CHAPTER VIII.
EUGENIUS IV IN FLORENCE AND THE UNION OF THE GREEK
1434—1439.
Since his flight from Rome in 1434, Eugenius IV has
merely appeared as offering such resistance as he could to the growing
pretensions of the Council. During the four years that had passed from
that time he had been quietly gaining strength and importance in Italy. True to
her old traditions, Florence graciously received the exiled Pope; and under the
shadow of her protection, Eugenius IV, like his predecessor Martin V, had been
able to recruit his shattered forces and again reestablish his political
position.
At first his evil genius seemed still to pursue
Eugenius IV, and he played a somewhat ignominious part in Florentine affairs.
The time when he arrived in Florence was a great crisis in Florentine history.
The prudent conduct of Giovanni de' Medici had preserved the internal peace of
Florence by carefully maintaining a balance between the aristocratic and
popular parties in the city. But between his son Cosimo and his political rival
Rinaldo degli Albizzi a bitter hostility gradually grew up which could only end
in the supremacy of the one or the other party. The first step was taken by
Rinaldo, who, in September, 1433, filled the city with his adherents; Cosimo
was taken unawares, was accused of treason, cast into prison, and only by a
skillful use of his money succeeded in escaping death. He went as an exile to
Venice; but his partisans were strong in Florence, the city was divided,
and a reaction in his favour set in. It was clear that the new magistrates who
came into office on September 1, 1434, would recall him from banishment, and
Rinaldo and his party were prepared to offer forcible resistance. On September
26 Florence was in a ferment, and Rinaldo degli Albizzi, with 800 armed men,
held the Palace of the Podesta and the streets which led to the Piazza. Eugenius
IV in this condition of affairs offered his services as mediator. He sent
Giovanni Vitelleschi, Bishop of Recanati, to Rinaldo, who, to the surprise of
every one, was persuaded to leave his position and confer with the Pope at S.
Maria Novella. It was one o'clock in the morning when he did so. What arguments
the Pope may have used we do not know; but at five o'clock Rinaldo dismissed
his armed men and remained peaceably with the Pope. Perhaps he was not sure of
the fidelity of his adherents, and trusted that, by a show of submission, he
might, with the Pope’s help, obtain better terms than the doubtful chances
of a conflict seemed to promise.
His enemies at once pursued the advantage thus offered
to them. The Signori sent some of their number to thank the Pope for his good
offices, and whatever may have been the first intention of Eugenius IV, he was
soon won over to abandon Rinaldo. On October 2 the party of the Medici filled
the Piazza and decreed the recall of Cosimo. Next day Rinaldo and his son were banished.
The Pope attempted to console Rinaldo, and protested the uprightness of his own
intentions and the pain which he felt at the failure of his mediation.
“Holy Father”, answered Rinaldo, “I do not wonder at
my ruin; I blame myself for believing that you, who have been driven out of
your own country, could keep me in mine. He who trusts a priest's word is like
a blind man without a guide”.
Sadly Rinaldo
left Florence for ever, and on October 6, Cosimo de' Medici returned in triumph
amid shouts that hailed him father of his country. From that day forward for
three hundred years the fortunes of Florence were identified with those of
the house of Medici.
In his abode at Florence things gradually began to
take a better turn for Eugenius IV. The rebellious Romans, who had proudly sent
their envoys to Basel announcing that they had recovered their liberties and
that the days of Brutus had returned, began to find themselves in straits. The
Papal troops still held the castle of S. Angelo and bombarded the town; their
commander also by a stratagem took prisoners several of the Roman leaders. The
people soon turned to thoughts of peace and submission, and on October 28
Giovanni Vitelleschi, at the head of the Pope's condottieri, took possession of
the city in the Pope’s name, and put to death the chief leaders of the
rebellion. Moreover, Venice and the Pope renewed their league against the Duke
of Milan, appointed Francesco Sforza as their general, and sent him against the
Duke's condottiere general, Fortebracchio, who had occupied the neighborhood of
Rome. Fortebracchio was routed and slain, whereon the Duke of Milan found it
advisable to come to terms. On August 10, 1435, peace was made, leaving
Eugenius IV master of the Patrimony of S. Peter and the Romagna, while
Francesco Sforza obtained the lordship of the March of Ancona. The Duke of
Milan also withdrew his aid from the rebellious Bologna, which on September 27
submitted to the Pope. Even in Florence Eugenius IV was not safe from the
machinations of the Duke of Milan. A Roman adventurer, named Riccio, obtained
the connivance of the Milanese ambassador at Florence, the Bishop of Novara, to
a plot for seizing the person of Eugenius when he retired into the country
before the summer heat. The city magistrates discovered the plot, and Riccio
was tortured and put to death. The Bishop of Novara abjectly prayed for pardon
from Eugenius; and the Pope granted his life to the entreaty of Cardinal
Albergata, who was just setting out as Papal legate to the Congress of Arras.
Albergata took the Bishop of Novara to Basel, where he remained as one of the
bitterest opponents of Eugenius IV.
In another quarter the affairs of the kingdom of
Naples afforded a scope for the activity of Eugenius IV. The feeble Queen
Giovanna II continued to the end of her reign to be the puppet of those around
her. Even her chief favorite, Caraccioli, could not retain his hold upon her
changeful mind. He saw his influence fail before the intrigues of the Queen's
cousin, the Duchess of Suessa, who at length succeeded in obtaining the Queen's
permission to proceed against her over-weening favourite. On August 17, 1432,
Caraccioli celebrated magnificently his son's marriage; in the night a message
was brought to him that the Queen was dying, and wished to see him. Hurriedly
he rose, and opened his door to a band of conspirators, who rushed upon him and
slew him on his bed. Giovanna wept over his death, and pardoned those who
wrought it. His mighty tomb in the Church of San Giovanni Carbonara is worthy of
a more heroic character. Three knightly figures of Strength, Skill, and Justice
bear the sarcophagus on which stands Caraccioli as a warrior. The tomb is in
the vast style of the old Neapolitan work; but in its execution we see the
delicacy of Tuscan feeling and the hand of Florentine artists. The way is
already prepared for the later flow of the Renaissance motives into the rude
regions of Naples.
