 |
READING HALLDOORS OF WISDOM |
 |
 |
 |
 |
A HISTORY OF THE POPES FROM THE GREAT SCHISM TO THE SACK OF ROMEBOOK III
THE COUNCIL OF BASEL
CHAPTER VII.WAR BETWEEN THE POPE AND THE COUNCIL.1436—1438.
If Sigismund’s interest in the Council had faded away,
the interest of France had equally begun to wane. At the opening of the
Council, France, in her misery and distress, the legacy of the long war with
England, felt a keen sympathy with one of the Council's objects, the general
pacification of Christendom. The Council’s zeal in this matter stirred up the
Pope to emulation, and Eugenius IV busied himself to prevent the Council from
gaining any additional prestige. In 1431 Cardinal Albergata was sent by the
Pope to arrange peace between England, Burgundy, and France. His negotiations
were fruitless for a time; but the ill-success of the English induced them in
1435 to consent to a congress to be held at Arras. Thither went Albergata as
Papal legate, and on the side of the Council was sent Cardinal Lusignan.
Representatives of the chief States of Europe were present; and 9000 strangers,
amongst whom were 500 knights, thronged the streets of Arras. In the conference
which began in August the rival legates vied with one another in splendor and
in loftiness of pretension. But though Lusignan was of higher lineage,
Albergata was the more skillful diplomat, and exercised greater influence over
the negotiations. England, foreseeing the desertion of Burgundy, refused the
proposed terms, and withdrew from the congress on September 6. Philip of
Burgundy's scruples were skillfullycombated by Albergata.
Philip wished for peace, but wished also to save his
honor. The legate’s absolution from his oath, not to make a separate peace from
England, afforded him the means of retreating from an obligation which had
begun to be burdensome. On the interposition of the Church Philip laid aside
his vengeance for his father’s murder, and was reconciled to Charles VII of
France on September 21. The treaty was made under the joint auspices of the
Pope and the Council. Both claimed the credit of this pacification. Cesarini,
when the news reached Basel, said that if the Council had sat for twenty years,
and had done nothing more than this, it would have done enough to satisfy all
gainsayers. But in spite of the Council’s claims it had won less prestige in
France than had Eugenius IV, and France had no further hopes of political aid
from its activity.
Thus the chief States of Europe had little to gain
either from Pop or Council, and had no reason to take either side, when the
struggle again broke out about the union with the Eastern Church. The letter of
Eugenius IV, asking the princes of Europe to withdraw their countenance from
the Council, met with no answer; but the Council had no zealous protector on
whose help it could rely. The conflict thatensued was petty and ignoble.
The policy of Eugenius IV was to allure the Council to
some Italian city where he could more easily manage to bring about its
dissolution. In this he was helped by the desire of the Greeks to avoid a
long journey overland, and his envoy Garatoni had continued to confirm them in
their objection to go to Basel or to cross the Alps. The Council was fully
alive to the Pope’s project, and hoped to prevail upon the Greeks, when
once their journey was begun, to give way to their wishes. But the great
practical difficulty which the Council had to face was one of finance. The cost
of bringing the Greeks to Basel was computed at 71,000 ducats and their
maintenance, which could not be reckoned at less than 200,000 ducats. Moreover,
it would be needful that the Western Church should not be outdone by the
Eastern in the number of prelates present at the Council. At least a hundred
bishops must be summoned to Basel, and it might not be an easy matter to induce
them to come. The sale of indulgences had not been productive of so rich a
harvest as the Council had hoped. In Constantinople the Bull was not allowed to
be published, and the Greeks were by no means favorably impressed by this proof
of the Council's zeal. In Europe, generally, it had awakened dissatisfaction;
it was a sign that the reforming Council was ready to use for its own purposes
the abuses which it condemned in the Pope. Altogether, the Council had before
it a difficult task to raise the necessary supplies and celebrate its
conference with due magnificence in the face of the Pope’s opposition.
As a preliminary step towards raising money and
settling the place of the conference, envoys were sent in May, 1436, to
negotiate for loans in the various cities which had been mentioned. They were
required to promise 70,000 ducats at once, and to undertake to make further
advances it necessary. The envoys Greeks visited Milan, Venice, Florence,
Siena, Buda, Vienna, Avignon, as well as France and Savoy. In August Venice
offered any town in the patriarchate of Aquileia, the Duke of Milan any town in
his dominions; both guaranteed the loan. Florence also offered herself. Siena
was willing to receive the Council, but could not lend more than 30,000 ducats.
The Duke of Austria was so impoverished by the Bohemian wars that he could not offer
any money but would welcome the Council in Vienna. The citizens of Avignon were
ready to promise all that the Council wished. During the month of November the
representatives of Venice, Florence, Pavia, and Avignon harangued the Council
in favour of their respective cities. Venice and Florence were clearly in
favour of the Pope, and so were not acceptable to the Council. In Pavia the
Council would be sure enough of the Duke of Milan's hostility to the Pope, but
could not feel so confident of its own freedom from his interference. If the
Greeks would not come to Basel, Avignon was, in the eyes of the majority, the
most eligible place.
