 |
BOOK III
THE COUNCIL OF BASEL
1419-1444.
CHAPTER IX.
THE GERMAN DECLARATION OF NEUTRALITY AND THE ELECTION
OF FELIX V.
1438—1439.
Eugenius IV might triumph at Florence; but the fathers
of Basel, weakened yet not dismayed, pursued their course with an appearance of
lofty indifference. In the January, 1438, they suspended Eugenius IV from his
office for venturing to summon a Council without their assent. The logical
consequence of such a step was the deposition of Eugenius; and to this Cardinal
d'Allemand and his followers were ready to proceed. But, although all who had
any leaning towards Eugenius, or who had any scruples about the omnipotence of
the Council, had already left Basel, there still remained many who did not wish
to proceed at once to extremities. Motives of statesmanship and considerations
of expediency landed them in a somewhat illogical position. Through their
desire to support the Council without attacking the Pope they were nicknamed at
Basel “the Greys”, as being neither black nor white. This party, though it had
the weakness which in ecclesiastical matters always attaches to a party that is
trimming through political pressure, was still strong enough to put off for
some time the deposition of Eugenius. It raised technical points, disputed each
step, and gave weight to the remonstrances against a new schism which came from
the princes of Europe.
Accordingly, says Aeneas Sylvius, the question of
procedure against Eugenius was discussed according to the Socratic method.
Every possible suggestion was made, and every possible objection was raised
against it. Was Eugenius to be dealt with simply as a heretic, or as a relapsed
heretic, or was he a heretic at all? On such points the fathers differed; but
they agreed on March 24 in fulminating against the Council of Ferrara, declaring
all its procedure null and void, and summoning all, under pain of
excommunication, to quit it and appear at Basel within thirty days.
It was, however, impossible that this war between the
Pope and the Council could continue without exciting serious attention, on
political grounds, amongst the European nations most nearly interested in the
Papacy. Germany and France, about the same time, took measures to protect
themselves against the dangers with which they were threatened by the impending
outbreak of a schism. What Germany desired was a measure of ecclesiastical
reform without the disruption of the unity of the Church. It felt no interest
in the struggle of the Council against the Pope; rather the German princes
looked with suspicion upon the avowed object of the Council, of exalting the
ecclesiastical oligarchy at the expense of the Papacy. It bore too near a
resemblance to their own policy towards the Empire, and they did not wish to be
embarrassed in their own schemes by an access of independence to the bishops.
Accordingly the Electors entered into correspondence with Cesarini in 1437, and
lent their support to his efforts for a compromise between the Pope and the
Council. When this failed, the Electors, under the guidance of Archbishop Raban
of Trier, devised a plan of declaring the neutrality of Germany in the struggle
between the Pope and the Council; by so doing they would neither abandon the
reformation of the Church nor assist in creating a schism, but would be in a
position to take advantage of any opportunity that offered. This scheme was, no
doubt, suggested by the example of the withdrawal of the French allegiance from
Boniface XIII, and had much to be said in its favour. The Electors had sent to
obtain the assent of Sigismund when the news of his death reached them.
In March, 1438, the Electors met for the purpose of
choosing a new king at Frankfort, where they were beset by partisans of
Eugenius IV and of the Council. They resolved that before proceeding to a
new election they would secure a basis for their new policy. In a formal
document they publicly declared on March 17 that they took no part in the
differences between the Pope and the Council, nor would they recognize the
punishments, processes, or excommunications of either, as of any validity
within the Empire. They would maintain the rights of the Church till the new
king found means to restore unity; if he had not done so within six months they
would take counsel of the prelates and jurists of their land what course to
adopt. Next day Albert, Duke of Austria and King of Hungary, Sigismund’s
son-in-law, was elected king, as Sigismund had wished and planned.
This declaration of neutrality was a new step in
ecclesiastical politics, and was equally offensive to Pope and Council, both of
whom were loud in asserting that in such a matter neutrality was impossible.
Both hastened to do all they could to win over Albert; but Albert was not easy
to win over, nor indeed was he in a position to oppose the Electors. His hold
on Hungary, threatened by the Turks, was but weak, and Bohemia was insecure.
His personal character was not such as to afford much opportunity for intrigue.
He was upright and honest, reserved in speech, a man who thought more of action
than of diplomacy. Tall, with sunburnt face and flashing eyes, he took his
pleasure in hunting when he could not take it in warfare, and was content to
follow the advice of those whom he thought wiser than himself. Ambassadors
could do nothing with him, and in July he joined the band of the Electors, and
declared himself personally in favour of neutrality.