On Caraccioli’s death Louis of Anjou prepared to
return to Naples; but the imperious Duchess of Suessa preferred to exercise
undivided sway over her feeble mistress. The death of Louis, in November, 1434,
awakened the activity of Alfonso of Aragon; but Giovanna II would not recognize
him as her heir, and made a will in favour of René, Count of Provence, the
younger brother of Louis of Anjou. On February 2, 1435, Giovanna II died, at
the age of 65, worn out before her time; one of the worst and most incapable of
rulers that ever disgraced a throne. On her death the inevitable strife of the
parties of Anjou and Aragon again broke out. René claimed the throne by
Giovanna’s will, Alfonso of Aragon put forward Giovanna’s previous adoption of
himself, and the claims of the house of Aragon. But Eugenius IV put forth also
the claims of the Papacy. The Angevin line had originally come to Sicily at the
Papal summons, and had received the kingdom as a papal fief. Eugenius IV
asserted that on the failure of the direct line in Giovanna II the kingdom of
Sicily devolved to the Pope. He appointed as his legate to administer the affairs
of the kingdom Giovanni Vitelleschi, who had been created Patriarch of
Alexandria. Little heed was paid to the Pope's claims. Alfonso’s fleet
vigorously besieged Gaeta, which was garrisoned by Genoese soldiers to protect
their trade during the time of warfare. Genoa, at that time under the signory
of the Duke of Milan, equipped a fleet to raise the siege of Gaeta, and on
August 5 a battle was fought off the isle of Ponza, in which the Genoese were
completely victorious. Alfonso and his two brothers, together with the chief
barons of Aragon and Sicily, were taken prisoners.
Italy was shaken to its very foundations by the news
of this victory, of which the Duke of Milan would reap the fruit. It seemed to
give him the means of making himself supreme in Italian politics. But the
jealous temper of Filippo Maria Visconti looked with distrust on this signal
victory which Genoa had won. His first proceeding was to humble the pride of
the city by depriving it of the glory of bringing home in triumph its illustrious
captives. He ordered Alfonso and the rest to be sent from Savona to Milan, and
on their arrival treated them with courtesy and respect. Alfonso’s adventurous
and varied life had given him large views of politics and great experience
of men. He recognized the gloomy and cautious spirit of Filippo Maria, who
loved to form plans in secret, who trusted no one, but used his agents as
checks one upon another. In the familiarity of friendly intercourse, Alfonso
put before the Duke political considerations founded upon a foresight which was
beyond the current conceptions of the day. “If René of Anjou”, he
argued, “were to become King of Naples, he would do all he could to open
communications with France, and for this purpose to establish the French power in
Milan. If I were to become King of Naples I should have no enemies to dread
save the French; and it would be my interest to live on good terms with Milan,
which could at any moment open the way to my foes. The title of king would be
mine, but the authority would be yours. With me at Naples you will remain a
free prince; otherwise you will be between two strong powers, an object of
suspicion and jealousy to both”.
The state system of Italy was already so highly
organized that arguments such as these weighed with the Duke of Milan, and he
determined to forego all thoughts of present glory for future safety. Instead
of treating Alfonso as a captive, he entered into an alliance with him, gave
him his liberty and ordered Genoa to restore his captured ships. Alfonso was
sufficiently keen-sighted to perceive, and Filippo Maria was sufficiently
prudent to recognize, the danger that would arise to Italian independence from
the centralization of the French monarchy and the power of the house of
Austria. They devised a scheme for neutralizing this danger. The idea of a
balance of power in Italy, founded on identity of interest between Milan and
Naples, which was to keep Italy in peace and exclude all interference from
beyond the Alps, began from this time forward to be a central point in Italian
politics.
The immediate result of this policy was that Genoa,
indignant at the slight thus cast upon her, revolted from Milan, and joined the
league of Florence, Venice, and the Pope. Eugenius IV, alarmed at the alliance
between Alfonso and the Duke of Milan, withdrew his own claims on Naples, and
espoused the cause of René, who was a prisoner of the Duke of Burgundy but was
represented in Naples by his wife, Elizabeth of Lorraine. Neither she nor
Alfonso had any resources at their command, and the war was carried on between
the rival factions in the realm. We have seen that Alfonso was anxious to
minimize the help which the Pope could give his rival, by supplying him with
sufficient occupation in the affairs proceeding at Basel.
When Eugenius IV had recruited his shattered fortunes
by an abode of nearly two years in Florence, he left it for his own city of
Bologna, on April 18, 1436. Before his departure he consecrated the stately
Duomo of Florence, which had just received its crowning ornament of
Brunelleschi’s mighty dome, and was again ready for divine service. The city
wished that the ceremonial should be befitting of its splendour. A scaffolding,
adorned with carpets, was erected from S. Maria Novella to the Duomo, on which
Eugenius IV walked in state, the gonfaloniere of the city bearing his train.
On April 22 Eugenius I entered Bologna with nine
Cardinals, and was soon followed by two others from Basel. The Papal government
of Bologna had not been such as to win the affections of the people. The
legate, the Bishop of Concordia, had proclaimed a general pacification, on the
strength of which Antonio de' Bentivogli, after fifteen years' exile, returned
to the city which he had once ruled. He had not been there three weeks when he
was seized as he left the chapel where the legate had been saying mass. He was
gagged, and immediately beheaded by order of the Pope’s Podesta, as was also
Tommaso de' Zambeccari. The only reason assigned for this treacherous act was
dread of the number of their followers. The cruelty and tyranny of the Podesta
made the Papal rule hateful in the city. Nor did Eugenius IV do anything to
mend this state of things. He was busied with his negotiations with the Council
and with the Greeks. The only attention which he paid to the citizens of
Bologna was to extort from them 30,000 ducats by holding out hopes of summoning
his Council thither. When the citizens found themselves disappointed they
looked with scarce concealed discontent on the Pope's departure for Ferrara on
January 23, 1438. Scarcely had he gone when Niccoli Piccinino, the Duke of
Milan's general, appeared before Bologna. On the night of May 20 the gates were
opened to him by the citizens. Faenza, Imola, and Forli joined in the revolt,
and the greater part of Romagna was again lost to the Pope.
