CHAPTER XXXIX.
THE GREAT WESTERN SCHISM.
From Parson's Church History
On the death of Pope Gregory XI., March 17, 1378, the Sacred College was composed of the following: Italians: Peter Corsini, bishop of Porto, generally styled the cardinal of Florence; Francis Thebaldeschi, archpriest of St. Peter's; Simon di Brossano, archbishop of Milan; James Orsini; Frenchmen: Anglic Grimoard, bishop of Albano; Giles Aysselin de Montaigu, bishop of Tusculum; John de Blauzac, bishop of Sabina; Peter de Monteruc, vice-chancellor; William de Chanac; Hugh de Saint-Martial; John de Lagrange, bishop of Amiens; John de Cros, bishop of Palestrina, styled the cardinal of Limoges, grand-penitentiary; William d'Aigrefeuille; Bertrand de Lagery, bishop of Glandeve; Hugh de Montrelaix, bishop of Saint-Brieuc, styled the cardinal of Brittany; Guy de Malesec, bishop of Poitiers; William Noellet; Peter de Verruche;Peter Flandrin; Gerard du Puy, abbot of Montmajeur; Robert of Geneva; Peter de Sortenac, bishop of Viviers; Spaniard: Peter de Luna. The first six Frenchmen were at Avignon; the cardinal Lagrange was in Tuscany; sixteen therefore entered the Conclave. From the very commencement of the deliberations, the Romans could be heard outside, shouting: "We want a Roman, or at least an Italian"; the thirteen bannerets, or chiefs of the rioni (wards) had already declared, before the Conclave, their wishes in the matter (1). After some hesitation, and after a stormy colloquy with the prefect of the rioni, their Eminences decided upon choosing an Italian; and the cardinal of Limoges, seeing that Thebaldeschi's age and infirmities rendered him unavailable, turned to the other Italians, and said: Cardinal of Florence, you cannot receive the tiara, for your city is now hostile to the Holy See. Cardinal of Milan, neither can you, for you are a subject of Bernabo Visconti, who combats the rights of the Church. Neither can you, Cardinal Orsini, for you are too young to be Pope, and again, you area Roman, and therefore partial. Consequently, I give my vote for Bartholomew Prignano, archbishop of Bari." The other cardinals, Orsini alone excepted -he announcing his intention to cast no vote, were convinced by the arguments of de Cros (which we shall notice hereafter), and they declared for Prignano. But they hesitated to publish the result, lest the Romans might not be satisfied. However, the people soon learned that a Pontiff had been chosen, and they clamored for the announcement of the personality of their Pope-King. In order to prevent the crowd from forcing the doors of the Conclave, the bishop of Marseilles devised the expedient of telling
them to " go into St. Peter's where they would learn who was Pontiff. " His language was misunderstood, and gave the impression that Cardinal Thebaldeschi, styled the cardinal of St. Peter's (he being archpriest of that basilica) was elected. The mistake was confirmed by Montelaix, who replied to the cry of "The Pope, the Pope!" by asking: "Have you not the cardinal of St. Peter's? " Accordingly, in spite of himself, Thebaldeschi was vested in the Pontifical robes, and the 'overjoyed Romans began to pay him homage. Finally, the infirm old man succeeded in making the people understand that it was the archbishop Prignano who had been elected, and they rushed off in search of the real Pope. Nearly all the cardinals had profited by this mistake, or trick, to escape from the Vatican; only Corsini, Brossano, de Luna, and du Puy had the courage to remain. When the Romans had found the archbishop of Bari, they hastened to render him homage, but he checked them; saying that his election had not yet been published, and it was necessary to know whether the canonical forms had been respected. During the night that ensued, Prignano remained in the palace, and uncertainty reigned in every mind. On the following morning, eight cardinals who had fled to Castel Sant' Angelo came to the Vatican, and joined the four who had remained; all twelve then proceeded to the chapel of the Conclave, and declaring that the archbishop of Bari had been canonically elected, besought him to accept the burden. Prignano assented, and assumed the name of Urban VI.
During the eight days that preceded the coronation, the new Pontiff was assisted in the ceremonies of the Holy Week by all the cardinals of the late Conclave, for the four fugitives from the city (1) had returned, and had paid homage to him. All were present at the coronation when Orsini placed the tiara upon the head of Urban VI., and all joined in the solemn cavalcade from St. Peter's to the Lateran basilica. During three months all treated Urban as a legitimate Pope, naming him in the public prayers, and receiving benefices and favors from him. But in the month of June, all the
French cardinals were in open revolt, and three out of the four Italians were of dubious fidelity. From the moment of his election, Urban seems to have displayed, as a general rule, the more repulsive side of his character. His measures, however, were calculated to produce good effects, and had the French cardinals not been disposed to seek any excuse for undoing the work of the late Conclave, they would have patiently borne with the Pontiff's haughty manners (1). On the day following his coronation, Urban turned abruptly to certain foreign prelates who had come to assist at Vespers, and said: " You are perjurers; you have deserted your churches, in order to reside at the court of Rome" (2). Two weeks afterward, he pronounced, in full Consistory, a discourse against the luxury of the curials, and very soon he ordered the cardinals to diminish their retinues, and to be content with one course for their dinners (3). These sumptuary regulations greatly displeased the Frenchmen, most of whom were men of high lineage, and used to external magnificence. However, such restrictions might have been tolerated, but the Frenchmen were cut to the quick when they perceived that the Pontiff was about to put an end to the dictatorship of France in the counsels of the Church. One day the bannerets of Rome waited upon Urban, and asked him to signalize his elevation by a number of promotions to the cardinalate. The Pope replied that he intended to give the hat to a certain number of Romans, or at least Italians. Anger was visible at once on the countenances of the Frenchmen; the face of Robert of Geneva grew white; all immediately left the room (4). A crisis was reached when the Pontiff received the Cardinal Lagrange, who had been deputed by Gregory XI. to assist at the Congress of Sarzana. In full Consistory the Pontiff styled Lagrange a traitor to the interests of the Church; whereupon the cardinal retorted, with a menacing gesture: "Archbishop of Bari, you lie," and immediately left the hall (5). Toward the end of June, the French cardinals asked and obtained permission to spend the hot season at Anagni, and here they met Onorato Gaetani, count of Fondi, a bitter enemy of the Pontiff. They immediately leagued with this noble and with the prefect of Viterbo, Francis de Vico. They also assured themselves of the friendship of Rostaing, the French commander of Castel Sant' Angelo (1). Fully determined on revolution, the Frenchmen now took into their service twelve hundred Bretons, the remnant of the Breton free-lances whom Gregory XI. had employed in his war against Florence. Pope Urban tried to conciliate the disaffected Frenchmen, and sent the Italian cardinals Orsini, Corsini, and Brossano, with offers of accommodation. Then he transferred his court to Tivoli, that he might the more easily observe the enemy's movements. Orsini and his companions could effect no change in the state of affairs, and Urban soon realized the need of preparing for open war. He received from the cardinals at Anagni a manifesto which declared that the late Pontifical election was null; that the archbishop of Bari was an apostate; an Antichrist, and excommunicated (2). On August 9, their Eminences of Anagni issued a circular to all the faithful, in which they insisted that the Holy See was vacant (3). The university of Paris and the different sovereigns all received special letters, in which the disaffected admitted, strange to say, that they had really elected the archbishop of Bari, but insisting that they had so done, because they believed that lie himself would regard the election as illusory (4). The cardinals Orsini, Corsini, and Brossano, now retired to Vicovaro, where they continued, for a time, in a kind of neutrality (5).
