etc., and England before and after the Black Death, Fortnightly Review, VIII. 190 sqq. reduces the number. Jessopp bases his calculations upon local documents and death lists of the diocese of Norwich and finds that in some cases nine tenths of the population died. The Augustinians at Heveringland, prior and canons, died to a man. At Hickling only one survived. Whether this fell mortality among the clergy, especially the orders, points to luxuriant living and carelessness in habits of cleanliness, we will not attempt to say.
222 Knighton, II. 62, 65.
223 Gasquet, p. 253. This author, pp. viii, 8, compares the ravages of the bubonic plague in India, 1897-1905, to the desolations of the Black Death. He gives the mortality in India in this period as 3,250,000 persons. He emphasizes the bad effects of the plague in undoing the previous work of the Church and checking its progress.
224 Ralph, bishop of Bath and Wells, in a pastoral letter warned against the "pestilence which had come into a neighboring kingdom from the East." Knighton refers its origin to India, Thomas Walsingham, Hist. Angl., Rolls Series I. 273, thus speaks of it: "Beginning in the regions of the North and East it advanced over the world and ended with so great a destruction that scarcely half of the people remained. Towns once full of men became destitute of inhabitants, and so violently did the pestilence increase that the living were scarcely able to bury the dead. In certain houses of men of religion, scarcely two out of twenty men survived. It was estimated by many that scarcely one-tenth of mankind had been left alive."
225 Muratori, XV. 56.
226 Cola had roamed about till he went to Prag, where Charles IV. seized him and sent him to Avignon in 1352. Petrarch, who corresponded with him, speaks of seeing him in Avignon, attended by two guards. See Robinson, Petrarch, pp. 341-343 sqq.
227 The full term of Albernoz’ service in Italy extended from 1353-1368. By his code, called the Aegidian Constitutions, he became the legislator of the State of the Church for centuries. For text, see Mansi, XXVI. 299-307. Gregorovius, VI. 430, calls him "the most gifted statesman who ever sat in the college of cardinals," and Wurm, his biographer, "the second founder of the State of the Church."
228 In 1334 Clement had set off the diocese of Prag from the diocese of Mainz and made it an archbishopric.
229 Bryce, ch. XIV., says well that the Golden Bull completed the Germanization of the Holy Roman Empire by separating the imperial power from the papacy. See Mirot, La politique pontificale, p. 2.
230 Kirsch: Rückkehr, etc., pp. xii, 74-90. During the stop of five days at Genoa, Urban received timely help in the payment of the feoffal tax of Naples, 8000 ounces of gold. Kirsch, in his interesting and valuable treatment, publishes the ledger entries made in the official registers, deposited in Rome and Avignon and giving in detail the expenses incurred on the visits of Urban and Gregory XI. Gregorovius, VI. 430 sqq., gives an account of Urban’s pilgrimage in his most brilliant style.
231 The accounts are published entire by Kirsch, pp. ix sqq. xxx, 109-165.
232 Döllinger, The Church and the Churches, Engl. trans., 1862, p. 363, puts the population at 17,000. Gregorovius, VI. 438, makes the estimate somewhat higher
233 Pastor, Hergenröther-Kirsch, Kirsch, Rückkehr, p. xvii; Mirot, p. viii, 7 sq., and other Catholic historians agree that this was Gregory’s chief motive. Mirot, pp. 10-18, ascribes to Gregory three controlling ideas—the reform of the Church, the re-establishment of peace with the East as a preliminary to a new crusade against the Turks, and the return of the papacy to Rome.
234 Baluz, I. 435, Gieseler, IV. 1, p. 90 sq., give the bull.
235 Quoted by Mirot, p. 48, and Gregorovius, VI. 466 sqq.
236 Brigitta was born near Upsala, 1303. See Gardner, St. Catherine of Siena, p. 44 sqq. Döllinger has called attention to the failure of her prophecies to be fulfilled, Fables and Prophecies of the Middle Ages, trans. by Prof. Henry B. Smith, pp. 331, 398.
237 Vorago pessima horribilis symoniae, Brigitta’s Revelationes, as quoted by Gieseler, Haller, p. 88, and Gardner, p. 78 sq.
238 Pastor, I. 103.
239 Scudder: Letters of St. Catherine, p. 132 sq.; Gardner, pp. 158, 176, etc.
240 Scudder, p. 182 sqq.
241 This was Catherine’s deposition to her confessor. See Mirbt: Quellen, p. 154, in romana curia, ubi deberet paradisus esse caelicarum virtutum, inveniebat faetorem infernalium vitiarum.
242 Mirot, p. 101, is quite sure Catherine had no infuence in bringing Gregory to his original decision. So also Pastor and Gardner.
243 Later biographers tell of a vow made by Gregory at the opening of his pontificate to return to Rome, but no contemporary writer has any reference to it, Mirot, p. 62.
244 Kirsch, pp. 169-264, gives a copy of these ledger entries. One set contains the expenses of preparation, one set the expenses from Marseilles to Rome, and a third set, the expenses after arriving in Rome. Still another gives the espenses of repairing the Vatican—the wages of workmen and the prices paid for lumber, lead, iron, keys, etc. On the back of this last volume, which is in the Vatican, are written the words, "Expensae palatii apostolici, 1370-1380."
245 Kirsch, pp. xviii, 171, Mirot, p. 112 sq., says, Les vins paraissent avoir tenu une grande place dans le rétour, et, à la veille du départ, on s’occupa tant d’assurer le service de la bouteillerie durant le voyage, que de garnir en prévision de l’arrivée, les caves du Vatican.
246 Kirsch, p. 184. For other loans made by Gregory, e.g. 30,000 florins in 1374 and 60,000 in 1376, see Mirot, p. 36.
247 Kirsch, pp. xx, xxii, 179.
248 So Gerson, De examinatione doctrinarum, I. 16, as quoted by Gieseler, ut caverent ab hominibus sive viris sive mulieribus, sub specie religionis loquentibus visiones ... quia per tales ipse reductus. See Pastor, I. 113.
249 Erler’s ed., p. 16.
250 The document is given by Hefele, VI. 730-734.
251 The full documentary accounts are given in the Chartularium, III. 561-575. Valois gives a very detailed treatment of the allegiance rendered to the two popes, especially in vol. II. Even in Sweden and Ireland Clement had some support, but England, in part owing to her wars with France, gave undivided submission to Urban.
252 Pastor, p. 143 sqq., quotes a German poem which strikingly sets forth the evils of the schism, and Pastor himself says that nothing did so much as the schism to prepare the way for the defection from the papacy in the sixteenth century.
253 Adam of Usk, p. 218, and other writers.
254 This is the judgment of Pastor, I. 119.
255 Valois, I. 144, devotes much space to the part Charles took in preparing the way for the schism, and declares he was responsible for the part France took in it and in rejecting Urban VI. Hergenröther says all the good he can of the Roman line and all the evil he can of the Avignon line. Clement he pronounces a man of elastic conscience, and Benedict XIII., his successor, as always ready in words for the greatest sacrifices, and farthest from them when it came to deeds.
256 Nieheim, p. 91. See also pp. 103 sq., 110, for the further treatment of the cardinals, which was worthy of Pharaoh.
257 Nieheim, p. 124.
258 Valois, II. 282, 299 sqq.
259 Nesciens scribere etiam male cantabat, Nieheim, p. 130.
260 Gregorovius, VI. 647 sqq.; Valois, II. 162, 166 sqq.
261 Erat insatiabilis vorago et in avaricia nullus similis ei, Nieheim, p. 119. Nieheim, to be sure, was disappointed in not receiving office under Boniface, but other contemporaries say the same thing. Adam of Usk, p. 269, states that, "though gorged with simony, Boniface to his dying day was never filled."
262 Chronicle, p. 262 sqq. This is one of the most full and interesting accounts extant of the coronation of a mediaeval pope. Usk describes the conclave as well as the coronation, and he mentions expressly how, on his way from St. Peter’s to the Lateran, Innocent purposely turned aside from St. Clement’s, near which stood the bust of Pope Joan and her son.
263 Du Pin, II. 821.
264 Letter of the Univ. of Paris to Clement VII., dated July 17, 1394. Chartul. III. 633, nihil omnino curandum quot papae sint, et non modo duos aut tres, sed decem aut duodecim immo et singulis regnis singulos prefici posse, etc.
265 Haec execranda et detestanda, diraque divisio, Nieheim, pp. 209-213, gives both letters entire.
266 Gelnhausen’s tract, De congregando concilio in tempore schismatis, in Martène-Durand, Thesaurus nov. anecd., II. 1200-1226.
267 So Pastor, I. 186. See also, Schwab, Gerson, p. 124 sqq.
268 Consilium pacis de unione et reformatione ecclesiae in concilio universali quaerenda, Van der Hardt, II. 3-60, and Du Pin, Opp. Gerson, II. 810
269 Chartul III. p. 608 sqq.
270 Chartul., I. 620.
271 Nieheim, pp. 237, 242, 274, etc., manifeste impedire modis omnibus conabantur.
272 Vita, Muratori, III., II., 838, solum spiritus cum ossibus et pelle.
273 Schwab, p. 223 sq. The address which Gerson is said to have delivered and which Mansi includes in the acts of the council was a rhetorical composition and never delivered at Pisa. Schwab, p. 243.
274 Mansi, XXVII. 358.
275 Mansi, XXVII. 366.
276 See Schwab, p. 250 sqq.
277 The electors deposed Wenzil in 1400 for incompetency, and elected Ruprecht of the Palatinate.
278 Eorum utrumque fuisse et esse notorios schismaticos et antiqui schimatis nutritores ... necnon notorios haereticos et a fide devios, notoriisque criminibus enormibus perjuriis et violantionis voti irretitos, etc., Mansi, XXVI. 1147, 1225 sq. Hefele, VI. 1025 sq., also gives the judgment in full.
279 Nieheim, p. 320 sqq., gives an account of Alexander’s early life.
280 Creighton is unduly severe upon Alexander and the council for adjourning, without carrying out the promise of reform. Hefele, VI. 1042, treats the matter with fairness, and shows the difficulty involved in a disciplinary reform where the evils were of such long standing.
281 The number of ecclesiastical gifts made by Alexander in his brief pontificate was large, and Nieheim pithily says that when the waters are confused, then is the time to fish.
282 Pastor, I. 192, speaks of the unholy Pisan synod—segenslose Pisaner Synode. All ultramontane historians disparage it, and Hergenröther-Kirsch uses a tone of irony in describing its call and proceedings. They do not exonerate Gregory from having broken his solemn promise, but they treat the council as wholly illegitimate, either because it was not called by a pope or because it had not the universal support of the Catholic nations. Hefele, I. 67 sqq., denies to it the character of an oecumenical synod, but places it in a category by itself. Pastor opens his treatment with a discourse on the primacy of the papacy, dating from Peter, and the sole right of the pope to call a council. The cardinals who called it usurped an authority which did not belong to them.
283 Nieheim, in Life of John, in Van der Hardt, II. 339.
284 Finke: Forschungen, p. 2; Acta conc., p. 108 sqq.
285 Date operam, the king said, ut ista, nefanda schisma eradicetur. See Wylie, p. 18
286 See Finke, Forschungen, p. 28. Sigismund gives himself the same title. See his letter to Gregory, Mansi, XXVIII. 3.
287 Same as fn. above.
288 Sigismund, in his letter to Charles VI of France, announcing the council, had used the mediaeval figure of the two lights, duo luminaria super terram, majus videlicet minus ut in ipsis universalis ecclesiae consistere firmamentum in quibus pontificalis auctoritas et regalis potentia designantur, unaquae spiritualia et altera qua corporalia regerentur. Mansi, XXVIII. 4.
289 There is some evidence that a report was abroad in Italy that Sigismund intended to have all three popes put on trial at Constance, but that a gift of 60,000 gulden from John at Lodi induced him to support that pontiff. Finke: Acta, p. 177 sq.
290 Sigismund’s letters are given by Hardt, VI. 5, 6; Mansi, XXVIII. 2-4. See Finke, Forschungen, p. 23.
291 Funk, Kirchengesch., p. 470, calls it eine der grossartigsten Kirchenversammlungen welche die Geschichte kennt, gewissermassen ein Kongress des ganzen Abenlandes.
292 Hardt, II. 308.
293 Richental, Chronik, pp. 25-28, gives a graphic description of John’s entry into the city. This writer, who was a citizen of Constance, the office he filled being unknown, had unusual opportunities for observing what was going on and getting the official documents. He gives copies of several of John’s bulls, and the most detailed accounts of some of the proceedings at which he was present. See p. 129.
294 Offene Huren in den Hurenhäusern und solche, die selber Häuser gemiethet hatten und in den Ställen lagen und wo sie mochten, doren waren über 700 und die heimlichen, die lass ich belibnen. Richental, p. 215. The numbers above are taken from Richental, whose account, from p. 154 to 215, is taken up with the lists of names. See also Van der Hardt, V. 50-53, who gives 18,000 prelates and priests and 80,000 laymen. A later hand has attached to Richental’s narrative the figures 72,460.
295 Workman: Letters of Huss, p. 263.
296 Usk, p. 304; Rymer, Foeder., IX. 167; Richental, p. 34, speaks of the French as die Schulpfaffen und die gelehrten Leute aus Frankreich.
297 Richental, p. 39 sqq., gives an elaborate list of these regulations.
298 So de Vrie, the poet-historian of the council, Hardt, I. 193. The following description is from the accomplished pen of Aeneas Sylvius, afterwards Pius II: "He was tall, with bright eyes, broad forehead, pleasantly rosy cheeks, and a long, thick beard. He was witty in conversation, given to wine and women, and thousands of love intrigues are laid to his charge. He had a large mind and formed many plans, but was changeable. He was prone to anger, but ready to forgive. He could not keep his money, but spent lavishly. He made more promises than he kept, and often deceived."
299 Finke, p. 133, calls him the "greatest journalist of the later Middle Ages." The tracts De modisuniendi, De difficultate reformationis, De necessitate reformationis are now all ascribed to Nieheim by Finke, p. 133, who follows Lenz, and with whom Pastor concurs as against Erler.
300 In hoc generali concilio agendum fait de pace et unione perfecta ecclesiae secundo de reformatione illius, Fillastre’s Journal, in Finke, p. 164. Haec synodus ... pro exstirpatione praesentis schismatis et unione ac reformatione ecclesiae Dei in capite et membris is the councils own declaration, Mansi, XXVII. 585
301 Apud aliquos erat morbus "noli me tangere," Fillastre’s Journal, p. 164.
302 See Finke, Forschungen, p. 31. Richental, pp. 50-53, gives a quaint account of the territorial possessions of the five nations.
303 Hardt, II. 240, also IV. 44; Mansi, XXVII. 568. Also Richental, p. 56.
304 According to a MS. found at Vienna by Finke, Forschungen, p. 148.
305 Richental, pp. 62-72, gives a vivid account of John’s flight and seizure.
306 Fillastre; Finke, Forschungen, p. 169, papa dicebat quod pro timore regis Romanorum recesserat.
307 Hardt, IV. 89 sq., and Mansi, XXVII. 585-590. The deliverance runs: haec sancta synodus Constantiensis primo declarat ut ipsa synodus in S. Spiritu legitime congregata, generale concilium faciens, Eccles. catholicam militantem representans, potestatem a Christo immediate habeat, cui quilibet cujusmodi status vel dignitatis, etiamsi papalis existat, obedire tenetur in his quae pertinent ad fidem et exstirpationem praesentis schismatis et reformationem eccles. in capite et membris.
308 Hardt, II. 265-273; Du Pin, II. 201 sqq.
309 Hardt, vol. I., where it occupies 175 pp. Du Pin, II., 162-201. This tract, formerly ascribed to Gerson, Lenz and Finke give reason for regarding as the work of Nieheim.
310 Hardt, IV. 196-208; Mansi, XXVIII. 662-673, 715. Adam of Usk, p. 306, says, Our pope, John XXIII., false to his promises of union, and otherwise guilty of perjuries and murders, adulteries, simonies, heresy, and other excesses, and for that he twice fled in secret, and cowardly, in vile raiment, by way of disguise, was delivered to perpetual imprisonment by the council.
311 This name is given to Gregory constantly by Nieheim in his De schismate.
312 The document is given in Hardt, IV. 380. See, for the various documents, Hardt, IV. 192 sq., 346-381; Mansi, XXVII. 733-745.
313 Pastor, Hefele, and Hergenröther call it stubbornness, Hartnäckigkeit. Döllinger is more favorable, and does not withhold his admiration from Peter.
314 Valois, IV. 450 454, gives strong reasons for this date as against 1424.
315 Mansi, XXVIII. 1117 sqq., gives Clement’s letter of abdication. For an account of Benedict’s two successors and their election, see Valois, IV. 455-478.
316 Fillastre’s Journal, p. 224. For the tracts hostile to the cardinals, see Finke, Forschungen, p. 81 sq.
317 Richental, p. 116 sqq., gives a detailed account of the walling up of the Kaufhaus and the election, and of the ceremonies attending Martin’s coronation. He also, p. 123, tells the pretty story that, before the electors met, ravens, jackdaws, and other birds of the sort gathered in great numbers on the roof of the Kaufhaus, but that as soon as Martin was elected, thousands of greenfinches and other little birds took their places and chattered and sang and hopped about as if approving what had been done.
318 Catholic historians regard the survival of the papacy as a proof of its divine origin. Salembier, p. 395, says, "The history of the great Schism would have dealt a mortal blow to the papacy if Christ’s promises had not made it immortal."
319 See Mirbt, art. Konkordat, in Herzog, X. 705 sqq. Hardt gives the concordats with Germany and England, I. 1056-1083, and France, IV. 155 sqq. Mansi, XXVII. 1189 sqq., 1193 sqq.
320 See art. Gallikanismus, in Herzog, and Der Ursprung der gallikan. Freiheiten, in Hist. Zeitschrift, 1903, pp. 194-215.
321 Creighton, I. 393, after giving the proper citation from Hardt, IV. 1432, makes the mistake of saying that the next council was appointed for seven years, and the succeeding councils every five years thereafter.
322 Richental, pp. 149 sqq.
323 Infessura, p. 21.
324 Five large wolves were killed in the Vatican gardens, Jan. 23, 1411. Gregorovius, VI. 618
325 Pastor, I. 227, Martin’s warm admirer, passes lightly over the pope’s nepotism with the remark that in this regard he overstepped the line of propriety—er hat das Mass des Erlaubten überschritten.
326 Traversari, as quoted by Creighton, I. 128.
327 Ob reformationem Eccles. Dei in capite et membris specialiter congregatur, Mansi, XXIX. 165, etc.
328 Decernimus et declaramus generale concil. Basileense a tempore inchoationis suae legitime continuatum fuisse et esse ... quidquid per nos aut nostro nomine in prejudicium et derogationem sacri concil. Basileensis seu contra ejus auctoritatem factum et attentatum seu assertum est, cassamus, revocamus, irritamus et annullamus, nullas, irritas fuisse et esse declaramus, Mansi, XXIX. 78.
329 So Hergenröther-Kirsch, II. 919, Pastor, I. 288, etc. Funk, Kirchengesch., p. 874, with his, usual fairness, says that Eugenius in his bull gave unconditional assent to the council. So verstand er sich endlich zur unbedingten Annahme der Synode.
330 De concubinariis, Mansi, XXIX. 101 sq.
331 Immunem semper fuisse ab omni originali et actuali culpa, etc., Mansi, XXIX. 183.
332 "Transfer" is the word used by the pope—transferendo hoc sacrum concilium in civitatem Ferrarensium, Mansi, XXIX. 166. Reasons for the transfer to an Italian city and an interesting statement of the discussion over the place of meeting are given in Haller, Conc. Bas., I. 141-159.
333 Eugenium fuisse et esse notorium et manifestum contumacem, violatorem assiduum atque contemptorem sacrorum canonum synodalium, pacis et unitatis Eccles. Dei perturbatorem notorium ... simoniacum, perjurum, incorrigibilem, schismaticum, a fide devium, pertinacem haereticum, dilapidatorem jurium et bonorum ecclesiae, inutilem et damnosum ad administrationem romani pontificii, etc., Mansi, XXIX. 180.
334 Mirbt gives it in part, Quellen, p. 160.
335 H. Manger, D. Wahl Amadeos v. Savoyen zum Papste, Marburg, 1901, p. 94. Sigismund, in 1416, raised the counts of Savoy to the dignity of dukes.
336 Given in Mirbt, p. 165 sqq.
337 In his bull Ut pacis, 1449, recognizing the Lausanne act in his favor, Nicolas V. called Amadeus "his venerable and most beloved brother," and spoke of the Basel-Lausanne synod as being held under the name of an oecumenical council, sub nomine generalis concilii, Labbaeus, XII. 663, 665.
338 Sess. XI. romanum pontificem tanquam super omnia conciliaauctoritatem habentem, conciliorum indicendorum transferendorum «e dissolvendorum plenum jus et potestatem habere. This council at the same time pronounced the Council of Basel a "little council," conciliabulum, "or rather a conventicle," conventicula. Mansi, XXXII. 967.
339 Hefele-Knöpfler, Kirchengesch., p. 477.
340 Richental, Chronik, p. 113, has a notice of their arrival.
341 So Hefele-Knöpfler, Kirchengesch., p. 476; Hergenröther-Kirsch, II. 949; Funk, Kirchengesch., p. 377. Pastor, II. 307, says, "Die politische Nothlage brachte endlich die Griechen zum Nachgeben."
342 An account of the emperor’s arrival and entertainment at Venice is given in Mansi, XXXI. 463 sqq.
343 Dilectissimus filius noster Romaeorum imperator Cum piissimmo fratre nostro, Josepho Const. patriarcha, Mansi, XXXI. 481.
344 So Syrophulos. See Hefele Conciliengesch., VII. 672.
345 Hergenröther-Kirsch, II. 949, lays stress upon the Greek readiness to accept alms.
346 Aeternaliter et substantialiter tanquam ab uno principio et causa. The statement ex patre et filio and ex patre per filium were declared to be identical in meaning.
347 Diffinimus sanctam apostol. sedem et Romanam pontificem in universum orbem tenere primatum et ipsum pontificem Romanum successorem esse B. Petri principis apostolorum, et verum Christi vicarium, totiusque ecclesiae caput, et omnium Christianorum patrem et doctorem existere, etc. Mansi, XXXI. 1697.
348 Quemadmodum et in gestis oecumenicorum conciliorum et in sacris canonibus continetur. The change placed an etiam in the place of the first et, so that the clause ran quemadmodum etiam in gestis, etc. See Döllinger-Friedrich, D. Papstthum, pp. 170, 470 sq. Döllinger says that in the Roman ed. of 1626 the Ferrara council was called the 8th oecumenical.
349 The document, together with the signatures, is given in Mansi, pp. 1028-1036, 1695-1701. Hefele-Knöpfler, Conciliengesch., VII. 742-753, has regarded it of such importance as to give the Greek and Latin originals in full, and also a German translation.
350 See Mansi, XXXI. 1047 sqq.; Hefele-Knöpfler, VII. 788 sqq. The only meeting since between Greeks and Western ecclesiastics of public note was at the Bonn Conference, 1875, in which Döllinger and the Old-Catholics took the most prominent part. Dr. Philip Schaff and several Anglican divines also participated. See Creeds of Christendom, I. 545-554, and Life of Philip Schaff, pp. 277-280.
351 Seeberg gives a good deal of attention to Biel in his Dogmengeschichte. Stöckl carries the history of scholasticism down to Cardinal Cajetan, who wrote a commentary on Thomas Aquinas’ Summatheologica, and includes the German mystics, Eck, Luther, etc., who clearly belong in another category. Professor Seth, in art. Scholasticism in the Enc. Brit., and Werner, close the history with Francis Suarez, 1617. The new age had begun a hundred years before that time.
352 Terminus prolatus vel scriptus nihil significat nisi secundum voluntariam institutionem. Ockam, as quoted by Stöckl, II. 962.
353 Chartul. II. 485. Also p. 507, etc.
354 Naturalis philosophiae non est scire quid Aristoteles vel alii philosophi senserunt sed quid habet veritas rerum, quoted by Deutsch, p. 97. Durandus’ commentary on the sentences of the Lombard was publ. Paris, 1508, 1515, etc. See Deutsch, art. Durandus, in Herzog, V. 95-104.
355 Schwab: J. Gerson, p. 312.
356 It lasted four years, Müller,Ludwig der Baier, p. 208.
357 Nullum universale est aliqua substantia extra animam existens, quoted by Seeberg, in Herzog, p. 269. Quoddam fictum existens objective in mente. Werner, 115. The expression objective in mente is equivalent to our word subjective.
358 Imperialis dignitas et potestas est immediate a solo Deo. Goldast, IV. 99, Frankf. ed. See also Dorner, p. 675.
359 Kropatscheck, p. 55 sq., Matt. 30:26 sqq. Clement VI. declared Ockam had sucked his political heresies from Marsiglius of Padua.
360 See Riezler, p. 273, and Seeberg, pp. 271, 278, Christianus de necessitate salutis non tenetur ad credendum nec credere quod nec in biblia continetur nec ex solis contentis in biblia potest consequentia necessaria et manifesta inferri.
361 Romana ecclesia est distincta a congregatione fidelium et potest contra fidem errare. Ecclesiae autem universalis errare non potest. See Kropatscheck p. 65 sqq., and also Dorner, p. 696.
362 See Werner, III. 120, who quotes Scaliger as saying of Ockam, omnium mortalium subtillissimus, cujus ingenium vetera subvertit, nova ad invictas insanias et incomprehensibiles subtilitates fabricavit et conformavit.
363 See Werner, D. hl. Thomas, III. 111; Harnack, Dogmengesch., III. 494; Seeberg, 276.
364 For example, Kropatscheck, especially p. 66 sqq., and Seeberg, p. 289.
365 Weimar, ed. VI. 183, 195, 600, as quoted by Seeberg.
366 Gardner, p. vii; Gregorovius, VI. 521 sqq.
367 Scudder, Letters, pp. 100, 121, 136, 179, 184, 234, etc.
368 Gardner, p. 298, says one of the two houses is still shown where they dwelt.
369 None of these are in her own hand, but six of them are originals as they were written down at her dictation. Gardner, p. xii., 373 sqq.
370 Letters, pp. 54, 65, 75, 110, 158, 164, 226, 263, 283, etc.
371 Letters, pp. 43, 162, 152, 149.
372 Scudder, Letters, pp. 81, 84, 126 sq.; Gardner, Life, p. 377.
373 Letters, p. 133.
374 Letters, pp. 66, 185, 232, etc.
375 Döllinger, Fables and Prophecies of the Middle Ages, p. 330, calls attention to the failure of Catherine’s predictions to reach fulfilment. "How little have these longings of the devout maiden of Siena been transformed into history!"
376 Tschackert, Salembier and Finke consider D’Ailly under the three aspects of theologian, philosopher and ecclesiastical diplomatist. Lenz and Bess emphasize the part he played as an advocate of French policy against England..
377 Epistola diaboli Leviathan. Tschackert gives the text, Appendix, pp. 15-21.
378 These judgments are expressed in the Capita agendorum, a sort of programme for the guidance of the council prepared by D’Ailly, 1414. Finke, Forschungen, pp. 102-132, has no doubt that they proceeded from D’Ailly’s pen, a view confirmed by MSS. in Vienna and Rome. Finke gives a résumé of the articles, the original of which is given by van der Hardt., II. 201 sqq. and Mansi, XXVII. 547.
379 Tschackert, p. 295.
380 Tschackert gives an estimate of D’Ailly’s writings, pp. 303-335.
381 See Fiske, Discovery of America, I. 372.
382 Schwab, p. 51.
383 Schwab, p. 59.
384 In scriptura sacra neque continetur explicite neque in contentis eadem educitur evidenter, Du Pin’s ed. III. 1350. For sermons on the conception, nativity and annunciation of the Virgin’ vol. III. 1317-1377. Also III. 941, and Du Pin’s Gersoniana, I. cviii. sq.
