HISTORY OF THE POPES
VOL. XVIII
PASTORS HISTORY OF THE POPES
THE HISTORY OF THE POPES. Translated from
the German of LUDWIG, FREIHERR VON PASTOR. Edited, as to
Vols. I. -VI. by the late FREDERICK IGNATIUS ANTROBUS, and,
as to Vols. VII. -XXIV. by RALPH FRANCIS KERR, of the
London Oratory, Vols. XXV. -XXXIV. by DOM ERNEST GRAF,
of Buckfast Abbey, and Vols. XXXV.-XXXVIII. by E. F-
PEELER.
Vols. I. and II. A.D. 1305-1458
Vols. III. and IV. A.D. 1458-1483
Vols. V. and VI. A.D. 1484-1513
Vols. VII. and VIII. A.D. 1513-1521
Vols. IX. and X. A.D. 1522-1534
Vols. XI. and XII. A.D. 1534-1549
Vols. XIII. and XIV. A.D. 1550-1559
Vols. XV. and XVI. A.D. 1559-1565
Vols. XVII. and XVIII. A.D. 1566-1572
Vols. XIX. and XX. A.D. 1572-1585
Vols. XXI. and XXII. A.D. 1585-1591
Vols. XXIII. and XXIV. A.D. 1592-1604
Vols. XXV. and XXVI. A.D. 1605-1621
Vols. XXVII. to XXIX. A.D. 1621-1644
Vols. XXX. to XXXII. A.D. 1644-1700
Vols. XXXIII. and XXXIV. A.D. 1700-1740
Vols. XXXV. and XXXVI. A.D. 1740-1769
Vols. XXXVII. and XXXVIII. A.D. 1758-1774
The original German text of the History of the Popes is published
by Herder & Co., Freiburg (Baden).
THE
HISTORY OF THE
FROM THE CLOSE OF THE MIDDLE AGES
DRAWN FROM THE SECRET ARCHIVES OF THE VATICAN AND OTHER
ORIGINAL SOURCES
FROM THE GERMAN OF
LUDWIG, FREIHERR VON PASTOR
EDITED BY
RALPH FRANCIS KERR
OF THE LONDON ORATORY
VOLUME XVIII
PIUS V. (1566-1572)
LONDON
ROUTLEDGE & KEGAN PAUL LTD.,
BROADWAY HOUSE : 68-74 CARTER LANE, E.C-4
ST. LOUIS, MO.: B. HERDER BOOK CO.,.
15 & 17 SOUTH BROADWAY
1952
First published in England 1929
Reprinted 1952
Printed in Great Britain by
Lowe and Brydone Printers Limited, London, N.W.io
CONTENTS OF VOLUME XVIII.1
PAGE
Table of Contents ... > vii-xv^ii
List of unpublished documents in Appendix . xix
Pius V. and Philip II. . . . 1-26
The Pope's struggle against Spanish cesaropapalism . 27-71
The beginning of the rebellion in the Low Countries 72-104
Pius V. and the civil and religious wars in France —
The beginnings of the Catholic reaction in France 105-* 55
The state of Religion in Scotland — Mary Stuart and
Elizabeth . 156-194
Pius V. and Elizabeth — The Bull of Excommunication
—Ireland ...... . 195-243
Pius V. and Maximilian II. — Catholic reform in Ger
many — The work of Canisius .... 244-299
Religious conditions in Poland and Switzerland —
Foreign Missions ...... 300-352
Pius V. and the League against the Turks . . 353-399
The Victory of Lepanto and afterwards — Death of
Pius V ' . 400-460
Appendix of unpublished documents . . .461-474
Index of Names ....... 475-486
1 For Bibliography see Volume XVII
TABLE OF CONTENTS OF VOLUME XVIII.
\
CHAPTER I.
PIUS V. AND PHILIP II.
A.D. PAGE
Cesaropapistical aims of Spain i
Determination of Pius V. to ensure the complete
independence of the Church i
1565 The nuncio in Spain, Giovanni Castagna . . 2
1566 The questions at issue : the recurso ... 3
Difficult position of Castagna ; his tact and ability . 4
x The case of the Archbishop of Toledo, Carranza . 5
The Pope demands his transference to Rome . 5
Interference with ecclesiastical jurisdiction in Spain
and Naples ....... 6
The Sussidio and Cruzada ..... 7
The Sussidio granted for five years, but the Cruzada
refused ....... 8
Pope continues to insist on the transference of
Carranza to Rome . . . . . .9
Iconoclastic atrocities in the Netherlands . 10
The Pope urges Philip II. to go in person to the Low
Countries ....... 10
The mission of Camaiani to Spain . . 10
Irritation of Philip II. . . . . . .11
The Monarchia Sicula . . . . . 13
Proposed league against the Turks . . '13
1567 Philip II. promises to go to the Netherlands . . 14
But continues to delay ; further causes of dispute . 15
The royal placet . . . . . .16
Controversy between Borromeo and the senate of
Milan . . . . . . . 17
Severe action by the archbishop . . . .19
Indignation of the senate ; the archbishop's officer
arrested ........ 20
The archbishop excommunicates the offenders . 20
*=* Pius V. summons the case to Rome ; intervention of
Philip II 21
1568 Edict of the governor of Milan . . . -23
The chapter of S. Maria della Scala resists the arch
bishop's visitation . . . . . .23
They are supported by the senate . . .24
Borromeo refused admission by the chapter . . 24
^ Pius V. supports the archbishop .... 25
Victory of Borromeo ...... 26
vii
\T1
Nri
Vlii TABLE OF CONTENTS.
CHAPTER II.
THE POPE'S STRUGGLE AGAINST SPANISH CESAROPAPALISM
A.D. PAGE
Cardinal Granvelle Philip II. 's chief confidant in Rome 27
1568 The new Spanish ambassador, Juan de Zuniga . 28
Attempts to obtain the Cruzada from the Pope . 29
This meets with no success . . . 30
Memorial from Castagna to Philip II., detailing the
questions at issue ...... 32
The reply of Philip II. • • • • -33
~ Papal prohibition of bull-fights not published by
the Spanish bishops . 35
The bull In Coena Domini issued with important
additions . . 35
The Spanish bishops refuse to publish it without the
royal placet . .... 36
The txaequatur in Naples ..... 39
Imminent danger of a breach between Rome and Spain 41
The mission of Requesens to Rome . . 41
» The imprisonment of Don Carlos .... 42
> Distress of the Pope . . 43
\Letter of Philip II. to the Pope on the subject . . 43
The death of Don Carlos ; solemn funeral offices in
Rome . . 45
Requesens in Rome ; renewed disputes . . 46
Philip II. adheres to his claims ; abuses in Naples . 48
A congregation appointed to examine the questions at
issue . . . . . . .49
Detailed letter from the Pope to the king . . 49
He sets forth the abuses and usurpations on the part
\ of Spain . . . . . . .50
\ The Pope's remonstrances without effect . . 53
Obstinacy of the Viceroy of Naples ... 54
Evasive replies of Philip II. . . . . . 55
1569 Second memorial of Castagna, setting forth the abuses
in Naples ....... 56
Heated discussions between Castagna and Philip II. 58
The king refuses to give way 59
Giustiniani sent to Spain ..... 60
But he is able to accomplish very little. ' . 63
The Turkish question leads to a rapprochement
v between Rome and Spain . - . .63
^ 1571 Pius V. grants the Cruzada for two years . . 64
Cardinal Bonelli in Spain ..... 66
Philip II. still clings to all his claims ... 68
The great services of Castagna, who had steadily
shielded the king from personal blame . . 69
\ Pius V.'s personal esteem for Philip II., and realization
of the importance of the friendship of Spain . 70
TABLE OF CONTENTS. IX
CHAPTER III.
THE BEGINNING OF THE REBELLION IN THE LOW COUNTRIES
A.D. PAGE
Philip II. had not the same personal ties with the
Netherlands as his father, Charles V. 72
Incapacity of Margaret of Parma, the Governess-
General -73
Unrest and discontent in the Low Countries . . 73
Religion in the Low Countries ; the influence of
Erasmus . . 74
William of Orange 75
His religion entirely dictated by political considera
tions .... ... 76
He becomes the centre of the disaffection . 77
The question of the Netherland bishoprics . . 77
Fear of the Spanish Inquisition ; hatred of Granvelle 79
1564 Philip II. dismisses Granvelle ; a state of anarchy . 81
1565 Conspiracy of the nobles under Orange ... 82
They meet with general support . . 83
Weakness of the regent ; increased boldness of the
Calvinists . . . 84
1566 Outbreak of rebellion 85
Iconoclasm and destruction ..... 86
Need for the personal presence of Philip II. in the Low
Countries ..... 87
\Pius V. urges the king to set out for the Netherlands . 89
Ybilip II. declares his readiness to undertake the
journey . . . . . . .90
But resolves to send Alba first . . . .91
The Pope insists that religious considerations must
come first ; the king political ones ... 92
1567 Philip II. finally abandons his journey ... 93
v. The Pope declares that the king has deceived him . 94
1568 Alba arrives with troops in the Low Countries ; the
programme sketched for him by Philip II. . . 95
Wholesale confiscations and executions drive the people
to desperation ...... 96
Alba's troops victorious, but he continues his campaign
of terror and bloodshed ..... 97
Queen Elizabeth congratulates the king on his victory
over the rebels . . - 97
^ Pius V. deceived by reports from Spanish sources into
thinking that Alba was guided by zeal for religion 99
Prayers and pilgrimages in Rome .... 100
\ Pius V. urges an amnesty . . . . . 101
The question of the bishoprics . . . 101
The despotic government of Alba harmful to the cause
of religion ....... 103
X TABLE OF CONTENTS.
CHAPTER IV.
PIUS V. AND THE CIVIL AND RELIGIOUS WARS IN FRANCE THE
BEGINNINGS OF THE CATHOLIC REACTION IN FRANCE.
A.D. PAGE
1562 Continued atrocities on the part of the gueux . 104
\The policy of Pius V. in France . . .105
The nuncio, della Torre ..... 105
Instructions for the nuncio ; the enforcement of the
decrees of Trent insisted upon . . .107
i Pius V/s doubts of Catherine de' Medici . .108
1566 Sentence pronounced upon the heretical bishops . 108
Aims of the Huguenots . . . . .109
1567 Outbreak of the second religious war . . .no
\ The Pope sends financial help . . . .112
\ A general Jubilee proclaimed . 114
The Pope's mistrust of Catherine de' Medici . .115
1568 His fears justified by the Peace of Longjumeau . 116
Hostilities recommenced . . . . . 117
The third religious war ; cruelty and violence on both
sides . . . . . . . .118
1569" The Pope sends auxiliary troops .... 119
The victory of Jarnac . . . . . .119
Captured Huguenot standards sent to Rome . .120
Congratulations of the Pope . . . . .121
The decisive victory of Moncontour . . .123
Thanksgiving in Rome . . . . . .124
\The Pope warns Charles IX. against misplaced leniency 125
Little use made of the victories . . . .126
Rumours of peace; the Pope's renewed warning . 128
157(1 All these warnings in vain ; the Peace of St. Germain 130
The Pope's indignation at " the shameful peace " . 131
Bramante sent to France to get the peace annulled 131
But all remonstrances remain without effect . 133
Catherine's matrimonial plans for her children bring
the danger visibly nearer . . . 135
1571 Coligny returns to court . . . . .136
His far-reaching plans ; proposed marriage of the
Princess Margaret to Henry of Navarre . .137
The mission of Salviati to France . . . .138
1572 He is followed by Cardinal Bonelli . . .139
Attempts to induce France to join the league against
the Turks ....... 140
The marriage contract signed between Margaret and
Henry of Navarre . . . . . .143
France enters into an alliance with England against
Spain 143
Beginnings of a Catholic revival . . . .144
Ecclesiastical abuses in France . . . .145
The injury inflicted on the Church in -France by the
attitude of the government . . . .146
The Huguenot persecution had led to a Catholic
reaction ........ 147
TABLE OF CONTENTS. XI
AA
» Renewed veneration for the Holy See and the person
of the Pope .... . 149
Work of the Jesuits : Auger, Possevino and Manaraeus 150
The lectures of Maldonatus . . I51
Frangipani's encouraging report concerning the
development of Catholic life . • J53
Pius V. wishes strong action to be taken against the
heretics, but not by wrongful means . 154
CHAPTER V.