This was, however, of small moment to Eugenius IV. His
attention was entirely fixed on the Council of Ferrara, through which he hoped
to win back all that of the he had lost. The union of the Greek Church was to
reinstate the Papacy in its position in the eyes of Europe; the Pope was again
to appear as the leader of Christendom in a great crusade for the protection of
Constantinople. It is a melancholy spectacle that is offered to our view. The
Eastern Empire, with its splendid traditions of past glories, has sunk to be a
cat’s-paw in the ecclesiastical squabbles of the West. The trembling Greeks are
ready to disavow their religious convictions to obtain help from their Western
brethren. The States of Europe are so rent by intestine struggles, or are so
bent upon purely selfish ends, that they are incapable of understanding the
menace to European civilization contained in the establishment of the Turks on
this side of the Bosphorus. The Greeks cannot appeal to any feeling of European
patriotism, or to any considerations of political wisdom. Only through the
semblance of an ecclesiastical reconciliation can they hope to awaken any
interest for their cause in Western Europe. At the last moment they see the
Western Church itself distracted by contending parties; they engage desperately
in a sacrifice of their convictions, which they half feel will avail them
nothing.
The causes of the separation between the Churches were
national rather than religious. The beliefs and rites of the two Churches did
not materially differ. But the political development of the East and West had
been different. In East, the Imperial autocracy had maintained and strengthened
its power over the Church; in the West, where the Teutons had weakened the
fabric of the Imperial system, the Pope, as supreme head of the Western Church,
had won an independent position for his authority. It is true that the Greek
view of Purgatory differed somewhat from that of the Latins, that they used
leavened and not unleavened bread for the Host, and that they did not adopt the
addition of the words “and from the Son” (Filioque) to the clause of the
Nicene Creed which defines the procession of the Holy Ghost. But no vital point
was concerned in any of these differences. The real disagreement was that the
Papacy strove to assert over the Eastern Church a supremacy which that Church
was unwilling to admit. The ill-feeling created by the claim of Pope Nicolas I
in 863, to interfere as supreme judge in the question of the election of the
Patriarch of Constantinople, simmered on till it produced a formal rupture in
1053, when Leo IX at Hildebrand's suggestion excommunicated the Greek
Patriarch. Round its ecclesiastical establishment the narrow spirit of Greek
nationality centred, and the Greeks were ready in every sphere to assert their
superiority to the barbarous Latins. In the time of their distress their pride
was humbled if their minds were not convinced. They were ready to sacrifice the
traditions of the past, which they still held firmly in their hearts, to the
pressing need for present aid. It is sad to see the feeble representatives
of an ancient civilization lowering themselves before the Papacy in its
abasement.
On November 24, 1437, the Greek Emperor, John
Palaeologus, his brother, the Patriarch, and twenty-two bishops, went on board
the Papal galleys and set sail for Italy. Though the Greeks journeyed at
the Pope’s expense, yet the Emperor, in his anxiety to display fitting
magnificence, converted into money the treasures of the Church. An earthquake,
which occurred at the time of his departure, was looked upon as an evil omen by
the people who with heavy hearts saw the ships quit the harbour. After many
perils and discomforts on the way, the Greeks reached Venice on February 1438,
and were magnificently received by the Doge, who went out to meet them in
the Bucentaur, which was decked with red carpets and awnings
wrought with gold embroidery, while gold lions were standing on the prow. The
rowers were clad in uniforms richly wrought with gold, and on their caps was
embroidered the image of S. Mark. With the Doge came the Senate in twelve
other splendid ships, and there was such a multitude of boats that the sea
could scarce be seen. Amid the clang of trumpets the Emperor was escorted to
the palace of the Marquis of Ferrara, near the Rialto, where he abode. The
amazement of the Greeks at the splendour of Venice is the most striking
testimony to the decay of their own noble city. “Venice splendid and
great”, says Phranza, “truly wonderful, yea most wonderful, rich,
variegated and golden, trimly built and adorned, worthy of a thousand praises,
wise, yea most wise, so that one would not be wrong in calling it the
second land of promise”.
For twenty days the Greeks remained in Venice. The
Doge offered them hospitality as long as they chose, and advised them to see
whether they could get better terms from the Pope or from the Council. There
was not much difference of opinion on this point. Three only of the Greek
prelates thought itdesirable to wait; the Emperor’s doubts, if he had any, were
decided by the arrival of Cardinal Cesarini, who was the representative of
that saner part of the Council to which the Greeks professed to adhere.
The stay of the Greeks in Venice was not without melancholy reflections.
Wherever they turned they were reminded that the glory of Venice was in a
measure due to the spoils of Constantinople. In the rich jewels which bedecked
the colossal statue on the high altar of S. Mark’s they saw the plunder of S.
Sophia’s.
On February 28 the Emperor set sail for Ferrara. The
Patriarch was sorely displeased at being left behind to follow in a few
days. The Emperor disembarked at Francolino, where he was received by the
Marquis of Ferrara and Cardinal Albergata as the Pope’s legate. He entered
the city on March 4, riding on a magnificent black charger beneath a canopy
held by his attendants. He advanced into the courtyard of the Papal palace,
where Eugenius IV was seated with all his clergy. The Pope rose to greet the
Emperor, who dismounted and advanced; Eugenius prevented him from kneeling and
embraced him. Then he gave him his hand, which the Emperor kissed and took his
seat on the Pope's left; they continued some time in friendly conference. The
Patriarch, who was particular to keep close to his luggage, followed grumbling,
and reached Ferrara on March 7. His good humour was not increased by a message
from the Emperor, telling him that the Pope expected him to kiss his foot on
his reception. This the Patriarch stoutly refused to do. “I determined”,
he said, “if the Pope were older than me, to treat him as a father; if of
the same age, as a brother; if younger, as a son”. He added that he had
hoped by the Pope’s aid to free his Church from the tyranny of the Emperor, and
could not subject it to the Pope. The negotiations respecting this knotty
question occupied the entire day. At last the Pope, for the sake of peace,
consented to waive his rights, provided the reception was in private, and only
six of the Greek prelates were admitted at one time. On the evening of March 8,
the Patriarch Joseph, an old man of venerable aspect, with white hair and a
long white beard, of dignified bearing, and considerable experience of affairs,
greeted the Pope in his palace. The Pope rose and the Patriarch kissed his
cheek, the inferior prelates his right hand. When the ceremony was over they
were conducted to their lodgings.
