 |
 |
CHAPTER
II.
The Schism and the Great Heretical Movements 1378-1409
After an
interval of seventy-five years a Conclave again met in Rome, and on its
decision depended the question whether or not the injurious predominance of
France in the management of the affairs of the Church should continue. Severe
struggles were to be expected, for no slight disunion existed in the Sacred
College.
Of the sixteen
Cardinals then present in Rome, four only were of Italian nationality.
Francesco Tibaldeschi and Giacomo Orsini were Romans,
Simone da Borsano and Pietro Corsini,
natives respectively of Milan and Florence. These Princes of the Church were
naturally desirous that an Italian should occupy the Chair of St. Peter. The
twelve foreign or "Ultramontane" Cardinals,
of whom one was a Spaniard and the others French, were subdivided into two
parties. The Limousin Cardinals strove for the
elevation of a native of their province, the birthplace of the last four Popes.
Of the six remaining members of the Sacred College, two were undecided, and the
four others, of whom the Cardinal of Geneva was the leader, formed what was
called the Gallican faction.
No party
accordingly had the preponderance, and a protracted Conclave was to be
anticipated. External circumstances, however, led to a different result. Before
the Cardinals entered on their deliberations, the Municipal authorities of Rome
had besought them to elect a Roman, or at any rate an Italian, and while the
Conclave was proceeding, the governors of the districts appeared, and presented
the same petition. The populace gathered round the Vatican in the greatest
excitement, demanding, with shouts and uproar, the election of a Roman. The
Cardinals were compelled to make haste, and as no one of the three parties was
sufficiently powerful to carry the day, all united in favour of Bartolomeo Prignano, Archbishop of Bari, candidate who belonged to no
party and seemed in many respects the individual best fitted to rule the Church
in this period of peculiar difficulty. He was the worthiest and most capable
among the Italian prelates. As a native of Naples, he was the subject of Queen
Joanna, whose protection at this crisis was of the greatest importance. A long
residence in Avignon had given him the opportunity of acquiring French manners,
and ties of equal strength bound him to Italy and to France. On the 8th April,
1378, he was elevated to the supreme dignity, taking the name of Urban VI.
Great confusion
was occasioned by a misunderstanding which occurred after the election. The
crowd forcibly broke into the Conclave to see the new Pope, and the Cardinals,
dreading to inform them of the election of Prignano,
who was not a Roman, persuaded the aged Cardinal Tibaldeschi to put on the Papal Insignia and allow the populace to greet him. Hardly had
this been done, when, apprehensive of what might happen when the deception was
discovered, most of the Cardinals sought safety in flight. Finally, confidence
was restored by the assurance of the City authorities that Prignano's election would find favour with the people. It is plain then that the election
itself was not the result of compulsion on the part of the Roman populace. If,
however, the least suspicion of Constraint could be attached to it, the
subsequent bearing of the Cardinals was sufficient to completely counteract it.
As soon as tranquillity was restored Prignano's election
was announced to the people and was followed by his Coronation. All the
Cardinals then present in Rome took part in the ceremony, and thereby publicly
acknowledged Urban VI as the rightful Pope. They assisted him in his
ecclesiastical functions and asked him for spiritual favours. They announced
his election and Coronation to the Emperor and to Christendom in general by
letters signed with their own hands, and homage was universally rendered to the
new Head of the Church. No member of the Sacred College thought of calling the
election in question; on the contrary, in official documents, as well as in
private conversations, they all maintained its undoubted validity.
It cannot,
indeed, be denied that the election of Urban VI was canonically valid. The most
distinguished lawyers of the day gave their deliberate decisions to this
effect; but it had taken place under circumstances so peculiar that it was
extremely easy to obscure or distort the facts. It was canonical, but it had
been brought about only by the dissensions between the different parties, and
was agreeable to none. The Cardinals respectively hoped to find a pliable
instrument for their wishes and plans in the person of Urban VI. In the event,
however, of this hope being disappointed, or of their discords being appeased,
it was to be expected that the elected Pontiff would fall a victim to their
reconciliation. Without a single genuine adherent in the College of Cardinals,
he might soon see his supporters changed into opponents.
The new Pope was
adorned by great and rare qualities; almost all his contemporaries are
unanimous in praise of his purity of life, his simplicity and temperance. He
was also esteemed for his learning, and yet more for the conscientious zeal
with which he discharged his ecclesiastical duties. It was said that he lay
down to rest at night with the Holy Scriptures in his hand, that he wore a
hair-shirt, and strictly observed the fasts of the Church. He was, moreover,
experienced in business. When Gregory XI had appointed him to supply the place
of the absent Cardinal Vice-Chancellor, he had fulfilled the duties of the
office in an exemplary manner, and had acquired an unusual knowledge of
affairs. Austere and grave by nature, nothing was more hateful to him than
simony, worldliness, and immorality in any grade of the clergy.
It was but
natural that the elevation of such a man should call forth the brightest
anticipations for the welfare of the Church. Cristoforo di Piacenza, writing to
his Sovereign, Lodovico Gonzaga of Mantua, soon after the election of Urban,
says: "I am sure that he will rule God's Holy Church well, and I venture
to say that she has had no such Pastor for a century and more, for he has no
kindred, he is on very friendly terms with the Queen of Naples, he is conversant
with the affairs of the world, and is moreover very clear-sighted and
prudent".
But Urban VI had
one great fault, a fault fraught with evil consequences to himself, and yet
more to the Church; he lacked Christian gentleness and charity. He was naturally
arbitrary and extremely violent and imprudent, and when he came to deal with
the burning ecclesiastical question of the day, that of reform, the
consequences were disastrous.
The melancholy
condition of the affairs of the Church at this period is clear from the letters
of St. Catherine of Siena. The suggestion of reform which she had made
repeatedly and with unexampled courage had unfortunately not been carried out.
Gregory XI was far too irresolute to adopt energetic measures, and he also attached
undue weight to the opinions of his relations, and of the French Cardinals, by
whom he was surrounded; moreover, he was fully occupied by the war with
Florence, and this was perhaps the chief cause of his inaction. Whether, if
longer life had been granted to him, he would really have undertaken the
amendment of the clergy, it is impossible to say. One thing is certain, that at
the date of the new Pope's accession the work had still to be done.
It is to Urban's
honour that he at once took the matter in hand, beginning in the highest
circles, where, in the opinion of all prudent men, the need was the most
urgent. But instead of proceeding with the prudence and moderation demanded by
a task of such peculiar difficulty, he suffered himself from the first to be
carried away by the passionate impetuosity of his temper. Thus his already
unstable position was soon rendered most precarious. The very next day after
his coronation he gave offence to many Bishops and Prelates, who were
sojourning in Rome, some of them for business, and some without any such
reason. When, after Vespers, they paid him their respects in the great Chapel
of the Vatican he railed them perjurers, because they had left their churches.
A fortnight later, preaching in open consistory, he condemned the morals of the
Cardinals and Prelates in such harsh and unmeasured terms, that all were deeply
wounded. Nor did the Pope rest satisfied with words. His great desire was to
eradicate simony, and that all business brought to Rome should be despatched
gratuitously, and without presents. This he more especially required from the
Cardinals, who were bound to be models to the rest of the clergy. He publicly
declared that he would not suffer anything savouring of simony, nor would he
grant audience to anyone suspected of this sin. He particularly forbade the
Cardinals to accept pensions, considering this practice to be a great hindrance
to the peace of the Church. He expressed his intention of living as much as
possible in Rome, and, as far as in him lay, of dying there. Urban also issued
ordinances against the luxury of the Cardinals, and these measures were no
doubt most excellent. Would only that the Pope had proceeded in a less violent
and uncompromising manner! He certainly did not take the best way of reforming
the worldly-minded Cardinals, when, in the Consistory, he sharply bade one of
them be silent, and called out to the others "Cease your foolish
chattering!" nor again, when he told Cardinal Orsini that he was a
blockhead. On the contrary, these brutal manners embittered men's minds, and
did much to frustrate his well-meant plans and actions.
