CRISTO RAUL.ORG |
POPE LEO X
CHAPTER XVIII.
THE FRENCH CONCORDAT.— ECCLESIASTICAL POLICY.—
CHARACTER AND PONTIFICATE OF LEO X.
THE Council of the Lateran aroused vehement
opposition in France at the moment when the Concordat with Francis I was being
ratified within its walls with the utmost pomp and solemnity. When the eleventh
session set the seal to this agreement, it was already an accomplished fact,
thanks to the negotiations carried on so assiduously after the battle of
Marignano. Profiting by the deep impression made by his victory, the astute
French monarch knew how to conduct his affairs with consummate ability. It was
during the private conference which took place at Bologna on the 1th of
December, 1515, at the close of the Consistory, that Francis quite unexpectedly
asked his host to confirm the Pragmatic Sanction. Leo X replied that he could
never be induced to tolerate a schismatic constitution, but that he would not
be averse to a concordat, having a similar purport to that of the Pragmatic
Sanction ; that is to say, all the stipulations in the latter inimical to the
Papacy were to be eliminated, and the privileges contained therein to be placed
on a legitimate basis. In this and subsequent conversations the Pope and King
came to an agreement on essentials. The results must have been even more
agreeable to the crafty King than to his former antagonist. By a bold move Francis
had secured that for which he had long striven : the substitution for the
Pragmatic Sanction, which he disliked, of a concordat in the highest degree
advantageous to himself; and any odium which might arise in his own country, he
could avert from himself by referring to the wishes of the Pope, from whom the
plan had emanated.
After the Pope and the King had come to
terms on the main article of the Concordat, the nomination of bishops,
confidential persons were entrusted by both with the task of drawing up a
convention in proper form. For this purpose the Cardinals Lorenzo Pucci and
Pietro Accolti remained behind in Bologna, while Francis was represented by his
Chancellor, Du Prat. The negotiations proceeded with difficulty, as each party
was a match for the other in diplomatic craft. Notwithstanding their arduous
endeavours, the Papal advisers were unable to carry through their demands
concerning jurisdiction. After making some concessions they succeeded, in the
course of a few weeks, in settling the articles of the compact ; by the
beginning of February, 1516, the plenipotentiaries had already left Bologna. At
the head of the arrangements stood the Concordat, which, from the French point
of view, was looked upon, not unreasonably, as the greatest and most remarkable
concession that had ever proceeded from the chair of St. Peter. Thereby, in
return for the abrogation of the Pragmatic Sanction, the Pope handed over to
the French Crown the full right of nomination to the bishoprics and abbeys
bestowed in Consistory ; all the conditions thereto belonging reappear in the
later contract. For nine months in the year the bishops are to appoint to the
lower clerical offices ; after that the Pope can intervene by mandate.
Expectancies and reservations are abolished entirely in France and Dauphine.
All lawsuits affecting the clergy and their benefices, except the causa
majoris reserved for hearing in Rome, must, under pain of excommunication
and deprivation, be settled within two years in the country to which they belong.
Then follows a series of stipulations,
which were not adopted in the subsequent Concordat, but for a long time played
an important part in the relations between Paris and Rome. The King during his
lifetime retained the same rights of patronage in Brittany and Provence as in
France ; all privileges established in these provinces the Pope promised to
uphold. Further, the King was granted the privilege, for one occasion only, of
the primaria preces. Leo was also ready to accommodate him in the
settlement of the bishoprics of the Duchy of Milan, provided he did not
interfere with the lower offices. The Pope was equally willing to make con
cessions over the Bull of the Crusade ; the King was left free to fix the
amount of the tithe for the building of St. Peter’s. The Pope sent a Legate to
France to assess, along with prelates appointed by the King, all taxes on
cathedrals and abbeys granted in Consistory; hitherto the customary taxes had
been levied. The regulations for indulgences granted to the Knights of the Holy
Cross and to the Hospital of Paris, the removal of Wolsey from the
administration of the diocese of Tournai, the suppression of two sees created
in Savoy, the measures directed against the contumacious clergy in the
Archbishopric of Milan, the absolution of all who were under ban for their
hostility to the Roman Church, were all points on which, almost without
exception, a decision was made favourable to the Most Christian King.
Thus with heavy sacrifices Leo purchased
peace with France and preserved this important member of Christendom within the
unity of the Church. The tenacious Du Prat never swerved from the attainment of
that which would gratify the insatiable demands of his master. It was easy to
foresee that the conditions exchanged between Paris and Rome would encounter
much opposition.
It was apparently in his own court that
Francis found the antagonism most speedily quelled. Louisa of Savoy, to whom
Francis sent drafts of the terms, that their utility to the throne, the
kingdom, and the Church might be considered, expressed herself in their favour.
The same opinion was held by distinguished jurists. From different quarters
came the advice that “certain points which the Pope had had inserted should be
struck out, while others called for more time for reflection”. Disregarding
these opinions, Francis ordered the Concordat to be read in Parliament and set
forth the motives which had led him to conclude this agreement. The Parliament
making no reply, he “took their silence for consent”. This occurred in the
early days of 1516.
Much more difficult was it to persuade the
Cardinals in Consistory. They opposed before all else the numerous concessions
on points of ecclesiastical jurisdiction ; they demanded with vehemence that
the interference of the secular authorities with the incomes and property of
the churches should be forbidden. Some were of opinion that it would have been
better for the honour of the Pope and the Holy See if no bargain had been
struck and things had remained as they were. The Sacred College, in fact,
endeavoured to reject the articles which were much too favourable to the State.
To clear the way for an adjustment, the King, in April, 1516, ordered a
confidential friend of Du Prat, Roger de Barme by name, to go to Rome. A full
half year was now spent in negotiations; they were rendered difficult because
Francis proposed alterations in the Bolognese arrangements and demanded yet
further concessions. The King's plenipotentiary, whose qualities were highly
praised by Leo himself, made the journey between Paris and Rome at least four
times. There were great differences of opinion over the result ; both parties
spoke of an alteration in the original conditions ; according to the French,
this was favourable to the Pope ; according to Cardinal Medici, it was to his
disadvantage. Be this as it may, it was in any case a successful achievement
that, during this third and final stage of its development, the Papal diplomacy
succeeded in coupling the acceptance of the Concordat with the condemnation of
the Pragmatic Sanction.
The first and most important stipulation of
the Concordat of the 18th August, 1516, which applied to the kingdom of France,
Dauphiné, and the Marquisates of Die and Valentinois, concerned the appointment
to bishoprics. The Concordat conveyed to the French King, for the time being,
along with the repeal of the Pragmatic Sanction and of the right of election of
the cathedral chapter, the right of nomination to all vacant bishoprics. It was
demanded that, within six months from the day of vacancy, the candidate to be
nominated to the Pope should take his degree as master or licentiate of
theology or canon law, that he should have attained at least his twenty-seventh
year, and be also in other respects a fitting person. If the King’s nominee
possessed the requisite qualifications the Pope confirmed his appointment ; if
not, the King had the right to nominate another fit person within three months.