The example of Germany was followed by France. Germany
had taken up the attitude most in accordance with its views; France proceeded
to do likewise. For the large questions of Church government involved in the
struggle between Council and Pope, France had little care. Since their failure
at Constance the theologians of the University of Paris had sunk into lethargy.
France, suffering from the miseries of its long war with England, took an
entirely practical view of affairs. Its object was to retain for its own uses
the wealth of the Church, and prevent Papal interference with matters of
finance. Charles VII determined to adopt in his own kingdom such of the decrees
of the Council as were for his advantage, seeing that no opposition could be
made by the Pope. Accordingly, a Synod was summoned at Bourges on May 1, 1438.
The ambassadors of Pope and Council urged their respective causes. It was
agreed that the king should write to Pope and Council to stay their hands in
proceeding against one another; meanwhile, that the reformation be not lost,
some of the Basel decrees should be maintained in France by royal authority.
The results of the Synod’s deliberation were laid before the king, and on July
7 were made binding as a pragmatic sanction on the French Church. The Pragmatic
Sanction enacted that General Councils were to be held every ten years, and
recognized the authority of the Council of Basel. The Pope was no longer to
reserve any of the greater ecclesiastical appointments, but elections were to
be duly made by the rightful patrons. Grants to benefices in expectancy, whence
all agree that many evils arise, were to cease, as well as reservations. In all
cathedral churches one prebend was to be given to a theologian who had studied
for ten years in a university, and who was to lecture or preach at least once a
week. Benefices were to be conferred in future, one-third on graduates,
two-thirds on deserving clergy. Appeals to Rome, except for important causes,
were forbidden. The number of Cardinals was to be twenty-four, each of the age
of thirty at least. Annates and first-fruits were no longer to be paid to the
Pope, but only the necessary legal fees on institution. Regulations were made
for greater reverence in the conduct of Divine service; prayers were to be said
by the priest in an audible voice; mummeries in churches were forbidden, and
clerical concubinage was to be punished by suspension for three months. Such
were the chief reforms of its own special grievances, which France wished to
establish. It was the first step in the assertion of the rights of national
Churches to arrange for themselves the details of their own ecclesiastical
organization. It went no further, however, than the amendment of existing
grievances as far as the opportunity allowed. It rested upon no principles
applicable to the well-being of Christendom. While Germany, true to its
imperial traditions, was content to hold its hand till it discovered some means
of bringing about a reformation without a schism, France entered upon a
separatist policy to secure its own interests.
The issue of both these plans depended upon the
struggle between the Pope and the Council. Charles VII besought the Council to
suspend their proceedings against the Pope, and received an answer that it was
doing so. On July 12, at a Diet held at between Nürnberg, the Electors offered
to mediate between the Pope and Council, but were answered by the Council’s
envoys that secular persons might not judge ecclesiastical matters, and that it
would be a bad precedent if Popes and Councils were interfered with. The
Electors, with Albert’s assent, extended the neutrality for four months. On
October 16, at a second Diet at Nurnberg, appeared Cardinal Albergata, as the
head of a Papal embassy; but the envoys of the Council, headed by the Patriarch
of Aquileia, were received with greater marks of distinction. Eugenius IV never
again subjected any of his Cardinals to such a slight, but chose less important
and more skillful diplomatists. The Electors again offered to mediate, on
the basis that the Councils of Ferrara and Basel should alike be dissolved, and
a new one summoned at another place. The Basel envoys replied that they had no
instructions on this matter; they asked if the Electors accepted the decrees of
the Council, and were answered in turn that envoys should be sent to Basel to
answer this question. At Basel accordingly there was much negotiation with the
German envoys, who were joined by those of the other princes, but the fathers
resolutely opposed a translation of the Council, and rejected all proposals
tending to that end. When the third Diet met at Mainz on March 5, 1439, matters
had advanced no farther than they were at first.