THE STATE OF RELIGION IN SCOTLAND MARY STUART AND
ELIZABETH.
1566 Religion in Scotland at the accession of Pius V. . . 156
Mary attempts to place Catholicism on equal terms
with Protestantism . . . • J57
The conspiracy of Darnley . . . • I57
The murder of Rizzio ... . I5&
X* Bishop Chisholm sent to Rome ; the Pope's sympathy
for Mary .1.59
Proposal to send a nuncio to Scotland . .161
Vincenzo Laureo chosen ; he arrives in Paris . 162
Laureo demands the punishment of the rebels . 163
Serious illness of Mary . . .164
Laureo's doubts of Mary's zeal for religion . .164
Mary's strange leniency towards her enemies . .165
She rejects the advice of the nuncio . . .166
Disgraceful conduct of Darnley . . .167
Both well's influence with Mary . . . .168
The plot against Darnley . . . . .169
1567 The murder of Darnley . . . 1*70
Both well accused of the crime . . . . 171
The inquiry into the crime a farce . . .172
Bothwell exonerated by the nobles . . 173
Mary is married to Bothwell . . . 174
Difficult to account for this fatal step . . 175
The calumnies of Mary's enemies . . . .176
The Casket Letters 177
Mary had no complicity in the murder . . .178
End of Laureo's mission ; he returns to Italy . 179
Mary's marriage to Bothwell had cost her the confi
dence of the Catholics ... .180
And shaken the Pope's trust in her . . .181
Mary falls into the hands of her enemies and is im
prisoned at Lochleven . . . . .182
1568 She escapes and gathers together an army . . 183
She is defeated at Langside and takes refuge in
England 183
End of Catholic worship in Scotland . . .183
Mary imprisoned at Bolton Castle . . . .184
The Conference of Westminster . . . .185
xil TABLE OF CONTENTS.
A. D. PAGE
Elizabeth's determination to blacken Mary's good
name ........ 186
Mary's representatives duped by Elizabeth . .187
Mary demies her complicity in the murder and accuses
her enemies . . . . . . .188
Vain attempt to induce Mary to resign her crown. 189
Even as a prisoner, Mary is still a danger to Elizabeth 191
She has many supporters in England . . .192
Proposal that Mary should marry the Duke of Norfolk 193
Norfolk thrown into the Tower . . . .194
CHAPTER VI.
PIUS V. AND ELIZABETH THE BULL OF EXCOMMUNICATION
^ IRELAND.
1568 The English Catholics fix their hopes upon Mary Stuart 195
\Pius V. at first entertains hopes of Elizabeth's con
version ... .... 196
But soon comes to look upon her as a heretic and
usurper . . . . . . . 196
Renewed confidence of the Pope in Mary Stuart . 197
^Pius V. seeks to obtain help for her from Spain . 199
Catholic reaction in England ..... 200
Renewed persecution of the Catholics . . .201
The English Catholics look for action on the part of the
Holy See ....... 202
Plans for a Catholic rising . . . . .203
Threatened war between England and Spain lends
force to these plans ..... 204
1569 But the hopes of Spanish help prove vain . 205
The Earls of Northumberland and Westmorland take
up arms on behalf of Mary .... 206
Ill-success of the insurgents . . . . .207
Failure of the Northern Rising .... 208
Terrible reprisals of Elizabeth . . . .208
The Catholics ask for definite guidance from Rome . 210
^The Pope and the two Earls . . . .211
NPius V. opens an inquiry in Rome as to the state of
affairs in England . . . . . .212
• 1570 The Bull of Excommunication of Elizabeth . .214
The bull not published in the customary form but
copies make their way to England . . .215
The bull affixed to the doors of the Bishop of London's
palace by John Felton . . . . .217
No idea at first of enforcing the bull by force of arms 217
Philip II. objects to the bull ; remonstrances of Alba 218
Effects of the bull in England . . . . 220
Elizabeth and the bull of excommunication . .221
A series of new laws against the Catholics . .222
A new period of the persecution in England begun 223
Mary Stuart derives no advantage from the bull . 224
TABLE OF CONTENTS.
A.D. PAGE
The Treaty of Chatsworth ; its terms not observed . 225
The schemes of Ridolfi ; Mary appeals to the Catholic
powers ........ 226
1571 Plans for an invasion of England . . . .227
Alba treats the proposals coldly; Ridolfi in Rome. 229
Ridolfi sent by the Pope to Spain . .231
He is supported by Castagna but not by Philip II.
and Alba 232
Philip II. insists that the enterprise shall be carried
out in the name of the Pope . . . -233
Alba continues to object to the plan . . -234
The English government discover the conspiracy ; the
treachery of Hawkins . . . . .236
End of the conspiracy ; execution of Norfolk . 238
Cecil uses the opportunity against the Pope . .238
The position of Mary Stuart made worse . .239
The triumph of Elizabeth ..... 240
Violent English rule in Ireland . . . .241
Philip II. supports the Irish rebels . . . 242
Thomas Stukely . 242
CHAPTER VII.
PIUS V. AND MAXIMILIAN II. CATHOLIC REFORM IN GERMANY
THE WORK OF CANISIUS.
1566 Ambiguous religious attitude of Maximilian II. . 244
Cardinal Commendone appointed legate to the Diet of
Augsburg . . . . . .246
Formation of the German Congregation . . .247
Commendone at Augsburg . . . . .248
The nuncio Melchior Biglia . . . . .249
Instructions to Commendone . 249
The question of the religious peace of Augsburg . 252
Success of Commendone ; the Diet accepts the decrees
of Trent . . . . . . 254
The Emperor and the expedition against the Turks 255
The siege and fall of Sziget ; peace concluded with the
Turks at Adrianople ..... 256
1567 Maximilian begins to cultivate more friendly relations
with the Holy See 257
1568 Financial concessions made by Pius V. . . . 258
Maximilian suddenly makes concessions to the Pro-
v testants ........ 259
* The Pope's surprise and distress ; he condemns the
concessions . . . . . . . 260
And sends Commendone to the Emperor . .261
Obstinacy of Maximilian II 261
Commendone at Vienna . . . . .262
He is supported by Albert V. and Philip II. . 263
Maximilian apparently gives way . . . .264
But succeeds in deceiving the legate . . . 265
1569 Commendone sets out for Rome .... 267
VOL. XVIII.
XIV TABLE OF CONTENTS.
A.D.\^ PAGE
The relations of the Pope and the Emperor again dis
turbed by the question of Cosimo I. . . 268
The ambitions of Cosimo I. . . . . .269
The Duke had loyally supported Pius V. in all things . 270
The Pope bestows upon him the title of Grand Duke 271
^570 Protest of the Emperor . . . . .272
The coronation of Cosimo I. in Rome . . .273
The motives which had led the Pope to the elevation of
Cosimo ........ 274
The attitude of Philip II. . . . .275
The Cardinals discuss the reply to the Emperor's
protest . . . . . . . .276
The question raised at the Diet of Spires . .277
The Pope's reply to the Emperor . . . .278
1571 Death of Melchior Biglia . . . . .279
The new nuncio Giovanni Delfino . . .280
His instructions . . . . . . .281
The Emperor and the new Protestant " liturgy " . 282
The Archduke Charles of Styria . . . .283
Illness of Maximilian II. . . . . . 285
Complete failure of Maximilian's religious policy . 286
The German bishops and the Tridentine profession of
faith . 287
Half-hearted Catholics in Germany . . . 288
The report of Peter Canisius on affairs in Germany . 290
The memorial of Feliciano Ninguarda . . .291
Diocesan synods held by Cardinals Truchsess and
Mark Sittich . . . . . . .292
Synods and visitations in Germany . . . 293
The Bishops of Cologne, Treves, Mayence and Prague 294
The visitations reveal a deplorable state of affairs . 295
V Catholic restoration in Bavaria ; the activity of Albert
V 296
Reforms in the Tyrol, Lower Austria and other parts of
the Empire ....... 297
The work of the Jesuits, especially of Canisius . 298
CHAPTER VIII.
RELIGIOUS CONDITIONS IN POLAND AND SWITZERLAND FOREIGN
MISSIONS
1566 The state of religion in Poland at the accession of
Pius V. ........ 300
The nuncio, Giulio Ruggieri ; his instructions . 301
The stormy Diet of Lublin ; Cardinal Hosius appointed
legate ........ 302
1568 Ruggieri 's report on the state of Poland . . 303
Influence of the Jesuits ..... 306
Vincenzo de Portico succeeds Ruggieri as nuncio . 307
1569 Cardinal Hosius at the Diet of Lublin . . .308
He returns to Rome ; his continued interest in the
affairs of Poland . . . . . . 309
TABLE OF CONTENTS. XV
A.D. PAGE
The question of the divorce of King Sigismund
Augustus . . . . . . .310
Weakness of Portico . . . . . 311
1571 Commendone sent as legate . . . . .312
1572 Commendone and the king's divorce . . .312
The question of the league against the Turks . -3*3
The state of religion in Switzerland ; account of
Borromeo . . . . . . . 314
Catholic leaoeis in Switzerland ; Pfyffer and Lussy . 315
The Catholic and Protestant cantons . . .316
Cardinal Borromeo Protector of the Catholic Cantons 318
Visitation by Borromeo of the Swiss valleys . . 319
And of German Switzerland . . . . . 320
His suggestions for reform . . . . .321
The question of Geneva . . . . .323
Visitation of the Grisons ; the Catholic and Protestant
leagues ........ 324
The mission in Brazil . . . . . .326
The work of Azevedo ; he collects missionaries in
Europe . ..... 327
Tragic fate of the expedition . . . .328
Protestant opposition to the missions . . 330
%Pius V. and the missions ; his instructions to the
nuncio in Madrid ...... 331
He issues a whole series of briefs on the subject . 332
Far-reaching powers of the civil authorities over the
missions . . . . . . . 333
These rested upon concessions made by the Holy See 335
Upon the whole this was favourable to the Church . 336
The mission in Peru . . . . . -337
Cruelty of the conquerors . . . . .338
The viceroy, Toledo, attempts to remedy the abuses 340
On the whole the Spanish government administered
the colonies well . . . . . . 342
The influence of the Popes in this matter . . 343
Pius V. and the Indian missions . . . . 344
Louis Bertrand ....... 345
The mission to Abyssinia ..... 346
/ The East Indies ....... 347
*" Pius V. far in advance of his predecessors in regard to
the missions . . . . . . .349
Nv His insistence on adequate instruction . . .350
The instructions of Francis Borgia to his subjects as to
this 351
*x Pius V. and the Greek churches .... 352
CHAPTER IX.
PIUS V. AND THE LEAGUE AGAINST THE TURKS.
^566 The Pope's attention directed from the first to the
Turkish peril ....... 353
He gives help to the Knights of Malta . , , 354
XVI TABLE OF CONTENTS.