St. Catherine of
Siena was aware of the severity, with which Urban VI was endeavouring to carry
out his reforms, and immediately exhorted and warned him. "Justice without
mercy", she wrote to the Pope, "will be injustice rather than
justice". "Do what you have to do with moderation", she said in
another letter, "and with good-will and a peaceful heart, for excess
destroys rather than builds up. For the sake of your Crucified Lord, keep these
hasty movements of your nature a little in check". But instead of giving
heed to these admonitions, Urban VI pursued his disastrous course, breaking
rather than bending everything that opposed him. Relations between him and the
Cardinals became more and more strained, for not one among these luxurious
prelates had sufficient humility and patience to endure his domineering
proceedings. Scenes of the most painful description frequently occurred, and,
considering the incredible imprudence of Urban's conduct, we cannot wonder at
his insuccess. Almost immediately after his election,
St. Catherine had advised him to counteract the influence of the worldly-minded
Frenchmen who formed the majority in the Sacred College, by the nomination of a
number of virtuous and conscientious Cardinals, who might assist him with
counsel and active support in the arduous duties of his office. But Urban let
precious time go by without adding to their number. Instead of acting, he
confined himself to saying, in presence of several of the French Cardinals,
that it was his purpose to create a preponderating number of Romans and
Italians. An eye-witness relates that at these words the Cardinal of Geneva
grew pale and left the Papal presence.
A revolution in
the Sacred College was evidently imminent, when Urban VI fell out with his
political friends, the Queen of Naples and her husband, Duke Otto of Brunswick.
He also quarrelled with Count Onorato Gaetani of Fondi. The exasperated Cardinals now knew where to find a
staunch supporter. Hardly had the oppressive and unhealthy heats of summer set
in at Rome, when the French, one after another, sought leave of absence
"for reasons of health". Their place of meeting was Anagni, and it
was an open secret in Rome that they were resolved to revolt against a Pope,
who had shown them so little regard, and who absolutely refused to transfer
once more the Papal residence to France. If hopes were entertained of an
amicable arrangement of differences, such hopes soon proved delusive. The
Schism which had been impending ever since Clement V had fixed his seat in
France, and which had almost broken out in the time of Urban V, and again in
that of Gregory XI, now became a reality.
In vain did the
Italian Cardinals, by order of the Pope, propose that the contest should be
settled by a General Council; in vain did the most eminent lawyers and
statesmen of the day, such as Baldo di Perugia and Coluccio Salutato, maintain the
validity of Urban's election; in vain did St. Catherine of Siena conjure the
rebellious Cardinals, by the Saviour's Precious Blood, not to sever themselves
from their Head and from the truth.
The plans of
reform entertained by Urban VI filled the French King, Charles V, with wrath.
The free and independent position, which the new Pope had from the first
assumed was a thorn in the side of the King, who wished to bring back the
Avignon days. Were Urban now to succeed in creating an Italian majority in the
Sacred College, the return of the Holy See to its dependence on France would be
greatly deferred, if not indeed altogether prevented. Charles V therefore
secretly encouraged the Cardinals, promising them armed assistance, even at the
cost of a cessation of hostilities with England, if they would take the final step,
before which they still hesitated. Confident in his powerful support, the
thirteen Cardinals, assembled at Anagni, on the 9th August, 1378, published a
manifesto, declaring Urban’s election, to have been invalid, as resulting from
the constraint exercised by the Roman populace, who had risen in insurrection,
and pro- claiming as a consequence the vacancy of the Holy See.
On the 20th
September they informed the astonished world that the true Pope had been chosen
in the person of Robert of Geneva, now Clement VII. The great Papal Schism
(1378-1417), the most terrible of all imaginable calamities, thus burst upon
Christendom, and the very centre of its unity became the occasion of the
division of the Church.
It is not easy
to form a correct judgment as to the proportion of blame due respectively to
the Pope and the Cardinals. It would be at once unjust and historically
incorrect to make Urban VI alone responsible; indeed, the principal share of
guilt does not fall upon him. Reform was a matter of the most urgent necessity,
and Urban VI was performing a sacred duty when he boldly attacked existing
corruptions. If he overstepped the bounds of prudence, the fault, though a
serious one, can readily be accounted for by the amount of the evil. Urban made
this error worse by deferring the creation of new and worthy Cardinals until
too late.
It must also be
observed that the measure of reform undertaken by the Pope involved a complete
breach with the fatal Avignon period, and this not only in an ecclesiastical,
but also in a political sense.
If Urban sternly
dismissed a certain number of the Cardinals and sent them back to their
Bishoprics, his aim in this was not merely the removal of great and mischievous
abuses, but also the diminution of French influence in the Papal Court, and of
the pressure in favour of a return to Avignon. With the same objects in view
the Pope purposed to choose Cardinals from all the different nations of
Christendom. He wished to re-assert that universal character of the Roman
Church which had been so seriously impaired during the Avignon period; hence
his friendly attitude towards England. With a clear-sightedness surpassing that
of any of his contemporaries, this energetic Pontiff perceived that if it would
again fulfil its proper destiny, the Papacy must not belong to any one nation,
and must pass beyond the narrow circle of French interests. Urban's programme
consisted in its liberation from the excessive influence of France. Resistance
was inevitable, and its very violence shows the progress the evil had already
made.
The guilt of the
worldly-minded Cardinals far outweighed that of the Pope. By his want of
charity and violence of temper, Urban doubtless gave them just cause for
complaint. But instead of bearing with patience the weaknesses of the Pontiff
they had chosen, instead of temperately opposing his unjust, or apparently
unjust, measures, goaded on by the French King, who felt that his influence in
ecclesiastical affairs was seriously threatened, they proceeded at once to
extremities. They were bound to pay honour and obedience to the lawful Head of
the Church, whose position they had for months fully recognized, and yet they
took occasion from his personal failings to declare his election invalid, and,
by the appointment of an Antipope, to cause a Schism in the Church. The conduct
of the Cardinals is absolutely inexcusable. They constituted themselves at once
accusers, witnesses, and judges; they sought to remove a less evil by the
infinitely worse remedy of a double election and a Schism. St. Catherine of
Siena's scathing words were fully justified. "I have learned", she
wrote to Urban, "that those devils in human form have made an election.
They have not chosen a Vicar of Christ, but an Anti-Christ; never will I cease
to acknowledge you, my dear Father, as the Representative of Christ upon earth.
Now forward, Holy Father! go without fear into this battle, go with the armour
of divine love to cover you, for that is a strong defence."
No less pointed
are the words addressed by the Saint to the recreant Princes of the Church.
"Alas! to what have you come, since you did not act up to your high
dignity! You were called to nourish yourselves at the breast of the Church; to
be as flowers in her garden, to shed forth sweet perfume; as pillars to support
the Vicar of Christ and his Bark; as lamps to serve for the enlightening of the
world and the diffusion of the Faith. You yourselves know if you have
accomplished that, to which you were called, and which it was your bounden duty
to do. Where is your gratitude to the Bride who has nourished you? Instead of
being her shield you have persecuted her. You are convinced of the fact that
Urban VI is the true Pope, the Sovereign Pontiff, elected lawfully, not through
fear, but by divine inspiration far more than through your human co-operation.