The baldeschi remained outspokenly faithful to Urban VI. until death called on him in 1380. But though Orsini, Corsini, and Brossano remained at Vicovaro, refusing to follow the Frenchmen when they removed to Fondi, they now ceased to communicate with Pope Urban (1). Their retirement from the Papal court was the signal for a general desertion; nearly all the French curials, and some of the Romans, joined the cardinals at Fondi. The Hungarian, English, and German prelates remained. On Sept. 18, the Pontiff created twenty-nine new cardinals. The revolted cardinals had already resolved to give a rival to Urban, but they hesitated to do so without the concurrence of their Italian brethren. Thebaldeschi was unapproachable, but the three others might be influenced. For some time Orsini, Corsini, and Brossano resisted the allurements of ambition, but they were conquered by Nicholas Spinelli, the chancellor of Queen Jane of Naples, and a personal enemy of Pope Urban. This diplomat waited upon each of the three, assuring each one that the Frenchmen were resolved to raise him to the Pontificate, if he would definitively abandon Urban. The ruse succeeded, and all three joined the pretended Conclave at Fondi on Sept. 20. Great was the astonishment of the Italians when, on the very first ballot, Robert of Geneva was announced as elected, but they acknowledged him as Pontiff; separating, however, from him at once, and retiring to the castle of Tagliacozzi. Orsini soon afterward died, refusing to recognize Clement VII., but remaining outside the obedience of Urban VI. Brossano lived some time, and died at Nice, while on his way to Avignon. Corsini died at Avignon, protesting that Clement VII. was the true Pope.
Robert of Geneva came of a very old family which was allied with many of the royal houses of Europe. His own talents and personal courage were undeniable; but his
habits were thoroughly secular, and he was ostentatious, prodigal, frivolous, and indolent. The Italians quite naturally detested him, for it was he who, in the war with Florence, had led the free-lances of Brittany to the sacking of Cesena. When he first claimed the Popedom, Clement VII. bad around his person nearly all the members of the old Roman court; but, while Urban VI. was nearly universally recognized as Pontiff, his adversary was acknowledged only by Naples, Savoy, and Provence. It became, therefore, a matter of essential importance to Clement to extend his obedience (1), and for this purpose he sent the cardinal de Cros, styled the cardinal of Limoges, to France; Aigrefeuille to Germany and Bohemia; Malesec to England and the duchies of Hainaut, Flanders, Brabant, and Gueldres; de Luna to the Iberian peninsula. Aigrefeuille persuaded the dukes of Austria, Lorraine, and Bar to acknowledge Clement VII., but he failed in Bohemia and Germany. Malesec exerted himself vainly in England; and the lord of Flanders, remembering that, immediately after the election of Urban VI., be had received from this same Malesec a letter declaring its canonicity, menaced the prelate with imprisonment if he did not leave his dominions. But in France, the cardinal of Limoges succeeded in procuring the patronage of King Charles V. and of the University of Paris. At first, indeed, the English and Picard "nations" of the university declare? for neutrality, while the Faculties of theology, canon law, and medicine, and the French and Norman " nations" pronounced for Clement; but on May 26, 1379, the university officially entered the obedience of Clement. Charles V. at once sent embassies to all his allies, urging them to recognize Clement, but Scotland alone responded. In Spain, the genius of the cardinal de Luna finally triumphed over all obstacles; when John I. ascended the Castilian throne, in 1379, a conference of prelates and doctors was ordered to consider the great question at Medina del Campo.
The discussion lasted from Nov., 1380, until the following May, and it resulted in the recognition of Clement. Six years afterward Aragon and Navarre came to the same decision. But de Luna had no success in Portugal, owing to the influence which England then exercised in that kingdom. Christendom was now divided into two obediences.
Urban VI. was recognized by all northern and nearly all central Italy; by the emperor Wenceslaus; by Hungary, Poland, England, Brittany, Flanders, Denmark, and Sweden.
Clement was obeyed by the kingdoms of France, Castile, Aragon, Naples, Cyprus, and Scotland; by Genoa, Savoy, Geneva, Lorraine, Bar, and Rhodes. During the forty years that the schism lasted, there were some variations in these obediences, some of the powers declaring for neutrality until a General Council could settle the lamentable controversy.
We do not propose to follow this schism through all its details; whatever of controversy arises from it can be settled solely by a study of its origin. If the election of Pope Urban VI. was canonical, it follows that his successors, Boniface IX., Innocent VII., and Gregory XII., were legitimate Pontiffs; that the so-called Clement VII., Benedict XIII., and Clement VIII., in spite of the sensitiveness of certain French writers as to the use of this term in the present connection, were Anti-Popes. With regard to Alexander V., elected after the Council of Pisa pretended to depose Gregory XII., and with regard to his successor, John XXIII., it would seem, if we note the usage of the Holy See, that they should be classed as dubious; for while certain undoubted Pontiffs, coming after the termination of the schism, have taken the names by which Robert of Geneva, Peter de Luna, and Giles Munoz, were known, and thus have manifested the mind of the Holy See as to the proper qualification of Clement VII. and his line, the undoubted Pontiff, Alexander (Roderick Borgia), called himself the Sixth of that name.