385 Potest absque papa mortali stare salus, Du Pin, II. 72. The Tarascon sermon is given by Du Pin Pin, II. 54-72. Schwab’s analysis, pp. 171-178.
386 See Schwab, pp. 520 sqq., 668.
387 In a sermon before the Council of Constance, Du Pin, II. 207.
388 Dialog. apologet., Du Pin, II. 387
389 Ad punitionem et exterminationem errantium, Du Pin, II. 277.
390 See Schwab, pp. 599, 601.
391 Contra heresin de communione laicorum sub utraque specie, Du Pin, I. 457-468. See Schwab, p. 604 sqq.
392 Quod virtus hujus sacramenti non principalius in consecratione quam in sumptione, Du Pin, I. 467.
393 Vol. V. of Gerson’s works is taken up with documents bearing on this subject. Gerson’s addresses, bearing upon it at Constance, are given in vol. II. See Schwab, p. 609 sqq., and Bess, Zur Geschichte, etc. The Chartularium, IV. 261-285, 325 sqq., gives the nine propositions in French, with Gerson’s reply, and other matter pertaining to the controversy.
394 Schwab, p. 620.
395 Mansi, XXVII. 765, Quilibet tyrannus potest et debet licite et meritorie occidi per quemcumque ... non expectata sententia vel mandato judicis cuiuscumque. For D’Ailly’s part, see Tschackert, pp. 235-247.
396 Gerson’s mysticism is presented in such tracts as De vita spirituali animae and De monte contemplationis, Du Pin, III. 1-77, 541-579.
397 In his De probatione spirituum, Du Pin, I. 37-43; and De distinctione verarum visionum a falsis, Du Pin, I. 43-59.
398 De examinatione doctrinarum. Du Pin, I. 7-22.
399 Si propositio aliqua J. scripturae posita assertive per auctorem suum, qui est Sp. sanctus, esset falsa. tota s. scripturae vacillaret auctoritas, quoted by Schwab, p. 314.
400 Gerson hatte seine einflussreiche Stellung vorzugsweise dem Rufe zu danken den er als Prediger genoss, Schwab, p. 376.
401 See Schwab, p. 773, who neither accepts nor rejects the tradition. Dr. Philip Schaff used to bring the last literary activity of President Theodore D. Wolsey, of Yale College, into comparison with the activity of Gerson. In his last years Dr. Wolsey wrote the expositions of the Sunday school lessons for the Sunday School Times.
402 De parvulis ad Christum trahendis, written according to Schwab, 1409-1412, Du Pin, III. 278-291.
403 Opusculum tripartitum: de preceptis decalogi, de confessione, et de arte moriendi, Du Pin, I., 425-450. Bess, in Herzog, VI. 615, calls it "the first catechism."
404 The first complete edition of Gerson’s writings appeared from the press of John Koelhoff. 4 vols. Cologne, 1483, 1484. The celebrated preacher, Geiler of Strassburg, edited a second edition 1488.
405 Schwab, p. 779, note.
406 The spelling given by Denifle in the Chartularium.
407 Chartul. III. pp. 5, xi. In the Chartularium Clamanges always appears as a member of the faculty of the arts, III. 606, etc.
408 Chartul., III 617-624.
409 Taedebat me vehementer curiae, taedebat turbae, taedebat tumultus, taedebat ambitionis et morum in plerisque vitiosorum, he wrote. Quoted by Knöpfler.
410 Quid aliud sunt hoc tempore puellarum monasteria, nisi quaedam, non dico Dei sanctuaria sed execranda prostibula Veneris ... ut idem hodie sit puellam velare quod ad publice scortandum exponere, Hardt, I. 38.
411 Eccles. prius humilianda quam erigenda. The authorship of the De ruina has been made a matter of dispute. Müntz denied it to Clamanges chiefly on the ground of its poor Latin and Knöpfler is inclined to follow him. On the other hand Schuberth and Schwab, followed somewhat hesitatingly by Bess, accept the traditional view, Schwab brings out the similarity between the De ruina and Clamanges’ other writings and takes the view that, while the tract was written in 1401 or 1402, it was not published till 1409.
412 Mitto stuprum, raptus, incestus, adulteria, qui jam pontificalis lasciviae ludi sunt, quoted by Lea. Sacerd. Celibacy, I. 426. Gillis li Muisis, abbot of St. Martin di Tournai, d. 1352, in the Recollections of his Life written a year before his death, speaks of good wines, a good table, fine attire and above all holidays as in his day the chief occupations of monks. Curés and chaplains had girls and women as valets, a troublesome habit over which there was murmuring, and it had to be kept quiet. See C. V. Lang
413 Jan. 16, 1412. Under the name of E. Leboorde. For the document, see English Historical Review, 1904, p. 96 sq.
414 Hardt, I. 104 sqq. The lament is put into the mouth of Christ.
415 John of Turrecremata, d. 1468, whose tract on the seat of authority in the Church—Summa de Eccles. et ejus auctoritate —1450 has already been referred to, took the extreme ultramontane position. The papal supremacy extends to all Christians throughout the world and includes the appointment of all bishops and right to depose them, the filling of all prelatures and benefices whatsoever and the canonizing of saints. As the vicar of Christ, he has full jurisdiction in all the earth in temporal as well as spiritual matters because all jurisdiction of secular princes is derived from the pope quod omnium principum saecularum jurisdictionalis potestas a papa in eos derivata sit. Quoted from Gieseler, III. 5, pp. 219-227.
416 Hist. of Fred. III., 409, Germ. transl. II. 227.
417 Fides est habitus bonus, per bonitatem data a deo, ut per fidem restaurentur illae veritates objectivae, quas intellectus attingere non potest, quoted by Schwane, p. 100.
418 Janssen, I. 2-6. Here we come for the first time into contact with this author whose work has gone through 20 editions and made such a remarkable sensation. Its conclusions and methods of treatment will be referred to at length farther on. Here it is sufficient to call attention to the seductive plausibility of the work, whose purpose it is to show that an orderly reformation was going on in the Church in Germany when Luther appeared and by his revolutionary and immoral tendency brutally rived the unity of the Church and checked the orderly reformation. Such a conclusion is a result of the manipulation of historic materials and the use of superlatives in describing men and influences which were like rills in the history of the onward progress of religion and civilization. The initial comparison between Gutenberg and Nicolas of Cusa begs the whole conclusion which Janssen had in view in writing his work. Of the permanent consequence of the work of the inventor of the printing-press, no one has any doubt. The author makes a great jump when he asserts a like permanent influence for Nicolas in the department of religion.
419 Diario, p. 25. For Bernardino, see Thureau-Dangin, St. Bernardin de Sienne. Un prédicateur populaire Paris, 1896. Several edd. of his sermons have appeared, including the ed. of Paris, 1650, 5 vols., by De la Haye.
420 See Pastor, I. 231-233.
421 Jacob, I. 30 sq. For John’s life, see E. Jacob, John of Capistrano. His Life and Writings, 2 vols., Breslau, 1906, 1907. Pastor, I. 463-468, 691-698; Lempp’s art. in Herzog, III. 713 sqq.; Lea, Inquisition, II 552 sqq.
422 Yea, 60,000 at Erfurt. Jacob, I. 74.
423 See Jacob, I. 50 sqq., etc. Aeneas Sylvius said he had not seen any of John’s miracles, but would not deny them. In Jena alone John healed thirty lame persons. Jacob, I. 69.
424 Lea: Inquisition. II. 156, 176, 258, 264.
425 Razanno, a fellow-Dominican, wrote the first biography of Ferrer, 1466. The Standard Life is by P. Fages, Hist. de s. Vinc. Ferrer apôtre de l’Europe, 2 vols., 2d ed., Louvain, 1901. The best life written by a Protestant is by L. Heller, Berlin, 1830. It is commended in Wetzer-Welte, XII. 978-983.
426 For German preaching in the fourteenth century, other than that of the mystics, see Linsenmeyer, Gesch. der Predigt in Deutschland his zum Ausgange d. 14ten Jahrh., Munich, 1886, pp. 301-470; Cruel:Gesch. d. deutschen Predigt im M A., p. 414 sqq.; A. Franz: Drei deutsche Minoritenprediger des XIIten und XIVten Jahrh., Freiburg, 1907, pp. 160. The best-known German preachers were the Augustinians Henry of Frimar, d. 1340, and Jordan of Quedlinburg, d. about 1375. See for the fifteenth century, ch. IX.
427 See Inge, Engl. Mystics, p. 37. This author, in his Christian Mysticism, p. 5, gives the definition that mysticism is "the attempt to realize in the thought and feeling the immanence of the temporal in the eternal and of the eternal in the temporal." His statements in another place, The Inner Way, pp. xx-xxii, are more simple and illuminating. The mystical theology is that knowledge of God and of divine things which is derived not from observation or from argument but from conscious experience. The difficulty of giving a precise definition of mysticism is seen in the definitions Inge cites, Christian Mysticism, Appendix A. Comp. Deutsch, p. 632 sq
428 It is quite in keeping with this contrast that Pfleiderer, in his Religionsphilosophie, excludes the German mystics from a place in the history of German philosophy on the ground that their thinking was not distinctly systematic. He, however, gives a brief statement to Eckart, but excludes Jacob Boehme.
429 Dogmengesch., p. 631.
430 Nicoll, Garden of Nuts, p. 31, says, "We study the mystics to learn from them. It need not be disguised that there are great difficulties in the way. The mystics are the most individual of writers," etc.
431 See Preger, I. 8, and Ullmann, Reformatoren, II. 203. Harnack goes far when he denies all originality to the German mystics. Of Eckart he says, Dogmengesch. III. 378, "I give no extracts from his writings because I do not wish to seem to countenance the error that the German mystics expressed anything we cannot read in Origen, Plotinus, the Areopagite, Augustine, Erigena, Bernard and Thomas Aquinas, or that they represented a stage of religious progress." The message they announced was certainly a fresh one to their generation, even if all they said bad been said before. They spoke from the living sources of their own spiritual experience. They were not imitators. Harnack, however, goes on to give credit to the German mystics for fulfilling a mission when he says they are of invaluable worth for the history of doctrine and the church history of Germany. In the same connection he denies the distinction between mysticism and scholastic theology." Mysticism," he asserts, "cannot exist in the Protestant Church, and the Protestant who is a mystic and does not become a Roman Catholic is a dilettante." This condemnation is based upon the untenable premise that mysticism is essentially conventual, excluding sane intellectual criticism and a practical out-of-doors Christianity.
432 Eckart’s name is written in almost every conceivable way in the documents. See Büttner, p. xxii, as Eckardus, Eccardus, Egghardus; Deutsch and Delacroix, Eckart; Pfeiffer, Preger, Inge and Langenberg, Eckhart; Denifle and Büttner, Eckehart. His writings give us scarcely a single clew to his fortunes. Quiétif-Echard was the first to lift the veil from portions of his career. See Preger, I. 325.
433 Deutsch, Herzog, V. 149, says that parts of Eckart’s sermons might serve as models of German style to-day.
434 Flacius Illyricus includes the second Mechthild in his Catal. veritatis. For the lives of these women and the editions of their works, see Preger, I. 71-132, and the artt. of Deutsch and Zöckler in Herzog. Some of the elder Mechthild’s predictions and descriptions seem to have been used by Dante. See Preger, p. 103 sq. Mechthild v. Magdeburg: D. fliessende Licht der Gottheit, Berlin, 1907.
435 Die sieben Vorregeln der Tugend andder Spiegel der Tugend, both given by Pfeiffer, together with other tracts, the genuineness of some of which is doubted. See Preger, I. 268-283, and Lempp in Herzog, IV. 503 sq.
436 Denifle, Archiv, etc., II. 240, 529.
437 Till the investigations of Denifle, his place of birth was usually given as Strassburg. See Denifle, p. 355.
438 Ego magister Ekardus, doctor sac. theol., protestor ante omnia, quod omnem errorem in fide et omnem deformitatem in moribus semper in quantum mihi possibile fuit, sum detestatus, etc. Preger, I. 475-478. Preger, I. 471 sqq., gives the Latin text of Eckart’s statement of Jan. 24, 1327, before the archiepiscopal court, his public statement of innocence in the Dominican church and the document containing the court’s refusal to allow his appeal to Rome.
439 The 26 articles, as Denifle has shown, were based upon Eckart’s Latin writings. John’s bull is given by Preger, I. 479-482, and by Denifle, Archiv, II. 636-640. Preger, I. 365 sqq., Delacroix, p. 238 and Deutsch, V. 145, insist that Eckart made no specific recantation. The pope’s reference must have been to the statement Eckart made in the Dominican church, which contained the words, "I will amend and revoke in general and in detail, as often as may be found opportune, whatever is discovered to have a less wholesome sense, intellectum minus sane.
440 Büttner, p. 14; Pfeiffer, p. 192, etc.
441 Pfeiffer, 216.
442 p. 384.
443 Denifle lays down the proposition that Eckart is above all a Schoolman, and that whatever there is of good in him is drawn from Thomas Aquinas. These conclusions are based upon Eckart’s Latin writings. Deutsch, V. 15, says that the form of Eckart’s thought in the Latin writings is scholastic, but the heart is mystical. Delacroix, p. 277 sqq., denies that Eckart was a scholastic and followed Thomas. Wetzer-Welte, IV. 11, deplores as Eckart’s defect that he departed from "the solid theology of Scholasticism" and took up Neo-Platonic vagaries. If Eckart had been a servile follower of Thomas, it is hard to understand how he should have laid himself open in 28 propositions to condemnation for heresy.
444 Harnack and, in a modified way, Delacroix and Loofs, regard Eckart’s theology as a reproduction of Erigena, Dionysius and Plotinus. Delacroix, p. 240, says, sur tous les points essentiels, il est d’accord avec Plotin et Proclus. But, in another place, p. 260, he says Eckart took from Neo-Platonism certain leading conceptions and "elaborated, transformed and transmuted them." Loofs, p. 630, somewhat ambiguously says, Die ganze Eckehartsche Mystik ist verständlich als eine Erfassung der thomistischen und augustinischen Tradition unter dem Gesichtswinkel des Areopagiten.
445 Pfeiffer, pp. 254, 540.
446 Pfeiffer, p. 268. The following page is an instance of Eckart’s abstruseness in definition. He says God’s einveltigin Natur ist von Formen formelos, von Werdenen werdelos, von Wesenen weselos und ist von Sachen sachelos. Pfeiffer, p. 497.
447 Pfeiffer, pp. 282, 311, 579.
448 In dem Vater sind Bilde allerCreaturen, Pfeiffer, pp. 269, 285, etc.
449 Die Seele in ihrem Grunde ist so unsprechlich als Gott unsprechlich ist. Pfeiffer, p. 89.
450 pp. 39, 113, 193, 286, etc. Pfleiderer, p. 6, calls this the soul’s spirit,—der Geist der Seele,—and Deutsch, p. 152, der innerst Seelengrund.
451 pp. 113, 152, 286 487, 530.
452 Die Edelkeit der Seele, Von der Würdgkeit der Seele, Von dem Adel der Seele. Pfeiffer, pp. 382-448.
453 p. 540.
454 pp. 158, 207, 285, 345.
455 pp. 44, 478-488.
456 Pfeiffer, p. 139.
457 Hier ist Gottes Grund mein Grund und mein Grund Gottes Grund. Hier lebe ich aus meinem Eigenen, wie Gott aus seinem Eigenen lebt. Büttner, p. 100
458 Lautere, alles Erschaffenen ledige Abgeschiedenheit. For the sermon, see Büttner, p 9 sqq.
459 Pfeiffer, II. 484.
460 Pfeiffer, pp. 27, 32, 479 sq., 547 sq.
461 Pfeiffer, II. 546, 564, 633, Niht endienent unserin were dar zuo dass uns Got iht gebe oder tuo.
462 Es geht ein Geist evangelischer Freiheit durch Eckart’s Sittenlehre welcher zugleich ein Geist der Freudigkeit ist, Preger, I. 452. See the sermon on Mary, Pfeiffer, pp. 47-53. Also pp. 18-21, 607.
463 Das Auge das da inne ich Gott sehe, das ist selbe Auge da inne mich Gott sieht. Mein Auge und Gottes Auge, das ist ein Auge, und ein Erkennen und ein Gesicht und ein Minnen, Pfeiffer, p. 312.
464 This is well expressed by Lasson in Ueberweg, I. 471. Inge says, p. 150, Eckart’s transparent honesty and his great power of thought, combined with deep devoutness and purity of soul, make him one of the most interesting figures in the history of Christian philosophy.
465 Pfeiffer, II. 155, 390.
466 p. 7. Preger concludes his treatment of Eckart by saying, I. 458, that it was he who really laid the foundations of Christian philosophy. Er erst hat die christliche Philosophie eigentlich begründet.
467 Preger, III. 131. The oldest Strassburg MS. entitles Tauler erluhtete begnodete Lerer. See Schmidt, p. 159. Preger, III. 93, gives the names of a number of persons by the name of Taweler, or Tawler, living in Strassburg.
468 Christina wrote a book entitled Von der Gnaden Ueberlast, giving an account of the tense life led by the sisters in her convent. She declared that the Holy Spirit played on Tauler’s heart as upon a lute, and that it had been revealed to her in a vision that his fervid tongue would set the earth on fire. See Strauch’s art. in Herzog, V. 129 sq. Also Preger, II. 247-251, 277 sqq.
469 Specklin, the Strassburg chronicler, says Tauler spoke "in clear tones, with real fervor. His aim was to bring men to feel the nothingness of the world. He condemned clerics as well as laymen."
470 A translation of the book is given by Miss Winkworth, pp. 1-73. It calls Tattler’s monitor der grosse Gottesfreund im Oberlande. See § 32.
471 One of the sermons, bringing out the influence of the Spirit, based on John 16:7-11, is quoted at length by Archdeacon Hare in his Mission of the Comforter. See also Miss Winkworth, pp. 350 358.
472 Inner Way, pp. 81, 113, 128, 130.
473 Miss Winkworth, pp. 353, 475, etc.
474 Inner Way, p. 200. Miss Winkworth, pp. 345, 360 sqq.
475 Preger, III. 132; Miss Winkworth, p. 348.
476 Preger, III. 131; Miss Winkworth, p. 355.
477 Köstlin, Life of M. Luther, I. 117 sq., 126. Melanchthon, in the Preface to the Franf. ed. of Tauler said: "Among the moderns, Tauler is easily the first. I hear, however, that there are some who dare to deny the Christian teaching of this, highly esteemed man." Beza was of a different mind, and called Tauler a visionary. See Schmidt, p. 160. Preger, III. 194, goes so far as to say that Tauler clearly taught the evangelical doctrine of justification.
478 The Inner Way, p. 57 sqq. 77 sqq.
479 Bihlmeyer, p. 65, decides for 1295 as the probable date of Suso’s birth. Other writers put it forward to 1300.
480 It contains 53 chapters. Diepenbrock’s ed., pp. 137-306; Bihlmeyer’s ed., pp. 1-195. Diepenbrock’s edition has the advantage for the modern reader of being transmuted into modern German.
481 A translation of these definitions is given by Inge, in Light,Life and Love, pp. 66-82..
482 Suso made a revision of his work in Latin under the title Horologium eternoe sapientiae, a copy of which Tauler seems to have had in his possession. Preger, II. 324
483 Bihlmeyer’s ed., p. 13.
484 Autobiog., ch. XIV, Bihlmeyer’s, ed., p. 38
485 Von der ewigen Weisheit, Bihlmeyer’s ed., p. 296 sq.
486 Preger, III. 370; Strauch, p. 205.
487 See Rulman Merswin’s condemnation of the Beguines and Beghards in the Nine Rocks, chs. XIII., XIV.
488 As printed by Preger, III. 417 sq.
489 See the last chapter of R. Merswin’s Nine Rocks.
490 The two leading writings are Das Buch ron den zwei Mannen, an account of the first five years immediately succeeding the author’s conversion, and given in Schmidt’s Nic. von Basel, pp. 205-277, and Das Buch von den fünf Mannen, in which the Oberlander gives an account of his own life and the lives of his friends. For the full list of the writings, see Preger, III. 270 sqq., and Strauch, p. 209 sqq.
491 See Preger, III. 349 sqq. C. Schmidt gives the test, as does also Diepenbrock, H Suso, pp. 505-572
492 l Strauch, p. 208, and others regard Merswin’s works as in large part compilations from Tauler and other writers. Strauch pronounces their contents garrulous—geschwätzig. The Nine Rocks used to be printed with Suso’s works. Merswin’s authorship was established by Schmidt.
493 Rulman hat den Gottesfreund einfach erfunden. Strauch, p. 217.
494 Preger and Schmidt are the chief spokesmen for the historic personality of the man from the Oberland. Rieder has recently relieved Rulman from the stain of forgery, and placed the responsibility upon Nicolas of Löwen, who entered das grüne Wört in 1366. The palaeographic consideration is emphasized, that is, the resemblance between Nicolas’ handwriting and the script of the reputed Oberlander.
495 The extent to which Eckart influenced the mystics of the Lowlands is a matter of dispute. The clergy strove to keep his works from circulation. Langenberg, p. 181, quotes Gerherd Zerbold von Zütphen’s, d. 1398, tract, De libris Teutonicalibus which takes the position that, while wholesome books might be read in the vulgar tongue, Eckart’s works and sermons were exceedingly pernicious, and not to be read by the laity. Langenberg, pp. 184-204, gives descriptions and excerpts from four MSS. of Eckart’s writings in Low German, copied in the convent of Nazareth, near Bredevoorde, and now preserved in the royal library of Berlin, but they do not give Eckart as the author.
496 Engelhardt, pp. 265-297, gives a full statement of the controversy. For Gerson’s letters to Bartholomew and Schoenhofen and Schoenhofen’s letter, see Du Pin, Works of Gerson, pp. 29-82. Maeterlinck, p. 4, refers to the difficulty certain passages in Ruysbroeck’s writings offer to the interpreter.
497 I have followed the German text given by Lambert, pp. 3-160. Selections, well translated into English, are given in Light, Life and Love.
498 See Lambert, pp. 62, 63, etc.
499 Quoted by Galle, pp. 184-224.
500 See Grube, Gerh. Groot, p. 9; Langenberg, p. ix; Pastor, I. 150. The Latin titles of the brotherhood were fratres vitae communis, fratres modernae devotionis, fratres bonae voluntatis, with reference to Luke 11:14, and fratres collationari with reference to their habit of preaching. Groote’s name is spelled Geert de Groote, Gherd de Groet (Langenberg, p. 3), Gerhard Groot (Grube), etc.
501 The title, hammer of the heretics,—malleus hereticorum,—was applied to him for his defence of the orthodox teaching. For the application of this expression, see Hansen, Gesch. des Hexenwahns, p. 361. On Groote’s fame as a preacher, see Grube, p. 14 sqq., 23. Thomas à Kempis vouches for Groote’s popularity as a preacher. See Kettlewell, I. 130-134. Among his published sermons is one against the concubinage of the clergy—de focaristis. For a list of his printed discourses, see Herzog, VII., 692 sqq., and Langenberg, p. 35 sqq.
502 See Grube, p. 88, and Schulze, p. 492 sqq., who gives a succinct history of 18 German houses and 20 houses in the Lowlands. The last to be established was at Cambray, 1505.
503 Writing of Radewyn, Thomas à Kempis, Vita Florentii, ch. XIV., says that work was most profitable to spiritual advancement, and adapted to hold in check the lusts of the flesh. One brother who was found after his death to be in possession of some money, was denied prayer at his burial.
504 Uhlhorn, p. 373, gives the case of such an objector, a certain man by the name of Ketel of Deventer. Also Langenberg, p. x.
505 See Schmid, Gesch. d. Erziehung vom Anfang his auf unsere Zeit, Stuttgart, 1892, II. 164-167; Hirsche in Herzog, II 759; Pastor’s high tribute, I. 152; and Langenberg, p. ix.
506 Kettlewell, I. 111.
507 Thos. à Kempis, Vita Gerard. XVIII. 11; Kettlewell I. 166. A life of a cleric he declared to be the people’s Gospel—vita clerici evangelium populi.
508 See Langenberg, p. 51.
509 See Ullman, II. 82, 115 sq. Schulze, p. 190, is not so clear on this point. Kettlewell, II. 440 says that the Brothers were "the chief agents in pioneering the way for the Reformation."
510 See Langenberg. The poem he gives on the
dance, 68 sqq., begins—
Hyr na volget eyn lere schone
Teghen dantzen unde van den meybome.
Here follows a nice teaching against dancing and the May tree. One reason given against dancing was that the dancers stretched out their arms, and so showed disrespect to Christ, who stretched out his arms on the cross. One of the documents is a letter in which a monk warns his niece, who had gone astray, against displays of dress and bold gestures, intended to attract the attention of young men, especially on the Cathedral Square. With the letter he sent his niece a book of devotional literature.
511 Van der Hardt, Conc. Const., III. 107-121, gives Grabon’s charges, the judgments of D’Ailly and Gerson and the text of Grabon’s retraction.
512 De Wette, Luther’s Letters, Nos. 1448, 1449, vol. IV., pp. 358 sqq.
513 Art. The Worldly Wisdom of Thos. à Kempis, in Dublin Review, 1908, pp. 262-287.
514 System. Theol., I. 79. For Gladstone’s judgment, see Morley, II. 186. Butler, p. 191, gives a list of 33 English translations from 1502-1900. De Quincey said: "The book came forward in answer to the sighing of Christian Europe for light from heaven. Excepting the Bible in Protestant lands, no book known to man has had the same distinction. It is the most marvellous biblical fact on record." Quoted by Kettlewell, I.
515 Backer, in his Essai bibliogr., enumerates 545 Latin editions, and about 900 editions in French. There are more than 50 editions belonging to the fifteenth century. See Funk, p. 426. The Bullingen collection, donated to the city library of Cologne, 1838, contained at the time of the gift 400 different edd. Montmorenci, p. xxii sq., gives the dates of 29 edd., 1471-1503, with places of issue.
516 Corneille produced a poetical translation in French, 1651. A polyglot edition appeared at Sulzbach, 1837, comprising the Latin text and translations in Italian, French, German, Greek and English.
517 Hirsche discovered the rhythm and made it known, 1874.
518 This is Milman’s judgment. Hist. of Lat. Christ., Bk. XIV., 3, Milman said, "The book’s sole, single, exclusive object is the purification, the elevation of the individual soul, of the man absolutely isolated from his kind, of the man dwelling alone in the heritage of his thoughts."
519
Mirum
est, si non lugeat
Experimento
qui probat
Quod vivere in
soeculo
Labor, dolor,
afflictio.
Blume and Dreves: Analecta hymnica, XLVIII. 503. Thomas à Kempis’ hymns are given Blume and Dreves, XLVIII. 475-514.
520 In omnibus requiem quaesivi et non inveni nisi in een huechsken met een buexken. Franciscus Tolensis is the first to ascribe the portrait to à Kempis. Kettlewell’s statements about à Kempis’ active religious services are imaginary, I. 31, 322, etc. See Lindsay’s statement, Enc. Brit., XIV. 32.
521 Pohl’s ed., II. 1-59; V. 1-363.
522 De disciplina claustralium, Pohl’s ed., II. 313. For prayers to Mary III. 355-368 and sermons on Mary, VI. 218-238.
523 Pohl, III. 357; VI. 219, 235 sq.
524 III. 317-322.
525 The best German ed., Stuttgart, 1858. The text is taken from Pfeiffer’s ed., Strassburg, 1851, 3d ed. unchanged; Gütersloh, 1875, containing Luther’s Preface of 1518 and the Preface of Joh. Arndt, 1632. Pfeiffer used the MS. dated 1497, the oldest in existence. The best Engl. trans., by Susannah Winkworth, from Pfeiffer’s text, London, 1854, Andover, 1856. The Andover ed. contains an Introd. by Miss Winkworth, a Letter from Chevalier Bunsen and Prefaces by Canon Kingsley and Prof. Calvin E. Stowe.