In default of this, or if the vacancy occurred through the death in Rome of the
holder of the see, the Pope had full power of appointment. The King also had
the power of appointing blood relations and persons of high rank, as well as
learned members of the reformed orders who were unable to acquire academical
degrees. The same right of nomination was given the King for abbeys and
priories, only in this case the candidate must belong to the order in question
and be at least three-and- twenty years old. The chapters of churches,
monasteries, and priories, whose right of free election was reserved by special
Papal privilege, were excepted.
The Concordat made a clean sweep of all
expectancies and reservations, while the provisions for benefices by any other
patron than the King were kept within strict bounds. Every Pope had the right,
but only once in the course of his Pontificate, to bestow expectancies, and
this in such a way that for every ten benefices in his patronage he was
entitled to one such presentation, and for every fifty or more, to two such.
All legal processes, with the exception of
the causa majores, were to be settled by the existing judges of the
country in which the suits arose. To avoid frivolous appeals, the ruling of the
Court was to hold good without immediate appeal to the Holy See: appeals even
from those holding directly from Rome were to be laid before judges in France
pending the delivery of judgment, except in cases of miscarriage of justice or
of legitimate fear.
Special stipulations were directed against
the ground less disturbance of the holders of benefices, against open
concubinage, as well as the frivolous imposition of the Church punishments of
excommunication, suspension, and interdict. Resignations of benefices were only
to be held valid on the production of authentic documentary evidence. Finally,
it was agreed that if the Concordat were not ratified and accepted by the
French Parliament and people within six months, it would not be valid.
Hardly less important
than the articles of the Concordat are its omissions. Although many of the
stipulations of the Pragmatic Sanction passed into the new convention, yet the
proposition that the Pope is subordinate to a General Council is absent. Silence
on this point made it possible for the former view of this relationship to be
again revived. The abolition of annates also was not mentioned in the Concordat
; their reintroduction was thereby made possible.
After the ratification of the Concordat by
the Pope on the 18th of August, 1516, its administration was at once proceeded
with, regardless of the fact that the French Parliament had not entered it on
the registers. This may be taken as certain, although a greater part of the
Acts referring to it have been lost. From the documents that remain it is clear
with what inconsiderateness and almost cynical naiveté Francis at once
proceeded to extract every possible advantage from the treaty. The King’s
favour and purely secular considerations prevailed in the choice of candidates
for church preferment. Even in cases where the abbeys still had the free choice
of election, the latter took place in the presence of a royal official, who
brought such pressure to bear that freedom of voting was out of the question.
It was just as bad when the examination of candidates at Rome was speedily
degraded into a mere matter of form. The domineering influence of the French
King, which had so long swayed the Church, was now turned into a permanent
system, firmly established by law. Already on the 16th of September, 1516, the
Concordat as a whole was extended to Brittany and Provence.
Since the Concordat settled that in case of
the nullity of a presentation being pronounced, a correct account of the income
of the benefice should be rendered, Leo had for long hoped that in addition to
this he might carry out the restoration of annates, but in vain. On this point
Francis showed not the least sign of yielding, and Leo had to submit.
The King showed equal firmness in presence
of the heated opposition to the Concordat which he encountered from the clergy,
Parliament, and the Universities. In order to break this opposition and give to
the whole agreement the utmost possible solemnity, Leo X embodied in a Bull,
which he laid before the Council for acceptance at the eleventh session on the
19th of December, 1516, the Concordat which he had already published on the
18th of August. To the astonishment of the Pope and the members of the Council,
the French envoys did not attend this session ; they gave their adhesion “in
private”, says Paris de Grassis. The envoys kept away on a hint from Paris,
where the storm in Parliament was foreseen, since in the same session of the
Council, after long preparation the express and solemn repeal of the Pragmatic
Sanction was to be announced. The constitution relating to the French Concordat
was read by the Bishop of Isernia. The Pope herein insisted on the full
validity of the Concordat derived from the conjoint assent of himself and the
Cardinals ; his object in submitting it to the approval of the Council was thus
to give its position greater security. The Pope also laid stress on the duty
incumbent on him of maintaining the unity of the Church ; he then sketched the
previous history of the Concordat from the reign of Pius II onwards. The
advantages of the measure were appraised with profuse rhetoric, and the
corresponding disadvantages of the wholesale surrender of the rights of
nomination were as much as possible kept out of sight. The establishment of
peace and of the common law in France implied such a great gain for Church and
State, that no sacrifice was too great to make for it. The harsh description of
the abuses accompanying the election of bishops and abbots was meant to serve
as an explanation of the relentless way in which these appointments had been
handed over.
Such an insincere conclusion was not likely
to convince the more intelligent of the fathers. Only a few, however, gave
expression to their alarm in the Council. Domenico Jacobazzi, Bishop of Nocera
dei Pagani, supported by two others, grounded his assent on the very doubtful
condition that the withdrawal of the Pragmatic Sanction was accepted by the
French people. Like him too, without doubt, Girolamo Ghinucci of Ascoli, who
asked that the agreement might have the formal acceptance of both parties, saw
through the manoeuvres of the French states men. The Bishop of Chios
disapproved of the royal assent being required for resignations in Curia, and
the Bishop of Tortona of the arrangements with regard to the attacks of
Parliament on the legal immunities of the clergy. All the other leading
churchmen give their assent uncond1tionally.
A French Bishop then mounted the pulpit and
read out the decree Pastor Aeternus, which removed the “pestilence of
Bourges”. It insisted, in the first place, on the primacy of the Church in
matters of faith. It then went on to relate, in considerable detail, how Julius
II had invited to the Council the supporters of the Pragmatic Sanction,
although he might without further consideration have cut off this “French
gangrene” which threatened the souls of men and fostered schism ; how Leo also,
with the concurrence of the Council, had extended the time of grace from date
to date, without any of these recalcitrants presenting themselves. From this
was shown the character of the depravity by which the Pragmatic Sanction of
Louis XI had been revived by these men; they aimed at lessening the Papal
power, and contested the absolute right of the Pope to bestow benefices on
deserving Cardinals and members of the Curia ; they encouraged prelates to be
disobedient, thus destroying the “very nerve of ecclesiastical discipline”;
they were not regularly in possession of their sees, but at the utmost were
only tolerated by the Pope ; finally, that the assembly of Basle was a mere
conventicle (conciliabulum). A great array of in stances from ancient church
history were produced to show that the Pope, who was above all Councils, alone
had the right to summon, prorogue, and dissolve them. On these grounds Leo, in
the present Council, could not avoid annulling such an evil system without
placing on himself and the Cardinals a stigma of disgrace. Since Scripture and
tradition teach the necessity of obedience to the Bishop of Rome on the part of
all the faithful, the constitution of Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam, will
be solemnly renewed, and the explanatory Bull, Memit, be maintained. The
Pragmatic Sanction is given up and removed from the archives of the kingdom
under penalty of the Pope's reserved ban, along with disqualification for all
ecclesiastical office in the case of a priest, and denial of all clerical
ministrations in the case of a layman.
