Catholic Church History

Secularizing Theocracy: (1274-1453) XVII. Nationalist Revolt (1274-1378)

126. Nationalist Challenge to Theocracy

XVII
Nationalist Revolt

126. NATIONALIST CHALLENGE TO THEOCRACY

A. The Waning Theocracy

(1) INTERNATIONAL IDEALS
The Empire, which had entered the Middle Ages the dominant member of the Dyarchy
ruling Christendom, had been utterly routed with the fall of the Hohenstaufen. Henceforth its
effective power was confined to central Europe; Sicily was lost forever, and Lombardy and
Burgundy were rapidly slipping away. Internally the magnates had almost paralyzed monarchical
authority, and only an emperor of great personal ability could provide successful leadership. The
power of the empire, then, was dead though not yet its ambition. Dante in his De Monarchia
proved its last panegyrist. Still following older ideals, he advanced the reactionary thesis that
idealized an unreal empire which would guarantee Christian peace and unity. This he sought to
achieve by freeing the empire from theocratic control. Dante was traditional in conceding full
recognition to the spiritual primacy of the papacy, but he was revolutionary in denying it any
temporal suzerainty. Against the curialists, he maintained that imperial authority was derived
immediately from God and that papal temporal supremacy was but an usurpation. Dante, then,
was antitheocratic without being anti-internationalist. He perceived correctly that what
Christendom desperately needed was peace and unity, and ideally much might be said for his
solution which proposed to preserve Christian solidarity while freeing the sacerdotium from
secular entanglements in order to devote itself exclusively to spiritual matters. But Dante failed to
realize that the theocracy had been created by Christian public opinion, and that opinion, deluded
by the propaganda of new nationalist leaders, was now veering away from internationalism,
whether imperial or papal.

The papacy, after the defeat of the Hohenstaufen, had no apparent rival for the broad
leadership of Christendom. Theocracy reigned supreme and the popes, especially the canonists,
boldly advanced the theory of direct power. The curialists in their ardent loyalty formulated such
views. Thus Augustinus Triumphus in his De Potestate Ecclesiastica declared that the pope had
"plenary power to set up, depose, or control princes . . . for any reasonable cause." Giles of
Rome and James of Viterbo seconded the view that popes also enjoyed eminent domain over all
property, ecclesiastical, royal, even that of private Christians. At the same time curial
centralization was proceeding apace. More and more cases were being referred to the Holy See
for decision or dispensation and through the system of provisions the curial powers of
appointment and taxation were being extended throughout the churches of Europe. Papal
intellectual leadership seemed secure: the universities were under ecclesiastical control, and St.
Thomas Aquinas had just produced a reconciliation between faith and reason. Papal political
independence seemed guaranteed, for imperial power was shattered in Lombardy, and the Two
Sicilies had passed to rival dynasties. It was less clearly perceived that with the removal of
imperial strength, Italian factional fights were recurring and that these frequently denied to the
popes access to Rome itself. Socially, Waldensian anticlericalism and Albigensian anarchism had
been defeated by the Holy Inquisition, and the mendicants were reaching new social strata. Yet
the theocracy was about to receive a blow from which it never fully recovered.

(2) NATIONALIST OPPOSITION

Dynastic nationalism is here meant, and indeed it is the chief type until the mass
mobilization of the French Revolution. While papacy and empire had been disputing the
headship of Europe, several medieval monarchs, especially those of France and England, had
been consolidating their power and slowly reducing the feudality to subjection. They were
becoming masters in their own realms and would brook little outside interference, whether from
papacy or empire. By the thirteenth century, as just noted, the empire was no longer a problem
for the kings. But the papal theocracy, through its temporal supremacy and universal control of
the clergy, constituted an obstacle to royal sovereignty. Now nationalism ought to connote both
union and disunion; both immensity and smallness, but under different respects. In relation to the
political units which they supplanted, the feudal principalities, the new national monarchies were
indeed large entities; but in regard to the universal Christian commonwealth which they
challenged they were a force for disunion which, should it prevail, would disrupt the Christian
federation into isolated and rival groupings of states. Papal spiritual primacy was not yet
questioned; that was to be the work of the Ecclesiastical revolution of the sixteenth century for
which the present growing secularist secession paved the way. For Church and state were so
interlocked in the medieval mind that it would prove impossible to attack papal temporal
leadership without endangering its spiritual rule as well.

Nationalist propaganda was not slow in rejecting the curialist theories. John of Paris,
writing on behalf of King Philip the Fair of France, asserted that a universal temporal authority
was practically impossible because of the difficulties of law enforcement at a distance. The
Church required universality, it is true, but this was unnecessary for the state -so lie said in his
treatise De Potestate Regia et Papali-since a kingdom constituted a self-sufficing unit quite
independent of the empire. He contended that the French monarchy was older than the
sacerdotium and did not derive its authority from it. He rejected as equally erroneous the
Waldensian denial of ecclesiastical property, and the "Herodian" clerical control of all property-
rather let the clerics have their goods, but by delegation from the king and under his protection.
Pierre Dubois, also arguing in the interest of the French crown, held that France should be the
leading state in a league to end war. With the aid of a general council and an international court,
it could take the lead in reforming the Church by abolishing clerical celibacy, canonical
immunities, and papal temporal rule. Education might well be secularized on the foundation of
the ancient classics, and the army and the courts thoroughly reorganized. In England, Wycliffe
was a partisan of royal absolutism, holding that all ecclesiastical goods were subject to
confiscation by the king. These claims of the secular legists or their clerical sympathizers were
not at first accepted in their entirety, even by the nationalistic monarchs, but they set revolutionary
ideas in circulation. While professing not to interfere at all with spiritual jurisdiction, both John of
Paris and Dubois had suggested conciliar supremacy over the papacy-a theological error that
was to bear bitter fruit in undue season. As long as such theories were merely the academic
ravings of the "outs," they were less influential, but after the French insult to the papacy at Anagni
had revealed the weakness of the theocracy, all the latent grievances against clerical
predominance were aired more openly. Then came William of Occam, Marsiglio of Padua, and
the Spiritual Franciscans, whose ideas will be noted subsequently. At the end of this period
(1378), when papal prestige had been seriously weakened by sojourn at Avignon, there came
Langenstein, Gelnhausen, D'Ailly, and Gerson with the conciliar theory, applied during the Great
Western Schism, which completed the secularist declaration of independence against papal
presidency, and shaded off into the coming Protestant Revolution.

B. The Coming Secularism

(1) INTELLECTUAL TRENDS

Scholastic decline. Scholasticism had just received its greatest theological synthesis
from St. Thomas Aquinas. The theological principles had been securely laid, and what was
chiefly required was their application to new problems. But decadent Scholasticism continued to
seek speculative originality, often merely to differ with St. Thomas. Search for novelty led to rash
ventures in both philosophy and theology, while dialectical acumen often nourished egotistical
smugness. Among the causes for Scholastic decline enumerated by De Wulfe are: (1) lack of
originality: repetitive compendia, absence of real study, and increasing ignorance of the works of
the great Scholastics; (2) lack of training: universities competed for scholars by reducing
standards for degrees; (3) lack of sincerity: as benefices became the main objective for many
scholars, they were prone to abuse their talents to gain a reputation for external brilliance; (4) a
disregard for physical science, which could reach such absurd proportions that some Scholastics
refused even to read works which differed from their teachings or which introduced new material.

Terminism, a form of nominalism, became the prevailing philosophical system. It was a

reaction against Scotistic formalism: excessive subtlety yielded to over-simplification. Terminism
verged on skepticism in trying to reduce the number of truths demonstrable by reason on the
pretext of exalting the superiority of faith. Preferring logic to metaphysics, nominalists tended
toward defending "two truths," one for faith and another for reason. Durandus and Aureolus
denied the reality of universals, of intelligible species, and of a real distinction between essence
and existence and between the soul and its faculties.

William of Occam (1270-1349), a disciple of Scotus, separated the material objects of

theology and philosophy as his master had done, but proceeded on to assert that there were no
real universals and to deny any distinction between essence and existence. He held that the
existence and attributes of God were undemonstrable by reason. With abstractive science
excluded, he accorded man merely intuition and sense cognition. Since there was no real
universal, abstract knowledge consisted solely of "terms," ideal fabrications. Thus Occam sowed
seeds of subjectivism and of skepticism, of absolute divine and human voluntarism. It is
significant that a fourteenth century Ingolstadt document referred to Occam as the initiator of the
via moderna.

Terminist progress is revealed by the fact that in 1339 the University of Paris banned
Occamism in vain. In 1346 Pope Clement VI warned the school against nominalist sophistry, yet
the terminist rector, Burridan, remained. He was followed in that position by other terminists,
Marsilius of Inghien (d. 1396), and Pierre D'Ailly (d. 1425), through whom terminism spread to
other institutions of higher learning. The last renowned terminist, Gabriel Biel (1430-95), was
Luther's authority for Scholastic teaching.

Anti-Scholastic leaders appeared also in John of Jandun, an Averroist; Thomas

Bradwardine a theistic determinist; John Mirecourt, who carried this determinism to divine volition
of sin and was condemned by ecclesiastical authority in 1347. Lorenzo Valla (d. 1459), Nicholas
of Cusa (d. 1464), and Rudolf Agricola, all differed in varying ways from the Scholastic traditions.
Finally, Patrizzi advocated an incipient, and Giordano Bruno a quite complete pantheism. The
spread of the vernacular at the expense of Latin was but the symptom of growing international
disunity in thought.

(2) POLITICAL-LEGAL TRANSITION

Centralized monarchy was taking the place of feudal isolation in Western Europe.
Norman England had led the way and was now seeking to extend its control over the remaining
states of the British Isles, as well as to displace Capetian leadership in France. In the latter
country the reign of Philip II had proved decisive for monarchical ascendancy. Though this was
due in large measure to the king's own shrewd diplomacy, once royal supremacy had been
substantially achieved, Philip's successors sought to preserve and extend it. This brought them
into conflict not merely with the surviving feudal nobles, but with the "first estate," the clergy, as
well. In seeking to centralize their administration, these monarchs allied themselves with the
bourgeoisie to create a bureaucracy whose orders might be enforced through a standing army.
These new organs of monarchy naturally cost money and the kings sought to infringe upon
ecclesiastical resources by taking over the business of the clerical courts and by taxing the clergy.
They were assisted by growing popular resentment against papal taxation. While nationalist
animus obscured international ideals, commerce continued to draw men from eternal values to
the pursuit of profit so that the tension between Christian ideals of morality and their practice
became acute. In prosecuting a contest with the papacy, moreover, the ruler of a relatively
unified realm would be in a stronger position than the petty feudal lords, or even the earlier
emperors, as often as not distracted by their far-flung interests.

The legists provided the kings with the technical assistance which they required.
Previously the monarchs had been forced to employ clerics in such administrative offices as a
kingdom possessed. But clerics, trained in canon law and enjoying immunity from secular
jurisdiction, were always in a position to resist absolutism. Many, indeed, connived with the kings,
but previous despots, such as William II and Henry II of England, had encountered a St. Anselm
or a St. Thomas 'a Becket, who were more than a match for them when sustained by papal
authority and popular good will. Revival of Roman law had now provided the kings alike with
absolutist precedents and a class of trained civil lawyers to press these to an advantage. Roman
law still reflected earlier pagan notions of secular supremacy, and lawyers who could or would not
secure clerical employment were attracted to positions in the royal service. They would tend to
see in their own monarch, to whom they looked for preferment, a reflection of the ancient
emperor, and to revive in his favor Seneca's maxim: "To kings belong power over all; to private
persons, property." Some legists made themselves almost indispensable by their mastery of the
intricacies of law. They sought, indeed, to impose a uniform Roman law in place of the variations
of common customs in the feudal states and corporations. Above all they would envy the
ecclesiastical courts which attracted lucrative cases away from secular jurisdiction. Panderers to
royal absolutism, some of these legists threatened even to re-impose Roman slavery, and in the
long run European peoples proved willing to sacrifice liberty in exchange for the material progress
and bureaucratic efficiency offered by the new monarchies. But the "common man" would soon
discover that overthrow of the theocracy had threatened and curbed his personal liberties.

(3) ECONOMIC-SOCIAL CHANGES

Commercial revival continued its course even after the end of the crusades. Cities
increased in population and prosperity and their leading citizens became the natural allies of the
national monarchs. Money returned to general use and profit came to constitute an avowed goal
in life. Yet theocratic ideals were not entirely abandoned and the ban of interest still vexed the
profiteers. New banking firms replaced the medieval concerns which went bankrupt during the
economic stresses Of the fourteenth century. The Casa de San Giorgio, founded at Genoa in
1407, was perhaps the first bank of the modern type. Parvenu capitalists-the Medici in Italy, the
Fuggers and Welsers in the empire, and Jacques Coeur in France-replaced old commercial
patricians, and relegated them to a class of mere investors living on their incomes. National
monarchs introduced gold restrictions and tolls. Under Henry VII of England, Louis XI of France,
and Philip of Burgundy-Netherlands, a shift in commerce from the civic to the national levels is
perceptible.

Agrarian changes had followed upon the disintegration of the feudal manorial
arrangements. Lords tried to halt the flight of serfs to towns or to new colonization projects by
force or by emancipation in varying degrees. Mortuary and marriage dues were now generally
abolished. The newer tenantry took the form either of a fixed rent in money or a proportionate
commission in produce. Wherever possible, the serf seized any opportunity to commute feudal
services for money. The Black Death in the middle of the fourteenth century accelerated this
process by making labor scarce and therefore more valuable. Extrafeudal conditions were
introduced as well on the new colonies to the east.

Social disturbances. The peasantry's most prosperous period lay probably during the
twelfth and thirteenth centuries when life was comparatively free from major disturbances. During
the fourteenth century a decline followed the widespread famine of 1315-17, the Black Death, and
the Hundred Years' War. The German dynasts and Italian merchant princes oppressed the serfs,
thereby provoking a reaction. Subdivision allowed kulaks to buy up the estates, forcing landless
cotters into revolt. Social uprisings took place in Flanders (1323-28), the Jacquerie rebelled in
France (1357-58), and England saw Wat Tyler's rebellion (1381). In Catalonia prolonged
agitation occurred, and risings in Sweden (1437-40) proved successful, but the Danish agitation
(1340-1441) and local revolts in Germany were for the most part failures. Throughout Italy and
the Netherlands there were popular movements against the upper bourgeoisie. Capitalistic
pasturage or farming appeared in England, Prussia, Pomerania, Silesia, and Brandenburg, while
the English, French, Lombards, and the Teutonic Knights all engaged in price fixing. A new and
restless age was nearly everywhere struggling for birth.

Secularizing Theocracy: (1274-1453) XVII. Nationalist Revolt (1274-1378)

127. The Path to Anagni (1276-94)

XVII
Nationalist Revolt

127. THE PATH TO ANAGNI

A. The Unchallenged Theocracy (1276-1300)

(1) PROGRESS OF RECONCILIATION
Brief pontificates (1276-77). Little constructive work could be done during the three brief
pontificates following the Second General Council of Lyons. These were those of Innocent V
(1276), the French Dominican, Blessed Pierre de Tarentaise; of Adrian V, formerly Cardinal
Ottobono Fieschi (1276); and of John "XXI," the Portuguese Pedro Rebulo (1276-77).
Negotiations went on with the Greek Monarchy with prospect of success.

Pope Nicholas III (1277-80). Cardinal Giovanni Orsini, unanimously elected to the
papacy on November 25, 1277, had a relatively brief, but energetic reign. He perfected Gregory
X's Italian modus vivendi by arranging an entente between Emperor Rudolf and Charles of Anjou.
According to this, while the former recognized Angevin possession of Sicilian lands once
belonging to the Hohenstaufen, the latter resigned his Tuscan vicariate and the Roman
senatorship in favor of emperor and pope respectively. A marriage settlement of the rival
Burgundian claims was projected but failed to be carried out. Difficulties also arose at
Constantinople, although no formal rupture of the Lyonnaise reunion took place. The conciliatory
pontiff died on August 22, 1280, still laboring diligently to prepare for the crusade demanded at
Lyons.

(2) SICILIAN INCUBUS

Martin IV (1281-85). After another protracted conclave, the cardinals selected Simon de
Brion. The new pope presented an unhappy contrast to his predecessor, and managed to undo
much of his work. Once a royal councilor and chancellor of France, he seems to have remained
a chauvinistic Frenchman: at least, lie remained strangely blind to all but Capetian interests.
Yielding, it would seem, to Angevin designs of Byzantine conquest, Martin lost patience with the
Greeks and terminated reunion by an excommunication of the Basileus. And the evil genius of
Charles of Anjou was the source of further papal troubles.

The Sicilian Vespers of March 30, 1282, fulfilled a prophecy of vengeance made to
Charles by Gregory X. The Sicilians, goaded beyond endurance by French rapacity, assassinated
all available Frenchmen at Palermo at the sound of the Vesper bell. The massacre was followed
by a revolt of the Sicilians who proclaimed Pedro III of Aragon, who had married Manfred's
daughter Constance, as king. Until 1435 the Two Sicilies remained divided: though the Angevins
retained the Neapolitan mainland, Sicily fell under Spanish sway. Martin IV promptly
excommunicated the authors of this sacrilege. While this was to be expected, he went further by
proclaiming a crusade to enable Charles of Anjou to recover Sicily. To this end he appropriated
the funds thus far collected for the crusade ordered at Second Lyons, and besides imposed on
Christendom a new tithe, the proceeds of which would he handed over to Philip III of France and
Charles of Anjou to prosecute their conflicts. Non-French prelates and princes protested against
such a "crusade" which they claimed served Capetian more than papal interests. England waxed
hot; the archbishop of Magdeburg drove out the papal collectors; and the Sicilians and
Aragonese, once the pope had rejected offers of settlement, became bitter and desperate. Papal
censures were pronounced against the dissenters, but-and this was ominous-excommunication's
and interdicts: became blunted by overuse or by use in a cause deemed by many Christians
more political than

religious.
Honorius IV (1285-87), the former Cardinal Giacomo Savelli, a Roman, was chosen to
succeed Martin IV five days after the latter's death in March, 1285. His confirmation of his
predecessor's spiritual censures attested their justice, but he also found himself unwillingly
committed to Martin's political policies. From these he was trying to extricate himself by
conciliatory moves when he died at Rome in
April, 1287.
Nicholas IV (1288-92). It was not until February, 1288, that the cardinals agreed to the
choice of Cardinal Girolamo Maschi. This well-meaning pontiff was the victim of circumstances.
All his peacemaking schemes went awry and the fall of the last of Christian strongholds in
Palestine (1291) was laid at his door, for men said that the papacy had been neglecting the true
crusade for a false one. If so, it was the only time that the papacy was not active in the crusading
cause; princely selfishness and not lack of papal exhortations and admonitions had produced the
ultimate failure of the crusades.

(3) THEOCRATIC AFTERGLOW (1294-1300)

St. Celestine V (1294). The Holy See remained vacant from the death of Pope Nicholas
IV in April, 1292, until July of 1294. Charles II of Anjou, who had succeeded his father in 1285,
tried to bend the twelve cardinals to his will by veiled threats and promises. Indirectly he
succeeded beyond his dreams, for on July 5 the cardinals resolved to eschew politics by electing
the hermit, St. Pietro Murrone, as Pope Celestine V. The new pontiff had not the slightest
knowledge of papal administration and in his kindly simplicity granted everything that was asked
of him. And Charles of Anjou had him installed at Naples where he could do all the asking.
Neapolitans were showered with benefices and privileges, sees and cardinalates. Kept nearly
incommunicado, Celestine even signed blank bulls presented by the king. Providentially Cardinal
Matteo Russo gained access to the pope to explain the peril of the situation. Celestine thus
learned that he had been duped. His delicate conscience now fully awake, he realized that he did
not know what he ought to know and that he lacked the facilities for obtaining within reasonable
time reliable information. Courageously and humbly, he resolved to resign. On December 13,
1294, he put off the papal insignia and resumed his eremitical garb. Under his successor's
surveillance, he lived in retirement until his death in 1296.

Boniface VIII (1294-1303). On Christmas Eve, 1294, the Church received a present in
the person of Cardinal Benedetto Gaetani, chosen unanimously to succeed Celestine V. He
accepted the papal office at Naples, but promptly proceeded to Rome where he was crowned as
Boniface VIII in January, 1295. This experienced curialist quickly extricated the Holy See from its
predicament by annulling all of Celestine's grants. Charles of Anjou was put in his place, and
Sicilian peace negotiations were resumed and at last carried to a successful termination, though
not until 1302. On all sides papal powers were reasserted vigorously, a new crusade announced,
and theocratic prestige regained. Disputes broke out but an immense crowd of pilgrims coming
to Rome during the first jubilee Year of 1300 seemed to testify that Christian loyalty was as strong
as ever. A second crown is believed to have been added to the papal tiara during this pontificate.
But this was a last theocratic brilliance before sunset, for three years after the jubilee this same
Boniface VIII received at Anagni a blow from which neither he nor the theocracy ever fully
recovered.

B. Seeds of Conflict
(1) PAPAL DIFFICULTIES

Though Boniface VIII had been chosen without difficulty, his exacting rule led to a revival
of disaffection. His character became the object of controversy. He was subjected to ugly
calumnies: that he was an ambitious schemer who had won the tiara by simony, that he had
made sure of it by the murder of his predecessor, and that he was preserving it by tyranny. As a
matter of fact, Gaetani seems to have been not so much a proud man, as a conscientious or
meticulous one. Trained in the intricacies of the canon law, long nourished by the theocratic
claims of the curialists, he would conceive it his duty to assert with equal vigor the spiritual and
temporal rights of the papacy. In ordinary routine affairs he might have proved competent beyond
the average; in a crisis, he showed himself courageous and steadfast, but scarcely conciliatory or
attractive.

Disaffection of the Colonna. The Colonna were a princely Roman family of Ghibelline
politics. Their leader, Cardinal Giacomo, now favored the faction of "Spiritual Franciscans," which
had also imposed on the simplicity of Celestine V. Pope Boniface, though of austere morality, was
personally wealthy and gave the impression of hauteur, pomp, and worldliness in the conduct of
his exalted office. Cardinal Giacomo allowed himself to become convinced of Boniface's lack of
integrity when the pope sustained the complaints of the Colonna co-heirs about the administration
of their estates by the head of the house, Cardinal Giacomo. Papal sequestration of the disputed
territories pending settlement, however, made rebels of most of the clan and by 1297 Cardinals
Giacomo and Pietro Colonna were repudiating their 'Votes for Boniface at the last conclave,
appealing to a general council, and invoking the aid of King Philip IV of France.

(2) CAPETIAN ENCIRCLEMENT

Philip III (1270-85). St. Louis had died at Tunis on his second crusading expedition
during 1270, and was succeeded by his eldest son, Philip the Rash. This youth, though
fundamentally a good man, was now an ambitious, imprudent, inexperienced ruler, often under
the influence of his uncle, Charles of Anjou, the tyrant of Sicily.
Anti-Aragonese crusade. Philip had scarcely mounted the throne when he had to be
restrained by the Holy See from rushing into war with Castile on behalf of the pretenders to its
throne, the "Princes of Cerda." Finally he ignored papal warnings, attacked, and was soundly
beaten. Philip was also eager to resume his father's crusade, and Gregory X had to remind him
that adequate preparation was necessary. Later the king's zeal for such a crusade waned as he
intrigued through Cardinal Simon de Brion, later Martin IV, for the imperial throne. Gregory X,
however, had politely but firmly refused to countenance this. Next Philip III, anxious to
appropriate crusading funds to the royal treasury, asked that the indulgence he extended to those
who donated money without personal service; this time it was Pope Nicholas III who refused.
Martin IV's accession had proved to be the Capetians' good fortune. Despite subjective sincerity,
Martin was objectively Francophile. The royal family was showered with innumerable privileges
and exemptions. More serious was the fact that the papal curia, while handing over
internationally raised crusading funds to Philip for prosecution of the anti-Aragonese "crusade"
growing out of the "Sicilian Vespers," found it convenient to borrow money for immediate needs.
In consequence, far into the fourteenth century the papal chancery owed the royal treasury in
excess of 100,000 pounds, an extrinsic but potent weapon for Capetian pressure on the Holy
See. Philip was also habitually given permission to tax his own clergy, a practice that easily led to
his successor's assumption that this might be done without permission as of right. Worst of all,
perhaps, the Capetians did not give results: the Aragonese dynasty remained in possession of
Sicily and all the papal subsidies were wasted or diverted to the French treasury. The theocracy
was nourishing a power that within a generation turned against it.

Sicilian peace. Even as a cardinal, Boniface VIII had opposed Celestine V's
unsuspecting subservience to Capetian interests, and once elected pope he had annulled the
latter's lavish concessions. He also opened direct negotiations with the Aragonese, looking to a
settlement of the war arising out of the Sicilian Vespers of 1282. it required many years and many
heartbreaks to overcome the suspicions of nearly fifteen years of conflict, but finally in 1302 the
pope concluded peace and recognized the Aragonese possession of Sicily. The Capetian power
was confined to the Neapolitan mainland, and the dynasty had been served notice that Boniface
VIII would Dot simply play the Capetian political game.

Secularizing Theocracy: (1274-1453) XVII. Nationalist Revolt (1274-1378)

128. Revolt at Anagni (1294-1303)

XVII
Nationalist Revolt

128. REVOLT AT ANAGNI

A. Preliminary Papal-Royal Conflict (1294-1300)

(1) SOURCE OF DISPUTE
Philip IV of France (1285-1314), known as Philip the Fair, proved to be Pope Boniface
VIII's most dangerous foe. It is uncertain whether this monarch was the true director of the royal
policy, or a weak but handsome puppet behind whom an able bureaucracy of legists functioned.
In any event, he must have taken final responsibility for the propaganda against the Holy See
employed by a succession of chancellors, Pierre Flotte and Guillaume de Nogaret, and the legist
Dubois. Philip IV had inherited a strong monarchy from his ancestors, but French unification
remained far from complete. His chief rival for the control of France was the duke of Aquitaine,
who was none other than the powerful King Edward I of England. To oust this "overmighty
subject" from control of nearly a third of France, Philip had commenced war in 1294 on a feudal
technicality. The English were aided by the Flemish, whose economic ties with the British wool
industry were close, and the contest proved protracted and costly. The French treasury was
depleted by the recent war with Aragon and the cost of the new bureaucracy. But in the form of
"crusading tithes" the crown had long tasted clerical wealth. The clerics were patriotic
Frenchmen, they would, the Court believed, come to its rescue-if only Rome did not interfere.

(2) CLERICAL TAXATION ISSUE (1296-1300)

Clerical taxation by the secular power was contrary to canonical immunity, but under one
pretext or another tithes had been collected by the crown since 1294, relying on Pope Celestine
V's inexperience. But when the king demanded a new grant from the clergy in 1296, Boniface
VIII refused to renew the indulgence. The prelates, convened tinder the royal eye at Paris,
temporized by voting two more tithes, "subject to the pope's approval . . . and on condition that
they be collected by the clergy without lay interference." The Cistercians, however, made a
categorical refusal and appealed to the Holy See.

Clericis Laicos was the papal response to royal interference. In this bull the exasperated
Boniface VIII plunged into a bitter, true, but tactless denunciation of royal exactions. It was of
general application, and Edward of England as well as Philip IV was incensed by it. The papal
attitude may be gathered from a few excerpts: "The laity have always felt hostile to the clergy and
have constantly striven to overstep their bounds by wickedness and disobedience. They do not
reflect that all power over the clergy, over persons and property of the Church, is denied them. . .
. All prelates . . . who without consent of the Apostolic See pay or promise to pay to laymen any
imposts, taxes, tithes . . . as also emperors, kings, princes . . . who levy the same, incur
excommunication ipso facto. . . . For we have decided to tolerate no longer this astonishing abuse
of the civil power; and no privilege granted any king may constitute an obstacle to the execution
of this present decree."