A.D. PAGE
Successes of the Turkish fleets in the Mediterranean . 355
A jubilee proclaimed . ... 356
Venice averse to any breach with the Turks . . 356
Philip II. and Maximilian II. also hold back . . 357
The Pope's renewed efforts to form a league . -357
1567 Steps for the defence of the Papal States and Rome . 359
The new Sultan, Selim II. . . . . 361
1569 Turkish designs on Cyprus and the possessions of
Venice . ..... 362
Venice, taken by surprise, forced to look for help
outside ........ 363
Her strained relations with the Pope and Philip II. . 364
She is forced to agree to the league . . . 365
The Porte sends an ultimatum to Venice ; its rejection 366
Spanish mistrust of Venice ..... 367
1570 Luis de Torres sent to Spain .... 369
His instructions . . . . . . .370
Torres in Spain . . . . . . .372
Philip II. appoints representatives for the negotiations 373
Torres and the King of Portugal . . . .374
Attempt to draw Prance into the league ; Charles IX.
definitely refuses his participation . . 375
The Emperor also holds back .... 376
Attempts to interest Poland and Russia in the league 376
Pius V. and the Russian Czar .... 377
Failure of these attempts . . . 378
Everything depends upon Venice and Spain . . 378
Mutual distrust of the two powers ; selfish attitude of
the Republic . . . . . . 379^
Marcantonio Colonna appointed to command the Papal
fleet 380
Displeasure of Spain at this appointment . .381
Eagerness of the Roman nobles to take part in the
enterprise ....... 382
The negotiations between Spain and Venice begun in
Rome . . . . . . . 382
The treaty of alliances drafted .... 383
Self-interested behaviour of both powers . ,384
Heated discussions ; the objective of the alliance . 385
The financial question ...... 385
The contributions of the contracting powers . . 386
The question of the supreme command . . 387
General agreement to the appointment of Don John
of Austria ....... 388
Further differences of opinion . . . .389
The status of Ragusa ...... 389
A combined fleet puts to sea .... 390
Complete failure of the expedition ; disgraceful con
duct of Andrea Doria ..... 391
The fall of Nicosia ...... 391
Pius V. complains of Doria to Philip II. . . 392
The negotiations resumed ...",, 393
TABLE OF CONTENTS. XV11
A.D. PAGE
Fresh controversies ... . . . . 394
It is found impossible to arrive at an agreement . . 395
The division of conquered territory ; the question -of
censures ....... 396
The lieutenancy of the supreme command . . 397
Self-seeking of Venice and Spain .... 398
General indignation at the conduct of Spain . . 399
CHAPTER X.
THE VICTORY OF LEPANTO AND AFTERWARDS DEATH OF PIUS V.
\ The Pope alone disinterested .... 400
Fears of the withdrawal of Venice . . .401
The two parties in Venice ..... 402
1571 Colonna sent to Venice ..... 403
The treaty of alliance at last signed . . . 404
The terms of the alliance . . . . .405
^ J°Y of Pius V. ; public processions ; he urges speed . 406
Venice still delays in publishing the league . .407
Commendone sent as legate to the Emperor and
Poland ; Bonelli to Spain and Portugal . . 408
The legation of Bonelli ...... 409
Preparations in Rome . . . . . .411
The Papal fleet leaves Civitavecchia for Messina . .412
Arrival of the Venetians ; the Spaniards still delay . 413
Don John reaches Genoa . . . . .414
Don John at Naples ; the sacred standard of the
league 415
Philip II.'s jealousy of his brother . . .416
The fleet sails from Messina . . . . .417
The fall of Famagosta ; Turkish atrocities . .41?
The Turkish fleet sighted near Lepanto . . .418
The opposing forces . . . . . .419
Disposition of the Christian fleet . . . .419
The battle begun 420
Complete victory of the Christian fleet (October 7) . 421
Prisoners and booty . . . . . .421
The fallen ; the Roman nobility . . . . 422
?! Anxiety of Pius V. ; his prayers and penances ; the
Rosary ... 423
Suspense in Rome, ...... 424
Vpius V. receives the news ; jubilation in Rome . 425
Letters announcing the victory sent to all the powers 426
vlThe Pope's far-reaching hopes .... 427
The victory not followed up . . . . -427
Disagreements among the victors .... 428
The return of Colonna ; preparations for his reception 429
Triumphal entry of Colonna into Rome . . . 431
He is received by the Pope and Cardinals . . 433
Complete absence of paganism in the celebrations . 433
Discussion of plans for the carrying on of the campaign 435
XV111 TABLE OF CONTENTS.
A.D. PAGE
Divergent aims of Spain and Venice . . . 436
Disinterested aims of the Pope . . . .437
No help to be looked for from France and the Emperor 438
Disgraceful quarrels of the representatives of Spain
and Venice ....... 439
* The Pope decides on continued action in the Levant 439
1572 Preparations for the resumption of the campaign . 440
Privileges granted to all who take part in the Crusade 441
Practical value of the victory of Lepanto . . 442
The Feast of the Rosary . . . 444
Commemorative orations and poems . . .444
The victory of Lepanto in art .... 446
The Pope's vision at the moment of victory . . 449
State of the Pope's health ..... 450
His great vigour . . . . . . .451
But his health begins to fail .... 452
He is worn out by his anxieties .... 453
His last pilgrimage to the Seven Churches . . 454
Sudden collapse of Pius V. . . . . 454
The dying Pope ; his last thought the league against
the Turks ....... 455
The death of Pius V. (May i) . . . . 456
The great work that he had accomplished . . 457
Provisional burial of the Pope .... 458
1588 Translation of the body to St. Mary Major's . . 459
1712 Canonization of Pius V. » 459
His shrine . . v . . . . . . 460
LIST OF UNPUBLISHED DOCUMENTS IN
APPENDIX.
PAGE
I. Pius V. to King Charles IX. of France . . 463
II.-III. The Bull " In Coena Domini " of 10 April, 1568 463
IV.-V. Negotiations of A. Rucellai concerning the
assistance to be given to France by Pius V.,
1568 . . . . . . .466
VI. Pope Pius V. to Charles IX., King of France . 466
VII. Nicolas Sanders to M. A. Graziani . . 468
VI 1 1. -IX. Avvertimenti sopra li maneggi di Francia del
Bramante [Autumn, 1570]. . . . 470
X. Bramante to Cardinal Rusticucci . . 472
XI. Report in cipher of Bramante to Cardinal
Rusticucci . . . . . . 473
XII. The captain of the guard, Jost Segesser, to the
Council of Lucerne . . . . • 473
XIX
CHAPTER I.
Pius V. AND PHILIP II.
EVEN in the time of Pius IV. the cesaropapistical aims which
had become so prominent in Spain ever since the end of the
Middle Ages, had reached such a height that Figueroa, the
President of the Royal Council, had gone so far as to assert,
at a public session, that there was no Pope in Spain.1 It was
inevitable that the relations between the Holy See and the
Catholic King should become more and more strained. Philip
II. , and still more his advisers, looked upon their claims,
founded as they were upon privileges and customs, to be
supreme even in ecclesiastical matters, as the inalienable
right of the crown, and as a thing to be yet further increased,
while the Apostolic See saw in that same claim a grievous
injury to the most sacred rights of the Church. The state of
affairs was bound to be embittered when, with Pius V., a Pope
ascended the throne of Peter who looked into and decided the
questions which arose in this connexion much more 'con
scientiously than many of his predecessors and "with mar
vellous effect."2
The strong determination of Pius V. of ensuring the complete
independence of the Church everywhere, and above all of
setting free her jurisdiction and liberties from any interference
on the part of the civil power, led him into serious disputes
with the Spanish government. If these disputes never reached
the extreme point of a complete breach this was the result,
on the one hand, of the political situation, which now more
than ever threw the Pope and the Catholic King into each
other's arms, and on the other, of the personality of the man
1 Cf. Corresp. dipl., I., 23 n. and 444.
2HERRE, Europ. Politik, I., 58.
2 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
who, during the whole of the reign of Pius V., filled the difficult
and responsible post of nuncio in Spain ; this was the Arch
bishop of Rossano, Giovanni Battista Castagna, who by his
disinterested zeal, his prudence, and his eminent diplomatic
ability, was able to satisfy the demands of the Pope's zeal for
the defence of the interests of the Church against the steps
taken by Philip II., and yet at the same time remain in favour
with the king, in spite of his frequent and heated disputes,
both with him and with his ministers.1
Castagna had reached Madrid on November I3th, 1565,
with the Cardinal legate, Boncompagni, and at Perpignan,
the first place they came to in Spain, he had been a witness of
the honourable welcome accorded to the representative of the
Pope, with whom he made his solemn entry into the Spanish
capital.2 Cardinal Crivelli, his predecessor in the nunciature,
left on November iyth. Boncompagni 's labours had scarcely
begun when they were interrupted by the news of the illness
and death of Pius IV., in consequence of which the Cardinal
legate returned to Rome on December 29th.3 The news of
1 From SERRANO, Corresp. dipl., I., xxii, xxvi seq., who in a
very praiseworthy way published in their original text the letters
of the years 1565-1568, we now have a clear account of the story
of the reports of Castagna, which were first made use of by
LAMMER (Zur Kirchengeschichte, 161 ssq.}, and then by GACHARD
(Bibl. Corsini, 43 seq., and Bibl. de Madrid, vii seq.; 85 seq.,
435 seq.), and lastly by HINOJOSA (p. 173).
2 See Corresp. dipl., I., 23, 25 seq., 44 seq. Interesting par
ticulars of Boncompagni 's stay in Spain are given by his com
panion, Venanzio da Camerino, in his *notes in the Boncompagni
Archives, Rome D. 5 ; cf. ibid. D. 7 the *notes of Musotti.
8 On February 2, 1566, Cusano *reports that the Pope was
annoyed with Boncompagni, first, because he had left Spain
without orders from the Holy See (cf. as to this Bull. Hispanique,
VII., 247, and Corresp. dipl., I., liv, 116) ; secondly, because he
had accepted from Philip II. a gift of 5,000 ducats " e piu per una
lettera haveva ottenuta da S.M.C.ea ai card1' Farnese et Borromeo,
ove lo nominava per speciale subietto suo e li pregava lo facessero
Papa " ; lastly, because he was unwilling to return to Spain
on the business for which he had been appointed legate. Bon-
THE RECURSO IN SPAIN. 3
the election of Pius V. reached Madrid on January 25th, 1566.
In his letter of congratulation to the new Pope Castagna did
not fail to speak in high terms of praise of the Catholic zeal
of the king, and again, in his letter of thanks for being con
firmed in his nunciature, addressed to Cardinal Reumano,
he remarks that Philip II. had spoken highly in praise of the
new Pope.1
At the beginning of April Castagna asked for further
instructions as to the tasks which Pius IV. had given him to
perform in Spain. These specially concerned the unjust
violation of Canon Law by means of the so-called recurso de
fuerza, a custom corresponding to the French appel comme
d'abus, by means of which, in conjunction with the exercise
of the placet, the Spanish government exercised a control over
all acts of ecclesiastical jurisdiction by the holding back
(retention) of Papal bulls. As a result of this, anybody could,
by means of the recurso de fuerza, obtain redress from the royal
council for any sentence of an ecclesiastical judge, whether
bishop or nuncio, which he imagined to be unjust ; the only
exception was the tribunal of the Inquisition. If the council
accepted the recurso all proceedings to the contrary by the
ecclesiastical judge were suspended, and any action which
he might still take was declared null. Anyone who suffered,
or feared to suffer an injury to his rights (fuerza) from a Papal
bull could ask that it should be held back. Frequent use
was made of the recurso ; not only clerics and laymen had
compagm, however, was so well able to answer these accusations
that, as Cusauo *states on February 23, he was received by
Pius V. in a very cordial way (State Archives, Vienna). In his
*notes, Venanzio da Camerino says that the order given by
Pius V. for his return was impracticable because it only arrived
when the legate had already sent off all his belongings and his
retinue. Boncompagni Archives, Rome.
1 Philip II. had said " di tale pontefice haviamo bisogno adesso"
(letter of Castagna of February 20, 1566, in Corresp. dipl., I., 124).
Castagna's confirmation had already been made on January 24,
1566 ; see App. n. 68 in Vol. XVII. of this work, Archives of Briefs,
Rome, and British Museum, London.
4 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
recourse to it, but even the bishops, against the ordinances of
Papal bulls and Apostolic commissions, which were not to
their liking.1 Besides this many other violations of ecclesi
astical jurisdiction occurred in the fact that the secular
authorities laid hands upon clerics, and arrested them, even
in the churches. Pius IV. had already made complaints
about this.