So you informed us, and your words were true. Now you have turned your backs on
him, as craven and miserable knights, afraid of your own shadow. What is the
cause? The poison of selfishness which destroys the world! You, who were angels
upon earth, have turned to the work of devils. You would lead us away to the
evil which is in you, and seduce us into obedience to Anti-Christ. Unhappy men!
You made truth known to us, and now you offer us lies. You would have us
believe that you elected Pope Urban through fear; he who says this, lies. You
may say, why do you not believe us? We, the electors, know the truth better
than you do. But I answer, that you yourselves have shown me how you deal with
truth. If I look at your lives, I look in vain for the virtue and holiness,
which might deter you, for conscience sake, from falsehood. What is it that
proves to me the validity of the election of Messer Bartolomeo, Archbishop of
Bari, and now in truth Pope Urban VI? The evidence was furnished by the solemn
function of his Coronation, by the homage which you have rendered him, and by
the favours which you have asked and received from him. You have nothing but
lies to oppose to these truths. O ye fools! a thousand times worthy of death!
In your blindness you perceive not your own shame. If what you say were as true
as it is false, must you not have lied, when you announced that Urban VI was
the lawful Pope? Must you not have been guilty of simony, in asking and
receiving favours from one, whose position you now deny?"
Such was indeed
the case. The outbreak of the schism was chiefly due to the worldly Cardinals,
stirred up by France, and longing to return thither. This condition of things
was a result of the disastrous Avignon epoch, which accordingly is ultimately
responsible for the terrible calamity which fell upon Christendom. "From
France", as a modern ecclesiastical historian well observes, "the
evil proceeded, and France was the chief, and, in fact, essentially the only
support of the schism, for other nations were involved in it merely by their
connection with her. But the Gallican Church had to bear the weight of the
yoke, which, in her folly, she had taken upon her shoulders. Her Bishoprics and
Prebends became the prey of the needy phantom-Pope, and of his thirty-six
Cardinals. He was himself the servant of the French Court, he had to put up
with every indignity offered him by the arrogance of the courtiers, and to
purchase their favour at the cost of the Church in France, thus subjected to
the extortions of both Paris and Avignon". How completely Clement VII
looked on himself as a Frenchman, and how thoroughly all feeling for the
liberty and independence of the Papacy had died within him, is clearly
evidenced by the fact that, reserving for the Holy See only Rome, the Campagna,
the Patrimony of St. Peter, and Sabina, he granted the greater part of the
States of the Church to Duke Louis of Anjou to form the new kingdom of Adria,
on condition that he should expel Urban VI. No former Pope had ventured thus to
tamper with the possessions of the Church. Such an action was only possible to
the "executioner of Cesena", the man "of broad conscience",
as the historian of the Schism calls him.
The rival claims
to the lawful possession of the Tiara were now a matter of general discussion,
and unfortunately, judgment too often depended on political considerations,
rather than on an impartial examination of facts. It became evident that the
question really underlying the whole contest was, whether French influence,
which had become dominant in Europe since the downfall of the Hohenstaufens, should still control the Papacy, or whether
the Papacy should resume its normal universal position. The French King,
Charles V, perfectly understood the real gist of the matter. "I am now
Pope!" he exclaimed, when the election of Clement VII was announced to
him. The Anti-pope was not generally acknowledged, however, so rapidly as the
French monarch could have desired. The University of Paris was at first
neutral, and only espoused the cause of Clement VII under compulsion. The
Spanish Kingdoms also began by endeavouring to maintain neutrality, so that his
cause would probably have perished in its infancy, had it not been for the
powerful support of Charles V, who spared no pains to win over all nations in
any way subject to French influence Within the next few years all the Latin
nations, with the exception of Northern and Central Italy and Portugal, took
the part of Clement VII, and Scotland, the ally of France, naturally also
adhered to the French Pope.
The attitude of
England was determined by the enmity existing between that country and France.
When the French King declared for Clement VII, England energetically espoused
the cause of Urban VI. Guido di Malesicco, the Legate
of the Anti-pope, was not allowed to set foot on English soil, and King Richard
even went so far as to confiscate the property of the Clementine Cardinals.
England in general identified the struggle against Clement with the war against
France; the split in the Church and the conflict between the two nations became
blended together.
The Emperor,
Charles IV, who had already looked with an unfavourable eye on the sojourn of
the Popes at Avignon, was also a firm adherent of the Roman Pope. He was well
aware that France aspired to dominion, not merely-over, the Papacy or the
Empire, but over the whole Charles' example was followed by the greater portion
of the Empire and by Louis of Anjou, King of Hungary and Poland, who was
connected by marriage with the Princes of the House of Luxemburg, and was the
inveterate enemy of Joanna of Naples. Ever since Charles had aided him against
the Turks, and the Queen had become estranged from the Pope, he had forgotten
that French blood ran in his veins. The northern kingdoms and most of the
Italian States, with the exception of Naples, continued loyal to the Roman
Pope.
It was much to
the advantage of Urban VI, who in the meantime had created a new College of
Cardinals, that his opponent was not able to maintain a position in Italy,
where, nevertheless, the battle had to be decided. But now, as if struck by
blindness, the Pope began to commit a series of errors. In the pursuit of his
own personal ends he completely lost sight of the wider views, which ought to
have directed his policy. The conflict with his powerful neighbour, Queen
Joanna of Naples, became his leading idea. He excommunicated her as an
obstinate partisan of the French Pope, declared her to have forfeited her
throne, and allowed a Crusade to be preached against her. He entrusted the
execution of his sentence to the crafty and ambitious Charles of Durazzo,
invested him with the Kingdom of Naples on the 1st June, 1381, and crowned him
on the following day. In return for these favours, Charles had to promise to
hand over Capua, Caserta, Aversa, Nocera, Amalfi, and other places to the
Pope's nephew, a thoroughly worthless and immoral man. While thus providing for
the aggrandizement of his family, Urban did not scruple to despoil churches and
altars of their treasures, in order to obtain the resources necessary for the
expedition against Naples. But punishment soon overtook him. Charles at once
took possession of the Kingdom of Naples, but seemed to have quite forgotten
his promise. Urban was beside himself, and resolved to go in person to Naples
and assert his authority. Notwithstanding the opposition of his Cardinals, he
carried this unfortunate project into execution in the autumn of 1383. The
result, as might have been expected, was only to add fresh bitterness to the
conflict, and to bring about Urban's complete discomfiture. The monarch, who
owed his crown to the Pope, treated him from the first as his prisoner. A brief
reconciliation was followed by still more violent discord, and the Pope was
besieged at Nocera. Here he exposed his high dignity to ridicule, by proceeding
four times a day to the window, and with bell, book, and candle solemnly
excommunicating the besiegers. And as if to fill up the measure of the
abjection and misery of the Holy See, he, at this very time, fell out with his
own Cardinals. Embittered by the irksome insecurity of their sojourn at Nocera,
and by the violence and obstinacy of the Pope, who, deaf to their advice,
continued to involve himself and the Church in fresh perplexities, several of
them got an opinion drawn up by a Canonist, Bartolino di Piacenza, to the effect that a Pope, who by his incapacity or blind
obstinacy should endanger the Church, might be placed under the guardianship of
some Cardinals and made dependent on their approval in all matters of
importance. They accordingly determined to take forcible possession of his
person, but Urban, being forewarned, caused the conspirators to be seized,
imprisoned, tortured, and ultimately put to death. The cruel harshness of the
aged Pope greatly injured his reputation. Two of his Cardinals went over to the
French Pope, by whom they were gladly welcomed. It was a terrible calamity for
the Church, that just at a time when Princes and people were bent on their own
political interest, the severe and obstinate character of Urban prepared so
much evil for himself and his adherents, and that no power was able to turn him
from his course. He held with unbending determination to his unfortunate
Neapolitan project, and died unlamented at Rome on 15th October, 1389.