Royal reprisals followed when in August, 1296, the king "froze" all foreign funds in
France, not unaware that certain papal dues were in France en route to Spain. Frenchmen were
likewise forbidden to send any funds whatsoever to the Holy See. Propaganda tracts went
through the land accusing the clergy of being "paralyzed members" of society who wasted its
substance without helping out the state which protected them. Christ, they were reminded, had
not died for clerics alone; though they might enjoy special privileges, let them understand that
these had originally been concessions from the crown.

Compromise followed for the moment, since this was the only way in which the pope
could escape from the difficulties raised simultaneously by the Colonna. Romana Mater Ecclesia
(1297) was manifestly conciliatory. Though Boniface tried to uphold his principle of "no clerical
taxation without papal permission," he conceded new authorizations for "loans" and "subsidies,"
and even contemplated that in an " emergency" the king might presume permission. Philip IV
was mollified to the extent of accepting Boniface's arbitration in his contest with England and
Flanders, and a truce was arranged that relieved the king's most pressing need for money. The
armistice also enabled the contestants to isolate their foes: Edward was free to put down
Wallace's rising in Scotland; Philip reduced Flanders to subjection; and the pope drove the
Colonna malcontents from Rome and confiscated their lands and dignities. Boniface VIII
extended the olive branch further by canonizing Philip's grandfather, Louis IX, and the first jubilee
Year (1300) drew French as well as other Christian pilgrims to Rome. But when Boniface VIII is
reported to have remarked to the French chancellor, Flotte, in the ancient symbolic language,
"We hold both swords," Flotte is said to have retorted: "Your swords are a phrase; ours a reality."

B. Decisive Papal-Royal Contest (1301-3)

(1) ISSUE OF TEMPORAL SUPREMACY

Radical disagreement persisted nonetheless between the pope the French crown, for the
latter had challenged the theocracy's assumption of temporal primacy. Though the new conflict
arose on a point of clerical immunity, it rapidly developed into a contest for supremacy during
which curialist and royal claims were set forth at length. Encouraged by the enthusiasm over the
jubilee, Boniface VIII had resolved to preach a new crusade. As legate for France he chose
Bernard de Saiset, bishop of Pamiers. Bernard soon made himself persona non grata in France
by opposing royal centralization and by an alleged derogatory remark about the one-eyed Pierre
Flotte: "In the kingdom of the blind, the one-eyed are king." The chancellor had the bishop
arrested during July, 1301.

Salvator Mundi, December, 1301, was the papal response: "The Vicar of Christ can
suspend, revoke, or modify statutes, privileges, and concessions emanating from the Holy See,
without any restriction of its own plenary authority." Hence the pope ordered the bishop's release
pending a trial in Rome, suspended all financial concessions made since 1297, and summoned
the French hierarchy to a council in Rome to consider the "question of government in France."
The next day another papal document, Ausculta Fili, reminded Philip that Boniface had been
placed as supreme judge to "build up, plant, pluck up, and destroy." Hence "let the king of France
not suppose that he is without a superior or that he is not subject to the head of the ecclesiastical
hierarchy. He who thinks this is a fool, and whoever affirms it with obstinacy is convicted as an
infidel and is no longer within the Good Shepherd's fold." Philip must be taught that there is a
theocratic supreme court before which he might be hailed under penalty of deposition: "You
recognize no other judges than your own officials and no other court than your own, before whom
you cite clerics as well as laymen without reference to the papal tribunal."
 Royal rebuttal was conducted by Pierre Flotte. He circulated garbled summaries of papal
bulls, insinuating that the pope had laid claim to feudal overlordship in France, and this might
mean that France would have to fight all papal wars and all subinfeudation might have to be
revised. Flotte also disseminated-but was careful not to send to the pope-a supposed letter of
Philip to Boniface: "Philip by the grace of God, King of the Franks, to Boniface, who gives himself
out for the supreme pontiff, little or no greeting. Let your extreme foolishness understand that we
are subject to no one in temporal matters. . . . Any who believe otherwise we deem fools or
insane." To counter the Roman synod, Flotte called the chief clerics, nobles, and commoners to a
meeting in 1302; this was the first session of that Estates General which made French history in
1789. This meeting was cowed into docility by Flotte's harangues against Boniface VIII whom he
would designate as merely de facto pontiff. The pope's crimes were classed with those of
Antichrist. The secular nobility generally applauded this tirade, while the prelates begged the
pope to free them from attendance at the Roman council because of royal prohibition.

(2) PAPAL DEFIANCE

Boniface VIII, however, was not intimidated. Hearing of the king's maneuvers through
Flotte's instrumentality, the pope denounced the chancellor: "Letters which after mature reflection
and the consultation of our brethren we have sent to the king have been falsified by Pierre Flotte,
that Achitophel. . . . Pierre Flotte will be punished in spiritual and temporal affairs." Shortly after
this papal pronouncement of June, 1302, the Flemings revolted and routed the French forces at
Courtrai; left dead on the battlefield were Pierre Flotte, together with Robert of Artois and the
count of St. Pol, two others singled out by the pope for punishment. The king was momentarily
balked and dared not continue his opposition to participation of the French bishops in the Roman
synod, which accordingly opened on November 1, 1302.

Unam Sanctam, the most famous of theocratic assertions, was the product of this synod.
In this document Boniface VIII declared that the pope is supreme and all must obey him in order
to be saved. While this is quite clearly a de fide proposition, as clarified by Boniface's
successors, it applies explicitly only to matters of faith and ecclesiastical discipline. But the
context was somewhat confusing, for there Boniface seemed to be claiming temporal supremacy
as well. "In all truth it is the business of the spiritual power to set up temporal authority and to
judge it if it is not what it should be, and thus is verified the prophecy of Jeremias regarding the
Church and the ecclesiastical power: 'Lo, I have set thee this day over the nations and over
kingdoms, to root up, and to pull down, and to waste and to destroy, and to build and to plant.' If
the temporal authority goes astray, therefore, it must be judged by a superior power, and if the
(inferior) spiritual power goes astray, it will be judged by a superior power, and if it be itself the
supreme power, by God alone. It cannot be judged by man according to the apostle's words: 'But
the spiritual man judges all things, and he himself is judged by no one.' Now although this
authority was given to a man, and is exercised by a man, it is not human authority, but rather a
divine power conferred upon Peter by the divine Word Himself. . . . Whoever opposes the power
thus ordained by God, opposes the order of God. . . . As a consequence, we state, declare, and
define that all creatures must be subject to the sovereign pontiff in order to be saved."

Papal ultimatum. From the same synod the pope sent Cardinal Jean Le Moine to the
French court with a warning to cease its opposition to the papal wishes. In March, 1313, the king
replied by a new assembly of the Estates General, while evading the papal commands. The
pope was therefore not satisfied and again summoned the French bishops to Rome. Though the
crown avoided open conflict, subversive propaganda continued to bind adherents from the
hierarchy and the university to the royal cause. Pope Boniface censured such clerics as had cast
their lot in with the king, and quite clearly showed himself prepared to discipline Philip himself by
excommunication or perhaps even deposition. He made peace with Emperor Albert and settled
the Sicilian conflict, apparently to leave his hands free for the French dispute. During the summer
Boniface retired to his native city of Anagni, and in view of Philip's refusal to repent, it was
generally believed that a bull of excommunication, Super Petri Solio, would be forthcoming on
September 8, 1303.

(3) ROYAL VENGEANCE

Preparations. Already in March, the new chancellor Nogaret had suggested punitive
measures against Boniface, and seems to have considered his deposition by means of a general
council. Later he was sent to Italy as agent provocateur with a vague commission to deal with
every person, noble, ecclesiastical, or whatever other state, for any alliance or pact of mutual
assistance in regard to men or money." With such a carte blanche, Nogaret could hire anyone,
and easiest of all, the disaffected Colonnas. Sciarra Colonna joined him in an assault on Anagni,
and Cardinal Napoleone Orsini is suspected of having supplied information of the pope's
whereabouts.

Outrage at Anagni. On the eve of the day of the threatened censure, Nogaret and
Sciarra Colonna with 300 to 600 knights and 1,000 infantry broke into the town with some
connivance from within. Street barricades and defense of the pontifical residence slowed them
until later in the day, when it became clear that further papal resistance was hopeless. Boniface
VIII then vested himself in full pontifical regalia, apparently with the intention of confronting his
assailants with the high majesty of the papal theocracy. Nogaret and Colonna entered and
bravely reviled the aged and defenseless pontiff. Nogaret is said to have restrained Colonna
from killing Boniface, but a persistent, if not entirely certain report has it that Sciarra Colonna did
strike the pope full in the face with his mailed fist. It was a slap heard around Christendom. The
pope made no resistance; to shouts of "death to Boniface, long life to the King of France," he
replied: "Behold my head, behold my neck. I am prepared to suffer all for the faith of Christ and
the liberty of His Church."

Finale. But martyrdom was not to be Boniface's lot. Papal partisans had begun to
muster in strength, and the next day the pope's captors fled, not daring either to slay or abduct
him. But Boniface VIII had received a severe physical and psychological shock. He was brought
back alive to Rome at the end of the month, but died on October 11, 1303. Dante, who
condemned Boniface to his Inferno, nonetheless shared the convulsive shudder of Christendom
when the news of Anagni came out. But the sentiment of horror was not destined to result in any
practical vindication, so that Philip the Fair and Nogaret were able to escape earthly judgment for
their brutal coup.

Secularizing Theocracy: (1274-1453) XVII. Nationalist Revolt (1274-1378)

129. Vindication of Anagni (1303-14)

XVII
Nationalist Revolt

129. VINDICATION OF ANAGNI

A. Defense of Boniface's Memory (1303-11)

(1) POPE BENEDICT XI (1303-4)
Nicola Boccasini, once Dominican master general, was elected to succeed Boniface VIII
on October 22, 1303. He had supported his predecessor during the Anagni outrage, but had not
been immediately concerned with the French controversy since he had been on a legation to the
empire. He was mild and prudent and has been revered as blessed. "Boniface VIII, the last pope
of the Middle Ages, wished to defend to the utmost a social structure that was falling; Benedict XI,
the first pope of Modem Times, did not wish abruptly to separate from the Church a new social
structure that was rising."

Reconciliation. Though the new pope enjoyed the sympathy of Christendom, Philip IV
remained defiant and the Colonna were still at large. These circumstances may have influenced
Benedict to act more leniently than he might otherwise have done. Though he renewed his
predecessor's censures against the perpetrators of the Anagni affair, Pope Benedict intimated
that the rebels might receive mercy if they submitted promptly. The Colonna cardinals were the
first to seek reconciliation. They were, indeed, absolved, but not restored to their dignities. In
March, 1304, Philip the Fair sent an embassy proposing peace on the basis of papal
condemnation of Boniface VIII and repudiation of all his acts. In his reply, April, 1304, Benedict XI
treated Philip as a simple penitent, not a foreign diplomat. He absolved him from censures, but
let it be understood that an offense had been committed that required absolution. In May the
pope declared: "In the hope that the king of France and the French people will henceforth
redouble their devotion to God and to the Holy Roman Church, we free from ecclesiastical
penalties all those on whom they were imposed by Boniface and our other predecessors, always
excepting William of Nogaret, and we receive them back into the communion of the faithful and to
the sacraments of the Church." Clericis Laicos was maintained in principle, thou a two ear clerical
subsidy was permitted. Unam Sanctam was interpreted in a strictly spiritual sense. On June 7
Pope Benedict XI made his abhorrence of the Anagni insult clear by excommunicating anew both
Nogaret and Sciarra Colonna.

Farewell to Rome. Thus Pope Benedict restored peace to France while maintaining
cordial relations with the empire and England. But if he won peace abroad, he was denied it at
home. In Rome the feuds of the Colonna and the Orsini plunged the city into anarchy which was
to be chronic for a century. In April, 1304, the pope left the city for Perugia, and no bishop of
Rome would reside in his see for sixty-three years. It was at Perugia that Benedict XI died on
July 7, 1304. It is said that death came after eating a dish of figs presented by a youth.
Accusations of poisoning were made, but historians remain skeptical about this and many other
medieval rumors following sudden deaths.

(2) POPE CLEMENT V (1305-14)

Avignon inaugural. The Holy See remained vacant for eleven months while the faction
fights disturbed Rome. The cardinals at Perugia could not agree on one of their college, and on
June 5, 1305, chose Bernard de Got, archbishop of Bordeaux. The nominee was young and
able, but in bad health. He had been loyal to Pope Boniface during the Anagni controversy, but
was convinced that if Italians could not control Rome, a Frenchman would be unable to do so.
Hence he refused to come to Italy and accepted the tiara at Lyons in November, 1305. The bad
feeling already existing between the French and Italians was displayed in a quarrel during this
ceremony in which the pope's brother was killed. In December, Clement V's creation of nine
French cardinals began the Gallican monopoly of the sacred college that would endure until the
Great Western Schism in 1378. Postponing a return to Rome until calmer times, Clement
journeyed about France. In March, 1309, he took up residence in the Dominican monastery at
Avignon. Under his successors this provisional abode became permanent, and the "Babylonian
Captivity of the Papacy" got under way. It should be noted, however, that Avignon was under
papal suzerainty and presently became direct papal property from 1348 to 1791. At Avignon,
then, the popes were not technically on French soil, nor were they as subservient to French policy
as has been popularly supposed. Nonetheless, they were all Frenchmen surrounded by things
French, so that in the minds of non-Frenchmen the international prestige of the papacy inevitably
suffered.

Royal offensive against Boniface. Philip IV had vast plans afoot. Believing that he had
practically transferred the papacy to France, he proposed to do the same for the empire. Dubois
and Nogaret engineered a scheme for a crusade to give a pretext for new exactions from the
clergy. France would then head a great Christian federation, and perhaps the king's brother,
Charles of Valois, would be placed on the imperial throne at the next election. To achieve these
objectives, Capetian honor must be vindicated, not by humble reception of Benedict XI's pardon,
but through a declaration by Clement V that no pardon had ever been needed. Philip now
demanded a near duplication of the trial of Formosus: that Boniface VIII be posthumously tried,
that his acts be deemed null, that he be declared a usurper and a heretic, and that his corpse be
exhumed and publicly burned. Clement V, weakened by intermittent illness and embarrassed by
his geographical situation, could or would not offer a prompt and flat refusal. The whole policy of
his pontificate would be to evade Philip's demands regarding Boniface by going to the utmost
limits of concession in other matters. He entirely recalled Clericis Laicos and assured Philip IV
explicitly that Unam Sanctam did not mean that France had become a papal fief. By the end of
his pontificate, Clement had in effect repudiated all the policies of Boniface VIII. Even Nogaret
was given a pardon on condition of going on crusade-there is no evidence that he ever went;
rather, he remained influential in the royal counsels until his death in 1314. Yet such concessions
failed to appease Philip, and finally in 1308 Clement V went so far as to set up a commission to
investigate the royal charges against Boniface VIII. For the sake of convenience, these
proceedings against the deceased pontiff will be treated first, but it should be remembered that
the royal attack on the Knights Templar was conducted simultaneously.

(3) "TRIAL" OF BONIFACE VIII (1308-11)

The proceedings against Boniface were delayed by every legal technicality, but at last got
under way at Avignon in March, 1310. Royal prosecutors, headed by Nogaret, dared accuse
Boniface of immorality, heresy, atheism, the murder of Celestine V, and lack of canonical election.
Two nephews of the late pope contradicted the charges, not without heat. Clement V continued
to rely upon delay. Politics opened the prosecution and politics terminated it. Acting secretly
through Archbishop-Elector Baldwin of Trier, the pope had thrown his influence against the
Capetians at the imperial election of 1308. Charles of Valois was defeated by Henry of
Luxemburg, Dante's ideal, who threatened the Capetian position in Italy. Philip IV no longer
dared push Clement too far.

Acquittal. In February, 1311, Philip offered to withdraw his attack on Boniface on the
understanding that he might have his way with the Templars. Clement eagerly seized on this to
terminate the inquiry. Though Boniface's innocence of Philip's accusations scarcely needs proof,
we may cite in his favor the testimony of the Ecumenical Council of Vienne (1311-12) which,
unlike Clement, dared speak freely. Binius reports that "the king accused him (Boniface) of being
a heretic, but the Council in no way agreed and asserted the contrary; namely, that he had been a
Catholic and indubitably valid pontiff." In 1313 Clement V canonized Celestine V; if Boniface does
not seem to have attained sanctity, we trust that he was in nowise deserving of Dante's Inferno.

B. Suppression of the Knights Templars (1307-14)

(1) CASE AGAINST THE TEMPLARS

The Knights Templars were a religious military order founded to protect Christian
conquests in the Holy Land. They had won a great renown for valor and were regarded as part of
the Christian bulwark in the Levant. Recruited in Europe, their members were constantly
traveling to and from Palestine. It was discovered that pilgrims and valuables were doubly safe in
their company, and before long the order began to serve as a medieval armored caravan, while
their fortified houses became banks. Wealth and arms gave the Order prestige, though they
seem to have insensibly lessened religious fervor. The Saracen recapture of Palestine in 1291
removed their chief reason for existence and exposed the Knights to a life of ease and luxury in
their European houses. Independent as they were of both civil and local ecclesiastical
jurisdiction, they constituted a potential danger to public order.

Philip IV coveted their wealth and feared their power. Abuses existed and could have
been corrected. But reform was apparently not the king's aim since throughout the prosecution
Philip sought nothing less than the destruction of the Order. The charges brought by him were
fantastic and never fairly substantiated. On the other hand, the Templars had shown little docility
toward the Holy See, which had previously endeavored to recall them to useful employment by
uniting them with the Hospitalers. When Clement V had renewed this proposal, the Templars'
grand master, Jacques de Molay, is reported to have replied with a veiled threat: "Templars have
arms."

(2) PROSECUTION OF THE TEMPLARS

French prosecution. Early on the morning of October 13, 1307, King Philip placed all the
Templars in the French domain under arrest and sequestered their property. Presently Nogaret
sent abroad anti-Templar propaganda, based on alleged confessions of prominent members of
the Order. Pope Clement V protested this royal violation of ecclesiastical immunity, but felt
constrained to refer the case to the Inquisition. In the royal trials some 130 of 138 Templars were
reported to have confessed disloyalty to Christ, lax morality, heresy, and even idolatry. But in the
papal investigation the majority repudiated their statements as extorted under torture. Some,
including Molay, went through a confusing series of confessions and recantations, in which
torture, fear of future royal vengeance, and bribes may have played a part. While the pope
meditated referring the case to the coming ecumenical council, Archbishop De Marigny of Sens, a
royal supporter, condemned 54 Templars as lapsed heretics, and the secular arm promptly
burned them in 1310. This action completely broke the morale of the remaining Templars: in
France, and confessions followed freely.

Inquest elsewhere, however, adduced variant evidence. Once his suspicions had been
aroused, the pope in November, 1307, had directed other Christian rulers to investigate the
Knights Templars. Edward II of England, reminding Clement that torture had no place in Anglo.
Saxon law, reported that there was no conclusive evidence against the Templars in England. In
Germany, where torture was used from the start, papal envoys and various synods pronounced
the Order in good repute. In Castile, a pontifical-royal commission discovered no guilty Templars.
In Aragon and Cyprus the Templars tried to defend themselves in their houses, and in Portugal
they fled; no significant confessions, however, were forthcoming.

Final verdict. At Pope Clement's request, the prelates tendered their opinions to the
General Council of Vienne. The non-French bishops were almost unanimous in pronouncing the
Templars guiltless. But in the end Clement yielded to Philip IV, disregarded the conciliar
recommendations, and suppressed the whole Order by the bull, Vox in Excelso, March, 1312. In
this document the pope, without evaluating the charges definitively, alleged the necessity of
peace for the Universal Church which would be had if the Templars were suppressed. The
Templars' goods were assigned to the Hospitalers, but Philip IV was in actual possession of such
as lay within the French frontiers. Only after Philip's death did his son, Louis X, restore a part of
the confiscated property. Prescinding from Clement's subservience to the French court, his act of
suppression was perhaps prudent under existing circumstances. If the Order was guiltless of the
worst charges against it-as most modern historians believe-it nevertheless had displayed little
religious heroism and its reputation had been seriously impaired. Freemasons later claimed to
descend from a secret coterie of Templars, but such assertions are utterly unsubstantiated. But a
time would come when Philip IV's descendant, Louis XVI, would be imprisoned in the Templars'
confiscated Parisian castle to await death and history's reckoning with the Capetians.

C. Ecumenical Council of Vienne (1311-12)

(1) CONCILIAR DECREES

The Council of Vienne was in session from October 16, 1311, to May 6, 1312. Less than
150 bishops responded to Pope Clement's call to treat of a crusade, the Templars' case, and the
reform of discipline. The conciliar acts have been lost, or rather intermingled with those of
Clement V, but it would seem that the first two projects, inspired by Philip IV, were never formally
submitted to the Council. Hence it concerned itself chiefly with the reform of the Church-it was
here that Durandus first issued that call for "reform in bead and members" which would become a
refrain in councils into the sixteenth century.

Doctrinal errors condemned by the Council comprised those of the Beguards and
Beguins, now anticlerical perfectionists and quietists in central Europe, and the views of Pierre
Jean Olivi, one of the "Spiritual Franciscans" who advocated absolute clerical poverty as of faith.
Olivi was posthumously censured for errors regarding the Incarnation, baptism, and the soul-in
the last connection the Council defined that the human soul is the "form" of the human body, thus
indirectly giving some sanction to Scholastic hylomorphism. Olivi's condemnation was a blow to
the "Spirituals," but their vagaries were far from over, and a long pontifical interpretation of the
Franciscan rule, Exivi de Paradiso,

failed to lay the dispute to rest.

Disciplinary decrees were numerous, but as previously noted, it is difficult to distinguish
these from pontifical directives. It is clear that attempts were made to improve relations between
the regulars, especially the mendicants, and the ordinaries, whose jurisdiction they tended to
disregard. New regulations insisted on proper care of church property and benefices,
establishment of schools and professorships, maintenance of the Inquisition, prohibition of usury,
and the preservation of clerical rights from lay invasion.

(2) CONCILIAR SEQUEL

In conclusion, it may be said that Philip IV continued his policy of extortion, undeterred by
the conciliar decrees. Not only the clergy but the laity as well felt his exactions, which included
debasement of the coinage. Finally in 1314 the Estates General threatened him with a revolution.
The king was obliged to remit certain new taxes, and died shortly afterwards on November 29,
1314. During his own last years, Pope Clement V failed to attain greater independence, though
he amassed a personal fortune of a million florins. During his pontificate he had entirely changed
the composition of the college of cardinals, for out of 24 creations, all but two were Frenchmen,
and six were his own relatives. When Clement V died on April 20, 1314, he had set a precedent
for the Avignon papacy in favoritism and nepotism.

Secularizing Theocracy: (1274-1453) XVII. Nationalist Revolt (1274-1378)

130. The Avignon Papacy (1314-78)

XVII
Nationalist Revolt

130. THE AVIGNON PAPACY

A. The French Environment

(1) CAUSES OF THE HUNDRED YEARS' WAR
Capetian policy persisted in reappropriating fiefs and was certain in time to challenge
English possession of Aquitaine. The indecisive contest between Philip IV and Edward I left little
but suspicion and enmity. Simultaneously a democratic and commercial movement in the
Netherlands was encouraged by English merchants against French suzerainty. On the other
hand, the French continually aided the Scots in their resistance to English imperialism. Only
pretexts were needed for a titanic struggle between the Capetians and the Plantagenets. This
was provided by the Salic Law. Philip IV's male descendants were dead by 1328. Were female
inheritance of the French crown to be allowed, the throne might pass to anyone of several
granddaughters or even-a nightmare to the French-to Edward III of England as son of Philip IV's
daughter Isabella. The legists, however, resurrected the "Salic Law": "Women shall not reign in
Salic land." This was somewhat stretched out of context, and the throne awarded to Philip of
Valois, son of Charles, Philip IV's brother. Edward III, still a youth, did not immediately challenge
this disposition, but when later a certain Lord Robert was inconsistently denied Artois in the
strategic Netherlands in violation of the Salic Law, the English monarch began to advance his
claims to the French crown. Yet these were not strongly prosecuted until French arrest of all
Englishmen in Flanders and a rising of Flemish burghers under Artevelde (1336-37) provided
serious economic issues as well.

(2) COMPLICATIONS FOR THE PAPACY

The papacy was ill situated at Avignon to arbitrate in the ensuing French-English contest.
Despite what seems to have been sincere papal attempts at neutrality, English suspicions were
enkindled and papal mediation repeatedly rebuffed. The early course of the war favored the
English: their naval victory at Sluys (1340) revealed the importance of sea-power, and their
triumph on land at Crecy (1346) foretold the doom of the feudal armies, for the real victors were
the English archers. Calais became English until the sixteenth century. These disasters,
accentuated by the Black Death, enabled the Holy See to arrange a truce. But in 1355 the
conflict was resumed under new leaders. In 1356 Prince Edward of Wales repeated Crecy at
Poitiers and captured King John II of France (1350-64), who spent most of the remainder of his
reign in London. The inexperienced regent, Prince Charles, was threatened with a series of
revolts, and in 1357 was obliged to accept the Grand Ordinance, a potential French feudal Magna
Charta. Anarchy loomed for several years, but the Jacquerie, a peasant uprising, frightened the
nobility and the bourgeoisie back to loyalty to the crown. Charles also gained his nickname of
"the Wise" through bitter experience. With the assistance of Constable Du Guesclin, he
recovered Paris, suppressed the revolt, and resumed the war against the English. Pope Innocent
VI contributed to the Peace of Bretigny (1360) which conceded Aquitaine to Prince Edward, but
as soon as Prince Charles grew stronger he resumed the offensive and confined the English to
the ports by the end of his own reign (1364-80). Major military operations ceased until 1415. But
the mercenaries raised for military service under the crown became unruly. Pope Urban V, failing
to curb them by censure, at last contributed 200,000 coins to Du Guesclin's war fund to got them
paid off. Add to all this the Irish and Scottish resentment at alleged papal support of the English
claims to suzerainty, a new papal-imperial conflict, and repeated disorders, in Italy, and it will
readily be understood that the diplomacy of the Avignon papacy was sorely taxed.

B. The Avignon System

(1) POPE JOHN XXII (1316-34)

Jacques D'Euse (1249-1334), a Gascon, was finally elected to the papacy after a two-
year conclave on August 7, 1316. Despite impassioned pleas by Dante, the Italian minority in the
college had been worsted in their effort to bring the papacy back to Italy; the delay had been
occasioned by disagreement among French factions. The new pope was an eminent canonist
with many of the virtues and failings of Boniface VIII. It was he who definitively established the
papacy at Avignon and codified what became known as the Avignon curial system. This curia
was largely French: of 134 cardinalatial creations during the Avignon period, 111 were French.

Curial supremacy. Pope John by adding the "Clementines" in 1317 completed the jus
novum, the medieval canonical corpus. This confirmed the centralized curia which now
constituted the greatest chancery in Christendom and fixed theocratic international law. As
theologians and philosophers enmeshed themselves in the speculations of decadent
Scholasticism, it is the practical canonist who came to the fore in papal service. Yet because the
canonist had begun to take on too many of the traits of his secular counterpart, the clerical
theocracy would become increasingly secularized as pragmatic concerns preempted curial
attention.