But though the majority might be of this opinion,
there had been growing up in the Council a strong opposition. The undisguised
hostility of the extreme party to the Pope had driven moderate men to acquiesce
in the pretensions of Eugenius IV, and this question of the place of conference
with the Greeks was fiercely contested on both sides. Cesarini had for some
time felt that he was losing his influence over the Council, which followed the
more democratic Cardinal d'Allemand. He now began to speak decidedly on the
Pope's side. He argued with justice that Avignon was not specified in the
agreement made with the Greeks; that the Pope's presence at the conference was
necessary, if for no other reason, at least as a means of providing money; that
if any help was to be given to the Greeks against the Turks the Pope alone
could summon Europe to the work; finally, he urged that if the Pope and Council
were in antagonism, union with the Greeks was rendered ridiculous. On these
grounds he besought the Council to choose a place which was convenient for the
Pope. There were angry replies, till on November lo Cesarini took the step of
openly ranging himself on the Pope's side. He warned the Council that
henceforth they were to regard him as a Papal legate, and sent a paper to all
the deputations demanding that in future no conclusions be arrived at
respecting the Roman See until he had first been heard at length on the matter.
But the dominant party was determined to have its own
way and took measures to out-vote its opponents. It summoned the priests from
the neighborhood and flooded the Council with its own creatures. On
December 5 the votes were taken, and it was found that more than two-thirds of
the Council, 242 out of 355, voted at the bidding of the Cardinal d'Allemand
for Basel in the first instance; failing that, Avignon, and failing that, some
place in Savoy. Basel had been already refused by the Greeks. The Duke of Savoy
had not offered to provide money for the Council. The vote was really given for
Avignon alone. Cesarini, in the Pope's name and in his own, protested against
Avignon as not contained in the treaty made with the Greeks; if the Council
refused to go to Italy there remained only Buda, Vienna, and Savoy as eligible;
if the Council decided on Savoy, he would accept it as according to the
agreement; beyond this he could not go. In spite of his written protest, the
majority confirmed their vote by a decree in favour of Avignon.
At the beginning of February, 1437, the Greek
ambassador, John Dissipatus, arrived in Basel, and was surprised to find that
the Council had fixed on Avignon. He vainly pleaded that Avignon was not included in
the decree which the Greeks had accepted, and when the Council paid no heed he
handed in a protest on February 15. The Council requested him to accompany
their envoys to Constantinople. He refused, declaring his intention of visiting
the Pope and renewing his protest before him : if no remedy could be found
he would publish to the world that the Council could not keep its promises. The
majority at Basel was little moved by these complaints, save so far as they
tended to strengthen the position of the minority which was working in favour
of the Pope. Through fear of playing into their hands, a compromise was made on
February 23. The Council decreed that the citizens of Avignon were to be
required to pay, within thirty days, the 70,000 ducats which they had promised;
a further term of twelve days was allowed them to bring proof of their payment
to Basel; if this were not done in the appointed time the Council “could,
and was bound” to proceed to the election of another place.
During the period of this truce arrived, on April 1,
the Archbishop of Taranto, as a new Papal legate, accompanied by the Greeks who
had visited the Pope at Bologna. His arrival gave a new turn to affairs.
Cesarini was opposed, on grounds of practical wisdom, to the proceedings of the
Council rather than decidedly in favour of the Pope; the Archbishop of Taranto
entered the lists as a violent partisan, as energetic and as unscrupulous as
was the Cardinal d'Allemand. He set to work to organize the Papal party and to
devise a policy of resistance. Opportunity soon befriended him. As the term
allowed to Avignon to pay its money drew near its close there was no news of
any payment. Parties in favour of the Pope and the Council were formed amongst
the burghers, and the disunion awakened the fears of the cautious merchants,
who doubted whether the Council's presence within their walls would prove a
profitable investment; they proposed to defer the full payment of the money
till the actual arrival of the Greeks. On this the Papal party insisted that
the agreement with Avignon was forfeited, and on April 12, the day on which the
term expired, Cesarini exhorted the Council to proceed to the choice of another
place. In his speech he used the words “the authority of the Apostolic See”;
there was at once a shout of indignation, as it was thought that he hinted at
the dissolution of the Council. The discussion was warm, and the sitting
broke up in confusion.
The position assumed by the Archbishop of Taranto was
that the decree of February 23 was rigidly binding; the contingency
contemplated in it had actually occurred, and the Council was bound to make
a new election. Nay, if some members of the Council refused to do so, he
argued, from the analogy of a capitular election, that the power of the Council
devolved on those who were ready to act—a numerical minority, if acting
according to the law, could override a majority which acted illegally. The
Papal party numbered about seventy votes, their opponents about two hundred;
but the Archbishop of Taranto’s policy was to create a schism in the Council
and destroy the power of the majority by the prestige of the ‘saner part’.
Accordingly on April 17, when the deputations voted on the question of adhering
to Avignon or choosing another place, the presidents in three of the
deputations, being on the Papal side, refused the votes in favour of Avignon as
technically incorrect, and returned the result of the voting as in favour of a
new election. When the majority protested with shouts and execrations, the
minority withdrew and allowed them to declare their vote in favour of Avignon.