All the fathers said simply Placet. The
Bishop of Tortona added : “I am pleased at the repeal of the outcome of the
Councils, or rather, the conventicles of Basle and Bourges”. When Pope Leo’s
turn came, so relates his Master of the Ceremonies, he cried in a loud and
triumph ant voice : I not only assent,
but I assent gladly and entirely”.
From more than one point of view this
rejoicing of the Pope at his triumph over the schismatic tendencies of Bourges
was justified. A hard and protracted struggle of eighty years had thus ended in
victory for the Holy See ; for the moment Leo X forgot entirely the price at which
the great victory had been bought. Cardinal Medici at once informed the Papal
plenipotentiaries at Paris that the Council had confirmed the Concordat with
the unanimous consent of all the Cardinals and eighty Bishops ; in spite of the
peculiar attitude of the French envoys, it was hoped that Francis would keep
his word, and that effect would be given to the decrees of the Pope and
Council. In April, 1517, the Acts of the Council were at length officially
handed to the King; the Nuncio presented the Bull for the repeal of the
Pragmatic Sanction in a violet cover, that for the Concordat in a white one.
The choice of colours evidently seems symbolical. Before the Acts reached
France the storm against the treaty between King and Pope had broken loose.
As soon as the Concordat became known, the
clergy, the Parliament and the University of Paris were in a state of
agitation. All those who had hoped that the victorious King would compel Leo to
accept the Pragmatic Sanction found themselves bitterly deceived. The Concordat
was opposed not merely to the views of the partisans of the conciliar ideas,
but by the removal of free election it damaged the interests of a great number.
“Defence of Gallican liberties” became the watchword. Since, under penalty of
the nullity of the whole treaty, Francis was pledged within six months to have
the same proclaimed to clergy and people, to have it accepted, published, sworn
to and registered, he had to strain every nerve to master the opposition. But
so vehement was the latter that he had twice to beg for a respite of a year.
In vain had the Chancellor Du Prat, in one
of his speeches addressed in February, 1517, to the Prelates, Councillors of
Parliament and Professors of the University, exposed the political reasons
which had influenced the King to conclude the Concordat. In vain had Francis
explained that, since the Pragmatic Sanction was bound to go, he had to
consider how, by means of the Concordat, he could prevent the recurrence of the
disorders which had prevailed previous to the Sanction. The royal
letters-patent of May, 1517, enjoining on the Parliaments of Paris, Bordeaux,
Toulouse, Grenoble, and on the King's judges the observance of the Concordat,
met with the most obstinate resistance. The Parliament of Paris stoutly refused
to register and publish the measure ; they declared that the new treaty would
bring ruin on the State, destroy the liberties of the Gallican Church, and
deprive them of their means of help. Although Francis I brought all his
influence to bear, the Parliament would not yield. They had not the power, nor
was it their duty to publish and register the Concordat ; much rather should
the Pragmatic Sanction be upheld with greater care than ever, and time be given
to the University of Paris and others to express their opinions.
In a detailed remonstrance, the Parliament
showed further that the Concordat, along with several good enactments,
contained many that were bad and dangerous ; but the repeal of the Pragmatic
Sanction was an injury to France, an outrage on the Synods of Basle and
Constance ; an appeal must be made to a fresh Council. All the eloquence of Du
Prat was without result ; even the concession demanded of the Pope that, in
inferior benefices, the income should be computed at twenty-four ducats, caused
no alteration in the view of the Parliamentary party. They insisted that the
Concordat was contrary to the honour of God, the liberties of the Church, and
the wellbeing of the realm. Not less persistent was the opposition of the
Theological Faculty of the University of Paris, which was held in high
reputation throughout the whole of France.
The agitation was carried on recklessly :
envenomed pasquinades against Leo X and Du Prat were circulated. On the last
day of February, 1518, Francis declared that he was weary of the negotiations ;
he could not suffer the Parliament, like a Venetian Senate, to overthrow
engagements which he had concluded, and forthwith gave orders for the
publication of the Concordat. On the I5th and 19th of March, La Trémouille, in
the King’s name, repeated the order with threatening words. Then, at last, the
Parliament, in order to avoid worse troubles, gave in and undertook, under
protest, to proceed to publish and register the Concordat ; at the same time
they appealed to the Pope better informed and to the next General Council
regularly assembled. The publication and entry in the registers took place on
the 22nd of March. Five days later the University of Paris protested and
appealed, at the same time, to a future Council. The King thereupon ordered the
arrest of some of the most violent of the Professors, and forbade the
University to meddle with affairs of state. On the 12th of April, Francis
issued from Amboise the general instructions for registration, which were then
taken up by the Parliaments of Toulouse, Bordeaux, and Grenoble. On the I4th of
April a second edict of Francis I. announced the repeal of the Pragmatic
Sanction.
In proportion to the satisfaction caused at
Rome by the firm attitude of the King was the indifference shown towards the
opposition of the University of Paris, an opposition which many in Germany
regarded much more seriously. As the result of mature consideration, there
appeared on the i6th of June, 1518, a Bull, couched in severe terms, against
the appeal of the University of Paris. This was followed on the 25th of June by
an edict of Leo X which authorized the Cardinal-Legate Bibbiena to pronounce
against the Rector and University of Paris the censures and punishments to
which they were liable for their open rebellion against the two highest
authorities, whereby they incurred the guilt of schism and heresy, and, while
esteeming themselves wise, had become fools. This document set forth the
highest claims of the Papal power, whereby the decrees of former Pontiffs as
well as of Councils might be altered or abrogated ; the rashness of the
appellants was sharply reproved, the repeal of the Pragmatic Sanction
justified, the com plaints against the Roman See briefly refuted, the appeal
characterized as a false and ludicrous libel, which was null and ineffectual,
and full powers were given to the Legates to proceed against the guilty parties
and their followers.
The opposition to the Concordat, and
especially to the repeal of the Pragmatic Sanction, survived in France, even
after external resistance had disappeared, down to the fall of the ancient
monarchy, and no wonder; for nowhere had schismatical tendencies struck such
deep roots as there. Had there been no Concordat, the separation of the French
Church from Rome would have become, without doubt, an accomplished fact.
Through the great advantages which the new treaty legally guaranteed to the
Crown, the schismatic movements lost the unconditional support of the monarchy,
but they gained that of the independent provincial parliaments ; the latter
carried on with energy the opposition once waged against Rome through the
protection of alleged judicial prerogatives and national interests.