Financial measures. Along with curial centralization, had proceeded reservation of

clerical appointments and revenues to the papal curia. This trend, traceable from Clement IV's
Licet ab Initio (1268), culminated in John XXII's Ex Debito. As perfected by later Avignon pontiffs,
this system brought the finances of most benefices under curial control. Disruption of the papal
revenues from Italy, the expense of setting up a new administration at Avignon, and the increased
cost of bureaus led to numerous financial expedients. Annates reserved to the papacy the
revenues of benefices during the first year after they fell vacant. Introduced for small benefices in
1319, this practice was rapidly extended to all. Beneficiaries had to pay the papal treasury an
acquisition tax, the common services, as well as certain fees to the personnel of the curia, the
"minor services." They also were expected to bring a donation on their obligatory ad limina visits,
to provide the normal fees for recourse for dispensations, "the chancery rights," and to send in
extraordinary offerings for special purposes, the subsidia caritativa. By the jus spolii, the papal
curia might appropriate the beneficiary's furniture and library at his death. To provide for curial
officials, cardinals, nuncios, military commanders, humanist secretaries, etc., plurality of
benefices was readily allowed. Personal supervision and residence became impossible, and
proxies were often unsatisfactory or wanting. Yet despite this multiplication of benefices, they
remained finite in number. Hence arose "expectancies" which assured the recipient of
subsequent succession to a benefice still enjoyed by an incumbent; this enabled the more
venturesome of the future beneficiaries to contract debts against expected revenues. Somewhat
analagous was the practice of granting benefices in commendam to individuals, absentees, and
often laymen or children, merely as a means of support. Finally there were procurations. At first
this simply meant the right to hospitality during a canonical visitation by a superior; often it
degenerated into exaction of or acceptance of payments in place of visitation. Yet despite all
these revenues, receipts were usually swallowed up by the expenditures, and the Avignon curia
repeatedly verged upon bankruptcy.

Doctrinal errors, however, did not cease making their appearance. Most serious was the
conduct of the Spiritual Franciscans, an exaggerated protest against the increasing
preoccupation of the curia with finances. Claiming to interpret the mind of St. Francis, they
denounced the "Conventuals" for practicing anything short of absolute poverty. John XXII added
to the long line of papal rebukes by pointing out that "Poverty is not the greatest virtue" (1317).
But the Spirituals retorted that Christ and the apostles had owned neither corporate nor private
property and that the Church had erred in departing from this example. In 1322 Pope John
retaliated in subtle fashion by renouncing papal eminent domain of Franciscan property, a fictio
juris whereby the Minorites had escaped even corporate ownership. This antagonized even the
Conventuals, and the Franciscan minister general, Michele di Cesena. When John XXII declared
(1323) that "to say that Christ and the apostles had no right to dispose of property is heresy,"
Cesena defied papal citation (1327) and presently fled to Germany where he and the Spiritual
Franciscans joined Emperor Lewis in his antipapal contest-to be noted in the following section.
Most of the Franciscans submitted. But then the Dominicans were startled by the condemnation
of Meister Eckhart in 1329 for his rash mystical expressions. Eckhart, who had died in 1327,
seems to have been in good faith, though led estray by the Neoplatonic tradition of Pseudo-Denis
and Scotus Erigina. But perhaps the forthright Dominican friar, Thomas of England, may have
been a bit vindictive in 1331 when he denounced some inaccurate theological statements made
by John XXII during a sermon on the beatific vision. Though the pope had spoken merely as a
private theologian, his numerous foes bowled with glee while demanding his deposition as a
heretic. But Jacques D'Euse was not obstinate; on his deathbed, December 4, 1334, he retracted
any errors that he might have made and submitted to any definition of the Holy See. His
successor in that infallible chair, Pope Benedict XII, in Unigenitus Deus (1336) supplied the
definition, that there would be no delay in the beatific vision for the just.

(2) POPE BENEDICT XII (1334-42)

 Jacques Fournier, French Cistercian cardinal, had been elected to the papacy on
December 20, 1334. He proved a mild and conciliatory pontiff who tried to extricate the Apostolic
See from the controversies into which the vigorous John XXII had plunged it. But his efforts to
reconcile the emperor and the Spirituals met with but little success. Personally austere, Benedict
XII labored at the reform of abuses in individuals, but the Avignon curial system remained an
entrenched institution. Of his commencement of construction of the Avignon papal palace in
1339 Pastor has remarked: "The palace of the popes, in comparison with which the neighboring
cathedral has an insignificant appearance, also manifests the decline of the ecclesiastical, and
the predominance of the worldly, warlike, and princely element which marked the Avignon period."
Pope Benedict, a thwarted reformer, died on April 25, 1342.

(3) POPE CLEMENT VI (1342-52)

Pierre Roger, inevitably a Frenchman, was chosen to succeed Benedict on May 7. He

was an able diplomat who liquidated the papal contest with the empire, but was also extravagant
and permitted Avignon abuses to reach their height. Resolved to make his subjects happy,
Clement unfortunately found that his entourage could be made joyful only through liberal, even
lavish, bestowal of benefices and revenues. Pomp and magnificence characterized his own life
while nepotism enriched relatives-none of which escaped the sharp criticisms of St. Bridget of
Sweden. During this pontificate the Black Death struck savagely, taking a heavy toll of zealous
clerics, demoralizing clerical recruitment, and brutalizing society. To his credit, Clement VI
ministered to the plague-stricken, possibly hastening his death which came on December 6,
1352.

C. Gravitation Toward Rome (1352-78)

(1) CONTEMPORARY VIEWS OF AVIGNON

The humanist Petrarch (1304-74), dean of the rising intelligentsia, may be cited as
representative of the secular-minded critics of the Avignon curial system. He should not be heard
without qualification; he was an Italian patriot embittered against the French for "stealing the
papacy," and his comparisons reveal some of the errors of the Spirituals. Moreover, he was
himself an avid benefice seeker at the papal court. With the chagrin of a disappointed office
seeker, perhaps, he remarked: "Now I am living in France, in the Babylon of the West. The sun in
its travels sees nothing more hideous than this place on the shores of the wild Rhone, which
suggests the hellish streams of Cocytus and Acheron. Here reign the successors of the poor
fishermen of Galilee; they have strangely forgotten their origin. I am astounded as I recall their
predecessors, to see these men laden with gold and arrayed in purple, boasting of the spoils of
princes and of nations; to see sumptuous palaces and heights protected with fortifications,
instead of a boat turned over for shelter. We find no longer the simple nets which were once
used to obtain frugal sustenance from the Lake of Galilee. . . . One is stupefied nowadays to hear
lying tongues, to see worthless parchments turned by a leaden seal into nets which are used, in
Christ's name, but by Belial's arts, to catch hordes of unwary Christians. . . ." Though much of
what Petrarch says is exaggerated and his comparisons are unfair, it is important to note that
these things would be said with increasing bitterness down to the explosion of Halloween, 1517.

Mystic propaganda, on the other hand, emanated from two remarkable women, St.
Birgitta Petersdatter, Madame Gudmarsson (1303-73), and St. Catarina Benincasa (1347-80) of
Siena. They resisted the Avignon popes to their face and implored their return to Rome. The
former had already addressed Clement VI: "I shall not forget how greatly ambition and greed
have flourished and increased in the Church in your time, and how many things you might have
amended. But you, lover of this world, would not." The latter was to give Gregory XI no peace;
speaking in the name of Christ she said: "Your worldly court is ruining my heavenly court. . . . Go
to Rome, to your see, as soon as you possibly can. . . . War and the want of virtue are the two
causes of the Church's ruin." Once again he was urged when he objected the obstacles in the
way: "Do not be a timid boy; be a man. . . . Be valiant and not fearful; answer God who calls you
to come and fill and defend the place of that glorious pastor, St. Peter, whose successor you are.
. . ." These admonitions alternated with pleas: "O Babbio mio: Dear papa, come back to Rome."

(2) CLOSE OF THE AVIGNON SOJOURN

Innocent VI (1352-62), the former Etienne Aubert, was elected pope when the Carthusian
general, Jean Birel, refused. Innocent tried to return to the regime of Benedict XII. He made a
vigorous effort to put a stop to the worldly and mercenary tendencies among some officials of the
curia. He repudiated an election "capitulation," the first of many such attempts whereby the
cardinals tried to subject pontiffs-to-be to their policies or vested interests. For the college of
cardinals was becoming an entrenched body whose collective will it was difficult to challenge; the
full extent of this willfulness would be manifested in the Great Western Schism. Though Pope
Innocent was impressed by St. Bridget's exhortations, he died before carrying out a resolve to
return to Rome.

Round trip to Rome. Pope Urban V (1362-70), previously Cardinal Guillaume Grimoard,
was a holy man-be has been beatified. His personal life was simple and unassuming. Promotion
of ecclesiastical learning became one of his chief projects in an effort to undo some of the
ravages of the Black Death among the clergy. Against great opposition, Pope Urban decided to
return to Rome where Cardinal Albornoz had restored tranquillity. The pope carried out his
design, entering Rome on June 3, 1367. Here he received a visit from Emperor Charles IV and
accepted the personal submission of the Greek Basileus, John Paleologus. But after the death of
the great Cardinal General, Albornoz, disorder resumed in the Papal States. The pope
consequently resolved to return to Avignon, despite warnings from St. Bridget that he would die
speedily should he do so. Urban V sailed for France in September, 1370, but died at Avignon
during December, 1370.

Gregory XI (1370-78), a nephew of Pope Clement VI, entered on the papacy by his
election of December 30, 1370. At this last papal election at Avignon the French cardinals
numbered fifteen, the Italians three, and there was one Englishman. This younger Cardinal
Roger had to be ordained priest before he could be consecrated and crowned as Gregory XI in
January, 1371. He, too, was soon subjected to the full force of the zealous mystics' exhortations.
With the apparent fulfillment of St. Bridget's admonition in the death of his predecessor, Pope
Gregory strove from the beginning of his pontificate to induce the clerical members of the Avignon
curia to transfer to Rome. But he provoked opposition, not only in the curia itself, but at the
French court. Despite these omens of the Great Western Schism soon to follow, Gregory XI held
firmly to his purpose. Leaving Avignon in September, 1376, he returned to Rome on January 17,
1377. He persevered in residence there until his death on March 27, 1378, though the prospects
for peace in Italy were unpromising. "The conclusion of the unnatural exile of the papacy in
France was a turning point in the history of the Church as well as in that of Rome. The spell with
which Philip the Fair had bound the ecclesiastical power was broken; a French pope had set
himself free."

Secularizing Theocracy: (1274-1453) XVII. Nationalist Revolt (1274-1378)

131. Imperialistic Paupers (1273-1378)

XVII
Nationalist Revolt

131. IMPERIALISTIC PAUPERS

A. Habsburg Reorientation of Germany (1273-1308)
(1) REVIVAL: RUDOLF I
Habsburg advent. The Holy Roman Empire, routed by the papal theocracy and deprived
of its hereditary dynasty, the Hohenstaufen, had fallen into the anarchy known as the Great
Interregnum (1254-73). From this condition Germany was extricated less by the patriotism of her
selfish magnates, than by the solicitude of Pope Gregory X who insisted upon a new imperial
election. The electors then chose Rudolf von Habsburg, count of Alsace, on October 1, 1273,
and both the pope and the Ecumenical Council of Lyons ratified their selection. Rudolf was of
mature years, prudent judgment, and good character. As a petty prince, he had doubtless been
chosen by the magnates to prevent him from exercising strong monarchical power. But Rudolf
was not blind to Germany's need for some central government, and he planned to transform the
land into an hereditary monarchy under his own family. After overthrowing Ottocar of Bohemia
(1278) who had usurped the imperial fief of Austria, the new emperor bestowed this territory on
his son Albert-thus beginning a Habsburg tenure of the Danubian state which lasted until 1918.
But circumstances were to prevent any thorough unification of Germany under Habsburg control,
though Rudolf's own reign certainly arrested the centrifugal forces for a time. By a pact with Pope
Nicholas Ill in 1278, the emperor renounced all but formal jurisdiction over Lombardy in order to
concentrate his energies upon Germany, and he seems to have planned dealing in similar fashion
with the will-o'-the-wisp of the Burgundian kingdom. He sponsored a plenary council of the
Germany hierarchy 1287 which did much to restore ecclesiastical discipline, although protests
were there voiced against contributions to the papal tax collectors, especially the tithe to be
devoted to the Sicilian "crusade."

(2) SETBACK: ADOLF (1291-98)

Rudolf's reign proved too successful for his long-term ideas: in alarm at the growing
Habsburg prestige, the magnates passed over Rudolf's son Albert, the duke of Austria, in order to
elect another petty count, Adolf of Nassau, as emperor in 1291. Adolf, favored also by the clergy,
revealed no consistent policy. He scattered his efforts in ineffectual war with France while Albert
of Austria prepared to challenge his position in Germany. Some of the electors, tiring of their
"King Log," shifted their support to Albert, who would soon prove for them "King Stork."
Archbishop Gerhard of Mainz staged Adolf's deposition in June, 1298, and the next month Albert
invaded the Rhineland and attacked and killed Adolf.

(3) FRUITLESS VICTORY: ALBERT (1298-1308)

Albert of Austria (1298-1308), stem, ambitious, and somewhat anticlerical, was now de
facto ruler of Germany, though Pope Boniface VIII refused to recognize him. Albert, indeed, was
cited to stand trial before the ecclesiastical electors of Mainz, Cologne, and Trier, but he promptly
ravaged the Rhineland and reduced his would-be judges to subjection. Master of Germany,
Albert continued to negotiate for papal recognition. This the pope, on the eve of his decisive
contest with Philip the Fair in France, was now disposed to concede. After Albert had formally
acknowledged papal theocratic supremacy-it was the last time that a German ruler would do so-
be was accorded papal recognition, April, 1303. But the legitimated emperor's manifold and far-
reaching plans of aggrandizement in Central Europe were cut short on May 1, 1308, by an
accident: he was assassinated as the result of a personal quarrel with his nephew John. This
family feud postponed Habsburg primacy in Germany for another century and a half.

B. Final Papal-Imperial Contest (1308-47)

(1) GHIBELLINE RENAISSANCE: HENRY VII (1303-13)

The Luxemburg dynasty stepped to the center of the German stage in October, 1308,
with the imperial election of Count Henry of Luxemburg. Henry, like Adolf of Nassau, had been
chosen as an antidote to the prospect of an hereditary Habsburg monarchy, but like Rudolf he
proposed to make his family's fortunes. In 1310 he placed his son John on that Bohemian throne
for which the Habsburgs had been angling, and thereafter until 1437 the scions of the Luxemburg
family played a leading role in central Europe. Henry's candidacy in 1308 had been favored by
Pope Clement V as a counterpoise to overweening Capetian ambitions. The election, moreover,
had been the first political triumph of Henry's brother, Archbishop Baldwin of Trier (1308-54), who
would prove the leading German statesman of the fourteenth century. This prelate was alike a
zealous bishop and a German patriot who endeavored persistently to reconcile papacy and
empire by confining the "two swords" to their respective spheres. Distinguishing between spiritual
and temporal allegiance to the papacy, Baldwin would endorse imperial independence of Avignon
but at the same time would denounce secular meddling in ecclesiastical discipline.

Italian venture. In Germany itself, Henry VII could exert little power, but Italy offered a
tempting prospect. The transfer of the papacy to Avignon had allowed the Italian peninsula to
revert to local squabbles. Guelf and Ghibelline contended again, and Dante's invitation to Henry
to intervene on behalf of the latter gave a good pretext for German invasion. Clement V, still
fearful of excessive Capetian domination, was prepared to support Henry to a degree. Shortly
after he had won Bohemia for his son (1310), Henry VII invaded Lombardy. With papal approval
he took the Lombard crown at Milan in January, 1311. At the same time he confirmed the
Milanese fief in the Visconti family, whose ambitions were to trouble Italy and the papacy for the
next two centuries. On June 11, 1311, Henry proceeded to Rome where he received the imperial
crown from Cardinal Nicola of Prato, deputy of Clement V. But when the new emperor revived the
Hohenstaufen claims to Naples, the pope became alarmed for the safety of the Papal States.
The south of Italy had been held by the Angevins since 1266 and Rudolf of Habsburg had
renounced imperial claims there in 1278. Yet in April, 1313, Henry VII defied papal wishes by
placing Robert, king of Naples, under imperial ban. Clement V replied on June 3 with a threat of
excommunication in case of an imperial attack on Naples. The long threatened papal-imperial
conflict seemed imminent as Henry nevertheless marched against Robert. But the emperor's
sudden death in August, 1313 postponed the contest. The situation was now quickly reversed,
for Clement, claiming the right to administer the empire during a vacancy, named Robert of
Naples imperial vicar for Lombardy pending a new imperial election. This appointment, which
would be renewed by Clement's successor, John XXII, embittered relations for the Germans. For
appointment of a Frenchman by a French pope practically residing in France, to exercise
jurisdiction over imperial territory, first in Italy and later supposedly in Germany itself, aroused
latent Teutonic nationalism.

(2) DEFEAT OF IMPERIALISM: LEWIS IV (1314-47)

Imperial succession. The years 1313-14 removed from life the emperor, the pope, and
Philip IV of France. While the Holy See remained vacant for two years, the German electors
sought a new emperor. Henry's son John, king of Bohemia, was still too young, and in any event
the majority of electors reacted once more against hereditary monarchy. They selected Duke
Lewis of Bavaria, though a minority chose Frederick of Austria, son of Emperor Albert. By the
time of the election of Pope John XXII, August, 1316, civil war was raging in Germany. The
pope's claim to regulate the dispute and his nomination of French vicars ad interim were ignored.
Lewis settled the affair in 1322 by defeating and capturing Frederick at Muhldorf. Refusing to
heed a papal citation to plead for the crown that lie already wore, Lewis prepared to attack Robert
of Naples. Thereupon in March, 1324, John XXII excommunicated the emperor and allied himself
to John of Bohemia, now of age. Lewis IV retorted in May with the Manifesto of Sachsenhausen
in which he accepted the thesis of the "Spiritual Franciscans" on poverty and ecclesiastical
reform. This induced all papal enemies to rally to the imperial standard: Lombard Ghibellines,
"Spirituals," the nominalist theologian, William Occam, and the Parisian doctors, Marsignio of
Padua and Giovanni di Janduno, whose Defensor Pacis will be analyzed presently. Well could
these "imperialistic paupers" echo Occam to Lewis IV: "Defend me with the sword, and I will
defend you with the pen."

Italian debacle. Lewis followed Henry's course in Italy until Rome. Here he authorized a
new Commune, and in January, 1328, accepted the imperial crown from its representative,
Sciarra Colonna of Anagni infamy. The next day a managed synod declared John XXII deposed
and replaced by the Franciscan Pietro Corbario as "Nicholas V." But by August the Romans had
driven Corbario out-be went to Avignon and made his submission. As Robert of Naples advanced
on Rome, Lewis abandoned the last imperialistic attempt on Italy and retired to German territory.

Imperialist downfall. Though a papal interdict had weakened Lewis's position, neither
John XXII nor Benedict XII could make him yield. As the contest reached an impasse, Baldwin of
Trier tried to distinguish the spiritual and secular issues involved. A fruit of this policy appeared in
1338 in the Declarations of Frankfort and Rense that "the imperial dignity is derived immediately
from God's election is the sole title to imperial authority, and papal confirmation is derogatory to
the majesty of the empire; whoever holds differently shall be accounted guilty of treason." Lewis's
real nemesis, however, was his invasion of a realm that was unmistakably ecclesiastical. In 1340
in order to secure for his family the inheritance of Margaret Maultasch in Carinthia, the emperor
granted her a civil divorce from her husband, a son of King John of Bohemia, and married her to
his own son, Lewis junior. Archbishop Baldwin now washed his hands of Lewis's cause and
brought most of the German hierarchy with him. The Luxemburg dynasty was also furious and
prepared to act as papal executors. In July, 1346, Baldwin and some self-styled electors
deposed Lewis and elected Charles, eldest son of King John of Bohemia, who died at Crecy in
1346. But Charles made little headway in Germany until Lewis IV died in October, 1347. Though
die-hard imperialists fought on for a while under Gunther von Schwarzburg, opposition to Charles
was already collapsing at Gunther's death in 1349.

(3) LEGACY OF IMPERIALISM: DEFENSOR PACIS

Marsiglio di Padua (1274-1343) is the most important political theorist between Dante
and Machiavelli. For a short time rector of Paris University, he had gone over to the imperial
cause. But he was chiefly interested in Italian city politics, and though his Defenso Pacis (1324)
upheld the emperor against the papacy, its thesis had more lasting importance than the contest
which evoked it. For Marsiglio challenged for the first time not merely the temporal, but also the
spiritual primacy of the papacy. Deemed too radical for the moment, his teaching would be
revived during the Great Western Schism and the Protestant Revolution.

Thesis of the Defensor Pacis. Marsiglio accepted Aristotelian political theory as

normative for the ecclesiastical authority as well as the secular. Consequently, just as ultimate
political authority resides in the people or citizens, or at least an assembly of their pars sawor, so
radical ecclesiastical jurisdiction comes from the Christian faithful, or at least the clergy, and is
articulated if need be, in a general council. This last, it is intimated, was superior to papal
authority, for Peter was probably never in Rome; at least there is no evidence for the bishops of
Rome being his successors. All international conflict, Marsiglio believed, arose from the ambition
of the Roman See, and from the temporal possessions and rule of the prelates

Papal condemnation. On October 23, 1327, this treatise was censured by Pope John
XXII. The papal condemnation particularly reprobated the statements that neither Peter nor his
successors enjoyed any primacy by the will of Christ; that all priests, bishops, archbishops, and
popes were equal in authority and power by the will of Christ; that the emperor had the right to
choose, correct, depose, and punish the pope; that the Church could inflict no canonical
punishment without the emperor's permission, and that all ecclesiastical possessions lay under
eminent imperial disposition. At the same time the pope excommunicated Marsiglio and his
collaborator, Giovanni di Janduno. But they had thrown a time bomb into the arena of political
philosophy, the explosion of which would destroy medieval polity. From Marsiglio onward a trend
is manifest to curb the social influence of the Church, and this would terminate in the assumption
that religion is merely a private affair.

C. Papal-Imperial Reconciliation (1347-78)

(1) THE PFARREN-KAISER: CHARLES IV (1347-78)

Charles of Luxemburg, chosen clerical antiemperor in 1346, gained the nickname of

"pfarren-kaiser: priests' emperor." Intended as a term of reproach, this expression should not
blind one to the fact that Charles was a good, able, if somewhat eccentric, ruler. For Charles
gave no support to the Spirituals who either submitted or passed into obscurity once their imperial
protector, Lewis IV, had died. Unable to stem the centrifugal tide in the German nobility, Charles
IV devoted himself above all to organizing his hereditary kingdom of Bohemia, where he founded
the first imperial university at Prague in 1346. In 1355 he received the imperial crown by proxy at
Rome, after renouncing any military ambitions in Lombardy. The emperor became a warm
supporter of the movement to bring the papacy back to Rome from Avignon, and in 1367 he had
a friendly audience at Rome with Pope Urban V. The chronicler described this incident as the
"reconciliation of the two swords.' As a matter of fact, Sacerdotium and Imperium would
henceforth be not so much rivals as allies, for the coming movements of Nationalism,
Conciliarism, and Protestantism would menace both alike. Emperor Charles IV died shortly after
the outbreak of the Great Western Schism; had he survived he might have won more general
support for the Roman claimant.

(2) CHANGING IMPERIALISM

The Golden Bull (1356) nonetheless perpetuated imperial independence of the theocracy,
first declared at Frankfort and Rhense. The document practically reiterated these former
assertions, though without any hostile references to papal rights, which were rather passed over
in silence. And the papacy, worn out by the long struggle with Lewis IV, and convinced of the
personal loyalty of Charles, also maintained silence. Thus without either the approbation or the
condemnation of the Holy See, the Golden Bull was tacitly allowed to become imperial
constitutional law. Curialists doubtless awaited a more favorable opportunity for asserting once
more the ancient theocratic claims -but such a time never came. The emperor was, then, at
length independent of papal temporal suzerainty, but he was, on the other band, now largely
dependent upon his own nobility. For in its internal application, the Golden Bull had almost
"legalized anarchy." It fixed the number of imperial electors at seven: the king of Bohemia, the
duke of Saxony, the margrave of Brandenburg, the count palatine of the Rhineland, and the three
archbishops of Mainz, Cologne, and Trier. Their lands were declared inalienable and indivisible.
Henceforth the Seven Electors held the crown in their bestowal, and seldom released it without
exacting conditions inimical to strong monarchy. Clerical participation in this high council,
however, remained strong, and the prelates' three electoral votes would become especially
important after the Lutheran Revolt. Italy now practically won its independence from Germany,
though it continued to be a nominal member of the Holy Roman Empire. But neither in Italy nor in
Germany did this autonomy result during the Middle Ages in formation of a strong national
monarchy.

Secularizing Theocracy: (1274-1453) XVII. Nationalist Revolt (1274-1378)

132. Italian Utopias (1303-78)

XVII
Nationalist Revolt

132. ITALIAN UTOPIAS

A. Medieval Italian Panorama
(1) GENERAL SURVEY
Italian disunity. Geographically, Italy is not meant for unity, for there are too many
mountains, too many rivers to permit the rise of a unified state in the interval between Roman and
modern communications. Historically, Italy was also ill disposed toward unification. Since the
dissolution of the Roman Empire, it had been repeatedly invaded, and the invasions had left
behind heterogeneous groups. The Roman idea of the city-state survived better than the Roman
concept of imperial solidarity. Each city-state jealously guarded its independence throughout
medieval Italian history. Theoretically, Italy had a sort of juridical unity: it was divided between
papal and imperial territory. The Papal State lay in the center and claimed suzerainty to all the
lands to the south. All territory north of the pontifical frontier, except Venice, nominally constituted
the Kingdom of the Lombards, whose sovereign was ex officio the Holy Roman Emperor. In fact,
however, neither popes nor emperors could habitually dominate their unruly vassals and had to
be content with formal allegiance and ceremonial precedence. Italian states continued to divide
into the pro-imperialists or Ghibellines, and the pro-papal or Guelfs. But by the fourteenth century
these terms often concealed domestic factions primarily concerned with local issues; frequently
there was little ideological difference: one was "in" and the other "out" of office. In some city-
states, moreover, noble families were destroying the communes and appealing for imperial
recognition as the local princes.

(2) PARTICULAR SURVEY

The Two Sicilies. This region comprising the Neapolitan mainland and the island of Sicily
had remained longest under the Roman-Byzantine rule. Conquered in the ninth century by the
Saracens, it had been wrested from the latter by the Normans during the eleventh. The Norman
Hauteville dynasty then ruled until the end of the twelfth century when the Hohenstaufen
succeeded by marriage, thus precipitating the encirclement of the Papal State against which the
Holy See had successfully fought during the thirteenth century. After the disappearance of the
Hohenstaufen, the popes had granted the Two Sicilies in fief to the Angevins. The descendants
of Charles of Anjou ruled in Naples until 1435, but were dislodged from Sicily in 1282 by the
Aragonese dynasty which advanced a claim to descent from the Hohenstaufen in the female line.
Despite a papal "crusade" against them, the Aragonese had not merely retained Sicily, but in
1435 acquired Naples as well. Prior to this reunion, the two sections of the Kingdom of Two
Sicilies were rivals and by no means docile vassals of the Holy See. Their proximity to Rome
disturbed papal tranquillity, especially during the Great Western Schism (1378-1415). But after
the last imperial invasion of Italy, these southern states played a comparatively minor role, though
they were always on hand as a potential ally against renewed aggression from the north, whether
from Germany or from France.