There was now a hopeless deadlock; the two parties sat separately, and the
efforts of the German ambassadors and of the citizens of Basel were
alike unavailing to restore concord
When agreement proved to be impossible, both sides
prepared to fight out their contention to the end. On April 26 the
majority published its decree abiding by Avignon; the minority published its
choice of Florence or Udine, and asserted that henceforth the power of the
Council, as regarded this question, was vested in those who were willing to
keep their promise. In the wild excitement that prevailed suspicions were rife
and violence was easily provoked. On the following Sunday, when the Cardinal of
Arles proceeded to the Minster to celebrate mass, he found the altar already
occupied by the Archbishop of Taranto, who suspected that the opportunity might
be used of publishing the decree of the majority in the name of the Council,
and who had resolved in that case to be beforehand. Loud cries and altercations
were heard on all sides; only the crowded state of the cathedral, which
prevented men from raising their arms, saved the scandal of open violence. The
civic guards had to keep the peace between the combatants. Evening brought
reflection, and both parties dreaded a new schism, and were appalled at the
result which seemed likely to follow from a Council assembled to promote the
peace of Christendom. Congregations were suspended, and for six days the best
men of both parties conferred together to see if an agreement were possible;
but all was in vain, because men were swayed by personal passion and motives of
self-interest, and the violence of party-spirit entirely obscured the actual
subject under discussion. Every one acted regretfully and remorsefully, but
with the feeling that he had now gone too far to go back. The die had already
been cast; the defeat of the Council involved the ruin of every one who had
till now upheld it; to retreat a hair's breadth meant failure. Conferences
brought to light no common grounds; matters must take their course, and the two
divisions of the Council must find by experience which was the stronger.
On May 7, a day which many wished never to dawn, the
rival parties strove in a solemn session to decree, in the name of the Council,
their contradictory resolutions. In the early morning the Cardinal of Arles,
clad in full pontificals, took possession of the altar, and the cathedral
was filled with armed men. The legates arrived later, and even at the last
moment both sides spoke of concord. It was proposed that, in case the Greeks
would not come to Basel, the Council be held at Bologna, and the fortresses be
put in the hands of two representatives of each side. Three times the Cardinals
of Arles and of S. Peter's stood at the altar on the point of making peace; but
they could not agree on the choice of the two who were to hold the fortresses.
At twelve o'clock there were cries that it was useless to waste more time. Mass
was said, and the Bishop of Albienra mounted the pulpit to read the decree of
the majority. The hymn Veni Creator, which was the formal opening
of the session, had begun; but it was silenced that again there might be
negotiations for peace. Ali was in vain. The session opened, and the Bishop of
Albienza began to read the decree. On the part of the minority the Bishop of
Porto seized a secretary's table and began to read their decree, surrounded by
a serried band of stalwart youths. One bishop shouted against the other, and the
Cardinal of Arles stormed vainly, calling for order. The decree of the minority
was shorter, and took less time in reading; as soon as it was finished the
Papal party commenced the Te Deum. When their decree was finished,
the opposite party sang the Te Deum. It was a scene of wild
confusion in which violent partisans might triumph, but which filled with
dismay and terror all who had any care for the future of the Church. Both
parties felt the gravity of the crisis: both felt powerless to avert it. With
faces pale from excitement, they saw a new schism declared in the Church.
Next day there was a contention about the seal of the
Council, which Cesarini was found to have in his possession, and at first
declined to give up. But the citizens of Basel insisted that it was their duty
to see that the seal was kept in the proper place. On May 14 a compromise was
made. The seal was put in custody of a commission of three, on condition that
both decrees be sealed in secret; the Bull of the conciliar party was to be sent
to Avignon, but not to be delivered till the money was paid by the citizens; if
this was not done within thirty days the Bull was to be brought back; meanwhile
the Bull of the Papal party was to remain in secret custody. Again there was
peace for a while, which was broken on June 16 by the discovery that the box
containing the conciliar seal had been tampered with, and the seal used by some
unauthorized person. The discovery was kept secret, and the roads were watched
to intercept any messengers to Italy. A man was taken bearing letters from the
Archbishop of Taranto, which were produced before a general congregation. There
was an outcry on both sides, one protesting against the seizure of the letters,
the other against the false use of the Council’s seal. Twelve judges were
appointed to examine into the matter. The letters, which were partly in cipher,
were read, and the case against the Archbishop of Taranto was made good. He was
put under arrest, and when the matter was laid before the Council on June 21
there was an unseemly brawl, which ended in the use of violent means to prevent
an appeal to the Pope being lodged by the Archbishop’s proctor. On July 19
the Archbishop, surrounded by an armed troop, made his escape from Basel and
fled to the Pope.
The majority in the Council of Basel might pass what
decrees they would, but they had reckoned too much on their power over the
Greeks. The Papal legates won over the Greek ambassadors, and sent them to
Eugenius IV at Bologna. The Pope at once ratified the decree of the minority,
fixed Florence or Udine as the seat of a future Council, and on May 30 issued a
Bull to this effect. He wrote to all the princes of Christendom announcing his
action. But Sigismund raised a protest against a Council being held in Italy,
and the Duke of Milan strongly opposed the choice of Florence. Apparently
wishing to avoid discussion for the present, Eugenius IV prevailed on the
Greeks to defer till their arrival on the Italian coast the exact choice of the
place. The Greek ambassador, John Dissipatus, solemnly declared in the
Emperor's name, that he recognized as the Council of Basel, to which he had
formed obligations, only the party of the legates, and that he accepted the
decree of the minority as being the true decree of the Council. Eugenius IV
hired at his own expense four Venetian galleys to convey the Greeks to Italy.
Preparations were made with all possible speed, and on September 3 the Bishops
of Digne and Porto, representing the minority of the Council, and Garatoni, now
Bishop of Coron, on the part of the Pope, arrived in Constantinople. Claiming
to speak in the name of the Pope and of the Council, they at once began to make
preparations for the journey of the Greeks to Italy.