The Council had been opened at Ferrara on January 5 by
the Cardinal Albergata as Papal legate. Its first decree on January 10 was to
confirm the translation of the Council from Basel to Ferrara, and to annul all
that had been done at Basel since the Pope's Bull of translation. On January
27, the Pope entered Ferrara escorted by the Marquis Nicolas III of Este. He took
up his abode in the palace of the Marquis; and as he suffered grievously from
gout, the citizens of Ferrara consulted his infirmity by erecting a wooden
scaffold, communicating between the palace and the cathedral, so as to spare
him the inconvenience of mounting steps. On February 8 he presided over a
congregation, and commended to its deliberation the work of union with the
Greeks, and the repression of the excesses of those still remaining at Basel.
The result of this deliberation was the issue of a Bull on February 15
annulling the proceedings of the Council of Basel, and declaring excommunicate
all who did not quit it within thirty days. Eugenius IV had thus done all he
could to affirm his dignity before the arrival of the Greeks.
In like manner the first point of importance with the
Greeks was to affirm their own dignity at Ferrara. The question that first
called for solution was the arrangement of seats in the Council. Cesarini
suggested that the Greeks should sit on one side of the cathedral, the Latins
on the other, and the Pope in the middle as a link between the two parties. The
Greeks bluntly answered that they needed no such link; but if a link were
thought necessary it should be strengthened by the addition of the Greek
Emperor and Patriarch to the Pope. Both sides fought to win prestige; but the
Greeks were not fighting on equal terms. They were the Pope’s
stipendiaries in Ferrara, and the arrangement for supplying them with the
stipulated allowances went on side by side with the negotiations about the
knotty question of seats. The Pope at first proposed to supply the Greeks with
food; this they resisted, and demanded an allowance in money. Ultimately
the Pope gave way; it was agreed that the Marquis of Ferrara should furnish
them with lodgings, and the Pope give the Emperor thirty florins a month, the
Patriarch twenty-five, the prelates four, and the other attendants three. The
Greeks accepted a compromise about seats. The Latins were to sit on one side,
the Greeks on the other. The Pope’s seat was highest, and was nearest the
altar; next him was a vacant seat for the Western Emperor, opposite to which
sat the Greek Emperor, and behind him the Patriarch. When the Patriarch wished
to adorn his seat with curtains like the Papal throne, he was not allowed to do
so. The Greeks murmured at this arrangement, but were obliged to submit. The
Emperor exclaimed that the Latins were not aiming at order, but were gratifying
their own pride.
Before appearing at the Council the Greek Emperor
Insisted that it should not be merely an assembly of the prelates but also of
the kings and princes of the West. The Pope was driven to admit that some time
was necessary before the princes could arrive. It was agreed that a delay of
four months should take place to allow them to be duly summoned. Meanwhile a
general session should be held to proclaim that the Council was to be held at
Ferrara, and nowhere else.
Some time was spent in settling these matters. At last
on April 9 a solemn session was held in the cathedral, “a wonderful and awful
sight”, says a Greek; “so that the Church looked like heaven”. The Pope
and Papal retinue chanted the psalm, “Blessed be the Lord God of Israel”.
The Patriarch was too ill to be present; but a declaration of his consent to the
Council was read in his absence. Then the decree convoking all to Ferrara
within four months was read in Latin and Greek, and received the formal
approval of both parties. After a few thanksgivings, the synod was dismissed.
The festivities of Easter occupied some time, and the
Greeks were annoyed that they could not get a church in Ferrara for the
celebration of their own services. The Pope referred them to the Bishop of
Ferrara, who answered that all his churches were so crowded that he could not
find one large enough for their purposes. One of the Greeks said that he could
not worship in the Latin churches, as they were full of saints whom he did not
recognize; even the Christ bore an inscription which he did not understand; he
could only make the sign of the cross and adore that. The tone of mind
exhibited in these remarks did not augur well for any real Agreement, nor did
the Emperor wish the discussions to go too far. His plan was to defer matters
as long as possible, to insist upon the Council being representative of the
powers of Europe, to obtain from them substantial help against the Turks, and
to go back to Constantinople having made as few concessions as were
possible.
The Latins, however, were anxious to make their
triumph complete. They urged that it was a useless waste of time to do nothing
while they waited for the appearance of the European princes. Cesarini
displayed his wonted tact in inviting the Greeks to dinner, and overcoming the
reserve which the Emperor wished them to maintain. He succeeded in inducing one
of the most stubborn of the Greek prelates, Mark of Ephesus, to publish his
views in writing, to the great wrath of the Emperor. The Papal officers were
remiss in the payment of allowances, and hinted that the Pope could not
continue to pay men who would do nothing. By such means the Greeks were at last
driven to agree to the appointment of ten commissioners on either side, who
should engage in preliminary discussions upon the points of variance. Chief
among the Greeks were Mark, Bishop of Ephesus, and Bessarion, Bishop of Nicaea;
the Emperor ordered that they only should conduct the discussions. On the side
of the Latins Cesarini took the leading part.
The conferences began on June 4. The first question
discussed was that of Purgatory, on which the real difference of opinion
was not important. The Latins held that sins, not repented of during life, are
purged away by purgatorial fire, which at the Judgment is succeeded by
everlasting fire for the reprobate. The Greeks admitted a Purgatory, but of pain
and grief, not of fire, which they reserved as the means only of eternal
punishment. Also the Greeks maintained that neither the punishment of the
wicked nor the joy of the blessed was complete, till the general resurrection,
seeing that before that time neither could receive their bodies. The Latins
admitted that the punishment of the wicked could not be perfect till they had
received their bodies, but held that the blessed, as souls, enjoy at present
perfect happiness in heaven, though on receiving their bodies their happiness
would become eternal. Even the most staunch upholder of the Greek doctrines,
Mark of Ephesus, was driven to admit that there was not much difference between
the Greek and the Latin opinions on this question. When the discussion was
ended, the Latins handed in their opinion in writing. The Greeks were timid in
committing themselves. Each wrote his opinion and submitted it to the Emperor,
who combined those of Bessarion and Mark, to the effect that the souls of the
happy departed, as souls, enjoy perfect felicity, but when in the resurrection
they receive their bodies they will be capable of more perfect happiness and
will shine like the sun. On July 17 this statement was submitted to the
Latins. The only result of these conferences was to bring into prominence the
differences existing amongst the Greeks themselves. The narrow and bigoted
spirit of old Byzantine conservatism, expressed by the rough outspoken Mark of
Ephesus, did not harmonize with the cosmopolitan feeling of the polished
Platonist Bessarion, who saw the decadence of the Greeks, and wished to bring
his own ability into a larger sphere of literary and theological activity. The
Latins learned that there were some amongst the Greeks who would bow, and some
who must be driven, to consent to union.