Florence was the leading, but not the dominant state in Tuscany. The ancient county of
Tuscany possessed by the famous Mathilda, ally of St. Gregory VII, had been willed by her to the
Papal State. But the bequest had been challenged by the empire and while the chief powers
disputed its suzerainty, Tuscany escaped them. It disintegrated into rival city-states, especially
Florence, Siena, Pisa, and Lucca. Florence was long convulsed by the Guelf-Ghibelline contests
in which Dante himself took part. The Guelf upper middle class finally won out over the
Ghibelline aristocrats, and elections were reduced to a lottery. When a series of disasters in
foreign policy led to a revolt of the artisans, the freebooter Walter de Brienne was hired as
podesta or city-manager. The cure proved worse than the disease in Florence-and elsewhere.
For Brienne's tyranny led to a reaction and the aristocrats returned to power. To oust the Albizzi
family which first obtained ascendancy, the Ricci allied with the commoners in the election of
Silvestro dei Medici as ganfalonier in 1378. This is the "communistic" revolution that complicated
papal return, and it can also be understood why St. Catherine of rival Siena had little success as
peacemaker. The revolt defied papal authority until the Florentines, weary of anarchy,
acquiesced in the rule of the Albizzi (1382-1432), who were later followed by the Medici as
political-economic "bosses."

Venice held apart from Italian politics, save to defend her land and duel at sea with her
rival, Genoa. Venice pretended to be subject to the Byzantine monarchy, but was actually an
aristocratic republic. The closing of the grand council in 1297 caused this to degenerate into an
oligarchy which reduced the doge or supreme magistrate to impotence by a complicated electoral
system. In 1310 the grand council established the committee or council of Ten, who came to
exercise an arbitrary dictatorship. Between 1308 and 1313 Venice defied Clement V by holding
on to Ferrara, but was reduced to submission by anathema, interdict, and a coalition of envious
neighbors.

Milan in strategic Lombardy fought Mantua, Verona, and other cities for leadership. Here
the Visconti gained control and gradually extended their territories. They opposed the return of
the popes to Italy in the hope of appropriating the papal territories. Pope John XXII fought Matteo
Visconti with interdict and arms from 1317 to 1324, when the invasion of Italy by Emperor Lewis
IV turned the balance in favor of the Milanese family. In 1350 the Visconti appropriated papal
Bologna and drew on themselves the enmity of Pope Clement VI. The city remained an object of
negotiations and fighting during the next two centuries, and fostered an antipapal tradition in the
area. When, however, Milan aspired to the kingship of Lombardy it was checked by Venice, for
the balance of power in Italian politics would prevent any state from becoming strong enough to
unify Italy until the nineteenth century.

B. Reconquest of the Papal State

(1) TURBULENCE (1303-53)

Papal defeats. After the outrage at Anagni, the Colonna usually were able to dominate
Rome, though they were hard pressed by their Orsini rivals. Secure in their castles, the nobility
marked out quarters of the city as their own, while street fighting by their retainers became a
common occurrence. Outside the city, vassals in the Papal State threw off the pontifical rule.
Such circumstances practically prolonged the papal residence at Avignon, for the popes insisted
that Rome and Italy be made safe for their spiritual mission before they would venture back and
the fact that these popes were Frenchmen did nothing to diminish their estimate of the obstacles
involved. The greater part of the Avignon sojourn, however, witnessed endeavors by the popes to
recover their control of the Papal States against the Ghibelline partisans. Thus Clement V had
forced the Venetians to relinquish Ferrara during the course of a five-year war (1308-13), but by
1317 the city of Ferrara had again declared its independence of pontifical rule under its Este
lords. Pope John XXII succeeded even less in his attempt to subdue the Visconti of Milan (1317-
34). Papal funds were exhausted in this contest without result, and from 1334 to 1350 Pope
John's disillusioned successors at Avignon left their Italian temporal possessions adrift.

Cola di Rienzi. The Romans finally rose against the nobility in May, 1347, under the
demagogue, Nicola di Rienzi (1313-54). Favored by the papal vicar, who had no love for the
Colonna, Rienzi was able to seize the government during the absence from the city of Stefano
Colonna. But presently Rienzi himself got out of control. He proclaimed the Buono Stato, a new
Roman republic, with himself as tribune of the people-thus going back twelve centuries to
resurrect the office made influential by the Gracchi. Influenced also by the teachings of Marsiglio
di Padua, Rienzi declared the Roman Republic mistress of the world and summoned the imperial
rivals, Lewis of Bavaria and Charles of Bohemia, to appear before the Roman senate to defend
their claims. It is unnecessary to say that he was ignored. Yet his antics became more weird. He
bathed himself in the font in which Constantine had supposedly been baptized, and got himself
crowned with seven coronets representing the gifts of the Holy Spirit. After papal
excommunication had been pronounced against him, the populace fell away from him seven
months after his accession, and he fled the city. After spending some time with the Spirituals,
Rienzi took refuge in Prague. Avignon demanded his extradition, and only the death of Pope
Clement VI seems to have saved Rienzi from execution. But Innocent VI placed him on parole
and finally attached him to the expeditionary force of Cardinal Albornoz, sent in 1354 to recover
Italy. Supposing that Rienzi was now an older and wiser man, the ecclesiastical authorities
named him senator and sent him to regain Rome for them by means of his still great popularity
with the commoners. With the assistance of Fra Moreale, a mercenary chieftain, Rienzi did
recover Rome, but presently put his ally to death. From August to October, 1354, Rienzi repeated
his unstable administration. The fickle Romans were alienated by his extravagance and heavy
taxation. On October 8, 1354, the mob rose with the cry: "Death to Rienzi the traitor," and suited
actions to words. Many years later in sentimental retrospect they named a boulevard for him.

(2) CARDINALATIAL RULE (1353-78)

Gil Cardinal Albornoz (1300-1367) might be termed the first of the Spanish
conquistadors. Archbishop of Toledo and general against the Moors, he was already famous
when Clement VI named him cardinal in 1350. Despite charges to the contrary, Albornoz seems
to have been a cleric of austere life. He resigned his see lest on his promotion to the cardinalate
he become an absentee beneficiary. Innocent VI committed to him the task of reconquering the
Papal States. Empowered as legate, Albornoz left Avignon in August, 1353. Permitting Rienzi to
precede him to Rome and leaving Bologna in Milanese possession for the time being, the
cardinal proceeded to reduce the Campagna. By September, 1354, he had recovered the original
Patrimony-Rome and Vicinity and had forced a large number of barons and communal
representatives to renew their temporal allegiance to the Holy See. In 1355 Albornoz crossed the
Apennines northward to subjugate the tyrants and communes of the Marches and the Romagna,
and had considerable success. During 1356 the cardinal was immobilized by calumnies spread
against him at Avignon by the Visconti. His temporary successor, the abbot of Cluny, proved a
failure and in 1358 Albornoz was reinstated. He completed his work in the Marches and in 1360
recovered Bologna from the Visconti. War continued against the Visconti until 1364, but the way
was clear for Pope Urban V's return to Rome in 1367. Albornoz proved a prudent and just
administrator; his Constitutiones Aegidianae (1357) formed the basic principles of papal temporal
rule down to 1816. The cardinal died in August, 1367, and this so dismayed Urban V that he
returned to Avignon.

Robert, Cardinal-Count of Geneva (1342-94), after an interval, became the successor of

Albornoz in the papal military command. In 1375 the Ghibellines of central Italy won eighty cities
to a revolt against papal authority. Florence now rose with a red banner enscribed Libertas, and
a papal nuncio was maltreated. St. Catherine of Siena's exhortations and papal censures alike
failed to change the Florentine attitude. The Visconti of Milan also resumed their encroachments
on papal lands. Cardinal Robert was accordingly put in charge of an international force to put
down these Italian uprisings and to prepare the way for the return of Pope Gregory XI to Rome.
Robert set out in 1376 with Gascon, Breton, and even English mercenaries with the announced
policy to "answer pillage with pillage, blood by blood." He did just that. Unable to retake Bologna
which the Visconti had appropriated, the cardinal's forces ravaged the countryside. On Florence,
Robert urged unconditional surrender, but merely provoked fanatical resistance. The populace of
Faenza was massacred and in 1377 the cardinal was responsible for 4,000 civilian deaths at
Cesena. Though Robert was able by these measures to clear a path for Gregory XI to Rome, he
set an evil precedent and earned for himself Italian detestation-which would plague him when he
set himself up as the antipope Clement VII. Robert's success in the Papal States was only partial
and brought odium upon the Holy See. As the fateful conclave of 1378 approached, Italy was still
in a disturbed state. Florence, though now negotiating with the papacy, was still under censure
and in domestic confusion. The Visconti were about to embark on a new series of conquests,
and Naples faced a disputed succession to the crown.

(3) EVE OF THE GREAT SCHISM

Nationalism had gone far toward disrupting Christendom by 1378. It had invaded the
cardinals' college where the French insisted upon a return to Avignon while the Italians demanded
continued stay at Rome. Though in a minority within the College, the Italian cardinals were
reinforced by their countrymen outside. On the other hand the French cardinals were backed by
the French crown-a circumstance which would be enough for the English and German monarchs
to declare against them. And the Christian commonwealth lacked secular rulers of prestige and
experience: Emperor Charles IV in 1378 was succeeded by Wenceslas the Drunkard; Edward III
in England gave way in 1377 to his immature grandson Richard II; and in 1380 France
exchanged Charles the Wise for Charles the Mad. Divided by nationalism and without cool
leaders, Christendom faced the Great Schism.

Secularism, however, perhaps outweighed nationalism as a cause. The influence of the

legists in the royal courts, the invasion of the curia by a worldly, ambitious, and exacting spirit, the
persistent propaganda of the university dons in favor of "conciliarism" which would subject the
papacy to a general council, as the representative of the Christian people, or at least the clergy-
all these things made fatal initial nationalistic prejudices and jealousies. The mystics ought to
have been heeded.

Secularizing Theocracy: (1274-1453) XVII. Nationalist Revolt (1274-1378)

133. British Separatism (1271-1377)

XVII
Nationalist Revolt

133. BRITISH SEPARATISM

A. Development of English Nationalism (1272-1377)

(1) EDWARDIAN STRONG MONARCHY (1272-1307)
Edward I Longshanks (1272-1307) had aided his father in suppressing Montfort's baronial
rebellion in 1205, and the Provisions of Oxford that had sought to restrain royal power had been
annulled--with the approbation of Pope Alexander IV. By 1270 the monarchy was so strong that
Prince Edward felt safe in joining St. Louis's Seventh Crusade. Succeeding to the throne in the
Orient (1272), the new king had an audience with Pope Gregory X at Rome before returning to
England in 1274. That visit and his crusading services won Edward a good reputation at the
papal curia, so that though his absolutist aims at the expense of clerical immunity were little short
of those of Philip the Fair in France, cordial relations with the Holy See were strained but never
broken.

Edwardian legislation. Edward, "the English Justinian," strove to maintain royal power
while extending his rule throughout the British Isles. These designs, together with an unsought
war with France for the defense of Aquitaine, posed the problem of raising vast sums. In 1279
and 1285 royal statutes at Westminster tightened up on supervision of judicial and fiscal
administration, and the Statute of Winchester (1285) re-enforced the police power of the state. In
1290 the statute Quia Emptores facilitated the alienation of lands, and in the same year the Jews
were exiled from England-their return was not legally sanctioned until Cromwell's time. Still,
financial need induced Edward to revert to the parliamentary expedient of his old adversary,
Simon de Montfort. In 1295 Edward summoned bishops, abbots, barons, and deputies of shires
and towns to a meeting regarded as the "model parliament." Probably unintentionally the king
thus inaugurated an important constitutional development. Though Edward himself and any
strong monarch in the Middle Ages could usually bold his own against parliament, under weak
rulers it gradually extended its claims to a share in the government by threatening to withhold
grants of taxes until grievances had been redressed or proposals had been approved.

Clerical conflict. With the tacit or presumed permission of the Holy See, King Edward
continued until 1296 to levy crusading tithes, and in 1301 was absolved for any irregularities in
their collection. In 1279 he sought to limit, or more exactly to reconvert, clerical feudal holdings
by his statute De Religiosis or Mortmain. When John Peckham, archbishop of Canterbury,
protested, a royal threat was enough to make him yield. But when the king defied Clericis Laicos
to impose new taxes on the clergy, Archbishop Robert Winchelesy resisted unto exile and
confiscation. Edward respected courage, and a reconciliation was begun in July, 1297, after a
year of controversy. The king restored confiscated church property and ceased his outlawry of
the clergy through denial of redress in the royal courts. On his part, the archbishop advised Pope
Boniface VIII of the inconveniences of the application of Clericis Laicos, and adjustments seem to
have been made. The English clergy had voluntarily voted a tithe pending consultation of Rome
to meet the emergency of a Scottish foray; not only was this approved by the pope, but in 1301
another tithe was conceded the king with papal permission. Pope Clement V revoked the bull in
1306, though he continued to require a report on the amount of clerical taxation's. King Edward
thus secured most of his financial demands upon the clergy with the consent of Rome.

(2) PARLIAMENTARY MONARCHY (1307-77)

Edward II (1307-27), son and successor of Edward I, was quite as arbitrary and exacting
as his father, but proved less energetic. His partiality to favorites led to a repetition of the baronial
uprisings during his grandfather's reign. The first of these subjected the king to a feudal
supervisory council, the "Lords Ordainers," who extorted Edward's signature to their "Ordinances"
of 1311 and executed his chief minister, Piers Gaveston. Edward's hope to rally the nation behind
him in war failed; defeated by the Scots at Bannockburn (1314), he was in no position to oppose
parliamentary control. In regard to the Church, the king followed a haphazard policy which paid
but slight attention to clerical rights. In 1321 the Synod of London declared that marriage and the
judgment of clerics still pertained to the canonical, not to the royal courts. In 1322 the king
momentarily freed himself from his barons only to fall into the hands of new favorites, the
Spencers. Finally Queen Isabella, daughter of Philip IV of France, combined French troops with
English barons to capture the king. In January, 1327, Parliament dared declare him deposed in
favor of his son; the ex-monarch was murdered later in the year.

Edward III (1327-77) was only fourteen years old when placed on the English throne. He
was subordinated at first to the rule of Queen Isabella and her paramour, Mortimer, but in 1330
sided with the barons in order to seize personal control of the government. Not only, then, did the
new king owe his throne to the Parliament, but his entry into the Hundred Years' War against
France made him increasingly dependent upon parliamentary subsidies. During the first and
victorious period of the war-down to 1360-these were granted readily enough, though not without
checks upon royal absolutism. But when Edward III grew old and indolent and the French war
turned against the English, Parliament pressed its advantage at the expense of the royal
prerogative.

Antipapal legislation during this reign was prompted in large part by the papal residence
at Avignon, surrounded by the domains of England's foe. In 1342 the first Statute of Provisors
attacked papal appointments to English benefices by forbidding anyone to introduce from abroad
writs of appointment. This received parliamentary ratification in 1351 and successive
amendments prohibited the holding of English benefices by foreigners, the administration of such
benefices through English proxies, and the transmission of money to foreign beneficiaries.
Appeals against this legislation were brought into the ecclesiastical courts and there declared null
and void. Parliament then retaliated with the Statute of Praemunire which forbade appeals from
royal courts to English clerical tribunals or to the papal curia. During these years Edward III also
departed for a time from the immemorial practice of naming churchmen to the office of lord
chancellor, and in 1362 the English language supplanted French in the law courts. During a truce
in the French War, Pope Urban V made a request for resumption of payment on England's annual
feudal tribute of 1,000 marks. In 1367 Parliament not only refused to pay for the thirty years then
in arrears, but declined to make any provision for the future; as a matter of fact thereafter John
Lackland's pledge was never further honored. All these instances of national alienation of the
English from the Holy See did not have lasting effect. The return of the papacy to Rome in 1378
removed an outstanding grievance, and thereafter both Crown and Parliament often disregarded
the Statute of Provisors: 266 bishops were named to English sees after its enactment. But the
legislation remained on the statute books, and Praemunire would be resurrected in 1529.

(3) RELIGIOUS-SOCIAL DISCONTENT

John Wycliffe (1324-84) was one of those theologians summoned from Oxford in 1366 for
consultation on the question of payment of tribute to the Holy See. Wycliffe's opinion was that
King John's pledge had been. null by divine law since Christ's mode of life condemned any
clerical possession of temporal goods. In 1374, through the patronage of Duke John of Gaunt,
the king's son, Wycliffe was named member of a royal commission to negotiate the Concordat of
Bruges with the Holy See, and there proposed to disendow the Church in England. Though his
views did not prevail in the delegation, Wycliffe evidently revealed the influence of the Spirituals in
his first appearances in history. Presently he carried these ideas further. Possessors of church
property, he held, were in a state of sin, and so long as they remained therein they were deprived
of their legitimate jurisdiction. Eventually he concluded that any superior in the state of sin ipso
facto lost his authority over his subjects. Since a superior's state of conscience is essentially
invisible, Wycliffe had practically proclaimed the ecclesiastical hierarchy and its authority
indistinguishable and denied the visibility of the Church. After denying as well the divine
institution of the papacy and the episcopacy, Wycliffe found it simple to conclude that the
judgment of the Church was not necessary in matters of faith, so that individual conviction of faith
and private interpretation of Scripture constituted adequate theological criteria. Finally the
English innovator virtually denied transubstantiation.

Lollardism. Wycliffe began to elicit popular favor by his anticlerical sermons. He

communicated his message to itinerant preachers, the "poor priests," later branded as lollards,
possibly from a Dutch term for heretic. Wycliffe's errors were also propagated through garbled
versions of the Scriptures in the vernacular-though Orthodox versions were already extant. For a
time Lollardism enjoyed a certain immunity through the protection extended to Wycliffe by John of
Gaunt and the negligence of Archbishop Sudbury of Canterbury. But the next archbishop, William
Courtenay (1381-96), secured a condemnation of twenty-four of Wycliffe's propositions by a
London council in 1382. Deprived of his professorship at Oxford, Wycliffe retired to his parish at
Lutterworth and died shortly afterwards. His Trialogus had bitterly attacked the Church, and there
is no evidence of his recantation. Though John of Gaunt had possibly prevented the archbishop
from prosecuting Wycliffe himself, Lollardy became such a menace that in 1401 the statute De
Haeretico Comburendo was enacted against them. It claimed eleven known victims before 1485,
but after the execution in 1417 of John Oldcastle, Lord Cobham, the Lollard leader, the sect
seems to have languished, "conquered but not extinguished," into the sixteenth century when it
merged with Protestantism. The influence of Lollardism upon Bohemian Hussitism will be noted
subsequently.

Social revolt. Partly stimulated by Lollardism, a serious peasant rising took place in
England. Though more work had been demanded from the decreased numbers of the peasant
laborers after the Black Death (1348-49), Parliament in 1351 had denied any wage increase.
Resentment mounted when a poll tax was added in 1379. Under Wat Tyler's leadership irate
workmen moved on London to destroy court and manorial records. Residences of unpopular
noblemen were burnt and some officials slain, including the Lord Chancellor, Archbishop Sudbury.
Governmental diplomacy detached the moderates from the movement and then Tyler was killed
and the extremists dispersed. The revolt failed of any immediate redress and it was long before
the conditions of English serfdom were favorably altered.

B. English Imperialism
 (1) CONQUEST OF WALES

The Welsh, though often pressed back by the Anglo-Normans, had thus far enjoyed a
precarious independence, qualified by occasional token acknowledgments of English suzerainty.
Prince Llewelyn III (1246-82) had assisted Simon de Montfort against Henry III, but in 1267 had
been constrained to reaffirm his vassalage to the English crown. When the prince repeatedly
refused homage and tribute, King Edward I invaded Wales and killed its prince (1282). The
Statute of Rhuddlan (1284) annexed Wales to England and introduced the English governmental
system, though Welsh language and culture survived almost unaltered. The Church continued to
form a bond of unity which was revealed during the revolt against Edward VI's Protestant regime
when Welsh and Cornishmen objected to the new Cranmerian English service books.

(2) CONQUEST AND LOSS OF SCOTLAND

English influence in Scotland had mounted with support of Malcolm III MacCrinan (1058-
93) against the Celtic champion, Macbeth. Malcolm and his English wife, St. Margaret, had done
much to civilize a rude people, and their three sons who successively occupied the Scottish
throne continued their parents' Anglicizing policy to bring Scotland culturally up to date. The
Sarum Rite generally supplanted vestiges of the Celtic liturgy. Scottish nationalism survived,
however, and reacted against English influence under later rulers of the MacCrinan dynasty.

English intervention. When Scotland's native MacCrinan dynasty became extinct in

1290, thirteen candidates appeared for the crown. King Edward I of England, invited to arbitrate,
decided in favor of John Baliol in 1292, from whom he exacted an oath of allegiance before
installing him as king of Scotland. But John, claiming absolution from his oath from Pope
Celestine V, allied himself with France against England. Once freed from his continental
entanglements, King Edward invaded Scotland, deposed Baliol, and took the kingdom for himself
(1296). The coronation Stone of Scone was attached to the English throne in Westminster
Abbey-there to remain until the surprising theft of 1950. Papal efforts to have Baliol, released
failed when Edward rejected any claim of papal overlordship of Scotland. The English king
ruthlessly suppressed Scottish insurrections: Wallace was executed, and Edward was on the
march against Robert Bruce when he died, July 7, 1307.

Scottish independence was won by Robert Bruce whose claim to the crown was put
beyond dispute on June 24, 1314, by his decisive victory over Edward II of England at
Bannockburn. But unfortunately Pope Clement V had excommunicated Bruce for murder of his
rival Comyn, and he and his successor John XXII refused to address Bruce as king of Scotland
until the English themselves admitted Scottish independence in 1328. Hence the Avignon papacy
was accused in Scotland of partiality toward the English, and possibly an alienation from the Holy
See persisted from this time. Scottish internal weakness, however, became manifest during the
feeble reign of Bruce's son David II (1329-71), whose long captivity in England enabled the
Scottish nobility to gain that autonomy which they would maintain for the remainder of Scotland's
independent history. After David Bruce died childless, he was succeeded by his nephew-in-law,
Robert the Steward, the first of the unlucky Stuart dynasty that presided, rather than ruled, over
Scotland until 1714. "During the wars with England and the long and inglorious reign of David,
the Church and people of Scotland suffered alike. Bishops forgot their sacred character and
appeared in armor at the head of their retainers; the state of religion and morals, both of clergy
and laity, was far from satisfactory, and contemporary chronicles were full of lamentations at the
degeneracy of the times."

(3) PROLONGATION OF ANGLO-IRISH STRIFE

English domination of medieval Ireland reached its height in the reign of Edward I (1272-
1307). That stern monarch had no sympathy with the Brehon laws, and "made an attempt to
create in Ireland a replica of the English monarchy." The crown extended its control over both the
native Irish and the Anglo-Norman colonizers, and under viceroy De Wogan, in office
intermittently between 1295 and 1312, a great effort was made to introduce the English system of
shires. In 1297 an Irish parliament was founded to sanction recruitment for Edward's wars in
Scotland, but this legislature was not for the "mere Irish," as the natives began to be called from
1310: "No mere Irishman shall be received into a religious order among the English in the land of
peace." The latter expression referred to the "Pale" and the organized shires. English
imperialism, then, strove to subjugate the Celts while preventing its own subjects from adopting
Celtic customs and becoming "degenerate Irish."

Scottish intervention. It was natural under these circumstances for the Irish to seek
Scottish assistance against the common oppressor. As long as Edward I of England lived, little
success was achieved, but after Bannockburn had freed Scotland in 1314, the Irish chiefs invited
Edward Bruce, brother of the new king of the Scots, to assume the crown in Ireland. Edward
Bruce arrived in May, 1315, and won a series of successes which enabled him to be proclaimed
"King of Erin" at Dundalk on May Day, 1316. But even his brother's help failed to save him from
the English counterattack: in October, 1318, Edward Bruce was defeated and slain by John of
Birmingham. An Irish appeal to Pope John XXII elicited an admonition to Edward II to do justice
to his Irish subjects, but gave no countenance to Irish independence.

The Kilkenny policy. Edward III favored reduction of Ireland by means of palatinates
granted to great lords, but intermarriage with natives and long residence in Ireland transformed
the new aristocracy into the "Anglo-Irish" who followed Irish more than English customs. To
combat this tendency, Edward's son and viceroy, Lionel, duke of Clarence, promulgated in 1361
the Statute of Kilkenny. This prohibited Anglo-Irish marriages and added minute regulations
designed to prevent the English in Ireland from adopting native language, dress, and customs.
Irishmen were to be excluded from English benefices and monasteries. This measure was a
confession of the failure of complete conquest; the English hoped now to cut their losses by
preserving at least an English pale uncontaminated by any "mere Irish." Thereby national
differences were to be perpetuated and the natural solution of intermarriage precluded. The
Kilkenny policy was thus an extreme example of the new nationalistic spirit rising against
Christian cosmopolitanism during the fourteenth century.

Secularizing Theocracy: (1274-1453) XVIII. The Great Western Schism (1378-1449)

134. Outbreak of Schism (1378)

XVIII
The Great Western Schism

134. OUTBREAK OF SCHISM

A. The Roman Election (1378)

(1) CHOICE OF URBAN VI (APRIL, 1378)
Eve of the conclave. The conclave of Wednesday, April 7, 1378, was the first held in
Rome for seventy-five years. Of the twenty-three cardinals, sixteen took part in the election, six
remained at the Avignon curia, and one was absent on the peace negotiations with Florence. Of
those present four were Italians, two of them native Romans, Tibaldeschi and Orsini. There was
one Spaniard, Pedro de Luna. The remaining eleven cardinals were subdivided into French and
residents of the English-held Limousin area. While the latter division had caused bickering during
the Hundred Years' War in 1378, that conflict was in an inactive state and had little influence on
the deliberations of the conclave. For reasons already discussed, all Italy was in disorder and its
official spokesmen were insistent upon an Italian pope. Romans also expressed strong
preference for the choice of a Roman. As the cardinals passed through the crowd into the ball of
the conclave in the Vatican, the populace in no uncertain terms cried: "We want a Roman, or at
least an Italian." The superintendents of the Roman regions seconded this demand less
boisterously but no less firmly, while delegations from surrounding towns were on band to present
their petitions. The only reported reaction of the cardinals was that of Pedro de Luna, who replied
that he would rather die than vote under duress.

Roman conclave. Once inside, Italian, Limousin, and Gallican factions went into caucus,
while from without they might still hear the mob's refrain "We want a Roman." Sometimes threats
were added to the confused clamor. Cardinal Orsini reassured the populace with a mental
reservation. On the motion of Pedro de Luna, Bartolomeo Prignani, archbishop of Bari, but not a
cardinal, was nominated. Cardinal Robert of Geneva seconded this proposal, which eventually
found favor with all except Orsini. The first vote of the morning of April 8, 1378, then, was
reported as fifteen to one in favor of Prignani. A tocsin began to ring. "They are ringing for some
exorcism," remarked the aged Cardinal Tebaldeschi. "Such an exorcism will scarcely be to my
taste," rejoined Cardinal de Bretagne. During a lull in the tumult, one of the cardinals suggested a
new vote. it was discovered that at this time all thirteen cardinals present were in favor of
Prignani. Though there are variations of detail in the descriptions of the conclave, contemporary
witnesses are in substantial agreement that Prignani was thus the choice of the great majority of
the cardinals. It would seem to be fairly certain that the election was therefore cum metu but not
ex metu, and in consequence canonically valid. But it would be a long time before all of
Christendom would be in possession of an unbiased version of the events; before that, the
cardinals were to precipitate the Great Schism of the West.