To Mainz Eugenius sent no envoys; but many of his
adherents were there to plead his cause, chief amongst whom was Nicolas of
Cusa, a learned theologian, who had been an admiring follower of Cesarini, “the
Hercules of Eugenius’ party”, as Aeneas Sylvius calls him. But the Electors now
wavered in their policy of mediation, and began to turn their eyes to the
example of France. They tended towards using the opportunity for establishing
the privileges of the German Church. The Council sent again the Patriarch of
Aquileia. But the German princes had by this time seen that a reconciliation
between Pope and Council was impossible. They had an adviser of keen sagacity
in the legist John of Lysura, sprung, like Nicolas of Cusa, from a little
village in the neighbourhood of Trier. He was the firm upholder, if not the
originator, of the policy of neutrality. He now advised the Electors, if
nothing were to be gained by mediation, to follow the example of France, and
secure such of the work of the Council of Basel as satisfied them. On March 26
the Diet took the unwelcome step of publishing its acceptance of the Basel
decrees concerning the superiority of General Councils, the organization of
provincial and diocesan synods, the abolition of reservations and expectancies,
freedom of election to ecclesiastical benefices, and the abolition of annates
and other oppressive exactions of the Curia. The Pope was not to refuse
confirmation to the election of a bishop, except for some grave reason approved
by the Cardinals. Appeals to Rome, until the cases had been heard in the
bishops’ courts, were, with few exceptions, forbidden. Excommunications were
not to be inflicted on a town for the fault of a few individuals. Such were the
chief provisions of this pragmatic sanction of Germany.
The state of things which now existed in France and
Germany was really a reversion to the system of concordats with which the
Council of Constance Pope and had ended. The rights that had then been granted
by the Papacy for five years, and had afterwards proved mere illusory
concessions, were now extended and secured. The strife between the Pope and the
Council enabled the State in both countries to assert, under the sanction of a
General Council, liberties and privileges which needed no Papal approval. Such
a policy of selection was opposed equally to the ideas of the Council and of
the Pope. The Council wished for adhesion to its suspension of Eugenius IV; the
Pope was not likely to acquiesce quietly in the loss of his prerogatives and of
his revenues. Meanwhile, however, each was bent on using its opportunities.
Eugenius IV hoped by the brilliancy of his success at Florence to establish
himself again in a position to interfere in European affairs. The Council
trusted that, if it carried to extremities its proceedings against the Pope,
Germany and France, after establishing reforms by virtue of its authority,
would be driven to approve of a decisive step when it was once taken.
Accordingly at Basel the process against Eugenius IV
was prepared. The proctors of the Council gathered together a hundred and fifty
articles against the Pope, swelling the number of charges to make matter look
more terrible, though all converged to the one point, that Eugenius by
dissolving the Council had made himself a schismatic and the author of a
schism. It was clear that such a process might be protracted endlessly by a few
determined opponents at every stage of the pleadings. The more resolute spirits,
led by a Burgundian abbot Nicolas, carried the adoption of a more summary
method of procedure. The Council was summoned to discuss the heresy of Eugenius
and set forth the great points of Catholic doctrine which he had impugned. This
discussion took place in the middle of April, and for six whole days, morning
and afternoon, the dispute went on. First the theologians laid down eight
conclusions:—
1) It is a truth of the Catholic faith that a
General Council has power over a Pope or any other Christian man.
2) It is likewise a truth that the Pope cannot by
his authority dissolve, transfer, or prorogue a General Council lawfully
constituted.
3) Anyone who pertinaciously opposes these
truths is to be accounted a heretic.
4) Eugenius IV opposed these truths when first he
attempted by the plenitude of the Apostolic power to dissolve or transfer
the Council of Basel.
5) When admonished by the Council he withdrew his
errors opposed to these truths.
6) His second attempt at dissolution
contains an inexcusable error concerning the faith.
7) In attempting to repeat his dissolution he
lapses into the errors which he revoked.
8) By persisting in his contumacy, after
admonition by the Council to recall his dissolution, and by calling a Council
to Ferrara, he declares himself pertinacious.
The Archbishop of Palermo, who had formerly
distinguished himself as an opponent of Eugenius IV, now at his King’s bidding
counselled moderation. He argued with much acuteness that Eugenius had not
contravened any article of the Creeds, nor the greater truths of Christianity,
and could not be called heretical or relapsed. John of Segovia answered that
the decrees of Constance were articles of faith, which it was heresy to impugn.
The Bishop of Argos followed on the same side in a speech of much passion,
which the Archbishop of Palermo indignantly interrupted. The Bishop of Argos
called the Pope “the minister of the church”.
“No”, cried the Archbishop of Palermo, “he is its
master”.
“Yet”, said John of Segovia, “his title is servant of
the servants of God”.
The Archbishop of Palermo was reduced to silence.
The discussion went on; but really narrowed itself to
two questions, “Has a General Council authority over a Pope? Is this an article
of faith?”
The disputation at last ended, and the voting began.