Then came a pause till the four months’ interval
had elapsed for the fuller assembling of the Council. None of the European
princes appeared, and the delay continued. Ferrara was attacked by the plague;
some of the Greeks grew terrified or weary, and fled home. The Emperor
requested the magistrates to keep guard over the gates, and forbade any of the
Greeks to leave the city without his permission. The Emperor meanwhile spent
his time in hunting in the woods round Ferrara, and paid no heed to the
requests of the Marquis that he would spare his preserves, which had been
stocked with great difficulty. The plague drove the Latins out of the city. Of
a hundred and fifty prelates who were present at the first session, only five
Cardinals and fifty bishops remained. The Greeks escaped the ravages of the
plague, except only the household of the Russian archbishop.
It was some time before the Pope could obtain the
Emperor’s consent to a second session of the Council. The Greeks were suspicious;
they were indignant at a rumour which had been spread that they were guilty of
fifty-four heresies; they were afraid that, if they allowed the Council to
proceed, they might be outvoted. Their fears on this last point were set at
rest by an agreement that each party should vote separately. After that they could
no longer resist the Pope’s entreaties that the business of the Council should
proceed.
On October 8 the second session was held in the Pope’s
chapel, as Eugenius was unable to move through attack of the gout. The Greeks
had previously decided among themselves the question to be discussed. The more
moderate party, headed by Bessarion, who was in favour of a real union if it
were possible, wished to proceed at once to the important point which divided
the two Churches, the double procession of the Holy Ghost. The Nicene
Creed, which had been framed to define the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity,
dealt chiefly with the relation between the Father and the Son, and
contenteditself with the statement that “the Holy Ghost proceeded from the
Father”. The continuance of controversy in the West led to the addition of the
words “and from the Son” (Filioque), an addition which the Greeks
never made. The Western Church argued that the procession of the Holy Ghost
from the Father alone derogated from the dignity of the Son, who was equal with
the Father in all points save only in His generation by the Father. The
explanatory addition gradually became incorporated in the Creed. The greater
metaphysical instinct of the Greeks led them to reject such an addition, which
seemed to them dangerous, as tending to give a double origin to the Holy Ghost,
and thereby to imperil the Unity in Trinity. There was no fundamental
difference of opinion between the Greek and Latin fathers at first; but the
genius of the Greek language admitted of finer distinctions than a Latin could
comprehend. The Greeks were ready to allow that the Holy Ghost proceeded from
the Father through the Son, not that He proceeded from the Father and the Son.
The difference was of little moment till the resentment of the Greek Patriarch
against the Papal claims to supremacy led in the ninth century to an open
rupture between the two Churches, and every shadow of difference was at once
brought into prominence. Tomes of learning had been amassed on either side in
support of their opinions on this point, and a molehill had been piled to the
height of a mountain. It was felt that this question presented the greatest
difficulty in settlement. Bessarion and his followers wished to discuss it at
once. Mark of Ephesus, and those who were opposed to the union, succeeded in
overruling them, and proposed the more dangerous preliminary question, “Is
it permissible to make any addition to a Creed?”. Six disputants were chosen on
either side: Bessarion, Mark, and Isidore of Russia were chief among the
Greeks, Cardinals Cesarini and Albergata, and Andrea, Bishop of Rhodes, among
the Latins.
The arguments were long and the speeches were many on
both sides. The Fathers of Ferrara found, like the Fathers of Basel when
dealing with the Bohemians, that a disputation led to little result. Speech was
directed against speech; orator refuted orator. But amid the flow of words the
central positions of the two parties remained the same. The Latins urged that
the Filioque was an explanation of the Nicene Creed in
accordance with the belief of most of the Latin and Greek Fathers, notably S.
Basil; the Greeks urged that it was not derived from the text of the Creed
itself, but was an unauthorized addition, which gave a careless explanation of
a doctrine needing careful definition. Through October and November the
discussion rolled on. The monotony was only broken by the arrival of
ambassadors from the Duke of Burgundy, who aroused the deepest indignation in
the Greek Emperor by paying reverence to the Pope and not to himself. When
they urged that they were commissioned only to the Pope and had letters to him
alone, the Emperor was still more enraged and threatened to leave the Council
where he was subject to such slights. He could only be appeased by the solemn
and public presentation of a letter forged by the ambassadors.
The discussions were leading to no result. As a way of
escaping from a mere strife of words, Cesarini besought that the real point of
issue, the truth of the double procession of the Holy Ghost, be taken into
consideration. If they were agreed that it was true, the addition of it to the
Creed was of small moment. The majority of the Greek prelates were loth to
enter upon a doctrinal discussion; but the rumours of a new Turkish attack on
Constantinople made the Emperor more desirous for succours. He assembled his
prelates and said that it was unworthy of them, after so many labours and so
much trouble, to refuse to come to the point; their refusal in the present
state of affairs would only give cause of triumph to the Latins. In vain the
Patriarch urged that it was unwise to quit the safe position of the
unlawfulness of an addition to the Creed. The Emperor succeeded in extorting
from the discordant prelates a reluctant consent to the discussion of the
doctrine.
The Pope meanwhile had been pressing on the Emperor
the necessity of transferring the Council from Ferrara to Florence. He pleaded
that at Ferrara he could fulfill his agreement with the Greeks. Niccolo Piccinino
was ravaging the neighborhood so that no revenues could reach the Papal
coffers; the plague had made Ferrara an unsafe place of residence; Florence had
promised a large loan to the Pope, if he would again take refuge within its
walls. Eugenius IV was anxious to remove the Greeks further from their own
land, to a place where they would be more entirely dependent on himself. The
Greeks murmured, but their necessities gave them little option; as the Pope's
stipendiaries they were bound to go where he could best find them rations. On
January 10, 1439, the last session was held at Ferrara and decreed the
transference of the Council to Florence on the ground of the pestilence.
On January 16 Eugenius IV left Ferrara for Florence;
his journey was more like a flight before the troops of Piccinino than a papal
progress. The sedentary Greeks were greatly wearied by the discomforts of a
long journey across the Apennines in winter. The aged Patriarch especially
suffered from the journey; but his vanity was gratified by the splendor of his
reception in Florence, where he was met by two Cardinals, and amidst a blare of
trumpets and the shouts of a vast multitude he was escorted to his lodgings.