Before we enter upon a discussion as to the validity of the election of Pope Urban VI., a few reflections are to be made on the nature of the Great Western Schism. It has been well remarked that this most afflicting of all the dissensions which have ever troubled the Church was unique,, inasmuch as it was a schism without schismatics.
We shall show that the election of Urban VI. was canonical, and that therefore they who rebelled against his authority were guilty of schism; but it is certain that, owing to the artifices of the original culprits, the masses of Christendom were led to doubt as to who was, or was not, the legitimate Pontiff; that, therefore, in following the obedience which seemed to them proper, they were not schismatics, properly speaking, even when they acknowledged as Pope one who was not such. The Catholic doctrine of there being one supreme head of the Church on earth was never denied by our ancestors of the fourteenth century during these days of trial; nay, it was because of their attachment to this article of faith, that they would not hear of a compromise. There was no question of dogma, but one of persons; hence it is that certain grave theologians have held that the division ought not to be styled a schism. "Although it is necessary," says St. Antonine of Florence, "to believe that there is but one supreme head of the Church, nevertheless, if it happens that two Popes are created at the same time, it is not necessary for the people to believe that this one or that one is the legitimate Pontiff; they must believe that he alone is true Pope who has been regularly elected, and they are not bound to discern who that one is; as to that point, they may be guided by the conduct and opinion of their particular pastor" (1). During the entire tempest of the Great Western Schism, the dogma of Catholic unity, under a=te earthly shepherd, shone vividly above the darkness o' lies and treasons; and we may say with M. de Maistre that this very schism served to prove that the throne of Peter is indestructible. Mosheim thinks that this schism, gave a mortal blow to the Papal power (2), and he lays particular stress upon the immoralities and irregularities of the time, as depicted by contemporary authors, especially by Nicholas de Clemangis. Five hundred years have passed since this "mortal blow" was inflicted upon the Papacy, and many more such, in the minds of its adversaries, have been dealt it since that time. As for the irregularities prevalent during the schism, Protestants exaggerate them, and thus attack their own system, for such a state of affairs only goes to prove the necessity of a wise and virtuous head in the Church.
But what must we think of that picture drawn by Clemangis of the Church of his day? He tells us that "it is useless to speak of literature and learning, since we know that nearly all priests can scarcely stammer through what they are obliged to read, and they have no conception of the meaning of the words .... Nowadays, any lazy man who hates labor, but who wishes to luxuriate in idleness, rushes into the priesthood." Nicholas de Clemangis, rector of, the great university of Paris, and private secretary of Peter de Luna (Benedict XIII.), is certainly a grave authority. " He formed," says Scharpff, " with Peter d'Ailly, his master, and Gerson, the triumvirate of Catholic reformers of discipline and of theological science, toward whom the Sorbonne, all France, aye, the entire Church, turned their attention with confidence at the end of the fourteenth, and at the commencement of the fifteenth century." But are not the quoted sentiments of Clemangis a mere oratorical declamation? Could the mass of the clergy have been thus ignorant and debauched at a time when flourished, not only this triumvirate, but that crowd of doctors in theology and in law, that great number of learned and zealous bishops, who composed the Councils of Pisa and Constance? However, Clemangis himself shows us that, in the above passage, he abuses an orator's privileges. Bonnechose, and others of that ilk, carefully refrain from observing that a little further on in his text, Clemangis apologizes for his exaggerations, saying: "Notwithstanding what I have said above concerning ecclesiastics, I would wish no one to think that I include all clerics in my censures. I am not ignorant that in each and every country, some, and perhaps the majority (aliquos, ,# forte plurimos), are good, innocent, just, and not affected by the aforesaid evils." The fact is that Clemangis wrote this book on The Corrupt Condition of the Church at a time when his heart was surcharged with bitterness, and his brain afire with indignation. He had been intensely loyal to the cause of Peter de Luna, and had remained faithful to it, even after the court of France had (although only for a time) abandoned it (1398). During the next few years Clemangis labored for a return of France to the obedience of de Luna, and when it had been effected (1403), he was one of those who believed that de Luna was sincere when he proposed to resign his claims. When, finally, Charles VII. declared that if the schism did not end in 1408, he would recognize neither Gregory XII. nor Benedict XIII , the latter issued a Bull of excommunication against Charles, and that monarch definitively abandoned his cause. Clemangis was now believed to have been the author of the Bull of excommunication, and to avoid trouble, he retired to a Carthusian convent. With his eyes opened to the deceptions practised by de Luna, and not perceiving any hope for immediate peace in the Church, he composed his celebrated book, and in a vein of hypercriticism and quasi despair.
We now come to a discussion of the principal question excited by the Great Western Schism. Was the election of Prignano valid? The sole argument originally adduced against its validity was based on the supposition that it had not been free. Therefore, if it can be shown that the election was not effected by intimidation, it is evident that Urban VI. was a legitimate Pontiff, and hence Robert of Geneva was an Anti-Pope. We shall merely allude to the eloquent fact that during three months the cardinals, separately and collectively, privately and officially, recognized Urban VI. as Supreme Pontiff; that they discovered his oppressiveness only when they had become dissatisfied with his reformatory measures, and especially when they had found that he was about to weaken the hold of France upon the Holy See. But proceeding to an examination of the election of his Grace of Bari, we must first indicate the principal treatises, composed during the schism, to illustrate the question from the canonical point of view I. We have the narrative of James de Seva, edited by Caesar du Boulai in vol. IV. of his History of the University of Paris. II. An anonymous relation published by Papebroch in his Conatus Historicus. III. An account of the Election of Urban VI. by Thomas de Acerno, bishop of Nocera (1). IV. The famous Four Books on the Schism by Theodoric of Niem, who died in 1416.
