Skip to main content

Full text of "A History of the Papacy from the Great Schism to the Sack of Rome"

See other formats 


This is a digital copy of a book that was preserved for generations on library shelves before it was carefully scanned by Google as part of a project 
to make the world's books discoverable online. 

It has survived long enough for the copyright to expire and the book to enter the public domain. A public domain book is one that was never subject 
to copyright or whose legal copyright term has expired. Whether a book is in the public domain may vary country to country. Public domain books 
are our gateways to the past, representing a wealth of history, culture and knowledge that's often difficult to discover. 

Marks, notations and other marginalia present in the original volume will appear in this file - a reminder of this book's long journey from the 
publisher to a library and finally to you. 

Usage guidelines 

Google is proud to partner with libraries to digitize public domain materials and make them widely accessible. Public domain books belong to the 
public and we are merely their custodians. Nevertheless, this work is expensive, so in order to keep providing this resource, we have taken steps to 
prevent abuse by commercial parties, including placing technical restrictions on automated querying. 

We also ask that you: 

+ Make non-commercial use of the files We designed Google Book Search for use by individuals, and we request that you use these files for 
personal, non-commercial purposes. 

+ Refrain from automated querying Do not send automated queries of any sort to Google's system: If you are conducting research on machine 
translation, optical character recognition or other areas where access to a large amount of text is helpful, please contact us. We encourage the 
use of public domain materials for these purposes and may be able to help. 

+ Maintain attribution The Google "watermark" you see on each file is essential for informing people about this project and helping them find 
additional materials through Google Book Search. Please do not remove it. 

+ Keep it legal Whatever your use, remember that you are responsible for ensuring that what you are doing is legal. Do not assume that just 
because we believe a book is in the public domain for users in the United States, that the work is also in the public domain for users in other 
countries. Whether a book is still in copyright varies from country to country, and we can't offer guidance on whether any specific use of 
any specific book is allowed. Please do not assume that a book's appearance in Google Book Search means it can be used in any manner 
anywhere in the world. Copyright infringement liability can be quite severe. 

About Google Book Search 

Google's mission is to organize the world's information and to make it universally accessible and useful. Google Book Search helps readers 
discover the world's books while helping authors and publishers reach new audiences. You can search through the full text of this book on the web 



at |http : //books . google . com/ 



U-i-i^ 



Lib. HlSTORT\ 



i 





THE PAPACY 

VOU 11. 



WORKS BY MANDELL CREIGHTON, D.D., 

SOMETIME BISHOP OF LONDON. 



A HISTORY OF THE PAPACY FROM THE GREAT 
SCHISM TO THE SACK OF ROME, 1378-1527. 
6 vols. Crown 8vo, 5s. net each. 

HISTORICAL ESSAYS AND REVIEWS. Edited by 
Louise Creighton. Crown 8vo, y. net. 

HISTORICAL LECTURES AND ADDRESSES. Edited 
by Louise Creighton. Crown 8vo, y, net. 

QUEEN ELIZABETH. With Portrait. Crown 8vo, 5s. net. 

CARLISLE. Crown 8vo, y, 6d, {Historic Towns.) 

SIMON DE MONTFORT. Fcp. 8vo, 2j. 6d, {Historical 
Biographies,) 

THE AGE OF ELIZABETH. With 5 Maps and 4 Genea- 
logical Tables. Fcp. 8vo. 2J. td, {Epochs of Modern 
History,) 

THE CHURCH AND THE NATION : Charges and 
Addresses. Crown Svo, 5J. net. 

PERSECUTION AND TOLERANCE : being the Hulsean 
Lectures preached before the University of Cambridge in 
1893-4. Crown 8vo, 2J. 6d, 

THOUGHTS ON EDUCATION : Speeches and Sermons. 
Crown 8vo, 55. net. Popular Edition, 6fl?. net. 

THE MIND OF ST. PETER, and other Sermons. Crown 
Svo, 3J. (id. net. 

UNIVERSITY AND OTHER SERMONS. Crown 8vo, 
55. net. 

COUNSEL FOR THE YOUNG. Crown 8vo, 2J. 6rf. net. 

THE CLAIMS OF THE COMMON LIFE. Sermons 
preached in Merton College Chapel, 1871-1874. Crown 
Svo, 35. 6</. net. 



LIFE AND LETTERS OF MANDELL CREIGHTON, 
D.D., Oxon. and Camb., sometime Lord Bishop of London. 
By HIS WIFE. With Two Frontispieces. 2 vols. Svo. 
lOJ. bd, net 



LONGMANS, GREEN, AND CO., 

LONDON, NEW YORK, BOMBAY, AND CALCUTTA. 



A HISTORY 

OF 

THE PAPACY 

KROM 

THE GREAT SCHISM TO THE SACK OF ROME 

BY 

M. CREIGHTON, D.D., OxoN. and Cam. 

LATE LORD BISHOP OP LONDON 

DIXIE PROFESSOR OP ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY IN THE UNIVERSITY OP CAMBRIDGE 

HON. FELLOW OP MERTON COLLEGE, OXFORD, AND EMMANUEL COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE 

LL.D. OP GLASGOW AND HARVARD; D.C.L. OP DURHAM; LITT. D. OP DUBLIN 

FELLOW OP THE SOCIET'X ROMANA DI STORIA PATRIA 

NEW EDITION IN SIX VOLUMES 

. • , ' . ^ ' 

NEW IMPRESSION 

LONGMANS, GREEN, AND CO. 

39 PATERNOSTER ROW, LONDON 

NEW YORK, BOMBAY, AND CALCUTTA 

1909 

AU rights reserved 



JVIfi-iJi l^'^i 



"'STOB|( 



. r I 






CONTENTS 

OF 

THE SECOND VOLUME. 

BOOK II.— continued, 

THE COUNCIL OF CONSTANCE. 

141 4— 1418* 

CHAPTER IV. 

lOHN HUS IN BOHEMIA. 
1398-1414. 

A.O. PAQB 

1369-1409. Early life of Hus 3 

Position of Hus 4 

1403. Condemnation of Wyclif by University of Prag ... 4 

Hus and Archbishop Zb3mek 5 

1406-8. Zbynek proceeds against Wyclifite teachers .... 5 

1408-9. Influence of the Council of Pisa on Wenzel's position . • 6 

1409. The Germans quit the University of Prag .... 7 

Influence of this on Germany 8 

Dec. Bull of Alexander V. against Bohemian heretics ... 9 

July, 1410. Hus protests against the Bull 10 

Zbjmek bums Wyclifs writings 12 

Feb., 1411. Hus excommunicated by Cardinal Colonna ... 13 

July. Temporary truce 13 

June, 1413. Hus protests against the sale of indulgences ... 15 

July. Tumult in Prag 16 

Excommunication of Hus 17 

1412-3. Hus in exile z8 

1413. Wenzel attempts to make peace 18 

Literary activity of Hus 19 

Theological opinions of Hus 19 

1414. Hus agrees to go to the Council of Constance ... 22 
Journey of Hus to Coastance 23 



251245 



vi CONTENTS OF THE SECOND VOLUME. 

CHAPTER V. 

THE COUNCIL OF CONSTANCE AND THE BOHEMIAN REFORMERS 

1414 — 1416. 
A.D. PAOB 

1414. Hus and the opening of the Council 25 

Enemies of Hus at Constance ...... 25 

Opinions at the Council about Hus ..... 26 

Nov. 28. Hus imprisoned 28 

Hus before the Pope and Cardinals 28 

14x5. Anger of Sigismund at the violation of his safe-conduct . 30 

Arguments in favour of disregarding the safe-conduct . . 31 

May 4. Condemnation of Wyclif s writings . . • • • 33 

May 16-31. Protest of Hus's friends 34 

The Communion under both kinds in Bohemia • • • 35 

May 23. Capture of Jerome of Prag 36 

Different positions of Hus and the Council .... 37 

June 5. First audience of Hus * 3^ 

June 7. Second audience of Hus 39 

Attitude of Sigismund , .41 

June 8. Third audience of Hus 42 

Incautious confidences of Sigismund ..... 44 

Attempt to induce Hus to retract 45 

June 15. Decree against the Communion under both kinds . . 46 

Hus bids farewell to his friends 47 

July 6. Formal condemnation of Hus 48 

Hus degraded from the priesthood 49 

Death of Hus 49 

Fairness of Hus's trial 50 

ju y 3— 1 Effects of the death of Hus in Bohemia .... 51 

Oct. I.J ^ 

Sept. 10. Recantation of Jerome of Prag 53 

Feb. , 1416. Proceedings against Jerome ...... 53 

Poggio's account of the trial 54 

May 23. Trisd of Jerome 55 

May 26. Jerome's second audience ....... 56 

Jerome withdraws his recantation . . . •57 

May 30. Death of Jerome 57 

CHAPTER VI. 

SIGISMUND'S JOURNEY, AND THE COUNCIL DURING HIS ABSENCE. 
I415— 1416. 

July4,i4i5. Abdication of Gregory XII. ...... 59 

July 18. Departure of Sigismund from Constance .... 59 

September. Sigismund at Perpignan 60 

Resistance of Benedict XIII 61 

Dec. 13. Articles of Narbonne . 62 

Joy at Constance ........ 62 



CONTENTS OP THE SBCOND VOLUME. 



vii 



Z416. 

Mar. -Apr. 

August. 

Aug. 15. 

Jan., 1417. 

July, 1415. 

November. 
141S-6. 

1413. 
1415- 

Z416. 

Oct. 15. 
Nov. -Dec. 



PAGE 

Plans ofSigismund 63 

Sigisraund in Paris 64 

Failure of Sigismund's peace projects 65 

Treaty of Canterbury 65 

Return of Sigismund to Constance 66 

Appointment of first Reform Commission .... 67 

Complaint of the French nation against Annates ... 68 

Failure of their movement against Annates .... 69 

Lethargy of the Council about Reform .... 70 

Opinions of Jean Petit 71 

Condemnation of Petit by the Bishop of Paris . . -7^ 

Moderating attitude of the Council towards the question 72 

Quarrel of Gerson and the Burgundian party • . • 73 

Action of the Cardinals 74 

Opinions in the Council about Petit's propositions . . 74 

Incorporation of Aragon 76 

Discord of the French and English 76 



CHAPTER VII. 

THB COUNCIL OP CONSTANCE AND THE ELECTION OF MARTIN V. 
1417. 

1 417. Position of the Council 78 

March 3. Protest of the French against the English Nation . . 79 

March 30. Answer of the English ........ 80 

January. Citation of Benedict XIII 82 

March 30. Demand of Castile for a new election ..... 82 

Question of the Council's procedure 83 

Parties in the Council 84 

Change of attitude of the French Nation .... 86 

April-June. Disturbance about the order of business .... 88 

July II. Compromise 89 

July 36. Deposition of Benedict XIII 90 

Oct 8, 1416. Report of the First Reform Commission ... 90 

1417. Appointment of a Second Reform Commission ... 91 

Sept. 9. The Cardinals press for a Papal election . . '9^ 

Sept. 9-1 1. Renewed disturbances at Constance 92 

Sept. II. Protest of the Cardinals 93 

Diminution of Sigismund's party 94 

Sept. 14. Resistance of the Germans 94 

Sigismund deserted by the English 94 

Oct 2. Sigismund driven to consent to a new election ... 96 

Oct. 9. Reform decrees 96 

Compromise made by the Bishop of Winchester ... 97 

Oct. 30. Decrees for furtherance of Reform 98 

Nov. 8. Beginning of the Conclave . 99 

Nov. 9-10. Proceedings of the Conclave 100 

Nov. II. Election of Oddo Colonna 100 






\ 



viii CONTENTS OF THE SECOND VOLUME. 

CHAPTER VIII. 

MARTIN V. AND THE REFORMATION AT CONSTANCE. 

END OF THE COUNCIL. 

1417 — 1418. 
A.D. PAGE 

Z417. Martin V. confirms the Chancery rules .... 103 

Rules of the Papal Chancery 103 

Nov. ai. Coronation of Martin V. 104 

Difficulties in the way of Reform ...... 105 

Jan., 1418. Martin V.'s Reform programme 106 

February. Embassy of the Greeks 107 

Questions of Petit and Falkenberg ..... 109 

March 21. Reform Statutes no 

The Concordats of Constance in 

Contents of the Concordats 112 

The Brethren of Common Life 113 

Position of Matthias Grabow 114 

April Grabow condemned by D'Ailly and Gerson . . . • 115 

April 22. Dissolution of the Council 115 

May 16. Martin V. leaves Constance 116 

Difficulties of Sigismund's departure . . • . .117 

' ._ Fortunes of D'Ailly and Gerson 118 

Results of the Reformation of Constance . . . .118 

Reforms mooted at Constance 120 

Renewal of S3mods 120 

Reorganisation of the College of Cardinals . . . .121 

Papal taxation 121 

Papal law courts 123 

Papal grants . 123 

Papal dispensations 124 

Papal revenues 125 

Causes of the failure of the Reform at Constance . . • 135 

Defective organisation of the Council . . » 1 • 126 

BOOK III. 

THE COUNCIL OF BASEL. 

1419— 1444. 

CHAPTER I. 

MARTIN y. AND ITALIAN AFFAIRS. 
1419—1425. 

1418 Martin V. journeys to Italy ....•*. 131 

Feb., 1419. Martin V. at Florence 131 

1414-16. Fortunes of Naples 132 

Rise of Bracdo X33 



CONTENTS OF THE SECOND VOLUME. 



A.D. 
I417. 
I419. 

June I. 

Feb., 1420. 
June. 



Sept. 
1422. 

1423- 

October. 

April. 

July. 

Aug. -Nov. 

Feb., X424. 
March. 

1425- 
Jan.. 1424. 

June. 

1424-30. 

Nov., 1424. 

1429. 



1420-25. 

1423. 
1426-27. 
1427-28. 

1429. 



Feb.. 1431. 
March 3. 



April. 
Sept. 



PAGE 

Bracdo in Rome • 134 

Alliance of Martin V. with Giovaniiall 135 

Submission of Baldassare Cossa 136 

Martin V. suspicious of Giovanna II 138 

Braccio in Florence 138 

Sforza declares for Louis III. of Anjou .... 140 

Alliance of Giovanna II. with Alfonso V. of Aragon . 140 
Discontent of Martin V. with the Florentines . • .141 

Martin V. goes to Rome 142 

Peace in Naples 143 

Giovanna II. adopts Louis of Anjou 144 

Alfonso leaves Naples 145 

Martin V. summons a Council at Pavia .... 145 

Council transferred to Siena 146 

Contest about safe-conduct 147 

Intrigues of the Curial party 147 

The Reformers abandoned by the French . . . .149 

Dissolution of the Council of Siena 149 

Reform Constitution of Martin V. 150 

Death of Sforza 151 

Death of Braodo 152 

Martin V. recovers the States of the Church • • .153 

Death of Benedict XIII 154 

End of the anti-Popes 154 

CHAPTER II. 

MARTIN V. AND THE PAPAL RESTORATION. 

BEGINNINGS OF BUGENIU6 IV. 

1435—1432. 

Martin V. and France « • . 156 

Martin V. reproves Archbishop Chicbele . . . > 157 
Martin V. makes Henry Beaufort Cardinal and legate . .157 
Martin V. humbles Archbishop Chichele . • . .158 
Beaufort's Crusade against the Hussites . . . . x6o 
Results of Martin V.'s policy in England .... z6o 

Architectural works of Martin V. .161 

Martin V. and his Cardinals .161 

Court of Martin V 162 

Death of Martin V 162 

Character of Martin V. 163 

Election of Gabriel Condulmier, Eugenius IV. . . . 165 

Previous life of Condulmier 166 

Eugenius IV. shows desire for Reform 167 

Quarrel of Eugenius IV. with the Colonna . . . .167 

The Colonna take up arms 169 

Peace with the Colonna 169 



X CONTENTS OF THE SECOND VOLUME, 

CHAPTER III. 

BOHEMIA AND THE HUSSITE WARS. 

1418—1431. 

A.D. PAOB 

Failure of the Council of Constance to pacify Bohemia . 171 

1418. Wenzel declares against the Hussites 172 

July, 1419. Beginning of religious warfare in Prag 172 

August. Death of Wenzel • ... 173 

Temporising policy of Sigismund 174 

Nicolas of Hus and John Zizka 175 

December. Diet of Brtinn 176 

Z420. Prag revolts against Sigismund 176 

Zizka fortifies Tabor 177 

July. Sigismund repulsed from Witkow 178 

Mar.,1421. Sigismund driven from Bohemia 179 

June. Bohemia accepts the Four Articles of Prag . . . .180 

Religious parties in Bohemia 181 

• October. Flight of the German army from Saaz 182 

Military system of Zizka 182 

Jan., 1422. Sigismund routed at Kuttenberg 183 

May. Sigismund Korybut of Poland in Prag . . . .184 

December. Martin V. defeats the Polish alliance 185 

1423-24. Uncompromising temper of Zizka 186 

Oct. , 1424. Death of Zizka 186 

1425. Desire of the Moderates for peace 187 

June, 1426. Procopius the Great defeats the Saxons at Aussig . . z88 

1427. Failure of Korybut's peace policy 189 

July. Failure of the Crusade against Bohemia . . . .190 

1429. Proposals for the pacification of Bohemia . . . .190 

Diversion of Cardinal Beaufort's Crusade . . . .191 

143a Bohemian raids into Germany 192 

The Bohemian question renders a Council inevitable . . 192 

Startling document in favour of a Council .... 193 

Jan., 1431. Cardinal Cesarini appointed legate in Germany . , . 194 

Feb. -July. Beginnings of the Council of Basel 194 

July 5. Cesarini's appeal to the Bohemians 195 

Aug. 14. Rout of the Crusaders at Tauss 196 

Sept. 9. Cesarini arrives in Basel ....... 197 



CHAPTER IV. 

FIRST ATTEMPT OF EUGBNIUS IV. TO DISSOLVE THE COUNCIL OF BASEL. 



I43I— 1434. 

1431. Description of Basel .... 

July 23. Formal opening of the Council 

Sept Cesarini's first steps 

Oct. 10. Invitation sent to the Bohemians . 

Nov. 12. Eugenius IV. orders the dissolution of the Council 



196 
200 



CONTENTS OF THE SECOND VOLUME. 



A.D. 

Jan., 143a. 



Feb. 15. 



April. 

June. 

Sept. 

November. 

Jan., 1433. 

February. 

April 



May 31. 

June-Aug. 

August. 

Oct. IX. 

Nov. 7. 
Nov. a6. 



Jan. 30, 

1434- 

May 99. 

June. 



•:] 



1432. 

November. 
Jan, 
1433 



.4., I 
33- / 



Jan. i6-ao. 
Jan. 90-23. 
Jan. 23-25. 
Jan. 26-29. 
Jan. 31 to 
Feb. 



jito^ 
7. J 



PAQB 

His Bull not accepted by the Council 203 

Cesarini's letter protesting against the dissolution . . 204 

Open hostility between Pope and Council .... 207 
Sigismund makes an expedition into Italy . . . .208 

Relations of Sigismund to Eugenius IV. and the Council . 209 

Resolute bearing of the Council 210 

The Council of Basel reasserts the principles of Constance . an 

Organisation of the Council of Basel 211 

The Council recognised by France and Bohemia .213 

Sigismund and Eugenius IV 213 

Sigismund warmly declares for the Council .... 214 

Domenico Capranica comes to Basel 2x5 

The Bohemians agree to send envoys to Basel .217 

The Council accuses Eugenius IV. of contumacy . 2t8 

Sigismund uses the Council to subdue Eugenius IV . 2x8 
The Council takes Sigismund under its protection . .219 

Eugenius IV. revokes his dissolution 219 

The Council asserts its authority 220 

Straits of Eugenius IV 221 

Reconciliation of Sigismund and Eugenius IV. . . 222 

Coronation of Sigismund * . 223 

Mediation of Sigismund between Pope and Council . 225 

Sigismund draws to the side of Eugenius I V. . . . 227 

Sigismimd comes to Basel 227 

Sigismund pleads for Eugenius IV 228 

Prolongation of the term granted to Eugenius IV. . 229 

Decree establishing synodal action 230 

Struggles about precedence 231 

Eugenius IV. recognises the Council 23X 

Rising in Rome against Eugenius IV 232 

Flight of Eugenius IV. to Florence 233 

CHAPTER V. 

THB COUNCIL OP BASEL AND THE HUSSITES. 

1433 - 1434- 

Desire of Bohemia for peace 935 

Preparations at Basel for the Conference .... 236 

Arrival of the Bohemians in Basel 936 

Preliminaries of the Conference 237 

Rokycana's defence of the First Article of Prag . . . 239 
Nicolas of Pilgram's defence of the Second Article . 240 

Ulrich of Zynaim's defence of the Third Article . . . 240 
Peter Pftyne's defence of the Fourth Article . . .241 

Answer of John of Ragusa 24a 



XII CONTENTS OF THE SECOND VOLUME. 



PAOB 

Further disputations « « 344 



A.D. 

Feb. 8 to 

Mar. 10. 

Mar. iito"^ ^ . 

Apr. 13. j Private conferences , .245 

April 14. Departure of the Bohemians 246 

General results of the Conference •..,.. 247 

May 8. The Council's envoys at Prag 349 

June-July. Negotiations with the Diet at Prag 250 

August. John of Palomar's report to the Council .... 251 

Deliberations at Basel 252 

June. Renewed war in Bohemia ....... 252 

Sept. Mutiny in the Bohemian army ...... 253 

October. Second embassy of the Council to Prag .... 254 

November. Diet of Prag 254 

The Council's basis of agreement 256 

Nov. 3a Acceptance of the Council's basis by the Diet , , 257 

Causes of the Council's success 257 



Jan. 14, 
1434- 



Departure of the Council's envoys ' 258 

February. Further negotiations at Basel ...... 259 

Progress of affairs in Bohemia 261 

May 30. Death of Procopius the Great in Battle of Li pan . • , 261 

CHAPTER VI. 

KUGENIUS IV. AND THE OOUNCtL OF BASEL. 
NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE GREEKS AND THE BOHEMIANS. 

1434— 1436. '^, 

1434. Position of the Council 263 

Desire to reform the Papacy 264 

April. Admission of the Papal presidents 264 

Grievances of Sigismund against the Council . • , 265 

Proposal to allow the marriage of the clergy . . . 266 

May 19. Departure of Sigismund 266 

1433-34. First negotiations of the Council with the Greeks . . . 267 

Negotiations of Eugenius IV. with the Greeks . . . 268 

fan 22 1 

} Reforming decrees of the Council 269 r 

1435* J 

April. Anger at the Pope's dealings with the Greeks . . . 269 

June 9. Decree abolishing annates . . . . . ... 270 

Aug. -Nov. Envoys of Eugenius IV. at Basel ...... 270 

Jan., 1436. Steps towards Council's independence of the Pope . . 272 

March 22. Decree for Reform of the Pope and Cardinals . . . 273 

April 14. The Council decrees sale of indulgences .... 274 

Apology of Eugenius IV « 274 

State of the parties in the Council 275 



CONTENTS OF THE SECOND VOLUME. 



Aug., 1434- 

Sept. 

Nov., 1434, 

to 

Mar., 1435. 
July, 1435- 

July 6. 



Sept. 
Deceinber* 

Julys. \ 
1436. / 

July 6. 
Aug. 33. 



PAOB 

Results of the democratic organisation of the Council . . 376 

Reaction in favour of Eugenius IV 277 

The Council's success in Bohemia 378 

Negotiations at Regensburg • 379 

Unsatisfactory results * • • 379 

> Proposals of Bohemians to Council and Sigismund • • 381 

Conference at Brllnn 383 

Difficulties about interpreting the Compacts . • .383 

Agreement of the Bohemians with Sigismund . . . 384 

Dissatisfaction of both with the Council's envoys . . . 385 

The Bohemian question passes from the Council to Sigismund 385 

Bohemia decides to recognise Sigismund .... 386 

Difficulties with the Council's envoys 387 

Signing of the Compacts at Iglau ...... 389 

Dispute between Rokycana and the legates . • . . 290 

Hollowness of the reconciliation of Bohemia . . .391 

Sigismund enters Prag ... ... 391 

Merits of the Council's policy towards Bohemia • , • 291 



CHAPTER Vn. 



WAR B8TWBBN THB POPS AND THB COUNCIU 

1436— X438. 

1435* Congress of Arras 393 

Neutrality of Europe between Pope and Council . . . 394 

X436. Financial difficulties of the Council 394 

May. Negotiations for the place of Conference with the Greeks . 395 

November. Cesarini joins the Papal party 396 

Dec. 5. Choice c^ Avignon by the Council 397 

* I Compromise about Avignon 397 

ApriL The Archbishop of Taranto organises the Papal party . 398 

April 17. Schism in the Council 399 

Futile attempts at reconciliation 300 

May 7. Publication of conflicting decrees 301 

June Dispute about sealing the decrees 303 

May 30. Eugenius IV. fixes the Council in Italy .... 303 

July 31. The Council summons Eugenius IV. to Basel . . . 304 

Oct. X. The Council pronounces Eugenius IV. contumacious • . 304 

Sept. 18. Eugenius IV. dissolves the Council of Basel • • 305 

November. The Greeks accept the Pope's terms 306 

Neutrality of Sigismund ...«.•• 307 



CONTENTS OF THE SECOND VOLUME, 



1436. 



1437. 

June. 
August. 
October. 

Dec. 9. 

Jan. 9. ^ 

1438. / 

Jan. 24. 



BAQB 

Position of Sigismund in Prag 308 

Position of Rokycana ........ 309 

Sigismund and the Council's envoys 309 

Progress of the Catholic reaction in Bohemia . . . 310 

Rokycana driven from Prag ....,,, 312 

Bohemian envoys in Basel 313 

Demands of the Bohemians .••.... 313 

Refusal of their demands . 314 

Death of Sigismund ........ 315 

Character of Sigismund 316 

Cesarini leaves Basel 318 

Suspension of Eugenius IV. by the Council , , • .319 



CHAPTER VIII. 

KUGENIUS IV. IN FLORENCE. 
THE UNION OP THE GREEK CHURCH. 



1434— 1439. 

1434. Eugenius IV. and Florentine affairs ..... 322 

Oct. 28. Rome submits to Eugenius IV. 324 

1432-35. Affairs of Naples 325 

1435. Alfonso of Aragon and Filippo Maria Visconti . . . 326 

1436. Position of Italian affairs 328 

1436-37. Eugenius IV. in Bologna 328 

Attitude of the Greeks • . 329 

Points of dispute between Eastern and Western Churches . 330 

Feb., 1438. Arrival of the Greeks in Venice 331 

March 7. Arrival of the Greeks in Ferrara 33a 

Beginning of the Council of Ferrara 333 

Arrangements for the Council ...... 334 

June. Conference about the doctrine of Purgatory . . . 336 

The question of the Procession of the Holy Ghost . , 338 

Jan., 1439. Transference of the Council to Florence .... 340 

Position of the Greek Emperor 341 

Feb. 29. Discussion resumed at Florence 342 

June 10. Death of the Patriarch Joseph ...... 345 

Discussions on minor points ...... 345 

Question of the Papal Supremacy ..... 346 

July 5. Acceptance of Union by the Greeks ..... 348 

July 6. Publication of the decrees 349 

Departure of the Greeks 349 

Reception of the Union in Greece 350 

General results of the Council of Florence . - . .351 



CONTENTS OF THE SECOND VOLUME. xv 

APPENDIX. 

PAOB 

z. Bohemia * • * 357 

3. The Emperor Sigismund . 359 

3. National differences at Constance 360 

4. Tractates about the Reformation of the Church . • . 361 

5. The question of Annates 363 

6. The election of Martin V. 364 

7. Lives of Martin V • • • • 365 

8. Florentine authorities . . 366 

9. Braccio and Sforza 367 

za Naples 367 

11. The Council of Siena 368 

12. France and England 369 

13. Rome 3^ 

14. Death of Benedict XIII 370 

15. The Hussite Wars . . 370 

16. Eugenius IV 373 

17. The Council of Basel 377 

18. The Council of Basel and the Hussites 380 

19. The Councils of Ferrara and Florence 38a 

ao. The ecclesiastical policy of France and Germany . , , .384 
21. Nicolas V '385 

32. Calixtus III. 388 

33. Pius II • . r 388 



BOOK a.^-corifinued. 

THE COUNCIL OF CONSTANCE. 

1414 — 141S, 



vot.. 11. 



^^ 



CHAPTER IV. 

JOHN HUS IN BOHEMIA. 
1398— I4I4. 

John Hus was bom of humble parents in the little village 
of Husinec in 1369, and rose by his talents and his Early life 
industry to high fame in the University of Prag. ®^ ""*• 
There he began to teach in 1398, and with his friend Nicolas 
of Leitomysl founded a philosophic school on the basis of 
the philosophical writings of Wyclif. From Wyclif 's philo- 
sophy he advanced to Wyclif's theology, which seemed 
to find an echo in his own moral nature. From the first, 
however, he saw the dangers to which the acceptance of 
Wyclif's teaching was likely to lead. * Oh, Wyclif, Wyclif,' 
he exclaimed in a sermon, * you will trouble the heads of 
many ! ' * Nor was the influence of Hus confined only to 
academic circles. One of the marks of the religious activity 
produced by the preaching of Milicz was the foundation in 
Prag by a wealthy burgher of a chapel called Bethlehem, 
for the purpose of procuring for the Tchecks sermons in 
their native tongue. The nomination of Hus as priest of 
the Chapel of Bethlehem in 1402 gave him the means of 
appealing forcibly to the popular mind. 

1 See Palacky, Documental 168, * Et dixi et scripsi, O Wickleff, Wick- 
leflF, nejednomu ty hlawu zwikles ? * The exclamation is doubtless of 
the nature of a pun— -zwikUs meaning * you will disturb '. The library 
of Stockholm possesses a copy of five philosophical treatises of Wyclif, 
written in the nand of Hus in 1398, with copious marginal notes. See 
Dudik, Schwedische Reise^ p. 198. On the whole question of Hus's 
relation to Wyclif see Lozerth, Wyclif and Huss, 



V ' '•' • • '• • tHB^VOUNCIL OF CONSTANCE. 

Hus summed up in his own person all the political and 
Position religious aspirations of the Tchecks, and gave them 
of Hus. clear, forcible expression in his sermons. Sprung 
from the people, he maintained that Bohemia ought to be 
for the Bohemians, as Germany was for the Germans, 
and France for the French. Of pure and austere life, his 
countenance bore the traces of constant self-denial, and his 
loftiness of purpose lent force to his words. From the time 
that he undertook the Chapel of Bethlehem he devoted him- 
self to the work of popular preaching, and his penetrating 
intelligence, his clearness of expression, his splendid elo- 
quence, made his sermons produce a more lasting impression 
than the more impassioned harangues of Conrad or the 
more mystical and imaginative discourses of Milicz. He 
exactly expressed the thoughts that were surging in the 
minds of the people, and gave them definiteness and form. 
It was clear that Hus was not merely a popular preacher ; 
he threatened to become the founder of a new school of 
religious thought. 

At first Hus followed in the same lines as his predeces- 
Condcm- ®°^®» ^^^ strovc to bring about a moral reformation 
nation of of the Church by means of the existing authorities, 
opinions The feebleuess of the Archbishop of Prag, his 
ifniver- death, and a long vacancy in the see left the ground 
Prag! open for the Wyclifite teachers ; but in 1403 a re- 
^^^* action set in. The office of rector of the University 

passed by rotation from the Bohemians to the Germans, 
and it was proposed, to affirm in Bohemia the acts of the 
Council of London in 1382, which condemned the writings 
of Wyclif. It was a great matter for the opponents of the 
reforming party to be able to identify their teaching with 
that of one who had been already condemned for heresy. 
Though the reforming movement in Bohemia had an in- 
dependent existence, it borrowed its principles from England 
with remarkable docility. WycliPs writings supplied the 
philosophical basis which was wanting in Bohemia, and 
Hus was willing to be judged as a pupil of the great English 



ITUS TRUSTED BY ARCHBISHOP Z BY NEK. 5 

philosopher and divine. A German master of the Univer- 
sity, John Hubner, laid before the Chapter of Prag the 
twenty-four articles of Wyclif 's teaching condemned by the 
Synod of London, and added twenty-one of his own dis- 
covery. These forty-five articles were submitted to the 
University on May 28, 1403. Wyclifs followers contented 
themselves with protesting that the articles were not to be 
found in Wyclif s writings ; but after some warm discussion 
the majority condemned the articles laid before them, and a 
decree was passed that no member of the University was to 
teach them either in public or in private. 

This decree of the University, however, produced no eifect. 
The new Archbishop of Prag, Zbynek, was no theo- hm 
logian, and was attracted by the earnestness of a^cH-^^ 
Hus. The clerical party had no hope of help from ^^JJi^ 
him, and applied directly to Innocent VIL, who, in ^¥»yi^' 
1405, addressed to the Archbishop a monition to greater 
diligence in rooting out the errors and heresy of Wyclif. 
Little, however, was done in this direction, perhaps owing 
to the influence of Hus, who was so trusted by the Arch- 
bishop that he requested him to bring before his notice any 
defects of ecclesiastical discipline which, in his opinion, 
needed correction. Moreover, the position of Hus as con- 
fessor to Queen Sophia gave him considerable influence at 
Court, and Weni^el was so indignant at the refusal of In- 
nocent VIL, and afterwards of Gregory XIL, to recognise 
him as Emperor, that he had no objection to see a more 
independent ecclesiastical party establishing itself in his 
kingdom* 

But aflairs soon destroyed this agreement between Hus 
and the Archbishop and Court. Zbynek was be- Arch- 
ginning to be exercised in his mind at the frequent ^^^k 
discussions about the Eucharist, and in 1406 pub- ^^^f' 
lished a pastoral defining what he considered to be ^^^l^H 
the true doctrine. The preparations for the Council ^¥^i¥^' 
of Pisa exercised great influence over Wenzcl, who hoped 
to secure from the Council, or the Council's Pope, a recog- 



6 THE COUNCIL OF CONSTANCE, 

nition of his Imperial title, but saw that for this end he 
must be ready to purge his kingdom of its reputation for 
heresy. In May, 1408, the condemned opinions of Wyclif 
were read over to a congregation of the Bohemian nation of 
the University, and lectures or disputations on the words 
of Wyclif were forbidden. Some of the Bohemian masters 
were tried for heresy before the Archbishop's court, and a 
letter of Hus to the Archbishop, couched in lofty tones of 
moral remonstrance, besought him not to punish the lowly 
priests who were striving to do their duty in preaching the 
Gospel, when there were so many of their accusers who 
were given up to avarice and luxury.^ From this time a 
breach was made between Hus and the Archbishop, which 
went on increasing. The Archbishop, however, satisfied 
with his victory for the present, declared in a provincial 
synod on July 17, 1408, that no heretics were to be found in 
his diocese : he ordered all the books of Wyclif to be burned, 
and enjoined on the clergy to preach transubstantiation to 
the people. 

The questions raised by the Schism of the Papacy gave 
Hus and his party unexpected help. Wenzel was 
of the desirous to have his kingdom cleared of the charge 
PiU°on of heresy, that* he might more decidedly take part 
pofic" ^ in the negotiations about the summons of the 
1408-1409. QQm^^jji q£ Pisa. He was ill-disposed to Gregory 
XII., who carried out his predecessor's policy, and con- 
tinued to recognise Rupert as King of the Romans. Wen- 
zel was urged by the French Court to join in the Council of 
Pisa, and, on November 24, wrote to the Cardinals that he 
was willing to do so, provided his ambassadors were re- 
ceived as those of the King of the Romans. Meanwhile he 
wished to withdraw from the allegiance of Gregory XII. 
and declare neutrality within his kingdom. The reforming 
party naturally hoped for some changes in their favour from 
a Council, and supported the King's desire. Archbishop 

^ Palacky, Documental p. 3. 



WENZEL AND THE UNIVERSITY OF PRAG. y 

Zbynek and the orthodox party opposed it. When the King 
appealed to the University of Prag^ the Bohemians were on 
his side; the Germans sided with the Archbishop. The 
question of the neutrality drew together the Bohemian 
masters in the University. Many who had combated Hus 
as a heretic were now with him. The King's anger gave 
the Bohemian academic party an opportunity of gaining a 
triumph over their German adversaries. A deputation, of 
whom Hus was one, represented to the King the grievances 
of the Bohemians, who had only one vote in the University, 
while the Germans had three. They urged that the Bohe- 
mian masters had increased in number, while the Germans 
had diminished; in learning, as well as in numbers, the 
Bohemians were at least equal to the Germans. While 
they were young they were content to be in bondage ; but 
now the fulness of time was come, when they need no more 
be regarded as servants, but heirs of all that the original 
foundation of Charles IV. had meant to bestow upon them.^ 
The cause of the Bohemian masters was warmly applauded 
by some of Wenzel's favourites, and also by the ambassa- 
dors of France. On January i8, 1409, the King issued an 
angry decree that it was unjust that the Germans, who 
were foreigners, should have three votes and the true heirs 
of the kingdom only one : he ordered that henceforth the 
Bohemians should have three votes and the Germans one. 
On January 22 he published a decree renouncing the obe- 
dience of Gregory XII. 

The Tchecks were triumphant. Hus in a sermon openly 
thanked God for this victory over the Germans. 
Popular excitement ran high, and the Germans in German 
vain strove to resist. They declared that they quit the 
would leave the University rather than obey. They sity^of 
refused to elect any officials, and when the King ^"^•'*'^ 
nominated them by royal authority the German masters 

' Cf. the arguments brought forward in a tractate assigned to Hus, 
but which Palacky with greater probability assigns to John of Jansinec— 
Palacky, Documenta^ 355, etc. 



8 THE COUNCIL OF CONSTANCE. 

carried their threat into execution and left Prag. According 
to the most moderate computation, ^ two thousand are said 
to have departed, leaving but scanty remnants behind. 
This hasty, passionate step of Wenzel was the destruc- 
tion of the European importance of the University 
this to of Prag, and was a decisive moment in the intel- 
^Mmany i^^^^^j development of Germany. The emigrant 
o emia. j^^g^gj.g formed a new university at Leipzig, and 
many of them went to the young universities of Germany. 
. Henceforth there was no great centre of learning in Ger- 
many, and a powerful bond of national union was lost. 
But the loss .was counterbalanced by the vigorous growth of 
scattered universities, which leavened more thoroughly with 
the traditions of learning the mass of the German people. 
The importance of Prag as one of the great cities of the 
world began to decline, and the strife of Germans and 
Tchecks was no longer to be contested, when it could most 
surely have been healed, in the bloodless sphere of academic 
disputation. More immediate consequences followed on 
this decree of Wenzel. He had wished only to pave the 
way to his adhesion to the Council of Pisa ; he kindled into 
a flame the smouldering spirit of the Bohemian people, and 
did much to identify the nation with the cause of ecclesiasti- 
cal reform. This great national victory was also a victory 
for the reformers. But it was won at a heavy cost ; the 
enemy was baffled, not crushed. The emigrant masters 
were dispersed throughout Germany, filled with hatred of 



1 That of ^neas Sylvius, Hist. Bohem.^ c. 35 : * Uno die supra duo 
millia Pragam reliquere, nee diu post circiter tria millia secuti '. Some 
writers put it at 20,000, some even at 40,000, but accurate statistics are 
a growth of modern times, and mediaeval numbers constantly present 
gross improbabilities. A paper by Drobisch, in Verhandlungen der Ges. 
der Wissenschaften zu Leipzig^ 1849, i., 6g, etc., founded on an examina- 
tion of the records of degrees conferred yearly, computes that the Uni- 
versity of Prag at its most flourishing epoch did not exceed 4000 students, 
and at this time numbered about 2500. We may allow that nearly 2000 
quitted it. I have followed this computation in assigning numbers to 
the University of Prag. The generally received number of its Btudents 
is 11,000. 



ALEXANDER V. AND BOHEMtA, 9 

their victorious rivals. They spread far and wide the story 
- of their woes ; they painted in the blackest colours the wicked- 
ness, the impiety of the Bohemians. When we seek after- 
wards for the causes which led Germany to pour its crusad- 
ing bands upon the Bohemian land, we may find it in the 
bitterness which the woes of the emigrant students carried 
into all quarters. 

Meanwhile Wenzel was satisfied with the results of his 
measure, and its meaning was clearly shown by the ^ 
election of Hus as the first rector of the mutilated Alexander 
University. The Cardinals and the Council of hereHyFn 
Fisa received Wenzel's ambassadors, disavowed December 
Rupert, and restored to Wenzel in the eyes of *^''**^' 
Christendom his lofty position as King of the Romans. 
When the Council's Pope had been duly elected, on Wenzel 
would naturally devolve the duty of securing his universal 
recognition. But Wenzel found with shame that he was 
powerless even in his own land. Archbishop Zbynek re- 
fused to recognise Alexander V., and was supported by the 
clergy ; he even laid Prag under an interdict. Wenzel replied 
by confiscating the goods of those clergy who joined the 
Archbishop in withdrawing from Prag. Zbynek was driven 
to submit, and reluctantly acknowledged Alexander V. in 
September, 1409. These events, however, kindled anew the 
animosity of the Bohemians against the clergy, and arrayed 
the Court, the reformers, and the Bohemian people against 
the Germans and the clergy. The Archbishop's mind be- 
came more and more exasperated against Hus, who had 
preached loudly in the King's behalf, and he prepared to 
wipe away in a conflict with Hus the discomfiture which he 
had undergone. Articles against Hus had already, before 
the end of 1408, been presented to the Archbishop, complain- 
ing that he defamed the clergy in his sermons and brought 
them into contempt with the people. In 1409 new articles 
were presented, and Hus was summoned to answer before 
the Archbishop's inquisitor to charges of defaming the 
clergy, speaking in praise of Wyclif, and kindling contention 



lo THE COUNCIL OF CONSTANCE, 

between Germans and Bohemians.^ Hus does not seem to 
have appeared to answer to these charges : indeed, a counter 
charge was raised against the Archbishop in the Papal court, 
and Alexander V., who can have felt little goodwill to 
Zbynek, summoned him to answer to these charges. The 
summons, however, was soon countermanded, as the Arch- 
bishop's envoys laid before the Pope an account of ecclesias- 
tical matters in Bohemia, and Alexander V. became impressed 
with the gravity of the situation. He issued a Bull from 
Pistoia on December 20, bidding the Archbishop appoint a 
commission of six doctors, who were to purge his diocese 
from heresy, forbid the spread of Wyclif s doctrines, and re- 
move from the eyes of the faithful the books of Wyclif. 
Appeals to the Pope by those accused on any of these points 
were disallowed beforehand by the Bull. 

When this Bull was published in Prag the reformers felt 

that for a time they must bow before the storm. 

protests Hus himself brought to the Archbishop the books 

sififsiixist 

tfie Bull, of Wyclif which he possessed, with a request that 
juy, 1410. 2bynek would point out the errors which they 
contained, and he was ready to combat them in public. 
Zbynek's commissioners contented themselves with reporting 
that Wyclif's writings, which they specified by name, con- 
tained manifest heresy and error, and were to be condemned. 
Whereupon, on June 16, the Archbishop ordered the books 
to be burned, denounced Wyclif's opinions and prohibited 
all teaching in private places and chapels. Already, on June 
14, the University had met and protested against the condem- 
nation of the books of Wyclif, asserting, as was true, that 
the Archbishop and his commissioners had not had time to 
examine their contents. On June 20 they renewed their 
protest, and Hus, seeing himself pushed to extremities, 
proceeded to a bold step in defiance of ecclesiastical authority. 
Alexander V. was dead, and there was a chance that his 

^ See Palacky, Documental 164, for the articles, with Hus's answer to 
each, written on the MS., but apparently not till the year 1414, shortly 
before setting out to Constance. 



HUS PROTESTS AGAINST THE BULL, ii 

successor might be disposed to reconsider the Bohemian 
question. Disregarding the Archbishop's decree, Hus again 
ascended the pulpit in his Chapel of Bethlehem ; disre- 
garding the Bull of Alexander V., he appealed from a Pope 
wrongly informed to a Pope better informed. He called upon 
the people, he called upon his congregation, to support him 
in the line which he resolved to pursue. He read the Pope's 
Bull, the Archbishop's decree : he recalled the previous de- 
claration ofZbynek that there were no heretics in Bohemia; 
he declared the charges contained in the Bull to be untrue. 
* They are lies, they are lies,' exclaimed with one voice the 
congregation. * I have appealed, I do appeal/ continued 
Hus, * against the Archbishop's decrees. Will you be on 
my side ? ' * We will, we will,* was the enthusiastic answer. 
'Know, then,' he went on, *that, since it is my duty to 
preach, my purpose stands to do so, or be driven beyond the 
earth or die in prison ; for man may lie, but God lies not. 
Think of this, ye who purpose to stand by me, and have no 
fear of excommunication for joining in my appeal.' ^ The 
language of the appeal itself was equally resolute. The 
Bull of Alexander V., it affirms, was surreptitiously obtained 
by Zbynek on false grounds ; its authority came to an end 
with Alexander's death, and Zbynek' s decrees were therefore 
invalid. As for Wyclif s books, even if they contained some 
errors, theological students ought not to be prohibited from 
reading them. The Archbishop's decree closing the chapels 
was an attempt to hinder the preaching of the Gospel and 
could not be obeyed, for * we must obey God rather than men 
in things which are necessary for salvation '. The decisive 
step of a breach with the ecclesiastical system had now been 
taken. Hus asserted, as against authority, the sanction of 
the individual conscience, and he called on those who thought 
with him to array themselves on his side. Hus had stepped 
from the position of a reformer to that of a revolutionist. 



^This account is given in a report sent to the Pope, in Palacky, 
Dociimentaj 405. 



Arch- 



THE COUNCIL OF CONSTANCE. 

Zbynek was not slow to take up the challenge. Wenzel 
in vain strove to arrange a compromise. On July 
bishop 1 6 the Archbishop gathered the clergy round him, 
burn^^he and in solemn state burned two hundred volumes 
o/wydif. of Wyclif 's writings which had been surrendered to 
juiy.1410. j^jj^ rj.^^ , jg Deum' was chanted during the 
ceremony, and all the church bells in Prag rang out a joyous 
peal in honour of the event. Two days afterwards Zbynek 
excommunicated Hus and all who had joined in his appeal, 
as disobedient and impugners of the Catholic faith. 

If by these strong measures Zbynek hoped to overawe the 
people he was entirely mistaken. Epigrams on the man 
who burned the books he had not read passed from mouth 
to mouth ; songs declared that it was done to spite the 
Tchecks. When the Archbishop came in state to the 
cathedral door, accompanied by forty clergy, to pronounce 
the excommunication against Hus, the uproar of the people 
forced him to retire for safety into the church. Wenzel, 
though hostile to the Archbishop, found it necessary to 
interfere, and in a high-handed way devised a compromise. 
Libellous songs were prohibited on pain of death ; the Arch- 
bishop was ordered to pay back to the owners of the books 
he had burned their value, and to withdraw his excommunica- 
tion. When he hesitated his revenues were seized for the 
purpose. Wenzel also wrote to Pope John XXIII., asserting 
that Bohemia was free from heresy, and begging him to 
revoke the Bull of Alexander V., which had produced nothing 
but mischief and ill-feeling. But the Archbishop had fore- 
stalled the King at the Papal Court; he had sent Hus's 
appeal and a statement of his own case. John XXIII. 
referred the matter to Cardinal Oddo Colonna, afterwards 
Pope Martin V., who lost no time in making his decision. 
In a letter dated from Bologna, August 24, he enjoined the 
Archbishop to proceed according to the Bull of Alexander V., 
and if necessary to call in the secular arm to his aid ; Hus 
was summoned to appear personally at the Papal Court to 
answer for himself. 



HUS EXCOMMUNICATED BY CARDINAL COLONNA. 13 

This letter reached Prag soon after Wenzel's letter to 
the Pope had been despatched. The Archbishop ^^ 
triumphed, but Wenzel felt himself personally as:- excom- 
grieved, and wrote again to the Pope, asserting for con- 
that there was no ground of fear for the religious c«rdin«i^ 
condition of his kingdom; he took Hus under his PelvMry. 
personal protection, begged the Pope to withdraw his '^"' 
summons, confirm the privileges of the Chapel of Bethlehem, 
and allow Hus to continue in peace his useful ministrations. 
The friends of Hus gathered round him and loudly declared 
that they would not suffer him to be exposed to the perils of 
a journey to Rome through lands that were filled with his 
bitter enemies. But John XXIII. naturally thought that 
opinions reflecting on the luxury, worldly lives, and evil 
living of the clergy ought not to be allowed free scope. In 
spite of WenzeFs remonstrances, Hus was declared by 
Cardinal Colonna contumacious for not appearing, and was 
pronounced excommunicated (February, 241 1). 

Political considerations, however, soon admonished John 
XXIII. to pay more heed to Wenzel's requests. 
The death of Jobst of Moravia (January 17, 141 1) ^t^. 
left the title of King of the Romans in the hands of '^"' 
one or other of the brothers, Wenzel or Sigismund. Sigis- 
mund was still an adherent of Gregory XII. ; and John 
XXIII. felt that it would not be wise to drive Wenzel to 
join his brother ; moreover, he hoped for Wenzel's aid in 
bringing over Sigismund to his own obedience. He there- 
fore resolved to procrastinate in the matter of Hus, and 
transferred the cause from the hands of Cardinal Colonna 
to those of a new commission, which allowed the matter to 
stand over. The sentence of excommunication against Hus 
was not rescinded, and the Archbishop ordered it to be pro- 
mulgated in Prag. Little attention was paid to it, and 
Zbynek, already infuriated by the seizure of his goods to 
pay for the books which he had burnt, laid Prag under an 
interdict. Wenzel in great wrath drove out the priests, 
who, in obedience to the Archbishop, refused to perform the 



14 THE COUNCIL OF CONSTANCE. 

services, and seized their goods. The nobles were always 
ready to stand by the King when they could lay hands on 
the property of the clergy, whose riches they looked upon 
with a jealous eye. Zbynek, who hoped by his extreme 
measure to strike terror into Wenzel and the people, found 
himself entirely mistaken. With the example of John of 
Jenstein before his eyes, he did not think it wise to exasperate 
the King further or to trust to the Pope for help in extremities. 
Most probably John XXIII. privately advised him to make 
peace with the King. At all events he agreed to submit his 
disputes with Hus and the University to arbiters appointed 
by Wenzel, who gave their decision (July 6) that the Arch- 
bishop should submit to the King, should write to the Pope 
saying that there were no heresies in Bohemia, and that the 
disputes between himself and the University were at an end, 
that all excommunications should be recalled and all suits 
suspended. The King on his side was to do all he could to 
check the growth of error, and was to restore all benefices 
taken from the clergy. To this Zbynek was forced to con- 
sent. But the letter to the Pope, though written, was 
never sent. Before the disputed points could be practically 
arranged, Zbynek died, on September 28. He was a man of 
blameless life and high character. Hus sincerely regretted 
his death and honoured him for his attempts to reform the 
lives and morals of the clergy. He had been his friend in 
the early part of his episcopate, and Hus considered the 
persecution of himself as due to the Archbishop's advisers, 
not to himself. The new Archbishop, Albik, was an old 
man, who knew and cared little about theology. He was 
Wenzel's physician, and was of an easy disposition, rich and 
avaricious ; nothing but the dread of Wenzel's displeasure 
drove him to accept the office of Archbishop. Under him it 
seemed as though peace would be again restored, and there 
was quiet for a while. 

Hus, however, had, unknown to himself, drifted far away 
from the old ecclesiastical system. His conscience had 
become more sensitive, and his feeling that he must guard 



PROTEST OF HUS AGAINST SALE OF INDULGENCES. 15 

against offending the conscience of others had become more 
intense. Hitherto he had raised the voice of moral „ , ,^ 

Protest of 

reproach against the abuses of the clergy ; occasion Hus 

^ , . . , . against 

soon drove him to raise the same protest against the sale of 
the abuses of the Papacy itself. John XXIIL, Scesf 
in his struggle against Ladislas, appealed to J"°*'^*"- 
Christendom for help. He issued Bulls of excommunication, 
proclaimed a crusade, promised indulgences to the faithful 
who took part in it, and sent commissioners to stir up their 
zeal. The Papal legate in Bohemia for this purpose, 
Wenzel Tiem, Dean of Passau, was not wanting in energy. 
Three chests were put up in public places to receive contri- 
butions ; indulgences were preached in the market-place, 
and those who had no money might pay in kind. The 
parish clergy were enlisted in the legate's service, and used 
the confessional as a means of extorting money .^ 

There was nothing new in this, nothing exceptionally 
scandalous. Yet it set the whole nature of Hus in revolt. 
He denounced the crusade as opposed to Christian charity ; 
he vehemently attacked the methods by which money was 
being raised. In vain the theological faculty of the Univer- 
sity dissented from him, pointing out that it was, and had 
been for centuries, the belief of Christendom that the Pope 
could give remission of sins, and that he was justified in 
calling on the faithful to help him in time of need. In spite 
of the efforts of the University to prevent it, Hus held a 
public disputation against the Pope's Bull on June 7, 141 2. 
Hus in his argument discussed the two questions of the 
validity of indulgences and the justice of a crusade. While 
admitting the priestly power of absolution, he urged that 
its efficacy depended on the true repentance of him who re- 
ceived it, and that God only knew who were predestinated 
to salvation. Neither priest nor Pope could grant privileges 

1 So says Hus. Palacky, Documenta, 223 : * Populum taxarunt mira- 
biliter in confessionibus ut pactatam conquirerent pecuniam '. The 
Archbishop in vain tried to check this by issuing a letter * quod populus 
in confessionibus non taxetui '. — Ibid,^ 451. 



i6 THE COUNCIL OF CONSTANCE. 

contrary to the law of Christ ; in following the example of 
Christ could salvation most surely be obtained.^ Hus's 
subtle arguments met with many answers, but his fiery 
scholar Jerome of Prag by a storm of eloquence so carried 
away the younger scholars that they escorted him in triumph 
home. In the general excitement the noisiest and least 
thoughtful spirits, as usual, took the lead. One of the 
King's favourites, Wok of Waldstein, organised a piece of 
buffoonery which was meant to be a reprisal for the burning 
of Wyclif 's books two years before. A student, dressed as a 
courtesan, was seated in a car with the Pope's Bull fastened 
round his neck ; surrounded by a motley throng, the car was 
drawn through the city to the Neustadt, where the Bull was 
burnt (June 24). 

Wenzel was naturally indignant at this uproar, and 
ordered the magistrates of the city to punish with 
inTiJig. death those who spoke against the indulgences. 
July, 141a. Q^ Sunday, July 10, three young men of the lower 
orders were apprehended for having cried out in churches 
that the indulgences were a lie. In vain Hub, accompanied 
by two thousand students, pleaded before the magistrates in 
behalf of the prisoners. Their fault, he said, was his : if any 
one ought to suffer, it was himsel£ The magistrates gave 
him a fair answer, but a few hours afterwards, on Monday 
afternoon, the three prisoners were brought out for execution, 
surrounded by armed men. A vast crowd followed the pro- 
cession in solemn silence. When the executioner proclaimed, 
* All who do like them must expect their punishment,' many 
voices exclaimed that they were ready to do and suffer the 
same. A band of students took possession of the three 
corpses, and, chanting the martyr's psalm, * Isti sunt sancti,' 
bore them to the Chapel of Bethlehem, where they were 
solemnly buried. The first blood had been shed in the 
religious strife in Bohemia; the reformation had won its 



^ These arguments were afterwards put in shape by Hus and published : 
« Disputatio adversus Indulgentias Papales ', Hus, Opera, i., 215, etc. 



RXCOMMUNICATION OF IIUS. 17 

first martyrs. Hus declared in a sermon that he would not 
part with their bodies for thousands of gold and silver. 

The opponents of Hus felt that he could not be silenced 
by means of the University, where a large majority Kxcom- 
was on his side. They accordingly had recourse to [jon of 
the royal authority, and asked Wenzel to forbid the ""■• '*" 
teaching of the forty-five articles taken from the writings of 
Wyclif, which had been condemned in 1408. To these were 
added six new articles bearing on the present disturbance, 
condemning the opinion that priestly absolution was not in 
itself eflfectual but merely declaratory, ^ and the opinion that 
the Pope might not ask for subsidies in his temporal needs. 
Wenzel forbade under pain of banishment the teaching of 
any of these condemned articles, but refused to go further 
and prohibit from preaching those who were accused as 
prime causes of the late disturbance. Not content with the 
aid of the King, the clergy of Prag also complained to the 
Pope. John XXIII., naturally incensed at the news of this 
defiance offered in Bohemia to his authority, handed over 
the trial of Hus to Cardinal Annibaldi, who lost no time 
in pronouncing against Hus the greater excommunication : 
if within twenty days he did not submit to the Church, none 
were to speak to him or receive him into their houses ; the 
ofHces of the Church were to cease when he was present, 
and the sentence against him was to be solemnly read in all 
churches in Bohemia every Sunday. Nor was this all. By 
a second decree all the faithful were required to seize the 
person of Hus and deliver him to the Archbishop of Prag 
or the Bishop of Leitomysl to be burned ; his Chapel of 
Bethlehem was to be levelled with the ground. 

The denunciations of the Papacy have never been lacking 
in severity, but they have rarely been carried at once into 
effect. Hus appealed from the Pope to Jesus Christ, the 

> * Quod Hacerdotes non absolvunt a peccatin nee dimittunt peccata 
miniHterialitcr, conferendo et applicando tacramentum pcenitenti^e, ged 
quod «olum dcnuntiant confitentem absolutum eft <rror.'— Palacky, 
Uocumenta^ 455. 

VOL. IT. 2 



iS THE COUNCIL OF CONSTANCY. 

true head of the Church ; it was a curious piece of formal- 
ism to maintain himself still within the communion 
in?olxire. of the Church. His foes were ready to proceed 
H12-13. against him : so long as he was in Prag the interdict 
was rigidly observed by the clergy. But the resolute attitude 
of his friends portended a bloody conflict. Wenzel interfered 
to prevent it, and prevailed on Hus, for the sake of keeping 
the peace, to leave Prag for a time ; he promised to do his 
utmost to reconcile him with the clergy. Hus obeyed the 
royal request, though with a feeling that he was forsaking 
his post, and left Prag in December, 1412. 

Wenzel was genuinely anxious to have things amicably 
settled, and appointed a Commission, with the 

Wenrel * , , • , • i i « i r 

attempts Archbishop at its head, to draw up the terms of a 
peace. reconciliation. But when once theological disputes 
'*'^* arise, every step towards a formal agreement is 

keenly criticised. The representatives of the University 
theologians objected to be called in the preamble * a party ' ; 
they declared that they expressed the opinions of the 
Church; they defined the Church as that 'whose present 
head was Pope John XXHI., and whose body was the 
Cardinals, and the opinions of that Church must be obeyed 
in all concerning the Catholic faith '. The friends of Hus 
were willing to accept this with the addition * as far as a 
good and faithful Christian ought '. The four doctors who 
represented the University objected, and protested against 
the Commissioners.^ Wenzel regarded them as throwing 
wilful hindrances in the way of his project of peace, and 
angrily banished them from his kingdom. 

This victory of the followers of Hus was followed by a 
political triumph that was of still greater importance. The 
strength of Hus's party in Prag lay in the Bohemians, and 
the strength of the orthodox party lay in the German middle 
class. Prag consisted of three separate municipalities. On 
the left bank of the Moldau lay the Old Town and the New 

^ The account of this is given by one of the University doctors, Stephen 
Palecz, in Palacky, Documenta, 507, 



LITERARY ACTIVITY OF HUS, 19 

Town ; on the right bank of the Moldau the Little Town 
nestled round the cathedral and the royal palace of the 
Hradschin. In the New Town the Tchecks were in a 
majority ; but in the Old Town the municipal council was 
chiefly in the hands of the well-to-do Germans, which 
accounts for the vigour displayed by the magistracy in 
suppressing all objections to the sale of indulgences. In 
latey ears the struggle of Germans and Tchecks had been 
bitter within the Old Town ; and Wenzel, in pursuit of his 
pacific policy, ordered, on October 21, 1413, that henceforth 
the names of twenty-five Germans and twenty-five Bohemians 
be submitted to him, from whom he would choose eighteen, 
nine from each nation, who should constitute the Council. 
From this time the superiority of the Germans was broken, 
and they no longer had the government of the Old Town in 
their hands. 

Wenzel's repressive measures produced external peace for 
a time. Hus in his exile spread his opinions still 
more widely throughout the land. Tractates and activity 
addresses to the people flowed unceasingly from his 
pen, as well as his great treatise *De Ecclesia'. Freed from 
the excitement which had constantly attended his last six 
years in Prag, the literary activity of Hus was now unim- 
peded. Nor must Hus be regarded only as a controversial- 
ist ; he was the great framer of the Bohemian tongue. He 
adapted the Roman alphabet more fully to the expression of 
the Tcheck sounds ; and the orthography which Hus intro- 
duced exists up to this day in Bohemia. He was, moreover, 
anxious for the purity of the Tcheck language, reproved 
the citizens of Prag for their combination of German and 
Tcheck, and was in his own writings and speech a linguistic 
purist. 

In the treatise * De Ecclesia * Hus expresses most clearly 
his opinions, though it is not as a thinker that Hus xheo- 
owes his chief claim to the consideration of after op^n'JJi,, 
times. His strength lay in his moral rather than of Hug. 
in his intellectual qualities. His opinions were not logically 



20 THE COUNCIL OF CONSTANCE. 

developed, as were those of Wyclif, but for that very reason 
they awakened a louder echo amongst his hearers. Hus 
was deeply impressed with the abuses of the ecclesiastical 
system, which were everywhere apparent. He was above 
all things a preacher, bent upon awakening men to a new 
spiritual life, and keenly sensitive of the difficulties thrown 
in his way by the failings and vices of the clergy. Hus had 
no wish to attack the system of the Roman Church, no wish 
to act in opposition to its established rules ; he maintained 
conscientiously to the last that he was a faithful son of the 
Roman Church. But the necessity of attacking abuses led 
him on step by step to set up the law of Christ as superior 
to all other enactments, as sufficient in itself for the regula- 
tion of the Church ; and this law of Christ he defined as the 
law of the Gospel as laid down by Christ during the sojourn 
on earth of Himself and the Apostles.^ His adversaries at 
once pointed out that, starting from this principle, he main- 
tained the right of each individual to interpret Scripture 
according to his own pleasure, and so introduced disorder 
into the Church. 

Besides this claim for the sufficiency of Scripture instead 
of ecclesiastical tradition, Hus, from his deep moral earnest- 
ness, adopted the Augustinian view of predestination, and 
defined the true Church as the body of the elect. There 
were true Christians and false Christians ; it was one thing 
to be in the Church and another thing to be of the Church. 
Those only were of the Church who by the grace of pre- 
destination were made members of Christ. The Pope was 
not the head of the Church, but was only the Vicar of Peter, 
chief of the Apostles ; and the Pope was only Vicar of Peter 
so far as he followed in the steps of Peter. Spiritual power 
was given that those who exercised it might lead the people 
to imitate Christ ; it is to be resisted if it hinders them in 

^ See the tractate written at Constance in 1414, * De Sufficientia Legis 
Christi,' Opera, i., 57. * Voco autem, ne fiat aequivocatio, Legem Christi 
Evangelicam, legem a Christo pro tempore suae viationis et Apostolorum 
expositam ad regimen militantis ecclesiae.' 



ONNiONS Oy HUH, if 

thut duly.* The Pope ctu^not chiim an ttbwolutc obfdicncc; 
hi« couuniindt* urc to be o))cycd only hh hflmf founded on the 
Uw of Christ, nnd if contmry thereto ouglu to he rcsiwlcd.^' 
No ftclfBiiitttioil t;cn«urc« ou^ht to prevent a prJc«t from 
fullUlinK the (;on)rni4ndi4 of ChriMt, for ho can reach the 
kingdom of heaven under the leadrrMhi)) of hit* Master, 
Chriwt,* Wc find in thii* nmch that rcmind« uh of Wyclif ; 
but what Wyclif reaHorted out cahuly, with ti full n^mn^Q of 
the difiicultieM involved in hiii view, IIu» uMHertfi with 
paMMionate earne»tneM», applying only no much of hifi 
princi))leM am covcru hiM own poMition at the time, The 
idea« of IIuN were drawn from Wyclif; and the cont«ptlon 
of the Church an a purely spiritual body corresponded in 
many way* with the ^i^ent^rtil tendencies of current opinion. 
The language of Hun might be ))aralleled on sou^e points by 
the language of (Jerson and D'Ailly, All who were anxious 
for refonn, and saw that reform was hopeless through the 
Pa))acy, tended to criticise the Papal power in the same 
strain, It is the strong personality of the writer that attracts 
us in the case of Uus, Everything he writes is the result 
of his own soul's experience, is penetrated with a derp mota] 
earnestness, ilhunined by a boldness* and a self for^^etful 
ness that breathe the spirit of the cry, * Let (iod be true and 
every nmn a liar \ 

In this literary activity Hus spent his exile from Prag. 
He was in constant comnmnication with his followers there, 
nud his letters of encourageuient to them in their trials, and 
of exhortation to approve their opinions by goodness of life, 
give us a touching picture of sintple, earnest piety rooted on 

» • l)tt KtTlttKitt/ O/israt I., a7i; • Vt*trtini» t'hilatUtiU drtmiu eulUM 
puir&diti prttitmttiit) rttnUtsre, (ju^ nltuur tmn ab imitaiumo Chfidti vl vol 

* ihul,, MJV, * Hi ttUtrm tuyiumrlt vrtmitcr mtni timndtttum Pttpm 
ut)vi(it maiuUm vctl i'ont»iUt) chMbU, vc*! vrt^it m ttf^uud ttittlum ttttlcBirtt, 

* ilml., ^ij. * M«H«ttljt.iuiimiiH(uoi»ii c'luiti(ufeiimiHmu4 Kt»iHaiH<»i Poiul- 
piHiniiir ptodrtto tciin|u>»ti ati tt^li {itUMrtm pOMUtU Utuci C'htUto Domino 

juivrmtn 'i 



22 THE COUNCIL OF CONSTANCE. 

SL deep consciousness of God's abiding presence. These 
letters show us neither a fanatic nor a passionate party- 
leader, but a man of childlike spirit, whose one desire was to 
discharge faithfully his pastoral duties and do all things as 
in the sight of God and not of man.i 

Thus passed the year 1413. There was truce between 
„ ^ the two parties in Bohemia, but both were eagerly 

agrees to expecting what the future might bring. John 
Council XXI 1 1. *8 Council in Rome at the beginning of the 
stance. year had condemned the writings of Wyclif, but the 
^*^** proceedings of the Council were too trivial to awaken 

much attention. But when the Council of Constance was 
first announced, both sides felt that it must have a decisive 
influence on the state of affairs in Bohemia. John was 
anxious to bring into prominence the Bohemian dispute ; it 
was the one question that might stave off for a while any 
discussion of the reform of the Church. In fact, the Bohe- 
mian movement rested entirely upon a desire for reform : 
it put before Christendom one set of principles, one way of 
procedure which would make a thorough reform of the 
Church possible. Though John did not know much about 
theology, he knew enough about human nature to feel con- 
vinced that the principles of the Bohemian reformers would 
not commend themselves to the ecclesiastical hierarchy 
assembled in the Council. He trusted that the difHculties 
which their discussion might raise would blunt the earnest- 
ness of the reformers in the Council, by identifying their 
cause with principles that were clearly subversive of the 
order of the Church. Sigismund on his side was urged by 
his vanity as well as his self-interest to use the prestige of a 
united Christendom to reduce into order Bohemia, of which, 
as his brother Wenzel was childless, he was the heir. Ac- 
cordingly he lost no time in negotiating with Hus that he 
should appear before the Council and plead his own cause. 
He offered Hus his safe-conduct, promised to procure him 

' These letters are given in Palacky, Documenta, 34-66. 



HUS JOURNEYS TO CONSTANCE. 23 

an audience before the Council and to afford him a safe 
return in case his matter was not decided to his satisfaction.^ 
Hus*s friends besought him not to go. * Assuredly you will 
be condemned,' they pleaded. They warned him not to 
trust too much to Sigismund's safe-conduct. But Hus con- 
sidered it to be his duty to go and make profession of his 
faith, in spite of all dangers : he had not considered that he 
was called upon to risk his life in going before the Pope two 
years ago, but now he had a safe-conduct against the perils 
of the journey, and had hopes of appearing before a competent 
and impartial tribunal. He set out on his journey to Con- 
stance on October 1 1, amidst the sad forebodings of his friends. 
* God be with you/ said a good shoemaker as he bade him fare- 
well ; * God be with you : I fear you will never come back.* 

Hus was anxious to be in good time at the Council, so ho 
left Prag before he had received the promised safe- 
conduct from Sigismund. He was escorted by of Hot to 
two Bohemian barons, Wenzel of Duba and John stance. 
of Chlum, who were afterwards joined by a third, '**^' 
Henry of Latzenborck. On his journey Hus sent before 
him, into the various towns through which he passed, 
public notices that he was going to Constance to clear 
himself of heresy, and that those who had any accusation 
against him should prepare to present it before the Council. 
Everywhere he was received with respectful curiosity by the 
people, and in many cases by the clergy. The Germans no 
longer saw in Hus a national antagonist, but rather a re- 
ligious reformer. They were willing to stand neutral until 
the Council had pronounced its decision on his doctrines.^ 

> Thi» was how Him regarded the undertaking of Sigismund's envoy, 
a«hc writen from Constance (Palacky, Documenta^ p. 114): * Mihi in- 
timavit per Ucnricum Lefl et per alio«, quod vcllct mihi ordinare suffici- 
entem audientiam, et fii me non submitterem judicio, quod vellet me 
dirigere vice vema \ In the same sense is Hus's letter, dated Prag, 
September i, 14 14, written in an»wer to Sigismund's offers: ' Intendo 
humiliter collum subjicere et sub protectionis vestras salvo conductu in 
proximo Con»tantienj*i concilio comparere \— Documenta^ p. 70. 

'A letter of Hus from N urn berg, October 20, gives an interesting 
au:C4'>unt oi his reception ; he says, * nullum adhuc sensi inimicum '. — 
Palacky, Doc, 76, al»^> the account of Peter of Mladenowic, Secretary of 
John of Chlum, Documental 245, 



24 THE COUNCIL OF CONSTANCE. 

On November 3, Hus entered Constance and took up his 
abode in the house of a good widow close by the Schnetz- 
thor. His arrival was announced by John of Chlum and 
Henry of Latzenborck to the Pope, who assured them that 
he wished to do nothing by violence. In the true style of 
a condottiere general he said that, even if Hus had killed 
his own brother, he should be safe in Constance.^ On 
November 3, Wenzel of Duba, who had ridden from Nurn- 
berg to Sigismund, returned with the royal safe-conduct, 
which ordered all men to give Hus free passage and allow 
him to stay or return at pleasure.^ In full confidence for 
the future, in the simple belief that a plain statement of his 
real opinions would suffice to clear away all misrepresenta- 
tions, and that the truth would prevail, Hus awaited the 
opening of the Council. He expected that Sigismund would 
arrive at Christmas, and that the Council, if not dissolved 
before, would have finished all its business by Easter.' 

^ Mladenowic, in Palacky, Documenta, 246. 

*The document is given by Mladenowic (Z)oc., 238) : » Transire, stare, 
morari, et redire libere permittatis *■ 



25 



CHAPTER V. 

THE COUNCIL OF CONSTANCE AND THE BOHEMIAN 
REFORMERS. 

I414 — 1416. 

From his lodging by the city wall Hus looked out with sur- 
prise on the assembling of the Council, on the Husand 
pomp that signified the arrival of princes of the JngSfthi 
Church ; but he had no enthusiasm in his heart Coundi. 
He saw only the vice and luxury that accompanied this 
gathering of the faithful. 'Would that you could see this 
Council,* he wrote afterwards to his Bohemian friends, 
* which is called most holy and infallible ; truly you would 
see great wickedness, so that I have been told by Suabians 
that Constance could not in thirty years be purged of the 
sins which the Council has committed in the city.' ^ Hus 
stayed quietly in his house, for he was still excommunicated, 
and the place where he was lay under an interdict. The 
Pope sent him a message saying that the interdict was 
suspended, and that he was at liberty to visit the churches 
of Constance ; but, to avoid scandal, he was not to be 
present at High Mass. Hus seems to have made no use 
of this permission ; he was busily employed at home in 
preparing tor his defence. 

Meanwhile his enemies were actively engaged in poisoning 
the Council against him. Chief amongst his op- Enemies 
ponents were the Bishop of Leitomysl and Michael £0"""* 
of Nemecky Brod, who had lormerly been a priest "**""• 
in Prag, but had been appointed by the Pope * procurator 

^ Palacky, Documenta^ 138. 



26 THE COUNCIL OF CONSTANCE. 

de causis fidei,' and from his office was generally called 
Michael de Causis. There too was Wenzel Tiem, anxious 
to avenge himself upon the man who had done such harm 
to his financing operations in the sale of indulgences. From 
the University of Prag came Stephen Palecz, who had 
formerly been a friend of Hus ; but, alarmed at Hus's 
action against the preaching of indulgences, had changed 
sides, and afterwards showed all a renegade's bitterness 
against his former leader. Hus complains that the Bohe- 
mians were his bitterest foes ; they gave their own account 
of what had happened in Bohemia, brought Hus's writings 
to Constance and interpreted his Bohemian works, as they 
alone knew the language. Through the activity of these 
powerful opponents Hus's cause was judged beforehand, 
and the only question which the Council had before it was 
the method of his condemnation. 

It is difficult to see where Hus expected to find partisans 
Opinions i" the Council. The Pope and the Cardinals had 
Council already declared themselves against him. England 
aboutHus. i^a(j abandoned Wyclif, and was not likely to raise 
its voice in favour of Hus. France in its distracted condi- 
tion brought its political animosities to the Council, and 
was not likely to lend help to one whose principles were 
subversive of political order. Already the ecclesiastical 
reformers of the University of Paris had taken steps to cut 
themselves off from all connexion with those of Prag. In 
May, 1414, Gerson wrote to Conrad, the new Archbishop of 
Prag, exhorting him to root out the Wyclifite errors. On 
September 24, he sent the Archbishop twenty articles taken 
from the writings of Hus, which the theological faculty of 
the University of Paris had condemned as erroneous. These 
articles mostly dealt with Hus's conception of the Church 
as the body of those predestinated to salvation, and the 
consequent inference that the commands of those predesti- 
nated to damnation were not binding on the faithful. 
Gerson was horrified at such a theory of the Church ; he 
regarded it as subversive of all law and order. He and the 



OPINIONS AT THE COUNCIL ABOUT HUS. 27 

conservative reformers of Paris were willing to reform the 
existing abuses in the ecclesiastical system, and for that 
purpose admitted a power residing in the whole body of the 
Church which was superior on emergencies to that of its 
ordinary ruler ; but they shrank from a new conception of 
the Church which would allow the private judgment of the 
predestinated to override all authority. Gerson regarded 
Hus as a dangerous revolutionist ; he wrote to the Arch- 
bishop on September 24, * The most dangerous error, 
destructive of all political order and quiet, is this — that one 
predestined to damnation or living in mortal sin, has no 
rule, jurisdiction, or power over others in a Christian people. 
Against such an error it seems to my humility that all 
power, spiritual and temporal, ought to rise and exterminate 
it by fire and sword rather than by curious reasoning. For 
political power is not founded on the title of predestination 
or grace, since that would be most uncertain, but is estab- 
lished according to laws ecclesiastical and civil.* ^ The 
antagonism between the two schools of thought was pro- 
found. Hus, in his desire to deepen the consciousness of 
spiritual life, and bind together the faithful by an invisible 
bond of union with Christianity, was willing to sacrifice 
all outward organisation. Gerson regarded the Church 
as a religious polity whose laws and constitution needed 
reform ; but the most fatal enemy to that reform was 
the spirit of revolution which threatened the whole 
fabric with destruction. As a statesman and as a logician 
Gerson regarded Hus's views as extremely dangerous. 
Hus, stirred only by his desire for greater holiness in the 
Church, believed that he could move the Council as he 
moved his congregation of Bethlehem. He wished only 
for an opportunity of setting forth his opinions before as- 
sembled Christendom, and thought that their manifest 
truth could not fail to carry conviction. There was a child- 
like simplicity about his character, and an ignorance of the 

^ Palacky, DocumentUf 528. 



28 THE COUNCIL OF CONSTANCE, 

world which some writers of modern times have mistaken 
for vanity. 

FeeHng that the Council was entirely on their side, the 

enemies of Hus were anxious to proceed against 
prisoned, him before Sigismund's arrival. John XXIII. on 

his part was equally willing that the Council should 
find some occupation for its activity. The first step was to 
seize the person of Hus. Ungrounded rumours were spread 
that he had made an attempt to leave the^ity in a hay 
cart ; ^ it was urged that he said mass every day in his own 
house, and that many went to visit him and hear his false 
doctrines. Accordingly, on November 28, the Bishops of 
Augsburg and Trent, together with the burgomaster of Con- 
stance, came to Hus's house while he was at dinner with 
John of Chlum, and informed him that the Pope and the 
Cardinals were ready to hear him. John of Chlum angrily 
answered that Hus had come at Sigismund's request to 
speak before the Council ; it was Sigismund's will that he 
should not speak before his arrival. The Bishop of Trent 
answered that they had come on an errand of peace. On 
this Hus rose from the table and said that he had not come 
to Constance to confer with the Cardinals but to speak 
before the Council ; nevertheless he was willing to go and 
answer anywhere for the truth. He bade adieu to his 
weeping landlady, who had seen the armed men with whom 
these messengers of peace had surrounded her house, and as 
Hus mounted his horse she begged his blessing, as from one 
who never would return. 

When Hus appeared, at twelve o'clock, before the Car- 
„ ^ dinals in the Pope's palace, he was told that there 

Hus be- ... 

fore the were many grievous charges agamst him of sowing 

Cardinals, errors in Bohemia. He answered, * Most reverend 

fathers, know that I would rather die than hold a 

^ This story, given by Reichenthal, has been often repeated, but the 
account of Mladenowic (in Doc.t 247) clearly contradicts it. Reichenthal 
has confused Hus with Jerome of Prag. If Hus had attempted to escape, 
the fact would have been urged against him in the proceedings of the 
Council. See Palacky, Gesch. Bohm.j HI., i., 322 «. 



HUS BEFORE THE POPE AND CARDINALS. 29 

single error. I came of my own accord to this Council, and 
if it be proved that I have erred in anything I am willing 
humbly to be corrected and amend.* The Cardinals said 
that his words were fair, and then rose, leaving Hus and 
John of Chlum under the guard of the soldiers who had 
escorted them there. A subtle theologian, in the guise of a 
simple friar in quest for truth, came meanwhile to talk with 
Hus on the doctrine of the Eucharist and the two natures of 
Christ. Hus, however, discovered him, and guarded against 
his desire for religious confidences. 

At four o'clock the Cardinals again assembled to consider 
Hus's case. The articles prepared by Michael de Causis 
were laid before them. They accused Hus (i) of teaching 
the necessity of receiving the Eucharist under both kinds and 
of attacking transubstantiation ; (2) of making the validity 
of the sacraments depend on the moral character of the 
priest ; (3) of erroneous doctrine concerning the nature of 
the Church, its possessions, its discipline, and its organisa- 
tion. Hus's opponents were there, and urged the necessity 
for putting him in prison ; if he were to escape from Con- 
stance he would boast that he had been tried and acquitted, 
and would do more harm than any heretic since the times of 
Constantino the Great.^ It was evening when the master 
of the Pope's household came to announce to John of Chlum 
that he was free to depart if he chose, but Hus must remain 
in the palace. The fiery Bohemian forced his way into the 
Pope's chamber. * Holy Father,' he exclaimed, * this is not 
what you promised. I told you that Master Hus came here 
under the safe-conduct of my master the King of the 
Romans; and you answered that if he had killed your 
brother he should be safe. I wish to raise my voice and 
warn those who have violated my master's safe-conduct.' 
The Pope called the Cardinals to witness that he had never 
sent to take Hus prisoner. He afterwards called John of 
Chlum aside, and said to him : * You know how matters 

^Articles of Michael de Causis, Palacky, Documental 199. 



30 THE COUNCIL OF CONSTANCE. 

stand between me and the Cardinals ; they have brought me 
Hus as a prisoner, and I am bound to receive him \ John 
XXIII. cared little about his promise, or about Hus; he 
frankly admitted that he was thinking only how to save 
himself. Hus was led to the house of one of the Canons 
of Constance, where he was guarded for eight days. On 
December 6 he was taken to the Convent of the Dominicans, 
on a small island close to the shore of the lake. There he 
was cast into a dark and narrow dungeon, damp with the 
waters of the lake, and close to the mouth of a sewer. In 
this noisome spot he was attacked by fever, so that his life 
was despaired of, and John sent his own physicians to attend 
him. 

The anger of John of Chlum at the imprisonment of Hus 
An er of S^^^ ^ Sample of the spirit which afterwards ani- 
sigis- mated the whole Bohemian nation. He did not 

mund at 

thevio- cease to complain in Constance of the Pope and 
hiB safe- Cardinals ; he showed Sigismund's safe-conduct to 
all whom he met; he even fixed on the doors of 
the cathedral a solemn protest against the Papal perfidy. 
Sigismund himself was equally indignant at the dishonour 
done to his promise ; he requested that Hus be immediately 
released from prison, otherwise he would come and break 
down the doors himself. But the enemies of Hus were 
more powerful than the remonstrances of Sigismund. Per- 
haps John XXHI. was not sorry to find a subject about 
which he might try to create a quarrel between Sigismund 
and the Council. Proceedings against Hus were begun ; on 
December 4 the Pope appointed a commission of three, 
headed by the Patriarch of Constantinople, to receive testi- 
monies against Hus. Hus asked in vain for an advocate to 
take exception to the witnesses, of whom many were his 
personal foes. He was answered that it was contrary to 
law for any one to defend a suspected heretic. 

When Sigismund arrived in Constance on December 25, 
the first question that engaged his attention was that of 
Hus's imprisonment. He demanded of the Pope that Hus 



ARGUMENTS ABOUT HUS'S SAFE-CONDUCT. 31 

should be released. John XXIII. gave him the same answer 
as he had given to John of Chlum ; he referred him to the 
Cardinals and the Council, whose work it was. Discussion 
went on sharply for some time.^ Sigismund urged that he 
was bound to see his safe-conduct respected ; the fathers of 
the Council answered that they were bound to judge ac- 
cording to the law one suspected of heresy. When Sigis- 
mund urged the indignation which was rising in Bohemia at 
Hus's imprisonment, he was answered that there would be 
serious danger to all authority, ecclesiastical and civil, if Hus 
were to escape to Bohemia and again commence his mis- 
chievous preaching. Sigismund threatened to leave Con- 
stance if Hus were not released ; the Council answered that 
it also must dissolve itself if he wished to hinder it in the 
performance of its duty.* 

We are so far removed from a state of opinion in which a 
king could be urged to break his word, on the ground Argu- 
that it was only plighted to a heretic, that it is diffi- SvSS 0° 
cult for us to appreciate the arguments by which f^"\^l^^' 
such conduct could be justified. The Council SJ,^"^/*" 
maintained that one of its chief objects was to put Hus. 
down heresy. Hus was certainly a heretic, and must be 
tried as such ; he was now in their power, and if he were to 
escape the evil would be greatly increased. It was not 
their business to consider how he had put himself in their 
power. The existence of the Council was independent of 
Sigismund's help, and it must not allow its independence 
to be fettered at the outset by Sigismund's interference. 
Moreover, the terrible conception of heresy in the Middle 
Ages put the heretic outside the limits of a king's protection.' 

^The letter of the envoys of the University of Koln, dated January 17, 
1415, says: * Hodie est occasio non modicae perturbationis propter salvum 
conductum sibi (i.e., Hus) prxstitum *. Maitene, Thesaur.^ ii., 161 1. This 
is opposed to Von der Hardt, iv., 26, who makes Sigismund withdraw his 
safe-conduct on January i. 

' Palacky, Geschichte von Bdhmetij iii., i, 329, from a letter of Sigismund 
to the Bohemian estates, written from Paris, March 21, 1416. 

'Schwab, Johannes Gerson^ 582-3, has collected a number of passages 
bearing on this point. 



32 THE COUNCIL OF CONSTANCE. 

He was a plague-spot in the body of a State, and must be 
cut out at once, lest the contagion spread. Heresy in a 
land was a blot on the national honour, which kings were 
bound to preserve intact ; the heretic was a traitor against 
God, much more a traitor against his own sovereign. It 
was the clear duty of all in authority to protect themselves 
and the community against the risks which the spread of 
heresy inevitably brought. Nor could a promise of safe- 
conduct rashly made override the higher duties of a king. 
No promise was binding if its observance proved to be pre- 
judicial to the Catholic faith.^ Rash and wicked promises 
are not binding, and the goodness of a promise must in 
some cases be judged by its result. * Call to mind,' urged 
the Bishop of Arras, * the oath of Herod, which the result 
proved to be an evil one ; so in the case of a heretic with 
a safe-conduct, his obstinacy makes it necessary that the 
decree be changed; for that promise is impious which is 
fulfilled by a crime.' ^ Such is a sample of the reasons 
which led the wisest and best men of Christendom to urge 
Sigismund to a shameless breach of faith. Their arguments 
were enforced by Sigismund's fear lest the Council dissolve 
if he refused to listen, and so all the glory which he hoped 
to gain be lost to himself, and all the benefits of a reunion 
of Christendom be lost to mankind. King Ferdinand of 
Aragon wrote to Sigismund, expressing his surprise at any 
hesitation about punishing Hus. It was impossible, he 
said, to break faith with one who had already broken faith 
with God.* This letter must have produced a great impres- 

^ * Cum dictus Johannes Hus fidem orthodoxam pertinaciter impugnans, 
se ab omni conductu et privilegio reddiderit alienum, nee aliqua sibi fides 
aut promissio de jure natural!, divino vel humano, fuerit in praejudicium 
catholicae fidei observanda.' — Declaration of the Council^ Von der Hardt, 
iv., 521. 

^Gerson, O/., v., 572: * Resolve in animotuo juramentum Herodis et 
comperies quod in malis promissis fides est rescindenda non solum a 
principio sed etiam ab eventu, sicut de haeretico, cui etiam datur salvus 
conductus, ob cujus pertinaciam mutandum est decretum ; impia est eniin 
promissio quae scelere adimpletur '. 

^See Andrea Ratisbonensis Chronicon. Eccard, i., 2146. 



SIGISMUND ABANDONS HUS, 33 

sion on Sigismund ; if the Council were to succeed, Aragon 
must be brought to acknowledge its authority, and no 
pretext must be given which might cover a refusal. Over- 
borne by these considerations, Sigismund abandoned Hus to 
his fate. 

We cannot resist a feeling of moral indignation at such 
sentiments and at such conduct. It is true that freedom of 
opinion has been established among us at the present day 
by the teaching of experience : we have learned that duty 
has an existence amongst men independent of the law of the 
Church. Such a conception did not exist in the Middle 
Ages. The belief that rightness of conduct depended on 
rightness of religious opinion was universal, and the spirit 
of persecution was but the logical expression of this belief. 
Yet, as a matter of fact, the spirit of persecution solely for 
matters of opinion had largely died away, and only existed 
where political or personal interests were involved in its 
maintenance. The treatment of Wyclif in England was an 
example which the Council might well have followed. It 
preferred to fall back upon the procedure of the Inquisition. 
It revived persecution for the purpose of showing its own 
orthodoxy under exceptional circumstances, and it won 
Sigismund's consent by the offer of political advantage in 
quieting his Bohemian kingdom. Hus was made a victim 
of the need felt by a revolutionary party for some oppor- 
tunity of defining the limits of its revolutionary zeal. 

The question of the abdication of John XXIII. threw the 
cause of Hus for a time into the background. John's ^Q^^gnj. 
flight on March 20 put the responsibility of Hus's nation of 
imprisonment in the hands of Sigismund and the ^^^f. 
Council. For a moment the friends of Hus hoped May 4,* 
that Sigismund would use this opportunity and set '*'^' 
Hus at liberty. He might have done so with safety, for the 
Council was now too far dependent upon him to take much 
umbrage at his doings. But Sigismund had entirely identi- 
fied himself with the Council, and had no further qualms of 
conscience about his treatment of Hus ; he is even said to 

VOL. II. 3 



34 THE COUNCIL OF CONSTANCE. 

have taken credit to himself for his firmness of purpose. 
There were great fears that the friends of Hus might at- 
tempt a rescue ; ^ so on March 24 Sigismund handed over 
the custody of Hus to the Bishop of Constance, who removed 
him by night, under a strong escort, to the Castle of Gottlie- 
ben, two miles above Constance, on the Rhine, where he was 
kept in chains. On April 6 a new commission, at the head 
of which were the Cardinals of Cambrai and St. Mark, was 
appointed to examine the heresies of Wyclif and Hus. As 
the Council was anxious to have this matter ready to hand 
when it had finished its conflict with John XXHL, it again 
transferred, on April 17, the examination of Hus to another 
commission, whose members had more leisure than the 
Cardinals. No time was lost in inaugurating the Couacil's 
activity against heresy. In the eighth session, on May 4, 
Wyclif was condemned as the leader and chief of the heretics 
of the time. The forty-five articles taken from Wyclif s 
writings were condemned as heretical ; two hundred and 
six others, which had been drawn up by the ingenuity of the 
University of Oxford, were declared heretical, erroneous, or 
scandalous ; the writings of Wyclif were ordered to be burntj 
his memory was condemned, and it was decreed that his 
bones be exhumed and cast out of consecrated ground. 
The friends of Hus saw that if they hoped to save him 
they must act promptly. On May 16 a petition was 
of Hub's presented to the Council, signed by Wenzel of 
May 16- Duba, John of Chlum, Henry of Latzenborck, and 
31. 1415. other Bohemian nobles in Constance, praying for 
Hus's release from prison, on the ground that he had come 
voluntarily with a safe-conduct to plead on behalf of his 
opinions, and had been thrown into prison unheard, in 
violation of the safe-conduct, though heretics condemned by 
the Council of Pisa were allowed to come and go freely. 
There were replies and counter-replies, which only embittered 

* Letter in Palacky, Gesch. von Bohmen, iii., i, 339 : * De Hus fiiit 
periculum ne eriperetur de carceribus ordinis Praedicatorum situatis ultra 
muros civitatis, quia custodes jam erant pauci et remissi \ 



COMMUNION UNDKH BOTH KINDS IN IIOIiKMIA, 35 

the enetniei of Hus. At Ust, on May xo, an annwer wan 
given by the Patriarch of Antioch^ on behalf of the Council, 
that they would in no caae release from prinon a man who 
waa not to be truated» but that, in answer to the request for 
a public audience, the Council would hear him on June 5. 

If Hue's cause had been prejudged by the Council when 
he was put in prison, everything that had happened 
since then had only strengthened the conviction imKoif 
that Hus and his opinions were most dangerous to mmC^' 
the peace of the Church. The news from Bohemia Xtlf" 
told that the revolt against ecclesiastical authority ^''^«'"^'' 
was rapidly spreading. After the departure of Hus the chief 
place amongst his followers was taken by one Jakubek of 
Mies, who attacked the custom of the Church by preaching 
the necessity of the reception of the Eucharist under both 
kinds. The question had previously been raised by Mathias 
of Janow/ but in obedience to the Archbishop of Prag had 
been laid aside, Jakubek, not content with holding a dis- 
putation before the University in defence of his views, 
proceeded to administer the Communion tender both kinds 
in several churches in Prag, heedless of the Archbishop's 
ejfcommunication. There was some difference of opinion 
on this question amongst Hue's followers in Bohemia, and 
the opinion of Hus was requested,* Hus gave his opinion 
in favour of Jakubek, on the ground that the Communion 
under both kinds was more in accordance with the teaching 
of 8. Paul and the custom of the primitive Church ; but it is 
evident from his way of speaking that he did not consider 
the question as one of vital importance. However, a letter 
of his to Jakubek, and Jakubek's answer, which was ex- 
pressed in imprudent language, fell into the hands of the 
spies of Michael de Causis, and were used to prove still more 
clearly the dangerous character of Hus,' 

srbiiHum ve»trum JuKta mipi% quArdsm m refer enUH ♦. 
• UtUtf of Hum to P«t«t Mladencmrk, Doeumgnia, $7. 



36 THE COUNCIL OF CONSTANCE. 

Moreover, the friends of Hus showed a zeal in his behalf 
Capture of ^hich the Council regarded as unseemly, if not 
fclg"'May suspicious. Hus wrotc to warn them to curb their 
23. 1415. desire to come and visit him. One of them, Chris- 
tian of Prachatic, was imprisoned on the accusation of 
Michael de Causis, and was only released on Sigismund*s 
intervention, who had a special care for him as a learned 
astronomer. Hus*s warnings, however, did not prevent his 
fiery scholar, Jerome of Prag, from venturing secretly to 
Constance. Jerome was the knight-errant of the Hussite 
movement, whose restless activity spread its influence far 
and wide. Sprung from a noble family, he represented the 
alliance between Hus and the Bohemian aristocracy. He 
studied at Heidelberg, Koln, Paris, and Oxford, and wandered 
over Europe in quest of adventures. He had been imprisoned 
as a heretic at Pesth and at Vienna, and had only escaped 
through the intervention of his noble friends and of the 
University of Prag. He had dreamed of a reconciliation 
between the Bohemian reformers and the Greek Church. 
Violent and impetuous in all things, he hastened to Con- 
stance, where he kept himself hid, and on April 7 posted on 
the church doors a request for a safe-conduct, saying that he 
was willing to appear before the Council and answer for his 
opinions. On April 17 the Council cited him to appear 
within fifteen days, giving him a safe-conduct against 
violence, but announcing the intention of proceeding legally 
against him. Jerome already repented of his rashness ; 
he judged it wiser to return to Prag, but was recognised 
when close on the Bohemian frontier, at Hirschau, was made 
prisoner and was sent back to Constance, where he arrived 
on May 23. He was led in chains by his captor to the 
Franciscan monastery, where a general congregation of the 
Council was sitting. Jerome was asked why he had not 
appeared in answer to the citation, and answered that he 
had not received it in time to do so ; he had waited for some 
time, but had turned his face homewards in despair before it 
was issued. Angry cries arose on every side, for Jerome's 



JEROME OF PRAG. 37 

keen tongue and fiery temper had raised him enemies wher- 
ever he had gone. Academic hatred blazed up ; the hostility 
of the Nominalists against the Realistic philosophy was 
proved to be no inconsiderable element in the opposition to 
the tenets of Wyclif and Hus. Gerson exclaimed, * When 
you were at Paris, you disturbed the University with false 
positions, especially in the matter of universals and ideas 
and other scandalous doctrines *. A doctor from Heidelberg 
cried out, * When you were at Heidelberg you painted up a 
shield comparing the Trinity to water, snow, and ice*. He 
alluded to a diagram which Jerome had drawn out to illustrate 
his philosophic views, in which water, snow, and ice, as three 
forms of one substance, were paralleled with the three 
Persons co-existing in the Trinity. Jerome demanded that 
his opinions be proved erroneous ; if so, he was willing 
humbly to recall them. There were loud cries, * Burn him, 
burn him '. * If you wish my death,' he exclaimed, * so be 
it in God's name.' * Nay,' said the chivalrous Robert Hallam, 
Bishop of Salisbury, * Nay, Jerome ; for it is written, ** I 
will not the death of a sinner, but rather that he be converted 
a'nd live ".' In the midst of general confusion Jerome was 
hurried off to prison in the tower of S. Paul's Church — a 
dark and narrow dungeon where he could not see to read, 
and was treated with the utmost rigour. 

The hopes of Hus and his friends fell lower and lower, 
as the months of his imprisonment went on. The 
Commissioners of the Council plied Hus with positions 
questions and framed their indictment against him. and of the 
Hus laboured hard to prepare his defence, and still °"**" ' 
found time to write little tractates for the use of his friends 
and even of his guards. His own desire was that he might 
have the opportunity of defending his opinions openly. 
So entirely were they the expression of his whole moral 
nature, that he could not imagine it possible for any one 
to consider that the frank expression of such opinions was 
really culpable. 

But the Council saw no reason for listening to Hus's 



38 THE COUNCIL OF CONSTANCE, 

explanations. In their mind his guilt was clear; his 
writings contained opinions contrary to the system of the 
Church ; he had openly acted in defiance of ecclesiastical 
authority, and had taught others to do the same. It was 
useless to give such an one another opportunity of raising his 
voice. The Council that had just been victorious over a 
Pope thought it beneath its dignity to waste time over a 
heretic. The very fact of the overthrow of John XXIII. 
made the condemnation of Hus more necessary. If the 
Council had been compelled by the emergency to overstep 
the bounds of precedent in its dealings with the Pope, 
Hus afforded it an opportunity of showing Christendom 
how clearly it distinguished between reform and revolution ; 
how its anxiety to amend the evils of the Church did not 
lead it to deviate from the old ecclesiastical traditions. 
The real state of affairs was accurately expressed in the 
advice given to Hus by a friend who was a man of the 
world, * If the Council were to assert that you have only 
one eye, though you have two, you ought to agree with the 
Council's opinion *. Hus answered, * If the whole world 
were to tell me so, I could not, so long as I have the reason 
that I now enjoy, agree without doing violence to my con- 
science'.^ Hus had the spirit of a martyr, because he had 
the singleness of character which made life impossible if 
purchased by the overthrow of his moral and intellectual 
sincerity. 