It is exceedingly
difficult, in dealing with treaties which, like the Concordat, mean a
compromise, to estimate correctly the loss and gain which is bound to accrue to
both the contracting parties. Thus up to the present time very varying
judgments have been passed on the Concordat.
The advantage which fell to the Papacy
consisted mainly in the victorious ending to the long and unfruitful struggle
against the Pragmatic Sanction. What Pius II, Sixtus IV, and even Julius II had
attempted in vain, the clever Medici Pope achieved : the last remnant of the
conciliar opposition vanished, the supreme authority of the Papacy was again
recognized in France, and this country, which had taken up a schismatic
position, was linked anew to the Holy See. This momentous result was certainly
bought at such a costly price that perhaps it may be spoken of as a Pyrrhic
victory.
By the right of nomination the Crown had,
with very scanty limitations, the privilege of appointing persona grata to all the high offices of the French Church, ten arch bishoprics, eighty-three
bishoprics, and five hundred and twenty-seven abbeys. In order to appreciate
the meaning of this we must realize, in the first place, the extraordinary
wealth of the French Church. According to some accounts the French clergy were
then owners of a third, according to others of even two-thirds of the whole
soil. These accounts are certainly exaggerated. On the other hand, it is
certain that in 1516 the total income of the French clergy amounted to five
million livres—almost as much as that of the state. The whole of these
extraordinarily large revenues were now at the disposal of the Crown ; never
before had the monarchy obtained such an increment of power at a single blow. How
perilous in and for itself such a dependence of the whole higher clergy on the
ruling power might be, how easily the latter might lie open to the temptation
of encroaching arbitrarily, not only on the Church’s property, but on something
much greater, even on the faith itself, is self-evident. Some guarantees
certainly were offered in the limitations to which the King was subject and in
the right of control which Rome had secured. But these were not sufficient to
prevent the Concordat being very soon abused as an engine of oppression and
far-reaching injury to the Church.
With inconceivable carelessness Rome
neglected to effect any change in the control which she was capable of
exercising : no attempts were made in this direction before Pius V. The Crown,
however, with a selfish cynicism, exploited to the uttermost the treaty which
was such a source of advantage. The Concordat, in itself, was less injurious to
the Church of France than the circumstance that Francis, heedless of the
earnest expostulations of the noble Lodovico di Canossa, abused without
scruple, in the most shameful way, the extraordinary privileges accorded to
him, and often raised the most unworthy nominees to the highest offices in the
Church. “Like a good-natured,
open-handed boon companion”, says a Venetian Envoy, “he gives away bishoprics
in answer to ladies' entreaties and abbeys to soldiers in lieu of pay ; in
short, he makes himself popular with all sorts of men, without giving a thought
to their personal characters”. What grave evils sprang from this state of
things will be described only too often in the course of this history.
Nevertheless the Concordat had this good
result ; it set up a powerful barrier against the separatist tendency which
threatened to detach France from Rome, a barrier which stood firm throughout
the storms let loose by the Reformation. The clergy were certainly brought into
the closest dependence on the Crown, but yet were not separated from Rome ;
since the Crown controlled church property indirectly, the temptation, at
least, to downright spoliation was removed. The Concordat, undoubtedly, made
the King, to a certain extent, the overlord of the French Church, but also at
the same time its natural protector. The Kings had now most powerful motives
for remaining Catholic. In order to understand the extra ordinary situation of
Leo X, we must always bear in mind that the French Crown, long before the
Concordat was entered into, had, as a matter of fact, disposed, with almost
unlimited power, of the high dignities of the Church. Therefore the treaty
meant nothing else than the legal recognition of a long existing slate of
things ; it was the end of a long development. As things were, the Concordat
was, perhaps, the only way in which the then existing privileges could have
been placed on a legal basis, and the great evil, the complete separation of
France from Rome, have been prevented. It would, however, be a grave deception to suppose that, this result
having been secured, the French Church was no longer a cause of anxiety ; the
crisis was only deferred, it had not been rendered impossible.
Leo X’s concessions were not confined to
France. With other States also he made arrangements of such a far-reaching kind
that half a century later they were the subject of comment in the Roman Court.
In Spain the monarchy had received from
Sixtus IV and Innocent VIII privileges of presentation and patronage of such a
comprehensive character that hardly anything was left that the temporal power
could desire. By the law also of 1476 the Crown, through the Royal Council,
exercised the widest supervision over the spiritual jurisdiction. The Kings
claimed too the right of refusal of Papal enactments, the so-called right of
the retención de bulas. In addition there was the Cruzada or Bull of the
Crusade, conferring certain spiritual graces, which was transferred to the
Crown, as a means of defraying the expenses of the war against the infidels.
Like his predecessor, Leo had also.in 1519, sanctioned such a Cruzada under
conditions of the widest scope. The legal claim to refuse Papal Bulls was met
on the 1st of March, 1519, by a constitution of Leo's which had quite as little
success as his attempt to subject the Spanish Inquisition to the procedure of
the common law, since the Pope just at that moment stood in need of Charles as
a political ally.
Leo stood in remarkable relations with the
ruler of Portugal, whose activity “in defending and spreading the faith in
Africa, Ethiopia, and Arabia” he could not sufficiently praise. For this
purpose the King received important privileges, the tenth of the property of
the clergy and a portion of the Cruciata. We have already spoken of the
privileges granted by Leo to Emmanuel the Great for his possessions over-sea.
Very valuable was the right of patronage over the three religious orders of
Knighthood of St. James, St. Avitus, and Christ, conceded to the King on the 30th
of June, 1516. The prodigal liberality of the Pope, however, was always met by
fresh demands and proposals on the part of the King. The former was far too
compliant. In 1515, in contravention of the regulations of the Lateran Council,
he promised to bestow on the King's fourth son, Alfonso, who was still a boy,
the first vacant bishopric in Portugal. In 1516 the Portuguese Envoy went the length
of requesting further that Alfonso should be admitted to the Cardinalate, and
in the same year he was made Bishop of Guarda. In July, 1517, at the great
nomination of Cardinals, Alfonso was included ; the only condition imposed was
that he should not assume the insignia of his rank until he was eighteen. With
all this the King was not satisfied : Alfonso had hardly been made Cardinal
before he pressed for yet additional ecclesiastical dignities.
If the case of Portugal was an exception,
yet in almost all the other Latin countries the Pope had had to protest and
take steps repeatedly against acts of violence towards the clergy and other
infringements of ecclesiastical liberties. Among the Italian States the
self-centred Republic of Venice indulged in many acts of aggression ; the Pope
had also to bestir himself against the Marchioness Isabella d'Este and several
towns in the States of the Church, as he had to do against the Swiss in defence
of the Church’s freedom. Certainly the corrupt state of the clergy was one of
the causes of this one-sided action on the part of the State. Often criminals
attempted to escape punishment by an appeal to the privileges of the clergy,
against which Leo, in 1520, took suitable measures on behalf of the Venetian
Republic. The freedom of the clergy from taxation was made the subject of a
Concordat with Florence in 1516.