These violations of the authority of the Holy See and of the
liberties of the Church on the part of the Spanish government
did not escape the notice of Castagna, who also clearly saw
that it would only be with great difficulty that a complete
remedy could be found ; they had to deal with long-established
customs, to which the king and his ministers clung with great
tenacity. On the other hand he built great hopes on the truly
Catholic sentiments of the king, whom he tried as far as
possible to excuse personally, laying the chief blame on his
ministers.2
In spite of this Castagna very soon realized how thorny
was the position of the Pope's representative at the court of
Philip II. The difficulty of the questions themselves, which
were often very complicated, was great enough, but that was
not all. The nuncio, for example,3 repeatedly complains of
the slowness of the procedure, of the impenetrable secrecy
in which everything was hidden, and of the custom of dealing
fully with everything in writing as well as by word cf mouth.
The great' evil at the Spanish court, a conclusion which
Cardinal Bonelli came to later on, was that everything was
reduced to memorials, to which the ministers made what
1 Cf. PHILLIPS, II., 569 seq.; FRIEDBERG, 546 seq.; PHILIPPSON,
Philip II., 273 seq.; HINSCHIUS, VI., i, 216 seq.; ISTURIZ in
Annuaire de I'universite de Louvain, 1907/384 seq., where further
bibliography is given. In his " Practicarum quaestionum liber,"
written in 1558, and several times printed (e.g. at Antwerp, 1627)
the Spanish canonist Diego de Covarruvias strongly defends the
" recursus ad principem " ; see EICHMANN, Der Recursus ab
abusu, Berl;n, 1903, 121 seq.
2 See Corresp. dipl., I., 179 seq., 181, 363.
3 See Corresp. dipl., I., 289 seq., 372.
THE CASE OF CARRANZA, 5
answer they pleased, but without giving their reasons, and
without troubling about motives, so that it was never possible
to grasp the difficulties and bring them out into the open.1
To this was added the proveVbial indecision of the king, who
was a past master at dragging on every question interminably.
Yet there we're many important questions which called for
immediate settlement. In the first place there was the affair
of the unfortunate Archbishop of Toledo, Bartolom£ Carranza,
who had been kept a prisoner by the Spanish Inquisition for
seven years, while Philip II. enjoyed the rich revenues of the
archdiocese. With regard to this question it was Castagna's
first duty to press the demand of the Holy See that the
prisoner should be transferred to Rome, so that his case might
be finally decided there, with complete impartiality and with
all due solemnity, far away from the influence of his enemies
in Spain. To this demand Philip II. offered an obstinate
resistance, while Pius V., like his predecessor, persisted in
his contention that the trial of Carranza belonged to his own
tribunal.
It called for labour and skill on the part of Castagna to find
an amicable solution of this problem. He saw very clearly
where the root of the opposition of the Spanish government
lay ; it was feared in Madrid that the authority of the Spanish
Inquisition, by means of which the Catholic King kept his
realm in subjection, would be weakened.2 The nuncio sought
to convince Philip II. that this would not be the case, in a
personal interview on June 24th at which he presented to the
king an autograph letter from Pius V. In eloquent words
he explained that the Pope stood above the Spanish Inqui
sition, and that the latter tribunal drew its jurisdiction from
the Pope, so much so that in many briefs the final decision
was expressly reserved to Rome, and that respect for the
1 See SENTIS, 121.
2 See Corresp. dipl., I., liv seq., 174, 223 seq., 227 seq., 243 seq.
II., vii seq., ix seq. Cf. also the "report of Cusano of January 26,
1566, which states that the affair of Carranza was the original
cause of the distrust, which continued to increase between Pius V.
and Philip II. (State Archives, Vienna). Cf. p. 344, Vol. XVII,
of this work.
6 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
Papal rights was to the interest of the Spanish Inquisition
itself. The king listened courteously and attentively to
Castagna, but was of opinion that he could not come to any
hasty decision in a matter of such great importance, and that
he would have to discuss the reasons adduced with the Pope
himself. Castagna replied that such a course was both
useless and unnecessary ; he again repeated that the Pope
could not allow any further vacancy of the archbishopric of
Toledo, and that he would have to declare before all the world
that he was not responsible for the dragging on of the affair.
The king contented himself with replying that he too was
without blame on that score, and adhered to his contention
that so important an affair could not be settled hastily.1
The Pope was much displeased, not only by the attitude
of Philip II. in the affair of Carranza, but also by the news
which had in the meantime been received from Spain that
the bishops there had refused to publish the bull In coena
Domini without the permission of the royal council.2 But
above all the Pope was annoyed at the violation of ecclesi
astical jurisdiction in Spain and its dependent kingdoms,
especially in Naples, by means of the exequatur. At the
beginning of July he expressed himself very strongly to
Requesens on the subject, and on August I3th Castagna
received instructions to complain to the king of the infringe
ments of the rights of the Church which were constantly
occurring on account of the sovereign privileges of the Mon-
archia Sicula, and to tell him that it seemed strange to the
Pope that in the dominions of so pious a Catholic sovereign
the salutary orders of the head of the Church were not carried
out, and were even absolutely flouted by the royal authority.3
At a consistory held about the same time Pius V. made a
pointed allusion to those Catholic princes who arrogated to
1 See the report of Castagna of June 30, 1566, Corresp. dipl., I.,
270 seq.
8 See -the *report of Arco of July 13, 1566, State Archives,
Vienna.
8 See Corresp. dip., I., 285 seq. ; 318 seq. , cf 335 seq. See also
SANTORI, Autobiografia, XII., 341.
THE SUSSIDIO AND CRUZADA J
themselves the authority of the Holy See, a remark which
was understood by all as referring to Spain.1
While these troublesome controversies were going on,
Spain had sent to Rome extensive requests, by the granting
of which the Pope was asked to come to the financial aid of
Philip II. Above all he was asked to renew for another five
years the tax levied upon the Spanish clergy known as the
Sussidio.2 At the same time the Spanish envoy, the Marquis
d'Aguilar, who had been sent to offer the king's congratu
lations to Pius V., after he had paid homage on May i6th,3
sought to obtain as well the concession of the Bula de la Cruzada
The ordinary Spanish ambassador, Luis de Requesens, rightly
looked upon such a proceeding as inopportune, thinking, in
the light of his own political experience, that the first thing
to do was to satisfy the Pope's just complaints as to the,
infringement of ecclesiastical rights by Spain ; Requesens
strongly warned his colleague against conducting his business
with such " a holy Pope " as had been done with his pre
decessor, and still less as had been done in the time of the
Popes of the Renaissance.4
Requesens preached to deaf ears. His warnings as to the
strong ecclesiastical views of Pius V. were not listened to, nor
was any attempt made to arrive at a speedy settlement of the
1 See the "report of Cusano from Rome, August 17, 1566
State Archives, Vienna.
2 See the "reports of Arco from Rome, January 12 and March
23, 1566, ibid.
8 See ZuftiGA, in Colecc. de docum ined., XCVIII., 369; Vida
de L. Requesens in Bullet. Hispanique, VII., 246 seq.; Corresp.
dipl., I., 127, 153, 166 seq.; 173, 175, 192 seq., 214, 247 seq. For
the making of the " obedientia " cf. CIBRARIO, Lettere ined.,
Turin, 1861, 345, as well as the "report of Arco of May 18, 1566,
State Archives, Vienna.
4 See the interesting letter from Requesens to Juan de Zufiiga
in Colecc. de docum. inld., XCVII., 371 seq. The letter bears no
date, but belongs to July, 1566, because the departure of Aguilar
had taken place on the " i8th of last month " i.e. in June (see
Corresp. dipl., I., 265, n. i). Cf. also Corresp. dipl., I., 253, n. 2.
8 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
case of Carranza. Even a modest wish expressed by the
Pope in favour of his native place, Bosco, which, as Requesens
pointed out, would have cost the Spanish government nothing
to grant, was refused.1 Requesens, however, was quite wrong
in thinking that the Pope would have granted the Cruzada
if Spain had met his wishes in this matter. Pius V. was not
the man to let such considerations influence his decisions.
His refusal to grant the Cruzada was founded solely upon the
numerous abuses connected with it.2 What he could he
granted. Thus on March i6th, 1566, he allowed for another
five years the levy of the sussidio on the clergy, which brought
in to the Spanish government 400,000 gold scudi.3 The Pope
did this against the advice of the Cardinals, and without
asking for any corresponding gift to the Papal treasury in
return for this important concession.4 In face of this how
miserably mean it was to see Philip II., just at that moment,
supporting the Spanish Carthusians in their refusal to make
a contribution to the building of the church of S. Maria degli
Angeli in Rome, when they were ordered to do so by Pius V.5
Philip II. also showed himself very unbending with regard
1 See the above mentioned letter of Requesens. As to this
affair see Corresp. dipl., I., 109, 148, 219. Cf. ibid., IV., 41 seq.,
for the behaviour of Philip II. to the Pope's majordomo, Fr. de
Reinoso.
2 See the *report of Arco of May 22, 1566, State Archives,
Vienna. See also the memorial of 1565 in Corresp. dipl., I.,
443 seq.
8 See * " Indice de las concessiones que han hecho los Papas
de la Cruzada, Subsidio y Escusado " in the Archives of the
Spanish Embassy, Rome. Text of the *bull for the " Prorogatio
subsidii," dated March 16, 1566, in Fondo Borghese, I., 145-147,
p. 54, Papal Secret Archives. Cf. also Corresp. dipl., I., 90, 114,
131, 149, 152, 193 seq.
* SERRANO (I., xlvii) rightly puts this forward as a proof of
how from the first Pius V. made every effort to maintain good
relations with Philip II.
5 See the reports of Castagna of May 12 and August u, 1566,
Corresp. dipl., I., 235, 302. Cf. also Vol. XVI. of this work, p. 443,
and Vol. XVII., p. 121.
THE CASE OF CARRANZA. 9
to those sums which the Fabbrica of St. Peter's was still
waiting to recover from the Cnizada of the previous year.1
In the meantime the handing over of Carranza was put off
from month to month.
All that Pius V. could do was to insist more and more
strongly upon his right of conducting the trial of Carranza in
Rome. On July 3oth, 1566, he addressed a brief to Castagna
to the following effect : If Carranza has been kept a prisoner
for seven years, the Pope cannot see how he can be blamed
for that ; but he also sees that he is laid open to more serious
accusations than that, and he is now driven to lay a command
upon the members of the Spanish Inquisition, under pain of
excommunication and suspension, to allow Carranza to start
at once for Rome, and to send the acta of his trial.2 Before
this brief reached Spain, Philip II., as Castagna announces
on August 23rd, 1566, had made up his mind to comply with
the just demand of Pius V., and to send Carranza to Rome.3
For the rest, however, Castagna had nothing but bad news
to give from Spain, especially concerning many of the bishops,
who, for their own ends, made use of the royal powers against
the lower clergy. He had had to take action against Diego
de Sirnancas, Bishop of Badajoz, because he had thrown into
prison the bearer of a Papal bull concerning some just pecuni
ary demand. On August nth the nuncio wrote : Here I find
the authority of the Holy See impugned on every point ; all
are opposed to it except the cathedral chapters, and even
they are only actuated by self-interest4
The dissensions between Rome and Madrid were further
1 Cf. Corresp. dipl., I., 180, 195, 233, 276, 352.
2 See LADERCHI, 1566, n. 484 ; Corresp. dipl., I., 292 seq. The
brief was prepared with such great secrecy that not even Cardinal
Bonelli knew of it ; see App. n. 68, Vol. XVII. of this work, and
the autograph letter from the Pope to Castagna of August 3
(printed in Corresp. dipl., I., 298 seq.), in which he insists that
the liberation of Carranza and the journey of Philip II. to the
Low Countries must be energetically pushed forward.
3 See Corresp. dipl., I., 330.
'Ibid. 303.
VOL. XVIII.