Three days after, on February 16, arrived the Emperor; but a storm of rain
spoiled the magnificence of his reception, and scattered the crowd which came
to give him the welcome that the Florentines, better than, any others,
could give to a distinguished guest.
In Florence the Pope was determined to proceed more
speedily with business than had been done at Ferrara. The Greek Emperor had by
this time seen the actual position of affairs. He was obliged to submit to the
failure of the expectations with which he had come to Italy. He had hoped to
play off the Council of Basel against the Pope, and so secure good terms for
himself; he found Latins united and undisturbed by the proceedings of the
fathers still remaining at Basel. He hoped that the Western princes would have
assembled at the Council, and that he could have made the question of union
secondary to a project for a crusade against the Turk; he found a purely
ecclesiastical assembly which he could not divert from purely theological
considerations. As he could not with dignity go back to Constantinople
empty-handed, and as he sorely needed succors, he saw no other course open than
to accept such terms of union as could be obtained, and trust afterwards to the
generosity of Western Christendom. At Florence he used his influence to
expedite matters, and fell in with the Pope's suggestions for this purpose.
On February 26, a meeting took place at Florence in
the Pope’s palace, confined to forty members on each side. It was agreed to
hold public disputations three times a week for three hours at least, and also
to appoint committees on each side, who might confer privately about the union.
The public sessions, which began on March 2, were really a long theological
duel between John of Montenegro, a famous Dominican theologian, and Mark of
Ephesus. Day after day their strife went wearily on, diversified only by
disputes about the authenticity of manuscripts of S. Basil against Eunomius,
whose words Mark of Ephesus was convicted of quoting from a garbled manuscript.
The argument turned on points verbal rather than real; each side could support
its own opinion more easily than prove the error of its opponent. Even Mark of
Ephesus was wearied of talking, and in a long speech on March 17 fired his last
shot. John of Montenegro, on his part, made a statement which the partisans of
union among the Greeks seized as a possible basis for future negotiation. He
said explicitly that the Latins recognized the Father as the one cause of the
Son and of the Holy Ghost. This was the only theological point involved in the
two positions. The Emperor requested John to put his statement in writing, and
laid it before his assembled prelates. He spoke of all his labours to
bring about union, and he urged them to accept this basis. The Greeks in truth
were weary of the controversy; they longed to return home. The Patriarch grew
feebler day by day; the Emperor grew more determined to see some fruits of all
his trouble. A passage of a letter of S. Maximus, a Greek writer of the seventh
century, was discovered by the Greeks, which agreed with the language of John of
Montenegro. “If the Latins will accept this”, exclaimed the partisans of the
Union, “what hinders us from agreement?”. In an assembly of the Greek
prelates the Emperor’s will overbore all opposition except that of Mark and the
Bishop of Heraclea. The letter of Maximus was submitted to the Latins as the
basis for an agreement; meanwhile the public sessions were suspended.
John of Montenegro, however, was anxious to have his
reply to the last onslaught of Mark of Ephesus. Another session was held on
March 21 to gratify the vanity of the Latins; but the Emperor took the
precaution of ordering Mark to absent himself. When thus bereft of an adversary
and listened to in solemn silence, John of Montenegro talked himself out in two
days. An understanding had now been established between the Pope and the
Emperor; but the susceptibilities of the Greeks were still hard to manage.
Public sessions, which only awakened vanity, were stopped. Committees composed
of ardent partisans of the Union were nominated on both sides for the purpose
of minimizing the difficulties that still remained. Bessarion and Isidore of
Russia among the Greeks strove their utmost to overcome the rigid conservatism
of their fellow-countrymen. The Cardinals Cesarini and Capranica among the
Latins laboured assiduously to secure the Papal triumph. Perpetual messages
passed between the Pope and the Emperor. Documents were drawn up on both sides;
proposals towards greater exactness of expression were put forward. Bessarion
argued in a learned treatise that there was no real difference of meaning, when
the Latins said that the Holy Ghost proceeded from the Son, and the Greek
fathers wrote that He proceeded through (Sia) the Son, if both agreed that
there were not two causes, but one, of the procession, and that the Father
and the Son formed one substance.
The Patriarch was lying on his death-bed. Bessarion
and his party were resolute for the Union on large grounds of ecclesiastical
statesmanship. Others of the Greeks, following the Emperor, were convinced of
its practical necessity. They had gone so far that they could not draw back.
They were willing to seek out expressions of double meaning, which might serve
for a compromise. Yet many of the Greeks held by the stubborn Mark of Ephesus,
and would not give way. The discussion passed from being one between Greeks and
Latins to one between two parties among the Greeks. Many were the fierce
controversies, many the intrigues, great the anger of the Emperor, before an
end was visible to these troublesome disputations. At last, on June 3, the
Greeks agreed that, without departing from their ancient belief, they were
ready to admit that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and the Son as one
cause and one substance, proceeds through the Son as the same nature and the
same substance. Next day a schedule was drawn up, of which a copy was handed to
the Emperor, the Pope, and the Patriarch: it ran: “We agree with you, and
assent that your addition to the Creed comes from the Fathers; we agree with it
and unite with you, and say that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and
the Son as from one origin and cause”.
Matters had proceeded so far that the Emperor turned
to business, and asked the Pope what succours he would grant. Eugenius IV
promised to supply 300 soldiers and two galleys for the constant defence of
Constantinople; in time of need, twenty galleys for six months, or ten for
a year.
He also undertook to preach a crusade and rouse the
West for the defence of the Greeks. Satisfied with this promise, the Emperor
hastened to bring matters to a conclusion. Mark of Ephesus was peremptorily
ordered to hold his tongue, and he himself admits that he was not unwilling to
be relieved from further responsibility in the matter.
But the sudden death of the Patriarch Joseph on the
evening of June 10 seemed at first likely to put a stop to all further
negotiations. The Greeks, bereft of their ecclesiastical head, might well urge
that without his sanction all proceedings would be useless. Happily for
Eugenius IV, there was found a paper subscribed by Joseph a few hours before
his death, approving what seemed good to his spiritual sons, and acknowledging
the supremacy of the Roman Church. The Patriarch was buried with due honours in
the Church of S. Maria Novella, where the inscription on his tomb is the only
memorial remaining to this day of the labours spent in uniting the Eastern
and Western Churches.