526 Luther’s full title in the edition. of 1518 is Ein Deutsch Theologia, das ist ein edles Büchlein vom rechten Verstande was Adam und Christus sei und wie Adam in uns sterben und Christus in uns erstehen soll. A German theology, that is, a right noble little book about the right comprehension of what Adam and Christ are, and how Adam is to die in us and Christ is to arise. Cohrs in Herzog, XIX. 626, mentions 28 editions as having appeared in High German previous to 1742. Luther’s Prefaces are given in the Weimar ed. of his Works, pp. 153, 376-378.
527 Dr. Calvin E. Stowe said "the book sets forth the essential principle of the Gospel in its naked simplicity," Winkworth’s ed., p. v.
528 Stöckl and other Catholics, though not all, are bitter against the Theologia and charge it with pantheism. Bunsen ranked it next to the Bible. Winkworth’s ed., p. liv.
529 The Ancren Riwle, ed. by J. Morton, Camden series, London, 1853. See W. R. Inge, Studies in Engl. Mystics, London. 1906. p. 38 sqq.
530 C. Horstman, Richard Rolle of Hampole, 2 vols. The Early Engl. Text Soc. publ. the Engl. versions of Misyn, 1896. G. G. Perry edited his liturgy in the vol. giving the York Breviary, Surtees Soc. The poem, Pricke of Conscience, was issued by H. B. Bramley, Oxford, 1884. See Stephen, Dict. Natl. Biog. XLIX. 164-165.
531 The Revelations of Divine Love has been ed. by R. F. S. Cressy, London, 1670, reprinted 1843; by H. Collins, London, 1817, and by Grace Warrack. 3d ed. Lond., 1909. See Inge and Dict. of Natl. Biog.
532 Written in English, the Ladder was translated by the Carmelite friar, Thomas Fyslawe, into Latin. Hylton’s death is also put in 1433.
533 The Ladder of Perfection was printed 1494, 1506, and has been recently ed. by R. E. Guy, London, 1869, and J. B. Dalgairns, London, 1870. See Inge, pp. 81-124; Montmorency, Thomas à Kempis, etc., pp. 138-174; and Dict. of Natl. Biog., XXVI. 435 sqq.
534 Montmorency, p. 69, makes a remark for which, so far as I know, there is no corroborative testimony in the writings of the English Reformers, that "in this English mystical movement—of which a vast unprinted literature survives—is to be found the origin of Lollardism and of the Reformation in England."
535 Mandeville composed his travels in 1356 in French, and then translated out of French into English, that every man of his nation might understand. Trevisa, writing in 1387, said that all grammar schools and English children "leaveth French and construeth and learneth English."
536 See Kriehn, AmHist. Rev., pp. 480, 483.
537 Gascoigne, as quoted by Gairdner: Lollardy and the Reform., I. 262.
538 p. 253
539 His Defensio curatorum contra eos qui privilegatos se dicunt is printed in Goldast, II. 466 sqq. See art. Fitzralph, by R. L. Poole, Dict. of Nat. Biog., XIX. 194-198. Four books of Fitzralph’s De pauperie salvatoris were printed for the first time by Poole in his ed. of Wyclif’s De dominio, pp. 257-477. As for libraries, Fitzralph says that in every English convent there was a grand library. On the other hand, the author of the Philobiblion, Rich. de Bury, charges the friars with losing their interest in books.
540 Wyclif: De verit. scr., I. 30, 109, etc.
541 De causa Dei contra Pelagium et de virtute causarum ad suos Mertinenses, ed. by Sir Henry Saville, London, 1618. For other works, see Seeberg’s art. in Herzog, III. 350, and Stephens in Dict. of Nat. Biog., VI. 188 sq. Also S. Hahn, Thos. Bradwardinus, und seine Lehre von d. menschl. Willensfreiheit, Münster, 1905.
542 See art. by Tait in Dict. of Nat. Biog., LXIII. 225-231.
543 Rolls Series, IV. 559.
544 De eccles., p. 332
545 Walsingham, Hist. Angl., I. 200 sqq., and the pope’s reply, p. 208 sqq. Benedict showed his complete devotion to the French king when he wrote that, if he had two souls, one of them should be given for him. Quoted by Loserth, Stud. Zur Kirchenpol., p. 20.
546 Gee and Hardy, pp. 92-94.
547 For the text of the parliamentary brief and the king’s letter, which was written in French, see Merimuth, p. 138 sqq., 153 sqq., and for Clement’s reply, Bliss, III., 9 sqq.
548 See the texts of these statutes in Gee and Hardy, 103 sqq., 112-123. With reference to the renewal of the act in 1390, Fuller quaintly says: "It mauled the papal power in the land. Some former laws had pared the pope’s nails to the quick, but this cut off his fingers."
549 II. 345; III. 54 sq. Prebend has reference to the stipend, canonry to the office.
550 Bliss, II. 521. Cases of the payment of large sums for appointments to the pope and of the disappointed ecclesiastics-elect are given in Merimuth, pp. 31, 57, 59, 60, 61, 71, 120, 124, 172, etc., Bliss and others. Merimuth, p. 67, etc., refers constant]y to the bribery used by such expressions as causa pecunialiter cognita, and non sine magna pecuniae quantitate. In cases, the pope renounced the right of provision, as Clement V., in 1308, the livings held in commendam by the cardinal of St. Sabina, and valued at 1000 marks. See Bliss, II. 48. For the cases of agents sent by two cardinals to England to collect the incomes of their livings, and their imprisonment, see Walsingham, I. 259
551 Bliss IV. 257.
552 Inter curiales vertitur in proverbium quod Anglici sunt boni asini, omnia onera eis imposita et intolerabilia supportantes. Merimuth, p. 175. To these burdens imposed upon England by the papal see were added, as in Matthew Paris’ times, severe calamities from rain and cold. Merimuth tells of a great flood in 1339, when the rain fell from October to the first of December, so that the country looked like a continuous sea. Then bitter cold setting in, the country looked like one field of ice.
553 Often supposed to be a description of Wyclif.
554 Fasciculi, p. 362.
555 Leland’s Itinerary placed Wyclif’s birth in 1324. Buddensieg and Rashdall prefer 1330. Leland, our first authority for the place of birth, mentions Spresswell (Hipswell) and Wyclif-on-Tees, places a half a mile apart. Wyclif’s name is spelled in more than twenty different ways, as Wiclif, accepted by Lechler, Loserth, Buddensieg and German scholars generally; Wiclef, Wicliffe, Wicleff, Wycleff. Wycliffe, adopted by Foxe, Milman, Poole, Stubbs, Rashdall, Bigg; Wyclif preferred by Shirley, Matthew, Sergeant, the Wyclif Society, the Early English Text Society, etc. The form Wyclif is found in a diocesan register of 1361, when the Reformer was warden of Balliol College. The earliest mention in an official state document, July 26, 1374, gives it Wiclif. On Wyclif’s birthplace, see Shirley, Fasciculi, p. x sqq.
556 A Wyclif is mentioned in connection with all of these colleges. The question is whether there were not two John Wyclifs. A John de Whyteclyve was rector of Mayfield, 1361, and later of Horsted Kaynes, where he died, 1383. In 1365 Islip, writing from Mayfield, appointed a John Wyclyve warden of Canterbury Hall. Shirley, Note on the two Wiclifs, in the Fasciculi, p. 513 sqq., advocated the view that this Wyclif was a different person from our John Wyclif, and he is followed by Poole, Rashdall and Sergeant. Principal Wilkinson of Marlborough College, Ch. Quart. Rev., October, 1877, makes a strong statement against this view; Lechler and Buddensieg, the two leading German authorities on Wyclif’s career, also admit only a single Wyclif as connected with the Oxford Halls.
557 So Lechler, who advances strong arguments in favor of this view. Loserth, who is followed by Rashdall, brings considerations against it, and places Wyclif’s first appearance as a political reformer in 1376. Studien zur Kirchenpol., etc., pp. 1, 32, 35, 44, 60. A serious difficulty with this view is that it crowds almost all the Reformer’s writings into 7 years.
558 John of Gaunt, duke of Lancaster, was the younger brother of the Black Prince. The prince had returned from his victories in France to die of an incurable disease.
559 Chron. Angl., p. 115 sq.
560 Gee and Hardy, p. 105 sqq.
561 Fasc., pp. 242-244.
562 Chron. Angl., p. 395; also Knighton, II. 184 sq.
563 Fasc., p. 104.
564 See Trevelyan, p. 199; Kriehn, pp. 254-286, 458-485.
565 Pref. to Expos. of St. John, p. 225, Parker Soc. ed.
566 Sicut in terrae visceribus includuntur aëret spiritus infecti et ingrediuntur in terrae motum, Fasc., p. 272.
567 Select Engl. Works, III. 503.
568 Gee and Hardy, pp. 108-110.
569 Select Engl. Writings, III. 507-523.
570 Fasc., pp. 272-333. See Shirley, p. xliv.
571 Latin Works, II. 577 sqq.
572 Fasc., p. 341 sq.; Lechler-Lorimer, p. 417, deny the citation. The reply is hardly what we might have expected from Wyclif, confining itself, as it does, rather curtly to the question of the pope’s authority and manner of life. Luther’s last treatment of the pope, Der Papst der Ende-Christ und Wider Christ, is not a full parallel. Wyclif was independent, not coarse.
573 2 The most credible narrative preserved of Wyclif’s death comes from John Horn, the Reformer’s assistant for two years, and was written down by Dr. Thomas Gascoigne upon Horn’s sworn statement. Walden twice makes the charge that disappointment at not being appointed bishop of Worcester started Wyclif on the path of heresy, but there is no other authority for the story, which is inherently improbable. Lies were also invented against the memories of Luther, Calvin and Knox, which the respectable Catholic historians set aside.
574 Bale, in his account of the Examination of Thorpe, Parker Soc. ed., I. 80-81. The biographies of Lewis, Vaughan, Lorimer and Sergeant give portraits of Wyclif. The oldest, according to Sergeant, pp. 16-21, is taken from Bale’s Summary, 1548. There is a resemblance in all the portraits, which represent the Reformer clothed in Oxford gown and cap, with long beard, open face, clear, large eye, prominent nose and cheek bones and pale complexion.
575 A part of the sentence rans, Sancta synodus declarat diffinit et sententiat eumdem J. Wicleff fuisse notorium haereticum pertinacem et in haeresi decessisse ... ordinat corpus et ejus ossa, si ab aliis fidelibus corporibus discerni possint exhumari et procul ab ecclesiae sepultura jactari. Mansi, XXVII. 635.
576 2 Green, in his Hist. of the Engl. People, passes a notable encomium on the "first Reformer," and the late Prof. Bigg, Wayside Sketches, p.131, asserts "that his beliefs are in the main those of the great majority of Englishmen to-day, and this is a high proof of the justice, the clearness and the sincerity of his thoughts." The Catholic historian of England, Lingard, IV. 192, after speaking of Wyclif’s intellectual perversion, refers to him, "as that extraordinary man who, exemplary in his morals, declaimed against vice with the freedom and severity of an Apostle."
577 Op. evang., p. 17, etc., De dom. div., p. 215, etc., De dom. civ., 384 sqq., where the case of Frederick of Lavagna is related at length.
578 Hergenröther, II. 881, speaks of Wyclif’s system as pantheistic realism and fatalism, D. Lehrsystem des Wiclif ist krasser, pantheistischer Realismus, Fatalismus u. Predestianismus.
579 The De dom. civ. and the De dom. div., ed. for the Wyclif Soc. by R. L. Poole, London, 1885, 1890. See Poole’s Prefaces and his essay on Wyclif’s Doctrine of Lordship in his Illustrations, etc., pp. 282-311. TheDialogus, sive speculum ecclesiae militantis, ed. by A. W. Pollard, 1886.
580 Salvator noster noluit esse proprietarie dominans, sed communicative, p. 204.
581 Loserth, Introd. to Lat. sermones, II., p. xx, pronounce their effect extraordinary. The Engl. sermons have been ed. by Arnold, Select Engl. Works, vols, I, II, and the Lat. sermons by Loserth, in 4 vols.
582 Evangelizatio verbi est preciosior quam ministratio alicujus ecclesiastici sacramenti, Op. evang., I. 375. Predicatio verbi Dei est solemnior quam confectio sacramenti, De sac. scr., II. 156. See also Arnold, Engl. Works, III. 153 sq., 464;Serm. Lat., II. 115;De scr. sac., II. 138.
583 Debemus loco miraculorum Christi nos et proximos ad legem Dei convertere. De ver., I. 90; Op. evang., I. 368.
584 See Mansi, XXVII., 632-636, and Mirbt, p. 157 sq.
585 De dom. civ., I. 358. Ecclesia cath. sive Apost. est universitas predestinatorum. De eccles., ed. by Loserth, pp. 2, 5, 31, 94, Engl. Works, III. 339, 447, etc.
586 De eccles., 5, 28 sq., 63, 88, 89, 355, 358, 360.
587 Engl. Works., I. 50.
588 The condemnatory epithets and characterizations are found in the Engl. Works, ed. by Matthew, De papa, pp. 458-487, and The Church and her Members, and The Schism of the Rom. Pontiffs, Arnold’s ed., III. 262 sqq., 340 sqq., the Trialogus, Dialogus, the Latin Sermons, vol. II., and especially the Opus evangelicum, parts of which went under the name Christ and his Adversary, Antichrist. See Loserth’s introductions to Lat. Serm., II. p. iv sq., and Op. evang., vol. II.; also his art. Wiclif’s Lehre, vom wahren, undfalschen Papsttum, Hist Ztschrift, 1907, and his ed. of the De potestate papae. In these last works Loserth presents the somewhat modified view that when Wyclif inveighed against the papacy it was only as it was abused. The De potestate was written perhaps in 1379. His later works show an increased severity.
589 Lat. Serm., IV. 95; De dom. civ., 366-394; De ver. scr., II. 56 sqq.; Dial., p. 25; Op. evang., I. 38, 92, 98, 382, 414, II. 132, III. 187; Engl. Works, II. 229 sq., etc.
590 Op. evang., II. 105 sq.; Engl. Works, I. 350 sq.
591 De ver., I. 267; Engl. Works, III. 341 sq.; De Eccles., 189, 365 sqq.; Op. Evang., III. 188.
592 Engl. Works, III. 320. Letter to Urban VI., Fasc. ziz., p. 341; Engl. Works, III. 504-506.
593 His De eucharistia et poenitentia sive de confessione elaborates this subject. See also Engl. Works, I. 80, III. 141, 348, 461.
594 De eccles., p. 162; De ver. scr., II. 1-99. Omne mendacium est per se peccatum sed nulla circumstantia potest rectificare, ut peccatum sit non peccatum, De ver., II. 61.
595 Engl. Works, III. 420 sqq.; Op. evang., II. 40; Lat. serm., IV. 62, 121, etc.
596 See the tract Of Feigned Contemplative Life in Matthew, pp. 187, 196; De eccles., p. 380; Lat. Serm., II. 112.
597 Lat. serm., II. 84; Trial., IV. 33; Engl. Works, III. 348; Dial., pp. 13, 65, etc.
598 Ab isto scandaloso et derisibili errore de quidditate hujus sacramenti, pp. 52, 199.
599 Corpus Chr. est dimensionaliter in coelo a virtualiter in hostia ut in signo. De euchar., pp. 271, 303. Walden, Fasc. ziz., rightly represents Wyclif as holding that "the host is neither Christ nor any part of Christ, but the effectual sign of him."
600 De euchar., p. 11; Trial., pp. 248, 261.
601 De euch., pp. 78, 81, 182; Engl. Works, III. 520.
602 De veritate Scripturae, ed. by Buddensieg, with Introd., 3 vols., Leip., 1904. The editor, I. p. xci, gives the date as 1387, 1388. Wyclif starts out by quoting Augustine at length, I. 6-16. The treatise contains extensive digressions, as on the two natures of Christ, I. 179 sqq., the salutation of Mary, I. 282 sqq., lying, II. 1-99, Mohammedanism, II. 248-266, the functions of prelates and priests, III. 1-104, etc.
603 lex domini immaculata ... verissima, completissima et saluberrima, I. 156.
604 Illum librum debet omnis christianus adiscere cum sit omnis veritas, I. 109, 138.
605 I. 54. Aliae logicae saepissime variantur ... logica scripturae in eternum stat.
606 I. 22, 29, 188. Christianus philosophiam non discit quia Aristotelis sed quia autorum scripturae sac. et per consequens tamquam suam scientiam quo in libris theologiae rectius est edocta.
607 I. 151, 200, 394, 408; Lat. serm., 179; De eccles., 173, 318, etc.
608 Tota scrip. est unum magnum Verbum Dei., I. 269. Autores nisi scribae vel precones ad scrib. Dei legem. I. 392. Also I. 86, 156, 198, 220 sqq., III. 106 sqq., 143.
609 Falsitas in proposito est in false intelligente et non in Scrip. sac., p. 193. Nulli alii in quoquam credere nisi de quanto se fundaverit ex script. I. 383. De civ. dom., p. 394.
610 De ver., 114, 119, 123. Sensus literalis script. est utrobique verus, p. 73. Solum ille est sensus script. quem deus et beati legunt in libro vitae qui est uni talis et alteri viatoribus, semper verus, etc., p. 126.
611 Oportet conclusiones carnis et seculi me deserere et sequi Christum in pauperie si debeam coronari, I. 357. Also II. 129-131. In view of the above statement, it is seen how utterly against the truth Kropatschek’s statement is, Man wird den Begriff Vorreformatoren getrost in die historische Rumpelkammer werfen können, we may without further thought cast the idea of Reformers before the Reformation into the historical rag bag. The remark he makes after stating how little the expression sola scriptura meant in the mouths of mediaeval reformers. See Walter In Litzg., 1905, p. 447.
612 Illum librum debet omnis Chriatianus adiscere cum sit omnis veritas. De ver., I. 109. Fideles cujuscunque generis, fuerint clerici vel laici, viri vel feminae, inveniunt in ea virtutem operandi, etc., pp. 117, 136. Op. evang., II. 36.
613 Matthew, Sel. Works, p. 429 sq.
614 The text pub. Cambr., 1902 and 1905, by Anna C. Paues: A Fourteenth Engl. Bible Vs.
615 The Holy Bible, containing the Old and New Testaments with the Apocryphal Books, in the earliest English Versions made from the Vulgate by John Wycliffe and his Followers. 4 vols., Oxford, 1850. The work cost 22 years of labor. It contains Purvey’s Prologue and an exhaustive Preface by the editors. Purvey’s New Test. had been printed by John Lewis, London, 1781, and reprinted by Henry Baber, Lond., 1810, and in the Bagster English Hexapla, Lond., 1841. Adam Clarke had published Wyclif’s version of the Canticles in his Commentary, 3rd vol., 1823, and Lea Wilson, Wyclif’s New Test., Lond., 1848.
616 Commune aeternum. It is hard to give the exact rendering of these words. Knighton goes on to refer to William of St. Amour, who said of some that they changed the pure Gospel into another Gospel, the evangelium aeternum or evangelium Spiritus sancti. Knighton, Chronicle, II. 151 sq.
617 Novae ad suae malitiae complementum Scripturarum in linguam maternam translationis practica adinventa. Wilkins, III. 350.
618 More’s Works, p. 240, quoted by Gairdner, I. 112.
619 See Forshall and Madden, p. xxxii, and Eadie, pp. 90-94.
620 Buddensieg, Introd. to De ver., pp. xxxii, xxxviii.
621 See De ver. scr., I. 209, 212, 214, 260, II. 234. He made a distinction between the material and formal principles when he spoke of the words of Christ as something materiale, and the inner meaning as something formale. Buddensieg, p. xlv, says Wyclif had a dawning presentiment of justifying faith. According to Poole, he stated the doctrine in other terms in his treatment of lordship. Rashdall, Dict. Natl. Biog., LXIII. 221, says that, apart from the doctrine of justification by faith, there is little in the teachings of the 16th cent. which Wyclif did not anticipate.
622 Summus philos., immo summa philosophia est Christus, deus noster, quem sequendo et discendo sumus philosophi. De ver. scr., I. 32.
623 De ver. scr., I. 346 sqq. See Loserth, Kirchenpolitik, pp. 2, 112 sq. Buddensieg, De ver. scr., p. viii, says, Was er war wissen wir, nicht wie er es geworden. We know what he was, but not how he came to be what he was. See, for a Rom. Cath. judgment, Hergenröther-Kirsch, II. 878, who finds concentrated in Wyclif the false philosophy of the Waldenses and the Apocalypties, of Marsiglius and Ockam.
624 Melanchthon, in a letter to Myconius, declared that Wyclif was wholly ignorant of the doctrine of justification, and at another time he said he had foolishly mixed up the Gospel and politics.
625 In 1382 Repyngdon was called Lollardus de secta Wyclif, and Peter Stokes was referred to as having opposed the "Lollards and the sect of Wyclif," Fasc., 296. Knighton, II. 182, 260, expressly calls the Wycliffians Lollards, Wycliviani qui et Lollardi dicti sunt.
626 Fredericq, I. 172. A certain Matthew, whose bones were exhumed and burnt, is called Mattaeus Lollaert. Fred., I. 250. For documents associating the Lollards with other sectarists, see Fred., I. 228, II. 132, 133, III. 46, etc.
627 So Jan Hocsem of Liége, d. 1348, who in his
Gesta pontiff. Leodiensium says, eodem anno (1309) quidam
hypocritae gyrovagi qui Lollardi sive Deum laudantes vocabuntur, etc.
Fred., I. 154. Chaucer, in his Prologue to the Shipman’s Tale, says:—
This loller here wol prechen us somewhat
He wolde sowen some difficulte
Or sprenge cokkle in our clene corn.
628 Cheyney, p. 436 sqq.
629 Gee and Hardy, pp. 126-132. Fasc., pp. 360-369. See Gairdner, I. 44-46
630 Knighton, II. 191.
631 De comburendo haeretico, Gee and Hardy, pp. 133-137.
632 Knighton, II. 171 sqq., gives the recantation in English, the Fasc., p. 329, in Latin. John Foxe’s accounts of the Lollard martyrs are always quaintly related. Gairdner is the fullest and best of the recent treatments. For his judgment of Foxe, see I. 159, 336 sqq. He ascribes to him accuracy in transcribing documents. The articles in the Dict. of Natl. Biog. are always to be consulted.
633 Gee and Hardy give the sentence and the Fasc. the proceedings of the trial. It is a matter of dispute under what law Sawtré was condemned to the flames. Prof. Maitland, In his Canon Law, holds that It was under the old canon practice as expressed in papal bulls. The statute De comburendo was before parliament at the time of Sawtre’s death.
634 The proceedings are given at great length by Foxe and by Bale, who copied Tyndale’s account. Sel. Works of Bp. Bale, pp. 62-133.
635 Walsingham, II, 244; Knighton, II. 181; Chron. Angl., p. 377.
636 Walsingham, II. 328, says he was hung as a traitor and burnt as a heretic. Usk p. 317 , reports he "was hung on the gallows in a chain of iron after that he had been drawn. He was once and for all burnt up with fierce fire, paying justly the penalty of both swords." The Fasciculi give a protracted account of Sir John’s opinions and trial. Judgments have been much divided about him. Fuller speaks of him "as a boon companion, jovial roysterer and yet a coward to boot." Shakespeare presents him in the character of Falstaff. See Gairdner, I. 97 sq.
637 Summers, p. 67.
638 Loserth, Wiclif and Hus, p. 175.
639 Mitchell: Scottish Reformation, p. 15.
640 Among these works was the Provoker, in which Pecock denied that the Apostles had compiled the Apostles’ Creed. See Introd. to Babington’s Ed. of the Repressor in Rolls Series, and art. Pecock in Dict. Natl. Biog., XLIV. 198-202.
641 Knighton, II. 155, complains of the Lollards having the Scriptures in the vulgar tongue. Such a translation he said the laity regarded as melior et dignior quam lingua latina.
642 So Walsingham, II. 253.
643 Summers, p. 60, speaks of an unpublished Lollard MS. of 37 articles which deal with clerical abuses, such as simony, quarrelling, holding secular offices, oaths, the worship of images, the eucharist and papal authority.
644 Trevelyan, p. 349.
645 The truth of Rokyzana’s statement is denied by Loserth, In Herzog, VIII. 588 sq. On other Bohemian preachers of Huss’ day, see Flajshans, Serm. de Sanctis, p. iv.
646 See Loserth, Wiclif and Hus, p. 70. Wenzel or Wenceslaus IV., surnamed the Lazy, was the son of Charles IV. His second wife was Sophia of Bavaria. His half-brother, Sigismund, succeeded him on the throne.
647 Flajshans: Serm. de Sanctis, p. xxi. Nürnb. ed., I. 135.
648 Workman: Hus’ Letters, pp. 94, 118, 163, 189, 192, 198, 201. The spelling, Hus, almost universally adopted in recent years by German and English writers, has been exchanged by Loserth in his art. in Herzog for Huss, as a form more congenial to the German mode of spelling. For the same reason this volume has adopted the form Huss as more agreeable to the English reader’s eye and more consonant with our mode of spelling. Karl Müller adopts this spelling in his Kirchengeschichte. The exact date of Huss’ birth is usually given as July 6th, 1369, but with insufficient authority. Loserth, Wiclif and Hus, p. 65 sq.
649 De Omni Christi sanguine glorificato, ed. by Flajshans p. 42.
650 See Rashdall: Universities of Europe, I. 211-242. The number of departing students is variously given. The number given above has the authority of Procopius, a chronicler of the 15th century. Only 602 were matriculated at Leipzig the first year, and this figure seems to point to a smaller number than 2000 leaving Prag. Kügelgen, Die Gefängnissbriefe, p. ix, adopts the uureasonable number, 5000.
651 Workman: Hus’ Letters, p. 36.
652 Among the condemned writings, 17 in all, were the Dialogus, Trialogus, De incarnatione Verbi and the De dominio civili.
653 These letters are given by Workman, pp. 51-54.
654 Huss’ reply, Replica, and Stokes’ statement, which called it forth, are given in the Nürnb. ed., I. 135-139.
655 Huss’ tract is entitled De indulgentiis sive de cruciatu papae Joh. XXIII. fulminata contra Ladislaum Apuliae regem. Nürnb. ed., 213-235.
656 Workman: Hus’ Letters.
657 See Huss’ reply, Defensio quorundam articulorum J. Wicleff, and the rejoinder of the Theol. faculty, Nürnb. ed., I. 139-146.
658 Workman: Hus’ Letters, pp. 60, 66.
659 Workman, p. 107-120. Workman translates seventeen letters written from this exile, pp. 83-138.
660 Du Pin, Opp. Gerson., II. 901. The De ecclesia is given in the Nürnb. ed., I. 243-319.
661 Eccl. est omnium praedestinatorum universitas; quae est omnes praedestinati, praesentes, praeteriti et futuri. Nürnb. ed. I., 244.
662 Writing to Christian Prachatitz, in 1413, Huss said, "If the pope is the head of the Roman Church and the cardinals are the body, then they in themselves form the entire Holy Roman Church, as the entire body of a man with the head is the man. The satellites of anti-christ use interchangeably the expressions ’Holy Roman Church’ and ’pope and cardinals’ etc." Workman: Hus’ Letters, p. 121.