Christendom had never yet witnessed such a Schism; all timid souls were cast
into a sea of doubt, and even courageous men like Abbot Ludolf of Sagan, its historian, bewailed it day and night.
Anti-popes,
indeed, had already arisen on several occasions, but in most cases they had
very soon passed away, for, owing their elevation to the secular power, it bore
more or less clearly on its very face the stamp of violence and injustice. But
in the present instance all was different; unlike the Schisms caused by the Hohenstaufens or Louis of Bavaria, that of 1378 was the
work of the Cardinals, the highest of the clergy. And, moreover, the election
of Urban VI had taken place under circumstances so peculiar that it was easy to
call it in question. It was impossible for those not on the spot to investigate
it in all its details, and the fact, that all who had taken part in it
subsequently renounced their allegiance, was well calculated to inspire doubt
and perplexity.t It is extremely difficult for those who study the question in
the present day with countless documents before them, and the power of
contemplating the further development of the Schism, to estimate the
difficulties of contemporaries who sought to know which of the two Popes had a
right to their obedience. The extreme confusion is evidenced by the fact that
canonized Saints are found amongst the adherents of each of the rivals. St.
Catherine of Siena, and her namesake of Sweden, stand opposed to St. Vincent
Ferrer and the Blessed Peter of Luxemburg, who acknowledged the French Pope.
All the writings of the period give more or less evidence of the conflicting
opinions which prevailed; and upright men afterwards confessed, that they had
been unable to find out which was the true Pope.
To add to the
complications, the obedience of Germany to Urban VI and that of France to
Clement VII was far from complete, for individuals on both countries attached
themselves to the Pope, from whom they expected to gain most. The allegiance of
the Holy Roman Empire to Urban was evidently of an unstable character, since
ecclesiastics in Augsburg fearlessly, and without hindrance, accepted charges
and benefices from the hands of the Antipope and his partisans, and itinerant
preachers publicly asserted the validity of his claim. Peter Suchenwirt, in a poem written at this period, describes the
distress, which the growing anarchy within the Church was causing in men's
minds, and earnestly beseeches God to end it. "There are two Popes",
he says; "which is the right one?
"In Rome
itself we have a Pope,
In Avignon
another;
And each one
claims to be alone
The true and
lawful ruler.
The world is
troubled and perplext,
Were better we
had none,
Than two to rule
o'er Christendom,
Where God would
have but one.
He chose St.
Peter, who his fault
With bitter
tears bewail'd;
As you may read
the story told
Upon the sacred
page.
Christ gave St.
Peter pow'r to bind,
And also pow'r to loose ;
Now men are
binding here and there,
Lord, loose our
bonds we pray."
"Our sins,
indeed, had deserved this punishment; the world is full of injustice and
falsehood:
“Never have
hatred, pride, and greed,
Had pow'r so great as now."
"Men are
sunk in vices and crimes; it is in vain to look for peace and justice. The
disastrous year of 1378 took an Emperor and a Pope from the world; we have now
a Pope too many and an Emperor too few. God alone can put an end to this
misery"; and the poet concludes with the prayer —
“To Christendom
its chiefs restore,
Both its Pope
and its Emperor,
Thus throughout
the world shall be,
End made of
wrong and misery”
It has been well
observed that we can scarcely form an idea of the deplorable condition to which
Europe was reduced by the schism. Uncertainty as to the title of its ruler is
ruinous to a nation; this schism affected the whole of Christendom, and called
the very existence of the Church in question. The discord touching its Head
necessarily permeated the whole body of the Church; in many Dioceses two
Bishops were in arms for the possession of the Episcopal throne, two Abbots in
conflict for an abbey. The consequent confusion was indescribable. We cannot
wonder that the Christian religion became the derision of Jews and Mahometans.
The amount of evil
wrought by the schism of 1378, the longest known in the history of the Papacy,
can only be estimated, when we reflect that it occurred at a moment, when
thorough reform in ecclesiastical affairs was a most urgent need. This was now
utterly out of the question, and, indeed, all evils which had crept into
ecclesiastical life were infinitely increased. § Respect for the Holy See was
also greatly impaired, and the Popes became more than ever dependent on the
temporal power, for the schism allowed each Prince to choose which Pope he
would acknowledge. In the eyes of the people, the simple fact of a double
Papacy must have shaken the authority of the Holy See to its very foundations.
It may truly be said that these fifty years of schism prepared the way for the
great Apostacy of the sixteenth century.
It is not within
the scope of the present work to recount all the vicissitudes of the warfare
between the claimants of the Papal throne — for Urban VI received immediately a
successor. Neither side would yield, and the confusion of Christendom daily
increased and pervaded all classes of society. The Cardinals of the rival Popes
were at open variance, and in many dioceses there were two Bishops. This was
the case in Breslau, Mayence, Liege, Basle, Metz
Constance, Coire, Lubeck, Dorpat, and other places, and even the Religious and
Military Orders were drawn into the schism.
The conflict was
carried on with unexampled violence. While the adherents of the Roman Pope
reprobated the Mass offered by the "Clementines",
the "Clementines" in their turn looked on
that of the "Urbanists" as a blasphemy; in many cases public worship
was altogether discontinued. "The depths of calamity", as St.
Catherine of Siena said, "overwhelmed the Church". "Mutual
hatred", writes a biographer of the Saint, "lust of power, the worst
intrigues flourished amidst clergy and laity alike, and who could suppress
these crimes? God alone could help, and He led the Church through great and
long-continued tribulation back to unity, and made it plain la all that men may
indeed in their wickedness wound her, but they cannot destroy her, for she
bears within a divine principle of life". Therefore, even amid the direst
storm of discord, St. Catherine could write, "I saw how the Bride of
Christ was giving forth life, for she contains such living power that no one
can kill her; I saw that she was dispensing strength and light, and that no one
can take them from her, and I saw that her fruit never diminishes, but always
increases”. But this did not lessen the Saint's distress. "Every
age", she wrote to a nun, "has its afflictions, but you have not
seen, and no one has seen a time so troubled as the present. Look, my daughter,
and your soul must be filled with grief and bitterness, look at the darkness
which has come upon the Church; human help is unavailing. You and all the
servants of God must take Heaven by storm; it is a time for watching, and not
for sleeping; the foe must be vanquished by vigils, by tears, by groans and
sighs, and by humble, persevering prayer".
But St.
Catherine did not content herself with merely praying for the Pope. After the
failure of her efforts to nip the fearful evil of the Schism in the bud, she
put forth all her powers to secure the victory of justice — the cause of the
Roman Pope. Letters full of warning, supplication, and menace were addressed by
her to various individuals; she wrote to the Pope and the Cardinals as well as
to the most illustrious Princes. Her influence aided Urban to maintain his
position in Italy and contributed to the defeat of the French Anti-pope in that
country. But she was not permitted to witness the restoration of unity to the
Church, for on the 29th April, 1380, she died, full of grief for the disorders
due to the Schism, but with an unshaken confidence in the "eternal future
of the Church".