Three deputations at once voted for the conclusions of the theologians. The
fourth deputation accepted the first three conclusions, but doubted about the
last five; it hoped by delay to keep the whole question open. When the day came
for a general congregation to be held, the Archbishops of Milan and Palermo
prepared for resistance with the aid of the ambassadors of the princes. They
pressed for delay, on the ground that the princes of Europe were not
sufficiently represented. When they had finished their arguments, Cardinal
d'Allemand made a splendid speech for a party leader. The princes of Europe, he
said, were well enough represented by their prelates; the Archbishops of Milan,
Palermo, and Lyons had said all that could be said. They had complained that
the voice of the bishops was disregarded in the Council, and that the lower
clergy carried everything against them. What Council had done so much to raise
the condition of bishops, who till now had been mere shadows with staff and mitre,
different only in dress and revenues from their clergy? The Archbishop of
Palermo had said that his opinion ought to prevail because more bishops were on
his side. The order of the Council could not be changed to suit his
convenience; it had pleased him well enough so long as he was in the majority.
Everybody knew that the prelates were only anxious to please their princes;
they confessed to God in private, to their political superiors in public. He
himself maintained that it was not the position, but the worth, of a man that
was of importance. “I could not set the lie of the wealthiest prelate above the
truth spoken by a simple priest. Do not, you bishops, despise your inferiors;
the first martyr was not a bishop but a deacon”. The example of the early Church
showed that Councils were not restricted to bishops. If it were so now, they
would be at the mercy of the Italians, and there would be an end to all further
reforms. The Archbishop of Palermo pressed for delay only as a means of wasting
a favorable opportunity. He threatened them with the anger of princes, as if
the Council was to obey princes, and not princes the Council. They must cleave
to the truth at all hazards. He ended by urging them to affirm the first three
conclusions, as a means of stopping the intrigues of Eugenius IV, and defer for
the present the remainder in deference to the Archbishop of Palermo’s request.
All listened with admiration to the dashing onslaught
of D'Allemand. But on the attempt to read the decree affirming the three conclusions
a scene of wild clamour and confusion arose, as had happened two years before.
The Patriarch of Aquileia turned to the Archbishop of Palermo and cried out,
“You do not know the Germans; if you go on thus, you will not leave this land
with your head on your shoulders”. There was a loud cry that the liberty of the
Council was being attacked. Again the citizens of Basel had to interfere to
keep the peace. The fathers were free to conduct their debates at pleasure, but
a citizen guard was always present to see that arguments were not
enforced by stronger than verbal means.
When silence was restored, the debate was resumed for
a while, till Cardinal d'Allemand again rose to put the question. The
Archbishop of Palermo interposed, saying, “You despise our entreaties, you
despise the kings and princes of Europe, you despise the prelates; but beware
lest, while you despise all, yourselves be despised by all. We have the
majority of prelates on our side; we form the Council. In the name of the
prelates I declare that the motion must not be carried”. There was a hubbub as
of a battlefield, and all was again confusion. John of Segovia was sufficiently
respected by both parties to obtain a hearing while he denounced the scandal of
the day’s proceedings, urged the observance of the ordinary procedure of the
Council, and defended the authority of the president. His speech made no
impression on the Archbishop of Palermo, who declared that he and the prelates
of his party constituted the Council and would not allow any decree to be
published in the teeth of the protest he had just made. No one kept his seat;
the rival partisans gathered round their leaders, the Cardinal of Arles and the
Archbishop of Palermo, and looked like two armies drawn up for contest. It
seemed that the Archbishop’s policy would prevail, that the congregation would
be ended by the evening darkness without passing any vote, and thus a
substantial triumph be gained for Eugenius IV. The followers of the Cardinal of
Arles loudly upbraided him with his incompetency: “Why do you sleep? Where is
nowyour courage and your skill?”
But the Cardinal was only waiting his time. When a
slight lull prevailed he called out suddenly in a loud voice, “I have a letter
just come from France which contains wonderful, almost incredible news, which I
would like to lay before you”. There was at once silence, and D'Allemand began
to read some trivialities; then the pretended letter went on to say that
messengers of Eugenius IV filled France and preached that the Pope was above
the Council; they were gaining credit, and the Council ought to take measures
to check them.
“Fathers”, said the Cardinal, “the necessary measures
are found in the eight propositions which you have examined, all of which,
however, you do not intend at present to pass; but I declare the three first to
be passed, in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost”.
Thus saying, he hastily left his seat and was followed
by his triumphant partisans. He had snatched a formal victory at a time when
defeat seemed imminent. He had shown that French craft was a match for Italian
subtlety.