663 Propter confessionem tam claram et firmam, dixit Petra Petro, et ego dico tibi quia tu es Petrus, id est confessor Petrae vertae qui est Christus et super hanc Petram quam confessus es, id est, super me, etc., Nürnb. ed., I. 257. Petrus non fuit nec est caput s. eccles. cathol., p. 263. See also the same interpretation in Huss’ Serm. de Sanctis, p. 84.
664 Nürnb. ed., I. 260, 284, 294, etc.
665 Huss also in his Letters repeatedly refers to Joan and Liberius, e.g. he writes, "I should like to know if pope Liberius the heretic, Leo the heretic and the pope Joan, who was delivered of a boy, were the heads of the Roman Church." Workman: Hus’ Letters, p. 125.
666 Nürnb. ed., I. 302.
667 De indulgentiis, Nürnb. ed., pp. 220-228.
668 Loserth wrote his Wicliff and Hus to show the dependence of Huss upon his English predecessor, and the latter half of this work gives proof of it by printing in parallel columns portions of the two authors, compositions. He says, p. 111, that the De ecclesia is only "a meagre abridgement of Wyclif’s work on the same subject." This author affirms that in his Latin tractates Huss "has drawn all his arguments from Wyclif," and that "the most weighty parts are taken word for word from his English predecessor," pp. xiv, 139, 141, 156, etc. Neander made a mistake in rating the influence of Matthias of Janow upon Huss higher than the influence of Wyclif. He wrote before the Wyclif Society began its publications. Even Palacky, in his Church History of Bohemia, III. 190-197, pronounced it uncertain how far Huss was influenced by Wyclif’s writings, and questions whether he had attached himself closely to the English Reformer. The publications of the Wyclif Society, which make a comparison possible, show that one writer could scarcely be more dependent upon another than Huss was upon Wyclif.
669 Workman: Hus’ Letters, p. 36.
670 Van der Hardt, I. 18; Palacky, Docum., pp. 523-528.
671 For these letters and copies of the handbill, see Workman, Hus’ Letters, p. 140 sqq.
672 Huss kept one for himself, thinking it might be necessary for him to ride and see Sigismund. Writing from Constance, Nov. 4th, he said that horses were cheap there. One, bought in Bohemia for 6 guineas, was given away for 7 florins, or one-third the original price. Workman: Letters, p. 158.
673 The charge is reported by Richental, p. 76 sq. His story is invalidated by the false date he gives and also by the testimony of Mladenowitz, who declared it wholly untrue. If there had been any attempt at escape, it would hardly have been allowed to go unnoticed in the trial. See Wylie, p. 139.
674 In an audience with Sigismund, D’Ailly protested that factum J. Hus et alia minora non debebant reformationem eccles. et Bon. imperii impedire quod erat principale pro quo fuerat concilium congregatum. Fillflastre, in Finke, p. 253.
675 On reading a letter in the Bethlehem chapel, Hawlik exclaimed, alas, Hus is running out of paper." And John of Chlum spoke of one of Huss’ letters as being written " on a tattered, three-cornered bit of paper." Workman: Hus’ Letters, p. 196.
676 Workman: Letters, p. 174, 182, 184, 190.
677 See Card. Fillastre’s Diary in Finke’s Forschungen, pp. 164, 179.
678 Utinam anima esset ibi, ubi est anima Joh. Wicleff. Mansi, xxvII. 756.
679 Nos non possumus secundum tuam conscientiam judicare, etc., Palacky, Doc. 278. Tschackert, pp. 225, 235, says D’Ailly would have been obliged to lay aside his purple if he had not resisted Huss’ views. Huss had said of Gerson,O si deus daret tempus scribendi contra mendacia Parisiensis cancellarii, Palacky, Doc. 97. Gerson went so far as to say that Huss was condemned for his realism. See Schwab, pp. 298, 586.
680 See Tschackert p. 230. D’Ailly persisted in this position after he left Constance. Wyclif and Huss remained to him the dangerous heretics, pernitiosi heretici. Van der Hardt, VI. 16.
681 Workman: Hus’ Letters, pp. 226, 289-241.
682 See Workman, pp. 185, 245, 248.
683 Workman, p. 264.
684 Ibid., p. 276.
685 Non vellet abjurare sed millisies comburi, Mansi, XXVII. 764.
686 Ad medium concilii ubi erat levatus in altum scamnum pro eo. Mansi, XXVII. 747.
687 The articles are given in Mansi, pp. 754 sq., 1209-1211, and Hardt, IV. 408-12.
688 Buddenseig, Hus, Patriot and Reformer, p. 11, says, "The whole Hussite movement is mere Wycliffism." Loserth, Wiclif and Hus, p. xvi, says, it was Wyclif’s doctrine principally for which Hus yielded up his life. Invectives flying about in Constance joined their names together. TheMissa Wiclefistarum ran, Credo in Wykleph ducem inferni patronum Boemiae et in Hus filium ejus unicum nequam nostrum, qui conceptus est ex spiritu Luciferi, natus matre ejus et factus incarnatus equalis Wikleph, secundum malam voluntatem et major secundum ejus persecutionem, regnans tempore desolationis studii Pragensis, tempore quo Boemia a fide apostotavit. Qui propter nos hereticos descendit ad inferna et non resurget a mortuis nec habebit vitam eternam. Amen.
689 Note appended to Huss’ writings, ed. 1537. See Huss’ Opp., Prelim. Statement, I. 4. It did not require the study of the modem historian to affirm the view taken above. John Foxe, in his Book of Martyrs, presented it clearly when he said, "By the life, acts and letters of Huss, it is plain that he was condemned not for any error of doctrine, for he neither denied their popish transubstantiation, neither spake against the authority of the church of Rome, if it were well governed, nor yet against the seven sacraments, but said mass himself and in almost all their popish opinions was a papist with them, but only through evil will was he accused because he spoke against the pomp, pride and avarice and other wicked enormities of the pope, cardinals and prelates of the church, etc.
690 Gerson declared that among the causes for which Huss was condemned was that he had affirmed that the Church could be ruled by priests dispersed throughout the world in the absence of one head an well as with one head. Schwab, p. 588.
691 Schwab, pp. 588-599, 600. On the whole subject of Huss’ views Schwab has excellent remarks, p. 596 sqq.
692 See Workman: Age of Hus, pp. 284, 293, 364, and Wylie, p. 175 sqq.
693 Workman: Hus’ Letters, p. 269 sq.
694 Mansi, XXVII. 791, 799. Also Mirbt, p. 156. Lea, Inquisition, II. p. 462 sqq., has an excellent statement of the whole question of Huss’ safe-conduct.
695 Luther declared that a safe-conduct promised to the devil must be kept. See Köstlin, M. Luther, I. 352.
696 John Zacharias, one of the professors of the university at Erfurt, had taken a prominent part in the debates at Constance against Huss, and received as his reward the red rose from the pope. Köstlin, M. Luther, I. 53, 87.
697 Si aliqua persona ecclesiae me scrip. s. vel ratione valida,docuerit, paratissime consentire. Nam a primo studii mei tempore hoc mihi statui proregula, ut quotiescunque saniorem sententiam in quacunque materia perciperem, a priori sententia gaudenter et humiliter declinarem. Wyclif had expressed the same sentiment in his De universalibus, which Huss translated, 1398. See Loserth, p. 253.
698 Workman: Letters, p. 266.
699 Mansi, XXVII. 794 sqq., 842-864.
700 For the sentence, see Mansi, XXVII. 887-897. Foxe, in his Book of Martyrs, gives a translation and an excellent account of the proceedings against Jerome and his martyrdom.
701 Laicus, Mansi, XXVII. 894.
702 Huss, Opera, II. 532-534. Palacky, Mon. 624-699. A full translation is given by Whitcomb in Lit. Source-Book of the Italian Renaissance, pp. 40-47.
703 Hist. Boh., c. 36.
704 Improbissimos, et periculosissimos, teterrimosque viros, Mansi, XXVII. 781-783.
705 Mansi, pp. 789-91.
706 Palacky, Monum., I. 80-82.
707 Mansi, XXVII. 1204-15. Also Mirbt, p. 157 sqq.
708 As early as 1423, dissenters with the name of Hussites appeared in Northern Germany and Holland, Fredericq, Corpus Inq., III. 65, 142, etc.
709 Sine fraude et quolibet dolo, occulte vel manifeste, etc. Mansi, XXIX. 27.
710 See Hefele, VII. 476 sq.
711 See Mansi, XXXI. 273 sqq.
712 Haller, Concil. Basil., I. 291 sqq.
713 Pius had received at Mt. Tabor hospitable treatment from the Hussites, whom he was afterwards to treat with wonted papal arrogance. Travelling through Bohemia on a mission from Frederick III., and benighted, he preferred to trust himself to the Taborites rather than to their enemies. Although he had found refuge with them, he used ridicule in describing their poverty and peasant condition. Some he found almost naked, some wore only a sheepskin over their bodies, some had no saddle, some no reins for their horses. And yet he was obliged to say that, though they were bound by no compulsory system of tithes, they filled their priests’ houses with corn, wood, vegetables and meat. See Lea, II. 561.
714 The Utraquists came into contact with Luther as early as 1519. At the time of the Leipzig Colloquy, two of their preachers in Prag, John Poduschka and Wenzel Rosdalowsky, wrote him letters. The first also sent Luther a gift of knives, and the second, Huss’ work On the Church, which was reprinted in Wittenberg, 1620. Luther replied by sending them some of his smaller writings. Köstlin, M. Luther, I. 290.
715 The old Moravian school for girls near Lancaster, Pa., gets its name from this colony. The wife of President Benjamin Harrison studied there.
716 For the earlier history of the Austrian Waldensians, see vol. V., part I., p. 500 sq.
717 Goll, Untersuchungen, is a strong advocate of the dependence of the Bohemian Brethren upon the Waldenses for their peculiar views, although he denies that the two sects had any organic connection. Karl Müller, Herzog Enc., III. 448, comes to the same conclusion. He is, however in doubt whether Chelcicky was associated with the Waldenses. Goll is of the opinion that he was strongly influenced by them. Preger, Ueber d. Verhältniss der Taboriten zu den Waldesiern des 14ten Jahrh., Munich, 1887, occupies an isolated position when he represents the Taborites as a continuation of the Bohemian Waldenses, with some modification. These two bodies were separate when the Bohemian Brethren began to appear on the scene.
718 So Lucas of Prag. See his writings in Goll, pp. 107, 112. De Schweinitz, Hist. of the Un. Fratrum, p. 141 sqq., accepts the ordination of Stephen as regular. Müller questions it, Herzog, III. 452.
719 See Goll, p. 87, and the letter to Rokyzana, whose nephew Gregory belonged to the Lititz colony, p. 92. Of the consecration of Michael by Stephen there is no doubt. There is some uncertainty about the details.
720 See Müller’s art. on Bohemian Hymnody in Julian’s Dicty.
721 Among other youthful appointments to the dignity of cardinal are Jacinto Bobo, afterwards Coelestine III., at 18, by Honorius III., 1126; Peter Roger, afterwards Gregory XI., at 17, Hercules Gonzaga, by Clement VII., at 22; Alexander Farnese, by his uncle, Paul III., at 14, who also appointed his grandsons, Guida Sforza at 16 and Ranucio Farnese at 15; two nephews, at the ages of 14 and 21, by Julius III., d. 1555, and also Innocent del Monte at 17; Ferdinand del Medici at 14, by Pius IV., d. 1565; Andrew and Albert of Austria, sons of Maximilian II., at 18, by Gregory XIII., and Charles of Loraine at 16; Alexander Peretti at 14, by his uncle, Sixtus V., d. 1590; two nephews at 18, by Innocent IX., d. 1591; Maurice of Savoy at 14, and Ferdinand, son of the king of Spain, at 10, by Paul V., d. 1621; a nephew at 17, by Innocent X., d. 1655; a son of the king of Spain, by Clement XII., d. 1740.
722 Papstthum, p. 192.
723 Pastor heads his chapter on Nicolas with the caption Nicolas V., der Begründer des päpstlichen Maecenats.
724 Pastor, I 417 sq., emphasizes these consequences of the Jubilee Year.
725 Infessura, p. 48; Platina, II. 242; Aeneas: Hist. Frid. 172; Ilgen’s trans., I. 214.
726 Infessura, p. 52, says that language could not exaggerate Leonora’s beauty, bella quanto si potesse dire. Aeneas, Hist. Frid., 265, speaks of her dark complexion, jet-black and lustrous eyes, her soft red cheeks, her intelligent expression, and her snow-white neck, "in every particular a charming person."
727 Hist. Frid., 294; Ilgen, II. 84 sq. Aeneas gives the alternate reason for the hospitality shown to his master.
728 The crown used on the occasion was reputed to be the one used by Charlemagne which Sigismund had removed to Nürnberg. Aeneas, with his usual journalistic love of detail, noticed the Bohemian lion of Charles IV. engraven on the sword, which also was brought from Nürnberg.
729 Aeneas, p. 303, who is scrupulous in stating from time to time that Frederick and Leonora lodged in different palaces or tents, now gives a detailed account of the circumstances attending their first lodging together as man and wife in Naples. The account is such as we might expect from Boccaccio and not from a prelate of the Church, but Aeneas’ own record fitted him for entering with pruriency into realistic details. They are characteristic of the times and of Spanish customs.
730 Pastor, I. 588 sqq., devotes much space to an attempt to show that Nicolas made an effort to help the Greeks. Infessura blames him for making none.
731 Aeneas wrote, July 12, 1453, to the pope: "Historians of the Roman pontiffs, when they reach your time, will write, ’Nicolas V., a Tuscan, was pope for so many years. He recovered the patrimony of the Church from the hands of tyrants, he gave union to the divided Church, he canonized Bernardino, he built the Vatican and splendidly restored St. Peter’s, he celebrated the Jubilee and crowned Frederick III.’ All this will be obscured by the doleful addition, ’In his time Constantinople was taken and plundered by the Turks.’ Your holiness did what you could. No blame can be justly attached to you. But the ignorance of posterity will blame you when it hears that in your time Constantinople was lost." Gibbon makes the observation that "The pontificate of Nicolas V., however powerful and prosperous, was dishonored by the fall of the Eastern Empire," ch. LXVIII. It was not within Nicolas’ power to avert the disaster.
732 His epitaph is given by Mirbt, p. 169.
733 Mansi, XXXII. 159 sq.
734 Pastor, I. 747, says ein solches Verfahren war unerhört, it was an unheard-of procedure.
735 Enea ist seiner Tage nie gegen den Strom geschwommen. Haller In Quellen, etc., IV. 83.
736 London he found the most populous and wealthy city he had seen. Scotland he described as a cold, barren, and treeless country.
737 Libellus dialogorum de generalis concilii auctoritate.
738 Aeneas aided Chancellor Schlick in some of his love adventures, and described one of them in the much-read novel, Eurialus et Lucretia. His letters from 1444 on, show a desire to give up the world. He declared he had had enough of Venus, but he also wrote that Venus evaded him more than he shrank from her. He seems to have passed into a condition of physical infirmity, and to have been forced to abandon his immoral courses. He, however, also indicates he had begun to be actuated by feelings of penitence, whether from motives of policy or religion cannot be made out. Gregorovius, VII. 165, combines the inconsistent passages from Pius, letters when he says that, after long striving to renounce the pleasures of the world, exhaustion and incipient disease facilitated the task.
739 The election was by the accessus, that is, after the written ballot was found to be indecisive, the cardinals changed their votes by word of mouth. See Hergenröther, Kath. Kirchenrecht, p. 273.
740 Mansi, XXXII. 207-222.
741 Gregorovius, VII. 184. His tract Admonitio de injustis usurpationibus paparum rom. ad imperatorem ... sive confutatio primatus papae, and other tracts by Heimburg, are given in Goldast, Monarchia. See art. Gregor v. Heimburg, by Tschackert in Herzog, VII. 133-135, and for quotations, Gieseler.
742 A full translation of the letter is given by Gregorovius in Lucrez. Borgia, p. 7 sq.
743 Mansi, XXXII. 259 sq.; Mirbt, p. 169 sq.
744 Mansi, XXXII. 195-203. Gieseler quotes at length. Aeneas had written a letter to the rector of the Univ. of Cologne with the same import, Oct. 13, 1447.
745 The same time that Pius issued his bull of retractation, Gabriel Biel, called the last of the Schoolmen, issued his tract on Obedience to the Apostolic see, taking the same ground that Pius took.
746 Pastor, II. 233-236, and Creighton, II. 436-438, give elaborate accounts of this curious piece of superstition.
747 Creighton, II. 491. Pastor, II. 28-31, makes a belabored effort to remove in part this stigma, and excuses Pius II. by the lack of funds from which he suffered and his engrossment in the affairs of the papacy. Pius chartered the universities of Nantes, Ingolstadt and Basel.
748 Hist. rerum ubique gestarum cum locorum descriptione non finita, Venice, 1477, in the Opera, Basel, 1551, etc.
749 Voigt and Benrath are severe upon Pius II., and regard the religious attitude of his later years as insincere and the crusade as dictated by a love of fame. Gregorovius’ characterization is one of the least satisfactory of that impartial historian’s pen. He says, "There was nothing great in him. Endowed with fascinating gifts, this man of brilliant parts possessed no enthusiasms," etc., VII. 164. Pastor passes by the failings of Aeneas’ earlier life with a single sentence, but gives, upon the whole, the most discriminating estimate. He sees only moral force in his advocacy of the crusade, and pronounces him, with Nicolas V., the most notable of the popes of the 15th century.
750 The document Is given by Raynaldus and Gieseler.
751 Pastor, II. 307, fully justifies Paul for setting aside the pact on the ground that every pope gets plenary authority directly from God.
752 Hergenröther: Kath. Kirchenrecht, p. 299
753 Jacob Volaterra in Muratori, new ed., XXIII. 3, p. 98.
754 Pastor, II. 358 sqq., makes a heroic effort to exempt Paul from the guilt of neglecting the crusade against the Turks. In a letter written by Cardinal Gonzaga, which he prints for the first time (II. 773), the statement is made that Paul was quietly laying aside one-fourth of his income to be used against the Turks. There is no mention of any sum of this kind among the pope’s assets.
755 Patritius in Muratori, XXIII. 205-215.
756 Pastor, II. 347, tries to show that Paul had some mind for humanistic studies. During his pontificate, 1467, the German printers, Schweinheim and Pannarts, set up the first printing-presses in Rome, but not under Paul’s patronage.
757 Infessura, p. 167.
758 A quotation given by Gregorovius, VII. 226, probably exaggerates when it states he filled his house with concubines—ex concubina domum replevit.
759 Et di queste cose lui-si pigliava piacere, p. 69.
760 Den nächst-folgenden Trägern der Tiara schien dieselbe in erster Linie ein Mittel zur Bereicherung und Erhöhung ihrer Familien zu sein. Diesem Zwecke wurde die ganze päpstliche Macht in rücksichtslosester Weise dienstbar gemacht, Hefele-Knöpfler, Kirchengesch., p. 483.
761 Hergenröther-Kirsch, II. 979. These most reputable Catholic historians intimate rather than emphasize this consideration.
762 A useful genealogical tree of the Rovere is given by Creighton, III. 100. Pastor takes no pains to hide his righteous indignation at Sixtus’ exhaustive provision for his relatives,—seine zahlreiche und unwürdige Verwandten, as he calls them.
763 Diario, p. 77. At the chief banquet, the menu comprised wild boars roasted whole, bucks, goats, hares, pheasants, fish, peacocks with their feathers, storks, cranes, and countless fruits and sweetmeats. An artificial mountain of sugar was brought into the dining-chamber, from which a man stepped forth with gestures of surprise at finding himself amid such gorgeous surroundings.
764 Sixtus reared to him a splendid monument in the Church of the Apostles. Peter and his brother Jerome are represented as kneeling and praying to the Madonna. See Pastor, II. 294 sq.
765 So Pastor, II. 535, Gregorovius, VII. 239, Karl Müller, II. 130 and Creighton, III. 75. They all agree that Sixtus knew the details of the plot, and approved them, except in the matter of the murder, which, however, he did not peremptorily forbid.
766 See the account of the legate of Milan, publ. by Pastor, II. 785 sq. Of Sixtus’ connivance at the plot against the Medici, Pastor, II. 541, says, "It calls for deep lament that a pope should play a part in the history of this conspiracy."
767 Infessura, p. 86.
768 Pastor, II. 610 sqq., is very cautious in his remarks on the subject of Sixtus’ indulgences, almost to reticence.
769 Mansi, XXXII. 374 sqq., gives the bull on the immaculate conception dated Sept. 5, 1483; also Mirbt, p. 170.
770 In quo felicissimo die, etc., pp. 155-158.
771 This charge, which Infessura elaborates, Creighton, III. 115, 285, dismisses as unproved; Pastor, II. 640, also, but less confidently. Infessura was a friend of the Colonna, to whom Sixtus was bitterly hostile. Burchard, I. 10 sqq., gives a very detailed account of Sixtus’ obsequies. He spoke from observation as one of the masters of ceremonies. Pastor makes a bold effort to rescue Sixtus from most of the charges made against his character by Infessura.
772 Pastor, III. 178.
773 Burchard, I. 33-55
774 Infessura, p. 177. The Augustinian was thrown into prison for making the remark. Infessura returns again and again, pp. 237 sq., 243, 256 sq., to the reign of crime going on in the city.
775 Infessura gives the case of a father who, after committing incest with his two daughters, murdered them and was set free upon the payment of 800 ducats. Gregorovius, VII. 297, says of the Italian character of the last 30 years of the 15th century that "it displays a trait of diabolical passion. Tyrannicide, conspiracies and deeds of treachery are universal, and criminal selfishness reigns supreme."
776 Funk, Kirchengesch., 373, says, In Rom. schien alles käuflich zu sein.
777 · For the details, see Burchard, I. 365-368.
778 So Marullus in his epigram—
Octo nocens pueros genuit totidemque puellas,
Hunc merito poterit dicere Roma patrem.
Illegitimately
he begat 8 boys and girls as many.
Hence
Rome deservedly may call him father.
Burchard, I. 321, calls Franceschetto bastardus.
779 Burchard, I. 323, 488. In 1883, the Berlin Museum came into possession of a bust of Theorina bearing the inscription,"Teorina Cibo Inn. VIII. P. M. f. singuli exempli matrona formaeque dignitate conjuaria."
780 Infessura, p. 259 sq. Pastor, III. 269, pronounces Infessura’s statement altogether incredible,—gänzlich unglaubwürdig,—and blames Infessura’s editor, Tommasini, for allowing the statement to pass in his edition without note or comment. Pastor, in his 1st ed., III. 252, had pronounced the statement of the Roman diarist eine ungeheuerliche Behauptung.
781 Totam ab omnibus ejus lateribus lingua sua lambivit. Infessura, p. 263. For the letter of the painter Mantegna to the duke of Mantua and its curious details, June 15, 1489, see Pastor, 1st ed., III. 218. The picture of the Disputation of St. Catherine in the sala dei santi in the Vatican contains a picture of Djem riding a white palfrey. Infessura and Burchard enter with journalistic relish into the details of Djem’s appearance and treatment In Rome.
782 Infessura p. 224, and especially Burchard, I. 482-486, and Sigismondo, II. 25-29, 69, give extended accounts of the honors paid to the piece of iron, the sacratissimum ferreum lanceae. The sultan’s representative, Chamisbuerch, who was also present, was reported to have handed the pope a package containing 40,000 ducats. Sigismondo uses the word spicula, little point, for the lance.
783 Burchard, I. 444 sqq.
784 The harrowing story was told that, at the suggestion of a Jewish physician, the blood of three boys was infused into the dying pontiff’s veins. They were ten years old, and had been promised a ducat each. All three died. The Jewish physician lied. The story is told by Infessura and repeated by Raynaldus. It is pleasant to have Gregorovius, VII. 338, as well as Pastor, III. 275 sq., give it no credence.
785 Pastor, III. 278, says that, "from the moment he received priestly consecration to the end of his life, he was a slave to the demon of sensuality." Hefele-Knöpfler, Kirchengesch., p. 485, speaks of his career before he reached the papal office as having been "very dissolute"—sehr dissolut. Prof. Villari, Machiavelli, I. 279, calls Alexander the worst of the popes, whose "crimes were sufficient to upset any human society." Gregorovius and Pastor have carried on the most notable researches in this period, and rivalled one another in the brilliant description of Alexander’s reign and domestic relations.
786 P. 281. In his despatch to the duchess of Este, published by Pastor, 1st ed., III. 879, Giovanni Boccaccio, bishop of Modena, gives an estimate of Borgia’s ability to pay for the tiara, the vice-chancellorship worth 8,000 ducats, the cities of Nepi and Civita Castellana, abbeys In Aquila and Albano, each worth 1,000 ducats a year, two large abbeys in the kingdom of Naples, the abbey of Sabiaco, worth 2,000 a year., abbeys in Spain, 16 bishoprics in Spain, the see of Porto, worth 1,200 ducats, and numerous other ecclesiastical places.
787 The letter of Cardinal Sforza to his brother, dated 1484, and publ. by Pastor, III. 876, gives a description of his associate’s palace.
788 Sigismondo, II. 53, ascribes to Alexander majestas formae.
789 Burchard, I. 577.
790 Seine Kinder zu erhöhen war sein vorzüglichstes Ziel is the statement of the calm Catholic historian, Funk, p. 373.
791 They are given in Burchard, Supplement to vol. III, and dated Oct. 1, 1480, and Nov. 4, 1481.
792 See W. H. Woodward, Two Bulls of Alex. VI., Sept., 1493, in Engl. Hist. Rev., 1908, pp. 730-734.
793 Vanozza outlived Alexander 15 years, dying 1518. Her epitaph formerly in S. Maria del Popolo reads, Vanotiae Cathanae, Caesare Valentiae, Joane Candiae, Jufredo Scylatii et Lucretiae Ferrariae, ducibus filiis, etc. See Creighton, III. 163, Pastor, III. 279. Pastor says that to deny the authenticity of this inscription as Ollivier does is nothing less than ridiculous—geradezu lächerlich. On Ollivier’s attempt to rehabilitate Alexander, see Pastor’s caustic words in 1st ed., I. 589. Burchard constantly calls Lucretia papae filia, II. 278, 386, 493, etc., and Joffré and the other boys his sons. So also Sigismondo II. 249, 270, etc. The nativity of Pedro Ludovico is not absolutely certain, but it is highly probable that Vanozza was his mother.
794 Gregorovius, Lucrezia Borgia, p. 19, and Appendix, Germ. ed., where the marriage contract of Girolama is given.
795 These two bulls, extant at Mantua and first published by Gregorovius, Lucr. Borgia, Appendix, 76-85, were issued the same day. Burchard, III. 170, calls the child’s mother quaedam Romana. Following Burchard, Gregorovius and Pastor have no doubt that it was Alexander’s own child. Pastor, III. 475, says that the bull is unquestionably genuine. A satire of the year 1500 ascribes to Alexander 3 or 4 children by Julia Farnese. According to Villari, Life of Savonarola, p. 376, note, the Civilta cattolica, the papal organ at Rome, March 15, 1873, acknowledged the existence of Giovanni, as Alexander’s sixth or seventh child.
796 These letters are given in full by Burchard, II. 202 sqq. Alexander’s letters Gregorovius pronounces to be genuine beyond a doubt. The sultan’s are matter of dispute. Ranke discredited them, but Gregorovius regards their contents as genuine, though the form may be spurious. Creighton, III. 300 sqq., gives reasons for accepting them.
797 Dictum Gem levare facere ex angustiisistius mundi et transferre ejus animan in aliud seculum ubi meliorem habebit quietem, Burchard, II. 209.
798 The French left behind them a terrible legacy in the disease which they are said to have carrried during the Crusades and again a century ago, under Napoleon, to Syria, and known as the French disease. See Pastor, III. 7.