V. Thirty manuscript volumes in the Vatican Library, plen tifully quoted by Raynald in his Annals. VI. Two Lives of Gregory XI. annotated by Baluze. VII. The Declaration of the Cardinals against Bartholomew, Archbishop of Bari, the authors of which were the French Cardinals Malesec, Sortenac, Flandrin, and Noellet. VIII. The treatises, favorable to Urban VI., of John Lignano, of the university of Bologna; of Ubaldi of the University of Perugia. Both of these are given by Raynald. XI. The treatises, favorable to Clement VII., 1 y Cardinal de Barriere, bishop of Autun; by the prior of Chartres, in answer to Lignano. These are edited by du Boulai in his work on the university of Paris, in the fourth volume. X. Much information can be gathered from the Epistles of Coluccio Piero Salutato, secretary of Urban V. and Gregory XI. (2), and from Gerson's treatises on the Unity of the Church, and on the Removability of the Pontiff by the Church (3).
Now for the election of Urban VI. In the first place, the name of the archbishop of Bari was not sprung suddenly, and as a last resource, upon the Sacred College. It had been seriously considered before the electors entered into the Conclave. The reader must know that after the death of Gregory XI. great discord prevailed among the French cardinals. The Limousins (4), who numbered seven, wishing to make of the tiara an attribute of their own country, first put forth the cardinal Malesec as their candidate; and when he declined, they rallied around Peter de Sortenac.
The four cardinals who were subjects of the French crown had resolved, of course, to elect a Gallic Pontiff, but they thought, to use the words of Cardinal Flandrin, that " the world was tired of Limousin Popes" (1). During the nine days' funeral services for Gregory XI., the Italians and the properly so-called Frenchmen perceived that they might indeed succeed in preventing the election of a Limousin, but that their own real and ultimate object, the triumph of their own special candidate, was yet to be fought out among themselves. At this period of doubt, Marino, archbishop of Brindisi, asked his intimate friend, the cardinal Robert of Geneva, if he thought-that the Limousin influence would eventually triumph; and in his book on the schism, Marino says that Robert replied: "More votes will agree with mine than with those of the Limousins," and, adds Marino, "taking his Breviary in his hands he swore: `By these holy Gospels of God, we shall have no one for Pope but the archbishop of Bari, or another whom, at present, I wish not to name to thee;' and many times during the novendiales of the aforesaid lord Gregory of blessed memory, when he would ride to visit the said cardinals, he reiterated the same." This fact is confirmed by Robert Straton, an auditor of the Apostolic palace, who says that: "Since the cardinals who were present in the city could not determine upon one of themselves before they entered the Conclave, it is said that two-thirds of them resolved to elect the most reverend father, the archbishop of Bari; and some of them privately intimated this to him, whereupon, as I have heard, he grieved much." This previous consideration of Prignano is confirmed by the death-bed testimony of Cardinal Thebaldeschi, declaring that before the opening of the Conclave, the French cardinals had greatly extolled to him the merits of the archbishop of Bari, and had urged him to vote for that prelate (2). It appears evident, therefore, that when as yet the cardinals were subject to no pressure from the Romans, they had nearly, if not quite, determined to elect Prignano.
A most conclusive argument for our thesis was advanced by the bishop of Faenza, representative of Pope Urban VI. in the assembly of the Castilian clergy, at Medina del Campo, in Nov., 1380. Had the cardinals chosen the archbishop of Bari because they feared the ire of the Romans, would they have abstained from immediately publishing the election? The following are the bishop's words: "The said election having been made, the said lords deliberated as to whether it would be expedient to proclaim their choice, and they concluded not to do it. The opposing advocate may reply that they dared not proclaim the election, because of the furious people. Wonderful indeed it would have been, if they did not dare to publish the election of the archbishop of Bari, after having chosen him, as our adversaries say, be. cause of the demand of the people, and to avert the danger of death. Who has ever heard of one who wished to avert death concealing what would, if manifested, free him at once from anxiety? But the real reason for not publishing the election was that the cardinals believed that they had not satisfied the people. Therefore, they had not been influenced in the election by the fear now pretended, nor had any such fear destroyed their liberty of action." We may here draw an argument from this fear of the cardinals that they had not satisfied the people (an allusion to the fact that the Romans had demanded a Roman for Pope, and had received a Neapolitan). The action of the cardinals in allowing Thebaldeschi, the archpriest of St. Peter's, to be dressed in pontifical, and exhibited as Pope, shows that they dreaded the effect of their election of Prignano; therefore, again, their choice of this prelate had been voluntary, and not caused by fear of the Romans. But it is from this very fact that the choice of the Sacred College was a Neapolitan, not a Roman, that is derived one of the most convincing proofs that the election of Pope Urban VI. was free, as we now proceed to demonstrate.
In an epistle written to the king of Aragon by the abbot of Sistri, we read that the prefect of the rioni of Rome entered the Conclave, and thus addressed the cardinals: " You are aware, my lords, that at the commencement of the Conclave, many insisted that you should give them a Roman, or at least all Italian. Now, however, I am sent to your Paternities by the whole people, and on their behalf I make known to you that they will not be satisfied with an Italian, but ask that a Roman be given to them. They fear lest some agreement may be secretly made between you and any Italian who is not a Roman, to transfer, after the election, the Papal court to Avignon." Notwithstanding this categorical demand of the Romans, the cardinals elected, not a Roman, but a Neapolitan; therefore they were not desirous of pleasing the Romans to the point of sacrificing every wish of their own. Nor can it be said, observes Palma, that the electors chose Prignano only because there was but one Roman, Orsini, in the Sacred College; for they went outside of their own number for a Pontiff, and they could have found many worthy subjects among the Roman clergy. But the reply of the cardinals to the prefect of the Roman rioni plainly shows that they were determined not to elect a Roman, simply because they wished to avoid all danger of being charged with having yielded to coercion. The abbot of Sistri tells us " The following was the reply of the cardinals to the prefect of the rioni, as given, in the name of all, by the most reverend father, the cardinal of Glandeve (de Lagery): ` My lords and I do much wonder that you so trouble us, for the replies already given, concerning this business, ought to satisfy you and the Roman people. Depart therefore, for we now say as we have ever said, and you will receive no other answer;' that is, that they would conduct the election for the honor of God, tile salvation of the Christian peoples, and the good of the Catholic Church. But the prefect replied: `God grant that you give us a Roman, or certainly you will experience something besides words.'" Again, that the cardinals were resolved not to yield to the Romans is shown by the following remarks of Cardinal de Cros in the Conclave, after the prefect had withdrawn. They are thus given by the abbot "You perceive, my lords, that these Romans first asked us for one who would be acceptable to God and the world, and they made no exception of country or of persons; afterward, at the beginning of the Conclave, they restricted this general proposition to one nationality, the Italian;now, however, they are not content with even that restriction, but confine us to the Romans. I do not see how we can elect a Roman, for such a choice would be judged by God and the world to be the result of intimidation." According to de Cros, therefore, the election of a Neapolitan was not the result of intimidation, but the effect of a free and untrammelled choice.