The assembly at Basel could not make its arrangements
with Avignon quickly enough to compete on equal terms with the Pope. It had to
face the usual disadvantages of a democracy when contending against a
centralized power. Its hope of success with the Greeks lay in persuading them
that the Council, and not the Pope, represented the Western Church, and was
strong in the support of the princes of Western Europe. It determined again to
proceed to the personal humiliation of Eugenius IV and so by assailing
his power to render useless his dealings with the Greeks. On July 31 the
Council issued a monition to Eugenius IV, setting forth that he did not loyally
accept its decrees, that he endeavored to set at nought its labours for the
reformation of the Church, that he wasted the patrimony of the Holy See, and
would not work with the Council in the matter of union with the Greeks; it
summoned him to appear at Basel within sixty days, personally or by proctor, to
answer to these charges. This admonition was the first overt act towards a
fresh schism. Sigismund and the German ambassadors strongly opposed it on that
ground, and besought the Council to recall it. It was clear that the Council
would meet with little support if it proceeded to extremities against the Pope.
But in its existing temper it listened to the ambassadors of the King of Aragon
and the Duke of Milan, the political adversaries of Eugenius IV, and paid
little heed to moderate counsels; On September 26 it annulled the nomination to
the cardinalate by Eugenius of the Patriarch of Alexandria, as being opposed to
the decree that during the Council no Cardinal should be nominated elsewhere
than at Basel. It also annulled the decree of the minority on May 7, by
whatever authority it might be upheld, and took under its own protection the
Papal city of Avignon.
In vain the Council tried to win over Sigismund to its
side. Sigismund had gained by the submission of Bohemia all that he was likely
to get from the Council. In Italian politics he had allied himself with Venice
against his foe the Duke of Milan, and so was inclined to the Papal side. He
wrote angrily to the Council on September 17, bidding them hold their hand in
their process against the Pope. He reminded them that they had found the Church
united by his long labour, and were acting in a way to cause a new schism. They
had met to reform and pacify Christendom, and were on the way to do the very
reverse; while wishing to unite the Greeks, they were engaged in dividing the
Latins. If they did not cease from their seditious courses, he would be driven
to undertake the defense of the Pope. The Council was somewhat dismayed at this
letter; but the bolder spirits took advantage of current suspicions, and
declared it to be a forgery, written in Basel, by the same hands as had forged
the Council's Bulls. Passion outweighed prudence, and men felt that they had
gone too far to withdraw; on October the Council declared Eugenius IV guilty of
contumacy for not appearing to plead in answer to the charges brought against
him.
On his side also Eugenius IV was not idle. He accepted
the challenge of the Council, and on September 18 issued a Bull decreeing its
dissolution. In the Bull he set forth his desire to work with the
Council for union with the Greeks; in spite of all he could do they chose
Avignon, though such a choice was null and void as not being included in the
agreement previously made with the Greeks. Still, in spite of the default of
Avignon to fulfill the conditions it had promised, the Council persevered in
its choice. The legates, the great majority of prelates, royal ambassadors, and
theologians, who made up the saner part of the Council, protested against the
legality of this choice, and chose Florence or Udine, and at the request of the
Greeks he had accepted their choice. The turbulent spirits in the Council,
consisting of a few prelates who were animated partly by personal ambition and
partly were the political tools of the King of Aragon and the Duke of Milan,
gathered a crowd of the lower clergy, and under the specious name of
reformation resisted the Pope, in spite of the Emperor’s remonstrances. To
prevent scandals and to avoid further dissension, the Pope transferred the
Council from Basel to Ferrara, which he fixed as the seat of an Ecumenical
Council for the purpose of union with the Greeks. He allowed the fathers to
remain at Basel for thirty days to end their dealings with the Bohemians; but
if the Bohemians preferred to come to Ferrara, they should there have a
friendly reception and full hearing.
The Council on October 12 annulled the Bull of
Eugenius, on the ground of the superiority of a General Council over a Pope,
and prohibited all under pain of excommunication from attending the pretended
Council at Ferrara. It warned Eugenius IV that if he did not make amends within
four months he would be suspended from his office, and that the Council would
proceed to his deprivation.
Both Pope and Council had now done all they could to
assert their superiority over each other. The first question was which of the
two contending parties should gain the adhesion of the Greeks. The Papal envoys
had arrived first at Constantinople, and their offers were best adapted to the
convenience of the Greeks. When on October 4 the Avignonese galleys arrived off
Constantinople with the envoys of the Council, the captain of the Papal galleys
was with difficulty prevented from putting out to sea to oppose their landing.
The Greek Emperor was perplexed by two embassies, each
brandishing contradictory decrees, and each declaring that it alone represented
the Council.
Each party had come with excommunications ready
prepared to launch against the other. This scandalous exhibition of discord, in
the face of those whom both parties wished to unite to the Church, was only
prevented by the pacific counsels of John of Ragusa, who had been for three
years resident envoy of the Council in Constantinople, and had not been
swallowed up by the violent wave of party-feeling which had passed over Basel.
The Council's ambassadors proceeded at once to attack the claims of their opponents
to be considered as the Council. They succeeded in reducing to great perplexity
the luckless Emperor, who wanted union with the Latin Church as the price of
military help from Western Europe, and only wished to find out to whom or what
he was to be united. The Greeks were puzzled to decide whether the Pope would
succeed in dissolving the Council, or the Council in deposing the Pope: they
could not clearly see which side would have the political preponderance in the
West. The two parties plied the Emperor in turn with their pleadings for a
space of fifteen days. The Council had the advantage that the Greeks were
already committed to an agreement with them. But the Papal party had diplomats
who were adroit in clearing away difficulties. The Greeks ultimately decided to
go with them to Italy, and the Emperor exhorted the Council's envoys to peace
and concord, and invited them to accompany him to Venice. They refused with
cries of rage and loud protestations, and on November 2 departed for Basel.