The literature
of this period, a field as yet but little explored, testifies to the general
distress caused by the Schism. Touching lamentations in both prose and verse
portray the desolation and confusion of the time, and this was aggravated by
epidemics. "Whose heart", cries Heinrich von Langenstein,
"is so hardened as not to be moved by the unspeakable sufferings of his
Mother, the Church?" In order to give yet more force to his complaint that
the spirit of unity and concord has forsaken Christendom, he brings the Church
herself forward and puts into her mouth the words of Jeremias, associated by
the Liturgy with the Dolours of our Lady : "See
if there be sorrow like my sorrow". The celebrated Canonist, Giovanni di Lignano, in a treatise in support of the legitimacy of
Urban VI, echoes Langenstein's words. The chronicler
of St. Denis mentions a comet which appeared at this time with its tail turned
to the west, as portending war, insurrection, and treason. He foretold that a
Pope was to be besieged in Avignon, and a Pope driven from Rome. The pious
Giovanni dalle Celle, in despair at the contest which
deprived the very centre of the Church of its universality, writes: "They
say. that the world must be renewed; I say, it must be destroyed". Amongst
writings of a similar nature we must not omit the frequently quoted treatise
addressed to Urban VI by the celebrated Archbishop of Prague, Johann von Jenzenstein, who depicts the abjection of the Church in
striking terms. From these complaints it is evident how keenly the need of a
supreme Judge, Guardian, and Guide in ecclesiastical affairs was felt.
Naturally, men
did not stop at mere expressions of sorrow, but went on to inquire into the
origin of the evil which was bringing such dishonour on the Church. The most
clear-sighted contemporary writers point to the corruption of the clergy, to
their inordinate desire for money and possessions — in short, to their
selfishness— as the root of all the misery. This is the key note of Nicolas de Clemangis’ celebrated book, "On the Ruin of the
Church" (written in 1401); and in a sermon delivered before the Council of
Constance, the preacher insisted that "money was the origin of the Schism,
and the root of all the confusion".
It cannot,
however, be too often repeated that the ecclesiastical corruption was in great
measure a consequence of the Avignon period, and of the influence which State
politics had acquired in matters of Church government. The rupture, produced by
the recreant French Cardinals, was, in reality, nothing but the conflict of two
nations for the possession of the Papacy; the Italians wished to recover it,
and the French would not let it be wrested from them.
Those who raised
their voices to complain of the corruption and confusion of Christendom were
not always men of real piety or moral worth. In many cases they might with
advantage have begun by reforming their own lives. Some of them went so far as
to charge all the evils of the day upon the ecclesiastical authorities, and
stirred up laity and clergy against each other; such persons only destroyed
that which was still standing. Others, again, clamoured for reform, while
themselves doing nothing to promote it. But at this time, as at all periods in
the history of the Church, men were found who, without making much noise or
lamentation, laboured in the right way — that is, within the limits laid down
by the Church — for the thorough amendment of all that was amiss.
Of this stamp
was Gerhard Groot of Deventer (born f 1340, died 1384). This excellent man,
whom John Busch and Thomas à Kempis rightly name a light of the Church,
endeavoured to spread abroad a true idea of the high vocation of the clergy, to
point out to Christian people the way of salvation, and to propagate genuine
piety in the hearts of his fellow men. Having received deacon's orders, he went
through Holland, preaching missions in the towns of Zwolle, Deventer, and Kempen. He usually preached three times a day; people came
from miles to hear his inspired discourses. The Churches were for the most part
too small to contain the congregations, and he frequently preached in the
churchyards. His language was not that of the schools, but of the heart, and
therefore it reached the hearts of his hearers. Moreover, his life was the
practical exemplification of his doctrine. His whole work maybe briefly summed
up as the promotion of the imitation of Jesus Christ.
Much was gained
when by degrees a circle of disciples gathered round this Apostolic man; they
lived under his direction and that of his friend, Florentius Radewins, earning their bread by transcribing pious books,
and employing themselves also in the religious instruction of the people. By
the advice of Florentius, they put their earnings together and lived in common
under a head elected by themselves. With Gerhard's assistance, Florentius drew
up a rule of life and ordinances for the Community. All promised to obey him as
their Superior and to remain for life. Vows, in the proper sense of the word,
were not taken, for the new Community was not as yet recognized as a religious
Congregation by the Holy See. Each member had also to promise that he would
contribute to the general support by manual labour, especially by writing.
Their object was to lead the life of the early Christians —"the life of
Perfection and of Imitation of Christ". The principle of self-support, on
which this community was founded, distinguished it from the existing religious
houses, which made the Divine worship, prayer, and religious instruction their
practical aim, and derived their support from endowments or the gifts of the
faithful.
Such was the
origin of the celebrated community of the Brothers of the Common life (Fraterherren). The fervent words of Thomas à Kempis
describe their further progress. "Humility, the first of all virtues, was
here practised from the least to the greatest. This makes the earthly house a
Paradise, and transforms mortal men into heavenly pearls, living stones in the
Temple of God. There, under holy discipline, flourished obedience, the mother
of virtues, and the lamp of spiritual knowledge. The highest wisdom consisted
in obeying without delay, and it was a grave fault to disregard the counsel or
even the slightest word of the Superior. The Joy of God and of men burned
within and without, so that the hard hearts of sinners melted into tears when
they heard their holy words; those who came cold, went away inflamed by the
fire of the discourse and full of joy, and resolved for the future to sin no
more. There was a shining store of armour for the spiritual warfare against
each separate vice; old and young alike learned to fight bravely against Satan,
the flesh, and the deceits of the world. The memory of the ancient Fathers and
the fervour of the Egyptian solitaries, which had long lain half buried, was
brought to life again, and the religious state rose, in conformity with the
traditions of the primitive Church, to the highest perfection! There were heard
pious exhortations to the practice of virtue, and the most holy and sorrowful
passion of our Saviour Jesus Christ was the subject of frequent and devout
meditation. We know that from the attentive remembrance of His Passion comes
healing for our souls; it has power to kill the poisonous bite of the serpent,
to moderate the passions of the heart, and to raise the dull soul from earth to
Heaven by the imitation of the Crucified".
Gerhard Groot
and his foundation had soon to encounter much opposition, especially from the
Mendicant Friars. Accordingly, a very short time before his early death, he
urgently recommended his friend Florentius to adopt the rule of a religious
order. His wish was carried out in the year 1386-1387, when a house, following
the rule of St. Augustine, was established at Windesheim,
three hours' journey to the south of Zwolle, and six members of Florentius’
Brotherhood took possession of it. This foundation deserves to be particularly
mentioned, even in a History of the Popes, for monastic reform and the revival
of faith flowed thence like a mighty stream, first through Holland and then
through the whole of Northern Germany, the Rhine country, and Franconia. It was
established as a Congregation in 1395, and its Statutes were immediately
confirmed by Pope Boniface IX. The disciples of Groot did much to promote the
real reform of the clergy, and the amelioration of Catholic life in Germany and
the Netherlands. The services rendered by the Congregation of Windesheim and the Fraterherren in raising the standard of popular instruction, and promoting the spread of
religious literature in the vernacular, have been recognized by the best
judges. It is acknowledged that they were not behind their age in regard to
scientific attainments, and that their method in classical studies was
excellent. The rapid increase of this congregation, from the year 1386, when
the first six brothers took possession of mud huts at Windesheim,
and the wonderful renovation of monastic life which it initiated, form one of
the brightest spots in an age so full of sorrow.