The Council of the Lateran opened the way
for a closer connection between Poland and Rome, the co-operation of that
kingdom being announced by Joannes de Laski, Primate and Archbishop of Gnesen.
The two decisive factors in this movement were the Turkish danger and the
dispute between Poland and the Teutonic Order. In the latter respect the wishes
of Poland were in agreement with the secret views of Leo X, who was also averse
to this quarrel being brought before the Council.
The presence of Laski in Rome led to many
important results both politically and ecclesiastically; he informed the Pope
of the critical state of affairs in the Polish kingdom, which was overrun by
infidels and schismatics, and negotiated the Bull of the I4th of November,
1513, which limited the Papal reservations and expectancies to certain
canonrics and archdeaconries, as well as the still more important one of the
9th of August, 1515. This latter regulated the discipline of the Polish Church
by an agreement between the Pope and King Sigismund I. These articles contained
salutary provisions for the election and residence of Bishops, the reform of
pastoral duties, intercourse with schismatics, and the infliction of censures.
A Bull of the 25th of July, 1515, bestowed on the Archbishop the title of
legatus natus. Of the greatest importance for Poland was a Bull of the 1st
of July, I519, negotiated by Bishop Erasmus Ciolek of Plock. In this the Pope,
in accordance with the King's wishes, confirmed all favours granted in the
Council as well as the privileges previously granted to individual Polish
Bishops ; he also declared all Papal reservations and expectancies null if they
interfered with the episcopal alternativa mensium; the latter was
granted to all Polish Bishops for six months instead of four, as prescribed by
the rules of the Chancery. This Bull was, in fact, a Concordat save in name and
outward form; it was withdrawn under Clement VII.
From the beginning of
his Pontificate Leo X had had close relationship with Henry VIII of England.
After the deatht of the King's representative, Cardinal Christopher Bainbridge,
a man who had become thoroughly italianized, and was hated for his arrogance,
his post was filled by Silvestro Gigli, Bishop of Worcester. The efforts of
this accomplished diplomatist were mainly instrumental in obtaining for the
English minister, Thomas Wolsey, the rank of Cardinal. The latter, who was
destined to play an important and eventful part in the intercourse between Rome
and England, was born in 1471 in Ipswich, in the county of Suffolk, the son of
a humble citizen. He began his career as King's Almoner, and knew how to make
himself indispensable to his master by cleverness and subserviency. Soon the
most important affairs passed almost entirely through Wolsey’s hands ; his
influence over Henry VIII. became permanent. Of uncommon ability, but ambitious
and covetous, he soon became the recipient of the richest benefices : in 1513
he was Bishop of Tournai, in 1514 that of Lincoln, and in the same year, on the
death of Bainbridge, was advanced to the Archbishopric of York. Still
dissatisfied, Wolsey now aimed yet further at the Cardinal’s hat. Henry did
what he could at Rome; Leo held out against the appointment for a considerable
time, but at last yielded under the pressure of political circumstances; on the
10th of September, 1515, Wolsey was nominated. The Pope sent him the red hat,
and it was assumed by Wolsey on the 18th of November, in West minster Abbey,
with great solemnity; he now called himself the Cardinal of York. The
celebrated John Colet delivered a discourse, on this occasion, on the newly
conferred dignity. Wolsey had already, in July, been made Lord Chancellor of
the kingdom.
Wolsey, like a true upstart, surrounded himself with un precedented pomp and luxury. He was liberal towards scholars, and encouraged learning and art. With the King, who was sensual, masterful, and self-centred, he was on the best of terms; he understood thoroughly how to enter into all his inclinations. Yet with all the overmastering influence that he thus wielded, he was too clever to adhere obstinately to his own opinion. In such instances this proud and self-seeking man gave way to his master, and followed his views with the same eagerness which he would have shown had they originated from the first from himself. It was hard to say who was the real ruler, so completely did the King and his minister appear to be of one mind. The service of his Sovereign went before all else, even before the interests of the Church, with Wolsey. All his manifold gifts—as a statesman he developed an astonishing capacity—were dedicated practically to a single end ; to raise the reputation and influence of his King, in whose exaltation his own was involved, and to make Henry VIII the arbiter of Europe. When Leo X, in 1518, despatched Cardinal Campeggio to England to discuss the Turkish question, the latter was not received until he consented to share his legateship with Wolsey : Leo had to give way, as he had also sacrificed Cardinal Adriano Castellesi to the English Lord Chancellor. The latter expressed his thankfulness that thereby the whole work of pacification had been taken out of the Pope's hands and that all the glory of it would be secured to the King. After that Rome knew what to expect of
Wolsey : no wonder that the indefinite extension of his legatine powers was
resisted; a Bull of the 6th of January, 1520, limited this extension to two
years. The English Cabinet on its side considered itself injured by the Pope’s
attitude towards the question of the Imperial succession.
The somewhat strained relations between Rome and England were exchanged in the following year for most friendly ones, in consequence of the rapprochement between Leo and Wolsey and of the determined opposition of Henry VIII. to Luther. On the 12th of May, 1521, in St. Paul’s Churchyard, close to the famous St. Paul’s Cross, in presence of a great multitude, the solemn publication of the Papal Brief against Luther took place along with the burning of his writings. During these proceedings, at which John Fisher, Bishop of Rochester, delivered a long discourse, Wolsey bore himself as if the tiara, on which his ambition had long been fixed, were now resting on his head. The Venetian Envoy who relates this adds : a. Brief has come from Rome with an extension of Wolsey's legatine authority. On the I2th of May, Henry VIII announced to the Pope the despatch of a work which he had written against Luther. This book, A Defence of the Seven Sacraments against Luther, which was substantially the King’s own work. was not completed until the autumn. Wolsey, who had had a share in its com position, now renewed his endeavours at Rome to obtain for the King a title of honour similar to that of the Kings of France and Spain. On the 14th of September the English Envoy, Clerk, presented in private audience to the Pope the splendidly bound copy of the royal polemic, which is now exhibited in the Vatican Library along with its author's love-letters to Anne Boleyn. Leo X read forthwith the first five pages, and expressed by words and gestures his great satisfaction. The Envoy then ventured to call the attention of His Holiness to the dedication, which ran, “England’s King Henry sends Leo X this work as a sign of faith and friendship”. The Envoy wished to read aloud to the Pope, who was short-sighted, this dedication, written in small letters, but Leo seized the book eagerly and read quickly, more than once, the flattering dedication with expressions of approval ; he then begged that he might have five or six copies for the Cardinals. It was the wish of the English Envoy to be
allowed to present the work again in open Consistory. This Leo declined, on the
pretext that the presence of laymen on such an occasion might give rise to
disagreeable discussions on the Lutheran question. Leo remaining inflexible,
Clerk had to content himself with the permission to present the volume on
October 2nd in a secret Consistory and to make a speech on the occasion. As
regards the title which he had been asked to bestow on Henry VIII, the Pope,
ignoring the opposition of several Cardinals, showed himself compliant to the
English wishes. A Bull of the 26th of October conferred on the King of England
the proud title of Defender of the Faith, which is still borne on the arms and
coinage of English Sovereigns. Wolsey, with whom the whole concern originated,
earned the cordial thanks of his delighted master.