(2) RECOGNITION OF URBAN VI (APRIL-SEPTEMBER, 1378)

Pseudo-proclamation. The cardinals had chosen Prignani but had not yet officially
notified him. Meanwhile the mob had resumed its agitation. Froissart reports that one of its
spokesmen informed the cardinals: "Sirs, advise ye well. If ye deliver us a Roman pope, we are
content; otherwise we will make your heads redder than your hats." And as Froissart adds, "Such
words and menaces greatly dismayed the cardinals, for they would rather have died confessors
than martyrs." Since, then, the mob still demanded a Roman, which the Italian Prignani was not,
the worried cardinals resorted to a stratagem to gain time to reach places of refuge. Over his
protests, they put the pontifical vestments on the aged and feeble Tibaldeschi, one of the Romans
of the conclave. Then the other Roman cardinal, Orsini, went out to inform the crowd that they
had a new pope. "Who?" came the demand. "Go into St. Peter's," Orsini replied. Expectation
begot interpretation, and someone shouted: "It's Tibaldeschi, the cardinal of St. Peter's." The
crowd eagerly pressed into the basilica to find Tibaldeschi. While the other cardinals slipped
quietly away, Tibaldeschi was left trying to escape from his predicament, protesting: "It is not I
who am pope; it is Prignani." His age probably preserved him from harm and finally he convinced
the Romans. Some in rage and others in glee plundered the Vatican, but by this time the
cardinals had escaped, informally notifying Prignani of his election.

Acceptance of Prignani. After the mob hysteria had evaporated, the Romans came to the
conclusion that they had fared well enough in obtaining an Italian pope. On Friday, April 9, the
cardinals began to emerge from their hiding places in and about Rome and by evening twelve of
them met in the Vatican to notify Prignani officially of his election. He accepted without further
delay, and was on hand to officiate on Palm Sunday, April 11. On Easter Sunday, April 18, he was
solemnly crowned as Pope Urban VI. The cardinals were in attendance, and some of them
declared-post factum, to be sure-that they would have been torn limb from limb rather than vote
against their conscience. But their deeds even more than their words showed that they
recognized Urban as the legitimate pontiff. On April 19 all sixteen cardinals wrote their
colleagues at Avignon: "We have given our votes for Bartolomeo, archbishop of Bari . . . and have
announced our choice to the multitude of Christians." Froissart asserts that Urban's election "was
signified to all churches in Christendom, and also to the emperor, kings, dukes, and earls; and the
cardinals sent word to their friends that he was chosen by a good and true election." A practical
indication of their real views may be seen in their acceptance of both temporal and spiritual favors
from Pope Urban, for though opportunists might have sought temporal gain from a usurper, these
learned, if not holy, prelates would know better than to seek invalid spiritual privileges. Such was
the judgment of St. Catherine of Siena: "What is it that proves to me the validity 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 that you have paid him, and by the favors
which you have asked and received from him." This attitude of the cardinals, moreover, lasted for
several months and hence cannot be readily dismissed as mere yielding to the pressure of the
mob.

B. Counterelection
(1) URBAN'S PROVOCATION (APRIL-JUNE, 1378)

Bartolomeo Prignani (1318-89) had thus far enjoyed a reputation of being an

austere and exemplary prelate. Unlike many of the aristocratic cardinals, he was of plebeian birth
and manners. A disciplined, plodding worker, he had become a competent, honest, but narrow-
minded bureaucrat. While he seems to have despised pomp and idleness, he was an easy victim
of flatterers. He had served for more than twenty years in the papal chancery at Avignon in
modest and able fashion. Consecrated bishop in 1364, he had been named archbishop of Bari
and pro-vice-chancellor of the Roman Church by Gregory XI during 1377. But apparently
Prignani was a capable subordinate without any talent for rule. As long as curial procedure
concerned only his own conduct, he seems to have lived piously enough, though perhaps
nurturing a distaste for the lax conduct of others that may have entailed a secret feeling of
superiority. At any rate, once supreme pontiff, he exploded suppressed feelings in a way that was
if not quite insane, at least exceedingly imprudent.

Alienation of cardinals. Once elected to the papacy, Urban revealed himself to his
cardinals as self-assertive, vindictive, and even sadistic. His reforms were not merely tactless;
they were chiefly concerned with external details, such as prescribing a single course meal for the
cardinals. On the day following his coronation, Urban greeted some prelates who had come to
congratulate him with reproach for their neglect of residence in their benefices; he went so far as
to call them "traitors" to their duties, and during his rages his face became red and his voice
hoarse. A fortnight later he denounced the college of cardinals, that ecclesiastical senate which
deemed itself indispensable to and scarcely inferior to the pope. In consistory the cardinals were
forbidden to accept pensions, and were given strict sumptuary regulations. At these abrupt
decrees there were naturally some whispered comments, whereupon the pope cried to one of the
cardinals: "Shut up," and to the college: "Stop your silly chattering." Orsini was bluntly informed
that he was a "blockhead-perhaps he was, but not when he voted against Prignani. Urban
maintained a loftly aloofness regarding finances: when a treasury official came to pay his dues,
he was told: "Keep your money to yourself to perish with you"-insinuating simony. When
reminded by the cardinal of Milan that for liceity a threefold admonition ought to precede
imposition of censures, Urban stormed: "I can do everything and so I will and decree it." Stormy
interviews with the cardinals of Amiens and Limoges are reported. The Avignon cardinals, finally,
may have constituted a clique, which it would have been prudent to offset by new creations. But
it was the height of imprudence for Urban to announce publicly that he would soon swamp the
French cardinals by naming a host of Italians. Some of these insults and injuries to the cardinals
undoubtedly existed only in their own minds to provide excuses for their subsequent rebellion.
But not all of them. St. Catherine of Siena is found admonishing Urban VI: "Justice without mercy
will be injustice rather than justice. Do what you have to do with moderation." But whatever were
Urban's virtues, his best friends could never number moderation among them.

(2) ELECTION OF ROBERT OF GENEVA (SEPTEMBER, 1378)

Preliminary moves. By June the Roman summer began to manifest itself. Presently the
cardinals began to depart, pleading that "it was too hot for them in Rome"-which was true in more
ways than one. But before long it was noticed that the French cardinals were gathering at that
town of ill omen, Anagni. Here Count Gaetano gave them protection, and a Gascon regiment
placed itself at their disposal. Robert of Geneva had consulted his master, King Charles V of
France, and had secured carte blanche; more, there was a trace of writing on the card when the
king sent a detachment to Anagni. Urban VI was not so unobservant as to fail to perceive that
something was brewing. He at first tried to effect an understanding through Otto of Brunswick,
prince consort of Naples. This embassy was fruitless. During July, the Italian cardinals, Orsini,
Corsini, and Borsano, went to Anagni to hear the complaints of the disaffected cardinals. These
now numbered thirteen, for Cardinal La Grange of Amiens had joined the eleven Frenchmen of
the April conclave and Pedro de Luna. The Frenchmen informed their Italian colleagues that
Urban's election must be deemed invalid from lack of freedom during its course. The Italian
cardinals at first adopted a neutral stand: without joining the assembly of the Frenchmen, neither
did they rejoin Pope Urban. This left the pope with only the aged Cardinal Tibaldeschi, for Urban
had thus far failed to carry out his threat of naming new cardinals. Cardinal Tibaldeschi died
some time before September 9, so that at the moment of the counterelection Urban VI had no
loyal cardinals at all.

Cardinalatial revolt. The dissident cardinals made their first overt move on August 2 in a
manifesto denying the validity of Urban's election and demanding his abdication. On August 9
these cardinals issued a joint letter pronouncing excommunication on "Bartolomeo Prignani."
After this more than a month was spent in watchful waiting. Fearing that Urban VI would summon
military assistance, the cardinals on August 27 withdrew from Anagni to Fondi, outside the Papal
States and into the territory of an archfoe. On September 18 the French cardinals received
assurance from Charles V that he would support them in any action that they saw fit to take.
Their hesitation ended; on September 20 they, together with Pedro de Luna, agreed on choosing
the " terrible cardinal," Robert of Geneva, as pope. The three Italian cardinals were present but
not voting, but they also tendered their allegiance to Robert when he was crowned as "Clement
VII" on October 31. This new papal election was also announced to Christendom which was now
asked to choose between two claimants but sixty miles apart. On November 29 Urban VI,
despairing of a reconciliation, excommunicated Robert of Geneva and his followers and created a
new cardinalatial college of twenty-eight members. The French claimant tried to secure
possession of Rome, but his previous reputation as papal general denied him sympathy in central
Italy. In June, 1379, therefore, Robert and his partisans deserted Italy for their true stronghold of
Avignon. Here he installed himself in the old papal quarters and began the "Avignon obedience."

(3) LEGALITY OF THE REBELLION

Contemporary perplexity. Today church historians are in virtual agreement in rejecting

the claims of this Avignon obedience. For a time it won the nationalistic support of Gallicans, but
now the canonicity of Urban's election seems undeniable and this entails the invalidity of
Robert's. Even if the original choice of Urban had been invalid, by the time of the counterelection
he had won the general and unchallenged recognition of the Christian world. But if the action of
the rebel cardinals seems clearly illicit today, this was not evident to contemporaries, and many
good Catholics, including some canonized saints, were in a state of perplexity. St. Antonine of
Florence remarks that there were endless discussions without solution, pamphlets and
propaganda treatises without end. Yet both sides could rely upon supposed experts in theology
and canon law, upon revered and prudent counselors, so that one argument canceled the other.
A generation would grow up knowing nothing but this condition of seemingly hopeless confusion.

Contemporary indictment. One saint, however, was not perplexed. St. Catherine of
Siena had been the strongest advocate of the papal return from Avignon to Rome, and now she
entertained no doubt as to where the true pope resided. And indeed today St. Catherine's harsh
words to the rebel cardinals seem but simple truth: "You would lead us away to the evil incarnate
in yourselves; you would seduce us to obey Antichrist. O miserable men! Once you announced
the truth to us, and now offer us lies. You wish to make us believe that you chose Pope Urban
through fear; this is untrue. You may say: Why not believe us; as electors we know the truth
better than you? My reply is that you have shown me how you deal with truth. If I examine your
lives, in vain do I search for such virtue and sanctity as would deter you from falsehood out of
conviction, What proves to me the validity of the election of Messer Bartolomeo, archbishop of
Bari and now truly Pope Urban VI? The evidence afforded by the solemn celebration of his
coronation, the homage that you gave him, and the favors which you have asked and received
from him." But St. Catherine died on April 30, 1380, and Christendom heard no more of her blunt
speech while a tumult of learned or impassioned arguments failed to solve the dilemma.

Secularizing Theocracy: (1274-1453) XVIII. The Great Western Schism (1378-1449)

135. Political Aggravation of Schism (1378-1414)

XVIII
The Great Western Schism

135.. POLITICAL AGGRAVATION OF SCHISM

A. Political Maneuvers (1378-1408)

(1) NATIONALISTIC ALIGNMENTS
Avignon obedience. The outbreak of the Great Schism, then, was ',chiefly due to the
worldly cardinals, stirred up by France, and longing to return there." If this ambition to corner the
papacy as a national asset was actualized in France, it was potential among other peoples. On
hearing of the election of Robert of Geneva, Charles V of France is reported to have exclaimed:
"Now I am pope." Indeed, once Robert of Geneva had established his court at Avignon, he
became quite dependent upon the French monarch for support. Ramifications of Capetian
dynastic interests brought him other adherents as well. The Capetian Queen Jane I of Naples
(1343-82) promptly followed the bead of the dynasty in acknowledging Robert. This should have
precipitated the Aragonese into the opposite camp, but Pedro IV of Aragon, Sicily, and Sardinia
was allied with Charles V against Castile, and Pedro de Luna, presently the second Avignon
claimant, was his subject and counselor. The king of Castile, Henry of Trastamara, owed his
throne to French intervention against his brother, Pedro the Cruel. Henry therefore readily
followed the Avignon obedience, which was also strengthened in Spain by the prestige of the
saint and miracle-worker, St. Vincent Ferrer. Finally, Robert Stuart, king of the Scots, in his fear
of English aggression followed the traditional pro-French policy of the Scottish monarchy. From
Avignon emanated appointments to benefices throughout Christendom, and henceforth dioceses,
canonries, and parishes, especially those on the frontiers of the obedience's, were objects of
contention and rapid exchange, if not of simony and violence.

Roman obedience. Except for the Angevin Naples, the Italian states rallied to the Italian
pope whom they had so vociferously importuned. It was also enough for the English barons to
learn that France was supporting the Avignon claimant for them to pledge ready allegiance to
Rome. Portugal, a satellite of English political policy, followed this same course with some
wavering. The Germans also had had enough of Avignon and of French popes; for the most part
they followed Emperor Charles IV in acknowledging Urban VI. But neither Charles nor his
successors could control effectively all the imperial states, and several, especially in the
Rhineland, courted both obedience's. In this region the battle between rival papal
pronouncements and appointments raged with particular fury, while confusion gave impostors
and visionaries a field day. It is significant that outside of the foregoing anti-Capetian bloc, the
political neutrals among the Christian states with one accord adhered to the Roman obedience:
Denmark, Norway, Sweden, and Ireland declared for Urban. Poland and Hungary had just been
united under the rule of Louis the Great. Though Capetian by ancestry, he was feuding with the
Neapolitan branch of the family and related by marriage with the imperial house of Luxemburg.
Bohemia was personally controlled by the Luxemburgers. Thus Christendom was sundered
largely, if not exclusively, on national lines. Except for a few prelates of independent judgment,
clergy and people generally followed the lead of their monarchs.

(2) NEAPOLITAN CONTEST (1379-94)

Urban VI (1378-89), once Robert of Geneva had retired to Avignon, regarded Neapolitan
allegiance to the antipope as the chief and most proximate threat to his own position. While
Robert tried to regain Italy with French troops, Urban employed against Jane of Naples the
traditional theocratic weapons. Claiming Naples as a perjured fief, in 1380 he declared Jane
deposed and awarded her throne to her cousin, Charles of Durazzo. Jane died in 1382, but
perpetuated the conflict by willing her dominions to Louis of Anjou, a brother of Charles V of
France. Urban's candidate succeeded in gaining possession of Naples and holding it against
Angevin counterattack. But just when this contest seemed solved by the death of Louis of Anjou
in 1384, Urban and the new King Charles III fell out over the endowment of Urban's nephew with
a Neapolitan fief. When the pope entered Neapolitan territory to exercise his suzerainty in
person, six of his cardinals intrigued with Charles to have him put in custody. The pope
discovered the plot, however, and the cardinals were arrested, tortured, and eventually executed.
Having learned of Charles's complicity from their confessions, Urban VI cited the king before his
tribunal. Charles countered by besieging him in the castle of Nocera whence the irate pontiff
hurled daily anathemas. This fantastic sub-schism (1384-85) encouraged the French to send a
new expedition into Italy. Paradoxically this freed Urban, for while Charles coped with his Dew
opponents, the pope fled by Genoa. Thereafter he remained in northern Italy until the murder of
Charles III in 1386. In 1387 Urban planned a military attack on Naples, but a mutiny of his own
troops set his plans at naught. Urban returned to Rome where he died, October 15, 1389.
During his later years his suspicions had become nearly neurotic, and he left the supreme
example of how to alienate cardinals, for besides the original rebels, eleven of his second
creation had deserted him.

Boniface IX (1389-1404). Before negotiations for ending the schism could be

undertaken, Urban's remaining fourteen cardinals elected one of their number, Pietro Tomacelli
(1355-1404), to continue the Roman line as Boniface IX The new pope's diplomatic tact proved a
happy contrast to his predecessor's imprudence, and he succeeded in restoring the Roman
obedience throughout Italy, though at the expense of heavy financial levies which made him
unpopular. Meanwhile Robert of Geneva was having similar difficulties, for the cost of the
Neapolitan invasions strained the resources of the Avignon treasury. The French court also
threatened his independence and the University of Paris annoyed him by repeated demands for
his abdication. Instead, Robert placed his remaining funds at the disposal of Louis II of Anjou for
another expedition. Louis had to contend with Charles III's son, Ladislas (1386-1414), who not
only proved able to defend his Neapolitan realm, but showed himself a fairly loyal adherent of the
Roman obedience. By 1399 the Neapolitan contest was ended, against Avignon, if not entirely
for Rome. Robert of Geneva had died in 1394, still as far from Rome as ever, but the Avignon
schism went into its second phase with the election of Pedro de Luna as "Benedict XIII."

(3) RENUNCIATION ATTEMPTS (1394-1408)

The University of Paris had been examining proposals for terminating the schism since
1381. By 1393, after the failure of other expedients, the University came to the fore with the
suggestion of mutual resignation. Since neither claimant seemed disposed to resign in the
other's favor, it was thought well to bring pressure upon them by the subjects of their respective
obedience's. This appeared especially necessary after 1394 when Pedro de Luna began to
display as "Benedict XIII" that obstinacy which was to be his chief characteristic until his death in
1423. Four years passed in artful evasion by Luna of the proposals of the University.
 French suspension of obedience. The University thereupon arranged a conference at
Rheims of the leading monarchs of each obedience. From the amazing encounter of Wenceslas
the Drunkard of Germany and Charles the Mad of France emanated a joint declaration that these
two princes would presently renounce their respective obedience's in an effort to force the
claimants into resignation. The French threat was carried out the same year, March-July, 1398,
by means of a managed national council. At its close the court announced that an immense
majority had favored its plan-and then neglected to burn the ballots which turned up long
afterwards to convict it of falsification before history's tribunal. Then it was Avignon's turn to stage
a comedy of errors. Though eighteen cardinals and most of his French adherents now deserted
him, Pedro de Luna refused to yield. He barricaded himself in the Avignon palace for five years,
and then in 1403 Red to loyal Provence. Two months later the crown abandoned the fiasco of
suspended obedience. Luna, now seventy-five, was but started on his career of obstructionism.

Imperial divisions. Meanwhile Wenceslas was trying to carry his part of the Rheims
Manifesto in the empire. But this last escapade of the brutal emperor-it was he who in 1393
executed St. John Nepomunk for guarding the confessional seal-gave his disaffected subjects
their chance. When he withdrew obedience from Boniface IX, they in turn renounced their civil
allegiance to him. In August, 1400, resolute partisans of Rome declared Wenceslas replaced by
Count Palatine Rupert. Though this new election was of dubious validity, Boniface IX promptly
confirmed it. In Germany neither Wenceslas nor Rupert could win a decision, so that an imperial
schism was added to the papal one. The next Roman pontiff, Innocent VII (1404-6), saw no
substantial change in this situation. His successor, Gregory XII (1406-15), did profess a
willingness to treat with Luna. During 1407 the two claimants approached within a few miles of
one another, but then forward motion slackened and at last ceased entirely. By 1408 the
renunciation project which had raised high hopes and had led to protracted negotiations was
revealed to be a dismal failure. Most Catholics were disgusted, and the majority of the cardinals
of the two obedience's had had enough.

B. Ideological Aggravation (1408-14)

(1) GENESIS OF CONCILIARISM

Remote origins of the conciliar theory have already been noted: the regalists Dubois and
John of Paris, and the imperialists, Occam and Marsiglio of Padua, had advocated judgment and
supervision of the papacy by a general council. As other means of ending the Great Schism
failed, these radical theories came to appear less desperate.
Konrad von Gelnhausen, Parisian theologian, wrote a treatise, Epistola Concordiae, in
May, 1380. For him "the congregation of all Christians is above the pope, and each dispute must
be referred for decision to a superior." He felt that the schism could be best terminated by the
convocation of an ecumenical council which could proceed to depose both claimants. Papal
authority in this opinion would be ultimately derived from the will of the faithful.

Heinrich von Langenstein (1325-97), professor at Heidelberg and Paris universities,

published his Consilium Pacis in 1381. Failing to distinguish properly between the institution of
the papal office and the choice of its incumbent, Langenstein argued that the Church would have
had the right to institute the papacy if Christ had not done so. He held that the right of selection
of the popes pertained radically to the episcopate, so that a general council would possess
ultimate authority in Christendom. Once summoned by imperial or royal authority, such a council
would "represent the Universal Church Militant." Langenstein has been termed the Rousseau of
the Conciliar Revolution.

Pierre d'Ailly (1350-1420), rector of the University of Paris and subsequently a cardinal,
became the great protagonist of conciliarism at the Council of Constance (1414-18). His
influence introduced university teachers among the prelates in the church councils, and his
chauvinism permitted deference to the French court.
 Jean Gerson (1368-1429), D'Ailly's aide, enjoyed a great renown as a mystic theologian.
He defended the thesis that the Church was ruled by a hierarchy which must provide for the
general welfare, and in virtue of this responsibility could in an emergency resist and even depose
a pope. In any event, he contended, the general council, as the organ of the episcopacy, was
superior to the pope who was but its administrative agent. Gerson spread the conciliarist ideas
widely, but was not too popular in royal circles since he implied that monarchs ought also be
subordinated to their parliaments.

(2) PISAN CONCILIAR EXPERIMENT

Cardinalatial rebellion. Gregory XII's final refusal to negotiate further with Luna-a
decision quite welcome to the latter-so exasperated seven of his cardinals that in May, 1408, they
fled to Pisa. Here they invited the Avignon cardinals to make common cause with them in ending
the schism, and asked the rulers of Christendom to supply protection. Both appeals were heard.
Four of the Avignon cardinals joined the Romans at Pisa, while Charles VI and Wenceslas
renewed their suspension of obedience. This response emboldened the rebel cardinals to
prepare a joint synod to be held at Pisa in March, 1409. Though both Gregory XII and Luna
repudiated this move, the universities generally approved and the princes sent envoys. The eyes
of Christendom were fixed on Pisa.

The Synod of Pisa opened on schedule, March 25, 1409. It comprised 14 ex-Roman
cardinals, 10 from the obedience of Avignon, 80 bishops and 100 episcopal proxies, the generals
of the mendicant orders, over 210 abbots and priors, deputies from chapters and universities.
About 300 theologians and canonists were not merely heard, but in violation of all conciliar
tradition, allowed to vote. This tendency to obscure the hierarchy by university "experts" is
marked throughout the entire conciliar movement. One of their number, Zabarella, while
attributing ultimate ecclesiastical power to the body of the faithful, placed its actual exercise in the
whole clerical order. Envoys of the antiking, Rupert, bluntly challenged the legitimacy of this
Pisan Synod, "for the cardinals are not the pope's superiors." Nettled, the Pisan conferees in May
declared themselves a general council "representing the Universal Church." After blaming the
papal claimants for all the Church's misfortunes since 1378-and this under 37 counts-the Pisans
on June 5 voted the excommunication of "Angelo Corrado" (Gregory XII) and "Pedro de Luna"
("Benedict XIII"). They then hastened on to choose Peter Philargis, archbishop of Milan, as
"Alexander V." After the latter had obediently confirmed the acts of the synod, Pisa adjourned on
August 7, 1409. Reform legislation was relegated to a new council which was invited to
assemble within three years. Luna had fled to Aragon which now comprised his entire obedience.
Gregory XII, deserted by Venice, had to retire to Gaeta in the Neapolitan dominions as the Pisan
forces moved on Rome. Antiking Rupert seemed to have taken Gregory's cause with him to the
grave in May, 1410.

(3) FAILURE OF PISA (1410-14)

Ecclesiastical confusion. The Pisan experiment was not only canonically invalid; it was
soon to prove politically disastrous. When "Alexander V" died in May, 1410, the rebel cardinals
substituted Baldassare Cossa as "John XXIII"-though a legitimate Roman pontiff was to
emphatically deny him that title five centuries later. Cossa, indeed, was little more than an
exbrigand; his scandalous character alienated many sincere reformers who had believed that the
best interests of the Church were being served at Pisa. Cossa's attempted council at Rome to
complete Pisa was ill attended, and it was interrupted in 1413 by Ladislas of Naples who
recaptured Rome for Gregory XII. Cossa then became a vagrant in Lombardy, begging imperial
aid. Christian public opinion now flippantly observed that the result of Pisa had been merely "to
make three popes instead of two."

Secular turmoil. Meanwhile the empire had been experiencing disputes of its own.
Though Rupert was dead, Emperor Wenceslas had now to contend with two new rivals from his
own family, his brother Sigismund, king of Hungary, and his cousin Jobst of Moravia. For several
months during 1410 the traditional "two swords" of Christendom were blunted by the rival claims
of three "popes" and three "emperors."
Appeal to Caesar. In this trilemma the conciliarist Von Nieheim asserted that "until there
is a just, mighty, and universal Roman emperor or king, the Schism will not only continue, but will,
we must fear, constantly grow worse." This was certainly a large order, yet Providence filled it by
moving to extricate the Christian commonwealth from the chaos into which its petty rivalries had
plunged it. During 1411 Sigismund eliminated Jobst from the race and constrained Wenceslas to
retire to Bohemia, leaving imperial administration in his own hands as "King of the Romans" or
crown prince regent. Sigismund joined sincere attachment to the Church to a respected and
persuasive personality. Thou a moderate conciliarist and supporter of Pisa, Sigismund was in
good faith and did not so adhere to the decisions of Pisa as to suppose that the other papal
claimants might simply be ignored. He was destined to play a useful role as moderator of the
conciliar movement at Constance.

Secularizing Theocracy: (1274-1453) XVIII. The Great Western Schism (1378-1449)

136. Conciliar Zenith: Constance (1414-18)

XVIII
The Great Western Schism

136.. CONCILIAR ZENITH: CONSTANCE

A. Healing of the Schism

(1) CONCILIAR INAUGURAL
Convocation. Baldassare Cossa, alias "John XXIII," in appealing to King Sigismund, had
merely sought restoration to Rome as unquestioned pontiff. But Sigismund, well aware that
Gregory XII and Luna still had loyal supporters, was determined to reopen the case. He prevailed
upon Cossa's legates, Cardinals Challant and Zabarella, to approve of a new council on imperial
territory. Then without awaiting Cossa's ratification, the king took the initiative in October, 1413,
to invite all prelates to attend a general council to open at Constance on November 1, 1414.
Since Constance was within the imperial frontier, it was clear to Cossa that Sigismund, who
promised to attend in person, might dominate the council, and was likely to be supported by
public opinion exasperated at the prolonged division. Nevertheless after an interview with
Sigismund, Cossa felt constrained to confirm his action by issuing an official bull of convocation.
But he took care to make an agreement with Frederick, duke of Austria-Tyrol, whereby lie would
be assured of an asylum in case of need. Cossa, then, came to Constance with extreme
reluctance and did not open the council until November 4, 1414, nor preside over its first session
until November 16.

National organization. At its opening, the council was well attended, especially by
northern prelates and doctors. Even so, the Italians numbered more than half, and they, together
with the twenty-nine cardinals, were disposed to assume Cossa's legitimacy without question.
But the situation changed radically at the beginning of 1415 with the arrival of Sigismund and the
German and English delegations. One of the king's first acts was to induce the Italians to permit
envoys from the Roman and Avignon claimants to be heard. Then to offset Italian numerical
superiority in sees, a new mode of organizing the council was arranged. If traditional procedure
were to be followed, each cardinal and bishop would have a separate vote and the Italians would
easily prevail. But Sigismund and his followers arranged for division of the council into four
"nations"-Italian, French, German, and English-which would deliberate separately, and then
present their collective views to the general body. Thus voting would be by groups rather than
individuals and Sigismund's ultramontane conciliarist bloc of the Germans, English, and French
might outvote the Italians who were intent on restoring normal papal government as soon as
possible. In defiance of tradition, votes were also conceded to deputies of princes and
representatives of chapters and universities. By adept management, Sigismund was able to hold
his coalition together for nearly three years to demand drastic reform measures.