799 Burchard’s account of the tragedy, II. 387-390. Gregorovius, VIII. 424, confidently advocates the theory of fratricide. This explains why Alexander dropped the investigation two weeks after it was begun, and why he and Caesar in the first meetings after the event were silent in each other’s presence. However, it is almost too much to believe that Alexander would at once begin to heap honors upon Caesar, as he did, if the father believed him to be the murderer. Roscoe, I. 153 sq., and Pastor discredit the theory of fratricide, to which Creighton, III. 388, also inclines. Don Juan was the only one of the Borgias that founded a family.
800 Burchard, II. 280, 493, filia clarissima, filia jocosa et risoria.
801 Infessura, p. 286 sq., closes his account by saying he would not tell all, lest it might seem incredible. The account of Boccaccio, ambassador of Ferrara, who was present, is given by Gregorov., Lucr. Borgia, pp. 59-61.
802 Alexander had courteously attended a mass for the repose of the soul of his old enemy, Charles, in the Sistine chapel, Burchard, II. 461.
803 Burchard, II. 591-593.
804 Rodrigo, who was baptized in St. Peter’s, Nov. 1, 1499, the 16 cardinals then in Rome, many ambassadors and other dignitaries being present. In 1501 he was invested with the duchy of Sermoneta. Burchard, II. 675, 578; III. 170.
805 Infessura, p. 293.
806 Burchard, III. 236.
807 So Pastor, though with some hesitation, III. 491. Even Creighton, IV. 40, is unwilling to dismiss the charge as groundless. But in another place, p. 265, he seems to contradict himself.
808 Burchard, III. 161 sq.
809 The letter is given in Gregor., Lucr. Borgia, p. 212.
810 The question of whether or no poison was the cause of the pope’s death must be regarded as an open one. This is the view taken by Gregorovius, Roscoe, I. 193 sq., Reumont, Pastor, III. 499. Creighton, IV. 43, and Hergenröther, III. 987, are against the theory of poisoning. Neither Burchard nor the ambassador of Venice speak of poison. The ambassador of Mantua, writing on the 19th, denies the charge, which was freely made on the streets. Ranke, D. röm. Päpste, p. 35, distinctly decides for poisoning. So also Hase, Kirchengesch., III. 353. Many contemporary writers pronounced for poisoning, Guicciardini, Cardinal Bembo, Jovius, Cardinal Aegidius, etc. Alexander’s physician gave as the immediate cause of death apoplexy. Against the theory of poisoning is the fact that Cardinal Hadrian was also taken sick. On the other hand is the evidence that Alexander’s body immediately after death was bloated and disfigured and his mouth was filled with foam, and that Caesar was taken sick at the same time with the same symptoms, a fact which Gregorovius, VII. 521, pronounces the strongest evidence for the theory of poisoning.
811 There is one exception, the address made in the conclave after Alexander’s death by the bishop of Gallipolis. See Garnett’s art. Engl. Hist. Rev., 1892, p. 311 sq., giving the text of the British Museum, the only copy in existence.
812 The duke of Mantua, whose camp was near Rome, wrote to his duchess that seven devils appeared in the pope’s room at the moment of his death, that the body swelled and was dragged from the bed with a cord. Gregorovius, Lucr. Borgia, p. 288.
813 Bishop Creighton, IV. 44, lays stress on the fact that hypocrisy was not added to Alexander’s other vices.
814 Infessura, p. 287.
815 Burchard, III. 167, who reports the wild scene, was reticent about many of the evil happenings in the papal palace. The other authorities for the orgy may be seen in Thuasne’s ed. of Burchard. See also Villari, Machiavelli, I. 538. When we are taken to the square of St. Peter’s, where the pope and the cardinals watched a feat of tight-rope walking, an expert walking with a child in his arms, we may easily applaud or tolerate the recreation, Burchard, III. 210; but the dark furies of evil seem at will to have had mastery over Alexander’s soul.
816 Burchard, III. 110.
817 Mansi, XXXII. 533 sq.
818 Calvin spoke of having been taken as a child by his mother to the abbey of Ourscamp, near Noyon, where a part of St. Anna’s body was preserved, and of having kissed the relic.
819 Decretum de libris non sine censura imprimendis, 1501. Reusch, Index, p. 54.
820 , De nostra mera liberalitate ... auctoritate omnip. Dei, nobis in beato Petro concessa, ac vicariatus J. Christi, qua fungimur in terris. For the bull, see Mirbt, pp. 174-176. Also Fiske, Disc. of Am., I. 454-458; II. 581-593.
821 Pastor, III. 520, seeks to break the force of the charge that Alexander’s gift was a short-sighted piece of work by putting the unnatural interpretation upon donamus et assignamus, that it referred only to what Portugal and Spain had already acquired. But the very wording of the bull makes this impossible, for it is distinctly said that all islands and continents were given to Spain and Portugal which were to be discovered in the future, as well as those which were already discovered—omnes insulas et terras firmas inventas et inveniendas, detectas et detegendas. For the bull of Sept. 26, 1493, giving India to Spain, see Davenport in Am. Hist. Rev., 1909, p. 764 sqq.
822 Hergenröther-Kirsch, II. 987.
823 III. 503
824 Pastor, in the course of prolonged estimates, Gesch. der Päpste, III. pp. vi, 601sq., etc., says: "The life of this voluptuary—Genussmenschen —a man of untamed sensuality, contradicted at every point the demands of him he was called upon to represent. With unrestrained abandon, he gave himself up to a vicious life until his end." Ranke thus expresses himself, Hist. of the Popes, Germ. ed., I. 32. "All his life through, Alexander was bent on nothing else than to enjoy the world, to live pleasurably, to satisfy his passions and ambitions." The estimate of Gregorovius, City of Rome, VII. 525, is this: "No one can ever discover in Alexander’s history any other guiding principle than the contemptible one of aggrandizing his children at any cost. To the despicable objects of nepotism and self-preservation he sacrificed his own conscience, the happiness of nations, the existence of Italy and the good of the Church." Bishop Creighton, IV. 43-49, lays such elaborate emphasis upon Alexander’s knowledge of politics, firmness of purpose and affability of manners that one loses the impression of the baseness of his morals and the sacrilege to which he subjected his office and himself. He seems to have been influenced by Roscoe’s presentation of Alexander’s "many great qualities," I. 195.
825 The Prince, ch. VII.
826 The statue was placed in front of St. Petronio in Bologna. The left hand held neither book nor sword, but the keys. Pastor, III. 569, says,in einer derartigen Persönlichkeit lag mehr Stoff zu einem Könige und Feldherrn als zu einem Priester.
827 The Prince, written in 1515, was dedicated to Leo X.’s nephew, Lorenzo de’ Medici, at a time when it was contemplated giving Lorenzo a large slice of Italian territory to govern. See Villari: Machiavelli, III. 372-424. Also Louis Dyer: Machiavelli and the Modern State, Boston, 1904. Caesar Borgia had his laureate, who sung his praises in 12 Latin lyrics, Peter Franciscus Justulus of Spoleto. Jupiter, who is represented as about to destroy the world for its wickedness, perceives that it contains at least one excellent young man, Caesar, and sends Mercury to urge him to take up arms for the world’s deliverance. Engl. Hist. Rev., Jan., 1902, pp. 15-20.
828 The letter is given by Gregorovius, Lucr. Borgia, p. 319.
829 The expedition is described by de Grassis, the new master of ceremonies at the papal palace, who accompanied the expedition, and also by Aegidius of Viterbo,
830 Pastor, III. 643, contents himself with the simple mention of the absolution of the Venetian’s, and omits all reference to the humiliating conditions. The Venetian scribblers let loose their pens against Julius and, among other charges, made against him the charge of sodomy. Pastor, III. 644, Note.
831 Zwingli’s friend, Thomas Platter (1499-1582), in speaking in his Autobiography of his travels in Germany as a boy to get knowledge and begging his bread, mentions how willing the people were to give him ear, "for they were very fond of the Swiss." At Breslau a family was ready to adopt him partly on this ground. After the defeat of Marigano, 1515, it was a common saying, so Platter says, "The Swiss have lost their good luck." On one occasion near Dresden, after a good dinner, to which he had been treated, he was taken in to see the mother of the home, who was on her death-bed. She said to Platter and his Swiss companions, "I have heard so many good things about the Swiss that I was very anxious to see one before my death." See Whitcomb, Renaissance Source-Book, p. 108; Monroe, Thos. Platter, p. 107.
832 Mansi, XXXII. 555-559.
833 Creighton, IV. 123, unguardedly says that Julius was the first pope who let his beard grow. Many of the early bishops of Rome, as depicted in St. Peter’s, wore beards. So did Clement VII. after him, and other popes.
834 See the pope’s letter granting it, Mansi, XXXII. 554.
835 Pastor, III. 725.
836 Hefele-Hergenröther, VIII. 520.
837 See Mansi, XXXII. 570.
838 A pamphlet war was waged over the council. Among the writers on the papal side was Thomas de Vio Gaeta, general of the Dominican order and afterwards famous as Cardinal Cajetan, who had the colloquies with Luther. His tracts were ordered burnt by Louis XII. He took the ground that no council can be oecumenical which has not the pope’s support. An account of this literary skirmish is given by Hefele-Hergenröther, VIII. 470-480.
839 Tu pastor, tu medicus, tu gubernator, tu cultor, tu denique alter Deus in terris, Mansi, XXXII. 761. Hefele-Hergenröther VII. 528-531, pronounce this expression, God on earth, used before by Gregory II., a rhetorical flourish and nothing more. See also Pastor, III. 725.
840 De Grassis reports the rumors abroad concerning the pope’s mortal malady. One of them was the Gallic disease, and another that the pope’s stomach had given way under excessive indulgence. He also speaks of the great number who went to look at the pope’s corpse and to kiss his feet. Döllinger, III. 432.
841 A satire, called Julius exclusus, which appeared after the pontiff’s death, represented him as appearing at the gate of heaven with great din and noise. Peter remarked that, as he was a brave man, had a large army and much gold and was a busy builder, he might build his own paradise. At the same time the Apostle reminded him he would have to build the foundations deep and strong to resist the assaults of the devil. Julius retorted by peremptorily giving Peter three weeks to open heaven to him. In case he refused, he would open siege against him with 60,000 men. This recalls a story Dr. Philip Schaff used to tell of Gregory XVI., with whom, as a young graduate of Berlin, he had an audience. Gregory had a reputation with the Romans for being a connoisseur of wines. At his death, so the Roman wits reported, he appeared at the gate of heaven and, drawing out his keys, tried to unlock the gate. The keys would not fit. Peter, hearing the noise, looked out and, seeing the bunch of keys, told his vicar that he had brought with him by mistake the keys to his wine cellar, and must return to his palace and get the right set.
842 Guicciardini pronounces Julius a priest only in name. A letter dated Rome, Feb. 24, 1513, and quoted by Brosch, p. 363, has this statement, hic pontifex nos omnes, omnem Italiam a Barbarorum et Gallorum manibus eripuit, an expression used by Aegidius and Marcello before the Lateran council. See also Paris de Grassis-in Döllinger, p. 482. Pastor, III. 732, and Hergenröther, Conciliengesch., VIII. 535, justify Julius’ attention to war on the ground that he was fighting in a righteous cause and for possessions he had held as temporal prince ever since the 8th century. The right of a pope to defend the papal state is inherent in the very existence of a papal state. Even a saint, Leo IX., urges Pastor, p. 741, followed the camp.
843 See Ranke: Hist. of the Popes, I. 35.
844 Pastor, III. 575, condemns Julius under this head, tadelnswerth erscheint dass das Ablassgeschäft vielfach zu einer Finanzoperation wurde.
845 An original cartoon of this portrait is preserved in the Corsini Florence. In 1889 I met Professor Weizsäcker of Tübingen in Florence standing before Julius’ portrait and studying it. I had been with him in his home before he started on his journey, and he told me that one of the chief pleasures which he was anticipating from his Italian trip was the study of that portrait of one of the most vigorous—thatkräftig —of the popes.
846 These words are upon the testimony of the contemporary ambassador, Marino Giorgi, and cannot be set aside. Similar testimony is given by a biographer of Leo in Cod. Vat., 3920, which Döllinger quotes, Papstthum, p. 484, and which runs volo ut pontificatu isto quam maxime perfruamur. Pastor, IV. 353, while trying to break the force of the testimony for Leo’s words, pronounces the love of pleasure a fundamental and insatiable element of his nature—eine unersättliche Vergügungssucht, etc. Hefele-Knöpfler, Kirchengesch., p. 488, speak in the same vein when they say, Des neuen Papstes vorzüglichstes Streben galt heiterem Lebensgenuss, etc.
847 See Vaughan, p. 13 sq.
848 The famous letter is given by Roscoe, Bohn’s ed., pp. 285-288, and Vaughan, p. 23 sqq.
849 See Schulte, p. 198 sq., and Reumont,
III., part II., p. 67. In front of the house of the banker, Agostino Chigi,
were seen two persons representing Apollo and Mercury, and two little Moors,
together with the inscription—
Olim habuit
Cypria sua tempora, tempora Mavors
Olim habuit,
sua nunc tempora Pallas habet.
The goddess of Cyprus had her day and
also Mars,
But now Minerva reigns.
850 August 15, 1513. The Scotch king, James IV., who had married Henry’s sister, Margaret, joined the French. The memorable defeat at Flodden followed, Sept. 9, 1513. James and the flower of the Scotch nobility fell. Leo recognized Henry’s victories by conferring upon him the consecrated sword and hat which it was the pope’s custom to set aside on Christmas day.
851 The battle is vividly described by D. J. Dierauer, Gesch. der schweizerischen Eidgenossenschaft, 2 vols., Gotha, 1892, vol. II. 451 sqq. On the second day of the battle, the arrival of the Venetian troops gave victory to the French. Of the 12,000 left on the field dead, the most were Swiss. Before entering the battle, as was their custom, the mountaineers engaged in prayer, and the leader, Steiner of Zug, after repeating the usual formula of devotion unto death, threw, in the name of the Trinity, a handful of earth over his fellow-soldiers’ heads.
852 Pastor, IV. 185 sq., strongly condemns Leo’s two-tongued diplomacy, doppelzüngiges Verhalten. Leo’s brief, authorizing Francis to make a promise of red hats to the two archbishops, is dated March 12, 1519.
853 One-half was to be paid in cash and the other half to be deposited with the Fuggers, Schulte, p. 196.
854 The investigation, started by Leo, resulted in making it appear that Julius’ mother, Floreta, and his father had agreed to regard themselves as married, though a formal service was wanting.
855 Silvio Passerini, one of the fortunate candidates, was a prince of benefice-hunters. Pastor, IV. 139, gives fifty-five notices of benefices bestowed on him from Leo’s Regesta. He calls the list of the places he received as wahrhaft erschreckend, "something terrifying."
856 The elephant became the subject of quite an extensive literature, poets joining others in setting forth his peculiarities. See Pastor, IV. 52, Note.
857 The concordat met with serious resistance in France both from parliament and the University of Paris on the ground that it set aside the decisions of the Councils of Constance and Basel on the question of conciliar authority, and thus overthrew the Gallican liberties. The rector of the university forbade the university printer issuing the document, but he was brought to time by Leo instructing his legate to pronounce censure against him and the university, who "thinking themselves to be wise, had become fools."
858 Perpetuis futuris temporibus, nullus librum aliquem seu aliam quamcunque scripturam tam in urbe nostra quam aliis quibusvis civitatibus et diocesibus imprimere seu imprimi facere praesumat, Mansi, XXXII. 912 sq. Also in part in Mirbt, p. 177.
859 Sacro concilio approbante. Döllinger, Papstthum, p. 185, affirms that, in far-reaching significance, no other rule ever passed in a Roman synod equals this bull.
860 Mansi, XXXII. 968; Mirbt, p. 178. Solum Rom. pontificem auctoritatem super omnia concilia habentem et conciliorum indicendorum transferendorum ac dissolvendorum plenum ius et potestatem habere ... et cum de necessitate salutis existat omnes Christi fideles Romano pontifici subesse, etc.
861 Petri successores ... quibus ex libri Regum testimonio ita obedire necesse est, ut qui non obedierit, morte moriatur.
862 Kirchengesch., p. 383.
863 III., part II., p. 128
864 Pastor, who gives eight solid pages, IV. 407-415, to an account of Leo’s hunting expeditions, speaks of his passion for the chase as his leidenschaftliche Jagdliebhaberei.
865 Vaughan, p. 177.
866 See Reumont, III, Part II., 134 sq.
867 Sanuto, as quoted by Pastor, IV. 384. For some of the entertainments given by Cardinal Riario Cornaro, see Vaughan, p. 186 sqq. At one of the banquets given by Cardinal Cornaro, sixty-five courses were served, three dishes to each course, and all served on silver. Such devices as a huge pie, from which blackbirds or nightingales flew forth, or dishes of peacocks’ tails, or a construction of pastry from which a child would emerge to say a piece,—these were some of the inventions prepared for the amusement of guests at the tables of members of the sacred college.
868 Vettori, a contemporary, as quoted by Villari, IV. 4, says, "It was no more possible for his Holiness to keep 1,000 ducats than it is for a stone to fly upwards of itself." Villari, IV. 45, gives a list of Leo’s enormous debts.
869 These two lists of figures are taken from the Venetian ambassadors, Giorgi and Gradenigo. Schulte, Die Fugger, p. 97 sq., gives many cases of the payment of annates and the servitia through the Fuggers.
870 Schulte, I. 174, 223 sqq.
871 Pastor, IV. 368, has said, Um Geld herbeizuschaffen schreckte man vor keinem Mittel zurück. Döllinger, Papstthum, p. 485, quotes a contemporary as saying ea tempestate Romae, sacra omnia venalia erant, etc.
872 These figures are given by Schulte, I. 224-227, upon the basis of Sanuto and other contemporary writers. The iII odor of usury was avoided by representing the charges of the bankers as gifts.
873 Pastor, IV. 371, in his striking way says,Der Zudrang der Florentiner in der ersten Zeit dieses Pontificats war ein enormer. Die Begehrlichkeit dieser Leute war grenzenlos. The Fuggers, who carried on the most extensive dealings with the papal treasury and the sacred college, had been firmly established in Rome since the beginning of Alexander VI.’s pontificate. They came originally from Langen to Augsburg, where they started business as weavers, and then branched off into trading in spices and other commodities reaching Europe through Venice, and in copper and other metals, under the name of Ulrich Fugger and Brothers (George and Jacob), and their capital, estimated by the taxes they paid, increased, between 1480 and 1501, 1,634 per cent. Schulte, p. 3. After its transfer to Rome, the house became the depository of the papal treasurer and cardinals, and was the intermediary for the payment of annates and servitia to the papal and camera treasuries. The amounts, as furnished in the ledger entries, are given by Schulte.
874 See Pastor’s terrific indictment, IV. 359 sq.
875 Quantum nobis nostrisque ea de Christo fabula profuerit, satis est omnibus saeculis notum. The words, said to have been spoken to Cardinal Bembo, were noted down for the first time by Bale in his Pageant of the Popes, ed. 1574, p. 179. Bale, bishop of Ossory, had been a Carmelite.
876 I: 1.
877 See vol. V., 1. 489 sqq.
878 Haupt, pp. 467, 471. Bezold: Gesch. d. deutschen Reform., p. 120 sqq.
879 Secta spiritus libertatis, liberi spiritus, etc.
880 Fredericq, I. 155-160, II. 63 sqq. Another writer of the same clan was Mary of Valenciennes, whose book was condemned by the Inquisition, about 1400, as a work of "incredible subtlety." It was mentioned by Gerson in his tract on false and true visions. Fredericq, II. 188.
881 For a list of their errors, see Fredericq, I. 267-279. A sect of free thinkers known as the Loists flourished in Antwerp in the 16th century. Döllinger, II. 664 sqq., gives one of their documents.
882 Lea: Span. Inq., III. 190.
883 Wetzer-Welte, IV. 1931, quoting Mansi-Miscell. IV. 595-610.
884 Lea: Inquis., III. 178; Aur. Conf., III. 377.
885 Döllinger, II. 381, 407 sq. The first three volumes of Fredericq contain the term Fraticelli only twice, III. 17, 225.
886 Vol. V., 1, p. 876 sqq. The Flagellants were also known as Flagellatores, Cruciferi, Paenitentes, Disiciplinati, Battisti, etc., and in German and Dutch as Geissler, Geeselaars, Cruusbroeders, Kreuzbrüder, etc. The references under Geeselaars in Fredericq fill four closely printed pages of the Index, III. 297-300.
887 Fredericq, II. 120, III. 19, 21, 33, etc. Also Förstemann, pp. 74 sqq. Runge, 99-209.
888 Fredericq, II. 119, III. 22, etc. Runge, 152 sqq.
889 Pointillons de fer; aculeis ferreis; habentes in fine nodos aculeatos; quasi acus acuti infixi. Fredericq, I. 197, II. 120 sqq., III. 19, 20, 35, etc. Le sang leur couloit parmy les rains, Fredericq, III. 19. Hugo of Reutlingen speaks of the sharp iron tips. Runge, p. 25.
890 Si sanguis istorum militum est justus, et unitus cum sanguine Christi, etc. Fredericq, III. 18. Dicebant quod eorum sanguis per flagella effusus cum Christi sanguine miscebatur, II. 125.
891 Hugo von Reutlingen, p. 36.
892 · Hugo von Reutlingen, in Runge, p. 38.
893 · So Robert of Avesbury, Rolls Series, p. 407 sqq.
894 Clement’s bull is given by Fredericq, I. 199-201, and in translation by Förstemann, p. 97 sqq. Du Fayt’s sermon is full of interest, and is one of the most important documents given by Fredericq, III. 28-37. Du Fayt ascribed the Black Death to an infection of the air due to the celestial bodies—infectionem aeris creatam a corporibus coelestibus. The deliverance of the University of Paris is lost. See Chartul. III. 655 sqq.
895 Fredericq, II. 116, etc. The magistrates, as at Tournay, sometimes found it necessary to repeat their proclamations against the Flagellants as often an three times.
896 Usque ad mortem vel infirmitatem. See especially the 35 articles of Bruges, Fredericq, II. 111 sqq.; 50 articles given by Förstemann, p. 164 sqq. and the several codes given by Runge, 115 sqq. Hugo of Reutlingen, in Runge, 27, mentions the strict prohibition against bathing, balnea fratri non licet ulli tempore tali.
897 Fredericq, III. 15, Runge, pp. 25, 41, 118, etc.
898 Runge, pp. 130, 215.
899 · Förstemann, p. 165 sqq.
900 Schneerganz speaks of the number of their hymns in manuscript in Italian libraries as "exceedingly large." He gives a list of such libraries and also a list of the published laude. See Runge, pp. 50-64. It is not, however, to be supposed that more than a few were in popular use and sung.
901 See, for example, Runge, p. 68 sqq.
902 Schneerganz, p. 85, emphatically denies all connection.
903 Fr. Chrysander as quoted by Runge, p. 1. For specimen of the hymns and accounts of the singing, see Runge, Förstemann, p. 255 sqq., Fredericq, I. 197; II. 108, 123, 127-129, 137-139, 140; III. 23-27.
904 This most interesting document, edited
by Runge, gives the original music. Here are two lines with a translation of
the German words:—
[Fig. 6-06 musical staff for words below. Edit.]
Now let
us all lift up our hands
And pray to God this death to a vert.
905 See Runge, pp. 27, 140, 157.
906 See Förstemann, p. 111 sqq.
907 Omnem populum mirabiliter deceperunt. De schismate, II. 26. Erler’s ed., p. 168 sq.
908 Contra sectam flagellantium. Du Pin’s ed., 659-664. Van der Hardt, III. 99 sqq.
909 The bad effects of the delusion upon morals is given by chroniclers, one of whom says that during one of the epidemics 100 unmarried women became pregnant. See Fredericq, I. 231 sq., III. 41, etc. Other names given to the Dancers were Chorizantes and Tripudiantes.
910 Döllinger, II. 365 sqq. Here the barbs,—uncles,—the religious leaders of the Waldenses, are represented as making affidavit of the tenets of their people.
911 The bull is given by Comba: The Waldenses of Italy, p. 126 sq.
912 Fredericq, I. 26, 50, 351 sqq.; 501 sq., 512; II. 263 sqq.; III. 109. This author, I. 357 sqq., gives a sermon by a canon of Tournay against Waldensian tenets, which was much praised at the time. A French translation by Hansen, Quellen, p. 184 sq.
913 See the bull in Hansen, Quellen, p. 18, and an extended section, pp. 408 sqq., on the use of the term Vauderie for witchcraft. In the 14th century it was used to designate the practice of unnatural crimes, just as was the term Bougerie in France, which, at the first, was applied to the Catharan heresy.
914 This document is given in part by Fredericq, III. 94-109, and in full by Hansen, pp. 149-182. Its details are as disgusting as the imagination could well invent.
915 Lempens pronounces the prosecution of witchcraft the greatest crime of all times, das grösste Verbrechen aller Zeiten. Witches were called fascinaret, strigimagae, lamiae, phytonissae, strigae, streges, maleficae, Gazarii, that is, Cathari, and Valdenses, etc. For the derivation of the German term, Hexe, see J. Francke’s discussion in Hansen, Quellen, pp. 615-670.
916 In Protestant Scotland the iron collar and gag were used. The last trial in England occurred in 1712. A woman was executed for witchcraft in Seville in 1781 and another in Glarus in 1782. Dr. Diefenbach, in his Aberglaube, etc., attempts to prove that the belief in witchcraft was more deepseated in Protestant circles than in the Catholic Church. Funk, Kirchengesch., p. 419, Hefele, Kirchengesch., p. 522, and other Catholic historians take care to represent the share Protestants had in the persecution of witches as equal to the share of the Catholics.
917 Alexander Hales distinguished eight sorts of maleficium. Martin V. and Eugenius IV. call the workers of the dark arts sortilegi, divinatores, demonum invocatores, carminatores, conjuratores, superstitiosi, augures, utentes artibus nefariis et prohibitis. See Hansen, Quellen, p. 16 sqq. Henry IV.’s council of bishops, met at Worms, 1076, in deposing Gregory VII., accused him of witchcraft and making covenant with the devil.
918 Sceleratae mulieres ... credunt se et profitentur nocturnis horis cum Diana paganorum dea et innumera multitudine mulierum equitare super quasdam bestas, etc. Hansen, Quellen, p. 88 sq.
919 See Vol. V., I. 889-897, and Hansen, Zauberwahn, p. 144.
920 Michelet, p. 9, says: "I unfalteringly declare that the witch appeared in the age of that deep despair which the gentry of the Church engendered. The witch is a crime of their own achieving." Döllinger, Papstthum, p. 123, says that witchcraft in its different manifestations, from the 13th to the 17th century, is "a product of the faith in the plenary authority of the pope. This may seem to be a paradox, but it is not hard to prove." Hoensbroech’s language, I., 381, is warm but true, when he says, "In all this period the pope was the patron and the prop of the belief in witchcraft, spreading it and confirming it."
921 A translation of Gregory’s bull, Vox rama, is given by Hoensbroech, I. 215-218. See Döllinger: Papstthum, pp. 125, 144.
922 So, In 1326, John inveighed against those who cum morte foedus ineunt et pactum faciunt cum inferno. For the text of this and other papal documents, see Hansen, Quellen, pp. 1-37.
923 In his bull Pascendi gregis, 1907.
924 Hansen: Zauberwahn, pp. 241, 263 sq., 271.
925 Principis tenebrarum suasus et illusiones caecitate noxia sectantes demonibus immolant, eos adorant, etc. illis homagium faciunt, etc. Hansen, Quellen, p. 17.