So when, on June 5, the Fathers of the Council assembled 
First audi- ^^ ^^^ rcfcctory of the Franciscan Convent, they 
If^june came to condemn Hus, not to hear him. Before 
5,1415. Hus was brought in, the report of the Commis- 
sioners appointed to examine his case was read. A Bo- 
hemian, looking over the reader's shoulder, saw that it ended 
in a condemnation of various articles taken from Hus's 
writings. When John of Chlum and Wenzel of Duba heard 
this they went to Sigismund, who was not present at the 

* From a letter of Hus in Palacky, Documental 102. 



FIRST AUDIENCE OF BUS. 39 

congregation, and besought him to interfere. Sigismund 
was moved to send Frederick of Niirnberg and the Pfalzgraf 
Lewis to request the Council not to condemn Hus unheard, 
but to give a careful hearing to his defence. The friends 
of Hus objected that the articles against Hus were taken 
from garbled copies of his writings, and they laid before 
the Council Hus's original manuscript of the * De Ecclesia ' 
and other works on condition that they should be safely 
returned. 

After these preliminaries, Hus was brought in. He ad- 
mitted that the manuscripts which he was shown were his ; 
he added that if they were proved to contain any errors, he 
was ready to amend them. The first article of his accusa- 
tion was then read, and Hus began to answer it. He had 
not proceeded far before he was stopped by cries on all sides. 
It was not the Council's notion of a defence that the accused 
should discuss the standard of orthodoxy, or bring forward 
quotations from the Fathers in proof of each of his opinions. 
To them the rule of faith was the Church, and the Church 
was represented by the Council. It was for them to say 
what opinions were heretical or erroneous. The only 
question in Hus's case was whether or no he owned the 
opinions of which he was accused. * Have done with your 
sophistries,' was the cry, * and answer yes or no.* When 
he quoted from the writings of the early Fathers, he was 
told that was not to the point : when he was silent, his foes 
exclaimed, * Your silence shows assent to these errors '. 
The more sober members decided the Council to defer for 
two days the further hearing of Hus. 

At the second audience, June 7, Sigismund was present, 
and there was greater order, owing to a proclama- 
tion, in the name of the King and the Council, audience 

. ,. , , ,, of Hub. 

that any one crymg out m a disorderly way would June 7, 
be removed. The first point on which Hus was ^*'^* 
accused was his view of the Sacrament of the Altar, about 
which Hus denied, as he always had done, that he shared 
Wyclifs views. Peter d'Ailly, who was president at the 



46 THE COUNCIL OP CONSTANCE, 

session, tried to discuss the question on philosophical 
grounds, and to prove that Hus, as a realist who believed 
in universals, could not accept the true doctrine on the 
subject. The English, who had been experienced in this 
question since Wyclif's days, took a great share in the 
discussion. At last one of them brought it to an end by 
declaring that these philosophical points had nothing to do 
with the matter : he declared himself satisfied with the 
soundness of Hus's opinion on this point. There was some 
warmth in the discussion, and many spoke at once, till 
Hus exclaimed, * I expected to find in the Council more 
piety, reverence, and order'. This exclamation produced 
silence, for it was a quiet appeal to the mandate against 
interruption : but D'Ailly resented the remark, and said, 

* When you were in your prison, you spoke more modestly'. 

* Yes,' retorted Hus, 'for there at least I was not disturbed.' ^ 
- The discussion then passed into an attempt to discover 

what was the nature of the evidence by which a man's 
opinions were to be determined. Cardinal Zabarella re- 
marked to Hus that, according to Scripture, * In the mouth 
of two or three witnesses shall every word be established ' : 
as on most points there were at least twenty witnesses who 
deposed against Hus, it was difficult to see what he could 
gain by denying the charges. Hus answered, * If God and 
my conscience witness for me that I never taught what 
I am accused of teaching, the testimony of my opponents 
hurts me not*. To this Cardinal d'Ailly observed with 
truth, * We cannot judge according to your conscience, but 
according to the testimony laid before us '. Here, in fact, 
lay the inevitable difference in point of view that made the 



^ I assign this incident to Hus's second audience, though most writers, 
following Von der Hardt, iv., 307, put it down to the first. Von der 
Hardt quotes a letter of Hus, dated June 27, in which he is making a 
general complaint against the Council ; but a letter which Palacky 
dates June 7 (Documental 108), and which clearly refers to the second 
audience, because it mentions the presence of Sigismund, narrates this 
event as occurring then. Mladenowic, in his Relatio (Doc.j 282), records 
the reproof of D'Ailly, but not the exclamation of Hus. 



SECOND AUDIENCE OF HUS. 41 

trial of Hus seem, in his own eyes, to be a mere mockery 
of justice. 

The discussion wandered on aimlessly. Hus was accused 
of defending Wyclif and his doctrines, of causing dis- 
turbances in the University of Prag and in the kingdom of 
Bohemia. Cardinal d' Ailly quoted, in support of the charge 
of sedition, a remark by Hus when he was first brought 
before the Cardinals, that he had come to Constance of his 
own free will, and if he had not wished to do so, neither 
the King of Bohemia nor the King of the Romans could 
have compelled him. Hus answered, * Yes, there are many 
lords in Bohemia who love me, in whose castles I could 
have been hid, so that neither King could have compelled 
me *. D' Ailly cried out on such audacity ; but John of 
Chlum rose and said sturdily, * What he speaks is true. I 
am but a poor knight in our kingdom, yet I would willingly 
keep him for a year, whomsoever it pleased or displeased, 
so that no one could take him. There are many great lords 
who love him and would keep him in their castles as long 
as they chose, even against both Kings together.' 

John's remark was noble and brave and true, but it was 
not politic. The King of the Romans, the disposer 
of Christendom, the idol of the Council, sat by with of sigis^- 
wrath and heard the bitter truth about his mighti- °"° * 
ness, and was publicly braved for the sake of an obscure 
heretic. President d'Ailly saw an opportunity for closing 
triumphantly this unprofitable wrangle. Turning to Hus, 
he said, * You declared in prison that you were willing to 
submit to the judgment of the Council : I advise you to do 
so, and the Council will deal mercifully with you '. Sigis- 
mund, smarting under the affront of John of Chlum, publicly 
abandoned Hus. He told him that he had given him a 
safe-conduct for the purpose of procuring him a hearing 
before the Council. He had now been heard: there was 
nothing to be done but submit to the Council, which, for 
the sake of Wenzel and himself, would deal mercifully with 
him. * If, however,' he continued, * you persist in your 



42 THE COUNCIL OF CONSTANCE. 

errors, it is for the Council to determine what it will do. 
I have said that I will not defend a heretic ; nay, if any one 
remained obstinate in heresy, I would, with my own hands, 
bum him. I advise you to submit entirely to the Council's 
grace, and the sooner the better, lest you be involved in 
deeper error.' Hus thanked Sigismund — it must have been 
ironically — for his safe-conduct, repeated his vague state- 
ment that he was willing to abandon any errors about 
which he was better informed, and was conducted back to 
his prison. 
The audience was continued next day, June 8, when 
thirty-nine articles against Hus were laid before 
audience the Council : twenty-six of them were taken from 
Junes,* the treatise *De Ecclesia,* the remainder from his 
^*^^' controversial writings. Hus's manuscript was 

before the Council, and each article was compared with 
the passages on which it was founded: D'Ailly observed 
on several articles that they were milder than Hus's words 
justified. The articles chiefly turned on Hus's conception 
of the Church as the body of the predestinated, and the 
consequent dependence of ecclesiastical power on the worthi- 
ness of him who exercised it. Hus objected to several of 
the articles, that they did not properly express his meaning, 
were taken out of connexion with the context, and paid no 
attention to the limitations which had accompanied his 
statements. To the article that * a wicked pope or prelate 
is not truly a pastor,' Hus put in a limitation that he meant 
they were not priests so far as their merits went, but he 
admitted that they were priests so far as their office was 
concerned. To back up this fine distinction, he urged the 
case of John XXIH., and asked whether he were really a 
pope, or really a robber. The Cardinals looked at one 
another and smiled, but answered, 'Oh, he was a true 
pope '. The whole proceeding was wearisome and profit- 
less, for the Council had no doubt that Hus's teaching as 
a whole was opposed to all order, and they had in their 
favour the practical argument of the Bohemian disturb- 



THIRD AUDIENCE OF HUS. 43 

ances. It was useless for Hus to palliate each separate 
article and urge that there was a sense in which it might 
have an orthodox meaning. 

In spite of his attempts to be cautious, Hus occasionally 
betrayed the revolutionary nature of his views if pushed to 
the extreme. When the article was read, <If a pope, bishop, 
or prelate be in mortal sin, he is not a true pope, bishop, 
or prelate,' Hus urged the words of Samuel to Saul, * Be- 
cause thou hast rejected the word of the Lord, He hath 
rejected thee from being king*. Sigismund at the time was 
talking in a window with Frederick of Niirnberg and the 
Pfalzgraf Lewis ; there was a cry, * Call the King, for this 
affects him '. When Sigismund had returned to his place, 
Hus was asked to repeat his remark. Sigismund with truth 
and pertinence remarked, * Hus, no one is without sin *. 
Peter d'Ailly was resolved not to let slip the opportunity 
of showing the danger attending Hus's opinions if they 
were extended to political as well as religious matters. ' It 
was not enough for you,' he exclaimed, ' by your writings 
and teaching to throw down the spiritual power ; you wish 
also to oust kings from their places.' 

At length the reading of the articles and their attestation 
was ended. D'Ailly, as president, addressed Hus : < There 
are two ways open for your choice. Either submit yourself 
entirely to the mercy of the Council, which, for the sake of 
the King of the Romans and the King of Bohemia, will 
deal kindly with you ; or, if you wish further to maintain 
your opinions, an opportunity will be given you. Know, 
however, that there are here many learned men, who have 
such strong reasons against your articles that I fear if you 
attempt to defend them further you will be involved in 
graver errors. I speak as an adviser, not as a judge.' 
There were cries on all sides urging Hus to submit. He 
answered, * I came here freely, not to defend anything 
obstinately, but to submit to better information if I was 
wrong. I crave another audience to explain my meaning, 
and if my arguments do not prevail, I am willing to sub- 



44 THE COUNCIL OF CONSTANCE. 

mit humbly to the information of the Council.' His words 
awakened the anger of many. * The Council is not here 
to inform, but to judge ; he is equivocating,' was cried out 
on all sides. Hus amended his words : he was willing to 
submit to their correction and decision. On this D'Ailly 
at once rose, and said that sixty doctors had unanimously 
decided on the steps which Hus must take : * He must 
humbly recognise his errors, abjure and revoke the articles 
against him, promise never to teach them again, but hence- 
forth to preach and teach the opposite'. Hus answered 
that he could not lie and abjure doctrines which he had 
never held, as was the case with some of the articles 
brought against him. Hereon a verbal dispute arose about 
the meaning of abjuration, which Sigismund tried to settle 
by the remark that he was ready to abjure all errors, but 
this did not imply that he had previously held them. 
Cardinal Zabarella at last told Hus that a written form of 
abjuration would be submitted to him, and he could make 
up his mind at leisure. Hus demanded another chance of 
explaining his doctrines; but Sigismund warned him that 
two courses only were open — either he must abjure and 
submit to the Council's mercy, or the Council would pro- 
ceed to assert its rights. A desultory conversation followed. 
At last Palecz, moved in some way by the solemnity of the 
occasion, rose and protested that in promoting the cause 
against Hus he had been actuated by no personal motive, 
but solely by zeal for the truth. Michael de Causis said 
the same. Hus answered, *I stand before the judgment- 
seat of God, who will judge both you and me after our 
deserts'. He was then taken back to his prison. 

The laymen quickly left the Council chamber, and Sigis- 
mund remained talking in the window with some 

Incautious *. , , . r /r«» ▼-» « 

confid- of the chief prelates. The Bohemians, John of 
sigis- Chlum, Wenzel of Duba, and Peter Mladenowic, 
*""" ' remained sadly behind the rest, and so heard 
Sigismund's conversation. With indignation and dismay 
they heard him urge on the Fathers Hus's condemna- 



INCAUTIOUS CONFIDENCES OF SIGISMUND. 45 

tion. There was more than enough evidence^ he said; if 
Hus would not abjure, let him be burned. Even if he did 
abjure, it would be well to inhibit him from preaching 
again, as he could not be trusted ; they must make an end 
of the matter, and root out all Hus's followers, beginning 
with Jerome, whom they had in their hands. * It was only 
in my boyhood,' ended Sigismund, * that this sect arose in 
Bohemia, and see how it has grown and multiplied.' The 
prelates agreed with the King's opinion, and Sigismund 
retired satisfied with his acuteness in turning things to 
his own advantage. He thought that vigorous measures 
on the part of the Council would overawe the turbulent 
spirits in Bohemia, and would spare him much trouble 
when the time came that he inherited the Bohemian crown. 
The unguarded words that he spoke lost him his Bohemian 
kingdom for ever. Sigismund might have been forgiven 
for refusing to come into collision with the rights of the 
Council by insisting on the observance of his safe-conduct ; 
he could never be forgiven for joining the ranks of Hus's 
foes and hounding on the Council to condemn him. As 
King of the Romans he might have duties which brought 
him into conflict with the wishes of the Bohemians; he 
was discovered secretly using his influence against them, 
and striving to crush what the Bohemians longed to assert. 
The insult to the nation, of inciting the Council to root out 
errors from Bohemia, was deeply felt and bitterly resented. 
The people steeled their hearts to assert that they would 
not have this man to rule over them.^ 

An attempt was made to bring Hus to retract. Some 
member of the Council,^ whom Hus knew and Attempt 
respected, was chosen to submit to him a formula uiito^ 
of retractation, setting forth, * though many things «^«'«^act. 
are laid to my charge which I never thought, yet I submit 
myself concerning all such points, either drawn from my 

^ Peter Mladenowic, Relatio, in Palacky, Documenta, 314. 
' We do not know who this was ; he is merely addressed by Hus 
• Revereiide Pater '. Palacky, Doc^ 121. 



46 THE COUNCIL OF CONSTANCE. 

books or from the depositions of witnesses, to the order, 
definition, and correction of the Holy Council'. Hus 
answered that he could not condemn many truths which 
seemed to the Council scandalous; he could not perjure 
himself by renouncing errors which he did not hold, and so 
scandalising Christian people who had . heard him preach 
the contrary. * I stand,* he ended, * at the judgment-seat 
of Christ, to whom I have appealed, knowing that He will 
judge every man, not according to false or erroneous witness, 
but according to the truth and each one's deserts.' There 
was no longer any attempt at special pleading. Hus asserted 
against authority the rights of the individual conscience, 
and removed his cause from the tribunal of man to the 
judgment-seat of God. A new spirit had arisen in Christen- 
dom when a man felt that his life and character had been 
so definitely built up round opinions which the Church 
condemned, that it was easier for him to die than to resign 
the truths which made him what he was. 

There was but one course open to the Council, yet it 
Decree hesitated to proceed to the condemnation of Hus. 

against ^ , . , . 

the ad- On Junc 15 it turned its attention again to the 

ministra- . . . , ,. _., .,»..*#• 

tionofthe mnovations introduced into Bohemia by Jakubek of 
munion Mies, in the administration of the Eucharist. It 
Unds. issued a decree declaring the administration under 
June 15, Ijq^j^ kinds to be heretical, because opposed to the 
custom and ordinance of the Church, which had been made 
to prevent irregularities. Hus, in his letters to his friends, 
did not scruple to call this decre6 mere madness, in that it 
set the custom of the Roman Church against the plain words 
of Christ and of S. PauU He wrote also to Havlik,^ who 
had taken his place as preacher in the Bethlehem Chapel, 

^'O quanta dementia evangelium Christi, epistolam Pauli, . . . et 
factum Christi . . . condemnare ! . . . O Sancte Paule t tu dicis omnibus 
fidelibus " Quotienscunque manducabitis panem hunc et calicem bibetis, 
mortem domini annuntiabitis, donee veniat " : hoc est usque diem judicii 
in quo veniet ; ut ecce, jam dicitur, quod consuetudo Romanae ecclesise est 
in oppositum.' — Palacky, Doc, 126. 

' Palacky, Doc, 128, dated June 21. 



HUS BIDS ADIEU TO HIS FRIENDS, 47 

exhorting him not to withstand Jakubek's teaching in this 
matter, and so cause a schism among the faithful by paying 
heed to this decree of the Council. ^Hus set himself more 
and more decidedly against the Council, and all efforts to 
induce him to submit were unavailing. Even Palecz, the 
friend of Hus's youth and now his bitterest foe, visited him 
in prison and besought him to abjure. * What would you 
do/ said Hus, * if you were charged with errors which you 
knew for certain that you never held ? Would you abjure ? * 
' It is a hard matter/ answered Palecz, and burst into tears. 
It was characteristic of Hus that he asked to have Palecz as 
his confessor, for he was his chief adversary. Palecz shrank 
from the office, but paid his former friend another visits and 
excused himself for the part that he had taken against him. 
Hus resolutely prepared to die, and wrote to bid farewell 
to his various friends in Bohemia and at Constance. 
A tranquil yet determined spirit breathes through his adieu to^ 
letters ; the charm of his personal character is seen *^*®'"*°**®- 
in the tenderness and thoughtfulness of the messages which 
he sends.^ Repeated deputations from the Council vainly 
endeavoured to prove to him the duty, the easiness of re- 
cantation. At last, on July i, a formal answer in writing 
was returned by Hus to the Council. He said that, fearing 
to offend God, and fearing to commit perjury, he was un- 
willing to retract any of the articles brought against himi 
On July 5, at Sigismund's request, the Bohemian nobles, 
John of Chlum and Wenzel of Duba, accompanied the 
representatives of the Council on a last visit to Hus. John 
of Chlum manfully addressed him, and his words are a 
strong proof of the sturdy moral spirit which Hus had 
awakened in his followers : ' We are laymen and cannot 
advise you; consider, however, and if you feel that you 

^ Thus : * D. Henricum Lefl utique petas quod Jacobo scriptori det 
unam sexagenam, quam sibi promisit *. Palac, Doc, 120. * Nobilis domine 
Wenceslae, uxorem accipiendo, sancte vivatis in matrimonio, postpositis 
vanitatibus seculi.' Id,, 125. * Petre, amice carissime, pellicium tibi serva 
in mei memoriam.* Id., 147. 



48 THE COUNCIL OF CONSTANCE, 

are guilty in any of the matters laid to your charge, have 
no shame in recanting. If, however, you do not feel your- 
self guilty, by no means act contrary to your conscience, 
and do not lie in the sight of God, but rather persevere unto 
death in the truth which you know/ Hus answered : * If I 
knew that I had written or preached anything erroneous, 
contrary to the law and the Church, God is my witness that 
I would in all humility retract. But my wish always has 
been that better doctrine be proved to me out of Scripture, and 
then I would be most ready to recant' One of the Bishops 
said indignantly, * Will you be wiser than the whole Council ? ' 
Hus answered, * Show me the least member of the Council 
who will inform me better out of the Scriptures, and I will 
forthwith retract '. * He is obstinate in his heresy,' exclaimed 
the prelates, and Hus was led back to his prison. 

Next day, July 6, was a general session of the Council in 
the Cathedral, which Sigismund attended in royal 
condcm- state. During the celebration of mass Hus was kept 
Hus. July standing in the porch with an armed escort. He was 
* ^^^^' brought in to listen to a sermon on the sin of heresy 
from the Bishop of Lodi. He was stationed before a raised plat- 
form, on which was a stand containing all the articles of a 
priest's dress. During the sermon Hus knelt in prayer. When 
the sermon was over a proctor of the Council demanded sen- 
tence against Hus. A doctor mounted the pulpit and read a 
selection from the condemned articles of Wyclif and the con- 
clusions of the process against Hus. More than once Hus tried 
to answer to the charges, but he was ordered to keep silence. 
He pleaded that he wished to clear himself of error in the 
eyes of those who stood by ; afterwards they might deal 
with him as they chose. When he was forbidden to speak 
he again knelt in prayer. The number and rank, but not 
the names, of the witnesses to each charge, together with a 
summary of their testimony, was then read. Hus was 
aroused by hearing new charges brought against him — 
amongst others the monstrous assertion that he had declared 
himself to be the Fourth Person of the Trinity. He in- 



HUS DEGRADED PROM THE PRIESTHOOD. 49 

dignantly asked the name of the one doctor who was quoted 
as witness, but was answered that there was no need of 
naming him now. When he was charged with despising the 
Papal excommunication and refusing to answer the Pope's 
summons, he again protested that he had desired nothing 
more than to prove his own innocence, and had for that 
purpose come to Constance of his own free will, trusting in 
the Imperial safe-conduct. As he said this he looked fixedly 
at Sigismund, who blushed through shame. 

After this recital of his crimes, the sentence of the Council 
against Hus was read. First his writings, Latin ^^^^^_ 
and Bohemian, were condemned as heretical and paded 
ordered to be burnt. Hus asked how they could priest- 
know that his Bohemian writings were heretical, 
seeing they had never read them. The sentence went on, 
that Hus himself as a pertinacious heretic be degraded from 
the priesthood. When the reading of the sentence was over, 
Hus prayed aloud : ' O Lord Jesus Christ, pardon all my 
enemies, for Thy great mercy's sake, I beseech Thee. Thou 
knowest that they have falsely accused me, brought forward 
false witnesses and forged false articles against me. Pardon 
them through Thy immense mercy.' The Archbishop of 
Milan, with six other Bishops, proceeded to the formal de- 
gradation of Hus. He was set on the platform in the middle 
of the cathedral, and was invested in the full priestly dress, 
with the chalice in his hand. Again he was exhorted to 
retract He turned to the people, and, with tears streaming 
down his face, said, * See how these Bishops expect me to 
abjure : yet I fear to do so, lest I be a liar in the sight of the 
Lord — lest I offend my conscience and the truth of God, 
since I never held these articles which witness falsely against 
me, but rather wrote and taught the opposite. I fear, too, 
to scandalise the multitude to which I preached.' 

The Bishops then proceeded to his degradation. Each 
article of his priestly ofBce was taken from him 
with solemn formality, and his tonsure was cut on hus. juiy 
four sides. Then it was pronounced, * The Church ^' ^^'*' 

VOL. II. 4 



50 THE COUNCIL OF CONST ANCt. 

has taken from him all rights of the Church ; and commits 
him to the secular arm \ The paper cap, painted over with 
fiends, was put on his head, with the words, * We conimit 
your soul to the devil '. Sigismund gave him to the charge 
of Lewis of Bavaria, who handed him to the civic officers 
for execution. As the procession passed out of the church 
Hus saw his books being burned in the churchyard. He 
was led out of the town into a suburb called Bruel, where in 
a meadow the stake had been prepared. To the last he 
asserted to the bystanders that he had never taught the 
things laid to his charge. When he was bound to the stake 
and Lewis of Bavaria again begged him to recant, Hus 
answered that the charges against him were false : * I am 
prepared to die in that truth of the Gospel which I taught 
and wrote '. As the pile was kindled Hus began to sing 
from the Liturgy : — 

O Christ, Son of the living God, have mercy upon us ; 
O Christ, Son of the living God, have mercy upon me ; 
Thou who wast born of the Virgin Mary — 

The wind swept the flames upward into his face, and he 
remained speechless. His lips were seen to move for a few 
minutes and then his spirit passed away. The attendants 
took great care that his body was all reduced to ashes. His 
clothes, which, according to custom, belonged to the execu- 
tioner, were bought from him by Lewis of Bavaria, and were 
also burned. The ashes were flung into the Rhine : it was 
determined that Bohemia should have no relics of her 
martyr. 

Hus died protesting against the unfairness of his trial. 
It is indeed impossible that a trial for opinions 
of*Hus? should ever be considered fair by the accused. He 
'"* ' is charged with subverting the existing system of 

thought ; he answers that some modification of the existing 
system is necessary, and that his opinions, if rightly under- 
stood, are not subversive, but amending. Into this issue 
his judges cannot follow him. It is as though a man 
accused of high treason were to urge that his treason is 



FAIRNESS OF HUS'S TRIAL. $i 

the noblest patriotism. There may be truth in his allega* 
tion, but it is a truth which human justice cannot take into 
account. The judge is appointed to execute existing laws, 
and till those laws are altered by the properly constituted 
authority, the best attempts to amend them by individual 
protest must be reckoned as rebellion. No doubt Hus's 
liohemian foes did their best to ruin him ; but his opinions 
were judged by the Council to be subversive of the ecclesi- 
astical system, and when he refused to submit to that de- 
cision, he was necessarily regarded as an obstinate heretic. 
It is useless to criticise particular points in his trial, The 
Council was anxious for his submission and gave him every 
opportunity to make it. But it is the glory of Hub that 
he first deliberately asserted the rights of the individual 
conscience against ecclesiastical authority, and sealed his 
assertion by his own life-blood.^ 

The Council still had Jerome in their hands, but they were 
in no haste to proceed against him. The news of 
the death of Hub kindled in Bohemia the bitterest the death 
wrath. It was a national insult, and branded Bo- Bohemur 
hemia in the eyes of Christendom as the home of DcLScri, 
heresy. The clergy and monks were regarded with '^''' 
hatred as the causes of Hus's persecution. In Prag there 
was a riot, in which the clergy were severely handled; a 
crowd of Bohemians ravaged the lands of the Bishop of 
Leitomysl, who had been especially active in the prosecution 
of Hub. The Council thought it desirable to try and calm 
the irritation in Bohemia, and on July 23 sent a letter to the 
Bohemian clergy exhorting them to persevere in the extirpa- 
tion of heresy. This letter only had the effect of sharpening 
the antagonism of the two parties in Bohemia. One party 
drew more closely to the side of the Council and of Catholic 
orthodoxy ; the other more pronouncedly asserted the claims 

^ Lea, Hiitory of the Mediaval InquitUion, ii., has shown that the 
procedure in Hus's trial exactly followed the method adopted by the In* 
quisition. Hus came to argue before the Council : he was treated as a 
suspected heretic, and the Council resolved itself into a body of Inquisi- 
tors. 



52 THE COUNCIL OF CONSTANCE. 

of Bohemia to settle its religious controversies without foreign 
interference. The Bishop of Leitomysl was sent by the 
Council to protect the interests of the Church ; but so strong 
was the feeling against him in Bohemia that he felt it wise 
to stay indoors, and lived in fear of his personal safety.^ 

On September 2 a meeting was held at Prag of sixty-two 
Bohemian and Moravian nobles, who drew up an angry 
reply to the Council's letter. They asserted their respect for 
Hus and their belief in his innocence ; they defended Bohe- 
mia from the charge of heresy ; they branded as a liar and 
traitor any one who maintained such a charge for the future; 
they declared themselves determined to defend with their 
blood the law of Christ and its devout preachers in Bohemia. 
This letter received as many as 450 signatures. On Sep- 
tember 5 the Hussite lords entered into a formal bond, or 
covenant, to uphold freedom of preaching in Bohemia, and 
defend against episcopal prohibition or excommunication all 
faithful preachers; the University of Prag was recognised 
as the arbiter in doctrinal matters. On October i a similar 
covenant was entered into by the Catholic nobles to uphold 
the Church, the Council, and the worship of their forefathers. 
Wenzel took no steps to prevent these threatenings of dis- 
turbance. He was angry at the execution of Hus, which he 
regarded as a slight upon himself and his kingdom. He 
was especially angry that it had been done under Sigis- 
mund's sanction ; for he still regarded himself as King of the 
Romans, and was indignant at this intrusion of Sigismund 
into matters concerning the kingdom of Bohemia. Moreover, 
Queen Sophia grieved over the death of her confessor, whom 
she revered, and whose genuine piety she knew. Though 
Wenzel gave a verbal adhesion to the Catholic League, he 
was not thought to be in earnest. 

The fathers of Constance had seen what little impression 
their severity produced on Hus; they learned that it pro- 
duced equally little on his followers in Bohemia. Hence 

^ Niem, in Von der Hardt, ii., 425. 



RECANTATION OF yEROMB OF PR AG, 53 

there was a general wish to win over Jerome if possible to 
the Council* 8 side, or, at least, to spare the Council Recanta- 
the odium of making another martyr. Every method uSi© of 
was used to induce Jerome to retract ; till, overcome sJJt.Ks 
by the pleadings of men whose character he could ^^^5. 
not but respect, he consented on September 10 to make his 
submission to the Council. He wrote to his Bohemian 
friends that, on examination of the articles against Hus, he 
found many of them heretical, and on comparing them with 
Hus's own manuscript writings he had been forced to own 
that the articles ^Eiirly represented Hus*s words : he conse- 
quently felt bound to admit that Hus had been justly dealt 
with by the Council; though he wished to defend Hus's 
honour, he did not wish to be associated with his errors.^ 
The Council was proud of its triumph, and caused Jerome 
to renew his retractation in a more formal manner in a public 
session on September 23. It also passed a decree against 
those who assailed Sigismund for violating his safe-conduct 
to Hus. The decree asserted that 'neither by natural, 
divine, nor human law was any promise to be observed to 
the prejudice of the Catholic faith'. 

Jerome's recantation did not procure his freedom. He was 
taken back to prison, though his confinement was 
made much less rigid. The Commissioners who iogs 
had examined him— Cardinals Zabarella, D'Ailly, T^ome. 
Orsini and the Cardinal of Apulia — urged his re- — AprS7 
lease ; but the Bohemian party dreaded the results ^^^^' 
of his return to Bohemia, and declared that his retractation 
was not sincere. Gerson wrote a pamphlet to examine the 
amount of evidence to be attached to the retractation of one 
accused of heresy. The fanaticism that had been aroused 
by antagonism to the Hussites won at Constance the victory 
which it could not win in Bohemia. The Council deter- 
mined to proceed against Jerome, and on February 24, 141 6, 
appointed fresh Commissioners to examine witnesses on the 

1 Letter to Lacho of Krawar, dated Sept. 12, in Palacky, Documenta, 
598. 



54 THE COUNCIL OF CONSTANCE. 

points laid to his charge. On April 27 the articles of accusa- 
tion were laid before the Council. Jerome had not been a 
writer or preacher like Hus, and his words could not be 
quoted against him ; but every act of his life was set forth 
as a separate charge. He had been to England, and had 
brought back the books of Wyclif ; he had been concerned 
in all the disturbances in Bohemia ; he had rambled over 
Europe, carrying heresy in his train. Every daring act into 
which his impetuous temper had led him was now raked up 
against him. He had interfered to aid a citizen, whose 
servant was being carried off for some slight cause to a 
monastery prison, and when the monks attacked him, had 
snatched a sword from one of the citizens and put them to 
flight. He had been moved with pity for a young monk 
whose abbot denied him the necessaries of life, and had 
accompanied him into the abbot's presence, where he flung 
off his cowl and rushed away from the monastery. He had 
slapped the face of a monk who publicly insulted him. 

Jerome demanded a public audience in which to answer 
Poggio these charges, and on May 23 was brought before 
Unf's"?^ the Council. Amongst those present at his trial 
thc°ri2i ^^® *^® Florentine scholar Poggio Bracciolini, who 
of Jerome. ha(j comc to Constancc as secretary to John XXHI. 
On the dispersal of the Papal household he had wandered 
for a time in Germany, searching for manuscripts of the 
classics, and had again returned to Constance to seek his 
fortune from some patron of learning. Poggio was deeply 
impressed by the vigorous personality of Jerome, and com- 
municated his impressions in a letter to his friend Leonardo 
Bruni. As a man of letters and of culture Poggio looked 
with some slight contempt on the theological disputes of the 
assembled fathers. As an Italian he found it hard to sym- 
pathise with men who thought it worth while to rebel against 
the system of the Church. To his mind theological ques- 
tions were not of much importance. The established system 
must, of course, be maintained for the preservation of order ; 
but, after a decent recognition of its outward authority, the 



TRIAL OP JEROME. 55 

cultivated individual might think or act as he pleased so 
long as he avoided open collision. Poggio had no fellow- 
feeling with a man who was prepared to die for his opinions: 
he thought him clumsy for reducing himself to such an un- 
pleasant alternative. But he was attracted to Jerome by his 
force, his mental versatility, his fiery self-confidence, his 
keen wit, and, above all, his philosophic spirit. To Poggio 
Jerome was an interesting study of character, and he saw 
the permanent and human interest attaching to the religious 
martyr. Prom Poggio's testimony we are able to bring 
vividly before our tytt the scene of Jerome's trial.* 

When Jerome appeared he was called upon to answer to 
each of the articles brought against him. This he Trui of 
refused for a long time to do, and demanded that he ilj^y*^^; 
should first state his own case, and then answer his '^'^' 
adversaries' allegations. When his claim was overruled he 
said, < What iniquity is this, that I, who have been kept in 
a foul prison for three hundred and forty days without 
means of preparing my defence, while my adversaries have 
always had your ears, am now refused an hour to defend 
myself? Your minds are prejudiced against me as a 
heretic ; you judged me to be wicked before you had any 
means of knowing what manner of man I was. And yet 
you are men, not gods ; mortals, not eternal ; you are liable 
to error and mistake. The more you claim to be held as 
lights of the world, the more careful you ought to be to 
approve your justice to all men. I, whose cause you judge, 
am of no repute, nor do I speak for myself, for death comes 
to all ; but I would not have so many wise men do an un- 
just act, which will do more harm by the precedent it gives 
than by the punishment it inflicts.' 

He was heard with murmurs. The articles against him 
were read one by one from the pulpit. He put forth all his 
skill and eloquence to plead against their truth. Poggio 
was amazed at the dignity, openness, and vigour with which 

' The letter has been often printed, in Von der Hardt, iiL, 64 ; Poggio, 
Of$fai 301 ; Palacky, Docum^nia^ 624 ; and in many other placef. 



56 THE COUNCIL OF CONSTANCE. 

he Spoke. * If he really believed what he said, not only 
could no cause of death be found in him, but not even of the 
slightest offence/ Sometimes with jest, sometimes with 
irony, sometimes with sarcasm, sometimes with fiery indig- 
nation, sometimes with fervid eloquence, he answered the 
charges brought against him. When he was pressed on 
the question of Transubstantiation, and was charged with 
having said that after consecration the bread remained 
bread, he dryly said, * At the baker's it remains bread '. 
When a Dominican fiercely attacked him, he exclaimed, 
* Hypocrite, hold your tongue ! ' When another made oath 
on his conscience, he rejoined, * That is the surest way to 
deceive'. So numerous were the charges against him that 
his case had to be put off for three days, till May 26. 

In the next audience the reading of the articles and testi- 
mony against him was ended, and Jerome with 

Jerome's ,._ "^ , , . , , , t^ . . 

second difficulty obtamed leave to speak. Begmnmg with 
May 26, ' an humblc prayer to God, he began a magnificent 
^^ ' defence. Gifted with a sweet, clear, resonant 
voice, he sometimes poured forth torrents of fiery indigna- 
tion and sometimes touched the chords of deepest pathos. 
He set forth the glorious fate of those who in old times had 
suffered wrongfully. Beginning with Socrates, he traced 
the persecutions of philosophers down to Boethius. Then 
he turned to the Scriptures, and from Joseph down to 
Stephen showed how goodness had met with calumny 
and persecution. Stephen, he urged, was put to death by 
an assembly of priests; the Apostles were persecuted as 
subverters of order and movers of sedition. He pleaded 
that no greater iniquity could be committed than that priests 
should be wrongfully condemned to death by priests ; yet this 
had often occurred in the past. Then, turning to his own case, 
he showed that the witnesses against him were moved by 
personal animosity, and were not worthy of belief. He had 
come to the Council to clear his own character; he had 
hoped that men in these days might do as they had done of 
old, engage in amicable discussion with a view of investi- 



JEROME WITHDRAWS HIS RECANTATION. 57 

gating the truth. Augustine and Jerome had differed, nay, 
had asserted, on some points, contrary opinions, without 
any suspicion of heresy on either side. 

His audience was moved by his eloquence, and sat expect- 
ing that he would urge his retractation and ask jeromA 
pardon for his errors. To their surprise and grief, hu^Stn' 
he went on to say that he was conscious of no ***^®°- 
errors, and could not retract the false charges brought against 
him. He had recanted through fear and against his con- 
science, but now revoked the letter he had written to 
Bohemia. He had looked on Has as a just and holy man, 
whose fate he was prepared to share, leaving the lying 
witnesses against him to answer for their doings in the 
presence of God, whom they could not deceive. A cry 
arose from the Council, and many strove to induce Jerome 
to explain away his words. But his courage had returned, 
and he was resolved to tread in his master's footsteps to 
the stake. He repeated his belief in the opinions of Hus 
and of Wyclif, except in points concerning the Eucharist, 
where he held with the doctors of the Church. * Hus,' he 
exclaimed, 'spoke not against the Church of God, but 
against the abuses of the clergy, the pride and pomp of the 
prelates. The patrimony of the Church should be spent on 
the poor, on strangers and on buildings ; but it is spent on 
harlots and banquets, horses and dogs, splendid apparel, 
and other things unworthy of Christ's religion.' 

The Council still gave him a few days for consideration, 
but to no purpose. On May 30 he was brought Death of 
before a general session in the cathedral. The ]Sl^"^l\ 
eloquence of the Bishop of Lodi was again called '^'^• 
into request to convince the obstinate heretic of the justice 
of his doom.i When the sermon was over Jerome repeated 
the withdrawal of his former retractation. Sentence was 
passed against him, and he was led away to be burned in 

> The sermon is given in Von der Hardt, iii., 55. It is a pretty speci- 
men of arrangement and ok style, but is entirely without the feeling which 
the circumstances might have been expected to inspire. 



58 THE COUNCIL OF CONSTANCE. 

the same place as Hus. Like Hus, he went to die with 
calm and cheerful face. As he left the cathedral he began 
to chant the Creed and then the Litany When he reached 
the place of execution he knelt before the stake, as though 
it had been an image of Hus, and prayed. As he was 
bound he again recited the Creed, and called the people to 
witness that in that faith he died. When the executioner 
was going to light the pile at his back he called to him, 
* Come in front, and light it before my face ; if I had feared 
death, I would never have come here'. As the flames 
gathered round him he sang a hymn till his voice was 
choked by the smoke. As in the case of Hus, his clothes 
were burned, and his ashes were cast into the Rhine. 

The Council had done all that lay in its power to restore 
peace in Bohemia. 



59 



CHAPTER VI. 
sigismund's journey, and the council during his 

ABSENCE. 
I415— 1416. 

The Council had displayed its zeal for the promotion of the 
unity of the Church, both within and without, by 
deposing a Pope and burning two heretics. But tionof 
there still remained other pretenders to the Papal xiif°juiy 
dignity ; and the trials of Hus and Jerome were *' '*'^* 
only episodes in the more important question of the resigna- 
tion of the contending Popes. 

Gregory XII., weary of the conflict, and seeing himself 
abandoned on every side, submitted with good grace to 
abdicate. After a few negotiations about preliminaries, the 
abdication was formally carried out by Carlo Malatesta, 
acting as Gregory's proctor, in a general session of the 
Council, on July 4, 1415. The two Colleges of Cardinals 
were united, Gregory's acts in the Papacy were ratified, his 
officials were confirmed in their offices ; he himself received 
the title of Cardinal of Porto and the legation in the March 
of Ancona for life ; he was declared ineligible for re-election 
to the Papacy, but was to rank next to the future Pope. At 
the same time a decree was passed that the Council should 
not be dissolved till it had elected a new Pope. 

There still remained Benedict XIII., who had agreed to 
be present at a conference at Nice between Ferdi- Departure 
nand of Aragon and Sigismund, in June, 1415. But munlona 
the exciting scenes which followed on the flight of ^g° "^ta °^ 
John XXIII. obliged Sigismund to defer his depar- {fj^^^^f^j. 
ture till July 18. Owing to the illness of the King 18,1415. 



6o THE COUNCIL OF CONSTANCE. 

of Aragon, the place of meeting was changed from Nice 
to Perpignan. Thither went Benedict XIII. in June, and 
waited till the end of the month, when he declared Sigis- 
mund contumacious and retired to Valencia. Sigismund, 
in a speech to the Council before his departure, announced 
his intentions on a grand scale. He purposed first to ap- 
pease the Schism, then to make peace between France and 
England, between Poland and the Teutonic knights ; and 
after this general pacification of Europe, to undertake a 
crusade against the Turks.^ It was Sigismund's merit that 
he formed great plans of European importance ; it was his 
weakness that he never considered what means he had to 
carry them into execution. To obtain money for this jour- 
ney, which was to have such mighty results, he was com- 
pelled to raise 250,000 marks by making over Brandenburg 
to the wealthy Frederick, Burggraf of Niirnbcrg. Frederick 
had already lent him 150,000 marks, and now, for the addi- 
tional sum, obtained from the needy Emperor a grant of 
Brandenburg and the electoral dignity. 

Sigismund set out in state with a train of 4000 
knights, amid the good wishes of the fathers of the 
mnnd at Council, who Ordered a solemn procession to be 
ntmfs^pt., made every Sunday, and mass to be said for his 
^*'^' safety. He journeyed over Schaffhausen to Basel, 

and thence to Chambery and Narbonne, where he arrived 
on August 15. There he stayed for a month, waiting for 
the arrival at Perpignan of Ferdinand of Aragon, whose 
health scarcely permitted the journey. On September 18, 
he entered Perpignan, where Ferdinand awaited him. Bene- 
dict, who had raised objections about a safe-conduct, and 
had demanded that Sigismund should treat him as Pope, 

^ This speech of Sigismund's is given in Gerson's sermon to the Coun- 
cil, on July 21 (Von der Hardt, ii., 483). Von der Hardt makes this ser- 
mon be delivered before Sigismund's departure, which he therefore puts 
down to this same day, July 21. But Gerson says of this speech ' prius- 
quam recederet ab hoc concilio orationem habuit * ; and Niem (Von der 
Hardt, ii., 411) says that Sigismund went on July 18. See also the 
letter of the envoy of the University of Koln, Martene, Thesaurus, ii., 
1640. 



OBSTINATE RESISTANCE OP BENEDICT XIII. 6i 

was at length driven by Ferdinand's pressure to appear also 
towards the end of September. The efforts of Ferdinand 
and Sigismund could do nothing to bend the obstinate spirit 
of Benedict to submit to the Council. He answered that 
to him the way of justice seemed better than the way of 
abdication. If, however, the kings thought otherwise, he 
was ready to abdicate, provided that the decrees of the 
Council of Pisa were revoked, the Council of Constance dis- 
solved, and a new Council called in some free and impartial 
place — in the south of France or Aragon. As regarded the 
election of a new Pope, he claimed that he alone should 
nominate, as being the only Cardinal appointed by Gregory 
XI. before the Schism. If that was not acceptable, he 
would appoint a committee of his Cardinals, and the Council 
might appoint an equal number of their Cardinals ; the new 
election should be made by a majority in each committee 
agreeing to the same person. After such election he would 
abdicate, retaining his Cardinals, with full legatine power 
over all his present obedience. 

Benedict was true to his old principles. He had been 
elected Pope by as good a title as his predecessors, outinate 
and he saw no reason why he should abandon his of'seM?^ 
legal rights. Threats were useless against his dictxiii. 
stubbornness. When the Kings of Aragon, Navarre, and 
Castile threatened him with a withdrawal of obedience if he 
did not give way, he only grew more determined in his re- 
fusal. Sigismund found himself unsafe at Perpignan ; his 
enemies seemed resolved to attack him when he was in 
a foreign land. A fire suspiciously broke out in a house 
adjoining his own, and the Infante Alfonso rushed to his 
rescue with assurances of his father's protection.- Some of 
Sigismund's German followers rode away and left him with- 
out giving any reason. A suspicious embassy came from 
Frederick of Austria, which was said to have two notorious 
poisoners in its train.^ Fearing for his personal safety, 

' These mishaps are told by Windeck, in Mencken, i., 1098. 



62 THE COUNCIL OF CONSTANCE. 

Sigismund withdrew to Narbonne in the beginning of 
November, where he was followed by the ambassadors of 
the Spanish princes and of Scotland. New negotiations were 
set on foot, and Benedict, seeing himself threatened with a 
withdrawal of obedience, fled to the neighbouring fortress of 
Collioure, intending to take refuge in Sardinia ; his galleys, 
however, were destroyed by the ships of the neighbouring 
ports. Several of his Cardinals, at the request of the King 
of Aragon, returned to Perpignan; and Benedict, who 
scorned to yield, retired to the rocky fortress of Peniscola, 
which belonged to his family. Popular feeling was every- 
where turning against him ; his staunch upholder — ^the 
great Dominican preacher, Vincent Ferrer — went as am- 
bassador to urge Benedict to resign, and on his refusal raised 
his voice in favour of union with the Council of Constance. 

Negotiations went on rapidly between Sigismund and the 
Arti 1 8 ^^^S of Aragon. At last, on December 13, twelve 
Narbonne articles Were drawn up at Narbonne between the 
the Coun- representatives of the Council and those of Bene- 
Benedicfs dict's obcdiencc. It was agreed that the Council 
Dec/is,*^' of Constance should issue a summons to the princes 
^^^^' and prelates of Benedict's obedience to come to 

Constance within three months and form a General Council ; 
a similar summons was to be addressed by Benedict's obe- 
dience to the Council of Constance. When in this way the 
dignity of both parties had been preserved, the General 
Council so formed was to proceed to the deposition of Bene- 
dict, the election of a new Pope, the reformation of the Church, 
and the destruction of heresy. Benedict's acts till his first 
summons to withdraw on November 15 were to be ratified, 
his Cardinals and other officials recognised by the Council, 
and a safe-conduct given to himself if he chose to appear. 

Great was the joy of the Council when, on the evening of 
Joy at December 29, the news of this compact was brought 
ovcr*the^* to Constancc. Communications with Narbonne 
news. j^ad been rare, and rumours of every sort prevailed. 
The Council found their proceedings a little dull in Sigis- 



yOY AT CONSTANCE OVER NARBONNB ARTICLES. 63 

mund's absence. Commissioners might sit and discuss 
various questions of Church reform, but it was clear that 
nothing would be done till Sigismund was back again. The 
expenses of a stay in Constance began to weigh heavily, 
and the representatives of universities and other corporations 
found it necessary to urge on their constituents the import- 
ance of the work on which the Council was engaged, and 
the need of their continued presence at Constance. The 
first joy of the Council at the good news from Narbonne 
was a little checked when it came to consider the formalities 
that had to be gone through before its real business could 
proceed any further. Sigismund had not obtained, as had 
been hoped, the resignation of Benedict XIII. ; the way 
was not yet open for ending the Schism ; but the union of 
Spain with the Council would bring about again the union 
of Christendom. Hopes of ending the Council by Easter, 
1415, were exchanged for expectations that it might be over 
m September, 1416.1 The good news that Ferdinand of 
Aragon had on January 6 ordered the publication through- 
out his dominions of the withdrawal of allegiance from 
Benedict XIII. hardly compensated for the news that Sigis- 
mund proposed to make a journey to Paris and London to 
arrange for peace between France and England. The am- 
bassadors of the Council, who returned on January 29, 
assured them of the great use of this step in procuring the 
unity of the Church, and brought Sigismund's promise that 
he would return as soon as possible. 

If Sigismund, before leaving Constance, had set forth as 
one of his objects the establishment of peace be- 
tween Prance and England, events that had hap- sigis- 
pened since then had increased the danger which """ ' 
the union of Christendom was likely to incur from the 
growth of national animosity. In August, 1415, Henry V. 

1 These details are taken from the letters of the ambassadors of the 
University of Koln in Martene, TkesauruSf ii., 1654, etc., and the letters 
of Peter von Pulka, ambassador of the University of Vienna, published 
by Firnhaber in vol, xv. of the Archiv fur Oesterreichischer Geschichts- 
Quellen, p. 39. 



64 THE COUNCIL OF CONSTANCE, 

had sailed to France, in September had taken Harfleur, and 
in October had inflicted on the French army the crushing 
defeat of Agincourt. The Council thought that Sigismund's 
presence was consequently more than ever necessary at Con- 
stance to keep the peace and hasten on the business. But 
Sigismund had his own ends to serve while serving the 
Council. He had already succeeded in asserting anew the 
glories of the Imperial name in the affairs of the Church ; 
he was equally resolved to assert it in the politics of Europe. 
His scheme of uniting Europe in a crusade against the 
Turk might be a dream ; but at least it was a noble dream. 
In matters more immediately at hand — ^the full reunion and 
reform of the Church — Sigismund saw that nothing could 
be done on a satisfactory basis unless Europe were agreed. 
As bearing the Imperial name, Sigismund resolved to try 
and unite Europe for this purpose. It is true that he had 
little save the Imperial name to support him in his good 
intentions; yet, if his plan succeeded, he would work a 
lasting result for the good of Christendom, and would assert 
the old prestige of the Empire. 

Full of hope, he entered Paris on March i, 1416, and was 
sigis- received with splendid festivities. But the fierce 
Paris. *° antagonism of the Burgundian and Orleanist fac- 
A ri?" tions had been intensified by the national discom- 
1416- fiture, and Sigismund found that in the disturbed 

state of Paris he could obtain no definite understanding : 
what one party accepted the other refused. Yet Sigismund 
tried his utmost to win the French Court to his projects : 
he offered to wed his daughter Elizabeth with the second 
son of Charles VL, and so make him heir to the Hungarian 
throne, as he had no male offspring.^ When he found that 
he could do nothing in Paris, he pursued his way to Eng- 
land, and even on his journey was treated with contumely 
at Abbeville and Boulogne. It was clear that there was a 
strong party in France which had no wish for peace. 

1 Letter of Sigismund to the King, in Caro, Aus der Kanzlei Kaiset 
Sigismund* s (Wien, 1879), p. 120. 



FAILURE OF SIGISMUND'S PEACE PROJECT. 65 

Sigismund arrived in London on May 3, and there also 
great festivities were held in his honour. He took Failure of 
with him William, Duke of Holland, an ally of- ^^^Jg 
England, a relative of the French King, and conse- ^^^^^ 
quently likely to be trusted by both parties. Henry hi6- 
V. was willing to accept Sigismund's offer of mediation and 
agree to a truce for three years, on condition of retaining 
Harfleur, a small compensation for the glorious campaign of 
Agincourt. Preliminaries were agreed to, and a conference 
between the three monarchs was arranged ; but suddenly 
negotiations were broken off by the successful intrigues of 
the Count of Armagnac. William of Holland abruptly left 
England, and Sigismund found his mediation ignominiously 
disavowed. Sigismund was bitterly disappointed, and was 
placed in an awkward situation by this sudden change in the 
policy of France. Public opinion in England regarded him 
with grave suspicion, and he was entirely in the hands of 
Henry V. The Imperial honour had been sullied and the 
Imperial dignity outraged in this negotiation, from which 
Sigismund had hoped so much. He wrote angrily to the 
French King, and withdrew from further complicity in his 
affairs.^ He had indeed cause to be aggrieved, for he had not 
merely failed, but his failure threatened to be disastrous. He 
could not return to Constance crestfallen and discredited ; he 
could not even leave England suspicious of his good intentions. 

One course only remained open for him — to abandon his 
alliance with France, and draw nearer to England. Alliance 
Henry V., on his part, was ready enough to renew munTand 
the policy of Edward I. and Edward III., of forming ^ll'\^/ 
an alliance with Germany against France. On '^^e- 
August 15 Sigismund concluded at Canterbury an offensive 
and defensive alliance with Henry V., on the ground that the 
French favoured the Schism of the Church, and opposed all 
efforts to make peace with England. 2 It was an event of no 

1 This long and interesting letter, which serves as the basis for the 
above account, is printed by Caro, p. log, etc. 
'-^Rymer, Fadera^ ix., 377, etc. 
VOL. II. 5 



66 THE COUNCIL OF CONSTANCE. 

small importance in European politics ; it was a breach of 
the long-standing friendship between France and the house 
of Luxemburg — a friendship which Sigismund's grandfather, 
John of Bohemia, had sealed with his blood on the field of 
Crecy. At the end of August Sigismund went to Calais, 
where Henry V. soon joined him, and again a conference for 
peace was held ; to it came the Duke of Burgundy, who, in 
his hatred against the Count of Armagnac, was ready to 
listen to Henry V/s proposals for a separate alliance. When 
the conference was over Sigismund bethought himself of re- 
turning to Constance. He was so short of money that he 
had to send his trusty servant, Eberard Windeck, to Bruges 
to pawn for 18,000 ducats the presents which he had received 
from Henry V. and his Court.^ From Calais he went by 
sea to Dordrecht, and then made his way slowly up the Rhine 
to Constance, where he arrived on January 27, 1417, after an 
absence of nearly a year and a half. 

Great was the delight of the Council at Sigismund's re- 
, turn ; he was met outside the wall, and was escorted 

Return of , \ , , , , t^ i 

sigis- m solemn procession to the cathedral. But the 
Con- account of his reception shows us how strong an 

jan.a7, element of discord the national animosity between 
'^'^' the French and English had introduced into the 

Council. The English observed with pride that Sigismund 
wore round his neck the Order of the Garter; and the Bishop 
of Salisbury, after meeting Sigismund, rode hastily away to 
the cathedral, that he might frustrate Peter d'Ailly, and get 
possession of the pulpit for the purpose of delivering a 
sermon of welcome. Sigismund, on his side, did not 
scruple to manifest in a marked way his wish for a good 
understanding with the English. On January 29 he received 
the English nation at a private audience, shook hands with 
each of its members, praised all that he had seen in England, 
and assured them of his wish to work with them for the 
reformation of the Church. 2 On Sunday, January 31, he 

^Windeck, in Mencken, i., 11 13. 

2 These details are given in an interesting letter of the English ambas- 
sador, John Forester, to Henry V., in Rymer, Fadera, ix., 434. 



FIRST REFORM COMMISSION. 67 

wore the robes of the Garter at high mass, and was after- 
wards entertained by the English at a magnificent banquet, 
which was enlivened by a miracle play representing the birth 
of Christ, the adoration of the Magi, and the massacre of the 
Innocents. 

During Sigismund's absence from Constance the Council 
had been unanimous only in condemning Jerome of . 
Prag for heresy. The rest of its business had ad- mentof 

* n 1 1 T . t , - ^ the first 

vanced but slowly. It is true that at the end of Reform 
July a commission had been appointed to report tion^uiy 
upon the measures necessary for a reform of the '^' '*''* 
Church in head and members. The commission consisted 
of thirty-five members, eight from each of the four nations, 
and three Cardinals, D'Ailly, Zabarella, and Adimari.i 
There was no lack of material for the labours of the commis- 
sioners: sermons, memoirs, and tractates furnished them 
with copious lists of grievances. But the difficulty was to 
decide where to begin. All were anxious to do something ; 
but each regarded as sacred the interests of his own order, 
and it was impossible to attack the fabric of abuses without 
endangering some of the props which supported the existing 
organisation of the hierarchy. The general outline of the 
reforming scheme was clear and simple enough : it was a 
demand that the Pope should live on his own revenues, 
should abstain from interference in episcopal and capitular 
elections and presentations to benefices throughout Christen- 
dom, and should not unnecessarily interfere with episcopal 
or national jurisdictions. All these questions were really 
questions of finance, and the times were not favourable to 
serious financial reform. The Papal dominions in Italy 
were in the hands of the invader, and there was little revenue 
which could at that time be said to belong indisputably to 
the Pope. If the Pope were to be prohibited from making 

1 The letter of the ambassador of the University of Koln, dated Aug. i, 
says : • Sex deputati de c[ualibet quatuor nationum '. Pulka in Firnhaber, 
28, says : * Octo de qualibet natione,' which agrees with the title of the 
report in Von der Hardt, i., 583, • Avisamenta per xxxv. Cardinales, prae- 
lates et doctor es \ 



68 THE COUNCIL OF CONSTANCE. 

any demands on ecclesiastical revenues, he would be left 
almost penniless, and the Cardinals who depended on him 
would be destitute. Moreover, the Pope's claims to raise 
money were the sign of the recognition of his supremacy, 
and it was difficult to forbid his extortion without impairing 
his necessary authority. The College of Cardinals during 
Sigismund's absence regained its prestige and influence in 
the Council, and had a direct and personal interest in pre- 
venting any unreasonable diminution of the Papal revenues 
or of the Papal power. The reform commission found it 
necessary to proceed slowly and cautiously : they could only 
obtain unanimity on unimportant points; when they dis- 
cussed matters of graver moment it was a question what 
was to be allowed to remain in the present necessity. 

The tax which the French were most anxious to see re- 
compiaint formed was the one called annates, which included 
French ^^^ ^^^ payments demanded by the Curia on the 
agaiSst collation to a benefice. Such dues seem to have 
annates, ^^d their Origin in the custom of making presents 
to those who officiated at ordinations, a custom which the 
Papacy had organised into a definite tax on all bishops and 
abbots, whose nomination passed through the Papal Con- 
sistory ;i the tax was levied upon a moderate assessment 
of the yearly value of their revenues in the books of the 
Consistory. During the Schism this sort of revenue was 
extended, it is said by the ingenuity of Boniface IX., to all 
benefices, and incoming incumbents were in every case re- 
quired to pay half the revenues of the first year to the Pope, 
under a penalty of excommunication if they refused. The 
abolition of this oppressive impost was loudly demanded by 
the French deputies in the commission ; but the Cardinals 

1 This payment consisted of two parts, the * servitia communia,' which 
was divided between the Pope and the Cardinals, and the * servitia minuta,' 
which went to the lower officials of the Chancery. On this complicated 
subject see Phillips, Kirchenrechtj v., 557, etc. A tax roll for the assess- 
ment of annates, of the date of about 1460, is given by Dollinger, Beitrdge 
gur politischen, kirchlichen und Cultur-GeschichteyU,^!^ etc.; it contains 
much curious statistical information. 



THE QUESTION OF ANNATES. 69 

offered determined opposition to their pleadings, and urged 
that annates were the chief support of the Pope and the 
College of Cardinals, if they were abolished at present the 
Pope and Cardinals would be left penniless. Their opposi- 
tion so far weighed with the representatives of the other 
nations that they agreed to allow this question to stand over. 
In truth, the question of annates affected France more closely 
than any other kingdom, as the necessity of supporting a 
Pope during the Schism had weighed most heavily on France. 
England had withstood the attempts of Boniface IX. to 
extend the payment of annates to all benefices, and the old 
payment only was made by bishops. In Italy benefices 
were of small value, and the civic communities knew how 
to protect themselves against Papal aggression ; in Germany 
the bishops were more powerful than in France, and so could 
defend themselves. The French complained that they paid 
more than all the other nations put together, and bore the 
burden and heat of the day.i This might be true ; but when 
a proposal was made to substitute for annates a yearly tax 
of one-fiftieth of the value of all benefices above ten ducats 
for the maintenance of the Curia, we are not surprised that 
the more favoured nations hesitated to adopt the new 
scheme. 2 

The French were not so ready as the other nations to let 
the question of annates stand over. When they Failure of 
found that they were beaten in the commission, they mtnTfm' 
tried to bring pressure to bear upon that body by [^n*o?^* 
taking action in their own nation. Accordingly, on *n«>*t«»- 
October 15, 1415, the French nation discussed the question 
for themselves. Their debates were tumultuous, and ex- 
tended over seven sittings, as each man gave his vote and 

^See Collatio Cleri Gallicani, in Bourgeois du Cbastenet, 409-78. 
Also Apostoli venerabilis nationis Gallicana, in Preuves des Liber Us de 
PEglise Oallicane, ch. xxii., where the facts are stated. 

* This proposal, which gives a detailed calculation of the estimated 
expenses of the reformed Curia, is printed by Dollinger, Beitrdge/ii.^ 321. 
There is no date, and perhaps the document was drawn up later, but the 
scheme was probably discussed at this time. 



70 THE COUNCIL OF CONSTANCE. 

Stated his reasons separately. At last, on November 2, the 
majority was declared to be in favour of the abolition of 
annates, and the appointment of a commission to consider 
the means of making a fair provision for the Pope and Car- 
dinals in their stead. This conclusion was communicated 
to the other nations, and their co-operation was invited to 
carry it out ; but the Italians entirely rejected the proposal, 
and the Germans and English did not think it advisable to 
discuss the matter at that time. The Cardinals called on 
the Procurator Fiscal of the Apostolic See to lodge a protest 
against the proposal as an encroachment on the Papal rights. 
The French replied by setting forth at length their griev- 
ances ; but nothing was done. The failure of this first 
attempt at common action in the matter of reform damped 
the ardour of the most advanced reformers, and showed the 
Cardinals their strength as a compact body when opposed 
to varying national interests. 

After this effort of the French the Reform Commission 
Lethargy was left to continue its labours in peace. On 
Council December 19 the German nation moved that the 
form* ^^' Council procccd to consider measures to put down 
Dec.,^1415 simony ; but no practical steps were taken. 
1416. ' Even on the question of the reform of the Bene- 

dictine Order agreement was so difficult that, though the 
Council definitely appointed commissioners on February 
19, 1416, the matter was allowed to stand over. On April 
5 Sigismund wrote from Paris to the Council, begging them 
to suspend all important matters till his return, and mean- 
while to employ themselves with considering the reform of 
the clergy, especially in Germany. He recommended for 
their consideration such points as the manners, dress, and 
bearing of the clergy, and the prevention of hereditary claims 
over the lands of the Church. He urged them also to re- 
consider their proceedings in the matter of Jean Petit. 

This last question was, in fact, the only one in which the 
Council had shown any ardour, and it was simply a trans- 
ference to Constance of the political animosity by which 



OPINIONS OF JEAN PETIT, 71 

France was convulsed. As the struggle in Bohemia between 
the Tchecks and Germans had made its way to the 
Council Chamber, so the struggle in France between o/jean°' 
Orleanists and Burgundians penetrated into matters ®'*'' 
which craved for ecclesiastical decision. Louis of Orleans, 
brother of Charles VI. of France, had been murdered in 
1407, and there was no doubt that the murder had been 
instigated by his opponent, the Duke of Burgundy. It might 
have been expected that such an act would have met with 
reprobation at the hands of those who were the guardians of 
public morality. But Louis of Orleans had been the sup- 
porter of Benedict XIII., who was the opponent of the policy 
of the University of Paris, and had shown himself willing to 
diminish its privileges and importance. One of the doctors 
of the University, Jean Petit, made an apology for the Duke 
of Burgundy before the helpless King on March 8, 1408. 
He justified his patron by a series of ingenious sophistries 
which affected the very foundations of political society. He 
set forth that any subject who plots against the welfare of 
his sovereign is worthy of death, and that his culpability is 
increased in proportion to his high degree. Hence it is law- 
ful, nay, meritorious, for any one, without waiting for an 
express command, but relying on moral and divine law, to 
kill such traitor and tyrant, and the more meritorious in pro- 
portion to his high degree. Promises which are contrary to 
the welfare of the sovereign are not binding, and ought to 
be set aside ; nay, dissimulation is justifiable if it renders 
easier the death of the traitor. Besides enunciating these 
propositions,- Petit assailed the memory of the Duke of Or- 
leans, and accused him of sorcery and evil practices to com- 
pass the King's death. Arguments might serve for a time 
to justify, in the opinion of his partisans, one who was 
master of the situation. But the moderate party 
in the University, headed by Gerson, looked with nation of 
alarm on the enunciation of principles which they thcBishop 
considered subversive both of moral and political paria. 
order. So long as the Duke of Burgundy was ^*'^" 



72 THE COUNCIL OF CONSTANCE, 

supreme they could do little to make their voices heard ; but 
when in 141 2 the Armagnac party succeeded in driving the 
Duke of Burgundy from Paris, they were eager to justify the 
memory of the murdered Duke of Orleans and fix a moral 
stigma on their opponents. In 1413 the Bishop of Paris 
summoned a Council to examine the doctrines of Petit, who 
had died two years before. After some deliberation nine 
propositions drawn from the writings of Petit were con- 
demned in February, 141 4, and his book was publicly burned. 
The Duke of Burgundy appealed against this decision to the 
Pope, and John XXIII. deputed three Cardinals to examine 
the matter. Their deliberations were yet pending when the 
Council was summoned, and so this important controversy 
was transferred to Constance. The representatives of the 
University of Paris were chosen from those opposed to the 
views of Petit ; the Burgundian ambassadors were ordered 
to prevent Petit's official condemnation. It was this state 
of parties that led John XXIII. to hope for help against the 
Council from the Duke of Burgundy, and the Council was 
by no means anxious to alienate so powerful a prince. 

As soon, however, as the Council was rid of all fear from 
Moderat- Jo^n XXIII., and by its proceedings against Hus 
cSIhe'^^" had shown its zeal to maintain the purity of the 
fo^ards ^^ith, Gerson pressed for the condemnation of the 
Petit'8 doctrines of Petit. On June is, 141 S, a commission 
1415. was appointed to examine the matter; and as Sigis- 

mund was anxious to have something decided before he went 
away, the Council on July 6, the same day on which it con- 
demned Hus as a heretic, passed a decree which it hoped 
might be an acceptable compromise in the matter of Jean 
Petit. The decree set forth that the Council, in its desire 
to extirpate all erroneous opinions, declares heretical the 
assertion that any tyrant may be killed by any vassal or 
subject of his own, even by treachery, in despite of oaths, 
and without any judicial sentence being passed against him. 
The decree made no mention of France or of Petit ; it was 
purely general, and did not go into the details of Petit's argu- 



QUARREL OF GERSON AND BURGUNDIAN PARTY. 73 

ments, but merely condemned an abstract proposition with- 
out any reference to the events which called it forth. 

Gerson was indignant at this lenient treatment of Petit, 
especially when contrasted with the severity shown 
at the same time towards Hus. He asserted that Gerson ° 
if Hus had been allowed an advocate, he would Burgun- 
never have been condemned.^ He went so far in '*"P"'y 
his indignation as to say that he would rather be tried by 
Jews and heathens than by the Council. He entered with 
strong personal warmth into the controversy, and was not 
content to let it rest, although the prospect of a war with 
England made the French Court anxious that nothing should 
be done which could alienate the Duke of Burgundy. He 
pressed for a further decision on Petit's propositions, and 
involved himself in a dispute with the Bishop of Arras, who 
argued that they concerned points of philosophy and politics 
rather than theology. Gerson carried his zeal beyond the 
limits of discretion,, and wearied the Council with his re- 
peated expostulations. Naturally the Council did not like 
to be told that they, who had not spared a pope, ought not, 
through fear of a prince, to desert the defence of the truth. 
Taking advantage of this feeling, a Franciscan, Jean de 
Rocha, presented before the Commission for Matters of the 
Faith twenty-five articles drawn from Gerson's writings, 
which he declared to be heretical. The Bishop of Arras 
similarly accused of heresy Peter d'Ailly. The Council 
which was the scene of such proceedings had entirely lost 
its moral force. When the learned fathers of the Church 
tried to brand as heretics those who took the opposite side 
in national politics, we cannot wonder that the condemna- 
tion of Jerome of Prag by such a tribunal did not at once 
carry conviction to the rebellious Bohemians. They had 
some grounds at least for arguing that the wisest of the 
Council, Gerson and D'Ailly, were eager for the condemna- 
tion of Hus, that it might pave the way for the condemna- 

^ Gerson, 0/>., v., 444 



74 THE COUNCIL OF CONSTANCE, 

tion of Petit, — that Gerson's suspicions of the sincerity of 
Jerome's recantation were sharpened by the feeling that his 
own orthodoxy was not above attack. 

It would seem that the majority of the Council were heartily 
Action of wearied of this question, and in the beginning of 
d^nafs^^o- ^4^^ there was a general request that the Commis- 
Pctft's sioners on Matters of Faith should pronounce an 
case. 1416. opinion, one way or the other, on the nine proposi- 
tions of Petit But the matter was further complicated by 
the action of the Cardinals Orsini, Zabarella, and Pancerini, 
who had been deputed by John XXIII. to consider the 
appeal of the Duke of Burgundy against the decision of the 
Council of Paris. They now gave their judgment on that 
appeal, and quashed the proceedings of the Parisian Council 
on grounds of informality. It had proceeded in a matter 
of faith of which only the Pope could take cognisance, and 
also had not summoned the accused parties, but had founded 
its judgment on passages which were not authentic writings 
of Petit The Cardinals seem to have taken this step from 
a desire to reserve the whole question for the decision of a 
future Pope. 

But in France the position of parties had again changed. 
Opinion After the defeat of Agincourt, the Orleanists repre- 
Councii sented the national and patriotic party, and the 
on Petifs Dui^e of Burgundy had to flee to Flanders. The 

proposi- o •' 

tions. Orleanists possessed themselves of the royal autho- 
rity, and in the King's name pressed for the condemnation 
of Petit. On March 19 they appealed from the decision of 
the commissioners to that of the Council. The commis- 
sioners in their defence published the opinions of canonists 
which they had collected : twenty-six were in favour of con- 
demning Petit, sixty-one were against the condemnation. 
It may seem to us monstrous that such should have been 
the result. But the Council had already pronounced its de- 
cision against the general principle of the lawfulness of 
tyrannicide, and many thought that it was undesirable for 
political reasons to go farther. Many regarded the question 



THE COUNCIL AND PETITS PROPOSITIONS. 75 

as not properly a theological question, and objected to its 
decision on purely theological grounds ; many regarded it as 
a mere party matter in which the Council would do well not 
to meddle. Moreover, the question in itself admitted of some 
doubt in a time when political institutions were in a rudi- 
mentary stage. Political assassinations wore a different 
aspect in days when the destinies of a nation might rest on 
the caprice of an individual. Classical and biblical antiquity 
supplied instances of tyrannicide which won the admiration 
of posterity. Many felt unwilling in their hearts that the 
Church should absolutely forbid conduct which it could not 
be denied was sometimes useful. 

Still Gerson pursued his point, and the struggle between 
himself and the Bishop of Arras waxed warmer. Sigismund 
wrote from Paris urging that the decision of the three Car- 
dinals against the proceedings of the Bishop of Paris should 
be recalled; but the Cardinals wrote back a justification of 
their own conduct. The weary controversy still went on 
and occupied the time and energies of the Council. It 
awakened such strong feeling that the Burgundian prelates 
separated themselves from the rest of the Gallican nation. 
Gerson flung himself entirely into this question, and so 
diminished the influence which his learning had previously 
gained him at Constance. The Council would not decide 
the matter, but preferred to leave it for the future Pope. 
Gerson exclaimed that no reformation could be wrou^^ht by 
the Council, unless it were under a wise and powerful head.^ 
When Sigismund returned to Constance, Gerson hoped that 
he would use his influence to have the matter settled. But 
the change which the English alliance had wrought in 
Sigismund's political attitude made him unwilling to offend 
the Duke of Burgundy. The French prelates remained 
in a state of gloomy dissatisfaction, and the animosities 
which this dreary question had raised destroyed the una- 

' Dialogus Apolofreticus : Gerson, Op., ii., 302: ♦Video quod ecclesiae 
reformatio nunquam fiet per Concilium sine prienidentia ductoris afitectati 
bene, prudentis simul et conBtantis '. 



76 THE COUNCIL OF CONSTANCE. 

nimity of the Council and did much to hamper its future 
labours. 

Nor was this the only cause of disunion in the Council. 
The assembled fathers were eagerly waiting the 

Incorpora- r /* • i • i • 

tionof opportunity of nnishmg their greatest and most 

Aragon . ,, • r ^ • /»* 

with the important task, the restoration of the unity of the 
0?"°",' Church. For this purpose they needed the in- 
^^^^' corporation of the Spanish kingdoms and the 

formal deposition of Benedict XIII. The death of Ferdi- 
nand of Aragon on April 2, 1416, caused some delay in 
sending ambassadors ; and his successor, Alfonso V., though 
anxious to carry out his father's plans, was not in a position 
to do so at once. Not till September 5 did the Aragonese 
envoys arrive, and they were at first unwilling to join the 
Council till they had been joined by the representatives of 
Castile. At length their scruples were overcome, and on 
October 15 a fifth nation, the Spanish, was constituted in 
the Council. But this process was not completed without 
difficulties which portended future troubles. First the Por- 
tuguese, who had joined the Council on June i, protested 
against the formation of a Spanish nation as disparaging 
the honour of Portugal, which claimed to be a nation by 
itself. Next the Aragonese claimed precedence over the 
English, and the English protested against their claim. 
The French then allowed the Aragonese to sit alternately 
with themselves, protesting that they did so without pre- 
judice to the dignity of the French nation. 

The alliance thus made between the French and Ara- 
Discordof gonese was used by the French as a means of 
Tnd"*^^ annoying the English. The Aragonese raised the 
Nol — ^' question of the right of the English to be considered 
Dec, 1416. a nation. Loud hissings were heard in the Council 
Chamber at this attempt to introduce a spirit of faction, and 
the Aragonese ambassadors left the room. The question 
was dismissed, but the ill-feeling created by it remained ; 
the English and French wore arms in the streets, and there 
was constant fear of an open collision. So serious was the 



DISCORD IN THE COUNCIL. 77 

discord that, on December 23, a congregation continued 
wrangling till late at night, and then fell to blows, so 
that the Pfalzgraf Lewis and Frederick of Nurnberg had 
to be hastily summoned to preserve order. 

This was the state of things that awaited Sigismund on 
his arrival at Constance, and his change of political attitude 
during his absence deprived him of the power to exercise 
any moderating influence upon the discord which wasted 
the energies of the Council. 



7B 



CHAPTER VII. 

THE COUNCIL OF CONSTANCE AND THE ELECTION OF 
MARTIN V. 



I4I7. 

We may feel that the conflicts which agitated the fathers at 
Constance displayed a petty spirit and an undue 
of the attention to formal matters, yet they were more 
truly the signs of the growth of strong national 
feelings that were affecting European politics. The ideal 
unity of the Church when embodied in a European congress 
could not rise superior to the actual antagonisms of con- 
tending nations. Indeed the very question that called the 
Council together was 'in its origin political; the Schism 
in the Church had arisen through the desire of France to 
secure the Papacy on the side of her own national interests. 
Kn experience of the evils of the Schism had led Europe to~ 
wish to end it by the arbitration of a General Council. On 
the question of the union of the Church there had been at 
Constance practical unanimity ; but when that point was on 
a fair way to solution the same unanimity was no longer to 
be expected in other matters. The very nature of the ques- 
tions which the Council next took in hand shows the strength 
of national sentiment. The condemnation of Hus was not 
merely a matter of faith ; it was a step towards suppressing 
the movement of the Tchecks against the Germans in 
Eastern Europe. The question of Jean Petit was a trans- 
ference to Constance of the struggle of parties which was 
rending France asunder. In like manner the deadly con- 



POLITICS OF THE COUNCIL. 79 

test between France and England carried its national an- 
tagonism into the affairs of the Council. 

It is true that there was j no^ questi on ^^ HnrfrmA nr nf 
rrrlpninntirTil prafltier rnnnfl which this contest could rage ; 
for that very reason it sought expression in trivial matters, 
and the point of the constitution of the Council opened up 
a wide field to technical ingenuity. It would have been a 
difficult matter to arrange with any definiteness a scheme 
for the representation of united Christendom, nor was this 
ever attempted at Constance. The constitution of the 
Council was established in a haphazard way at the begin- 
ning; the organisation into four nations had been practically 
accepted _at a tinie_when the Council was anxious to proceed 
jto bus iness and assert it8j)08ition against John. XXIII. -Jhe 
incorporation "with "tEe Council of the Spanish kingdoms 
gave the French an opportunity of discussing the general 
organisation of Christendom, and so aiming a blow at the 
pride and honour of England. The leader of the French in 
this attack was Peter d'Ailly, who probably had ulterior 
objects in view, and was glad of an opportunity for edu- 
cating his nation to follow his lead.^ If feeling ran high 
between the French and the English during Sigismund's 
absence, it ran higher when on his return he showed signal 
marks of favour to his new allies. 

Accordingly the French determined to open a formal 
attack upon the English ; and on March 3, 1417, Protest 
the ambassadors of the French King laid before the prench 
Council a protest, which set forth that England JgJ*"ighti 
was not a nation that ought to rank as equal to ^^^y^^^ 
Italy, France, Germany, or Spain, which all con- "a^^o"- 

. . . , . , . /«< ^ March 3, 

tarn many nations withm themselves. The Con- 14x7. 

^ So Forester, writing to the EngliHh King, in Rymer, ix., 434: 'the 
Cardinal Cameracence, chief of the Nation of France and your special 
enemy' ; so, too, letter of Appleton (/i,, 438) : * Cardinalis Camerocensis 
nationem Anglicanam, a principio hujus Concilii capitali odio continuo 
persequens, ymmo nationis Anglicanae nomen, ne vocem tanquam inter 
casteras nationes haberet, totis conflatis viribus supprimere et prorsus 
extinguere '. See Finke, Quellen und Forschungen, 184. 



8o THE COUNCIL OF CONSTANCE. 

stitutions of Benedict XII. had recognised in Christendom 
four nations, and an ecclesiastical assembly ought to abide 
by the Papal Constitutions. Those four nations were the 
Italian, German, French, and Spanish ; and now that the 
Spanish nation had joined the Council, the English should 
be added to the German nation, with which they were 
counted in the Bull of Benedict XII. Neither according to 
its political nor its ecclesiastical divisions was England 
equal to the other four nations. It had been allowed to 
count as a nation before the coming of the Spaniards to 
keep up the number of nations to four. But now that the 
Council became a new Council, it ought to revise its former 
arrangements for the conduct of its business. The French 
therefore demanded either that the English should be added 
to the German nation ; or if it was considered necessary to 
keep up a distinct English nation, then that the other nations 
should be divided according to their respective governments ; 
or else that the method of voting by nations should be en- 
tirely done away. 

While this protest was being read to the Council hisses 
and loud exclamations of dissent were heard. 

Answer r^ . . ... ^ • r 

of the Sigismund mterposed to prevent the readmg from 
March 30, being finished, on the ground that it was entirely 
'^^^* contrary to the customary procedure for anything 

to be read in the Council which had not previously been 
approved by the nations. Moreover, as Protector of the 
Council, he ordered that thenceforth nothing be brought 
forward in public sessions to the prejudice of the Council, 
especially such things as might hinder the union of the 
Church. But the English were not content with this vindi- 
cation. They put forth their learning to answer the argu- 
ments of the French, and on March 30 handed into the 
Council a written reply, in which they styled themselves 
*the ambassadors of the King of England and France,' 
and called the French King * our adversary of France '. 
They proved, first, that the Constitution of Benedict XII. 
was not dealing with a division of Christendom into nations, 



ANSWER OF THE ENGLISH. 8i 

but solely with a method of arranging episcopal visitations 
and chapters of Benedictines. They retaliated with crushing 
statistics the charges of the French about the smallness of 
the English kingdom compared with France. Eight king- 
doms were subject to the English crown,i not counting the 
Orcades and other islands to the number of sixty, which by 
themselves were as large as the kingdom of France. The 
realm of the English King contained no dioceses, that of 
the French King only 60. Britain was 800 miles long, or ^ 
forty days' journey, and France was not generally supposed 
to have such a great extent. France had not more than 
6000 parish churches, England had 52,000. England was 
converted by Joseph of Arimathea, France only by Dionysius 
the Areopagite. The proposal to put England and Germany 
together was entirely absurd, as these two nations comprised 
between them almost half Christendom. The natural, as 
well as canonical, division of nations was into northern, 
southern, eastern, and western ; the English were at the 
head of the northern group, the Germans of the eastern, the 
Italians of the southern, and the French and Spanish were 
left to make up the western. The English on these grounds 
branded the arguments of the French as empty and frivolous, 
and protested against any change being made which might 
affect the position of the English nation. The protest was 
received by the Council, and no attempt was made to change 
the constitution of the nations. Indeed the procedure of 
the French can scarcely have been intended seriously, but 
was merely an affront to the English, and a step in the 
education of the French party in opposition to Sigismund's 
influence. 

By the side of these altercations the great business of the 

* Von der Hardt, v., 86 : * Attamen substantialiter praeter Ducatus, 
terras ac insulas et dominia in numero copioso, sunt regna 8, videlicet 
Anglia, Scotia, Wallia, quae tria majorem integrant Britanniam, regnum 
etiam de mari et in Hibernia, juxta Angliam, quatuor regna magna et 
notabilia, videlicet Catholicum^ Calense, Morania et Menechatene \ I 
cannot identify these last four names ; but the text is obviously corrupt, 
and they probably represent divisions of Ireland. 
VOL. II. 6 



82 THE COUNCIL OF CONSTANCY. 

Council, the deposition of Benedict XIII., was slowly 
Citation proceeding. On November 5, 1416, after the arrival 
dfcfxin. °^ ^^^ Aragonese ambassadors, Commissioners 
Jan., 1417. ^gfg appointed to receive evidence against Peter 
de Luna on the charges of breaking his promises and oaths, 
and throwing obstacles in the way of the union of the 
Church. So quickly did the Commissioners do their work 
that on November 28 a citation was issued to Benedict to 
appear personally at Constance within seventy days after 
receiving the summons. Two Benedictine monks were 
sent to serve the citation. They made their way to Penis- 
cola, and were received by Benedict's nephew with 200 
armed men, who escorted them into Benedict's presence on 
January 22, 1417. The old man looked at the black monks 
as they approached, and said, * Here come the crows of the 
Council '. * Yes,' was the muttered answer, * crows gather 
round a dead body.' Benedict listened to the reading of the 
citation, uttering from time to time indignant exclamations, 
* That is not true,' * They lie \ He repeated his old propo- 
sals — that a new Council should be summoned, and that he 
should elect the new Pope. He haughtily asserted that he 
was right and that the Council was wrong. Grasping the 
arm of his chair, he repeated, * This is the ark of Noah \ 
The determination of Benedict XIII. was as unbroken as 
ever ; the world might abandon him, but he would remain 
true to himself and his dignity. 

On March 10 the Council received the account of their 
Demand ambassadors to Benedict XIII., and on April i 
of^castiie ^g^^iared him guilty of contumacy. Commissioners 
menfof wcre appointed to examine the charges against him 
ihSiSlries ^^^ ^^^^ witnesses. But final sentence could not 
Pa ai ^^ passed till the union of the Spanish kingdoms 
election, ^jth the Council had been accomplished, and this 
1417. ' formal act was again made the occasion of raising 
serious questions. The ambassadors of Castile only arrived 
in Constance on March 29 ; but Castile was not very firm 
in its allegiance to the Council, and its envoys seem will- 



QUESTION OF THE PROCEDURE OF THE COUNCIL. 83 

ingly to have lent themselves to the projects of the Curial 
party. The English suspected Peter d'Ailly of getting hold 
of them for his own purposes, and using the incorporation 
of Castile as the means of accomplishing his plan of identi- 
fying the French nation with the party of the Cardinals. 
At all events, the Castilians declared themselves on the side 
of the Curial party, and demanded as a condition of their 
incorporation with the Council that the preliminaries of a 
new Papal election should be settled.^ 

This demand raised at once a question that had long been 
simmering. The Council had met for the threefold 
purpose of restoring the unity of the Church, purg- ofthepro- 
mg it from heresy, and reformmg it in head and theCoun- 
members. In the deposition of the three contend- 
ing Popes and the condemnation of the opinions of Wyclif 
and Hus there had been practical unanimity ; but the ques- 
tion of reform was likely to lead to greater differences of 
opinion, and the proceedings of the Reform Commission 
showed the difficulties which were in the way. Men were 
not agreed whether the reformation should be dealt with in 
a radical or a conservative spirit ; if it were to be done radi- 
cally, it must be done by the Council before the election of 
a new Pope ; if it were to be done tenderly, a Pope must 
first be elected to look after the interests of the Papacy and 
the Curia. The circumstances attending the opening of the 
Council had created a precedent for approaching burning 
questions in the technical form of discussing which should 
be undertaken first. John XXIII. was defeated on the 
question of precedence between the cause of union and the 
cause of faith ; when the Council decided to undertake the 
union of the Church before discussing the heresies of Hus, 
the fate of John was practically decided. In the first flush 
of the Council's triumph over the Pope the cause of reform 
seemed to have a promising future ; but the absence of 

1 We are justified in inferring that this was the doing of D'Ailly from 
his sermon preached on Whitsunday, May 30, arguing in favour of the 
course proposed by the Castilians. Hardt, iv., 1329. 



84 THE COUNCIL OF CONSTANCE. 

Sigismund, the long period of inactivity, and the growing 
heat of national jealousies afforded an opportunity to the 
Curial party which they were not slow to use. The pro- 
ceedings relative to the deposition of John warned the 
Cardinals of their danger if a revolutionary spirit were to 
prevail, and during Sigismund's absence the Cardinals drew 
closely together, and obtained a powerful influence over the 
Council. They knew that they could count on the allegiance 
of the Italian nation, and their policy was to take advantage 
of any disunion in the ranks of the other three nations. 
Such an opportunity had been afforded by the discontent of 
a section of the French nation at the proceedings about 
Jean Petit, and still more by the national animosity between 
the French and English, which had been increased by Sigis- 
mund's political change. The incorporation of the Spanish 
kingdoms afforded the Curial party a chance of trying their 
strength. On the incorporation of Aragon they raised the 
question of the constitution of the Council ; next on the 
incorporation of Castile they raised the question of the 
Council's business. This they did in the recognised form of 
a discussion about priority of procedure. Ought not one 
point to be finished before another was undertaken ? Ought 
not the unity of the Church to be definitely restored by a 
new election before the more doubtful subject of reform was 
taken in hand ? This was the point which the Castilians 
were induced to raise, and their request brought to a crisis 
a number of conflicting opinions which weighed differently 
with different nations and classes in the Council. 

First of all, there were strong political differences which 
Sigismund's alliance with England brought pro- 
in^the minently into the foreground at Constance. The 
ounci. prench regarded Sigismund with suspicion after 
his political change. Yet during the vacancy of the Papacy 
Sigismund was sure to be the most powerful person in the 
Council : he was its Protector ; it was in his hands ; he 
could bring pressure to bear upon it at his will. The French 
began to doubt whether it was wise to help the English and 



PARTIES IN THE COUNCIL. 85 

Germans, whom they regarded as their national foes, to 
arrange the condition of the future Pope. The Schism had 
arisen from the influence exercised by France over the 
Papacy ; mid France had only laid aside her claims because 
they were a source of embarrassment rather than of profit. 
Yet France could not allow her influence to pass to Ger- 
many, and did not wish to prolong a Council which might 
again establish the Imperial supremacy in Christendom, 
especially when the Emperor was in close alliance with 
England. The forthcoming Papal election would be an 
event of considerable political importance, and Sigismund 
must not be allowed to influence it for his own purposes. 
To these political reasons were added considerations arising 
directly from the question of reform itself. Men discovered 
that it was not a matter to be undertaken lightly, and that 
declamations against abuses were not easily converted into 
schemes of redress. In the foreground of Papal abuses 
were the exaction of annates and the collation to benefices ; 
but an attempt to abolish annates aroused the deepest ap- 
prehension of the Cardinals and Curia, who asked how they 
were to be maintained without them. Similarly the attack 
on the Papal collations to benefices alarmed the Univer- 
sities, whose. graduates found that the claims of learning 
were more liberally recognised by the Popes than by Ordin- 
aries immersed in official business. The University of 
Paris had had experience of this truth during the period of 
withdrawal of obedience from Benedict XIII.; it had com- 
plained, and had been met with desultory promises. Many 
members of the academic party thought that a retorm would 
be more tenderly accomplished after the election of a Pope 
who would advocate his own cause. 

Moreover, there was much plausibility in the cry that 
another matter ought not to be undertaken till the main 
object of the Council was accomplished. It had decided to 
undertake first the cause of unity. It had advanced so far 
as to get rid of the rival claimants ; why should it hesitate 
to accomplish its work, and confer on the Church one un- 



86 THE COUNCIL OF CONSTANCE. 

doubted head ? Delay was fraught with danger ; there was 
at present a unanimity which might soon be destroyed. 
The Council had already sat so long as to weary the patience 
of those who were still detained at Constance. Growing 
weariness and disputes about the reformation question 
might make the Council dwindle entirely away before the 
Papal elections were decided, and so all might still be left 
in doubt, and a schism worse than the first again desolate 
Christendom. In the disturbed state of Europe war might 
break out in the neighbourhood, and the Council be broken 
up by force, or be deprived suddenly of supplies. It was a 
serious risk to keep the important matter of the new elec- 
tion undecided in the face of all the contingencies that 
might happen. 

There was a good deal of force in these arguments of 
temporary expediency — enough to impress 'the waverers; 
but the real question was whether the reformation of the 
Church was to be seriously undertaken or not. Sigismund 
sincerely desired it ; the party of the Curia were determined 
to resist by all means in their power. All depended on the 
success of either side in gaining adherents. Sigismund was 
allied with Henry V. of England, and was sure of the co- 
operation of the English nation. Henry V. kept an obser- 
vant watch on affairs at Constance, sent his instructions 
to the five bishops who were at the head of the English 
nation, and commanded that all his liegemen should follow 
the directions of the bishops, or else leave Constance under 
penalty of forfeiture of all their goods.^ 

Perhaps this very resoluteness of the English and Ger- 
mans made it easy for the Curial party to win over 
attitude of the French. The alliance of England and Ger- 
French many was adverse to the interests of France ; why 
should France support it in the Council ? Under 
the name of a reform in the Church, the Papacy might be 
brought under German influence, might be turned into a 

* Letter to the bishops, dated July i8, 1417, in Rymer, ix., 466. 



THE CARDINALS WIN OVER THE FRENCH. 87 

political instrument against France. We can only guess 
at these causes for the adhesion of France to the Curial 
party, which we find an accomplished fact within a few 
months after the return of Sigismund. The records of the 
Council deal only with its sessions and its congregations ; 
we know little of the proceedings within the separate 
nations, and have nothing save general considerations to 
guide us in this matter. 

It is, however, noticeable that the most important man 
amongst the French was also the most important man 
amongst the Cardinals, and Peter d'Ailly seems to have 
been the means of winning over the French nation to the 
side of the Curial party. It is true that so late as Novem- 
ber, 1416, D'Ailly had pressed for a reform of the Church, 
which he declared was a matter concerning the faith, and 
not to be considered separately. But D'Ailly had never 
been very famous for consistency, and had shown a capacity 
for turning with the tide, and conciliating opposing interests. 
He had accepted from Benedict XIII. the bishopric of Cam- 
brai, without deserting the party of the University of Paris ; 
he had received from the Pope the Cardinal's hat, without 
ceasing to be a royal ambassador in opposition to the Pope. 
He had been one of the most manful upholders of the right 
of the Council to proceed against John XXIII., yet had pro- 
tested against the action of the Council in asserting its 
superiority to the Pope. He had pressed for reform before 
a Papal election, but had no difficulty in assuring himself 
that reform would be more safely accomplished under the 
Papal presidency. In the case of Germany and England 
the influence of their kings was strong enough to keep the 
nations united in their policy, whatever individual differ- 
ence of opinion may have existed in their ranks. France 
had no such head ; it would have been difficult for the king 
— even if his policy had been decided — to enforce unanimity 
on the representatives of the French nation ; as it was, he 
had no interest to do so. The influence of the University 
Qf Paris, which had so long been predominant in matter9 



88 THE COUNCIL OP CONSTANCE. 

ecclesiastical, was now broken. The affair of Jean Petit 
had ended in the defeat of Gerson and the purely academic 
party, and Gerson's heat in this matter had ruined his in- 
fluence. D'Ailly's position as a Cardinal led him to grow 
more and more conservative in the matter of reform, and the 
national hostility of France against Germany and England 
enabled him to bring the French nation to join in opposition 
to their revolutionary schemes. 

In this state of parties the Castilians were induced to 
Disturb- raisc the question which was to decide the scope of 
cSifsfancc *^® future activity of the Council ; and the Car- 
ordcr o?* dinals strained every nerve to give a decisive proof 
a"*/S— *' o^ their strength. Besides the demand for a settle- 
june, 1417. ment of the preliminaries of a new Papal election, 
the Castilians formally asked for a guarantee of freedom to 
the Council, and the French seized upon this as an occasion 
to harass Sigismund, by pressing for a more ample form of 
safe-conduct. The Cardinals made a formal declaration 
that they had enjoyed perfect freedom, save in their assent 
to the decree forbidding the election of a Pope without the 
consent of the Council ; this they had accepted, not through 
any pressure from .Sigismund, but through fear of being 
branded as schismatics if they objected. Men were greatly 
alarmed at this equivocal utterance ; it was a covert threat 
that unless the Cardinals were respected in future, they 
might cast a doubt upon the legitimacy of what had been 
done in the past.^ 

Accordingly, there was great confusion at Constance. 
Projects for the regulation of the new election were broached 
and rejected. Complaints were made about want of free- 
dom ; the city magistrates were asked to protect the Coun- 
cil ; protests were lodged against unworthy treatment; and 
in the midst of the consequent confusion, the Cardinals 
urged the acceptance of their proposals about the new elec- 
tion as the one means of restoring peace. Sigismund, 

* See letter of Pulka of June 16, in Firnhaber, p. 50. 



I tiAn'Kn^U'^h Hi* fit! \ , H'/' 



ft.j 



\ hill, nuu ui tlit. M'^iii uijiL,i) tlu . ImiI iaJotJ ; ijji.^ WLiciuU 
iLail^ JuMiijiib ivi llic /ulluiu ui lUc ^ uiiULlif and I'ii^iiiinuuii 

ami uiJllc tiji.jijbL|->c.> in thu i- nnuLll. 

iVucc, liii.'.LMwi, V..IO nut iL. luuij. i he ruiiliuwlij tUi/Jv 

liiKiiniiif.t: ui bi/iuc LuuqiLilDt thut Uic JiuJ,.l;j uI llic ^ .^,„ 

i imuLli h*JtJ tv.cii>Ujij;i-d tluU jn.vvi.Ab. 'i Iji; I'iUjLJj, j j • j/^ 

lUJiLi uIUilK u|Min hl^loi^iiiiJLi. iiiL\ \iniU^ iLii IImI Hil-> 
WLIL liui Ml iuil L)Jj»i)jnLiU ul IIjlU jililwjl) , iUili UuijJU luj.c 
nu iintliLi jniit U) UlL ^ inJuLll, till tliL jj.id (iiijjiiu f^Udian 
iLLb iui iiiiAum. k)]^);jUiiiinJ U(ilu)uij_^ u1;Jll Itii la ^idiii »i 

dLliiUillJ VvIjIlIi LUbt 4 iLiJLLllun UjnvJJ tijL juibt Jii ULLL li ll l^b ul 

il)L- i iiiillLll. At.'iU) dj:}i.uiii N<f:t.d iiU bnniL V.LLl.b, UJJ hull) 

JniilKb VNCii; V. L.lijy, iiiul U^iLLli Ui) Jul> H li^ ii LUJiJjnUUiK'L, 
UJilLh Uub jiUyjaKLii 1j^ the auihiib: tnhub ui w^.iMi^. hlf^lb 
niuiiii ^luJttLii ui) wiujJu »i:>binu))LC i>i the hLCiiuu) ui the 
1 uLiiJLJj ui) euijjjtlui) thiit tiie uiiici ui juuLi.>hiie vva^ h^^Lil tu 
i)L hiiil, the Ul j<u.>mi;i) ui iiLueJlut Aiii ; i)L.a, tJie ieiuu)) 
ui the 1 huiuh ))) lia hL.ui ui^J j)) tiie t liilu ; thliUl>, a iiL W 
i\i\ui\ eJLctJuii ^ i iii. I iudiii^lo iiijj bu iui tiJiiiu|/hi.U ub 
tu ie^Live im the iii «v i'l'i^e the ieiuUijatJivi) ui tlie t lnULii 
iii ]tb yxULiul iLalmLii ; ^)l|JbJilu)ili ietuliuii the UjijiUiluiit 
jjuJiit that lije iLiiUiiiulhiii lA' tiii. l^lJ;ui.y aiJii ui tlie t una 
bhuiiid jiiLkLik iiiL a|/^'UiiitujLut ui i-Ui uiiiiiviil'lLiJ i'l^j/e. 'i he 
Miu^^le LUiUii ilii the tline ; i^ut the euiH^Ui/iliU^e uub ui the 
ijutuie iii a tiiice, liui ui a hi^tln^ ^iLmis. h],.JbJnuijJ b 
jitnJlliW) liiiJ iieeii iuieLii, auiJ tdtii ^ivii/^ ^vu^ bu icU in: 
ii<jf.hl 111. iin.eii lu f.'l.e way btljj jj^uie. 