(2) CONCILIARIST ASSERTION

Sacrosancta. This German-English-French bloc was disposed to regard the conciliarist

theory as a useful weapon to coerce all the papal claimants into resignation, and then to impose
upon a new pontiff a reform agenda. The "German Nation"-which included the Scandinavian and
Slavic peoples-demanded an assertion of conciliarism as early as February, 1415, but the other
nations resorted to this theory only when they encountered hindrance from Cossa. After attempts
to evade urgent demands for his resignation had failed, Cossa fled from Constance on March 20
to his prepared refuge in the Tyrol. Evidently hoping that the council would dissolve into factions,
Cossa refused all suggestions that he return. His defiance provoked the conciliarists to unite
during the fifth session, April 6, in issuing their decree, Sacrosancta, which would remain the
Magna Charta of the entire subsequent conciliar movement. After a solemn invocation of the
Blessed Trinity, this decree asserted in part that: "This Holy Synod of Constance, constituting a
general council for the extirpation of the present schism and the union and reformation of the
Church of God in bead and members, legitimately assembled in the Holy Ghost, . . . and
representing the universal Militant Church, has its power immediately from Christ, and everyone,
whatever his position or rank, even if it be the papal dignity itself, is bound to obey it in all things
pertaining to faith, the healing of the schism, and the general reformation of the Church of God in
head and members." Penalties for disobedience were announced, with Sigismund's backing and
his promise of their speedy execution at the council's request.

(3) DISPOSAL OF THE CLAIMANTS

Cossa's deposition. Such, then, was the club enforcing the council's demand that all the
papal claimants resign forthwith. On April 17 Cardinal Viviers, dean of Ostia, began to preside
over the assembly as if the Holy See were vacant. From then until May 29 king and council co-
operated remorselessly to procure Cossa's elimination from the ranks of contenders. He was
ordered to resign, and on his failure to do so, cited to stand trial. His protector, Frederick of the
Tyrol, after a defeat by imperial troops, made an abject submission. Cossa then meekly
submitted to his suspension and indictment on 72 charges. Sigismund was present in full
panoply at Cossa's trial on May 25 at which that exbrigand was convicted on 54 points. On May
29 he was deposed and remanded to imperial custody, and two days later Cossa ratified the
sentence by his formal resignation. He was confined in imperial prisons until 1418 after the new
papal election; he died in retirement a few months later (1419).

Gregory's resignation. However sincere, Sigismund and his conciliarist bloc were in an
indefensible position canonically. The crucial issue, then, was the attitude adopted to the council
by Gregory XII who was in reality, if no longer in general estimation, the legitimate pontiff. That a
legal solution was found can be regarded as a signal intervention of Providence. Since January,
Gregory XII had been negotiating with the Council through an unofficial observer, Carlo
Malatesta, lord of Rimini. The pope now professed his willingness to resign provided that the
council would first accept formal convocation from himself. it was unlikely that the conciliarist
majority, having so easily disposed of Cossa whose obedience seemed largest, would bother
treating with Gregory. But Sigismund was eager to have Gregory's voluntary resignation at any
price, and he was not one to quibble about academic principles provided that he could get results.
Again he lined up his bloc for acceptance of Pope Gregory's terms. In what followed the majority
probably believed that they were only humoring an old man's whim; in the light of historical
perspective, however, they were receiving their sole title to legitimacy from the true vicar of Christ,
whose primacy they implicitly acknowledged. On July 4, 1415, the council assembled for the
great drama. According to Gregory's stipulations, Sigismund took the presidential chair to
indicate that ab initio the Constance assembly was but a secular meeting at which the king would
naturally preside. Then Gregory's legate, Cardinal John of Ragusa, entered and, after
announcing his mandate, declared: "I convoke this holy general council and I authorize and
confirm all matters to be treated by it." Each nation then replied in turn: Placet, as did the
cardinals. Mutual absolutions from censures then followed. The king now yielded the presidency
to Cardinal John of Ostia, dean of the now legitimated cardinalatial college. Next Carlo Malatesta
announced his own power of attorney from Gregory XII, and then declared: "In the name of the
aforesaid Lord Gregory, the pope, I resign the papacy." The Holy See was now canonically vacant
and the Council of Constance authorized to rule ad interim. This grateful body promptly created
the expope cardinal bishop of Porto. He died on October 18, 1417, just three weeks before the
election of the next and unquestioned legitimate Roman pontiff.

Luna's disappearance. With conciliar authorization, King Sigismund next set out for
Perpignan to interview Pedro de Luna, but not even the German monarch's matchless diplomacy
could prevail over the Avignon claimant's pathological obstinacy. But the king of the Romans did
win over St. Vincent Ferrer and King Alfonso of Aragon, the chief supporters of Luna. After
protracted negotiations the Avignon obedience finally agreed, almost en masse, to come over to
the council, though there was some delay before the Spaniards arrived at Constance to constitute
a fifth "nation" in that body's organization. When Pedro de Luna witnessed this defection, he fled
with a few retainers to his ancestral castle at Peniscola in Aragon. The Council of Constance,
after having been informed of his defiance, unanimously voted for his deposition on July 26,
1417, and the Christian world forgot about him. Yet Pedro de Luna remained adamant in his
papal pretensions until his death at the age of ninety-five in 1423. His four surviving cardinals
disagreed. Three chose Canon Gil Munoz as "Clement VIII"; he ended the comedy by
submission to Rome in 1429. A surviving Avignon cardinal named himself "Benedict XIV" who
was scarcely heard of again. Thus the Avignon obedience faded away.

B. Reform Program
(1) THE REFORM CRISIS

The issue of reform. Leaving aside the Hussite heresy to a subsequent topic, we can
follow the council's constructive labors. Even while laboring to heal the schism, the council had
devoted considerable attention to reform proposals. But in the discussion and execution of the
thousand and one particular problems referred to it the council quickly revealed its inferiority to
the papal administration. Debates were protracted and the members of the council became
immersed beyond their depth in details so as to lose sight of principles. After Luna's deposition in
1417, then, the Italians and the cardinals renewed their demand to proceed at once to the choice
of a new pope and go home. But King Sigismund and the German Nation insisted on drawing up
a reform program prior to any election so that the new pontiff would clearly understand the rules
according to which he ought to govern. It was on this question that the bloc now dissolved.
Despite Sigismund's personal peace efforts, Agincourt had renewed Anglo-French animosity
which overflowed into the council. The French claimed priority of conversion to Christianity over
the English and challenged their right to constitute a "Nation" at the Council-actually the English
group included the Scots and the Irish. The English retorted that Joseph of Arimathea had
brought them the Faith, and accused the French of starting the Great Western Schism by
establishing the papacy at Avignon. In May, 1417, Cardinal D'Ailly swung the French nation into
alliance with the Italians, and when the newly arriving Spaniards joined them the "Latin" nations
were arrayed against the "Teutonic," that is the Germans and the English. During the summer,
debate on the question of priority of election or reform waxed hot and a new schism seemed in
prospect.

German remonstrance. When the Latins accused Sigismund and his Germans of
browbeating and obstructionism, the latter retorted at length in September, 1417. In this "Great
Remonstrance" the German church poured forth its grievances almost exactly a century before
the Lutheran Revolt. Now the "patient and humble German Nation" scorned insinuations against
its orthodoxy; its reputation for strength and piety was too well known to need defense. But
reform of the universal Church was imperative, for once the popes had been "pastors of souls,"
though now for a century and a half they had been "pastors of finances." Then followed the most
scathing denunciation of the Avignon curial system on record. Its managers "have invaded the
rights of other churches by every ingenious and subtle device." No office or benefice has been
too large or too small for them to reserve to their own nomination. They have commended
benefices to absentees or persons incapable of performing the sacred functions attached to
them. Even before an incumbent's death they have granted away his benefice to another by way
of an "expectancy." Their appointees may be men unknown, ignorant, or even vicious-but they
are never poor. Beneficiaries are overwhelmed with taxes: annates, minor services, rights of
spoliation, etc. The curialists avidly summon legal cases, even secular ones, to their own courts,
but there they weary and impoverish litigants by delays and technicalities. Money seems to be
their all; for this they will grant any kind of indulgence, promote vagrants and fugitives to sacred
orders; with money they "exalt their relatives to the lofty ranks of secular princes."

After some verbose and rhetorical generalizations about the need of reform everywhere,
the Germans stressed their immediate contention that reform of the papal curia must be given
priority over a papal election. The Pisan nominees had been chosen with a promise of reform; it
had not followed. This mistake must not be made again; otherwise, even if a worthy pontiff is
elected, "he will stain his vestments of virtue while seated amid such abuses." Lest he "grope in
darkness," he should be forearmed by salutary regulations to " protect himself against
importunities of every sort." If some such program be not adopted, the German remonstrance
concluded, "it has not been, is not now, and shall not be the responsibility of the German Nation. .
. ." Despite its exaggerations and self-interested pleading, the German remonstrance contained
much truth. It ought to have been heeded; it was the tragedy of the Renaissance papacy that it
was not.

Compromise, as might have been expected, came from the English. Cardinal Henry of
Winchester, "half-uncle" of King Henry V of England and a friend of King Sigismund, worked out
an agreement whereby a papal election would be promptly held, but the new pope would be
supplied with definite conciliar recommendations. To ensure the success of these, the Council
enacted in October, 1417, the second basic document of the conciliar movement, the decree
Frequens. This contemplated the use of general councils as a permanent institution in regular
parliamentary session: the next would be five years hence, the second seven years later, and
thereafter a council would be held every ten years. By this means, supposedly, future popes
would be kept in line, and hence conciliarists thereafter clung tenaciously to Frequens, their
consolation prize at Constance.

(2) PAPAL RESTORATION

Papal election. This done, it was decided that six representatives from each of the now
five "nations" should be joined to the cardinals, a procedure which gave the purely conciliar
element a potential majority over the twenty-three cardinals. Fortunately there was no serious
disagreement and on St. Martin's day, November 11, 1417, Christendom heard the joyful news
that it again had an undisputed pope, Cardinal Oddone Colonna, who became Martin V (1417-
31). The papacy, wrested from its normal habitat to French domination by Sciarra Colonna, was
about to return to Rome with Oddone Colonna. Conciliarists were pleased with the genial,
learned, and pliant Cardinal Colonna (1368-1431) who had deserted the Roman obedience to
participate in the synods of Pisa and Constance. He was as yet only a subdeacon, and hence
was ordained on successive days, deacon, priest, and bishop.

National concordats. During the succeeding months, Pope Martin had to face the
eighteen points of reform presented to him by the council. When a reform commission disagreed,
a way out of the impasse was found by concluding special concordats with the individual nations.
The provisions of these varied, but their tenor may be grasped from the German articles which
incorporated some of the general reform decrees. it was promised that cardinals would
henceforth he named "proportionately from all parts of Christendom." Detailed regulations were
made regarding provisions, annates, tithes, commendations, dispensations, censures, and curial
jurisdiction. Some grievances were redressed, at least in promise, but Martin V retained the core
of the Avignon curial system, any contrary provisions notwithstanding--despite the fact that the
Germans had explicitly complained that the papal " notwithstanding" ran roughshod over local
rights. One stipulation has a melancholy significance today: Martin V assured the Germans that
"Our lord the pope will in future beware of excessive bestowal of indulgences, lest they be
despised."

Conciliar confirmation. The crucial point was papal confirmation of the conciliar decrees.
Thus far in his dealings with the nations, Pope Martin had carefully skirted the conciliar theory.
So many well-intentioned men-including the erstwhile Oddone Colonna-had been confused about
the traditional doctrine of papal primacy that the Holy See deemed it prudent to leave them in
good faith for a time, either passing over their demands in silence, or putting them off with various
evasions. On March 10 Martin V had declared that "it was unlawful for anyone either to appeal
from the judgments of the Apostolic See, or to reject its decisions in matters of faith." Then when
the Council ended its labors on April 22, 1422, the pope qualified his approbation of the decrees
of Constance as follows: he confirmed "each and every decree conciliarly adopted in a matter of
faith, but not otherwise." This cryptic statement really excluded the acts of the national
congregations, but only after the adjournment of the council did Gerson awake to the papal
mental reservation: for those decrees are "conciliar" which the pope approves, and no others.
Well aware that Martin V had omitted Sacrosancta, Gerson composed a treatise against the
papal bull of confirmation. It was too late; Martin V and his successor Eugene IV, when
importuned for confirmation of the conciliar theory, might evade or remain silent, but never could
they be prevailed on to approve what is now clearly recognized as material heresy. The
conciliarists had missed the bark of Peter on Lake Constance, but all did not know it yet.

Secularizing Theocracy: (1274-1453) XVIII. The Great Western Schism (1378-1449)

137. Conciliar Debacle: Basle (1418-49)

XVIII
The Great Western Schism

137.. CONCILIAR DEBACLE: BASLE

A. Revival of Conciliarism (1418-31)

(1) RETURN TO ROME
Pope Martin V, declining King Sigismund's invitation to remain in Germany for a time, left
Constance for Italy on May 16, 1418. Since Rome was in the hands of Queen Jane II of Naples
(1414-35), a sister of Ladislas, Martin at first remained in Lombardy. His patient diplomacy
induced the queen to yield him possession of Rome and also brought back to their allegiance
some papal vassals, such as Braccio di Montone, de facto ruler of central Italy. Hence Martin V
was able to enter Rome at last on September 30, 1420. He found the city in ruins after more than
a century of pillage and strife. The pope devoted himself energetically to the work of material
restoration, in which he succeeded admirably. The curial system had also to be revamped and
reformed according to the conciliar recommendations. Martin personally set a good example,
strove to eradicate the worst abuses of the curia, took measures to promote a better life among
the clergy, and prosecuted the "Spirituals." Yet during the latter part of his pontificate these
measures, which had never been thorough, were relaxed. Fundamentally the Avignon curial
system was transplanted to Rome, and was not essentially changed down to the Protestant
Revolt and the Tridentine reform. Suspicion of hostile tendencies among his aides induced
Martin V to practice nepotism, while the work of civic restoration naturally necessitated heavy
financial outlay. The old exactions began to creep back, and these provoked new criticisms.
Pastor cites disgruntled envoys of the Teutonic Order writing from Rome: "You must send money,
for here at the court all friendship ends with the last penny."

(2) RETURN TO CONCILIARISM

Frequens became Pope Martin's bete noir; he is said to have "shuddered at the very
name of council." Yet when the first council required by Frequens fell due in 1423, the pope
deemed it prudent to issue a convocation for it to meet at Pavia. The Hussite disturbances and
other wars delayed and reduced attendance. When a plague broke out at Pavia, the pope
transferred the rudimentary assembly to Siena. Since attendance still continued slack, Martin V
with ill-concealed delight dissolved the council, though he felt constrained to promise that the
second council requested by Frequens would be duly held at Basle seven years hence. But as
the appointed year arrived, Martin V seemed to have forgotten all about it. His pose of bland
unconcern was rudely shaken, however, on November 8, 1430, when placards were found on the
papal palace threatening him with deposition in case the "frequent" council were not summoned
before the expiration of the period prescribed at Constance. Reluctantly the pope issued a
summons for a council to meet at Basle the following year, but before the assembly had formally
convened, Martin V had died, February 20, 1431, and further fencing with the conciliarists was left
for his successor to handle.

B. Conciliarist Revolt (1431-49)

(1) DIFFICULT CONVOCATION (1431-34)

Pope Eugene IV (1431-47), elected the following March 3, was a nephew of Pope
Gregory XII He was a man of austere virtue and impressive mien. He was no more favorable to
conciliarism than his predecessor, and excelled him in firmness, though not in tact. But Cardinal
Cesarini had already been named legate to the assembly at Basle, by Martin V, and Eugene IV
could not gracefully halt developments. But he watched events closely and when in September,
1431, Cardinal Cesarini reported that attendance at Basle was still small, the pope authorized his
legate to dissolve the council.

Conciliar resistance. But Cesarini's report had been premature, for during the slow
exchange of papal correspondence King Sigismund had successfully intervened to terminate the
local disturbances which had hindered attendance. At Sigismund's urging, the early comers
opened negotiations with the Hussites during October in the hope of bringing these rebels back to
submission to Church and empire. The news that the council had intruded unbidden into the
papal preserve of matters of faith induced Pope Eugene IV to issue a definitive bull of dissolution
on December 18, 1431. But before this order reached him, Cardinal Cesarini had exercised the
discretion allowed him by his earlier instructions to convoke the council on December 14. When
the papal bull of dissolution arrived in January, 1432, Cesarini resigned the presidency, but
remained on as an observer, urging Eugene IV to reconsider. As for the Basle assembly, assured
of support by Sigismund's deputy, Duke William of Bavaria, it chose its own president, Bishop
Philibert of Coutance; re-enacted the decrees Sacrosancta and Frequens, and in April, 1432,
demanded that the pope rescind his bull of dissolution and appear at Basle within three months.
From this time until February, 1434, pope and council remained at odds, issuing mutual
recriminations, threats, and censures while Sigismund essayed his old role of mediator. As the
council grew increasingly dictatorial, Sigismund, who had received imperial coronation from
Eugene IV at Rome in June, 1433, inclined more to the papal side. But Sigismund was also
convinced that conciliar negotiations could alone solve the serious revolt of his Bohemian
subjects. Hence he came in person to Basle in October, 1433, and overawed the extremists into
making concessions. After prolonged disputes about phraseology-whether Eugene should say
"we are willing and content" or "we decree and declare"-the council induced the pope to accord it
a legitimacy retroactive to its inception. This was done in December, 1433, and in April, 1434, the
council admitted papal legates, though with ominous reservations.

(2) PAPAL-CONCILIAR CONFLICT (1434-38)

Papal vicissitudes. Less than a month after his reconciliation with the Council of Basle,
Pope Eugene IV was driven out of Rome. He had supported his native city of Venice against the
predatory tactics of Filippo Maria Visconti, duke of Milan, who in turn had sent his son-in-law,
Francesco Sforza, to ravage the Papal State. Sforza had defeated the papal forces and forced
the pope to yield. Then in May, 1434, a popular revolt, in part Visconti-inspired, broke out in
Rome, and Eugene IV barely had time to escape in disguise to Florence. He did not return to
Rome until September, 1443, and for some years was in straitened circumstances.

Conciliar ascendancy. Thus the pope was in no position to oppose the Synod of Basle
which promptly seized its advantage to proclaim anew the decrees of Constance in favor of
conciliarism. With the pope in political difficulties and Emperor Sigismund again entangled in the
Hussite wars, Basle became arrogant, usurped papal prerogatives, and even more than
Constance, wasted its time on local questions. Protests, chiefly regarding financial abuses, were
heard from the German and the French "nations." Despite Eugene's difficulties, Basle voted to
transfer the payment of annates to itself, and by 1435 had appropriated most of the pontifical
revenues. But it should be noted that of the 500 to 600 members of the Basle synod, but twenty
were bishops.

Conciliar schism. Byzantine proposals to treat of reunion were the occasion of a final
break between pope and council. Since the Greeks found it inconvenient to come to Germany,
the pope urged transfer of the Council to an Italian town, but the Basle conciliarists insisted on
remaining. Their obstinacy alarmed moderates in the council and a division took place on May 7,
1437. A numerical minority, though including most of the cardinals and bishops, voted for the
papal plan of transfer, while the majority demanded the pope's acceptance of their continued
sojourn under penalty of contumacy. Emperor Sigismund, the "Great Pacifier," now hastened to
the breach, but his death on December 7, 1437, ended all hope of compromise. Cardinal
Vitelleschi had put down the Roman revolt, and Eugene IV's political position had improved
sufficiently for him to venture to defy the council. On January 1, 1438, he formally transferred the
council from Basle to Ferrara, and the minority, beaded by Cardinal Cesarini, obeyed. But the
conciliarist majority under the leadership of its sole distinguished prelate, Cardinal Louis
Allemand, defiantly remained in session. On January 24, 1438, the Basle conventicle decreed
the pope's suspension; on February 15, Eugene IV excommunicated the rebels.

(3) DEFEAT OF CONCILIARISM (1438-49)

Princely neutrality. The new emperor, Albert II (1438-39), elected in March, at once
joined the German magnates in the Declaration of Mainz. This adopted a policy of neutrality:
While professing loyalty to Pope Eugene, they would at the same time remain in communication
with Basle, simply disregarding the measures taken by pope and council against one another. In
July, 1438, King Charles VII of France adopted a similar stand in what was termed the Pragmatic
Sanction of Bourges. The action of these princes, largely dictated by the hope of wresting
financial concessions from the divided ecclesiastical authorities, prolonged the papal-conciliar
contest. On the other hand, the saintly Henry VI of England urged reconciliation on Basle and
remained faithful to Eugene IV throughout the dispute.

Uncompromising conflict, on the contrary, was the attitude of the principals in the struggle
for ecclesiastical supremacy. Since Eugene IV refused to give explicit approbation of
Sacrosancta, the Basle conciliarists were logically forced to complete their rebellion by
proclaiming Eugene's deposition on June 25, 1439. But Eugene IV continued to recognize no
other ecumenical council than that of Ferrara which, shifted again to Florence on July 8, 1439,
consummated the long desired reunion with the Greek church. This achievement won for the
papal side the general respect of Christendom, for undecided persons now said that the pope
was healing schisms while the council was making new ones. For Basle, after anticipating Pius
IX by "defining" the Immaculate Conception, had filled Eugene's chair on November 5, 1439, by
the egregious choice of Duke Amadeo di Savoia, ancestor of the late kings of Italy. Basle now
directed all Christians to obey him as "Pope Felix V."

Conciliar decline. Albert II having died shortly after Amadeo's election, the German
electors in February, 1440, elected his cousin, Frederick of Styria, to succeed him. The new
Emperor Frederick III (1440-93) took no decisive step for several years. After failure of an
attempt at mediation in 1442, the emperor was induced by Aeneas Sylvius Piccolomini, one of the
ablest men still at Basle, to desert the sinking conciliar ship and make his peace with Eugene IV
(1443). In the same year Alfonso V of Aragon, Basle's only unqualified adherent among the
princes, renounced Amadeo in exchange for papal investiture to Naples which he had
appropriated after the death of Jane II in 1435. It now only remained to win over the "neutrals."
Aeneas Sylvius proved his loyalty to Eugene IV by winning over a majority of the German princes
who made their submission to that pontiff just before he died, February, 1447. After leaving a
secret memorandum for his successor in which he repudiated any act or word unwittingly against
papal primacy, Eugene IV died on February 23.

Exit Basle. Cardinal Tommaso di Sarzano was elected to succeed Pope Eugene without
delay. Crowned as Nicholas V (1447-55) on March 19, the new pontiff completed the
reconciliation of the schismatics and neutrals. "Felix V" and Basle had been haggling over
finances, and in June, 1447, the dissenting German minority joined the French at Bourges to
demand the antipope's resignation. During the same summer negotiations began which
terminated in 1448 in the Concordat of Vienna which completed German reconciliation
substantially on the basis of the original Concordat of Constance. This dealt the rebels the coup
de grace. "Felix V" resigned his futile pretensions on April 7, 1449, and made his peace with
Rome-the last antipope to date. Basle's members had been slinking away until a few survivors,
meeting at Lausanne, disbanded on April 25, after electing "Tommaso di Sarzano" to continue on
as Pope Nicholas V. With this pitiful gesture, we now know, the conciliar movement failed. But
this ultimate result was far from evident to contemporaries, and conciliarism remained a spectre
to paralyze papal initiative and threaten Christian unity down to the Council of Trent. But for the
moment a reunited Christendom rejoiced in the Holy Year of jubilee proclaimed by Nicholas V for
1450, and the late theocratic sunset shone over the figures of thousands of pilgrims trudging to
Rome to reaffirm their loyalty to the Holy See.

Secularizing Theocracy: (1274-1453) XVIII. The Great Western Schism (1378-1449)

138. The Hussite Schism

XVIII
The Great Western Schism

138.. THE HUSSITE SCHISM

A. Hussite Origins
(1) REMOTE: WYCLIFFISM
John Wycliffe (1324-84), English priest and Oxford professor, has already been noted as
an adversary of the Holy See and a disciple of the Spirituals. Though his doctrines were
ultimately condemned by the archbishop of Canterbury, William Courtenay, court influence seems
to have prevented Wycliffe's full punishment for heresy. Wycliffism, however, was to have an
international importance. By occasion of the marriage (1382) of Princess Anne, sister of
Wenceslas of Germany and Bohemia, to King Richard II of England, an interchange of scholars
and envoys had begun between the Universities of Prague and Oxford. Wycliffe's ideas were
introduced into Bohemia and adopted by John Hus. When Hussitism was censured at
Constance, Wycliffe's errors were also reviewed and repudiated. Hence it is well to preface the
history of Hussitism with a summary of Wycliffe's chief errors.

Wycliffism, in brief, proclaimed an invisible Church in which the hierarchy, if theoretically

admitted, could exercise little authority by reason of the inability of determining the state of a
prelate's conscience, on which depended in Wycliffe's view the validity of his jurisdiction.
Wycliffe's errors, as condemned by Pope Martin V and the Council of Constance in 1418,
contained 45 propositions, of which the following may be noted: "(1) The material substance of
bread and the material substance of wine remain in the sacrament of the altar. . . . (3) Christ is
not in the same sacrament identically and really in His proper corporeal presence. (4) If a bishop
or priest be in mortal sin, he does not ordain, consecrate, confect, baptize. (5) That Christ
established the Mass is not based on the Gospel. . . . (7) If a man is properly contrite, all external
confession is superfluous and useless. . . . (10) it is contrary to Holy Scripture for ecclesiastics to
have possessions. (11) No prelate may excommunicate anyone unless he first knows him to be
excommunicated by God. . . . (14) A deacon or priest may preach the word of God without
authorization from the Apostolic See or a Catholic bishop. (15) No one is civil lord, prelate, or
bishop while in mortal sin. (16) Civil lords can appropriate the temporalities of the Church at will.
(17) Citizens can correct sinful lords at will. . . . (30) Papal or prelatial excommunication is not to
be feared, as it is the censure of Antichrist. . . . (37) The Roman Church is the synagogue of
Satan and the pope is not the proximate and immediate vicar of Christ and the apostles. . . . (41)
It is not necessary for salvation to believe that the Roman Church is supreme among the other
churches. . . ."

(2) PROXIMATE: CAREER OF JOHN HUS

John Hus (1369-1415) was born in the village of Hussinecz, Bohemia, on July 6, 1369.
Early in life he went to Prague and worked his way through the newly founded University. His rise
was rapid: bachelor of arts in 1393, master in 1396, he became an instructor in philosophy in
1398. After his ordination to the priesthood in 1400, Hus was chiefly in the public eye as an
austere preacher. Court favor long ensured him immunity. Wenceslas the Drunkard was long
indifferent to heretical currents, while Hus was the favorite preacher and confessor of Empress
Sophia. As rector of the university in 1402 he had additional opportunities to propagate his ideas.
Archbishop Sbinko of Prague (1403-11) was disposed to be lenient toward the royal darling,
especially since Wenceslas had repudiated the Roman obedience which the archbishop
professed. Prompted by Rome, however, the archbishop indeed prosecuted Wycliffism, but
accepted readily Hus's assurances that be did not share Wycliffe's errors. Yet at this time books
of Wycliffe with approving annotations were in Hus's possession. Hus, moreover, counted on
latent Czech nationalism which resented the German domination. He preached often in the
native language and attracted the support of many of the Czech nobles, beaded by Jerome of
Prague, when he flayed the vices of the clergy. In 1409 Hus was able to persuade Emperor
Wenceslas, who like his father favored his Bohemian more than his German subjects, to grant the
Czech students at Prague University an arbitrary majority. The Germans and Poles then left in
anger.