Now that the breach between Pope and Council was
irreparable, and the Pope had won a diplomatic victory in his negotiations,
both parties looked to Sigismund, who, however, refused to identify himself
decidedly with either. He disapproved of the Pope's dissolution of the Council,
from which he still expected some measures of ecclesiastical reform; on the
other hand, he disapproved of the Council's proceedings against the Pope, which
threatened a renewal of the schism. Eugenius IV had showed his willingness to
conciliate Sigismund by allowing the Council in his Bull of dissolution to sit
for thirty days to conclude its business with Bohemia; or, if the Bohemians
wished, he was willing to receive their representatives at Ferrara. This was
important to Sigismund and to the Bohemians, as it showed that the Pope
accepted all that had been done in reference to the Bohemian question,
and was ready to adopt the Council’s policy in this matter.
Sigismund had indeed reason to be content with the
result which he had won. His restoration to Bohemia had been accomplished, and
he had organized a policy of reaction which seemed likely to be successful. On
August 23, 1436, his entry into Prague had been like a triumphal
procession. He lost no time in appointing new magistrates, all of them chosen
from the extremely moderate party. The legates of the Council were always by
his side to maintain the claims of the Church. Bishop Philibert of Coutances
began a series of aggressions on the episcopal authority in Bohemia. He
asserted his right to officiate in Rokycana’s church without asking his
permission; he held confirmations and consecrated altars and churches in virtue
of his superior office as legate of the Council. The Bohemians, on their part,
waited for the fulfillment of Sigismund's promises, and the knights refused to
surrender the lands of the Church until they were satisfied. Sigismund was
bound to write to the Council, urging the recognition of Rokycana as Archbishop
of Prague; but he told the legates that he trusted the Council would find some
good pretext for delay. “I have promised”, he said, “that till he dies I
will hold no other than Rokycana as archbishop; but I believe that some of the
Bohemians will kill him, and then I can have another archbishop”. It is clear
that Sigismund knew how to manage a reaction, knew the inevitable loss of
popularity which a party leader suffers if he makes concessions and does not
immediately gain success. Rokycana was looked upon as a traitor by the extreme
party, and as a dangerous man by the moderate party. We are not surprised to
find that in October rumours were rife of a conspiracy organized in
Rokycana’s house against the Emperor and the legates. Inquiries were made, and
without being directly accused Rokycana was driven to defend himself, and then
his defense was declared to be in itself suspicious.
Rokycana seems to have felt his position becoming
daily more insecure. On October 24 he paid his first visit to the legates
to try and find out their views about the confirmation of his title of archbishop.
The legates received him haughtily, and talked about the restoration of various
points of ritual whichthe Bohemians had cast aside. “You talk only about
trifles”, said Rokycana impatiently; “more serious matters need your
care”. “You say truly”, exclaimed John of Palomar, with
passion; “there are more serious matters: for you deceive the people, and
can no more give them absolution than this stick, for you have not the power of
the keys, seeing you have no apostolic mission”. This bold onslaught staggered
Rokycana, who repeated the words of Palomar in amazement, and said that the
people would be indignant at hearing them; he would consult his fellow-priests.
One of his followers warned the legates that they and the Emperor were becoming
unpopular through their refusal to confirm Rokycana’s election as archbishop.
Rokycana withdrew with a bitter feeling of helplessness.
The legates on November 8 pressed the Emperor to take
further measures for the Catholic restoration. They had now been
two months in Bohemia, they urged, and little had been done. The
Communion was given to children, the Epistle and Gospel were read in Bohemian
and not in Latin, the use of holy water and the kiss of peace was not restored,
and toleration was not given to those whocommunicated under one kind. All this
was contrary to the observance of the Compacts, and the kingdom of Bohemia was
still infected with the heresy of Wycliffe. Sigismund angrily answered, “I was
once a prisoner in Hungary, and save then I never was so wearied as I am now;
indeed, my present captivity seems likely to be longer”. He begged the legates
to be patient till the meeting of the Diet. He was engaged in treating with
Tabor and Koniggratz, which were still opposed to him and he needed time to
overcome their resistance. Tabor agreed to submit its differences to
arbitration; Koniggratz was reduced by arms.
On November 27 the legates and Rokycana came to a
conference on the disputed points in the Emperor’s presence. Rokycana
demanded the clear and undoubted Confirmation of the Compacts; the legates the
reestablishment of the Catholic ritual. There were many difficulties raised and
much discussion; but Rokycana found himself abandoned by the masters of the
University, and opposed by the city magistrates and the nobles. He gave way
unwillingly on all the points raised by the legates except the Communion of
children and the reading of the Epistle and Gospel in Bohemian. On December 23
the Catholic ritual was restored in all the churches in Prague; the use of holy
water and the kiss of peace was resumed, and images which had been cast down
were again set up in their former places. Still, Bishop Philibert abode in
Prague, and exercised the office of Bishop. On February II, 1437, the Empress
Barbara was crowned Queen of Bohemia by Philibert, and Rokycana was not even
bidden to the ceremony.