The well-known gentleness of Leo X and his
goodness of heart were shown especially in his treatment of the Jews. Few Popes
have favoured them as much as he.at whose Court Jewish doctors and musicians
held high and conspicuous posts. Where Jews suffered injuries at the hands of
Christians, he showed himself their energetic protector. Many new privileges
were added to those already existing; even the establishment of a Hebrew
printing press in Rome was permitted. The historians of the Jewish community in
that city cannot find sufficient words of praise to celebrate the happiness and
security they then enjoyed. By various exemptions, which were intended to
protect the Jews, especially in Rome, from unjust taxation, the hope was
expressed that in this way that nation might be more easily won to the
Christian faith. Although the protection given to the Jews by the Pope was
generous, he was, at the same time, often obliged to take steps against them.
In one special instance, when he learned that a Jewish book hostile to the
faith had been published at Venice, he took stringent measures.
While Leo X sanctioned the cultus of the
founder of the Servites, Filippo Benizi, and of the Seven Franciscan friars of
Septa in Africa, he gave orders for the preparation of the process of
canonization of Giovanni Capistrano, of the Florentine Archbishop, Antonino, of
Lorenzo Giustiniani, and of the founder of the Minims, Francesco di Paula. The
Pope would have liked above all to have lived to see the canonization of his
fellow countryman, Antonino. But since the examination was carried out with
the greatest thoroughness, it was long in being brought to a conclusion. In the
canonization of Francesco di Paula, France took a special interest. This was
celebrated by the Pope on the 1st of May, 1519, in St. Peter’s, with all the
solemnity which, from of old, has accompanied this rite.
Leo was liberal in the granting of indulgences. Many churches not only in Italy, but also in other countries, especially Germany, were richly endowed in this respect. Indulgences were also attached to the devotion of the Stations of the Cross, and to the confraternity of the Rosary, as well as to the famous pilgrimages to Aix la Chapelle and Treves. In special
Bulls Leo regulated the position of the Auditors of the Rota, of the College of
the Abbreviators of the Apostolic letters, and of the clerical chamberlains, as
well as the oath of obedience of the Bishops to the Holy See. The laws of
Julius II against duelling were renewed
with sharper penalties. A special Bull dealt with magic and fortune-telling.
Leo X had also repeatedly enforced the Church's noble privilege of protecting
the liberty of the human race and vindicating its dignity. A difference of
opinion among the American missionaries as to the lot of the natives, called from
the Pope the declaration that not only religion, but nature itself, protested
against slavery. He entered into negotiations with King Ferdinand of Spain with
a view to restraining the settlers from acts of violence and in justice towards
the Indians. Further, the Pope was unremitting in his endeavours to ransom
Christian captives of the Turks.
On several occasions the care of the
churches of the East called for the Pope’s attention. The restoration of union
with the Maronites in the Council of the Lateran has already been mentioned. The return to
union of other orientals as well was then a matter of consideration. The
repeated attempts to draw nearer to Russia miscarried completely, partly owing
to unfavourable circumstances and partly in consequence of a mistaken
appreciation of the circumstances. Iacopo Piso, who was appointed Nuncio in
1514, had as little success as his successors, Schonberg and Ferreri ; none of
these Envoys reached Moscow.
The Uniat Greeks who were subjects of the
Venetian Government were treated by Leo with good-will and entire loyalty. As
early as 1513 the Pope had made efforts to settle the disputes in Rhodes
between Latins and Greeks. Leo repeatedly took steps against the Catholic
clergy in Corfu, who wished to force the Greeks into conformity with these
rites, just as he took the Greeks in Venice under his special protection. Since
the oppression of the Greeks by the Latin clergy in the Venetian possessions,
especially Corfu, continued, Leo issued, on the 18th of May, 1521, a very
strongly-worded Bull, in which he renewed all the existing rights and
privileges of the Greeks, and severely condemned the hostility of the Latins.
It was laid down that Greek bishops should not ordain Latin clerics nor Latin
bishops Greeks. The Latin priests were strictly forbidden to celebrate Mass in
Greek churches. No one must condemn or despise the Greek ritual, which had been
approved by the Council of Florence. Where two Bishops were co-resident, a
Latin and a Greek, each was to abstain from interference in the other's
affairs. In spite of the heavy penalties attached to the infraction of these
decrees, both Clement VII., and Paul III at a later date, had to come to the
help of the Greeks.
In maintaining the integrity of the faith,
the Pope continued to employ the Dominicans as Inquisitors. In Italy, in 1513,
1515, and 1516, he was forced to take steps against several fanatical
preachers, two of whom—Teodoro of Scutari and Fra Bonaventura—gave themselves
out to be the Angelic Pope foretold by Savanarola. Fra Bonaventura, who
preached downright apostasy from the Church, laid the Pope under
excommunication and announced his speedy death, was imprisoned in St. Angelo in
May, 1516, whereupon the bulk of his followers fell away. The prompt
suppression of this fanatical movement may have led many to hope that similar
measures would be applied to Martin Luther, whose appearance followed shortly
after, and that his agitation would thus be brought to a speedy end. That Leo
X and his chief adviser, Cardinal Medici, did not share such illusions, is
shown by their action with regard to the Wittenberg Professor, which has
already been described. But they certainly did not recognize the full bearing
of the movement which had broken out in Germany.
Still less did Rome recognize the danger
which threatened the Church in Scandinavia. Here also as in other countries a
profound impression was made by the appointment to Church benefices of
strangers and courtiers, who drew the revenues and neglected the duties.
Although the Danish clergy made just complaints no redress was given. In
February, 1520, Leo even went so far as to bestow the rich Archbishopric of
Lund on Cardinal Cesi. A mistake of equal magnitude was the despatch of the
Papal chaplain, Giovanni Maria Arcimboldi, as Nuncio to the northern kingdoms ;
he was at the same time to proclaim an Indulgence for the building of St. Peter’s.