A few days afterwards arrived from Mainz the
ambassadors of the Electors, from whom the opponents of the decree expected
help in their resistance. But the Electors at Mainz had practically forsaken
their position of mediators. They had seen the hopelessness of mediation unless
supported by a general agreement of European powers. Private interests
prevailed too strongly for this to be possible. Portugal and Castile were at
variance. Milan and Aragon had their own ends in view in any settlement that
might be made with the Pope.
The attitude of France was dubious; and the Germans
suspected that France aimed at getting the Council into its own hands, and
reviving the French hold upon the Papacy. The Electors had no settled policy,
and were content with a watchful neutrality. The German ambassadors did nothing
at Basel, though an attempt was made to revive the national divisions, and
procure joint action on the part of the German nation. On May 9, the German
ambassadors were present, though by an accident, at a general congregation
which accepted the form of decree embodying the conclusions previously passed.
Again there was a stormy scene. The Archbishop of Milan denounced the Cardinal
of Aries as another Catiline, surrounded by a band of ruffians. When the Cardinal
of Arles began to read the decree the Archbishop of Palermo thundered forth his
protest. Each side shouted down the other, to prevent their proceedings from
claiming conciliar validity. The Cardinal of Arles rose to leave the room. His
opponents prepared to stay and enact their protest; but a sudden cry of one who
declared that he would not be untrue to his oath, and allow the Council to
degenerate into a conventicle, recalled all to a sense of the gravity of the
situation. All felt that they were on the verge of disruption of the Council.
The Cardinal resumed his seat; those who were departing were recalled. The
Bishop of Albi read a protest to himself, for no one could hear him for the
hubbub. The Lombards, Castilians, and Aragonese declared their adhesion to the
protest, and left the congregation. The Cardinal of Arles then went on with the
ordinary business, late though it was, and the form of decree was at last
adopted. As the Archbishop of Palermo left the Council he turned to his
followers and said with indignation, “Twice, twice”. It was the second time
that the policy of the Cardinal of Arles had been too acute for him, and had
baffled his attempts at obstruction.
For a few days the followers of the Archbishop of
Palermo absented themselves from the meetings of the deputations; and on May 15
the ambassadors of the Electors feebly protested that they did not assent to
any proceedings which were contrary to the conclusions of the Diet of Mainz.
Next day they tried to make a compromise, but failed, as the opponents of the
decree could not make up their minds what terms they were prepared to accept. A
session was held on the same day, May 16, for the publication of the decree.
The greater number of prelates refused to be present. None of the Aragonese bishops,
none from any of the Spanish kingdoms, would attend. From Italy there was only
one, and from the other kingdoms only twenty. But the Cardinal of Arles was not
deterred by their absence. He had a large following of the inferior clergy, and
had recourse to a strange expedient to cast greater ecclesiastical prestige
over the assembly. He gathered from the churches of Basel the relics of the
saints, which, borne by priests, were set in the vacant places of the bishops.
When the proceedings began, the sense of the gravity of the situation moved all
to tears. In the absence of opposition the decree was read peaceably, and was
formally passed.
On May 22 the ambassadors of the princes appeared in a
general congregation, and took part in the business, excusing themselves for
their previous absence on the ground that it was not their duty as ambassadors
to mix with such matters. It was clear from such vacillating conduct on the
part of their representatives that the princes of Europe had little real
interest in the struggle between Pope and Council. They had ceased to act as
moderators, and had no large views about the need of ecclesiastical reforms.
They were content to gain what they could for their separate interests, as they
understood them at the moment, and to let the whole matter drift. They were
incapable of interposing to free the question of reform from the meshes of
personal jealousy in which it had become entangled. So long as every power
which could interfere with their own projects was enfeebled, they were content
that things should take their own course. The only man at Basel with a settled
policy was the Cardinal of Arles; and he was no more than a party leader, bent
on using the democracy of the Council as a means of asserting the power of the
ecclesiastical oligarchy against the Papal monarchy.