VVhi)^ li) tiilb w.ty a^iiLiumi li.ul huei) a;.'.iiij ii^.tuiLil; 
the t ivijULii jUMLLiiUii tu tlje iIl^m/. itJnii ui iiLiaJul Aiii. 
Oi) Jiji> '^^J i/i' Vv^b a/j.ilii eJtLii, ULuhiALii euutiiin<icluiu>, 



^ il.i .J. . ..u.iii) ).-' Ill lJ..,l.u>, Uh^-nuii. M. J<',,, ill. A /'.ll 
if,,, lilt, ry , i-»i». 



go THE COUNCIL OF CONSTANCE, 

and sentence was passed against him. It declared that, 

after examining witnesses, the Council pronounced 

tion of him to be * perjured and the cause of scandal to the 

XIII. July universal Church, a favourer of inveterate schism, 

''^^^* a hinderer of the union of the Church, a heretic who 
had wandered from the faith ' ; as such he was pronounced 
unworthy of all rank and dignity, deprived of all right in the 
Papacy and in the Roman Church, and lopped off like a dry 
bough from the Catholic Church. This sentence was pub- 
lished throughout Constance amid general rejoicings. The 
bells were rung, the citizens kept holiday, and Sigismund's 
heralds rode through the streets proclaiming the sentence. 

Now that the union of the Church had been established. 
Report of there remained for the Council only the question 
Reform ^f reform, in accordance with the agreement made 
SSSJ^'oc't. between Sigismund and the Cardinals. For this 
8, 1416. purpose the report of the Reform Commission was 
ready as a basis for discussion. The Commission had 
continued its labours till October 8, 1416, and had drawn up 
its conclusions in a tentative form. First came six chapters 
dealing with the reformation of the Curia, providing for the 
holding of future Councils with power to depose wicked and 
mischievous Popes, defining the duties of the Pope and his 
relations to the Cardinals, fixing the number of Cardinals 
at eighteen and prescribing their qualifications. On these 
points the Commissioners seem to have been agreed, as 
their conclusions were drawn up in the shape of decrees for 
the Council to pass. Then came a number of petitions for 
reform which were put into a shape that might admit of 
discussion. The report ended with a number of protocols 
which seem to contain a summary of • suggestions and 
questions raised before the Commissioners. ^ But the points, 
taken all together, touch only on the removal of crying and 
obvious abuses — dispensations, exemptions, pluralities, 

* There are two editions Oi this report, in Von der Hardt, i., 583, etc. ; 
see the excellent criticism of Hiibler, Die Constanzer Reformation^ ii., 
etc. 



SECOND REFORM COMMISSION. 91 

appeals to Rome, simony, clerical concubinage, non-resi- 
dence of bishops and the like. None of them affect the 
basis of the Papal system or try to alter the constitution of 
the Church where it was proved to be defective. They con- 
tain little which a provincial synod might not have decreed, 
nothing which was worthy of the labours of a General 
Council. 

Even this report, harmless as it was, was not taken into 
the Council's consideration. Such was the respect Appoint 
paid to technicalities, that a report drawn up before ^Xlc^d 
the incorporation of the Spanish kingdoms was not cS!^™ 
considered to be of sufBcient authority for the "^»»»'oO' 
newly-constituted assembly to discuss. It would have been 
possible to continue the Commission with the addition of 
Spanish representatives; but the Council wanted to gain 
time, and there was some plausibility in the objection that 
such a Commission would be unwieldy through its numbers. 
Accordingly, a new Commission of twenty-five doctors and 
prelates, five from each nation, was appointed to revise the 
work of their predecessors.^ This they proceeded to do ; 
and while they were busy with their labours, the Curial 
party had leisure to renew their attack upon the compromise 
which had so lately been accepted. 

When once the prospect of a new Papal election was in 
view, it was natural that men should wish for its The Car- 
accomplishment. Many must have felt shocked in <!»«*»» 
their inmost hearts at the anomalous state of things Papal 
that existed in the Church. Many more were Sept. 9/ 
swayed by motives of self-interest, and felt that '^'^' 
promotion was to be gained from a Pope, but nothing from 
the Council. All were wearied with their long stay in Con- 
stance, and wished to see a definite end to their labours. 
Moreover, the talk about a new election intensified national 
jealousy and suspicion. It was easy to raise an outcry that 

' Their report is given in Von der Ilardt, i., 650. It bears the heading 
•Avisata in Reformatorio per xxv. pra;Iate» et doctores*. Hiibler, p. 
21, first pointed out the relation of this document to the preceding ones. 



92 THE COUNCIL OF CONSTANCE. 

Sigismund was using the Council for his own purposes and 
meant to finish his design by securing his hold upon the 
Papacy, when he and the victorious Henry V. would be 
arbiters of the destinies of Europe.^ The Cardinals had 
formed their party and had already made trial of their 
strength. They were sure of the allegiance of three of the 
five nations and determined to attack the position of the 
Germans and English by pressing for an immediate election 
to the Papacy. Accordingly, on September g, the Cardinals 
presented to a general congregation a protest setting forth 
their readiness to proceed to the election of a Pope, lest harm 
ensue to the Church through their negligence ; they pro- 
fessed that this should be done without prejudice to the cause 
of reformation. 

The reading of this protest was interrupted by loud cries, 
and Sigismund rose and left the cathedral, followed 
disturb- by the Patriarch of Antioch. Some one called out, 
Con- * Let the heretics go,' which galled Sigismund to 

Septan, the quick.2 When he showed his anger some of 
^*^''' the members of the Council professed fear for their 

personal safety. Rumours were spread that Sigismund was 
preparing to overawe the Council by armed force. The 
Castilians, who had never shown themselves much in 
earnest, and who were in strife with the Aragonese about 
precedence, took the opportunity of this alarm to leave 
Constance, but they had not proceeded farther than Steck- 
born when they were brought back by Sigismund's troops. 
So great was Sigismund's anger that he ordered the ca- 
thedral and the Bishop's palace to be closed against the 
Cardinals, so as to prevent their further deliberations. They 
held a meeting next day, sitting on the steps in the court- 
yard of the palace, and sent to the city magistrates and 

^ See Niem, in Von der Hardt, ii., 434: * Multi de Italia hie existentes, 
in eodem concilio murmurabant inter se dicentes quod ipse dominus Rex 
Romanorum ficte ageret, necnon Papam ad ejus voluntatem hie eligi 
vellet ad hoc, ut sic ejus conditionem taceret meliorem '. 

2 Shelstraten, in Von der Hardt, i., 921. 



RENEWED PROTEST OF THE CARDINALS. 93 

Frederick of Brand en burfj to demand security and freedom. 
After some mediation the Cardinals were allowed to be 
present at a general congregation held the next day (Sep- 
tember 11). 

In this congregation the Cardinals presented and read a 
second protest against the action of the German Renewed 
nation couched in stronger language than the first. Kc car-°' 
They said that they and three nations wished to se"p"t!'ii, 
proceed to the election of a Pope, and were hindered '417. 
by the German nation and a few others. They washed 
their hands of all responsibility for the evils which might 
happen in consequence to the Church. They insisted that 
they had a majority of the nations, and that those who 
opposed them were merely the adherents of Sigismund, who 
were of no individual weight, as they had no weight apart 
from their own nation. They declared that they desired a 
reformation as much as did the Germans, but the first 
reformation needed was the remedy of the monstrous con- 
dition of a headless Church.^ It is noticeable that the pro- 
test makes no mention of the English nation. Robert 
Hallam, Bishop of Salisbury, who had been their leader 
and who stood high in Sigismund's confidence, died on Sep- 
tember 7 ; and the English seem at once to have fallen away 
from Sigismund's policy through sheer feebleness. They 
at once appointed deputies to confer with the Cardinals 
about the method to be pursued in a new election, and 
Sigismund was left to learn the fact from the Cardinals. 
When he refused to believe them, the Bishop of Lichfield 
was driven to confess the truth, but lamely added that 
nevertheless the English wished to follow the German 
nation. Sigismund was not unnaturally indignant with his 
traitorous allies, and loaded them with abuse. ^ 

^ ' Prseterea si reformatio fienda est de deibrmatlH, qux> major est aut 
esse potest in corpore deformitas quam carerecapite et acephalum esse ? * 
— Von der Hardt, i., gig. 

' These facts have been brought to light by the Journal of Cardinal 
Filastre in Finke, ^s^u. 



94 THE COUNCIL OF CONSTANCE. 

After the reading of this protest there was renewed confu- 
Diminu- sion. Again rumours were spread of the fierceness 
gi^mSnd's of Sigismund's wrath. At one time it was said that 
party. j^g intended to imprison all the Cardinals ; then 
that he had consented to limit his fury to six of the ring- 
leaders. Next day the Cardinals appeared wearing their 
red hats, in token that they were ready, if need be, to suffer 
martyrdom. But they were well aware that they would not 
be put to that test, and knew that their organisation was 
everywhere working conversions. The Cardinals protested 
against the breach of national organisation caused by the 
existence of a party devoted to Sigismund ; the Archbishop of 
Milan, the Cardinals Correr and Condulmier, returned to their 
national allegiance. All who did not belong to the English 
and German nations were now on the side of the Cardinals. 

September 13 was devoted to the funeral rites of Robert 
Resist- Hallam, who had won respect by his boldness and 
fhe^cf/r- straightforwardness, and all were desirous to do 
s^pt*i4 ^^"^ honour. But on the next day the Germans 
^417. appeared with an answer to the protest of the 

Cardinals ; they indignantly cleared themselves of the 
charges of schism and heresy which their opponents had 
brought against them. If future schism was to be avoided, 
it could only be by a genuine reformation of the Roman 
Curia. The chair of the Pope needed cleansing before it 
was fit for a new occupant. The cause of the Schism was 
to be found in the self-seeking and carnal minds of the 
Cardinals, who could be no otherwise, so long as reserva- 
tions, commendams, usurpations of ecclesiastical patronage, 
annates, simony, and all the abuses of the Papal law courts 
were allowed to go on unchecked. 

The Germans had said their say, and Sigismund was still 
prepared to hold his own ; but the ranks of his 
mund de- followers sensibly decreased, for his position had 
the^ ^ been rendered untenable by the desertion of the 
English. English nation. Hallam had a policy : his col- 
leagues were opportunists. But it is difficult to suppose 



SIGISMUND DESERTED BY THE ENGLISH. 95 

that they acted without permission from the English King. 
Probably Hallam was intrusted with a discretionary power, 
which he saw no reason for using, but which his colleagues 
were only too ready to employ. They offered themselves 
to the Cardinals as mediators with Sigismund and their 
offer was accepted. The possible need of mediation sug- 
gested to Henry V. a policy which he hoped would be credit- 
able to England and would establish a claim upon the 
gratitude of a new Pope. Sigismund might have the glory 
of struggling for reform ; Henry V. would enjoy the credit 
of proposing a compromise. So Henry Beaufort, his uncle, 
was judiciously sent on a mission which brought him into 
the neighbourhood of Constance. We are justified in 
assuming that he left England to bring the news of Henry's 
change of policy, to explain its reasons to Sigismund, and 
to co-operate with him for the purpose of giving a new 
direction to the joint policy of England and Germany. 
Henry V. was an ideal politician, as much as Sigismund, 
and had a project of a Crusade against the Turks as soon 
as the conquest of France had been achieved. Probably 
he was convinced that the dangers of continuing to demand 
an immediate reformation of the Church were too great to 
render a dogged obstinacy any longer desirable. He was 
profoundly orthodox, and may have become convinced 
that Sigismund's policy was dangerous. Anyhow, the 
question of reform did not affect England as closely as it 
affected Germany. The laws of England gave the Crown 
means of defending the rights of the English Church, which 
a strong king could use at his pleasure. The Council of 
Constance had now sat so long that little was to be hoped 
from its future activity. The treaty of Canterbury had 
brought no political advantage to England, for Sigismund 
pleaded the pressure of business at Constance as a reason 
why he could not help his English ally in the field.^ Pro- 

* See letter of August 4, 1417, in Caro, Aus der Kanslei Kaiser Sigis- 
mund's, p. 128. Filastre, in Finke, 227, says of the English: * Ad man- 
datum regis Anglie dimiserunt regem Romanorum \ 



96 THE COUNCIL OF CONSTANCE. 

bably Henry thought it expedient that he and Sigismund 
should use their influence to secure a satisfactory election 
to the Papacy, rather than embitter ecclesiastical questions 
by a longer resistance to a majority who could not be 
quelled. Whatever were Henry's motives, the English 
nation deserted the cause of Sigismund, and the death of 
Robert Hallam hastened a change of front, which was being 
kept in reserve as a last manoeuvre. 

As soon as the German nation was left alone desertions 
sigis- gradually took place. Sigismund's party gradually 
driveli to dissolved ;• all who had been his personal adherents 
a°Papai *° abandoned him and united themselves to their own 
election, nations. Even the German nation was no longer 

Octobers, . ^ 

1417- united. The Bishops of Riga and Chur, who 

stood high in Sigismund*s confidence, promised their ad- 
hesion to the Cardinals on condition that the Pope when 
elected should stay at Constance with the Council till the 
work of reformation had been accomplished. It is said that 
they were won over by the promise of rich benefices, and 
they certainly were afterwards promoted.^ Sigismund 
could hold out no longer, and early in October gave his 
consent to the election of a Pope, provided that an under- 
taking were given by the Council, that immediately after 
his election and before his coronation the work of reforma- 
tion should be set on foot. But the Cardinals hesitated to 
give this guarantee and raised technical difficulties regard- 
ing its form. Meanwhile, as a sop to the reforming party, 
a decree was passed on October 9, embodying some few of 
the reforms on which there was a general agreement. 

The decree of October 9 was the first fruits of the reform 
Reform wrought at Constancc. It begins with the famous 
OcTo*bw°9, <iecree Frequens,^ which provided for the recurrence 
H17. of General Councils. The next Council was to be 

held in seven years' time, and after that they were to follow 

1 MS. Chronicle 0/ Mainz j dated 1440, in Hardt, iv., 1427. 

2 So called from its first words, • Frequens generalium Conciliorum 
celebratio agri Dominici cultura est praecipua/ Hardt, iv., 1435. 



REFORM DECREES OF OCTOBER, 1417. 97 

at intervals of five years. This was the result of all the 
movement which the Schism had set on foot. The 
exceptional measure necessary to heal the Schism 
became established on the foundation of ancient usage ; 
its revival was to prevent for the future the growth of 
evil customs in the Church and was to supply a sure 
means of slowly remedying those which already existed, 
Henceforth General Councils were to be restored to their 
primitive position in the organisation of the Church, and 
the Papal despotism was to be curbed by the creation 
of an ecclesiastical parliament. As a corollary to this 
proposition, it was decreed that in case of schism a 
Council might convoke itself at any time. A few of the 
most crying grievances of the clergy were redressed by 
enactments that the Pope should not translate prelates 
against their will, nor reserve to his own use the pos- 
sessions of clergy on their death, nor the procurations due 
at visitations. 

The passing of this decree did not do much to clear the 
way for a settlement of Sigismund's demand of a compro- 
guarantee for future reform. After much negotia- Jfflcted 
tion about the form which such a guarantee should ^^j^^^^p ^^ 
take, the Cardinals finally said that they could not ^^"'g^ 
bind the future Pope. The Cardinals were anxious Oct., 1417. 
to know what part they were to have in the election. 
Though they could not hope to have the exclusive right, 
yet they were resolved not to be reduced to the level of 
deputies of their respective nations, and before giving 
any guarantee they wished to secure their own position. 
Again everything was in confusion at Constance till it 
was suggested by the English to the Cardinals that 
there was close at hand an influential prelate who might 
be called in to mediate. Henry Beaufort, Bishop of 
Winchester, half-brother of Henry IV. of England, and 
powerful in English politics, was at that time at Ulm, 
ostensibly on his way as a pilgrim to the Holy Land. 
He was accordingly summoned to Constance, where he 

VOL. II. 7 



98 THE COUNCIL OF CONSTANCE. 

was welcomed by the King and Cardinals,^ and by his 
mediation an agreement was at last arranged between 
the contending parties. It provided that a guarantee for 
carrying out the reformation after the election of the Pope 
should be embodied in a decree of the Council ; that those 
points contained in the report of the Reform Commissioners 
concerning which all the nations were agreed, should be laid 
before the Council for its approval; and that Commissioners 
should be appointed to determine the method of the new 
Papal election. The influence of England was used to 
make the best terms possible between the Germans, who 
were driven to give way, and the victorious Cardinals, 
whose obstinacy increased with their success. 

The Commissioners were appointed on October ii, and 
had some difficulty in agreeing on a mode of election, which 
should regard the claims of the Cardinals and at the same 
time satisfy the national feeling in the Council. The 
Germans proposed that each nation should appoint fifteen 
electors ; and as there were fifteen Italian Cardinals they 
should represent the Italian nation. The scheme proposed 
by the French was ultimately adopted. 

On October 30 the final result of this protracted struggle 
was embodied in decrees. It was enacted that the 
of oSober future Pope, with the Council or with deputies of 
30,1417. ^j^g several nations, should reform the Church in 
its head and in the Roman Curia, dealing with eighteen 
specified points which had been agreed to by the Reform 
Commission ; after the election of deputies for this object, 
the other members of the Council might retire. It was 
further decreed that the election of the Pope be made by the 
Cardinals and six deputies to be elected by each nation 

^The date of his arrival is not certain. Walsingham (ed. Riley), ii., 
319, says : * Ultima die mensis Octobris Episcopus Wintonensis accessit 
ad Concilium \ Schelstraten, in Hardt, iv., 1447, says : * Iverant illi 
obviam rex et tres Cardinales ' ; and Tschudi, ii. , 82, says that Sigis- 
mund left Constance for a journey into the Swiss country on Oct. 21, 
and returned on Nov. 6. Filastre, in Finke, 227, does not give a date, 
but puts Beaufort's arrival before Oct. 9. We may assume that he came 
early in October. 



BEGINNING OF THE CONCLAVE. 99 

within ten days : two-thirds of the Cardinals and two-thirds 
of the deputies of each nation were to agree before an election 
could be made. 

These decrees show at a glance how completely the re- 
forming party had been worsted, and the enthusiasm for 
reform was spent. Step by step the Cardinals had succeeded 
in limiting the sphere of the Council's activity. In July the 
aim of the Council had been defined as the reformation of 
the Pope and Curia before a Papal election, and after it the 
general reformation of the Church. By the end of October 
the reformation of the Church was dropped entirely, and all 
that the Council wished to do was to help the new Pope to 
reform his office and Curia, and that not unreservedly, but 
simply in eighteen specified points to which the zeal of the 
Council and the labours of the Reform Commission had 
ultimately dwindled. 

In fact, as soon as a Papal election became possible, it 
swallowed up all other considerations and absorbed „ . 

Begin- 
all attention. Men who had spent three long years mngofthe 

at Constance wished to see the outward and visible Nov. 8, 
sign of the work that they had done to reunite the ^^^' 
Church ; they wished to see a Pope appointed who might 
recognise and requite their zeal. No sooner were the de- 
crees passed than preparations for the election were busily 
pressed. In the Kaufhaus of Constance chambers were 
constructed for the fifty-three members of the Conclave — 
twenty-three Cardinals and thirty electors chosen by the 
five nations. Sigismund took oath to protect the Conclave ; 
guards and officers were appointed to provide for its safety, 
and every customary formality was carefully observed. On 
the afternoon of November 8, the Cardinals and electors 
assembled in the Bishop's palace. They were met outside 
by Sigismund, who dismounted from his horse, took each 
by the hand and greeted him kindly. The solemnity of the 
occasion wiped out all traces of former rivalries, and tears 
were shed at the sight of this restored unanimity. The 
Munster-platz was filled with a kneeling crowd, amongst 



lOO THE COUNCIL OF CONSTANCE, 

whom knelt Sigismund. The doors of the cathedral were 
thrown open, and the Patriarch of Antioch surrounded by 
the clergy advanced and prayed and gave the benediction. 
All rose from their knees and a procession of the electors 
was formed. Sigismund rode first, and when all had 
entered the Conclave, they laid their hands in his and swore 
to make a true and honest choice. With a few words of 
friendly exhortation, Sigismund left them, and the Conclave 
was closed. 

Next day, November 9, was spent in settling the method 
of voting, about which there was some difference of 
ingsof the Opinion. The Cardinals wished to retain the custom- 
Nw^9-w', ary method of voting by means of papers which 
^^^' were placed on the altar, and then submitted to 
scrutiny ; others were desirous of adopting more open, and, 
as they thought, simpler methods. At last, however, the 
Cardinals prevailed ; but it was not till the morning of 
November 10 that any votes were taken. The first scrutiny 
was indecisive, and nothing was done on that day. But 
next morning when the votes were counted it was found 
that four Cardinals stood distinctly ahead of all others 
— the Cardinals of Ostia, Venice, Saluzzo, and Colonna. 
Of these Colonna alone received votes from every nation, 
and in two nations, the Italian and English, possessed 
the requisite majority. Indeed the English voted for him 
alone, and doubtless their example produced a great im- 
pression. 

Among the Cardinals, Oddo Colonna was marked out as a 
Roman of noble family, a man who had remained 
of Oddo neutral during the struggles which rent the Council, 
NovTi*' unobjectionable on every ground, and personally 
^^^^' acceptable both to Henry V. and Sigismund. He 

was not, however, the candidate most favoured by the 
Cardinals themselves, though many hastened to accede to 
him when they saw that opinion was strongly inclining in 
his favour. On a second scrutiny he received fifteen votes 
from the Cardinals, and had a two-thirds majority in every 



ELECTION OF ODDO-COLONNA. loi 

nation. For a time there was a pause. Then several 
Cardinals left the room so as to delay the election. Only 
the Cardinals of S. Marco and De Foix remained talking 
with one another. They were not sure what their absent 
colleagues might do ; they feared lest they might return in a 
body and accede to Colonna. At last the Cardinal of S. 
Marco spoke out, ' To finish this matter and unite the Church 
we two accede to Cardinal Colonna *. The necessary major- 
ity was now secured. The electors, according to custom, 
placed Colonna on the altar, kissed his feet, and chanted the 
* Te Deum'. The cry was raised to those outside, * We 
have a Pope, Oddo Colonna/ and the news spread fast 
through the city. It was not yet midday when it reached 
Sigismund, who, forgetful of all dignity, hastened in his joy 
to the Conclave, thanked the electors for their worthy choice, 
and, prostrating himself before the new Pope, humbly kissed 
his feet. A solemn procession was formed to the cathedral. 
The new Pope, who took the name of Martin V. because it 
was S. Martin's day, mounted on horseback, while Sigis- 
mund held his bridle on the right, Frederick of Brandenburg 
on the left. Again he was placed on the altar in the ca- 
thedral, amid a solemn service of thanksgiving. Then he 
retired to the Bishop's palace, which was thenceforward his 
abode. 

The election of Oddo Colonna was one which gave uni- 
versal satisfaction, and Sigismund's unrestrained manifesta- 
tions of delight show that he regarded it with unfeigned 
self-congratulaiion. Politically, he had gained an adherent 
where he feared that he might have elevated a foe. Colonna 
was not the candidate of the French party, and there was 
nothing more to fear from their influence over the Council. 
Similarly, on grounds that afTected the Papacy, its position 
in Italy, and the recovery of the patrimony of the Church, 
Colonna, as a member of the most powerful Roman family, 
seemed likely to restore the Papal prestige. Moreover, he 
gave hopes of favouring the cause of the reformation. He 
was known as the poorest and simplest among the Car- 



noi- -c-': ••• ^ .T.H& DaU^CIL OF CONSTANCE, 

dinals,^ and was a man of genial kindly nature, who had 
never shown any capacity for intrigue.^ No one could 
object to his election ; for he had held himself aloof from all 
the quarrels which had convulsed the Council, had made no 
enemies, and was regarded as a moderate and sensible man. 
He was the choice of the nations, not of the Cardinals ; and 
his election was a testimony to the general desire to reunite 
the Church under a Pope who could not be claimed as a 
partisan by any of the factions which had arisen in the 
Council. 

^ Windeck, in Mencken, i., 1117, *er der armest und einfaltigiste Car- 
dinal were unter alien Cardinalen die zu Costenz dazumale warent '. 

* Leon. Aret. in Mur., xix. ; ' Vir antea nequaquam sagax existimatus 
sed benignus '. 



103 



CHAPTER VIIL 

MARTIN V. AND THE REFORMATION AT CONSTANCE — END OF 
THE COUNCIL. 

I417 — 1418. 

Whatever hopes had been entertained that Martin V. 
might favour the work of reformation received a ,^ , „ 
shock from his first pontifical act. Instead of confirms 

, . - . . . - . - the rules 

regarding his position as somewhat exceptional, of the 
instead of awaiting the results of further delibera- chancery 
tion of the Council, he followed the custom of his /ohS ^ 
predecessor, and on the day after his election ^"^' 
approved and edited the rules of the Papal Chancery, The 
moment that the ofiicials of the Curia had obtained a head, 
they felt themselves strong enough to fight for the abuses 
on which they throve. The Vice-Chancellor, the Cardinal 
of Ostia, who had published the Chancery regulations of 
John XXIII., hastened to lay them before Martin V., with 
a demand that he should maintain the rights of his ofiice ; 
and the new Pope at once complied. This act of Martin V. 
struck at the root of the reforming efforts of the Council. 
The abuses, which after long deliberation had been selected 
as the most crying, were organised and protected in the 
rules of the Papal Chancery. 

The Chancery itself was a necessary branch of the ad- 
ministrative department of the Papacy, and was 
concerned with the care of the Papal archives, and the Papai 
the preparation and execution of all the official ^^^'^y- 
documents of the Pope. Such a department necessarily 



104 THE COUNCIL OF CONSTANCE. 

had rules, and these rules were revised and republished by 
each Pope on his accession. They regulated the despatch 
of business by the Chancery, and during the period of the 
Avignonese Papacy had been largely increased so as to 
cover the growth of the system of Papal reservations and 
the extension of the Papal jurisdiction.^ John XXII. and 
Benedict XII. greatly enlarged their scope, but the earliest 
edition of them that we possess is that of John XXIII. , 
which Martin V. now confirmed in its integrity. The rules 
thus established as part of the constitution of the Church 
reserved to the Pope all the chief dignities in cathedral, 
collegiate and conventual churches provided for the issue 
of expectative graces, or promises of next appointment to 
benefices, and fixed the payments due for such grants. 
They regulated Papal dispensations from ecclesiastical dis- 
qualifications, from residence at benefices, from the need 
of ordination by holders of benefices who were employed 
in the service of the Curia or in study. They provided for 
pluralities, indulgences, and the conduct of appeals before 
the Curia. In short, they set forth the system by which 
the Papacy had managed to divert to itself the revenues 
of the Church ; they were the code on which rested the 
abuses of the Papal power which the Council hoped to 
eradicate. 

Perhaps this act of Martin V. was not at once divulged, 

as the Chancery regulations were not formally 

tion of published till February 26, 1418. If it was known, 

Martin V. ^ ,., ^ - ^t. - n \. a u r - • ^ 

Nov. 21, men did not in their first flush of joy appreciate 
^^^^' its full significance. It might be urged that 

the act was merely formal, that a Pope must have a 
Chancery, and the Chancery must have its rules; their 
publication in no way hindered their subsequent reforma- 
tion. However that might be, nothing disturbed the 
harmony at Constance. On November 13 Martin V., who 
was only a Cardinal-deacon, was ordained priest, and next 

* See, for further details, Phillips, Kirchenrechty iv., 488, etc. 



CORONATION OP MARTIN V. 105 

day was consecrated bishop. The next few days were 
spent in receiving homage from all the clergy and nobles 
in Constance. On November 21 all was ready for the 
Pope's coronation, which was carried out with great 
splendour. At midnight he was anointed in the cathedral. 
At eight in the morning the coronation took place on a 
raised platform in the courtyard of the Bishop's palace. 
The tow was burned before the Pope, with the admonition, 
* Sic transit gloria mundi '. Then Martin V. mounted a 
horse and went in stately procession through the town, 
Sigismund and Frederick of Brandenburg holding the reins 
of his steed. The Jews met him, according to custom, 
bearing the volume of the law, and begging him to confirm 
their privileges. Martin, perhaps not at once understand- 
ing the ceremony, refused the volume ; but Sigismund took 
it and said: 'The law of Moses is just and good, nor 
do we reject it, but you do not keep it as you ought'. 
Then he gave them back the volume, and Martin, who 
had now his cue, said: 'Almighty God remove the veil 
from your eyes, and make you see the light of everlasting 
life'.^ It is impossible not to feel that Sigismund was 
excellently fitted to discharge the duties of a Pope with 
punctilious decorum. 

It would seem that Sigismund was so satisfied with the 
election of Martin V. that he did not raise the oiffi. 
question of proceeding with the reformation before Se wSy of 
the coronation of the Pope, according to the agree- ^^^o^^- 
ment which he had made with the Cardinals. But im- 
mediately after the coronation a new Reform Commission 
was formed of six Cardinals and as many deputies from 
each nation. The Commissioners did not, however, pro- 
ceed rapidly with their work. The old difficulties at once 
revived. The Germans and the French prelates wished 
to abolish Papal provisions; the representatives of the 

^ Both Dacher (in Von der Hardt, iv., 1491) and Reichenthal, p. 43, 
agree in this account, though others represent Martin as taking the book 
himself from the Jews. 



io6 THE COUNCIL OF CONSTANCE, 

French Universities joined with the Italians and Spaniards 
to maintain in their own interests the rights of the Pope. 
The English, who by the statutes against Provisors had 
settled the matter for themselves, were indifferent. The 
previous quarrels of the nations in the Council were a 
hindrance to joint action. The French besought Sigismund 
to use his influence to further the reformation. Sigismund 
answered : * When I was urgent that the reformation should 
be undertaken before the election of a Pope, you would not 
consent. Now we have a Pope ; go to him, for I no longer 
have the same interest in the matter as I had before.'^ 
Indeed, Sigismund seems to have given up reform as hope- 
less, and resolved to make the best terms he could for 
himself. On January 23, 1418, he publicly received at the 
hands of the Pope a formal recognition of his position as 
King of the Romans, and a few days afterwards obtained 
a grant of a tenth of the ecclesiastical revenues of three 
German provinces, as a recompense for the expenses which 
he had incurred in the Council's behalf. 

In this state of collision of interests and general lethargy 
, and weariness, it became clear that nothing could 
v.'8pro- be done in the way of a common scheme of re- 
reform, form. The Germans were the first to recognise 
Jan., 141 ^^.^^ ^^^ presented to the Pope in January, 1418, 
a series of articles of reformation founded on the labours 
of the previous Commission. A clamour for reform was 
directed to the Pope ; and a squib published by a Spaniard, 
headed *A Mass for Simony,' 2 helped to warn Martin V. 
that he must in some way declare himself, for Benedict 
XIII. still had adherents. So far Martin V. had refused 
to state his intentions. He saw that his wisest policy was 
to allow the reforming party to involve themselves in 

* Gobelinus, in Von der Hardt, iv., 1503. 

2 This curious production is given in Von der Hardt, iv., 1505. At 
the end comes the warning : ' Jam fumus simoniae in caelum ascendit : 
et jam divina justicia provocata est in tantum, quod, si iste Papa non 
ponit remedium super hoc, sciat se percutiendum plaga magna et in 
brevi casurum '. 



MARTIN V/S PROGRAMME OF REFORM. 107 

difficulties and to bide his time. When asked to declare 
his opinion, he answered with the utmost courtesy that if 
the nations agreed on any point, he was desirous to do 
what he could for the reformation. At last he judged it 
prudent to speak, and on January 18, 141 8, put forward 
the Papal idea of reform in the shape of an answer to the 
points set forward in the decree of October 30, which had 
been the guarantee on which the Germans consented to 
the election of a Pope. On all the points therein contained 
the Pope agreed to some slight surrender of his prerogatives 
in favour of the Ordinaries ; but one point, the definition 
of the 'causes for which a Pope could be admonished or 
deposed,' was dismissed with the remark, * It does not seem 
good to us, as it did not to several nations, that, on this 
point anything new should be determined or decreed *. The 
programme of the Pope was referred to the nations for their 
opinion. Again there were the old difficulties. The nations 
could not agree on the amendments which they wished to 
make. Martin V. could now urge that he had done his 
part, and that the obstacles arose from the want of concord 
among the several nations. He kept pressing them to 
quicken their deliberations;^ and while he awaited their 
decision he continued to exercise the old powers of the 
Papacy, and made numerous grants in expectancy, which 
no doubt gave a practical proof to many that the Papal 
system after all had its advantages. 

It was natural that the Council, which was before enfeebled 
by its own divisions, should find itself growing still Embawy 
feebler before a Pope. The influence of the Papal ^^l^^^ 
office was strong over men's imaginations. The Feb., 1418. 
joy felt throughout Europe at the termination of the Schism 
was reflected among the Fathers at Constance. The am- 
bassadors who came to congratulate the new Pope on his 

^ Letter of Pulka, dated Feb. 10 : ' Instat apud nationem nostram 
quatenus super advisamenta reformationis qua; alias ipse dedit, con- 
cludat et sibi respondeat, ut ad alia procedi valeat, et concilium celeriter 
concludi '. Firnhaber, 66. 



io8 THE COUNCIL OP CONSTANCE, 

accession could not fail to deepen the impression of his 
importance. The death of Gregory XI I. on October i8, 
1 4 17, was an additional security for Martin V.'s position. 
Moreover, the prestige of the Pope was increased by the 
arrival in Constance on February 19 of an embassy from 
the Greek Emperor, headed by the Archbishop of Kief, to 
negotiate for the union of the Eastern and Western Churches. 
The luckless Greeks saw themselves day by day more and 
more helpless to resist the invading Turks, and their leaders 
deemed it politic to remove by union with the Latin Church 
the religious differences which had done much to sunder the 
East and West. During the Schism it had been hopeless to 
prosecute their scheme, as reconciliation with one Pope 
would only have won for them the hostility of the obedience 
of his rival. But their desire was known ; and soon after 
the Council of Pisa, Gerson, preaching before the French 
King, urged the convocation of another Council in three 
years' time, that the Greeks might then appear and negotiate 
for their union with Western Christendom.^ So soon as the 
Council of Constance had succeeded in establishing internal 
unity in the Latin Church, the Greek envoys made their 
appearance. They were honourably received by Sigismund, 
who rode out to meet them. With wondering eyes the 
Latin prelates gazed on the Greek ecclesiastics, whose long 
black hair flowed down their shoulders, who wore long 
beards, and had nothing but the tonsure to mark their 
priestly office. During their stay in Constance the Greeks 
practised their own ritual, and were courteously treated by 
the Council ; but it does not appear that much was done 
towards the object which they had in view. The distracted 
state of opinion in Constance was not calculated to inspire 
them with much confidence.^ The Council did not last long 
enough for the question to be seriously discussed. We find, 

1 Gerson, Op., ii., 142. 

* Dacher, in Von der Hardt, iv., 15 12. * Man meinte ware die Refor- 
mation fiir sich gegangen, sie hatten Weg und Sachen funden dass sie 
auch vollig Christen worden waren.' 



QUESTIONS OF PETIT AND PALKENBERG, log 

however, that friendly relations were established between 
Martin V. and the Greek Emperor, for Martin gave his 
consent to a project of intermarriage between the Emperor's 
sons and Latin ladies.^ 

It was natural for Martin V. to urge the rapid dissolution 
of the Council. So long as it remained sitting Questions 
unpleasant questions were sure to be forced upon ^nrpli- 
him. The condemnation of Jean Petit, which had ^^en^crg. 
been deferred by the Council, was now laid before the Pope 
for his decision, and there was added to it another question 
of like character. A Dominican friar, John of Falkenberg, 
had written a libel against the King of Poland at the insti- 
gation of his enemies, the Teutonic Knights. This libel 
asserted that the King of Poland and his people were only 
worthy of the hatred of all Christian men, and ought to be 
exterminated like pagans. It was brought before the Com- 
missioners in Matters of Faith early in 1417, was by them 
condemned and ordered to be burned; but its formal con- 
demnation was left for the new Pope. Thus the Poles and 
the French alike called on Martin to condemn their enemies ; 
but Martin was too politic to wish to offend either the Duke 
of Burgundy or the Teutonic Knights. The French and the 
Poles published a protest setting forth the scandals that 
would be caused by any refusal of justice. When this 
produced no effect, the Poles intimated their intention of 
appealing to a future Council. Martin V. thought it desir- 
able to check, if possible, this dangerous privilege, and in a 
consistory on March 10 promulgated a constitution which 
asserted : * No one may appeal from the supreme judge, that 
is, the apostolic seat or the Roman Pontiff, Vicar on earth 
of Jesus Christ, or may decline his authority in matters of 
faith '. To this constitution the Poles determined to pay no 
heed, and Gerson pointed out that it was destructive to the 

^ His letter, dated Constance, April 6, 1418, is given in Raynaldus, sub 
anno no. 17. The Emperor had asked this * pro faciliori et magis accom- 
modo reduction is antiquae pacis medio et recunciliatione mutua cunctarum 
Christum coientium religionum '. 



no THE COUNCIL OF CONSTANCE. 

whole theory on which the Councils of Pisa and Constance 
rested their authority.^ It was indeed clear that if the 
Council remained sitting and this question were discussed, 
a collision between the Pope and the Council would be 
inevitable. 

But Martin V. knew before he took this step that the 
days of the Council were numbered, and that the majority of 
those in Constance were anxiously awaiting its end He 
had made an agreement to accept a few general reforms in 
the Church, and to remedy for each nation some of the 
abuses of which they complained. He also endorsed the 
proceedings of the Council by issuing on Feb. 22 a Bull 
against the errors of Wyclif and Hus, and drew up twenty- 
four articles, which were sent to Bohemia as the Council's 
prescription for ending the religious strife. They were not 
couched in conciliatory language, and matters had gone too 
far for reconciliation ; but they expressed Martin's acquies- 
cence in what had been done. 

The settlement of the reformation question expresses the 
Reform weariness and incompetence of the Council. There 
Mwch 2?^ were no men of sufficient statesmanship to unite 
1418. ^he contending elements of which it was composed) 

and direct them to a common end. The desire for reforma- 
tion with which the Council opened had so lost its force in 
the collision of national interests that even the restricted 
programme embodied in the decree of October 30, 1417, was 
found to be more than could be accomplished. After much 
aimless discussion, it was finally agreed that a synodal 
decree should be passed about a few of these eighteen points 
on which there was tolerable unanimity, and that all other 
questions should be left for the Pope to settle with the 
several nations according to their grievances. On March 
21 the Council approved of statutes in which the Pope 
withdrew exemptions and incorporations granted since the 

^ Gerson, Tractatus quomodo et an liceat in causis fidei a summo 
Pontifice appellate sen ejus judicium declinare, Op., ii., 303. It was 
written after the dissolution of the Council, during Gerson's exile. 



THB CONCORDATS OP 1418. in 

death of Gregory XL ; abandoned the Papal claims to ec- 
clesiastical revenues during vacancies; condemned simony; 
withdrew dispensations from discharging the duties of 
ecclesiastical offices while receiving their revenues ; promised 
not to impose tenths except for a real necessity, nor speci- 
ally in any kingdom or province without consulting its 
bishops ; and enjoined greater regularity in clerical dress and 
demeanour. 

The rest of the eighteen points raised by the decree of 
October 30, I4i7» were settled by separate agree- 
ments or concordats with the different nations. In d«ttwitb 
the session of March 21, 1418, the Council gave its nepante 
approbation to these concordats, and solemnly ^^^^^' 
declared that the synodal decrees then passed, together with 
the concordats, fulfilled the requirements of the decree of 
October 30.^ The Council as a whole accepted the decrees, 
the nations separately accepted the concordats ; then the 
Council declared that these two together fulfilled the 
guarantee on the strength of which a Papal election had 
been agreed to. It is true that the concordats themselves 
had not yet been definitely accepted, but it would seem that 
they had been substantially agreed to* The difficulties in 
the way of their publication lay rather in the fact that the 
nations could not agree in themselves than that the Curia 
raised any objections. The German and French concordats 
were signed on April 15, the English not till July 12. It is 
remarkable that, while England and Germany made con- 
cordats each for themselves, dealing with special points in 

> * DecerniniuHet declaramus, sacro approbante concilio, per decreta, 
statuta et ordinata, tarn lecta in praeftenti sesMione, quam concordata cum 
•ingulis nationibuK ejusdem conciUi » . , hutc sacro concilio super arti- 
culis contentts in decreto super fiendareformationedie Sabbati, 30 mensis 
Octobris proxime prseteriti promulgator fuiKM et esse jam satisfactum/ — 
Von der Hardt, iv», 1540. The ' placet * of the Council was given in the 
following form : ' De mandato nationum respondeo quod placent nation i- 
bus decreta recttata. Et cuilibet nationi placet concordia cum ipsa per 
Domtnum nostrum facta. Et per praemissa fatentur decreto etiam jam 
esse satiKfactum* Non intendentes propterea quod concordata cum una 
natione in aliquo altcri nationi afferant pra^judicium/ — Von der Hardt, 
ibid. 



112 THE COUNCIL OF CONSTANCE. 

their relations towards the Roman Church, the three Romance 
peoples held together ; and what is known as the French 
concordat represents the alliance which the last days of the 
Council had brought about, and which was the cause of the 
triumph of the Curia.^ The Spanish and Italian nations 
had asked for reforms which did not materially affect the 
Papal primacy ; by answering their requests in common 
with those of the French, the special grant of certain re- 
missions of annates to the French nation only would be 
regarded as a more signal mark of favour. 

The questions dealt with in the concordats were not of 

much importance. They consisted chiefly of such 
of the con- points of the reform programme of Martin V. as 

each nation thought to be necessary or desirable for 
its own good. The English concordat was very short, and 
provided only for the proper organisation of the Cardinal 
College, the due admission of Englishmen to office in the 
Curia, the check of Papal indulgences, of unions of benefices 
and dispensations from canonical disabilities, and the some- 
what curious revocation of permissions granted to bishops 
of wearing any part of the pontifical attire. It is clear that 
on all essential points the English preferred to rest on their 
own national laws rather than entrust themselves to grants 
and privileges given by the Pope. The English concordat 
is entirely trivial, but is in the form of a perpetual grant or 
charter. The other two were only a temporary compromise, 
restricted in their operation to five years. The payment of 
annates was reluctantly submitted to, with some restrictions, 

^ It was generally assumed that the Spanish and Italian concordats 
had been lost ; but Hiibler, Die Constanzer Reformation und die Concor- 
date von 141 8, p. 47, calls attention to the fact that the phraseology of the 
French concordat covers the other nations as well. Thus, on the subject 
of the ' Annates * the concordat (Von der Hardt, iv., 1574) runs ; * Quae 
omnia in praesenti capitulo contenta locum habeant pro tota Gallica 
natione ' ; and still more clearly the clause about provisions recognises 
all the three nations (ibid,^ 1572) " ' De abbatiis . . . quarum fructus, 
secundum taxationem decimae, cc librarum Turonensium parvorum, in 
Italia vero et Hispania Ix librarum Turonensium parvorum valorem 
annuum non excedant, fiant confirmationes aut provisiones canonical per 
illos ad quos alias pertinet '. 



CONTENTS OP THE CON CO Rt) ATS. u% 

by the Germans and the French as a necessary means, under 
existing circumstances, of supplying the Pope with revenues. 
But in a few years' time, when he was established in Rome 
and had won back the possessions of the Roman Church, 
he might fairly be required to live off his own. They bar- 
gained that in five years the question of annates should be 
again considered ; and the Pope, being obliged to give way, 
did so on condition that the grants which he was making on 
other points should he similarly limited in time. As several 
of these grants concerned questions of organic reform, such 
as the reorganisation of the College of Cardinals, a limitation 
of time was absurd in their case. Still more absurd was it 
that the articles about the Cardinals were established in 
perpetuity by the English concordat, and only for five years 
by the French and German concordats. That such condi- 
tions should have been admitted as satisfactory by the 
Council is only a sign how entirely its members were 
overcome by weariness, and how helpless they felt to 
grapple with the practical questions raised by the cry for 
reform. 

In fact, every one wanted to get away from Constance, 
and the most sanguine hoped that, after a few years of rest, 
the next General Council would find greater unanimity 
among the nations. As soon as the decree of March 21 had 
been passed the reforming work of the Council of Constance 
was virtually at an end ; but before it separated a trivial 
matter was brought forward which involved principles more 
important for future reform than any contained in the 
concordats. A complaint was made to the Pope of the 
irregular institution within the Church of a new ideal of 
Christian life. 

A spirit of refined pietism had for some time prevailed in 
the Netherlands, till it received a definite organisa- ^^ 
tion from the fervour of Gerhard Groot, a mission J'c^*" 
preacher whose eloquence produced great results in »«» ^^^ 
the province of Utrecht. But Gerhard Groot was not merely 
a preacher ; he was also a theological student, and a man 
VOL. 11. 8 



114 THE COUNCIL Ol^ CONSTANCE. 

whose beautiful character attracted a number of young men 
to follow him. Some were his friends, some his scholars, 
and others were employed by him to copy manuscripts, 
which he was fond of collecting and disseminating. 
From these various elements a small society gradually 
sprang up around him, which took an organised shape 
under the name of the Brotherhood of Common Life. 
The Brethren lived in common, devoted to good works, 
and especially to the cause of popular education. Gerhard 
Groot died at Deventer, which was the centre of his 
labours, in 1384; but his system lived under the guidance 
of Florentius Radewins, and the spirit which inspired the 
Brotherhood is still vocal to Christendom in the pages of 
Thomas a Kempis. 

It was, however, only natural that the old monastic orders 
Position should look with suspicion on the rise of a rival. 
thiM** '^^^ Brethren of the Common Life were fiercely 
Grabow. attacked by the Friars, and at last the question of 
the legality of their position was brought before the decision 
of assembled Christendom. Matthias Grabow, a Dominican 
of Groningen, wrote a book againstihe Brotherhood, and 
when reproved by the Bishop of Utrecht, appealed to the 
Pope. His position was that worldly possessions are in- 
separable from a life in the world, and that those only 
who enter an established religious order can meritoriously 
practise the three ascetic duties of poverty, chastity, and 
obedience. The monastic life claimed for itself, not only an 
unquestioned superiority, but also the exclusive right of 
practising its fundamental virtues. The recognised monastic 
orders would allow no extension of their principles, and 
would admit of no middle term between themselves and the 
ordinary life of man.^ 

Martin V. submitted the question to a commission of 
theologians. D'Ailly and Gerson had a last opportunity 

* * NuUus potest meritorie et secundum Deum obedientiae, paupertatis, 
et castitatis consilia extra veras et approbatas religiones manendo adim- 
plere,' was one of Grabow's conclusions, in Gerson, O/., i., 471. 



GRABOW CONDEMNED BY D'AILLY AND GERSON, 115 

of showing that their reforming views still had a meaning. 
D'Ailly attacked the phrase * verse religiones,* and ^^^^^ 
declared it to be heresy to assert that there was no con- 

... 1 ^ demned 

true religion save amongst monks. Gerson, on byUAiUy 
April 3, 14 18, presented an examination of Grabow's ion. April, 
propositions. He laid down that there was one '*'^* 
religion only, the religion of Christ, which can be practised 
without vows and needs nothing to add to its perfection. 
The monastic orders are wrongly called * states of perfec- 
tion ' ; they are only assemblies of those striving towards 
perfection. The opinions of Grabow would exclude from 
true religion popes and prelates, who had not taken monastic 
vows — nay, even Christ Himself. The obligations under- 
taken by monks were many of them equally adapted for 
laymen also, and ought to be brought home to them. He 
pronounced the opinions of Grabow to be erroneous, even 
heretical and worthy of condemnation. His opinion was 
followed, and Grabow retracted. The Brethren of the Com- 
mon Life were thenceforth unmolested and enjoyed papal 
recognition. The mediaeval notion of the perfection of 
monastic life received a severe blow; and though the re- 
formers of Constance could not agree to sweep away the 
abuses of the existing system of the Church, they resisted 
an attempt to check the free development of Christian 
zeal. 

Nothing now remained for the Council except formally to 
separate. Martin V. celebrated with great ecclesi- j^^^^^^^ 
astical pomp the festivities of Easter, while the tionofthe 
Council prepared for its dissolution. On April 19 con- 
he fixed Pavia as the seat of the next Council, which ApSfaa, 
was to be held in seven years* time. On April 22 ^^^^' 
was held the last general session ; but the Council did not 
part in peace, as the ambassadors of Poland rose and de- 
manded from Pope and Council the condemnation of the 
writings of Falkenberg, otherwise they would appeal to the 
future Council. There was some confusion, and Martin V. 
answered that all the decrees passed by the Council in mat- 



ii6 THE COUNCIL OF CONSTANCE. 

ters of faith he would ratify, but nothing more.^ The Polish 
envoy would have proceeded to read his protest and appeal, 
but Martin forbade him. The Bishop of Catania preached 
a farewell sermon on the text, * Now ye have sorrow, but I 
shall see you again and your heart shall rejoice*. The 
decree of the dissolution of the Council was read, and in- 
dulgences were granted to those who had been present at it. 
Then rose Doctor Ardecin of Novara, and in the name of 
Sigismund declared the trouble and expense which the 
Council had caused him, which, however, he did not regret, 
seeing that it had wrought the unity of the Church ; if any- 
thing had been done amiss it had not been by his fault.^ 
He thanked all the members of the Council for their pres- 
ence, and declared himself ready to support the Church until 
death. 

The Council was now over ; but Sigismund was anxious 
Martin v. to keep Martin V. in Germany. It was not entirely 
Con-^ beyond his hopes that the Papacy might now for a 
May^i6 ^^"^^ ^® ^" *^® hands of Germany, as before it had 
Hi8- been in the hands of France. He besought Martin 

to remain at least till the next Easter, and offered him Basel, 
Strasburg, or Mainz as his place of residence ; ^ but Martin 
answered that the miserable condition of the States of the 
Church needed a ruler's "hand, and that his place was in 
Rome. Sigismund had already had reason to discover that 
Martin was not likely to be a tool in his hands.* He reluc- 
tantly saw his preparations for departure, and at last, on May 

^ Von der Hardt, iv., 155 1 : * Papa dixit, respondendo ad praedicta, quod 
omnia et singula determinata et conclusa et decreta in materiis fidei per 
praesens sacrum concilium conciliariter tenere et inviolabiliter observare 
volebat et nunquam contravenire quoquomodo. Ipsaque sic conciliariter 
facta approbat et ratificat, et non aliter nee alio modo.* 

* Von der Hardt, iv., 1553 : * Excusans se, si per eum aliqua non fiierint 
bene iacta, non culpa sui ilia commissa fore *. 

•Windeck, in Mencken, i., mo. 

* Martin V. told the Florentine ambassador, * che coUo Imperadore non 
aveva stretta amicizia ; ma si mantellava, mentre che era nel luogo di 
Costanzia, colla sua Serenita con apparente amicizia al buon fine e piii 
pacifico stato di santa Chiesa '. — Commissioni di Rinaldo degli Albizzi^ 
».» 293. 



DIFFICULTIES OF SIGISMUND'S DEPARTURE. 117 

16, escorted him to Gottlieben, where Martin took ship to 
Schaff hausen, whence he journeyed to Geneva. 

Sigismund did not find it so easy to leave Constance. 
The attendants of the needy monarch received __ 
scanty pay from their master, and were most of ties of 
them deeply indebted to the burghers of Constance, mSd's 
who were not willing to let them go till they had **®p*'^'"^* 
paid their debts. In vain Sigismund tried to negotiate 
through the city magistrates for an extension of credit. He 
was forced as a last resource to call a meeting of creditors 
in the Exchange of the city and trust to his own eloquence. 
He spoke at length of his good offices to the citizens of 
Constance in summoning the Council to their city and 
maintaining it there so long; he dwelt upon the profit they 
had made thereby, and the glory they had gained throughout 
the world ; then he turned to pleasing flattery and praised 
them for the way in which they had more than justified by 
their behaviour all his anticipations. *With such words,' 
says Reichenthal, ' he caused the poor folk to think that all 
he said was true, and rested on good grounds/ When he 
saw that he had gained the people's hearts, he proposed to 
leave in pledge for the debt his gold and silver plate. The 
creditors relented and accepted his offer. Then Sigismund 
thanked them warmly for their confidence, and went on to 
say that it would be a great disgrace to him if he robbed his 
table of its plate ; he begged them instead to take his fine 
linen and hangings, which he could more easily dispense 
with for a time. The luckless creditors could not avoid 
consenting. The linen was handed over, and no pains were 
spared in entering the various debts in ledgers. Then, on 
May 21, Sigismund and his needy followers rode away; but 
the pledges were never redeemed, and when the creditors 
came to examine them they found them to be unsaleable, as 
they were all embroidered with Sigismund's arms. Many 
of the citizens of Constance were reduced to poverty through 
their trust in Sigismund's words; and the plausible and 
shifty king left behind him a mixed legacy of misery and 



ii8 THE COUNCIL OF CONSTANCE. 

grandeur as the record of his long sojourn in the walls of 
Constance.^ 

The members of the Council quickly dispersed to their 
Fortunes homes. During the long period of the session many 
an(f^"^^ eminent men had died in Constance. Manuel 
Gerson. Chrysoloras, a learned Greek who by his teaching 
had done much to further the knowledge of Greek letters in 
Italy, died in April, 1415, to the grief of all his learned friends. 
That such a man as John XXIII. should have brought a 
Greek scholar in his train is a curious testimony of the 
advance of the new learning to political importance. The 
death of Robert Hallam, Bishop of Salisbury, in September, 
1417, was followed by that of Cardinal Zabarella, and the 
Council lost thereby two of its most distinguished members. 
With the dissolution of the Council the other men who had 
been eminent at its beginning sank into insignificance. 
Peter d'Ailly went back to France as Papal legate, and died 
in 1420. Gerson 's attitude in the affair of Jean Petit had 
raised him such determined enemies in France that he dared 
not return, but found shelter first in Bavaria and afterwards 
at Vienna. After the murder of the Duke of Burgundy in 
September, 141 9, he went back to Lyons, where in the 
monastery of S. Paul he ended his days in works of piety 
and devotion, and died in 1429. We can best picture the 
disastrous results of the Council of Constance when we see 
how entirely it destroyed the great reforming party of the 
University of Paris, and condemned its learned and eloquent 
leader to end his days in banishment and obscurity. 

Those who returned home from the Council could not, 
R suit of ^^*^ ^^y feelings of satisfaction, contrast the results 
therefor- which they brought home with the anticipations 

mation of .11.,, T 1 r r^ t . 

Con- With which they had set out for Constance. It is 

5 ance. ^^^^ ^^^^ ^^^^ ^^^ restored the unity of the Church 

by the election of a Pope, and that they had purged the 
Church of heresy by their dealings with Hus ; but the state 

^ This account is given by Reichenthal with a plain truthfulness that 
sometimes rises to humour. 



THE REFORMS OF CONSTANCE, 119 

of affairs in Bohemia was not such as to assure them that 
their high-handed procedure had been entirely successful. 
Many must have been inclined to admit with Gerson ^ that 
there had been a strange contrast between the determined 
condemnation of Hus and the indifference shown to the 
more pernicious doctrines of Jean Petit and Falkenberg. 
They must have admitted that the Bohemians had some 
grounds for dissatisfaction, some reason for complaining of 
respect of persons. As regards the reformation of the Church, 
the most determined optimists could not say more than that 
the question remained open, and that they looked to a future 
Council to carry on the work which they had begun. The 
representatives of the various nations could not flatter them- 
selves that the concordats which they took back with them 
were of much importance. In France the Government de- 
termined not to recognise the concordat; they thought it 
better to curb the Papal exactions by the use of the royal 
power, and uphold the legislation which the pressure of the 
Schism had called forth in 1406, forbidding the prelates to 
observe Papal reservations and the clergy to pay undue 
exactions to the Pope. Before the concordat reached France, 
at the end of March, 1418, royal decrees again established 
the old liberties of the Gallican Church against Papal reserva- 
tions and exactions. France preferred to follow the example 
of England, and assert the liberties of its Church on the 
basis of the royal sovereignty rather than on the ecclesiastical 
basis of a Papal grant .^ When the concordat was presented, 
on June 10, 1418, to the Parlement of Paris, to be registered 
among the laws of the land, it was rejected as being contrary 



1 Dialogus ApologeticuSy Op., ii., 367 : * Primitus Bohemi dehinc Anglici 
detulerant errores Wicliff . . . pro quorum reprobatione zelavit publice 
advena et quantum alter sdiorum. Videat autem prudentia tua, si non 
existimare justum erat nee temerarium, non minori diligentia, zelo vel 
constantia procedi debere ad damnationem doctrinae magis in moribus et 
reipublicae pestiferae et hoc omni tergiversatione vel personarum acceptione 
rejectis ? ' 

«The documents on this point are to be found in Preuves des Liherte$ 
de VEglise Gallicane^ ch. xxii. 



I20 THE COUNCIL OF CONSTANCE. 

to the laws just enacted by the royal authority. It is true 
that a few months later the Duke of Burgundy became 
supreme in Paris, abolished the decrees of March, and recog- 
nised the concordat ; but a new convention was made with 
Martin V. by the Duke of Bedford as regent of France in 
1425, and this took the place of the agreement made at 
Constance. In England no notice was taken of the concordat, 
which indeed was sufficiently insignificant In Germany it 
was not laid before the Diet, nor was any attempt made to 
secure for it legislative authority ; it remained as a compact 
between the Pope and the ecclesiastical authorities, and seems 
to have been fairly well observed during the five years for 
which it was originally granted. 

Before leaving the Council of Constance it is worth while 
Reforms to take a general view of the actual points for reform 
con-^^** which were there brought forward. The original 
stance. dcsire of the reforming party for a general reorganisa- 
tion of the ecclesiastical system rapidly faded away before 
the difficulties of the task, and the practical proposals that 
were made represent the actual grievances felt by the bishops 
and clergy in consequence of Papal aggression. The aspira- 
tions of the Council did not ultimately go farther than the 
defence of the power of the Ordinary against Papal inter- 
ference. The proposals of the Council afford an opportunity 
for noting the extent to which the Papal headship had broken 
down the machinery of the Church, had destroyed its 
political independence, and had introduced abuses into its 
system. 

The first point to which naturally the Council attached 
Revival of great importance was the revival of the synodal 
synods. system of the Church, a primitive institution sup- 
pressed by the Papal absolutism, but which the pressure 
of the Schism had again brought into prominence. The 
authority of a General Council to decide in cases of a disputed 
election to the Papacy was asserted as the means of avoiding 
the possibility of another schism, and the periodical recurrence 
of General Councils was to be the future panacea for all ills 



THE COLLEGE OF CARDINALS REORGANISED. lizi 

which the present was powerless to cure.^ An attempt was 
made to limit the plenitude of the Papal absolutism, by con- 
verting the profession of faith made by the Pope on his 
election into an oath to maintain the established constitutions 
of the Church : ^ but the attempt was unavailing, and the 
formula drawn up by Boniface VIII. remained unaltered. 

The reorganisation of the College of Cardinals was re- 
garded as necessary both for the stability of the ^ 
Papacy and the relief of the Church. It was agreed sation of 
that Cardinals ought to be chosen from every nation, lege of 
so as to prevent the Papacy from falling into the 
hands of any one Power, to the risk of another schism. 
The number of the College was fixed at eighteen, or twenty- 
four at the outside, so as to lighten the burden of maintaining 
Cardinals out of the revenues of the Church; amongst them 
was to be a good proportion of doctors of theology, so as to 
deal satisfactorily with theological questions. These points 
of detail were accepted by Martin V. in the concordats, which 
rapidly became a dead letter. But the desire on the part of 
many to convert the College of Cardinals into a Council, 
without whose advice and consent the Pope was not to 
act,^ found no expression in any of the acts of the Council. 

The great practical questions, however, concerned the 
heavy taxation which the Papacy had gradually p^^pj^, 
imposed on the Church. The political enterprises t^ation. 
of the Papacy in the thirteenth century, and its loss of 
territorial revenues during the Avignonese captivity, had 
grievously embarrassed Papal finance. The Popes set 
themselves to raise money by extending their old privilege 
of providing for their own agents and officials by presenting 
them to rich benefices. For this purpose they issued Bulls, 
reserving for their own appointment certain benefices, and 

^ The arguments on this point are summed up very clearly in the 
Canones Reformatianis Ecclesia, Von der Hardt, i., 410, etc. 

'Proposals of the first reform commission, Von der Hardt, i., 586. 

' Peter d' Ailly, De Ecclesiastica Potestate^ published at Constance in 
Oct., 1416. Hardt, vi., 51 : * Cardinales qui cum Papa et sub eoecclesiam 
regerent et usum plenitudinis potestatis temperarent '. 



122 THE COUNCIL OF CONSTANCE. 

setting aside the rights of the Ordinary, as patron. Round 
this custom grew up every kind of financial extortion. Dues 
were exacted from the Papal nominees, which soon rose to 
the amount of the revenues of the first year on all benefices 
conferred in the Consistory, and under Boniface IX. to a 
half of the revenues of the first year on all other benefices 
to which the Pope presented. To obtain these annates, 
which were the chief source of Papal revenue, the power of 
reservation and provision was pushed to its utmost extent, 
and John XXIII. exacted the payment of these dues before 
issuing letters of institution. The patronage of all import- 
ant posts was taken away from the bishops ; the Papal 
nominees, being heavily taxed themselves, were driven to 
raise money by every means from their benefices ; churches 
and ecclesiastical buildings were allowed to fall into decay.^ 
Moreover, the Popes exercised most unscrupulously this 
power of reservation and collation to all benefices. Bishops 
and clergy found themselves translated against their will 
from one post to another, which they were compelled to 
accept, and pay fresh dues for their collation. This point 
touched all the higher clergy so closely that the CounciPs 
decree of October 9, 141 7, provided that bishops should not 
be translated against their will, save for a grave reason to 
be approved by a majority of the Cardinals. An extension 
of the power of reservation was that of making grants in 
expectancy — that is, of the next presentation to a benefice 
already occupied. John XXIII. exacted the payment of 
dues on installation before issuing his grants in expectancy, 
and would grant the same benefice to several candidates at 
once ; each would be induced to pay, though only one could 
obtain the prize. Although the abuses of such a system 
are manifest enough, yet the Reform Commission could not 
agree how to deal with them, and the matter dropped out of 
the deliberations of the Council. The whole question of 
Papal reservations was so complicated by the jealousy of 

^ See Niem (not D'Ailly), De Necessitate ReformationiSj Hardt, I., pt. 
vii., 282, etQ. 



PAPAL LAW COURTS. 123 

the Universities against the Ordinaries that nothing was 
done to affect the Pope's power in this matter, though the 
French and German concordats prescribed certain limitations. 

The reform of the Papal law courts was another point on 
which much was said but little was decided. The p.paiiaw 
extension of the jurisdiction of ecclesiastical courts ^onrtM. 
in civil matters was felt to be an increasing grievance, and 
a desire was expressed at Constance to see the limits of the 
two jurisdictions more clearly established.^ The ease with 
which appeals even on trivial matters were received by the 
Roman courts was destructive of the power of the ordinary 
courts, afforded a screen to wealthy and powerful wrong- 
doers, and was an intolerable hardship to poor suitors. 
Closely connected with this were the exemptions from epis- 
copal or metropolitan jurisdiction which were largely granted 
to monasteries and chapters. The poor man, when wronged 
by one who enjoyed such an exemption, had practically no 
redress, for he could not carry his complaint before the Pope.^ 
Martin V., by the decrees of March 21, 1418, cancelled all 
exemptions granted during the Schism, and undertook that 
for the future they should only be made on good reasons. 

Other points were given up by Martin V., such as the 
incorporation of benefices with monasteries, and p^p^^j 
the reservation to the Pope of the revenues of bene p''^^^ 
fices during the time of vacancy. This last had been a 
right of the bishops which the Popes during the fourteenth 
century had wrested from them, and which Martin V. was 
willing to resign to save the more important privilege of 
annates. The custom also of granting offices in comment 
dam to one who drew their revenues without discharging 

* The views of the Reform Commission (Hardt, i., 685) show us how 
wide a power was given to ecclesiastical courts, which may take cognis- 
ance even of ' causae civiles, in quibus in seculari judicio justitia fuisset 
denegata vel ad terminum sex mensium prorogata '. 

^Nicolas de Cl^manges, De Ruina Ecclesiof Hardt, I., pt. iii., 31. 
* Fraudes et rapinas cum fecerint non est qui eos puniat. Ad papam 
enim, quern solum judicem plerique eorum se habere jactant, quis cir- 
cumvento pauperi accessus est ? ' 



124 ^^£ COUNCIL OF CONSTANCE. 

their duties weighed heavily on many monasteries, and was 
provided against in the French and German concordats. 
The freedom of the clergy from taxation had been broken 
through by the crusading movement, and during the Schism 
Popes had used the right of exacting tenths of ecclesiastical 
revenues, partly to recruit their own finances, partly to 
grant them as bribes to princes whom they wished to win 
over to their obedience. The decrees of March 21, 141 8, 
enacted that for the future tenths should only be imposed in 
case of special necessity, with the consent of the Cardinals 
and of the prelates of every land on which they were im- 
posed. Before the passing of this decree Martin V. had 
granted to Sigismund a tenth of the ecclesiastical revenues 
of Germany, to which the Germans offered a determined 
resistance,^ and which was probably the cause of the Coun- 
cil's persistence on this point 

Other abuses of the Papal power were those of dispensa- 
tions and indulgences. Dispensations were readily 
dhpensa- given by the Popes in matrimonial cases, as well 
as in cases of ecclesiastical disability. An outcry 
was early raised against them on the grounds of their inter- 
ference with social relationships, the injury which they did 
to the Church by allowing unfit persons to hold office, and 
the handle which they gave to simony .^ The Council, how- 
ever, went no farther than to enact that Papal dispensations 
should not be given to persons who were unfit to discharge 
the duties of benefices of which they enjoyed the revenues. 
On the question of indulgences the Council did nothing, and 
even the concordats did not aim at doing more than giving 
the bishops a suspensory power in gross cases.* Simony 

^A protest on their behalf was presented by a Florentine doctor, 
Domenico de Germignano, Hardt, ii., 608. 

' Ullerston, Petitiones quoad re/ormaHonem eccUsia, Hardt, i., 1151. 
* Esset notabilis extinctio symoniae, quae sub fuco dispensationis ingraves- 
cit.' 

'Thus the English concordat, ch. ii. The German concordat pro- 
vides, ch. X. : * Cavebit dominus noster papa in futurum nimiam indul- 
gentiarum effusionem, ne vilescant'. The French concordat, ch. v., 
says : * Circa articulum indulgentiarum habita deliberatione matura nihil 
intendimus circa eas immutare seu ordinare '. 



PAPAL REVENUES, 125 

had been too notorious under Boniface IX. and John XXIII. 
not to engage the attention of the Council ; and the decree 
of March 21, 1418, enacted that those who obtained ecclesi- 
astical offices by simony should be ipso facto suspended. It 
was easy to denounce simony; but it is obvious that it 
could only be seriously attacked by showing more decision 
than the Council was prepared to show in cutting off every 
abuse which gave an opportunity for its exercise. 

Other points which appeared in the programme of the 
reformers concerned the position of the Pope, and p^^p^, 
were meant to enforce on him the necessity of living "venues. 
on his own revenues. The definition of the circumstances 
under which a Pope might be admonished or deposed was 
set aside by Martin, and the Papacy retired from the Coun- 
cil with its supremacy unimpaired. Enactments, which had 
been proposed, forbidding the alienation of the States of 
the Church, and suppressing nepotism by providing for 
the government of the Papal territories by ecclesiastical 
vicars, were all allowed to drop in the final settlement. Pro 
posals to limit the grants made to Cardinals of offices which 
they never visited were also laid aside till the future of the 
States of the Church was more clearly seen. 

This brief survey of the aspirations and achievements of 
the Council in the way of reform will suffice to ^ 

« < • • r •! *• 1 Causes 

show how entire was its failure to accomplish any of the 
permanent results. During the abeyance of the thc"re-° 
Papacy, while Europe was smarting under the ex- con-*' 
actions which the maintenance of two Papal courts "**""• 
had involved, while every one had before his eyes the ruin 
wrought in the ecclesiastical system by Papal usurpations, 
a splendid opportunity was offered for a temperate and con- 
servative reformation. The collective wisdom of Europe 
after nearly four years' labour and discussion was found 
unequal to the task. The Council shrank from a considera- 
tion of the basis of the Christian life, and mercilessly con- 
demned Hus as a rebel because he advocated the reforma- 
tion of the Church with a view to the needs of the individual 



126 THE COUNCIL OF CONSTANCE. 

soul. When it had thus dismissed one possible form of 
reformation, it showed no capacity for devising a reforma- 
tion of its own. The decisive correction of abuses required 
more statesmanship and more disinterestedness than were to 
be found among the fathers of Constance. There were men 
of keen penetration and intelligence, men who were able to 
criticise and suggest points of view, but there were none 
who united firmness of character, strong moral purpose, and 
large patriotism to the interests of Christendom. Gerson 
and D'Ailly could write and speak with fervour about the 
need of reform : they came to Constance as the leaders of 
a powerful academic party, which had many adherents in 
every land. But, when it came to the point, D'Ailly could 
not prefer the interests of the Church to the privileges of 
the Cardinals' College, and was found in the hour of need 
to be fighting on behalf of the rights of the Curia. Gerson 
threw himself into a small political dispute, and frittered 
away his influence in contending bitterly for things of no 
moment. The academic party grew alarmed at the pros- 
pect of an increase in the power of the bishops, and held by 
the Pope as likely to do more for learning. No uniform 
policy could be obtained from the Council even in matters 
of detail ; unanimity was only possible on the most trivial 
points. 

The failure of the Council is partly to be attributed to the 
Defective difficulties of its composition and organisation. An 
ti?n onhe ccclesiastical parliament, representative of the whole 
Council, of Europe, was indeed a difficult thing to call into 
being and reduce to order. The organisation of the Coun- 
cil was settled in a haphazard way. The qualification neces- 
sary for those who were to take part in its deliberations 
was determined with a view to the existing emergency. 
The conciliar division into nations, adopted with a view of 
lessening the influence of the Pope, became in the end a 
hindrance to united action. The nations deliberating apart 
had just enough contact with one another to intensify 
national jealousies, and not enough to eliminate national 



DEFECTIVE ORGANISATION OF THE COUNCIL. 127 

selfishness. Instead of uniting to reform the Papacy before 
electing a new Pope, national parties were ready to struggle 
for the possession of the Papacy and the consequent influ- 
ence in the politics of Europe. But while the Council thus 
suffered from all the evils of national and political antagon- 
ism, it was unwilling to receive any of the benefits which 
it might have obtained from the same source. It acted as 
a purely ecclesiastical assembly, and made no eiTort to obtain 
the help of the State to secure effect to its decisions on 
Church matters. Sigismund was useful as Protector of the 
Council, but when he wished to protect Hus, when he 
ventured to press the question of reformation, the Council 
complained loudly of undue interference, and threatened to 
dissolve. Sigismund left ConvStance in October, 1417, that 
the freedom of the assembled fathers might be secured, that 
they might be left to decide for themselves the conditions 
on which they would proceed to the election of a Pope. 

While the Council stood on this purely ecclesiastical 
basis, its nations in no sense expressed the national desires 
of Europe. The points brought forward for reform show 
clearly enough that the real question in the Council was the 
struggle of the bishops to make good their position against 
the Pope. The ecclesiastical aristocracy took advantage of 
the temporary abasement of the Papal monarchy to increase 
its own powers and importance. So soon as it was seen 
that this was the general upshot of the schemes of the 
Reform Commissioners other interests began to cool in the 
matter, and difficulties began to be felt. The Universities 
had no wish to see the Papacy curbed for the benefit of the 
Episcopate. The increase of the power of the ecclesiastical 
aristocracy was not an end which any of the reformers de- 
sired. It were better to leave things alone rather than only 
secure so doubtful a gain. 

On all sides difficulties and disunion prevailed, so that 
men were wearied and hopeless. The most sanguine, as he 
left Constance, could only hope that at least a beginning had 
been made for conciliar action in the future, and that the new 



128 THE COUNCIL OF CONSTANCE. 

Council which was to meet in five years' time would have 
the experience of the past to guide it to a more successful 
issue. 

On his part also Martin V. left Constance thankful that 
the Papal power had suffered so little at the hands of the 
Council, and with the reflection that he had five years before 
him in which to devise means for saving the Papacy from 
further interference. 



BOOK 111. 

THE COUNCIL OF BASEL. 

1419—1444, 



VOL. II. 



i3» 



CHAPTER I. 

MARTIN V. AND ITALIAN AFFAIRS. 
I418— 1425. 

On leaving Constance Martin V. felt himself for the first 
time free. He had been taught by the events of Martin v. 
the last four years that freedom was only possible {oTtlSy* 
for a Pope in Italy, in spite of all the temporary '^is- 
inconveniences which might arise from Italian politics. 
But much as he might desire to find himself in his native 
city, and revive the glories of the Papacy in its old historic 
seat, he could not immediately proceed to Rome. John 
XXIII. had abandoned Rome, and had been driven even to 
flee from Bologna, owing to his. political helplessness and 
the power of his opponent Ladislas. The death of Ladislas 
and the abeyance of the Papacy had only plunged Italian 
affairs into deeper confusion, and Martin V. had to pause a 
while and consider how he could best return to Italy. 

Through the Swiss cantons Martin made a triumphal 
proerress, and had no reason to complain of want 
of respect or lack of generosity. On June 11 he takes up 
reached Geneva, and in the city of the prince- denccin 
bishop he stayed for three months; there he had pL^bnTaiy, 
the satisfaction of receiving the allegiance of the '*'^' 
citizens of Avignon. He seems to have wished to display 
himself as much as possible, and exert the prestige of the 
restored Papacy to secure his position. At the end of Sep- 
tember he moved slowly from Geneva through Savoy to 
Turin, and thence through Pavia to Milan, where he was 



132 THE COUNCIL OF BASEL, 

received with great honour by Filippo Maria Visconti on 
October 12. So great was the popular curiosity to see the 
Pope that when he went to consecrate a new altar in the 
cathedral several people were trampled to death in the 
throng.^ At Milan Martin showed his desire for the pacifica- 
tion of Italy by making terms between Filippo Maria and 
Pandolfo Malatesta, who had seized on Brescia.^ There, 
too, he received ambassadors from the Florentines, who, 
in their capacity of peacemakers, w^re anxious to arrange 
matters so as to enable the Pope to return quietly to Rome. 
They offered him a refuge in their city and also their services 
as mediators.^ On October 19 Martin left Milan for Brescia, 
and on October 25 he entered Mantua. There he stayed till 
the end of the year seeking for some means to make the 
Papal influence a real power in Italian affairs. At length 
he resolved to accept the services of the Florentines, and 
set out for their city, avoiding on his way the rebellious 
Bologna, which had cast off the Papal rule. On February 
26, 1419, he entered Florence, where he was honourably 
received, and took up his abode in the monastery of Santa 
Maria Novella. 

The condition of Italy was indeed sufficiently disturbed to 
need all the efforts of the Pope and of Florence to 

Fortunes 

of Naples, reduce it to order and peace. In Lombardy, Filippo 
Maria, Duke of Milan, was bent on winning back 
the lands of his father Giangaleazzo, which had fallen into 
the hands of petty tyrants. Southern Italy was thrown into 
confusion by the death of Ladislas, who was succeeded in 
the kingdom of Naples by his sister Giovanna II., a woman 
with none of the qualities of a ruler, who used her position 
solely as a means of personal gratification. The death of 
Louis of Anjou gave every hope of a peaceful reign to the 

^ See, for a description of the ceremonies, Corio, Storia di Milano, 
part iv., ch. ii. 

^ Platina, Hist, Mantuanay in Muratori, xx., 800. 

* Commissioni di Rinaldo degli Albizzi (i., 296, etc.) gives a full account 
of these negotiations. 



RISE OF BRACCtO. 133 

distracted Neapolitan kingdom ; but Giovanna's ungovern- 
able passions soon made it a sphere of personal intrigue. 
At first the Queen, a widow of forty-seven years old, was 
under the control of a lover, Pandolfello Alapo, whom she 
made Chamberlain and covered with her favours. To main- 
tain his position against the discontented barons, Alapo formed 
an alliance with Sforza, who was made Grand Constable of 
Naples. But the barons insisted that the Queen should 
marry, and in 1415 she chose for her husband Jacques de 
Bourbon, Count of La Marche. The barons sided with the 
Count of La Marche, who, by their help, imprisoned Sforza, 
put Alapo to death, and exercised the power of King. The 
favour, however, which he showed to his own countrymen 
the French disgusted the Neapolitan nobles, and in 1416 
Giovanna was able again to assert her own power. By 
this time she had a new favourite to direct her, Giovanni 
Caraccioli, who drove the King to leave Naples, and thought 
it wise also to find an occupation for Sforza which would 
keep him at a distance. For this purpose he sent him on 
an expedition against Braccio, who had attacked the States 
of the Church and had advanced against Rome. 

Andrea Braccio, of the family of the Counts of Montone, 
was a noble Perugian who, in his youth, had been rj^^ ^^ 
driven by party struggles to leave his native city, ^""io. 
and had embraced the calling of a condottiere under Alberigo 
da Barbiano. He served on many sides in the Italian wars, 
and finally was in the pay of Ladislas, who played him 
false in an attack upon Perugia ; whereon Braccio joined 
the side of John XXIIL, who left him governor of Bologna 
when he set out for Constance. Braccio was possessed 
with a desire to make himself master of his native city of 
Perugia, and in 141 6 sold the Bolognese their liberty and 
hired soldiers on every side. He defeated Carlo Malatesta,^ 
whom the Perugians called to their aid, and in July, 141 6, 

1 A picture by Paolo Uccelli in the National Gallery commemorates 
this celebrated battle, fought near Assisi on the Tiber, close to Sant' 
Egidio. Carlo Malatesta and his nephew were made prisoners. 



134 T'H^ COUNCIL OF BASEL. 

made himself master of the city. Soon, desirous of en- 
larging his territory, he advanced into the States of the 
Church. Todi, Rieti, and Narni soon fell before him, and 
he pressed on to the neighbourhood of Rome. But Braccio,, 
to win Perugia, had drawn to his side the condottiere general 
Tartaglia, who stipulated, in return for his services, that 
Braccio should not oppose him in attacking the dominions 
of Sforza. From that time Sforza conceived a deadly hatred 
against Braccio, and for the next few years the history of 
Italy is an account of the desperate rivalry of these two 
rival condottieri. 

Rome during the abeyance of the Papacy was left in an 
. . anomalous condition. The Castle of S. Angelo, 
Rome. which had been taken by Ladislas, was still held by 
^^^^' a Neapolitan governor. John XXIII. on departing 

for Constance had appointed Cardinal Isolani his legate in 
Rome ; and he was assisted, or hindered, by the presence of 
the Cardinal of S. Angelo, Pietro degli Stefanacci, who found 
Rome preferable to Constance.^ The legate Isolani managed 
to retain considerable influence over the Romans, and in- 
duced them to carry on the government of the city according 
to the constitution established before the interference of 
Ladislas. But Rome was in no condition to offer resistance 
to Braccio when he advanced against it, and on June 9, 1417, 
took up his position by S. Agnese. In vain the legate tried 
to negotiate for his departure. Braccio harried the adjacent 
country, and reduced the Romans to capitulate through 
hunger. He had an ally in the Cardinal Stefanacci, who 
welcomed him on his triumphal entry on June 16 and helped 
him to form a new magistracy. The legate fled into the 
Castle of S. Angelo, and begged for help from Naples. His 

^ That his presence in Rome was for no good we gather from many 
mentions in the Diarium Antonii Petri (Mur., xxiv.). The following, p. 
1061, may suffice : * Statim quod supradictus Domimis Stephanus 
Barbarini descendit de Sanula fuit interfectus absque ulla mora, et hoc 
fecerunt familiares Domini Cardinalis de Sancto Angelo de mandato sue 
quia supradictus Stephanus ibat ad supponendum concubinam dicti 
Cardinalis de Sancto Angelo \ Stefano was a canon of S. Peter's. 



MARTIN V.*S ALLIANCE WITH GIOVANNA II. 135 

entreaties were heard, as Sforza was burning for revenge 
against Braccio, and Giovanna's new favourite, Caraccioli, 
was looking about for some means of getting rid of Sforza, 
whose manly frame might soon prove too attractive to the 
susceptible Queen. Braccio was engaged in besieging the 
Castle of S. Angelo when the arrival of Sforza on August 
10 warned him of his danger. Sforza, seeing how matters 
stood, went to Ostia, and crossed the Tiber without hin- 
drance. When Braccio heard that he was advancing 
against him he judged it unwise to risk the loss of his 
newly-won possessions, and on August 26 withdrew to 
Perugia. Sforza entered Rome in triumph with the banners 
of Naples and of the Church. He restored the legate Isolani 
to power, appointed new magistrates, and imprisoned the 
traitorous Cardinal of S. Angelo, who died soon afterwards. 
Such was the condition of affairs which Martin V. had to 
face on his election. It was natural that his first 
movement should be towards alliance with Giovanna of Martin 

V. with 

II. of Naples, seeing that the Neapolitan influence ciovanna 
seemed most powerful in Rome. He welcomed Naples. 
Giovanna' s ambassadors and sent a cardinal to ^^^^' 
arrange matters with the Queen as early as May, 141 8, 
Giovanna agreed to restore all the possessions of the Church 
and make a perpetual alliance with the Pope, who was to 
crown her Queen of Naples. She gave a pledge of her 
sincerity by the usual means of enriching the Pope's rela- 
tions. Martin's brother, Giordano Colonna, was made Duke 
of Amalfi and Venosa, his nephew Antonio was made Grand 
Chamberlain of Naples ; and, on August 21, appeared with 
a Bull announcing the Pope's alliance with Giovanna.^ 
Antonio at first attached himself to the favourite Caraccioli ; 
but before the end of the year Sforza was strong enough to 
organise a popular rising against the favourite, who was 
forced to leave Naples, and was sent as ambassador to 
Martin V. at Mantua. There the surrender of the fortresses 

* Giornali Napolitani (Mur., xxi.), p. 1080. 



136 THE COUNCIL OF BASEL, 

which the Neapolitans occupied in the States of the Church 
and the coronation of Giovanna were finally arranged. 
Early in 141 9 a Papal Legate was sent to Naples to perform 
the coronation. 

Thus matters stood when Martin took refuge in Florence. 
„ . . He could do nothing better than await the course 

Submis- ^ 

sion of of events in Naples and the results of the Florentine 
sareCossa mediation. Return to Rome with Braccio hostile 
V. jmie " was impossible. If Braccio were to be overthrown, 
^^^^' it could only be by the arms of Sforza ; but the 

Pope's first steps had been to ally with Giovanna and 
Caraccioli, with whom Sforza was now at enmity. At 
Florence Martin's prestige was increased by the arrival of 
four of Benedict XIII. 's cardinals, who were solemnly re- 
ceived on March 17. So far as Italy was concerned, Martin 
V. had nothing to fear from Peter de Luna. But the de- 
posed Baldassare Cossa was still an object of his dread, for 
Braccio had threatened to espouse Cossa's cause, and might 
again raise him to the position of a dangerous rival. Accord- 
ingly, Martin was very anxious to get Cossa into his hands, 
and the Florentines, in the interests of peace, were desirous 
that this matter should be arranged. John XXIII., when 
legate of Bologna, had always been on good terms with the 
Florentines, and had stood in friendly relations with several 
of the richest citizens, amongst whom were Giovanni dei 
Medici and Niccolo da Uzzano, who were now ready to 
interfere on his behalf. They procured from Martin V. a 
promise that he would deal gently with his deposed pre- 
decessor, and advanced the sum of 38,500 Rhenish ducats 
to buy the release of Cossa from Lewis of Bavaria, in whose 
custody he was.^ On his v/ay to Florence Cossa was 
escorted by the Bishop of Ltibeck, who was charged by 
Martin V. to keep a sharp eye upon him. At Parma he 
lodged with an old friend, who alarmed him with rumours 

^ * Documenti relativi alia liberazione della prigionia di Giovanni 
XXIII.,' in Archivio Storico Italiano^ vol. iv., part i. (first series), 
p. 429. 



END OF BALD ASS ARE COSSA, 137 

that Martin V. meant to have him imprisoned for life at 
Mantua. He fled by night to Genoa, where he found 
protection from the Doge, Tommaso di Campo Fregoso. 
Friends quickly gathered round him, urging him once more 
to try his fortunes and assert his claims to the Papacy.^ 
For a brief space there was a thrill of horror lest the miseries 
of the Schism should again begin. But the wise counsels 
of Giovanni dei Medici and his Florentine friends seem to 
have prevailed with Cossa ; they assured him of his safety, 
and urged him to fulfil his promise. John XXIII. no longer 
possessed his former vigour or felt his old confidence in him- 
self and his fortunes. The helplessness which had over- 
taken him at Constance still haunted him, and though the 
old spirit might rekindle for a moment, it was soon chilled 
by doubt and hesitation. He judged it wisest to trust his 
friends, proceed to Florence, and submit to the mercy of 
Martin V. On June 14 he entered Florence, and was re- 
ceived with respectful pity by the entire body of the citizens. 
The sight of one who had fallen from a high degree kindled 
their sympathy, and Cossa's poor apparel and miserable look 
impressed more vividly the sense of his changed fortunes. 
On June 27 he appeared before Martin in full consistory, 
and kneeling before him made his submission. *I alone,' 
he said, * assembled the Council ; I always laboured for the 
good of the Church ; you know the truth. I come to your 
Holiness and rejoice as much as I can at your elevation and 
my own freedom.' Here his voice was broken with passion; 
his haughty nature could ill brook his humiliation. Martin 
received him graciously, and placed on his head the cardinal's 
hat. But Cossa did not long live under the shadow of his 
successor. He died in the same year on December 23, and 
his Florentine friends were faithful to his memory. In the 
stately Baptistery of Florence the Medici erected to him a 
splendid tomb. The recumbent figure cast in bronze was 

* These details are to be found in Platina, Vita Martini V.; Leon. 
Aretin., Commvntarii (Mur., xix., 930) ; Vita Martini V. (Mur., III., part 
ii., 863), and the note of Mansi to Raynaldus, AnnaleSy No. 6 sub anno. 



138 THE COUNCIL OF BASEL, 

the work of Donatello, and the marble pedestal which 
supports it was wrought by Michelozzo. It bears the 
simple inscription, 'Johannes quondam Papa XXIII. obiit 
Florentiae '. 

Martin V.'s attention was meanwhile directed to the king- 
dom of Naples, and he urged on Giovanna II. the 

Martin V. , - *^ . , • , ,. ,0. r ^ 

and sforza duty 01 restormg to his obedience the States of the 
oSlofGio- Church. Giovanna was not sorry to rid herself of 
Sforza, for she longed to recall her favourite Carac- 
cioli. Sforza was despatched to war against Braccio, but 
on June 20 was defeated at Montefiasone, near Viterbo. 
But Martin was enabled to detach Tartaglia from Braccio's 
side, and Sforza could again set an army in the field in the 
name of Naples and the Pope. He was not, however, sup- 
ported from Naples ; for Giovanna had recalled Caraccioli, 
and the favourite thought it better to leave Sforza to his fate. 
Martin saw that nothing was to be gained from a further 
alliance with Giovanna II. and Caraccioli. Moreover the 
question of the Neapolitan succession was again imminent, 
for Giovanna was over "fifty years of age, and was childless. 
Louis III. of Anjou had already begged Martin to procure 
from Giovanna II. a formal recognition of his claim, and 
the Pope judged that the opportunity was favourable for 
action. Sforza was weary of the selfish policy of Caraccioli, 
and the Neapolitan barons resented the rule of the insolent 
favourite. The Florentines offered Martin V. their aid to 
mediate between him and Braccio. The Pope saw an 
opportunity of making himself the central figure in the 
politics of Southern Italy. At peace with Braccio, and 
allied with Sforza, he might settle the succession to Naples 
in favour of Louis of Anjou, and end the Neapolitan diffi- 
culty which had so long harassed his predecessors. 

In January, 1420, Sforza paid Martin V. a visit in Florence, 
Braccio in ^nd the Pope broached his views, to which, with 
pibruary, somc rcluctance, Sforza gave his adhesion. Scarcely 
1420. had Sforza departed before Braccio, at the end of 

February, made a triumphal entry into Florence, there to 



BRACCIO IN FLORENCE. 139 

celebrate his reconciliation with the Pope. With a splendid 
escort of four hundred horsemen and forty foot, with deputies 
from the various cities under his rule, Braccio entered the 
city in grandeur that awoke the enthusiastic acclamations 
of the Florentines. In the middle of the bands of horsemen, 
gleaming in gold and silver armour, mounted on ^plendid 
steeds richly caparisoned, rode Braccio, clad in purple and 
gold, on a steed whose trappings were of gold. He was a 
man rather above the middle height, with an oval face that 
seemed too full of blood, yet with a look of dignity and 
power that, in spite of his limbs maimed with wounds, 
marked him as a ruler of men.^ Amid the shouts of the 
thronging citizens Braccio visited the Pope, and paid him 
haughty reverence. After a few days spent in negotiations, 
an alliance was made between Martin V. and Braccio, by 
which Braccio was left in possession of Perugia, Assisi, and 
other towns which he had won, on condition of reducing 
Bologna to obedience to the Pope. 

Martin V.'s pride was sorely hurt by the avowed preference 
which the Florentines showed to the condottiere over the 
Pope. The Florentine boys expressed the common feeling 
by a doggerel rhyme which they sang in the streets, and 
which soon reached the ears of the sensitive Pope : — 

Braccio valente 
Vince ogni gente : 
II Papa Martino 
Non vale un quattrino. 

Braccio the Great 
Conquers every state : 
Poor Pope Martin 
Is not worth a farthing. 

He was glad to see Braccio leave Florence, and hoped that 
the task of reducing Bologna would occupy him long enough 
to enable Sforza to make his attack on Giovanna unimpeded 
by Braccio's hostility.^ Braccio, however, rapidly gathered 

^ A full account of Braccio's entering into Florence, which abounds 
in interesting details, is given in Campanus, Vita Brachii^ Mur., xix., 562. 
* Campanus, Vita Brachii, Mur., xix., 566. 



140 THE COUNCIL OP BASEL. 

his forces, and conducted matters with such skill that on 
July 22 the Pope's legate took possession of Bologna.^ 

Meanwhile Sforza hastened the preparations against 
sforza Giovanna 11. On June i8 he suddenly raised the 
fOT ^STuis standard of the Duke of Anjou, and began to make 
Anjotf. ^^^ against Naples: on August 19 ten Angevin 
June, 1420. galleys made their appearance off the Neapolitan 
coast. Louis of Anjou eagerly caught at Martin V.'s offer 
of protection ; he did not scruple to leave France in the 
hands of the English, and abandon his land of Provence to 
the hostile attacks of the Duke of Savoy, that he might 
pursue the phantom kingdom of Naples, which had proved 
disastrous to his father and his grandfather alike. 

Giovanna II., seeing herself thus threatened, cast about on 
Alliance of her part also for allies. She sent an ambassador to 
ul^wfth"* the Pope, whose hostility was not yet declared ; 
of Aragon'. ^^^ ^^^ Subtle Neapolitan easily saw through the 
1420. Pope's equivocal answers to his demands. There 

was in Florence at the Papal Court an ambassador of 
Alfonso V. of Aragon. To him in his strait the Neapolitan 
turned. He reminded him that the House of Aragon had as 
good a claim to Naples as the House of Anjou. Giovanna 
II. was childless, and could dispose of her kingdom as she 
chose; if Alfonso succoured her in her strait, he might 
count upon her gratitude. This proposal was very accept- 
able to Alfonso v., a young and ambitious king. By the 
death of Martin of Sicily without children in 1409 the king- 
dom of Sicily had been attached to that of Aragon, and 
Alfonso was keenly alive to the advantage of annexing 
Naples also. At the time that Giovanna's offer reached him 
he was engaged in prosecuting against the Genoese his 
claims on the island of Corsica, where, after a long siege, 
the desperate efforts of the Genoese threatened to render his 
undertaking hopeless. His ambassador at Florence was 
endeavouring to obtain from Martin V. a recognition of 

^ Chronica Novella di Bologna^ Mur., xviii., 611. 



DISCONTENT OF MARTIN V. WITH FLORENTINES. 141 

Alfonso's claim to Corsica ; but Alfonso V. at once saw the 
policy of abandoning a doubtful attempt upon a barren 
island for the more alluring prize of the Neapolitan king- 
dom. He despatched from Corsica to the relief of Giovanna 
II. fifteen galleys, which arrived off Naples on September 6, 
and Giovanna II. showed her gratitude by adopting him as 
her son. 

War was now let loose upon Naples. Alfonso and 
Giovanna sought to strengthen themselves by an Discon- 
alliance with Braccio. Martin V.*s policy had Martin v 
succeeded in providing occupation for all whom he "pl^^^^ 
had most to dread. He was now in a position to ^°^^' 
take advantage of the general confusion, and amid the 
weakness of all parties raise once more the prestige of the 
Papal name. He had gained all that was to be gained from 
a stay in Florence, and might now with safety venture to 
Rome. Moreover Martin V. was not over-satisfied with the 
impression which he had produced on the Florentines. The 
common-sense of the quick-witted commercial city was not 
taken in by high-sounding claims or magnificent ecclesiasti- 
cal processions. The Florentines had shown for Braccio an 
admiration which they refused to Martin V. However much 
Martin might wrap himself in his dignity, and affect to 
despise popular opinion, he yet felt that in Florence nothing 
succeeded like success, and that a fortunate freebooter ranked 
above a landless Pope. The bustling, pushing spirit of a pros- 
perous commercial city was alien to the Papacy, which could 
only flourish amongst the traditions and aspirations of the 
past. A few days before his departure from Rome Martin V. 
could not refrain from showing his wounded pride to Leon- 
ardo Bruni, who was present in the library of S. Maria 
Novella. For some time Martin V. walked gloomily up and 
down the room, gazing out of the window upon the garden 
below. At last he stopped before Leonardo, and in a voice 
quivering with scorn repeated the doggerel of the Florentine 
mob, * Poor Pope Martin isn't worth a farthing'. Leon- 
ardo tried to appease him by saying that such trifles were 



142 THE COUNCIL OF BASEL, 

not worthy of notice; but the Pope again repeated the lines 
in the same tone. Anxious for the fair fame of Florence, 
Leonardo at once undertook its defence, and pointed out to 
the Pope the practical advantages which he had derived from 
his stay — the recovery of some of the States of the Church, 
and especially of Bologna, the submission of John XXIII., 
the reconciliation with Braccio. Where else, he asked, could 
such advantages have been so easily obtained ? The Pope's 
gloomy brow grew clearer before the words of the Floren- 
tine secretary .1 Martin departed with goodwill from Florence ; 
thanked its magistrates for their kind offices, and marked his 
gratitude to the city by erecting the bishopric of Florence to 
the dignity of an archbishopric. 

On September 9 Martin V. journeyed from Florence with 
Martin v. due respect from the citizens. On September 20 
WsaboSc ^® was honourably received in Siena, and used his 
septem-' Opportunity to borrow 15,000 florins, for which he 
bcr, 1420. gave Spoleto as a pledge.^ From Siena he pro- 
ceeded through Viterbo to Rome, which he entered on Sep- 
tember 28, and took up his abode by S. Maria del Popolo. 
Next day he was escorted to the Vatican by the city magis- 
trates and the people, bearing lighted torches and clamorous 
with joy. The Romans had indeed occasion to hail any 
change that might restore their shattered fortunes. Every- 
thing that had happened in late years had tended to plunge 
them deeper and deeper in misery and ruin. The havoc 
wrought by the invasions of Ladislas, of Sforza, and of 
Braccio, the absence of the Pope, and consequent loss of 
traffic, the want of all authority in the Papal States, the 
pillage that wasted up to the walls of Rome — all these com- 
bined to reduce the city to wretchedness and desolation. 
Martin V. found Rome so devastated that it hardly looked 
like a city. Houses were in decay, churches in ruins, the 
streets were empty, filth and dirt were everywhere, food 

^ Leonardo, in his Comm.j Mur., xix., 931, gives a vivid account of this 
curious and characteristic scene. 
^Annali Senesi^ Mur., xix., 428. 



RETURN OP MARTIN V. TO ROME. 143 

was so scarce and dear that men could barely keep them- 
selves alive. Civilisation seemed almost extinct. The 
Romans looked like the scum of the earth.^ Martin V. had 
a hard task before him to bring back order and decency into 
the ruined city. It was his great merit that he set himself 
diligently to put matters straight, and that he succeeded in 
reclaiming its capital for the restored Papacy. His first 
care was to provide for the administration of justice, and 
put down the robbers who infested Rome and its neighbour- 
hood, for the purpose of pillaging the pious pilgrims who 
visited the tombs of the Apostles.* But much had to be 
done to repair the ravages of preceding years, and new dis- 
asters rendered the task more difficult. In November, 1422, 
the town was overwhelmed by a flood in the Tiber, occa- 
sioned by Braccio's destruction of the wall of the Lago di 
Pie di Luco, the old Veline Lake. The water rose to the 
height of the high altar in the Pantheon, and as it subsided 
carried away the flocks from the fields and caused great 
destruction of property. 