After the cardinal de Cros had insisted that the selection of a Roman was altogether out of question, if the Sacred College desired to escape the charge of having yielded to force, he proceeded, in a most tranquil manner, to detail the reasons which militated for the election of Prignano. These were six; namely, maturity of age, probity of life, great learning, experience in the business of the Roman court, courtesy toward his colleagues, and (strange admission for a French cardinal of the Avignonese school), Prignano was " an Italian, and through an Italian the patrimony of the Church might be recovered, whereas no foreigner could effect that recovery." Such, according to de Cros, and not any intimidation by the Romans, were the reasons for. choosing Prignano as Pontiff. " These six qualifications," said he, " are found, my lords, as far as I can see, in no other one person than the archbishop of Bari. He is more than fifty years old, and is so virtuous, that for more than fourteen years, during which he has been attached to the Roman court, nothing has ever been heard against him, either as to word or deed. His learning is indubitable; he is a great teacher in the Canon law, as is shown by his Collections.... Besides, we all know him well, for he is our creation, a creation especially by us Limousins, since he was made archbishop of Bari by the lord Gregory of blessed memory. Finally, he is an Italian; and being a Neapolitan, is a subject of a French house (Anjou), and hence ought to be acceptable to the king of France- and his brothers." Here is another proof that in voting for Archbishop Prignano, the cardinals were actuated by other reasons than a desire to avoid offending the Romans. We may also note that, according to Marino, the election of Prignano was effected before the tumultuous conduct of the Roman people. " This election was concordantly made immediately after the departure of the prefect of the rioni, without any lapse of time, unless that in which the cardinal of Limoges was making the above remarks; indeed, the election took place before Vespers, six hours before any tumult of the people."
We shall strengthen our defence of the validity of the election of Pope Urban VI. with an extract from the Relation of James de Seva. This author admits that the Romans surrounded the Papal palace, both before and during the Conclave, and that they continually shouted, "We want a Roman Pope; " but his picture of the proceedings after the deliberations had begun shows that the cardinals, to the very end, were determined not to yield to dictation. After informing us that the Conclave had been" everywhere well closed and locked," de Seva says that the cardinals Aigrefeuille, Malesec, and de Cros sounded Thebaldeschi as to his views concerning Prignano, and that this cardinal assented to Prignano's election, " just as he had previously assented; " that Aigrefeuille and Malesec then went among the others with the same object. He then represents Aigrefeuille as complacently addressing his brethren: " My lords, let us sit down at once, for I firmly believe that we shall choose a Pope without delay." Then the cardinal Orsini, who was intriguing for his own election, tried to defer the imminent ballot, saying: " My lords, if it pleases you, let us postpone our choice, and play a trick on those Romans who are crying for a Roman Pope. Let us take some Franciscan friar, vest him with a cope and a Papal mitre, tell the people that he has been elected, and then let us leave this place, and somewhere else elect another person." Now if the cardinals had been made of the material which many French authors supposed them to have been made of; if they were led to violate their consciences in the election. and into three months of hypocrisy after it, and all this through fear; they would have eagerly entertained this or some similar project. But mark how Orsini's idea was received, and then believe, if you can, that these cardinals were about to elect a man whom they believed to be, as Maimbourg asserts, willing to acknowledge the invalidity of their proceedings. " The cardinal of Limoges
and his followers answered the said Orsini in these or equivalent words: 'My lord of Orsini, we shall certainly not do as you advise, for we do not wish to deceive the people, nor to damn our own souls; indeed, we intend now to elect a true Pope, and we care not for the words or clamors of the people.' Then, the Conclave being well closed and locked on all sides, the said cardinals sat down to the election. The cardinal of Florence (Corsini) wished to prevent the elevation of the archbishop of Bari and named the cardinal of St. Peter's (Thebaldeschi), urging the others to vote for him. But the cardinal of Limoges said that although the cardinal of St. Peter's was a holy man, there were two things against him: firstly, he was a Roman, and the Romans demanded a Roman, and therefore should not have a Roman; secondly, he was weak and infirm, and could not sustain the burden." Then de Seva narrates how the cardinal of Limoges " named the most holy lord Urban, who was then archbishop of Bari, in these words: ' I freely vote for, and receive as Pope, with a mind and will that he be true Pope, the lord Bartholomew, archbishop of Bari.' " The chronicler then speaks of the voting, and of the resolve to withhold the announcement of the election, and continues " The archbishop of Bari and certain other prelates having been called to the palace, and the Conclave being still well closed and locked, and all being quiet, the cardinals again met in the chapel; and for the better expression of their free will and consent, and by way of greater precaution, they again freely, simply, concordantly, and unanimously, consented to the aforesaid, then archbishop of Bari, and again elected him Pope, saying expressly that they chose him freely, and with the mind that he should be true Pope." Then de Seva narrates the violent scenes that followed, and which caused the flight of most of the cardinals, and finally he describes the coronation of Urban VI.