Disciplinary measures against Hus, however, could not be avoided forever. The Synod of
Pisa had won momentary recognition for "Alexander V" in 1409, and emperor and archbishop
were no longer at odds on the question of obedience. Accordingly an order from Alexander to
proceed against Hus was put into execution. When Hus refused to bur', Wycliffe's writings and
cease preaching, the archbishop excommunicated him on July 16, 1410. This sentence was
ratified early in the following year by Cardinal Oddone Colonna, legate of "John XXIII." But the
execution of this sentence encountered Wenceslas's opposition. By his pact with his brother
Sigismund, the emperor's effective rule was now confined to Bohemia, and he feared to challenge
the Czech nationalism which Hus had evoked. Archbishop Sbinko was exiled and died in 1411.
Hus, though he went into prudent retirement from time to time, continued to enjoy liberty and to
defy and ridicule "John XXIII," whose position, indeed, was becoming increasingly precarious.
The Great Schism, then, gave Hus his opportunity to establish his views firmly throughout
Bohemia. Wycliffe's doctrines reappeared in Hus's Tractatus de Ecclesia. Apparently Hus came
to convince himself of his security, for in October, 1414, he accepted a safe-conduct from
Sigismund to proceed to explain his teachings at Constance. "The safe-conduct of John Hus
was, according to its contents neither more nor less than a passport, which had no power to
prevent the council or any other proper authority from bringing the holder of it to justice." Giving
out that he would soon be vindicated by the whole Church, Hus departed for Constance with
Jerome of Prague and other disciples.

(3) CONDEMNATION OF HUSSITISM

Pre-trial conduct. En route to Constance, Hus continued his preaching, leaving

theological disputes and riots in his wake. He came to Constance on November 3, 1414.
Pending the opening of his examination, "John XXIII" released him from excommunication and
allowed him the liberty of the city, on condition that he refrain from celebrating Mass and
preaching. When Hus disobeyed these injunctions, he was placed in mild confinement.
Sigismund repeatedly warned him that his safe-conduct would not protect him in case of
condemnation, but Hus rejected such an outcome of the inquest as unthinkable. During the next
six months inquiries were made into Hus's teachings, but his formal trial was delayed by the flight
and deposition of "John XXIII."

Trial. Hus was brought to trial before the council from June 6 to June 8. He denied many
of his alleged writings and refused to recant anything against which a scriptural text could not be
adduced. But he defended Wycliffism which had already been censured by the council on May 4.
The error of Hus's teaching was soon evident to all his examiners, and the sole question became
that of securing his submission. The council was prone to be lenient and proposed a general
recantation whereby Hus might merely affirm that he abjured all of his errors. This admission he
refused to make on the ground that he had taught no errors and that none had been proved
against him.

Doctrinal errors there were, however, in the council's judgment, a judgment subsequently
upheld by Pope Martin V. On July 6, 1415, thirty propositions from Hus's writings were proscribed,
and these, along with the condemned assertions of Wycliffe, received Pope Martin's censure on
February 22, 1418. The chief errors ascribed to Hus included: "(1) There is but one holy,
universal Church, which is the society of the predestined (7) Peter is not and was not the head of
the holy Catholic Church (12) No one is the vicar of Christ or of Peter unless he follow him in
morals. . . . (15) Ecclesiastical obedience is an obedience invented by the priests of the Church
beyond the express authority of Scripture. . . . (17) Christ's priests living according to His law and
having the knowledge of Scripture and the desire to edify ought to preach despite pretended
excommunication. . . . (25) The condemnation of the 45 articles of John Wycliffe made by the
doctors is irrational, unjust, and badly done. . . . (30) He is no civil lord, prelate, or bishop while he
is in mortal sin. . . ."

The sentence of July 6, 1415, was given Hus on his birthday. His resolute defiance was
patent and he was handed over to the secular arm as an obstinate heretic. The municipal
authorities had had enough trouble with John Hus; they burned him at the stake that very day.
Hus's courageous obstinacy at death raised his reputation among his disciples, who henceforth
regarded him as a martyr. Jerome of Prague was also tried, condemned, and executed on May
30, 1416. But it was ominous that 450 of the Bohemian nobles had signed a protest against the
punishment of one of their number; Hussitism was about to become a militant force.

B. The Hussite Wars

(1) DEFIANCE (1415-31)

Utraquism. Curiously enough, the rallying point of the Hussite wars was a doctrine which
Hus himself had not stressed. But the Prague professor, Jacob of Mies, had maintained that both
priests and laity ought to receive the Eucharist under both species. This declaration had not
escaped the notice of the Council of Constance, which on June 15, 1415, had declared that
Communion under both species was unnecessary for the laity since Christ was present whole
and entire under each species, and that the custom of lay reception of the chalice had been
discontinued for adequate practical reasons. Yet the notion of receiving Communion sub utraque
specie captivated many Bohemians who did not otherwise subscribe to Hussitism: these
"Utraquists" became militant ritualists.

Defenestration of Prague. The sectaries began to put their rite into operation with the
toleration of Emperor Wenceslas. Catholics resisted and on July 30, 1419, rioting developed into
civil war. While the excanon, Johann of Selau, was carrying the chalice in an Utraquist
procession in Prague, it was rumored that a stone had been thrown at him. In retaliation some of
the Hussites invaded the senate and hurled seven of its members out of the window on to the
spears of the mob. This violence exhausted the emperor's patience; he vowed vengeance but
was carried off by apoplexy on August 16, 1419. This left the Bohemian throne to his brother
Sigismund. Since the latter was known to be an uncompromising advocate of Catholic and
German supremacy, Hussite nationalists fled from Prague. Under John Ziska, alleged instigator
of the "Defenestration," the radicals fortified a mountain fifty miles from Prague which they named
Tabor. Ziska organized an effective army and by 1420 was master of Bohemia, including its
capital.

Anti-Hussite crusades. Martin V and the Council of Constance had named Sigismund
executor of the sentence against the Hussites. The new Bohemian king set out his task with
German troops, a circumstance which confirmed the nationalist rebels in their resistance. The
Czechs had two able generals, Ziska (d. 1424), and Prokop (d. 1434). Ziska developed primitive
artillery and tanks, and devised a defense of his convoys by baggage wagons, similar to that of
American pioneers against Indians on the plains. Sigismund was brave, but an old-fashioned
knight like his grandfather John, who was slain at Crecy. Repeatedly he led feudal chivalry
against yeomen and peasants armed with new weapons. As often repulsed, Sigismund was
forced out of his kingdom and placed his chief hopes on negotiations with the new Council of
Basle. The Hussites began to invade neighboring states so that public prayers were ordered in
German dioceses at the sound of the bell--from which practice the Angelus evolved.

(2) HUSSITE SURVIVAL (1431-1519)

Compact of Prague. Basle treated with the Hussites from 1431 to 1434. The very
question of negotiating at all divided the Hussites: the Taborite extremists refused to treat, while
the moderates, called Calixtines, were willing to be reconciled if their fixation about Communion
under both species received some recognition. On November 30, 1433, the Compact of Prague
with the Council of -Basle conceded to the Calixtines the use of the chalice on condition of their
professing belief in the real presence under both species.

Taborite rout. The Compact confirmed Hussite divisions and the Germans invaded anew
to deal with the reduced forces of the Taborites. At long last the Germans had learned from their
foes. Pretending to flee, they enticed the now over-confident Taborites from their circular fortress.
Then at the proper moment, the German knights wheeled and cut down the Taborites before they
could regain their defenses. Renewed negotiations patched up a peace with many reservations
of dubious sincerity on the part of the Taborites. But Sigismund was at last recognized as the
king of Bohemia.

Germs of Lutheranism. Hussitism had been divided and driven underground, but it
survived. After Sigismund's death in 1437, conditions permitted its revival. During the minority of
King Ladislas, a German Habsburg, the native Bohemian, George Podiegrad, came to the fore,
first as regent, and later as king. His concessions to the native Hussites undid the work of
reconciliation at Prague. Though his successor, Ladislas of Poland (1471-1516), was a staunch
Catholic, the irreconcilable Hussites, now called Bohemian Brethren, were too strong to be
suppressed. Thus Hussitism survived until that day at Leipzig in 1519 when the Catholic
champion, Johann Eck, forced Luther to admit that he had studied and approved teachings of
John Hus. For the first time the theocracy, if it had contained, had been unable to extinguish, the
fire of heresy.

Secularizing Theocracy: (1274-1453) XIX. Medieval Oriental Sunset (1245-1453)

139. Medieval Missions

XIX
Medieval Oriental Sunset

139. MEDIEVAL MISSIONS

A. The Near East

(1) CRUSADING CONTACTS
The Crusades, indeed, even when entirely religious in intent, usually made use of
physical, even military, means to promote the Christian and Catholic Faith. Nonetheless, the
contacts of the crusaders, and more especially of the occupation forces that succeeded them,
with the Mohammedans, not infrequently resulted in some conversions. Surely St. Francis of
Assisi had none but missionary objectives in view during his visits to the sultan at Cairo and to the
Holy Land, where his disciples took up permanent quarters as custodians of the Holy Sepulchre.
About the middle of the thirteenth century we hear of 57 Mohammedans baptized by the
missionaries in St. Louis's forces, and the Dominican, William of Tyre, is reported to have
converted a thousand. St. Thomas Aquinas wrote his monumental Summa Contra Gentiles with
missionary apologetical problems in mind, and Raymund Lullus was a persistent publicist for the
missions. At least one home missionary organization is mentioned. While the masses of Islam
remained beyond the reach of missionary endeavor and influence, the crusades also brought
schismatic Oriental groups, long isolated from Catholic unity, into contact with Rome. Many
individuals and groups abjured heresy or schism, and at least some of these reunions were
lasting.

The Armenians of the Cilician principality (1185-1375), touched by the Crusades, were
reunited with Rome about 1200. As a national allegiance, this reunion endured on] until the
collapse of the crusading outposts in 1291, although thereafter many individuals, and even some
prelates, remained or came into communion with the Holy See. The Dominicans adopted some
of the Oriental customs and rites during the fourteenth century in order to win over the dissidents.
Four Armenian representatives attended the Ecumenical Council of Florence in 1439, and a
"decree for the Armenians," Exultate Deo, was published by that council, though it received no
lasting support.

The Syrians also treated with the crusaders and their missionary adjutants. The
Maronites, 40,000 in number, submitted to the Holy See in 1182. Their union was not at first
continuous, for Innocent III had occasion to excommunicate Patriarch Luke (d. 1209), and
dissidents continued to predominate in Cyprus. But after the Maronite delegate Isaac had
subscribed to the decree for the Maronites, Benedictus Sit Deus (1445), all their patriarchs have
been in Catholic communion. The Syrian Jacobites also displayed some interest in
communication with the Holy See, and sent a representative, Abdalla of Edessa, to the Council of
Florence. Though he accepted Cantate Domino, the decree for the Jacobites, in 1441, no real
corporate reunion resulted.

The Chaldeans at Bagdad were contacted by Dominican missionaries early in the

thirteenth century, and several patriarchs sent professions of faith to Rome. Though their
emissaries were kindly received at the papal curia, either their professions proved unsatisfactory,
or the controlling groups in the sect would not allow a termination of the schism. But disputes for
the patriarchate occasionally sent rivals on the rebound to the Holy See, and some Cypriote
Chaldeans seem to have been reconciled at the Council of Florence.

The Copts of Egypt, despite the missives sent to Rome by various dissident patriarchs,
remained generally unfriendly to the crusaders, even though Saladin and the Mamelukes
persecuted dissidents as well as Catholics. Though Patriarch John XI sent Abbot John to the
Council of Florence in 1439, the conciliar decree for the Jacobites was never promulgated in
Egypt.
In Ethiopia the princes and bishops, although recognizing the jurisdiction of the Coptic
Jacobite patriarch of Alexandria in Egypt, were less distrustful of Rome. Prince Keddis Harbe
(1150-82) in his correspondence with Emperor Frederick I, referred respectfully to the "Pope of
Rome." This original "Prester John" was imitated in his Romeward leanings by many of his
successors. Some Dominican missionaries were sent to Prince Yekuno Amlak (1268-83), but
were expelled by his successor. One Abba Andrew signed the Florentine decree for the
Jacobites in 1441, but this was not put into effect. Contacts with the center of Catholic unity
continued, however, into the period of the Renaissance when Ethiopian alliance with the
Portuguese against the Moslems produced some temporary conversions. Under Pope Sixtus IV
(1471-84) an Ethiopian college was erected at Rome.

North Africa. After the Moslem conquest, efforts had been made to reintroduce the Faith
into North Africa. Five bishops are heard of in 1053, and Pope St. Gregory VII consecrated
Servandus for the African mission in 1076. The crusades renewed Christian hopes of recovering
North Africa for the Faith. At the urging of Pope Honorius III (1216-27), the Franciscan friars
attempted the task of evangelizing the region, but five were martyred in 1219, and seven in 1227.
Raymund Lullus (c. 1230-1315) penetrated the Moslem area three times before being stoned to
death at Tunis. During the latter half of the thirteenth century, the Franciscan Conrad of Ascoli is
reported to have converted 6,400 in Libya, but these missions had no permanent success.
Spaniards, however, by papal commission began to occupy and to evangelize the Canary Islands
about 1350, and this process continued in Madeira (1420), the Azores (1431), and Cape Verde
(1450), thus opening up the launching platforms for the modern voyages of discovery and
evangelization. A bull of Pope Eugene IV in 1435 prohibited enslavement of the natives of the
Canaries under penalty of excommunication. At the close of the Middle Ages and at the opening
of modern missions--in the Sublimis Deus of Paul III (1537)-the Holy See continued to insist: ". . .
the truth shall make you free."

(2) MONGOL MISSIONS

The Mongols by their meteoric conquests rose to be lords of the greater part of Eurasia
during the thirteenth century. Though soon afflicted with divisions, they remained a powerful force
for some two centuries. Ruthless barbarians, they were as yet pagans, and hence lacked the
rooted prejudices of the Mohammedan people of the Orient. As early as the First General
Council of Lyons (1245), Pope Innocent IV dispatched Friar John de Plano Carpini, O.F.M., to
contact the Tartars. The papal envoy met General Batu in Hungary and was conducted before
Khan Kuyuk, whose installation he witnessed in 1246. He was allowed to go back with this
message of the great khan for the Westerners: "If you wish peace with us, you pope, emperor, all
kings, you strong men of cities, make no delay in coming to us. . . . Your correspondence states
that we ought to receive baptism and become Christians. Our simple reply is that we do not know
why. . . . We adore God and in His might will overwhelm the entire world. . . ." Carpini brought this
message to the pope at Lyons during 1247, and further communications were exchanged. During
1253-4, Friar William of Rubruck and his companions were sent by King St. Louis IX Of France to
Sartak, son of Batu of the Golden Horde. They reached the Volga and passed on into the Central
Mongolian area, and eventually brought back travel reports incorporated by Roger Bacon in his
writings.

Persia for a time seemed the most promising mission in Mongol territory. Pope Innocent
IV sent greetings to Khan Baiju in 1247 through Friar Andrew de Longmeau and another
Dominican, and an alliance was proposed with the crusaders in Palestine against the
Mohammedans. II Khan Abaga (1265-82), for his part, welcomed Western aid. In response to
his envoys, John and James Vassali, two Georgian Christians, Pope Nicholas III in 1276 sent
Friar Gerard and other Franciscans to Persia. Some converts were made, but Abaga's son
Ahmad (1282-84) apostasized and persecuted the new mission. Khan Argum (1284-91)
reopened negotiations through the Nestorian monk Barsauma, who arrived in Rome in 1287. He
was sent back by Nicholas IV with gifts for the khan and the Nestorian primate Mar Jabalaha-who
made his personal submission to the Holy See in 1304. In 1389 Argum sent the Genoese
Buscarel as his envoy to propose an attack on Palestine by the combined forces of the Mongols,
the pope, Edward of England, and Philip of France. The fall of Acre in 1291 put an end to such
plans for collaboration, and anarchy followed Argum's death in the same year. Khan Ghazan
(1295-1304) eventually renewed the proposals for alliance to Pope Boniface VIII, whose
difficulties with Philip the Fair prevented him from taking advantage of them. Khan Olahitu (1304-
16), though once baptized, apostasized in order to obtain the throne. Yet he still hoped for
Western assistance and Pope Clement V gave him some vague promises. The missionaries
continued to be sent to Persia and the Franciscans had houses in nine towns; in 1318 Pope John
XXII erected the metropolitan see of Sultanich in the Persian capital. But the invasion of Timur
the Lame in 1387 disrupted the Persian missions, which finally died out when the II Khans were
won over to the Mohammedan religion. In 1431 Sultanieh was occupied by the Moslems and its
archbishop sent into exile. But in the sixteenth century some dissidents of the Chaldean rite in
Persia reunited with Rome, and Latin missionaries returned in the reign of Abbas the Great at the
opening of the seventeenth century.

B. The Far East

(1) CHINA

The Mongols also penetrated into China where they established a. dynasty which
endured until 1368. Here, indeed, Nestorians had been in residence as early as 635, although
their influence on Chinese life had not been great. Kublai Khan conformed to the official
Buddhism in 1260, but announced toleration for all cults. The Venetian merchants, the Polos,
who had set out for China during the pontificate of Alexander IV (1254-61), returned to Europe in
1269 bearing Kublai's request for Western scholars. They first encountered Archdeacon Visconti
at Jerusalem, who had just been elected Pope Gregory X. The pope-elect forthwith dispatched
two Dominican missionaries to return to China with the Polos (1271), but the friars seem to have
lost heart or fell by the wayside. Nor do missionaries sent by Pope Nicholas III in 1278 seem to
have gotten beyond Persia.

Mission in Cathay. But in 1289 Nicholas IV commissioned Friar John of Montecorvino,

who did at last reach China by 1294, after passing through Persia, India, and the Indian Ocean.
Though opposed by the Nestorians, he erected a church at Peking in 1299, translated the Psalms
and New Testament into Chinese, and won over the Nestorian Prince George of Tenduc. By
1304 he is said to have made 6,000 converts. Thus far he seems to have received only one
assistant, Friar Arnold of Cologne, but in 1307 Pope Clement V sent seven newly consecrated
Franciscan bishops to China. Only three survived to consecrate John of Montecorvino
archbishop of Peking in 1309 or 1310. During Montecorvino's pontificate, which lasted until his
death in 1328, Blessed Odoric converted some 20,000 in Peking and vicinity. Archbishop John
himself was diligent in ransoming pagan children, baptizing them and educating them as
Christians. In fact, he is said to have organized a choir of 150 voices which rendered Gregorian
chant in Latin to the delight of the aged Kublai Khan. A cathedral and several churches were built
in Peking and other churches and monasteries in Fukien. There seem to have been at least
30,000 Christians at the time of Montecorvino's death after one of the most remarkable
missionary careers in Catholic history.

Missionary eclipse. By 1330, however, all the missionary bishops in China seem to have
been dead, for in 1333 Pope John XXII sent Bishop Nicholas as a replacement. He was probably
halted in Middle Tartary, for in 1336 Chinese Christians sent a request for bishops and priests.
Pope Benedict XII in 1338 named Friar John of Marignoli as papal legate to China, and he had
reached Peking by 1342. He was well received at the Mongol court and labored with success
until he returned to Avignon to implore more missionaries. There is no record of another mission-
the Black Death had just decimated Europe-before 1368 when the native Ming dynasty overthrew
the Mongols and commenced a suppression of Christianity by force throughout China. In 1370,
indeed, Pope Urban V appointed William of Prato archbishop of Peking to lead a large missionary
band, but there is no evidence that they ever reached their destination. As late as 1405 two friars
journeyed from Peking to Rome to ask assistance, but in 1410 Peking was practically a titular
diocese. The Mongol contacts on which the mission had depended having broken down, the
Christian mission appears to have starved in isolation.

(2) THE INDIES

Earlier Christian contacts had been made with India, if not by St. Thomas the Apostle, at
least during the primitive period of the Church. But by the sixth century these early missions had
passed into schism or heresy.
During the Middle Ages, missionaries sent from Europe to the Mongols often reached
India, and some evangelization must have been attempted. A few converts must have been
made, for in 1329 there is record of the consecration at Avignon of Jordano Catalani to be the
bishop for Columbo in the island of Ceylon. Although nothing further has been reported of this
Bishop Jordan, during the same century John of Marignoli, the papal envoy to China, discovered
a church of the Latin rite at Ceylon. Thereafter there is no further information regarding contacts
of the Indies with the Holy See until the arrival of Vasco da Gama in 1498.

Secularizing Theocracy: (1274-1453) XIX. Medieval Oriental Sunset (1245-1453)

140. Turkish-Mongol Impact

XIX
Medieval Oriental Sunset

140. TURKISH-MONGOL IMPACT

A. Conquest of the East (1307-1481)

(1) RISE OF THE TURKS
The Seljuk Turks have already been mentioned in connection with the crusades. Their
assistance as Saracen mercenaries revitalized the declining Mohammedan power, and enabled it
to shatter the Byzantine forces at Manzikert in 1071, thereby anticipating the crusades.
Eventually the Seljuks had become the actual masters of the caliphate of Bagdad, but their own
internal disputes prevented them from erecting a stable state. Civil war and Mongol attacks
dissolved them for a time into weak rival principalities.

The Ottoman Turks were one of these Seljuk tribes whose service on the Mongol frontier
hardened them into disciplined soldiers. Their reputed first chieftain, Ergotul, was a mercenary of
the Seljuk Sultans of Rum in Asia Minor. His son, Osman or Ottoman, built up this force with
which he was able to supplant his masters. At the death of the last sultan of Rum, Aladdin III
(1307), Emir Ottoman declared himself independent and began to extend his power. Most of his
reign was spent in reducing neighboring emirs to subjection and in incorporating their troops into
his army. Only in the year of his death (1325) did he reveal the danger of his new power to
Christendom when he captured Brusa from the Byzantine monarchy, thus bringing the Turkish
frontiers to the Hellespont.

Orkhan (1325-59), Ottoman's son and successor, continued this expansionist course
victoriously. After defeating the Greeks at Pelekanon, he captured Nicea, the Byzantine
stronghold in Asia Minor, in 1330. Soon afterwards he adopted a policy of exacting from Christian
villages which he had subdued an annual surrender of boys eight years of age. These he trained
in Mohammedanism to become civil and military servants. The latter group developed into the
"Yeni Tcheri" or Janissaries, a fanatical elite corps whose ferocity against their former co-
religionists became formidable. Orkhan participated in Byzantine palace intrigues and by seizing
and fortifying Gallipoli gave the Turks their first foothold in Europe.

Murad I (1359-89), Orkhan's second son, succeeded to the sultanate when the elder son
Suleiman, victor of Gallipoli, died in 1358. Murad forced the Basileus to pay tribute, and
inaugurated large-scale raids into the Balkans which yielded further spoils, but cost him his life at
the Turkish victory of Kossovo over a Slavic coalition (1389).
Bajazet I (1389-1402) followed up his father's depredations and himself won another
triumph at Nicopolis in 1396. The Balkans seemed doomed, but Bajazet was diverted at this
moment to face a sudden Mongol eruption under Timur the Lame, the storied Tamerlane. At the
battle of Angora in 1402 Bajazet was defeated and captured, and Ottoman strength went into
temporary decline while the sultan's sons fought one another for succession to the throne.

(2) TURKISH TRIUMPH (1402-81)

Murad II (1421-51). Nearly a score of years was required before one of Bajazet's sons,
Mohammed I, had reunited the Ottoman dominions. But at his death in 1421 he left an
undisputed throne to his son Murad IL The new sultan twice laid siege to Constantinople without
success, though he continued to exact tribute from the Byzantine monarchs. Hitherto the Turkish
forces had won many victories in the Balkans by circling about Constantinople; now they began
definitive conquests. When George Brankovic, the Serbian prince, refused tribute, Murad II
advanced to crush his vassal. To oppose the Turks, George of Serbia fashioned a great Balkan
alliance which included Sigismund of Germany and Hungary, Stephen IV of Bosnia, and Vlad II of
Wallachia. But Murad II won repeated victories until King Ladislas of Poland and his general
John Hunyadi opened a counterattack. After the Florentine religious reunion (1439), moreover,
Pope Eugene IV organized a crusade to assist in Balkan defense. Cardinal Cesarini was sent as
legate to reconcile the Christian leaders, and succeeded so well that Murad proposed an
armistice. This was concluded at Adrianople on June 12, 1444, by a number of allied envoys.
King Ladislas, however, deferred his signature and renewed his attacks-he made no oath to be
later repudiated at Cesarimi's persuasion, as was sometimes asserted. Nevertheless the result of
this delayed and isolated onslaught was disastrous: King Ladislas and Cardinal Cesarini perished
in the battle at Varna, November, 1444. Murad II thereafter found it possible to begin to encircle
Constantinople, and John Hunyadi was defeated at Kossovo (1448) in trying to break this
strangle hold that was developing.

Mohammed II (1451-81) continued his father Murad's investment of Constantinople.

Despite strenuous efforts by Pope Nicholas V, no effective assistance was forthcoming from the
West. Nor did the fall of the great city in May, 1453, elicit much response from nationalistic
statesmen. For the next century and a half the Roman pontiffs reiterated their appeals for a
general Christian crusade, but secular rulers now seldom paid any real attention unless their own
dominions happened to be immediately threatened. After the fall of Constantinople, Mohammed
II advanced to deal a death blow to Balkan independence. Papal legates once more roused the
Hungarians to a sense of their danger, but commercial interests at Venice and Genoa withheld
maritime assistance to the Christian cause. Spurred on by the exhortations of St. John
Capistrano, however, the old warrior Hunyadi successfully relieved Belgrade in 1456, though he
lost his life in the battle. After Hunyadi's death, Mohammed II experienced little difficulty in
annexing Serbia (1459), Bosnia (1463), and Wallachia (1464). In Albania, George Castiota,
surnamed Scanderbeg, conducted a good defense until his death, but thereafter much of this
country was also overrun. Turkish interference with Venetian trade in the Aegean provoked a
naval war in which the Venetians were worsted and forced to cede many of their Levantine
outposts. By 1483 all independence had been extinguished on the Greek mainland, and the
Turkish sultanate was still a vigorous and expanding power.

B. Balkan Slavic Problems

(1) SERBIAN HEGEMONY

Serbian rise. During the Latin domination of Constantinople, the Serbs were able to
assert their full independence from the Byzantine monarchy. Since 1168 a line of princes of the
Nemanja dynasty had enjoyed considerable autonomy, and Stephen Nemanja II (1196-1223) took
the royal title. Though the Serbs were for the most part dissidents, their rulers occasionally
professed regard for Rome for political motives; thus the first Serbian king accepted coronation
from a papal legate in 1217. But in 1222 the king had the ceremony repeated by his brother, the
schismatic Archbishop Sava, whom he had named head of the Serbian autocephalous church.
Under succeeding rulers three religious factions came forward. The pro-Latin Croats leaned
toward Rome and Hungary; the Greeks naturally advocated religious and civil submission to
Constantinople; while the nationalistic monarchs, who usually got their way, insisted on
independence both in Church and state. Stephen Urosch II (1242-76) was not averse to an
alliance with Charles of Anjou in the Two Sicilies, though Stephen Dragutin was pro-Hungarian.
Stephen Milyutin (1281-1321) and Stephen Duchanski (1321-31) profited by the decline of the
Byzantine monarchy to extend their rule, and the mighty King Stephen Dushan (1331-55)
conquered Macedonia, dominated Bulgaria and Bosnia, and was on the verge of capturing
Constantinople when death overtook him.

Serbian decline. Discord caused decline to set in almost at once during the reign of
Stephen Urosh (1355-71), an inefficient ruler at length defeated by the Turks at Maritiza in 1371.
His fall brought the Nemanja dynasty to an end. His successors, the elected princes Lazarus and
Stephen, became tributary to the Turks. Prince George Brancovic (1425-56) did maintain a
successful struggle for Serbian independence, but the kingdom fell to the Turks when the
dissident Serbs sabotaged the efforts of his Catholic successor, Stephen Tomasevic. In 1459
Serbia, and in 1463 Bosnia as well, passed under the heavy Turkish yoke for four centuries.