Emboldened by his first triumph, the Cardinal of Arles
pursued his course. The German ambassadors still urged a suspension of the
process against the Pope. On June 13 a solemn answer was made by the Council that
the process had now been suspended for two years in deference to the wishes of
princes. They must not take it amiss if the Council, whose business it was to
regulate the affairs of the Church, declined to delay any longer. Faith,
religion, and discipline would be alike destroyed if one man had the power to
set himself against a General Council, and bear a tyrant’s sway over the
Church; they would rather die than desert the cause of liberty. The ambassadors
were silent when, on June 23, the remaining five of the eight conclusions were
decreed by the Council, and Eugenius IV was cited to appear in two days and
hear his sentence. The plague was at this time raging in Basel, and very little
pressure would have sufficed to induce the fathers to transfer the Council
elsewhere; but there was no real agreement amongst the powers of Europe. The
session on June 25 was attended by thirty-nine bishops and abbots, and some 300
of the lower clergy. Eugenius IV was summoned by the bishops, and when he did
not appear was declared contumacious. He was declared to be a notorious cause
of scandal to the Church, a despiser of the decrees of the Holy Synods, a
persistent heretic, and destroyer of the rights of the Church. As such he was
deposed from his office; all were freed from his allegiance, and were forbidden
to call him Pope any longer. The dominant party in the Council had everything
to win and nothing to lose by pursuing to its end the quarrel with the Pope. In
the divided state of political interests there was a chance that some of the
European powers might be drawn to its side if once a decided step was taken.
But it forgot, in the excitement of the conflict, that the Council’s hold upon
men’s obedience was a moral hold, and rested upon hopes of ecclesiastical reform.
When this had been sacrificed to the necessities of a party conflict, when a
schism and not a reformation was the issue of the Council's activity, its
authority was practically gone. It required only a little time to make
this clearly manifest.
The Council, however, did not hesitate in its course.
On the day of the deposition of Eugenius IV a consultation was held about
future procedure; and the opinion of John of Segovia was adopted, to defer for
sixty days the election to the vacant office of Pope. The position of the
Council was discouraging. The plague, which since the spring had been raging in
Basel, had grown fiercer in the summer heat. Five thousand of the inhabitants
are said to have fallen before its ravages. Terror prevailed on every side, and
it was hard to keep the Council together. The learned jurist Pontano and the
Patriarch of Aquileia, two pillars of the Council, were amongst those who fell
victims to the mortality. The streets were thronged with funerals and priests
bearing the sacrament to the dying. The dead were buried in pits to save the
trouble of digging single graves. Aeneas Sylvius was stricken by the plague,
but recovered. Eight of his friends amongst the clerks of the Council died.
In spite of all danger and the repeated advice of his
friends that he should flee before the pestilence, the Cardinal of Arles stood
to his post, and so kept the Council together. At the beginning of October the
business of the Council was resumed, and the method of the new election was
discussed. The College of Cardinals was represented in Basel only by Louis
d'Allemand. It was clear that Electors must be appointed. After some discussion
their number was fixed at thirty-two, but there were many opinions about the
means of choosing them. At last William, Archdeacon of Metz, proposed the names
of three men who should be trusted to co-opt the remaining twenty-nine. The
three whose high character and impartiality were supposed to place them above
suspicion were Thomas, Abbot of Dundrennan, in Scotland, John of Segovia, a
Castilian, and Thomas of Corcelles, Canon of Amiens. At first this plan met
with great objections; but they gradually disappeared on discussion. The
Germans urged that they were not represented, and it was agreed that the three
should associate with themselves a German, Christian, Provost of S. Peter’s in
Bruma, in the diocese of Olmutz. They took an oath that they would choose
fitting men who had the fear of God before their, eyes and would not
reveal the names of those they chose till the time of their publication in a
general Congregation.
The triumvirs at once set about their business. They
conferred with representative men of every nation: they did their best to
acquaint themselves with the characters of those whom they had in view. Yet
they displayed singular discretion in their inquiries; and when, on October 28,
they met to make their election, no one knew their intentions. Next day the
congregation was crowded to hear their decision. Everywhere speculation was
rife. The more vain and more simple among the fathers displayed their own
estimate of their deserts by appearing in fine clothes, with many attendants,
ready to enter the conclave at once. Suspense was prolonged because the
Cardinal of Arles was late. He appeared at last with a gloomy face, and took
his seat, saying, “If the triumvirs have done well, I confess that I am rather
late; if they have done ill, I am too soon”. He was afraid that their
democratic sympathies might have outrun his own. His words were an evil omen;
every one prepared for a dissension, which in the matter of a new election
would work irreparable ruin to the Council.
The triumvirs behaved with singular prudence. First
Thomas of Dundrennan, then John of Segovia, explained the principles on which
they had acted. They had regarded national divisions, and had considered the
representative character of those whom they chose; goodness, nobility, and
learning had been the tests which they had used. The general result of their
choice was that the electors would consist of twelve bishops, including the
Cardinal of Arles, which was the number of the twelve apostles, seven abbots,
five theologians, nine doctors and men of learning, all in priests’ orders.