How unscrupulously this was done by his covetous agent, Leo was afterwards
informed by Raffaello de' Medici. The latter wrote from Worms in the beginning
of 1521 that the Princes were specially embittered towards this prelate, who
had “in a thousand instances done the most useless things, and with the help of
the Capuchins had raked in all the money he could lay his hands on”. Paul Eliesen
said later : “Arcimboldi’s gross abuse of power and of his commission gave
Lutheranism its opportunity in Denmark ; there had been Roman Legates in
Denmark before who did useful and edifying work, but Arcimboldi's mission was a
scandal, and set at naught all religion and the fear of God”.
At the close of 1516 Arcimboldi arrived in
Denmark. The King was the gifted but autocratic Christian II, whose ambition
was the restoration of the Union of Kalmar. To him Arcimboldi had to pay 1120
Rhenish florins in order to obtain permission to publish the Indulgence. In
1518 he went on to Sweden, where the higher clergy, and particularly the
Archbishop of Upsala, Gustav Trolle, took Christian’s side in opposition to the
Swedish vice-regent Sten Sture. Arcimboldi, before he left Denmark, had given a
promise to Christian that he would use his influence on his behalf in Sweden ;
he did the reverse. Sten Sture knew how to reach his man on his weak side ;
rich presents and large promises took the Nuncio completely captive. He did not
scruple to dis close to the Regent the secret connections which Christian had
with Sweden ! When the Archbishop of Upsala was dismissed from the Swedish
Reichstag, on account of his Danish sympathies, the Nuncio also acquiesced in this
dismissal.
King Christian took his revenge, for in
April, 1518, he confiscated all the money and property in kind which Arcimboldi
had left behind in Denmark or sent thither from Sweden; at the same time the
Nuncio’s brother and servant were thrown into prison. Neither protests nor
entreaties were of the least avail: the Papal representative must have been
glad to have had the good luck to reach Lubeck even with empty hands. In Rome,
where King Christian had accused him of intriguing and treachery, his recall
was demanded. Arcimboldi replied by asserting his innocence : as the originator
of the calumnies he indicated his former secretary, Dietrich Slageck, a
Westphalian. The latter gained a decided influence over King Christian ; he had
complained at Rome of the Archbishop’s dismissal, and had succeeded in having
the Regent put under the ban. As the executioner of this penalty, Christian
began war with Sweden. In January, 1520, when the countless lakes and marshes
of that country were covered over with hard ice, he opened his campaign and won
a victory, with great bloodshed, on the frozen lake of Asunden, near Bogesund ;
Sten Sture succumbed to his grievous wounds. At Whitsuntide Christian appeared
with his fleet before Stockholm. The city capitulated, after Christian had
given a written promise that all that had been done against him and the
prelates, especially Archbishop Trolle, would be forgiven. The provinces
followed the capital, and Christian returned to Copenhagen as King of Sweden.
Here he determined to secure for himself, by one bold stroke, absolute
sovereignty over Sweden. Dietrich Slageck showed him how, without breaking his
pledge of pardon, he might yet exterminate his enemies. A distinction, said
Slageck, must be drawn between the King, who can and must pardon what concerns
himself, and the executioner of the Papal Bull against all those who took part
in the deposition of the Archbishop of Upsala. Christian acted accordingly ; at
the end of October he landed in Stockholm from his fleet of war ; on the 8th of
November, without judicial trial and in breach of his royal word—which had
guaranteed an amnesty to all persons compromised—he ordered ninety-four Swedes
of the highest rank and office, who were opponents of the Danish rule, to be
beheaded on the Stortorget or market-place of Stockholm ; they were not given
time to make confession before they died. Many more executions followed until
the number amounted to six hundred. Among the victims were the Bishops Matthias
of Strengnas and Vincent of Skara.
Soon after the massacre of Stockholm,
Christian begged his uncle, the Elector Frederick of Saxony, to send him some
theologians of the school of Luther and Carlstadt to Copenhagen. In response
came Martin Reinhard at the end of 1520; the latter, however, disappointed the
expectations of the King to such a degree that he was soon sent back to
Germany. Christian did not on this account abandon his plan of separating the
Danish Church from Rome, and, by bringing it into subjection to himself,
legally as well as practically, strengthening thereby his sovereign power. He
did not merely call in the aid of Carlstadt ; he ordered the construction of a
new legal code whereby a state church might be formally established in Denmark.
All appeals to Rome were forbidden ; instead, a privy tribunal was to be
created in Denmark from which appeals could be made to the King and the
Reichsrath only. The clergy were prohibited from acquiring property unless, “in
accordance with the teaching of St. Paul” (I Tim.), they married. No one should
be ordained sub-deacon or deacon before the age of five-and-twenty, or priest
before the age of thirty. The man at whose instigation the massacre of
Stockholm had taken place, was appointed successor to the murdered Bishop of
Skara.
How did Leo act towards the arbitrary rule
of the despotic King? He decided to send, in the person of the Minorite
Francesco de Potentia, a new Nuncio to Copenhagen, to call Christian to account
for the execution of the two Bishops ; but the envoy was instructed not to make
the absolution of the King for his offence too difficult, lest the latter
should, in defiance or despair, adhere to the Lutheran teaching. Francesco de
Potentia appeared in Copenhagen at the end of November, 1521. The King now
threw all the blame on Slageck, who, in the meantime, had been raised to the
Archbishopric of Lund. The latter did not enjoy his new honours long. In
January, 1522, as ringleader in the butchery of Stockholm, on the same spot
where his victims had been done to death, he made just expiation for his crime
on the scaffold. The Nuncio now absolved the King, who repudiated his Lutheran
sympathies ; as his reward Francesco received the Bishopric of Skara. When the
Pope and his representative thus acted, was not the King justified in thinking
that all things were permitted him ? Heavy as his guilt may have been, a
portion of it falls on Pope Leo and his adviser. There is thus justification
for the severe verdict that Christian would never have acted as he did if Leo
had fulfilled his duty and defended the Church of the north with
determination against the arbitrary attacks of the secular power.
In many ways the Pope busied himself with the affairs of the regular clergy. It is matter of rejoicing that he made repeated and energetic efforts to reform the discipline of the cloister. Successful, however, as these efforts were in individual cases, they were not sufficient to cope with deeply-rooted evils of long standing. Leo showed special favour to the newly-founded order of the Minims ; but his benevolent protection was also extended to the Augustinian Hermits, the Carmelites, the Benedictine congregation of S. Giustina, and the order of St. Dominic. He restored the order of St. Lazarus which Innocent VIII had dissolved in Italy, and also confirmed finally the statutes of the French order of the Annunciation. Leo’s measures as regards the Franciscan
order were of the greatest importance. Julius II had already endeavoured to
bring all the branches of this order under one general ; but he was unable to
overcome the opposition of the Observantines. Leo was not more successful than
his energetic predecessor. In the general chapter held in Rome at Whitsuntide,
1517, he certainly made one more attempt to unite the different observances.