Among the darker
shades of the picture of this period, we must count the formation of sectarian
Conventicles by laymen and the increase of false prophecies. In regard to the
first of these evils, it has been well observed that times like that of the
great Schism are fraught, for earnest natures, with a special danger, in
proportion to their dissatisfaction with the provision for their spiritual
needs, made by those who represent the Church. The false prophecies, on account
of their wide diffusion, demand a more detailed examination. The difficulty of
ascertaining which Pope was the true one, and the anxiety and perplexity of
conscience which afflicted all thoughtful souls, in consequence of the chaotic
state of the Church, led to a notable multiplication of visionaries and
prophets. There was a widespread expectation of the coming of Anti-Christ, and
the approaching end of the world; an Englishman, writing probably in the year
1390, even maintained that the Pope was the Anti-Christ of the Apocalypse. By
means of another most dangerous class of prophecies, political and heretical
agitators, the latter of whom were at this time peculiarly audacious,
endeavoured to turn the sad condition of the Church to profit for their own
purposes. A host of these predictions, which aggravated the general confusion,
are inspired by the false ascetical principle that the clergy and the Church
ought to return to Apostolic poverty.
Views of this
kind are forcibly enunciated in the celebrated work of the so-called hermit, Telesphorus, who, born, by his own account, near Cosenza,
gave out that he lived in the neighbourhood of Thebes. His prophecy claims our
attention, because, as countless manuscripts bear witness, it enjoyed a wider
circulation than any other writing of the kind.
Telesphorus starts from the idea
that the Schism is a punishment for the sins and crimes of the Roman Church and
the clergy in general. Its conclusion, he says, is to be expected in the year
1393, when the Anti-Pope (the Italian Pope) will be slain in Perugia. This event
will be followed by a complete renovation of the Church and the return of the
clergy to Apostolic poverty, but the persecution of the clergy will continue. A
new Emperor and a new Pope will then appear, and the latter, the "Pastor
Angelicus", will deprive the Germans of the Imperial Crown and bestow it
on the French King Charles; he will recover possession of Jerusalem, and the
union with the Greek Church will be accomplished. The burden of the prophecy of Telesphorus is the transfer of the Imperial dignity
to the Royal House of France; it is nothing but a programme of French hopes and
political aspirations, set forth in the prophetical form so popular at the
period.
The wide
diffusion of this prediction and its anti-German character, induced the
"most eminent German theologian of the day", Heinrich von Langenstein (Henricus de Hassia), to write a controversial work in reply. The worthy
Hessian scholar begins by disapproving the existing rage for prophecies, and
specially condemns the predictions of Joachim and Cyrillus,
from which Telesphorus had borrowed. His position
throughout is that of the celebrated Theological School of Paris, which made no
account of these predictions, and looked upon those of the Abbot Joachim as
mere guesses which had nothing supernatural about them, while his treatment of
many dogmatic questions was far from orthodox.
Langenstein strongly opposes the
principle laid down by Telesphorus, that the clergy
ought to be deprived of all their wealth and possessions. He justly observes that
it would be most dangerous to teach the powerful laity, already unfavourably
disposed towards ecclesiastics, that they had a right, under pretext of reform,
to take possession of Church property, and that the abuse of riches by the
clergy does not furnish a ground for deprivation. If this were so, the property
of laymen must also be taken from them, since most of them make a worse use of
it. If, however, the Religious Orders were to be suppressed and despoiled, as Telesphorus predicts, the consequence, Langenstein maintains, would be, not the reformation, but the complete ruin of the Church.
The so-called Telesphorus was not the only instance of a false prophet. Langenstein's work clearly proves their number to have been
very considerable. He devotes a whole chapter to those, who were induced by the
Schism to come forward and to foretell, by the course of the stars or their own
conjectures, the triumph of one or other of the Popes and the end of the
contest. While Telesphorus supported France, Gamaleon predicted the renovation of the Church after the
conquest of Rome by the German Emperor and the transfer of the Papacy to
Germany. In the excited state of public feeling, these pretentious prophets, in
an uncritical age, found ready credence. The predictions were copied out and
illuminated as if they had been revelations of the Holy Spirit. In short, there
was a very deluge of prophecies regarding the termination of the Schism, and
all of them ended in nought.
The crisis which
the Church passed through at this juncture, is the most grievous recorded in
her history. Just when the desperate struggle between the rival Popes had
thrown everything into utter confusion, when ecclesiastical revenues and
favours served almost exclusively as the reward of partisans, and when
worldliness had reached its climax, heretical movements arose in England,
France, Italy, Germany, and, above all, in Bohemia, and threatened the very
constitution of the Church. This was most natural; the smaller the chance of
reform being effected by the Church, the more popular and active became the
reform movement not directed by her; the higher the region that needed, but
resisted reform, the more popular did this movement become.
Germany was
disturbed by the Beghards, and also more especially by the Waldenses, whose
doctrines had taken root in Bavaria and Austria during the latter half of the
thirteenth century, and, notwithstanding constant repression, had become widely
diffused. The movement reached its height in Germany in the last thirty years
of the fourteenth century — the disastrous time of the Great Schism. It was not
only in Southern Germany and the Rhine country, the two centres of Mediaeval
heresy, that a great proportion of the population had embraced the Waldensian
doctrine, it had also made its way into the north and the furthest east of the
empire. Waldensian congregations were to be found in Thuringia, the March of
Brandenburg, Bohemia, Moravia, Silesia, Pomerania, Prussia, and Poland. That
the Waldenses were very numerous in the Austrian dominions at the beginning of
the last decade of the fourteenth century is proved by the fact that they had
no less than twelve superintendents. In Southern Germany things had by this
time come to such a pass that the Celestine Monk, Peter of Munich, appointed
Inquisitor for the Diocese of Passau in 1390, felt that his life was in danger,
and urgently implored the aid of the secular power against the heretics, who
threatened him with fire and sword. The condition of the neighbouring Diocese
of Ratisbon was similar to that of Passau.
Too little
attention has hitherto been bestowed on the revolutionary spirit of hatred of
the Church and the clergy, (many of whom were, alas, unworthy of their high
calling,) which had taken hold of the masses in different parts of Germany.
Together with the revolt against the Church, a social revolution was openly
advocated. A chronicler, writing at Mayence in the
year 1401, declares that the cry of “Death to the Priests”, which had long been
whispered in secret, was now the watchword of the day.
The reappearance
in many parts of Germany of the Pantheistic Sect of Free Thought furnishes an
example of the aberrations to which heresy leads. The recently-discovered
report of proceedings, taken against an adherent of this sect at Eichstatt in
1381, shows us the awful danger which threatened all ecclesiastical and social
order from this quarter. The Eichstatt heretic maintained that, by devout
worship and contemplation of the Godhead, he had come to be one with God,
absolutely perfect and incapable of sinning. The practical consequences which
the accused had drawn from his imagined perfection were of a most suspicious
nature, and are calculated to substantiate many of the charges, hitherto deemed
unjust and incredible, which Mediaeval writers have brought against the
sectaries of their day; for, in the opinion of the accused, neither the
precepts of the Church nor the laws of common morality, are binding on one who
is endowed with the spirit of freedom and perfection; even the gravest breaches
of the sixth commandment are, in his case, no sin, so far as he merely follows
the impulse of nature; and so firmly is he persuaded of his right to do
"what gives him pleasure", that he declares he is permitted to put to
death those who oppose him, even if they were a thousand in number.
The appearance
of John Wyclif in England was a matter of far greater moment than heresies of
this kind, which were forcibly repressed by the Inquisition. The errors of the Apocalyptics and the Waldenses, of Marsiglio, Occaan and others, were all concentrated in his sect, which
prepared the transition to a new heretical system of a universal character,
namely, Protestantism. His teaching is gross pantheistic realism, involving a Predestinarianism which annihilates moral freedom.
Everything is God. An absolute necessity governs all, even the action of God
Himself. Evil happens by necessity; God constrains every creature that acts, to
the performance of each action. Some are predestined to glory, others to damnation.