This announcement in some degree appeased the general dread. When the names
were read, the position of the men chosen, and their distribution amongst
nations, met with general approval. The Cardinal’s brow cleared; he praised the
triumvirs for their wisdom and prudence, and the Congregation separated in
contentment. On October 30, after the usual ceremonies, the electors entered
the conclave in the house Zur Brücke.
The Cardinal of Arles was, of course, ready with a
nominee for the papal office; naturally, he had not proceeded to extremities
without making preparations for the result. If the cause of the Council was to
succeed, it must again strike its roots into European politics, and must secure
an influential protector. As other princes had grown cold towards the Council,
the Duke of Savoy had declared himself its adherent. The greater part of the
fathers now remaining at Basel were Savoyards. Amadeus VIII had ruled over
Savoy since 1391. He was a prudent man, who knew how to take advantage of his
neighbors’ straits, and had greatly increased the dominions and importance of Savoy
till it embraced the lands that extended from the Upper Saone to the
Mediterranean, and was bounded by Provence, Dauphiné, the Swiss Confederacy,
and the Duchy of Milan. Like many others, Amadeus VIII had drawn his profits
from the necessities of Sigismund, who, in 1416, elevated Savoy to the dignity
of a duchy. The Duke of Savoy refused to take any side in the internal
struggles of France or in the war between France and England, but grew rich on
his neighbors’ misfortunes. He married a daughter of Philip the Bold, Duke of
Burgundy; his eldest daughter was married to Filippo Maria, Duke of Milan, his
second was the widow of Louis of Anjou. From his wealth, his position, and his
connections, the Duke of Savoy was a man of great political influence. But the
death of his eldest son caused him deep grief and unhappiness. In 1431 he
retired from active life, and built himself a luxurious retreat at Ripaille,
whither he withdrew with seven companions to lead a life of religious
seclusion. His abode was called the Temple of S. Maurice; he and his followers
wore grey cloaks, like hermits, with gold crosses round their necks, and long
staffs in their hands. Yet Amadeus, in his seclusion, took a keen interest in
affairs, and, when the suspension of Eugenius IV was decreed by the Council,
sent an embassy to the Pope excusing the Council, and offering to mediate. As
matters went on his support was more openly declared, and he offered to send to
Basel the prelates of his land. During the year 1439 Savoyards had largely
reinforced the Council, and the scheme of electing Amadeus as the future Pope
had taken definite form. Amadeus had consulted other princes on the subject,
and from the Duke of Milan had received the warmest promises of support. The
electors to the Papacy had been chosen equally from the nations represented at
the Council—France, Italy, Germany, and Spain. But, from its geographical
position, Savoy was reckoned both in France and Italy. Of the twelve bishops
amongst the electors seven were Savoyards; the others were the Cardinal of
Arles, two French and one Spanish bishop, and the Bishop of Basel. Without any
accusation of false play in the choice of the electors, it fell out that quite
half of them were either subjects of Amadeus or were bound to him by ties of
gratitude.
The proceedings of the conclave were conducted with
the utmost decorum. At its commencement the Cardinal of Arles reminded the
electors that the situation of affairs needed a rich and powerful Pope, who
could defend the Council against its adversaries. On the first scrutiny of
votes it was found that seventeen candidates had been nominated, of whom
Amadeus had the greatest number of votes—sixteen. On the next scrutiny he
had nineteen votes, and on the third twenty-one. His merits and the objections
that could be raised against him were keenly but temperately discussed, and in
the final scrutiny on November 5 it was found that he had received twenty-six
votes, and his election to the Papacy was solemnly announced by the Cardinal of
Arles.
The Council published the election throughout
Christendom, and named an embassy headed by the Cardinal of Arles, with seven
bishops, three abbots, and fourteen doctors, to carry to Amadeus the news of
his election. Probably from want of money, the embassy did not leave Basel till
December 3, when it was accompanied by envoys of the citizens and several
nobles. On reaching Ripaille they were met by the nobles of Savoy. Amadeus,
with his hermit comrades, advanced to meet them with the cross borne before
him. Amadeus entered into negotiations in a business-like spirit, and rather
surprised the ambassadors of the Council by stipulating that a change should be
made in the form of the oath administered to the Pope, that he should keep his
hermit’s beard and his former name of Amadeus. The envoys replied that the oath
must be left to the Council; they could not alter the custom of assuming a
religious name; the beard might be left for the present. Amadeus also
disappointed the Council’s envoys by showing an unexpected care about his
future financial position. “You have abolished annates”, he said; “what do you
expect the Pope to live on? I cannot consume my patrimony and disinherit my
sons”. They were driven to promise the cautious old man a grant of first-fruits
of vacant benefices.