926 Cereae formae innocentissimi agni, Hansen, etc.: Quellen, p. 21 sq.
927 See Hansen, p. 27-29. Döllinger-Friedrich, p. 126, says, "Mit Inn. VIII. beginnt das regelmässige Verbrennen der Hexen."
928 Gesch. der Papste, III. 266 sqq., Hergenröther-Kirsch, II. 1040 sq. Vacandard, Inquisition, p. 200, takes the same view and says "Innocent assuredly had no intention of committing the Church to a belief in the phenomena he mentions in his bull; but his personal opinion did have an influence upon the canonists and Inquisitors of his day," etc.
929 Warfare of Science and Theology, I. 351.
930 Inquisition, III. 543.
931 Hoc est commune omnium maleficarum spurcitias carnales cum daemonibus exercere, Malleus II. 4. The author goes into all the details of the demon’s procedure, the demon as he approaches men being known as the succubus, and women as the incubus. Many of the details are too vile to repeat. Such passages of Scripture are quoted as Gen. vi. 2 and 1 Cor. xi. 10, which is made to teach that the woman wears a covering on her head to guard herself against the looks of lustful angels. The demons, in becoming succubi and incubi, are not actuated by carnal lust, so the author asserts, but by a desire to make their victims susceptible to all sorts of vices.
932 Many cases are given to show the efficacy of these preservatives. For example, a man in Ravensburg, who was tempted by the devil in the shape of a woman, became much concerned, and at last, recalling what a priest had said in the pulpit, sprinkled himself with salt and at once escaped the devil’s influence.
933 Haeresis dicenda est non maleficorum sed maleficarum, ut fiat a potiori denominatio. See Hansen: Quellen, 416-444, and Zauberwahn, 481-490.
934 Com. ad Sent., IV. 34, qu. I. 3, quia corruptio peccati prima ... in nos per actum generantem devenit, ideo maleficii potestas permittitur diabolo adeo in hoc actu magis quam aliis. See Hansen: Quellen, pp. 88-99. In answering the question why more women were given to sorcery than men, Alexander Hales declared that it was because she had less intellectual vigor than man, minus habet discretionem spiritus.
935 See Hansen: Quellen, p. 423 sqq. Wyclif does not seem to have had so low an opinion of woman as did the writers of the century after him. And yet he says, Lat. Serm. II. 161, Femina super in malicia multos viros ... veritas est quod natura feminea est virtute inferior, etc.
936 Ista secta strigiarum. So Bernard of Como, who was followed by Nicolas Jacquier, Prierias, etc. Hansen: Quellen, pp. 282, 319.
937 Turrecremata, the Spanish dogmatician and canonist, dissents from the opinion that the flying women were led by Diana and Herodias, on the rational grounds that Diana never existed and Herodias probably was never permitted to leave hell.
938 See the realistic language of Jacquier, Prierias, Bartholomew of Spina, etc. Quellen, p. 136, etc.
939 Jacquier, Widman of Kemnat, Barthol. of Spina, etc., Quellen, pp. 141, 234, 327, sq.
940 Valdenses ydolatrae, Quellen, pp. 157, 165. The poet Martin la Franc, secretary to Felix V., in his Champion des dames, about 1440, speaks of 10,000 witches celebrating a sabbat in the Valley of Wallis. Six hundred of them were brought to confess they had cohabited with demons. Quellen, 99-104.
941 The incident is told by that famous witch-inquisitor, Bernard of Como, in his De strigiis. Hansen: Quellen, pp. 279-284.
942 From scoba, meaning broom. So in the tract Errores Gazariorum seu illorum qui scobam vel baculum equitare probantur, Quellen, pp. 118-123.
943 Quellen, p. 131 sq. This medical expert declared that women and men were often turned into toads and cats. When such a cat’s paw was cut off, it was found that the foot of the suspected witch was gone. With his own eyes, this mediaeval practitioner says he saw such a woman burnt in Rome, and he states that many such cases occurred in the papal metropolis. Hartlieb was medical adviser to Duke Albert III. of Bavaria. His Buch aller verbotenen Kunst, Unglaubens u. d. Zauberei, was written 1456.
944 Hansen devotes 60 pages of his Quellen to the title, date and authors of the Malleus. An excellent German translation is by J. W. R. Schmidt: Der Hexenhammer, Berlin, 3 vols., 1906.
945 Flagellum haereticorum fascinariorum, The Heretics’ Flail. Extracts in Hansen, 133-144. Tract. de calcinatione daemonum seu malignorum spirituum, still in MS. in Brussels.
946 De strigmagarum daemonumque mirandis, Rome, 1521, and De strigibus et lamiis, Venice, 1535. Hansen, pp. 317-339.
947 Strix sive de ludificatione daemonum, 1523. See Burckhardt-Geiger: Renaissance, Excursus, II. 359-362. The official papal view at the close of the 16th century was set forth by the canonist, Francis Pegna, d. in Rome 1612. He held an appointment on the papal commission for the revision of Gratian’s Decretals, and asserts that the aerial flights and cohabitation of witches could be proved beyond all possible doubt. See extracts from his Com. on Eymericus Directorium. Hansen: Quellen, p. 358 sq.
948 Infessura, Tommasini’s ed., p. 25. For another burning in Rome, 1442, Burckhardt-Geiger, II. 359. For witchcraft in Italy, see this author, II. p. 255-264. Also the extensive lists of trials, 1245-1540, noted down in Hansen’s Quellen; the ecclesiastical trials, pp. 445-516; the civil, pp. 517-615. In 1623 Gregory XV. renewed the penalty of lifelong imprisonment for making pacts with the devil.
949 Hansen: Quellen, pp. 467-472. For the notorious case of Gilles de Rais, the reputed original Bluebeard, see Lea: Inq., III. 468-487.
950 For other figures, see Hansen: Zauberwahn, p. 532 sqq., Hoensbroech, I. 500 sqq., and Lecky, I. 29 sqq. Seven thousand are said to have been burnt at Treves. In 1670, 70 persons were arraigned in Sweden and a large number of them burnt.
951 Döllinger-Friedrich, pp. 130, 447. For Loos’ recantation as given by Delrio, see Phil. Trsll. and Reprints, III. In a letter, written in 1629, the chancellor of the bishop of Würzburg states that the week before a beautiful maiden of 19 had been executed as a witch. Children of three and four years, he adds, to the number of 300, were reported to have had intercourse with the devil. He himself had seen children of seven and promising students of 12 and 16 put to death. Phil. Trsll., etc., III.
952 The transation taken from the Phila. Trsll. and Reprints, vol. III.
953 Reprinted from Hansen: Quellen, pp. 25-27. The Latin text is also found In Soldan, p. 215, and Mirbt, p. 171 sq. Germ. trsl in Schmidt, pp. xxxvi-xli, and Hoensbrooch, I, 384-386. Engl. trsl. in Phila. Trsll. and Reprints,. vol. III
954 Lea, I. 100 sqq., 107 sq.
955 Ferdinand was associated with his father, John of Navarre, in the government of Aragon from the year 1469. The same year he was married to Isabella, sister of Henry IV., king of Castile. At Henry’s death, Isabella’s title to the throne was disputed by Juana who claimed to be a daughter of Henry, but was popularly believed to be the child of Beltram de la Cueva and so called La Beltraneja. The civil war, which followed, was brought to a close in 1479 by Juana’s retirement to a convent, and the undisputed recognition of Isabella. Ferdinand and Isabella’s reign is regarded as the most glorious in Spanish annals. Ferdinand’s grandson, through his daughter Juana, Charles V., succeeded to his dominions.
956 Lea, I. 15.
957 Lea, II. 457-463.
958 Lea, I. 165.
959 The list is given by Lea, I. 556-559.
960 Hefele, in his Life of Cardinal Ximenes, p. 265 sqq., took the position that the Spanish Inquisition was a state institution, Staatsanstalt, pointing out that the inquisitor-general was appointed by the king, and the Inquisitors proceeded in his name. Ranke, Die Osmanen u. d. span. Monarchie inFürsten u. Völker, 4th ed., 1877, calls it "a royal institution fitted out with spiritual weapons." On the other hand, the Spanish historians, Orti y Lara and Rodrigo take the position that it was a papal institution. Pastor takes substantially this view when he insists upon the dominance of the religious element and the bull of Sixtus IV. authorizing it. So, he says, erscheint d. span. Inquisition als ein gemischtes Institut mit vorwiegend kirchlichem Charakter, 1st ed., II. 542-546, 4th ed., III. 624-630. Wetzer-Welte, VI. 777, occupies the same ground and quotes Orti y Lara as saying, "The Inquisition fused into one weapon the papal sword and the temporal power of kings." Dr. Lea emphasizes the mixed character of the agency, and says that the chief question is not where it had its origin, but which party derived the most advantage. It is, however, of much importance for the history of the papacy as a divine or human institution to insist upon its responsibility in authorizing and supporting the nefarious Holy Office. Funk says that "the assumption that the Spanish Inquisition was primarily a state institution does not hold good."
961 Lea, I. 235; II. 103 sqq.
962 Lea, II. 116, etc., insists upon the double-dealing of the papacy, from Sixtus IV. to Julius II., "who with one hand sold letters of absolution and with the other declared them invalid by revocation." Sixtus’ bull of 1484 was confirmed by Paul III., 1549. Its claim, an infallible papacy cannot well abandon.
963 Lea, I. 214. For Ferdinand’s expressions of satisfaction with the zeal shown in the burning of heretics, as after a holocaust at Valladolid, September, 1509, see Lea, I. 189, 191, etc.
964 Lea, I. 217.
965 Lea, I. 250 sqq.; Wetzer-Welte, Petrus Arbues, vol. IX.
966 Lea, II. 336
967 Peter Martyr, as quoted by Lea, II. 381.
968 Lea, I. 217; II. 353, sq., 400-413.
969 Lea, II. 363.
970 Lea: The Inq. in the Span. Dependencies, p. 219.
971 Lea heads a chapter on this subject, Supereminence, I. 350-375.
972 For list of temporary tribunals, see Lea, I. 541-555.
973 Lea devotes a whole chapter to the subject, II. 285-314. In time limpieza was made a condition of holding church offices of any sort in Spain.
974 Lea, II. 485.
975 Lea, II. 137, gives cases of accused women, respectively 78, 80 and 86.
976 · Lea, III. 8, 14, etc.
977 In Paris the usual method was to inject water into the mouth, oil and vinegar also being used. The amount of water was from 9 to 18 pints. La Croix: Manners, Customs and Dress of the M. A., N. Y. 1874, chapter on Punishments, pp. 407-433.
978 Lea, III. 140-159.
979 For a description of an auto, see Lea, III. 214-224.
980 Lea, III. 185 sq., quotes the sentence upon Mencia Alfonso, tried at Guadalupe, 1485, which runs: "As a limb of the devil, she shall be taken to the place of burning so that by the secular officials of this town justice may be executed upon her according to the custom of these kingdoms." Paul III., 1547, and Julius III., 1550, conferred upon clerics the right of condemning to mutilation and death in cases where, as with the Venetian government, delays were interposed in the execution of the ecclesiastical sentence. Vacandard says, p. 180: "Some inquisitors, realizing the emptiness of the formula, ecclesia abhorret a sanguine, dispensed with it altogether and boldly assumed the full responsibility for their sentences. The Inquisition is the real judge,—it lights the fires .... It is erroneous to pretend that the Church had absolutely no part in the condemnation of heretics to death. Her participation was not direct and immediate, but, even though indirect, it was none the less real and efficacious." This author, p. 211, misrepresents history when he makes the legislation of Frederick II. responsible for the papal treatment of heresy. Innocent III. had been punishing the Albigenses to death long before the appearance of Frederick’s Constitutions.
981 The Spanish Inquisition was introduced into Sicily in 1487, where it met with vigorous resistance from the parliament, and in Sardinia, 1492. In the New World its victims were Protestants, conversos, bigamists and fornicators. The Mexican tribunal was abolished in 1820, and that of Peru, the same year. As late as 1774 a Bogota physician was tried "as the first and only one who in this kingdom and perhaps in all America" had publicly declared himself for the Copernican system.
982 Lea, chapter on Censorship, III. 481-548; Ticknor: Span. Lit., I. 461 sqq.
983 See Hoensbroech, I. 139, quoting Llorente. Dr. Lea speaks of the apparent tendency of early writers to exaggerate the achievements of the "Holy Office," and calls in question, though with some hesitation, Llorente’s figures and the figures given by an early secretary of the tribunal, Zurita, who records 4000 burnings and 30,000 reconciliations in Seville alone before 1520. See Lea’s figures, IV. 513-624. Father Gams, in his Kirchengesch. Spaniens, reckons the number of those burnt, up to 1604, at 2000, but he excludes from these figures the burnings for other crimes than heresy. See Lea, IV. 517.
984 Geiger-Burckhardt, I. 152.
985 "Along this line, see the strong remarks of Owen, pp. 72-96. This vigorous writer traces the roots of the Renaissance back to the liberating influence of the Crusades on the intelligence of Europe.
986 Burckhardt, I. 4. See vol. V., Pt I. 198 of this History.
987 Quoted by Burckhardt, I. 27. This author speaks of an Epidemie für kleine Dynastien in Italy.
988 Burckhardt, I. 145.
989 Vita Nuova, 10, 11. See Scartazzini, Handbuch, p. 193.
990 Vita Nuova, Norton’s trsl., p. 2.
991 Die Komödie ist der Schwanengesang des Mittelalters, zugleich aber auch das begeisterte Lied, welches die Herankunft einer neuen Zeit einleitet. Scartazzini, Dante Alighieri, etc., p. 530. See Geiger, II. 30 sq. Church, p. 2, calls it "the first Christian poem, the one which opens European literature as the Iliad did that of Greece and Rome." Dante knew scarcely more than a dozen Greek words, and, on account of its popular language, he called his great epic and didactic poem a comedy, or a village poem, deriving it from kwvmh, villa, without apparently being aware of the more probable derivation from kw'mo", merry-making.
992
Allen Schmerz, den ich gesungen,
all die Qualen, Greu’l und Wunden
Hab’ ich schon auf dieser Erden, hab’ ich in Florenz gefunden.
—Geibel: Dante
in Verona.
One of the finest poems on Dante is by Uhland, others by Tennyson, Longfellow, etc.
993 Strong, p. 142.
994 "There is in Dante no trace of doctrinal dissatisfaction. He respects every part of the teaching of the Church in matters of doctrine, authoritatively laid down ... He gives no evidence of free inquiry and private judgment."—Moore, Studies, II. 65, 66.
995 Engl. translation by A. G. F. Howell, London, 1890.
996 See Burckhardt-Geiger, I. 219.
997 Of his 317 sonnets and 29 canzoni all are erotic but 31. For the sake of euphony, the author changed his patronymic Petrarco into Petrarca. In the English form, Petrarch, the accent is changed from the second to the first syllable.
998 "The noble desire of fame,"Par. xi. 85-117. See, on the subject, Burckhardt-Geiger, I. 154 sq. Pastor, I. 4 sq., calls special attention to this pursuit of the phantom, fame, by the Humanists at courts and from the people.
999 Robinson, Life, p. 336, says, "Petrarch’s love for Cicero and Virgil springs from what one may call the fundamental Humanistic impulse, delight in the free play of mind among ideas that are stimulating and beautiful."
1000 See Burckhardt-Geiger, II., Excursus LXI.
1001 For Petrarca’s attachment to Laura, see Koerting, p. 686 sq., and Symonds, Ital. Lit., I. 92, and The Dantesque and Platonic Ideals of Love, in Contemp. Rev., Sept., 1890.
1002 Symonds, Ital. Lit., I. 99, says, "Boccaccio was the first to substitute a literature of the people for the literature of the learned classes and the aristocracy," etc.
1003 The best edition of his La Vita di Dante, with a critical text and introduction of 174 pages, is by Francesco Marci-Leone, Florence, 1888.
1004 In an attempt to break the force of the charge that in its beginnings the Renaissance was wholly an individualistic movement, independent of the Church, Pastor, I. 6 sqq., lays stress upon the gracious treatment Petrarca and Boccaccio received from popes and the repentance of their latter years.
1005 See Burckhardt-Geiger, II. 18 sqq.
1006 Burckhardt-Geiger, I. 277.
1007 I. 261 sq.
1008 Burckhardt-Geiger, I. 274; Symonds, II. 396 sqq.
1009 Gregorovius, VII, 539; Symonds, Rev. of Learning, II. 215.
1010 Burckhardt-Geiger, II. 21.
1011 See Pastor, II. 655 sqq., who dwells at length on this pope’s service to the library.
1012 R. Rocholl, D. Platonismus d. Renaissancezeit, in Brieger’s Zeitschr. für K.-gesch., Leipz., 1892, pp. 47-106.
1013 Cambr. Hist., I. 560.
1014 Bessarionis Opera in Migne’s Patrol. Graeca, vol. CLXI. Lives of Bessarion by Henri Vast, Paris, 1878, and H. Rocholl, Leip., 1904.
1015 Lionardo Bruni Aretini Epistolae, ed. Mehus, 2 vols., Flor., 1742.
1016 Opera Poggii, Basel, 1513, and other edds. Epistolae Poggii, ed. Tonelli, 3 vols., Flor., 1832, 1859, 1861. Shepherd: Life of Poggio. Pastor’s castigation of Poggio, I. 33 sqq., is in his most vigorous style.
1017 His life, Rosmini, 3 vols., Milan, 1808, Epistolae Filelfi, Venet., 1502.
1018 Sadoleti opp., Moguntiae, 1607; Verona, 1737, 4 vols. In his Concilium de emendanda Ecclesia, 1538, Sadoleto admitted many abuses and proposed a reformation of the Church, which he vainly hoped from the pope
1019 Valla’s Works, Basel, 1540, J. Vahlen; L. Valla, Vienna, 1864, 2d ed., 1870; Voigt, I. 464 sqq. See Benrath in Herzog, XX. 422 sqq.
1020 Cui nec Italia nec universa ecclesia multis seculis similem habuit non modo in omni disciplinarum genere sed ex constantia et zelo fide Christianorum non ficto. See his Respons. ad Lovan. et Colon theol. of March, 1520, Weimar ed., VI. 183. In this reply to the Louvain and Cologne theologians who had condemned his writings, Luther also speaks of the injustice of condemning Pico della Mirandola and Reuchlin.
1021 De falso credita et ementita Constantini donatione. A well-written MS. copy in the Vatican is dated 1451. The tract is printed in Valla’s Opera, 761-795, and in Brown’s Fasciculus rerum, Rome, 1690, pp. 132-157, French text, by A. Bonneau, Paris, 1879. Luther received a copy through a friend, Feb., 1520, and was strengthened by it in his opposition to popery, which he attacked unmercifully in the summer of that year in his Address to the German Nobility, and his Babyl. Captivity of the Church.
1022 The first issues were Invectivae in Vallam and Antidoti in Poggium. The coarse controversial language, common to many of the Humanists, unfortunately Luther and Luther’s Catholic assailants shared, and also Calvin.
1023 The Theses of Pico, Rome, 1486, and Cologne. His Opera, Bologna, 1496, and together with the works of his nephew, John F. Pico, Basel, 1572, and 1601.—G. Dreydorff: Das System des Joh. Pico von Mir., Marb., 1858.—Geiger, 204 sqq.—His Life, by his nephew, J. Fr. Pico. Trsl. from the Latin by Sir Thos. More, 1510. Ed., with Introd. and Notes, by J. M. Rigg, Lond., 1890.
1024 I. 217. See also II. 73, 306 sq.
1025 The discovery of the Laocoön in a vineyard in Rome was "like a Jubilee." Michelangelo was one of the first to see it. Sadoleto praised it in Latin verses. See description in Klaczko, W. 93-96.
1026 Taine, Lectures on Art, I. 16.—Lübke, Hist. of Art, II. 280 sq. says: Lionardo was one of those rare beings in whom nature loves to unite all conceivable human perfections,—strikingly handsome, and at the same time of a dignified presence and of an almost incredible degree of bodily strength; while mentally he possessed such various endowments as are rarely united in a single person,"etc. See also Symonds, III. 314.
1027 Julius ordered a colossal tomb wrought for himself, but he could not be depended upon as a paymaster, as Michelangelo complained. See Klaczko, p. 62.
1028 The Renaissance, III. 191.
1029 Seine Geschichte ist in den vier Begriffen enthalten: leben, lieben, arbeiten und jung sterben.
1030 Raphael, p. 428 sqq.
1031 Symonds, III. 516.
1032 See Grimm’s description, I. 186 sqq.
1033 Grimm, II. 224, speaks of the expression on Christ’s face as indescribably repelling, but says, if a last judgment has to be painted with Christ as the judge, such an aspect must be given him.
1034 Pastor, III. 54-9, following Redtenbacher, gives a list of the more important pieces of ecclesiastical architecture in Italy, 1401-1518.
1035 With these lines of Byron may be coupled
those of Schiller:—
Und
ein zweiter Himmel in den Himmel
Steigt Sanct Peter’s wundersamer Dom.
1036 See Burckhardt-Geiger, II. 178 sqq.
1037 VII. 536.
1038 Voigt, II. 213.
1039 Geiger, II. 182-4.
1040 · Pastor, I. 44 sqq., III. 66-8. It would be scarcely possible to furnish a more offensive portrait of a priest than the living person, Don Nicolo de Pelagait di Firarola. He had become the leader of a robber band and, in 1495, was confined in an iron cage in the open air in Ferrara. He had committed murder the day he celebrated his first mass and was absolved in Rome. Afterwards he killed four men and married two women who went about with him, violated women without number and led them captive, and carried on wholesale murder and pillage. But how much worse was this priest than John XXIII., charged by a Christian council with every crime, and Alexander VI., whose papal robes covered monstrous vice?
1041 See Pastor, III. 117; Symonds, II. 208, etc.
1042 Gregorovius, VIII. 300. For an excellent account of Pomponazzi and his views, see Owen: Skeptics, pp. 184-240.
1043 See Burckhardt-Geiger, II. 155 sqq. and his quotation from Rabelais.
1044 Bezold, p. 200, die vollendete sittliche Verkommenheit.
1045 He furnished the text to a series of obscene pictures by Giulio Romano. Symonds, Ital. Lit., II. 383 sqq. Reumont, Hist. of Rome, III., Part II. 367, calls Aretino "die Schandsäule der Literatur."
1046 The principles of his Principe an fully discussed by Villari in his Machiavelli, II. 403-473, and by Symonds, Age of the Despots, p. 306 sqq.
1047 See Symonds, Ital. Lit., II. 174 sqq.
1048 Non est nefas se virginibus sanctimonialibus immiscere. Pastor, I. 21.
1049 Frederick III., Ilgen’s trsl., II. 135 sqq.
1050 Burckhardt-Geiger, II. 161, 343 sqq. Symonds, II. 477. The mal franzese is said to have appeared in Naples in 1495. It spread like wildfire. During the Crusades the syphilitic disease, so ran the belief, was spread in the East through the French.
1051 Cortigiana, as quoted by Symonds, Ital. Lit., II. 191.
1052 Reumont, III., Pt. II. 461 sqq.; Gregorovius, viii, 306 sqq.; Burckhardt-Geiger, II. 331-336.
1053 Rev. of Learning, 407; Geiger, II. 176; Excursus II., 348 sqq.; Pastor, III. 101 sqq.; Voigt, II. 471; Gregorovius, viii, 308, says."we should inspire disgust did we attempt to depict the unbounded vice of Roman society in the corrupt times of Leo X. The moral corruption of an age, one of the best of whose productions has the title of Syphilis, is sufficiently known." Bandello, as quoted by Burckhardt, says: "Nowadays we see a woman poison her husband to gratify her lusts, thinking that a widow may do whatever she desires. Another, fearing the discovery of an illicit amour, has her husband murdered by her lover. And though fathers, brothers and husbands arise to extirpate the shame with poison, with the sword, and by every other means, women still continue to follow their passions, careless of their honor and their lives." Another time, in a milder strain, he exclaims: "Would that we were not daily forced to hear that one man has murdered his wife because he suspected her of infidelity; that another has killed his daughter, on account of a secret marriage; that a third has caused his sister to be murdered, because she would not marry as he wished! It is great cruelty that we claim the right to do whatever we list, and will not suffer women to do the same."
1054 Burckhardt-Geiger, II. 172 sqq.; Pastor, III. 128.
1055 Burckhardt-Geiger, II. 153; Symonds, Rev. of Learning, p. 406; Gregorovius, viii, 282.
1056 See Burckhardt-Geiger, II. 235 sqq.; Art. Astrologie in Wetzer-Welte, I. 1526 sqq., by Pastor; and Lea, Inquisition, III. 437 sqq.
1057 Summa, II. 2, 95; Migne’s ed., III. 729-731.
1058 Villari, Machiavelli, I. 275.
1059 Villari, Life and Times of Savonarola, p. 183. Savonarola, in a sermon, said: "Wouldst thou see how the Church is ruled by the hands of astrologers? There is no prelate or great lord that hath not intimate dealings with some astrologer, who fixeth the hour and the moment in which he is to ride out or undertake some piece of business. For these great lords venture not to stir a step save at their astrologer’s bidding." See the remarks of Baudrillart, p. 507, on the powerlessness of culture to restrain the delusion of astrology.
1060 Schmid, II. 83.
1061 Köstlin, Leben Luthers, I. 45. Rashdall, II., pp. 245, speaks of Erfurt as the first university formed after the model of Paris in which the organization by nations does not appear. It was abolished 1816. The endowments of the German universities came largely through the appropriation of prebends.
1062 Bezold, p. 204.
1063 Janssen, I. 27.
1064 Schmid, II. 112.
1065 It seems to have been the custom to apply the rod without mercy. Luther speaks of the number of floggings he got a day. No case is more famous than that of Hans Butzbach. As a little fellow he was accustomed to play truant. When the teacher, an Erfurt B. A., found it out, he took off the child’s clothes and, binding him to a post, flogged him till the blood covered his body. His mother, hearing the cries, hurried to the school, and bursting the door open and seeing her child, fell fainting to the floor. Schmid, II. 125.
1066 Bezold, p. 226.
1067 Among the other German Humanists were Crotus Rubeanus, 1480-1540, Georg Spalatin, 1484-1545, Beatus Rhenanus, 1485-1547, Eoban Hesse or Hessus, 1488-1540, Vadianus, 1484-1551, Glareanus or Loriti of Glarus, 1488-1563, and Bonifacius Amerbach, 1495-1562, the last three from German Switzerland.
1068 From kavpnion, i.e. little smoke, the Greek equivalent for Reuchlin, the diminutive of Rauch, smoke.
1069 "Stat [exegi] monumentum aere perennius." Reuchlin also explained the difficult theory of Hebrew accentuation, in De accentibus et orthographia lingum hebr., 1518. Comp. Geiger, Das Studium der hebr. Sprache in Deutschland v. Ende des 15ten bis zur Mitte des 16ten Jahrh., Breslau, 1870, and his Reuchlin, 161, etc.
1070 See quotation in Janssen, II. 40.
1071 Judenspiegel; Judenbeichte; Osternbuch; Judenfeind, 1507-’09.
1072 "Rathschlag, ob man den ruden alle ihre Bücher nehmen, abthun und verbrennen soll," Stuttgart, Nov. 6, 1510.
1073 Janssen, II. 51, in justifying the inquisitorial process and the action of the Un. of Cologne against Reuchlin, makes a great deal of these epithets.
1074 For an account of Hoogstraten, d. 1527, who came from Brabant, see Paulus: Die deutschen Dominikaner, etc., pp. 86-106. Among other writings, he wrote a book on witchcraft and two books, 1525, 1526, against Luther’s tracts, the Babylonian Captivity and Christian Freedom, Paulus, p. 105.