On February 13 the legates at last received from the
Council the Bull of ratification of the Compacts of Iglau. Together with it
came an admonition to the Emperor not to tolerate the Communion of children. He
was urged also to restore the Catholic ritual throughout Bohemia, and to hand
over to the Council Peter Payne, who maintained the Wycliffite doctrine that
the substance of bread remained in the Eucharist. When the ratification was shown
to Rokycana, he demanded that there should also be issued a letter to the
princes of Christendom freeing Bohemia from all charge of heresy. He brought
forward also the old complaint that many priests refused to give the sacrament
under both kinds; he demanded that the legates should order them to do so,
should enjoin the bishops to see that the clergy obeyed their command, and
should request the Bishop of Olmutz himself to administer under both kinds. The
legates answered that the letter clearing the Bohemians had already been issued
at Iglau; for the future the Bohemians, by observing the Compacts, would purge
themselves in the eyes of all men better than any letter could do it for them.
To the other part of his request they answered that they would admonish any
priest who was proved to have refused the Communion under both kinds to any one
who desired it; they could not ask the Bishop of Olmutz to administer the
Communion himself, but only to appoint priests who were ready to do so. This
was the utmost that Rokycana could procure, in spite of repeated renewal of his
complaints.
The reaction went on with increasing strength. The
rest of Bohemia followed the example of Prague, and restored the Catholic
ritual. Sigismund set up again in the Cathedral of Prague the old
capitular foundation with all its splendor. The monks began to return to
Prague; relics of the saints were again exposed for popular adoration. In this
state of affairs representatives of Bohemia were summoned to Basel to discuss
further the question of the necessity or expediency of receiving the Communion
under both kinds. Sigismund, wishing to rid himself of Rokycana, urged him to
go. Rokycana steadily refused, knowing that at Basel he would only meet with
coldness, and that during his absence from Prague the triumph of the
reaction would be assured. On April 7, Procopius of Pilsen, in the Emperor’s
presence, bade Rokycana remember that he had been the leader in former
negotiations with the Council. “You are experienced in the matter”, he said; “you
have no right to refuse”.“Procopius”, said Rokycana, forgetting where he
was, “remember how our party fared at Constance; we might fare in like
manner, for I know that I am accused and hated at Basel”. “Think you”,
said Sigismund angrily, “that for you or for this city I would do anything
against mine honour?”. It was so long since Sigismund had broken his plighted
word to Hus that he had forgotten that it was even possible for others to
remember it.
Though Rokycana stayed in Prague, he was systematically set
aside in ecclesiastical matters. On April 12 Bishop Philibert appointed rural
deans throughout Bohemia, and charged them how to carry out their duties;
Rokycana was not even consulted. The church in which Rokycana preached was
given to the Rector of the University, who was inducted by the legate. Peter
Payne was banished by Sigismund from Bohemia as a heretic, and an opportunity
against Rokycana was eagerly looked for. This was given by a sermon preached on
May 5, about the Communion of children, in which he said that to give up this
practice would be a confession of previous error and of present instability of
purpose. “Too many now condemn what once they praised. But you, poor children,
lament. What have you done amiss that you should be deprived of the Communion?
Who will answer for you? Who will defend you? Now no one heeds”. Mothers lifted
their voices, and wept over the wrongs of their children, and that was judged
sufficient to establish against Rokycana a charge of inciting the people to sedition.
The Diet demanded that some steps should be taken to administer the
archbishopric of Prague; and Sigismund’s influence with the moderate party was
strong enough to obtain on June 11 the election ofChristiann of Prachatic
to the office of Vicar of the Archbishopric. Rokycana on being asked to
surrender the seal and submit to Christiann as his spiritual superior, judged
it wise to flee from Pragueon June 16.
The exile of Rokycana was the triumph of the moderate
party, the Utraquists pure and simple, who wished for entire union with the
Church, but who were still staunch in upholding the principles of a reformed
Church for Bohemia. Envoys were sent off to Basel to end the work of
reconciliation and settle the points which still were disputed. On August 18
the envoys, chief amongst whom were the priests John Pribram and Procopius of
Pilsen, entered Basel with great magnificence. Pribram in his first speech to
the Council demanded that the Communion under both kinds should be fully
granted, not only in Bohemia and Moravia, but universally, seeing that it was
the truth of God's law. Pribram and John of Palomar argued learnedly for many
days on the subject; but Pribram felt that he met with little attention from
the Council. One day he angrily met the suspicious coolness which surrounded
him by declaring that the Bohemians had never been heretical, but had always
remained in the unity of the faith; if any one said otherwise, they were ready
to answer with their steel as they had done in past. When Pribram had ended his
disputation, Procopius of Pilsen advocated the Communion of children with no
better success.
At last, on October 20, the Bohemians submitted nine
demands to the Council, which deserve mention as Demand, showing the ultimate
point arrived at by these long negotiations;
1) That the
Communion under both kinds be granted to Bohemia and Moravia;
2) that the Council declare this concession to be more
than a mere permission given for the purpose of avoiding further mischief;
3) that the Church of Prague be provided with an
archbishop and two suffragans, who should be approved by the realm;
4) that the Council issue letters clearing the good
name of Bohemia;
5) that in deciding whether the Communion under both
kinds be of necessary precept or not, the Council adhere to the authorities
mentioned in the Compact of Eger, the law of God, the practice of Christ and
the Apostles, general councils and doctors founded on the law of God;
6) that the Communion of children be allowed;
7) that at least the Epistle, Gospel, and Creed in the
mass service be said in the vulgar tongue;
8) that the University of Prague be reformed and
have some prebends and benefices attached to it;
9) that the Council proceed to the effectual
reformation of the Church in head and members.