ID HISTORY OF THE POPES.
intensified in connexion with the dangerous disturbances
which broke out in the Low Countries. Like all well-informed
people Pius V. saw in the personal presence of Philip II. in
the threatened provinces " a last resource against a con
flagration which was gaining ground every day." But the
King of Spain, who always found it so hard to make up his
mind, could not decide upon this course. When, in September
1566, the news reached Rome of the horrors perpetrated by
the Netherland iconoclasts, the Pope was so overcome that,
even at the risk of seriously irritating Philip, he hastily
determined on a startling step. On account of the sacrileges
committed by the insurgents he thought it his sacred duty to
lay before the king by means of an envoy-extraordinary the
necessity of his going to the Low Countries. Pietro Camaiani,
Bishop of Fiesole, who had been nuncio to Charles V. in the
time of Julius III.,1 was entrusted with this task.2 In his
instructions3 we read that he was to adjure the king by the
Blood of Christ not to put off his journey any longer ; if he
delayed any further the Netherlands would be lost to the
Church, as well as to the king, and that would entail the most
serious consequences for the Catholic religion in England and
1 See Vol. XIII. of this work, p. 135. For Camaiani, who during
the time of his legation became Bishop of Ascoli (October 9, 1566,
see GULIK-EUBEL, 133), see Nuntiaturberichte, XII., xxvi seg,
Saggio di cose Ascolane, Teramo, 1766, App. cccxcvi ; Rev.
d'hist. eocles., III., 413 seq.; CAPPONI, Mem. d. cfresa Ascolana,
Ascoli-Piceno, 1898. By many, and recently by RACHFAHL
(Oranien, II., 2, 839) the mission of Camaiani has been confused
with that of Alessandro Casale. The latter, according to a *brief
of September 12, 1566, to the Archduke Charles of Austria, was
sent to their Spanish majesties to convey congratulation " de
partu ipsius reginae " : see Addit., 26, 865, p. 496, British Museum,
London.
2 See the * brief to Philip II. of September 27, 1566, accrediting
Camaiani. Original minute in the British Museum, London
(cf. App. 68, Vol. XVII. of this work).
c See Corresp. dipl., I., 356 seq. The editor has missed the
printed version of the instructions in Compte rendu de la Commiss.
d' hist, a Bruxelles, III., 9, 276 seq.
THE MISSION OF CAMAIANI. II
France. His Majesty must not let himself be deterred
by consideration for Spain, for even if Philip were to send a
large army to the Low Countries it would be of no avail
without his personal presence.
Camaiani was also to ask for the actual transfer to Rome
of Carranza, and the Pope was prepared to allow that several
members of the Spanish Inquisition should accompany him
in order to give information to the Curia. Camaiani was
further to bring up the question of the offences against eccle
siastical jurisdiction in the Kingdom of Naples, where the
Bishop of Gravina and even the Archbishop of Naples had been
interfered with in the exercise of their office by the Spanish
authorities. Finally he was to call attention to the fact that
the sovereign privileges, known as the Monarchia Sicula, had
been made use of, as had never been the case in Sicily, " to
make the Catholic King a Pope " and that this had entailed
so much confusion in ecclesiastical affairs that the Pope, unless
a remedy was found, would find himself obliged to withdraw
all concessions and indults.
The mission of Camaiani, which caused a great sensation
everywhere, and still more the tasks which had been assigned
to him, were extremely distasteful to Philip II. When at the
end of the last week in November, 1566, he appeared before
the king, the unwelcome visitor met with a very cold reception.
Philip made a grievance of the fact that doubts were felt in
the Curia about the reality of his intention of undertaking the
journey which was so necessary, and which he had so often
promised to make. His anger at the tasks which had been
entrusted to the envoy was increased when Camaiani laid
his demands before him in ill-chosen terms, and in general
adopted a brusque tone.1 The irritation of the king found full
expression in the instructions which he sent to his ambassador
in Rome. He must give the Pope clearly to understand that
his insistence, and his interference in the affairs of His Majesty,
1 See Corresp. dipl., II., xlv. Pius V. disapproved (ibid. I.,
430 seq.) of the over brusque attitude adopted by Camaiani, who
was subsequently recalled. Cf. the letter of Bonelli of February
J2, 1567, ibid. II., 37 seq.
12 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
whom God was making use of as His instrument, were ill-timed
and ill-judged ; even if he had not made up his mind, as he
actually had done, to go to the Low Countries and to send
Carranza to Rome, the Holy Father had chosen but a sorry
way of inducing him to do these things I1
The hostility of Philip II. did not have the effect of daunting
the courage of the Pope's representative in continuing to press
the demands entrusted to him. Before long it was categori
cally reported that Philip would shortly set out upon his
journey to the Low Countries.2
On December I7th, I566,3 Pius V. addressed a letter to the
king in his own hand, in which, by way of excuse, he pointed
out that Camaiani had been sent, not because he, the Pope,
had any doubts that Carranza would be released, but only
in order that this affair, which had already been postponed
on account of the press of business at the Spanish court, might
not be allowed to drag on any longer, and that if Camaiani
had been given the further task of insisting on the importance
of the king's journey, this was not because the Pope thought
that this duty was not already clear to His Majesty, but
merely because he feared lest, as was the case with all good
undertakings, the devil should put obstacles in the way of
this one. In this letter Pius V. also touched upon the offences
committed against the ecclesiastical jurisdiction by the Spanish
authorities, adding the warning that such a course of action
was the first step towards estrangement from the Church,4
and a request that the king would give orders that the bishops
were not in future to be interfered with in the carrying out
1 See the report of Castagna, translated in GACHARD, Bibl. de
Madrid, 92 seq., and the letter of Philip II. to Requesens of Novem
ber 26, 1566, in GACHARD, Don Carlos, II., 373 seq. Cf. BUDINGER,
73 seq. KERVYN DE LETTENHOVE, II., 225 seq. and Corresp, dipl.,
L, 383 seqq., 399 seq. where the reports of Castagna and Requesens
are printed in full.
2 See Corresp. dipl., I., 405. 413 ; cf. 362, 376 seq.
3 Ibid. 422 seq.
4 " E questo e il primo passo et il primo scalirio o sii grado
d'alienarsi dalla s. chiesa cattolica."
THE TURKS AND THE LOW COUNTRIES. 13
of their duty against simonists, concubinists and other
offenders.
Before this, on December 9th, 1566, Camaiani and Castagna
had made representations against the interference of the
Spanish authorities in ecclesiastical matters in the Kingdom
of Naples, and the abuses in connexion with the Monarchia
Sicula. Philip II. asked for a more detailed memorial as to
these matters. At the same audience Camaiani delivered a
Papal brief on the obstacles which the senate of Milan were
putting in the way of the reforms of the archbishop, Borromeo.
The king promised to inquire into this carefully.1
At the end of 1566 and at the beginning of the new year,
besides these ecclesiastical matters, the nuncios conferred
with Alba and Philip II. concerning the formation of a league
of Christian princes against the Turks, a matter which the
Pope looked upon as supremely important. The Spanish
government showed itself quite averse to this plan, principally
because the German and French Protestants would look upon
such a league as directed against themselves, and thus the
situation in the Low Countries would be made more difficult.2
Concerning the decision which was now made to send Alba,
who was to be vested with unlimited powers, and who was to
oppose the Netherland rebels with all rigour and without
restraint, there now sprang up a difference of opinion, similar
to that which had occurred between Paul III. and Charles V.,
at the time of the Schmalkaldic War.3 While at Madrid they
wished it to appear to the rest of the world that the interven
tion in the Low Countries was directed solely against political
1 See the report of Castagna of December 9, 1566, in Corresp.
dipl., I., 414 seq. Ibid. 415 seq. the memorial. In an autograph
letter to Philip II., dated Rome, January 8, 1567, Pius V. ex
presses the hope that the king has examined into the obstacles
placed in the way of ecclesiastical jurisdiction in the kingdom
of Naples. In this letter he further remarks that, as he already
sent him word by Castagna, Philip II. had no reasonable cause
for displeasure at the mission of Camaiani. Corresp. dipl., II., 7 seq.
z Cf. HERRE, Europ. Polltik, I., 36, 41 seq.
3 Cf. Vol. XII. of this work, p. 303.
14 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
rebels, in Rome they wished, as the facts indeed warranted,
that the religious aspect of the affair should be made clear.1
In February, 1567, Castagna delivered to the king a letter
from the Pope which continued to harp upon the necessity of
his majesty's personal appearance in the Low Countries, and
again alluded to the difficulties placed by the Spanish govern
ment in the way of the visitation in Naples. In the negotia
tions that followed, Philip admitted that his anger at the
mission of Camaiani had been caused by the connecting of
affairs in the Netherlands with the case of Carranza. He would
certainly undertake the journey to the Low Countries, but it
was necessary in the first place to hasten the mission of Alba.
As to Naples he promised to give the necessary orders to
satisfy the Pope's demands.2
In March, 1567, the departure of the king was announced
in various proclamations,3 and Camaiani thought that he could
return to Rome with an easy conscience.4 The embarkation
of Carranza was at hand ;5 Philip intended to enter into and
to take steps to satisfy the complaints of the Pope as to the
obstacles put in the way of the Neapolitan bishops in the
exercise of the duties of their office, and especially their
visitations,6 but he remained obdurate on the subject of the
placet, the exequatur, the recurso de fuerza, the Monarchia
Sicula, and other royal prerogatives.7 At the beginning of
1 See the extracts from the reports of Castagna in GACHARD,
Bibl. de Madrid, 93 seqq. Cf. Corresp. dipl., II., xlvi seq., 25 seq.,
43 s^-, 47 seq., 52 seq., 57 seq., 65 seq.
* See the report of Castagna from Madrid, February 8, 1567,
Corresp. dipl., II., 33 seq.
•See RANKE, Hist.-biogr. Studien, Leipzig, 1877, 521 seq.
4 He. was recalled by a letter from Bonelli of February 12, 15^67 :
he set out on March 22 and reached Rome on April 13. See
Corresp. dipl., II., 83, 88.
5 It finally took place on April 27, 1567. See LAUGWITZ, 91 ;
Corresp. dipl., II., 97 ; cf. Vol. XVII. of this work, 344.
6 Cf. the letters of Bonelli to Castagna from Rome, January 8
and March 6, 1567, Corresp. dipl., II., 10 seq., 63.
7 See the report of Castagna Of March 22, 1567, Corresp. dipl.^
II., 84 ; III., xlvi seq. C/. LADERCHI, 1567 n. 66 ; HINOJOSA, 185
FRESH DISAGREEMENTS. 15
May he tried once more to pacify Castagna about the affair
in the Netherlands ; the interests of religion — so he maintained
— would suffer no hurt if it were declared to the world that
they were only taking action against political rebels, though
he well knew that heresy was the origin and breeding ground
of the revolt.1
The attitude of Philip II., which led the Pope to grant him
the excusado, but who in the end abandoned his journey to the
Low Countries, which he had represented as being quite
decided upon, caused fresh dissatisfaction in Rome, which,
however, began to disappear when news came of the stern
measures being adopted by Alba. The Pope now thought
that he could be at rest about the cause of religion in the
Netherlands, and, as Arco reports, he was so pleased that he
almost entirely forgot his displeasure with the king.2 But
it was not long before fresh disagreements over ecclesiastical
affairs sprang up, so that, instead of improving, relations
between Rome and Madrid became more strained than ever.
The responsibility for this did not rest with the Pope, who was
always much more accommodating than Philip II.8 While
the latter continued to press lor the concession of the Cruzada,
and sought to bring pressure to bear upon the Pope by means
of opinions from the Spanish prelates,4 the Spanish govern
ment persisted with the utmost tenacity in the cesaropapis-
tical claims which Pius V. considered it his sacred duty to
resist.5 It is beyond all question that very often these claims
1 See Corresp. dipl., II., 99.
2 See the "letter of Arco of September 27, 1567, State Archives,
Vienna.
8 See HERRE, Papsttum, 154.
4 For the resistance of Pius V. see the report of Granvelle of
March 14, 1567, Corresp. de Philippe II., I., 519, and the letter
of Requesens of September 16, 1567, in Corresp. dipl., II., 200.