In Naples little was done worthy of the great efforts which 
were made. Alfonso's reinforcements checked the 
victorious career of Louis of Anjou and Sforza, till Naples. 
in Jufte, 142 1, Braccio brought his forces to Gio- ^^^^' 
vanna's aid, Alfonso himself arrived in Naples, and the 
Pope despatched Tartaglia to the aid of Louis. Alfonso 
and Braccio engaged in a fruitless siege of Acerra. Nothing 
serious was done, as the condottieri generals were engaged 
in a series of intrigues against one another. Sforza accused 
Tartaglia of treachery, seized him, and put him to death. 
Tartaglia's soldiers, indignant at the treatment of their 
leader, joined Braccio, who was anxious only to secure his 
own principality of Capua. Martin V. was weary of finding 
supplies, and was embarrassed by Alfonso's threats that 
he would again recognise Benedict XIII. Caraccioli was 

^ This description, which may perhaps be rhetorical, is taken from 
Platina, Vita Martini. 

^Infessura, Diarium^ Mur., iii. part ii., p. 1122. 



144 THE COUNCIL OF BASEL, 

afraid of Alfonso's resolute character, and sowed discord 
between him and Giovanna : Alfonso on his part was per- 
plexed by the Queen's doubtful attitude towards him. As 
every one had his own reasons for desiring peace, the Pope's 
mediation was accepted for that purpose in March, 1422. 
Aversa and Castellamare, the only two places which Louis 
held, were surrendered to the Papal Legate, who soon after- 
wards gave them over to the Queen. Braccio and Sforza 
were outwardly reconciled, and Sforza joined the side of 
Giovanna, only with the purpose of favouring more surely 
the party of Louis. Louis himself withdrew to Rome, 
where he lived for two years at the Pope's expense, await- 
ing the results of Sforza's machinations. But this peace 
and its reconciliations were alike hollow. The 

Giovanna 

II. adopts mutual suspicions of Alfonso and Giovanna IL 
Anjou. went on increasing till in May, 1423, Alfonso deter- 
^^*^' mined on a decisive blow. He suddenly imprisoned 

Caraccioli, and made a dash to obtain the person of the 
Queen, who was in the Castel Capuano at Naples. The 
attempt to surprise the Queen failed, and Alfonso besieged 
the Castle. But Sforza hastened to the Queen's aid, and, 
though his army was smaller than Alfonso's, he gave his 
men fresh courage by pointing to the splendid equipments 
of the Aragonese ; raising the battle-cry, ' Fine clothes and 
good horses,' ^ he led his men to the charge. His induce- 
ment proved to be sufficiently strong ; he won the day, and 
Alfonso in his turn was besieged in the Castel Nuovo. 
After this failure the fortunes of Louis of Anjou began to 
revive. Caraccioli was ransomed from prison, and he and 
Sforza urged Giovanna to cancel the adoption of the un- 
grateful Alfonso and accept Louis as her successor. At the 
end of June Louis arrived in Naples, and his adoption as 
Giovanna's heir was formally accomplished with the Pope's 
sanction. 

Alfonso's hopes now rested on the prompt aid of Braccio ; 

* * A li ben vestiti, a li ben a cavalli.' — Gior. Nap., Mur., xix., 1088. 



SUMMONS OF A COUNCIL TO PA VI A. X45 

but Braccio entered the Neapolitan kingdom through the 
Abruzzi, and set himself to besiege the wealthy city Alfonso 
of Aquila that he might obtain booty for his soldiers. Njpfca. 
The defence was obstinate, and the siege slowly ^^aa* 
dragged on, In vain Alfonso besought Braccio to quit it ; 
the stubborn condottiere refused. Meanwhile Filippo Maria 
Visconti, who had by this time secured his possessions in 
Lombardy, and had moreover made himself master of Genoa, 
offered help to Giovanna. He did not wish that an active 
King like Alfonso should establish himself in Naples and 
urge troublesome claims to the Genoese possessions. Al- 
fonso was afraid lest he might lose his command of the sea 
before the attack of the Genoese galleys ; he also received 
disquieting news from Aragon. Weary with waiting for 
Braccio, who never came, he sailed away on October 15, 
and revenged himself on Louis by sacking Marseilles on his 
homeward voyage. 

The departure of Alfonso relieved Martin V. of a trouble- 
some enemy ; but his attention in this year, 1423, . 
had to be directed to an equally troublesome matter, summons' 
It was now five years since the dissolution of the at Pavia. 
Council of Constance, and the period for holding p"*'**^. 
the next Council had arrived. Already in 1422 the Univer- 
sity of Paris sent ambassadors to urge Martin V. to fulfil 
his promise. Among the envoys of the University was a 
learned Dominican, John Stoikovic, a native of Ragusa in 
Dalmatia, who stayed at Rome to watch Martin's proceedings, 
and be ready for the Council as soon as it was summoned.^ 
Pavia had been fixed at Constance for its place of meeting ; 
but in his letters of summons Martin V. was careful to 
express his fervour in behalf of the Council by saying that 
if Pavia was found unsuitable, he was resolved to call it to a 
more convenient place rather than it should dissolve.^ The 
transalpine prelates were not inspirited by this kindly 
assurance ; they felt that a Council in an Italian city was as 

^ Mon, ConciL, i., 10. 
' Letters in Raynaldi Annates, 1423, t. 
VOL. n, 10 



^ 



t^6 fHE COUNCIL OF BASkL 

good as useless. Martin V. had taken no steps in the way 

of reforming the abuses of the Church. The state of 

Christendom was not favourable for a Council. In England 

Henry V. was dead, and the minority of Henry VI. had 

already begun to open up intrigues and jealousies. France 

was exhausted by its war with England. In Germany 

Sigismund was engaged in war with the Hussites in 

Bohemia, and had no time to spend in talk. There was 

nothing to encourage men to undertake the costly journey 

to Italy, where Martin V. was likely to employ them on the 

barren subject of a proposed union between the Eastern and 

Western Churches. 

When the Council was opened, on April 23, by the four 

prelates whom the Pope had nominated as presidents 
Council r , 1 , , , T^ r 

trans- it was not largely attended.^ Few came from 

Siena. beyond the Alps, and the absence of Italians showed 
juy, 1423. ^j^^^ ^^^ Pope's influence was used against the 
Council from the beginning. Scarcely were the opening 
formalities at an end when the outbreak of the plague gave 
a reason for removing elsewhere, and the Council decided to 
go to Siena, where, on July 2, it resumed its labours. 

The first step of the Council was to organise itself accord- 
ing to nations, and to determine who should have the right 
of voting. All prelates, abbots, graduates of universities 
who were in orders, rectors, ambassadors of kings, barons, 
and universities were to be admitted freely : other ecclesias- 
tics were to be judged of by the nation to which they belonged. 
Each nation was to have a president elected every month, 
who, together with chosen deputies, was to prepare the 
business to be discussed by the nation according to the 
wishes of the majority. While making these arrangements 
the Council repeatedly sent to the Pope urging him to come 

1 John of Ragusa {Mon. Concil.y i., 10) says : * Praesentibus quam 
plurimis episcopis, abbatibus, praelatis, doctoribus et ambassiatoribus 
diversarum nationum *. The author of the life of Martin in Mur., iii., 2, 
865, says that there were only two Burgundian abbots, and the country 
had to be scoured to raise a decent number of ecclesiastics. Perhaoa 
both writers are exaggerating on their own sides. 



THE COUNCIL OF SIENA. 147 

to Siena, and their request was confirmed by the city 
magistrates, who showed themselves amenable to the Pope's 
will by granting a safe-conduct in the terms which he de- 
manded. 

But when the safe-conduct was known at Siena, the 
Fathers saw their liberty directly menaced by it. contest 
All magistrates and officials in the Sienese terri- coSducf** 
tory were to take oath of allegiance to the Pope, a NolSm-~ 
proceeding which left the Council entirely at the ^^^' '423- 
Pope's mercy. Moreover, the members of the Council were 
to be subject to the jurisdiction of the Pope's officers. The 
whole tenor of the articles of agreement was insulting to the 
Council, and gave manifest signs of the Pope's ill-will. In 
its formal language the officials of the Curia were named 
before the members of the Council. ^ The energy of the 
Council was forthwith turned to negotiate with the Sienese 
for a safe-conduct which would give them greater security 
from the Pope. Meanwhile Martin V. showed himself more 
decidedly hostile, and his presidents used all efforts to 
weaken the Conciliar party. Letters from Rome poured 
in to Siena; tempting promises of promotion were held out 
to those who showed signs of wavering. 

The reforming party felt that something must be done. 
They settled the matter of the safe-conduct, and intrigues 
agreed to pass some decrees on which there could ^uiill 
be no difference of opinion. On November 6 a P"*y- 
session of the Council was held, which declared that the 
work of reform must begin from the foundation of the faith, 
and consequently condemned the errors of Wyclif and Hus, 
denounced the partisans of Peter de Luna, approved of 
negotiations for union with the Greek Church, and exhorted 
all Christian men to root out heresy wherever they found it. 
After this the reforming party urged that the work left 
unachieved at Constance should be resumed, and the French 

^ ' In omnibus officiales camcrae et sequentes eamdem, in quorum 
numero sunt etiam lenones et meretriceSy patribus ad concilium venientibus 
praeponuntur,' says John of Ragusa {Mon. Con.j i., 20). 



148 THE COUNCIL OF BASEL. 

nation put forward a memorandum sketching a plan of 
reform according to the lines laid down at Constance. The 
Curial party resolved on resistance, and the small numbers 
present at Siena rendered personal pressure tolerably easy. 
John of Ragusa, though wishing to make the Council seem 
as numerous as possible, can only count two cardinals and 
twenty-five mitred prelates, as representatives of the higher 
clergy ,1 at the session on November 6. The Curial party 
thought it best to throw the machinery of the nations into 
confusion. They managed to cause disputed elections to 
the office of president both in the French and in the Italian 
nation in the month of January, 1424. The Papal legates 
offered their services to the French to judge in this dispute. 
The French answered that, on matters concerning a nation 
in the Council, no one, not even the Pope, could judge but 
the Council itself: they asked the presidents to summon 
a congregation for the purpose. The presidents refused, 
whereupon the French called the other nations together on 
January 10, and afterwards drew up their grievances in the 
shape of a protest, which they lodged with the legates. 
Meanwhile the legates were busily engaged in strengthening 
their party within each nation, so as to prevent any possi- 
bility of unanimity. While thus the nations were divided, 
the legates steadily pursued the dissolution of the Council, 
and, as a first step towards this, urged the appointment of 
deputies to fix the meeting place of the next Council. This 
question in itself aroused antagonism. The French wished 
the future Council to be held in France. This excited the 
national jealousy of the Germans and English. The Curial 
party openly avowed that they never wished to see another 
Council at all, and opposed the decrees of Constance. 

There were hopes, however, of renewed concord when, on 
February 12, the Archbishop of Rouen and the ambassadors 
of the University of Paris arrived at Siena. They inter- 

1 Mon. Concil.y i., 27 : he adds : * Cum multitudine doctorum et magis- 
trorum et ceterorum copiosa ' ; but this is in a letter written to urge the 
Bishop of Arras to attend the Council. 



THE REFORMERS ABANDONED BY THE FRENCH, 149 

posed to heal the dissension among the French, and the 
Archbishop of Rouen was by a compromise elected 
to the office of president of the French nation, formers 
The compromise was, however, fatal. The Arch- byThe°* 
bishop of Rouen had been already won over by February, 
the legates, and the ambassadors of the University '^*^* 
had a greater desire to go to Rome and seek favours for 
themselves than stay at Siena and watch over the reforma- 
tion of the Church. On February 19 deputies from all the 
nations agreed in choosing Basel as the meeting place for \/ 
the next Council to be held in seven years. 

The dissolution of the Council was now felt to be im- 
minent. Only a few zealous reformers had hopes of further 
business, and they were aided by the citizens of Siena, who 
did not see why they should not enjoy the same luck as 
Constance and reap a golden harvest for some years to 
come. But Martin V. knew how to address rebellious 
citizens. He sternly bade them * not to put their sickle into 
another's sheaves, nor think that General Councils were held 
or dissolved to please them or fill their pockets \^ Still the 
Sienese were resolved to make a last attempt, and on 
February 20 laid the Pope's letters before the nations, and 
shut their gates to prevent the desertions which were 
thinning the Council's ranks. But the reformers were not 
strong enough to accept the citizens' help; the Council 
sent to request the gates to be opened. 

Meanwhile the legates were ready to dissolve the Council, 
the reformers were anxious to continue their work. Dissoiu- 
At last, on March 7, the legates, taking advantage coSndi of 
of the solitude produced by the festivities of the ^J°*^ 
Carnival, posted on the door of the cathedral a ^424. 
decree of the dissolution of the Council, which had been 
secretly drawn up on February 26, and prohibited all from 
attempting to continue it. On the same day they hastily 
left Siena for Florence. Those who remained were too fewv, 

* Letter in Raynaldug, 1423, § 11 ; also in Mon. ConciU^ i., 50, 



I50 THE COUNCIL OF BASEL. 

to hope to accomplish anything. Thomas, Abbot of Paisley, 
who was a member of the French nation, published an 
energetic protest against the dissolution, which was joined 
by a few other zealous reformers. Then on March 8 they 
held a meeting in which they decided that, to avoid scandal 
to the Church, and danger to themselves on account of the 
nearness of the Papal power, it was better to depart quietly. 
The Council of Siena came rapidly to an end, and Martin V. 
could plead the smallness of its numbers, its seditious con- 
duct with the Sienese burghers, and its own internal dis- 
orders, as reasons for its dissolution. Really the Council of 
Siena followed too soon upon that of Constance. The posi- 
tion of affairs had not materially changed. The Pope had 
not yet recovered his normal position in Italy, and those 
who had been at Constance were not prepared to undertake 
the labours of a second Council, when they had nothing to 
give them any hopes of success. What was impossible 
with the help of Sigismund was not likely to be more pos- 
sible in the face of Martin V.*s determined resistance. 

Martin V. judged it wise, however, to make some promises 
of reform. As the Council had been too full of 
constitu- disturbance to admit of any progress in the matter, 
Martin v. he promised to undertake a reform of the Curia, and 
'^^* nominated two Cardinals as commissioners to gather 

evidence. The results of Martin V.'s deliberations were , 

embodied in a constitution, published on May i6, 1425. ' 

It reads as though it were the Pope's retaliation on the 
attempt made at Constance to constitute the Cardinals as 
an official aristocracy which was to direct the Pope's action Ss 
Martin V. provided for decorous and good living on the part 
of the Cardinals, forbade them to exercise the position of 
protectors of the interests of kings or princes at the Papal 
Court, or to receive money as protectors for monastic orders ; 
they were not to appear in the streets with a larger retinue 
than twenty attendants ; they were, if possible, to live near j 

the churches whence they took their titles, and were to 
restore the dilapidated buildings and see to the proper per- j 



SForza. 



DEATH OF SFORZA, 151 

formance of divine service. Similarly the duties of the pro- 
tonotaries and abbreviators of the Papal chancery were 
defined and regulated. Archbishops, bishops, and abbots 
were ordered to keep strict residence, and hold provincial 
synods three times each year for the redress of abuses ; all 
oppressive exactions on the part of ordinaries were forbidden, 
and propriety of life was enjoined. Finally the Pope with- 
drew niaDy of his rights of reservation as a favour to the 
ordinaries as patrons.* 

Martin V. considered that he had now amply fulfilled all 
that reformers could require at his hands, and could ^^^^^[^ ^f 
look around him with greater assurance- He was jf* 
free for seven years from the troubles of a Council, ^^^4- 
and could turn his attention to the object he had most at 
heart, the recover}' of the States of the Church, which Al- 
fonso's withdrawal from Naples had rendered a practicable 
measure. Fortune favoured him in this respect beyond his 
hopes. The desperate resistance which Aquila continued to 
offer to Brace 10 encouraged Sforxa to march to its relief. 
On his way there, in January, 1424, finding some difficulty 
in crossing the river Pescara, which was swollen by the 
wind and tide, he rode into the water to encourage his men. 
Seeing one of his squires swept ofi^ hia horse, Sfor^a has- 
tened to his assistance ; but^ losing his balance in attempt- 
ing to save the drowning man, he was welj^hed down by 
his heavy armour : twice his hands were seen to wave above 
the flood, then he disappeared. His body was swept out to 
sea, and was never found. Thus died Sforza at the age of 
fifty 'four, one of the most notable men in Italian history. 
His death tells us the secret of his power. He died in the 
performance of an act of chivalrous ^^enerosity to a comrade. 
However tortuous he might be in political relations, to his 
soldiers he was frank and genial ; they loved him, and 
knew that their hVes and fortunes were as dear to Sforza 
as his own. 

1 This important docutnent is printed by USllingcr, Beitriige surJ^oH* 



i 



152 THE COUNCIL OF BASEL, 

Nor did the more accomplished Braccio long survive his 
Death of Sturdy rival. In spite of the withdrawal of Sforza's 
fu'nef°' troops after their leader's death, Aquila still held 
1424. out. As its possession was regarded as the key to 

the possession of Naples, Martin V. was eager to raise troops 
for its relief. He found it as easy to arouse the jealousy of 
the Duke of Milan against Braccio as against Alfonso ; and 
in May a joint army of Naples, Milan, and Pope advanced 
to the relief of Aquila. Braccio scorned to take advantage 
of his enemies as they crossed the mountain ridge that led 
to the town ; though their forces were superior to his own, 
he preferred to meet them in the open field. An unex- 
pected sortie of the Aquilans threw Braccio's army into 
confusion. As he rode around exhorting his men to form 
afresh and renew the fight, a Perugian exile forced his way 
through the throng, and with the cry, * Down with the 
oppressor of his country ! ' wounded Braccio in the throat. 
On the fall of their leader the soldiers of Braccio gave 
way, and the siege of Aquila was raised, June 2. Braccio's 
haughty spirit would not survive defeat ; for three days he 
lay without eating or speaking till he died. Unlike Sforza, 
he had no grown-up son to inherit his glory. His shattered 
army rapidly dispersed upon his death. His body was 
carried to Rome, and was buried as that of an excommuni- 
cated man in unconsecrated ground before the Church of 
S. Lorenzo. 

Martin V. reaped the full benefit of Braccio*s death. On 
Martin v. July 29 Perugia opened its gates to the Pope, and 
the^sules ^^e Other cities in Braccio's dominions soon followed 
Church, ^ts example. Martin found himself in undisputed 
1424-30. possession of the Papal States. This was a great 
point to have gained, and Martin had won his triumph by 
his astute and cautious, if unscrupulous, policy. He had 
not hesitated to plunge Naples into war, and had trusted 
tp his own acuteness to fish in troubled waters. Fortune 
had favoured him beyond what he could expect, and the only 
further difficulty that beset him was a rising of Bologna in 



MARTIN V. RECOVERS THE PAPAL STATES. 153 

1429, which was put down, though not without a stubborn 
struggle, by Carlo Malatesta. From that time he set him- 
self with renewed zeal and statesmanlike care to organise 
the restoration of law and order in the Roman territory and 
the rest of the Papal possessions. When we look back upon 
the wild confusion that he found at his accession we must 
recognise in Martin V.'s pontificate traces of energy and 
administrative capacity which have been left unrecorded by 
the annals of the time.^ The slow and steady enforcement 
of order and justice is passed by unnoticed, while discord 
and anarchy are rarely without a chronicler. It is the great 
merit of Martin V. that he won back from confusion, and 
reduced to obedience and order, the disorganised States of 
the Church. 

The policy of Martin V. was to bring under one jurisdic- 
tion separate communities, with their existing rights and 
privileges, and so to establish a central monarchy on which 
they all peaceably depended. It was the misfortune of 
Martin V. that his work was thrown away by the wrong- 
headedness of his successor, and so left no lasting results. 
Still, Martin V. deserves high praise as a successful states- 
man, though even here he displayed the spirit of a Roman 
noble rather than of the Head of the Church. The elevation 
of the Colonna family was his constant aim, and he left 
to his successors a conspicuous example of nepotism. His 
brothers and sisters were enriched at the expense of the 
Church, and their aggrandisement had the disastrous result 
that it intensified the long-standing feud between the\ 
Colonna and the Orsini, and led to a reaction upon Martin's ^ 
death. So far did Martin V. identify himself with his 
family that, in defiance of the traditions of his office, he 
took up his abode in the Colonna Palace by the Church of 
SS. Apostoli, regarding himself as more secure amongst the 
retainers of his house. 

* Infessura, Diarium, Mur., III., part ii., 1112 : * Morti che furono questi 
rimase lo Papa senza altri impacci c mantenne nel suo tempo pace e 
dovizia ', 



154 I'HE COUNCIL OF BASEL, 

The same year that saw the deaths of Sforza and Braccio 
Death of freed Martin V. from another enemy. In Novem- 
Benedict ^^^^ 1424, died Benedict XIII., worn out by extreme 
^434- old age. In his retirement at Peniscola he had 

been powerless either for good or ill. Yet the existence of 
an anti-Pope was hurtful to the Papal dignity, and Alfonso's 
hostility to Martin V. threatened to give him troublesome 
importance. Benedict's death might seem to end the Schism, 
but one of the last acts of the obstinate old man was the 
creation of four new cardinals. For a time his death was 
kept secret till Alfonso's desires were known ; at length in 
June, 1425, three of Benedict's cardinals elected a new Pope, 
Gil de Munion, canon of Barcelona, who took the title of 
Clement VIII. But schism when once it begins is conta- 
gious. Another of Benedict's cardinals,^ a Frenchman, 
Jean Carrer, who was absent at the time and received no 
notice, elected for himself another Pope, who took the title 
of Benedict XIV. Martin was desirous of getting rid of 
these pretenders, and sent one of his cardinals, brother of 
the Count de Foix, to negotiate with Alfonso. But Alfonso 
End of refused him entrance into his kingdom, and ordered 
Popw" Clement VIII. to be crowned in Peniscola. Martin 
'429- summoned Alfonso to Rome to answer for his con- 

duct. Alfonso saw that nothing was to be gained by isola- 
tion from the rest of Europe. Time mollified his wrath at 
the loss of Naples, and in his hopes for the future it was 
better to have the Pope for his friend than for his foe. The 
Cardinal de Foix carried on his negotiations with wise 
moderation, and was helped by one of the King's coun- 
sellors, Alfonso Borgia. In the autumn of 1427 Alfonso V. 
received the Pope's legate, agreed to recognise Martin, and 
accept his good offices to settle disputes between himself 
and Giovanna II. In July, 1429, Munion laid aside his papal 
trappings, submitted to Martin, and received the melancholy 

^ See Carrer's letter to the Count of Armagnac announcing his election 
of Benedict XIV., in Martene, Thesaurus, ii., 1714. The letter is written 
with all possible seriousness in the most approved style. 



END OF THE ANTI-POPES, 155 

post of Bishop of Majorca. The good offices of Alfonso 
Borgia were warmly recognised both by Alfonso V. and 
Martin V., and this ending of the Schism had for its abiding 
consequence in the future the introduction of the Borgia 
family to the Papal Court, where they were destined to play 
an important part The Pope of Jean Carrer was of course 
a ridiculous phantom, and in 1432 the Count of Armagnac 
ordered Carrer, who was still obstinate, to be made prisoner 
and handed over to Martin V.^ 

* Letter in Martene, Thesaurus, ii., 1748. 



156 



CHAPTER II. 

MARTIN V. AND THE PAPAL RESTORATION. BEGINNINGS OF 
EUGENIUS IV. 

1425— 1432. 

As Martin V. felt more sure of his position in Italy, and 
saw the traces of the Schism disappear in the outward 
organisation of the Church, he was anxious also to wipe 
away the anti-papal legislation which in France and England 
had followed on the confusion caused by the Schism of the 
Papacy. 

In France Martin V. easily succeeded in overthrowing the 
Martin V. attempt to establish the liberties of the national 
France. ChuFch on the basis of royal edicts. Charles VI. 
1420-1425. had issued in 1418 ordinances forbidding money to 
be exported from the kingdom for the payment of annates 
or other demands of the Court of Rome, and had confirmed 
the ancient liberties of the Gallican Church as regarded 
freedom of election to ecclesiastical offices. In February, 
1422, he had further forbidden appeals to Rome in contempt 
of the ordinances. But before the end of the year Charles 
VI. was dead, and the confusion in France was still further 
increased by the English claims to the succession. The 
youthful Charles VII. was hard pressed, and wished to gain 
the Pope's support. In February, 1425, he issued a decree 
re-establishing the Papal power, as regarded the collation 
to benefices and all exercise of jurisdiction, on the same 
footing as it had been in the days of Clement VII. and 



MARTIN V. AND ARCHBISHOP CHtCHELE. 157 

Benedict XIII.i The Parlement, it is true, protested and 
refused to register the decree. The Pope, on his part, granted 
an indemnity for what had been done in the past. All the 
reforming efforts of the University of Paris and its followers 
were for the time undone. 

In England Martin V. was not so successful. In 142 1 he 
wrote to Henry V. and exhorted him to lose no time Martin v. 
in abolishing the prohibitions of his predecessors "rdT^^ 
(the Statutes of Provisors and Praemunire) on the chScheie 
due exercise of the Papal rights. Next year, on ^423- 
the accession of King Henry VI., he wrote still more press- 
ingly to the Council of Regency.^ When nothing was 
done, he directed his anger against Henry Chichele, the 
Archbishop of Canterbury. Chichele in 1423 proclaimed in- 
dulgences to all who in that year made pilgrimage to Canter- 
bury. Martin indignantly forbade this assumption of Papal 
rights by a subordinate ; * as the fallen angels wished to set 
up in the earth their seat against the Creator, so have these 
presumptuous men endeavoured to raise a false tabernacle of 
salvation against the apostolic seat and the authority of the 
Roman Pontiff, to whom only has God granted this power '.^ 
It was long since an English archbishop had heard such 
language from a Pope; but Chichele was not a man of 
sufficient courage to remonstrate. He withdrew his pro- 
clamation, and Martin V. had struck a decided blow against 
the independence of the English episcopate. 

The restored Papacy owed a debt of gratitude to Henry of 
Winchester for his good offices as mediator at Con- Martin v. 
stance, and immediately after his election, Martin gg^ry 
V. nominated him Cardinal. Chichele protested ^^d^nai^ 
against this step as likely to lead to inconveniences ; *jfj*^" 
and Henry V., declanng that he would rather see 1426-27. 
his uncle invested with the crown than with a cardinal's hat, 
forbade his acceptance of the proffered dignity. When the 

* Preuves des Liberies de VEglise Gallicane^ ch. xxii., § 19. 
^ Letters in Raynaldus, suh annis. 
*Raynaldus, 1423, § 21. 



158 THE COUNCIL OF BASEL. 

strong hand of Henry V. was gone, Beaufort was again 
nominated Cardinal on May 24, 1426, no longer from 
motives of gratitude, but because the Pope needed his help. 
In February, 1427, he was further appointed Papal legate for 
the purpose of carrying on war against the Hussites. But 
the Pope still pursued his main object, and in a letter to the 
Bishop of Winchester denounced still more strongly the 
execrable statute of Praemunire by which the King of England 
disposed of the affairs of the Church as though himself, and 
not the Pope, were the divinely appointed Vicar of Christ. 
He bade him remember the glorious example of S. Thomas 
of Canterbury, who did not hesitate to offer himself as a 
sacrifice on behalf of the liberties of the Church,^ He bade 
him urge the abolition of this statute on the Council, on 
Parliament, and on the clergy, that they may preach about 
it to the people ; and he asked to be informed what steps 
were taken in compliance with his commands. He wrote 
also in the same strain to the University of Oxford. Indeed, 
so deeply did Martin V. resent the ecclesiastical attitude of 
England that he said in a consistory, * Amongst Christians 
no States have made ordinances contrary to the liberties of 
the Church save England and Venice '.2 Martin's instincts 
taught him truly, and he did his utmost to blunt the edge of 
the weapon that a century later was to sever the connexion 
between the English Church and the Papacy. 

Again Martin V. wrote haughtily to Chichele, bidding him 
Martin v. and the Archbishop of York set aside the Statutes of 
humbles p^Qvisors and recognise the Papal right to dispose 
chkheie. ^^ benefices in England. Chichele humbly replied 
1427-28. tj^at he was the only person in England who was 
willing to broach the subject ; and it was hard that he should 
be specially visited by the Pope's displeasure for what he 

1 Raynaldus, 1426, § 19 : ' Illius gloriosissimi martjrris B. Thomae olim 
Cantuariensis archiepiscopi successor effectus es, qui adversus similia 
decertans statuta holocaustum se offerens Deo, pro libertate ecclesiastica 
occubuit '. The Pope stretches a point in making Thomas a martyr for 
his resistance to the Constitutions of Clarendon. 

^ Commissioni di Riiialdo degli Albizzi^ ii., 443. 



MARTtN V, HUMBLES AkCHBISHOP CHICHELB. 159 

could not help. Martin V. retorted by issuing letters to 
suspend Chichele from his office as legate— a blow against 
the privileges and independence of the Archbishops of Can- 
terbury, who since the days of Stephen Langton had been 
recognised as the Pope's ordinary legate (Jegatus natus) in 
England. Chichele so far roused himself as to appeal to 
a future Council against this encroachment. The Pope's 
letters were seized by royal authority, and the suspension did 
not take effect. But Chichele was a timid man, and the 
condition of affairs in England made him shrink from a 
breach with the Pope. The Lollards were suppressed but 
not subdued, and a strong antihierarchical feeling simmered 
amongst the people. In the distracted state of the kingdom, 
little help was to be gained from the royal power, and 
Chichele feared the consequences of an interdict. He called 
to his help the bishops, the University of Oxford, and several 
temporal lords, who addressed letters to the Pope, bearing 
testimony to Chichele's zeal for the Church, and begging the 
Pope to be reconciled to him. To Chichele's letters pleading 
his excuses, the Pope still answered that the only excuse that 
he could make was active resistance to the obnoxious statutes. 
At length Chichele, in 1428, appeared before the Commons, 
accompanied by the Archbishop of York and other bishops, 
and with tears in his eyes pointed out the dangers in which 
the Church and kingdom were placed by their opposition to 
the Pope's demands. Parliament was unmoved either by 
Martin's letters or by Chichele's half-hearted pleadings. 
They only petitioned the Pope to restore the Archbishop to 
his favour. The King wrote in the same sense, and the 
matter was allowed to drop. Martin V. might console him- 
self with the reflection that, if he had failed to carry his 
point and abolish the hateful statutes, he had at least 
succeeded in humiliating the English episcopate by treating 
them as creatures of his own.^ 

In September, 1428, Beaufort made his first appearance in 

' The correspondence between Martin V. and Chichele is given partly 
in Raynaldus, partly in Wilkins' Concilia, iii., 471-486. 



i6o THE COUNCIL OF BASEL, 

England since his elevation to the Cardinalate, and a protest 
Beaufort's ^" *^^ King's name was issued against his exercise 
crusade of anv Icgatine authority within the realm. Next 

acainst i^ •-» ^ 

theHus- year the question was raised whether Beaufort, 
1429. ^gjj^g, ^ Cardinal, was justified in officiating as Bishop 
of Winchester and prelate of the Order of the Garter : the 
King's council advised Beaufort to waive his right. Mean- 
while Beaufort was allowed to gather troops for a crusade 
against the Hussites. But the English statesman and the 
Papal councillor came into collision ; and the troops which 
Beaufort had gathered for a crusade in Bohemia were turned 
against France. Beaufort pleaded to the Pope the lame 
excuse that he had not ventured to disobey the King's com- 
mands in this matter ; nor would the soldiers have obeyed 
him if he had done so.^ Though treacherous, the action of 
Beaufort was popular. He was allowed, though a Cardinal, 
to take his seat at the King's council, except only when 
matters were under discussion which concerned the Church 
of Rome. Really, Beaufort was too much absorbed in 
deadly personal rivalry with Gloucester to be of any service 
to the Pope in furthering his attempt to overthrow the 
liberties of the English Church. 

But the Papacy has never in its history gained so much 
by definite victories as it has by steady persistency. 
Martin It was always prepared to take advantage of the 
toward's*^ internal weakness of any kingdom, and to advance 
"^ *° ■ pretensions at times when they were not likely to 
be resolutely disavowed. In time they might be heard of 
again, and when reasserted could at least claim the prestige 
of some antiquity. By his treatment of Archbishop Chichele, 
and by his grant of legatine powers to Beaufort, Martin V. 
exercised a more direct authority over the machinery of 
the English Church than had been permitted to any Pope 
since the days of Innocent III. The Church was weak in 
its hold on the affections of the people, and when the kingly 

^ Raynaldus, 1429, 17. 



ARCHITECTURAL WORKS OF MARTIN V. i6i 

office was in abeyance, the Church, robbed of its protector, 
was too feeble to offer any serious resistance to the Papacy. 
Martin V. used his opportunity dexterously, and his succes- 
sors had no reason to complain of the independent spirit of 
English bishops. 

But besides being an ecclesiastic, Martin V. had the sen- 
timents of a Roman noble He wished to restore Architco 
his native city to some part of her old glory, and {^oJ^g ^f 
laboured so assiduously at the work of restoration M*rtin v. 
that a grateful people hailed him as * Father of his country '. 
He rebuilt the tottering portico of S. Peter's and proceeded 
to adorn and repair the ruined basilicas of the city. In the 
Church of S. John Lateran, which had been destroyed by 
fire in 1308, and was slowly rising from its ruins, he laid 
down the mosaic pavement which still exists, and built up 
the roof. He restored the Basilica of the SS. Apostoli. His 
example told upon the Cardinals, and he urged on them to 
undertake the care of the churches from which they took 
their titles,^ His pontificate marks the beginning of an era 
of architectural adornment of the City of Rome. 

The only part of the work of the reformation of the Church 
which Martin V. showed any wish to carry into 
effect was that concerning the Cardinals. The an"hii 
Papal absolutism over all bishops, which Martin V, *^**'"*^'' 
desired to establish, aimed at the reduction of the power of 
the ecclesiastical aristocracy which surrounded the Pope's 
person, and the rules for the conduct of the Cardinals issued 
in 1424 were not meant to be mere waste paper. Martin V. 
succeeded in reducing the power of the Cardinals ; he paid 
little heed to their advice, and they were so afraid of him 
that they stammered like awkward children in his presence.^ 

* Ddllingcr, Beitrdge, ii. , 336. 

' Report of the Ambassador of the Teutonic knights in Voigt's Stint- 
men aus Romin^ Raumer's Historisches Taschenbuch^ vol. iv., 74 : * Sie 
diirfen wider den Papst nicht reden ausser was er gerne hort ; denn der 
Papst hat die Cardinale alle so unterdriickt, dass sie vor ihm nicht 
anders sprechen, als wie er es gerne will, und werden vor ihm redend 
roth und bleich '. 

VOL. II. 1 1 



i62 THE COUNCIL OF BASEL, 

Sometimes he even excluded them altogether. In 1429 he 
retired from Rome to Ferentino before a pestilence, and 
forbade any of the Cardinals to follow him. 

Yet all Martin V.'s injunctions could not purge the Curia 
Court of from the charge of corruption. Money was neces- 
MartinV. ^^^y £qj. ^j^g Pope; and Martin, if he laid aside the 
grosser forms of extortion, still demanded money on all fair 
pretexts. The ambassadors at the Papal Court found it 
necessary for the conduct of the business to propitiate the 
Pope by handsome presents on the great festivals of the 
Church. If any business was to be done, the attention of 
the Pope and his officials had to be arrested by some valu- 
able gift. Yet Martin showed a care in making ecclesiasti- 
cal appointments which had not been seen in the Popes for 
the last half-century. He did not make his appointments 
rashly, but inquired about the capacities of the different 
candidates and the special needs of the districts which they 
aspired to serve. Even so, Martin V. was not always to be 
trusted. He seemed to delight in humbling bishops before 
him. He deposed Bishop Anselm of Augsburg simply be- 
cause the civic authorities quarrelled with him. In England 
he conferred on a nephew of his own, aged fourteen, the 
rich archdeaconry of Canterbury. Yet Martin was never 
weary of uttering noble sentiments to the Cardinals and 
those around him : no word was so often on his lips as 
* justice'. He would often exclaim to his Cardinals, * Love 
justice, ye who judge the earth \^ 

In these peaceful works of internal reform and organisa- 
Death of ti^^ Martin V. passed his last years, disturbed only 
FebViary,' ^y *^^ thought that the time was drawing near for 
^«i- summoning the promised Council at Basel. More- 

over, there was little hope of avoiding it, for the religious 
conflict in Bohemia had waxed so fierce that it had long 
been the subject of greatest interest in the politics of Europe. 

^ Platina : • Ejus sermo plenus sententiis erat. Excidebat nullum 
nomen tarn crebro quam justitiae nomen. Ad suos persaepe conversus 
his verbis utebatur, Diligite justitiam qui judicatis terram.' 



CHARACTER OF MARTIN V. 163 

Army after army of the orthodox had been routed by the 
Bohemian heretics. Papal legates had in vain raised troops 
and conducted them to battle. Germany was hopelessly 
exhausted, and when force had failed, men looked anxiously 
to see if deliberation could again avail. Martin V. ordered 
the legate in Bohemia, Giuliano Cesarini, to convoke a 
Council at Basel in 143 1. But he was not to see its begin- 
ning: he was suddenly struck by apoplexy, and died on 
February 20, 143 1. He was buried in the Church of S. 
John Lateran, where his recumbent Q^gy in brass still 
adorns his tomb. 

Martin V. was a wise, cautious, and prudent Pope. He 
received the Papacy discredited and homeless : he 
succeeded in establishing it firmly in its old capital, of M«Vn 
recovering its lost possessions, and restoring some 
of its old prestige in Europe. This he did by moderation 
and common-sense, combined with a genuine administrative 
capacity. He was not a brilliant man, but the times did 
not require brilliancy. He was not personally popular, for 
he did not much care for the regard or sympathy of those 
around him, but kept his own counsel and went his own 
way. He was reserved, and had great self-command. 
When the news of a brother's unexpected deafh was brought 
to him early one morning, he composed himself and said 
mass as usual. He did not care for men's good opinion, 
but devoted himself energetically to the details of business. 
He did not care to do anything splendid, so much as to do 
all things securely. Yet he rescued the Papacy from its 
fallen condition and laid the foundations for its future power. 
His strong-willed and arbitrary dealings with other bishops 
did much to break down the strength of national feeling in 
ecclesiastical matters which had been displayed at Con- 
stance. He was resolved to make the bishops feel their 
impotence before the Pope ; and the political weakness of 
European States enabled him to go far in breaking down 
the machinery of the national Churches, and asserting for 
the Papacy a supreme control in all ecclesiastical matters. 



^ 



i64 THE COUNCIL OF BASEL, 

In this way he may be regarded as the founder of the theory 
of Papal omnipotence which is embodied in modern Ultra- 
montanism. Yet Martin V. succeeded rather through the 
weakness of Europe than through his own strength. He 
did not awaken suspicion by large schemes, but pursued a 
quiet policy which was dictated by the existing needs of the 
Papacy, and was capable of great extension in the future. 
Without being a great man, he was an extremely sagacious 
statesman. He had none of the noble and heroic qualities 
which would have enabled him to set up the Papacy once 
more as the exponent of the religious aspirations of Europe ; 
but he brought it into accordance with the politics of his 
time and made it again powerful and respected. There 
were two opinions in his own days respecting the character 
of Martin V. Those who had waited anxiously for a 
thorough reformation of the Church looked sadly on Martin's 
shortcomings and accused him of avarice and self-seeking. 
Those who regarded his career as a temporal ruler, extolled 
him for his practical virtues, and the epitaph on his tomb 
called him with some truth, * Temporum suorum felicitas,' 
the happiness of his times.^ At the present day we may 
be permitted to combine these two opposite judgments, and 
may praise him for what he did while regretting that he 

^ These two views are expressed in the two lives in Muratori, III., 
part ii., 859. One says: * Martinus vero avarissimus fuit; miserabili- 
ter in palatio apud sanctos Apostolos vixit '. The other says : * Cujus 
quidem mors non modo populum Romanum sed universos Christi fideles 
magno dolore confecit '. The following stanzas from a Sapphic ode 
written by Gregorio Correr, great-nephew of Gregory XII., and cousin 
once removed of Eugenius IV., show how Martin's qualities were re- 
garded by his friends. The ode is published from a MS. in the Museo 
Correr in Venice by Reumont, Beitrdge zur Italienischen Geschichte, iv., 
302 :— 

* Prodiit notis latebris latr'onum 

Turba, securum patet iter, arces 

Jam licet sacras simul et beatum 
Visere Tibrim. 

' Salve o sacratae pater urbis, atque 
Gentium terror, decus et Latini 
Nominis spesque ; ut maneas precamur 
Summe sacerdos.' 



ELECTION OF EUGENIUS IV. 165 

lacked the elevation of mind necessary to enable him 
to seize the splendid opportunity offered him of doing 
more. 

After the funeral of Martin V., the fourteen Cardinals 
who were in Rome lost no time in entering into ^. . 

. f r «-«■»« • •»«•• Election 

conclave m the Church of S. Maria sopra Mmerva. of Gabriel 
They were still smarting at the recollection of the mier," 
hard yoke of Martin V., and their one desire was iv^Mwch 
to give themselves an easy master and escape the ^' '*^'* V 
indignities which they had so long endured. To secure 
this end they had recourse to the method, which the Schism 
had introduced, of drawing up rules for the conduct of the 
future Pope, which every Cardinal signed before proceeding ^^ 
to the election. Each promised, if he were elected Pope, to 
issue a Bull within three days of his coronation, declaring 
that he would reform the Roman Curia, would further the 
work of the approaching Council, would appoint Cardinals 
according to the decrees of Constance, would allow his 
Cardinals freedom of speech, and would respect their advice, 
give them their accustomed revenues, abstain from seizing 
their goods at death, and consult them about the disposal 
of the government of the Papal States. We see from these 
provisions how the Cardinals resented the insignificance to 
which Martin V. had consigned them. To reverse his treat- 
ment of themselves they were willing to reverse his entire 
policy and bind the future Pope to accept in some form the 
Council and the cause of ecclesiastical reform. They entered 
the Conclave on March i, and spent the next day in draw- 
ing up this instrument for their own protection. On 
March 3 they proceeded to vote, and on the first scrutiny 
Gabriel Condulmier, a Venetian, was unanimously elected. 
Others had been mentioned, such as Giuliano Cesarini, the 
energetic legate in Bohemia, and Antonio Casino, Bishop 
of Siena. But in their prevailing temper, the Cardinals 
determined that it was best to have a harmless nonentity, s - 
and all were unanimous that Condulmier answered best to ^ 
that description. 



;^ i66 THE COUNCIL OF BASEL. 

\/ 

. ^ Gabriel Condulmier, who took the name of Eugenius IV., 

_ ^ was a Venetian, sprung from a wealthy but not 

^ r lifeofCon- noble family. His father died when he was 

^ umier. young ; and Gabriel, seized with religious en- 

thusiasm, distributed his wealth, 20,000 ducats, among the 
poor, and resolved to seek his riches in another world. So 
great was his ardour that he infected with it his cousin, 
Antonio Correr, and both entered the monaster}' of S. 
Giorgio d'Alga in Venice. There the two friends remained 
simple brothers of the order, till Antonio's uncle was un- 
expectedly elected Pope Gregory XII. As usual, the Papal 
uncle wished to promote his nephew ; but Antonio refused 
to leave his monastery unless he were accompanied by his 
friend Condulmier. Gregory XII. made his nephew Bishop 
of Bologna, and Condulmier Bishop of Siena. He after- 
wards prepared the way for his own downfall by insisting 
on elevating both to the dignity of Cardinals. But the 
diminution of Gregory's obedience gave them small scope 
for their activity; they both went to Constance and were 
ranked among the Cardinals of the united Church. Their 
long friendship was at last interrupted by jealousy. Correr 
could not endure his friend's elevation to the Papacy; he 
left him, and at the Council of Basel was one of his bitterest 
opponents. Martin V. appointed Condulmier to be legate 
in Bologna, where he showed his capacity by putting down 
a rebellion of the city. When elected to the Papacy at the 
early age of forty-seven he was regarded as a man of high 
religious character, without much knowledge of the world 
or political capacity. The Cardinals considered him to be 
an excellent appointment for their purpose. Tall and of a 
commanding figure and pleasant face, he would be admir- 
ably suited for public appearances. His reputation for piety 
would satisfy the reforming party ; his known liberality to 
the poor would make him popular in Rome ; his assumed 
lack of strong character and of personal ambition would 
assure to the Cardinals the freedom and consideration after 
which they pined. He was in no way a distinguished man, 



EARLY LIFE OP GABRIEL CONDULMIER. 167 

and in an age when learning was becoming more and more 
respected, he was singularly uncultivated. His early years 
were spent in the performance of formal acts of piety, and 
his one literary achievement was that he wrote with his 
own hand a breviary, which he always continued to use 
when he became Pope. The absence of any decided 
qualities in Eugenius IV. seems to have been so marked 
that miraculous agency was called in to explain his un- 
expected elevation. A story, which he himself was fond of 
telling in latter years,^ found ready credence. When he was 
a simple monk at Venice, he took his turn to act as porter 
at the monastery gate. One day a hermit came and was 
kindly welcomed by Condulmier, who accompanied him 
into the church and joined in his devotions. As they 
returned, the hermit said, ' You will be made Cardinal, and 
then Pope; in your pontificate you will suffer much ad- 
versity '. Then he departed, and was seen no more. 

Eugenius IV. was faithful to his promise before election, 
and on the day of his coronation, March 11, con- „ 
firmed the document which he had signed in con- iv. gives 
clave. He also showed signs of a desire to reform a desire to 
the abuses of the Papal Court His first act was to ^* °'™* 
cut off a source of exaction. The customary letters announc- 
ing his election were given for transmission to the ambas- 
sadors of the various states, instead of being sent by Papal 
nuncios, who expected large donations for their service.^ 

But the first steps of Eugenius IV. in the conduct of 
affairs showed an absence of wisdom and an un- 
reasoning: ferocity. Martin V. had been careful to Eugenius 

? . r i_- 1 .• XT- IV. with 

secure the interests of his own relatives. His theCo- 
brother Lorenzo had been made Count of Alba °°°*' 
and Celano in the Abruzzi, and his brother Giordano Duke 

> Vespasiano says : ' Questo diceva spesso papa Eugenio a chi lo 
voUva udire*. His words seem to suggest that those around him had 
a horror of the story, with which they were regaled too often. 

^ The King of Castile did not understand this, and complained of 
omission as a slight. Eugenius wrote to explain ; see Raynaldus, 1431, 
No. 9. 



i68 THE COUNCIL OF BASEL. 

of Amalfi and Venosa, Prince of Salerno. Both of them 
died before the Pope, but their places were taken by the 
sons of Lorenzo — Antonio, who became Prince of Salerno ; 
Odoardo, who inherited Celano and Marsi ; and Prospero, 
who was Cardinal at the early age of twenty-two. Martin 
V. had lived by the Church of SS. Apostoli in a house of 
moderate pretensions, as the Vatican was too ruinous for 
occupation ; his nephews had a palace hard by. It was 
natural for a new Pope to look with some suspicion on the 
favourites of his predecessor. But at first all went well 
between the Colonna and Eugenius IV. The Castle of S. 
Angelo was given up to the Pope and a considerable amount 
of treasure which Martin V. had left behind him. But 
Eugenius IV. soon became suspicious. The towns in the 
Papal States grew rebellious when they felt that Martin V.'s 
strong hand was relaxed, and Eugenius needed money and 
soldiers to reduce them to obedience. He suspected that 

^ the Papal nephews had vast stores of treasure secreted, and 
resolved by a bold stroke to seize it for himself. Stefano 
Colonna, head of the Palestrina branch of the family and 
at variance with the elder branch, was sent to seize the 
Bishop of Tivoli, Martin's Vice-Chamberlain, whom he 
dragged ignominiously through the streets. Eugenius IV. 
angrily rebuked him for his unnecessary violence, and so 
alienated his wavering loyalty. At the same time Eugenius 
demanded of Antonio Colonna that he should give up all 
the possessions in the Papal States with which his uncle 
had endowed him, Genazano, Soriano, S. Marino, and other 
fortresses were Eugenius imagined that the Papal treasures 
lay hid. Antonio loudly declared that this was a plot of 
the Orsini in their hereditary hatred of the Colonna ; he 
denounced the Pope as lending himself to their schemes, 
and left Rome hastily to raise forces. He was soon followed 
by Stefano Colonna, by the Cardinal Prospero, and the other 
adherents of the family. Gathering their troops, the Colonna 

^ attacked the possessions of the Orsini and laid waste the 
country up to the walls of Rome. 



EUGENIUS IV, AND THE COLONNA. 169 

Eugenius IV., like Urban VI., had been unexpectedly 
raised to a position for which his narrowness and xheCo- 
inexperience rendered him unfit. Trusting to the i^mT ***** 
general excellence of his intentions and exulting in fif* p^pe. 
the plenitude of his new authority, he acted on the April, 1431 
first impulse, and only grew more determined when he met 
with opposition.^ He tortured the luckless Bishop of Tivoli 
almost to death in his prison. He ordered the partisans of 
the Colonna in Rome to be arrested, and over two hundred 
Roman citizens were put to death on various charges, 
Stefano Colonna advanced against Rome, seized the Porta 
Appia, on April 23, and fought his way through the streets 
as far as the Piazza of S. Marco. But the people did not 
rise on his side as he had expected ; the Pope's troops were 
still strong enough to drive back their assailants. Stefano 
Colonna could not succeed in getting hold of the city ; but 
he kept the Appian gate, laid waste the Campagna, and 
threatened the city with famine. Eugenius IV. retaliated 
by ordering the destruction of the Colonna palaces, even 
that of Martin V., and the houses of their adherents, and on 
May 18 issued a decree depriving them of all their possessions. 
The old times of savage warfare between the Roman nobles ./ 
were again brought back. ^ 

The contest might long have raged, to the destruction of 
the new-born prosperity of the Roman city, had not pcace 
Florence, Venice, and Naples sent troops to aid the coionna. 
Pope. But the Neapolitan forces under Caldora f^^^^^ 
proved a feeble help, for they took money from h3i- 
Antonio Colonna, and assumed an ambiguous attitude. In 
Rome the confession of a conspiracy to seize the Castle of 
S. Angelo and expel the Pope was extorted from a luckless 
friar, and gave rise to fresh prosecutions and imprisonments. 
Amid these agitations Eugenius IV. was stricken by paralysis, 
which was put down to the results of poison administered 
in the interests of the Colonna. Sickness brought reflection ; 

' Billius (Mur., xix., 143) calls him : * Sui ipsius fidentissimus quod- 
cunque propositum cepisset '. 



170 THE COUNCIL OF BASEL. 

and the Colonnesi on their side saw that the chances of war 
were going against them, since Venice and Florence were 
determined to support Eugenius, whose help they needed 
against the growing power of the Duke of Milan. Ac- 
cordingly, on September 22 peace was made between the 
Pope and Antonio Colonna, who paid 75,000 ducats and 
resigned the castles which he held in the Papal States. 
Giovanna of Naples deprived him also of his principality ot 
Salerno. The relatives of Martin V. fell back to their 
former position. But Eugenius had gained by violence, 
disorder, bloodshed, and persecution an end which might 
have been reached equally well by a little patience and 
tact. 
I The disturbances in the States of the Church gradually 
; settled down, and Eugenius in September was anxiously 
awaiting the coming of Sigismund to Italy for the purpose 
of assuming the Imperial crown. On his dealings with 
Sigismund depended his chance of freeing himself from the 
Council, which had begun to assemble at Basel, and whose 
proceedings were such as to cause him some anxiety. 



171 



CHAPTER III. 

BOHEMIA AND THE HUSSITE WARS. 
I418 — 143 1 

The fortunes of Sigismund had not been prosperous since 
his departure from Constance. The glories of the Failure of 
revived empire which had floated before his eyes cli^of Co"n. 
soon began to fade away. Troubles in his ancestral V^^^^ *° 
states occupied all his attention, and prevented him Bohemia, 
from aspiring to be the arbiter of the affairs of Europe. His 
dignified position at Constance, as Protector of the Council 
that was to regulate the future of the Church, entailed on 
him nothing but disappointment. It was easy for the 
Council to burn Hus and to condemn his doctrines; but the 
Bohemian people were not convinced by either of these 
proceedings, and cherished a bitter feeling of Sigismund's 
perfidy. He had invited Hus to the Council, and then had 
abandoned him ; he had inflicted a disgrace on their national 
honour which the Bohemians could never forgive. The 
decrees of the Council found little respect in Bohemia, and a 
league was formed among the Bohemian nobles to maintain 
freedom of preaching. The teaching of Jakubek of Mies, 
concerning the necessity of receiving the communion under 
both kinds, gave an outward symbol to the new beliefs, and 
the chalice became the distinctive badge of the Bohemian 
reformers. The Council in vain summoned Wenzel to 
answer for his neglect of its monitions ; in vain it called on 
Sigismund to give effect to its decrees by force of arms. 
Sigismund knew the difficulties of such an attempt, and as 



17^ THE COUNCIL OF BASEL, 

heir to the Bohemian kingdom did not choose to draw upon 
himself any further hatred from the Bohemian people. 

Before the election of a new Pope, the Bohemians could 
still denounce the arbitrary proceedings of the 
declares Council, and hope tor fairer hearmg m the future, 
the Hus- But the election of Oddo Colonna, who as Papal 
sites. 1418. commissioner had condemned Hus in 141 1, dashed 
all further hopes to the ground. Martin V. accepted all 
that the Council had done towards the Bohemian heretics, 
and urged Sigismund to interpose. He threatened to pro- 
claim a crusade against Bohemia, which would then be con- 
quered by some faithful prince, who might not be willing to 
hand it over to Sigismund. The threat alarmed Sigismund, 
who wrote urgently to his brother Wenzel ; and the indo- 
lent Wenzel, who had allowed dim notions of impossible 
toleration to float before his eyes, at last roused himself to 
see the hopelessness of his attempt neither to favour nor 
discourage the new movement. At the end of 1418 he 
ordered that all the churches in Prag should be given up 
to the Catholics, who hastened to return and wreak their 
wrath on the heretics. Two churches only were left to the 
Utraquists, as the reformed party was now called, from its 
administration of the communion under both kinds. But 
the multitudes began to meet in the open air, on hill-tops, 
which they loved to call by Biblical names. Tabor and Horeb 
and the like. Peacefully these assemblies met and separ- 
ated ; but this condition of suppressed revolt could not long 
continue. On July 22, 1419, Wenzel's wrath was kindled 
by hearing of a vast meeting of 40,000 worshippers, who had 
received the communion under both kinds, and had given it 
even to the children of their company. 

These meetings at once awakened the enthusiasm of the 
Beginning Utraquists, and gave them confidence in their 
ourwfr- strength. On Sunday, July 30, a procession, 
Prfg July h^^^^^ by a former monk, John of Sulau, who had 
HI9- preached a fiery sermon to a large congregation, 

marched through the streets of Prag, and took possession of 



DEATH OF WENZEL, 173 

the church of S. Stephen, where they celebrated their own 
rites. Thence they proceeded to the Town Hall of the 
Neustadt, and clamoured that the magistrates should 
release some who had been made prisoners on religious 
grounds. The magistrates were the nominees of Wenzel to 
carry out his new policy ; they barred the doors, and looked 
from the windows upon the crowd. Foremost in it stood the 
priest, John of Sulau, holding aloft the chalice. Some one 
from the windows threw a stone, and knocked it from his 
hands. The fury of the crowd blazed out in a moment. 
Headed by John Zizka, of Trocnow, a nobleman of Wenzel's 
court, they burst open the doors, slew the burgomaster, and 
flung out of the windows all who did not succeed in making 
their escape. It was the beginning of a religious war more 
savage and more bloody than Europe had yet seen. 

Wenzel's rage was great when he heard of these pro- 
ceedings. He threatened death to all the Hussites, Death of 
and particularly the priests. But his helplessness ^5°"!' 
obliged him to listen to proposals for reconciliation. '419. 
The rebels humbled themselves, the King appointed new 
magistrates. Wenzel's perplexities, however, were soon to 
end ; on August 16 he was struck with apoplexy, and died 
with a gpreat shout and roar as of a lion.^ He was buried 
secretly at night, for Prag was in an uproar at the news of 
his death. Wenzel's faults as a ruler are obvious enough. 
He was devoid of wisdom and energy ; he was arbitrary and 
capricious ; he was alternately sunk in sloth, and a prey to 
fits of wild fury. He had none of the qualities of a states- 
man ; yet with all his faults he was felt by the Bohemians 
to have a love for his people, to whom he was always kindly 
and familiar, and to whom in his way he strove to do justice. 
His own ambiguous position towards his brother Sigismund 
and European politics corresponded in some measure with 
the ambiguous attitude of Bohemia towards the Church, and 

^ ' Cum magno clamore et rugitu quasi leonis.* Laur. de Brezina (in 
Hofler, Gesch'ichtschreiber der Husitischen Bewegung, i., 341), who is the 
authority for the above account. 



174 THE COUNCIL OF BASEL. 

for a time he was no unfitting representative of the land 
which he ruled. Just as events had reached the point when 
decision was rendered inevitable, Wenzel's death handed 
w^ over to Sigismund the responsibility of dealing with the 
future of Bohemia. 

Sigismund did not judge it expedient to turn his attention 
immediately to Bohemia, His Hungarian subjects 

Tempons- , r i ■ • , • i m i i 

ing policy clamourcd for his aid against the Turks, who were 
mund.* pressing up the Danube valley. He was bound to 
^^^^' help them first, and obtain their help against Bo- 

hemia. He trusted that conciliatory measures would disarm 
the Bohemian rebels, whom he would afterwards be able to 
deal with at leisure. Accordingly he appointed the widowed 
queen, Sophia, as regent in Bohemia, and round her gathered 
the nobles in the interests of public order. At the head of 
the Government stood Cenek of Wartenberg, who was 
leader of the Hussite league, and who strove to check ex- 
cesses by a policy of toleration. But men needed guarantees 
for the future. The Diet which met in September, 1419, 
and in which the Hussites had a majority, demanded of 
Sigismund that he should grant full liberty for the Utraquist 
preaching and ceremonies, and should confer office in the 
State on the Tchecks only. Sigismund returned the am- 
biguous answer that he hoped soon to come in person, and 
would govern according to the old customs of his father, 
Charles IV. No doubt the answer was pleasant to the 
patriotic aspirations which their request contained ; but men 
significantly observed that there were no Hussites in Charles 
IV.'s days. 

Queen Sophia was obliged to write repeatedly to Sigis- 
mund, begging him to be more explicit ; but only drew from 
him a proclamation recommending order and quiet, and 
promising to examine into the Utraquist question when he 
arrived. Sigismund hoped to gain time till he had an army 
ready ; he hoped to win over the Hussite nobles by a display 
of confidence meanwhile, and slowly gather round himself 
all the moderate party. 



NICOLAS OF HUS AND JOHN ZIZKA. 175 

But Sigismund did not know the strength nor the political 
sagacity of the leaders of the extreme party, which Nicolas of 
had been slowly but surely forming itself since the j^hn*"^ 
death of Hus. The moderate party were men of ^•^'**'' 
the same views as Hus, who were faithful to an ideal of the 
Church, repelled the charge of heresy, and still hoped for 
tolerance, at least in time, for their own opinions. With 
men such as these Sigismund could easily deal. But the 
extreme party, who were called Taborites from their open-air 
meetings, recognised that the breach with Rome was irre^ 
parable, and were prepared to carry their opinions into all 
questions, religious, political, and social alike. Their posi- 
tion was one of open revolt against authority both in Church 
and State ; they rested on the assertion of the rights of the 
individual, and appealed to the national sentiment of the 
masses of the people. At the head of this party stood two 
men of remarkable ability, Nicolas of Hus and John Zizka, 
both sprung from the smaller nobilit}^ and both trained in 
affairs at Wenzel's court. Of these, Nicolas had the eye of 
a statesman ; Zizka the eloquence, the enthusiasm, and the 
generalship needed for a leader of men. Nicolas of Hus 
saw from the first the real bearing of the situation ; he saw 
that if the extreme party of the reformers did not prepare for 
the inevitable conflict they would gradually be isolated, and 
would be crushed by main force. Zizka set himself to the 
task of organising the enthusiasm of the Bohemian peasants 
into the stuff which would form a disciplined army. Like 
Cromwell in a later day, he used the seriousness that 
comes of deep religious convictions as the basis of a strong 
military organisation, against which the chivalry of Ger- 
many should break itself in vain. While Sigismund was 
delaying, Zizka was drilling. On October 25 he seized 
the Wyssehrad, a fortress on the hill commanding the 
Neustadt of Prag, and began a struggle to obtain entire 
possession of the city. But the excesses of the Taborites, 
and the fair promises of the Queen-regent, confirmed the 
party of order. Prag was not yet ready for the Taborites, 



176 THE COUNCIL OF BASEL. 

and on November ii Zizka and his troops fell back from 
the city. 

In this state of things Sigismund advanced from Hungary 
Diet of i^to Moravia, and in December held a Diet at 
Decern- Briinn. Thither went Queen Sophia and the chief 
ber, 1419. Qf thg Bohemian nobles ; thither, too, went the 
ambassadors of the city of Prag, to seek confirmation for 
their promised freedom of religion. Sigismund's attitude 
was still ambiguous ; he received them graciously, did not 
forbid them to celebrate the communion in their own fashion 
in their own houses, but ordered them to keep peace in their 
city, submit to the royal authority, lay aside their arms, and 
he would treat them gently. The burghers of Prag sub- 
mitted, and destroyed the fortifications which menaced the 
royal castle. Sigismund could view the results of his policy 
with satisfaction. The submission of Prag spread terror on 
all sides ; ^ the power of Sigismund impressed men's imagi- 
nation ; the Catholics began to rejoice in anticipation of a 
speedy triumph. 

From Brunn Sigismund advanced into Silesia, where he 
Prag re- was received with loyal enthusiasm, and many of 
aglVnst ^^® German nobles met him at Breslau. Sigismund 
mund became convinced of his own power and importance 
1420. and let drop the mask too soon. At Breslau he put 

down the Utraquists, inquired severely into a municipal 
revolt, which was insignificant compared to what had hap- 
pened in Prag, caused twenty-three citizens to be executed 
for rebellion, and on March 17 allowed the Papal legate to 
proclaim a crusade against the Hussites. The result of this 
/ false step was to lose at once the support of the moderate 
party, and to alienate the national feeling of the Bohemians. 
The people of Prag issued a manifesto calling all who loved 
the law of Christ and their country's liberties to join in re- 
sisting Sigismund's crusade. The nobles, headed by Cenek 
o-f Wartenberg, denounced Sigismund as their enemy, and 

1 * Timor magnus ac pavor veritati adhaerentes invasit,' says Brezina, 
Hofler, i., 348. 



PRAG REVOLTS AGAINST SIGISMUND, 177 

not their king. The country was at once in arms, and the 
pent-up fanaticism was let loose. Churches and monasteries 
were destroyed on every side. No country was so rich in 
splendid buildings and treasures of ecclesiastical ornament 
as was Bohemia ; ^ but a wave of ruthless devastation now 
swept across it which has left only faint traces of the former 
splendour. Again excesses awoke alarm among the modern 
nobles. Cenek of Wartenberg went back to Sigismund's 
side ; and the burghers of Prag saw themselves consequently 
in a dangerous plight, as the two castles between which 
their city lay, the Wyssehrad and the Hradschin, again de- 
clared for Sigismund. As they could not defend their city, 
they again turned to thoughts of submission, in return for an 
amnesty and permission to celebrate the communion under 
both kinds. But Sigismund had now advanced into Bohemia 
and proudly looked for a speedy triumph. He demanded 
that they should lay aside their arms and submit. This 
harshness was a fatal error on Sigismund's part, as it drove 
the burghers of Prag into alliance with the extreme party oi 
Zizka. 

As yet this alliance had not been made; as yet Prag 
wished to proceed on the old constitutional lines. . , 

Zizka 

It wished to recognise the legitimate king, and fortifies 
obtain from him tolerance for the new religious 
beliefs. If this were impossible, there was nothing left save 
to throw in their lot with those who wished to create a new 
constitution and a new society. Zizka had been preparing 
for the contest. He remorselessly pursued a policy which 
would deprive the Catholics of their resources, and would 
compel Bohemia to follow the course in which it had en- 
gaged. Monasteries were everywhere pillaged and destroyed ; 
Church property was seized ; the lands of the orthodox party 
were ruthlessly devastated. Sigismund, if he entered Bo- 
hemia, would find no resources to help him. Zizka so acted 

^ * Nullum ego regnum aetate nostra in tota Europa tam frequentibus, 
tarn augustis, tam ornatis templis ditatum fuisse quam Bohemicum reor,' 
Bays ^neas Sylvius, Hist. Boh.^ ch. xxxvi. 
VOL. II. 12 



17S TtiE COUNCIL OP' BASkL, 

as to make the breach at once irreparable ; he wished to 
leave no chance of conciliation, except on condition of recog- 
nising all that he had done. Moreover, he established a 
centre for his authority. When he failed to seize Prag as 
a stronghold, he sought out a spot which would form a 
capital for the revolution. A chance movement made him 
master of the town of Austi, near which were the remains of 
an old fortified place. Zizka's eye at once recognised its 
splendid military situation, lying on the top of a hill, which 
was formed into a peninsula by two rivers which flow round 
its rocky base. Zizka set to work to build up the old walls, 
and strengthen by art the strong natural position. The 
approach to the peninsula, which was only thirty feet wide, 
was rendered secure by a triple wall and a deep ditch. 
Towers and defences crowned the whole line of the wall.^ 
y It was not a city, but a permanent camp, which Zizka. suc- 
7 ceeded in making, and to which was given the characteristic 
name of Tabor. Henceforth the name of Taborites was 
confined to Zizka's followers. 

Before the danger which threatened them with entire 
sigis- destruction, as Sigismund's army numbered at least 
repufsed 8o,ooo men from almost every nation in Europe, 
kow! July] ^^^ parties in Bohemia drew together. The troops 
1420. of Zizka entered Prag, and the burghers destroyed 

such parts of their city as were most open to attack from 
the Wyssehrad and the Hradschin, which were held by the 
Royalists. The hill of Witkow, on the north-east of the 
city, was still held by the Hussites, and against that Sigis- 
mund directed an attack on July 14. The attention of the 
enemy was distracted by assaults in different quarters, and 
Sigismund's soldiers pressed up the hill. But a tower, 
defended by twenty-six Taborites, with two women and a 
girl who fought like heroes, kept the troops at bay till a band 
of Zizka's soldiers came to their aid, and charged with such 
fury that the Germans fled in dismay. Sigismund learned 

^ JEn. Sylvius, Hist. Boh.y ch. xl., gives a graphic description of Tabor, 
which he visited himself. * Nos qualem vidimus descripsimus.* 



REPULSE OF SIGISMUND, 179 

with shame and anger the powerlessness of his great host to 
contend against a people actuated by national and religious 
zeal. Their repulse kindled in the Germans a desire for 
vengeance, and they massacred the Bohemian inhabitants 
of the neighbouring towns and villages. When the Bohemian 
nobles of the King's party resented this display of hatred 
against the entire Bohemian race, Sigismund's unwieldy 
army began to break up. There was again a talk of 
negotiation, and the people of Prag sent to Sigismund theii_ 
demands, which are known as the Four Articles of Prag, and 1 
formed the charter of the Hussite creed. They asked for / 
freedom of preaching, the communion under both kinds, the ' 
reduction of the clergy to apostolic poverty, and the severe \ 
repression of all open sins. These articles were a worthy / 
exposition of the principles of the Reformation : the first / 
asserted the freedom of man to search the Scriptures for * 
himself; the second attacked one of the great outposts of 
sacerdotalism, the denial of the cup to the laity ; the third, 
cut at the root of the abuses of the ecclesiastical system ; 
and the fourth claimed for Christianity the power to re- 
generate and regulate society. There was some semblance 
of discussion on these points ; but there could be no agree- 
ment between those who rested on the authority of the 
Church and those who entirely disregarded it. 

These negotiations, however, gave still further pretext for 
many of Sigismund's troops to leave his army. . 
Resolving to do something, Sigismund on July 28 mund 
had himself crowned King of Bohemia, a step from 
which gave greater appearance of legitimacy to his March!'** 
position. He strove to bind to his interests the '^*^" 
Bohemian nobles by gifts of the royal domains and of the 
treasures of the churches. Meanwhile the Hussites besieged 
the Wyssehrad and succeeded in cutting oif its supplies. 
It was reduced to extremities when Sigismund made an 
effort to relieve it. The chivalry of Moravia, Hungary, and 
Bohemia were checked in their fiery charge by the steady 
organisation of the Taborites, and more than four hundred 



i8o THE COUNCIL OF BASEL, 

of the bravest nobles were slaughtered by the flails of the 
peasants as they struggled in the vineyards and marsh at 
the bottom of the hill. Sigismund fled, and the Wyssehrad 
surrendered on November i. After this, Sigismund's cause 
was lost, and he was regarded as the murderer of the nobles 
who fell in the disastrous battle of the Wyssehrad The 
troops of Zizka overran Bohemia, and the Catholic in- 
habitants fled before them. Town after town submitted, 
and in March, 1421, Sigismund left Bohemia in despair. He 
had hopelessly mismanaged affairs. He had alternated 
between a policy of conciliation and one of repression. He 
had alienated the Bohemians through the cruelty of his 
German followers, and had lost the support ot the Germans 
through his anxiety to win the Bohemian nobles Finally 
his hope of overcoming the people by the help of the native 
nobles had ignominiously failed and had covered Sigismund 
with disgrace. 

The Utraquists were now masters of Bohemia, and the 
Bohemia wholc land was banded together in resistance to 
acwptsthe Catholicism and Sigismund. The nobles joined 
o/prag ^^^^ ^^® people, and Prag was triumphant ; even 
June, 1421. the Archbishop Conrad accepted the Four Articles 
of Prag on April 21, 1421. The movement spread into 
Moravia, which joined with Bohemia in its revolution. The 
next step was the organisation of the newly-won freedom. 
A Diet held at Caslau in June accepted the Four Articles of 
Prag, declared Sigismund an enemy of Bohemia and un- 
worthy of the Crown, appointed a Committee of twenty 
representatives of the different estates and parties to under- 
take the government of the land until it had a king, and left 
the organisation of religious matters to a synod of clergy 
which was soon to be convoked. Sigismund's ambassadors 
offering toleration, scarcely obtained a hearing : the offer 
came a year too late. 

Although Bohemia was united in opposition to Sigismund 
and Catholicism, it was but natural that the divergencies of 
opinion within itself should grow wider as it felt itselt more 



RELIGIOUS PARTIES IN BOHEMIA. i8i 

free from danger. The division between the Conservative 
and Radical party became more pronounced. The 
Conservatives, who were called Calixtins or Utra- par/SsTn 
quists from their ceremonial, or Pragers from their ° ^™^** 
chief seat, held by the position of Hus — a position of ortho- 
doxy in belief, with a reformation of ecclesiastical practice 
carried out according to Scripture. They altered as little as 
possible in the old ecclesiastical arrangements, retained the 
mass service with the communion under both kinds, and 
observed the festivals of the Church.^ Against them were 
set the Radicals, the Taborites, amongst whom there were 
several parties. The most moderate, at the head of which 
stood Zizka, differed from the Pragers not so much in belief 
as in the determined spirit with which they were prepared 
to defend their opinions and carry them out in practice. 
The thorough Taborites cast aside all ecclesiastical authority 
and asserted the sufficiency of Scripture, for the right under- 
standing of which the individual believer was directly 
illuminated by the Holy Ghost. They rejected Transub- 
stantiation, and asserted that Christ was present in the 
elements only in a figurative way. Besides these were 
various extreme sects, who held that the Millennium had 
begun, that God existed only in the hearts of the believers, 
and the devil in the hearts of the wicked. Most notorious 
amongst these was the small sect of the Adamites, who took 
possession of a small island on the river Nezarka and gave 
themselves up to a life of communism which degenerated 
into shameless excesses. Against these extreme sectaries 
the Pragers and Zizka set up a standard of orthodoxy, and 
proceeded to measures of repression. Fifty of both sexes 
were burned by Zizka on the same day : they entered the 
flames with a smile, saying, * To-day will we reign with 
Christ*. The island of the Adamites was stormed, and 
the entire body exterminated. Martinek Hauska, the chief 

* The Papal legate reported to the Council of Basel {Mon. Concil.^ i., 
141): *Quod in veteri Praga in omni loco ecclesiastico non alia vidit in 
Bohe morum ceremoniis, nisi sicut in nostris ecclesiis, excepta practica 
communicandi sub utraque specie \ 



i82 THE COUNCIL OF BASEL, 

teacher who opposed Transubstantiation, was burned as a 
heretic in Prag. 

It was indeed needful that Bohemia should retain the 
. , , appearance of unity if she were to succeed in main- 

Flightof ^V. , ; • • r J o- • J 

the Ger- taming her new religious freedom. Sigismund was 
fromSaTz. disheartened by the failure of his first attempt, and 
'^^^* was ready to wait and try the results of moderation. 

But the German electors and the Pope were by no means 
willing to give up Bohemia as lost. The four Rhenish 
Electors formed a league against the heretics : the Papal 
legate, Cardinal Branda, journeyed through Germany to 
kindle the zeal of the faithful. Sigismund was openly 
denounced as a favourer of heresy, and was compelled to 
bestir himself. It was agreed that the Electors should lead 
an army from Germany, and Sigismund should advance 
from Hungary through Moravia and unite with them. In 
September Germany poured an army of 200,000 men into 
Bohemia ; but Sigismund tarried and deferred his coming. 
Loud accusations of treachery were brought against him by 
the angry princes, and disputes sprang up among them. 
The vast army wasted its energies in the siege of Saaz, and 
began gradually to disperse ; the news of Zizka's advance 
turned it to shameful flight. It was said ironically that such 
was the horror which the German princes felt against the 
heretics, that they could not even endure to see them.^ 
When Sigismund had finished his preparations, he also in 
December entered Bohemia with a formidable army 
Bystem^of of 90,ooo men, well armed, trained in warfare, led 
*^ ** by Pipo of Florence, one of the most renowned 
generals of the age. Zizka put forth all his powers of 
generalship to save Bohemia from the impending danger. 
Zizka, who had been one-eyed for years, had lost his re- 
maining eye at the siege of the little castle of Rabi in August. 
He was now entirely blind, but his blindness only gave 

1 Thomas Ebendorfer of Haselbach, quoted by Palacky, Geschichtcvon 
Bdhmetij iii., 254, from the MS. Liber Augustalis : ' Adeo enim eis 
Bohemi erant abominabiles ut non solum eos ferire sed ne quidem 
potuerunt eos contueri '. 



MILITARY SYSTEM OF ZIZKA. 183 

greater clearness to his mental vision, and he could direct 
the movements of a campaign with greater precision than 
before. The very fact that he had to be dependent on others 
for information led him to impress more forcibly his own 
spirit on those around him, and so train up a school of great 
generals to succeed him. Under Zizka's guidance the demo- 
cratic feeling of the Bohemians had been made the basis of 
a new military organisation which was now to try its strength 
against the chivalry of the Middle Ages. Strict discipline 
prevailed amongst Zizka's troops, and he was able to meet 
the dash of the feudal forces with the coolness of a trained 
army which could perform complicated manoeuvres with 
unerring precision. He paid especial attention to artillery, 
and was the first great general to realise its irnportance. 
Moreover, he adapted the old war chariots to the purposes 
of defence. His line of march was protected on the flanks 
by waggons fastened to one another by iron chains. These 
waggons readily formed the fortifications of a camp or served 
as protection against an attack. In battle the soldiers, when 
repulsed, could retire behind their cover, and form again their 
scattered lines. The waggons were manned by the bravest 
troops, and their drivers were trained to form them according 
to letters of the alphabet ; so that the Hussites, having the 
key, easily knew their way amongst the lines, while the 
enemy, if they forced their way, were lost in an inextricable 
labyrinth. At times the waggons, filled with heavy stones, 
were rolled downhill on the enemy's ranks; when once 
those ranks were broken, the waggons were rapidly driven 
in, and cut in two the enemy's line. It was a new kind of 
warfare, which spread terror and helplessness among the 
crusading hosts. 

This new organisation was sorely tried when, on December 
21, Sigismund's army advanced against Kuttenberg, . 
and met Zizka's forces hard by its walls. The mSnd 
waggons of the Bohemians proved an impregnable icutfen* 
defence, and their artillery did great execution januaiy, 
against the Hungarians. But treachery was at '^^' 



i84 THE COUNCIL OF BASEL. 

work in Kuttenberg, and opened the gates to Sigismund. 
Next day the Bohemians found themselves shut in on all 
sides, and their foes prepared to reduce them by hunger. 
But in the darkness of the night Zizka drew his troops to- 
gether, and with a charge of his waggons broke through the 
enemy's line and made good his retreat. Rapidly gathering 
reinforcements, Zizka returned to Kuttenberg on January 6, 
1422, and fell suddenly upon the centre of the unsuspect- 
ing army. A panic seized the Germans ; Sigismund fled 
ignominiously, and his example was followed by all. Zizka 
followed, and, aided by the wintry weather, inflicted severe 
losses on the invaders. More than 12,000 men are said to 
have perished. The second crusade against the Hussites 
failed even more signally than the first. 

Bohemia had now beaten back both Sigismund, who came 
g. .^ to assert his hereditary rights to the crown, and the 
mund German princes, who viewed with alarm the dis- 

Korybut i r , • ^, 

of Poland memberment of the empire. There remamed the 
Prag. more diflicult task of organising its political position, 
ay, 142a. ^j^^ great statesman, Nicolas of Hus, was dead, 
and Zizka had the talents of a general rather than a politician. 
His own democratic ideas were too strong for him to put 
himself at the head of the State, and bring about the necessary 
union between the Pragers and the Taborites. The Bohemian 
nobles and the Conservative party generally desired to take 
the management of affairs out of the hands of the Taborites, 
and re-establrsh a monarchy. Already they had offered the 
kingdom to Ladislas, King of Poland, who shrank from 
incurring the charge of heresy, which would hinder him in 
his constant warfare against the Teutonic Knights in Prussia. 
But Witold, Grand Duke of Lithuania, a man of high 
political sagacity, had before his eyes the possibility of a 
great Slavic confederacy which would beat back all German 
aggression. He saw in the Hussite movement a means of 
bridging over the religious differences between the Latin and 
Greek Churches, which were an obstacle to the union of 
Prussia and Poland. These plans of Witold created great 



FAILURE OF THE POLISH ALLIANCE. 185 

alarm in Germany, and many efforts were made to thwart 
them; but.WitoId took advantage of events, announced to 
the Pope that he wished to restore order in Bohemia, and in 
May, 1422, sent the nephew of Ladislas of Poland, Sigis- 
mund Korybut, with an army to Prag. Prag, torn with 
internal dissensions, accepted Korybut as a deliverer. Zizka 
recognised him as ruler of the land, and Korybut showed 
zeal and moderation in winning over all parties to his side. 
This union of Bohemia and Poland was a standing menace 
to Germany, and a Diet held at Niirnberg in July . 
appointed Frederick of Brandenburg to lead a new defeats ' 
expedition into Bohemia. Frederick was keenly alliance, 
alive to the gravity of the situation, which indeed ccmber, 
threatened himself in Brandenburg. He endeavoured '^*** 
to gather together both an army for a crusade and a pernranent 
army of occupation, which was to be left in Bohemia. But 
Germany's internal weakness and constant dissensions pre- 
vented Frederick from accomplishing anything. He led a 
few soldiers into Bohemia, spent some time in negotiations, 
and then returned Nor was Korybut' s position in Bohemia 
a strong one. He failed in his military undertakings ; his 
attempts at conciliation alienated the extreme Taborites; 
Zizka maintained an attitude of neutrality towards him. 
Meanwhile Martin V. was untiring in his endeavours to 
break down the alliance between Poland and Bohemia. He 
exhorted the Polish bishops to labour for that purpose. He 
wrote to Ladislas and Witold, pointing out the political 
dangers which beset them if they strayed from Catholicism.^ 
Sigismund, on his part, was willing to purchase an alliance 
with Poland by abandoning the cause of the Teutonic 
Knights. The combined efforts of Martin V. and Sigismund 
were successful. Witold wrote to the Bohemians that his 
desire had been to reconcile them with the Roman Church ; 
as they were obstinate, he was driven to abandon them to 
their fate. Korybut was recalled, and left Prag on December 

* See his letter, dated May 13, 1422, in Palacky, Urkundliche Beitrd^e^ 
i., 199. 



i86 THE COUNCIL OF BASEL, 

24. The great idea of a Slavonic Empire and Church was 
at an end, and the future of Poland was decided by its 
cowardice at this great crisis. Henceforth it was condemned 
to the isolation which it had chosen through want of foresight. 

The departure of Korybut and freedom from invasion 
awakened amongst the Bohemians the differences 
promising which danger made them forget. The Pragers and 
ZLzka^° the Taborites stood in stronger opposition to one 
Tabori^es. another. The Pragers were more disposed to nego- 
1423-24. tiation, and hoped that they might still find room 
for their opinions under the shadow of the authority of the 
Church. Zizka had grown more convinced of the futility of 
compromise, and a stern spirit of resistance took possession 
of him and his followers. The year 1423 is full of the 
records of civil war and devastation in Bohemia, and Zizka 
spread fire and slaughter even in the neighbouring lands of 
Moravia and Hungary. The year 1424 is known in Bohemian 
annals as * Zizka's bloody year '. He swept like a storm 
over towns and villages of those who wished for compromise, 
and inflicted a sore defeat on the forces of the Pragers who 
were following on his tract. The Pragers in dismay looked 
for a leader and found him in Korybut, who in June, 1424, 
returned to Prag, no longer as the deputy of Witold and the 
Governor of Bohemia, but as a personal adventurer at the 
head of the Moderate party. Zizka advanced against Prag ; 
and the capital of Bohemia, the seat of Hub and his teaching, 
was in danger of a terrible siege. But moderate counsels 
prevailed at the last moment to avert this crowning calamity. 
Zizka withdrew and soon after died of the plague on October 
II. His followers bewailed the loss of one who was to them 
both leader and father ; they took the name of Orphans in 
sign of their bereavement. 

Zizka was a man of profound, even fanatical, piety, with 
Death of great decision and energy, who clearly saw the issue 
oaober, *^^^ ^^y before the Bohemians if they wished to 
1424. maintain their religious freedom. But he was a 

man of action rather than reflection. He had the qualities 



DEATH OF ZIZKA, 187 

necessary to head a party, but not those necessary to lead 
a people. He could solve the problem for himself by a 
rigorous determination to be watchful and to persist; but 
his range of ideas was not large enough to enable him to 
form any policy which would organise the nation to keep 
what it had won. Amid Bohemian parties he maintained a 
strong position, opposed to extremes but convinced of the 
hopelessness of conciliation. As a general he is almost 
unrivalled, for he knew how to train out of raw materials an 
invincible army, and he never lost a battle. He could drive 
back hosts of invaders and could maintain order within the 
limits of Bohemia; but he lacked the political sense that 
could bind a people together. His position became more 
and more a purely personal one ; his resolute character 
degenerated into savagery ; and his last energies were spent 
in trying to impress upon all his own personal convictions 
without any consideration of the exact issue to which they 
would lead. Without Zizka Bohemia would never have 
made good her resistance to the Church and to Sigismund. 
It was his misfortune rather than his fault that he had not 
also the political genius to organise that resistance on a 
secure basis for the future. 

By Zizka' s death the party opposed to reconciliation with 
Rome lost its chief strength. The Taborites divided Desire 
into two — the Orphans, who held by the opinions mcldc^ratc 
of Zizka, and were separated from the Pragers ^Jj/''' 
rather on social and political than on religious »425. 
grounds — and the extreme Taborites, who denied Transub- 
stantiation and were entirely opposed to the Church system. 
But both these parties were feeble, and spent their energies 
in conflicts with one another. The field was open for Kory- 
but and the Pragers to continue negotiations for peace and 
reconciliation. Bohemia was growing weary of anarchy. 
The first fervour of religious zeal had worn away, the first 
enthusiasm had been disillusioned. Men were beginning 
to count the cost of their political isolation, of the devasta- 
tion of their land by foes without and quarrels within, of the 



i88 THE COUNCIL OF BASEL. 

ruin of their commerce. Against this they had little to set 
as a counterpoise. The exactions of feudal lords were as easy 
to bear as the exactions of a plundering army ; the equality 
which they had hoped to find through religion was not yet 
attained. Though victorious in the field, the great mass oi 
the Bohemian people longed for peace almost on any terms. 
During the year 1425 Korybut pursued his negotiations, 
Procopius ^"^ ^^^ engaged in paving the way for reconcilia- 
the Great tion with Romc. The people were not unwilling, 
the but the army still remained true to its faith. As 

Aussig. they felt that danger was menancing them, the 
June, 142 'jpaborites again drew together, reasserted their 
principles and prepared to wage war. Besides the danger 
from half-heartedness at home, two active enemies harassed 
the Bohemian border. Albert of Austria attacked Moravia, 
and Frederick of Meissen, whom Sigismund had made 
Elector of Saxony, was winning back Silesia. A new leader 
arose to guide the renewed vigour of the Taborites, Proco- 
pius, called the Great to distinguish him from others of the 
same name. Procopius, like Zizka, was sprung from the 
lower nobility, and was a priest at the time when he first 
attached himself to the party of Hus. Without possessing 
the military genius of Zizka, he knew how to manage the 
army which Zizka had created ; and he had a larger mind 
and was capable of greater plans than his predecessor. Pro- 
copius was averse from war, and as a priest never bore arms 
nor took part in the battles which he directed. He wished 
for peace, but an honourable and enduring peace, which 
would guarantee to Bohemia her religious freedom. Peace, 
he saw, could only be won by arms ; it was not enough to 
repel the invaders, Bohemia must secure its borders by 
acting on the offensive. He led his troops up the Elbe to 
the siege of Aussig. Frederick of Saxony was absent at a 
Diet at Niirnberg, but his wife Catharine called for succours 
and gathered ,an army of 70,000 men. The Bohemian troops, 
reinforced by Korybut, amounted only to 25,000, On June 
J 6, 1426, was fought the battle under the walls of Aussig. 



KORYBUTS PLANS FOR RECONCILIATION FAIL. i8g 

The Bohemians entrenched themselves behind their wag- 
gons, and the furious onslaught of the German knights 
forced the first line. But the artillery opened on their flank ; 
the Bohemians from their waggons dragged the knights from 
their horses with long lances, and dashed them to the 
ground. The German lines were broken, and the Bohe- 
mians rushed in and turned them to flight. The slaughter 
that ensued was terrible ; 10,000 Germans were left dead 
upon the field. Procopius wished to lead his victorious 
army farther, so as to teach the Germans a lesson ; but the 
Moderates refused to follow, and the campaign came to an 
end without any other results. 

As usual, a victory united Germany and disunited Bohe- 
mia. Korybut pursued his schemes for union with p^^^^^ ^^ 
Rome, and wrote to Martin V. asking him to re- Korybufs 

-, , . /. , . iLw • plans for 

ceive Bohemian envoys for this purpose. Martin recondUa- 
V. expressed his willingness, provided they would 
abide by the decision of the Holy See, which was, how- 
ever, ready to receive information of their desires. ^ Korybut 
hoped that the Pope would abandon Sigismund and recog- 
nise himself as King ot Bohemia in return for his services 
to the Church. But Korybut was not yet firm enough in 
his position to carry out his plan. The dissension between 
the Taborites and the Pragers was not yet so profound that 
the Moderates as a body were willing to submit unreservedly 
to Rome. Korybut's plans were known in Prag, and a 
party formed itself, which, while in favour of reconciliation, 
stood firm by the Four Articles. On Maundy Thursday, 
April 17, 1427, an eloquent and popular priest, John Roky- 
cana, denounced in a sermon the treachery of Korybut. 
The people flew to arms, drove out the Poles, and made 
Korybut a prisoner. His plans had entirely failed, and the 
victory of the Moderate party over him necessarily turned 
to the profit of Procopius and the Taborites. 

^ See letter of Martin V. to Sigismund, in Raynaldus, 1427, § 10 : 
• Ipsos volebamus audire, ita scilicet, si venirent parati stare nostras de- 
terminationi, nobis et ecclesiae de caetero parituri '. 



190 THE COUNCIL OF BASEL. 

Procopius was now ruler of Bohemia, and carried out his 
Failure poHcy of terrifying his opponents by destructive 
Crusade raids into Austria, Lusatia, Moravia, and Silesia, 
of 1427. Germany in alarm again began to raise forces ; and 
Martin V. hoped to gain greater importance for the expedi- 
tion by appointing as Papal legate Henry Beaufort, Bishop 
of Winchester, whom he made Cardinal for the purpose. 
Beaufort's experience of aflfairs and high political position 
made him a fit man to interest England and France in the 
cause of the Church. In July, 1427, a strong army entered 
Bohemia and laid siege to Mies ; but the soldiers were un- 
disciplined and the leaders were disunited. On the approach 
of Procopius a panic seized the army, and it fled in wild 
confusion to Tachau. There Henry of Winchester, who 
had stayed behind in Germany, met the fugitives. He was 
the only man of courage and resolution in the army. He 
implored them to stand and meet the foe ; he unfolded the 
Papal banner and even set up a crucifix to shame the fugi- 
tives.^ They stayed and formed in battle order, but the 
appearance of the Bohemian troops again filled them with 
dread, and a second time they fled in panic terror. In vain 
Henry of Winchester tried to rally them. He seized the 
flag of the Empire, tore it in pieces and flung them before 
the princes ; but at last was himself driven to flee, lest he 
should fall into the hands of the heretics. 

This disgraceful retreat did not bring men's minds nearer 
Proposals to pcace. Martin V. urged a new expedition, and 
Stion"*" Sigismund was not sorry to see the Electors in 
H29. difficulties. In Bohemia the party of peace made 

a vain effort to raise Prag in the name of Korybut ; but the 
rising was put down without the help of Procopius, and 
Korybut was sent back to Poland in September, 1427. 
Procopius rallied round him the entire Hussite party, and, 
true to his policy of extorting an honourable peace, signal- 
ised the year 1428 by destructive raids into Austria, Bavaria, 

^ Andrew of Ratisbon, in Hofler, ii., 454; i., 578. 



PROPOSALS FOR PACIFICATION. 191 

Silesia, and Saxony. After each expedition he returned 
home and waited to see if proposals for peace were likely to 
be made. In April, 1429, a conference was arranged be- 
tween Sigismund and some of the Hussite leaders, headed 
by Procopius, at Pressburg in Hungary. Sigismund pro- 
posed a truce for two years till the assembling of the 
Council at Basel, before which the religious differences 
might be laid.^ The Hussites answered that their differ- 
ences arose because the Church had departed from the ex- 
ample of Christ and the Apostles : the Council of Constance 
had shown them what they had to expect from Councils ; 
they demanded an impartial judge between the Council and 
themselves, and this judge was the Holy Scripture and 
writings founded thereon. The proposal of Sigismund was 
referred to a Diet at Prag, and answer was made that the 
Bohemians were ready to submit their case to a Council, 
provided it contained representatives of the Greek and Ar- 
menian Churches, which received the Communion under 
both kinds, and provided it undertook to judge according to 
the Word of God, not the will of the Pope. Their request 
was equitable but impracticable. It was clearly impossible 
for them to submit to the decision of a Council composed 
entirely of their opponents ; yet they could have little hope 
that their proposal to construct an impartial tribunal would 
be accepted .2 

The negotiations came to nothing. Indeed, Sigismund was 
busy at the same time in summoning the forces of the Diversion 
Empire to advance again against Bohemia. Henry ^L^**^ 
of Winchester had gathered a force of 5000 English cru^J^' " 
horsemen, and in July, 1429, landed in Flanders on m«9. 
his way to Germany. But religious considerations were 
driven to give way to political. The unexpected successes 
of Jeanne Dare, the raising of the siege of Orleans, the 
coronation of Charles VII. at Rheims, gave a sudden check 

* Palacky, Urkundliche Beit rage, ii., 22. 

^ See Ibid., ii., 50, and Andrew of Ratisbon, Dialogus, in Hdfler, i. 

582. 



192 THE COUNCIL OP BASEL, 

to the English power in France. Winchester's soldiers 
were ordered to the relief of their countrymen ; the Cardi- 
nal's influence could not persuade his men to prefer religious 
zeal to patriotic sentiment. The Catholics in Germany 
broke into a wail of lamentation when they saw the forces 
of the Papal legate diverted to a war with France.^ 

Germany was feeble, and Bohemia was again agitated by 
Bohemian ^ Struggle. The peace party in Prag had for its 
Gi?miny° Quarters the Old Town, and the more pronounced 
1430. Hussites the New Town. The two quarters of the 

city were on the point of open hostility when Procopius 
again united Bohemia for a war of invasion. The year 1430 
was terrible in the annals of Germany, for the Hussite army 
carried devastation into the most flourishing provinces of 
the Empire. They advanced along the Elbe into Saxony, 
and penetrated as far as Meissen ; they invaded Franconia, 
and threatened with siege the stately town of Niirnberg. 
Wherever they went the land was laid waste, and fire and 
slaughter were spread on every side. 

The policy of Procopius was beginning to have its effect. 
The Hussite movement was the great question 
Hussite which attracted the attention of Europe. Hussite 
renders" manifestoes were circulated in every land ; the new 
fncWtabie. opiuions wcrc discussed openly, and in many places 
^'*^°' met with considerable sympathy.^ The Hussites 

complained that their opponents attacked them without really 
knowing their beliefs, which were founded only on Holy 
Scripture ; they invited all men to acquaint themselves with 
their opinions ; they appealed to the success of their arms as 
a proof that God was on their side. The opinion began to 
prevail that, after all, argument and not arms was the proper 

^ See the letters of Martin V. to Charles VII. of France, in Raynaldus, 
1429, §§ 16, 17. 

* John of Segovia (Mon. Concil., ii., 5) gives an account of these 
Hussite letters in Spain : * Premittebant se desiderare, ut illis aperiret 
intellectum Deus illuminans corda eorum, narrantes quomodo jam a 
pluribus annis inter se et illos magna fuisset discordia, et utrinque noUles 
et ignobiles multi fatui sua corpora perdidissent,' etc. 



DOCUMENT IN FAVOUR OF THE COUNCIL, 193 

mode of meeting heresy, particularly when arms had proved 
a failure. Martin V., who hated the very name of a Coun- 
cil/ was again haunted at the end of 1430 by the face of 
John of Ragusa, who had been negotiating with Sigismund 
that he should combine with the University of Paris to urge 
on the Pope a speedy summons of the Council to Basel. 
Soon after John's arrival in Rome, on the morning of 
November 8, the day on which Martin V. was to create 
three new Cardinals, a document was found affixed to the 
door of the Papal palace which caused a great sensation 
in Rome. 

* Whereas it is notorious to all Christendom, that since the 
Council of Constance an untold number of Chris- startling 
tians have wandered from the faith by means of the f® favour 
Hussites, and members are daily being lopped off colmdi. 
from the body of the Church militant, nor is there ^430. 
any one of all the sons whom she begat to help or console 
her ; now, therefore, two most serene princes direct to all 
Christian princes the following conclusions, approved by 
learned doctors both of canon and of civil law, which they 
have undertaken to defend in the Council to be celebrated 
according to the decree of Constance in March next.* Then 
followed the conclusions, which set forth that the Catholic 
faith must be preferred before man, whoever he be ; that 
princes secular as well as ecclesiastical are bound to defend 
the faith ; that as former heresies, the Novatian, Arian, 
Nestorian, and others, were extirpated by Councils, so must 
that of the Hussites ; that every Christian under pain of 
mortal sin must strive for the celebration of a Council for 
this purpose ; if Popes or Cardinals put hindrances in the 
way they must be reckoned as favourers of heresy ; if the 
Pope does not summon the Council at the appointed time 
those present at it ought to withdraw from his obedience, 
and proceed against those who try to hinder it as against 
fisivourers of heresy. This startling document was currently 

^ * In immensum nomen concilii abhorrebat. ' — ^John of Ragusa, Mon, 
Con. i., 66. 

VOL. II. 13 



194 THE COUNCIL OF BASEL. 

supposed to be authorised by Frederick of Brandenburg, 
Albert of Austria, and Lewis of Brieg.^ 

Several of the Cardinals, chief of whom was Condulmier, 
Cardinal ^^® futuFC Popc, ufged on Martin V. to comply with 
Cesarim^ the prevailing wish. But Martin V. wished again 
legate in to try the chattce of war, and awaited the results ot 

Germany* 

January, a diet which Sigismund had summoned to Niirn- 
'*^'' berg. On January ii, 143 1, he appointed a new 

legate for Germany, Giuliano Cesarini, whom he had just 
created Cardinal. Cesarini was sprung from a poor but 
noble family in Rome, and his talents attracted Martin V.*s 
notice. He was a man of large mind, great personal 
holiness, and deep learning. His appearance and manner 
were singularly attractive, and all who came in contact with 
him were impressed by the genuineness and nobility of his 
character. If any man could succeed in awakening enthusi- 
asm in Germany it was Cesarini. ^ 

Before Cesarini's departure to Germany Martin V. had 
Begin- been brought with difficulty to recognise the ne- 
the coun- cessity of the assembly of the Council at Basel, and 
bLscI. commissioned Cesarini to preside at its opening. 
February fhg gull authorising this was dated February i, 
1431- ' and conferred full powers on Cesarini to change the 
place of the Council at his will, to confirm its decrees and do 
all things necessary for the honour and peace of the Church. 
This Bull reached Cesarini at Niirnberg, shortly after the 
news of Martin V.'s death. The Diet of Niirnberg voted an 
expedition into Bohemia, and Cesarini eagerly travelled 
through Germany preaching the crusade. At the same time 
steps were taken to open the Council at Basel. On the last 
day of February a Burgundian abbot read before the as- 
sembled clergy of Basel the Bulls constituting the Council, 
and then solemnly pronounced that he was ready for con- 

1 It is given in Martene, Ampl. CollectiOy viii., 48, in a letter from a 
Burgundian envoy; also by John of Ragusa, Mon, ConciLf i., 65. 