At last matters were arranged. Amadeus accepted his
election, assumed the name of Felix V, and took the oath as prescribed by the
Council. Then he left his solitude in Ripaille, and went in pontifical pomp to
Tonon, where, amid the ecclesiastical solemnities of Christmastide, his friends
were so struck by the incongruity of his bearded face that they persuaded him
to shave. On the festival of the Epiphany he took the final step of separating
himself from his worldly life by declaring his eldest son Louis Duke of Savoy,
and his second son Philip Count of Geneva. By the Council’s advice he agreed
not to fill up the offices of the Curia, lest by so doing he should hinder the
reconciliation of those who held them under Eugenius IV; as a provisional
measure they were put into commission. Felix V also submitted to the Council’s
demand that, in the letters announcing his election, the Pope’s name should
come after that of the Council. On the other hand, the Council allowed him to
create new Cardinals, even in contradiction to their decrees on this point.
Felix named four, but only one of those, the Bishop of Lausanne, as a dutiful
subject, accepted the doubtful dignity, to which small hope of revenue was
attached.
On February 26, the Council of Basel issued a decree
commanding all to obey Felix V, and excommunicating those who refused. This was
naturally followed by a similar decree of Eugenius IV from Florence on March
23. Neither of these decrees was very efficacious. Eugenius IV had strengthened
himself in December by creating seventeen Cardinals, Bessarion and Isidore of
Russia among the Greeks, two Spaniards, four Frenchmen, one Englishman (John
Kemp, Archbishop of York), one Pole, one German, one Hungarian, and five
Italians. Unlike the nominees of Felix, all accepted the office except the
Bishop of Krakau, who refused the offers of both Popes alike. The news of the
election of Amadeus at first caused some consternation in the court of Eugenius
IV; but the sagacity of Cesarini restored their confidence. “Be not afraid”, he
said, “for now you have conquered, since one has been elected by the Council
whom flesh and blood has revealed to them, not their Heavenly Father. I was
afraid lest they might elect some poor, learned and good man, whose virtues might
be dangerous; as it is, they have chosen a worldling, unfit by his previous
life for the office, one who has shed blood in war, has been married and has
children, one who is unfit to stand by the altar of God”.
Felix V did not find matters easy to arrange with the
Council. He stayed at Lausanne for some time, and did not comply with the
repeated requests of the fathers that he would hasten to Basel. No steps were
taken to provide for the support of the Papal dignity. The letter of Felix V,
nominating the Cardinal of Arles as president of the Council, was ruled to be
so informal that it was not inserted in the Council’s records. Questions
concerning the Council’s dignity in the presence of the Pope gave rise to many
discussions; it was agreed that the Pope and his officials should take an oath
not to impede the jurisdiction of the Council over its own members. Not till
June 24, 1440, did Felix enter Basel accompanied by his two sons, an unusual
escort for a Pope, and all the nobility of Savoy. On July 24, he was crowned
Pope by the Cardinal of Arles, the only Cardinal present. The ceremony was
imposing, and more than 50,000 spectators are said to have been present. Felix
V looked venerable and dignified, and excited universal admiration by the
quickness with which he had mastered the minutiae of the mass service. No
expense was spared to give grandeur to the proceedings; the tiara placed on
Felix’s head cost thirty thousand crowns. After this, Felix abode in Basel
awaiting the adhesion of the princes of Europe.
The two Popes were now pitted one against the other;
but their rivalry was unlike any that had existed in former times. Each had his
pretensions, each represented a distinctive policy; but neither had any
enthusiastic adherents. The politics of Europe were but little concerned with
ecclesiastical matters; the different States pursued their course without much
heed to the contending Popes. Germany was the least united State and had the
least determined policy. To Germany both Eugenius IV and Felix V turned their
attention; each strove to end its neutrality favorably to himself. The hopes of
both parties were awakened by the death of Albert II, on October 27, 1439. He
died in Hungary of dysentery, brought on by eating too much fruit when fatigued
in hot weather. Albert in his short reign had not succeeded in restoring order
in the Empire, in giving peace to the Church, or in protecting his ancestral
kingdoms; but his noble and disinterested character, his firmness and
constancy, had roused hopes in men’s minds, which were suddenly extinguished by
his untimely death. It became at once a question what would be the policy of
the Electors during the vacancy in the Empire.
|