As to the opinions see Corresp, dipl., II., 137 ; some are to be
found in the Simancas Archives, Pat. Real. leg. 20.
6 Requesens himself recognized the purity of Pius V.'s inten
tions. On December 25, 1566, he wrote to Philip II. : " Your
Majesty may rest assured that what he has done was not due to
l6 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
were quite unjustifiable. Even Requesens, Philip II.'s repre
sentative in Rome, did not, in his private correspondence,
conceal his opinion that the Pope was fully justified in his
complaints of the encroachment upon ecclesiastical jurisdic
tion. If, he said, an appeal had been made to Pius V. con
cerning the abuses in the Roman Curia of which Spain com
plained, the Pope would certainly have removed them, but
in their case one-sided measures had been taken, and in so
doing Spain had gone too far, so much so that it might be
said that the Germans had thrown off their allegiance to the
Holy See in word and deed, and the Spaniards had done so
in deed.1
Castagna had again and again to make complaints of the
way in which the Papal decrees, even in purely spiritual
matters, were made subject to the placet (pase) of a civil
authority, such as the royal council of Castille, and were even
rejected when they were thought to run counter to the privi
leges and laws of the kingdom. In the Kingdom of Naples,
the outcome of these claims, the so-called exequatur, had led
to so grave a dispute that Pius V. threatened to excommunicate
the Viceroy.2 Moved by the purest intentions, the Pope
wished, by means of a visitation, to raise the Neapolitan clergy
to a better moral state, a thing much to be desired in the inter
ests of the kingdom itself, but he found himself hampered on
all sides by the royal authority, while in Spain, laymen, on
the pretext of the privileges of the Monarchia Sicula, allowed
themselves to interfere in the most dangerous way in the in
ternal affairs of the Church.3
Things came to an even graver crisis between the spiritual
any ill-will, nor to any private intentions, but to holy zeal, though
without any understanding of the proper way to apply it, es
pecially in the case of princes so powerful as Your Majesty." See
HERRE, Papsttum, 154, now published in Corresp. dipl., II., 432.
1 Colecc. de docum. ined., XCVIL, 379-380.
2 With Corresp. dipl., II., 27 cf. the *report of Strozzi of January
25 and *that of Arco of February 22, 1567, State Archives, Vienna.
3 Cf. LADERCHI, 1566, n. 184 seq.; 1567, n. 63 seq., 67 seq.;
Corresp. dipl., II., 251 seq., 282 seq.
SPANISH CLAIMS IN MILAN. I/
arid the temporal powers in the Duchy of Milan.1 The first
temporary disagreement with the governor, the Duke of
Albuquerque, who was a man of good-will, was of but small
importance. The latter claimed certain prerogatives of
precedence at ecclesiastical functions, which, in the opinion of
Cardinal Borromeo, might be taken as symbolical of the
predominance of the civil over the spiritual power. This
matter was settled by Philip II. giving his governor orders
to stay away from the religious functions in question.2 Soon
after, however, a long controversy arose with the senate of
Milan, which had the widest powers in the government of the
duchy, and guarded them most jealously. Borromeo very
soon saw that he would never put an end to certain disorders
merely by sermons and exhortations. He therefore had
recourse to the civil courts, which hitherto had quite failed to
punish such offences, or had only punished them lightly, and
obtained from them the promise that they would visit them
with imprisonment and even graver penalties. In a special
brief3 the Pope quieted his scruples lest such an interference
with the sentences of the civil courts might in some circum
stances involve ecclesiastical irregularity. The archbishop
1 Cf. BASCAPE, 1. 2, c. I seq., 7 seqq., p. 24 seqq., 38 seqq.; MUTI-
NELLT, Storia d'ltalia, I., 275 seqq.; M. FORMENTINI, La domin-
azione spagnuola in Lombardia, Milan, 1881 ; BERTANI, La bolla
" Coenae," la giurisdizione ecclesiastica in Lombardia, Milan,
1888 ; A. GALANTE, II diritto di placitazione e 1'economato del
benefici vacanti in Lombardia, Milan, 1884 ; HINOJOSA, 194 seq.;
LAEMMER, Meletemata, 222 seq., 226 ; GINDELY, Rudolf II., I., 16 ;
SERRANO in Corresp. dipl.. III., v-xl.
1 Corresp. dipl., I., 208, 262, 267, 289 (letters of April- June,
1566) III., x. Borromeo expressed himself in favourable terms
of Albuquerque (SYLVAIN, I., 384).
8 Of May 22, 1566, in SALA, I., 178. According to SERRANO,
Corresp. dipl., III., x, Pius V. gave faculties to the Cardinal
" para proceder contra los delinquentes e" imponerles por si 6
con ayudo del brazo secular 6 de sus tribunates, toda clase de penas,
incluso la capital " (the italics are mine). But in the brief there
is no mention of the episcopal tribunal, and no authority is given
for the death sentence.
l8 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
further took proceedings on his own account against these
deep-rooted abuses. According to a long established custom
it had been the right of the episcopal courts to punish certain
offences, as for example those against the sanctity of the
sacrament of matrimony, blasphemy, the breaking of the
precepts of fasting and Sunday observance, the usury that
was contrary to the Church's laws, etc.1 Borromeo, in
accordance with the ancient custom of the Archbishops of
Milan, now set up a force of a small number of armed police
for the arrest of offenders, and the carrying out of the sentences
of his court.
The senate of Milan raised a strong protest against this step.
The Cardinal, they maintained, could not use his armed force
against the laity, since that would be an infringement of the
king's prerogative ; the police, too, were bound by the ordin
ance which forbade the use of certain arms. They also adduced
other points of disagreement. When Borromeo wished to
print the acta of his provincial council, the senate thought
fit once more to uphold the rights of the king, claiming a right
to alter the decrees of the council where they affected the
laity. Even Papal decrees could only be acted upon in Milan
with the consent of the senate.2
The question of the placet for the synod and for Papal briefs
was soon adjusted by the conciliatory attitude of the governor,
and the senate had to withdraw its claims. The question of
the archbishop's armed police, however, was not settled during
the life-time of Borromeo. As a matter of fact the rights of
the matter were not altogether clear. Borromeo supported
his action by the example of his predecessors in the archi-
1 Cf. the enumeration in the letter of Borromeo of October 19,
1569, in SALA, III., 416.
2 BASCAPE, 1. 2, c. i, p. 24 seqq. SYLVAIN, I., 376 seqq. SER
RANO in Corresp. dipl., III., xi. Difficulties in the way of printing
the provincial synod were also experienced at Genoa (SALA, II.,
261, n. 135, 262, n. 137) as well as at Venice (ibid. 274, n. 14 seyq.} ;
for which reason Pius V. sent briefs to Genoa (ibid.) and to Milan
(Corresp. dipl., I., 414). Cf. ibid. I., 187, the decree of the Doge,
Priuli. for the protection of the synod, dated October 3, 1567,
DISPUTES IN MILAN. IQ
episcopal dignity. The senate, on the other hand* declared
that such rights were obsolete for the reason that, owing to
the continued absence of the archbishops of Milan from their
see, they had not been exercised for the past ten years. More
over, Milan had in the meantime come under the Spanish
crown and the laws of Spain afforded no scope for such action
on the part of the archbishop.1 The senate, certainly had a
legal foundation for its action, but it availed itself of this with
a zeal which, even in the opinion of Philip II., went too far.2
The stern action taken by Borromeo against abuses and immor
ality had made him enemies, especially among the nobility
and men of influence, who gladly seized this opportunity of
putting an obstacle in the way of the unwelcome reformer.3
Philip II., to whom the senate submitted its grievances
against the archbishop, referred the matter to the Pope for
decision. Borromeo had already submitted the question of
his rights to the Holy See, while the senate was represented
in Rome by one of its members, the future Cardinal Chiesa.
The latter returned to Milan before the summer of 1567 ; in
the brief4 which he brought with him the Pope promised to
hasten the settlement of this difficult legal question as much
as possible. While the negotiations in Rome dragged on,
Borromeo continued as before to make use of his police, which
1 Serrano, loc. tit.
* " II Re catholico cognosce 1* errore del Senate et similmente
tutti gli consiglieri che sono qul." (Castagna to Bonelli, Septem
ber 8, 1567, Corresp. dipl., II., 189 ; cf. 215). Espinosa told the
nuncio : " che il Re ha pavuto per male assai del Senate che
habbia fatto quello che fece, maxime senza darne parte prima
.al Governatore ; et gli ha scritto che adverta che non gli occorra
mai piu simil cosa." Castagna to Bonelli, February 14, 1568,
ibid. 305.
1 " Alcuni del Senate ancora, quali essendo infetti di qualche
vicio notabile, fanno piti remori de li altri accio che [non] siano
per aventura castigati de i loro peccati." Bonelli to Castagna,
July 25, 1567, Corresp. dipl., II., 172 ; BASCAP£, 1. 2, c. i, p. 24
seqq.
4 Printed in BASCAP&, 1. 2, c. 2, p. 29 ; an Italian version in
GXUSSANO, n^.
20 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
according to all legal principles, he had the full right to do.
It occasioned great excitement and indignation when he took
action against the immoral conduct of a noble Milanese who
" had sold the honour of his house for money." The Cardinal
had him arrested and thrown into prison.1
At this the indignation of the senate burst out. Under
the pretext that the archbishop's officer was carrying for
bidden arms, the senate, breaking through ecclesiastical im
munities, had him arrested at the doors of the cathedral of
Milan, publicly tortured in the presence of a great number of
people at the usual gibbet, and then banished from Milan
under threat of the galleys.2 The Cardinal demanded satis
faction, which the senate refused ; Borromeo then excommuni
cated the authors of the outrage, but the senate had the sen
tence torn down from the doors of the church, and in offensive
terms lodged an accusation against the archbishop in Rome.3
Thus the breach was complete ; the attempts at conciliation
on the part of the governor, without whose knowledge the
senate had acted, were in vain, and the only hope of a solution
1 Bonelli to Castagna, August 2 1567, in SYLVAIN, I., 380.
8 Bonelli to Castagna, July 25, 1567, Corresp. dipl., II., 169
eqq. Brief of February 17, 1569, in SALA, I., 222 seq. Letter
of the Senate, dated July 13, 1567, in SALA, III., 388. Cf. Corresp.
dipl., III., xiii. According to Serrano (ibid, xiv) the officer had
only suffered " un simulac/o de vapulaci6n." Bonelli (loc. cit.
170) speaks, it is true of " tre tratti di corda," but this does not
mean three blows with a rope, but that he was three times racked
and three times released ; cf. the brief already cited : " publice
tribus ictibus eculei acriter plecti et affici, cum maxima ignominia
. . . et cum gravi eius corporis tormento." Thus too the letter
of the Senate, loc. cit. : " poena trium funis quassuum affectus."
Cf. BASCAP&, 1. 2, c. 2, p. 30 : " Acerrime si quis unquam alius
torquetur."
* " Tanta fuit semper archiepiscopi duritia' ; ,cum virum hunc
[Borromeo] videremus nullis omnino rationibus moveri' ; ,adeo
impotenti ira exarsit ; ,ne cum homine hoc, qui a sua voluntate
mmquam decedit, in certamen descendants etc," Letter of
July 13, 1567, loc. cit.
DISPUTES IN MILAN. 21
of the complicated problem lay in the negotiations between
Rome and Madrid.
Pius V. did not deign any reply to the letter of the senate.
He had recourse to the governor, speaking to him of what
had occurred in words of bitter reproach ; what had been done
against the Cardinal must be annulled, and everything
restored to the position in which it had been before the occur
rence ; the question of further action against the offenders
was reserved for further consideration.1 At the end of
August the president and two other members of the senate,
together with several others involved in the affair, were
summoned to Rome to give a personal account of their action.2
All the remonstrances of the governor and the Spanish ambas
sador in Rome were unable to make the Pope go back upon
this demand ;3 the utmost that could be wrung from him
was the extension of the time originally fixed from thirty to
forty-five days.4
Philip II. disapproved of the ill-advised action of the
senate ;5 on the other hand he deemed it his duty to intervene
once more on behalf of the authority of his government,6
and he was displeased that the Pope should have taken action
without first consulting him.7
Philip sought before everything else to find a solution of the
controversy by winning over Borromeo,8 because once that
was done he hoped the Pope would not raise any further
1 Brief of July 28, 1567, Corresp. dipl., II., 171 n.
2Bonelli to Castagna, August 22, 1567, ibid. iSi and 182 n. i.