Fortified by the Patriarch’s declaration, the Emperor
urged on the completion of the work of union. The Pope submitted to the Greeks
for their consideration the differences between the Churches, concerning the
use of unleavened bread in the Eucharist, Purgatory, the Papal Primacy, the
words used in consecration. The Pope had already laid before them a statement
of the views which the Latins would be ready to accept. The only question
was that those who were in favour of the Union should win over the rest to
accept the proffered terms. The subject of Purgatory had already been threshed
out at Ferrara, and the difference was seen to be slight. A satisfactory form
of agreement was soon found. It was laid down that those who died in sin went
to eternal punishment, those who had been purged by penitence went to heaven
and beheld the face of God, those who died in penitence before they had
produced worthy fruits of penitence for their omissions and commissions went to
Purgatory for purification by pains, and for them the prayers and alms of the
faithful availed, as the Church ordained. The use of leavened or unleavened
bread was a small point of ritual, on which the Latins could urge that their
own custom of using unleavened bread was more in accordance with the facts of
the institution of the Sacrament, as it was clear that at the time of the
Passover Christ could only have unleavened bread. The Pope declared that,
though the Latin Church used unleavened bread, the Sacrament might also be
celebrated with leavened bread. The question was left open. As to the
consecration of the elements, the Greeks were in the habit of using after the
words of consecration a short prayer of S. Basil that the Spirit might make the
bread and wine the Body and Blood of Christ. The Latins demanded that the
Greeks should declare that the Sacrament was consecrated only by the words of
Christ. The Greeks did not doubt the fact, but objected to the declaration as
unnecessary. It was agreed that it should be made verbally, and not inserted in
the Articles of Union.
So far all went smoothly enough; but the greatest
difficulty arose about the Papal Supremacy. Up to this point the Greeks might
flatter themselves that they had been making immaterial compromises or engaging
in verbal explanations. Now they had to face the surrender of the independence
of their Church. However true it might be that they must make some sacrifices
to gain political consideration, the recognition of the Papal headship galled
their pride to the quick. The Pope demanded that the Greeks should recognize
him as the chief pontiff, successor of Peter, and vicar of Christ, and admit
that he judged and ruled the Church as its teacher and shepherd. The Greeks
requested that their own privileges should be reserved. There was a stormy
discussion. At length the Greeks, on June 22, proposed to admit the Pope's
Supremacy with two provisos :
1) That the Pope should not convoke a Council without
the Emperor and Patriarch, though if they were summoned and did not coine, the
Council might still be held;
2) That in case an appeal were made to the Pope
against a Patriarch, the Pope should send commissioners to investigate and
decide on the spot without summoning the Patriarch to the Council.
Next day the Pope answered roundly that he intended to
keep all his prerogatives, that he had the power of summoning a Council when it
was necessary, and that all Patriarchs were subject to his will. On receiving
this answer the Emperor angrily said, “See to our departure”. It seemed that
the negotiations were to be broken off, and that the Greeks would not give way.
But next day, June 24, being the festival of S. John Baptist, was given to
religious ceremonies. The Greeks who had committed themselves to the Union,
Bessarion, Isidore of Russia, and Dorotheus of Mitylene, spent the time in
trying to arrange a compromise. Reflection brought greater calmness to the
Emperor, and on June 26 Bessarion and his friends submitted a proposal couched
in vaguer terms: “We recognize the Pope as sovereign pontiff, vicegerent and
vicar of Christ, shepherd and teacher of all Christians, ruler of the Church of
God, saving the privileges and rights of the Patriarchs of the East”. This was
accepted by the Pope. Nothing now remained save to draw up in a general decree
the various conclusions which had been reached. For this purpose a committee of
twelve was appointed, which laboured for eight days at the task.
On July 4 the decree was finished. When it was taken
to the Emperor he objected to the fact that it ran in the Pope’s name, in the
usual style of an ecclesiastical decree, and he insisted on the addition of the
words—“with the consent of the most serene Emperor and Patriarch of
Constantinople”. On July 5 it was signed separately by the Latins and the
Greeks. It bears the signature of one hundred and fifteen Latin prelates and
abbots, and of thirty-three Greek ecclesiastics, of whom eighteen were metropolitans.
A great majority of the Greeks signed it unwillingly. Syropulus tells us of
many machinations which were used to win their assent. On the one hand, the
declared will of the Emperor drove the compliant to submission; on the other
hand, Papal largesses were doled out to the needy, and social cajoleries were
heaped upon the vain. Mark of Ephesus, alone of those who were at Florence, had
the courage of his opinions and refused to sign. He was too considerable a
person to be intimidated by the Emperor, and too stubborn a conservative to be
won over by the Pope. In spite, however, of the pathetic account of Syropulus,
it is difficult to feel much sympathy with the reluctant Greeks. They knew, or
they might have known, when they left their homes what they had to expect.
It was a question of political expediency whether or not it was desirable in
their imminent peril to abandon their attitude of isolation, and seek a place
amid the nations of Western Christendom. If so, they must expect to make some
sacrifice of their ancient independence, to overthrow some of the walls ot
partition which their conservatism had erected between themselves and the Latin
Church. An acknowledgment of the Papal Supremacy was the necessary price for
Papal aid. It was useless to appear as beggars and demand to retain all
the privileges of independence. It was useless to advance so far on rational
calculations of expediency, and to raise objections the moment that the actual
pinch was felt by national vanity. The wisest heads among the Greeks confessed
that since the Greek Church was no longer the centre of a vigorous national
life, it must conform in some degree to the Latin Church if the Greeks looked
for aid to the Latin nations. Moreover, the circumstances of the time were such
that the Pope was as anxious for the Union as were the Greeks themselves. The
Latins were willing to accept vague conditions and to agree readily to
compromises. The Greeks could not complain that they were hardly pressed in
matters of detail.