The prayer of the reprobate is of no avail, and the predestined are none the
worse for the sins which God compels them to commit. Wyclif builds his church
on this theory of predestination. It is, in his view, the society of the elect.
As an external institution, accordingly, it disappears, to become merely an
inward association of souls, and no one can know who does or does not belong to
it. The only thing certain is that it always exists on earth, although it may
be sometimes only composed of a few poor laymen, scattered in different
countries. Wyclif began by a conditional recognition of the Pope, but
afterwards came to regard him, not as the Vicar of Christ, but as Anti-Christ.
He taught that honour paid to the Pope was idolatry, of a character all the
more hideous and blasphemous, inasmuch as divine honour was given to a member
of Lucifer, an idol, worse than a painted log of wood, because of the great
wickedness he contains. Wyclif further teaches that the Church ought to be
without property, and to return to the simplicity of Apostolic times. The Bible
alone, without tradition, is the sole source of faith. No temporal or
ecclesiastical superior has authority, when he is in a state of mortal sin.
Indulgences, confession, extreme unction and orders, are all rejected by
Wyclif, who even attacks the very centre of all Christian worship, the Most
Holy Sacrament of the Altar.
These doctrines,
which involved a revolution, not only in the Church, but also in politics and
society, made their way rapidly in England. Countless disciples, poor clergy
whom Wyclif sent forth in opposition to the "rich Church which had fallen
away to the devil", propagated them through the length and breadth of the
land. These itinerant preachers in a comparatively short time aroused a most
formidable movement against the property of the Church, the Pope, and the
Bishops. But a change suddenly took place. King Richard the Second's marriage
with Anne the daughter of the King of Bohemia, was a great blow to the cause of
Wyclif in England. The Courts of Westminster and of Prague were of one mind in
regard to the affairs of the Church and other important political questions,
and would have done anything rather than show favour to Wyclif and his
companions, or to France and her anti-Pope, Clement VII.
On the other
hand, as this marriage led to an increase of intercourse between England and
Bohemia, Wyclif’s ideas found entrance into the latter country. English
students frequented the University of Prague, and Bohemians that of Oxford; and
Wyclif’s treatises were widely spread in Bohemia. John Huss, the leader of the
Bohemian movement, was not merely much influenced, but absolutely dominated by
these ideas. Recent investigations have furnished incontestable evidence that,
in the matter of doctrine, Huss owed everything to Wyclif, whose works he often
plagiarized with astonishing simplicity.
The opinions of
the Bohemian leader, like those of Wyclif, must necessarily have led in
practice to a social revolution, and one of which the end could not be
foreseen, since the right to possess property was made dependent on religious
opinion. Only Believers, that is to say, the followers of Huss, could hold it,
and this right lasted as long as their convictions accorded with those that
prevailed in the country. Argument is needless to show that such a theory
destroys all private rights, and the attempt to make these principles, so
plausibly deduced from the doctrines of the Christian religion, serve as the
rule for the foundation of a new social order, must lead to the most terrible
consequences. The subsequent wars of the Hussites evidently owed their
peculiarly sanguinary character in great part to these views. If Huss declared
war against social order, he also called in question all civil authority, when
he espoused Wyclif’s principle, that no man who had committed a mortal sin
could be a temporal ruler, a bishop, or a prelate, "because his temporal
or spiritual authority, his office and his dignity would not be approved by
God."
Whether Huss
realized the consequences of such doctrines, or merely followed his master, may
remain an open question; one thing, however, the most enthusiastic admirer of
the Czech reformer cannot dispute—namely, that doctrines which must have
rendered anarchy permanent in Church and State imperatively required to be met
by some action on the part of the civil and ecclesiastical authorities. The
results of the opinions promulgated by Huss soon became apparent in the
Bohemian Revolution in which the idea of a democratic Republic and of a social
system based on communistic principles took practical form.
The
international danger of Czech radicalism, which also soon made itself
"terribly apparent" in Germany was exposed in clear and forcible
terms on New Year's Day, 1424, by an envoy of the Cardinal Legate in his
address to the Polish King. "The object of my mission” he said, "is
the glory of God, the cause of the Faith and of the Church, and the salvation
of human society. A large proportion of the heretics maintain that all things
ought to be in common, and that no tribute, tax, or obedience should be
rendered to superiors; a doctrine by which civilization would be annihilated
and all government abolished. They aim at the forcible destruction of all
Divine and human rights, and it will come to pass that neither kings and
princes in their kingdoms and dominions, citizens in their cities, nor even
people in their own houses, will be secure from their insolence. This
abominable heresy not only attacks the Faith and the Church, but, impelled by
the devil, makes war upon humanity at large, whose rights it assails and
destroys".
On the death of
Urban VI (October 15, 1389), the fourteen Cardinals of his obedience assembled
in Rome for the election of a new Pope. This was the first vacancy of the Holy
See which had occurred since the outbreak of the Schism. The French Court
endeavoured to prevent an election, but the Roman Cardinals, perceiving that
Clement VII, with whom the Schism began, had no intention of retiring, did not
consider it consistent with their duty to deliver the Church completely over to
the Avignon Anti-Pope. Accordingly, on the 22nd November, 1389, a new Roman
Pope, Boniface IX (1389- 1404) was chosen, who, in order to defend himself
against the oppressive exactions by which Clement VII was exhausting the
countries subject to his obedience, was compelled to resort to new financial
expedients. Under him, Rome lost her last relics of municipal independence. The
opposition of the University of Paris was unable to hinder a fresh election on
the death of Clement VII, in 1394, and the astute Pedro de Luna took the name
of Benedict XIII. The numerous endeavours for unity made during this period
form one of the saddest chapters in the history of the Church. Neither Pope had
sufficient magnanimity to put an end to the terrible state of affairs, and all
efforts to arrange matters were, without exception, frustrated, till it seemed
as if Christendom would have to get accustomed to two Popes and two Courts. On
the death of Boniface IX the Roman Cardinals elected Cosimo dei Migliorati, a Neapolitan, aged sixty-five, henceforth
known as Innocent VII.
The short
Pontificate (1404- 1406) of this ardent lover of science and the arts of peace
is, however, deserving of notice as exemplifying the interest taken by the
Papacy in intellectual culture, even under the most adverse circumstances. In
order duly to appreciate the merits of the pacific Innocent VII in this matter,
we must realize the troubled state of Rome, and the perplexities in which he
was involved by the policy of King Ladislaus of
Naples and the machinations of the crafty Anti-Pope. Amidst difficulties so
immense, Innocent VII formed the project of rescuing the Roman University,
founded by Boniface VIII, from the decay into which it had fallen during recent
years of confusion. On the 1st of September, 1406, he issued a Bull, declaring
his intention of bringing back to Rome the study of the Sciences and liberal
Arts which, even apart from their utility, are the greatest ornament of a city.
He therefore summoned to the Roman University the most competent Professors of
every Science. Not merely Canon and Civil Law, but also Medicine, Philosophy,
Logic, and Rhetoric were to be studied in this school. "Finally",
says Innocent VII, "that nothing may be wanting to our Institution, there
will be a Professor who will give the most perfect instruction in the Greek
language and literature."
The terms of the
Bull, and the enthusiastic praise of the Eternal City with which it concludes,
reflect the increasing influence of the Humanistic tendency in the Roman Court.
"There is not on earth", it says, "a more eminent and
illustrious city than Rome, nor one in which the studies we desire to restore
have longer flourished, for here was Latin literature founded; here Civil Law
was committed to writing and delivered to the nations; here also is the seat of
Canon Law. Every kind of wisdom and learning took birth in Rome, or was
received in Rome from the Greeks. While other cities teach foreign sciences, Rome
teaches only that which is her own".