^ See his character as described by Vespasiano and Paulus Jovius in 
the Elogia Virorum Illustrium. 



BEGINNING OF THE COUNCIL OF BASEL. 195 

ciliar business. In April representatives of the University 
of Paris and a few other prelates began to arrive; but 
Cesarini sent to them John of Ragusa on April 30 to explain 
that the Bohemian expedition was the object for which he 
had been primarily commissioned by the Pope, and was the 
great means of extirpating heresy. He besought them to 
send envoys to help him in his dealings with the Bohemians, 
and meanwhile to use their best endeavours to assemble 
others to the Council. The envoys of the Council, at the 
head of whom was John of Ragusa, followed Sigismund to 
Eger, where he held a conference with the Hussites. The 
conference was only meant to divert the attention of the 
Bohemians, and it was speedily ended by a demand on the 
part of the envoys that the Bohemians should submit their 
case unconditionally to the Councils decision. Sigismund 
returned to Niirnberg on May 22, and the German forces 
rapidly assembled. There were complaints at the legate's 
absence ; Cesarini's zeal had led him as far as Koln, whence 
he hastened to NUrnberg on June 27. There he found a 
messenger from Eugenius IV., urging the prosecution of the 
Council, and bidding him, if it could be done without hin- 
drance to the cause at heart, to leave the Bohemian expedi- 
tion and proceed at once to Basel. But Cesarini's heart and 
soul were now in the crusade. He determined to pursue his 
course, and on July 3 appointed John of Palomar, an auditor 
of the Papal court, and John of Ragusa, to preside over the 
Council as his deputies in his absence. 

On July 5 Cesarini addressed an appeal to the Bohemians, 
protesting his wish to bring peace rather than a cetarini-a 
sword. Were they not all Christians ? Why 5?e Bohe- 
should they stray from their holy mother the ?jjf"' 
Church ? Could a handful of men pretend to know '^si* ' 
better than all the doctors of Christendom ? Let them look 
upon their wasted land and the miseries they had endured ; 
he earnestly and affectionately besought them to return 
while it was time to the bosom of the Church. The Bohe- 
mians were not slow to answer. They asserted the truth of 



196 THE COUNCIL OF BASEL. 

the Four Articles of Prag, which they were prepared to prove 
by Scripture. They recounted the results of the conferences 
at Pressburg and Eger, where they had professed themselves 
willing to appear before any Council which would judge 
according to Scripture, and would work with them in 
bringing about the reformation of the Church according to 
the Word of God. They had been told that such limitations 
were contrary to the dignity of a General Council, which was 
above all law. This they could not admit, and trusting in 
God's truth were prepared to resist to the utmost those who 
attacked them.^ 

On July 7 Cesarini left Niirnberg with Frederick of Bran- 
Rout denburg, who had been appointed commander of the 
CruMdera Crusadc. Cesariui had done his utmost to pacify 
Auffusui, *^® German princes and unite them for this ex- 
H3I- pedition. He was full of hope when he set out 
from Niirnberg. But when he reached Weiden, where the 
different contingents were to meet, his hopes were rudely 
dispelled. Instead of soldiers he found excuses ; he heard 
tales of nobles needing their troops to war against one 
another rather than combine in defence of the Church. * We 
are many fewer,* he wrote to Basel on July i6, *than was 
said in Niirnberg, so that the leaders hesitate. Not only 
our victory but even our entry into Bohemia is doubtful. 
We are hot so few that, if there were any courage amongst 
us, we need shrink from entering Bohemia. I am very 
anxious and above measure sad. For if the army retreats 
without doing anything, the Christian religion in these 
parts is undone ; such terror would be felt by our side, and 
their boldness would increase.' ^ However, on August i, an 
army of 40,000 horse and 90,000 foot crossed the Bohemian 
border, and advanced against Tachau. Cesarini seeing it 
unprepared for attack urged an immediate onslaught: he 
was told that the soldiers were tired with their march, and 
must wait till to-morrow. In the night the inhabitants 

^ In Martene, Amp. Coll,, viii., 15; also Mon. ConciL, i., 148. 
2 Mon. Concil., i., 99. 



FLIGHT OF THE GERMAN ARMY AT TAUSS. 197 

Strengthened their walls and put their artillery into position, 
so that a storm was hopeless. The. crusading host passed 
on, devastating and slaughtering with a ruthless cruelty that 
was a strange contrast to the charitable utterances of 
Cesarini's manifesto. But their triumph was short-lived. 
On August 14 the Bohemian army advanced against them 
at Tauss. Its approach was known, when it was yet some 
way off, by the noise of the rolling waggons. Cesarini, 
with the Duke of Saxony, ascended a hill to see the dis- 
position of the army ; there he saw with surprise the Ger- 
man waggons retreating. He sent to ask Frederick of 
Brandenburg the meaning of this movement, and was told 
that he had ordered the waggons to take up a secure position 
in the rear. But the movement was misunderstood by the 
Germans. A cry was raised that some were retreating. 
Panic seized the host, and in a few moments Cesarini saw 
the crusaders in wild confusion making for the Bohemian 
Forest in their rear. He was driven to join the fugitives, 
and all his efforts to rally them were vain. Procopius, 
seeing the flight, charged the fugitives, seized all their 
waggons and artillery, and inflicted upon them terrible 
slaughter. Cesarini escaped with difficulty in disguise, and 
had to endure the threats and reproaches of the Germans, 
who accused him as the author of all their calamities. 

Cesarini was humbled by his experience. He reproached 
himself for his confidence in German arms ; he had 
now seen enough of the cowardice and feebleness anives in 
x)f Germany. He had seen, too, the growing im- September 
portance of the Hussite movement, and the force ^' '*^'" 
which their success was giving to the spread of their con- 
victions throughout^Germany.. When he returned to Ndrn- 
berg Sigismund met him with due honour; the German 
princes gathered round him and protested their readiness for 
another campaign next year. But Cesarini answered that 
no other remedy remained for the check of the Hussite 
heresy than the Council of Basel. He besought them to 
do their utmost to strengthen the feeble and cheer the 



i/ 



igS THE COUNCIL OF BASEL, 

desponding in Germany, to exhort those whose faith was 
wavering to hold out in hope of succour from the Council.^ 

/ With this advice he hastened to Basel, where he arrived on 

September g. To the Council were now transferred all 

^^ men's expectations of a peaceable settlement of the formid- 

^ able difficulty which threatened Western Christendom. 

* John of Segovia, in Mon, ConctL, ti., 29. 



199 



CHAPTER IV. 

FIRST ATTEMPT OF EUGENIUS IV. TO DISSOLVE THE 
COUNCIL OF BASEL. 

143 1— 1434. 

* 

The ancient city of Basel was well fitted to be the seat of a 
great assemblage. High above the rushing Rhine 
rose its stately minster on a rocky hill which seemed tion*of^ 
to brave the river's force. Round the river and the ^***^* 
minster clusters the city. It was surrounded by a fertile 
plain, was easily accessible from Germany, France, and 
Italy, and as a free Imperial city was a place of security 
and dignity for the Council. To the eye of an Italian, ac- 
customed to marbles and frescoes, the interior of the cathe- 
dral looked bald and colourless ; but its painted windows 
and the emblazoned shields of nobles hung round the wall 
gave it a staid richness of its own. The Italians owned 
that it was a comfortable place, and that the houses of the 
merchants of Basel equalled those of Florence. It was well 
ordered by its magistrates, who administered strict justice 
and organised admirably the supplies of food. The citizens 
of Basel were devout, but little given to literature; they 
were luxurious and fond of wine, but were steadfast, truth- 
ful, sincere, and honest in their dealings.^ 

The Council was long in assembling. It was natural 

^ This is the picture of JEneas Sylvius in a letter addressed to the 
Cardinal of S. Angelo, printed by Urstisius, Epitome Historic Basiliensis 
(1577). It was written by iEneas as an introduction to a history of the 
Council. 



ioo THE COUNCIL OF BASEL. 

that, while the President was absent in Bohemia, few should 
Formal care to undertake the journey. If the crusade ended 
Sf thi°^ i^ ^ victory, it was doubtful how long the Council 
?iSy°2l!' would sit. Cesarini*s deputies, John of Palomar 
1431 and John of Ragusa, opened the Council with due 

ceremonial on July 23. It was only sparsely attended, and 
its first business was to increase its numbers, and obtain 
some guarantees for its safety and freedom from the city 
magistrates and from Sigismund. On August 29 came the 
news of the flight of the Crusaders from Tauss. It pro- 
duced a deep impression on the assembled fathers, and con- 
vinced them of the seriousness and importance of the work 
which they had before them. They felt that the chastise- 
ment which had befallen the Church was due to her short- 
comings, and that penitence and reformation alone could 
avert further disaster.^ 

To this feeling the arrival of Cesarini on September 9 

. ., gave further force. Deeply impressed with the im- 

firet portance of the crisis, he sent forth letters urging 

Septem- on the prelates that they should lose no time in 

' ^^'' coming to the Council. Only three bishops, seven 
abbots, and a few doctors were assembled, as the roads were 
unsafe, owing to a war between the Dukes of Austria and 
Burgundy. He wrote also to the Pope to express his own 
convictions and the common opinion of the work which the 
Council might do : it might extirpate heresy, promote peace 
throughout Christendom, restore the Church to its pristine 
glory, humble its enemies, treat of union with the Greeks, 
and finally set on foot a crusade for the recovery of the Holy 
Land. 2 An envoy was sent to the Pope to explain to him 
how matters stood, and to urge the need of his presence at 
Basel. Meanwhile there were many discussions relative to 

* John of Ragusa (Mon, Condi.., i., loi) : * Fortius accensi ad reforma- 
tionem ecclesiae, negotia concilii multo acrius et cum majore sollicitu- 
dine et labore cceperunt peragere et procurare, expressam Dei banc 
ultionem et flagellum percipientes evenire propter peccata et deformatio- 
nem ecclesiae '. 

' The letter is given by John of Ragusa, Mon, Concil., i., 108. 



THE COUNCIL'S INVITATION TO THE BOHEMIANS. 201 

the constitution of the Council, who were to take part in it, 
and what was to be the method of voting. There was a 
general agreement that, as the g^eat object of the Council 
was to arrange a union with the Bohemians and the Greeks, 
it was desirable to admit men of learning, that is, doctors 
of canon or civil law, as well as prelates. The question of 
the method of voting was left until the Council became more 
numerous. 

The Council, moreover, lost no time in trying to bring 
about its chief object. On October 10 a letter was invitation 
sent to the Bohemians, begging them to join with Se^BShe- 
the Council for the promotion of unity. Perhaps "jtobcr 
God has allowed discord so long that experience »<>. U3i. 
might teach the evils of dissension. Christ's disciples are 
bound to labour for unity and peace. The desolation of 
Bohemia must naturally incline it to wish for peace, and 
where can that be obtained more surely than in a Council 
assembled in the Holy Ghost ? At Basel everything will 
be done with diligence and with freedom ; every one may 
speak, and the Holy Ghost will lead men's hearts to the 
truth, if only they will have faith. The Bohemians have 
often complained that they could not get a free hearing ; at 
Basel they may both speak and hear freely, and the prayers 
of the faithful will help both sides. The most ample safe- 
conduct was offered to their representatives, and the fullest 
appreciation given to their motives. * Send, we beseech 
you, men in whom you trust that the Spirit of the Lord 
rests, gentle. God-fearing, humble, desirous of peace, seek- 
ing not their own, but the things of Christ, whom we pray 
to give to us and you and all Christian people peace on 
earth, and in the world to come life everlasting.* 1 This 
letter, which breathes profound sincerity and true Christian 
charity, was, no doubt, an expression of the views of Cesar- 
ini, and was most probably written by him. The greatest 
care was taken to make no allusion to the past, and to 

^ John of Ragusa, Man. Concil.^ i., 135 ; also in John of Segovia, and 
in Mansi, xxix., 233. 



t^ 



202 THE COUNCIL OF BASEL. 

approach the matter entirely afresh. But it was impossible 
for the Bohemians to forget all that had, gone before. The 
difficulty experienced in sending the letter to the Bohemians 
showed the existence of a state of things very different from 
what the Council wished to recognise. There was no inter- 
course between Bohemia and the rest of Christendom ; the 
Bohemians were under the ban of the Council of Siena as 
heretics. It was finally agreed to send three copies by dif- 
ferent ways, in hopes that one at least might arrive. One 
was sent to Sigismund for transmission, another to the 
magistrates of Nurnberg, and a third to the magistrates of 
Eger. All three copies arrived safely in Bohemia in the 
beginning of December. 

This activity on the part of the Council necessarily aroused 
g ^^. the suspicion of Eugenius IV. The zeal of Ce- 
IV. orders sarini, which had been kindled by his Bohemian 

the disso- . /., «*i.. t- r^ 1 

lutionof experiences, went far beyond the limits of Papal 
cirof " * prudence. The Bohemian question did not seem so 
Nottmber important at Rome as it did at Basel. A Council 
13. 1431. vsrhich under the pressure of necessity opened nego- 
tiations with heretics, might greatly imperil the faith of 
the Church, and might certainly be expected to do many 
things contrary to the Papal headship. A democratic spirit 
prevailed in Basel, which had shown itself in the admission 
of all doctors ; and the discussion about the organisation of 
the Council showed that it would be very slightly amenable 
to the influence of the Pope and the Curia. Eugenius IV. 
resolved, therefore, at once to rid himself of the Council. 
He thought it wisest to overturn it at once, before it had 
time to strike its roots deeper. Accordingly, on November 
12, he wrote to Cesarini, empowering him to dissolve 
the Council at Basel and proclaim another to be held at 
Bologna in a year and a half. The reasons given were the 
small attendance of prelates at Basel, the difficulties of 
access owing to the war between Austria and Burgundy, 
the distracted state of men's minds in that quarter owing to 
the spread of Hussite opinions ; but especially the" fact that 



POPE*S BULL OF DISSOLUTION NOT ACCEPTED. 203 

negotiations were now pending with the Greek Emperor, 
who had promised to come to a Council which was to unite 
the Greek and Latin Churches on condition that the Pope 
paid the expenses of his journey and held the Council in 
some Italian city. As it would be useless to hold two Coun- 
cils at the same time, the Pope thought it better that the 
Fathers of Basel should reassemble at Bologna when their 
business was ready. 

A Bull dissolving the Council on these grounds was also 
secretly prepared, and was signed by ten Cardinals. The 
The Council, in entire ignorance of the blow that Buffof 
was being aimed at it, was engaged in preparations uon°is not 
for its first public session, which took place under Jt^ffe*** 
the presidency of Cesarini on December 14. The f^^°^ 
Council declared itself to be duly constituted, and ^aa- 
laid down three objects for its activity : the extirpation of 
heresy, the purification of Christendom, and the reformation 
of morals. It appointed its officials and guarded by decrees 
its safety and freedom. On December 23 arrived the Bishop 
of Parenzo, treasurer of Eugenius IV., and was honourably 
received ; but the coldness of his manner showed the object 
of his mission. The Council was at once in a ferment of 
excitement. In a congregation on December 29, the citizens 
of Basel appeared in force, and protested against the dis- 
solution. Various speakers of the Council laid before the 
Bishop of Parenzo four propositions : that the urgent needs 
of Christendom did not allow of the dissolution of the Coun- 
cil ; that such a step would cause great scandal and offence 
to the Church ; that if this Council were dissolved or pro- 
rogued, it was idle to talk of summoning another ; that a 
General Council ought to proceed against all who tried to hin- 
der it, and ought to call all Christian princes to its aid. The 
Bishop of Parenzo was not prepared for this firm attitude ; 
he found things at Basel different from his expectations. 
He thought it wise to temporise, and declared that if he had 
any Papal Bulls he would not publish them. Meanwhile 
he tried to induce Cesarini to dissolve the Council. Cesarini 



204 THE COUNCIL OF BASEL. 

was sorely divided between his allegiance to the Pope and 
his sense of what was due to the welfare of Christendom. 
It was agreed that two envoys should be sent to the Pope, 
one from Cesarini and one from the Council. The Bishop 
of Parenzo thought it wise to flee away on January 8, 1432, 
leaving his Bulls with John of Prato, who attempted to 
publish them on January 13, but was interrupted, and his 
Bulls and himself were taken in custody by the Council's 
orders.i 

Cesarini was deeply moved by this attitude of the Pope. 
Cesarini's To his fcFvent mind it was inconceivable that the 
EuglniSs head of Christendom should behave with such levity 
testiSg° at so grave a crisis. He wrote at once to Eugenius 
the^diMo- IV. a letter, in which he expressed with the utmost 
janSSry, frankuess his bitter disappointment at the Pope's 
1432. conduct, his firm conviction of the need of straight- 

forward measures on the part of the ecclesiastical authorities 
to restore the shattered confidence of Christian people. He 
began his letter by saying that he was driven to speak freely 
and fearlessly by the manifest peril of the faith, the danger 
of the loss of obedience to the Papacy, the obloquy with 
which Eugenius was everywhere assailed. He recapitulated 
the facts concerning his own mission to Bohemia and his 
presidency of the Council ; detailed the hopes which he and 
every one in Germany entertained of the Council's media- 
tion. * I was driven also to come here by observing the 
dissoluteness and disorder of the German clergy, by which 
the laity are sorely irritated against the Church — so much 
so, that there is reason to fear that, if the clergy do not 
amend their ways, the laity will attack them, as the Hussites 
do. If there had been no General Council, I should have 
thought it my duty as legate to summon a provincial synod 
for the reform of the clergy : for unless the clergy be re- 
formed I fear that, even if the Bohemian heresy were extin- 
guished, another would rise up in its place.' Having these 

* John of Segovia, Mon, Con,^ ii., 64. 



CESARINrS LETTER TO EUGENIUS IV, 205 

opinions, he came to the Council and tried to conduct its 
business with diligence, thinking that such was the Pope's 
desire. * I did not suppose that your holiness wished me 
to dissemble or act negligently; if you had bid me do so, I 
would have answered that you must lay that duty on another, 
for I have determined never to occupy the post of a dis- 
sembler.' 

He then passed on to the question of the prorogation of 
the Council, and laid before the Pope the considerations 
which he would have urged if he had been in the Curia when 
the question was discussed, (i) The Bohemians have been 
summoned to the Council ; its prorogation will be a flight 
before them on the part of the Church as disgraceful as the 
flight of the German army. * By this flight we shall approve 
their errors and condemn the truth and justice of our own 
cause. Men will see in this the finger of God, and will see 
that the Bohemians can neither be vanquished by arms nor 
by argument O luckless Christendom ! O Catholic faith, 
abandoned by all ; soldiers and priests alike desert thee ; no 
one dares stand on thy side.' (2) This flight will lose the 
allegiance of wavering Catholics, amongst whom are already 
rife opinions contrary to the Holy See. (3) The ignominy 
of the flight will fall on the clergy, who will be universally 
attacked. (4) *What will the world say when it hears of 
this ? Will it not judge that the clergy is incorrigible and 
wishes to moulder in its abuses ? So many Councils have 
been held in our time, but no reform has followed. Men 
were expecting some results from this Council; if it be 
dissolved they will say that we mock both God and men. 
The whole reproach, the whole shame and ignominy, will 
fall upon the Roman Curia as the cause and author of all 
these ills. Holy Father, may you never be the cause of such 
evils I At your hands will be required the blood of those 
that perish ; about all things you will have to render a strict 
account at the judgment seat of God.' (5 and 6) To promote 
the pacification of Christendom ambassadors have been sent 
to make peace between England and France, between Poland 



2o6 THE COUNCIL OF BASEL, 

and the Teutonic Knights; the dissolution of the Council 
will stop their valuable labours. (7) There are disturbances 
in Magdeburg and Passau, where the people have risen 
against their bishops and show signs of following the Hus- 
sites. The Council may arrange these matters ; if it be 
dissolved discord will spread. (8) The Duke of Burgundy 
has been asked by the Council to undertake the part ot 
leader against the Hussites. If the Council be dissolved, he 
will be irritated against the Church, and his services will be 
lost. (9) Many German nobles are preparing for another 
expedition into Bohemia if need be. If they are deluded by 
the Pope, they will turn against the Church. * I myself will 
rather die than live ignominiously. I will go perhaps to 
Niirnberg and place myself in the hands of these nobles that 
they may do with me what they will, even sell me to the 
heretics. All men shall know that I am innocent' (10) 
The Council sent envoys to confirm the wavering on the 
Bohemian borders : if the Council be dissolved, their work 
will be undone and there will be a large addition to the 
Hussites. 

He then proceeded to answer the Pope's objections. If 
he cannot conveniently come to Basel in person on account 
of his health, let him send a deputation of Cardinals and 
eminent persons. As to the safety of the place, it is as 
secure as Constance. It is said that the Pope fears lest the 
Council meddle with the temporalities of the Church. It is 
not reasonably to be expected that an ecclesiastical assembly 
will act to its own detriment. There have been many 
previous Councils with no such result. * I fear lest it 
happjen to us as it did to the Jews, who said, " If we let Him 
alone, the Romans will come and take away our place and 
nation '*. So we say, " If we let this Council alone, the 
laity will come and take away our temporalities ". But by 
the just judgment of God the Jews lost their place because 
they would not let Christ alone ; and by the just judgment 
of God, if we do not let this Council alone we shall lose our 
temporalities, and (God forbid) our lives and souls as well.' 



HOSTILITY BETWEEN POPE AND COUNCIL, 207 

Let the Pope, on the other hand, be friendly with the Coun- 
cil, reform his Curia, and be ready to act for the good of the 
Church. The Council is likely, if pressed to extremities, to 
refuse to dissolve, and there would be the danger of a schism. 
He begged to be relieved of his commission and complained 
of the want of straightforwardness. If he attempted to 
dissolve the Council, he would be stoned to death by the 
fathers ; if he were to go away, the Council would be certain 
to appoint for itself another president.^ 

This letter is remarkable for its clear exhibition of the 
state of affairs in Europe at this time, and as we ppen hos- 
read it now, it is still more remarkable for the {wcJn''tho 
political instinct which enabled its writer to make Ujjfcoun- 
so true a forecast of the future. It would have been ^ii. 
well for Eugenius IV. if he had had the wisdom to appreciate 
its importance. It would have been well for the future of 
the Papacy if Cesarini's words had awakened an echo in 
the Court of Rome. As it was, the politicians of the Curia 
only smiled at the exalted enthusiasm of Cesarini, and 
Eugenius IV. was too narrow-minded and obstinate to 
reconsider the wisdom of a course of conduct which he had 
once adopted. He did not understand, nor did he care to 
understand, the sentiments of the Council. He had forgotten 
the current of feeling against the Papacy which had been so 
strong at Constance. The decrees of Constance were not 
among the Papal Archives ; and one of the Cardinals who 
possessed a manuscript of Filastre was heard with astonish- 
ment by the Curia when he called attention to the decree 
which declared a General Council to be superior to the 
Pope.^ At Basel, on the other hand, there were many 
copies of the Acts of the Council of Constance, and it was 
held that the Pope could not dissolve a General Council 
without its own consent The rash step of Eugenius forced 
the Council into an attitude of open hostility towards the 

^ The letter is given in Mn, Syl., Opera, p. 64, in John of Segovia, 95, 
etc., and in Mansi. 

' John of Segovia, p. 77. 



2o8 THE COUNCIL OF BASEL. 

Papacy, and a desperate struggle between the two powers 
was inevitable. 

The first question for both parties was the attitude of 
Sigismund. His personal interest in the settlement 
mund of the Hussite rebellion naturally inclined him to 
expedition favour in every way the assembling of the Council. 
Novem-^* In July, 143 1, he took the Council under his Imperial 
er, 1431. protection, and in August wrote in its interest to 
make peace between the Dukes of Austria and Burgundy. 
But Sigismund felt that the years which had elapsed since 
the Council of Constance had not been glorious to his 
reputation. He had failed ignominiously in Bohemia and 
had exercised little influence in Germany, where he had 
quarrelled with Frederick of Brandenburg, who was the 
most distinguished amongst the electors. His early enthu- 
siasm for acting with dignity the part of secular head of 
Christendom had been damped at Constance, and he did not 
care to appear at Basel without some accession to his dig- 
nity. With characteristic desire for outward show, he deter- 
mined on an expedition to Italy, to assume the Imperial 
crown. He hoped to establish once more the Imperial 
claims, to check the power of Venice, which was the enemy of 
Hungary, and to induce the Pope to come to Basel. Yet to 
attain all these objects he had only a following of some 
2000 Hungarian and German knights.^ His hopes were 
entirely built on the help of Filippo Maria Visconti, who 
was at war with Venice and Florence, and with whom 
Sigismund made a treaty in July. Before setting out for 
Italy he appointed William of Bavaria his vicegerent as 
Protector of the Council : then early in November he crossed 
the Alps, and on November 21 arrived in Milan. But the 
jealous and suspicious character of Filippo Maria Visconti 
could not bear the presence of a superior ; he was afraid that 
Sigismund's presence might be the occasion of a rising 
against himself. Accordingly he gave orders that Sigis- 

^Poggio, Hist, Flor,f in Mur., xx., 379. 



SIGtSMUND'S RELATIONS TO POPE AND COUNCIL. 209 

mund should be honourably received in Milan; but he 
•himself withdrew from the city, and remained secluded in 
one of his castles. He refused to visit Sigismund, and gave 
the ridiculous excuse that his emotions were too strong ; if 
he saw Sigismund he would die of joy.^ Disappointed of 
his host, Sigismund could only hasten his coronation with 
the iron crown of Lombardy, which took place in the church 
of S. Ambrogio on November 25. He did not stay long in 
Milan, where he was treated with such suspicion, but in 
December passed on to Piacenza, where, on January 10, 
1432, he received news of the Papal Bull dissolving the 
Council of Basel. 

Sigismund had left Germany as the avowed Protector of 
the Council ; but it was felt that his desire to obtain . 

the Imperial crown gave the Pope considerable ofsigis- 
power of affixing stipulations to the coronation. Eugenius 
In fact, Sigismund's relations with Eugenius IV. the coun- 
were not fortunate for the object which he had in "^* 
view. Not only was the question of the Council an obstacle 
to their good understanding, but Sigismund's alliance with 
the Duke of Milan was displeasing to Eugenius IV., who as 
a Venetian was on the side of his native city. When Sigis- 
mund discovered how little he could depend on Filippo 
Maria Visconti his political position in Italy was suffi- 
ciently helpless. There were grave fears in Basel that he 
might abandon the cause of the Council as a means of 
reconciling himself with the Pope. 

At first, however, Sigismund's attitude seemed firm 
enough. Immediately on hearing of the proposed disso- 
lution of the Council he wrote to Basel, exhorting the 
fathers to stand firm, and saying that he had written to 
beg the Pope to reconsider his decision. The Council, on 
its side, wrote to Sigismund, affecting to disbelieve the 

1 Windeck, in Mencken, i., 1241 : * Er hatte sorge dass die stat Meylon 
sich an dem konig fluge und er kam nye zu dem konige ; er sprach und 
nam sich an, " Sehe er den konige, er musste von frewden sterben ". Es 
war aber ein getewsche.' 

VOL. II. 14 



ii6 THE COUNCIL OP BASEL. 

genuineness of the Bull brought by the Bishop of Parenzo,^ 
and begging Sigismund to send William of Bavaria at once 
to Basel. On receipt of this letter Sigismund wrote again, 
thanking them for their zeal, saying that he was going at 
once to Rome to arrange matters with the Pope, and 
exhorting them to persevere in their course. 

Before it received the news of Sigismund's constancy the 
Council on January 21 issued a summons to all 

Resolute ,^, . , , . , , 

bearing Christcndom, beggmg those who were commg to 
Council, the Council not to be discouraged at the rumours 
1432. q£ j^g dissolution, as it was improbable that the 

Vicar of Christ, if well informed, would set aside the decrees 
of Constance, and bring ruin on the Church by dissolving 
the Council which was to extirpate heresy and reform 
abuses. Congregations were continued as usual to arrange 
preliminaries, and on February 3 William of Bavaria ar- 
rived in Basel, and was solemnly received as Sigismund's 
vicegerent. Prelates poured in to the Council, which daily 
became more numerous. The Dukes of Milan, Burgundy, 
and Savoy all wrote to express their co-operation with the 
Council. Cardinal Cesarini could not reconcile it with his 
allegiance to the Pope to continue as President of the 
Council in spite of the Pope's wishes, and the breach with 
the Papacy was made more notorious by the election of 
a new President, Philibert, Bishop of Coutances. As a 
farther sign of its determination the Council ordered a seal 
to be made for its documents. Its impress was God the 
Father sending down the Holy Spirit on the Pope and 
Emperor sitting in Council surrounded by Cardinals, pre- 
lates, and doctors.^ 

On February 15 was held the second general session, in 
which was rehearsed the famous decree of Constance, that 

^ * Quidam episcopus Parentinus SS. domini nostri Summi Pontificis 
assertus thesaurarius quasdam prcetensas litteras apostolicas dissolutionis 
dictae sacrae synodi, ut accepimus, attulit.' — Martene, Amp, Coll.y viii., 53. 

'^ It bore the legend : * Sigillum sacri generalis Concilii Basileensis 
universalem ecclesiam representantis '. — John of Segovia, p. 122. 



ORGANISATION OP THE COUNCIL. 2ii 

* a General Council has its power immediately from Christ, 
and that all of every rank, even the Papal, are bound The 
to obey it in matters pertaining to the faith, the of°Ba2i 
extirpation of heresy, and the reformation of the [S^fiS^ 
Church in head and members'. It was decreed gg^^®^ 
that the Council could not be dissolved against "^°<^' 
its will, and that all proceedings of the Pope 15.1432. 
against any of its members, or any who were coming to 
incorporate themselves with it, were null and void. This 
was the Council's answer to the Pope's Bull of dissolution. 
The two powers now stood in open antagonism, and each 
claimed the allegiance of Christendom. The movement 
against the Papal monarchy, which had been started by the 
Schism, found its full expression at Basel. The Council of 
Pisa had merely aided the Cardinals in their efforts to restore 
peace to the disturbed Church ; the Council of Constance 
had been a more resolute endeavour for the same purpose of 
the temporal and spiritual authorities of Christendom. But 
the Council of Basel asserted against a legitimate Pope, who 
was universally recognised, the superiority of a General 
Council over the Papacy. It was a revolt of the ecclesias- 
tical aristocracy against the Papal absolutism, and the fate 
of the revolt was a question of momentous consequences for 
the future of the Church. 

After this declaration the Council busily sent envoys 
throughout Christendom, and set to work to or- organisa- 
ganise itself for the transaction of business. The coundi of 
means for this purpose had been under discussion ^*««*- 
since September, 143 1, and in the plan adopted we recognise 
the statesmanlike capacity of Cesarini.^ The fortunes of 
the Council of Constance showed the danger of national 
jealousies and political complications in an ecclesiastical 
synod. It was resolved at Basel to avoid the division by 

^ John of Segovia, 126, says that the suggestion of the deputations 
came from John of Ragusa, * velut subitanea inspiratione * ; considering 
the relations in which he stood towards Cesarini, the source of the in- 
spiration seems pretty obvious. 



212 THE COUNCIL OF BASEL. 

nations, and to work by means of four committees, which 
were to prepare business for the general sessions of the 
Council. As the objects of the Council were the suppression 
of heresy, the reform of the Church, and the pacification of 
Christendom, these objects were confided to the care of 
deputations of Faith, of Reformation, and of Peace, while a 
fourth was added for common and necessary business. The 
deputations were formed equally out of every nation and 
every rank of the hierarchy. They elected their own officers, 
and chose a new president every month. Every four months 
the deputations were dissolved and reconstituted, care being 
taken that a few of the old members remained. As a link 
between the four deputations was appointed monthly a 
committee of twelve, chosen equally from the four nations, 
who decided about the incorporation of new members with 
the Council, and their distribution among the deputations. 
They decided also the allotment of business to the several 
deputations, received their reports, and submitted them to a 
general congregation. At each election four of the old 
members were left to maintain the continuity of tradition ; 
but the same men might not be reappointed twice. For the 
formal supervision of the Council's business was a small 
committee of four, one appointed by each deputation, 
through whom passed all the letters of the Council, which 
it was their duty to seal. If they were dissatisfied with 
the form of the contents, they remitted the letter, with a 
statement of their reasons, to the deputation from which it 
originated. 

This system, which was conceived in the spirit of a liberal 
oligarchy, was calculated to promote freedom of discussion 
and to eliminate as much as possible political and national 
feeling. Secrecy in the conduct of business was forbidden, 
and members of one deputation were encouraged to discuss 
their affairs with members of the other deputations. The 
deputations met three times a week, and could only under- 
take the business laid before them by the president. When 
they were agreed about a matter, it was laid before a general 



COUNCIL RECOGNISED BY FRANCE AND BOHEMIA. 213 

congregation ; if three of the deputations, at least, were then 
in favour of it, it was brought before the Council in general 
session in the cathedral, and was finally adopted. Every 
precaution was taken to ensure full discussion and practical 
unanimity before the final settlement of any question. The 
organisation of the Council was as democratic as anything 
at that time could be.^ 

The first deputations were appointed on the last day of 
February. It was not long before cheering news ^ ^ 
reached the Council. The French clergy, in a recog- 
synod held at Bourges on February 26, declared France^ 
their adhesion to the objects set forth by the Coun- Sa. FcS^ 
cil, and besought the King to send envoys to the '"*^''«*- 
Pope to beg him to recall his dissolution ; and at the same 
time to send envoys to Sigismund to urge that nothing 
should be done by the Council against the ecclesiastical 
authority, lest thereby a plausible pretext for transferring 
the Council elsewhere be afforded to the Pope. The letters 
of Sigismund to the Council assured it of his fidelity ; and 
his ambassadors to the Pope on March 17 affirmed that 
Sigismund's coming to Italy aimed only at a peaceful solu- 
tion of the religious and political difficulties of Europe, and 
was prompted by no motives of personal ambition. He 
vsrished the Pope to understand that he was not prepared to 
win his coronation by a desertion of the Council's cause. 
From Bohemia also came the news that the Pragers had 
consented to negotiate with the Council on the basis of the 
Four Articles, and had desired a preliminary conference at 
Eger with the envoys of the Council, to which the Fathers 
at Basel readily assented. 

Yet the success of the Council and the entreaties of Sigis- 
mund were alike unavailing to move the stubborn sigis- 
mind of the Pope. Envoys and letters passed "SgenlSs 
between Sigismund and Eugenius IV., with the ^^• 
sole result of ultimately bringing the two into a position 

^ For the organisation of the Council see John of Segovia, 122 and 
271 ; and Aug. Patricius in Hartzsheim, v., 788 ; Mansi, xxix., 377. 



214 THE COUNCIL OF BASEL. 

of avowed hostility. Sigismund said that no one could 
dissolve the Council, which had been duly summoned. 
Eugenius IV. answered with savage sarcasm, * In what you 
write touching the celebration and continuation of the 
Council you have said several things contrary to the 
Gospel of Christ, the Holy Scripture, the sacred canons 
and the civil laws ; although we know these assertions do 
not proceed from- you, because you are unskilled in such 
matters and know better how to fight, as you do manfully, 
against the Turks and elsewhere, in which pursuit, I trust, 
you may prosper '.^ Sigismund must have felt keenly the 
sneer at his failures in the field. He fancied himself mighty 
with the pen and with the tongue, but even his vanity could 
not claim the glory of a successful general. 

Sigismund had gone to Italy with the light-heartedness 
sigis- which characterised his doings. He hoped to in- 
warmiy dulge his love of display and at the same time fill 
foT^thl^ ^^^ empty pockets. His coronation would give 
Council, him the right of granting new privileges and would 
1432. ' bring presents from the Jews. He was not sorry 
to send William of Bavaria to Basel in his stead, for he did 
not at first wish to commit himself too definitely to the 
Council's side ; if the Council could restore peace in Bohe- 
mia, he was ready to support it ; otherwise its action might 
come into collision with the Imperial pretensions. So long 
as Sigismund was doubtful about the Bohemian acceptance 
of the Council's invitation, and about the Pope's pliancy, he 
wished not to commit himself too far. Hence William of 
Bavaria had a delicate part to play at Basel, where he dis- 
tinguished himself at first by care for the Council's decorum, 
and forbade dancing on fast days, to the indignation of the 
ladies of Basel.^ But soon William had more important 

1 John of Segovia, 179; also Martene, Amp. Coll.^ viii., 129. 

* They complained : * Ware unser Herr der Konig selbst hier und sein 
lieber Caspar (i,e,y Schlick, the royal chancellor), sie hatten uns unsere 
Freude nicht verd orben ; aber weil der Herzog selbst keine Freude hat 
und nicht zu uns gehen will, so will er sie uns auch nicht gonnen ' ; from 
a letter to Schlick, in Kluckhohn, Herzog Wilhelm von Bay em in For- 
schungen xur Deutschen Geschichte, ii., 521, etc. 



SIGISMUND DECLARES FOR THE COUNCIL. 215 

work to do, as Sigismund found that he needed the Coun- 
cil's help for his Italian projects. He had hoped, with the 
help of Milan, Savoy, and Ferrara, to overcome Florence 
and Venice, and so force the Pope to crown him. But when 
the Duke of Milan openly mocked him, Sigismund was 
driven to make a desperate effort to retrieve his ignominious 
position. He could not leave Italy without the Imperial 
crown ; if he set himself to win it by submission to the 
Pope, Bohemia would be lost for ever. He had tried to 
reconcile the Pope and the Council ; but Eugenius IV. 
scornfully refused his mediation. The only remaining course 
was to cast in his lot with the Council, and use it as a 
means to force the Pope to satisfy his demands. On April 
I, 1432, he wrote to William begging him to keep the Coun- 
cil together, and not to allow it to dissolve before the threats 
of the Papal dissolution. He advised the Council to invite 
the Pope and Cardinals to appear at Basel ; he even sug- 
gested that if the Council called him to its aid, its summons 
would afford him an honourable pretext for leaving Italy. 
Acting on these instructions, William prompted the Fathers 
at Basel to take steps to prevent Eugenius IV. from holding 
his Council in Bologna as he proposed to do. Accordingly, 
on April 29, the Council in a general session called on 
Eugenius IV. to revoke his Bull of dissolution, and sum- 
moned him and the Cardinals to appear at Basel within 
three months ; in case Eugenius could not come personally 
he was to send representatives. 

The support of Sigismund and the obvious necessity of 
endeavouring to find some peaceable settlement for ^ ^ ^.^^ 
the Bohemian question made Europe in general capranica 

t 1' /• « -r^ M ■fc.T comes to 

acquiesce m the proceedmgs of the Council. No Basel to 

nation openly espoused the Papal side or refused firmaUoti 

to recognise the Council, which gradually increased cardSai- 

in numbers. In the beginning of April the de- **** '^^'' 

putations contained in all eighty-one members ; ^ and as 

* John of Segovia, 151, 



2i6 THE COUNCIL OF BASEL. 

the hostility between the Pope and the Council became 
more decidedly pronounced all who were on personal 
grounds opposed to Eugenius IV. began to flock to Basel. 
Foremost amongst these was Domenico Capranica, Bishop 
of Fermo, who had been a favourite official of Martin V., 
and had been by him created Cardinal, though the creation 
had not been published at the time of his death. This 
secrecy on the part of Martin V. arose from a desire to 
abide as closely as possible by the decrees of Constance 
forbidding the excessive increase of the Cardinalate. He 
endeavoured, however, to secure himself at the expense of 
his successor by binding the Cardinals to an undertaking 
that in case he died before the publication of such creations, 
they would, nevertheless, admit those so created to the 
Conclave. On Martin V.'s death Capranica hastened to 
Rome and presented himself as a member of the Conclave ; 
but the Cardinals were in violent reaction against Martin 
V. and the Colonna, and refused to admit one of their ad- 
herents. The new Pope involved Capranica in his general 
hatred of the Colonna party, denied him the Cardinal's hat, 
and showed the greatest animosity against him. Capranica 
for a time was driven to hide himself, and at last set off to 
Basel to obtain from the Council the justice which was 
refused him by the Pope.^ On his way through Siena he 
engaged as secretary a young man, aged twenty-six, iEneas 
Sylvius Piccolomini, sprung from an old but impoverished 
family, -^neas found the need of making his way in the 
world, and eagerly embraced this opportunity of finding a 
wider field for the talents which he had already begun to 
display in the University of Siena. No one suspected that 
this young Sienese secretary was destined to play a more 
important part in the history of the Council and of the 
Church than any of those already at Basel, when in May 
Capranica entered Basel, where he was received with dis- 
tinction, and in time received full recognition of his rank, 
which Eugenius IV. afterwards confirmed. 

^ See the life of Capranica by Battista Poggio, in Baluze^ Miscellanea 
(Paris, 1680), iii., 266, etc. 



BOHEMIANS AGREE TO SEND ENVOYS TO BASEL. 217 

In Italy Eugenius IV. found that things were going 
asrainst him. In Rome the Cardinals were by no ^, „ , 

._,.,, r rr ' -, The Bohc- 

means satisfied with the aspect of affairs and mians 
many of them secretly left the city.^ The efforts SSd^n- 
of Eugenius IV. to stop Sigismund's progress and eSTscI^ 
raise up enemies to him in Italy were not success- J"°®''*3^ 
ful. From Piacenza Sigismund passed to Parma and 
thence in May to Lucca, where he was threatened with 
siege by the Florentines. In July he advanced safely to 
Siena, where he fixed his abode till he could go to Rome. 
In Basel the Council pursued its course with firmness and 
discretion. The conference with the Bohemians at Eger 
resulted in the settlement of preliminaries about the appear- 
ance of Bohemian representatives at Basel. The Bohe- 
mians claimed that they should be received honourably, 
allowed a fair hearing, be regarded in the discussion as 
free from all ecclesiastical censures, be allowed to use their 
own worship, and be permitted to argue on the grounds of 
* God*s law, the practice of Christ, the Apostles, and the 
primitive Church, as well as Councils and doctors founded 
on the same true and impartial judge '.^ Their proposals 
were willingly received by the majority at Basel, and in 
the fourth session, on June 20, a safe-conduct to their re- 
presentatives was issued. At the same time a blow was 
aimed against the Pope by a decree that, if a vacancy 
occurred in the Papacy, the new election should be made 
at Basel and not elsewhere. Another and still bolder 
proceeding was the appointment by the Council of the 
Cardinal of S. Eustachio as legate for Avignon and the 
Venaisin, on the ground that the city was dissatisfied with 
the Papal governor and the Council thought it right to 
interfere in the interests of peace. 

^ The Ambassador of the Teutonic Knights says (Voigt, Stimmen aus 
Rom. : Hist. Taschenbucht iv., 75) : * Ich nirchte dass ein Schisma aus- 
brechen und der Hof in Rom ubel stehen wird. Die Cardinale ziehen 
von Rom heimlich ohne Urlaub weg, weil man diesen einem Jeden 
versagt.' 

* Articles in Martene, Amf. Coll., viii., 131. 



2i8 THE COUNCIL OF BASEL, 

Eugenius IV. saw that unless he took some steps to 
TheCoun- prevent it another schism was imminent. He 
^e*Pope" attempted to renew negotiations with Sigismund, 
macy"'"" ^"^ ^^^^ ^^"^ envoys, headed by the Archbishops 
fember, ^^ Tarento and Colocza, to Basel, where they 
1432. * arrived on August 14. They proposed a future 
Council at Avignon, Mantua, or Ferrara. It was evident 
that the sole object of the Papal envoys was to shake the 
allegiance of waverers and spread discord in the Council. 
To repel this insidious attempt the promoters of the Council, 
in its sixth session, on September 6, accused the Pope and 
Cardinals of contumacy, for not appearing in answer to the 
summons, and demanded that sentence should be passed 
against them. The Papal envoys were driven to demand 
a prolongation of the term allowed, which was granted. 
After this, on September 9, Cesarini again resumed the 
presidency of the Council, judging, it would seem, that 
moderation was more than ever necessary. 

Eugenius IV. now turned his attention to Sigismund, 
whose position in Siena was sufficiently pitiable, 
uses the Deserted by the Duke of Milan and his Italian 
subdue the allies, he was cut off by the Florentine forces from 
v°mber,°^ advancing to Rome, and was, as he himself said, 
^^^' caged like a wild beast within the walls of Siena.^ 

It was natural that Sigismund should be anxious to catch 
at the Pope's help to release him from such an ignominious 
position. When Eugenius IV. promised to send two 
Cardinals to confer with him, Sigismund wrote to the 
Council urging it to suspend its process against the Pope, 
until he tried the result of negotiations, or of a personal 
interview. The Council was uneasy at this, and begged 
Sigismund to have no dealings with the Pope until he 
recognised its authority. Sigismund answered, on October 

^ Bonincontrii Annales, Mur., xxi., 140: *Audivi ego saepius ilium 
dicentem quum Senis essem, " Ego ulciscar de illo perndissimo tyranno 
(Filippo Maria Visconti) qui me Senis tanquam belluam collocavit " *. 
William of Bavaria calls him * ein betriibter verlassener armer Herr,' 
Kluckhohn, 562, 



THE COUNCIL PROTECTS SIGISMUND. aig 

31, that such was his intention, but that he judged it wise 
to see the Pope personally, and so arrange things peaceably. 
The Council grew increasingly suspicious, and Sigismund 
did not find that his negotiations with the Pope were lead- 
ing to any satisfactory conclusion. Again he swung round 
to the Council's side,^ which, strengthened by his support, 
in its eighth session, on December 12, granted Eugenius 
IV. and the Cardinals a further term of sixty days, within 
which they were to give in their adhesion to the Council, or the 
charge of contumacy against them would be proceeded with. 

So far Sigismund and the Council were agreed ; but their 
ends were not the same. Sigismund wished only 
for a pacification of Bohemia and his own corona- di takes 
tion ; so far as the Council promoted these ends under its 
it was useful to him, and he was resolved to use Son? jan- 
it to the uttermost. Accordingly, on January 22> "*^'^«3. 
1433, William of Bavaria prevailed on the Council to pass a 
decree taking the King under its protection. By this means 
Sigismund was helped both against the Pope and the Council ; 
for if the Council made good its claim to elect a new Pope, 
it might proceed to elect a new King of the Romans as well. 
The reason of this decree was a rumour that Eugenius IV. 
intended to excommunicate Sigismund. The Council pro- 
nounced all Papal proceedings against him to be null and void. 

Eugenius IV. at last felt himself beaten. The Council 
had taken precautions against every means of Eugenius 
attack which the Papal authority possessed. The ioiw his 
Pope had succeeded in driving Sigismund to es- ^on°if"the 
pouse warmly the Council's cause, and was alarmed p^J""^- 
to hear that he was engaged in negotiating peace h33- 
with the Florentines.^ The arrival of the Bohemian envoys 
at Basel, on January 4, gave the Council a real importance 
in the eyes of Europe. The Council was conscious of its 
strength, and on February 19 appointed judges to examine 

* See his letter of November 22, in John of Segovia, 292. 
' See Sigismund's letter to the Council, dated January 7, 1433, in 
Martene, Amf. Coll.t viii., 533. 



220 THE COUNCIL OF BASEL. 

the process against Eugenius IV. But Eugenius had been 
preparing to retreat step by step from a position which he 
felt to be untenable, and strove to discover the smallest 
amount of concession which would free him from his em- 
barrassment. He sent envoys to Basel, who proposed that 
the Council should transfer itself to Bologna ; when this 
was refused, they asked that it should select some place 
in Italy for a future Council. Next they offered that the 
question whether the Council should be held in Germany 
or Italy should be referred to a committee of twelve ; finally 
they proposed that any city in Germany except Basel should 
be the seat of a new Council.^ When the Fathers at Basel 
would have none of these things, Eugenius IV. at last issued 
a Bull announcing his willingness that the Council should 
be held at Basel, whither he proposed to send his legates ; 
on March i he nominated four Cardinals to that office. 

Sigismund rejoiced at this removal of the obstacles which 
The stood in the way of his coronation ; he was anxious 

a8°8e?tf its that the Council should accept the Pope's Bull and 
Apd?27r ^^ ^^ away with all hostility between himself and 
1433- ' Eugenius IV. But the Fathers at Basel looked 
somewhat suspiciously on the concessions which had been 
wrung with such difficulty from the Pope. They observed 
that the Bull did not recognise the existing Council, but 
declared that a Council should be held by his legates. 
Moreover, he limited the scope of the Council to the two 
points of the reduction of heretics and the pacification of 
Christendom, omitting the reformation of the Church. It 
was argued that Eugenius IV. had not complied with their 
demand that he should withdraw his dissolution ; he refused 
to recognise anything done at Basel before the coming of his 
legates.^ Determined to affirm its authority before the 
arrival of the Papal legates, the Council passed a decree on 
April 27, renewing the decree of Constance about the cele- 

^ These wearisome negotiations are told by John of Segovia, 338, etc., 
and are recapitulated in the Council's letter of June 16, 374. 
2 See letter of the Council, June 13, in John of Segovia, 375. 



THE COUNCIL ASSERTS ITS AUTHORITY. 221 

bration of General Councils at least every tenth year; assert- 
ing that the members of a Council might assemble of their 
own accord at the fixed period ; and that a Pope who tried 
to impede or prorogue a Council should after four months* 
warning be suspended, and then after two months be 
deprived of office. It was decreed that the present Council 
could not be dissolved nor transferred without the consent of 
two- thirds of each deputation and the subsequent approbation 
of two-thirds of a general congregation. The Cardinals 
were henceforth to make oath before entering the Conclave 
that whoever was elected Pope would obey the Constance 
decrees. To give all possible notority to these decrees, all 
prelates were ordered to publish them in their synods or 
chapters. So far as a new constitution can be secured on 
paper, the Council of Basel made sure for the ftiture the 
new principles of Church Government on which it claimed 
to act. It was a transference to ecclesiastical matters of 
the parliamentary opposition to monarchy which was making 
itself felt in European politics. 

When the Papal legates arrived and claimed to share with 
Cesarini the office of president, Cesarini answered that he 
was the officer of the Council and must obey their will in 
the matter. The Council, in a congregation on June 13, 
answered that they could not admit the claim of the Pope to 
influence their deliberations by means of his legates : not 
only the President, but the Pope himself, was bound to obey 
the Council's decrees. They were bent upon asserting most 
fully the supremacy of a General Council, and aimed at 
converting the Pope into its chief official. The concessions 
made by Eugenius IV. had not ended the conflict between 
him and the Fathers at Basel. They had rather brought 
more clearly to light the full opposition that had arisen 
between the ecclesiastical hierarchy and the Papal monarchy. 

But Eugenius IV. had not so much aimed at a recon- 
ciliation with the Council as a reconciliation with 
Sigismund. He saw that for this purpose conces- Eugenius 
sions must be made to the Council ; but he hoped 



222 THE COUNCIL OF BASEL. 

with Sigismund's help to reduce the Council in course of 
time. Sigismund's position in Italy made him eager to 
catch at any concession on the part of Eugenius which 
would allow him to proceed to his coronation without 
abandoning the Council, from which he hoped for a settle- 
ment of his Bohemian difficulties. He received with joy the 
Pope's advances; and Eugenius on his side felt the need 
of Sigismund's protection even in Rome. Five Cardinals 
besides Capranica had already left him and joined the 
Council. The officials of the Curia grew doubtful in their 
allegiance, and began to think that their interests would be 
better served in Basel than in Rome. On March ii, the 
anniversary of the Pope's coronation, as he went from the 
commemoration service he was beset by members of the 
Curia, who craved with tears leave to depart,^ and followed 
him with their cries to the door of the Consistory. A few 
had leave given them, and all were bent on departure. 

In this state of affairs Eugenius IV. saw the wisdom of 
gratifying Sigismund in the two matters which he 
ciiiation had at heart, the pacification of Italy and his corona- 
mund and tiott as Empcror. There were not many difficulties 
ivf^AprU in the way of peace. Florence, Venice, and the 
7. 1433- Duke of Milan were all equally weary of war ; and 
the Pope had little difficulty in inducing them to submit their 
grievances to Niccolo of Este, Lord of Ferrara, who at that 
time played the honourable part of mediator in Italian 
affairs. By his help the preliminaries of peace were arranged 
at Ferrara on April 7 ; and on the same day Sigismund's 
envoys arranged with the Pope the preliminaries of the 
Imperial coronation. Sigismund acknowledged that 'he 

^ Report from Rome, in Konigsberg Archives, printed by Voigt, JEnea 
Sylvio de* Piccolomini^ i., 443 : * Et quia propter decreta Concilii multi 
Curtesani recesserunt et fere omnes se preparant ad recedendum. . . . 
Omnes Curtesani de omni nacione concorditer in die Coronacionis 
moderni pontificis commemorati, dummodo papa exivit de capella majori, 
flexis genibus volebant petere licenciam, sed non exauditi. Omnes pariter 
clamabant voce lacrimabili licenciam, licenciam, sequendo dominum 
nostrum usque ad locum consistorialem. . . . Omnes habent animum 
recedendi, sed non audent et nee habent lucrum, stant in tribulacionibus.' 



SIGISMUND'S CORONATION. 223 

had always held and holds Eugenius as the true and un- 
doubted Pope, canonically elected ; and with all reverence, 
diligence, care, and labour, among all kings and princes, all 
persons in the world ecclesiastical as well as secular, 
venerates, protests, and acts in defence of his holiness, and 
the Church of God, so long as he shall live, faithfully and 
with a true heart, according to his knowledge and power, 
without fraud or guile, so far as with God's help he may \^ 
He agreed also to stay at Rome for a time after his corona- 
tion, and labour for the peace of Christendom and especially 
of Italy. 

This alliance of the Pope and Sigismund was naturally 
regarded with growing suspicion at Basel. Sigis- 
mund's letters to the Council changed in tone, and mund's 
dwelt upon the evils of scandal in the Church and tkm°May 
the disastrous effects of a schism. On May 9 he ^^' '*^^' 
urged the Council to treat the Papal legates with kindness, 
and to abstain from anything that might lead to an open 
rupture. The Council loudly exclaimed that the Pope had 
beguiled the King under the pretence of a coronation, and 
meant to keep him in Rome as a protection to himself. 
Sigismund, however, hastened his coronation, and on May 
21 entered Rome with an escort of 600 knights and 800 foot. 
Riding beneath a golden canopy he was met by the city 
magistrates and a crowd of people. The bystanders thought 
that his deportment showed a just mixture of affability and 
dignity ; his smiling face wore an expression of refinement 
and geniality, while his long grizzly beard lent majesty to 
his appearance.2 On the steps of S. Peter's, Eugenius in 
pontifical robes greeted Sigismund, who kissed his foot, his 
hand, his face. After mass was said Sigismund took up his 

^ Pacta, in Martene, Amp, Coll., viii., 580. 

' Poggio, in a letter to Niccolo Niccoli, in Baluze, MiuelL, iii., 184, 
describes Sigismund's entrance and coronation ; of himself he says : 
'Aspectu perhumanus, ridenti similis, facie hilar! atque liberali, barba 
subcana ac prolixa, ea inest in vultu comitas et majestas, ut qui ilium 
ignorarent ipso conspectu et oris egregia specie caeterorum regem opina« 
rentur '. 



224 THE COUNCIL OF BASEL. 

abode in the palace of the Cardinal of Aries, close to S. 
Peter's. On Whit Sunday, May 31, the coronation took 
place. Before the silver door of S. Peter's, Sigismund 
swore to observe all the constitutions made by his prede- 
cessors, as far back as Constantine, in favour of the Church. 
Then the Pope proceeded to the high altar and Sigismund 
was conducted by three Cardinals to the Church of S. John 
Lateran, where before the altar of S. Maurice he was con- 
secrated canon of the Church. He returned to S. Peter's, 
and took his place by the side of the Pope, each seated 
under a tabernacle erected for the purpose. The mass was 
begun, and after the epistle the Pope and Sigismund ad- 
vanced to the altar. The Pope set on Sigismund's head 
first the white mitre of a bishop and then the golden crown ; 
he took from the altar, and gave into his hands, the sword, 
the sceptre, and the golden apple of the Empire. When the 
mass was ended the Pope and Emperor gave one another 
the kiss of peace. Then Sigismund took the sword in his 
hand, and Eugenius, holding the crucifix, gave him his 
solemn benediction. When this was over they walked side 
by side to the church door : the Pope mounted his mule, 
which Sigismund led by the bridle for a few paces and then 
mounted his horse. Eugenius accompanied him to the 
bridge of S. Angelo, where Sigismund kissed his hand and 
he returned to the Vatican. On the bridge Sigismund, 
according to custom, exercised his new authority by dubbing 
a number of knights, Romans and Germans, amongst others 
his chancellor Caspar Schlick. The Imperial procession 
went through the streets to the Lateran, where Sigismund 
dismounted. 

The days that followed were spent in formal business 
such as Sigismund delighted in. Letters had to be written 
and all grants and diplomas given by the King of the 
Romans needed the Imperial confirmation, which was a 
source of no small profit to the Imperial chancery. It is 
worth noticing that after his coronation Sigismund engraved 
on his seal a double eagle, to mark the union of his dignities 



MEDIATION OF SIGISMUND, 225 

of Emperor and Roman King. From this time dates the 
use of the double-headed eagle as the Imperial ensign. 

It soon, however, became obvious that Sigismund*s 
coronation had affected his relations towards the sigts- 
Council. He was still anxious for its success in SedUtea 
the important points of the reconciliation of the Bo- [he'popc 
hemians ; but he had no longer any interest in the q°^|JJ.®, 
constitutional question of the relations which ought i""^ 
to exist between Popes and General Councils. No ^33. 
doubt this question had been a useful means of bringing 
Eugenius IV. to acknowledge the Council ; now that he had 
done so, and Sigismund had obtained from the Pope what 
he wanted, his instincts as a practical statesman taught him 
that in the midst of the agitation of European politics it was 
hopeless for a Council to continue on abstract grounds a 
struggle against the Pope, which could only lead to another •^ 
schism. On June 4 he wrote to the Council announcing his 
coronation, and saying that he found in the Pope the best 
intentions towards furthering all the objects which the 
Council had at heart.^ His envoys on their arrival at Basel 
found the Council preparing accusations against Eugenius, 
and the seven Cardinals present engaged in discussing the 
canonicity of his election. They had some difficulty in 
persuading the Council to moderation, but at last obtained 
on July 13 a decree which, while denouncing in no measured 
terms the contumacy of Eugenius IV., extended again for 
sixty days the period for an unreserved withdrawal of his 
Bull of dissolution, and for a declaration of his entire ad- 
hesion to the Council. If he did not comply within that 
time the Council would at once proceed to his suspension. 
Eugenius, trusting to the help of Sigismund, showed a less 
conciliatory spirit ; for he issued a Bull withdrawing from 
the Council all private questions, and limiting its activity to 
the three points of the extirpation of heresy, the pacification 
of Christendom, and the reform of manners. In the same 

^ Letter in Martene, Amp. ColL, viii., 607. 
VOL U. 15 



226 THE COUNCIL OF BASEL. 

sense Sigismund's envoys on August i8 brought a message 
to the Council, exhorting to greater diligence in the matters 
of pacification and reform, for so far no fruits of its energies 
were apparent. He warned it against creating a schism, 
for after extinguishing one at Constance he would rather 
die than see another.^ He begged the Fathers to suspend 
all proceedings against the Pope till his arrival at Basel, 
when he hoped to remove all difficulties between them and 
the Pope. The Council answered that it was the Pope and 
not the Council that was causing a schism ; the relations of 
the Pope to a General Council was a matter concerning the 
faith and the reformation of the Church, and nothing could 
be done on these points till the present scandal was removed. 
Sigismund, in fact, was asking the Council to desist from 
measures which he had formerly urged. The Council 
naturally demanded securities for the future. Its position 
was undoubtedly logical, though practically unwise. Eu- 
genius IV., to strengthen Sigismund's hands, issued a Bull 
on August I expressing, at Sigismund's request, his * willing- 
ness and acquiescence ' {volumus et contentamur) that the 
Council should be recognised as valid from its commence- 
ment. He declared that he entirely accepted the Council, 
and demanded that his legates should be admitted as 
presidents, and that all proceedings against his person and 
authority should be rescinded. The Fathers at Basel 
naturally looked closely into the language of the Bull. They 
were not satisfied that the validity of the Council from the 
beginning should merely be tolerated by the Pope. They 
wished for the Papal * decree and declaration ' (decernhnus 
et declaramus) that it had been valid all along. Every step 
towards conciliation only brought into greater prominence 
the fact that the Council claimed to be superior to the Pope, 



^ John of Segovia, 409 ; * Porro quia nephandum scisma extinctum 
flierat in Constanciensi Concilio, pro qua re tot tantosque labores sus- 
tinuisset, avisabat taliter fieri ne suscitaretur, quia preeligeret mori quam 
suis dieibus scisma videre '. See also letter of August 3 in Martene, Amp, 
ColL, viii., 626. 



SIGISMUND AND EUGENIUS IV. 227 

and that Eugenius was determined not to suffer any deroga- 
tion from the Papal autocracy .^ 

In this view of Eugenius IV. Sigismund acquiesced. He 
wished the Council to engage in more practical . 
business, and he dreaded as a statesman the conse- muud 
quences of another schism. In this he was joined the Pope's 
by the Kings of England and France, the German August, 
Electors, and the Duke of Burgundy. All of them ^*^^* 
urged upon the Council the inexpediency of provoking a 
schism. Eugenius IV.'s repeated attempts at compromise 
at length created a feeling of sympathy in his favour. He 
had given way, it was urged, on the practical points at issue. 
The Council did not meet with much attention when it 
answered that he had not conceded the principle which was at 
stake in the conflict. The great majority were in favour of 
proceeding to the suspension of Eugenius IV. when the term 
expired ; but the remonstrances of the Imperial ambassadors, 
and the consideration that an open breach with Sigismund 
would render Basel an insecure place for the Council, so far 
prevailed that in the session of September 1 1 a further term 
of thirty days was granted to Eugenius IV., on the under- 
standing that within that time Sigismund would appear in 
Basel. 

Sigismund meanwhile at Rome had been employing his 
versatile mind in studying the antiquities of the city, sigis- 
and drinking in the enthusiasm of the Renaissance ^^es to 
under the guidance of the famous antiquary Ciriaco October 
of Ancona. He lived in familiar intercourse with "'^433. 
Eugenius IV.^ and a story is told which illustrates the 
mixture of penetration and levity which marked Sigismund's 
character. One day he said to the Pope, *Holy Father, 

^ See an interesting letter of Eugenius IV. to the Doge of Venice, in 
Raynaldus, 433, 19 : * Potius enim hanc Apostolicam dignitatem et vitam 
insuper possuissemus quam voluissemus esse causa et initium ut Ponti- 
ficalis dignitas et Apostolicae sedis auctoritas submitteretur Concilio, 
contra omnes canonicas sanctiones ; quod nunquam antea neque aliquis 
nostrorum predecessorum fecit, neque ab ullo extitit requisitum, atque in 
hoc ipse postmodum imperator acquievit *. 



228 THE COUNCIL OF BASEL. 

there are three things in which we are alike, and three in 
which we are different. You sleep in the morning, I rise 
before daybreak ; you drink water, I wine ; you shun women, 
I pursue them. But in some things we agree : you distribute 
the treasures of the Church, I keep nothing for myself ; you 
have gouty hands, I gouty feet ; you are bringing the Church 
and I the Empire to the ground.' But these days of peace- 
ful enjoyment were disturbed by the news from Basel, where 
it was clear that Sigismund's presence was needed. On 
August 21 he left Rome, and journeyed through Perugia, 
Rimini, and Ferrara to Mantua. He would not go through 
the territories of the Duke of Milan, against whom he 
nourished the deepest anger. Venice took occasion of his 
wrath to make an alliance with him for five years, in return 
for which they gave the needy Emperor ten thousand ducats 
to pay the expenses of his journey from Rome to Germany. 
From Mantua Sigismund hastened to Basel, so as to reach 
it at the end of the term granted to the Pope. He arrived 
unexpectedly on October ii, having come through the Tyrol 
to the Lake of Constance, and thence by boat to Basel. So 
hasty had been his journey that he brought little baggage 
with him, and before entering Basel the Imperial beggar had 
to send to the magistrates for a pair of shoes. 

The Fathers of the Council hastily assembled to show 
sigis- Sigismund such honour as they could. He was 
Swds for escorted to the cathedral, where he took his place 
iv^^oct ^" ^^^ raised seat generally occupied by the Car- 
1433. dinals, who now sat on lower benches. There he 

addressed the congregation, setting forth his zeal for the 
Council's cause, as his hasty journey testified ; he asked for 
further delay in the proceedings against the Pope, that he 
might carry out successfully the work of pacification on 
which he was engaged. To this the Council did not at once 
assent, but urged that the Pope's suspension might help on 
Sigismund's endeavours. Murmurs were heard on all sides, 
and it was clear that Sigismund's authority was not omnipo- 
tent at Basel. The Council was filled with the enemies of 



SIGISMUND PLEADS FOR EUGENIUS IV. 229 

Eugenius IV., and was convinced of its own power and im- 
portance. Sigismund reminded the Fathers that the Em- 
peror was guardian of the temporalities of the Church. He 
was answered that it was also his duty to execute the decrees 
of the Church. He angrily asserted that neither he nor any of 
the kings and princes of Christendom would permit the horrors 
of another schism. In his vehemence he forgot his Latin, and 
gave schisma the feminine gender. It was maliciously said that 
he wished to show the Council how dear the matter was to 
his heart.i At last the Council, which was not really in a 
position to resist, reluctantly granted a prolongation of the 
term to Eugenius IV. for eight days. 

Sigismund found it necessary to change his tactics and 
listen to the Council's side of the quarrel, as at Proionga- 
Rome he had listened to the Pope. He conferred {he^eJm 
with the ambassadors and with the chiefs of the f^genfug" 
Council, and was present at a public disputation on y^^^w^ 
October 16 between the president, Cesarini, and the H33. 
Papal envoys. Cesarini spoke for three hours in behalf of 
a Council's superiority over a Pope. He argued that the 
Bulls of Eugenius IV. refused to admit this proposition, and 
that without securing the means of a reformation of the 
head of the Church it was useless to reform the members ; 
as to the Pope's demand that all proceedings against him- 
self should be revoked, there were no proceedings if only he 
did his duty. On behalf of Eugenius IV. the Archbishop 
of Spoleto urged the sufficiency and reasonableness of his 
proposal, to revoke his decrees against the Council if the 
Council would revoke its proceedings against himself. 
There were replies and counter-replies, but both parties 
were equally far from an agreement. A second prolonga- 
tion of eight days to Eugenius IV. was obtained by Sigis- 

^ John of Segovia, p. 465, from whom this account is taken, is clearly 
trying to elevate a current witticism to the dignity of history when he 
says : * Cum vero de scismate loquebatur, ut communiter usus est genere 
feminino, judicio autem presencium non generis neutri ignarus auc 
immenor, sed ut attenciores redderet audientes percipere, que de scismate 
loquebatur, cordi ejus radicitus inesse *. 



230 THE COUNCIL OF BASEL, 

mund by a repetition of his former assertion, that he could 
not endure a schism. This was succeeded by a third, on 
which Sigismund repeated an old doggerel about the three 
Emperors Otto, which afforded him a pun on the eight days 
(pcto dies) of the prolongation : — 

Otto post Otto regnabit tertius Otto. 

Sigismund and the ambassadors of France united in urging 
the Council to give Eugenius IV. a security that no pro- 
ceedings would be taken affecting his title to the Papacy. 
Words ran high on this proposal, and at length, on Novem- 
ber 7, Sigismund's persistency succeeded in extorting from 
the Council a further term of ninety days, within which the 
Pope was to explain the ambiguities in his decrees by revok- 
ing anything which could be construed to the ' derogation or 
prejudice ' of the Council. 

In the interval Sigismund urged the Council to proceed 
with the question of reform, a matter which had 

Decree es- , . ,. , , . t 

tabiishing been makmg little progress dunng the excitement 
action of this conflict with the Pope. The only point in 
ou^t°tifc which the Council had taken up reform was to use 
NoJ^mber it as a wcapon against the Pope. On July 13 a 
26. 1433- decree had been passed abolishing reservations and 
provisions except in the domain of the Holy See, and enact- 
ing that elections should be made only by those to whom 
the right belonged, and that no dues be paid for Papal con- 
firmation. This was merely an onslaught on the Pope's 
revenues, and was scarcely meant seriously. In answer to 
Sigismund's exhortations the Council embodied, in a decree 
on November 26, the only point on which there was 
agreement, the revival of the synodal system of the Church. 
The Council's scheme of reform was to extend the conciliar 
system to all parts of the ecclesiastical organisation. By 
means of diocesan synods the bishops were to put down 
heresies and remedy scandals in their respective dioceses, 
and were to be themselves restrained by provincial synods, 
whose activity was to be in turn ensured by the recurrence 



STRUGGLES ABOUT PRECEDENCE. 231 

of General Councils. It was on all grounds easier to agree 
on machinery which was to deal with questions in the future 
than to amend abuses in the present. 

Even this measure of reform was secondary to a violent 
dispute which convulsed the Council concerning 
precedence in seats at the sessions between the aboul^prl- 
ambassadors of the Imperial Electors and those of 
the Duke of Burgundy. So keen was the contention that 
it almost prevented the solemn celebration of the Christmas 
services, and was only ended in July, 1434, by assigning a 
separate bench to the representatives of the Electors im- 
mediately below the Cardinals, and arranging that the Bur- 
gundian envoys should sit next to those of kings. This 
burning question was further complicated by the claims of 
the envoys of the Duke of Brittany to be as good as those 
of the Duke of Burgundy ; at last it was arranged that the 
Burgundians should sit on the right, the Bretons on the left. 

In the middle of the controversy came envoys from Euge- 
nius IV., on January 30, 1434, annoimcing that he 
had at last given way. They brought a Bull re- iv. re- 
voking all previous Bulls against the Council, ac- theCoun- 
knowledging its legitimacy from its beginning, and ary 30^°" 
declaring fully the Pope's adhesion to it. Great ^^^' 
was Sigismund's joy at this triumph of his mediatorial 
policy. Great was the relief of all parties at Basel when, 
in the sixteenth session on February 3, the Council decreed 
that Eugenius IV. had fully satisfied their admonition and 
summons. It was under the pressure of necessity that 
Eugenius IV. had given way. His impetuous rashness had 
raised up enemies against him on every side. He had 
begun his pontificate by attacking the powerful family of 
the Colonna. He had plunged into Italian politics as a 
strong friend of Venice, and thereby had drawn upon him- 
self the animosity of the wily Duke of Milan. With these 
elements of disturbance at his doors he had not hesitated to 
bid defiance to a Council which had the support of the 
whole of Christendom. Basel had become in consequence 



232 THE COUNCIL OF BASEL. 

the resort of the personal and political enemies of the Pope, 
and on Sigismund's departure from Rome Eugenius was 
threatened in his own city. The Duke of Milan sent against 
him the condottiere Niccolo de Fortebracchio, nephew of 
Braccio da Montone, who on August 25, 1433, captured 
Ponte Molle. The Pope fled for safety to the Church of 
S. Lorenzo in Damaso, and in vain called for help. Forte- 
bracchio, aided by the Colonna party, took possession of 
Tivoli and styled himself * the General of the Holy Council \ 
Francesco Sforza, won over to the side of the Duke of Milan 
by the promise of the hand of his natural daughter Bianca, 
invaded the March of Ancona, and scornfully dated his 
letters * invito Petro et Paulo,' * against the will of Peter 
and PauP. The Duke of Milan was supported by the 
Council,^ which Sigismund in vain tried to interest in the 
pacification of Italy. The name of the Council lent a colour- 
able pretext to all acts of aggression. Eugenius IV. found 
himself destitute of allies. Never had the Papacy been in 
a more helpless condition. No course was possible except 
submission. 

Accordingly Eugenius IV. made his peace with the Coun- 
Risingin cil, and then proceeded to face his enemies at home. 
ag^JSfst ^® detached Francesco Sforza from the side of the 
fv^^May ^^^® of Milan by appointing him, on March 25, 
29, 1434. Vicar of the March of Ancona which he had over- 
run. Sforza willingly exchanged the dubious promises of 
Filippo Maria Visconti for an assured position. But the 
Duke of Milan sent to the aid of Fortebracchio the condot- 
tiere Niccolo Piccinino ; before their superior forces Sforza 
was driven to retire, and the blockade of Rome was continued. 
The sufferings of a siege were more than the Romans cared 
to endure for the sake of an unpopular Pope. It was easy 
for the foes of Eugenius IV. to raise the people in rebellion-. 

^ John of Segovia, 532 : * Plures littere ex Ytalia particulariter destin- 
ate affirmabant, quod eciam absque ulla vi, audito quod nomine concilii 
habere vellet, terre et civitates marchie Anconitane reddebant se comiti 
Francisco *. 



RISING IN ROME AGAINST BUGENIUS IV. 233 

A crowd flocked to S. Maria in Trastevere, whither Euge- 
nius had retired for safety, to lay their grievances before the 
Pope. They were referred to his nephew, the Cardinal 
Francesco Correr, who listened to them with haughty in- 
difference. When they complained of the loss of their 
cattle, he answered that they busied themselves too much 
about cattle; the Venetians who had none led a much more 
refined and civilised life.^ The remark might be true, but 
it was not consoling. The people resolved to take matters 
into their own hands, and on the evening of May 29 raised 
the old cry of * The people and freedom ! ' stormed the Capi- 
tol, and set up once more their old republic under seven 
governors. Next day they demanded of the Pope that he 
should hand over to them the castles of S. Angelo and 
Ostia, give them his nephew as a hostage, and come him- 
self to take up his abode in the palace of his predecessor by 
the Church of SS. Apostoli. When Eugenius refused, his 
nephew was dragged away by force in spite of his entreaties, 
and he was threatened with imprisonment Eugenius heard 
that the palace of SS. Apostoli was being prepared for his 
custody, and he knew that there he would be the prisoner of 
the Council and the Duke of Milan. 

There was no escape except by flight, which was difficult, 
as his abode was closely guarded. At last a pirate 

r T 1 • TT' If 111 t ' r^ ' Flight of 

of Ischia, Vitellio, who had a ship at Ostia, was Eugenius 
prevailed upon to help the Pope in his need. His Florence, 
aid was secured just in time, as on the evening of °^' ^^^*' 
June 4 the Pope was to be removed to the palace of SS. 
Apostoli. At midday, when every one was taking his siesta, 
Eugenius and one of his attendants, disguised as Benedic- 
tine monks, escaped the vigilance of the sleepy guards, 
mounted a couple of mules and rode to the Tiber bank, 
where a small dirty boat was prepared for them. A few 
bishops professed to be waiting for an audience with the 
Pope, so as to lull the suspicion of his guards. But the 

' Platina, Vita Eugenii IV. 



234 ^^^ COUNCIL OF BASEL. 

two mules left riderless on the bank, and the unwonted 
energy of the rowers, made the spectators give the alarm. 
The people of Trastevere gave chase along the bank, hurl- 
ing stones and shooting arrows at the boat. The wind was 
contrary, the bark was crazy, the crowd of pursuers increased 
along both banks ; Eugenius lay at the bottom of the boat 
covered by a shield. When the Church of S. Paolo was 
passed, and the river became broader, the fugitives hoped 
that their danger was over ; but the Romans ran on before, 
and seized a fishing boat, which, filled with armed men, 
they laid across the stream. Luckily for Eugenius his boat 
was commanded by one of the pirate's crew whose courage 
was equal to the occasion. In vain the Romans hurled 
their darts, and promised him large sums of money if he 
would deliver up the Pope. He ordered his boat to charge 
the enemy. Their boat was old and rotten, and they feared 
the encounter. The prow turned aside and the Pope's boat 
shot safely past. Eugenius could now rise from his cover- 
ing of shields, and sit upright with a sigh of thankfulness. 
He reached Ostia in safety and went on board the pirate's 
ship. There he was joined by a few members of the Curia 
who had succeeded in fleeing. He sailed to Pisa and thence 
made his way to Florence, where he was honourably re- 
ceived on June 23, and like his predecessor, Martin V., took 
up his abode in the cloister of S. Maria Novella.^ There he 
could reflect that his inconsiderate obstinacy had endan- 
gered at Basel his spiritual supremacy, and handed over his 
temporal possessions to the condottieri of the Duke of Milan. 

^ The flight of Eugenius is graphically described by Flavius Bloddus, 
Decades^ iii., 6. See also the account of the Roman ambassadors to the 
Council in John of Segovia, 717. 



235 



CHAPTER V. 

THE COUNCIL OF BASEL AND THE HUSSITES. 
I432.I434. 

If the downfall of Eugenius IV. was due to his obstinacy, 
the prestige of the Council, which enabled it to reap 
the advantage of his weakness, was due to the Bohemia 
hopes which were conceived of a peaceable ending °^ ****^*' 
of the Bohemian revolt. It was much easier for a Council 
than for a Pope to open negotiations with victorious heretics, 
and the Bohemians on their side were not averse from an 
honourable peace. Bohemia, with a population of four or 
five millions, had suffered much during its ten years' struggle 
against the rest of Europe. Its victories were ruinous to 
the conquerors ; its plundering raids brought no real wealth. 
The commerce of Bohemia was annihilated ; its lands were 
uncultivated ; the nation was at the mercy of the Taborite 
army, which no longer consisted solely of the God-fearing 
peasants, but was recruited by adventurers from the neigh- 
bouring lands. The policy of Procopius the Great was, by 
striking terror, to prepare the way for peace, that so Bohemia, 
with its religious liberty assured, might again enter the 
confederacy of European States. When the Council of 
Basel held out hopes of peace he was ready to try what could 
be won ; and Bohemia consented to send representatives to 
Basel for the purpose of discussion. 

Accordingly the Council proceeded to prepare for its great 
undertaking. In November, 1432, it appointed four doctors, 
John of Ragusa, a Slav ; Giles Carlier, a Frenchman ; 



236 THE COUNCIL OF BASEL. 

Heinrich Kalteisen, a German ; and John of Palomar, a 
Prepara- Spaniard, to undertake the defence of the Church 
dons of doctrine against the Four" Articles of Prag. These 
Council doctors zealouslv studied their case with the aid of 

for a con- hi,,. '-r-.,A,. 

ference all the theologians present at Basel. As the time 
Bohe- of the advent of the Bohemians drew near, strict 
Nowm- orders were given to the citizens to abstain from 
ber, 1432. everything that might shock the Puritanism of their 
expected guests.^ Prostitutes were not to walk the streets ; 
gambling and dancing were forbidden ; the members of the 
Council were enjoined to maintain strict sobriety, and beware 
of following the example of the Pharisees of old, who taught 
well and lived ill. At the same time guards were set to see 
that the Bohemians did not spread their errors in the seat of 
the Council. On the part of the Bohemians seven nobles 
and eight priests, headed by Procopius the Great, were 
^ . , , chosen by a Diet as their representatives at Basel. 

Arrival of , . , , . , , , ^ 

the Bohe- They Tode with their attendants through Germany, 
voysin a stately cavalcade of fifty horsemen, with a 
ja^nuary 4, banner bearing their device of a chalice, under 
^433- which was the inscription, * Veritas omnia vincit * 

(Truth conquers all). In alarm lest their entry into Basel 
might seem like a demonstration and cause scandal, Cesarini 
sent to beg them to lay aside their banner. Before his 
messenger reached them they had taken boat at Schafthausen, 
and entered Basel, quietly and unexpectedly, on the evening 
of January 4, 1433. The citizens flocked to gaze on them, 
wondering at their strange dress, the resolute faces, and 
fierce eyes of the men who had wrought such terrible deeds 
of valour.2 They were conducted to their hotels, where 
several members of the Council visited them, and Cesarini 
sent them presents 01 food. On January 6, the festival of 
the Epiphany, they celebrated the Communion in their 
lodgings, and curiosity drew many to attend their services. 

1 John of Ragusa, Tractatus de Reducttone Bohemorum^ in Mon. Con.y 
i., 258 ; John of Segovia, ii., 298. 

^ JEn. Sylvius, Hist. Bohem.y ch. xlix. 



THE BOHEMIANS IN BASEL. 237 

They noticed that the Pragers used vestments and observed 
the customary ritual, with the sole exception that they 
communicated under both kinds. Procopius and the Tabor- 
ites, on the other hand, used no vestments nor altar, and 
discarded the mass service. After consecration of the 
elements they said the Lord's Prayer and communicated 
round a table. A sermon was preached in German, at which 
many Catholics were present. This scandalised Cesarini, 
who sent for the Bohemians, and requested them to dis- 
continue preaching in German. They answered that many 
of their followers were Germans, and the sermons were for 
their benefit; they had the right of performing their services 
as they thought fit, and meant to use it ; they invited no 
one to come, but they were not bound to prevent them from 
doing so. Cesarini sent to the magistrates of the city a 
request that they would prevent the people from attending 
their preachings. The magistrates took no measures for 
this end ; but after a few days the crowd grew weary of the 
novelty, and ceased of its own accord to attend. John of 
Ragusa makes a sage remark, which the advocates of religious 
protection would do well to remember : * Freedom and 
neglect succeeded where restraint and prohibition would 
have failed, for human frailty is always eager after what is 
forbidden \^ The Bohemians, on their side, asked to be 
present at the sermons preached before the Council ; permis- 
sion was given on condition that they entered the cathedral 
after the reading of the Gospel, and left when the sermon 
was ended, so as not to be present at any part of the mass 
service. 

Next day, January 7, Procopius invited John of Ragusa 
and others to dine; they had a general theological Preiim- 
discussion, in which the predestinarian views of the ISJ'^con?' 
Hussites came prominently forward. Most skilful f^nlliry, 
among their controversialists was an Englishman, *433. 

* * Unde factum est per neglectam liccntiam, quod nullo modo factum 
fuisHct per ex:ictam prohibitionem, quia humana fragilitai temper nititur 
in vctitum.* -Mon, Concil,^ i., 259. 



238 THE COUNCIL OF BASEL. 

Peter Payne, an Oxford Lollard, who had fled to Bohemia, 
whom John of Ragusa found to be as slippery as a 
snake. ^ 

On January 9 the Council ordained that Wednesdays and 
Fridays should be strictly kept as fast days, and prayers for 
union be said during the period of the negotiations with the 
Bohemians. A solemn procession was made for success in 
this arduous matter ; forty-nine mitred prelates and about 
eight hundred other members of the Council took part in it. 
The Bohemians asked when and where they were to have 
an audience. Cesarini fixed the next day in the ordinary 
meeting-place of congregations, the Dominican monastery. 
The Bohemians objected to the place as being too small and 
out of the way ; but Cesarini was firm in refusing to depart 
from the usage of the Council. 

On January 10 the congregation assembled, and seats 
were assigned to the Bohemians on two rows of benches 
opposite the Cardinals. Cesarini opened the proceedings 
with a long and eloquent oration, in which, speaking in the 
person of the Church, he exhorted all to unity and peace, 
and addressed the Bohemians as sons whom their mother 
yearned to welcome back to her bosom. On the part of the 
Bohemians, John of Rokycana arose and took for his text, 
* Where is He that is born King of the Jews ? We have 
seen His star in the east, and are come to worship Him.* 
He said that the Bohemians were seeking after Christ, and, 
like their Master, had been evil spoken of; he asked the 
Council not to be astonished if they said strange things, for 
truth was often found in strange ways ; he praised the 
primitive Church and denounced the vices of the clergy of 
the present day. Finally, he thanked the Council for its 
courtesy, and asked for a day to be fixed for a full hearing. 
Cesarini answered that the Council was ready at any time ; 

^*Ipse Anglicus tanquam anguis lubricus quanto strictius teneri 
videbatur et concludi tanto citius ad impertinentes dilabebatur materias.* 
— Ibid,f 260. Some information about Payne and his aliases is given in 
Rogers' Loci e Libro Veritatis of Gascoign, p. 186, etc. 



CONFERENCE WITH THE BOHEMIANS. 239 

after a private conference the Bohemians fixed the next 
Friday, January 16. 

The Bohemians brought with them to the Council the 
same spirit of reckless daring which had characterised them 
on the field of battle. Only on January 13 did they arrange 
finally their spokesmen, whereas the theologians of the 
Council had been for two months preparing their separate 
points Each day the Bohemians paid visits to the Cardinals 
and prelates ; they were received as a rule with great friendli- 
ness. At first some of the Cardinals tended to be cold, if 
not discourteous : but Cesarini's anxious efforts to promote 
conciliatory conduct were in the end successful, and free 
social intercourse was established between the two parties. 
In a few days' time a Cardinal discovered at least one bond 
of union between himself and the Bohemians ; he laughingly 
said to Procopius : * If the Pope had us in his power he 
would hang us both '. 

On January 16 the proceedings began with a ratification 
of the safe-conduct, and a formal verification of the „ . 
powers of the Bohemian representatives. Then canai 
John of Rokycana began the controversy by a de- the Firit 
fence of the First Article of Prag, concerning the p«g. 
Communion under both kinds. He argued from the iSSSJ'^ 
nature of the rite, from the words of the Gospel, the '*^^' 
custom of the primitive Church, the decrees of the General 
Councils and the testimonies of the Fathers, that it was not 
only permissible but necessary. His speech extended over 
three days, and was listened to with great attention.^ When 
he ended Procopius sprang to his feet — a man of middle 
height, of stalwart frame, with a swarthy face, large flashing 
eyes, and a fierce expression of countenance. He passionately 
exhorted them to open their ears to the Gospel truth ; Com- 
munion was a heavenly banquet, to which all were invited ; 
let them beware lest they incurred punishment by despising 
it, for God could vindicate His own. The Fathers heard 

^ it is g^iven in Martcne, Amp, Coll., viil, 262. 



240 THE COUNCIL OF BASEL. 

with amazement these expressions of a fervent conviction that 
right could be on the side opposed to the Church.^ Cesarini, 
with his wonted tact, interposed to prevent an untimely out- 
break of zeal on the part of the Council. He suggested that 
the Bohemians should first speak, and then submit their 
arguments in writing, so that they might be fully answered 
on the side of the Council. This was agreed to, and the 
assembly dispersed. 

On January 20 Nicolas of Pilgram began the defence of 

the Second Article of Prag — the suppression of 

ofPii- , public sins. He spoke for two days, but on the 

gram's dc- , 

fence of sccond day did not imitate the moderation of 
Second Rokycana. He attacked the vices of the clergy, 
January their simony, their hindrance of the Word of God ; 
^°"*^' he reproached them with the deaths of Hus and 
Jerome, whose saintly lives he defended. A murmur arose in 
the Council ; some laughed scornfully, others gnashed their 
teeth ; Cesarini, with folded hands, looked up to heaven. 
The speaker asked if he was to have a fair hearing according 
to promise. Cesarini ironically answered : * Yes, but pause 
sometimes to let us clear our throats '.. Nicolas went on 
with his speech. Afterwards Rokycana blamed him for the 
bitterness of his invective, and expressed a wish to speak 
himself on the Third Article. He was overruled by the other 
ambassadors, and only at the last moment was it definitely 
settled that Ulrich of Zynaim was to be their spokesman.^ 
On January 23 Ulrich began his arguments for the freedom 
of preaching, and also spoke for two days, urging 
Zynaim the Supremacy of the Word of God over the word 
the^Third of man, the danger of the substitution of the one 
January for the Other, the dignity of the true priest, and his 
*3-«5. (jy^y ^Q preach God's Word in spite of all endeavours 
to prevent him.^ At the end of his first day's speech Roky- 

^ * Aliaque dixit forme hujus velut Bohemi sustinerent veritatem fidei 
Catholice et alii contemnerent.' — John of Segovia, 319. 
2 See Peter of Saaz, Liher Diumusy in Mon. Con,, i., 294. 
• The speech is given in Martene, Amp. Coll., viit., 305. 



CONFERENCE WITH THE BOHEMIANS. 241 

cana rose and said that he had heard that the Bohemians 
were accused of throwing snow at a crucifix on the bridge ; 
they wished to deny it, and if it could be proved that any 
of their attendants had done so he should be punished. 
Cesarini answered that many tales were told about their 
doings, which, however, the Council had resolved to endure 
as well as their speeches. He wished, however, that they 
would restrain their servants from going into the neighbouring 
villages to spread their doctrines. He was answered that 
the servants only went to get fodder for the horses, and if 
the curious Germans asked them questions, such as, whether 
they held the Virgin Mary to be a virgin, no great harm was 
done if they answered, * Yes *. They promised, however, to 
see to the matter. 

On January 26 Peter Payne began a three days' speech on 
the temporal possessions of the clergy. He ad- 
mitted that worldly goods were not to be entirely Payne de- 
denied them, but, in the words of S. Paul, having Fourth 
food and raiment, therewith they should be content ; jaVuar^ 
all superfluities should be cut off from them, and ^^ 
they should in no case exercise temporal lordship.^ When 
he had finished his argument, he said that this doctrine was 
commonly supposed to originate from Wyclif ; he referred 
the Council, however, to the writings of Richard, Bishop of 
Armagh, and went on to give an account of Wyclif s teach- 
ing at Oxford, his own struggles in defence of Wyclifite 
opinions, and his flight into Bohemia. When he had ended, 
Rokycana thanked the Council for their patient and kindly 
hearing : if anything that they had said could be proved to 
be erroneous, they were willing to amend it. He asked that 
those who answered in the Council's behalf should follow 
their example and reduce the heads of their arguments to 
writing. One of the Bohemian nobles, speaking in German, 
thanked William of Bavaria for his presence at the discus- 
sion. William assured them of his protection, and promised 

^ The synopsis handed in to the Council is given by John of Ragusa, 
p. 170. 

VOL. II. 16 



^i± The council op basel. 

to procure for them as free and complete a hearing as they 
wished. Cesarini then proceeded to settle the preliminaries 
of the Council's reply. First he asked if all the Bohemians 
were unanimous in their adhesion to the arguments set forth 
by their speakers : he was answered, * Yes \ Cesarini then 
commented on the various points in the Bohemian speeches 
which gave him hopes of reconciliation. He said that the 
Council was resolved not to be offended at anything which 
was said contrary to the orthodox belief: but if any concord 
was to be obtained they must have everything under dis- 
cussion. Besides the Four Articles, which had been put 
forward, he believed there were other points in which the 
Bohemians differed from the Church. One of their speakers 
had called Wyclif * the evangelical doctor ' ; with a view to 
discover how far they held with Wyclif he handed to them 
twenty-eight propositions taken from Wyclifs writings and 
six other questions, opposite to each of which he asked that 
they would write whether they held it or no. The Bo- 
hemians asked to deliberate before answering. It was the 
first attempt of the Council to break the ranks of the Bo- 
hemians by bringing to light the differences which existed 
amongst them. 

On January 31 the reply on the part of the Council was 
Answer of begun. First came a sermon from a Cistercian 
t°aguM. abbot, which gave offence to the Bohemians by ex- 
-FeSu?^ horting them to submit to the Council. Then John 
ary 7. of Ragusa began his proof that the reception of the 
Communion under both kinds was not necessary and, when 
forbidden by the Church, was unlawful. His speech, which 
was a tissue of scholastic explanations of texts and types 
and passages from the Fathers, lasted till February 12. He 
angered the Bohemians by his tediousness and by the as- 
sumptions, which underlaid his speech, that they were 
heretics. Some stormy interruptions took place in con- 
sequence. On February 4 Procopius rose and protested 
against the tone adopted by the Cistercian abbot and John 
of Ragusa. * We are not heretics,* he exclaimed ; * if you 



CONFERESCE WITH THE BOHEMIANS. 243 

say that we ought to return to the Church, I answer that 
we have not departed from it, but hope to bring others to it, 
you amongst the rest' There was a shout of laughter. *Is 
the speaker going to continue rambling over impertinent 
matter ? Does he speak in his own name or in that of the 
Council ? If in his own, let him be stopped : we did not 
take the trouble to come here to listen to three or four 
doctors.' The Cistercian abbot and John of Ragusa both 
excused themselves from any intention of violating the 
compact under which the Bohemians had come to Basel. 
Rokycana asked : * You talk of the Church : what is the 
Church ? We know what Pope Eugenius says about you ; 
your head does not recognise you as the Universal Church. 
But we care little for that and hope only for peace and con- 
cord.' Cesarini exhorted both sides to patience; he reminded 
the Bohemians that if they had answered the twenty-eight 
articles proposed to them there would be less doubt about 
their opinions, and it would be easier to decide what was 
pertinent and what was not. 

On February 10 there was another outburst of feeling. 
John of Ragusa, in pursuing his argument respecting the 
authority of the Church, was examining the objections that 
might be raised to his positions. He introduced them by 
such phrases as ' a heretic might object '. This enraged the 
Bohemians ; Rokycana rose and exclaimed : * I abhor heresy, 
and if any one suspects me of heresy let him prove it '. 
Procopius, his eyes flashing with rage, cried out: 'We are 
not heretics, nor has any one proved us to be such ; yet that 
monk has stood and called us so repeatedly. If I had known 
this in Bohemia I would never have come here.' John ol 
Ragusa excused himself, saying, * May God show no mercy 
to me if I had any intention of casting a slur on you'. Peter 
Payne ironically exclaimed : • We are not afraid of you; even 
if you had been speaking for the Council your words would 
have had no weight '. Again Cesarini cast oil on the waters, 
beseeching them to take all things in good part. * There 
must be altercations,' he truly said, * before we come to ao 



244 ^^J5 COUNCIL OF BASEL, 

agreement; a woman when she is in travail has sorrow.' 
Next day the Archbishop of Lyons came to ask pardon for 
John of Ragusa. The Bohemians demanded that the other 
three speakers should be more brief and should speak in 
the name of the Council. During the remainder of John's 
address Procopiiis and another of the Bohemians refused to 
attend the conference. 

It was agreed by the Council that the other three orators 
Further should spcak in the Council's name, reserving, 
tioSs.*' however, the right of amending or adding to what 
s'-MarSi ^^^y ^^^^* Matters now went more peaceably. The 
10- speeches of Carlier, Kalteisen, and John of Palomar, 

which were studiously moderate, extended till February 28. 
Meanwhile the Bohemians, on being pressed to answer the 
twenty-eight articles submitted to them, showed signs of 
their dissensions by standing on the treaty of Eger. They 
said that they had only been commissioned to discuss the 
Four Articles of Prag, and they did not think it right to 
complicate the business by introducing other topics. 

The disputation had now come to an end ; but Rokycana 
claimed to be allowed to answer some of the statements of 
John of Ragusa, who demanded that, in that case, he should 
also have the right of further reply. It was obvious that 
this procedure might go on endlessly; and Cesarini sug- 
gested that a committee of four on each side should be 
nominated for private conference. However, on March 2, 
Rokycana began his reply, which lasted till March 10. 
When he had ended, John of Ragusa rose and urged that 
the Bohemians were bound to hear him in reply. The 
Bohemians announced that they would hear him if they 
thought fit, but they were not bound to do so. * We will 
put you to shame throughout the world,' said John angrily, 
* if you go away without hearing our answers.' Rokycana 
sarcastically said that John of Ragusa scarcely maintained 
the dignity of a doctor. * And yet,' he added, * before we 
came here, we had never heard that there was such a person 
in the world. Still, I have proved that his sayings are 



CONFERENCE WITH THE BOHEMIANS. 245 

erroneous ; for is it not erroneous,* and he raised his voice 
with passionate earnestness, ' to say that either man or 
council can change the precepts of Christ, who said : 
** Heaven and earth shall pass away, but My words shall 
not pass away " ? ' 

It was clear that such war of orators was preventing rather 
than furthering the union which both parties pro- 
fessed to seek. William of Bavaria interposed his confer- 
mediation ; and the Council deputed fifteen mem- m^h n 
bers, chief of whom was Cesarini, to arrange matters "^^^^ '^ 
in private with the fifteen Bohemian representatives. Their 
meetings, which began on March 11, were opened with 
prayer by Cesarini, who exerted all his persuasive eloquence 
and tack to induce the Bohemians to incorporate themselves 
with the Council, which would then proceed to settle the 
differences existing between them. The discussions on this 
point were at last summed up by Peter Payne : * You say, 
" Be incorporated, return, be united ; ** we answer, ** Return 
with us to the primitive Church ; be united with us in the 
Gospel ". We know what power our voice has, so long as 
we are one party and you another ; what power it would 
have after our incorporation experience has abundantly 
shown.' The Bohemians began to speak of departing; 
but a learned German theologian^ Nicolas of Cuso, raised 
the question — if the Council allowed the Bohemians the 
Communion under both kinds, which they regarded as a 
matter of faith, would they agree to incorporation ? if so, the 
other questions, which only concerned morals, might be 
subjected to discussion. At first the Bohemians suspected 
a snare ; but William of Bavaria assured them of his sin- 
cerity. After deliberating, the Bohemians refused incor- 
poration, as being beyond the powers given them as repre- 
sentatives; moreover, if they were incorporated and the 
Council decided against them, they could not accept its 
decision. An attempt was made to advance further by 
means of a smaller committee of four on each side ; but it 
only became obvious that nothing more could be done in 



246 THE COUNCIL OF BASEL. 

Basel, that the Bohemian representatives were not disposed 
to take any decided step, and that, if the Council intended 
to proceed with the negotiations, they must send envoys to 
Bohemia to treat with the Diet and the people. 