Pribram besought that these be granted, especially the
Gospel truth concerning the Sacrament. “The kingdom of Bohemia is ready”, he
added, “as experience has shown, to defend and assert this even by
thousands of deaths”. Great was the indignation of the Bohemians when, on
November 6, Cesarini exhorted them to conform to the ritual of the universal
Church as regarded the Communion of the laity under one kind only; still, he
added, the Council was willing to stand by the Compacts.
Cesarini had gone too far in thus openly showing the
policy of the Council to reduce the Bohemians to accept again the Catholic
ritual. It required some management on the part of other members of the Council
to allay their indignation. On November 24 the Council gave a formal answer to
the Bohemian requests. As regarded the necessity of the Communion under both
kinds the point had now been argued fully; it only remained for them to join with
the Council and accept its declaration on the subject as inspired by the Holy
Ghost. Their other points had either been already settled by the Compacts or
were favours which might afterwards be discussed by the Council. This was of
course equivalent to a refusal to grant anything beyond the bare letter of the
Compacts. The Bohemian moderates saw themselves entirely deceived in their
hopes of obtaining universal tolerance for their beliefs. The Council would
grant nothing more than a special favour to Bohemia and Moravia to continue to
use the ritual which they had adopted, until such time as it could safely be
prohibited. In vain the Bohemians asked that at least they should not be sent
away entirely empty-handed, lest it be a cause of fresh disturbances. They
could get no better answer, and left Basel on November 29. In spite of
Cesarini’s remonstrance against the imprudence of such a step, the Council on
December 23 issued a decree that the Communion under both kinds was not a
precept of Christ, but the Church could order the method of its reception as
reverence and the salvation of the faithful seemed to require. The custom of
communicating under one kind only has been reasonably introduced by the Church
and was to be regarded as the law, nor might it be changed without the Church's
authority.
In Bohemia the disappointment of the expectations
which the great mass of the people still retained caused growing irritation,
and seemed likely to lead to afresh outbreak. Moreover, Sigismund's declining
health gave an occasion to the ambitious schemes of those of his own household.
Sigismund had no son, but his only daughter was married to Albert of Austria;
and the fondest wish of Sigismund's declining years was that Albert should
succeed to all his dignities and possessions. But the Empress Barbara
had already tasted the sweets of power and was unwilling to retire into
obscurity. She and her relatives, the Counts of Cilly, raised up a party among
the Bohemian barons with the object of elevating Ladislas of Poland to the
thrones of Bohemia and Hungary, and marrying him, though still a youth, to
Barbara, in her fifty-fourth year. Sigismund discovered this plot and felt the
danger of his position. He was seized with erysipelas, and had to submit to the
amputation of his big toe. His one desire was toquit Bohemia and secure
Albert’s succession in Hungary. Concealing his knowledge of what was passing
around him, he left Prag on November, borne in an open litter and dressed in
the imperial robes. He was accompanied by the Empress and the Count of Cilly,
and on November 21 reached Znaym, where Albert and his wife Elizabeth awaited
him. There he ordered Barbara to be imprisoned, but the Count of Cilly had
timely warning and escaped. At Znaym Sigismund summoned to his presence several
of the chief barons of Bohemia and Hungary, and urged on them the advantages to
be gained by uniting both lands under one rule; he warmly recommended to their
support the claims of Albert. This was his last effort. Feeling his malady grow
worse, he was true to the last to that love of dramatic effect which was so
strong a feature of his character. He wished to die like an emperor. Attired in
the imperial robes, with his crown on his head, he heard mass on the morning of
December 9. When mass was over he ordered grave clothes to be put on over the
imperial vesture, and sitting on his throne awaited death, which overtook him
in the evening. He was left seated for three days according to his
command, “that men might see that the lord of all the world was dead and gone”.
Then his corpse was carried to Grosswardein and buried in the resting-place of
the Hungarian kings.
The facile pen of Eneas Sylvius gives us the following
vigorous description of Sigismund: “He was tall, with bright eyes, broad
forehead, pleasantly rosy cheeks, and a long thick beard. He had a large mind
and formed many plans, but was changeable. He was witty in conversation, given
to wine and women, and thousands of love intrigues are laid to his charge. He
was prone to anger, but ready to forgive. He could not keep his money, but
spent it lavishly. He made more promises than he kept, and often deceived”.
These words are a fair representation of the impression produced on his
contemporaries by this mighty lord of all the world. With all his faults, and
they were many, on the whole men loved and esteemed him.
No doubt vanity was the leading feature of Sigismund’s
character; but it was the dignified vanity of always seeming to act worthily of
his high position. He would have been ludicrous with his dramatic strut had not
his geniality and keenness of wit imposed on those who came in his way, and so
saved him from hopeless absurdity. It is easy to mock at Sigismund's
undertakings, at his pretensions as compared with the results which he achieved;
but it is impossible not to feel some sympathy even for the weaknesses of an
Emperor who strove to realize the waning idea of the empire, and whose labours
were honestly directed to the promotion of the peace and union of Christendom.
Sigismund possessed in perfection all the lesser arts of sovereignty; kindly,
affable, and ready in speech, he could hold his own amidst any surroundings.