But a few months
after the publication of this Bull Innocent VII died, and accordingly
everything was brought to a standstill.
The times were
certainly little favourable to the Muses, and yet Humanism continued to advance
and make its way into the Papal Court. From the beginning of the fifteenth
century we find Humanists in the Papal service no longer isolated individuals,
as during the Avignon period, but in great and ever-increasing numbers, and
among them, some whose appointment throws a melancholy light on the
circumstances of the time. The most striking instance of this kind is that of
the well-known Poggio, who became one of the Apostolic Secretaries during the
pontificate of Boniface IX. Poggio held this very lucrative post under eight
different Popes, and at the same time filled other offices. For half a century
he was employed, with sundry interruptions; but his frivolous nature was
incapable of any real affection for the Church or for any one of the Popes whom
he served. He certainly wrote a violent invective against Felix V, the Pope of
the Council of Basle, but it would be a mistake to suppose that his pen was
guided by zeal for the Church. This may, indeed, be measured by the manner in
which he wrote of the death of Jerome of Prague. His animosity to Felix V was
simply and solely because the Roman Court, by which he lived, was threatened;
he was doubtless as indifferent to the contest between the two Popes as to the
heresy of the Hussites.
That such a man
should have been able to retain his position in the Papal service is to be
explained by the sad confusion consequent on the Schism. From the moment when
the Parisian Doctors, with their ready pens, and the learned men of many other
Universities had taken part in the conflict which was distracting Christendom,
the Popes were compelled to look about them for new literary champions, and the
frequent negotiations for the restoration of unity made it absolutely necessary
that they should have men of talent and education at their disposal. The
Humanists offered themselves to meet the need, and many of them eagerly sought
lucrative places in the Papal Chancery. This, however, cannot excuse the
imprudence with which some of the Popes gave app ointments to adherents of the
false Renaissance. But in this case, as in many others, circumstances must be
taken into account, if we would form a correct judgment. Humanism had already
attained great political importance. The time had come when political
discourses and state papers, clothed in the grand periods of Ciceronian Latin,
exercised an irresistible influence over readers and hearers, producing their
effect rather by the beauty of the form than by the substance, or, at any rate,
by means of the form obtaining an easier access for the meaning. When, even in
the smaller Courts, the style of the new school was adopted, how could the
Papal Chancery have remained behind? The Humanists had raised themselves to the
position of leaders of public opinion; they were well aware of it, and often
assumed Imperial airs. The Papacy surrounded on all sides by enemies, was
obliged, like the other powers of Italy, to take these facts into account. The
terror which the Humanists could inspire even in the most powerful tyrants, is
evidenced by an expression of Duke Gian Galeazzo Visconti of Milan: "A
letter of Coluccio Salutato”
he said, "can do more injury than a thousand Florentine knights". The
effects of the letters written by this most bitter enemy of the Popes must have
been deeply felt by Gregory XI, and were doubtless long remembered by his
successors. Another circumstance is also to be taken into account. Elaborate
discourses were so much the fashion that they seemed indispensable on such
occasions as the conclusion of a peace, the reception of an Embassy, or any
public or private solemnity. Courts and Governments and, in some cases, even
wealthy families had their official orators. In the present day music is almost
always the accompaniment of a feast; at that time a Latin discourse was the
best entertainment that could be provided for a company of cultured men. It
will easily be understood that the Popes deemed it impossible to do without a
literary man like Poggio, whose pen was readier than that of any of his
contemporaries.
In the time of
Innocent VII, Lionardo Bruni, whose name has been
repeatedly mentioned in these pages, entered the Papal service. Unlike Poggio,
he was an adherent of the Christian Renaissance. The circumstances of his
appointment are characteristic of the time. Bruni was recommended to the Pope
by Poggio and Coluccio Salutato,
and Innocent VII wished at once to nominate him as Papal Secretary. But an
adverse party at the Roman Court objected to Bruni's appointment on the ground
of his too great youth, and supported another candidate. It happened that, at
this very time, important Papal briefs had to be prepared with the greatest
possible haste, and the Pope offered the post as a reward to the candidate who
should best acquit himself of the task. The drafts of the briefs were read in a
Consistory before the Pope and the Cardinals, and Bruni gained a decided
victory over his rival. From the first year of the Pontificate of Innocent VII,
whose example was afterwards followed by Eugenius IV, Nicholas V, and other Popes,
we find the well-known Pietro Paolo Vergerio installed as Secretary in the
Roman Court. The marvellously rapid growth of the influence of this school in
Rome appears in the fact that this Humanist was appointed to deliver a
discourse on the Union of the Church before the Cardinals assembled in
Consistory previous to the election of Gregory XII, and that he was not afraid
to say very hard things. Subsequently, it became more and more the custom to
employ the Humanists, on account of their superior cultivation, in the service
of the Popes, both in the Chancery and in Diplomatic situations, and the time
was not distant when classical proficiency was, the surest road to
ecclesiastical preferment. Under Innocent VII's successor, Gregory XII
(1406-1415), fresh Humanists, amongst whom was Antonio Loschi of Vicenza, were won to the service of the Papal Court. He composed a new
formula for the official correspondence, with the object of introducing a
Ciceronian style of Latin. Although he was not able completely to overcome the
difficulties involved in the legal nature of the formulas, yet it is the
opinion of competent judges that a marked improvement in the Latinity of the
Court, especially in those documents less fettered by legal phraseology, is to
be dated from his time. Flavio Biondo, one of the most laborious and virtuous
of the younger generation of secretaries, expressly said that Loschi had been his instructor in the duties of his office.
But it is now
time to return to the troubles of the Schism. The crisis was drawing near. It
came in the Pontificate of Gregory XII.
During the
earlier years of the Schism, efforts had been made to establish the legality of
the one, and the illegality of the other Pope, by means of arguments founded on
history and on Canon Law, but in consequence of French intrigues the question
had only become more and more obscured. As time went on, conscientious men, who
anxiously strove to understand the rights of the case, were unable to decide
between claims which seemed to be so equally balanced, while in other cases
passion took no account of proofs, and power trampled them under foot. Despair
took possession of many upright minds. The Schism seemed an evil from which
there was no escape, a labyrinth from which no outlet could be found. The path
of investigation which, by the lapse of time and in consequence of the
prevailing excitement, had necessarily become more and more difficult, seemed
to lead no further. The University of Paris, which suffered much from the
discord of Christendom, now sought to assume the leadership of the great
movement towards unity. In 1394 her members were invited to send in written
opinions as to the means of putting an end to the Schism. In order that all
might express their opinions with perfect freedom, it was decided that the
documents should be placed in a locked chest in the Church of St. Mathurin. The
general feeling on the subject is manifested by their number, which amounted to
ten thousand. Their examination was to be the work of a Commission formed of
members from all the Faculties of the University. Three propositions emerged
from this mass of documents. The first was the voluntary retirement of the two
Popes (Cessio). The second the decision of the point
of law by a commission selected by the two Popes (Compromissio).
The third, an appeal to a General Council. The University recommended the
voluntary retirement of both Popes as the simplest and safest course, and as
rendering a fresh election of one whom both parties would acknowledge,
possible. The endeavours to restore unity by this means were carried to their
further point under Gregory XII, after the failure of the French scheme of
forcibly imposing peace on the Church by the common action of all the western
powers. They seemed at first in Gregory's case to promise success, but all
hopes of the kind soon proved delusive.
|
|||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