Meanwhile disputations continued before the Council, in 
which Rokycana, Peter Payne, and Procopius showed them- 
selves formidable controversialists. They had been formed 
in a ruder and more outspoken school than that of the 
theological professors who were pitted against them. John 
of Ragusa especially met with no mercy. One day he was 
so pedantic as to say that he did not wish to derogate from 
the dignity of his university. * How so ? ' asked Rokycana. 

* According to the statutes,' said John of Ragusa, * a doctor 
is not bound to answer a master ; nevertheless, as it concerns 
the faith, I will answer you.* * Certainly,* was the retort ; 

* John of Ragusa is not better than Christ ; nor John of Roky- 
cana worse than the devil ; yet Christ answered the devil.' 
Another time, when John of Ragusa had been speaking at 
great length, Rokycana remarked, * He is one of the preach- 
ing friars, and is bound to say a great deal *. Kalteisen, in 
his reply to Ulrich of Zynaim, reproved him for having said 
that monks were introduced by the devil. * I never said so,' 
interrupted Ulrich. Procopius rose : * I said one day to the 
President, ** If bishops have succeeded to the place of the 
Apostles, and priests to the place of the seventy-two disciples, 
to whom except the devil have the rest succeeded ? " * There 
was loud laughter, amid which Rokycana called out, * Doctoi 
you should make Procopius Provincial of your Order '.^ 

It was at length arranged that on April 14 the Bohemians 
should return to their own land, whither the Council 

Departure ' 

of the undertook to send ten ambassadors who should 
mians. treat with the Diet in Prag. Procopius wrote to 
pri 14. infoi-ni the Bohemians of this, and urged them to 
assemble in numbers at the Diet on June 7, for great things 
might be done. On April 13 the Bohemians took farewell 

^ These particulars are taken from the Liher Diurnus of Peter of SaaB, 
in Mon. Concil.^ i., 348. 



DEPARTURE OF THE BOHEMIANS, 247 

of the Council. Rokycana in the name of all expressed 
their thanks for the kindness they had received. Then 
Procopius rose and said that he had often wished to speak, 
but had never had an opportunity. He spoke earnestly 
about the great work before the Council, the reformation of 
the Church, which all men longed for with sighs and groans. 
He spoke of the worldliness of the clergy, the vices of the 
people, the intrusion into the Church of the traditions of men, 
the general neglect of preaching. Cesarini, on the part of the 
Council, recapitulated all that had been done, and begged 
them to continue in Bohemia the work that he trusted had 
been begun in Basel. He thanked Rokycana for his kindly 
words : turning to Procopius, he called him his personal 
friend and thanked him for what he had said about the 
reformation of the Church, which the Council would have 
been engaged in, if they had not been employed in confer- 
ence with the Bohemians. Finally he gave them his 
benediction and shook them each by the hand. Rokycana 
also raised his hand, and in a loud voice said, < May the 
Lord bless and preserve this place in peace and quiet*. 
Then they took their leave ; as they were going, a fat Italian 
archbishop ran after them and with tears in his eyes shook 
them by the hand. On April 14 they left Basel, accom- 
panied by the ambassadors of the Council. 

The conference at Basel was most honourable to all who 
were concerned in it ; it showed a spirit of straight- General 
forwardness, charity and mutual forbearance. It [Jl^cin-^^ 
was no slight matter in those days for a Council ^«'«°ce. 
of theologians to endure to listen to the arguments of 
heretics already condemned by the Church. It was no small 
thing for the Bohemians, who were already masters in the 
field, to curb their high spirit to a war of words. Yet, in 
spite of occasional outbursts, the general result of the con- 
ference at Basel was to promote a good feeling between, the 
two parties. Free and friendly intercourse existed between 
the Bohemians and the leading members of the Council, 
chiefly owing to the exertions of Cesarini, whose nobility 



\ 



248 THE COUNCIL OF BASEL. 

and generosity of character produced a deep impression on 
all around him. But in spite of the friendliness with which 
they were received, and the personal affection which in some 
cases they inspired, the Bohemians could not help being a 
little disappointed at the general results of their visit to 
Basel. They had been somewhat disillusioned. They 
came with the same moral earnestness and childlike sim- 
plicity which had marked Hus at Constance. They hoped 
that their words would prevail, that their arguments would 
convince the Council that they were not heretics, but rested 
on the Gospel of Christ. They were chilled by the attitude 
of superiority which showed itself in all the Council's pro- 
ceedings, and which was the more irritating because they 
could not formulate it in any definitely offensive words or 
acts. The assumption of an infallible Church, to which 
all the faithful were bound to be united, was one which the 
Bohemians could neither deny nor accept. In Bohemia the 
preachers had been wont to denounce those who departed 
from the Gospel ; in Basel they found themselves the objects 
of kindly reprobation because they had departed from the 
Church.i It gradually became clear that they were not 
likely to induce the Council to reform the Church in accord- 
ance with their principles : the utmost that would be granted 
was a Concordat with Bohemia which would allow it to retain 
some of its peculiar usages and opinions without separation 
from the Catholic Church. The Bohemian representatives 
had failed to convince the Council ; it remained to be seen 
if the good feeling which had grown up between the two 
contending parties would enable the Council to extend, and 
the Bohemian people to accept, a sufficient measure of tolera- 
tion to prevent the breach of the outward unity of the Church. 

^ Peter of Saaz gives this picture in the account of a conversation 
between the disputants at dinner with Cesarini : * Dixit auditor : Augus- 
tinu? dicta sua ecclesiae judicanda commisit ; similiter Hieronymus 
Damaso Papae : quare vos non ? forte aestimatis vos ita sapientes esse, 
quasi errare non possetis in fide ? Et sic omnem divisionem et bellorum 
causam retorquebant in nostros, nostri autem e converso in eos, quia 
evangelio contradicerunt.' — Mon, ConciL, i., 330. 



THE COUNCIL'S ENVOYS 00 TO PKAO. 349 

The ten ambassadors of the Council, chief amongst whom 
were the Bishops of Coutances and Augsburg, Giles The 
earlier, John of Palomar, Thomas Ebendorfer of ?„Ty"go 
Plaselbach, Canon of Vienna, John of Geilhausen, JJ^y"'*' 
and Alexander, an Englishman, Archdeacon of *^3i' 
Salisbury, travelled peaceably to Prag, where they were 
received with every show of respect and rejoicing on May 
8. They spent the time till the assembling of the Diet in 
interchanging courtesies with the Bohemian leaders. On 
May 24 a Bohemian preacher, Jacob Ulk, inveighed in a 
sermon against the Council's envoys, and bade the people 
beware of Basel as of a basilisk which endeavoured to shed 
its venom on every side. He attempted to raise a riot, but 
it was put down by Procopius,^ and the magistrates issued 
an edict that no one under pain of death was to offend the 
Council's ambassadors. On June 13 the Diet assembled, 
and after preliminary addresses John of Palomar submitted 
the Council's proposal for the incorporation of the Bohemians 
and the common settlement of their differences in the Coun- 
cil. He was answered that the Council of Constance was 
the origin of all the wars and troubles that had beset 
Bohemia ; the Bohemians had always wished for peace, but 
they were firm in their adhesion to the Four Articles of 
Prag, and they wished to hear the Council's decision re- 
specting them, John of Palomar at once answered that the 
Pour Articles seemed to be held in different senses by 
different parties among the Bohemians ; before he could 
give the Council's opinion, he wished them to be defined in 
writing in the sense in which they were universally believed. 
It was the first step towards bringing to light the dissensions 
of the Bohemian parties. A definition drawn up by the 
University of Prag was repudiated by the Taborites as 
containing treacherous concessions, KoUycana gave a 
verbal answer, and a committee of eight deputies of the 



^ Palacky, GeschichU von Bdhmfttt bk. viH., ch. iii., Irom Ifaielbach'i 
MS., Liber Pontiff alts. 



250 THE COUNCIL OF BASEL. 

Diet was appointed to confer on this point with the ambas- 
sadors of the Council. A definition was then drawn up in 
which the Council's side gained nothing. They saw that 
by this procedure they would merely drift back to the dis- 
putation which they had in Basel. 

Accordingly on June 25 the Council's ambassadors took 
Negotia- the decided step of negotiating secretly with some 
the°Diet'** of the Calixtin nobles, to whom they said that the 
ju^e-^* Council would most probably allow to the Bohemians 
July, 1433. the Communion under both kinds, if they would 
incorporate themselves for the discussion of the other points. 
This was received with joy by some of the nobles, amongst 
whom a party in favour of this course was gradually or- 
ganised. The Diet inquired under what form such privilege 
would be granted, and a proposed form was presented by the 
ambassadors. The Diet, in answer, drew up on January 29 a 
form of their own, which, if the Council accepted, they were 
willing to unite with it. As the form contained the full 
acceptance of the Four Articles of Prag, the ambassadors 
refused to entertain it. On July i they again had a meeting 
in Rokycana's house with some of the Calixtin nobles, who 
agreed to moderate the form into such a shape that another 
Bohemian deputation might take it to Basel. In the dis- 
cussion that ensued in the Diet some sharp things were 
said. When the Council's ambassadors begged the Bo- 
hemians to forget the past and be as they had been twenty 
years ago, Procopius scornfully exclaimed, * In the same 
way you might argue that we ought to be as we were a 
thousand years ago when we were pagans *. A statement, 
however, was drawn up that the Bohemians agreed to unite 
with the Council and obey * according to God's Word '. 
Three ambassadors, Mathias Landa, Procopius of Bilsen, 
and Martin Lupak, were appointed to take this, together 
with an exposition of the Four Articles, to the Council. 
They, with the Council's envoys, left Prag on July 11 and 
reached Basel on August 2, where they were received with 
joy. 



JOHN OF PALOMAR'S REPORT TO THE COUNCIL. 251 

The object of this first embassy of the Council was to 
survey the ground and report the position of affairs john of 
in Bohemia. On July 31 one of the envoys, who repoJt*to' 
was sent on before, announced to the Council that *y* ^jfjjf" 
everywhere in Bohemia they had found a great s"'** *«3. 
desire for peace, and had been listened to by the Diet 
with a courtesy and decorum which the Council would do 
well to imitate. He urged that conciliation be tried to the 
utmost. The other envoys on their arrival gave a full report 
of their proceedings to the Council, which appointed a 
committee of six to be elected from each deputation who, 
together with the Cardinals, were to confer on future pro- 
ceedings. Before this committee John of Palomar on 
August 13 made a secret report of the general aspect of 
affairs in Bohemia. He said that neither the nobles nor 
the people were free, but were tyrannised over by a small 
but vigorous party, which feared to loose its power if any 
reconciliation with the Church took place ; the strength of 
this party lay in the hatred of the Bohemians to German 
domination, and their willingness to carry on war to escape 
it. He sketched the position of the three chief sects, the 
Calixtins, Orphans, and Taborites ; the only point on which 
they all agreed was the reception of the Communion under 
both kinds. The first party wished to obtain the use of 
their rite by peaceable means and desired union with the 
Church; the second party desired to be in the bosom of 
the Church, but would take up arms and fight desperately 
to defend what they believed to be necessary; the third 
party was entirely opposed to the Church, and was not to 
be won over by any concessions, for the confiscation of the 
goods of the clergy was their chief desire.^ 

The commission then proceeded to deliberate whether the 
Communion under both kinds could be conceded to the 
Bohemians, and what answer the Council should return to 
the other three articles, of which the Bohemian envoys 

* John of Segovia, Mon. Coficil,, ii., 431, and Declaratio Gestotum in 
Bohemia t in Mon. ConciL^ i., 388. 



< 



252 THE COUNCIL OF BASEL, 

brought a definition to the Council. The discussions lasted 
Deiibera- fo^ ^ fortnight, and on August 26 an extraordinary 
Basel** congregation was held, which was attended by the 
BXm?an Prelates at Basel and 160 doctors, who were all 
Aif^ust"* ^ound by oath of secrecy. John of Palomar put 
1433- * before them, on behalf of the commission, the pressing 
*^ need of settling the Bohemian question, and the desirability 
\: of making some concession for that purpose. He argued 
* that the Church might lawfully do so, and follow the 
V example of Paul in his dealings with the Corinthians ; for 
,V V ' he * caught them by guile '. The Bohemian people was 
'.'^ r- intractable and would not enter the fold of the Church like 

;." V / other Christians ; they must treat it gently as one treats 
;. v^ a mule or horse to induce it to submit to the halter. When 

^ once the Bohemians had returned to union with the Church, 

\ ' their experience of the miseries of a separation from it would 

lead them to submit to the common rites of Christendom 
rather than run new risks in the future. Cesarini followed 
in the same strain ; and next day William of Bavaria, on 
behalf of Sigismund, urged the interest of the Emperor in 
securing his recognition, by means of the Council, as King 
of Bohemia. After three days' deliberation it was agreed to 
concede the reception of the Communion under both kinds, 
and an answer to the other three articles was framed. But 
the secret was still kept from the Bohemian envoys, as the 
Council did not wish their decision to be known too soon 
in Bohemia, and they were also afraid lest Eugenius IV. 
might interpose. On September 2 the Bohemians were 
dismissed with kindly words and the assurance of the de- 
spatch of four envoys from the Council to Prag. Four of 
the previous embassy — the Bishop of Coutances, John of 
Palomar, Henry Toh, and Martin Verruer — set out on 
September 11. 

The second embassy from Basel did not meet with such 
Renewed ^ peaceable entrance into Bohemia as had the first. 
Bohemia. War had again broken out, a war in which were 
June, 1433. involved the contending interests of the Council 



RENEWED WAR IN BOHEMIA. 253 

and the Hussites. In the very middle of Bohemia there 
still remained a city which held fast by the cause of Catholi- 
cism and Sigismund. In the reaction which ensued after 
the first successes of the commencement of the Hussite 
movement, the strong city of Pilsen in the south-west of 
Bohemia had swung back to Catholicism, and from its 
numerous outlying fortresses had defied all efforts to reduce 
it. Year by year their sufferings from Hussite attacks made 
the inhabitants grow firmer in their resistance; and when 
the Council's envoys first came as spies into the land the 
Bohemians keenly felt the disadvantage under which they 
lay in their negotiations when they could not offer a decided 
front to their foe. Messengers from Pilsen visited the Basel 
ambassadors and prayed for help from the Council. As the 
Bohemians began to see that all that the Council would 
grant them was a recognition of their exceptional position, 
they felt the need of absolute internal unity if they were to 
secure or maintain it. The Diet decreed a- vigorous siege 
of Pilsen; the Council's ambassadors protracted their ne- 
gotiations to allow the men of Pilsen to gather in their 
harvest ; ^ and later the Fathers of Basel sent a contribution 
of money to the aid of Pilsen, and used their influence to 
prevail on Niirnberg to do the same. On July 14 the Bohe- 
mian army began the siege of Pilsen, and in the beginning 
of September the besieging host had grown to 36,000 men. 
The might of the Hussites was directed to secure religious 
unity within their land. 

Pilsen was strongly defended, and the besiegers began 
to suffer from hunger. Foraging parties were sent Mutiny 
to greater distances, and on September 16 a de- BohSnian 
tachment of 1400 foot and 500 horse was sent by gJ^J'en,, 
Procopius under the command of John Pardus to *>"' '433- 
harry Bavaria. As Pardus was returning laden with spoil, 
he was suddenly attacked by the Bavarians; his troops 

^ John of Segovia, p. 32: *Quia Pilyenses, qui erant obsessi, tempore 
tractatuum pacis collegerant messes aliquas, qui jam prae inopia sub* 
sistere non poterant \ 



254 ^^S COUNCIL OF BASEL. • 

were almost entirely cut to pieces, and he himself, with a 
few followers, made his escape with difficulty to the camp 
at Pilsen. Great was the wrath of the Bohemian warriors 
at this disgrace to their arms. They rushed upon Pardus 
as a traitor, and even hurled a stool at Procopius, who tried 
to protect him; the stool hit Procopius on the head with 
such violence that the blood streamed down his face. The 
wrath of the chiefs was turned against him ; he was im- 
prisoned, and the man who had thrown the stool was made 
general in his stead. This excitement lasted only a few 
days. Procopius was released and restored to his former 
position, but his proud spirit had been deeply wounded by 
the sense of his powerlessness in an emergency. He refused 
the command, and left the camp never to return. 

This was the news which greeted the Council's envoys 
when they reached Eger on September 27. They 
embassy feared to advance farther in the present excited 
Council condition of men's minds. The Bohemians in vain 
October, tried to discover what message they brought from 
'^^^' the Council. The leaders of the army before Pilsen 

at length sent two of their number to conduct them safely 
to Prag, where they said that the Diet could not assemble 
before S. Martin's Day, November 11. The fears of the 
envoys were entirely dispelled by the cordial welcome which 
they received in Prag on their arrival, October 22. A plague 
was ravaging the city, and the physicians vied with one 
another in precautions for ensuring the safety of their city's 
guests. The preacher Ulk still raised his voice against 
them ; they had honey on their lips but venom in their 
. heart, they wished to bring back Sigismund, who would 
cut off the people's heads for their rebellion. 

The proceedings of the Diet, which opened on November 
Diet of 17* resolved themselves into a diplomatic contest 
Nofem- between the Council's envoys and the Bohemians, 
ber, 1433. f j^g Council was trying to make the smallest con- 
cessions possible, the Bohemians were anxious to get all 
they could. But the four envoys of Basel had the advan- 



DIET OF PRAG, 255 

tage in contending with an assembly like the Diet. They 
could gauge the effect produced by each concession ; they 
could see when they had gone far enough to have hopes 
of success. Moreover, they knew definitely the limits of 
concession which the Council would grant, while the Bohe- 
mians were too much at variance amongst themselves to 
know definitely what they were prepared to accept. Accord- 
ingly, after the preliminary formalities were over, the 
Council's envoys began to practise economy in their con- 
cessions. John of Palomar, after a speech in which he 
lauded General Councils and recapitulated all that the 
Fathers at Basel had done to promote unity, proceeded to 
give the limitations under which the Council was prepared 
to admit three of the Articles ; about the fourth, the Com- 
munion under both kinds, he said that the envoys had 
powers to treat if the declaration which he had made about 
the other three was satisfactory to the Bohemians. The 
Diet demanded to have the Council's decision on this also 
put before them. The envoys pressed to have an answer 
on the three Articles first. For two days the struggle on 
this point continued ; then the envoys asked, before speak- 
ing about the Communion, for an answer to the question 
whether, if an agreement could be come to on the Four 
Articles, the Bohemians would consent to union. John of 
Rokycana answered on behalf of all, * We would consent'; 
and all the Diet cried * Yes, yes '. Only Peter Payne rose 
and said : * We understand by; a good end one in which we 
are all agreed ' ; but those around him admonished him to 
hold his tongue, and he was not allowed to continue. Then 
John of Palomar read a declaration setting forth that the 
Communion under one kind had been introduced into the 
Church, partly to correct the Nestorian error that in the 
bread was contained only the body of Christ, and in the 
wine only His blood, partly to guard against irreverence 
and mishap in the reception of the elements ; nevertheless, 
as the Bohemian use was to administer under both kinds, 
the Council was willing that they should continue to do so 



256 THE COUNCIL OF BASEL. 

till the matter had been fully discussed. If they still con- 
tinued in their belief, permission would be given to their 
priests so to administer it to those who, having reached years 
of discretion, asked for it. The Bohemians were dissatisfied 
with this. They complained that the Council said nothing 
which could satisfy the honour of Bohemia. They demanded 
that their words, that the reception under both kinds was 
* useful and wholesome,* should be adopted, and that the 
permission be extended to children. 

On November 26 an amended form was submitted to the 
Diet, which became the basis of an agreement. 
Council's Bohemia and Moravia were to make peace with all 
agree° men. The Council would accept this declaration 
"^"'" and release them from all ecclesiastical censures. 
As regarded the Four Articles : — 

(i) If in all other points the Bohemians and Moravians 
received the faith and ritual of the Universal Church, those 
who had the use of communicating under both kinds should 
continue to do so, * with the authority of Jesus Christ and 
the Church His true spouse '. The question as a whole should 
be further discussed in the Council ; but the priests of 
Bohemia and Moravia should have permission to adminis- 
ter under both kinds to those who, being of the age of 
discretion, reverently demanded it, at the same time telling 
them that under each kind was the whole body of Christ. 

(2) As regarded the correction and punishment of open 
sins, the Council agreed that, as far as could reasonably be 
done, they should be repressed according to the law of God 
and the institutes of the Fathers. The phrase used by the 
Bohemians, * by those whose duty it was,' was too vague ; 
the duty did not devolve on private persons, but on those 
who had jurisdiction in such matters. 

(3) About freedom of preaching, the word of God ought 
to be freely preached by priests who were commissioned by 
their superiors : * freely ' did not mean indiscriminately, for 
order was necessary. 

(4) As regarded the temporalities of the clergy, individual 



BASIS OP AGREEMENT WITH THE BOHEMIANS. 257 

priests, who were not bound by a vow of poverty, might 
inherit or receive gifts ; and similariy the Church might 
possess temporalities and exercise over them civil lordship. 
But the clergy ought to administer faithfully the goods of 
the Church according to the institutes of the Fathers ; and 
the goods of the Church cannot be occupied by others. 

As abuses may have gathered round these last three 
points, the Diet could send deputies to the Council, which 
intended to proceed with the question of reform, and the 
envoys promised to aid them in all possible ways. 

The basis of an agreement was now prepared, and a large 
party in Prag was willing to accept it. Procopius, Accept- 
however, rose in the Diet and read proposals of his Se coun- 
own, which John of Palomar dismissed, observing ^ Jh?"' 
that their object was concord, and it was better to ^mbCTso, 
clear away difficulties than to raise them. On '«3- 
November 28 the legates judged it prudent to lay before the 
Diet an explanation of some points in the previous docu- 
ment. The rites of the Church, which the Bohemians were 
to accept, they explained to mean those rites which were 
commonly observed throughout Christendom. If all the 
Bohemians did not at once follow them, that would not be a 
hindrance to the peace ; those who dissented on any points 
should have a full and fair hearing in the Council. The law 
of God and the practice of Christ and the Apostles would be 
recognised by the Council, according to the treaty of Eger, 
as the judge in all such matters. Finally, on November 30,"^ , 
after a long discussion and many verbal explanations given 
by the envoys, the moderate party among the Bohemians 
succeeded in extorting from the Diet a reluctant acceptance 
of the proposed agreement. 

The success of the Council was due chiefly to the fact ^ 
that the negotiations, once begun, awakened hopes causes of / 
among the moderate party in Bohemia and so cu^s wc-*^' / 
widened the differences between them and the ex- "*«• 
treme party. There were both plague and famine in the 
land. More than 100,000 are said to have died in Bohemia 
VOL. II. 17 



258 THE COUNCIL OP BASEL, 

during the year, and men had good grounds for feeling sadly 
the desolate condition of their country and counting the cost 
of their prolonged resistance. Moreover, the appearance of 
the Council's envoys had emboldened those who wished for 
a restoration of the old state of things to lift up their heads. 
There were still some adherents of Sigismund, chief of 
whom was Meinhard of Neuhaus ; there were still formid- 
able adherents of Catholicism, as the continued ill-success 
of the siege of Pilsen showed. As soon as doubt and 
wavering was apparent among the Hussites the party of the 
restoration declared itself more openly. Further, the events 
of the siege of Pilsen brought to light the disorganisa- 
tion that had spread among the army. The old religious 
zeal had waxed dim ; adventurers abounded in the ranks of 
the Lord's soldiers ; the sternness of Zizka's discipline had 
been relaxed, and the mutiny against Procopius bowed the 
spirit of the great leader and made him doubtful of the 
future. The Bohemian nobles were weary of the ascend- 
ency of the Taborites, whose democratic ideas they had 
always borne with difficulty. The country was weary of 
military rule ; and the party which was aiming at Sigis- 
mund's restoration determined to use the conciliatory spirit 
of the Diet for their own purposes. On December i a Bo- 
hemian noble. Ales of Riesenberg, was elected governor of the 
land, with a council of twelve to assist him ; he took oath to 
promote the welfare of the people and defend the Four Articles. 
The moderate party, which had sought to find a constitutional 
king in Korybut in 1427, now succeeded in setting up a pre- 
sident over the Bohemian republic.^ The peace negotiations 
with the Council had already led to a political reaction. 

The Compact had been agreed to, but the difficulties in 
Departure ^^^ way of its full acceptance were by no means 
colmcU's removed. The envoys demanded that, as Bohemia 
TanSar' ^^^ agreed to a general peace, the siege ot Pilsen 
14. 1434. should cease. The Bohemians demanded that the 

> Palacky, Geschichte von Bohtnen, bk. viii., ch, iii. 



B^i^pp 



V 



DEPARTURE OF THE COUNCIL'S ENVOYS. 259 

men of Pilsen should first unite with the Bohemian govern- 
ment) and that all Bohemians should be required by the 
Council to accept the Communion under both kinds. Other 
questions also arose. The Bohemians complained that, in 
treating of the temporalities of the clergy, the Council used 
language which seemed to accuse them of sacrilege. They 
demanded also that the Communion under both kinds 
should be declared * useful and wholesome ' for the whole of 
Christendom, and that their custom of administering the 
Communion to infants should be recognised. The discus- 
sion on these points only led to further disagreement. The 
envoys had convinced themselves that a large party in 
Bohemia was prepared to accept peace on the terms which 
they had already offered. As nothing more was to be 
done, they asked to be told definitely whether the Compact 
was accepted or not ; otherwise they wished to depart on 
January 15, 1434. The Diet answered that it would be more 
convenient if they went on January 14; a Bohemian envoy 
would be sent to Basel to announce their intentions. Ac- 
cordingly the Council's ambassadors left Prag on January 15, 
and arrived at Basel on February 15. 

The result of this second embassy had been to rally the I / 
moderate party in Bohemia, and break the bond Further 
that had hitherto held the Bohemians together. SJ«°*i*" 
The envoys had laid the foundations of a league F*briiry 
in favour of the Church. Ten of the masters of the '«4. 
University of Frag subscribed a statement that they were 
willing to stand by the Compacts and had been reconciled 
to the Church ; even when the envoys were at Eger two 
nobles followed them seeking reconciliation. ^ When the 
ambassador of the Diet, Martin Lupak, joined them at 
Eger, it is not wonderful that they warned him that it was 
useless for him to journey to Basel if he went with fresh 

^ * Plures eorum con vers! fuerant ad fidem eciam postquam exierint 
regnum : etenim se in Egra constitutis nobiles duo, qui multa dampna 
intulerunt in exercitu, advenerant humiliter reconciliationem petentes.' 
— From relation of ambassadors, in John of Segovia, p. 595. 



26o THE COUNCIL OF BASEL, 

demands. The Council, after hearing the report of their 
envoys, gave Martin audience at once on February i6. He 
asked that the Council should order all the inhabitants of 
Bohemia to receive the Communion under both kinds ; if 
all did not conform, there would be different churches and 
different rites, and no real peace in the land, for each party 
would claim to be better than the other, the terms * catholic ' 
and * heretic' would again be bandied about, and there 
would be perpetual dissension. This was no doubt true ; 
but the Council listened to Martin with murmurs of dissent. 
It was clearly impossible for them to abandon the Bohemian 
Catholics, and to turn the concession which they had 
y granted to the Hussites into an order to those who had re- 
mained faithful to the Church. Still Si^^ismiiiid besought 
them to take time over their answer and to avoid any 
threats. The answer was drawn up in concert with Sigis- 
mund, and on February 26 Cesarini addressed Martin 
Lupak, saying that the Council wondered the Bohemians 
did not keep their promises, as even Jews and heathens 
respected good faith. He besought him to urge his coun- 
trymen to fulfil the Compacts ; then the Council would 
consider their new demands, and would do all they could 
consistently with the glory of God and the dignity of the 
Church. Martin defended his demands, and there was 
some altercation. At last he taunted Cesarini with the 
remark that the Church had not always wished for peace, 
but had preached a crusade against Bohemia. ' Peace is 
now in your hands, if you will stand by the agreement,' 
said Cesarini. * Rather it is in the hands of the Council, 
if they will grant what is asked,' retorted Martin. He re- 
fused to receive a letter from the Council unless he were 
informed of its contents, and after briefly thanking the 
Fathers for hearing him, he left the congregation and de- 
parted. 

A breach seemed again imminent ; but the Council knew 
that it would not be with Bohemia, but only with a party 
in it, which they trusted to overcome by the help of their 



PROGRESS OF AFFAIRS IN BOHEMIA. 261 

fellow-countrymen. The first envoys had reported that 
there was a number of irreconcilables who must be pro«cM 
subdued by force; the second negotiations had foso^*" 
brought to light internal dissensions and had ^^'°''' 
founded a strong party in Bohemia in favour of union with 
the Council. Everything was done to strengthen that party 
and gain the means of putting down the radicals. On 
February 8 the Council ordered a tax of 5 per cent, on 
ecclesiastical revenues to be levied throughout Christendom 
for their needs in the matter of Bohemia. John of Palomar 
was sent to carry supplies from the Council and from Sigis- 
mund to aid the besieged in Pilsen, where the besieging 
army was suffering from plague, hunger and despondency. 
In Bohemia Meinhard of Neuhaus was indefatigable in 
carrying on the work of the restoration. In April a league 
was formed by the barons of Bohemia and Moravia and 
the Old Town of Prag for the purpose of securing peace 
and order in the land ; all armed bands were ordered to 
disperse and an amnesty was promised if they obeyed. 

Procopius was roused from his retirement in the New 
Town of Prag by these machinations, and once n h r 
more put himself at the head of the Taborites and Procopiut 
the Orphans. But the barons had already gathered battle of 
their forces. The New Town of Prag was sum- m]J%, 
moned to enter the league, and on its refusal was '^^ 
stormed; on May 6 Procopius and a few others succeeded 
with difficulty in escaping. At this news the army before 
* Pilsen raised the siege and retired. Bohemia merged its ) 
minor religious differences, and prepared to settle by the : 
sword a political question that was bound to press some ^ 
day for solution. On one side were the nobles ready to ( 
fight for their ancient privileges; on the other side stood 1 
the towns as champions of democracy. On May 30 was j 
fought the decisive battle at Lipan. The nobles, under the 
command of Borek of Militinek, a companion-in-arms of 
Zizka, had an army of 25,000 men ; against them stood 
Procopius with 18,000. Both armies were entrenched 



262 THE COUNCIL OF BASEL. 

behind their waggons, and for some time fired at one an- 
other. The Taborites had the better artillery, but their 
adversaries turned their superiority to their ruin. One wing 
feigned to be greatly distressed by their fire ; then, as if 
goaded to exasperation, rushed from behind its entrench- 
ment, and charged. When they thought that the foe had 
exhausted their fire, they feigned to flee, and the Taborites, 
thinking their ranks were broken, rushed from their wag- 
gons in pursuit. But the seeming broken ranks skilfully 
re-formed and faced their pursuers, who had meanwhile been 
cut off from their waggons by the other wing of the nobles' 
army. Shut in on every side, Procopius and his men pre- 
pared to die like heroes. All day and night the battle raged, 
till in the morning 13,000 of the warriors who had been so 
long the terror of Europe lay dead on the ground. Pro- 
copius and all the chief men of the extreme party were 
, among the slain. The military power of Bohemia, which 
had so long defied the invader, fell because it was divided 
against itself 
r The fight of Lipan was a decided victory for the Council. 
It is true that among the conquerors the large majority was 
; Hussite, and would require some management before it 
could be safely penned within the fold of the Church. But 
the Taborites had lost the control of affairs. The irreconcil- 
ables were swept away, and the Council would henceforth 
have to deal with men of more moderate opinions. 



263 



CHAPTER VL 

EUGENIUS IV* AND THE COUNCIL OF BASEL — NEGOTIATIONS 
WITH THE GREEKS AND THE BOHEMIANS. 

1434— 1436. 

At the beginning of the year 1434 the Council of Basel 
had reached its highest point of importance in the Position 
affairs of Christendom and of the Church. It had co^^di in 
compelled the Pope to accept, without reserve, the ''*34. 
conciliar principle for which it strove ; it had gone so far in 
pacifying Bohemia that its final triumph seemed secure. 
It looked to further employment for its energies in negotiat- 
ing a union between the Greek and the Latin Churches. 
Yet the Council's success had been largely due to accidental 1/ 
circumstances. Eugenius IV. had been subdued, not by 
the Council's strength, but by his own weakness ; he fell 
because he had so acted as to raise up a number of deter- 
mined enemies, without gaining any friends in return. 
The Council's policy towards him was tolerated rather^ 
than approved by the European Powers ; if no one helped y 
Eugenius IV., it was because no one had anything to gain 
by so doing. Sigismund, whose interest was greatest in ^ 
the matter, was kept on the Council's side by his personal "^ 
interest in the Bohemian question ; but he, with the Ger- 
man electors and the King of France, was resolute in re- 
sisting any steps which might lead to a schism of the 
Church. If the Council were to keep what it had won, it 1 
must gain new hold upon the sympathies of Christendom, ^ 
which were not touched by the struggle against the Pope. / 



264 THE COUNCIL OF BASEL. 

Sigismund gave the Fathers at Basel the advice of a states- 
man when he exhorted them to leave their quarrel with 
the Pope and busy themselves with the reform of the 
Church. 

But to contend for abstract principles is always easy, 

Desire to to rcform abuses is difficult. The Council found it 

reform more interesting to war with the Pope than to 

Papacy. labour through the obstacles which lay in the way 

of a reformation of abuses by those who benefited by them. 

\ Each rank of the hierarchy was willing to reform its neigh- 

' hours, but had a great deal to urge in its own defence. In 

this collision of interests there was a general agreement 

/ that it was good to begin with a reform in the Papacy, as 

i, the Pope was not at Basel to speak for himself.^ Moreover, 

the Council had grown inveterate in its hostility to the 

Pope. The personal enemies of Eugenius IV. flocked to 

Basel, and were not to be satisfied with anything short of 

his entire humiliation. In this they were aided by the pride 

of authority which among less responsible members of the 

assembly grew in strength every day, and made them 

desirous to assert in every way the superiority of the 

Council over the Pope. 

The first question that arose was concerning the presi- 
Admission deucy. Eugenius IV., after his recognition by the 
Papal pre- Couucil, issucd a Bull nominating four Papal depu- 
Aprii!^* ties to share that office with Cesarini. The first 
1434. decision of the Council was that they could not 

admit this claim of the Pope, since it was derogatory to the 
dignity of the Council, but they were willing themselves to 
appoint two of the Cardinals. Again Sigismund had to in- 

^ See the interesting chapter of John of Segovia, p. 358 : * Experi- 
mento quidem palparunt concilio tunc et postea interessentes circa 
reformationem ecclesie quam sit velut infinita distancia inter dicere et 
facere, fiat reformacio et facta est. Suave profecto est de aliorum re- 
formacione statuum cogitare, liberum avisare, speciosum predicare, sancti- 
monieque reputatur, quod facta non sit redargucio. Sed cum venitur 
ad opus reformacionis, in quovis statu sentitur, quod de justicia dicitur 
proverbio communi, illam desiderari ut quocunque alio, nee tamen in 
propria fiat domo.' 



GRIEVANCES OP SIGISMUND. 265 

terpose, and with some difficulty prevailed on the Council 
to receive the Papal presidents. They were not, however, 
admitted till they had bound themselves by an oath to 
labour for the Council, to maintain the decrees of Constance, 
to declare that even the Pope, if he refused to obey the 
Council, might be punished, and to observe strict secrecy 
about all its proceedings. On these terms the Papal presi- 
dents, Cardinal Albergata, the Archbishop of Tarento, the 
Bishop of Padua, and the Abbot of S. Justin of Padua, were 
admitted to their office on April 26, 1434, at a solemn 
session at which Sigismund in his Imperial robes was 
present. 

The pretensions of the Council went on increasing. On 
May 2 Cardinal Lusignan, who was sent on an em- . 
bassy to pacify France, received from the Council anccs of 
the title of legatus a latere^ in spite of the protest mund 
of the five presidents against conferring a dignity fhe*°' 
which only the Pope could grant. Sigismund also ®"°*^* ' 
felt aggrieved by the small heed which the Council paid 
to his monitions. Few German prelates were present; 
the large majority were French, Italians, and Spaniards. 
The democratic constitution of the Council prevented Sigis- 
mund from receiving the deference which was his due ; he 
was not even consulted about the appointment of ambassa- 
dors. He felt that a slight had been offered to himself by 
the dealings of the Council with his enemy, the Duke of 
Milan. He complained bitterly of the irregular conduct of 
the Council in granting a commission to the Duke of Milan 
as its vicar, and so abetting him in his designs on the States 
ot the Church. The Council at first denied, then defended, ► 
and finally refused to withdraw from, its connexion with 
the Duke of Milan. Sigismund saw with indignation that 
the Council adopted a policy of his own^ and refused to 
identify its interests with his. He sadly contrasted the 
purely ecclesiastical organisation at Basel with the strong 
national spirit that had prevailed at Constance. He deter- 
mined to leave a place where he had so little weight that, as 



266 THE COUNCIL OF BASEL. 

he himself said, he was like a fifth wheel to a carriage, 
which did no good, but only impeded its progress.^ 

Before departing he seems to have resolved to give a 
Proposal stimulus to the Council. He sent the Bishop of 
Bishop of Liibeck to the several deputations to lay before 
allow rtie° ^^^"^ ^ suggestion that the marriage of the clergy 
ofYh^^' should be permitted. * It was in vain,' he pleaded, 
clergy. * that pricsts were deprived of wives; scarcely 
among a thousand could one continent priest be found. By 
clerical celibacy the bond of friendship between the clergy 
and laity was broken, and the freedom of confession was 
rendered suspicious. There was no fear that a married 
clergy would appropriate the goods of the Church for their 
wives and families ; the permission to marry would rather 
bring those of the highest ranks into the clergy, and the 
nobles would be less desirous of secularising ecclesiastical 
property if it was in the hands of their relations and friends.' 
The fathers listened; but *the old,' says iEneas Sylvius, 
* condemned what had no charms for them. The monks, 
bound by a vow of chastity, grudged that secular priests 
should have a privilege denied to themselves.' The ma- 
jority ruled that the time was not yet ripe for such a change ; 
they feared that it would be too great a shock to popular 
prejudice.^ 

Before his departure Sigismund addressed the Council, 
and urged that it would be better to follow the ex- 
ofsigis- ample set at Constance, and organise themselves 
May 19, by nations. He wisely remarked that the reforma- 
^^^' tion of the Church would be better carried out if 

each nation dealt with its own customs and rites.* More- 

^ John of Segovia, 663 : ' Dicebat quod intendebat recedere, quia sibi 
videretur quod erat in concilio sicut quinta rota in curru, que de nichilo 
juvat sed impedit currum '. 

2 This account is given by >Eneas Sylvius, in Fea. ; Pius II, a Calum- 
niis Vindicatusy p. 58. The matter is not mentioned by John of Segovia, 
who perhaps thought it beneath the dignity oi his serious history. 

' * Praeterea cum reformacio esset ex diversis consuetudinibus, existen- 
tibus variis juxta nacionum varietatem, id melius deliberari posset ab 
illis de nacione.' — John of Segovia, 662. 



NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE GREEKS, 267 

over, decisions arrived at by a national organisation would 
have greater chance of being accepted by the States so re- 
presented. He was answered that the deputations would 
take his suggestion under consideration. Finally, on May 
19, he departed in no amiable mood from Basel, saying that 
he left behind him a sink of iniquity. 

After Sigismund's departure Cesarini besought the Coun- 
cil to turn its attention to the question of reforma- ^. 
tion ; he said that already they were evil spoken of gotiations 
throughout Christendom for their delay. The basis council 
of the questions raised at Constance was adopted, Greeks, 
and the extirpation of simony first attracted the '*33-^' 
attention of the fathers. But there was great difficulty in 
keeping to the point, and little progress was made. Insig- 
nificant quarrels between prelates were referred to the Coun- 
cil as a court of appeal, and the Council took greater interest 
in such personal matters than in abstract questions of re- 
form. The question of union between the Eastern and 
Western Churches was hailed with delight as a relief. This 
question, which had been mooted at Constance, slumbered 
under Martin V., but had been renewed by Eugenius IV. 
The Council, in its struggle with the Pope, thought it well 
to deprive him of the opportunity of increasing his import- 
ance, and at the same time to add to its own. In January, ^ 

1433, it sent ambassadors to Greece to inaugurate steps , 
for the proposed union. In consequence of these negotia- 
tions the Greek ambassadors arrived at Basel on July 12, V 

1434. They were graciously received by the Council ; and 
Cesarini expressed the general wish for a conference on their 
differences, which he said that discussion would probably 
show to be verbal rather than real. The Greeks demanded 
that they should have their expenses paid in coming to the 
conference, and named as the place Ancona, or some port 
on the Calabrian coast, then Bologna, Milan, or some other 
town in Italy, next Pesth or Vienna, and finally some place 
in Savoy. The Council was anxious that the Greeks should 
come to Basel ; but when the Greeks declared that they had 



268 THE COUNCIL OF BASEL. 

no power to assent to this, their other conditions were ac- 
cepted. Ambassadors were to go to Constantinople to urge 
the choice of Basel as a place for the conference. The 
Greeks also demanded that Eugenius IV. should give his 
assent to the Council's proposals, and envoys were accord- 
ingly sent to lay them before him. 

But Eugenius IV., on his side, had made proposals to the 
Greeks for the same purpose ; and the Greeks, with 
V tionsof their usual shiftiness, were carrying on a double 
IV. wkh negofiationT^n hopes of making a better bargain 
Greeks, for themselves by playing off against one another 
1433-34. ^j^g jj^g^i competitors for their goodwill. Eugenius 
IV. sent to Constantinople in July, 1433, his secretary, 
Cristoforo Garatoni, who proposed that a Council should be 
held at Constantinople, to which the Pope should send a 
legate and a number of prelates and doctors. When the 
Council's proposals were laid before him, Eugenius wrote 
on November 15, 1434, and gently warned it of the dangers 
that might arise from too great precipitancy in this impor- 
tant matter. He mildly complained that he had not been 
consulted earlier. He added, however, that he was willing 
to assent to the simplest and speediest plan for accomplish- 
ing the object in view. The question of the place of con- 
ference with the Greeks was sure to open up the dispute 
between the Pope and Council. The chief reason which 
y^^ Eugenius IV. had given for dissolving the Council was his 
, belief that the Greeks would never go so far as Basel. He 
: was now content to wait and see how far the Council would 
, succeed. He already began to see in their probable failure 
/ a means of reasserting his authority, and either transferring 
S the Council to Italy, as he had wished at first, or setting up 
against it another Council, which from its object would 
I have in the eyes of Europe an equal, if not a greater, pres- 
tige. 

On the departure of the Greek ambassadors the Council 
again turned to its wearisome task 01 reformation, and on 
January 22, 1435, succeeded in issuing four decrees, limiting 



NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE GREEKS, 269 

the penalties of interdict and excommunication to the 
persons or places which had incurred them by their 
own fault, forbidding frivolous appeals to the ing 
Church, and enforcing stricter measures to prevent jaSfa?y° 
the concubinage of the clergy. Offenders whose ^^' '*^^' 
guilt was notorious were to be mulcted of the revenues for 
three months, and admonished under pain of deprivation to put 
away their concubines ; fines paid to bishops for connivance 
at this irregularity were forbidden. The Council felt that it 
was at least safe in denouncing an open breach of ecclesi- 
astical discipline, one which in those days was constantly 
condemned and constantly permitted. 

From this peaceful work of reform the Council was soon 
drawn away by a letter from Eugenius IV., an- 
nouncing the hopes he entertained of effecting a with the 
union with the Greeks by means of a Council at hisnego- 
Constantinople. The letter was brought by Gara- with the ^ 
toni, who, on April 5, gave the Council an account April,*' 
of his embassy to the Greeks, and urged in favour '*^'' 
of the Pope's plan, that it involved little expense, and was 
preferable to the Greeks, who did not wish to impose on 
their Emperor and the aged Patriarch a journey across the 
sea. The Council, however, by no means took this view of 
the matter ; it was resolved not to lose the glory of a re- 
union of the two Churches. On May 3 an angry letter was 
written to the Pope, saying that a synod at Constantinople 
could have no claims to be a General Council, and would 
only raise fresh discord; such a proposal could not be 
entertained. Eugenius IV. gave way in outward appear- 
ance, and sent Garatoni again to Constantinople to express 
his readiness to accept the proposals of the Council. He 
was contented to bide his time. But the Council was in a 
feverish haste to arrange preliminaries, and in June sent 
envoys, amongst whom was John of Ragusa, to Constanti- 
nople for this purpose. It also began to consider means for 
raising money, and the sale of indulgences was suggested. 
This suggestion raised a storm of dissatisfaction amongst 



270 THE COUNCIL OF BASEL. 

the adherents of the Pope, and seemed to all moderate men 
to be a serious encroachment on the Papal prerogative. 

It was not long, however, before a still more deadly blow 
Decree was aimed at the Pope's authority. The reforming 
annifcJ"^ Spirit of the Basel fathers was stirred to deal 
June, 1435. vigorously with Papal exactions. The subject of 
annates, which had been raised in vain at Constance, was 
peremptorily decided at Basel. On June 9 a decree was 
passed abolishing annates, and all dues on presentations, on 
receiving the pallium, and on all such occasions. It was 
declared to be simoniacal to demand or to pay them, and a 
Pope who attempted to exact them was to be judged by a 
General Council. Two of the Papal presidents, the Arch- 
bishop of Tarento and the Bishop of Padua, protested 
against this decree, and their protest was warmly backed by 
the English and by many other members of the Council. 
There were only present at its publication four Cardinals and 
forty-eight prelates. Cesarini only assented to it on con- 
dition that the Council should undertake no other business 
till it had made, by other means, a suitable provision for the 

/ Pope and Cardinals. The abolition of annates was, indeed, 
a startling measure of reform. It deprived the Pope at once 
of all means of maintaining his Curia, and to Eugenius IV., 
a refugee in Florence, left no source of supplies. No doubt 

' the question of annates was one that needed reform ; but 
the reform ought to have been well considered and moder- 
ately introduced. As it was, the Council showed itself to 
. y ] be moved chiefly by a desire to deprive the Pope of means 

■ to continue his negotiations with the Greeks. 

The decree abolishing annates was a renewed declaration of 
war against the Pope. It marked the rise into power 
Eugenius of the extreme party in the Council — the party whose 
Basel. object was the entire reduction of the Papacy under 
Nolem^ a conciliar oligarchy. At the time, Eugenius was 
ber. 1435. ^^^ helpless to accept the challenge. Two of his 
legates at Basel protested against the annates decree, and 
absented themselves from the business of the Council. The 



I 



ENVOYS OF EUGENIUS IV. AT BASEL. 271 

Council answered by instituting proceedings against them 
for contumacy. But the matter was stayed for the time by 
the arrival, on August 20, of two Papal envoys who had 
been sent expressly to deal with the Council on this vexed 
question — Antonio de San Vitio, one of the auditors of the 
Curia, and the learned Florentine, Ambrogio Traversari,.. 
Abbot of Camaldoli. The feeling of the Italian Churchmen 
was turning strongly in favour of Eugenius IV. ; they saw 
in the proceedings of the Council a menace to the glory of 
the Papacy, which Italy was proud to call its own. Refor- J 
mation, as carried out by the Council, seemed to them to be 
merely an attempt to overthrow the Pope, and carry off 
beyond the Alps the management of ecclesiastical affairs v 
which had so long centred in Italy.^ Traversari, who had 
been zealous for a reform^ and had sent to Eugenius on his 
election a copy of S. Bernard's *De Consideratione,' now 
placed himself on the Pope's side, and went to Basel to 
defeat the machinations of what he considered a lawless 
mob.2 

The answers which Traversari brought from the Pope 
were ambiguous: he was willing that the union with the 
Greek Church should be conducted in the best way ; when 
the preliminaries had advanced further he would be willing 
to consider whether the expenses had better be met by in- 
dulgences or in some other way; as to the abolition of 
annates, he thought that the Council had acted precipitately, 
and wished to know how they proposed to provide for the 
Pope and Cardinals. There was, in this, no basis for 
negotiation ; and Traversari in vain endeavoured to get 
farther instructions from Eugenius IV. He stayed three 
months in Basel, and was convinced that Cesarini's in- 

^ See Flavius Blondus, Decades, III., ch. viii., p. 527 : * Diximus ali- 
quando Basilense concilium, per Italici nominis invidiam, infestissimis 
animis nihil accuratius quaesivisse, ac pro viribusintentasse, quam eo 
pontifice per nefas omne deposito, pontificatum vel multas in partes 
tacerum trans Alpes traducere '. 

' Sec his letters from Basel. Ambrogii Traversari Epistola, ed. 
Mehus, p. 27, etc. 



272 THE COUNCIL OF BASEL. 

fluence was waning, and that it was a matter of vital im- 
portance to the Pope to win him over to his side ; he urged 
Eugenius IV. to leave no means untried for this end. Tra- 
versari was shrewd enough in surveying the situation for 
the future, but for the present could obtain nothing save an 
empty promise that the question of a provision for the Pope 
should be taken into immediate consideration. 

Pending this consideration, the Council showed its deter- 
steps mination to carry its decrees into effect. When 
CouncU to *^^ customary dues for the reception of the pallium 
fu!nd? ^^^® demanded by the Papal Curia from the newly 
/ Pf°if°*^* elected Archbishop of Rouen, the Council inter- 
Pope, posed, and itself bestowed the pallium on December 
1436- ' II. In January, 1436, it resolved to admonish the 
Pope to withdraw all that he had done or said against the 
authority of the Council, and accept fully its decrees. An 
embassy was nominated to carry to Eugenius IV. a form of 
decree which he was to issue for this purpose. The reason 
for this peremptory proceeding was a desire to cut away 
from the Pope the means of frustrating the Council's projects 
as regards the Greeks. Its envoys at Constantinople could 
not report very brilliant success in their negotiations. They 
could not at first even establish the basis which had been 
laid down at Basel in the previous year. The Greeks took 
exception to the wording of the decree which was submitted 
to them ; they complained that the Council spoke of itself 
as the mother of all Christendom, and coupled them with 
the Bohemians as schismatics.^ When the ambassadors 
attempted to defend the Council's wording they were met by 
cries, * Either amend your decree or get you gone \^ They 
undertook that it should be changed, and one of them, 
Henry Menger, was sent back to Basel, where, on February 

1 * Quamobrem hujus sanctae synodi ab initio suae congregationis 
prsecipua cura ftiit recens illud Bohemorum antiquumque Graecorum 
dissidum prorsus extinguere, et eos nobiscum in eodem fidei et caritatig 
vinculo copulare' was the preamble of the decree of September 7, 
J434. John of Segovia, 752. 

* Letter of John of Ragusa, in Cecconi, No. LXXVII. 



REFORM OF THE POPE AND CARDINALS. 273 

3, 1436, he reported that all other matters had heen arranged 
with the Greeks, on condition that the decree were altered, 
and that a guarantee were given for the payment of their 
expenses to and from the conference, whether they agreed to 
union or no. He brought letters from the Emperor and the 
Patriarch, urging that the place of conference should be on 
the sea-coast, and that the Pope, as the head of Western 
Christendom, should be present. The envoys attributed 
these demands to the machinations of the Papal ambassador 
Garatoni.1 

More and more irritated by this news, the Council pro- 
ceeded with its plan of crushing the Pope, and on Decree for 
March 22 issued a decree for the full reformation of fo?m*of 
the head of the Church. It began with a re- indCw- 
organisation of the method of Papal election ; the JJ^jJj ^^ 
Cardinals on entering the Conclave were to swear hs^. 
that they would not recognise him whom they elected till 
he had sworn to summon General Councils and observe the 
decrees of Basel. The form of the Papal oath was specified, 
and it was enacted that on each anniversary of the Papal 
election the oath, and an exhortation to observe it, should be 
read to the Pope in the midst of the mass service. The 
number of Cardinals was not to exceed twenty-six, of whom 
twenty-four were to be at least thirty years old, graduates in 
civil or canon law, or in theology, none of them related to 
the Pope or any living Cardinal ; the other two might be 
elected for some great need or usefulness to the Church, 
although they were not graduates. It was further enacted 
that all elections were to be freely made by the chapters, 
and that all reservations were to be abolished. 

At the end of the month appeared the Pope's ambassadors, 
the Cardinals of S. Peter's and S. Crose. They brought, 

1 John of Segovia, 841. * Rcfercbat insuper de Cristoforo Garatono 
Constantinopoli fecisse et dixisse quse pro honore papae Henricus ipse 
volebat praeterire.* More explicitly John of Ragusa, in his relation to 
the Council, says (Cecconi, No. CLXXVIII.), 'Ad nihil aliud venerat 
nisi ut impediret directe vel indirecte hie concordata et conclusa \ 
VOL. II. 18 



V 



^4 ^^^ COUNCIL OP BASEL. 

as before, evasive answers from the Pope, who urged the 
Council to choose a place for conference with the 

The Coun- *^ 

cii issues a Greeks which would be convenient both for them 
indui- and for himself; he did not approve of the plan of 
ip^i*4, raising money by granting indulgences, but was 
^^^^' willing to issue them with the approval of the Council. 

This was not what the Council wanted. It demanded that 
Eugenius IV. should recognise its right to grant indulgences. 
On April 14 it issued a decree granting to all who contributed 
to the expenses of the conference with the Greeks the plenary 
indulgence given to crusaders and to those who made a 
pilgrimage to Rome in the year of Jubilee. On May 11 an 
answer was given to the Pope's legates, complaining that 
Eugenius IV. did not act up to the Council's decrees, but 
raised continual difficulties; he did not join with them in 
their endeavours to promote union with the Greeks, but 
spoke of transferring the Council elsewhere; he did not 
accept the decree abolishing annates, except on the condition 
that provision was made for the Pope, although he ought to 
welcome gladly all efforts at reformation, and ought to 
consider that the question of provision in the future required 
great discussion in each nation ; he did not recognise, as he 
ought to do, the supremacy of the Council, which, with the 
presidents who represented the Pope, had full power to grant 
indulgences. On receiving this answer, the Archbishop of 
Tarento and the Bishop of Padua resigned their office of 
presidents on behalf of the Pope and left the Council. It 
was a declaration of open war. 

Eugenius IV. on his side prepared for the contest. He 

drew up a long defence of his own conduct, and a 
EugeSus statement of the wrongs which he had received from 

the Council since his recognition of its authority. 
He set forth the Council's refusal to accept the Papal presi- 
dents as the representatives of the Pope, its decrees dimin- 
ishing the Papal revenues and the Papal power, interfering 
with the old customs of election, granting indulgences, 
exercising Papal prerogatives, and doing everything most 



APOLOGY OF BUGENIUS IV. 275 

likely to lead to an open schism. He commented on the 
turbulent procedure of the Council, its democratic organisa- 
tion, its mode of voting by deputations which gave the 
preponderance to a numerical minority, its avowed partisan- 
ship which gave its proceedings the appearance of a conspiracy 
rather than of a deliberate judgment. For six years it had 
laboured with scanty results, and had only destroyed the 
prestige and respect which a General Council ought to 
command. He recapitulated his own proposals to the 
Council about the place of a conference with the Greeks, 
and the repulse which his ambassadors had met with. He 
stated his resolve to call upon all the princes of Christendom 
to withdraw their support from the Council, which, he sig- 
nificantly added, not only spoke evil of the Pope, but of all 
princes, when once it had free course to its insolence. He 
promised reformation of abuses in the Curia, with the help 
of a Council to be summoned in some city of Italy, where 
the condition of his health would allow his personal presence. 
He called upon the princes to withdraw their ambassadors 
and prelates from Basel.^ 

This document of Eugenius IV. contained nothing which 
was likely to induce the princes of Europe to put suteof 
more confidence in him, alleged no arguments which f^^^e' 
could lead them to alter their previous position so Council, 
far as the Papacy was concerned. But there was much in 
his accusations against the Council, where the extreme 
party had been gradually gaining power. Cesarini was no 
longer listened to, and his position in Basel became daily 
more unsatisfactory to himself. He had earnestly striven 
for a settlement of the Bohemian difficulty, and for the 
pacification of France, which had been begun at the Congress 
of Arras. He was desirous for reformation of the Church 
and so had agreed to the decree abolishing annates. But he 
could not forget that he was a Cardinal and a Papal legate, 
and was opposed to the recent proceedings of the Council 

^ Raynaldus, Annates t 1436, 2, etc. 



. \ 

276 THE COUNCIL of.BASBL. 

' against the Pope.^ Round trim gathered the great body of 
Italian prelates, except the Milanese and the chief theolo- 
gians. But the majority of the Council consisted of French- 
men, who were led by Cardinal Louis d^Allemand, generally 
known as the Cardinal of Aries, a man of great learning and 
high character, but a violent partisan, who belonged to the 
Colonna faction, and intrigued with the Duke of Milan. He 
had no hesitation in taking up an attitude of strong political 
hostility against Eugenius IV. The French followed him, 
as did the Spaniards, so long as Alfonso of Aragon was the 
political enemy of Eugenius IV. The Milanese and South 
Italians were also on his side. The English and Germans 
who came to the Council were animated by a desire to extend 
its influence, and so were opposed to the Pope. 

The organisation of the Council gave the Pope a just 
Results of ground for complaint. It had been decided at the 
cratf/oJ^ beginning that the lower ranks of the clergy should 
orth^'*°° have seats and votes. The Council was to be fully 
Council, representative of the Church, and so was entirely 
democratic. All who satisfied the scrutineers, and were 
incorporated as members, took equal part in the proceedings. 
At first the dangers of this course had not shown themselves ; 
but as the proceedings of the Council were protracted, the 
prelates who took a leading part in its business became 
fewer.2 The constitution of the Council was shifting from 
week to week. Only those were permanent who had some 
personal interest to gain, or who were strong partisans. 
The enemies of Eugenius IV. clung to the Council as the 
justification of their past conduct as well as of their hope in the 

^ From the time of the adhesion of Eugenius IV. John of Segovia tells 
us that Cesarini's attitude began to change : ' Ex hac die multi ex patri- 
bus manifestius animadverterunt legatum ipsum Jam non fore tam ardentem 
pro auctoritate generalium conciliorum quo modo primum,' 606. The 
change was as much on the part of the opposition as of the legate : he 
accepted the adhesion of Eugenius, and was ready to forget the past, 
while the enemies of Eugenius IV. had no such intention. 

* Eugenius, in his Apology ^ Raynaldus, 1436, § 8, g, says that there 
were never more than 150 prelates at Basel, and at the time he wrote 
scarcely 25. 



REACTION IN FAVOUR OF EUOENIUS IV. 277 

future. Adventurers who had everything to gain, and little 
to lose, flocked to Basel, and cast in their lot with the Coun- 
cil as affording them a better chance of promotion than did 
the Curia. Thus the Council became more and more demo- 
cratic and revolutionary in its tendencies. The prelates 
drew to the side of Cesarini, and found themselves more and 
more in a minority, opposed to a majority which was bent 
on the entire humiliation of the Papacy.^ 

It was natural that the violence of the French radical party 
should cause a reaction in favour of the Pope. Rcftction 
Many had been in favour of the Council against the {{fK^Jef 
Pope, when the Council wished for reform, which *»^"" ^^' - 
the Pope tried to check. They were shaken in their allegi- 
ance when the Council, under the name of reform, was 
pursuing mainly the depression of the Papal power, and the 
transference of its old authority into the hands of a self- 
elected and non-representative oligarchy. The cry was 
raised that the Council was in the French interest ; that it 
simply continued the .old struggle of Avignon against Rome. 
The friends of Eugenius IV. began to raise their heads, and 
attacked the Council on political grounds, so as to detach 
from it the princes of Christendom. Their arguments may 
be gathered from a letter of Ambrogio Traversari to Sigis- 
mund, in January, 1436 : * The Council of Basel has found 
time for nothing but the subversion of Catholic peace and 
the depression of the Pope. They have now been assembled 
for five years ; and see on how wrongful a basis their busi- 
ness proceeds. In old days bishops, full of the fear of God, 
the zeal of religion, and the fervour of faith, used to settle 
the affairs of the Church. Now the matter is in the hands 
of the common herd; for scarcely out of five hundred mem- v 
bers, as I saw with my own eyes, were there twenty bishops ; 

^ This complaint is universal among the writers on the Papal side, and 
was raised by Eugenius IV. in his Apology, JEntSM Sylvius, himnelf an 
adventurer in Basel, says rhetorically, * Inter episcopos, caeterosque 
patres conscriptos, vidimus in Hasilea coquos et stabularios orbis negotia 
judicantes ; quis horum dicta vel facta judicaverit legis habere vigorem ? ' 
Oraiio adversus Australes, in Mansi, Pii II. Oraiiones^ i., 231. 



V 



V 



278 THE COUNCIL OF BASEL. 

the rest were either the lower orders of the clergy, or were 
laymen ; and all consult their private feelings rather than 
the good of the Church. No wonder that the Council drags 
on for years, and produces nothing but scandal and danger 
of schism. The good men are lost in the ignorant and 
turbulent multitude. The French, led by the Cardinal of 
Aries and the Archbishop of Lyons, want to transfer the 
Papacy into France. Where every one seeks his own 
interest, and the vote of a cook is as good as that of a legate 
or an archbishop, it is shameless blasphemy to claim for 
their resolutions the authority of the Holy Ghost. They 
aim only at a disruption of the Church. They have set up 
a tribunal on the model of the Papal court ; they exercise 
jurisdiction, and draw causes before them. They confer the 
pallium on archbishops, and claim to grant indulgences. 
They aim at nothing less than the perpetuation of the Coun- 
cil, in opposition to the Pope.' ^ 

There was enough truth in this view of the situation to 
TheCoun- incline the statesmen of Europe to take a more 
cesliS*^ languid interest in the proceedings of the Council. 
Bohemia. Moreover, the Council had lost its political import- 
ance by the gradual subsidence of the Bohemian question. 
The Council had done its work when it succeeded in bring- 
ing to a head the divergence of opinion which had always 
existed between Bohemian parties. The negotiations with 
the Council had given strength to the party which wished 
to recognise authority, and was not prepared to break 
entirely with the traditions of the past. Round it gathered 
the various elements of political discontent arising from the 
long domination of the democratic and revolutionary party. 
At the battle of Lipan the Taborites met with such a defeat 
that they could no longer offer a determined resistance to the 
plan for a reconciliation with Sigismund. 

But the hopes of immediate success which the fight of 
Lipan awakened in Basel were by no means realised at 

* Traversarii EfistoltEj ed. Mehus, ii., 238. 



NEOOTIATIONS AT REOENSBURG. 279 

once. The spirit of the Bohemian Reformation was still 
strong; and though the Calixtins were on the Negotu- 
whole in favour of reconciliation with the Church, RegJi^ 
they had no intention of abandoning their original ^ugiist, 
position. The Bohemian Diet in June, 1434, pro- ^*^' 
claimed a general peace with all Utraquists, and a truce for 
a year with all Catholics. It took measures for the pacifica- 
tion of the land and the restoration of order. To Sigismund's 
envoys, who had come to procure his recognition as King 
of Bohemia, the Diet answered by appointing deputies to 
confer with Sigismund at Regensburg. Thither the Council 
was requested by Sigismund to send its former envoys. On 
August 16 its embassy, headed by Philibert, Bishop of Cou- 
tances, but of which John of Palomar was the most active 
member, entered Regensburg an hour after the Bohemians, 
chief amongst whom were John of Rokycana, Martin Lupak, 
and Meinhard of Neuhaus. As usual, Sigismund kept them 
waiting, and did not arrive till August 21. Meanwhile the 
Council's envoys and the Bohemians had several conferences, 
which did not show that their differences were disappear- 
ing. The Bohemians were requested to do as they had done 
at previous conferences, and not attend mass in the churches. 
They consented ; but John of Rokycana remarked that it 
would be better if the Council were to drive out of the 
churches evil priests rather than faithful laymen, who only 
wished to receive the Communion under both kinds. John of 
Palomar had to apologise for the Council's delay in its work 
of reform ; the English and Spanish representatives, he said, 
had not yet arrived, and everything could not be done at once. 
When negotiations began on August 22 Sigismund and 
the Council's envoys found that the Bohemians ^^^^^^^ 
were firm in their old position. They were willing [Jj^jfj^^^ 
to recognise Sigismund on condition that he re- thenc. 
stored peace in Bohemia, which could only be done Septem- 
by upholding the Four Articles of Prag, and bind- '' '^^** 
ing all the people of Bohemia and Moravia to receive the 
Communion under both kinds. Sigismund appealed to the 



28o THE COUNCIL OF BASEL. 

national feelings of the Bohemians by a speech in their own 
tongue, in which he recalled the connexion of his house with 
Bohemia. About the questions in dispute John of Rokycana 
and John of Palomar again indulged in the old arguments, 
till the Bohemians declared that they were sent to the Em- 
peror, not to the Council's envoys. They submitted their 
request to Sigismund in writing, and Sigismund in writing 
gave answer, begging them to stand by the Compacts of 
Prag. The Bohemians declared their intention of doing so, 
but said that the Compacts must be understood to apply to 
the whole of Bohemia and Moravia. John of Palomar 
declared that the Council could not compel faithful Catholics 
to adopt a new rite, though they were prepared to allow it to 
those who desired it. The conclusion of the conference was 
that the Bohemian envoys should report to the Diet, soon to 
be held at Prag, the difficulties which had arisen, and should 
send its answer to the Emperor and to the Council. Matters 
had advanced no further than they were at the time of 
accepting the Compacts. In some ways the tone of the 
conference at Regensburg was less conciliatory than that of 
the previous ones. One of the Bohemian envoys fell from 
a window and was killed. The Council's ambassadors 
objected to his burial with the rites of the Church, on the 
ground that he was not received into the Church's com- 
munion. This caused great indignation among the Bohe- 
mians, who resented this attempt to terrorise over them. 
Still they submitted to the Council's envoys a series of 
questions about the election of an archbishop of Prag, and 
the views of the Council about the regulation of ecclesi- 
astical discipline in accordance with the Compacts. Sigis- 
mund besought the Council for money to act against Bohemia, 
and some of the Bohemian nobles asserted that with money 
enough Bohemia could soon be reduced to obedience. Yet 
Sigismund did not hesitate to express to the Council's 
envoys his many grounds for grievance at the Council's 
procedure. The parties in the conference at Regensburg 
were at cross purposes. Sigismund, dissatisfied with the 



PROPOSALS OF THE BOHEMIANS. 281 

Council, wished to make it useful for himself. The Council 
wished to show Sigismund that its help was indispensable 
for the settlement of the Bohemian question, Bohemia 
wished for peace, but on condition of retaining in matters 
ecclesiastical a basis of national unity, without which it felt 
that peace would be illusory. On September 3 the con- 
ference came to an end without arriving at any conclusion. 
All parties separated mutually dissatisfied.^ 

Still these repeated negotiations strengthened the peace 
party in Bohemia. Of the proceedings of the Diet Proposals 
held at Prag on October 23 we know little; but boHc 
they ended in an abandonment by the Bohemians JSlTcoun- 
of the position which they had taken up at Regens- ^l^^ '° 
burg. There they had maintained that, as the no"^^. 
people of Bohemia and Moravia were of one Ian- ber, 1434- 

- - , , , , /. March, 

guage and under one rule, so ought they to be of 1435. 
one ritual in the most solemn act of Christian worship. 
They now decided to seek a basis of religious unity which 
would respect the rights of the minority, and on November 
8 wrote, not to the Council, but to the Council's envoys, 
proposing that in those places where the Communion under 
both kinds had been accepted it should be recognised ; 
in those places where the Communion under one kind 
had been retained it should remain. Mutual toleration 
was to be enjoined, and an archbishop and bishops 
were to be elected by the clergy, with the consent of the 
Diet, who were to be subject to the Council and to the Pope 
in matters agreeable to the law of God, but no further, and 
who were to regulate the discipline of the Church in Bohe- 
mia and Moravia.2 It was a proposal for the organisation ^ 
of the Bohemian Church on a national basis, so as to obtain 
security against the danger of a Catholic reaction. 

^ John of Segovia, 675 : * Itaque expedita dieta secuta minime fuerunt 
que ex ipsis eventura primo autumabantur, adepcio regni Bohemie, pro 
qua imperator, et acceptacio firma articulorum fidei, pro qua instabat 
sancta synodus '. 

* The letter, ascribed to Rokycana, is in Mon, Concil.f i., 631, 



282 THE COUNCIL OF BASEL. 

The Councirs answer to the Bohemians was, that they 
would again send their former envoys to confer with them 
and with the Emperor. The Bohemians,' seeing that little 
was to be hoped for from the Council, resolved to see if they 
could obtain from Sigismund the securities which they 
wished. A Diet held in Prag in March, 1435, sent Sigis- 
mund its demands : the Four Articles were to be accepted ; 
the Emperor, his court, his chaplain, and all State officers 
were to communicate under both kinds ; complete amnesty 
was to be given for the past, and a genuinely national 
Government was to exist for the future.^ The envoys who 
brought these demands to Sigismund inquired if the Council's 
ambassadors, who were already with Sigismund in Posen, 
were prepared to accept the offer made by the Diet in the 
previous November ; otherwise it was useless for the Bohe- 
mians to trouble themselves further or incur more expense. 
But the Council's ambassadors had come armed with secret 
instructions, and refused to have their hand forced. They 
answered that their mission was to the Emperor in Council 
of the Bohemians assembled, and then only could they speak. 

Many preliminaries had to be arranged before the Con- 
confer- fcrence finally took place at Briinn. There the 
Sflnn! Council's envoys arrived on May 20, and were 
July, 1435. received with ringing of bells and all manifesta- 
tions of joy by the people. On June 18 came the Bohemian 
representatives; but Sigismund did not appear till July i. 
Meanwhile the Bohemians and the Council's envoys had 
several sharp discussions. Those of the Bohemians who 
had been reconciled to the Church were allowed to attend 
the mass; but the others were forbidden to enter the 
churches, and were refused a chapel where they might cele- 
brate mass after their own fashion. On June 28 some of the 
Bohemians, on being requested to withdraw from a church 
where they had come with their comrades, were so indignant 
that they were on the point oi leaving Briinn, and were only 

* In Mon, ConciLf i., 537. 



DIFFICULTY OF INTERPRETINO THE COMPACTS, 283 

appeased by the intervention of Albert of Austria, who had 
luckily arrived a few days before. 

The day after Sigismund*s arrival, on July a, John of 
Rokycana brought forward three demands on the oifficuN 
part of the Bohemians: that the Four Articles be {heSlS?? 
accepted throughout the whole of Bohemia and JptJi'**" 
Moravia; that those countries be freed from all compacu, 
charge of heresy, and that the Council of Basel proceed 
with the reformation of the Church in life, morals and faith. 
He asked also for an answer to the demands sent to Eger 
by the Bohemian Diet in the previous November. The 
Council's envoys answered by justifying the procedure of 
the Council and blaming the Bohemians for not keeping to 
the Compacts but raising new difficulties. There was much 
disputation. The Bohemians professed their willingness to 
abide by the Compacts as interpreted by their demands sent 
to Eger; the legates answered that these demands were 
contrary to the Compacts themselves. Sigismuiid urged 
the legates to give way, but they refused. On July 8 the 
legates demanded that the Bohemians should declare their 
adhesion to the Compacts, as they had promised ; no pro- 
mise had been made by the Council about the Eger articles, 
otherwise it would have been fulfilled. It was clear to the 
Bohemians that the Council regarded the Compacts as the 
ultimate point of their concessions, whereas the Bohemians 
looked on them only as a starting-point for further arrange- 
ments. John of Rokycana angrily answered the legates, 
* We are willing to stand by the Compacts ; but they cannot 
be fulfilled till they are completed. Much must be added to 
them ; tor instance, as regards obedience to bishops, we will 
not obey them if they order what is contrary to God's word. 
How do you ask us to fulfil our promises when you will not 
fulfil yours ? It seems to us that you aim at nothing save 
to sow division amongst us, for since your coming we are 
worse off than belore, and will take heed that it be so no 
longer. We ask no difficult things. We ask for an arch- 
bishop to be elected by the clergy and people or appointed 



284 THE COUNCIL OF BASEL. 

by the King. We ask that causes be not transferred out of 
the realm. We ask that the Communion be celebrated 
under both kinds in those places where the use exists. 
These are not difficult matters ; grant them and we will 
fulfil the Compacts. We do not ask these things through 
fear, or through doubt of their lawfulness ; we ask them for 
the sake of peace and unity. If you do not grant them, the 
Lord be with you, for I trust He is with us.' While John 
of Palomar was preparing a reply, the Bohemians left the 
room and thenceforth conferred only with the legates through 
Sigismund. 
/ The Bohemian envoys had, in fact, begun to negotiate 

directly with Sigismund, who showed himself much 
ment of moFC ready to give way than did the legates of the 
hemians Council. On July 6 a proposal was made to Sigis- 
sigis- mund that he should grant in his own name what 
ju"y6, the Council refused. Under the pretext of remov-- 
^^^^' ing difficulties and providing for some things 

omitted in the Compacts, Sigismund promised that bene- 
fices should not be conferred by strangers outside Bohemia 
and Moravia, but only by the king ; that no Bohemian or 
Moravian should be cited or be judged outside the kingdom ; 
that those who preferred to communicate under one kind 
only should, to avoid confusion, be tolerated only in those 
places which had always maintained the old ritual ; that the 
archbishops and bishops should be elected by the Bohemian 
clergy and people. These articles Sigismund promised to 
uphold before the Council, the Pope, and all men.^ The 
legates of the Council strongly deprecated any secret nego- 
tiations on the part of Sigismund ; the Bohemians, relying 
on the promises they had received, showed themselves more 
conciliatory. On July 14 they offered to sign the Compacts 
with the addition of a clause, * Saving the liberties and 
privileges of the kingdom and of the margravate of Mora- 
via '. This the legates would not accept, as it clearly 

* They are given in Mon, Concil.^ i., 662. 






' '-' ^J^/f. 



SIGISMUND ANGRY WITH COUNCIL'S ENVOYS. 285 

carried the election of the archbishop by the people and 
clergy. Sigismund answered the legates privately, and 
besought them to consent, lest they should be the cause of 
a rupture, and woe to them through whom that came. 
When the legates again refused, he angrily said, * You of 
the Council have granted articles to the Bohemians, and 
have held conferences without my knowledge, but I ac- 
quiesced. Why, then, will you not acquiesce for my sake 
in this small matter ? If you wish me to lose my kingdom, 
I do not' He exclaimed in German to those around him, 
'Those of Basel wish to do nothing except diminish the 
power of the Pope and Emperor \ He showed his indig- 
nation by abruptly dismissing the legates. 

Sigismund's anger cooled down, and the clause was with- 
drawn. The Bohemians demanded the acceptance The 
of various explanations of the Compacts, which the envoys^ ^ 
legates steadily refused. At last the signing of the ligls-^^^^ 
Compacts was again deferred because the legates JhS^Bohe- 
would not substitute, in the article which declared mians. 
* that the goods of the Church cannot be possessed without 
guilt of sacrilege,' the words * unjustly detained ' {injuste 
deteneri) for * possessed ' (usurpari). On August 3 the 
Bohemians departed, and the legates undertook to lay their 
demands before the Council and meet them again at Prag 
in the end of September. 

The .Council's envoys had acted faithfully by the letter of 
their instructions ; 1 they had stood upon the Com- xhe Bo- 
pacts, and had refused to make any further conces- quJ^\^on 
sions or even admit any material explanations. The gjf^"he 
negotiations had therefore passed out of their hands gHs-"^ *° 
into those of Sigismund. The Compacts had laid mund. 
the foundations of an agreement. The Council had opened 
the door to concessions ; and Sigismund was justified in 
declaring that the Council could not claim to have the sole 
right of interpreting the concessions so made or regulating 

^ These instructions are given in Mon, Concil.t i., 619. 



286 THE COUNCIL OF BASEL. 

the exact method of their application. The proceedings at 
Briinn led the Bohemians to think that the Council had 
dealt with them unfairly, and after begging them to accept 
the Compacts as a means to further agreement, was now 
bent on doing its utmost to make the Compacts illusory. 
The Bohemians therefore turned to Sigismund and resolved 
to seek first for political unity, and then to maintain their 
own interpretation of the Compacts by securing the organi- 
sation of a national Church according to their wishes. In 
this state of things the interests of the Council and of Sigis- 
mund were no longer identical. The Council wished to 
minimise the effect of the concessions which it had made — 
concessions which were indeed necessary, yet might form 
a dangerous precedent in the Church. Sigismund wished to 
obtain peaceable possession of Bohemia, and trusted to his 
/" own cleverness afterwards to restore orthodoxy.^ The one 
thing that was rendered tolerably certain by the conference 
< at Briinn was the recognition of Sigismund as King of 
; Bohemia, and he was determined that the Council should 
not be an obstacle in the way. At the same time Sigis- 
mund was rigidly attached to the orthodox cause ; but he 
was convinced that the reduction of Bohemia was a matter 
for himself rather than the Council. 

The proceedings with Sigismund at Briinn satisfied the 
peace party in Bohemia, and the Diet, which met 
decides to in Prag on September 21, ratified all that had been 
sigis- done. The submission of Bohemia to the Church 
septe'm- and to Sigismund was finally agreed to on the 
er, 1435. strength of Sigismund's promises. A committee 
of two barons, two knights, three citizens, and nine priests 

^ See the relation of the envoys to the Council, Mon. Concil. , i., 66g ; 
* Imperator nobis dixit, quod nemo putaret ipsum habere affectum ad 
habendum illud regnum propter se . . . sed propter Deum et fidem : et 
quod libenter de illo faceret offertorium ad altare ut ad fidem debitam 
reduceretur debitumque statum *. The position of the envoys is given 
in p. 672 : * Cum enim ille declaraciones illorum articulorum essent non 
solum pro Bohemia, sed essent doctrina generalis ecclesie, et dicte de- 
clarationes essent jam publicate per mundum, nos nuncii sacri concilii 
in illis verbum aliquod minime mutaremus '. 



BOHEMIA DECIDES TO RECOGNISE SIGISMUND. 287 

was appointed to elect an archbishop and two suffragans. 
Their choice fell on John ot Rokycana as archbishop, Martin 
Lupak and Wenzel of Hohenmaut as bishops. On Decem- 
ber 21 the Bohemian envoys again met Sigismund and the 
legates of the Council at Stuhlweissenburg. The legates 
had heard of Rokycana's election, though it was kept a 
secret pending Sigismund's confirmation. They were per- 
turbed by the understanding which seemed to exist between 
Sigismund and the Bohemians. They had come from Basel 
empowered to change the words in the Compacts as the 
Bohemians wished, and substitute * unjustly detained ' for 
• possessed ' ; but before doing so they demanded that 
Sigismund should give them a written agreement for the 
strict observance of the Compacts on his part. This was 
really a demand that Sigismund should declare that he 
intended the promises which he had made to the Bohe- 
mians at Briinn to be illusory. Meinhard of Neuhaus, 
the chief of Sigismund's partisans amongst the Bohemians, 
was consulted on this point. He answered, « If the Em- 
peror publicly revoke his promises, all dealings with the 
Bohemians are at an end ; if he revoke them secretly, it 
will some day be known, and then the Emperor, if he were 
in Bohemiai, would be in great danger from the people \^ 

Accordingly Sigismund refused to sign the document 
which the legates laid before him, and submitted 
another, which declared generally his intention of tics with 
abiding by the Compacts, but which did not satisfy dVs en-° 
the legates. Sigismund referred the legates to the iSSlin- 
Bohemians, and they accordingly demanded that ***'• '^^5. 
the Bohemians should renounce all requests which they had 
made contrary to the Compacts. This the Bohemians re- 
fused, and Sigismund endeavoured to lead the legates to a 
more conciliatory frame of mind by telling them that * dis- 
simulation on many points was needful with the Bohemians, 
that he might obtain the kingdom ; when that was done, 

> earlier, De LegationibuSt in Mon. Condi,, i., 681. 



288 THE COUNCIL OF BASEL. 

he would bring things back to their former condition '. The 
legates answered that their instructions from the Council 
were to see that the Compacts were duly executed ; when 
this was done, the king's power would remain as it had 
always been ; if the Bohemians wanted more than the king 
could grant, they could seek further favours from the Coun- 
cil. The question of the Emperor's agreement with the 
Council again raised much discussion. The Bohemians 
refused any responsibility in the matter. * If there is ought 
between you and the legates,' they said to Sigismund, * it is 
nothing to us, we neither give assent nor dissent.' ^ The 
agreement was at last drawn up in general terms. The le- 
gates contented themselves with Sigismund's verbal promise 
as to his general intentions, and a written statement that he 
accepted the Compacts sincerely according to their plain 
meaning, and would not permit that any one be compelled 
to communicate under both kinds nor anything else to be 
done in contradiction to the Compacts. Iglau was fixed by 
the Bohemians as a frontier town in which the final signing 
of the Compacts might be quietly accomplished, and the 
ambassadors departed on January 31, 1436, to reassemble 
at Iglau in the end of May. 

In all these negotiations the result had been to put diffi- 
culties out of sight rather than to make any agreement 
Since the conference at Prag in 1433 no nearer approach 
had been made by the Bohemians to the orthodoxy of the 
Council. They had rather strengthened themselves in a 
policy by which they might obtain the advantages of peace 
and union with the Church, and yet might retain the greatest 
possible measure of ecclesiastical independence. This they 
hoped to secure by a strong national organisation, while 
Sigismund trusted that once in power he would be able to 
direct the Catholic reaction ; and the Council, after taking 
all possible steps to save its dignity, was reluctantly com- 
pelled to trust to Sigismund's assurance. 

* earlier, De LegationibuSy in Mon. Condi. , i., 689. 



SIGNING OF THE COMPACTS AT IGLAU, 289 

Sigismund appeared at Iglau on June 6; but the Bo- 
hemians y/ere on the point of departing in anger signing of 
when they found that the legates had come only pactsat^ 
with powers to sign the Compacts, not to confirm jsj*"- 
the election of the Bohemian bishops. With some '436- 
difficulty the Bohemians were prevailed upon to accept 
Sigismund's promise that he would do his utmost to obtain 
from the Council and the Pope a ratification of the election 
of the bishops whom they had chosen. At last, on July 5, 
the Emperor, in his robes of state, took his place on a throne 
in the market-place of Iglau. The Duke of Austria bore 
the golden apple, the Count of Cilly the sceptre, and another 
count the sword. Before Sigismund went the legates of 
the Council, and by them took their places the Bohemian 
envoys. The signing of the Compacts was solemnly ratified 
by both parties. John Walwar, a citizen of Prag, gave to 
the legates a copy of the Compacts duly signed and sealed, 
together with a promise that the Bohemians would accept 
peace and unity with the Church. Four Bohemian priests, 
previously chosen for the purpose, took oath of obedience, 
shaking hands with the legates and afterwards with Roky- 
cana, to show that they held him as their archbishop. Then 
the legates on their part handed a copy of the Compacts to 
the Bohemians, admitting them to peace and unity with the 
Church, relieving them from all ecclesiastical censures, and 
ordering all men to be at peace with them and hold them 
clear of all reproach. Proclamation was made in Sigis- 
mund' s name that next day the Bohemians should enter the 
Church and the Compacts be read in the Bohemian tongue. 
Then the Bishop of Coutances, in a loud clear voice, began 
to sing the * Te Deum,' in which all joined with fervour. 
When it was done, Sigismund and the legates entered the 
church for mass ; the Bohemians, raising a hymn, marched 
to their inn, where they held their service. Both parties 
wept for joy at the ending of their long strife. 

The next day showed that difficulties were not at an end, 
that the peace was hollow, and that the main points of dis- 
voL. II, 19 



290 THE COUNCIL OP BASEL, 

agreement still remained unsettled. In the parish church, 
the Bishop of Coutances celebrated mass at the 

Dispute i-tiiTi ri-it 

between high altar, and John of Rokycana at a side altar. 
and the The Compacts were read by Rokycana from the 
julyT pulpit in the Bohemian tongue, then he added, * Let 
''*^^' those of the Bohemians who have the grace of 

communicating under both kinds come to this altar '. The 
legates protested to the Emperor. John of Palomar cried 
out, * Master John, observe the canons ; do not administer 
the sacraments in a church of which you are not priest \^ 
Rokycana paid no heed, but administered to seven persons. 
The legates were indignant at this violation of ecclesiastical 
regulations, and said, 'Yesterday you vowed canonical obedi- 
ence; to-day you break it. What is this?' Rokycana 
answered that he was acting in accordance with the Com- 
pacts, and paid little heed to the technical objection raised 
by the legates. Sigismund urged the legates to grant a 
church, or at least an altar, where the Bohemians might 
practise their own ritual. The legates, who were irritated 
still more by hearing that Martin Lupak had carried through 
the streets the sacrament under both kinds to a dying man, 
refused their consent. The Bohemians bitterly exclaimed 
that they had been deceived, and that the Compacts were 
illusory. They threatened to depart at once, and it required 
all Sigismund's skill in the management of men to prevail 
on the Bohemians to stay till they had arranged the pre- 
liminaries about his reception as King of Bohemia. The 
utmost concession that he could obtain from the legates was, 
that one priest might celebrate mass after the Bohemian 
ritual. They refused to commission for this purpose either 
Rokycana or Martin Lupak, and accepted Wenzel of Dra- 
chow, on condition that they should first examine him to 
be sure of his orthodoxy. This Wenzel refused, and the 
Bohemians continued to celebrate their own rites in their 
houses, as they had done previously. 

1 * Non ministretis sacramenta in aliena parochia.' Thomas Ebem- 
dorf s Diarium, Mon. Concil., i., 779. See also John of Tours' Registrum, 
Ibid., 821. 



HOLLOWNESS OF THE BOHEMIAN RECONCILIATION, 291 

Thus the long negotiations with the Council had led. to 
no real agreement. The signing of the Compacts hoUow- 
was rather an expression on both sides of the desire ?econdiil' 
for peace, and for the outward unity of the Church, '^X°/***' 
than any settlement of the points at issue. The ™""- 
conception of a united Christendom had not yet been de- 
stroyed, and both parties were willing to make concessions 
to maintain it. But neither side abandoned their convic- 
tions, and the peace which had been proclaimed affected 
only the outward aspect of affairs. The Bohemians re- 
mained the victors. They had re-entered the Church on 
condition that they were allowed an exceptional position. 
It remained for them to make good the position which they 
had won, and use wisely and soberly the means which they 
had at their disposal for this purpose. 

In political matters also they saw the necessity of aban- 
doning their attitude of revolt, and entering again sigis- 
the State system of Europe. They were willing S^TpS^g 
to recognise Sigismund, but on condition that he "gj^c- 
ensured the Bohemian nationality against German J^^gj, 
influences. On July 20 Sigismund agreed to ratify 1436- 
the rights and privileges of the Bohemians, to be guided by 
the advice of a Bohemian Council, to uphold the University 
of Prag, to admit none but Bohemians to office in the land, 
and to grant a full amnesty for all that had happened during 
the revolt. On August 20 the Governor of Bohemia, Ales 
of Riesenburg, laid down his office in Sigismund's presence, 
and the Bohemian nobles swore fidelity to their king. On 
August 23 Sigismund entered Prag in state, and was received 
with joyous acclamations by the people. The pacification 
of Bohemia was completed. The great work which Europe 
had demanded of the Council was actually accomplished. 

If we consider the deserts of the Council in this matter, 
we see that its real importance lay in the fact that mctIu of 
it could admit the Bohemians to a conference with- 2i*i^it«°' 
out injuring the prestige of the Church. A Pope JJjJj^jBi- 
could adopt no other attitude towards heretics than *>«"»» 



292 THE COUNCIL OF BASEL, 

one of resolute resistance. A Council could invite discus- 
sion, in which each party might engage with a firm belief 
that it would succeed in convincing the other. The decree 
for reunion with the Church arose from the exhaustion of 
Bohemia and its internal dissensions ; it found that it could 
no longer endure to pay the heavy price which isolation 
from the rest of Europe involved on a small state. The 
temper of the Bohemians was met with admirable tact and 
moderation by the Council under the influence of Cesarini. 
Moral sympathy and not intellectual agreement tended to 
bring the parties together. The impulse given at first was 
strong enough to resist the reaction, when both parties 
found that they were not likely to convince each other. 

, But the religious motives tended to become secondary to 
political considerations. The basis of conciliation afforded 

^ by the negotiations with Basel was used by the peace party 
in Bohemia and by Sigismund to establish an agreement 
between themselves. When this had been done, the position 
of the Council was limited to one of resistance to the exten- 
sion of concessions to the Bohemians. The Council was 
>/ thenceforth a hindrance rather than a help to the unscrupu- 
lous policy of illusory promises, which Sigismund had deter- 
mined to adopt towards Bohemia till his power was fully 

•\ established. From this time the Council lost all political 
significance for the Emperor, who was no longer interested 
in maintaining it against the Pope, and felt aggrieved by its 

^ treatment of himself, as well as by its democratic tendencies, 

' which threatened the whole State system of Europe. 



293 



CHAPTER VII. 

WAR BETWEEN THE POPE AND THE COUNCIL. 
1436— 1438. 

If Sigismund's interest in the Council had faded away, the 
interest of France had equally begun to wane. 
At the opening of the Council, France, in her misery of^ASas' 
and distress, the legacy of the long war with ^*^^' 
England, felt a keen sympathy with one of the Council's 
objects, the general pacification of Christendom. The 
Council's zeal in this matter stirred up the Pope to emula- 
tion, and Eugenius IV. busied himself to prevent the Council 
from gaining any additional prestige. In 143 1 Cardinal 
Albergata was sent by the Pope to arrange peace between 
England, Burgundy, and France. His negotiations were 
fruitless for a time ; but the ill-success of the English induced 
them in 1435 to consent to a congress to be held at Arras.^^ y/ 
Thither went Albergata as Papal legate, and on the side of "^ 
the Council was sent Cardinal Lusignan. Representatives^ 
of the chief States of Europe were present ; and 9000 strangers, 
amongst whom were 500 knights, thronged the streets of 
Arras. In the conference which began in August the rival 
legates vied with one another in splendour and in loftiness 
of pretension. But though Lusignan was of higher lineage, 
Albergata was the more skilful diplomat, and exercised 
greater influence over the negotiations. England, foreseeing 
the desertion of Burgundy, refused the proposed terms, and 
withdrew from the congress on September 6. Philip of 
Burgundy's scruples were skilfully combated by Albergata. 



294 THE COUNCIL OF BASEL. 

Philip wished for peace, but wished also to save his honour. 
The legate's absolution from his oath, not to make a separate 
peace from England, afforded him the means of retreating 
from an obligation which had begun to be burdensome. On 
the interposition of the Church Philip laid aside his ven- 
geance for his father's murder, and was reconciled to 
Charles VII. of France on September 21. The treaty was 
made under the joint auspices of the Pope and the Council. 
Both claimed the credit of this pacification. Cesarini, when 
the news reached Basel, said that if the Council had sat for 
twenty years, and had done nothing more than this, it would 
have done enough to satisfy all gain say ers.^ But in spite of 
/ the Council's claims it had won less prestige in France than 
had Eugenius IV., and France had no further hopes of 
political aid from its activity. 

Thus the chief States of Europe had little to gain either 
Neutrality from Pope OF Council, and had no reason to take 
?n?he°^^ either side, when the struggle again broke out about 
beTwfen *^® union with the Eastern Church. The letter of 
, and^he^ Eugenius IV., asking the princes of Europe to with- 
councii. draw their countenance from the Council, met with 
no answer; but the Council had no zealous protector on 
whose help it could rely. The conflict that ensued was 
petty and ignoble. 

The policy of Eugenius IV. was to allure the Council to 
Financial somc Italian city where he could more easily man- 
oMhe*'^** age to bring about its dissolution. In this he was 
Council, helped by the desire of the Greeks to avoid a long 
journey overland, and his envoy Garatoni had continued to 
confirm them in their objection to go to Basel or to cross 
the Alps. The Council was fully alive to the Pope's project, 
and hoped to prevail upon the Greeks, when once their 
journey was begun, to give way to their wishes. But 
the great practical difficulty which the Council had to face 
V was one of finance. The cost of bringing the Greeks to 

^ Martene and Durand, Amp. Coll., viii., 882. 






FINANCIAL DIFFICULTIES OF THE COUNCIL. 295 

Basel was computed at 7 j, 000 ducats and their maintenance, 

which could not be reckoned at less than 200,000 ducats.^ 

Moreover, it would be needful that the Western Church 

should not be outdone by the Eastern in the number of 

prelates present at the Council. At least a hundred bishops 

must be summoned to Basel, and it might not be an easy 

matter to induce them to come. The sale of indulgences- 

had not been productive of so rich a harvest as the Council 

had hoped. In Constantinople the Bull was not allowed to 

be published, and the Greeks were by no means favourably 

impressed by this proof of the Council's zeal. In Europe, 

generally, it had awakened dissatisfaction ; it was a sign ; 

that the reforming Council was ready to use for its own " 

purposes the abuses which it condemned in the Pope, 

Altogether, the Council had before it a difficult task to raise 

the necessary supplies and celebrate its conference with due 

magnificence in the face of the Pope's opposition. 

As a preliminary step towards raising money and settling 

the place of the conference, envoys were sent in j^^^oti*- 

May, 1436, to negotiate for loans in the various cities {j^^^'jj^/^ 

which had been mentioned. They were required to of the 
, , , , con- 

promise 70,000 ducats at once, and to undertake to ference 

make further advances it necessary. The envoys Greeks 

visited Milan, Venice, Florence, Siena, Buda, Vienna, *^' '^^ 

Avignon, as well as France and Savoy. In August Venice 

offered any town in the patriarchate of Aquileia, the Duke of 

Milan any town in his dominions ; both guaranteed the 

loan. Florence also offered herself. Siena was willing to 

receive the Council, but could not lend more than 30,000 

ducats. The Duke of Austria was so impoverished by the 

Bohemian wars that he could not offer any money but would 

welcome the Council in Vienna. The citizens of Avignon 

were ready to promise all that the Council wished. During 

the month of November the representatives of Venice, 

Florence, Pavia, and Avignon harangued the Council in 

^ See Avhamenta pro facto Gracorum, Martcnc, Amf. ColL% viii., 895 
and Instruchnes fro Oratoribus in John of Segovia, 90a. 



^am 



296 THE COUNCIL OF BASEL. 

favour of their respective cities.^^ Venice and Florence 
were clearly in favour of the Pope, and so were not accept- 
able to the Council. In Pavia the Council would be 
sure enough of the Duke of Milan's hostility to the Pope, 
but could not feel so confident of its own freedom from 
his interference. If the Greeks would not come to Basel, 
Avignon was, in the eyes of the majority, the most eligible 
place. 

But though the majority might be of this opinion, there 
Ccsarini had been growing up in the Council a strong opposi- 
V ^llli^^ tion. The undisguised hostility of the extreme 
?embcr^° party to the Pope had driven moderate men to 
1436- acquiesce in the pretensions of Eugenius IV., and 

this question of the place of conference with the Greeks was 
fiercely contested on both sides. Cesarini had for some time 
felt that he was losing his influence over the Council, which 
followed the more democratic Cardinal d'Allemand. He 
now began to speak decidedly on the Pope's side. He 
argued with justice that Avignon was not specified in the 
agreement made with the Greeks ; that the Pope's presence 
at the conference was necessary, if for no other reason, at 
least as a means of providing money ; that if any help was 
to be given to the Greeks against the Turks the Pope alone 
could summon Europe to the work ; finally, he urged that if 
the Pope and Council were in antagonism, union with the 
Greeks was rendered ridiculous. On these grounds he 
besought the Council to choose a place which was convenient 
^ for the Pope.2 There were angry replies, till on November 
10 Cesarini took the step of openly ranging himself on the 
Pope's side. He warned the Council that henceforth they 
were to regard him as a Papal legate, and sent a paper to 
all the deputations demanding that in future no conclusions 

1 The amusingly rhetorical speech of >Eneas Sylvius, acting for the 
Duke of Milan in behalf of Pavia, is given in Mansi, Pii II, Oratlones, 
p. 5. It reads, from its careful attention to style, like a new language 
when compared with the other records of the Council. 

*John of Segovia, i., 913. 