(2) BALKAN SUBJUGATION

Bulgaria, which had been subject to Constantinople from 1018 to 1185, also regained its
political independence under the native Asen dynasty. Kaloyan Asen (1197-1207) recognized
papal primacy in 1204, was crowned by a papal legate, and accepted a pallium for Archbishop
Basil of Achrida. But the dynasty's most powerful monarch, John Asen II (1218-41), succumbed
to the temptation of a national church. The kingdom declined rapidly under his successors, and
after passing for a time under Serbian domination, surrendered to Turkish rule in 1393. The
metropolitan see of Achrida was subjected by the sultans to the direct control of Constantinople in
1767, and the Bulgarian ritual was Hellenized until ecclesiastical autonomy was regained in 1870.

Moldavia and Wallachia, nucleus of modern Romania, fared little better ultimately than
the other Balkan states, although they were able to preserve some autonomy as tributary
principalities until 1526 before being incorporated into the Ottoman dominions. Their schismatic
church also was subjected to Hellenizing until it became autocephalous in 1885.
Albania, on the other hand, put up an amazing resistance to the Turks. Their princes, the
Castriot-Scanderbegs, subsidized by the papacy, held off the Turks for two lifetimes, but in 1479
Albania also fell under that Mohammedan tide that had engulfed all of the Balkans. Even so,
many of the Albanian fastnesses were never fully subjected to Turkish rule, and Christians of the
Byzantine rite survived. Some refugees who came to southern Italy revitalized the Italo-Greek
rite and preserved their national religious customs with the approval of the Holy See.

Secularizing Theocracy: (1274-1453) XIX. Medieval Oriental Sunset (1245-1453)

141. Byzantine Reunion and Collapse (1261-1453)

XIX
Medieval Oriental Sunset

141. BYZANTINE REUNION AND COLLAPSE

A. Byzantine Fall
(1) MOMENTARY REVIVAL (1261-82)
Michael Paleologus, Greek despot of Nicea, had reconquered Constantinople from the
Latins in 1261, and founded the dynasty which reigned over the Byzantine monarchy during its
last period of independence. Michael found the Greek dominions divided into principalities, some
Latin, the others Greek. Though he succeeded in reducing several of these fragments to
submission, the Byzantine monarchy never regained the area nor the strength which it had
possessed prior to the Latin conquest in 1204. In its weakened condition, moreover, it was
exposed to Western counterattack. The last Latin ruler at Byzantium, Baldwin II, had willed his
claims to the formidable Charles of Anjou, who had established himself in the Two Sicilies since
1266. The Basileus accordingly sought to ward off this peril by seeking reunion with Rome, in
which case he would no longer constitute the legitimate objective of a crusade. The Second
General Council of Lyons (1274) gave Michael the opportunity to make his personal submission
to Pope Gregory X, but in this he was scarcely followed by the majority of Greek clerics or
laymen, who remained sullenly hostile to any reunion. Michael achieved his political aims to the
extent that the Holy See in 1275 obliged Charles of Anjou to sign a truce with Constantinople, and
in 1282 the "Sicilian Vespers" relieved the Basileus from any immediate anxiety from Angevin
imperialism. Greek bickering about the Filioque persisted at Constantinople, and Michael himself
was denounced to Rome as abetting heresy. In 1281 he was excommunicated by Pope Martin
IV, and his death the following year loosed the last bonds of reunion.

(2) BYZANTINE DECLINE (1282-1425)

Andronicus II (1282-1332), Michael's son and successor, was a weak and unfortunate
ruler. He entirely broke with Rome by deposing the Uniate patriarch, John Beccos, who had
submitted at Lyons. Though revived Angevin schemes came to naught, in 1325 Andronicus was
badly defeated by the Turks at Brusa. But instead of uniting against this new foe, the Paleologi
engaged in the customary palace intrigues.
Andronicus III (1332-41), who supplanted his grandfather in 1328 in the conduct of the
government, proved to be a frivolous and irresponsible autocrat who did little to guard
Constantinople against the Turks or the rising Serbian power in the Balkans.

John V (1341-91), legitimate successor of Andronicus III, had to contend with the
usurpations by John Cantacuzene (1354) and of his own son Andronicus (1376). In 1355 the
Serbs nearly captured Constantinople, and in 1366 the Basileus himself was taken by the
Bulgarians. Ransomed by his wife's Savoyard relatives, John V went to Rome where he made
his submission to Pope Urban V. The Greek clergy repudiated his action, and any Western
assistance that he might have expected as a result of his submission was not forthcoming,
Emmanuel II (1391-1425), John V's younger son, also carried on intermittent negotiations with the
West in the hope of procuring military assistance against the growing Turkish encirclement. But
in 1402 the city received a reprieve when the Turks were routed by the Mongols, and the Osmanli
plunged into a generation of civil discord. The recuperative forces of Constantinople were evoked
once again to put down rebellions at home and rebuild resources. But by the end of the reign,
Turkish might had begun to advance once more upon Constantinople.

(2) FLORENTINE REUNION (1425-39)

Preparations. John VIII (1425-48), Emmanuel's eldest son and successor, perceived that
the emergency was so grave that Latin help must be obtained at all costs. The accession of the
Venetian pope, Eugene IV, smoothed relations with Constantinople, though Greek participation in
reunion was delayed by the disputes between the pope and the council at Basle. In November,
1437, the Greeks accepted the papal terms and set out for Ferrara, whither the pope had
transferred the Council of Basle. The Greek delegation included the Basileus, Patriarch Joseph II
of Constantinople, proxies of the dissident patriarchs of Alexandria, Jerusalem, and Antioch, and
numerous theologians.

Byzantine accord. Discussions began on April 9, 1438, and continued at Ferrara and
Florence until July 6, 1439. The chief points in dispute were papal primacy, the Filioque in the
Creed, use of unleavened bread, and the nature of purgatory. Cardinal Cesarini led the Italian
theologians and Mark of Ephesus was chief spokesman for the Greeks, but the great mediator
proved to be John Bessarion, Greek bishop of Nicea. Basic agreement was reached on July 6,
1439, by 133 Latins and 33 Greeks and embodied in the reunion decrees of the bull Laetentur
Caeli. Therein it was defined that "the holy Apostolic See and the bishop of Rome have a
primacy throughout the whole world, and that the bishop of Rome is himself the successor of St.
Peter, the Prince of the Apostles, and that he is true Vicar of Christ and head of the whole
Church, and father and teacher of all Christians." The Greeks professed that the Holy Ghost
proceeded from both the Father and the Son, "as from one principle and one spiration." It was
agreed that the Holy Eucharist could be validly consecrated in either leavened or unleavened
bread; for liceity, each rite should adhere to its own usage. The Latin teaching on purgatory was
set forth at length, and other questions, such as the epiklesis, discussed but not defined. The
Greek Schism was thus officially terminated once more, and Patriarch Joseph died in union with
the Holy See at Rome in the same year. Bessarion and Isidore of Kiev, both promoted cardinals,
remained at Florence to continue discussions with other Oriental groups. The other Greeks,
including the dissenting Mark of Ephesus, left Florence in August, 1439.

Levantine pacts. The council continued in session at Florence and later at Rome, and
eventually succeeded in reuniting a number of dissident groups from the eastern Mediterranean.
In November, 1439, Katholikos Constantine V led the Armenians into submission; for their benefit
Exultate Deo, the theologically important decree for the Armenians, specified the matter and form
of the seven sacraments. In 1442 Cantate Deo announced the reunion of numerous Jacobites,
that is, Monophysites from Ethiopia and Syria. Finally in 1445 the Maronites, some of whom had
already reunited with Rome, declared their allegiance, together with the Chaldean Nestorian
bishop, Timothy of Tarsus. The Maronites, and a fraction of each of the other sects, persevered
in the Florentine reunion.
 (3) LAST DAYS OF BYZANTIUM (1439-53)

John VIII (1425-48), then, returned to Constantinople a Catholic, but by no means

satisfied with the Western promises of military aid. Nonetheless the Basileus loyally supported
the reunion until his death. To succeed the deceased patriarch, he named the Uniate
Metrophanes II (1440-43), but Mark of Ephesus stirred up the anti-Latin prejudices of the Greeks
and it is reported that when the new patriarch appeared to give his blessing, the populace turned
away their faces. Neither Metrophanes nor his two Uniate successors were able to win over the
majority of the inhabitants of the capital to the Florentine Union. This remained official rather than
popular: the pope's name was restored at long last to the diptychs, and most of the Caesaro-
papist prelates gave lip service to Rome. But the conciliar decrees were not published at
Constantinople, so great was the general and ill-concealed dissatisfaction.

Constantine XIII (1448-53), John's brother and successor, also gave lifelong support to
the Florentine Union. But the Byzantine populace did not abate its hostility to the Latins and
displayed apathy regarding the defense of Constantinople by means of western aid. The slogan
ran: "Better the prophet's turban than the pope's tiara." Pope Nicholas V (1447-55) sought to
muster a new crusade for the relief of the Greeks, but encountered throughout the West the usual
nationalistic narrow-mindedness, underlined by local protests against the proposed tithe to defray
expenses. The only real response came from a tiny papal fleet which with the marines of the
Venetian and Genoese commercial flotillas ran the gantlet into Constantinople. The fleet bore
one of the sincere Florentine converts, Cardinal Isidore of Kiev. In capacity of papal legate and
administrator for the vacant patriarchal see, Isidore solemnly proclaimed the Florentine Union in
Hagia Sophia on December 13, 1452, but thereafter most of the populace boycotted the church.
Constantinople had meanwhile been subjected to a methodical Turkish siege and reduction of
outworks. To meet the final attack Constantine XIII had less than 10,000 troops against forces
estimated at ten to fifteen times as great. The last Turkish attack was ordered on May 29, 1453,
and before evening Constantinople had surrendered. The Basileus Constantine, last of the
Caesars, fell sword in hand.

Schismatic aftermath. Cardinal Isidore was able to escape in disguise from the fallen
capital. The Turkish victors posed as patrons of Greek "Orthodoxy" and found ready
collaborationists. Sultan Mohammed II summoned the antiunionist leader, George Skolarios, and
dictated his choice as Patriarch Gennadios II (1453-56). He and his successors repudiated
Rome to become the sultan's puppets. Hagia Sophia was converted into a mosque and the
entire Byzantine church went under the yoke. Gennadios and his successors were obliged to
receive investiture from the sultan who bestowed upon them the berat or diploma defining their
rights as government functionaries. This could be recalled at whim, and thereafter under
Ottoman rule patriarchs were named and deposed every few years.

B. Russian Survival (1240-1533)

(1) THE RISE OF MUSCOVY

Mongol domination. The Mongols had invaded Russia in 1237 and by 1240 had reduced
the discordant Russian principalities to vassalage. One of the Russian princes, Daniel of Galicia,
temporarily returned to Catholic communion in 1255 and received a crown from Pope Innocent IV.
Great efforts were also made to win over to Rome Prince Alexander Nevski (1236-63), the hero of
later Russian resistance to Tartar oppression. Though Alexander was not ultimately successful in
his struggle for independence, Catholics at least won a greater degree of toleration in Russian
territories. During the later thirteenth century missionary work was done among the Mongols by
the mendicant friars.

Princes of Muscovy. Moscow had become one of the Russian principalities in 1305, but it
was not until Ivan I Moneybags (1325-41) that its rulers began to assume the leadership in the
long struggle to throw off the Tartar yoke. The process was slow and met with many reverses, but
Prince Dmitri Donskoi (1359-89) inflicted the first serious reverse on the Mongols in 1380. Yet
another century was required before Russian independence could be won. Basil I (1389-1425)
made slow progress, but under Basil II (1425-62) the principality relapsed into anarchy. It
remained for Ivan III (1462-1505) to resume the forward march. He subordinated all the other
Russian principalities to Muscovy and finally repudiated Mongol overlordship after his victory in
the Battle of Oka (1480).

Imperial ambitions were entertained by the same Ivan III who laid the foundation for
subsequent Russian claims by marrying Zoe, niece of the last Byzantine Basileus, in 1472. Ivan
and later Russian rulers pretended that by this alliance they had become the legitimate
successors of Byzantine. To their way of thinking, Moscow had become the "Third Rome,"
destined to wear the imperial mantle in succession to the Tiberine city which had fallen in 476,
and the "New Rome" or Constantinople which had yielded to the Turks in 1453. Thereafter
Russian rulers began to pose as defenders of all Orthodox Christians and to dream of conquering
the Balkans and of eventually setting up their throne at Constantinople itself. This ambition
proved a powerful factor in modern history and created the "Eastern Question." For the present
neither Ivan III nor his son, Prince Basil IV (1505-33) dared challenge the Ottoman dominions.
But with the latter's son, Ivan the Terrible (1533-84), Russia would begin her robot-like march to
world domination.

(2) RUSSIAN ORTHODOXY

The Eastern Schism had engulfed the Russian church some time after 1054 as a
consequence of the dependence of its metropolitan see of Kiev upon Constantinople. But
contacts with Rome had continued to be amicable, and occasional archbishops of Kiev, resentful
of Byzantine jurisdiction, were quite "Romish." After the rise of Muscovy, its princes began to
prevail upon the Kiev Metropolitans to reside at Moscow, while remaining as yet titulars of the
primordial Russian see. At the time of the Council of Florence, this dual position was held by St.
Isidore, the Russian metropolitan, a native of Greek Salonika. Against the wishes of Prince Basil
II, he subscribed to the Florentine Reunion and returned to the ancient see of Kiev, which
thereafter remained in union with Rome until 1517. To offset this, the Muscovite rulers
established a separate Schismatic metropolitan at Moscow. This see became autocephalous
with the fall of Constantinople and persevered in schism. Once Ivan the Terrible had assumed
the more pretentious secular title of "czar" (caesar) in 1547 the carrying out of the analogy of the
"Third Rome" demanded the patriarchal title for the head of the Russian schismatic sect.
Influenced perhaps by bribery, Patriarch Jeremias II of Constantinople and a synod of the four
Greek Orthodox patriarchs in 1591 accorded Moscow the fifth patriarchal rank after Jerusalem.
The new patriarchate, however, was to have a feeble career. Abolished by Peter the Great in
1700, it remained in abeyance until 1917. Communism which dispensed with a patriarch after
1925, restored the patriarchate to a puppet existence in 1943.

Secularizing Theocracy: (1274-1453) XIX. Medieval Oriental Sunset (1245-1453)

142. Later Medieval Life and Liturgy

XIX
Medieval Oriental Sunset

142. LATER MEDIEVAL LIFE AND LITURGY

A. "Ecclesia Docens"
(1) THE PAPACY
Theocratic decline. It would be erroneous to say that the theocracy was dead after
Anagni. It still exerted considerable influence, especially in Italian and Iberian lands. Documents
of Alexander VI partitioning the new discoveries between Spain and Portugal are evidence of the
persistence of curialist claims, though these would soon be challenged even by the Catholic
theologians, Vittoria, St. Robert Bellarmine, and Suarez. Such international law as existed was
still the norm of the theocracy, though most popes took care not to invoke the old sanctions
against the more powerful national monarchs. Pope St. Pius V's effort to depose Elizabeth I of
England (1570) may be regarded as the last noteworthy exercise of the ancient penalties. The
papacy had been constituted an international supreme court by medieval public opinion; modern
public opinion, alienated by the curial abuses and still more poisoned by secularist propaganda,
was about to withdraw its delegated jurisdiction, at first by nonsupport, then by positive
opposition.

Spiritual primacy remained unchallenged in actual practice, although the conciliar theory
had raised doubts not easily allayed. The system of papal provisions introduced at Avignon and
substantially preserved in the national concordats at Constance, brought an increasing number of
benefices under juridical appointment by the papal curia. But in point of fact, many concessions
to local interests had to be made in dealing with the electoral bodies, and frequently a persona
non grata had to be recognized after a successful defiance. More serious obstacles arose after
the Pragmatic Sanction of Bourges (1438) ushered in a series of royal pretensions to nominate to
sees and other benefices. The national monarchs of France, Spain, and England were extorting
greater control over their native hierarchies from the papacy, a tendency that would continue until
the French Revolution. The Renaissance papacy would be too lenient, moreover, in exchanging
spiritual privileges for ephemeral political advantages, and these concessions, once made, could
not safely be recalled from regalist Catholic monarchs lest they follow their contemporaries into
the Protestant Revolt. Hence such monarchs came to regard these privileges as their inalienable
rights acquired by prescription. Clerical immunity became tenuous, financial autonomy was
invaded, and unruly nationalistic attitudes developed among the clergy to the detriment of papal
jurisdiction.

The papal curia continued to develop into a bureaucracy not wholly amenable to papal
direction. Cardinalatial. election capitulations multiplied, ever seeking to bind future pontiffs to
respect the interests and policies of the sacred college. Within that college, dissident factions
allied to national and secular powers disturbed conclaves and consistories, and the only papal
defense lay in nepotism and political bargains. Curial officials followed the cardinals' example on
a small scale, though in place of power and honor, they sought more wealth, not always by licit
means. Papal patronage of humanists, indeed, made certain converts to the Church, but these
were often of dubious sincerity. This inert curial administration seriously blocked reform efforts,
while providing not so much leadership as encouraging anarchy.

(2) THE HIERARCHY

The Greek bishops had made a brief effort to reconcile their long-standing differences
with the Holy See at the Council of Florence, but had soon reverted to permanent schism. A few
Uniates survived the reunion negotiations, however, and formed a nucleus for future conversions
within each of the Oriental rites. Some clerics and scholars, moreover, in fleeing from the
destruction of Constantinople, greatly enriched Latin culture.
The Latin bishops were threatened with a secular absolutism that differed only in degree
from that of the Byzantine court and their Ottoman successors. Once the national monarchs had
wrested the power of nomination from the Holy See or from the local chapters, the national
hierarchies tended to become subservient to the crown. Though the prince-bishops still
conserved their temporal jurisdiction in Germany, they were continually involved in secular
concerns. The nobility came to monopolize sees and abbeys which virtually became appanages
for families of the magnates. Nonresidence or residence without care of souls became common,
and the case of the archbishop of Magdeburg who was the ordinary for thirty-three years before
celebrating his first Mass is but an extreme instance of widespread delay of reception of orders by
titulars of palatine bishoprics.

Episcopal jurisdiction was seriously curtailed by the institution of patronage. This had
survived the Dark Ages, and though brought under canonical regulation by the reforming
theocracy, had persistently evaded or defied discipline. As the prestige of the papacy, hierarchy,
and the whole clerical order waned, abuse of patronage became more common and less
rebuked. The practice of conferring benefices in commendation, in plurality, in expectancy, etc.,
grew, and there were not lacking those who purchased preferment by outright simony, or made
prenomination deals to subtract a portion of the ecclesiastical goods or income in favor of a
patron. Even when patrons were not oppressive, clerical independence was likely to be seriously
hampered. Episcopal jurisdiction and revenues were diminished by the necessity of accepting
nominees presented by patrons. For instance, out of 469 parishes in the diocese of Paris, the
bishop was free to make but 215 appointments, and within the city itself had the disposal of only
six benefices. In the see of Grenoble, episcopal appointments were limited to 221 out of 515,
while at Lyons merely 21 parishes out of 392 were at the archbishop's disposal. The chapters
had to be placated and readily usurped episcopal jurisdiction. Some of the canons, and a
majority of the religious, enjoyed complete exemption in practice from episcopal control. This
often led to disgraceful wrangling between bishops and their nominal subjects, and the contests
sometimes descended to physical violence. Disputes were carried to the courts where property
rights, tenure of office, precedence in processions and choir were contested endlessly to the
scandal of the laity. In some places these fights were avoided only by nepotism, purchase of
abbeys, and other devious means. There can be little doubt that the solicitation or expectation of
princely favor was the inspiration for much of this. And the disgraced Wolsey during his belated
repentance for such a state of affairs would coin an immortal phrase: "Had I served my God as
well as I served my king."

(3) THE CLERGY

Secular clergy. The influence of the Black Death and the disorders of the Great Western
Schism displayed their deleterious effects upon the clerical body during the later Middle Ages.
Both intellectual and moral standards were insensibly lowered. Economic stress reduced some
clerics to beggary or a hand-to-mouth existence; in short, a clerical proletariat threatened to
develop from which heresiarchs would End it easy to enlist rebels against prelatial rule. The
pastors, moreover, experienced interference with their rights by religious, and shared in petty
contests of rival liturgical services, "battles of the bells."

New religious communities a eared during the later Middle Ages as during every age of
the Church, but with the exception of the Brethren of the Common Life, few attained anything that
approached the phenomenal attraction or influence of the monastic and mendicant orders in the
days of their youth. The Brethren of the Common Life were founded by Gerard de Groote (1340-
84) as a congregation without vows. They performed excellent services in educating youth until
the defection of northern Germany and the Netherlands deprived them of their most flourishing
institutions. They were finally suppressed in 1568. Other new religious congregations were the
Hieronymites, the Hermits of St. Jerome, and the Jesuates or Brothers of St. Jerome, founded by
Blessed Giovanni Colombini in 1360. St. Jane of Valois, repudiated wife of Louis XII of France,
established the Order of the Annunciation, and St. Bridget of Sweden, the renowned mystic,
founded the Order of the Holy Savior-both cloistered institutes for women.

Older religious orders made certain efforts to reform, though most of these pre-Tridentine
revivals lacked thoroughness and permanency. The Benedictines almost universally succumbed
to a commendatory system: "This was the period during which the great Benedictine houses were
fully caught up into the feudal system, the abbots becoming feudal lords with results only too
often deplorable. At this time, too, the evil system of commendam reached its greatest
magnitude: the system whereby an extern, not a monk, often not an ecclesiastic, was nominated
abbot of a monastery by some outside authority, pope or king or lay patron representing the
founder of the monastery, to administer the temporalities, manage the property, carry out the
feudal obligations, especially the military ones, and above all, draw the greater part of the
revenue of the monastery, only a portion, often inadequate, being assigned for the maintenance
of the community and the upkeep of the monastic buildings. . . . After the Conquest, commendam
never took place in England, thanks to the kings, who resisted all attempts at introducing it, so
that Wolsey was the single English commendatory abbot. On the Continent, the institution was
widespread and most pernicious." Most monastic orders were plagued by this abuse: witness the
complaint of the monks of St. Denis that they lacked a solid roof, edible bread, and adequate
clothing. The mendicant orders retained more of their vitality, but representatives had long since
transgressed the rules of scholastic debate in their theological contests, and their rivaly was often
unedifying. The military orders, with the exception of the Hospitalers still on the front lines, were
fast undergoing secularization.

B. "Ecclesia Discens"
(1) LITURGICAL PRACTICES

Liturgical developments during the later Middle Ages were few in the aggregate. The
sacramental liturgy had reached a definitive form. Baptism by infusion became general, though
immersion was retained in the Ambrosian liturgy at Milan. The Hussite difficulties saw a revival of
communion under both species for the laity within a restricted area. The Council of Trent was to
concede a limited sanction to this practice, but it was not destined to survive. For the most part,
despite local and temporary disturbances, Christian liturgy went on as before, an expression of
community devotion: Viaticum was still carried publicly to the sick down to the Lutheran Revolt.

The liturgy of the Mass remained basically unchanged, but local divergences became
accentuated and clerical celebration and lay communion became less frequent. Local celebration
of the feast of the Immaculate Conception began in 1389, and despite Dominican protests,
gained steadily in popularity. The feast of Corpus Christi was extended to the universal Church in
1311, gaining wide popularity, and the feast of the Blessed Trinity introduced at the close of the
Easter Cycle in 1334. After Hunyadi's victory over the Turks, the feast of the Transfiguration of
our Lord was inserted into the calendar. The trend during the later Middle Ages was toward
multiplication of low Masses for private requests. Unfortunately abuses arose in this connection.
Bequests for Masses led to the foundation of chantries or private or semipublic chapels, which
provided the entire support and work of some priests. Multiplication of the clergy to take care of
such demands did not always result in a clerical body of better character, nor did it contribute
greatly to the much needed pastoral care of souls.

(2) POPULAR DEVOTION

Devotion to the Passion, contrary to subsequent statements of Luther, was widespread

among the laity during the later Middle Ages. it is during this age that the Stations of the Cross
came into favor as a sort of substitute for pilgrimages to Jerusalem. Many writers attest the
popularity of the devotional practice, although the number of stations was not yet fixed: it varied
between eight and thirty-four. At this time also the book, Imitation of Christ, typical of the piety of
the Brethren of the Common Life, attained a popularity which it has largely retained.

Devotion to Mary likewise sought new manifestations. The Rosary had become by this
time an established practice. The Angelus began its evolution at the time of the anti-Hussite
crusades when bells were ordered sounded to remind German Catholics to pray because of the
serious dangers to the Church. Pope Calixtus III and his successors promoted this devotion, and
were seconded in this respect by King Louis XI of France.
 Devotion to St. Joseph now came into prominence through the writings of D'Ailly and
Gerson, while St. Bernardine was to become its most persuasive herald. Pope Sixtus IV (1471-
84) introduced the festive celebration into the Roman Breviary for March 19.

Devotional aberrations, however, were not absent. In the West, the Flagellants, public
self-scourgers, made their first known appearance at Perugia in 1260. They became quite active
after the Black Death, and later their extravagances and the sometimes heretical accretions of
their practices required the intervention of the hierarchy. In the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries
the Inquisition felt obliged to proceed against the excesses of "St. Guy's Dancers" or "St. John's
Dancers," and the mania of witchcraft, so prevalent in the Renaissance and Protestant Revolution
periods, displayed some early manifestations. In the East, it was chiefly the Hesychasts who
disturbed the peace during the latter days of Byzantium. "The fourteenth century mystic-quietistic
sect of the, Hesychasts or Palamites-so-called after the monk Gregory Palamas (d. 1359)-taught
a real distinction between the divine essence (ousia) and the divine efficacy of the divine
attributes (energeia). While the former was claimed to be unknowable, the latter was claimed to
be vouchsafed to humanity in a condition of contemplative prayer (hesychia) through an
uncreated divine light. . . ." During the reigns of Andronicus III and John V (1328-91), these
largely monastic devotees warred with the secular clergy, at once secularist and rationalist, but
the latter prevailed.

(3) INDULGENCES

Confessionalia, or litterae confessionales began with Pope John XXII. These were
indults granting the penitent the right to select a confessor who would then be empowered to
remit temporal punishment of sin at the time of sacramental absolution: absolvens a poena et a
culpa. They became very popular, but never was confession omitted as a prerequisite for
obtaining the indulgence. jubilee indulgences were multiplied on behalf of those who would
contribute to pious works. Here again, though orthodoxy was never infringed, abuses crept in
which gave some indulgence campaigns the appearance of being mere money-making schemes.

Conclusion: The fall of Constantinople, last relic of the ancient classical Roman Empire,
is as good a date as any to close ancient and medieval history. Presently a new world would
come into view with the Columban discoveries and the Portuguese return to the ancient world of
the East. The Renaissance, already in labor for a century, would soon give birth to a "new man,"
supposedly animated by a new spirit. Intoxicated with the heady "humanist" doctrine, this famed
man of the Renaissance would soon succumb to a lasting disruption of the unity of Christendom.
The "Age of Faith" was closing, for faith was growing weak, and charity consequently grew cold.
But such were but superficial judgments. For the seemingly irresistible torrent of intellectual and
religious change struck against the rock of him whose faith would fail not, and he, once converted
from too mundane preoccupation's, would presently confirm the brethren of what continued to be
the Holy Catholic Apostolic and Roman Church.