This having failed, he determined on a complete separation of the Order so as
to put an end to the continued dissensions. In two Papal constitutions it was
enacted that all Franciscan houses which wished to retain their privileges
should become separate from those which refused to permit any dispensation from
the rule. The latter were amalgamated in one body, and along with them four
minor reforms coalesced ; viz. those of the Clares, Colettines, Amadeans, and
two custodi of the discalced friars in Spain and Portugal. The
Observantines who were thus united had to chose a head for six years, to whom
the ancient seal of the order was to be given and who should bear the title of
General of the whole Order of Franciscans. The Conventuals had their privileges
confirmed, especially the right of holding landed property and rentals and of
choosing their own superior-general.
Leo’s appointments to the Sacred College,
especially those of the great creation of 1517, have been so thoroughly treated
of already, that only a retrospective glance is here necessary.
In the eight promotions of the Pope's reign
two-and-forty prelates received the purple. To his contemporaries it seemed
remarkable that each of the four great orders, the Benedictines, Augustinians,
Dominicans, and Franciscans, should each have a Cardinal. As regards
nationality, the Italians were preponderant. Of the one-and-thirty new Italian
Cardinals, eight were Romans (Francesco Conti, Giandomenico de Cupis, Andrea
della Valle, Pompeo Colonna, Domenico Jacobazzi, Franciotto Orsini, Paolo
Emilio Cesi, and Alessandro Cesarini), seven were Florentines (Lorenzo Pucci,
Giulio de' Medici, Niccolo Pandolfini, Ferdinando Ponzetti, Luigi de' Rossi,
Giovanni Salviati, and Niccolo Ridolfi), four others were Tuscans, (Bernardo
Bibbiena, Giovanni Piccolomini, Raffaello Petrucci, and Silvio Passerini), five
came from the States of the Church (Lorenzo Campeggio, Francesco Armellini,
Cristoforo Numai, Egidio Canisio, and Ercole Rangoni), the rest from Genoa
(Innocenzo Cibo and Giambattista Pallavicini), Piedmont (Bonifacio Ferreri),
Milan (Scaramuccia Trivulzio and Agostino Trivulzio), Venice (Francesco
Pisani), and Gaeta (Tommaso de Vio). The non-Italian Cardinals, in whose
nominations the variations in the Papal policy were to some extent reflected,
were the Englishman Wolsey (1515), the Frenchmen Adrien Gouffier de Boissy
(1515), Antoine Bohier Du Prat (1517), Louis de Bourbon (1517), and Jean de
Lorraine, the Netherlander Guillaume de Croy (1517), Adrian of Utrecht (1517),
and Eberhard de la Mark (1520), the German Albert of Brandenburg (1518), the
Spaniard Raymond de Vich (1517), and Don Alfonso, the son of the Portuguese
King (1517).
It is a characteristic of the reign of Leo that, in filling up vacancies in the Cardinalate, he was guided chiefly by political and personal motives. Thus there were introduced into the highest Council of the Church many unworthy members who were blemishes on the credit and dignity of the purple. Yet in this respect the great creation of 1517 was a turning point for the better. In the same year in which this Consistory
was held, the great apostasy from Rome began in Germany, presenting to the
Church tasks unknown before. That Leo grasped this situation cannot be
asserted. To the necessity of ecclesiastical reform he certainly did not shut
his eyes, but at this critical moment in affairs he acted, as in so many other
matters, like an intellectual dilettante and never went below the surface. The
anti-Papal movement in Germany could only be successfully met by the counter
acting force of trenchant reform. To this Leo was blind ; while the tempest was
ready to break in which a third part of Europe was to be torn from the chair of
St. Peter, he gave himself up with a light and joyous mind and without anxiety
to the enjoyments and preoccupations of the world. In all respects a true child
of the Renaissance, Leo, surrounded by his artists, poets, musicians, actors,
buffoons and other parasites of a court, flung himself with a terrible
nonchalance into the vortex of secularity without troubling himself to ask
whether such pursuits were in accordance or not with his position as a
spiritual ruler. Neither the warlike complications of Europe, nor the Turkish
peril, nor the rise of a new heresy disturbed him amid his favourite pastimes
or the gratification of his intellectual tastes. His Court, with its lavish
expenditure on wholly secular objects, the card-table, the theatre, the chase,
stood in sharp contradiction to the aims and calling of a great dignitary of
the Church. Under Alexander VI there was certainly a greater depravity of
morals, but it is hard to say whether the subtle worldliness of Leo X. was not
an evil more difficult to encounter and of greater danger to the Church.
Only a few of his contemporaries realized
this. They had become so accustomed to the growing secularity of the Popes of
the Renaissance, that they judged Leo X only by the standards of a temporal
prince. Thus Guicciardini only speaks of him as a sovereign who had many
praiseworthy and many blameable characteristics. Vettori also starts from this
standpoint ; he begins by remarking that he will not attempt to balance Leo’s
faults and virtues; then he corrects himself and thus gives , his verdict: “Even
if Leo X did amuse himself with jesters, he yet had so many good qualities that
men might well be satisfied with such a prince”. Both these writers—Vettori and
Guicciardini—speak only of the “Principe”, of the politician, not of the Pope
and not even of the Maecenas of art. Giovio, who has drawn the traditional
portrait of Leo, takes a higher standpoint. His pen is not that of a mere
flatterer ; this talented humanist portrays rather the kindred spirit, the man
who reflected, as in a mirror, the most vital, the freest, the most perfect
traits of the Renaissance. Giovio thought himself entitled to end his biography
with the words : “Leo’s lofty spirit (virtus) brought back to us the golden age
for the healing of the human race ; now that this great prince has departed, we
perforce must mourn under an age of iron inasmuch as, through our mistakes and
failures, barbarous savagery has brought upon us murder, pestilence, hunger,
desolation—in short, all human evils ; knowledge, art, the common well-being,
the joy of living— in a word, all good things have gone down into the grave
along with Leo”.
If Giovio says nothing of Leo as a
spiritual ruler, he is so far in correspondence with fact, for the mainspring
of this Pontiffs actions certainly did not lie in the ecclesiastical sphere.
Judges whose eyes are fixed solely on the interests of the Church, like
Cardinals Seripando and Pallavicini cannot but censure Leo severely. But even
if we take a wider survey and weigh his services in the cause of human culture,
a closer examination convinces us that in this respect also the Leonine era was
not, as it has for so long been assumed to be, the type of the highest and most
flawless product of literature, knowledge, and art. And yet within this domain
Leo rendered services which must always be taken into account in forming a
general estimate of his place in history.
If on many points the last word has not yet
been spoken over the Medici Pope, it may yet be safely asserted at the present
stage of inquiry that his Pontificate, praised to exaggeration by humanists and
poets, and lit up by the beams of Raphael's art, was, in consequence of its too
free surrender to secular tendencies, whereby the Church was thrown into the
background to make way for her brilliant forms of culture, one of momentous
import for the Holy See.
|
---|