CHOICE OF AVIONON FOR CONFERENCE. 297 

be arrived at respecting the Roman See until he had first 
been heard at length on the matter.* 

But the dominant party was determined to have its own 
way and took measures to out-vote its opponents, choke of 
It summoned the priests from the neighbourhood ^lf,e°" 
and flooded the Council with its own creatures.^ DccSmbef 
On December 5 the votes were taken, and it was 5. 1436. 
found that more than two-thirds of the Council, 242 out of 
355> voted at the bidding of the Cardinal d'Allemand for 
Basel in the first instance ; failing that, Avignon, and fail- 
ing that, some place in Savoy. Basel had been already 
refused by the Greeks. The Duke of Savoy had not offered 
to provide money for the Council. The vote was really 
given for Avignon alone. Cesarini, in the Pope's name 
and in his own, protested against Avignon as not contained 
in the treaty made with the Greeks ; if the Council refused 
to go to Italy there remained only Buda, Vienna, and 
Savoy as eligible ; if the Council decided on Savoy, he 
would accept it as according to the agreement ; beyond this 
he could not go. In spite of his written protest, th6 
majority confirmed their vote by a decree in favour of 
Avignon. 

At the beginning of February, 1437, the Greek ambassador, 
John Dissipatus, arrived in Basel, and was surprised compro- 
to find that the Council had fixed on Avignon. pctJuwy 
He vainly pleaded that Avignon was not included *3' '^37. 
in the decree which the Greeks had accepted, and when the 
Council paid no heed he handed in a protest on February 
15. The Council requested him to accompany their envoys 

^ The gradual change of opinion on the part of Cesarini may be traced 
in the letters of Ambrogio Traversari, 143-175. Traversari takes credit 
to his own arguments for producing the result. 

* John of Palomar, in Mansi, Siipflementum, vi., 576, says: ' Illi qui 
iverant per plateas in brevibus vefitibus et ad mensas dominorum minis- 
traverant, tunc sumptis longis vestibus Deputationes intrarunt ut sic 
numerus vaccilium augeretur '. Eugenius, in a letter to the Duke of 
Savoy (Cecconi, No. CXCV.), says: ' Multitudine vocum, quas divcrsis 
artibus cotidie propter hoc negotium ad concilium venire fecerant, 
conati sunt eligere civitatem Avenionensem '. 



298 THE COUNCIL OF BASEL. 

to Constantinople. He refused, declaring his intention of 
visiting the Pope and renewing his protest before him : if 
no remedy could be found he would publish to the world 
that the Council could not keep its promises. The majority 
at Basel was little moved by these complaints, save so far 
as they tended to strengthen the position of the minority 
which was working in favour of the Pope. Through fear 
of playing into their hands, a compromise was made on 
February 23. The Council decreed that the citizens of 
Avignon were to be required to pay, within thirty days, the 
70,000 ducats which they had promised ; a further term of 
twelve days was allowed them to bring proof of their pay- 
ment to Basel ; if this were not done in the appointed time 
the Council * could, and was bound,' to proceed to the 
election of another place. ^ 

During the period of this truce arrived, on April i, the 
. . ^ Archbishop of Taranto, as a new Papal leerate, ac- 

TheArch- . ;, , ^ / ,,,..,, ,i 

bishop of companied by the Greeks who had visited the Pope 

Taranto -V , tt' • t m • 

organises at Bologna. His amval gave a new turn to affairs, 
party.*^* Ccsarini was opposed, on grounds of practical wis- 
Aprii,i437. Jqjj^^ ^q ^Yit proceedings of the Council rather than 
decidedly in favour of the Pope ; the Archbishop of Taranto 
entered the lists as a violent partisan, as energetic and as 
unscrupulous as was the Cardinal d*AlIemand. He set to 
work to organise the Papal party and to devise a policy of 
resistance. Opportunity soon befriended him. As the term 
allowed to Avignon to pay its money drew- near its close 
there was no news of any payment. Parties in favour of 
the Pope and the Council were formed amongst the 
burghers, and the disunion awakened the fears of the 
cautious merchants, who doubted whether the Council's 
presence within their walls would prove a profitable invest- 
ment ; they proposed to defer the full payment of the money 
till the actual arrival of the Greeks. On this the Papal 

1 ' Alioquin ex tunc ipsum sacrum concilium possit et teneatur ad elec- 
tionem alterius loci pro ycumenico concilio celebrando procedere.' The 
• cedula consensus patrum * is given by John of Segovia, 936. 



SCHISM IN THE COUNCIL, 299 

party insisted that the agreement with Avignon was for- 
feited, and on April 12, the day on which the term expired, 
Cesarini exhorted the Council to proceed to the choice of 
another place. In his speech he used the words *the 
authority of the Apostolic See ' ; there was at once a shout 
of indignation, as it was thought that he hinted at the dis- 
solution of the Council. The discussion was warm, and 
the sitting broke up in confusion. 

The position assumed by the Archbishop of Taranto was 
that the decree of February 23 was rigidly binding ; scWsm in 
the contingency contemplated in it had actually ca!^Aprii 
occurred, and the Council was bound to make a '7,1437. 
new election. Nay, if some members of the Council refused 
to do so, he argued, from the analogy of a capitular election, 
that the power of the Council devolved on those who were 
ready to act — a numerical minority, if acting according to 
the law, could override a majority which acted illegally.^ 
The Papal party numbered about seventy votes, their oppo- 
nents about two hundred ; but the Archbishop of Taranto's 
policy was to create a schism in the Council and destroy 
the power of the majority by the prestige of the * saner 
part*. Accordingly on April 17, when the deputations 
voted on the question of adhering to Avignon or choosing 
another place, the presidents in three of the deputations, 
being on the Papal side, refused the votes in favour of 
Avignon as technically incorrect, and returned the result 
of the voting as in favour of a new election. When the 
majority protested with shouts and execrations, the minority 
withdrew and allowed them to declare their vote in favour 
of Avignon. There was now a hopeless deadlock ; the 
two parties sat separately, and the efforts of the German 



ijohn of Segovia, 956: *Continuo autem Cardinalis sancti Petri 
dicebat de jure fore quod in actibus communitatis, quando universitas 
deficit, quemlibet universitatis illius posse supplere; unde cum papa 
consensisset in decreto Graecorum, ad eum, quia summus pontifex, caput 
ecclesiae et principale membrum, spectabat laborare ne ecclesia Latina 
deficeret in promissis '. 



300 THE COUNCIL OF BASEL. 

ambassadors and of the citizens of Basel were alike un- 
availing to restore concord. 

When agreement proved to be impossible, both sides pre- 
pared to fight out their contention to the end. On 
attempts April 26 the majority published its decree abiding 
dilation" by Avignon ; the minority published its choice of 
Aprii.1437. Florence or Udine, and asserted that henceforth 
the power of the Council, as regarded this question, was 
V vested in those who were willing to keep their promise.^ 
In the wild excitement that prevailed suspicions were rife, 
and violence was easily provoked. On the following 
Sunday, when the Cardinal of Aries proceeded to the 
Minster to celebrate mass, he found the altar already occu- 
pied by the Archbishop of Taranto, who suspected that the 
opportunity might be used of publishing the decree of the 
majority in the name of the Council, and who had resolved 
in that case to be beforehand. Loud cries and altercations 
were heard on all sides ; only the crowded state of the 
cathedral, which prevented men from raising their arms, 
saved the scandal of open violence. The civic guards had 
to keep the peace between the combatants. Evening 
brought reflection, and both parties dreaded a new schism, 
and were appalled at the result which seemed likely to 
follow from a Council assembled to promote the peace of 
Christendom. Congregations were suspended, and for six 
days the best men of both parties conferred together to see 
if an agreement were possible ; but all was in vain, because 
men were swayed by personal passion and motives of self- 
interest, and the violence of party-spirit entirely obscured 
the actual subject under discussion. Every one acted re- 
gretfully and remorsefully, but with the feeling that he had 
now gone too far to go back. The die had already been cast ; 



1 The document is given in Cecconi, No. CXVIII. : * Cum jus et 
potestas hujus sacri concilii (quoad actum istum et dependentia ab eo) 
apud illos remaneat qui dicte cedule concordate et conclusioni ac deter- 
minationi hujus sacri concilii inniti volunt, et providere ne sacrum Con- 
cilium in suis promissis deficiat/ etc. 



CONFLICTING DECREES PUBLISHED, 301 

the defeat of the Council involved the ruin of every one who 
had till now upheld it ; to retreat a hair's breadth meant 
failure. Conferences brought to light no common grounds ; 
matters must take their course, and the two divisions of the 
Council must find by experience which was the stronger.^ 

On May 7, a day which many wished never to dawn, the 
rival parties strove in a solemn session to decree, in PuWica- 
the name of the Council, their contradictory resolu- co°nfl?cting 
tions. In the early morning the Cardinal of Aries, ^S"^ 
clad in full pontificals, took possession of the altar, ^437- 
and the cathedral was filled with armed men. The legates 
arrived later, and even at the last moment both sides spoke 
of concord. It was proposed that, in case the Greeks would 
not come to Basel, the Council be held at Bologna, and the 
fortresses be put in the hands of two representatives of 
each side. Three times the Cardinals of Aries and of S. 
Peter's stood at the altar on the point of making peace ; but 
they could not agree on the choice of the two who were to 
hold the fortresses. At twelve o'clock there were cries that 
it was useless to waste more time. Mass was said, and the 
Bishop of Albienza mounted the pulpit to read the decree of 
the majority. The hymn *Veni Creator,' which was the 
formal opening of the session, had begun ; but it was 
silenced that again there might be negotiations for peace. 
All was in vain. The session opened, and the Bishop of 
Albienza began to read the decree. On the part of the 
minority the Bishop of Porto seized a secretary's table 
and began to read their decree, surrounded by a serried 
band of stalwart youths. One bishop shouted against the 
other, and the Cardinal of Aries stormed vainly, calling 
for order. The decree of the minority was shorter, and 

1 The state of feeling is vividly described in a letter of iEncas Sylvius 
to Piero da Noceto, dated May 20, 1437, in Mansi, xxxi., 220, etc. A 
few of his phrases are worth noting : * Tanta inter majores vociferatio 
erat ut modestiores in taberna vinaria cernas bibulos \ ' Si meam petis 
sententiam paucissimos ex utraque parte numerarem quos credam sola 
moveri conscientia.' ' Apud quem sit Veritas Deus noverit ; ego non 
video neque si video scribere ausim.' 



302 THE COUNCIL OF BASEL. 

took less time in reading ; as soon as it was finished the 
Papal party commenced the * Te Deum '. When their decree 
was finished, the opposite party sang the * Te Deum'. 
It was a scene of wild confusion in which violent partisans 
might triumph, but which filled with dismay and terror all 
who had any care for the future of the Church. Both parties 
felt the gravity of the crisis : both felt powerless to avert it. 
With faces pale from excitement, they saw a new schism 
declared in the Church. 

Next day there was a contention about the seal of the 
Council, which Cesarini was found to have in his 
about seal- possession, and at first declined to give up. But 
dicrecB. the citizens of Basel insisted that it was their duty 
June, 1437. ^Q ggg ^Y^^^ ^Y\e seal was kept in its proper place. 
On May 14 a compromise was made. The seal was put in 
custody of a commission of three, on condition that both 
decrees be sealed in secret ; the Bull of the conciliar party 
was to be sent to Avignon, but not to be delivered till 
the money was paid by the citizens ; if this was not done 
within thirty days the Bull was to be brought back ; mean- 
while the Bull of the Papal party was to remain in secret 
custody. Again there was peace for a while, which was 
broken on June 16 by the discovery that the box containing 
the conciliar seal had been tampered with, and the seal used 
by some unauthorised person. The discovery was kept 
secret, and the roads were watched to intercept any mes- 
sengers to Italy. A man was taken bearing letters from the 
Archbishop of Taranto, which were produced before a general 
congregation. There was an outcry on both sides, one 
protesting against the seizure of the letters, the other against 
the false use of the Council's seal. Twelve judges were 
appointed to examine into the matter. The letters, which 
were partly in cipher, were read, and the case against the 
Archbishop of Taranto was made good. He was put under 
arrest, and when the matter was laid before the Council on 
June 21 there was an unseemly brawl, which ended in the 
use of violent means to prevent an appeal to the Pope being 



EUGENIUS IV. FIXES THE COUNCIL IN ITALY, 303 

lodged by the Archbishop's proctor. On July 19 the Arch- 
bishop, surrounded by an armed troop, made his escape from 
Basel and fled to the Pope. 

The majority in the Council of Basel might pass what 
decrees they would, but they had reckoned too Eugeniu. 
much on their power over the Greeks. The Papal \y[^ ^q^^^, 
legates won over the Greek ambassadors, and sent Mayl?^''' 
them to Eugenius IV. at Bologna. The Pope at '«7. 
once ratified the decree of the minority, fixed Florence or 
Udine as the seat of a future Council, and on May 30 issued 
a Bull to this effect. He wrote to all the princes of Christen- 
dom announcing his action. But Sigismund raised a protest 
against a Council being held in Italy, and the Duke of Milan 
strongly opposed the choice of Florence. Apparently wish- 
ing to avoid discussion for the present, Eugenius IV. 
prevailed on the Greeks to defer till their arrival on the 
Italian coast the exact choice of the place. The Greek 
ambassador, John Dissipatus, solemnly declared in the 
Emperor's name, that he recognised as the Council of 
Basel, to which he had formed obligations, only the party of 
the legates, and that he accepted the decree of the minority 
as being the true decree of the Council.^ Eugenius IV. hired 
at his own expense four Venetian galleys to convey the 
Greeks to Italy. Preparations were made with all possible 
speed, and on September 3 the Bishops of Digne and Porto, 
representing the minority of the Council, and Garatoni, now 
Bishop of Coron, on the part of the Pope, arrived in Con- 
stantinople. Claiming to speak in the name of the Pope 
and of the Council, they at once began to make preparations 
for the journey of the Greeks to Italy. 

The assembly at Basel could not make its arrangements 
with Avignon quickly enough to compete on equal terms 
with the Pope. It had to face the usual disadvantages 
of a democracy when contending against a centralised 
power. Its hope of success with the Greeks lay in per- 

^ Raynaldus, 1437, No. 13. 



/ 



304 THE COUNCIL OF BASEL. 

suading them that the Council, and not the Pope, repre- 
The sented the Western Church, and was strong in the 

fummoLs support of the princes of Western Europe. It 
fv.^*o *"** determined again to proceed to the personal humilia- 
V ^^asei.^ tion of Eugcnius IV., and so by assailing his power 
1437- * to render useless his dealings with the Greeks. On 
July 31 the Council issued a monition to Eugenius IV., set- 
ting forth that he did not loyally accept its decrees, that he 
endeavoured to set at nought its labours for the reformation 
of the Church, that he wasted the patrimony of the Holy 
See, and would not work with the Council in the matter of 
union with the Greeks; it summoned him to appear at 
Basel within sixty days, personally or by proctor, to answer 
to these charges. This admonition was the first overt act 
towards a fresh schism. Sigismund and the German am- 
bassadors strongly opposed it on that ground, and besought 
the Council to recall it. It was clear that the Council would 
meet with little support if it proceeded to extremities against 
the Pope. But in its existing temper it listened to the 
ambassadors of the King of Aragon and the Duke of Milan, 
the political adversaries of Eugenius IV., and paid little 
\ heed to moderate counsels. On September 26 it annulled 
the nomination to the cardinalate by Eugenius of the Patri- 
arch of Alexandria, as being opposed to the decree that during 
the Council no Cardinal should be nominated elsewhere than 
at Basel. It also annulled the decree of the minority on 
May 7, by whatever authority it might be upheld, and took 
under its own protection the Papal city of Avignon. 

In vain the Council tried to win over Sigismund to its 
/ The side. Sigismun(J/had gained by the submission of 

pronouices Bohemia all that he was likely to get from the 
fv^contu- Council. In Italian politics he had allied himself 
o*t"b"r*i ^^^^ Venice against his foe the Duke of Milan, and 
1437. ' so was inclined to the Papal side. He wrote angrily 
to the Council on September 17, bidding them hold their 
hand in their process against the Pope. He reminded 
them that they had found the Church united by his long 



BUGBNIUS IV, DISSOLVES THE COUNCIL. 305 

labour, and were acting in a way to cause a new schism. 
They had met to reform and pacify Christendom, and were 
on the way to do the very reverse ; while wishing to unite 
the Greeks, they were engaged in dividing the Latins. If 
they did not cease from their seditious courses, he would be 
driven to undertake the defence of the Pope.i The Council 
was somewhat dismayed at this letter ; but the bolder spirits 
took advantage of current suspicions, and declared it to be 
a forgery, written in Basel, by the same hands as had forged 
the Council's Bulls.^ Passion outweighed prudence, and men 
felt that they had gone too far to withdraw ; on October i 
the Council declared Eugenius IV. guilty of contumacy for 
not appearing to plead in answer to the charges brought 
against him. 

On his side also Eugenius IV. was not idle. He accepted 
the challenge of the Council, and on September 18 
issued a Bull decreeing its dissolution. In the iv. dis- 
Bull he set forth his desire to work with the Council council. 
for union with the Greeks ; in spite of all he could bwiaT 
do they chose Avignon, though such a choice was ^^^'^' | * 
null and void as not being included in the agreement pre- *^' 
viously made with the Greeks. Still, in spite of the default ' 
of Avignon to fulfil the conditions it had promised, the 
Council persevered in its choice. The legates, the great 
majority of prelates, royal ambassadors, and theologians, 
who made up the saner part of the Council, protested against 
the legality of this choice, and chose Florence or Udine, and 
at the request of the Greeks he had accepted their choice. 
The turbulent spirits in the Council, consisting of a few 
prelates who were animated partly by personal ambition and 
partly were the political tools of the King of Aragon and / 
the Duke of Milan, gathered a crowd of the lower clergy, / 



* The summary of this letter is given by Patricius, in Hartzheim, v., 
819. 

2 John of Segovia, 1027 : * Non defuere qui dicerent eam fuisse nedum 
immutatam sed scriptam Basilee, cognitamque fuisse manum scriptoris, 
proptereaque ilium ex Basilea fugisse '. 
VOL. II. 20 



3o6 THE COUNCIL OF BASEL. 

and under the specious name of reformation resisted the 
Pope, in spite of the Emperor's remonstrances. To prevent 
scandals and to avoid further dissension, the Pope trans- 
V ferred the Council from Basel to Ferrara, which he fixed as 
the seat of an Ecumenical Council for the purpose of union 
with the Greeks. He allowed the fathers to remain at Basel 
for thirty days to end their dealings with the Bohemians ; 
but if the Bohemians preferred to come to Ferrara, they 
should there have a friendly reception and full hearing.^ 
\/ The Council on October 12 annulled the Bull of Eugenius, 

on the ground of the superiority of a General Council over 
a Pope, and prohibited all under pain of excommunication 
from attending the pretended Council at Ferrara. It warned 
Eugenius IV. that if he did not make amends within four 
months he would be suspended from his office, and that the 
Council would proceed to his deprivation. 

Both Pope and Council had now done all they could to 
assert their superiority over each other. The first 
Greeks qucstion was which of the two contending parties 
Pope's ^ should gain the adhesion of the Greeks. The 
Novem- Papal envoys had arrived first at Constantinople, 
bcr. 1437. ^^^ ^YiQiY offers were best adapted to the convenience 
^ of the Greeks. When on October 4 the Avignonese galleys 
arrived off Constantinople with the envoys of the Council, 
the captain of the Papal galleys was with difficulty pre- 
vented from putting out to sea to oppose their landing. 
The Greek Emperor was perplexed by two embassies, each 
brandishing contradictory decrees, and each declaring that 
it alone represented the Council. Each party had come with 
excommunications ready prepared to launch against the other. 
This scandalous exhibition of discord, in the face of those 
whom both parties wished to unite to the Church, was only 
prevented by the pacific counsels of John of Ragusa, who 
had been for three years resident envoy of the Council in 
Constantinople, and had not been swallowed up by the 

* The Bull is given in full in John of Segovia, p. 1033. 



THE GREEKS ACCEPT THE POPE'S TERMS, 307 

violent wave of party-feeling which had passed over Basel. ^ 
The Council's ambassadors proceeded at once to attack the 
claims of their opponents to be considered as the Council. 
They succeeded in reducing to great perplexity the luckless 
Emperor, who wanted union with the Latin Church as the • 
price of military help from Western Europe, and only wished 
to find out to whom or what he was to be united. The 
Greeks were puz;;led to decide whether the Pope would suc- 
ceed in dissolving the Council, or the Council in deposing 
the Pope : they could not clearly see which side would have 
the political preponderance in the West. The two parties 
plied the Emperor in turn with their pleadings for a space 
of fifteen days. The Council had the advantage that the 
Greeks were already committed to an agreement with them. 
But the Papal party had diplomats who were adroit in 
clearing away difficulties.^ The Greeks ultimately decided 
to go with them to Italy, and the Emperor exhorted the 
Council's envoys to peace and concord, and invited them to 
accompany him to Venice. They refused with cries of rage 
and loud protestations, and on November 2 departed for 
Basel. 

Now that the breach between Pope and Council was 
irreparable, and the Pope had won a diplomatic ^, 

• . . 1 . . . , , , , , Neutrality . 

Victory m his negotiations, both parties looked to of sigia- 
Sigismund, who, however, refused to identify him- 
self decidedly with either. He disapproved of the Pope's ^ 
dissolution of the Council, from which he still expected some ^ 
measures of ecclesiastical reform ; on the other hand, he v^ 
disapproved of the Council's proceedings against the Pope, , ^ 
which threatened a renewal of the schism.* Eugenius IV. 
had showed his willingness to conciliate Sigismund by 
allowing the Council in his Bull of dissolution to sit for 

' See his relation to the Council of Basel in Cecconi, No. CLXXVIII., 
and also Mansi, Concil,, xxxi., 248. 

* See the relation of the Bishop of Digne to Eugenius IV. and the 
Council of Ferrara, in Cecconi, No. CLXXXVIII. 

' John of Segovia, 1060, gives the contents of a letter of Sigismund to 
the Council, dated October 20. 



3o8 THE COUNCIL OF BASEL. 

thirty days to conclude its business with Bohemia ; or, if 
the Bohemians wished, he was willing to receive their 
representatives at Ferrara. This was important to Sigis- 
mund and to the Bohemians, as it showed that the Pope 
accepted all that had been done in reference to the Bohe- 
mian question, and was ready to adopt the Council's policy 
in this matter. 

Sigismund had indeed reason to be content with the re- 
sults which he had won. His restoration to Bo- 
in Prag. hemia had been accomplished, and he had organised 
^^^ ' a policy of reaction which seemed likely to be suc- 

cessful. On August 23, 1436, his entry into Prag had been 
like a triumphal procession. He lost no time in appoint- 
ing new magistrates, all of them chosen from the ex- 
tremely moderate party. The legates of the Council were 
always by his side to maintain the claims of the Church. 
Bishop Philibert of Coutances began a series of aggressions 
on the episcopal authority in Bohemia. He asserted his 
right to officiate in Rokycana's church without asking his 
permission ; he held confirmations and consecrated altars 
and churches in virtue of his superior office as legate of the 
Council. The Bohemians, on their part, waited for the 
fulfilment of Sigismund's promises, and the knights refused 
to surrender the lands of the Church until they were satis- 
fied. Sigismund was bound to write to the Council, urging 
the recognition of Rokycana as Archbishop of Prag ; but he 
told the legates that he trusted the Council would find some 
good pretext for delay. * I have promised,' he said, ' that 
till he dies I will hold no other than Rokycana as arch- 
bishop ; but I believe that some of the Bohemians will kill 
him, and then I can have another archbishop.' ^ It is clear 
that Sigismund knew how to manage a reaction, knew the 
inevitable loss of popularity which a party leader suffers it 
he makes concessions and does not immediately gain success. 
Rokycana was looked upon as a traitor by the extreme party, 

1 John of Tours, Registrum, Mon, CoiiciL, i., 835. 



POSITION OF ROKYCANA. 309 

and as a dangerous man by the moderate party. We are 
not surprised to find that in October rumours were rife of a 
conspiracy organised in Rokycana's house against the Em- 
peror and the legates. Inquiries were made, and without 
being directly accused Rokycana was driven to defend him- 
self, and then his defence was declared to be in itself sus- 
picious.i 

Rokycana seems td have felt his position becoming daily 
more insecure. On October 24 he paid his first Positionof 
visit to the legates to try and find out their views Ro^ycw*- 
about the confirmation of his title of archbishop. The 
legates received him haughtily, and talked about the restora- 
tion of various points of ritual which the Bohemians had 
cast aside. ' You talk only about trifles,' said Rokycana 
impatiently ; * more serious matters need your care.' * You 
say truly,' exclaimed John of Palomar, with passion ; * there 
are more serious matters : for you deceive the people, and 
can no more give them absolution than this stick, for you 
have not the power of the keys, seeing you have no apos- 
tolic mission.' This bold onslaught staggered Rokycana, 
who repeated the words of Palomar in amazement, and said 
that the people would be indignant at hearing them ; he 
would consult his fellow-priests. One of his followers 
warned the legates that they and the Emperor were be- 
coming unpopular through their refusal to confirm Roky- 
cana's election as archbishop. Rokycana withdrew with a 
bitter feeling of helplessness. 

The legates on November 8 pressed the Emperor to take 
further measures for the Catholic restoration. They sigismund 
had now been two months in Bohemia, they urged, co^uncii's 
and little had been done. The Communion was Novcm- 
given to children, the Epistle and Gospel were ***''» *«6. 
read in Bohemian and not in Latin, the use of holy water 
and the kiss of peace was not restored, and toleration was 

^ John of Tours, p. 836 : < Rokssana vero longa oratione, cum non 
accusaretur, se excusavit et sub gravissimo anathemate de illis conven. 
ticulis ; unde mirabantur multi, scientes non esse vera quae dicebat '. 



3IO THE COUNCIL OF BASEL. 

not given to those who communicated under one kind. All 
this was contrary to the observance of the Compacts, and 
the kingdom of Bohemia was still infected with the heresy 
of Wyclif. Sigismund angrily answered, * I was once a 
prisoner in Hungary, and save then I never was so wearied 
as I am now ; indeed, my present captivity seems likely to 
be longer *. He begged the legates to be patient till the 
meeting of the Diet. He was engaged in treating with 
Tabor and Koniggratz, which were still opposed to him, and 
he needed time to overcome their resistance. Tabor agreed 
to submit its differences to arbitration ; Koniggratz was 
reduced by arms. 

On November 27 the legates and Rokycana came to a 
Progress Conference on the disputed points in the Emperor's 
Catholic presence. Rokycana demanded the clear and un- 
BShemU." ^^oubted Confirmation of the Compacts ; the legates 
Novem- t^g re-cstablishment of the Catholic ritual. There 

ber, 1436 — 

June, 1437. were many difficulties raised and much discussion ; 
but Rokycana found himself abandoned by the masters of 
the University, and opposed by the city magistrates and the 
nobles. He gave way unwillingly on all the points raised 
by the legates except the Communion of children and the 
reading of the Epistle and Gospel in Bohemian. On De- 
cember 23 the Catholic ritual was restored in all the churches 
in Prag ; the use of holy water and the kiss of peace was 
resumed, and images which had been cast down were again 
set up in their former places. Still, Bishop Philibert abode 
in Frag, and exercised the office of Bishop. On February 
II, 1437, the Empress Barbara was crowned Queen of Bo- 
hemia by Philibert, and Rokycana was not even bidden to 
the ceremony. 

On February 13 the legates at last received from the 
Council the Bull of ratification of the Compacts of Iglau. 
Together with it came an admonition to the Emperor not 
to tolerate the Communion of children. He was urged also 
to restore the Catholic ritual throughout Bohemia, and to 
hand over to the Council Peter Payne, who maintained the 



THE CATHOLIC REACTION IN BOHEMIA, 311 

Wyclifite doctrine that the substance of bread remained in 
the Eucharist. When the ratification was shown to Roky- 
cana, he demanded that there should also be issued a letter 
to the princes of Christendom freeing Bohemia from all 
charge of heresy. He brought forward also the old com- 
plaint that many priests refused to give the sacrament 
under both kinds; he demanded that the legates should 
order them to do so, should enjoin the bishops to see that 
the clergy obeyed their command, and should request the 
Bishop of Olmiitz himself to administer under both kinds. 
The legates answered that the letter clearing the Bohe- 
mians had already been issued at Iglau ; for the future 
the Bohemians, by observing the Compacts, would purge 
themselves in the eyes of all men better than any letter 
could do it for them. To the other part of his request they 
answered that they would admonish any priest who was 
proved to have refused the Communion under both kinds 
to any one who desired it ; they could not ask the Bishop 
of Olmiitz to administer the Communion himself, but only 
to appoint priests who were ready to do so. This was the 
utmost that Rokycana could procure, in spite of repeated 
renewal of his complaints. 

The reaction went on with increasing strength. The rest 
of Bohemia followed the example of Prag, and restored the 
Catholic ritual. Sigismund set up again in the Cathedral 
of Prag the old capitular foundation with all its splendour. 
The monks began to return to Prag; relics of the saints 
were again exposed for popular adoration. In this state 
of affairs representatives of Bohemia were summoned to 
Basel to discuss further the question of the necessity or 
expediency of receiving the Communion under both kinds. 
Sigismund, wishing to rid himself of Rokycana, urged him 
to go. Rokycana steadily refused, knowing that at Basel 
he would only meet with coldness, and that during his 
absence from Prag the triumph of the reaction would be 
assured. On April 7, Procopius of Pilsen, in the Emperor's 
presence, bade Rokycana remember that he had been the 



312 THE COUNCIL OF BASEL. 

leader in former negotiations with the Council. * You are 
experienced in the matter,' he said ; * you have no right to 
refuse.* * Procopius,' said Rokycana, forgetting where he 
was, * remember how our party fared at Constance ; we 
might fare in like manner, for I know that I am accused 
and hated at Basel.* ' Think you,' said Sigismund angrily, 
* that for you or for this city I would do anything against 
mine honour ? ' ^ It was so long since Sigismund had 
broken his plighted word to Hus that he had forgotten 
that it was even possible for others to remember it 

Though Rokycana stayed in Prag, he was systematically 
Rokycana Set aside in ecclesiastical matters. On April 12 
froraPrag. Bishop Philibcrt appointed rural deans throughout 
June, 1437. Bohemia, and charged them how to carry out their 
duties ; Rokycana was not even consulted. The church in 
which Rokycana preached was given to the Rector of the 
University, who was inducted by the legate. Peter Payne 
was banished by Sigismund from Bohemia as a heretic, and 
an opportunity against Rokycana was eagerly looked for. 
This was given by a sermon preached on May 5, about the 
Communion of children, in which. he said that to give up 
this practice would be a confession of previous error and of 
present instability of purpose. * Too many now condemn 
what once they praised. But you, poor children, lament. 
What have you done amiss that you should be deprived of 
the Communion ? Who will answer for you ? Who will 
defend you ? Now no one heeds.* Mothers lifted their 
voices, and wept over the wrongs of their children, and 
that was judged sufficient to establish against Rokycana 
a charge of inciting the people to sedition. The Diet de- 
manded that some steps should be taken to administer the 
archbishopric of Prag ; and Sigismund's influence with the 
moderate party was strong enough to obtain on June 1 1 the 
election of Christiann of Prachatic to the office of Vicar of 
the Archbishopric. Rokycana on being asked to surrender 

* John of Tours, 860. 



BOHEMIAN ENVOYS IN BASEL. 313 

the seal and submit to Christiann as his spiritual superior, 
judged it wise to flee from Prag on June 16. 

The exile of Rokycana was the triumph of the moderate 
party, the Utraquists pure and simple, who wished 
for entire union with the Church, but who were envoys in 
still staunch in upholding the principles of a August, 
reformed Church for Bohemia. Envoys were sent '^^^* 
off to Basel to end the work of reconciliation and settle the 
points which still were disputed. On August 18 the envoys, 
chief amongst whom were the priests John Pribram and 
Procopius of Pilsen, entered Basel with great magnificence. 
Pribram in his first speech to the Council demanded that 
the Communion under both kinds should be fully granted, 
not only in Bohemia and Moravia, but universally, seeing 
that it was the truth of God's law. Pribram and John of 
Palomar argued learnedly for many days on the subject; 
but Pribram felt that he met with little attention from the 
Council. One day he angrily met the suspicious coolness 
which surrounded him by declaring that the Bohemians 
had never been heretical, but had always remained in the 
unity of the faith ; if any one said otherwise, they were 
ready to answer with their steel as they had done in past 
days.i When Pribram had ended his disputation, Pro- 
copius of Pilsen advocated the Communion of children with 
no better success. 

At last, on October 20, the Bohemians submitted nine 
demands to the Council, which deserve mention as Demands 
showing the ultimate point arrived at by these long gjj^^_ 
negotiations, (i) That the Communion under both ojtobcn 
kinds be granted to Bohemia and Moravia; (2) '437- 
that the Council declare this concession to be more than a 
mere permission given for the purpose of avoiding further 
mischief; (3) that the Church of Prag be provided with an 
archbishop and two suffragans, who should be approved by 

* * Si quis vellet dicere contra, ipsi darent ferrea responsa, glorianter 
mencionando quas sibi dicebant contra eos impugnantes de celo con- 
cessas victorias.' — John of Segovia, 1066. 



314 THE COUNCIL OF BASEL. 

the realm ; (4) that the Council issue letters clearing the 
good name of Bohemia; (5) that in deciding whether the 
Communion under both kinds be of necessary precept or 
not, the Council adhere to the authorities mentioned in the 
Compact of Eger, the law of God, the practice of Christ 
and the Apostles, general councils and doctors founded on 
the law of God; (6) that the Communion of children be 
allowed; (7) that at least the Epistle, Gospel, and Creed 
in the mass service be said in the vulgar tongue ; (8) that 
the University of Prag be reformed and have some prebends 
and benefices attached to it; (9) that the Council proceed 
to the effectual reformation of the Church in head and 
members. Pribram besought that these be granted, es- 
pecially the Gospel truth concerning the Sacrament. * The 
kingdom of Bohemia is ready,' he added, * as experience 
has shown, to defend and assert this even by thousands of 
/^ deaths.' Great was the indignation of the Bohemians when, 
r on November 6, Cesarini exhorted them to conform to the 
ritual of the universal Church as regarded the Communion 
1 of the laity under one kind only ; still, he added, the Council 
was willing to stand by the Compacts. 

Cesarini had gone too far in thus openly showing the 
r, , , , policy of the Council to reduce the Bohemians to 

Refusal of *^ -^ . , ^ , , . . , t • , 

their de- accept agam the Catholic ritual. It required some 
by the management on the part of other members of the 
ouna . Council to allay their indignation. On November 
24 the Council gave a formal answer to the Bohemian re- • 
quests. As regarded the necessity of the Communion under 
both kinds the point had now been argued fully; it only 
remained for them to join with the Council and accept its 
declaration on the subject as inspired by the Holy Ghost. 
Their other points had either been already settled by the 
Compacts or were favours which might afterwards be dis. 
cussed by the Council. This was of course equivalent to 
V a refusal to grant anything beyond the bare letter of the 
Compacts. The Bohemian moderates saw themselves 
entirely deceived in their hopes of obtaining universal 



DEATH OP SIGISMUND, 315 

tolerance for their beliefs. The Council would grant no- \ 
thing more than a special favour to Bohemia and Moravia 
to continue to use the ritual which they had adopted, until 
such time as it could safely be prohibited. In vain the Bohe- 
mians asked that at least they should not be sent away 
entirely empty-handed, lest it be a cause of fresh disturb- 
ances. They could get no better answer, and left Basel on 
November 29. In spite of Cesarini's remonstrance against 
the imprudence of such a step, the Council on December 23 
issued a decree that the Communion under both kinds was 
not a precept of Christ, but the Church could order the 
method of its reception as reverence and the salvation of 
the faithful seemed to require. The custom of communi- 
cating under one kind only has been reasonably introduced 
by the Church and was to be regarded as the law, nor might 
it be changed without the Church's authority. 

In Bohemia the disappointment of the expectations which 
the great mass of the people still retained caused ^ ^ , 

. ... ,,,.,, , , Death of 

growmg irritation, and seemed likely to lead to a sigis- 
fresh outbreak. Moreover, Sigismund's declining December 
health gave an occasion to the ambitious schemes ^ ^^^^' 
of those of his own household. Sigismund had no son, but 
his only daughter was married to Albert of Austria ; and the 
fondest wish of Sigismund's declining years was that Albert 
should succeed to all his dignities and possessions. But the 
Empress Barbara had already tasted the sweets of power 
and was unwilling to retire into obscurity. She and her 
relatives, the Counts of Cilly, raised up a party among the 
Bohemian barons with the object of elevating Ladislas of 
Poland to the thrones of Bohemia and Hungary, and 
marrying him, though still a youth, to Barbara, in her fifty- 
fourth year.^ Sigismund discovered this plot and felt the 

^ Palacky, Geschichte von Bohpicn, iii., pt. 3, 282, throws doubt upon 
this assertion of iEneas Sylvius {Hist, Bohem.^ ch. Hi.), and there can be 
no question that iCneas has drawn a picture of Barbara which is exag- 
gerated through his dislike to the family of Cilly. Still Windeck's 
account of Sigismund's last commands to his nobles makes the same 
assertion : ' das sie denne die kaiserynne sein frauen behilten bis das 
Herzog Albrechte in das konigreich keme, oder sie wurden den konig 
von Polande nemen und in das konigreich zihen,* in Mencken, i., 1278. 



3i6 THE COUNCIL OF BASEL. 

danger of his position. He was seized with erysipelas, and 
had to submit to the amputation of his big toe. His one 
desire was to quit Bohemia and secure Albert's succession in 
Hungary. Concealing his knowledge of what was passing 
around him, he left Prag on November ij, borne in an 
open litter and dressed in the imperial robes. He was 
accompanied by the Empress and the Count of Cilly, and on 
November 21 reached Znaym, where Albert and his wife 
Elizabeth awaited him. There he ordered Barbara to be 
imprisoned, but the Count of Cilly had timely warning and 
escaped. At Znaym Sigismund summoned to his presence 
several of the chief barons of Bohemia and Hungary, and 
urged on them the advantages to be gained by uniting both 
lands under one rule; he warmly recommended to their 
support the claims of Albert. This was his last effort. 
F'eeling his malady grow worse, he was true to the last to 
that love of dramatic effect which was so strong a feature of 
his character. He wished to die like an emperor. Attired 
in the imperial robes, with his crown on his head, he heard 
mass on the morning of December 9. When mass was 
over he ordered grave clothes to be put on over the imperial 
vesture, and sitting on his throne awaited death, which over- 
took him in the evening. He was left seated for three days 
according to his command, * that men might see that the 
lord of all the world was dead and gone'.^ Then his 
corpse was carried to Grosswardein and buried in the resting- 
place of the Hungarian kings. 

The facile pen of i^neas Sylvius gives us the following 
vigorous description of Sigismund : * He was tall, 
ofsigis" with bright eyes, broad forehead, pleasantly rosy 
"""'** cheeks, and a long thick beard. He had a large 
mind and formed many plans, but was changeable. He 
was witty in conversation, given to wine and women, and 
thousands of love intrigues are laid to his charge. He was 

1 Windeck, as above, * so sollte man in stehen lassen zwen tag oder 
drei tage, dass alle mon in sehen mochte, dass aller der welde herre tot 
und gestorben were'. 



CHARACTER OF SIGISMUND, 317 

prone to anger, but ready to forgive. He could not keep his 
money, but spent it lavishly. He made more promises than 
he kept, and often deceived.' ^ These words are a fair repre- 
sentation of the impression produced on his contemporaries 
by this mighty * lord of all the world '. With all his faults, and 
they were many, on the whole men loved and esteemed him. 
No doubt vanity was the leading feature of Sigismund's 
character ; but it was the dignified vanity of always seeming 
to act worthily of his high position. He would have been 
ludicrous with his dramatic strut had not his geniality and 
keenness of wit imposed on those who came in his way, and 
so saved him from hopeless absurdity. It is easy to mock 
at Sigismund's undertakings, at his pretensions as compared 
with the results which he achieved ; but it is impossible not 
to feel some sympathy even for the weaknesses of an 
Emperor who strove to realise the waning idea of the 
empire, and whose labours were honestly directed to the ^ 
promotion of the peace and union of Christendom. Sigis- 
mund possessed in perfection all the lesser arts of sovereignty ; 
kindly, affable, and ready in speech, he could hold his own 
amidst any surroundings. His schemes, however chimerical 
they might seem, were founded on a large sympathy with 
the desires and needs of Europe as a whole. He laboured 
for the unity of Christendom, the restoration of European 
peace, and the reformation of the Church. Even when he 
spoke of combining Europe in a crusade against the Turks, 
his aim, however chimerical, was proved by the result to be 
right. But Sigismund had not the patience nor the wisdom 
to begin his work from the beginning. He had not the self- 
restraint to husband his resources ; to undertake first the 
small questions which concerned the kingdoms under his 

^ From a Vatican MS. published in Palacky's Italienische Reise (Prag, 
1838), p. 113: *Fuit autem Sigismundus egregiae staturae, illustribus 
oculis, fronte spaciosa, genis ad gratiam rubescentibus, barba prolixa et 
copiosa, vasto animo, multivolus, inconstans tamen, sermone I'acetus, 
vini cupidus, in Venerem ardens, mille adulteriis criminosus, pronus ad 
iram, facilis ad veniam, nullius thesauri custos, prodigus dispensator; 
plura promisit quam servavit, finxit multa *. 



3i8 THE COUNCIL OF BASEL. 

immediate sway, to aim only at one object at a time, and 
secure each step before advancing to the next. Relying on 
his position, he caught at every occasion of displaying his 
own importance, and his vanity led him to trust that he 
would succeed by means of empty display. Hence his plans 
hampered one another. He destroyed his position at the 
Council of Constance by a change of political attitude re- 
sulting from a futile attempt to bring about peace between 
England and France. He induced Bohemia to think that 
its religious interests were safe in his keeping, and then 
trusted to repress its religious movement by the help of the 
Council of Constance. When he had driven Bohemia to 
revolt, he oscillated between a policy of conciliation and one 
of repression till matters had passed beyond his control. 

' He lost his command of the Council of Basel because he 
entered into relations with the Pope, who was bent upon its 
overthrow. His schemes of ecclesiastical reform slipped 
from his grasp, and after spending his early years in ex- 
tinguishing one schism, he lived to see the beginning of 
another. Few men with such wise plans and such good 
intentions have so conspicuously failed. 
^ The death of Sigismund removed the only man who might 
have averted an open outbreak between Eugenius 

-leaves IV. and the Council of Basel. Both sides now pro- 

' Basel. 

January 9, ceeded to extremities. On December 30 Eugenius 
/ 143 . J Y published a Bull declaring the Council to be 

transferred from Basel to Ferrara. At Basel Cesarini made 
one last attempt to bring back peace to the distracted Church. 
On December 20, in an eloquent speech breathing the true 
spirit of Christian statesmanship, he pointed ou.t the evils 
that would follow from a schism. Farewell to all hopes of 
a real union with the Greeks, of real missionary enterprise 
against the Mohammedans, who were the serious danger to 
Christendom. He besought the Council, ere it was too late, 
to recall its admonition to the Pope, provided he would recall 
his translation of the Council : then let them send envoys to 
meet the Greeks on their arrival in Italy, and propose to 



CESARTNI LEAVES BASEL. 319 

them to come to Basel, Avignon, or Savoy — failing that, let 
them frankly join with the Pope and the Greeks in the choice 
of a place which would suit all parties. He offered himself 
as ready to do his utmost to mediate for such a result.^ But 
Cesarini spoke to deaf ears. The control of the Council had 
passed entirely into the hands of Cardinal d'Allemand, who ^ 
was committed to a policy of war to the bitter end. A 
ponderous reply to Cesarini was prepared by the Archbishop 
of Palermo, a mass of juristic sub tilt ies which dealt with 
everything except the great point at issue. 

Cesarini saw the entire disappointment of the hopes which 
six years before had been so strong in his breast at the 
opening of the Council. He had longed for peace and re- 
form ; he saw, instead, discord and self-seeking. The 
Council, which ought to have promoted the welfare of 
Christendom, had become an engine of political attack upon 
the Papacy. The noble, generous, and large-minded aims 
of Cesarini had long been forgotten at Basel. The reforma- 
tion which he projected had passed into revolution, which 
he could no longer control nor moderate. He shared the 
fate of many other reformers at many times of the world's 
history. The movement which he had awakened passed 
into violent hands, and the end of his labours for peace and 
order was anarchy and discord. With a sad heart he con- 
fessed his failure, and on January 9, 1438, he left Basel 
amid demonstrations of respect from his opponents. At the 
request of the Pope and all the Cardinals he went to Florence, 
where he was received with honour and lived for a time in 
quietness and study. ^ 

At Basel Cardinal d'Allemand was appointed president in ^ 
Cesarini's stead. The Council on January 24 took g^^ ^^ 
the next step in its process against Eugenius IV. ?jo" o^. 
It decreed that, as he had not appeared to plead iv. bythe ^ 
within the appointed time, he was thenceforth sus- janu"a"y 
pended from his office ; meanwhile the administration ^' ^*^ ' 

I The speech is given in full by John of Segovia, 11 14. 



320 THE COUNCIL OF BASEL. 

of the Papacy belonged to the Council, and all acts done by 
Eugenius were null and void. Sixteen bishops were present 
at this session, of whom nine were Savoyards, six Aragonese, 
^and one Frenchman. Of the eighteen abbots who were 
there, eleven were Aragonese and six were Savoyards. The 
- Council was, in fact, supported only by the King of Aragon 
• and the Dukes of Milan and Savoy. The Duke of Savoy 
hoped to use it for his personal aggrandisement. The King of 
Aragon and the Duke of Milan saw in it a means of forcing 
Eugenius IV. into subserviency to their political schemes in 
Italy. Neither of them was prepared to support the deposi- 
tion of the Pope, but they wished the process against him 
to be a perpetual threat hanging over his head.i The rest 
of the European powers looked with disapproval, more or 
less strongly expressed, on the proceedings of the Council. 

(^ Henry VI. of England wrote a letter addressed to the 
Congregation (not the Council) of Basel, in which he re- 
proved them for presuming to judge the Pope, denounced 
them for bringing back the times of Antichrist, and bade 
them desist from the process against Eugenius.^ Charles 

y- VII. of France wrote to the Council to stay its measures 
against the Pope, and wrote to the Pope to withdraw his 
decrees against the Council ; he forbade his bishops to attend 
the Council of Ferrara, but allowed individuals to act as 
they pleased at Basel. His purpose was to regulate ecclesi- 

v^ astical matters in France at his own pleasure. In Germany, 
Sigismund's policy of mediation survived after his death; 
men wished to avoid a schism, but to obtain through the 
V Council some measures of reform. The Kings of Castile 
and Portugal and the Duke of Burgundy all admonished 
the Council to withdraw from their proceedings against 
Eugenius. 

1 Patricius, in Hartzheim, v., 824 : * Tandem post multos tractatus 
Philippus dux, qui suspensionera Eugenii postulaverat, nunc aperte 
Basileensibus ostendit, non sibi placere ulterius contra Eugenium 
procedi *. * 

* Patricius, in Hartzheim, v., 827, 



DANGER TO THE FUTURE OF THE CHURCH. 321 

The quarrel of the Pope and the Council now ceased to 
attract the attention of Europe ; it had degenerated into £| 
squabble in which both parties were regarded with something 
approaching contempt. But this condition of affairs was 
full of danger to the future of the organisation of the 
Church. 



VOL. II. ai 



322 



CHAPTER VIII. 

EUGENIUS IV. IN FLORENCE, AND THE UNION OF THE 
GREEK CHURCH. 

1434— 1439. 

Since his flight from Rome in 1434, Eugenius IV. has 
Eugenius merely appeared as offering such resistance as he 
pToren- could to thc gFowing pretcnsions of the Council. 
affairs. During the four years that had passed from that 
1434- time he had been quietly gaining strength and 

importance in Italy. True to her old traditions, Florence 
graciously received the exiled Pope ; and under the shadow 
of her protection, Eugenius IV., like his predecessor Martin 
v., had been able to recruit his shattered forces and again 
re-establish his political position. 

At first his evil genius seemed still to pursue Eugenius 
IV., and he played a somewhat ignominious part in Floren- 
tine affairs. The time when he arrived in Florence was a 
great crisis in Florentine history. The prudent conduct of 
Giovanni de' Medici had preserved the internal peace of 
Floience by carefully maintaining a balance between the 
aristocratic and popular parties in the city. But between 
his son Cosimo and his political rival Rinaldo degli Albizzi 
a bitter hostility gradually grew up which could only end 
in the supremacy of the one or the other party. The first 
step was taken by Rinaldo, who, in September, 1433, filled 
the city with his adherents ; Cosimo was taken unawares, 
was accused of treason, cast into prison, and only by a skil- 
ful use of his money succeeded in escaping death. He went 



EUGENIUS IV. IN FLORENCE. 323 

as an exile to Venice; but his partisans were strong in 
Florence, the city was divided, and a reaction in his favour 
set in. It was clear that the new magistrates who came 
into office on September i, 1434, would recall him from 
banishment, and Rinaldo and his party were prepared to 
offer forcible resistance. On September 26 Florence was in 
a ferment, and Rinaldo degli Albizzi, with 800 armed men, 
held the Palace of the Podest^ and the streets which led to 
the Piazza. Eugenius IV. in this condition of affairs offered 
his services as mediator. He sent Giovanni Vitelleschi, 
Bishop of Recanati, to Rinaldo, who, to the surprise of 
every one, was persuaded to leave his position and confer 
with the Pope at S. Maria Novella. It was one o'clock in 
the morning when he did so. What arguments the Pope 
may have used we do not know ; but at five o'clock Rinaldo 
dismissed his armed men and remained peaceably with the 
Pope. Perhaps he was not sure of the fidelity of his ad- 
herents, and trusted that, by a show of submission, he 
might, with the Pope's help, obtain better terms than the 
doubtful chances of a conflict seemed to promise. 

His enemies at once pursued the advantage thus offered 
to them. The Signori sent some of their number to thank 
the Pope for his good offices, and whatever may have been 
the first intention of Eugenius IV., he was soon won over 
to abandon Rinaldo. On October 2 the party of the Medici 
filled the Piazza and decreed the recall of Cosimo. Next 
day Rinaldo and his son were banished. The Pope attempted 
to console Rinaldo, and protested the uprightness of his own 
intentions and the pain which he felt at the dilute of his 
mediation. * Holy Father,' answered Rinaldo, * I do not 
wonder at my ruin ; I blame myself for believing that you, 
who have been driven out of your own country, could keep 
me in mine. He who trusts a priest's word is like a blind 
man without a guide.' Sadly Rinaldo left Florence for ever, 
and on October 6, Cosimo de' Medici returned in triumph 
amid shouts that hailed him father of his country. From 
that day forward for three hundred years the fortunes of 



324 THE COUNCIL OF BASEL, 

Florence were identified with those of the house of 
Medici. 

In his abode at Florence things gradually began to take 
RomcBub- a better turn for Eugenius IV. The rebellious 
EugelSus Romans, who had proudly sent their envoys to 
tobcras Basel announcing that they had recovered their 
1434. liberties and that the days of Brutus had returned, 

^ began to find themselves in straits. The Papal troops still 
held the castle of S. Angelo and bombarded the town ; their 
commander also by a stratagem took prisoners several of 
the Roman leaders. The people soon turned to thoughts 
of peace and submission, and on October 28 Giovanni 
Vitelleschi, at the head of the Pope's condottieri, took 
v/ possession of the city in the Pope's name, and put to death 
the chief leaders of the rebellion. Moreover, Venice and 
the Pope renewed their league against the Duke of Milan, 
appointed Francesco Sforza as their general, and sent him 
against the Duke's condottiere general, Fortebracchio, who 
had occupied the neighbourhood of Rome. Fortebracchio 
was routed and slain, whereon the Duke of Milan found it 
advisable to come to terms. On August 10, 1435, peace was 
made, leaving Eugenius IV. master of the Patrimony of S. 
Peter and the Romagna, while Francesco Sforza obtained 
the lordship of the March of Ancona. The Duke of Milan 
also withdrew his aid from the rebellious Bologna, which' 
on September 27 submitted to the Pope.^ Even in Florence 
Eugenius IV. was not safe from the machinations of the 
Duke of Milan. A Roman adventurer, named Riccio, 
obtained the connivance of the Milanese ambassador at 
Florence, the Bishop of Novara, to a plot for seizing the 
person of Eugenius when he retired into the country before 
the summer heat. The city magistrates discovered the plot, 
and Riccio was tortured and put to death. The Bishop of 
Novara abjectly prayed for pardon from Eugenius ; and the 
Pope granted his life to the entreaty of Cardinal Albergata, 

1 Cronica di Bologna, Mur., xviii., 655. Blondus, Dec, iii., 6. 



AFFAIRS OP NAPLES. 325 

who was just setting out as Papal legate to the Congress 
of Arras. Albergata took the Bishop of No vara to Basel, 
where he remained as one of the bitterest opponents of 
Eugenius IV.^ 

In another quarter the affairs of the kingdom of Naples 
afforded a scope for the activity of Eugenius IV. 
The feeble Queen Giovanna II. continued to the NapS.° 
end of her reign to be the puppet of those around ^^'^' 
her. Even her chief favourite, Caraccioli, could not retain 
his hold upon her changeful mind. He saw his influence 
fail before the intrigues of the Queen's cousin, the Duchess 
of Suessa, who at length succeeded in obtaining the Queen's 
permission to proceed against her over-weening favourite. 
On August 17, 1432, Caraccioli celebrated magnificently his 
son's marriage ; in the night a message was brought to 
him that the Queen was dying, and wished to see him. 
Hurriedly he rose, and opened his door to a band of con- 
spirators, who rushed upon him and slew him on his bed. 2 
Giovanna wept over his death, and pardoned those who 
wrought it. His mighty tomb in the Church of San Gio- 
vanni Carbonara is worthy of a more heroic character. 
Three knightly figures of Strength, Skill, and Justice bear 
the sarcophagus on which stands Caraccioli as a warrior. 
The tomb is in the vast style of the old Neapolitan work ; 
but in its execution we see the delicacy of Tuscan feeling 
and the hand of Florentine artists. The way is already pre- 
pared for the later flow of the Renaissance motives into the 
rude regions of Naples. 

On Caraccioli's death Louis of Anjou prepared to return 
to Naples ; but the imperious Duchess of Suessa preferred 
to exercise undivided sway over her feeble mistress. The 
death of Louis, in November, 1434, awakened the activity 
of Alfonso of Aragon ; but Giovanna II. would not recognise 
him as her heir, and made a will in favour of Ren6, Count 

^ Blondus, DecadeSf 493. 

2 Giornali Napoletaniy Mur., xxi., 1695 ; Tristan Caraccioli Mur., 
xxii., 35, 



326 THE COUNCIL OF BASEL. 

of Provence, the younger brother of Louis of Anjou. On 
February 2, 1435, Giovanna II. died, at the age of 65, worn 
out before her time ; one of the worst and most incapable 
of rulers that ever disgraced a throne. On her death the 
inevitable strife of the parties of Anjou and Aragon again 
broke out. Ren6 claimed the throne by Giovanna's will, 
Alfonso of Aragon put forward Giovanna's previous adop- 
tion of himself, and the claims of the house of Aragon. 
But Eugenius IV. put forth also the claims of the Papacy. 
The Angevin line had originally come to Sicily at the Papal 
summons, and had received the kingdom as a papal fief. 
V^ Eugenius IV. asserted that on the failure of the direct line 
in Giovanna II. the kingdom of Sicily devolved to the Pope. 
He appointed as his legate to administer the affairs of the 
kingdom Giovanni Vitelleschi, who had been created Patri- 
arch of Alexandria. Little heed was paid to the Pope's 
claims. Alfonso's fleet vigorously besieged Gaeta, which 
was garrisoned by Genoese soldiers to protect their trade 
during the time of warfare. Genoa, at that time under the 
signory of the Duke of Milan, equipped a fleet to raise the 
siege of Gaeta, and on August 5 a battle was fought off 
the isle of Ponza, in which the Genoese were completely 
victorious. Alfonso and his two brothers, together with 
the chief barons of Aragon and Sicily, were taken prisoners. 
Italy was shaken to its very foundations by the news of 
, this victory, of which the Duke of Milan would reap 

Alfonso of , . . 

Aragon the fruit. It Seemed to give him the means of 
Fiiippo making himself supreme in Italian politics. But 
visconti. the jealous temper of Fiiippo Maria Visconti looked 
H35- ^j^j^ distrust on this signal victory which Genoa 

had won. His first proceeding was to humble the pride 
of the city by depriving it of the glory of bringing home 
in triumph its illustrious captives. He ordered Alfonso and 
the rest to be sent from Savona to Milan, and on their 
arrival treated them with courtesy and respect. Alfonso's 
adventurous and varied life had given him large views ol 
politics and great experience of men. He recognised the 



POLITICS OF MILAN AND NAPLES. 327 

gloomy and cautious spirit of Filippo Maria, who loved to 
form plans in secret, who trusted no one, but used his 
agents as checks one upon another. In the familiarity of 
friendly intercourse, Alfonso put before the Duke political 
considerations founded upon a foresight which was beyond 
the current conceptions of the day. * If Ren6 of Anjou,' he 
argued, * were to become King of Naples, he would do all 
he could to open communications with France, and for this 
purpose to establish the French power in Milan. If I were 
to become King of Naples I should have no enemies to 
dread save the French ; and it would be my interest to live 
on good terms with Milan, which could at any moment 
open the way to my foes. The title of king would be mine, 
but the authority would be yours. With me at Naples 
you will remain a free prince ; otherwise you will be between 
two strong powers, an object of suspicion and jealousy to 
both.' 1 

The state system of Italy was already so highly organised 
that arguments such as these weighed with the Duke of 
Milan, and he determined to forego all thoughts of present 
glory for future safety. Instead of treating Alfonso as a 
captive, he entered into an alliance with him, gave him his 
liberty and ordered Genoa to restore his captured ships. 
Alfonso was sufficiently keen-sighted to perceive, and Filippo 
Maria was sufficiently prudent to recognise, the danger that 
would arise to Italian independence from the centralisation 
of the French monarchy and the power of the house of 
Austria. They devised a scheme for neutralising this 
danger. The idea of a balance of power in Italy, founded 
on identity of interest between Milan and Naples, which 
was to keep Italy in peace and exclude all interference from 
beyond the Alps, began from this time forward to be a 
central point in Italian politics. 

The immediate result of this policy was that Genoa, in- 
dignant at the slight thus cast upon her, revolted from 

* Machiavelli, Storia Fior,, ch. v. 



328 THE COUNCIL OF BASEL. 

Milan, and joined the league of Florence, Venice, and the 
Pope. Eugenius IV., alarmed at the alliance be- 
affaira in twecn Alfonso and the Duke of Milan, withdrew his 
^^^^' own claims on Naples, and espoused the cause of 

Ren6, who was a prisoner of the Duke of Burgundy but 
was represented in Naples by his wife, Elizabeth of Lor- 
raine. Neither she nor Alfonso had any resources at their 
command, and the war was carried on between the rival 
factions in the realm. We have seen that Alfonso was 
anxious to minimise the help which the Pope could give 
his rival, by supplying him with sufficient occupation in 
the affairs proceeding at Basel. 

When Eugenius IV. had recruited his shattered fortunes 
by an abode of nearly two years in Florence, he left it for 
his own city of Bologna, on April i8, 1436. Before his 
departure he consecrated the stately Duomo of Florence, 
which had just received its crowning ornament of Brunel- 
leschi's mighty dome, and was again ready for divine 
service. The city wished that the ceremonial should be 
befitting of its splendour. A scaffolding, adorned with 
carpets, was erected from S. Maria Novella to the Duomo, 
on which Eugenius IV. walked in state, the gonfaloniere 
of the city bearing his train.^ 

On April 22 Eugenius IV. entered Bologna with nine 
Eugenius Cardinals, and was soon followed by two others 
B^iogM. from Basel. The Papal government of Bologna 
1436-7. had not been such as to win the affections of the 
people. The legate, the Bishop of Concordia, had pro- 
claimed a general pacification, on the strength of which 
Antonio de' Bentivogli, after fifteen years' exile, returned to 
the city which he had once ruled. He had not been there 
three weeks when he was seized as he left the chapel where 
the legate had been saying mass. He was gagged, and 
immediately beheaded by order of the Pope's Podesta, as 
was also Tommaso de' Zambeccari. The only reason 

^ Ammirato, bk. xxi. Machiavelli, v. 



BUGENIUS IV, AT BOLOGNA. 329 

assigned for this treacherous act was dread of the number 
of their followers.^ The cruelty and tyranny of the Podesta 
made the Papal rule hateful in the city. Nor did Eugenius 
IV. do anything to mend this state of things. He was 
busied with his negotiations with the Council and with 
the Greeks. The only attention which he paid to the 
citizens of Bologna was to extort from them 30,000 ducats 
by holding out hopes of summoning his Council thither. 
When the citizens found themselves disappointed they 
looked with scarce concealed discontent on the Pope's de- I 
parture for Ferrara on January 23, 1438. Scarcely had he 
gone when Niccoli Piccinino, the Duke of Milan's general, 
appeared before Bologna. On the night of May 20 the 
gates were opened to him by the citizens. Faenza, Imola, 
and Forli joined in the revolt, and the greater part of 
Romagna was again lost to the Pope. 

This was, however, of small moment to Eugenius IV. 
His attention was entirely fixed on the Council of 
Ferrara, through which he hoped to win back all that of the 
he Ijad lost. The union of the Greek Church was ^"*^'' 
to reinstate the Papacy in its position in the eyes of Europe ; ^ 
the Pope was again to appear as the leader of Christendom 
in a great crusade for the protection of Constantinople. It 
is a melancholy spectacle that is offered to our view. The 
Eastern Empire, with its splendid traditions of past glories, 
has sunk to be a catspaw in the ecclesiastical squabbles of 
the West. The trembling Greeks are ready to disavow 
their religious convictions to obtain help from their Western 
brethren. The States of Europe are so rent by intestine 
struggles, or are so bent upon purely selfish ends, that they 
are incapable of understanding the menace to European 
civilisation contained in the establishment of the Turks on 
this side of the Bosphorus. The Greeks cannot appeal to 
any feeling of European patriotism, or to any considerations 
of political wisdom. Only through the semblance of an 

^ Cronica di Bologna^ Mur., xviii., 656. 



330 THE COUNCIL OF BASEL. 

ecclesiastical reconciliation can they hope to awaken any 
interest for their cause in Western Europe. At the last 
moment they see the Western Church itself distracted by 
contending parties ; they engage desperately in a sacrifice 
of their convictions, which they half feel will avail them 
nothing. 

The causes of the separation between the Eastern and 
„ . . Western Churches were national rather than re- 

Points in . -^ 1 1. /• • « c * ^€ 

dispute be- ligious. The beliefs and rites of the two Churches 
E^astern did not materially differ. But the political develop- 
western ment of the East and West had been different. In 
Churches. ^^^^ East, the Imperial autocracy had maintained 
and strengthened its power over the Church ; in the West, 
where the Teutons had weakened the fabric of the Im- 
perial system, the Pope, as supreme head of the Western 
Church, had won an independent position for his authority. 
It is true that the Greek view of Purgatory differed some- 
what from that of the Latins, that they used leavened and 
not unleavened bread for the Host, and that they did not 
adopt the addition of the words * and from the Son ' (Filioque) 
to the clause of the Nicene Creed which defines the proces- 
sion of the Holy Ghost. But no vital point was concerned 
in any of these differences. The real disagreement was that 
the Papacy strove to assert over the Eastern Church a 
supremacy which that Church was unwilling to admit. 
The ill-feeling created by the claim of Pope Nicolas I. in 
863, to interfere as supreme judge in the question of the 
election of the Patriarch of Constantinople, simmered on 
till it produced a formal rupture in 1053, when Leo IX. 
at Hildebrand's suggestion excommunicated the Greek 
Patriarch. Round its ecclesiastical establishment the narrow 
spirit of Greek nationality centred, and the Greeks were 
ready in every sphere to assert their superiority to the 
barbarous Latins. In the time of their distress their pride 
was humbled if their minds were not convinced. They 
were ready to sacrifice the traditions of the past, which 
they still held firmly in their hearts, to the pressing need 



THE GREEKS IN VENICE. 331 

for present aid. It is sad to see the feeble representatives 
of an ancient civilisation lowering themselves before the 
Papacy in its abasement. 

On November 24, 1437, the Greek Emperor, John Palaeo- 
logus, his brother, the Patriarch, and twenty-two 

, . , 1 t t T<k t i« , Arrival of 

bishops, went on board the Papal galleys and set the Greeks 
sail for Italy.^ Though the Greeks journeyed at Fcbru^T 
the Pope's expense, yet the Emperor, in his '*^^" 
anxiety to display fitting magnificence, converted into 
money the treasures of the Church. An earthquake, which 
occurred at the time of his departure, was looked upon as 
an evil omen by the people who with heavy hearts saw the 
ships quit the harbour. After many perils and discomforts 
on the way, the Greeks reached Venice on February 8, 1438, 
and were magnificently received by the Doge, who went out 
to meet them in the * Bucentaur,' which was decked with 
red carpets and awnings wrought with gold embroidery, 
while gold lions were standing on the prow. The rowers 
were clad in uniforms richly wrought with gold, and on 
their caps was embroidered the image of S. Mark. With 
the Doge came the Senate in twelve other splendid ships, 
and there was such a multitude of boats that the sea could 
scarce be seen. Amid the clang of trumpets the Emperor 
was escorted to the palace of the Marquis of Ferrara, near 
the Rial to, where he abode. The amazement of the Greeks 
at the splendour of Venice is the most striking testimony to 
the decay of their own noble city. 'Venice splendid and 
great,' says Phranza, * truly wonderful, yea most wonderful, 
rich, variegated and golden, trimly built and adorned, worthy 
• of a thousand praises, wise, yea most wise, so that one would 
not be wrong in calling it the second land of promise.' ^ 

For twenty days the Greeks remained in Venice. The 
Doge offered them hospitality as long as they chose, and 

^ The s^ccount of the voyage given by Syropulus, sect, iv., chs. i.-x., 
is a varied and amusing description of a journey in the Mediterranean 
at that time. His impressions of Venice are also most valuable as a 
contribution to an idea of the splendour of the city. 

' Phranza, Chronicon Majus, ii., § 185, ed. Migne. 



332 THE COUNCIL OF BASEL. 

advised them to see whether they could get better terms 
from the Pope or from the Council. There was not much 
difference of opinion on this point. Three only of the Greek 
prelates thought it desirable to wait ; the Emperor's doubts, 
if he had any, were decided by the arrival of Cardinal 
Cesarini, who was the representative of that * saner part' of 
the Council to which the Greeks professed to adhere. The 
stay of the Greeks in Venice was not without melancholy 
reflections. Wherever they turned they were reminded that 
the glory of Venice was in a measure due to the spoils of 
Constantinople. In the rich jewels which bedecked the 
colossal statue on the high altar of S. Mark's they saw the 
plunder of S. Sophia' s.^ 

On February 28 the Emperor set sail for Ferrara. The 
Arrival Patriarch was sorely displeased at being left behind 
GrceL in ^^ follow in a few days. The Emperor disembarked 
MarSi*7 ^^ Francolino, where he was received by the Mar- 
1438- quis of Ferrara and Cardinal Albergata as the 

Pope's legate. He entered the city on March 4, riding on a 
magnificent black charger beneath a canopy held by his 
attendants. He advanced into the courtyard of the Papal 
palace, where Eugenius IV. was seated with all his clergy. 
The Pope rose to greet the Emperor, who dismounted and 
advanced ; Eugenius prevented him from kneeling and 
embraced him. Then he gave him his hand, which the 
Emperor kissed and took his seat on the Pope's left ; they 
continued some time in friendly conference. The Patriarch, 
who was particular to keep close to his luggage, followed 
grumbling, and reached Ferrara on March 7. His good 
humour was not increased by a message from the Emperor, . 
telling him that the Pope expected him to kiss his foot on 
his reception. This the Patriarch stoutly refused to do. * I 
determined,' he said, * if the Pope were older than me, to 
treat him as a father ; if of the same age, as a brother ; if 

^ Syropulus, IV., xvi. : raits filv KeKTnfi4vois Kaitxn^n-o. /col repipis 4fyt- 
7V€Tai, To?j 8^ i,<paip€0€7(riv, fftrorc Koi Trapar^xoify, &$ufila /col \6irri Koi 



THE GREEKS AT FERRARA, 333 

younger, as a son.' He added that he had hoped by the 
Pope's aid to free his Church from the tyranny of the 
Emperor, and could not subject it to the Pope. The 
negotiations respecting this knotty question occupied the 
entire day. At last the Pope, for the sake of peace, con- 
sented to waive his rights, provided the reception was in 
private, and only six of the Greek prelates were admitted at 
one time. On the evening of March 8, the Patriarch Joseph, 
an old man of venerable aspect, with white hair and a long 
white beard, of dignified bearing, and considerable experience 
of affairs, greeted the Pope in his palace.^ The Pope rose 
and the Patriarch kissed his cheek, the inferior prelates his 
right hand. When the ceremony was over they were con- 
ducted to their lodgings. 

The Council had been opened at Ferrara on January 5 by 
the Cardinal Albergata as Papal legate. Its first Beginning 
decree on January 10 was to confirm the translation council of 
of the Council from Basel to Ferrara, and to annul J^"^^ 
all that had been done at Basel since the Pope's ^438. 
Bull of translation. On January 27, the Pope entered 
Ferrara escorted by the Marquis Nicolas III. of Este. He 
took up his abode in the palace of the Marquis ; and as he 
suffered grievously from gout, the citizens of Ferrara con- 
sulted his infirmity by erecting a wooden scaffold, communi- 
cating between the palace and the cathedral, so as to spare 
him the inconvenience of mounting steps.^ On February 8 
he presided over a congregation, and commended to its 
deliberation the work of union with the Greeks, and the 
repression of the excesses of those still remaining at Basel. 
The result of thrs deliberation was the issue of a Bull on 
February 15 annulling the proceedings of the Council of 
Basel, and declaring excommunicate all who did not quit 

^ Letter of John of Ragusa to Cesarini from Constantinople (Cecconi, 
Docum.f Ixxviii.) : * Pater antiquus est, et sicut etas, canities, barba prolixa 
et effigies reddunt ipsum cunctis spectantibus venerabilem ; ita sensus 
naturalis, experientia rerum et morum compositio reddunt ipsum cunctis 
secum familiariter conversantibus mirabilem '. 

' Frizzi, Memorie per la Storia di Ferrara^ iii. , 430. 



334 T^HE COUNCIL OF BASEL. 

it within thirty days. Eugenius IV. had thus done all he 
could to affirm his dignity before the arrival of the Greeks. 

In like manner the first point of importance with the 
Arrange- Greeks was to affirm their own dignity at Ferrara. 
foMhe '^^^ question that first called for solution was the 
Council, arrangement of seats in the Council. Cesarini 
suggested that the Greeks should sit on one side of the 
cathedral, the Latins on the other, and the Pope in the 
middle as a link between the two parties. The Greeks 
bluntly answered that they needed no such link ; but if a 
link were thought necessary it should be strengthened by the 
addition of the Greek Emperor and Patriarch to the Pope. 
Both sides fought to win prestige ; but the Greeks were not 
fighting on equal terms. They were the Pope's stipendiaries 
in Ferrara, and the arrangement for supplying them with 
the stipulated allowances went on side by side with the 
negotiations about the knotty question of seats. The Pope 
at first proposed to supply the Greeks with food ; this they 
resisted, and demanded an allowance in money. Ultimately 
the Pope gave way \ it was agreed that the Marquis of 
Ferrara should furnish them with lodgings, and the Pope 
give the Emperor thirty florins a month, the Patriarch 
twenty-five, the prelates four, and the other attendants three. 
The Greeks accepted a compromise about seats. The Latins 
were to sit on one side, the Greeks on the other. The 
Pope's seat was highest, and was nearest the altar ; next 
him was a vacant seat for the Western Emperor, opposite 
to which sat the Greek Emperor, and behind him the Patri- 
arch. When the Patriarch wished to adorn his seat with 
curtains like the Papal throne, he was not allowed to do so. 
The Greeks murmured at this arrangement, but were obliged 
to submit. The Emperor exclaimed that the Latins were 
not aiming at order, but were gratifying their own pride. 

Before appearing at the Council the Greek Emperor 
insisted that it should not be merely an assembly of the 
prelates, but also of the kings and princes of the West. The 
Pope was driven to admit that some time was necessary 



ARRANGEMENTS FOR THE COUNCIL, 335 

before the princes could arrive. It was agreed that a delay 
of four months should take place to allow them to be duly 
summoned. Meanwhile a general session should be held to 
proclaim that the Council was to be held at Ferrara, and 
nowhere else. 

Some time was spent in settling these matters. At last 
on April 9 a solemn session was held in the cathedral, * a 
wonderful and awful sight,* says a Greek ; * so that the 
Church looked like heaven \^ The Pope and Papal retinue 
chanted the psalm, * Blessed be the Lord God of Israel \ 
The Patriarch was too ill to be present ; but a declaration of 
his consent to the Council was read in his absence. Then the 
decree convoking all to Ferrara within four months was read 
in Latin and Greek, and received the formal approval of both 
parties. After a few thanksgivings, the synod was dismissed. 

The festivities of Easter occupied some time, and the 
Greeks were annoyed that they could not get a church in 
Ferrara for the celebration of their own services. The Pope 
referred them to the Bishop of Ferrara, who answered that 
all his churches were so crowded that he could not find one 
large enough for their purposes. One of the Greeks said 
that he could not worship in the Latin churches, as they 
were full of saints whom he did not recognise ; even the 
Christ bore an inscription which he did not understand; he 
could only make the sign of the cross and adore that.^ The 
tone of mind exhibited in these remarks did not augur well 
for any real agreement, nor did the Emperor wish the dis- 
cussions to go too far. His plan was to defer matters as long 
as possible, to insist upon the Council being representative of 
the powers of Europe, to obtain from them substantial help 
against the Turks, and to go back to Constantinople having 
made as few concessions as were possible. 

^ Acta Gracaf in Labbe, p. 21. 

^ Syropulus, 109 : Zrrav els vnbv fl<r4\6a Karlvwv ou vpoffKvvSo rivh tS>v 
iKf7<r€ ayiotVf ciret oCSe yvupiCco rivd. rhy Xpiffrhv t(r<as ix6vov yvo»pi(o», aW* 
ovB^ iKtivov irpoffKuvSo Siori ovk ol^a irus iiriypd<f>eraiy oAAa irom rhy arauphv 
fiov Koi irpoffKvvu. rhv trravphy oZv hv aiirbs ttoico TrpoarKvvco koI ovx ertpop 
rl rSav iKfifft Oewpovfitvup fioL 



336 THE COUNCIL OF BASEL. 

The Latins, however, were anxious to make their triumph 
complete. They urged that it was a useless waste of time 
to do nothing while they waited for the appearance of the 
European princes. Cesarini displayed his wonted tact in 
inviting the Greeks to dinner, and overcoming the reserve 
which the Emperor wished them to maintain. He succeeded 
in inducing one of the most stubborn of the Greek prelates, 
Mark of Ephesus, to publish his views in writing, to the great 
wrath of the Emperor. The Papal officers were remiss in 
V the payment of allowances, and hinted that the Pope could 
not continue to pay men who would do nothing. By such 
means the Greeks were at last driven to agree to the appoint- 
ment often commissioners on either side, who should engage 
in preliminary discussions upon the points of variance. 
Chief among the Greeks were Mark, Bishop of Ephesus, and 
Bessarion, Bishop of Nicsea ; the Emperor ordered that they 
only should conduct the discussions. On the side of the 
Latins Cesarini took the leading part. 

The conferences began on June 4. The first question dis- 
^^^ cussed was that of Purgatory, on which the real 

ferencc difference of opinion was not important. The 
doctrine Latins held that sins, not repented of during life, 

ofPurga- • , , ' . , /* , . 1 , 

tory. are purged away by purgatorial fire, which at the 

une, 143 . j^^^ ^^ Judgment is succeeded by everlasting fire 
for the reprobate. The Greeks admitted a Purgatory, but of 
pain and grief, not of fire, which they reserved as the means 
only of eternal punishment. Also the Greeks maintained 
that neither the punishment of the wicked nor the joy of the 
blessed was complete, till the general resurrection, seeing 
that before that time neither could receive their bodies. The 
Latins admitted that the punishment of the wicked could not 
be perfect till they had received their bodies, but held that the 
blessed, as souls, enjoy at present perfect happiness in heaven, 
though on receiving their bodies their happiness would be- 
come eternal. Even the most staunph upholder of the Greek 
doctrines, Mark of Ephesus, was driven to admit that there 
was not much difference between the Greek and the Latin 



FERRARA ATTACKED BY THE PLAGUE. 337 

opinions on this question. When the discussion was ended, 
the Latins handed in their opinion in writing. The Greeks 
were timid in committing themselves. Each wrote his 
opinion and submitted it to the Emperor, who combined 
those of Bessarion and Mark, to the effect that the souls of 
the happy departed, as souls, enjoy perfect felicity, but when 
in the resurrection they receive their bodies they will be 
capable of more perfect happiness and will shine like the 
sun. On July 17 this statement was submitted to the / 
Latins. The only result of these conferences was to bring / 
into prominence the differences existing amongst the Greeks -/ 
themselves. The narrow and bigoted spirit of old Byzan- 
tine conservatism, expressed by the rough outspoken Mark 
of Ephesus, did not harmonise with the cosmopolitan feeling 
of the polished Platonist Bessarion, who saw the decadence 
of the Greeks, and wished to bring his own ability into a 
larger sphere of literary and theological activity. The 
Latins learned that there were some amongst the Greeks 
who would bow, and some who must be driven, to consent 
to union. 

Then came a pause till the four months* interval had 
elapsed for the fuller assembling of the Council. None of "^ 
the European princes appeared, and the delay continued. 
Ferrara was attacked by the plague ; some of the Greeks 
grew terrified or weary, and fled home. The Emperor re- 
quested the magistrates to keep guard over the gates, and 
forbade any of the Greeks to leave the city without his 
permission. The Emperor meanwhile spent his time in 
hunting in the woods round Ferrara, and paid no heed to 
the requests of the Marquis that he would spare his pre- 
serves, which had been stocked with great difficulty. The 
plague drove the Latins out of the city. Of a hundred and 
fifty prelates who were present at the first session, only five 
Cardinals and fifty bishops remained. The Greeks escaped 
the ravages of the plague, except only the household of the 
Russian archbishop. 

It was some time before the Pope could obtain the Em- 
voL. II. 22 



33^ THE Council of basel. 

peror's consent to a second session of the Council. The 
Greeks were suspicious ; they were indignant at a rumour 
which had been spread that they were guilty of fifty-four 
heresies ; they were afraid that, if they allowed the Council 
to proceed, they might be outvoted. Their fears on this 
last point were set at rest by an agreement that each party 
should vote separately. After that they could no longer 
resist the Pope's entreaties that the business of the Council 
should proceed. 

On October 8 the second session was held in the Pope's 
The quc»- chapcl, as Eugenius was unable to move through 
prow"-**"* an attack of the gout. The Greeks had previously 
the°Hoiy ^^cidcd among themselves the question to be dis- 
Ghost. cussed. The more moderate party, headed by 
Bessarion, who was in favour of a real union if it were 
possible, wished to proceed at once to the important point 
which divided the two Churches, the double procession of 
the Holy Ghost. The Nicene Creed, which had been framed 
to define the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity, dealt chiefly 
with the relation between the Father and the Son, and con- 
tented itself with the statement that * the Holy Ghost pro- 
ceeded from the Father \ The continuance of controversy 
in the West led to the addition of the words * and from the 
Son ' (Filioque), an addition which the Greeks never made. 
The Western Church argued that the procession of the Holy 
Ghost from the Father alone derogated from the dignity of 
the Son, who was equal with the Father in all points save 
only in His generation by the Father. The explanatory 
addition gradually became incorporated in the Creed. The 
greater metaphysical instinct of the Greeks led them to re- 
ject such an addition, which seemed to them dangerous, as 
tending to give a double origin to the Holy Ghost, and 
thereby to imperil the Unity in Trinity. There was no 
fundamental difference of opinion between the Greek and 
Latin fathers at first ; but the genius of the Greek language 
admitted of finer distinctions than a Latin could compre- 
hend. The Greeks were ready to allow that the Holy Ghost 



THE PROCESSION OF THE HOLY GHOST. 339 

proceeded from the Father through the Son, not that He 
proceeded from the Father and the Son. The difference was 
of little moment till the resentment of the Greek Patriarch 
against the Papal claims to supremacy led in the ninth 
century to an open rupture between the two Churches, and 
every shadow of difference was at once brought into promi- 
nence. Tomes of learning had been amassed on either side 
in support of their opinions on this point, and a molehill 
had been piled to the height of a mountain. It was felt that 
this question presented the greatest difficulty in settlement. 
Bessarion and his followers wished to discuss it at once. 
Mark of Ephesus, and those who were opposed to the union, 
succeeded in over-ruling them, and proposed the more 
dangerous preliminary question, * Is it permissible to make 
any addition to a Creed ? ' Six disputants were chosen on 
either side : Bessarion, Mark, and Isidore of Russia were 
chief among the Greeks, Cardinals Cesarini and Albergata, 
and Andrea, Bishop of Rhodes, among the Latins. 

The arguments were long and the speeches were many on 
both sides. The Fathers of Ferrara found, like the Fathers 
of Basel when dealing with the Bohemians, that a disputa- 
tion led to little result. Speech was directed against speech ; 
orator refuted orator. But amid the flow of words the cen- 
tral positions of the two parties remained the same. The 
Latins urged that the * Filioque ' was an explanation of the 
Nicene Creed in accordance with the belief of most of the 
Latin and Greek Fathers, notably S. Basil ; the Greeks 
urged that it was not derived from the text of the Creed 
itself, but was an unauthorised addition, which gave a care- 
less explanation of a doctrine needing careful definition. 
Through October and November the discussion rolled on. 
The monotony was only broken by the arrival of ambassa- 
dors from the Duke of Burgundy, who aroused the deepest 
indignation in the Greek Emperor by paying reverence to 
the Pope and not to himself. When they urged that they 
were commissioned only to the Pope and had letters to him 
alone, the Emperor was still more enraged and threatened 



340 THE COUNCIL OF BASEL. 

to leave the Council where he was subject to such slights. 
He could only be appeased by the solemn and public presen- 
tation of a letter forged by the ambassadors.^ 

The discussions were leading to no result. As a way of 
escaping from a mere strife of words, Cesarini besought that 
the real point of issue, the truth of the double procession of 
the Holy Ghost, be taken into consideration. If they were 
agreed that it was true, the addition of it to the Creed was 
of small moment. The majority of the Greek prelates were 
loth to enter upon a doctrinal discussion ; but the rumours 

(/^ of a new Turkish attack on Constantinople made the Em- 
peror more desirous for succours. He assembled his pre- 
lates and said that it was unworthy of them, after so many 
labours and so much trouble, to refuse to come to the point ; 
their refusal in the present state of affairs would only give 
cause of triumph to the Latins. In vain the Patriarch urged 
that it was unwise to quit the safe position of the unlawful- 
ness of an addition to the Creed. The Emperor succeeded 
in extorting from the discordant prelates a reluctant consent 
to the discussion of the doctrine. 

The Pope meanwhile had been pressing on the Emperor 
\ Transfer- the necessity of transferring the Council from Ferrara 

\ cound/tS to Florence. He pleaded that at Ferrara he could 

I unuMv*" ^^^ ^^ money to fulfil his agreement with the 
H39- Greeks. Niccolo Piccinino was ravaging the neigh- 

bourhood so that no revenues could reach the Papal coffers ; 
the plague had made Ferrara an unsafe place of residence ; 
Florence had promised a large loan to the Pope, if he would 
again take refuge within its walls. Eugenius IV. was 

\ anxious to remove the Greeks further from their own land, 
to a place where they would be more entirely dependent on 
himself. The Greeks murmured, but their necessities gave 
them little option; as the Pope's stipendiaries they were 
bound to go where he could best find them rations. On 

* These ludicrous proceedings are told by Syropulus, 176. The Em- 
peror's attendants urged him at least to receive the forged letter in his 
own palace, but he insisted upon a public ceremony. 



THE COUNCIL TRANSFERRED TO FLORENCE. 341 

January 10, 1439, the last session was held at Ferrara and 
decreed the transference of the Council to Florence on the vy 
ground of the pestilence. 

'" On January 16 Eugenius IV. left Ferrara for Florence ; 
his journey was more like a flight before the troops of 
Piccinino than a papal progress. The sedentary Greeks 
were greatly wearied by the discomforts of a long journey 
across the Apennines in winter. The aged Patriarch es- 
pecially suffered from the journey ; but his vanity was grati- 
fied by the splendour of his reception in Florence, where he 
was met by two Cardinals, and amidst a blare of trumpets 
and the shouts of a vast multitude he was escorted to his 
lodgings. Three days after, on February 16, arrived the 
Emperor ; but a storm of rain spoiled the magnificence of 
his reception, and scattered the crowd which came to give 
him the welcome that the Florentines, better than any others, 
could give to a distinguished guest. 

In Florence the Pope was determined to proceed more 
speedily with business than had been done at Fer- position 
rara. The Greek Emperor had by this time seen ^^^^^ 
the actual position of affairs. He was obliged to Emperor, 
submit to the failure of the expectations with which he had 
come to Italy. He had hoped to play off the Council of ^ 
Basel against the Pope, and so secure good terms for him- ^ V 
self ; he found the ''Latins united and undisturbed by the (' 
proceedings of the fathers still remaining at Basel. He \ . ^' 
hoped that the Western princes would have assembled at the 
Council, and that he could have made the question of union 
secondary to a project for a crusade against the Turk ; he 
found a purely ecclesiastical assembly which he could not 
divert from purely theological considerations. As he could 
not with dignity go back to Constantinople empty-handed, 
and as he sorely needed succours, he saw no other course 
open than to accept such terms of union as could be obtained, 
and trust afterwards to the generosity of Western Christen- 
dom. At Florence he used his influence to expedite matters, 
and fell in with the Pope's suggestions for this purpose. 



342 THE COUNCIL OF BASEL. 

On February 26, a meeting took place at Florence in the 
Discus- Pope's palace, confined to forty members on each 
lira/dat ^ide. It WES agreed to hold public disputations 
FtSjruary ^^^^^ timcs a wcck for three hours at least, and also 
29.1439. to appoint committees on each side, who might 
confer privately about the union. The public sessions, which 
began on March 2, were really a long theological duel be- 
tween John of Montenegro, a famous Dominican theologian, 
and Mark of Ephesus. Day after day their strife went 
wearily on, diversified only by disputes about the authen- 
ticity of manuscripts of S. Basil against Eunomius, whose 
words Mark of Ephesus was convicted of quoting from a 
garbled manuscript. ^ The argument turned on points verbal 
rather than real; each side could support its own opinion 
more easily than prove the error of its opponent. Even 
Mark of Ephesus was wearied of talking, and in a long 
speech on March 17 fired his last shot. John of Montenegro, 
on his part, made a statement which the partisans of union 
among the Greeks seized as a possible basis for future 
negotiation. He said explicitly that the Latins recognised 
the Father as the one cause of the Son and of the Holy 
Ghost. This was the only theological point involved in the 
two positions. The Emperor requested John to put his 
statement in writing, and laid it before his assembled pre- 
lates. He spoke of all his labours to bring about union, 

^ The question here raised is of great interest as throwing light upon 
the condition of ancient MSS. at the time. See the accounts given in 
Acta GrcecOf Labbe, xiii., 311, etc., by Andrea of Sante Croce (i?., 1063, 
etc.) ; by S. Antoninus, Chronicon, tit. xxii., ch. xiii. ; by Bessarion in his 
letter to Alexius Lascaris Philanthropicus (Opera, ed. Migne, p. 325). 
Bessarion's account is very copious on the point. The text of S. Basil 
was * a^Mtiari fity yitp Sevrtpiveiv rov T/oG, irop* avrov rh elvai txov, /col 
irap' axnov \<ifi$avov icai iydyyeWov rifiiVf koI SXus iKeltnjs Trjs alrias 
i^rnxfitpov TapaHlHaxrip d rris ev<r€^€ias \6yos \ There were six MSS. of S. 
Basil contra Eunomium at the Council, four on parchment, of which three 
belonged to the Archbishop of Mitylene, one to the Latins, and two on 
silk belonging to the Emperor and the Patriarch. All agreed save that 
of the Patriarch, which Mark quoted, and in which the words koI 5\»s 
^Kfitrns rrjs alrias i^rififi4vov were omitted. * t(J8€ tv yJivov,^ says Bes- 
sarion, * rb TOW varpidpxov SrjAaS);, elx^v €T€/)«s, Tivhs •wepiKoy^&vros rh pi\Thv^ . 
KoL rh. fiev icpoffBhros rh, 8* a^i\6vros»^ 



DISCUSSION ABOUT PROCESSION OF HOLY GHOST. 343 

and he urged them to accept this basis. The Greeks in 
truth were weary of the controversy ; they longed to return 
home. The Patriarch grew feebler day by day ; the Em- 
peror grew more determined to see some fruits of all his 
trouble. A passage of a letter of S. Maximus, a Greek 
writer of the seventh century, was discovered by the Greeks, 
which agreed with the language of John of Montenegro. 
* If the Latins will accept this,' exclaimed the partisans 
of the Union, * what hinders us from agreement ? ' In an 
assembly of the Greek prelates the Emperor's will overbore 
all opposition except that of Mark and the Bishop of Hera- 
clea. The letter of Maximus was submitted to the Latins 
as the basis for an agreement; meanwhile the public 
sessions were suspended. 

John of Montenegro, however, was anxious to have his 
reply to the last onslaught of Mark of Ephesus. Another 
session was held on March 21 to gratify the vanity of the 
Latins; but the Emperor took the precaution of order- 
ing Mark to absent himself. When thus bereft of an 
adversary and listened to in solemn silence, John of Monte- 
negro talked himself out in two days. An understanding 
had now been established between the Pope and the Em- 
peror ; but the susceptibilities of the Greeks were still hard 
to manage. Public sessions, which only awakened vanity, 
were stopped. Committees composed of ardent partisans 
of the Union were nominated on both sides for the purpose 
of minimising the difficulties that still remained. Bessarion 
and Isidore of Russia among the Greeks strove their utmost 
to overcome the rigid conservatism of their fellow-country- 
men. The Cardinals Cesarini and Capranica among the 
Latins laboured assiduously to secure the Papal triumph. 
Perpetual messages passed between the Pope and the Em- 
peror. Documents were drawn up on both sides ; proposals 
towards greater exactness of expression were put forward. 
Bessarion argued in a learned treatise that there was no 
real difference of meaning, when the Latins said that the 
Holy Qhost proceeded from (i$) the Son, and the Greek 



344 T^tlE COUNCIL OF BASEL. 

fathers wrote that He proceeded through (Swt) the Son, if 
both agreed that there were not two causes, but one, of the 
procession, and that the Father and the Son formed one 
substance. 

The Patriarch was lying on his death-bed. Bessarion 
and his party were resolute for the Union on large grounds 
of ecclesiastical statesmanship. Others of the Greeks, 
following the Emperor, were convinced of its practical 
necessity. They had gone so far that they could not draw 
back. They were willing to seek out expressions of double 
meaning, which might serve for a compromise.^ Yet many 
of the Greeks held by the stubborn Mark of Ephesus, and 
would not give way. The discussion passed from being 
one between Greeks and Latins to one between two parties 
among the Greeks. Many were the fierce controversies, 
many the intrigues, great the anger of the Emperor, before 
an end was visible to these troublesome disputations. At 
last, on June 3, the Greeks agreed that, without departing 
from their ancient belief, they were ready to admit that the 
Holy Ghost proceeds /rom the Father and the Son as one 
cause and one substance, proceeds through the Son as the 
same nature and the same substance. Next day a schedule 
was drawn up, of which a copy was handed to the Emperor, 
the Pope, and the Patriarch : it ran : ' We agree with you, 
and assent that your addition to the Creed comes from the 
Fathers ; we agree with it and unite with you, and say that 
the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and the Son as 
from one origin and cause *. 
/ Matters had proceeded so far that the Emperor turned to 
business, and asked the Pope what succours he would grant. 
- Eugenius IV. promised to supply 300 soldiers and two 
^ galleys for the constant defence of Constantinople ; in time 
i of need, twenty galleys for six months, or ten for a year. 

^ So says Mark of Ephesus (Migne, clix., p. 1076) : vepl rod rpSicov 
TTis iv(a<r€(0S ijp^aPTO irpayfiareT^ea-daif Kai riva fnirh. TrepiepydC^irdai 5i' &v 
(vwdiiarovTai fieariy i^^x ovra x^p^^ 'f'*^ hwdfieva kot* afi(f>0T4pas r^s d6^as 



DEATH OF THE PATRIARCH. 345 

He also undiertook to preach a crusade and rouse the West 
for the defence of the Greeks. Satisfied with this promise, 
the Emperor hastened to bring matters to a conclusion. 
Mark of Ephesus was peremptorily ordered to hold his 
tongue, and he himself admits that he was not unwilling to 
be relieved from further responsibility in the matter.^ 

But the sudden death of the Patriarch Joseph on the 
evening of June 10 seemed at first likely to put a Death of 
stop to all further negotiations. The Greeks, Schl'june 
bereft of their ecclesiastical head, might well urge ^°' '«9- 
that without his sanction all proceedings would be useless. 
Happily for Eugenius IV., there was found a paper sub- 
scribed by Joseph a few hours before his death, approving 
what seemed good to his spiritual sons, and acknowledging ^ 
the supremacy of the Roman Church. The Patriarch was 
buried with due honours in the Church of S. Maria Novella, 
where the inscription on his tomb is the only memorial 
remaining to this day of the labours spent in uniting the 
Eastern and Western Churches.^ 

Fortified by the Patriarch's declaration, the Emperor 
urged on the completion of the work of union. 
The Pope submitted to the Greeks for their con- sions on 
sideration the differences between the Churches poUits. 
concerning the use of unleavened bread in the ■'"°**''^39- 
Eucharist, Purgatory, the Papal Primacy, the words used 
in consecration. The Pope had already laid before them a 
statement of the views which the Latins would be ready to 

^ Migne, clix., p. 1088 : ^ir€<rxov xai ainhs ri)v ypaxp^iv tva ,uti irphs opry^v 
avTovs ^peBiffa^ els irpovirrov ^817 rhp kIv^vvov 4fxaxnhv ^/xjSoAw. 
*It runs — 

* Ecclesiae Antistes fueram qui magnus Eoao 

Hie jaceo magnus religione Joseph, 
Hoc unum optaram, miro inflammatus amore. 

Unus ut Europae cultus et una fides. 
Italiam petii, fcedus percussimus unum ; 

Junctaque Romanes est me duce Graia fides. 
Nee mora, decubui ; nunc me Florentia servat, 

Qua tune concilium floruit urbe sacrum. 
Felix qui tanto donarer munere vivens, 
(Jui morerer voti compos et ipse mei.' 



346 THE COUNCIL OF BASEL, 

accept. The only question was that those who were in 
favour of the Union should win over the rest to accept the 
proffered terms. The subject of Purgatory had already 
been threshed out at Ferrara, and the difference was seen 
to be slight. A satisfactory form of agreement was soon 
found. It was laid down that those who died in sin went 
to eternal punishment, those who had been purged by 
penitence went to heaven and beheld the face of God, those 
who died in penitence before they had produced worthy 
fruits of penitence for their omissions and commissions 
went to Purgatory for purification by pains, and for them 
the prayers and alms of the faithful availed, as the Church 
ordained. The use of leavened or unleavened bread was 
a small point of ritual, on which the Latins could urge that 
their own custom of using unleavened bread was more in 
accordance with the facts of the institution of the Sac- 
rament, as it was clear that at the time of the Passover 
Christ could only have unleavened bread. The Pope declared 
that, though the Latin Church used unleavened bread, the 
Sacrament might also be celebrated with leavened bread. 
The question was left open. As to the consecration of the 
elements, the Greeks were in the habit of using after the 
words of consecration a short prayer of S. Basil that the 
Spirit might make the bread and wine the Body and Blood 
of Christ. The Latins demanded that the Greeks should 
declare that the Sacrament was consecrated only by the 
words of Christ. The Greeks did not doubt the fact, but 
objected to the declaration as unnecessary. It was agreed 
that it should be made verbally, and not inserted in the 
Articles of Union. 