1075 Strauss, I. 99 sqq.
1076 Böcking, III. 413-448. Geiger: Reuchlin, p. 522, gives a facsimile of the picture.
1077 Strauss: Hutten’s Gespräche, pp. 121-3, etc., 143.
1078 Volume VI. of this History gives an extended survey of Erasmus’ career, writings and theological opinions. He belongs to the Middle Ages as much as to the modem period if not more, and the salient features of his life and historical position must be given here, even if there be a partial repetition of the treatment of vol. VI.
1079 In the compendium which he wrote of his life, Erasmus distinctly states that he was born out of wedlock and seems to imply that his father was a priest at the time. See Nichols, Letters, I. 14. The other view that the father became a priest later is taken by Froude, p. 2, and most writers.
1080 Nichols, 1. 224.
1081 Nichols, II. 2 sqq., 262.
1082 See Emerton’s remarks on this matter, p. 184 sqq.
1083 Nichols, II. 148 sq., 462.
1084 See Drummond, II. 268.
1085 Nichols, I. 64.
1086 For a number of quotations, see Froude, 123 sqq.
1087 Compare Erasmus’ disparaging remarks on the papacy on the occasion of the pageant of Julius II. at Bologna when an arch bore the inscription, "To Julius II, Conqueror of the Tyrant," Faulkner, p. 82 sqq.
1088 Paraclesis ad lectorem, prefixed to Erasmus’ New Testament.
1089 Praecipitatum fuit verius quam editum, says Erasmus himself in the Preface. The 2d edition also contains several pages of errors, some of which have affected Luther’s version. The 3d edition first inserts the spurious passage of the three heavenly witnesses, 1 John 5:7, to remove any occasion of offence, ne cui foret ansa calumniandi.
1090 Nichols, II. 535.
1091 Nichols, II. 198, 314, 522.
1092 See Emerton, pp. 454-5.
1093 Janssen, II. 9 sqq. The inventory of his goods contains a list of his furniture, wardrobe, napkins, nightcaps, cushions, goblets, silver vessels, gold rings and money (722 gold gulden, 900 gold crowns, etc.). See Sieber, Inventarium über die Hinterlassenschaft des Erasmus vom 22 Juli, 1536, Basel, 1889.
1094 Pref. to Pentateuch, Parker Soc. ed., p. 395.
1095 Imbart, II. 382. In his Skeptics of the French Renaissance, Lond., 1893, Owen treats of Montaigne, Peter Ramus, Pascal and other men who were imbued with the spirit of free inquiry and lived after the period included in this volume.
1096 Imbart, II. 364-372. Louis XI. was eulogized as being greater than Achilles, Alexander and Scipio, and the mightiest since Charlemagne.
1097 Imbart, II. 545.
1098 Imbart, II. 394, says, Il va donner un singulier éclat à la doctrine de la justification par la foi, sans, cependant, sacrifier les oeuvres. This author draws a comparison between Lefèvre and Erasmus. See, however, Lefèvre’s Preface itself, and Bonet-Maury in Herzog, V. 715.
1099 Wolsey applied the proceeds of 20 monasteries, which he closed, to the endowment of a school at Ipswich and of Cardinal College, Oxford. In 1516, Fox, bishop of Winchester, founded Corpus Christi College at the same university to teach the new learning.
1100 He wrote a History of England and revenged himself by disparaging Wolsey, who had refused to give him his favor.
1101 For his services to medicine, see W. Osler; Thos. Linacre, Cambr., 1908, pp. 23-27.
1102 Nichols: Erasmus’ Letters, I. 226. Sir Thomas More, writing to Colet, Nov., 1504, said: "I shall spend my time with Grocyn, Linacre and Lily. The first, as you know, is the director of my life in your absence, the second the master of my studies, the third my most dear companion."
1103 Seebohm, p. 283.
1104 See the letter. Froude: Erasmus, 139.
1105 Probably at Magdalen Hall. See Lupton, 23 sqq., and the same cautious author for Colet’s school life in London. For the facts of Colet’s career, our best authority is Erasmus’ letter to Justus Jonas.
1106 Quoted by Lupton, p. 76.
1107 For the letter to the abbot of Winchcombe, in which Colet describes the priest’s visit, see Lupton, p. 90 sqq., and Seebohm, p. 42 sqq.
1108 Seebohm, p. 107.
1109 Seebohm gives 1510. For date and the original name, see correspondence in London Times, July 7, 20, 1909, between M. E. J. McDonnell and Gardiner, surmaster and honorable librarian of St. Paul’s. The school was sometimes called Jesus’ School by Colet. The buildings were finished, August, 1510. The present location of the school is Hammersmith.
1110 The statutes are given by Lupton, Appendix A., p. 271 sqq. For the Accidence which Colet prepared for the school, see Lupton, Appendix B. In contrasting the recent Latin with the Latin of classic authors, profane and patristic, Colet called the former "blotterature rather than literature." One of the rules required the boys to furnish their own candles, stipulating they should be of wax and not of tallow. For the bishop who preached against St. Paul’s school as "a home of idolatry," see Colet’s letter to Erasmus, Nichols, II. 63.
1111 The former is an inference from Erasmus’ statement in his account of the visit to Walsingham, and the latter Erasmus’ plain statement in his letter to Jonas.
1112 The text in Lupton, Appendix C.
1113 Lupton, p. 183, says Colet might aptly have referred to the case of the archdeacon who, in the course of his visitation, went to Bridlington Priory with 97 horses, 21 dogs and 8 hawks. For Colet’s description in the Hierarchies of Dionysius of what a priest should be, see Lupton, p. 71; Seebohm, p. 76.
1114 Nichols, I. 376, II. 287. At a later time, to take More’s statement, Colet prosecuted the study, Nichols, II. 393.
1115 Nichols, H. 25, 35 sqq., 72, 258, etc.
1116 Gasquet: The Eve of the Reformation, p. 6, insists that the contrary view is "absolutely false and misleading."
1117 A Right Fruitful Admonition concerning the Order of a Good Christian Man’s Life. A tract by Colet reprinted in Lupton’s Life, p. 305 sqq., from an ed. of 1534.
1118 Lupton: Life of Colet, p. 143.
1119 See Gasquet: Eve of the Reform., p. 215 sqq.
1120 What estimate was put upon the life of a heretic in some quarters in England may be gathered from a letter written to Erasmus, 1511, by Ammonius, Latin secretary to Henry VIII. The writer said, he did "not wonder wood was so scarce and dear, the heretics necessitated so many holocausts." At the convocation of 1512, an old priest arguing for the burning of heretics repeated the passage louder and louder haereticum hominem devita (avoid) and explained it as if it were de vita tolli, to be removed from life, and thus turned the passage into a positive command to execute heretics. For Morels denial of having used cruelty towards heretics, see hisEngl. Works, p. 901 sqq. The martyrologist, Foxe, pronounced More "a bitter persecutor of good men and a wretched enemy against the truth of the Gospel."
1121 Dr. Lindsay in Cambr. Hist. of Engl. Lit., III. 19.
1122 Gasquet: The Eve of the Reformation, p. 378.
1123 · Nichols, II. 428. See also Seebohm, pp. 408, 416, 470.
1124 Hist. of the Engl. Church in the 16th Cent., etc., p. 160. Among the affecting scenes in the last experiences recorded of men devoted to martyrdom was the scene which occurred on Morels way to the Tower, reported by Morels first biographer, Roper (Lumby’s ed., p. liii). His favorite daughter, Margaret, longing once more to show her affection, pressed through the files of halberdiers and, embracing her father, kissed him and received his blessing. When she was again outside the ranks of the guards, she forced her way through a second time for a father’s embrace.
1125 Cambr. Hist. of Engl. Lit., p. 20. For an excellent summary of the Utopia, see Seebohm, pp. 346-365, and also W. B. Guthrie, in Socialism before the French Revol., pp. 54-132, N. Y., 1907. For the Latin edd. and Engl. transl., see Dict. of Natl. Biogr., p. 444. An excellent ed. of Robynson’s trsl., 2d ed., 1556, was furnished by Prof. Lumby, Cambr., 1879. The Life of More, by Roper, More’s son-in-law and a Protestant, is prefixed. Also Lupton: The Utopia, Oxf., 1895. A reprint of the Lat. ed., 1518, and the Engl. ed., 1551.
1126 See Lumby’s Introd., p. xiv, and Guthrie, p. 96 sq.
1127 There is, of course, no standing ground except that of generous toleration as between the view taken by the author and the view of Abbot Gasquet, who can find nothing praiseworthy in the Protestant Reformation and closes his chapter on the Revival of Letters in England, in The Eve of the Reform., p. 46, with the words, "What put a stop to the Humanist movement in England, as it certainly did in Germany, was the rise of the religious difficulties which were opposed by those most conspicuous for their championship of true learning, scholarship and education," meaning Colet, Erasmus, Fisher and More. For good remarks on the bearing of English Humanism on the Protestant movement, see Seebohm, pp. 494 sqq., 510.
1128 See chapter Reformation and Renascence in Scotl., by Hume-Brown in Cambr. Hist. of Eng. Lit., III. 156-186. For the gifted Alesius, who spent the best part of his life as a professor in Germany, see A. F. Mitchell: The Scottish Reformation, Edinb., 1900.
1129 Lea: Cler. Celibacy, II. 25. Gerson: Dial. naturae et sophiae de castitate ecclesiasticorum. Du Pin’s ed., II. 617-636.
1130 Lea: Inq. of Spain, I. 15 sqq.
1131 For further testimonies, see Lea: Cler. Celibacy, II. 8 sqq.
1132 See Lea in Cambr. Mod. Hist., I. 660.
1133 Quoted by Lindsay: The Reformation, II. 90. Of the Italian convents, Savonarola declared that the nuns had become worse than harlots.
1134 Janssen, I. 681, 687, 708; Ficker, p. 27; Bezold, pp. 79, 83.
1135 See Hefele-Hergenröther: Conciliengesch., VIII., under Kleidung, and Butzbach: Satirae elegiacae quoted by Janssen, I. 685 sqq.
1136 Janssen, I. 689-696, gives a full list of these bishops.
1137 Janssen, I. 726. Bezold, p. 83, certainly goes far, when he makes the unmodified statement, that the convents were high schools of the most shameful immorality—Hochschulen der gräuelichsten Unsittlichkeit.
1138 Sind jetzt allgemein Edelleute Spital, Janssen, I. 724.
1139 Die jungen Mönchlein, he said, und Nönnlein die du machest, die werden Huren und Buben. The young monks and nuns will become harlots and rascals. I have not spoken of that custom of mediaeval lust, the jus primae noctis or droit de marquette as it was called, whereby the feudal lord had the privilege of spending the first night with all brides. Spiritual lords in Southern France, having domains, did not shrink, in cases, from demanding the same privilege. Lea: Celibacy, I. 441.
1140 Lea, II. 59.
1141 Gee and Hardy: in Documents, etc., gives only two ecclesiastical acts between 1402-1532.
1142 Wilkins: Concil., III. 360-365.
1143 Capes: Engl. Ch. in the 14th and 15th Centt., p. 259, says that many of the clergy were actually married.
1144 Seebohm, p. 76. For Hutton’s summary of the Norwich visitation, see Traill: Social Engl., II. 467 sqq. He concludes that "if the religious did little good, they did no harm." But see same volume, p. 565, for the charge against the priests of Gloucester.
1145 Froude puts the composition of this tract in 1528. The 16th complaint runs: "Who is she that will set her hands to work to get 3 pence a day and may have at least 20 pence a day to sleep an hour with a friar, a monk or a priest. Who is she that would labor for a groat a day and may have at least 12 pence a day to be a bawd to a priest, monk or friar?"
1146 See James Gairdner in Engl. Hist. Rev., Jan., 1905.
1147 Dr. Tulloch says in his Luther and other Leaders of the Reformation, "Nowhere else had the clergy reached such a pitch of flagrant and disgraceful iniquity and the Roman Catholic religion such an utter corruption of all that is good as in Scotland."
1148 Bernard in Migne, 182:889, Th. Aq. Summa, II. 2, q. 189. Denifle, Luther und Lutherthum, I. 208, makes the monstrous charge of deliberate lying and knavery against Luther for his treatment of monkish baptism. Kolde: Denifle’s Beschimpfung M. Luthers, Leipz., 1904, pp. 33-49, shows the justice of Luther’s representations. Their truth is not affected by the statement of Joseph Ries: Das geistiche Leben nach der Lehre d. hl. Bernard, p. 86, namely that Bernard and the Church held that outside the convents there may be some who are in the state of perfection while inside cloistral walls there maybe those who are in the imperfect state.
1149 Contra vanam curiositatem, Du Pin’s ed., 1728, I. 106 sqq.
1150 Manuale curatorum predicandi praebens modum, 1503, quoted by Janssen, I. 38.
1151 Wolff’s and the Augsburger Beichtbüchlein, ed. Falk, pp. 78, 87; Gute Vermaninge, ed. by Bahlmann, p. 78; Nicholas Rum of Rostock as quoted by Janssen, I. 39. Der Spiegel des Sünders about 1470. See Geffcken, p. 69. Seelentrost, 1483, etc.
1152 Cruel, pp. 647, 652, closes his treatment of the German pulpit in the M. A. with the observation that the old view, reducing the amount of preaching in Germany in the 15th century, must be abandoned. Cruel’s view is now generally accepted by Protestant writers.
1153 Jannsen, I:43.
1154 Ullman: Reformers, etc., I. 229 sqq., classes him with the Reformers before the Reformation, and chiefly on the basis of his tract, De septem ecclesiae statibus.
1155 Lives of Geiler by Abbé L. Dacheux, 1876, and Lindemann, 1877. For earlier biographies by Beatus Rhenanus, etc., see Lorenzi, I. 1. Geiler’s sermons have been issued by Dacheux:Die ältesten Schriften G.’s, Freib., 1882, and by Ph. de Lorenzi, 4 vols., Treves, 1881-1883, with a Life. See also Cruel, Deutsche Predigt, pp. 538-576; H. Hering: Lehrbuch der Homiletik, p. 81 sq., and Kawerau, in Herzog VI. 427-432, Janssen, I. 136 sqq.
1156 A remarkable specimen of his power to play on words is given in his use of the word Affe, monkey, which he applied to ten different classes of the devil’s dupes. See Cruel, p. 543. Bischof, bishop, he derived from Beiss-schaf —bite-sheep—because prelates bit the sheep instead of taking them to pasture.
1157 Kawerau, VI. 428.
1158 See Lorenzi, II. 1-321.
1159 Cruel, quoting Surgant, p. 635. Erasmus, Praise of Folly, p. 95, speaks of the preacher "spending his glass in telling pleasant stories.’
1160 See Cruel’s chapter on pulpit polemics, pp. 617-629 and Janssen, I. 440 sqq. A preacher in Ulm, John Capistran, about 1450, was put by the aldermen in the lock-up for his excessive vehemence in condemning the prevailing luxury in dress and other questionable social customs.
1161 Praise of Folly, 141 sqq.
1162 Basel, ed. 1540, pp. 643-917.
1163 Nichols: Erasmus’ Letters, II. 235.
1164 W. G. Blaikie: The Preachers of Scotland, p. 36.
1165 This group of men forms the subject of Ullmann’s notable work The Reformers before the Reformation published in 1841. He followed Flacius, Walch and others before him who had treated them as precursors of the Reformation. Hase: Kirchengesch., II. 551; Köstlin: Leben Luthers, I. 18; Funk, p. 382, and others still hold to this classification. Loofs: Dogmengesch., p. 658, takes another view and says "they were not Reformers before the Reformation, nevertheless they bear witness that, in the closing years of the Middle Ages, the preparation made for the Reformation was not, merely negative." Janssen, I. 745, treats them as followers of Huss.
1166 Goch’s words are Sola scriptura canonica fidem indubiam et irrefragabilem habet auctoritatem. The writer in Wetzer-Welte concedes Goch’s depreciation of the Schoolmen and of Thomas Aquinas in particular, whom at one point Goch calls a prince of error—princeps erroris.
1167 Ullmann, I. 91, 149 sqq., asserts that Goch stated the doctrine of justification by faith alone. Clemen and the writer in Wetzer-Welte modify this judgment. Walch, as quoted by Ullmann, p. 150, gives 9 points in which Goch anticipated the Reformation.
1168 Catholic writers like Funk, p. 390, Wetzer-Welte and Janssen, I. 746, speak of Wesel as one of the false teachers of the Middle Ages and find many of the doctrines of the Reformation in his writings.
1169 For detailed account of the trial, Ullman, I. 383-405.
1170 During his trial, Wesel acknowledged the following writing as his: 1, Super modo obligationis legum humanarum ad quemdam Nicolaum de Bohemia. 2, De potestate actes. 3, De jeuniis. 4, De indulgentiis.
1171 The name, "John" is disputed by Muurling and Wetzer-Welte and shown by Paulus to be a mistake. Gansfort, or Goesevort, was the name of the village from which the family came.
1172 See Ritschl: The Christian Doctr. of Justification and Reconciliation. Edinb. ed., p. 481 sq.
1173 In a letter accompanying the gift, Honius wrote that the words "This is my body" meant "This represents my body." For Luther’s reply, see Köstlin: Luthers Leben, I. 701. For the lat edd. of Wessel’s works, see Doedes, pp. 435, 442. Doedes in Studien u. Kritiken, for 1870, p. 409, asks, "Who in the latter half of the 15th cent. had so much genuine faith and evangelical knowledge as this man who was always the scholar of the Lord Jesus Christ and nothing else?"
1174 The translation is from Schottmüller, pp. 2, 3. This writer gives two of Savonarola’s letters to his mother.
1175 The one, the Vulgate printed in Basel, 1491, the other in Venice, 1492. See Luotto: Dello Studio, etc. This author draws a parallel between Leo XIII.’s commendation of the study of the Bible and Savonarola’s emphasis upon it as the seat of authority.
1176 Sermon, March 14, 1498. Schottmüller, p. 111. Roscoe: Life of Lorenzo, ch. VIII., says: "The divine word from the lips of Savonarola, descended not amongst his audience like the dews of heaven. It was the piercing hail, the sweeping whirlwind, the destroying sword."
1177 Villari, I. 183 sqq.
1178 So Nov. 1, 1494, etc. See Schottmüller, p. 28 sqq. The motto, cito et velociter, was repeated to Savonarola by the Virgin in his vision of heaven, 1495.
1179 Rudelbach, pp. 333-346, presents an elaborate statement of Savonarola’s attitude to the Bible, and quotes from one of his sermons on the Exodus thus: "The theologians of our time have soiled everything by their unseemly disputations as with pitch. They do not know a shred of the Bible, yea, they do not even know the names of its books."
1180 Lucas, pp. 55-61, gives a translation of the interview. Also Perrens, II. 167-177.
1181 Luotto asserts that the dilemma is presented of the genuineness of Savonarola’s predictions or downright imposture and he boldly supports the former view. Pastor, Villari, Lucas and others show that we are not narrowed down to this dilemma.
1182 In his first letter to Savonarola July 21, 1495. See the text in O’Neil, p. 10 sqq. Savonarola’s reply, p. 26 sqq.
1183 Villari I. 855 and Bonet-Maury, p. 232.
1184 This is the view of Lucas, pp. 69 sq., Pastor, Creighton, III. 248, who pronounces "the prophetic claims a delusion," and Villari. The last author says, I. 362 sqq., "Is it not possible that Savonarola was intoxicated by the feeling that the earlier predictions had been fulfilled, and, as the difficulty of maintaining his position in Florence in the last years of his life increased, he felt forced to appeal more and more to this endowment as though it were real?" Rudelbach gives a long chapter to Savonarola’s prophecies, pp. 281-333. Pastor discusses Savonarola’s alleged prophetic gift thoroughly in his Gesch. d. Päpste, III. 146 sqq., and in refutation of Luotto in his Zur Beurtheilung.
1185 So Pastor, III. 141. The account given of Lorenzo’s interview with Savonarola is based upon Burlamacchi and Mirandola. Politian, in a letter to Jacopo Antiquario, gave a different amount of the three demands and made no mention of Savonarola’s demand that Florence be restored her liberties. He also added that Savonarola left the room pronouncing upon the dying man a blessing. Politian’s version is accepted by Roscoe, ch. X., Creighton, III. 296-299 and Lucas, 83 sq. The version given above is accepted by Villari, 168 sqq., W. Clark, p. 116, and the rigid critic Hase, p. 20. Ranke did not see his way clear to deny its truth and Reumont, II. 443, who denied it in the 1st ed. of his Lorenzo de’ Medici, hesitates in the 2d ed. Pastor proceeds upon the basis of its truth but expresses doubt in a note.
1186 One of Savonarola’s propositions was to levy taxes on real property alone and, it seems, he was not averse to taxing Church property. Landucci, p. 119; Villari, I. 269, 298; II. 81.
1187 See the document in Lucas, p. 180, and O’Neil, p. 9 sq. The original in Rudelbach.
1188 Zur Beurtheilung, p. 66. Pastor is refuting Luotto’s position.
1189 The Italian text in Perrens, I. 471 sq. The sermons of this period were on Amos, Zachariah, Micah and Ruth. According to Burlamacchi, the sultan had some of them translated into Turkish. Villari, II. 87.
1190 Dio Kultur d. Renaissance, II. 200 sq.
1191 The bull is given by Villari, II. 189 sq.; Pastor, III. 411 sq.
1192 Published in 1497, both in Latin and Etruscan, the Etruscan translation being by Savonarola himself.
1193 Pastor: Beurtheilung, p. 71 sqq.; Villari, II. 252.
1194 See Schnitzer: Feuerprobe, p. 144.
1195 See Alexander’s letters in Perrens, I. 481-485; Pastor, III. 418 sq. O’Neil finds no room for them.
1196 See Schnitzer: Feuerprobe, p. 38 sqq.
1197 For the originals, see Perrens, I. 487-492. Excerpts are given by Villari, II. 292 sq. See also Hase, p. 59, Creighton, III. 237. Of the genuineness of the letters, Villari says there can be no doubt.
1198 Landucci’s account of the fuoco, p. 165 sqq., is most vivid. For Cerretani’s account, Schnitzer’s ed., 59-71.
1199 See Schnitzer: Feuerprobe, p. 49 sq.
1200 Schnitzer, p. 54.
1201 Schnitzer, p. 64 sq., who goes into the matter at length, and Villari, II. 306 sqq., agree in the opinion that Alexander fully sympathized with the ordeal. They also agree that the Arrabbiati were largely, if not wholly, responsible for the suggestion of the ordeal and making it a matter of public appointment. Pastor, III. 429, represents Alexander as wholly disapproving the ordeal.
1202 There is a difference among the contemporary writers about the figures. Landucci, p. 168, gives the length at 50 braccia, width 10 and height 4; Bartolomeo Cerretaui, Schnitzer ed. p. 62, the width as 1 braccio and the height 2.
1203 Schnitzer, p. 159 sq., who says the signory and the Franciscans joined "in packing the cards."
1204 Etiam per torturam. Alexander’s letter in Lucas, p. 372.
1205 The reports of Savonarola’s trial and confessions are of uncertain value, as they were garbled by the reporter Ser Ceccone. See Pastor, III. 432 sq. Landucci says that from 9 A. M. till nightfall the cries of Domenico and Sylvestro under the strain of torture could be heard in the city prison.
1206 See the miserable letters sent by the papal commission to Alexander, Lucas, pp. 434-436.
1207 Weimar ed. XII. 248. Twenty-three edd. of Savonarola’s exposition appeared within two years of the author’s death and, before half a century elapsed, it had been translated into Spanish, German, English and French. In Italy, it was used as a tract and put into the hands of prisoners condemned to death. It was embodied in the Salisbury Primer,1538, and in Henry VIII.’s Primer,1543.
1208 See the excellent remarks of Burckhardt: Renaiss., II. 200.
1209 Pastor, III. 436 says that Savonarola was always true to Catholic dogma in theory. His only departure was disobeying the pope and appealing to a council. Father Proctor, Pref. to Triumph of the Cross, p. xvii, calls Savonarola "Of Catholics the most Catholic."
1210 Cardinal Capecelatro in his Life of St. Ph. Neri. trsl. by Father Pope, I. 278, says, "Philip often read Savonarola’s writings especially the Triumph of the Cross, and used them in the instruction of his spiritual children." Quoted by Proctor, Preface, p. 6. For Catherine de Ricci, see her Life by F. M. Capes, Lond.,1908, pp. 48, 49, 53,270 sq. She was devoted in her cult of Savonarola and wrote a laud to him. This was the chief objection to her beatification in 1716, but the arguments for an unfavorable judgment of Savonarola were answered on that occasion.
1211 Villari, II. 417, following Schwab and other Catholic writers. The interpretation put upon Benedict’s words is denied by Pastor: Beurtheilung, p. 16 sq., and Lucas.
1212 Father O’Neil, a Dominican, in his work, Was Savonarola really excommunicated? takes this position and says, p. 132, "Alexander did not inflict any censure on Savonarola." The fact, however, is that in his letters to the signory, Alexander proceeded on the basis of his brief of excommunication. He stated distinctly the reasons for his being excommunicated and he called upon the priests of Florence to publicly announce his sentence of May 12,1497, upon pain of drawing ecclesiastical censure upon themselves. O’Neil replies that a papal decision, based upon a false charge, is invalid, p. 175 sqq.
1213 Rechtlos hingemordert, Kirchengesch., p. 503. Ranke’s statement that view making Savonarola a hero is a Dominican legend "worked out after the preacher’s death" has been rendered untenable by the latest research by the eminent Savonarola scholar, the Catholic Professor Schnitzer. See his Feuerprobe, p. 152.
1214 Sermon VIII. in Prato ed. quoted by Rudelbach. Bayonne wrote his work in 1879 to dispose of this charge and to prepare the way for Savonarola’s canonization.
1215 Canonizat eum Christus per nos, rumpanter etiam papae et papistae simul. Weimar ed. XII. 248.
1216 Kirchengesch., II. 566.
1217 So sober a writer as Reuss, p. 607, speaks of the commentaries on the Canticles, as being without number.
1218 Summa, I. 1 art. x.
1219 See Lupton, p. 104, and Seebohm, pp. 30, 124 sq., 445-447.
1220 Farrar, p. 295.
1221 The Obedience of a Christian Man, Parker Soc., p. 303 sq. The author of the Epp. obscurorum virorum speaks of having listened to a lecture on poetry, in which Ovid was explained naturaliter, literaliter, historialiter et spiritualiter. In his preface to the Pentateuch, p. 394, Tyndale said, "The Scripture hath but one simple, literal sense whose light the owls cannot abide."
1222 Lyra’s work was printed 8 times before 1500. The ed. printed at Rome,1471-1473, is in 5 vols.
1223 De veritate scr. sac., I. 275. Wyclif quotes Lyra, II. 100, etc.
1224 Prol. 2. Omnes presupponunt sensum Lit. tanquam fundamentum, unde sicut aedificium declinans a fundamento disponitur ad ruinam expositio mystica discrepans a sensu lit. reputanda est indecens et inepta. See Reuss, p. 610.
1225 Du Pin’s ed.,1728, I. 3, etc.
1226 Sensus lit. scripturae est utrobique verus, De ver., I. 73,122.
1227 Gerson, De sensu lit. scr. sac. Du Pin’s ed.,1728, I. 2 sq., says, sensus lit. semperest verus and sensus lit. judicandus est Prout ecclesia a Sp. S. inspirata determinat et non ad cujuslibet arbitrium.
1228 Paraclesis.
1229 Falk, pp. 24, 91-97, gives a full list with the places of issue. Walther gives a list of 120 MSS. of the Bible in German translation. The Lenox Library in New York has a copy of the Mazarin Bible. The first book bearing date, place and name of printers was the Psalterium issued by Fust and Schöffer, Aug. 14,1457. See Copinger: Incunabula biblica or the First Half Century of the Latin Bible, Lond.,1892.