On July 6 the publication of the Decrees took place in
the stately cathedral of Florence. The Greeks had at least the satisfaction of
outdoing the Latins in the splendor of their vestments. The Pope sang the
mass. The Latin choir sang hymns of praise; but the Greeks thought their
Gregorian music barbarous and inharmonious. When they had ended the Greeks sang
their hymns in turn. Cesarini read the Union Decree in Latin and Bessarion in
Greek; then the two prelates embraced one another as a symbol of the act in
which they had engaged. Next day the Greeks who had been spectators of the
Latin mass asked that the Pope should in like manner be present at the
celebration of their mass. They were told that the Pope was not certain what
their mass was, and would like to see it performed privately before he
committed himself to be present at a public ceremony. The Greeks refused to
subject themselves to this supervision. The Emperor said indignantly that they
had hoped to reform the Latins, but it seemed that the Latins only intended
to reform them.
The Greeks were now anxious to depart, but waited to
receive from the Pope five months' arrears of their allowance. The Pope tried
to raise some other questions for discussion, chief of which was divorce, which
the Greek Church allowed, while the Latin Church did not. He suggested that
they should at once proceed to the election of a Patriarch. The Emperor refused
any further discussion, and said that they would proceed to elect a Patriarch
on their return, according to their own customs. The Pope requested that Mark
of Ephesus should be punished for his contumacy, but this also the Emperor
wisely refused. To make assurance doubly sure, the Pope demanded that five
copies of the Union Decree should be signed by the original signatories, one
for the Greeks, the rest to be sent to the princes of Europe. The Greeks
objected that this was unnecessary; at last, however, they agreed to sign four
duplicates, on the understanding that no further difficulties were to be put in
the way of their departure. On July 20 the Greek prelates began to quit
Florence. The Emperor remained till August 26, when he made his way to Venice,
and returned to Constantinople after an absence of two years.
“Have you won a triumph over the Latins?” was the
Reception question eagerly asked of the returning prelates. “We have made
a satisfactory compromise”, was the general answer. “We have become
Azymites” (so the Latins were called by the Greeks because they used
unleavened bread in the mass), “we have become Azymites, and have betrayed
our Creed”, said Mark of Ephesus, and the Greek people took his view of the
matter. They were profoundly conservative, and though their leaders might see
the necessity of departing from their national isolation, the people could not
be induced to follow the new policy. The Greek prelates who at Florence had
unwillingly accepted the Union could not stand against the popular prejudice,
and by their excuses for what they had done only tended to inflame the popular
wrath. Mark of Ephesus became a hero; the prelates who had wished for the Union
were treated with contumely. The Emperor was powerless. The Bishop of Cyzicum,
whom he made Patriarch, was looked upon with aversion as a traitor. When he
gave the people his blessing many of them turned away that they might not be
defiled by one tainted with the leprosy of Latinism. The Emperor, finding that
he could do nothing to abate the force of this popular feeling, adopted an
attitude of indifference. The Pope supplied for the defence of Constantinople
two galleys and 300 soldiers, as he had promised; but no great expedition was
equipped by Europe against the Turks. The Emperor’s brother, Demetrius,
despot of Epirus, who had been with him in Italy, and had been a spectator of
all that had there been done, actually ventured to raise a rebellion. He
combined Turkish aid with the fanatical feeling of the extreme Greek party
against the Latins, and for some time troubled his brother. The three
Patriarchs of Jerusalem, Antioch, and Alexandria issued in 1443 an encyclical
letter, in which they condemned the Council of Florence as a council of
robbers, and declared the Patriarch of Constantinople a matricide and heretic.
Thus the Council of Florence was productive of no
direct fruits. The Popes did not succeed in establishing their supremacy over
the Greek Church; the Greeks results got no substantial aid from Western
Christendom to enable them to drive away their Turkish assailants. Yet the
Council of Florence was not utterly useless. The meeting of two different
civilizations and schools of thought gave a decided impulse to the literary
world of Italy, and attracted thither some of the leaders of Greek letters. It
was not long before Gemistus Pletho took up his abode at Florence, and
Bessarion became a Cardinal of the Roman Church. Greek letters found a home in
the West; and when the impending destruction at last fell upon Constantinople,
the Greek exiles found a refuge prepared for them by their fellow-countrymen.
To Eugenius IV and to the Papacy the Council of
Florence rendered a signal service. However slight its ultimate results might
be, it was the first event since the outbreak of the Schism which restored the
ruined prestige of the Papacy. Public opinion is naturally influenced chiefly
by accomplished facts. No one could judge of the permanence of the work, but
all were in some measure impressed by a new sense of the Papal dignity when
they heard that, downcast as he was, Eugenius IV had still succeeded in healing
the schism which had so long rent asunder the Christian Church. The Pope whose
name was loaded with obloquy at Basel had been accepted as supreme at
Constantinople. The power which was hard pressed at Rome still had sufficient
vigour to win new conquests abroad. With lofty exultation Eugenius IV wrote to
the prince of Christendom, and announced the success of his efforts. He
recapitulated his labours in this holy cause, carried on in spite of many
discouragements, because he knew that only in Italy, and only in the presence
of the Pope, could this great result be obtained. It was a home thrust which
the fathers of Basel would find it hard to parry.
The Council of Florence was felt to be a triumph of
Papal diplomacy. The prospect of it had drawn from Basel all men possessed of
any moderation. The Italians saw in it the means of reasserting their hold on
the headship of the Church, which the transalpine nations had begun to
threaten. In union with the Greeks, they saw the beginning of a new epoch of
crusades, in which the Papacy might again stand forth as the leader of the
Latin race. The acute statesman and learned scholar, Francisco Barbaro, who was
at that time Capitano of Brescia, wrote to the Archbishop of Florence at the
beginning of the Council, pointing out the means to be employed. Learning and argument,
he said, were useless; for the Greeks were too acute and too proud of their
knowledge to be overcome by disputation. They must be treated with tact and
with kindness; they must be led to see that in union lie their safety and
glory. He urged the necessity of the greatest care. The union must be made to
succeed; otherwise there was no chance for the Papacy, and Italian affairs
would be plunged into hopeless confusion. The policy recommended by Barbaro was
that pursued by the Pope’s advisers. Cesarini’s experience at Basel had fitted
him admirably for the work to be done at Florence. The Papal diplomacy won a
signal triumph, and followed up its first victory by others, less conspicuous
indeed, but which added strength to the Papal cause. In December, 1439, the
reconciliation of the Armenians to the Roman Church was announced to Europe,
and Jacobites, Syrians, Chaldaeans, and Maronites in succeeding years made
illusory submission, which served to present a dazzling display of Papal power.