The arguments already presented seem to us to fully justify the saying of Pope Benedict XIV. that " to-day it is evident that Urban VI. and his successors were legitimate Pontiffs;" but we would draw the reader's attention to certain other proofs, which are furnished by letters written by the very cardinals who revolted against the authority of the
Pontiff whom they elected First in importance is a private letter of Robert of Geneva, written a few days after the election of Urban, to the emperor Charles IV., and which John Dominick Mansi transcribed from a Vatican manuscript, and first published in his Notes to the History of Alexandre(1) If the future rival of Pope Urban was aware of any flaw in that Pontiff's election, surely here was an excellent and a most natural opportunity for publishing it to the world. " Most Serene prince, and most dear relative: After the death of our lord, Pope Gregory XI., of blessed memory, which event. I tearfully announced to your Serenity in a previous letter, my lords the other cardinals here present, and I myself, being shut up in Conclave, ten days after the death, according to the regulations of the Canon law, unanimously gave our votes to the archbishop of Bari, now Supreme Pontiff, a Neapolitan by nationality, and deputy in the curia for my lord, the cardinal of Pampeluna, Apostolic vice-chancellor; and we elected him to the Apostolate on the eighth day of this month, after a Conclave which lasted only one night, because the Romans would not consent to its being any longer protracted. He is now styled Urban VI. While he was yet in Minor Orders, he was my friend and very familiar with me; now he is raised from the lowest to the highest grade, and his coronation has been ordered for the feast of the Resurrection of our Lord, now at hand. He hopes for much from your Serenity, and as you were a son to his predecessors, and a, particular arm of strength to them, so your Serenity ought to persevere in his regard. And as he is now occupied in affairs which concern your Serenity and your most Serene son, things about which I have often conversed with him in private, I have found him very well disposed; so much so, that if his deeds correspond to his words, as I trust they will, the affair of your most Serene son will be happily expedited(2). I shall not cease to use all my energies in urging him to settle that business; and master Conrad, secretary of your Serenity, is working commendably, with all zeal, for the same end. I ever commend myself to your Serenity, whom may the Omnipotent happily preserve. Written at Rome, the fourteenth day of April, (1378). Your cardinal of Geneva." This letter needs no comment. The next epistle which we would ask the reader to examine, is that of the cardinal-electors, written on April 30 to their six brethren of the Sacred College residing at Avignon: " We freely and unanimously gave our votes to the person of the reverend lord Bartholomew, archbishop of Bari, a man conspicuous by the light of his great merits, and illustrated by his manifold virtues; concordantly raising him to the height of Apostolic power and announcing this our election to the multitudes of Christendom. On the ninth day of this month the same lord, the elect, before an immense assembly of the faithful, and elevated on the throne of Apostolic dignity, took to himself the name ( f Urban; and on the day when the Supreme Pontiff Jesus Christ restored our life by His resurrection, he was magnificently and solemnly crowned in the Basilica of the Prince of the Apostles, as is the custom of the Roman Church, amid the joyful manifestations of an innumerable congregation of the Christian people.... In Him whose place the same our lord holds on earth, we have a firm hope and confidence that the Roman State and the Universal Church will flourish, and that the orthodox faith will reach its desired happy development."
Having presented the arguments which militate for the legitimacy of the line of Pope Urban VI. during the Great Western Schism, historical justice requires us to pay attention to the reasons advanced by the defenders of Clement VII. No writer has more energetically, or more bitterly, presented the claims of Robert of Geneva, than Maimbourg; so thoroughly partisan is the spirit with which he illustrates the Avignon side of the question, that his History of the schism might have been more reasonably styled a Defence of the Avignon Idea. He protests that lie does not imitate the Urban historians" who rely only upon testimonies drawn from the L formations laid by Urban " before the sovereigns of the day; but during the entire course of his narrative of the origin of the schism, he studiously avoids the slightest evidence in favor of any possibility of right on the part of Urban VI. To Maimbourg, the recognition of Urban VI. by the clergy and people of Rome, whom history shows to have been always averse to Anti-Popes, means nothing. He can perceive no argument for Urban's legitimacy in the recognition extended by the cardinals to that Pontiff during a period of nearly three months, that is, until they discovered that the Avignon idea was in a fair way of being exploded forever by a creation of several Roman cardinals, who certainly would not tamely acquiesce in a resubjugation of the tiara to France. This recognition, he says, was forced; so soon as the cardinals could withdraw themselves from the surveillance of Urban, they endeavored to undo the work to which they had perforce lent themselves. And he insists that before the cardinals went into Conclave, some of them had put on record their protests against the validity of the election, if an Italian were chosen. Even the Italian cardinals, according to Maimbourg, had already declared that if one of themselves was elected, they would regard the act as null, owing to the violence of which the Conclave was a victim. And when the Sacred College finally leaned toward Prignano, persists Maimbourg, it did so because he " being a doctor in Canon Law, knew well that such an election could not be upheld; and because, as he had the reputation of being a man of conscience and of probity, the cardinals had reason to believe that if he accepted the dignity in order to deliver them from the danger of being massacred, he would not hesitate to renounce it, when once they had been located in security, and could hold a free election." As for the letters written by the cardinals, testifying to the validity of the late election, Maimbourg would deny them any value, because some of their Eminences "found means to write to King Charles V., that lie should believe nothing that they might write in favor of Urban, so long as they were in Rome, because they were obliged to do all that this elect and the Roman magistrates demanded of them, for if they refused, they ran the risk of their lives." Now all of these assertions of Maimbourg, namely, that the three months' recognitiion of Urban was forced upon the cardinals; that their Eminences had protested, before the Conclave, against the validity of the election of any Italian; that they voted for Prignano, only because they thought that he would not deem his election canonical; and that the durance vile in which Urban held the cardinals, after the election, took all value from the letters in which their Eminences spoke of that Pope as legitimate; are easily refuted., and by their refutation the only resources of the defenders of Robert of Geneva are destroyed.