The Papal summons is of August 19 ; ibid. 196, n. i.
3 Bonelli to Castagna, September 24, 1567, ibid. 211.
4 Brief to Albuquerque of September 6, 1567, printed ibid. 197.
6 See supra, p. 19, n. 2.
" siendo este de tanta consideracion por lo que toca a la
reputacion de la justicia en cuya estimacion consiste la principal
fuer9a de los estados y sefiorias temporales." Philip II. to
Requesens, September 14, 1567, Corresp. dipl., II., 196.
7 Castagna to Bonelli, September 28, 1567, ibid. 215.
8 Letter of Philip II. to Borromeo of September i, 1567, ibid.
III., xvi n. (there is a printer's error here of 1568).
22 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
difficulties. But the governor's attempts in this direction
were without result. Philip therefore, in October, 1567, sent
to Rome to carry on the negotiations the Marquis de Cerralbo,1
who was first to go to the Cardinal at Milan to try to come
to an arrangement with him, which the Pope could then
approve ; if, however, Borromeo would not agree to this,
Cerralbo was not to be afraid of threatening him, and to hold
out to the archbishop the prospect of the king's publicly
representing him as the disturber of the peace of the state.
Cerralbo only reached Milan in the middle of January, 1568,
and there put forward his proposals, which were fundamentally
little more than a renewal of the claims of the senate.2 Before
he succeeded in obtaining any satisfaction from Borromeo,
the news arrived that the Papal decision of the case was
imminent, so that Cerralbo set off hurriedly on his way to
Rome, where with considerable difficulty he succeeded in
inducing the Pope to defer his decision until he had first gone
into the explanations brought by Cerralbo.3 The efforts of
Cardinals Pacheco and Granvelle with the Pope, however, met
with a certain amount of success ; Pius withdrew the summons
to the senate on condition that they should make satisfaction
to the Archbishop of Milan, and beg for absolution from the
ecclesiastical censures.4 The expected Papal decision as to
the rights of the Archbishop of Milan did not appear, while
Cerralbo rejected a compromise suggested by Pius V.5
Hitherto the governor of Milan, the Duke of Albuquerque,
had shown himself the friend of the archbishop, but he gradu
ally became estranged from him and began to treat him as an
adversary, at any rate in his public acts. On the eve of
1 The credentials dated October 12, 1567, ibid. II., 220 ; sum
mary of the instructions for Cerralbo, ibid. n.
* Corresp. dipl., III., xvii seq.
8 Zufiiga to Albuquerque, February 14, 1568, ibid. II., 303, n. 2.
4 Ibid, xix seq. Avviso di Roma of March 20, 1568, ibid. xx.
6 Nor could the General of the Dominicans, Vincenzo Giustiniani,
who went to Spain in the following year as Papal envoy, bring
about an agreement on the subject. See Corresp. dipl., III.,
xxii, and infra, p. 60 seq.
DISPUTES IN MILAN. 23
Corpus Christ! in 1568, he informed the vicar-general of the
archbishop, who was away, that he could not take part in the
procession on the following day if the armed guards of the
archbishop had any part in it.1 On August 25th he issued a
strict edict against all who, directly or indirectly, violated the
royal jurisdiction. This edict in all probability referred to
the controversy with the archbishop, and was certainly
understood in that sense in the archiepiscopal curia ;2 all
Borromeo's officers of justice took to flight, and thus the arch
bishop's court was suddenly paralysed.3
Albuquerque's edict made its appearance just at the moment
when the struggle between the civil and ecclesiastical powers
in Milan had become more bitter than ever. The chapter
of S. Maria della Scala, which was much in need of reform,
resisted the archbishop's visitation on the gound that the
church was under royal patronage and was independent of
the archbishop. It was true that Clement VII. had granted
rights of exemption to the Scala, but only on the condition
that the Archbishop of Milan confirmed them, and the canons
were unable to produce proof of such confirmation. Under
these circumstances Borromeo asked in Rome what he was
to do, and received the reply that he could make the visitation.
The Cardinal, however, waited for another two months before
acting.
It then happened that a cleric belonging to the Scala was
imprisoned for some offence by the archiepiscopal courts, and
this let loose the hatred that had so long been accumulating.
Relying on their privileges the canons declared that two
officers of the court were excommunicated, and demanded an
explanation from the archbishop himself. The senate openly
took the part of the chapter, whose claims the governor also
supported, and it was just at that moment that he issued the
1 Corresp. dipl., III., xxi.
8 " Questo bando non si pu6 dir che sia st£ fatto per altro, che
per la total ruina della giurisdittione et libertk ecclesiastica."
Thus the Consider ationi on the bando in SALA, II., 13.
* C/. the documents in SALA, II., 13 seqq.
24 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
edict threatening the severest penalties for every infringement
of the royal jurisdiction.
Borromeo quickly made up his mind. He arranged for the
visitation of the Scala to take place in a few days time, nor
would he agree to the governor's request that he would, on
account of the general uneasiness, wait for another three days.
On August 3 ist, 1569, a priest notified the canons in the arch
bishop's name, of his immediate arrival, but he was driven
out with violence by the chapter, who had taken refuge in the
cemetery behind the church. Soon afterwards the Cardinal
arrived in solemn procession, and this proved the signal for
wild scenes. The leaders of the calvacade had hardly
arrived, one carrying the Cardinal's insignia, and another the
archiepiscopal cross, when their horses were seized by the
bridles and the procession forced to halt. Borromeo got
down from his mule, took his cross, which in accordance with
the ritual he had to hold in his hand when pronouncing the
excommunication of the canons, and took several steps
towards the gate of the cemetery. The canons drove him
back ; some armed men whom they had hired came in brand
ishing their swords,1 and crying : Spain ! Spain ! and the
gates were then closed in the archbishop's face. He then
pronounced the excommunication of the chapter, and his
vicar-general affixed to the walls a document to that effect,
which, however, was at once torn down. Borromeo then
returned to the cathedral, without having accomplished his
purpose, and there again repeated the excommunication of
the offenders. The canons, for their part, proclaimed to the
sound of bells that the archbishop had incurred ecclesiastical
1 According to a memorial defending the point of view of the
Senate, which is also followed by SERRANO, Corresp. dipl., III.,
xxv seq., one of the armed servants of the archbishop was the
first to draw his sword. In a letter to Castagna (summary in
BASCAPE, 1. -2., c. 9, p. 44) Borromeo declares this accusation of
his enemies to be ridiculous, as he had not gone with armed
attendants : " eosdem crimini sibi dedisse . . . rem indignissi-
mam, sed tainen etiam ridiculam, gladios a Caroli parte, prorsus
semper inermi, prius deductos."
DISPUTES IN MILAN. 25
penalties by what he had done against the Scala, and had a
proclamation to that effect set up in large letters in various
places.
The archbishop now found himself in an extremely difficult
position. His own tribunal was paralysed ; the senate and
the governor did not raise a finger against the men who had
drawn their swords on their archbishop. Albuquerque even
wrote to the Pope that there would be no peace in Milan until
the archbishop was removed.1 For a moment even Pius V.
seemed to be influenced by the unfavourable reports of Borro-
meo, to whom he wrote that if it were true that he had refused
to postpone the visitation for three days, he could not approve
of his action.2 The Pope nevertheless vigorously undertook
the defence of the archbishop, and warned the governor in
strong terms of the consequences that must be entailed by
acts of violence against the Cardinal.3
In spite of the apparently hopeless position Borromeo did
not lose courage. He defended his cause, which he was con
vinced was the cause of the Church, in letters to Rome, to
the Papal nuncio in Madrid, and to Philip II., and obtained
what had seemed impossible, namely that the victory rested
with him. A few days after the Cardinal had issued a detailed
protest against the governor's edict on jurisdiction,4 the
attempt of the Humiliati on his life took place, wheri he
escaped unharmed in so marvellous a way.5 There then arose
a fear of continuing to fight against a man in whose favour
God had, in the opinion of everyone, worked a miracle,6 and
neither the governor nor Philip II. could allow it to be said
that their behaviour towards the representative of the eccle-
1 Corresp. dipl., III., xxx. SYLVAIN, II., 9, n.
8 Brief of September 16, 1569, in LADERCHI, 1569, n. 6.
8 Briefs of September 10 and October 8, 1569, ibid. n. 6 and 7.
The formula of salutation in the last brief runs : " Salutem et
apostolicam benedictionem et salubriora in Domino consilia."
4 October 19, 1569, in SALA, II., 20 seqq.; III., 415 seqq.
* See Vol. XVII. of this work, p. 246.
6 " Hizo Dios milagro que no le hiziessen otro dano, etc."
Albuquerque to Zuniga, October 26, 1569, Corresp. dipl., III., xxxv.
VOL. XVIII.
4
26 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
siastical power had encouraged the daring of the murderer.1
On December 22nd, 1569, Borromeo received from the governor
a letter from the king, in which Philip II. expressed his dis
approval of the action of the Scala, and insisted on their sub
mission to the archbishop.2 A further declaration by the king
put an end to the scruples of the senate, who were seeking to
avoid a public act of submission to the archbishop by appealing
to their status as representing the royal authority.3 On the
vigil of Christmas, 1569, the procurator and the notary of the
senate publicly and solemnly asked at the doors of the cathe
dral of Milan for absolution from their excommunication.4
The canons of the Scala did the same on February 5th, 1570. 6
On December I2th, 1569, the governor had mitigated his
edict on jurisdiction by a further declaration. When neither
the Pope nor the archbishop was satisfied with this, on Decem
ber 29th he agreed that the archbishop should use the officers
of his tribunal as had been done in former years.6
It was true that this did not provide a solution of the
greatest of the issues then at stake, but nobody except Borro
meo himself could ever have thought that even so much could
have been accomplished.
1 On November 2, 1569, Bonelli gave Giustiniani instructions
to tell the king : " che quest! sono i frutti che finalmente sono
nati dalla poca intelligenza, anzi pifi tosto, dalla quasi manifesta
inimicitia et dai continui disfavori che gli hanno usati et mostrati
i ministri di S.M." etc. Corresp. dipl., III., 184.
2 SYLVAIN, II., 30. Castagna to Bonelli, November 26, 1569,
Corresp. dipl., III., 192. BASCAPE, 1. 2, c. n, p. 48 seq.
3 BASCAPE, ibid. p. 49.
4 Ibid.
* Ibid. SYLVAIN, II., 38.
•Corresp. dipl., III., xxxv seq. Briefs to Albuquerque of
December 21, 1569 and January 15, 1570, in LADERCHI, 1569,
n. T8 ; 1570, n. 153. A brief of August n, 1570, to the Senate
of Milan (ibid. 1570, n. 154) admits that the right of ecclesiastical
sanctuary ought not to hold good in the case of great crimes, and
that Borromeo ought to hand over an adulterer and an assassin
to the civil courts.
CHAPTER II.
THE POPE'S STRUGGLE AGAINST SPANISH CESAROPAPAI.ISM.
AT the end of 1567 Requesens retired from his position as
ambassador of Philip II. in Rome.1 The Pope regretted his
departure,2 and entrusted to him a memorial embodying his
wishes concerning the disputes at Milan and Naples, and the
Monarchia Sicula* Cardinals Pacheco and Granvelle had
worked with Requesens in the interests of Spain. Granvelle,
who had been in the Curia since 1566, was looked upon as
Philip's most trusted confidant, and he exercised a great
influence over Requesens.4 He was a true product of the
1 *Arco announces on December 27, 1567, that Requesens,
who was surrounded by Cardinals seeking pensions, intended to
start in two days. But according to the *report of Strozzi of
January 4, 1568 (State Archives, Vienna), he was still in Rome
on that date ; his farewell audience had already taken place.