His schemes, however chimerical they might seem, were founded on a large
sympathy with the desires and needs of Europe as a whole. He laboured for the
unity of Christendom, the restoration of European peace, and the reformation of
the Church. Even when he spoke of combining Europe in a crusade against the
Turks, his aim, however chimerical, was proved by the result to be right. But
Sigismund had not the patience nor the wisdom to begin his work from the
beginning. He had not the self-restraint to husband his resources; to undertake
first the small questions which concerned the kingdoms under his immediate
sway, to aim only at one object at a time, and secure each step before
advancing to the next. Relying on his position, he caught at every occasion of
displaying his own importance, and his vanity led him to trust that he would
succeed by means of empty display. Hence his plans hampered one another. He
destroyed his position at the Council of Constance by a change of political
attitude resulting from a futile attempt to bring about peace between England
and France. He induced Bohemia to think that its religious interests were safe
in his keeping, and then trusted to repress its religious movement by the help
of the Council of Constance. When he had driven Bohemia to revolt, he
oscillated between a policy of conciliation and one of repression till matters
had passed beyond his control. He lost his command of the Council of Basel
because he entered into relations with the Pope, who was bent upon its
overthrow. His schemes of ecclesiastical reform slipped from his grasp, and
after spending his early years in extinguishing one schism, he lived to see the
beginning of another. Few men with such wise plans and such good intentions
have so conspicuously failed.
The death of Sigismund removed the only man who might
averted an open outbreak between Eugenius IV and the Council of Basel. Both
sides now proceeded to extremities. On December 30 Eugenius IV published a Bull
declaring the Council to be transferred from Basel to Ferrara. At Basel
Cesarini made one last attempt to bring back peace to the distracted Church. On
December 20, in an eloquent speech breathing the true spirit of Christian
statesmanship, he pointed out the evils that would follow from a schism.
Farewell to all hopes of a real union with the Greeks, of real missionary
enterprise against the Mohammedans, who were the serious danger to Christendom.
He besought the Council, ere it was too late, to recall its admonition to the
Pope, provided he would recall his translation of the Council: then let them
send envoys to meet the Greeks on their arrival in Italy, and propose to them
to come to Basel, Avignon, or Savoy—failing that, let them frankly join with
the Pope and the Greeks in the choice of a place which would suit all parties.
He offered himself as ready to do his utmost to mediate for such a result. But
Cesarini spoke to deaf ears. The control of the Council had passed entirely
into the hands of Cardinal d'Allemand, who was committed to a policy of war to
the bitter end. A ponderous reply to Cesarini was prepared by the Archbishop of
Palermo, a mass of juristic subtleties which dealt with everything except the
great point at issue.
Cesarini saw the entire disappointment of the hopes
which six years before had been so strong in his breast at the opening of the
Council. He had longed for peace and reform; he saw, instead, discord and
self-seeking. The Council, which ought to have promoted the welfare of
Christendom, had become an engine of political attack upon the Papacy. The
noble, generous, and large-minded aims of Cesarini had long been forgotten at
Basel. The reformation which he projected had passed into revolution, which he
could no longer control nor moderate. He shared the fate of many other
reformers at many times of the world’s history. The movement which he had
awakened passed into violent hands, and the end of his labours for peace and
order was anarchy and discord. With a sad heart he confessed his failure, and
on January 9, 1438, he left Basel amid demonstrations of respect from his
opponents. At the request of the Pope and all the Cardinals he went to Florence,
where he was received with honour and lived for a time in quietness and
study.
At Basel Cardinal d'Allemand was appointed
president in Cesarini’s stead. The Council on January 24 took the next step in
its process against Eugenius IV. It decreed that, as he had not appeared to
plead within the appointed time, he was thenceforth suspended from his office;
meanwhile the administration of the Papacy belonged to the Council, and all
acts done by Eugenius were null and void. Sixteen bishops were present at this session,
of whom nine were Savoyards, six Aragonese, and one Frenchman. Of the eighteen
abbots who were there, eleven were Aragonese and six were Savoyards. The
Council was, in fact, supported only by the King of Aragon and the Dukes of
Milan and Savoy. The Duke of Savoy hoped to use it for his personal
aggrandizement. The King of Aragon and the Duke of Milan saw in it a means of
forcing Eugenius IV into subserviency to their political schemes in Italy.
Neither of them was prepared to support the deposition of the Pope, but they
wished the process against him to be a perpetual threat hanging over his head.
The rest of the European powers looked with disapproval, more or less strongly
expressed, on the proceedings of the Council. Henry VI of England wrote a letter
addressed to the Congregation (not the Council) of Basel, in which he reproved
them for presuming to judge the Pope, denounced them for bringing back the
times of Antichrist, and bade them desist from the process against Eugenius.
Charles VII of France wrote to the Council to stay its measures against the
Pope, and wrote to the Pope to withdraw his decrees against the Council; he
forbade his bishops to attend the Council of Ferrara, but allowed individuals
to act as they pleased at Basel. His purpose was to regulate ecclesiastical
matters in France at his own pleasure. In Germany, Sigismund’s policy of
mediation survived after his death; men wished to avoid a schism, but to obtain
through the Council some measures of reform. The Kings of Castile and Portugal
and the Duke of Burgundy all admonished the Council to withdraw from
their proceedings against Eugenius.
The quarrel of the Pope and the Council now ceased to
attract the attention of Europe; it had degenerated into a squabble in which
both parties were regarded with something approaching contempt. But this
condition of affairs was full of danger to the future of the organisation of
the Church.
CHAPTER VIII.EUGENIUS IV IN FLORENCE AND THE UNION OF THE GREEK.1434—1439.
|
|
|
|