Maimbourg asserts that the cardinals were forced to recognize Urban VI. as Pontiff, although " they prayed him to leave Rome, in order that they might freely ratify his election," and that " he employed the authority of the magistrates and bannerets to compel their immediate return to the palace, and those who were in the city did return. And although those who had shut themselves in Castel Sant' Angelo sent to him their written. procuration, that their namo might be used at his enthronization, he wished, nevertheless, that they should attend in person, and should, conjointly with those who had left Rome, seat him on the Pontifical throne." Now this "authority of the magistrates and bannerets " might have availed to compel the attendance of the cardinals who were living in the city, although we very much doubt whether the Roman officials, who had just been disappointed in their fond hope of having a Roman for their Pope-King, would have shown much zeal in forcing the opponents of the Neapolitan Prignano, unless they had been well satisfied that their own turbulence had not affected the validity of the election; that, therefore, the unwelcome Neapolitan was to be obeyed. But no physical power, then at Pope Urban's disposal, could have compelled an unwilling return, either of those cardinals who had left Rome, o: of those who had taken refuge in Castel Sant' Angelo. Robert of Geneva was secure in the stronghold of Zagarolo, under the protection of the proud and perennially rebellious Colonna; Noellet was in the fortress of Ardea, which belonged to the Frangipani; Orsini and Flandrin were in the castle of Vicovaro, a possession of the former's house; eight others were in Sant' Angelo, the commander of which for-
tress, Rostaing, was a Frenchman sworn to preserve his post in the interest of the cardinals at Avignon, and the event proved that he was a foe to Urban. The military operations which afterward ensued showed that our Pontiff could not have undertaken offensive measures against Zagarolo, Ardea, and Vicovaro; and even if he could have done so, but a short march away were the savage free-lances of Brittany, ready to make common cause with their rebellious fellow Gauls, as they soon proved, even before Robert of Geneva had donned his mock tiara. Secure, therefore, as the absent cardinals were from the physically weak arm of Pope Urban, what could have induced them to return to Rome? Perhaps they were as yet devoted sons of the Papacy; perhaps their projects had not yet assumed any definite shape, and they deemed it advisable to bide their time. Excogitate, however, what reason you will, it is absurd to imagine that their return was compelled by Pope Urban. When they rejoined the Pontiff, it was of their own free will, if not from a sense of duty, and their ensuing homage to Urban VI. was as thorough a ratification of the late election as it would have been, if conducted amid all the solemnities of a new Conclave.
Maimbourg asserts, secondly, "hat some of the cardinals had protested, before the Conclave, against the validity of an election of any Italian; that such protests had been drawn up before a notary. He also asserts that when the cardinals heard the Romans hammering on the doors of the Conclave, nearly all, and especially the transalpine cardinals, protested that the election of an Italian, which they were about to effect, would receive their assent merely because they wished to escape death." As for any protests before the Conclave, we do read of one by the cardinal of Glandeve. A document was drawn up on Dec. 10, " in the first year of our lord Pope Clement VII." in which this cardinal (de Lagery), then bearing, by Clement's appointment, the title of bishop of Ostia, declares that on the previous 6th of April he had sworn, before one Stephen Bernard, a notary public, and five witnesses, that if, in the election about to take place, he, de Lagery, "were to elect or name as Pope any Italian from outside the College of the lords cardinals, it would be because of fear of death, and entirely contrary to his mind, intent, and will." The original protest, continued de Lagery, had been lost, and the notary had died in the previous November; de Lagery therefore had requested that the testimony of the aforesaid five witnesses should be taken as to the fact of the said protest. The document then gives the attestation of the five. Now, granting the veracity of do Lagery in this matter, what does the above protest prove? Simply that, before the election, his mind was intensely averse to the selection of an Italian; so averse, in fact, that he thought that nothing short of fear of death could extort his consent to the elevation of one. But he did consent, and in spite of his protest he signed the decree of election, as did the cardinal of Limoges before him: "I freely name and elect as Pope the lord archbishop of Bari." Passing this fact, however, the eloquent one remains that, after all tumult had subsided, de Lagery left his place of refuge and did homage to Pope Urban VI. As for the protests made, according to Maimbourg, when the cardinals heard the Romans hammering on the door of the Conclave, neither hammering nor protests are mentioned as occurring at the time of the nomination of Prignano, save by the interested cardinals in their great protest of Aug. 2, " against Bartholomew, archbishop of Bari." But granting that all was as their Eminences declare, the stubborn fact remains that for three months they did homage to Urban VI.
Maimbourg asserts, thirdly, that the cardinals voted for Prignano only because " he, being a doctor in Canon law, knew well that such an election could not be upheld; and because, as he had the reputation of being a man of conscience and of probity, the cardinals had reason to believe that if he accepted the dignity, in order to deliver them from the danger of being massacred, he would not hesitate to renounce it.... Indeed, Simon de Cramaud, patriarch of Alexandria, who lived at that time, assures us, in his little book on the schism, that Pontius Veraldi swore to him that being, together with the archbishop of Bari, in St. Peter's, while the cardinals were entering the Conclave, that prelate, of whom Veraldi was a great friend, told him, when he saw the horrible violence of the people, that he who would be chosen in such a tumult would not be truly Pope, and that he would never acknowledge such a one." But in the protest of Aug. 2, upon which Maimbourg implicitly relies, the cardinals say nothing of the above supposed understanding. They do say, however, that some of their number declared that " they elected him (Prignano) with the mind and intent that he should b-, a true Pope." They might have said that not " some of their number," but more than two-thirds of them, used this phrase, for they are very precise in mentioning the four who did not, and in giving their alleged reasons for dropping it. And further on the cardinals say that " some of them said to each other that it was their intention to do what, as history informs us, has been done heretofore, that is, to retire, when convenient, to a safe place, and there elect him (Prignano) again." There is no mention of any wish or thought of electing anyone else than Prignano; they speak of electing him (eum) again (de novo). This would certainly indicate that, even though there had been no "hammering at the door of the Conclave, etc.," the archbishop was, for other reasons, and though his election was contrary to their Gallic prejudices, the acceptable candidate of the cardinals. This new election was not held, but the posterior conduct of the electors must certainly be regarded as a voluntary ratification of their action in the Conclave. The sole escape from this conclusion is by supposing that when the cardinals paid homage, during nearly three months, to Urban VI., they were living under a reign of terror, and Maimbourg readily grasps the idea. We shall soon prove that such a supposition is purely gratuitous. As for the testimony of Cramaud, to the effect that Prignano expressed to Veraldi his conviction that a Pontiff chosen in circumstances of violence would not be legitimate, that does not prove that the election in question really took place amid such circumstances.