1230 Often only a brief selection of Psalms was given. Such collections were meant as manuals of devotion and perhaps also to be used In memorizing. See Falk, p. 28 sqq.
1231 Falk, p. 32. The word postilla comes from post illa verba sicut textus evangelii and its use goes back to the 13th century.
1232 Janssen, I. 23, 75 attempts to establish it as a fact that the copies struck off were numerous. He cites in confirmation the edition of the Latin Grammar of Cochlaeus,1511, which included 1,000 copies, and of a work of Bartholomew Arnoldi, 1517, 2,000 copies. Sebastian Brant declared that all lands were full of the Scriptures, and the Humanist, Celti, that the priests could find a copy in every inn if they chose to look. 6,000 copies of Tyndale’s New Testament were printed in a single edition. The Koberger firm of Nürnberg has the honor of having produced no less than 26 editions, 1476-1520. Its Vulgate was on sale in London as early as 1580.
1233 Hase: Ch. Hist., II. 2, p. 493. Faulkner: Erasmus, p. 127 sqq. Dorpius’ letter is given by Nichols, II. 168 sqq.
1234 Migne CCXIV:695 sq.
1235 Ne praemissos libros laici habeant in vulgari translatos arctissime inhibemus, Mansi, XXIII. 194.
1236 Prohibendam esse vulgarem translationem librorum sac, etc. Contra vanam curiositatem, Du Pin’s ed., I. 105.
1237 Basel ed., V. 117 sq.
1238 Falk, p. 18. Janssen, I. 72, is careful to tell that the peasant, Hans Werner, who could read, knew his Bible so well by heart that he was able to give the places where this text and that were found.
1239 Es ist fast ein bös Ding dass man die Bibel zu deutsch druckt. Quoted by Frietsche-Nestle in Herzog, II. 704.
1240 The text is given In Mirbt: Quellen zur Gesch. d. Papsttums, p. 173.
1241 Quis enim dabit idiotis et indoctis hominibus et femineo sexui, etc.
1242 Reuss, p. 534. The last four editions of the old German Bible were 1490, Augsburg, 1494, Lübeck, Augsburg, 1508, 1518.
1243 We might have expected some definite utterance in regard to Bible translations from Pecock, in his Repressor of Overmuch Blaming of the Clergy, 1450-1460. What he says is in the progress of his refutation of the Lollards’ position that all things necessary to be believed and done are to be found in the Scriptures. He adds, Rolls Series, I. 119, "And thou shalt not find expressly in Holy Scripture that the New and Old Testaments should be writ in English tongue to laymen or in Latin tongue to clergy."
1244 Pref. to the Pentateuch, Parker Soc. ed., Tyndale’s Doctr. Works, p. 392. Arundel did not adduce any errors in Wyclif’s version. Abbot Gasquet, in The Old Engl. Bible, p. 108, and Eve of the Reform., p. 209 sqq., attempts to show that the Bible was not a proscribed book in England before the Reformation. The testimonies he adduces, commending the Scriptures, are so painfully few as to seem to make his case a hopeless one. Dixon, Hist. of the Ch. of Engl., I. 451, speaks of Arundel’s "proclaiming the war of authority against English versions."
1245 Cochlaeus informed the English authorities of Tyndale’s presence in Wittenberg and his proposed issue of the English N. T., in order to prevent "the importation of the pernicious merchandise." Tonstall professed to have discovered no less than 2000 errors in Tyndale’s N. T. See Fulke’s Defence in Parker Soc. ed., p. 61. Tyndale, Pref. to the Pent., p. 373, says, that "the papists who had found all their Scripture before in their Duns or such like devilish doctrine, now spy out mistakes in my transl., even if it be only the dot of an i."
1246 See Baird: Hist. of the Huguenots, I. 57; Lindsay: The Reformation, II. 80.
1247 Book of Martyrs, V. 355.
1248 Ed. Reuss: D. deutschen Historienbibeln vor d. Erfindung d. Bücherdrucks,1855.—J. T. Berjeau: Biblia pauperum, Lond.,1859.—Laib u. Schwarz: D. Biblia pauperum n. d. original in d. Lyceumbibl. zu Constanz, Zürich,1867,—Th. Merzdorf: D. deutschen Historienbibeln nach 40 Hdschriften, Tüb., 1870, 2 vols.—R. Muther: D. ältesten deutschen Bilderbibeln, 1883.—Falk: D. Bibel an Ausgange d.MA, p. 77 sqq.—Biblia pauperum n. d. Wolfenbüttel Exemplare jetzt in d. Bibl. nationale, ed. P. Heintz, mit Einleitung über d. Entstehung d. biblia pauperum, by W. L. Schreiber, Strass., 1903.—Artt. Bilderbibel, in Herzog, III 214 and Historienbibel, in Herzog, VIII. 155 sqq. and Bib. pauperum, in Wetzer-Welte, II. 776 sq.—Reuss: Gesch. d. N. T., 524 sqq.
1249 The Constance copy in the Rosengarten museum contains many pictures, with explanatory notes on each page. I was particularly struck with the execution of Christ’s entry into Jerusalem.
1250 Bezold, p. 112, speaks of the number of these manuals as massenhaft and Dr. Barry, Cambr. Hist., I. 641, with rhetorical unprecision speaks of them as sold in all book-markets. See J. Geffcken: D. Bibelcatechismen d. 15 Jahrh., Leipz.,1855.—B. Hasak. D. christl. Glaube d. deutschen Volkes beim Schlusse d. MA, Regensb., 1868.—P. Bahlmann: Deutschland’s kathol. Katechismen his zum Ende d. 16 Jahrh., Münster, 1894.—F. Falk: D. deutschen Sterbebüchlein bis 1520, Col., 1890. Also Drei Beichtbüchlein nach den 10 Geboten, Münster, 1907. Also D. Druckkunst im Dienste d. Kirche bis 1520, Col., 1879.—F. W. Battenberg; Joh. Wolff, Beichtbüchlein, Giessen, 1907.—Janssen-Pastor, I. 82 sqq.—Achelis: Prak. Theol., II. 497 sqq.—Wiegand: D. Apost. Symbol in MA, p. 50 sqq
1251 Printed at Mainz, by Peter Schöffer,1498, 47 pp.
1252 See list of the editions in Bahlmann, p. 13 sq. The Cologne ed. of 1474 is in the London museum.
1253 Bahlmann, pp. 17-19. The first dated MS. copy is 1470.
1254 Bahlmann, p. 7, gives as the probable date of composition,1450. The 1st printed ed., Augsburg, 1484. See also Geffcken, pp. 107-119.
1255 Bahlmann gives it in full, pp. 63-74.
1256 See Falk: Drei Beichtbüchlein. The text of Wolff’s manual fills pp. 17-75. Falk also gives a penitential book, printed at Nürnberg, 1475, pp. 77-81, and a manual printed at Augsburg, 1504, pp. 82-96.
1257 Gerson’s opp., Du Pin’s ed., III. 280. Luther, in the same vein, said in 1516, Weimar ed., I. 450, 494, that, if there was to be a revival in the Church, it must start with the instruction of the children. A single book, corresponding to the manuals above described, has come down to us, from an earlier period, the composition of a monk of Weissenberg of the 9th century. See two Artt. on Catechisms in the Presb. Banner, Dec. 31, 1908, Jan. 7, 1909 by D. S. Schaff.
1258 Maskell: Monumenta ritualia, 2d ed., 1882, III., pp. ii-lxvii and a reprint of a Prymer, III 3-183. Dr. Edward Barton edited three Primers, dating from 1535, 1539, 1546, Oxf., 1834. See also Proctor’s Hist. of the Bk. of Com. Prayer, p. 14 sq. Proctor calls the Primer "the book authorized for 150 years before the Reformation by the Engl. Church, for the private devotion of the people." A. W. Tuer: Hist. of the Horn Book, 2 vols., Lond., 1896. Highly illust. and most beautiful vols.
1259 Maskell, III., pp. xxxv-xlix, says the word, Prymer, can be traced to the beginning of the 14th century.
1260 Horn-books, as Mr. Tuer says, were much used in England, Scotland and America, down to the close of the 18th century. So completely had they gone out of use, that even Mr. Gladstone declared he knew "nothing at all about them. Tuer, I., p. 8.
1261 Text in Lupton: Life of Colet, pp. 285-292.
1262 G. Peignot: Recherches sur les Danses des morts, Paris, 1826.—C. Douce: The Dance of Death, London, 1833.—Massmann: Literatur der Todtentänze, etc., Leipzig, 1841.—R. Fortoul: Les Danses des morts, Paris, 1844.—Smith: Holbein’s Dance of Death, London, 1849.—G. Kastner, Les Danses des morts, Paris, 1852.—W. Bäumker: Der Todtentanz, Frankfurt, 1881.—W. Combe: The Engl. Dance of Death, new ed., 2 vols., N. Y., 1903.—Valentin Dufour, Recherches sur la danse macabre, peinte en 1425, au cimetiere des innocents, Paris, 1873.—Wetzer-Welte: Todtentanz, XI., 1834-1841.
1263 William Dunbar, the Scotch poet, wrote with boisterous humor, The Dance of the Sevin Deidlie Synnis (1507?), perhaps as a picture of a revel held on Shrove Tuesday at the court. Each of the cardinal sins performed a dance. Ward-Waller: Cambr. Hist. of Lit., II. 289, etc.
1264 In addition to the Lit. given in vol. V.: 1, p. 869, see F. E. Schelling: Hist. of the Drama of Engl.,1558-1642, with a Résumé of the Earlier Drama from the Beginning, Boston, 1908.
1265 Pollock gives 48 York guilds with plays assigned to each, pp. xxxi-xxxiv. There are records of plays in more than 100 Engl. towns and villages, Pollock, p. xxiii.
1266 Text in Pollock, p. 8 sqq. It was common to represent Noah’s consort as a shrew. so Chaucer in the Miller’s Tale.
1267 The text in Pollock. It was revived in New York City in the Winter of 1902-1903 and played in three theatres, creating a momentary interest.
1268 See Erasmus: Praise of Folly, Enchiridion and Colloquies.—Gasquet: Eve of the Reformation, pp. 365-394.—G. Ficker: D. ausgehende Mittelalter, Leipzig, pp. 69-73.—H. Siebert, Rom. Cath.:Beiträge zur vorreformatorischen Heiligen-und Reliquienverehrung, Frei b. im Br., 1907.—Bezold, p. 105 sqq., Janssen-Pastor.
1269 Falk-Druckkunst, pp. 33-37; 44-70 etc. Siebert, p. 55 sq.—Wey: Itineraries, ed. by Roxburghe Club, 1857.
1270 We have the account of the latter by an eye-witness, the chronicler priest, Conrad Stolle of Erfurt. See Ficker, p. 69 sq.
1271 Bezold,105 sq., Janssen, I. 748. See an art., Relic worship in the Heart of Europe, in the Presb. Banner, Sept. 16, 1909, by D. S. Schaff on a visit to Einsiedeln, whither 160,000 pilgrims journeyed in 1908, and to Aachen when the "greater relics," which are displayed once in 7 years, were exposed July 9-21, 1909, and according to the Frankfurt press attracted 600,000 pilgrims.
1272 Janssen, I. 748-760, ascribes the popularity of pilgrimages in Gemany to the currendi libido, the travelling itch.
1273 Imit. of Christ, I. 1, ch. 23. See Siebert, p. 55.
1274 · Praise of Folly, pp. 85, 96, and Enchiridion, XII., P. 135.
1275 Bezold, p. 99; Siebert, p. 59.
1276 Die Universität Wittenberg nach der Beschreibung des Mag. Andreas Meinhard, ed. by J. Hausleiter, 2d ed., Leipz., 1903.
1277 Siebert, p. 39.
1278 Praise of Folly, p. 85.
1279 See Maskell, III. 63.
1280 Nunquam actualiter subjacuisse originali peccato, sed immunem semper fuisse ab omni originali et actuali culpa. Mansi, XXIX. 183.
1281 Praise of Folly, p. 126.
1282 Janssen, I. 248. See E. Schaumkell: Der Cultus der hl. Anna am Ausgange des MA, Freib., 1896. J. Trithemius: De laudibus S. Annae, Mainz, 1494.
1283 St. Anne’s day was fixed on July 26 by Gregory XIII.,1584. The Western Continent has a great church dedicated to St. Anne at Beau Pré on the St. Lawrence, near Quebec. It possesses one of its patron’s fingers. No other Catholic sanctuary of North America, perhaps, has such a reputation for miraculous cures as this Canadian church.
1284 Beautiful ruler of the king, Ruling him who rules all things. Blume and Dreves, XLII. 115.
1285 Hail, cell of Deity, Virgin of virgins, Maty, our comforter. XLV. 117.
1286 Mother of the most high King, Thou foster-mother of the flock, Advocate most mighty, In the dread hour of death. XLV. 118.
1287 Number XLII. of Blume and Dreves’ collection gives 10; Number XLIII. 9, Number XLIV. 8, Anna hymns.
1288 Father of the dear mother of Jesus, Joachim, and her mother Anna, Righteous and noble of birth. XLII. 154.
1289 Rejoice Anna mother, Rejoice holy mother, For thou art made grandmother of God. XLIII. 78.
1290 The Cambridge Role, a MS. in Cambridge, contains 12 carols. John of Dunstable founded a school of music early in the 15th century. Traill: Social Engl., II. 368 sq. Maskell, Mon.rit., III. 1 sqq., gives a number of English hymns printed In the Prymers of the first half of the 16th century.
1291 Bäumker gives 71 hymns with original melodies printed before 1520. On the subject of mediaeval hymns, see Mone: Lateinische Hymnen d. MA, 3 vols., Freib., 1855; Ph. Wackernagel: Das deutsche Kirchenlied von der ältesten Zeit, etc.,2 vols, Leipz.,1867. W. Bäumker: D. kathol. deutsche Kirchenlied in seinen Singweisen, 3 vols., Freib., 1886-1891 and Ein deutsches geistliches Liederbuch mit Melodieen aus d. 15ten Jahrh., etc., Leipz., 1895, Janssen, I. 288 sqq. Also artt. Kirchenlied and Kirchenmusik in Herzog, X.
1292 Italian Relation of Engl., Camden Soc. ed., p. 23.
1293 Quoted by Uhlhorn, p. 439. Janssen, II. 325 sq., takes too seriously Luther’s complaint that more liberality had been shown and care given to the needy under the old system than under the new, using it as a proof of the influence of Protestantism. Riezler, Gesch. Baierns, as quoted by Janssen, I. 679 says, "The Christian spirit of love to one’s neighbor was particularly active In the 15th century in works of benevolence and there Is scarcely another age so fruitful In them." So also Bezold, p. 94.
1294 See C. Creighton in Social England, II. 412, 475, 561.
1295 Rogers: Work and Wages, p. 417. Stubbs: Const. Hist., ch. XXI. Capes: Engl. Ch. Hist. in the 14th and 15th Cent., pp. 276 sq., 366 sq.
1296 Uhlhorn, p. 383 sq.
1297 Uhlhorn, p. 333. For the conditions of admission to hospitals and medical treatment, Allemand, III. 192 sqq. is to be consulted.
1298 In 1409 was founded an asylum for lunatics in Valencia, Lecky: Hist. of Europ. Morals, II. 94 sq. There were pest-houses In Oxford and Cambridge and Continental universities often had special hospitals of their own. Writing of the 16th century, Thomas Platter speaks of such a hospital at Breslau. The town paid 16 hellers for the care of each patient. These institutions were, however, far removed from our present methods of cleanliness. Of the Breslau hospital, Platter (Monroe’s Life, p. 103 sq.) says, "We had good attention, good beds, but there were many vermin there as big as ripe hemp-seed, so that I and others preferred to be on the floor rather than in the beds."
1299 Geo. Pernet: Leprosy in Quart. Rev., 1903, p. 384 sqq. C. Creighton, Soc. Engl., II. 413. This Hist., Vol. V., I., pp. 395, 825, 894. For the fearful prevalence of cutaneous diseases and crime in England in the 13th century and as a cure for those who sigh for the fictitious happy conditions of mediaeval society, see Jessopp, Coming of the Friars, p. 101 sqq.
1300 Monroe: Thos. Platter, p. 107.
1301 Uhlhorn, pp. 483, 456. Such a license was issued in Vienna,1442. Eberlin of Günzburg went so far as to say that in Germany, 14 out of every 15 people lived a life of idleness.
1302 Stubbs ch. XXI.; Social Engl., II. 548-550. Cunningham, p. 478 sq.; Rogers, pp. 416-419.
1303 See Traill: Soc. Engl., II. 388, 392-398. For the activity in churchbuilding in Germany, see Janssen, I. 180 sq.; Bezold, p. 90; Ficker, p. 65.
1304 Thos. Aquinas: Summa, II. 2, q. 78.
1305 Pastor: Gesch. d. Päpste, III. 83 sq. For Germany, see Janssen, I. 460 sqq.
1306 Other names given to them were montes Christi, monte della carità, mare di pietà. See Holzapfel, pp. 18, 20, for funds to provide for burial, montes mortuorum, made up from contributions, and funds to which mothers contributed at the birth of children, called montes dotis. Holzapfel gives the primary authorities on the benevolent loaning funds, pp. 3-14.
1307 Holzapfel, pp. 10-12, 44, 64, 70.
1308 Holzapfel, p. 134.
1309 Villari, I. 294 sqq.; Holzapfel, pp. 124, 135. According to Holzapfel, there were in Italy in 1896, 556 monti di pietà with 78,000,000 lire—$16,000,000—out in loans.
1310 Holzapfel, p. 102 sqq.; Janssen, I. 464, 489.
1311 The constitution of the Gild of St. Mary of Lynn contained the clauses, "If any sister or brother of this gild fall into poverty, they shall have help from every other brother and sister in a penny a day." The Gild of St. Catharine, London, had a similar stipulation. Smith: Engl. Gilds, p. 185.
1312 Degenhard Pfaffinger, counsellor to Frederick the Wise, belonged to 35. Kolde, 437; Uhlhorn, p. 423.
1313 Uhlhorn, p. 422.
1314 Pastor, IV. 30-38
1315 So Paulus; J. Tetzel, p. 88, and Beringer, p. 2, a member of the Society of Jesus, whose work on indulgences has the sanction of the Congregation of Indulgences of the College of Cardinals. Both writers insist that the indulgence does not confer forgiveness of guilt but only the remission of penalty after guilt is forgiven. See also on the general subject this Hist., V. 1, pp. 735-748, VI. 146 sqq.
1316 John of Paltz: Coelifodina in Köhler, p. 57. Nota in hoc quod dicit, claves, innuit thesauros quia omne carum clauditur et seratur potest tamen clavibus adiri.
1317 For the text of the bulls, see Lea III. 585 sqq. and Köhler, pp. 37-40. A bull ascribed to Calixtus III., 1457, also sanctions indulgences for the dead. It is accepted as genuine by Paulus. For Gabriel Biel’s acceptance of Sixtus’ assertion of power to grant indulgences to the dead, see Köhler, p. 40.
1318 Paulus, 97 sq., and Beringer, p. 11, either explain the expression to mean the penalty of guilt, as if it read a poena culpae delicta, or refer it to venial sins. See Vol. V. 1, p. 741. The Jubilee bull of Boniface VIII., 1300, was interpreted by a cardinal to include in its benefits guilt as well as penalty—duplex indulgentia culpae videlicet et poenae. Köhler, p. 18 sq., gives the text of the bull. John XXIII. confessed to have often absolved a culpa et poena.
1319 It was used by Piers Plowman (see Lea: Sacerd. Celibacy, I. 444), by Landucci, 1513, "l’indulgenza di colpa e pena, Badia’s ed., p. 341, by Oldecop, 1516, who listened to Tetzel (see his letter in Paulus, p. 39), etc. Oldecop said that those who cast their money into the chest and confessed their sins were " absolved from all their sins and from pain and guilt." For other cases and a general treatment of the subject, see Lea, III. 67-80
1320 . Köhler, p. 59.
1321 See Maskell: Monum. rit., etc., III. 372 sqq. These indulgences in England were printed on single sheets perhaps by Wynkyn de Worde. Such an English reprint announced an indulgence of 2560 days granted by Julius II. to all contributing to a crusade against the Saracens and other Christian enemies.
1322 Nürnb. ed., 1715, vol. I. 212-267; Defens. quor. artt. J. Wyclif and the Reply of the Prag. Theol. faculty, I. 139-146.
1323 De schis. pontif., Engl. Works, ed. by Arnold, III. 1262.
1324 Engl. Works, Arnold’s ed., I. 210, 354; De eccles., p. 561.
1325 See Gasquet, Eve of the Reformation, p. 384.
1326 James of Jüterbock in his Tract. de indulg. about 1451 says he did not recollect to have seen or read a single papal brief promising indulgence a poena et culpa. Köhler, p. 48.
1327 For the details which follow, the treatment by Schulte, in his work on the Fuggers, is the chief authority. This book contains a remarkable array of figures and facts based on studies among the sources.
1328 Treves also boasted of a nail of the cross, the half part of St. Peter’s staff and St Helena’s skull.
1329 Reliquienverehrung, pp. 33 sq., 60 sq.
1330 A full account in Paulus, Tetzel, pp. 6-23.
1331 In a pamphlet entitled Simia by Andrea Guarna da Salerno, Milan, 1517, as quoted by Klaczko, Rome and the Renaissance, p. 25, Bramante the architect was refused entrance to heaven by St. Peter for destroying the Apostle’s temple in Rome, whose very antiquity called the least devout to God. And when the heavenly porter charged him with a readiness to destroy the very world itself and ruin the pope, the architect confessed and declared that his failure was due to the fact that "Julius did not put his hand Into his pocket to build the new church but relied on indulgences and the confessional." Paris de Grassis called Bramante "the ruiner,"architectum Bramantem seu potius Ruinantem.
1332 See his account of the transaction, I. 115-121.
1333 Schulte, I. 125. Leo’s bull of March 31 is given by Köhler, pp. 83-93. Even the Rom. Cath., Paulus, Tetzel, p. 31, goes as far as to speak of "the miserable business which for both Leo and Albrecht was first of all a financial transaction."
1334 An offer of this sort is referred to by John of Paltz (see quotation in Paulus): Tetzel, p. 136, and Paulus’ attempt to explain it away.
1335 One of the savory pulpit anecdotes bearing on indulgences ran as follows: Certain pilgrims, on their journey, came to a tree on which 5 souls were hanging. On their return, they found 4 had vanished. The one left behind reported that his companions had been released by friends, but that he was without a single friend. So, for the unfortunate soul’s benefit, one of the pilgrims made a pilgrimage to Rome, and the soul at once took its flight to heaven. "So may a soul," the moral went on to say, "be released from purgatorial fire, if only 50 Pater nosters be said for it."
1336 The bull in Mirbt, p. 182.
1337 Gregorovius, VII. 273, well says that "theoretically and practically the Reformation put an end to the universal power of the papacy and closed the Middle Ages as an epoch in the world’s history."
1338 Gelnhausen in Martène, Thesaur. Nov. anec., Paris ed., 1717, II. 1203. Conclusio principalis ista est quod pro remediando et de medio auferendo schismate moderno expedit, potest et debet concilium generate convocari.
1339 Renaissance, I. 136, II. 185. Ficker p. 13, speaks of "the incalculable advantage which accrued to the Catholic Church from the Reformation."
1340 For the transfer of the centre of the Levantine trade from Venice to Lisbon at the beginning of the 16th century, see Heyd, II. 505-540. Heyd says that the discovery of the route to India around the Cape of Good Hope by the Portuguese hatte wie ein Donnerschlag am heiteren Himmel die Gemüther der Venetianer berührt. To counteract the stream of trade in the direction of Lisbon, the Venetians proposed a scheme for cutting a canal through the Isthmus of Suez in 1500 and, in the same interest, the Turks actually began that enterprise in 1529. Manuel, king of Portugal, in 1505 stationed a fleet at Calicut to prevent the Venetians from interfering with the export of Indian goods to Portugal. For the German Board of Trade at Venice, the fondaco dei Tedeschi, see Heyd, II. 520, etc.
1341 Writing in 1458, Aeneas Sylvius said, "The German nation takes the lead of all others in wealth and power." He spoke of Cologne as unexcelled in magnificence among the cities of Europe. At Nürnberg he found simple burghers living in houses, the like of which the kings of Scotland would have been glad to house in.
1342 So the Diet of Cologne, 1512. At the same time, however, it declared that its acts were not designed to prevent the association of merchants in trading companies. The Diet of Innsbruck, 1518, did the same, and complained of the trading companies for driving out the small dealers and fixing prices arbitrarily. Trithemius argued for laws protecting the people from the overreachings of avarice and declared that whosoever bought up meat, grain and other articles of diet to force up prices is no better than a common criminal. See Janssen, II. 102, sq.
1343 So Christopher Kuppner of Leipzig, in his tract on usury,1508. He insists that magistrates should proceed against trading companies and rich merchants who, through agents in other lands, bought up saffron, pepper, com and what not and sold them at whatsoever price they chose. According to the secretary of the firm, Conrad Meyer, the capital of the Fuggers increased in 7 years 13,000,000 florins.
1344 A preacher in 1515 declared the spirit of speculation then prevailing to be of recent growth, only ten years old, and that it had not existed in former times. Janssen, II. 87.
1345 The diets of 1498 and 1500 forbade artisans to wear gold, silver, pearls, velvet and embroidered stuffs. They were forbidden to pay more than one-half a florin a yard for the cloth of their coats and mantles. Laws regulating dress were also passed in Italy. Elastic beds, false hair and other fashions came into vogue. Women sat in the sun all day to bleach their hair. In Florence, money was scented. See Burckhardt-Geiger, II. 87 sqq. John of Arundel, who was drowned at sea, 1879, had 62 new suits of cloth of gold or tissue. By a parliamentary act of 1463, no knight or other person might wear shoes or boots having peaks longer than two inches, Soc. Engl., II. 426 sqq.
1346 Ficker, p. 107 sq.; Müller: Kirchengesch. II. 196 sq. Among these peasant leaders, the piper of Niklahausen was one of the most prominent. In the last quarter of the 15th century, tracts were circulated among the peasants, calling upon them to resist the oppression of the ruling classes and demand the secularization of Church lands.
1347 Rogers, p. 143; Cunningham, pp. 399, 457 sq., 468 sqq., 476 sqq., 484.
1348 De arte impressoria. The printer Gutenberg lived 1397-1468 and his son-in-law, Schöffer, died 1502.
1349 In his bull of May 4, 1515. See Mirbt, p. 177.
1350 See Sohm’s sententious words in closing his treatment of the Middle Ages, Kirchengesch.,15th ed., 1907, p. 122 sq. Colet, who was in Italy during the rule of Alexander VI. said: "Unless the Mediator who created and founded the Church out of nothing for himself, lay his hand with all speed, our most disordered Church cannot be far from death .... All seek their own, not the things of Jesus Christ, not heavenly things but earthly things, what will bring them to death, not what will bring them life eternal."—Seebohm, p. 75.
1351 To the other testimonies in this vol. add Erasmus, Enchiridion, p. 11 sq.
1352 II. 579. An example of misrepresentation may be taken from Denifle, Luther u. Luthertum who picks out a single clause from one of Luther’s sermons, Die Begierde ist gänzlich unbesiegbar, "Passion cannot be overcome," and holds it up as the starting-point for the Reformer’s alleged profligate life. What could be more atrocious, unworthy of a scholar and a gentleman, when it was Luther’s purpose in this very sermon to show that Christ imparts the power to overcome evil, which the natural man does not possess and calls upon men to flee to Christ’s protection. In these last vols. Denifle outdid Janssen. Leo XIII. praised Janssen as a "light of historic science and a man of profound learning." Pius X. gave to Denifle the distinction of receiving the first copy of his book from the author’s hand.