So far all went smoothly enough; but the greatest 
Question difficulty arose about the Papal Supremacy. Up 
Papal Su- ^o t^^s point the Greeks might flatter themselves 
premacy. ^h^t they had been making immaterial compro- 
mises or engaging in verbal explanations. Now they had 
to face the surrender of the independence of their Church. 
However true it might be that they must make some sacri- 



QUESTION OF THE PAPAL SUPREMACY, 347 

fices to gain political consideration, the recognition of the 
Papal headship galled their pride to the quick. The Pope 
demanded that the Greeks should recognise him as the 
chief pontiff, successor of Peter, and vicar of Christ, and 
admit that he judged and ruled the Church as its teacher 
and shepherd. The Greeks requested that their own privi- 
leges should be reserved. There was a stormy discussion. 
At length the Greeks, on June 22, proposed to admit the 
Pope's Supremacy with two provisos : (i) That the Pope 
should not convoke a Council without the Emperor and 
Patriarch, though if they were summoned and did not come, 
the Council might still be held ; (2) That in case an appeal 
were made to the Pope against a Patriarch, the Pope should 
send commissioners to investigate and decide on the spot 
without summoning the Patriarch to the Council. Next^ 
day the Pope answered roundly that he intended to keep 
all his prerogatives, that he had the power of summoning 
a Council when it was necessary, and that all Patriarchs 
were subject to his will. On receiving this answer the 
Emperor angrily said, * See to our departure '. It seemed 
that the negotiations were to be broken off, and that the 
Greeks would not give way. But next day, June 24, being 
the festival of S. John Baptist, was given to religious cere- 
monies. The Greeks who had committed themselves to 
the Union, Bessarion, Isidore of Russia, and Dorotheus of 
Mitylene, spent the time in trying to arrange a compromise. 
Reflection brought greater calmness to the Emperor, and on 
June 26 Bessarion and his friends submitted a proposal 
couched in vaguer terms : * We recognise the Pope as 
sovereign pontiff, vicegerent and vicar of Christ, shepherd 
and teacher of all Christians, ruler of the Church of God, 
saving the privileges and rights of the Patriarchs of the 
East '. This was accepted by the Pope. Nothing now re- 
mained save to draw up in a general decree the various 
conclusions which had been reached. For this purpose a 
committee of twelve was appointed, which la'boured for 
eight days at the task. 



348 THE COUNCIL OF BASEL, 

On July 4 the decree was finished. When it was taken 
to the Emperor he objected to the fact that it ran 
ance of in the Pope's name, in the usual style of an ecclesi- 
b^the astical decree, and he insisted on the addition of 
juijfs,^' the words — * with the consent of the most serene 
'^^^' Emperor and Patriarch of Constantinople'. On 

July 5 it was signed separately by the Latins and the 
Greeks. It bears the signature of one hundred and fifteen 
Latin prelates and abbots, and of thirty-three Greek ecclesi- 
astics, of whom eighteen were metropolitans. A great 
majority of the Greeks signed it unwillingly. Syropulus 
tells us of many machinations which were used to win their 
assent. On the one hand, the declared will of the Emperor 
drove the compliant to submission ; on the other hand, 
Papal largess were doled out to the needy, and social 
cajoleries were heaped upon the vain. Mark of Ephesus, 
alone of those who were at Florence, had the courage of 
his opinions and refused to sign. He was too considerable 
a person to be intimidated by the Emperor^ and too stub- 
born a conservative to be won over by the Pope. In spite, 
however, of the pathetic account of Syropulus, it is difficult 
to feel much sympathy with the reluctant Greeks. They 
knew, or they might have known, when they left their 
homes what they had to expect. It was a question of 
political expediency whether or not it was desirable in their 
imminent peril to abandon their attitude of isolation, and 
seek a place amid the nations of Western Christendom. 
If so, they must expect to make some sacrifice of their 
ancient independence, to overthrow some of the walls ot 
partition which their conservatism had erected between 
themselves and the Latin Church. An acknowledgment 
of the Papal Supremacy was the necessary price for Papal 
aid. It was useless to appear as beggars and demand 
to retain all the privileges of independence. It was use- 
less to advance so far on rational calculations of expediency, 
and to raise objections the moment that the actual pinch 
was felt by national vanity. The wisest heads among the 



PUBLICATION OF THE DECREES. 349 

Greeks confessed that since the Greek Church was no longer 
the centre of a vigorous national life, it must conform in 
some degree to the Latin Church if the Greeks looked for 
aid to the Latin nations. Moreover, the circumstances of 
the time were such that the Pope was as anxious for the 
Union as were the Greeks themselves. The Latins were 
willing to accept vague conditions and to agree readily to 
compromises. The Greeks could not complain that they 
were hardly pressed in matters of detail. 

On July 6 the publication of the Decrees took place in 
the stately cathedral of Florence. The Greeks had „ . .. 

, . , Publica- 

at least the satisfaction of outdoing the Latins in tionofthe 
the splendour of their vestments.^ The Pope sang juiy'e, 
the mass. The Latin choir sang hymns of praise ; ^^^' 
but the Greeks thought their Gregorian music barbarous 
and inharmonious.* When they had ended the Greeks 
sang their hymns in turn. Cesarini read the Union Decree 
in Latin and Bessarion in Greek ; then the two prelates 
embraced one another as a symbol of the act in which they 
had engaged. Next day the Greeks who had been spec- 
tators of the Latin mass asked that the Pope should in like 
manner be present at the celebration of their mass. They 
were told that the Pope was not certain what their mass 
was, and would like to see it performed privately before he 
committed himself to be present at a public ceremony. 
The Greeks refused to subject themselves to this super- 
vision. The Emperor said indignantly that they had hoped 
to reform the Latins, but it seemed that the Latins only 
intended to reform them. 

The Greeks were now anxious to depart, but waited to 
receive from the Pope five months' arrears of their Departure 
allowance. The Pope tried to raise some other Greeks, 
questions for discussion, chief of which was divorce, ^"^' '^^^* 

1 Vespasiano Fiorentino in his Life of Eugenius says, * I Greci con 
abiti di seta al modo Greco molto ricchi ; e la maniera degli abiti Greci 
pareva assai piu grave et piu degna che quella de' prelati Latini '. 

^ rifiiv dh i)s iffiifiot 49oKovv <p(cvai ififitXelSf says Syropulus, p. 295. 



y 



350 THE COUNCIL OF BASEL. 

which the Greek Church allowed, while the Latin Church 
did not. He suggested that they should at once proceed 
to the election of a Patriarch. The Emperor refused any 
further discussion, and said that they would proceed to elect 
a Patriarch on their return, according to their own customs. 
The Pope requested that Mark of Ephesus should be pun- 
ished for his contumacy, but this also the Emperor wisely 
refused. To make assurance doubly sure, the Pope de- 
manded that five copies of the Union Decree should be 
signed by the original signatories, one for the Greeks, the 
rest to be sent to the princes of Europe. The Greeks ob- 
jected that this was unnecessary ; at last, however, they 
agreed to sign four duplicates, on the understanding that no 
further difficulties were to be put in the way of their depar- 
ture. On July 20 the Greek prelates began to quit Florence. 
The Emperor remained till August 26, when he made his 
way to Venice, and returned to Constantinople after an 
absence of two years. 

* Have you won a triumph over the Latins ? ' was the 
Reception qucstion eagerly asked of the returning prelates. 
ifnioS in * ^^ hdivt made a satisfactory compromise,' was the 
Greece general answer. * We have become Azy mites ' (so 
the Latins were called by the Greeks because they used 
unleavened bread in the mass), * we have become Azymites, 
and have betrayed our Creed,' said Mark of Ephesus, and 
the Greek people took his view of the matter. They were 
profoundly conservative, and though their leaders might see 
the necessity of departing from their national isolation, the 
people could not be induced to follow the new policy. The 
Greek prelates who at Florence had unwillingly accepted the 
Union could not stand against the popular prejudice, and by 
their excuses for what they had done only tended to inflame 
the popular wrath. Mark of Ephesus became a hero ; the 
prelates who had wished for the Union were treated with 
contumely. The Emperor was powerless. The Bishop of 
Cyzicum, whom he made Patriarch, was looked upon with 
aversion as a traitor. When he gave the people his blessing 



RECEPTION OF THE UNION IN GREECE. 351 

many of them turned away that they might not be defiled 
by one tainted with the leprosy of Latinism. The Emperor, 
finding that he could do nothing to abate the force of this 
popular feeling, adopted an attitude of indifference. The \ 
Pope supplied for the defence of Constantinople two galleys 'v • ' ^ 
and 300 soldiers, as he had promised ; but no great expedi- , 
tion was equipped by Europe against the Turks. The Em- 
peror's brother, Demetrius, despot of Epirus, who had been 
with him in Italy, and had been a spectator of all that had 
there been done, actually ventured to raise a rebellion. He 
combined Turkish aid with the fanatical feeling of the ex- 
treme Greek party against the Latins, and for some time 
troubled his brother. The three Patriarchs of Jerusalem, 
Antioch, and Alexandria issued in 1443 an encyclical letter, 
in which they condemned the Council of Florence as a 
council of robbers, and declared the Patriarch of Constanti- 
nople a matricide and heretic. 

Thus the Council of Florence was productive of no direct 
fruits. The Popes did not succeed in establishing ^ 

,. '^ ,^,>r., ,•>-,, General 

their supremacy over the Greek Church; the Greeks results 
got no substantial aid from Western Christendom Council of 
to enable them to drive away their Turkish assail- 
ants. Yet the Council of Florence was not utterly useless. 
The meeting of two different civilisations and schools of 
thought gave a decided impulse to the literary world of Italy, 
and attracted thither some of the leaders of Greek letters. 
It was not long before Gemistus Pletho took up his abode 
at Florence, and Bessarion became a Cardinal of the Roman 
Church. Greek letters found a home in the West ; and 
when the impending destruction at last fell upon Constan- 
tinople, the Greek exiles found a refuge prepared for them 
by their fellow-countrymen. 

To Eugenius IV. and. to the Papacy the Council of Flor- 
ence rendered a signal service. However slight its ultimate \ 
results might be, it was the first event since the outbreak of C" 
the Schism which restored the ruined prestige of the Papacy. J 
Public opinion is naturally influenced chiefly by accom- 



"^ 



wm 



352 THE COUNCIL OF BASEL. 

plished facts. No one could judge of the permanence of the 
work, but all were in some measure impressed by a new 
sense of the Papal dignity when they heard that, downcast 
as he was, Eugenius IV. had still succeeded in healing the 
schism which had so long rent asunder the Christian Church. 
The Pope whose name was loaded with obloquy at Basel had 

^ been accepted as supreme at Constantinople. The power 
which was hard pressed at Rome still had sufficient vigour 
to win new conquests abroad. With lofty exultation Eugenius 
IV. wrote to the prince of Christendom, and announced the 
success of his efforts. He recapitulated his labours in this 
holy cause, carried on in spite of many discouragements, 
because he knew that only in Italy, and only in the presence 
of the Pope, could this great result be obtained.^ It was a 
home thrust which the fathers of Basel would find it hard to 
parry. 

The Council of Florence was felt to be a triumph of Papal 
diplomacy. The prospect of it had drawn from Basel all 

y/ men possessed of any moderation. The Italians saw in it 
the means of reasserting their hold on the headship of the 
Church, which the transalpine nations had begun to threaten. 
In union with the Greeks, they saw the beginning of a new 
epoch of crusades, in which the Papacy might again stand 
forth as the leader of the Latin race. The acute statesman 
and learned scholar, Francisco Barbaro, who was at that 
time Capitano of Brescia, wrote to the Archbishop of Florence 
at the beginning of the Council, pointing out the means to 
be employed. Learning and argument, he said, were usei- 
less ; for the Greeks were too acute and too proud of their 
knowledge to be overcome by disputation. They must be 
treated with tact and with kindness ; they must be led to see 
that in union lie their safety and glory. He urged the 
necessity of the greatest care. The union must be made to 
succeed ; otherwise there was no chance for the Papacy, and 

^ Raynaldus, sub anno, § 9 : * Inter afflictiones et angustias multas 
invictam semper tenuimus patientiam, ne tantum bonum deseri pateremur; 
sciebamus enim rem istam per alium explicari non posse '. 



TRIUMPH OF PAPAL DIPLOMACY, 353 

Italian affairs would be plunged into hopeless confusion. ^ 
The policy recommended by Barbaro was that pursued by 
the Pope's advisers. Cesarini's experience at Basel had 
fitted him admirably for the work to be done at Florence. 
The Papal diplomacy won a signal triumph, and followed 
up its first victory by others, less conspicuous indeed, but 
which added strength to the Papal cause. In December, 
1439, the reconciliation of the Armenians to the Roman 
Church was announced to Europe, and Jacobites, Syrians, 
Chaldaeans, and Maronites in succeeding years made illusory 
submission, which served to present a dazzling display of 
Papal power. 

^ See the letters of Barbaro in Pez, Thesaurus j vi., pt. 3, 172, etc. On 
March i, 1438, he writes (p. 185): * Nisi sapienter resistatur et cum 
Graecis rite et ordine res componantur, in magna perturbatione futura 
sunt omnia nisi praeter expectationem hominum saluti divinitus remedium 
aiferatur *. 



VOL. II. 23 



APPENDIX. 



357 



APPENDIX. 

I. Bohemia, 

The authorities for the beginning of the religious movement in 
Bohemia are Hopler, Concilia Pragensia^ I353-I4i3» Prag, 1862, 
and HSflbr, Geschichtschreiber der Hussitischen Bewegungy vol. ii., 
Vienna, 1865^ which contains (z) a life of Archbishop Ernest 
Pardubic, by William, Dean of Wyssehrad ; (2) articles against 
Conrad of Waldhausen, framed by the Dominicans and Augus- 
tinians of Prag, with his reply; (3) an account of Milicz of 
Kremsier, by Mathias of Janow. Jordan, Die Vorldufer des 
Husitenthums in Bdhmen (Leipzig, 1846), publishes many extracts 
from the writings of Mathias ; see also Palacky, Geschichte von 
Bdhmen^ iii. For the early history of the Hussite movement, 
HoFLBR, Geschichtschreiber^ has a number of various documents 
and short chronicles. Palacky, Documenta Magistri Jo, Hus vitam 
etc., iHustrantia, 1403-1418 (Prag, 1869), gives an admirably 
arranged collection of the letters of Hus, the charges brought 
against him at different times, together with the chief documents 
relating to the beginning of the religious movement in Bohemia. 
The writings of Hus, under the title Joannis Hus Historia et 
Monumenta, were published in 1558, and again, 1715. Much in- 
formation is also given incidentally in Medulla Triticif an attack 
on Wyclif, in Pez, Thesaurus, iv., pt. ii., 153, and also an attack on 
Hus by the same author, Antihussus ven, Stephani Prioris Dolanensis, 
id.y 303, etc. Stephen was prior of the Carthusian monastery of 
Dolan, near Olmiitz, and began in 1408 to write against Hus. 
He finished the Medulla in 141 1, and the Antihussus in 1412, and 
earned for himself the title of ^Malleus Hussitarum '. He wrote 
other tractates against the Hussites, some of which are given by 
Pez, Dialogus Volatilis inter Aucam et Passerem, where * Auca* is 
the translation of the name Hus. which in Bohemia means a goose, 
and Epistola ad Hussitas, Stephen died in 1421. For the pro- 
ceedings of Hus at Constance and his trial, the most important 



m 



358 PETER MLADENOWIC, 

documents are the letters of Hus written to his Bohemian friends, 
in Palacky, Documenta, 77, etc. ; the articles of accusation and 
his answers, id., 152, etc., and especially the Relatio Mag, Petri de 
Mladefwwic, id., 236, etc. Peter Mladenowic was the secretary 
of John of Chlum; he was a graduate of the* University of Prag, 
and was a faithful attendant on Hus till the last. To him the 
trial of Hus was the one great event at Constance, and his record 
is much more full than that of the other authorities who chronicle 
the multifarious activity of the Council. This Relatio of Mlade- 
nowic is the basis of the account given in Historia et Monumenta 
Joannis Hus, where, however, it was much garbled, till Hofler, i., 
Ill, and afterwards Palacky, published it in full. From a com- 
parison of it with Von der Hardt, and the mentions in letters of the 
ambassadors at Constance, we can gain a tolerably clear account 
of the proceedings. 

For Jerome of Prag we have also the documents in Palacky, 
Hofler, and Von der Hardt, together with the famous letter of 
Poggio, which has been often printed, in Von der Hardt, iii., pt. v., 
64, in Fasciculus Rerum, and in Palacky, Documenta, 624. 

Modern literature is rich in books about Hus. Besides Palacky, 
Geschichte von Bohmen, vol. iii., and Aschbach's Geschichte Kaiser 
Sigismunds, may be mentioned Krummel, Geschichte der Boh- 
mischen Reformation, Gotha, 1866; Bohrinqer, Die Vorrefor- 
matoren des XIV ten und XV ten Jahrhunderts, Ziirich, 1858 ; 
Zerwenka, Geschichte der Evangelischen Kirche in Bohmen, Leipzig, 
1869; Lechler, Johann von Wiclif und die Vorgeschichte der 
Reformation, vol. ii., Leipzig, 1873 ; Helfert, Huss und Hierony- 
mus, Prag, 1853 ; Friedrich, Die Lehre des Johannes Hus, Regens- 
burg, 1848 ; Berger, Johannes Huss und Konig Sigismund, 

A defence of the conduct of Sigismund in regard to the safe- 
conduct given to Hus may be found in Hefele, Conciliengeschicht^, 
vol. vi. He maintains that the safe-conduct was only meant to 
guarantee Hus against illegal outrage, not against judicial proce- 
dure ; that the Bohemian knights who accompanied Hus did not 
understand it in any other sense, and that Hus himself wavered in 
his way of regarding it. Hefele argues as one who holds a brief 
for Sigismund. I have no doubt that Hus was deceived in the 
meaning which he attached to his safe-conduct. Sigismund had 
no intention of deceiving him, but accepted the Council's view of 
the meaning of his safe-conauct, and so surrendered his conscience 
light-heartedly to their care. 



THE EMPEROR SIGISMUNt). 359 

2, The Emperor Sigismund, 

For Sigismund's personal history we have his Life by Eberhard 
WiNDECK, in Mencken, Scriptores Rerum Germanicarum, vol i., 
1074, etc. Windeck was a native of Mainz, born about 1380, who 
was in Sigismund*s service as a confidential agent in money 
matters from 1410 to 1433. He accompanied him in his journeys 
to Perpignan, Paris, and London, but retired to Mainz in 1424, 
and wrote his book, or at least revised it, after Sigismund's 
death. He wrote in German, and was a man of little education 
and of no literary skill. His book is neither a biography nor a 
chronicle, but a collection of such details and remarks as a 
business man attached to a court was likely to make. It is full 
of chronological inaccuracies, and Mencken's edition is far from 
being correct. Still Windeck is amongst the most valuable 
sources for information about the whole period of Sigismund's 
reign, and for the period, of the Council of Constance he has the 
merit of being an eye-witness of much of Sigismund's activity. 

Jean Jouvenel des Ursins, Religieux de St. Denys and Monstrelet 
all give accounts of Sigismund's journey to Paris. His proceed- 
ings at Perpignan are to be found in Von der Hardt, iv., and 
Martene, Thesaurus, ii. The letters of Pulka tell us the infor- 
mation that from time to time reached the Council. A bitter and 
able attack on Sigismund, showing the hostility which his conduct 
awakened in France, is a letter of Jean de Montreuil, who was 
for many years secretary of Charles VL This letter was really a 
manifesto against Sigismund by a skilled diplomat, and holds him 
up to unsparing ridicule. It was written at Constance in 1417, 
and is published by Martene and Durand, A mplissima Collectio, 
ii., 1443, etc. 

For the details of Sigismund's negotiations with France and 
England, and the circumstances which led to the treaty of Canter- 
bury, see the letters of Sigismund in Caro, Aus der Kanzlei Kaiser 
Stgismunds (Wien, 1879), which Caro has further explained in a 
monograph. Das Bundniss von Canterbury (Gotha, 1880). I have 
on the whole followed Caro's view in opposition to Max Lenz, 
Konig Sigismund und Heinrich der Fiinfte von England (Berlin, 
1874), who is inclined to follow the opinion of Jean of Montreuil 
and the French, that Sigismund's treaty with England and deser- 
tion of France was determined upon before he left Constance, and 
that his ecclesiastical policy failed through the hindrances which 
his political charge put in the way. Lenz's book is, however, 



36o NATIONAL DIFFERENCES AT CONSTANCE. 

valuable for the accurate way in which he points out the results 
of Sigismund's change of policy on the operations of the Council 
after his return. The letter of the English ambassador at Con- 
stance, John Forester, in Rymer, Fosdera, ix., 433, gives us an 
account of Sigismund's attitude at Constance in 1417 ; and this is 
supplemented by the letters of Pulka to the University of Vienna 
in Archiv fiir (EsUrreichische Geschichtsquellen^ xv. 

3. National Differences at Constance, 

The question of Jean Petit was discussed to weariness by 
Gerson. The documents relating to this matter and Gerson's 
writings about it are to be found in Gerson's Opera, vol. v., where 
they occupy more than 700 folio pages. There are other writings 
on the same subject in vol. ii., 319, etc. ; especially valuable is the 
Dialogus Apologeticus, p. 386, which is a general defence of his 
position and policy. The Religieux de St* Denys and Monstrelet are 
the authorities for the history. 

The Council's embassy to Benedict XIII. is told in an interest- 
ing letter of the envoy Lamhertus de Stipite (Lambert Stock), in 
Von der Hardt, iv., 1124. Additional documents relating to Bene- 
dict XIII. and Spain are given by Dollinqer, Beitrage, ii., 344., 
etc. 

The struggle for precedence between the English and French 
nations produced two very amusing statements : Gallorum contra 
Anglos Disputatio, and Vindicice Anglorum, in Von der Hardt, v., 
58, etc. They were first published in 15 17 by Sir R. W5nigfield, 
ambassador at the Court of the Emperor Maximilian, and again 
at London in 1690. Though Von der Hardt has given a new 
collation of the MS., it is still corrupt, and in parts unintelligible, 
which is to be regretted, as it is full of interesting information 
about the geographical notions of the time. 

The party contests at the end of the Council of Constance are 
difficult to unravel, from the slight information at our command, 
Von der Hardt's documents contain only a formal and official 
record of the proceedings of the congregations; we have very 
little information about the doings of the nations. The letters of 
the ambassadors of the Universities of Koln and Vienna are the 
most valuable sources of information ; but they only give slight 
intimations. Filastre's Journal, published by Finke, is especially 
important for explaining the quarrels which led to the abandon- 
ment of reform. This question has been carefully dealt with by 



TRACTATES ABO if T REFORMATION. 361 

HuBLER, Die Constanz&r Reformation; Lenz, Konig Sigismund und 
Heinrich V.; Caro, Aus der Kanzlei Kaiser Sigismunds, and Das 
Bundniss von Canterbury. 

4. Tractates about the Reformation of the Church. 

A mass of literature was called forth by the reforming movement 
of the fifteenth century, especially in the years preceding the 
Council of Constance. As this literature was polemical and 
ephemeral in its object, it is difficult in all cases to identify the 
writer. This is not a matter of great consequence, if we wish 
only to appreciate the profound need for reform of which the most 
orthodox were conscious; but it is of historical importance to 
discover, if possible, the particular sources from which such 
opinions come. 

(i.) One of the most famous of these works is De Corrupto Statu 
EcclesicBf or De Ruina Ecclesice. It was published under the first 
title in 1519, and was assigned to Nicolas C16manges; and Tri- 
THEiM, in his Catalogus Scriptorum Bcclesiasticorum (1494), put it 
amongst the works of C16manges. Von der Hardt, vol. i., part iii., 
published it anew, under the title De Ruina Ecclesice, from two 
Helmstadt MSS., at the end of which occur the ambiguous words, 
* Sub quadam meditatione per magistrum J oh. Gerson super statu 
Ecclesiarum,' which may mean that Gerson wrote the preface, or 
that the MS. was copied from another in which a treatise of 
Gerson stood first. Muntz, in Nicolas de Clemanges (Strassburg, 
1846), first called in question the authorship of C16manges, on the 
grounds of difference of style from his other works, difference of 
opinions, and incompatibility with Clfemanges* position as secre- 
tary to Benedict XIII. Schwab, Johannes Gerson (493), has 
pointed out that these reasons are not convincing. C16manges 
refers in his letters to writings which he has not yet published ; 
and though he might hold his tongue from personal motives 
while he was in the service of Benedict XIII., he might pro- 
foundly feel the evils that beset the Church, though loyalty to 
Benedict made him endure as long as there was hope. After 1409 
there was no reason to keep silence, and the very rhetorical 
character of this work, De Ruina Ecclesice, may be due to the 
reticence so long observed. Schwab points out verbal similarities 
with the work of C16manges, De Prcesulibus Simoniacis. The 
De Ruina Ecclesia was written during the withdrawal of obedience 
from Benedict XIII. in 1401 and 1402, though it was probably not 



362 TRACTATES ABOUT kEFORMATION. 

published till 141 1. It was clearly written by a Frenchman, who 
was a member of the University of Paris, and who had official 
information. Muntz has not made out a strong enough case to 
overthrow the authority of Tritheim. 

(2.) Three tracts are given by Von der Hardt in vol. i., parts v., 
vi., and vii. They are De Modis uniendi et refortnandi Ecclesiam in 
Concilio Universalis which is assigned to Gerson; De Difficultate 
Reformationis, and Monita de Necessitate Reformationis Ecclesice in 
Captte et Membris, which are assigned to D'Ailly. Schwab, 
Johannes Gerson, 481, etc., pointed out that neither in ecclesiastical 
nor moral opinions, nor in its historical aspect, does the first of 
these treatises fit in with Gerson's authorship ; nor do the others 
agree with D'Ailly. They are written from an imperialist, not 
from a French point of view, and are widely different from the 
opinions of the French theologians. Von der Hardt himself 
suggested that the third treatise ought to be ascribed to Dietrich 
of Niem, and Schwab confirmed his conjecture. He also assigned 
the second one to the same author. The first and most impor- 
tant of these treatises Schwab assigned to the Benedictine 
abbot and Bolognese professor, Andreas of Randuf, on the ground 
of similarities of expression found in a document of Andreas in 
Niem's Nemus Unionis, This hypothesis of Schwab is combated 
by Lenz, Drei Tractate aus dem Schriftencyclus des Constanzer 
Concils (Marburg, 1876), who claims the De Modis uniendi as a 
work also of Niem. The De Modis and De Difficultate were written 
in 1410, after the close of the Council of Pisa, with a view of 
determining the procedure on the next occasion. The Monita de 
Necessitate was written shortly before the assembling of the Council 
of Constance, probably in 1414. We are justified in regarding the 
De Modis uniendi et refortnandi Ecclesiam as containing the fullest 
statement of the opinions and aspirations of the German reform- 
ing party. 

The ideas prevalent in England were of a strictly practical 
kind and are expressed in the Petitiones quoad Reformationem 
Ecclesia Militantis of Richard Ullerston, in Von der Hardt, i., 
pt. xxvii. Ullerston was a professor of theology at Oxford, a 
friend of Bishop Hallam of Salisbury; his work was written in 
1408, in view of the Council of Pisa, and draws up sixteen points 
for consideration, not in the interest, as he is careful to explain, of 
the English Church only, but of the Universal Church. 

The opinions of French theologians are to be found expressed 
by Gerson and D'Ailly in Gerson's Opera, vol. ii. 



THE QUESTION OF ANNATES. 363 

Other writings of this period are De Squaloribus Curia Rmnana, 
published in Walch, Monumenta Medii ^vi, i., pt. i., i, etc., and in 
appendix to Fasciculus Rerum, 584, etc. This work seems to have 
been written by Mathias of Cracow, who lectured at Prag, Paris, 
and Heidelberg, was made Bishop of Worms in 1405, and died in 
1410. There is a little doubt about the authorship, as some 
passages in the work speak of the schism as still existing ; others 
mention John XXIII. and Martin V. Most probably the work 
was current at Basel during the Council, and was then interpolated. 
The question is discussed by Walch in his preface. 

Speculum Aureum, an exposition of the way in which the Papal 
monarchy favoured and created simony, in Walch, Monumenta^ ii., 
part i., 67, etc., also in Goldast, Monarchia, 1528, and in the 
appendix to Fasciculus Rcrum, 63. This work, which was written 
in 1404, is attributed by Goldast to Paulus Anglicns ; Walch in his 
preface shows that it was written by Albert Enqelstat, a 
Bavarian, doctor of theology at Prag. 

Numerous sermons and pamphlets were produced at Constance, 
but they are less important, as they only put into rhetorical 
language the passing phases of opinion in the Council. Many are 
given in Von der Hardt, in Walch, Monumenta, in Goldast, 
Monarchia, in Brown*s Fasciculus Return, and in Finke, For- 
schungen und Quellen. 

5. The Question of Annates. 

This complicated and interesting question shows much of the 
actual working of the system of Papal taxation, and the literature 
on the subject gives us many details which are generally over- 
looked. The official account of the proceedings in the French 
nation from October 15, 1415, to March 19, 1416, is given in 
Bourgeois du Chastenet, Nouvelle Histoire du Concile de Constance 
(Paris, 1718), pp. 409-478, headed *Collatio Cleri Gallicani 
Constanciae ad Concilium congregati super abusus quibus Ecclesia 
Gallicana opprimebatur '. The official answer of the French 
nation to the appeal of the Procurator Fiscal is to be found in Preuves 
des Libertes de PEglise Gallicane, ch. xxii. ; also in Fasciculus Return, 
i., 377, and in Von der Hardt, i., 761. The answer on the part oi 
the Cardinals is to be found in Peter d'Ailly, De Potestate 
Ecclesiastica, in Von der Hardt, vi., p. 51. On the general question 
of annates, Phillips, Kirchenrecht, v., 567, etc., has thrown much 
light by tracing the different forms assumed by this exaction and 
the history of each. 



364 TtiE ELECTION OF MARTIN V. 

6. The Election of Martin V, 

The accounts given of the proceedings within the Conclave 
which elected Martin V. are very contradictory. They are the 
following : — 

(i.) Dachbr, Von der Hardt, iv., 1481, on the authority of the 
protonotary of the Archbishop of Gnesen, who was present with 
his master, represents a large number of candidates put forth on 
national grounds, each receiving a small number of votes — 12, 9, 
6, 4, and so on. When it was clear that this method of procedure 
was futile, the Germans resolved to withdraw their national 
candidate, if they could prevail on the other nations to do likewise. 
First the Italians and then the English joined them ; but the French 
and Spaniards refused to do so till the other nations threatened 
to denounce them throughout Christendom for preventing union. 
At last, on the morning of November 11, reflection and prayer 
brought unanimity; at ten o'clock the sounds of the hymn outside 
induced the electors to agree to act in concert ; at eleven Oddo 
Colonna was elected. 

(2.) ZuRiTA, in Anales de Aragon, quoted by Bzovius (Von der 
Hardt, iv., 1482), says that the first scrutiny showed the votes 
divided among six candidates, the Cardinals of Ostia, Saluzzo, 
Venice, and Oddo Colonna, and the Bishops of Geneva and 
Chichester. At the next voting the Cardinal of Venice and the 
Bishop of Chichester dropped out. Then by a sudden movement 
the votes were unanimously given for Oddo Colonna. 

(3.) Walsinqham (ed. Riley), ii., 320, says that votes were 
first given for the Bishops of Winchester and London, and 
* Cardinalis Franciae,' who is clearly Peter d'Ailly. Next day the 
Bishop of London accedes to Oddo Colonna, and his example 
influences all the other electors to do likewise. 

(4.) An account given by a priest present at Constance at the 
time is printed from a MS. in the Konigsberg Archives in Scriptores 
Rerum Prussicarum, Band iii. (Leipzig, 1866), p. 373, Anmerkung 
4. The writer calls Oddo Colonna * dominum meum,' which might 
indicate that he was one of Cardinal Colonna's household, and 
so perhaps an Italian. He simply says that no election could be 
made in the first scrutinies, but on November it the electors, 
touched by the hymn outside, proceeded more unanimously to 
work. Cardinal Colonna had twenty-three votes. *Surrexit 
igitur quidam de dominis Cardinalibus exhortans totum coetum 
dominorum electorum sub hiis verbis vel eorum similibus : Reve- 



THE ELECTION OF MARTIN V. 365 

rendissimi fratres I Hie reverendissimus pater, qui omnes alios 
electos in multis excedit vocibus, quantus sit nacione, quia princeps 
RomanuS) quantusve vita, scientia et moribus, omnibus vobis adeo 
notum est quod ulteriori non egeat declaracione, nee videtur quod 
sibi similis sit in toto cetu hujus sacri concilii valeat reperiri. Si 
ergo placet omnes in ipsius electionem aspiremus/ After this 
address Cardinal Colonna was unanimously elected. 

(5.) There is in Palacky, Documenta Mag, Joh. Hus Illustrantia, 
p. 665, a Relatio de Papa Martini V, EUctione atque Coronatione, 
from a collection of documents made by a Bohemian monk whose 
labours ended in 1419 (p. xi.). The document itself is a contem- 
porary account written from Constance soon after Martin V/s 
coronation on November 21 ; it is in the form of a diary, and 
contains a detailed account of the ecclesiastical ceremonies 
observed. According to it the candidates were Colonna, D*Ailly 
and Jacopo da Camplo, abbot-elect of Penna : Colonna's election 
was determined by the accession of Da Camplo and his party. 

(6.) I originally followed this last account, but the publication 
of Cardinal Pilastre*s Journal, Pinks, Forschungcn und QuelUn, 
233-4, gives an account of one who was undoubtedly present, 
and records the votes actually given. Before its authority all the 
other accounts give way. 

The discrepancies which they show probably arise from the con- 
fusion of the proceedings within each nation with the proceedings 
of the Conclave as a whole. Dacher*s report recognises nothing 
but nations, and makes no mention of the Cardinals as a party. 
The confusion in these different statements probably arose from 
the fact that the national deputies were not so reticent as the 
Cardinals, and were naturally anxious after the event to vindicate 
their national honour. They mentioned the names of all who 
might have been proposed or who were discussed by the deputies 
of the several nations; those who heard them were misled to 
attach undue importance to these suggestions. 

7. Lives of Martin V, 

MuRATORi, iii., pt. ii., 857-88, prints two lives of Martin V., from 
MSS. in the Vatican. The first is short and annalistic, opposed 
to Martin V. on the grounds of his avarice and nepotism, written 
under the influence of the reaction of the Curia which set in after 
Martin's death. Even this hostile writer is bound to confess ' suo 
tempore tenuit stratas et vias publicas securas; quod non fuit 



366 FLORENTINE AUTHORITIES, 

auditum a ducentis annis et circa \ The second life is fuller, and 
is eulogistic ; it is in general accurate, but is the work of one who 
thinks little of the conciliar nnovement, and rejoices over the 
dissolution of the Council of Siena as averting the danger of 
another schism. This last life was known to Platina, who has 
taken it as the basis of his life of Martin V., incorporating other 
information. 

The history of the Papacy from the accession of Martin V. is 
treated in great detail, and with much learning, by Pastor, 
Geschichte der Papstc sett dem Ausgang des Mittelalters, 

8. Florentine Authorities. 

For the relations of Martm V. with Florence we have informa- 
tion from PoQQio, Hist. Florentina, in Muratori, xx., 322, and 
Leonardo Bruni, Commentarii^ in Muratori, xix., 630. As both 
of these were in the confidence of the Pope, their information is 
valuable. Still more important are the Commissioni di Rinaldo 
degli Albizziy edited by Cesare Guasti (Florence, 1867). Rinaldo 
was a celebrated Florentine statesman, born in 1370, and engaged 
in the business of the Republic from 1399 to 1434, when he went 
into exile before the power of Cosimo de' Medici. Rinaldo went 
in 141 8 as ambassador of Florence to Martin V., whom he met at 
Pavia, and in his Commissioni (i., 294) we have an account of the 
negotiations which brought the Pope to Florence. Again, in 
1421, Rinaldo was ambassador at Rome to make peace in Naples 
(i., 312). In 1424 he was again sent to Rome to win over Martin 
V. to side with Florence against the Duke of Milan (ii., 85, etc.). 
In 1425 Rinaldo again returned to Rome for the same purpose (ii., 
320). From Rinaldo's complaints of Martin's long delays in 
answering we see the Pope's caution and diplomatic skill. The 
Commissioni of Rinaldo generally are full of incidental remarks 
on the Pope's policy, and chronicle the rumours which from time 
to time prevailed. They show us that Martin V. commanded the 
respect of the politicians of Italy. 

For the period of Martin V. the Chronicon Domini Antonini 
ArchiprcBSulis Florentini becomes valuable. S. Antoninus was 
the son of a Florentine notary, who entered the Dominican order 
in that city at the age of 16, about the year 1405. He was cele- 
brated for his theological learning as well as for the sanctity of 
his life, and his Summa Theologice was a work of considerable 
repute. He distinguished himself as a theologian in the Council 



BRACCHIO AND SFORZA. 367 

of Florence, and in 1445 Eugenius IV. made him Archbishop of 
that city, where he was much venerated till his death in 1459. 
In 1523 he was canonised. He wrote a universal chronicle, com- 
piled with the carefulness of a theologian rather than with the 
insight of a historian. His chronicle was continued till the time 
of his death. Though it is deficient in critical spirit, is destitute 
of style, and abounds in inaccuracies, it still contains valuable in- 
formation on many points of detail which cannot be found else- 
where. For the early period of Martin V. he has borrowed largely 
from Leonardo Bruni, and becomes more valuable as he approaches 
matters of which he was contemporary. 

9. Bracchio and Sforza, 

For the history of these condottieri generals we have two lives 
"which relate their exploits at length. Muratori, xix., 435, prints 
Vita Bracchii Pcrusini, by Joannes Antonius Campanus, the friend 
of Pius II. and Bishop of Croton. Unfortunately, the life of 
Bracchio is written chiefly as an exercise of style, and though it 
relates the actual facts of Bracchio*s exploits, the information that 
it contains has to be stripped of turgid laudation, and the real 
meaning of 'events has to be supplied from other sources. Simi- 
larly, we have a life of Sforza by Lbodorisio Crivblli in Mura- 
tori, xix., 628. Crivelli was a member of a noble Milanese family, 
and intended to write a history of Francesco Sforza, to which 
this account of his father was to serve as a preface ; the work, 
however, was not continued beyond 1424. There is another work 
of Crivelli in Muratori, xxiii., 21, De Expeditione Pit IL in TurcaSf 
written when Crivelli was a Papal secretary, an ofHce on which he 
entered in 1458. Some writers have wished to make out that 
these works are by two different authors of the same name ; but 
the reasons which induce them to do so seem inadequate (see 
Tiraboschi). Though we know little of Crivelli we are justified in 
assuming that he was amply acquainted with aiTairs. His life of 
Sforza is, like that of Campanus, of the nature of a panegyric, but 
is more modest and restrained. 

10. Naples. 

For the general history of Naples we have the authorities 
referred to in Appendix to vol. i. The AnnaUs Bonincontrii 
MiniaUnsis in Muratori, xxi., are also useful. Lorenzo Bonin- 
contri was born at S. Miniato in 1410 ; but his father was obliged 



368 THE COUNCIL OF SIENA. 

to go into exile in 143 1, in consequence of an appeal to the 
Emperor Sigismund to save S. Miniato from the tyranny of 
Florence. Bonincontri, after many wanderings, settled at Naples 
under the protection of King Alfonso. He was celebrated as an 
astrologer, a poet, and a scholar, and wrote works on astrology 
as well as poems. He was a friend of learned men, amongst 
others of Marsilio Ficino. He began a history of Naples, which 
did not go beyond the year 1436, i.e., did not reach the period 
with which he himself was personally familiar. Muratori has 
printed his Annales from 1366 to 1458. They are brief, but to the 
point — a pithy summary of facts with few judgments : his narra- 
tive, though not vivid, is correct and careful. 

II. The Council of Siena, 

Till recently very little was known about the Council ; what 
was known was principally gathered from casual mentions by the 
various chroniclers previously mentioned, the letters in Raynaldus 
sub anno, and a few documents in Mansi, vol. xxviii. 

Valuable as a more vivid picture of the relation of an Italian city 
towards the Papacy and towards a Council is the brief chronicle 
of Francesco di Tommaseo in Muratori, xx., 23. It is one of a 
series of Sienese chronicles. The writer tells how the Sienese 
regarded the Council and were discontented at losing the pros- 
pects of a rich harvest from its dissolution. 

The chief authority, however, for the Council of Siena is John 
Stojkovic of Ragusa, who was himself present as a representative 
of the University of Paris, both at Rome before the Council, at 
Pavia, and at Siena. He afterwards went to the Council of Basel, 
and wrote Initium et Prosecutio Basiliensis Concilii, edited by 
Palacky, in vol. i. of Monumenta Conciliorum Generalium Seculi 
XV. (Vienna, 1857). Pages 1-65 of this work are occupied with 
an account of the Council of Siena, which I have mostly followed, 
though it differs in many particulars from the accounts of the 
chroniclers mentioned above. They wrote in view of the igno- 
minious collapse of the Council, which no one really wanted ; to 
John of Ragusa it was a necessary link between the decree Frequens 
and the Council of Basel. His account is detailed, and is by an 
ecclesiastical eye-witness ; the other mentions are only those of 
outsiders, who looked solely on the political aspect of the matter. 
As regards the numbers present at Siena, John seems to exag- 
gerate as much as the others seem to minimise. 



ROME. 369 

12. France and England, 

The documents relating to Martin V. and France are to be 
found in Preuves des LibertSs de VEglise Gallicane, ch. xxii. Martin 
V.*8 correspondence with Chichele and Beaufort is in Raynaldus, 
Annates Ecclesiasticij and Wilkins, Concilia^ vol. iii., 471, etc. 
Additional documents are to be found in Duck's Life of Chichele 
(1617), and Spencer's Life of Chichele (1783). 



15. Rome. 

The letters of the celebrated scholar Poooio Bracciolini, 
edited by Tonelli (Florence, 1832), give us some idea of the 
atmosphere of the Curia under Martin V. Poggio was a Papal 
secretary, and though it is disappointing that his letters say so 
little about actual events, still they give us an idea of the extor- 
tion that prevailed. See especially the letter to the secretary of 
the Bishop of Winchester, Tonelli, ii., 18. A still more vivid 
picture of the Court of Martin V. is to be found in the letters of 
the ambassadors of the Order of the Teutonic Knights, who 
watched over the interests of the Order at Rome. Extracts from 
these letters, which are in the Archives of Konigsberg, are given 
by J. VoiGT, Stimmen aus Rom ilber den papstlichen Hof im fUnf- 
zehnten Jahrhundert, in Von Raumer's Historisches Taschenbuch, vol. 
iv., 1833. These letters are written in a plain, business-like spirit, 
which treats bribes to the Pope as a necessary and natural source 
of expense. The following may serve as a specimen : * Der Papst 
thut dieses nur darum mit so grosser Verfolgung und Ubermuth, 
weil er uns zu zwingen meint, ihm 10 bis 12,000 Gulden zu 
zuweisen, was wir doch, ob Gott will, nimmer thun wollen, denn 
er ist so gierig, iibermiithig und driickend gegen diejenigen, iiber 
die er Macht zu haben meint, als nur jemals ein Papst gewesen 
ist '(p. 170). 

Concerning the relations of Martin V. with his family, informa- 
tion is to be found in Coppi's Memorie Colonnesi (Rome, 1855), and 
Van Reumont, Beitrdge zur Italienischen Geschichte, vol. v. 

Muratori, xxiv., 1 106, prints the Mesticanza di Paolo di Liello 
Petrone de lo Rione di Ponte, a diary written by a Roman citizen ; 
some of the MS. is lost, but the part which remains covers the 
period between 1433 and 1446 ; it is the work of an eye-witness 
who was keen and observant. 

VOL. H. 24 



570 t)EATIi OF BErf EDICT XII t. 

14. Death of Benedict XIII., and End of the Schism. 

The death of Benedict XIII. is assigned by Raynaldus to the 
year 1423, on the ground of his condemnation in the Council of 
Siena as Mamnatae memoriae * ; also Martin V.*s letter to Alfonso, 
announcing the transfer of the Council from Pavia to Siena, 
begins : * Per litteras crebras et nuntios habetur quod Petrus de 
Luna ab hac luce subtractus est* (Raynaldus, 1423, § 9). But 
Mansi, in his note to Raynaldus, points out that a French Cardinal 
of Benedict XIII.'s obedience, Jean Carrer, in a letter to the 
Count of Armagnac gives the following circumstantial account 
of the death of Benedict XI XL and the election of his successor: 
*Novembris die xvii. anni Domini MCCCCXXIV, sanctae me- 
moriae dominus Benedictus XI 1 1. Papa verus incipiens infirmari 
eodem mense die xxvii. quatuor cardinales . . . creavit ; quibus 
creatis die penultima ejusdem mensis inter septimam et octavam 
horam in Domino expiravit' (Martene, Thesaurus, ii., 1731). This 
letter was written in 1429, protesting against the action of the 
Cardinals who elected Gil Munoz. The writer says that he was 
not present himself, and received no notice of Benedict XIII.'s 
death from the Cardinals who were present, nor did he hear of it 
till the following June, when he was informed by the Count of 
Armagnac. If this were so in his case, we need not wonder that 
rumours of Benedict XIII.'s death had prevailed previously, and 
that Martin V. believed him to be dead in 1423. Contelorius, in 
CiAcoNius, VitcB Paparum, ii., 744 ; Vita Daha says : * Extat 
Martini V. Diploma datum quinto Idus Octobris Anno X.Pontifi- 
catus (1427) in quo narratur Benedictum mense Septembri die 
ante obitum anno 1424 in Paniscola de novo enunciasse nonnullos 
Cardinales ' ; from which it would appear that Martin V. afterwards 
learned the truth. 

The documents relating to the end of the schism are in Martene, 
Thesaurus Novus Anecdoiorum, ii. 



15. The Hussite Wars, 

The difficulty that I have found in this chapter has been to 
give a condensed account of the affairs in Bohemia, selecting only 
such points as are necessary for an understanding of the problem 
which faced the Council of Basel. I regret that many picturesque 
details had to be omitted ; but I am not dealing primarily with 



THE HUSSITE WARS. 371 

the history of Bohemia. This subject has received much atten- 
tion in the present century. The current accounts, till a few years 
ago, were taken from German and Catholic sources. The fluent 
pen of i©NEAS Sylvius in his Historia Bohemica produced an admir- 
ably interesting account of Bohemian affairs, which he had many 
opportunities of personally studying at Basel, Vienna, and after- 
wards in Bohemia itself. The artistic rendering of iEneas was 
mainly followed by succeeding writers, such as Cochl^us and 
DuBRAVius, whose writings were incorporated by L'Enfant in his 
Histoire de la Guerre des Hussites et du Concile de Bdle. The present 
century, however, has seen the opening out of the historical records 
of Bohemia itself, chiefly through the labours of Palacky, Hofler, 
and more recently Tomek^ Palacky's Wiirdigung dcr alien bohmi- 
schen Geschichtschreiber (1830) was the beginning of studies the 
results of which are expressed in the ten volumes of his Geschichte 
von Bohmen, As I do not know the Tcheck language, I have followed 
Palacky in all points in which he draws from the Bohemian writers 
in that tongue. Many Latin documents dealing with the beginning 
of the religious movement in Bohemia are contained in Palacky, 
Documenta Magistrum Joh. Hus. Illustrantia, which reaches to 
the year 1418. The period from 1418 to 1436 is illustrated by 
the documents contained in Palacky, Urkundliche Beitrdge zur 
Geschichte des Hussitenkriegs (1873). A number of annals and 
chronicles are published by Hofler, Geschichtschreiber der Hussiti- 
schen Bewegung (1856-1866), and Hofler's preface contains much 
valuable criticism. 

The most interesting among the Bohemian chroniclers is Lauren- 
Tius OF Brezova, Hofler, i., 321, etc., whose chronicle is of the 
utmost importance for the years 1419-1423, where it unfortunately 
ends. This is the period of the outbreak of the religious war, 
and Brezova enables us to judge of the feeling of the Bohemian 
people. He was at the Court of Wenzel, and was an eye-witness 
of affairs in Prag ; he is a strong Utraquist, but is decidedy opposed 
to the Taborites. On the Catholic side we have a more lengthy 
chronicle by Bartoschek of Drahonicz, in Dobner, Monumenta 
Historica, i., 130., etc. ; it extends from 1419 to 1443, and though 
without style or proportion, it is valuable for military history. 
Bartoschek was a royalist baron and soldier. The same period 
is also illustrated by the Tractatus de Longavo Schismate of the 
Abbot LuDOLF OF Saqan, edited by Loserth (Vienna, 1880). 
Palacky in his Italienische Reise had already called attention to 



372 THE HUSSITE WARS. 

this work, which has little new to say, but is important as 
giving the impressions of a contemporary from the strong Catholic 
point of view. The work begins with the election of Urban VI., and 
goes down to the year 1423. On the other hand, we have the 
Chronicon Taboritarum of Nicolas of Pelhrschimow, in HCfler, 
ii., 475, etc., which deals, chiefly from a theological point of view, 
with the disputes between the Taborites and the theologians of 
Prag ; it extends to the year 1444. It may suffice to have indicated 
these four works as illustrating the different sides of contemporary 
opinion. 

Amongst German writers Windeck in Mencken, i., 1073, shows 
us the opinion which Sigismund and his circle entertained of the 
Hussites and their doings. So, too, does Andreas Ratisbonensis, 
an Augustinian canon of S. Magnus at Regensburg, who devoted 
himself to historical writing, stimulated, it would seem, by the 
Council of Constance. He entered the Augustinian order in 1410, 
and his writings extended to the period of 1439. His works deal- 
ing with the Hussites have been published by Hofler ; they are 
De Expeditionibus in Bohemia contra Hussitas hercticos (Hofler, ii., 
406, etc.), which embraces the period from 1418 to 1429, and 
the Dialoqus (H5fler i., 565) between Ratio and Animus, in 
which the theological as well as the political significance of the 
Hussite movement is discussed. These writings of Andreas 
give us the general feeling of the orthodox party in Germany. 
Andreas writes from the clerical point of view and is indignant at 
the lukewarmness of the princes ; in a Sermo secrete editus (HOfler, 
ii., 416), dated 1422, he makes a violent attack on Sigismund, whom 
he accuses as a deceiver and beguiler of the Church, spending its 
wealth in profligate living and heeding not its distress. 

Further examination of the writings of this period may be 
found in Palacky's Wurdigung and HOfler's preface. For 
modern works on Bohemia Palacky*s Geschichte von Bohmen super- 
sedes all others. Aschbach's Geschichte Kaiser Sigismunds tells the 
tale from a German point of view ; but the most accurate exam- 
ination of the period of warfare against tbe Hussites is that of 
Bezold, Konig Sigismund und die Reichskriege gegen die Husiten, 3 
vols., Munich, 1872-7. For the general aspect of the Hussite 
movement in its religious and political character, Bezold's Zur 
Geschichte des Husitenthums (Munich, 1874) is excellent. A more 
popular book dealing with the entire subject is Denis, Huss et la 
Guerre des Hussites, Paris, 1878. 



EUGENIUS IV. 373 

i6. Bugenius IV. 

I. Lives of Eugenius IV. : — 

The life in Muratori, vol. iii., part 2, 868, is slight and unim- 
portant save for the Pope's dealings with the Colonna at the 
beginning of his pontificate. On this point we gather much 
additional information from the diary of Stefano Infessura in 
Muratori, iii., part 2, 1123. Infessura*s career is not known ; but 
in 1478 he was praetor in Horta, and afterwards secretary of the 
Senate. His diary begins in 1295, and is very fragmentary ; it is 
written partly in Latin and partly in Italian. It grows more 
connected as it approaches his own time, but has some information, 
not given elsewhere, of the events of the years 1431 and 1434. 

The life of Eugenius IV. by Platina can scarcely be ranked as 
an authority, though it has some value as a compilation made 
while events were still fresh ; but there is little in Platina that we 
do not find more fully elsewhere, save again the episode of the 
Colonna rising. 

More valuable is the life by Vespasiano da Bisticci, in his 
most interesting book ViU di Uomini Illustri, first published by 
Mai, in the Spicilegium Romanumy vol. i. Vespasiano was a Floren- 
tine bookseller, born about 1420, and who lived certainly till 1493. 
He had to do with the formation of many great libraries, especially 
those of S. Marco at Florence, of Nicolas V., and of the Duke of 
Urbino. In his position as copyist of manuscripts he was intimate 
with almost all the chief patrons of learning in the fifteenth century. 
He writes with great simplicity, and is a biographer rather than a 
historian ; but his book is full of interesting traits of the men of 
his time, and no work gives such a vivid impression of the great- 
ness of the early Renaissance movement. About Eugenius IV., 
he chiefly informs us of his stay at Florence and his zeal for the 
reformation of the neighbouring monasteries. He had no personal 
knowledge of Eugenius IV., but regards him primarily as the patron 
of Nicolas V. His judgment of Eugenius IV. is expressed in the 
words which he puts into the mouth of the dying Pope — *0 
Gabriello, quanto sarebbe suto meglio per la salute dell' anima tua, 
che tu non fussi mai suto ne papa, ne cardinale, ma fussiti morto 
nella tua religione '. 

Other authorities, who have been previously mentioned, are 
S. Antoninus, whom Eugenius made Archbishop of Florence ; 
Bonicontrius in Muratori, xxi. ; Poqqio, Historia Plorentiniy in 
Muratori, xx. ; Billius and Leonardo Bruni, in Muratori, xix. 



374 EUGENIUS IV. 

The ecclesiastical ceremonies during the stay of Eugenius IV. in 
Florence are chronicled in an anonymous Istorie di Pirenze, in 
MuRATORi, xix., 949. 

2. The Vita Cardinalis Firmani, by Battista Poggio, son of the 
famous Poggio Braccioli, in Baluze, Milscellanea, iii., 266, is 
mainly an exercise of style, and was dedicated to Cardinal Am- 
mannati as such. Still it contains some materials for the begin- 
ning of the pontificate of Eugenius IV. 

The letters of Poggio Bracciolini, who was in the service of 
Eugenius IV. till his flight to Florence, give us notices of what 
was passing at Rome. In a letter written just after the election 
of Eugenius IV. (Tonelli, iv., 20) he says : * Deus autem effecit 
ut Pontificem habeamus quem cipiebamus, eum scilicet qui praeteri- 
torum errorum reformationi vacaturus videatur suscepturusque 
publicam orbis curam, si ei per aliorum molestias liceret. . . . 
Id me consolatur nos habere Pontificem bene cordatum et qui non 
terreatur inanibus minis aut vagis rumoribus.* More important 
still is the Dialogue De Varietatibus Fortunes (Paris, 1723), a work 
owing its origin to the sight of the ruins of Rome, containing a 
most valuable description of the city in his day, and full of 
picturesque details of contemporary history. It was written in 
1447, just after the death of Eugenius IV. The sight of the ruins 
of Rome leads the writer to moralise on the mutability of fortune, 
of which he produces many historical examples. Finally, he 
settles on the pontificate of Eugenius IV., as amply illustrating 
his theme, and book iii. of the Dialogue is devoted to a sketch 
of the troubles of Eugenius. 'Cum pace uti posset, bello se 
implicuit minime necessario,* is his comment (p. 87) on the 
attempt made by the Pope on the Colonna. 

Still more important for the history of Italy during the first ten 
years of Eugenius IV. are the Decades Historiarum of Flavius 
Biondus (Basel, 1569). Flavio Biondo was a native of Forli, 
born in 1388, and died in 1463. He was a diligent student of 
antiquity, and went to seek his fortune at the Papal Court early in 
the pontificate of Eugenius IV. ; he served as secretary to 
Eugenius and his three successors. His labours in elucidating 
the antiquities of Italy are amply shown in his great works Roma 
Restaurata and Italia Illustrata. His Decades mark an important 
epoch in historical writing. Beginning with the invasion of Alaric, 
Biondo traces the history of Italy up to his own times : his work 
was cut short by his death, and extends only to the date 1440. 



BUGBNIUS IV. 375 

He divided it into decades, after the example of Livy. His work 
is excellent in arrangement, in largeness of view, and in diligent 
research. He writes like a true student seeking for light in dark 
places. We are, however, concerned only with the period of 
Eugenius IV., whose flight from Rome in 1434 he describes with 
masterly vividness. Of the entire history of Italy during this 
period he gives a careful sketch. Biondo shows us the passion 
for knowledge of the humanists before their attention had been 
devoted primarily to style. But the desire for style had begun to 
prevail before his death; Pius II. made an epitome of the Decades 
so as to make them more popular, and speaks of Biondo's book 
as 'opus laboriosum et utile, verum expolitore emendatoreque 
dignum * (Coin,^ xi.). 

3. Sigismund in Italy. 

Besides the general authorities above quoted, and those which 
especially deal with Sigismund, such as Windeck, we have some 
special sources of information. The learned Sienese, Pietro 
Kossi, in his Chronicle in Muratori, xx., 40, etc., gives a detailed 
account of Sigismund's sojourn in Siena. To this period of Sigis- 
mund's history is to be referred the famous novel of iENEAS 
Sylvius, Lucretia d BuryaH AmoreSt which is founded upon a love 
story of Caspar Schlick, Sigismund*s chancellor. Schlick supplied 
iEncas with the outlines, which he worked up into a tale, and 
contributed the details of Sienese life with which it is coloured. 
A description of Sigismund's coronation is given by Poooio in a 
letter to Niccoli in Baluzb, Misullanea, iii., 183 (ed. Luca). From 
the German side the fullest account, except that of Windeck, is 
given by Cornelius Zantflibt in his Cktonicant in Martbne and 
DuRAND, Amplissima ColUctio^ vol. v. Zantfliet was a monk of S. 
Jacob at Li^ge : his chronicle extends to the year 1461, when he 
probably died. We do not know the sources from which he 
gained his information; but concerning Sigismund in Italy he 
seems to have had especially accurate accounts, and gives details 
which are not to be found elsewhere. 

For Sigismund*8 relations with the Council during this period 
we have several of his letters in Mansi, xxix., in Martenb, 
Amplissima Collection vol. viii., also in John op Segovia. Much 
interesting information is given by Kluckhohn in an article on 
Herzog Wilhelm IIL von Bayern in Porschungen zur Deutschen 
GeschichtCt vol. ii. (1862), 521. The article contains the results of 
the writer's research into the letters of William of Bavaria, who 



376 EUGENIUS IV. 

represented Sigismund at Basel, addressed partly to Sigismund, 
partly to his own brother in Bavaria. They are preserved in the 
Reichs Archiv at Munich. 

4. For Italian politics at the end of the pontificate of Eugenius 
IV. we have the remarkable Life of Filippo Maria Visconti, by 
PiERO Decembrio Candido, in Muratori, xx., 986, etc. Piero's 
father was secretary to Giovanni Maria Visconti, and he himself 
was born in 1399. He was a famous scholar, and served first the 
Duke of Milan, afterwards Nicolas V., and finally Alfonso of 
Naples. His Life of Filippo Maria is one of the most notable 
biographies of the period, and shows the power of delineating 
character, and the careful appreciation of individuality, which 
existed amongst the early humanists. We are tempted sometimes 
to think that Piero has exaggerated slight traits in his desire to 
produce a finished picture of a typical Italian despot. His Life 
of Francesco Sforza in Muratori, xx., 1024, is more brief, and as 
it treats of a living personage is more guarded ; but the description 
of Sforza's entering into Milan is vivid and powerful. 

More important for the life of Francesco Sforza is Res gtsta 
Francisi Sforticdy by Giovanni Simoneta, in Muratori, xxi., 179. 
Simoneta was Sforza's secretary, and from the year 1444 to ^^is 
death in 1466 was constantly in his service. He conducted many 
negotiations for his master, and State papers passed through his 
hands, so that he is an authority of the highest importance for 
the relations between Sforza and the Popes. 

For the war between Sforza and Venice we have also Com- 
tnentarii Jacobi Piccinini of Piero Porcellio, in Muratori, xx., 
69, etc., continued in Muratori, xxv., i, etc. Porcellio was the 
envoy of Alfonso of Naples to Venice, and during the interregnum 
after the death of Filippo Maria Visconti he was in the camp of 
Piccinino and informed Alfonso of events as they passed. He 
afterwards reduced his impressions to a definite form in his Com- 
mentaries, which cover the years 1451-1453. Porcellio writes a 
somewhat inflated panegyric on his hero, and has not much real 
historical insight. More valuable is the Vita di Niccolo Ptcciniiw, 
by Piero Decembrio Candido in Muratori, xx., 1051 ; it was 
written as a funeral oration on Niccolo's death in 1444, and gives 
a brief sketch of his life and exploits in a laudatory strain. 

A modern work which gathers much information about the 
condottieri of Italy is Ricotti, Storia delle Compagnie di Ventura 
jn Italia (1845). 



THE COUNCIL OF BASEL. 377 

A work which covers much of the history of the Papal States is 
Cronica dc' Principali Patti d'ltalia dal anno 1417 al 1468, by 
NiccoLO DELLA TucciA, edited by Orioli, Rome, 1852. Tuccia 
was a merchant of Viterbo, born in 1400, who wrote also a 
chronicle of Viterbo, besides this general record of Italian affairs. 
For the pontificates of Eugenius IV. and Nicolas V. his sketch is 
full and accurate ; for the later period he becomes more annal- 
istic. 

17. The Council of Basel, 

The Acts of the Council, and a number of documents relating 
to it, are given in Mansi, Concilia, vols, xxix.-xxxi. For this period 
Mansi's collection is particularly rich. The greater part of vol. 
viii. of Martene and Durand, Amplissima Collection is also devoted 
to letters and documents dealing with this subject. The Acts of 
the Council of Basel were largely circulated, and the Council pro- 
duced its own historiographer in John of Segovia, whose vast 
collection of documents remained at Basel. It was used by 
AuGUSTiNus Patricius, a canon of Siena, who, in 1480, wrote a 
Summa Concilii Basiliensis at the request of Cardinal Piccolomini. 
He says about the MS. of John of Segovia : * Hos quidem codices 
ipsi BasilesB vidimus, magna diligentia ut Sibyllarum libros a 
civibus servatos; quorum exemplum a Reverendissimo Domino 
Cardinal! Sancti Morci, rerum ecclesiasticarum diligentissimo 
perscrutatore, nuper habuimus'. He cannot, however, have had 
a transcript of all John of Segovia's MS., but at best an abstract. 
He had, however, other sources of information : * Habui et primam 
hujus synodi partem collectam a piae memoriae Dominico Cardi- 
nale Firmano qui tamdiu Concilio interfuit, quamdiu mansit 
Concordia cum Eugenio Pontifice ', Besides this use of Capra- 
nica's papers by Patricius, they were also used by Michael 
Catalanus, De Vita et Scriptis Dominici Capranica, Firmi, 1793. 
The use of these authorities gave the work of Patricius great 
weight; it is published in Schannat and Hartzheim, Concilia 
Germanice, vol. v., 774, etc. 

But the work of Patricius has been thrown into the shade by 
the publication of John op Segovia's Gesta sacrosancta synodi 
generalis Basiliensis in Monumenta Conciliorum generalium sceculi 
decimi quinti, vol. ii. (Vienna, 1873). Unfortunately only the first 
part of this vast collection has yet appeared ; but it covers the 
most interesting part of the Council's activity, up to the departure 



378 THE COUNCIL OF BASEL. 

of Cesarini at the end of 1437. John of Segovia, as his name 
shows, was a Spaniard, a learned canonist, one of the first who 
came to the Council, and one of the last who left it. His history 
contains the decrees and many of the letters of the Council, 
which his position enabled him easily to procure. He was one of 
the leading members of the assembly, thoroughly convinced of the 
rightfulness of the Council's position, and a firm adherent of the 
conciliar principle. He was, however, a wise and moderate man, 
averse from extreme measures, and dragged against his will to 
follow the lead of the Cardinal d' Allemand. He was one of the 
Cardinals of Felix V., and after the dissolution of the Council 
returned quietly to a small bishopric in Spain, to which Nicolas 
V. appointed him. His work is devoid of style, and is the produc- 
tion of a canonist rather than a historian, but it is a careful 
collection of documents and an accurate statement of facts. We 
can only regret the absence of picturesque details, and the ex- 
clusively theologcial nature of the judgments which it contains. 
John of Segovia is only interested in tracing the development of 
the conciliar principle, which he does in an abstract manner. Yet 
his work remains as the most complete account of the Council's 
activity as a whole. 

What is wanting in John of Segovia is partly supplied by ^Eneas 
Sylvius Piccolomini, who projected an entire history of the 
Council, of which we have only the beginning in a letter describ- 
ing Basel, printed at the end of Urstisius, Historic Basiliensis 
Epitome. We possess, however, two works of his concerning the 
Council — (i.) Commentarii de Gestis Basiliensis Concilii^ which is 
printed in all the editions of his works. This is, however, a frag- 
ment ; it begins with the Diet of Niirnberg in 1438, and reaches to 
the election of Felix V. in 1439 ; it was probably written soon after 
the events it describes. It has a strong theological aspect, and 
gives at length the arguments of the Council in favour of its final 
proceedings against the Pope. As an appendix is a letter of iEneas 
to John of Segovia, describing the coronation of Felix V. (2.) More 
important is his second work, Dc Rebus Basilice Gestis Commentarius, 
dedicated to Cardinal Carvajal, written probably in 1451, when the 
Council of Basel was a thing of the past. In this iEneas writes as 
a historian and gives a philosophical survey of the causes of the 
conciliar movement and its failure. He looks at the Council in 
the light of his own after-experiences, and so takes a clear and de- 
cided view of its revolutionary character and its unfounded preten- 



THE COUNCIL OF BASEL, 379 

sions. The great merit of the book is its clear and incisive judg- 
ments of character. The step from John of Segovia to iEneas 
Sylvius is from the mediaeval to the modern world. The one deals 
with abstract ideas, the other with definite personalities ; one is 
obscure, and involved in style, the other writes with epigrammatic 
terseness in every sentence. This interesting work is only to be 
found in Fea, Pius II. a calumniis vindicatus, Rome, 1822. 

Another work of iEneas Sylvius, in defence of the Council of 
Basel, is the Libellus Dialogorum de generalis Concilii authoritate et 
Gestis Basiliensium in Kollar, Analecta Vindobonensia, ii., 685. 
These dialogues are written in the style of Cicero's Tusculans, and 
are a masterpiece of elegant style in dressing up the arguments in 
favour of the conciliar principle in an attractive manner, and en- 
livening the tedium by appropriate digressions. They show iEneas 
bidding for the Council's favour by his power of fine writing. He 
is dazzling the theologians by showing them what a scholar can do. 

The letters of iEneas Sylvius, written from Basel, contain 
incidental notices of the Council, especially one of May 20,. 1437, 
in Mansi, xxxi., 220. 

The history of the beginning of the Council of Basel, and of its 
relation with the Councils of Constance and Siena, is given by 
John op Ragusa, Initium et Prosecutio Basiliensis Concilii, in Mon, 
Conciliorum, i., i, etc. It extends only to October, 1431, the period 
in which John represented Cesarini. 

If John of Segovia writes from the conciliar point of view, and 
iEneas Sylvius somewhat as an indifferentist, we have the Italian 
opinion in the letters of Ambrogio Traversari, the learned general 
of the Camaldulensians, who was the envoy of Eugenius IV. to 
Basel in 1435, and afterwards to Sigismund in 1436. These letters 
have been edited by Mehus (1759), whose Life of Traversari is a 
mine of information about the literary history of the time. The 
letters of Traversari to Eugenius IV., to Sigismund and to Cesarini 
are especially valuable. It was largely owing to Traversari's argu- 
ments and to his mediation that Cesarini was reconciled to the 
•Pope, and his letters enable us to see the motives which weighed 
with Italian Churchmen. They show the general feeling of the 
Council, and give many details about its chief members. Traver- 
sari was also an active member of the Council of Florence, and 
tells us much about the Greeks, especially Bessarion. He died 
soon after the end of the Council of Florence in October, 1439. 
Vespasiano da Bisticci has written a short life of him. 



38o THE COUNCIL OF BASEL AND THE HUSSITES. 

For Ccsarini we have, besides other authorities, a most attrac- 
tive life by Vespasiano da Bisticci, which gives us a clear picture 
of his gentleness and tact as well as his sterling worth. The 
eulogium of Poooio pronounced on Cesarini's death also contains 
some information about him. 

Other details about the Council are to be found in the Pormi- 
cdrius of Johannes Nider, a Dominican prior of Basel, who was 
employed in the negotiations with the Bohemians, and died in 1438. 
The Formicarius is a parable of the Christian life founded on the 
example of the ant ; it gives many details of the religious life of the 
time, with incidental references to passing events. 

18. The Council of Basel and the Hussites. 

The labours of Herr Palacky and the munificence of the Austrian 
Government have made public a series of relations which enable 
us to follow in detail the proceedings of the Council with the 
Bohemians. These interesting works are printed in vol. i. of the 
Monumenta Conciliorum saculi decemiquinti, and are written by 
members of the Council who took a leading part in the events 
which they record. 

(i,) John Stojkovic of Raqusa has already been mentioned as 
an envoy of the University of Paris to urge the assembling of the 
Council, and as acting as Cesarini's representative at the opening. 
We have seen him taking a chief part in the disputation with the 
Bohemians at Basel in 1433. In 1435 he was sent by the Council 
to Constantinople to arrange matters with the Greeks ; this proved 
a difficult task, and he remained at Constantinople till the begin- 
ning of 1438. In the same year he was sent to confer with the 
new King of the Romans, Albert of Austria, whom he found at the 
siege of Tabor. He entered the service of Felix V., and was by 
him made Cardinal, under the title of S. Sixtus, and died in 1444. 
He was staunch in his allegiance to the Council, but by an error 
he has been confounded with another John, * dvrjp <f>i\6<ro(f)os rSav 
AarlvaVf * provincialis Lombardiae,' who was a disputant against . 
Mark of Ephesus in the Council of Florence. It is impossible 
that John of Ragusa should have quitted Basel for Florence and 
have again returned to Basel. Echard, Scriptores ordinis Prcedica- 
toruntf identifies the orator at Florence with John of Montenegro, 
provincial of the Dominicans in Tuscany. The Tractatus quomodo 
Bohemi reductisunt ad unitatem ecclesia^ in Mon. Condi., i., 1358, 
begins with the first negotiations of the Council with the Boheimans 



THE COUNCIL OF BASEL AND THE HUSSITES. 381 

at the end of 1431, and gives all the documents relating to the pre- 
liminaries, and an account of the Conference till the end of 
February, 1433, when it abruptly ends. The relation of John ol 
Ragusa to the Council concerning his Greek embassy is printed by 
Cecconi, Studi Storici^ No. clxxviii. 

(2.) Still more important is the Liber Diurnus of Peter of Saaz, 
Mon. ConciLf i., 289. Peter of Saaz was one of the Hussite repre- 
sentatives, and his journal covers the period of the presence of the 
Hussites in Basel in 1433. Besides its historical value, it throws 
much light on the feelings and opinions of the different sections of 
the Bohemians. 

(3.) Giles Carlier, dean of Cambray, one of the scholars of 
Gerson and D*Ailly at the University of Paris, went to the Council 
of Basel as the representative of his bishop. He was a famous 
theologian, and was one of the four disputants chosen by the 
Council to answer the Bohemians. He was one of tlie envoys who 
accompanied the Bohemians to Prag in April, 1433; he was also 
sent to Regensburg to meet Sigismund and the Bohemians in 
August, 1434, and again to the Diet of Briinn in 1435. Soon after 
this he saw the troubles impending over the Council, and judged 
it wisest to return to his Cathedral of Cambray early in 1436. 
His Liber de Legationibus Concilii Basiliensis pro reductione Dohe- 
morum in Mon. Concil., 361, gives an account of the three embassies 
in which he was engaged, as well as the second embassy to Prag 
in September, 1433, in which he did not take part. 

(4.) Thomas Eberndorfer of Hoselbach was a leading member 
of the University of Vienna, who came to Basel as the University's 
representative in 1432 and stayed there till 1435, when he was 
bound to return, because he had taken an oath to the University 
that he would never consent to grant the Hussites the Communion 
under both kinds. He was, however, present, at Sigismund's 
request, at the Diet of Iglau in 1436. His Diarium in Mon. Concil, 
i., 703, etc., covers the period from 1433 to 1436, and is especially 
valuable for the Diet of Iglau. Eberndorfer took part in several 
of the diets held later on, and laboured to make peace between the 
Council and Eugenius IV. He was at first an adherent ol the 
Council, but would not follow it in its bitter antagonism to the 
Pope. He was afterwards engaged in the stormy politics ot 
Austria till his death in 1464. Eberndorfer was a considerable 
writer of history. His Chronicon Austriacum, in Pez, Scriptores 
Rerum Austriacarum, ii., 689, is useful for the period of his own life- 



382 THE COUNCILS OP FERRARA AND FLORENCE, 

time, though it is put together in the form of scattered notes rather 
than a consecutive history. He also wrote a Liher Augustalis, or 
history of the Emperors, and a Chronicon Pontificum Romanorum, 
which have not been printed ; but Palacky, in his Geschichte von 
Bohmen, has made use of the MSS. and quotes passages from 
them. 

(5.) The Registrum of John of Tours in Mon. ConciL, i., 782, 
reaches to the departure of Rokycana from Prag in June, 1437. 
Of John we know little save that he was a notary who accompanied 
the Council's envoys to Bohemia. 

19. TJte Councils of Ferrara and Florence. 

The preliminary negotiations between the Greeks, the Pope, and 
the Council, tedious and unimportant as they may seem, are yet a 
most interesting record of diplomacy. Thanks to the diligence of 
a Florentine canon, Cecconi, Studi Storici sul Concilia di Firenze^ 
Florence, 1869, we can study them at length. He has brought 
together and arranged the documents already printed, and has 
supplemented them largely from the Florentine and Vatican 
archives. 

For the proceedings of the Council we have — 

(i.) On the Latin side, the Acts of the Council first compiled 
from the Vatican archives in 1638, by Orazio Giustiniani, the 
Vatican librarian, and published in Mansi, Concilia, xxxi., and 
Labbe, Concilia, xiii., 825, etc. The important part of Giustiniani's 
collection is by Andrea de S. Croce, a Roman, and pontifical ad- 
vocate, whose work is thrown into the form of a dialogue between 
himself and Ludovico Pontano, a form which is not conducive to 
clearness of expression in a record of the sittings of a deliberative 
assembly. 

(2.) On the side of the Greeks, who were in favour of the union, 
we have what is known as the Acta Graca, in Mansi and Labbe, 
as above. It is the work of a Greek who was present and who was 
well acquainted with everything that passed. It is principally 
engaged with an account of the disputes in the Council, and is 
evidently written from notes made at the time. It has no writer's 
name appended to it ; but all the critics are agreed that it must 
be the work either of Dorotheus, Archbishop of Mitylene, or of 
Bessarion. The evidence is purely internal, and the arguments on 
either side are put forward by Fromman, Kritische Beitrdge zur 
Geschichte der Florentiner Kircheneinsgung, 69, etc., who argues for 



THE COUNCILS OF FERRARA AND FLORENCE. 383 

Dorotheus, and by Vast, Cardinal Bessariorty Appendix I. I incline 
to think that Vast has made out a strong case in favour of 
Bessarion's authorship. 

(3.) Sylvester Syropulus was a Greek ecclesiastic, who, under 
the title of fi4yas tKKKrjo-idpxrjs Koi A(/cato(^vXaf, went in attendance 
on the Patriarch Joseph, He wrote a history of the proceedings 
of the Greeks, to which he applies the title of ' Anofivrffiovivfiara, 
His work was first published from a MS. in Paris by Robert 
Creyghton, chaplain to Charles IL, in 1660. It was issued under 
the title Vera Historia Unionis non vera ; but the Latin translation 
which accompanies it is by no means to be trusted. The work of 
Syropulus is most interesting; for he tells us not so much the 
sessions of the Council as the private doings of its members, the 
dissensions among the Greeks, the persistency of Bessarion, and 
the pressure used by the Emperor. Syropulus signed the decree 
of the Council in favour of union, unwillingly, but afterwards 
repented, and wrote his History as a kind of retractation. 

The theological points raised by the Council of Florence are 
many and interesting, and I have been reluctantly compelled to 
pass them by. The historical importance of the union entirely 
dwarfed its theological aspect, and it was the result of necessity, 
not of conviction. The whole aspect of the relations between the 
Eastern and Western Churches is drawn out with care and im- 
partiality by PiCHLER, Geschichte dcr Kirchlichen Trennung zwischcn 
dcm Orient und Occident ^ Munich, 1864. From the Papal point of 
view the history of the Council has been fairly set forth by Hefelb, 
Concilien Geschichte ; from the point of view of the Greek Church 
by an anonymous Russian writer (Professor Gorski in Moscow) 
whose work has been translated into English, Hw^ory of the Council 
of Florence, by Basil Popoff, edited by Neale (London, 1861) ; 
and finally a German Protestant has dealt critically with the 
authorities, From man, Kritische Beitrdge zur Geschichte der Floren- 
titter Kircheneinsgung (Halle, 1872). The real question in dispute 
is whether Syropulus or the Acta Graca is to be regarded as the 
record of what happened. There were clearly two parties amongst 
the Greeks from the beginning, and these two authorities express 
their different views. As a matter of history, it is not difficult to 
combine them ; as a theological question affecting the proceedings 
of a general Council, there are greater difficulties. Added to the 
other difficulties in the way of arriving at the exact facts, we must 
remember that the Greeks and Latins knew little of one another's 



384 THE COUNCILS OF FERRARA AND FLORENCE. 

language, which must have hindered an understanding on small 
points of discussion. 

Even concerning the Union-decree itself many curious questions 
have arisen. Syropulus tells us that there were five original 
copies, signed by the Greeks ; but the Protos3aicellus Gregorius 
signed only the first on July 5, and refused to sign the others, 
which were submitted on July 20. The Pope was anxious to have 
several copies of the decree to circulate as widely as possible. 
Many more than five were current. Brequiqny, in vol. xliii. of 
Memoires de V Academic de Belles Lettres de Paris (1786), mentions 
ten copies, but none of them was the original. Vbspasiano da 
BisTicci, in hisLi/i? ofCesarini, says that Cesarini was entrusted with 
the superintendence of the decree ; wishing to keep the original 
at Florence in the Palazzo dei Signori, he consequently only gave 
copies to others. This original decree, with the signature of 
Gregorius, in the box in which Cesarini put it, is preserved in the 
Laurentian Library of Florence; it has been published by 
MiLANEsi in Archivio Storico Italiano, vol. vi., Nuova Serie (1857), 
p. 219. 

The account of the reception of the union by the Greeks is given 
by George Phrantzes, Chronicon Majus^ bk. ii., in Migne's Patro- 
logiuy clvi. 

20. The Ecclesiastical Policy of France and Germany. 

The Pragmatic Sanction of Bourges is given in full in the Ordon- 
nances des Rois des France de la troisihme Race, vol. xiii., 267. Many 
documents concerning it are in Pinson, Caroli Septemi Pragmatica 
Sanctio (Paris, 1666), also Traitez des Droits et Lihertez de VEglise 
Gallicane. 

For German affairs the documents are to be found in Muller's 
Reichstagstheatrum unter Keyser Friedrich V. (1713); Koch, Sanctio 
Pragmatica Germanorum (1789); Munch's Sammlung alter dltern 
und neuern Konkordate; Leibnitz, Mantissa Codicis Juris Gentium 
diplomatici ; Wurdtwein, Subsidia Diplomatics, viii., ix. ; Braun, 
Notitia Historica, vol. vi. 

Besides these are the documents more immediately relating to 
Frederick III., in Chmel*s Materialmen zur osterreichischen Geschichte ; 
Chmel's Regesten des Friedrich III. ; Chmel's Zur Kritik der 
osterreichischen Geschichte (1850-51); Chmel's Liter arische Reise 
(185 1). Chmel has also written Geschichte Kaiser Friedrich IV., 
which unfortunately reaches only to the year 1452. 



ECCLESIASTICAL POLICY OF FRANCE AND GERMANY. 385 

We have need to hold fast by all the documentary evidence 
which we can obtain in order to check the narrative of ^Eneas 
Sylvius, who is an excellent representative of the dangerous 
facility of a man of letters writing the history of things in which 
he himself took part. Valuable as are the writings of iEneas, we 
have always to allow for the strong personal element which they 
contain. No doubt iEneas tells us how things looked to him ; 
but it is necessary to look beyond his narrative for the forces 
which were at work. The accounts of iEneas are to be found in 
his Commentaries in Fea, and his other Commentaries edited by 
GoBELiNUS, in his Historia Fredcriciy of which the only complete 
edition is that of Kollar, AnaUcia Vindohonensia, ii., 2, etc., and 
in his letters, the chronological arrangement of which has been 
determined by Voiqt, in Archiv fiir Kunde osterreichischer Ges- 
chichts-Quellen, xvi., 323, where some are given that have not been 
previously published. There is a valuable criticism by Bayer, 
Die Historia Frederici III. Imperatoris des Mneas Silvio di Piccolomini 
(Prag, 1872). 

The work, however, which guides us through the complications 
of German ecclesiastical policy in this period is Puckert, Die 
Kurfiirstliche Neutralditt wdhrend des Easier Concils (Leipzig, 1858). 
Piickert has used as his material the papers in the Dresden 
archives, consisting of instructions to ambassadors, correspond- 
ence, and drafts of negotiations, drawn up during the period of 
the prevalence of the oligarchical policy, between 1438 and 1448. 
He has disregarded iEneas Sylvius, and gives us the diplomacy 
without the picturesque details. 

For a more general view of this period, Droyssen's Geschichte 
Preussens Politikf vols. i. and ii., is excellent. 

21. Nicolas V, 

(i.) For Nicolas V. we are lucky in possessing the Life written 
by GiANOZZo Manetti in Muratori, iii., pt. ii., 907. Manetti, as 
the Pope's secretary, who was employed in literary work, had 
ample opportunities of seeing and estimating the activity of the 
Pope, which he celebrates in a tone of ardent eulogy. Yet 
Manetti is given to bombast, and strives to lend an air of 
miraculous greatness to his subject. The value of Manetti's Life 
is not so much political as literary and artistic. He gives accurate 
details of the buildings contemplated and erected by Nicolas V., 
of his work in gathering MSS., of the treasures of every sort which 
VOL. II. 25 



386 NICOLAS 7. 

he collected. For this reason his book is a storehouse of infor- 
mation for the architectural and artistic history of the early 
Renaissance. The * Testamentum Nicolai V.,' which forms the 
third book of his Life, can hardly be regarded as strictly historical. 
No doubt Nicolas V. addressed his Cardinals, and no doubt he said 
something of the sort which Manetti attributes to him ; but we are 
not to take this Ustamentum as a literal account of the Pope's last 
words. * Haec et alia quaedam hujus modi memoriter peroravit,' 
says Manetti. His speech is to be regarded as a speech of Thucy- 
dides— it graphically expresses the tendencies and aims of the life 
of Nicolas v., but it is not to be taken as his own view of himself. 

The Life of Platina is a tolerable compendium of events, but 
is marked by no special merit. 

The Life by Vespasiano da Bisticci is one of Vespasiano's best 
and happiest. He knew Nicolas V. as a book collector in his 
days of poverty, and the sympathy of a common taste connected 
the two men. Vespasiano's account of his interview with Nicolas 
V. after his accession to the Pontificate is a piece of life-like 
description. 

Besides these we have a valuable authority for Nicolas V. in 
Georqio, Vita Nicolai Quinii (Rome, 1742). Georgio was chap- 
lain to Pope Benedict XIV. and had access to the Vatican 
archives, which he used in compiling his work. 

For the early life of Nicolas V. we have much information in 
iENEAs Sylvius Piccolomini, Commentariusy ed. Fea. The circum- 
stances of the death of Eugenius IV. and the election of Nicolas 
V. are related at length by JEneas in a relatio to Frederick III., 
printed by Muratori, iii., pt. ii., 878, etc. 

(2.) For German affairs we have ^Eneas Sylvius, Vita Frederici 
III., with the same authorities to check it as have been mentioned 
before. Interesting, however, are the brief remarks of Matthias 
DoRiNG, the continuator of the chronicle of Engelhus, in Mencken, 
Rerum Germanicarum Scriptores, iii., i, etc. Doring was a Francis- 
can professor of theology at Erfurt and minister of Kiritz in Saxony ; 
his share of the continuation of Engelhus seems to extend from 
1420- 1464. He is chiefly concerned with the affairs of Saxony 
and Brandenburg; but his pronounced personality makes him 
speak out, and his opinions on matters of ecclesiastical as well as 
general politics show us the tone of independent German feeling. 
Thus of the year of jubilee he says, * Magnus populus Romam 
visitavit propter spem vanam absolucionis sine restitucione injuste 



NICOLAS V. 3S7 

detentorum et ablatorum *. He calls Frederick * Rex Romanorum, 
verius Judaeorum '. Of his conduct towards the crusade he says, 
* In his omnibus Imperator Fredericus Australis sedit in domo, 
plantans ortos et capiens aviculas ignavus\ These are but 
samples of the flashes of suppressed scorn which illumine Boring's 
pages. 

For the activity of Fra Capistrano in Hungary we have several 
letters of his and of his followers in Wadding, Annates Fratrum 
Minorumf vol. vi., especially the letters of Giovanni da Tagliacozzo 
and Nicola de Fara, who tell of Capistrano's death ; but they mag- 
nify his acts with a view to his canonisation. 

For Frederick HI.'s coronation ^Eneas Sylvius' Historia Frederici 
is almost a journal of events. We have also Dcsponsatio et Coro- 
natio Frederici Imperatoris tertii, by Nicolas Lanckman von Falken- 
STEiM, one of Frederick's envoys to Portugal, who accompanied 
Leonora, and gives a diary of the diplomatic and ceremonial pro- 
ceedings in which he was engaged. It is printed in Fez, Rerum 
A ustriacarum Scriptores, ii., 572, etc. Chmel, Regesta Frederici III., 
i. Anhang, publishes a Descriptio introitus Im. Frederici III., by 
GoswiN Mandoctes, who calls himself * cantor in capella papae,' 
and was an eye-witness. 

Further materials for German affairs are given by ^Eneas 
Sylvius, Oratio adversus Australes, in Mansi, Pii II. OrationeSy i., 184. 
Mansi also publishes a work of iEneas Sylvius, De Ratisbonensi 
Dietay iii., i, etc. The crusading zeal of the Duke of Burgundy is 
narrated by Matthieu de Coussy (ed. Buchon), the excellent con- 
tinuator of Monstrelet. 

(3.) The conspiracy of Stefano Porcaro is an interesting episode 
in the history of the city of Rome, and as such excited consider- 
able attention. The authorities are Infessura, Diariunty in 
MuRATORi, iii., pt. ii., 1134, who gives a brief account of affairs as 
he had gathered them ; he is full of the Roman spirit, and calls 
Porcaro *uomo di bene ed amatore della sua patria'. More im- 
portant is the account by the great architect, Leo Battista 
Alberti, De Conjuratione Porcaria, in Muratori, xxv., 293. Alberti, 
as an aristocrat and a friend of Nicolas V., regards with horror 
this attempt against the Pope, and has no interest in the Roman 
side of the question. An interesting work has recently been pub- 
lished by Perlbach, Petri de Godis, Dyalogon de Conjuratione Por- 
caria (1879). Piero de Godi was a native of Vicenza, apparently 
a curia!, as his Dialogue, written at the time, is full of admiration 



388 CALIXTUS III. 

of the Pope and detestation of Porcaro, It contains much informa- 
tion about Roman aifairs. Still more important is Tommasini, 
Documcnti relativi a Stefano Porcari (Rome, 1879), who publishes a 
letter from a Florentine resident in Rome, which was clearly the 
basis of the account given by Machiavelli in his Storia FiorentinOj 
and is a plain account given by an observer of events. Tommasini 
also publishes Conformatio Curie Romane loqucntis edita per Joseph B, 
(probably Giuseppe Bripio, a learned Milanese in the employment 
of Nicolas v.). This is a poem celebrating the deliverance of 
Nicolas V. ; its importance has already been noticed by Ranke, 
Die Romische Pdpste, Anhang i., but it is now published entire, and 
enables us to compare the views of another writer with those of 
Manetti on the greatness of the works of Nicolas V. 

22. Calixtus III. 

It was natural that a man like Calixtus III., succeeding one 
like Nicolas V., should meet with small aifection from men of letters. 
After the copious materials for Nicolas V. we have little about 
Calixtus III. His Life, by Platina, is short and almost con- 
temptuous, yet does full justice to the excellent intentions of the 
Pope, and his blameless private life, save as regards nepotism. The 
Life of Capranica, by Pogoio, in Baluze, Miscellanea, iii., 263, gives 
us some information of the feeling of the Cardinals. We have also 
the letters of ^Eneas Sylvius, and the mention in his Commefttaries, 
ed. GoBELiNUS. For Germany the authorities remain the same. 
For the crusading projects of Calixtus III. we have the documents 
in Wadding, vi., and many mentions in Sanudo, Vite dei Duchi di 
Venezia, in Muratori, xxii., 1158, etc. : also documents in Theiner, 
Monumenta Hungariam sacram illustrantia, vol. ii. ; and in D'Achery, 
Spicilegium, iii. A somewhat inflated account is given by Leo- 
drsius Cribelli, De Expeditione Pii IL in Turcas, in Muratori, 
xxiii., 21, &c. 

23. Pius II. 

For the Pontificate of Pius II. we are exceptionally well sup- 
plied with materials, of which the most important the Commentarii 
Pii IL, which are supplemented by the Cardinalis Papiensis Com- 
mentarii in the Frankfort edition of 1614. Ammannati begins his 
Commentaries with the Crusade of Pius II., and so takes up the 
story where Pius ceases. Besides these we have Vita Pii IL, by 



PIUS II. 389 

his friend Campano, in Muratori, iii., part ii., 969 ; and also his 
Life by his secretary, Platina. Campano writes in the humanistic 
strain, somewhat as a discreet panegyrist of one whom he feels to 
be unpopular with his readers. Platina, on the other hand, looks 
back upon the days of Pius II. as golden in comparison with those 
of Paul II., and writes with genuine affection and respect. It is 
customary to speak in terms of high praise of the biography of 
Campano ; but I find it laboured, and though it contains many 
intimate details, yet it has little real power of characterisation and 
is badly put together. The Life of Platina, on the other hand, is 
by far his best work, and though to some extent founded upon 
Campanus, it is full of individual appreciation of an extremely 
attractive man. 

Besides these Lives, the letters of Ammannati, following the Com- 
mcntarii in the Frankfort edition of 1614, as well as the letters of 
Campano, and Filelfo, tell us much of Pius II. in his personal 
and literary character. 

For Italian affairs under Pius II. we have, as of special value, 
SiMONETA, D6 Rebus gestis Francisci Sfortia, in Muratori, xxi. 
Simoneta*s account of the relations of Sforza and the Pope re- 
garding Neapolitan affairs gives us Sforza's view, while Pius II. in 
his Commentaries tells his own. It is interesting to compare 
the two, and the comparison affords material for appreciating 
Pius II.'s estimate of his own doings. For the Neapolitan wars we 
have Jo VI ANUS Pontanus, De Bello Neapolitano, Pontano was a 
literary favourite of Ferrante, and was present with him in several 
expeditions during the campaign. Pontano was a highly-gifted 
man, a poet, an astronomer, and a philosopher, as well as a 
historian ; but his chief claim to glory will not rest on his historical 
merits. His book aims at imitating Livy, and is neither good for 
military nor political history, but confuses, in an attempt after the 
graces of style, the accounts even of things which he himself saw. 
CosTANZo has used Pontano, and supplemented him from other 
sources. 

For a brief account of Pius II. in relation to Siena we have 
Fragmentum Historia Senensis, by Francesco Tommasio, in Mura- 
tori, XX., 55. For the wars of Federigo of Montefeltro, and 
Piccinino, we have the Chronicon Eugubinum of Guernier de 
Berni, in Muratori, xxi., 923. This chronicle deals with events, 
as seen at Gubbio, from 1350 to 1472. Berni served under 
Federigo, and dedicates his book to him ; his avowed object is to 



390 PIUS n. 

contrast the miserable state of Gubbio from internal dissensions in 
former times with the happiness and glory which it enjoys under 
the rule of the Montefeltri. Federigo of Urbino has two historians, 
who date from the middle of the sixteenth century — Girolamo 
Muzio and Bernardino Baldi, who both used documents pre- 
served at Urbino^ The only English book that deals with any 
thoroughness with Italian history of the period which I have 
traversed is Denistoun's History of the Duke of Urbino (1851). 

There are many incidental mentions in Sanudo, Vite dc' Duchi 
di Vemzia, in Muratori, xxii., a work founded on a knowledge of 
Venetian documents. Still more important are the Annali Vcncti 
of DoMENico Malipiero, published in vol. vii. of the first series of 
the Archivio Storico Italiano, These annals cover the period from 
1457 to 1500, and are written with the care which distinguishes 
the Venetian writers of this and the following century. Mali- 
piero was born in 1428, and died in 1515; he took part in the 
conduct of Venetian affairs, and had access to documents which he 
has incorporated in his work. The Annali are divided into two 
parts, * Delle Guerre coi Turchi,' and * Delle Guerre d'ltalia \ 
The first part enables us to judge of the crusading schemes of 
Pius II. 

For the proceedings of the Congress of Mantua we have a brief 
narrative from Nicolas Petit, a French ambassador, in D'Achery, 
Spicilegiumy vol. ii., 806, where are also some other documents relat- 
ing to the Congress. Other accounts of the Congress and the sub- 
sequent proceedings of the Duke of Burgundy in relation to the 
crusade are given by the two excellent Burgundian contemporary 
chronicles, Matthieu de Coussy and Jacques du Clercq (ed. 
Buchon). They also tell us much of the dealings of Pius II. with 
Louis XI. The documents relating to the Pragmatic Sanction 
are to be found in Preuves dcs Liberies de VEglise Gallicane. 

For Pius II. and Germany we have the authorities already 
mentioned for Frederick III., with a number of other sources of 
information about points of detail. For the strifi^ of Nicolas of 
Cusa and Sigismund of the Tyrol we have the results of a diligent 
investigation amongst the archives of the Bishopric of Brixen, 
preserved at Innsbruck, in a lengthy work by Jaqer, Der Streitdes 
Cardinals Nicolaus von Cusa, mit dem Herzoge Sigismund von Osterreich 
als Graf en von Tirol (Innsbruck, 1866). The interesting controversy 
with Heimburg is given in Goldast, Monarchia, ii., 1587, etc., and 
in Freher, Germanicarum Rerum Scriptores, ii. 120, etc. A work 



PIUS 11. 39^ 

which deals with Heimburg in detail is Brockhaus, Grt^gor von 
Heimburgj Leipzig, 1861, which has, however, the qualities of a 
biography rather than a history. For the dealings of Pius II. with 
the Archbishopric of Mainz we have a narrative by a citizen of 
Mainz, Nachricht von der Unterjochung der Stadt Mainz, published 
by BoDMANN, in vols. iv. and v. of the Rhdnishes Archiv (181 1). 

For Bohemian affairs we have important sources of information 
in Palacky, Urkundliche Deitrilgc zur Geschichte Buhmens in Zeit- 
alter Georges von Podebrad, forming vol. xx. of Fontts Rcrum Aus- 
triacarum. Most valuable is the Historia Wratislaviensis of Peter 
EscHENLOER, edited by Markoraf, in vol. vii. of Scriptores Rcrum 
SiUsiacarum. Eschenloer was a native of Nurnberg, who came as 
town clerk to Breslau in 1455, and died in 1481. His history 
extends from 1457 to 1471, but after the year 1468 becomes ann^l^^' 
istic as though his interest were gone. About the relation>ef^the 
Latin version of Eschenloer to a German version published by 
KuNiscH in 1827 I must refer to Markgrafs preface and Lorenz, 
Dcutschland's Geschichtsquellen, ii., 234. As a supplement to Eschen- 
loer, Markqrap has also published Politische Correspondenz Breslau*s, 
1454-1463, vol. viii. of Scriptores Rerum Silesiacarum, It contains 
several reports and letters of Fantinus, the Papal envoy in 
Bohemia. The entire period of the Catholic reaction in Bohemia 
is largely illustrated by Klose, Documentirte Geschichte und 
Beschreibung von Breslau (1780), of which vol. iii. is full of valuable 
information respecting the attitude of the Catholics towards King 
George. For this period of Bohemian history, besides Palacky's 
Geschichte Bohmens, we have an excellent work by Jordan, Das 
Konigthtim Georg's von Podebrad, Leipzig, 1861, which treats 
especially of the ecclesiastical side oi George's political position. 

For the whole period comprised by the Lite of Pius II., I am 
under great obligations to Voigt, Mnea Silvio de^ Piccolomini 
als Papst Pius der Zweite, und sein Zeitalter, Berlin, 1856-63. 



END OF VOL. II. 



AOfiRDEEN: THE UNIVERSITY PRESS. 



UNIYERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARY 
BERKELEY 

Reciini to desk &om which borrowed. 
This book u DUE on the last date stamped below. 



6^0] 



'°?Sii% 



BEB29 7968 5 



^' 



WW 801971 341 



4t^£B 5 1375 



^ 



• 



/ 



r.::. 



CI?v AUG 2 1 1981 



L,D 21-100nir-ll,'49(B71468l6)476 



U.C. BERKELEY LIBRARIES