Maimbourg asserts, fourthly, that no value attaches to the letters written by the cardinals in attestation of the legitimate election of Urban VI. Some of their Eminences, he says, had written to the French king that he should give no credit to anything they might say while they were under the influence of Prignano. But if these cardinals could "find means" to thus communicate with King Charles, why did they not, then and there, reveal to him the inner history of the late Conclave? In the absence of these letters to Charles, we know nothing as to the nature of the warning said to have been given, but since their Eminences did not avail themselves of their opportunity, we are justified in supposing that there was no inner history to relate; at least, nothing that would invalidate the late election. And where does Maimbourg learn that the cardinals were kept in such duress, or under such surveillance, that they could not communicate, for three months, the truth to the outside world? Only in the protest of Aug. 2d, in which the rebels say that after the election, " the lords cardinals, at least those who were from beyond the Alps, never deemed themselves secure; yea, they regard it as probable, and it is commonly believed, that if they had called his promotion into doubt, or had criticised it, they would all have been killed, since the violence still lasted. While they were in Rome, they never dared to converse on this subject, even among themselves; and he, although often requested, would never leave the city with the lords cardinals, nor would he locate them in a secure place. After the transalpine cardinals, with the utmost caution and a few at a time, had come to Anagni, wishing to deliberate on the above matters, and to avoid the dangers which threatened them while they lived among the Romans, etc." But if we consult Niem, de Seva, and other writers of the time, even those not partial to Pope Urban VI., we find that the cardinals were not forced to withdraw to Anagni, 'with the utmost caution" and " a few at a time," in order to avoid detention. They received full permission from the Pontiff to retire to Anagni, because they complained of the heat in Rome. Had Urban been so distrustful of their fidelity, as Maimbourg would have us believe, is it likely that he would have allowed them all to withdraw themselves out of his power? As to the closeness of the Pontiff's surveillance of the cardinals, and their trembling in his presence, several events that happened at this time show that the cardinals enjoyed not a little freedom of action. For instance, when Cardinal Lagrange gave the lie to the Pontiff in full Consistcry, he was allowed to leave the palace and the city. Word a Pope who permitted such insolence to go unpunished, be likely to exercise such surveillance, and to inspire such terror, as the rebellious cardinals declare that they experienced at his hands?
Having demonstrated, as we believe, the legitimacy of the election of Pope Urban VI, we now give a brief account of the happy termination of the schism, referring he reader to the pages of history, if he desires to follow it in its many and terrible phases. In 1408, Charles VI., king of France, wishing, as he said, to hasten the inauguration of a unanimous and perpetual obedience to one only vicar of Jesus Christ, resolved to obey neither Gregory XII., the third successor of Urban VI., nor Peter de Luna, who, with the name and style of Benedict XIII., had succeeded to the pretensions of Clement VII. Following the example of France, several other countries observed neutrality. In spite of the two competitors, a Council assembled at Pisa in 1409 for the purpose of extinguishing the schism. Under the presidency of the cardinal de Malesec, then bishop of Palestrina, there assembled twenty-three cardinals of both obediences, ninety-two bishops. eighty-seven abbots, many superiors of religious Orders, the deputies of the great universities, representatives of more than a hundred cathedral chapters, and about three hundred doctors in theology and in Canon law. There also attended the ambassadors of England, France, Sicily, Poland, Bohemia, and Portugal. Both Gregory XII. and Peter de Luna refused to attend, and each created new cardinals to replace those who had abandoned him; and each convened another Council, the former at Friuli, and the latter at Perpignan. Each contestant objected against the authority of the Council of Pisa, that it was irregular, not having been convened by the Apostolic See. To this the prelates replied that such was the situation of the Church, that ordinary rules had to be laid aside; that the Apostolic See itself was involved in clouds of obscurity which were to be dissipated , that a Council could depose a dubious Pope; especially when, as in the present case, both claimants, at the time of their election, had promised to resign, if the cardinals should deem it proper. We shall treat of this Council, as well as of that of Constance, in another place; here it is sufficient to say that the prelates of Pisa having found that neither Gregory XII. nor Peter do Luna would abdicate, issued a decree of deposition against both, and then the cardinals elected as Pontiff the cardinal Peter Filargo, a Candiote, and archbishop of Milan, who took the name of Alexander V. But, as St. Antonine of Florence says: " a great many good people, fearers of God, and enlightened men, continued to regard Gregory XII. as the true Pope." Bavaria, Naples, and many cities of Italy continued in his obedience, while Castile,, Aragon, and Scotland remained attached to de Luna. The Church now found that the Pisan measures had only increased the difficulties of the schism; there were now three claimants to the the tiara (1). On Nov. 16, 1414, was held the first session of the celebrated Council of Constance. John XXIII., the successor of Alexander V., presided over the first two sessions, and then left the city, after having signed a promise to abdicate; taking refuge in Schaffhausen, he issued a vindication of his flight, and complained bitterly of his treatment by the Council. The prelates, however, continued their sessions; Peter d'Ailly, Cardinal of Cambrai, presiding over the third, Cardinal Giordano Orsini over the fourth, etc. The emperor Sigismund wrote to King Charles VI. of France, requesting him to do his utmost for the success of a Council 11 assembled to determine which one of the three claimants ought to be recognized as legitimate Pontiff." John XXIII. and his friends declared that an injury was thus done to the Council of Pisa, for it was insinuated that the said assembly was neither legitimate in itself, nor prudent in its choice of a new Pope. To this Peter d'Ailly replied that the Council of Pisa and the election of Alexander V. were canonical, and therefore the election of John XXIII. was legitimate; but the followers of the rival claimants had probable reasons for their opposition, and there was, consequently, as much embarrassment among Catholics as there had been before the Pisan Council. And d'Ailly went on to say that a triple abdication was now necessary; to which conclusion the entire Council of Constance soon arrived. After many efforts and many failures, all three of the obediences were brought to adopt the plan; and at length John XXIII. approved and ratified the sentence of deposition pronounced by the Council against himself. In the fourteenth session Gregory XII., through his ambassador, Charles Malatesta, lord of Rimini, voluntarily abdicated. De Luna remained obstinate to the last, and there was given to him a phantom of a successor, in the person of one Giles Munoz (Clement VIII.); but this last relic of the Great Schism finally abdicated on July 26, 1429. On Nov. 11, 1417, the election of Cardinal Otho Colonna, who assumed the name of Martin V., was followed by a solemn Te Deum, sung by the representatives of the three former obediences, and the Papacy emerged triumphant from a combat which, had it not been the work of God, must have inevitably destroyed it.
Michael Fighting