See the brief of December 28, 1567, in which Pius V. praises him
on the occasion of his departure, in Corresp. dipl., II., 281 seq.
'See ibid. 281.
3 " *Memoria al sig. commend, maggiore di Castiglia di quanto
N.S1*6 desidera che si tratti con S.M.C^ in suo nome," in Varia
Polit., 81 (now 82), p. 426 seq., without date, and p. 488-491,
minute ; on p. 489^ is to be seen the remark : " Aggiunta al
Memoria ... a 29 di decembre 1567," and on p. 491 b : " Mem-
oriale di N.Sre dato al sig. comm. magg. di Castiglia in qual parti
di Roma a 30 di decembre 1567. Papal Secret Archives.
4 See Colecc. de docum. ined., XCVII., 386. On November
15, 1566, Strozzi announced to Maximilian II. : *" Alcuni dicono
haver scoperto ch' el cardle- Granvella e quello che ha la mente
del re Filippo e che tratti qui tutti i negocii d'importanza per esso
in compagnia del commendator." (State Archives, Vienna).
Granvelle had been received in consistory on February j, 1566 :
see Corresp. dipl., I., 121 n. 3.
27
28 HISTORY OF THE POPES
Renaissance, with much practical experience of the world
but, like Pacheco, he had no influence with the Pope, who
knew his complete dependence upon Spain.1 One day
Pius V. openly told him that he was more Spaniard than Car
dinal. How true this estimate was is clear from the relations
between Granvelle and his sovereign, whose conception of
ecclesiastical policy coincided with his own. The Cardinal
could not but recognize the holy life and pure intentions of
Pius V., but the cold-blooded politician showed how little
he understood the position of the Pope and his great delicacy
of conscience. He only saw in him a profound ignorance of
politics, and an inability to deal with princes. Since Pius V.,
so Granvelle once wrote to Philip II., wishes nothing for his
relatives, he imagines that he can push forward boldly, but he
soon draws back if you show your teeth.2 Even Philip II.,
in face of the difficulties which Pius V. put in the way of his
use of the Inquisition for political purposes, was of opinion
that the Pope was injuring the cause of religion by his scruples
of conscience !3
So long as there was such a want of grasp of the facts on
the part of the counsellors of Philip II., there were bound to
be conflicting views. Pius V., who clearly realized the
importance of the Spanish king for the protection of Catholic
interests in England and France, welcomed with all possible
cordiality Juan de Zufiiga when he arrived in Rome on
January i8th, 1568, as the successor of Requesens, and
when France made objections he remarked that the King of
1 See Corresp. de Philippe II., I., 599 ; of. HERRE, Papsttum,
145. An excellent character sketch of Granvelle in RACHFAHL,
Oranien, II., i, 137 seq. It would appear that his by no means
blameless behaviour remained unknown to Pius V. (see Renom
de France, £d. PIOT, I., '26, n. i.
1 Letter of December 23, 1566 ; see Corresp. de Philippe II.,
II., xlvii. As complete a failure to understand the character of
Pius V. is to be found in the "report of Cusano of February 2, 1566,
State Archives, Vienna.
* See Colecc. de docum. ined., 341 ; FORNERON, I., 189 seq.
JUAN DE ZUNIGA. 2Q
Spain was the only Catholic sovereign who protected the
Church.1
The first relations of Zuniga with the Pope were mutually
satisfactory, but it was not long before difficulties arose.
Zuniga had been instructed to obtain the definite concession
of the Cruzada, but he did not shut his eyes to the difficulty
he would have in overcoming the scruples of Pius V. on the
subject, and was careful to avoid bringing the matter forward
before the settlement of the dispute about Milan2 which Cer-
ralbo, who had been sent to Rome by Philip II., was engaged in
arranging.3 At the beginning of March 1568 it seemed as though
a happy issue to this dispute was probable.4 The canonist,
Gianpaolo della Chiesa, who was highly esteemed by Philip
II., and had been sent to Rome by the senate, had rendered
such good service in the matter that Pius V. conferred the
red hat on him at the creation of Cardinals of March 24th,
1568 ; while France was only taken into consideration on
this occasion by the nomination of Jerome Souchier, Pius V.
also conferred the purple on the President of the Spanish
Council of State, Espinosa, and on Antonio Carafa, who was
the devoted adherent of Philip II.5 The Spaniards therefore
had every cause for satisfaction. In fact Zuniga reported on
March 2Qth : We have a holy Pope, and if he will give us the
Cruzada, we shall have nothing left to desire ; he would like
1 See the report of Zuniga in Corresp. dipl., II., 294 seq., 296 seq.
Cf. also the "report of Arco of January 24, 1568 (in Latin and
Italian), State Archives, Vienna.
2 See the reports of Zuniga in Colecc. de docum. ined., XCVII .,
391 seq., 396.
3 See ibid., 395.
* See the *report of Arco of March 13, 1568, State Archives
Vienna.
6 Cf. CIACONIUS, III., 1031 seq. ; CARDELLA, V., 114 seq. ;
HERRE, Papsttum, 156 seq. In his ""letter to Castagna of March
24, 1568 (Nunziat. de Spagna, VI., Papal Secret Archives) Bonelli
brings out the consideration shown by Pius V. for Philip II. in
the promotion. For the gratitude of Philip II. see Corresp. de
Philippe II., II., 375.
3O HISTORY OF THE POPES
to reform Christendom at a single blow, but that is not possi
ble.1 The repeated complaints made by Zuniga that Pius V.
was so cautious in the matter of dispensations and favours,
and remained fixed in his ideas without letting himself be
influenced by political considerations,2 show that he too was
lacking in a full appreciation of the personality of this
supremely conscientious head of the Church.
In spite of all his difference of opinion with him about
ecclesiastical politics, Pius V. had a great personal regard for
the king. Several times Zuniga was able to report the Pope's
great solicitude for Philip's health,3 and the French ambassa
dor, on the occasion of the creation of Cardinals on March
24th, openly accused him of partiality for the Spanish king.4
Pius, however, could not see his way to grant all that mon
arch's wishes. When, at the beginning of April, he asked
for the concession of the Cruzada, Zuniga met with no success,
and the Pope gave him clearly to understand how much he
was disgusted that he should try and make him look with
favour upon a request which he could not grant.6 In spite
of this Zuniga still held out hopes to the king of being able
to obtain this important concession.6 In a confidential
letter of April 26th to Cristobal de Moro, Zuniga makes much
of the holy zeal of Pius V. and of his personal liking for Philip
II. : The king is in very good odour with the Pope ; if every
thing does not go in accordance with his wishes, the blame
rests with those to whom the Holy Father has entrusted his
affairs. On account of the disputes about jurisdiction,
Zuniga continues, we have a thousand difficulties every day,
1 Colecc. de docum. indd., XCVII., 413.
»See ibid. 405, 415, 417, 427, 439, 459.
'See ibid. 400, 401.
4 See the "report of Arco of March 27, 1568, according to which
among the Cardinals Mula had made opposition to the nomination,
and received a sharp reply from the Pope. State Archives,
Vienna.
6 See the report of Zuniga of April 7, 1568, Colecc, de docum.
hied., XCVII., 420, 422 seq.
•See Corresp. dipl., II., 341,
JUAN DE ZUNIGA. 31
and these continue to increase in connexion with those things
which the Pope wishes to reform. We have not yet settled
the affair at Milan, and its decision is likely to be deferred for
some time. As to the Cruzada, I am very doubtful, as I was
when I came, but I have not told this to the king.1 According
to a report from Arco to Maximilian II. on May ist, 1568,
Pius V. declared to Cardinals Granvelle and Paeheco that he
insisted on the point that Borromeo should be allowed to take
proceedings with his " armed force " even against laymen,
in matrimonial cases and the like, but that the Spaniards saw
in this an infringement of the sovereign rights of their king.2
The final settlement of the Milanese dispute also occupied
the attention of the nuncio Castagna longer than he had
expected from the tranquillizing assurances given by the gov
ernment at the beginning of I568.3 Castagna was afraid
of a counter-stroke in Spain in the form of a prohibition to
the bishops to inflict pecuniary or other penalties on the laity.4
He therefore felt it his duty all the more strongly to insist
that in the Milanese controversy the obedience due to the
Pope and the rights of the Church should be made quite clear.5
Castagna had also to fight again and again in connexion
1Colecc. de docum. ined., XCVII., 451.
a *" A quelli del Re cattolico pare questa cosa troppo dura
perch e in questo modo 1' arcivescovo sarebbe piii padrone di
quella citta che 1' istesso Re." Arco, May i, 1568, State Archives
Vienna. Cf. the letter of Zuniga of May i, 1568, Colecc. de
docum. ined., XCVII., 464 seq.
* See the reports of Castagna of January 16 and February 14,
1568, Corresp. dipl., II., 286, 305 seq.
*Ibid. 322.
fc Cf. ibid. 276 seq., 278 seq., 286. On March 30, 1568, Castagna
wrote to Bonelli, " *Delle cose di Milano si aspetta, come altre
volte ho scritto, quello che avvisara il marchese di Ceralvo. In
questo mezzo ho detto al Re et ad altri che Sua Santita procederi
con li debiti termini inanzi al giudicio, perche la cosa e in tal
termine che non pu6 fermarsi cosi in modo nissuno, ma e necessario
che si renda a Sua Santitk la debita ubbedienza et alia chiesa la
dovuta giustitia." Borghese I., 606, p. 356^357, Papal Secret
Archives.
32 HISTORY OF THE POPES
with the position of the nuncio at Naples,1 against the constant
infringement of ecclesiastical rights which took place in that
kingdom, and against the obstacles which were placed in the
way of the bishops in the carrying out of their duties. Since
the liberty of the Church was attacked in various ways, both
there and in Spain, he drew up his complaints in the form of
a memorial which he sent at the beginning of March to the
king, who was accustomed himself to read all such documents,
no matter how long. It is dated March 2nd, 1568, and in it
Castagna tries with much skill to induce the king to change
his ways, touching, above all, a chord which could not fail
to appeal to Philip II. In a long historical exposition, he
shows how heresies, beginning with that of Hus, and going
on to the present time, all aimed at destroying the authority
and power of the Pope. This had been the case in Bohemia,
Germany, France and England. Happily Spain was less
infected by heresy than those countries, and it was hoped
that it would remain so, not only by reason of the vigilance
of the Inquisition, but because the country had a king who
was as Catholic-minded as could be desired, a king who stood
out above all his fellows as a shining example of unflinching
hostility to all religious innovations. Yet even in Spain
there was danger, because of the usurpation of the rights of the
Church by the civil power. It was evident that such usurpa
tions meant grave injury both to the state and to religion.
The authority which has been withdrawn from the Church,
the memorial goes on to state, has not been won by the king
for himself, but he is destroying it altogether, and not only
gains nothing for himself, but offends God without gaining
any advantage, and acts in such a way as to injure his own
good name, and even against his own interests. For this
reason it is those princes who have conferred favours on the
Church, and not those who have taken them away, those who
have increased them and not those who have restricted them,
who have enjoyed the greatest power and authority, and whose
1 See the report of Castagna of March 2, 1568, Corresp. clipl., II.,
314 ; cf. III., liv. See as to this MEISTER, Die Nuntiatur in
Neapcl, in Hist. Jahrb., XIV., Si.
MEMORIAL OF CASTAGNA. 33
praises are sung in history. Castagna then goes on to depict
in vivid colours the oppression of the Church's liberties in
Spain, the strict supervision of Apostolic bulls which is
perpetually being exercised by the royal council and chancery,
the obstacles which in so many ways are placed in the way of
the enactments and sentences of the Roman court, the various
forms of interference, under the pretext of justice, in ecclesi
astical trials, the orders which are issued to the prelates,
judges and other ecclesiastics to excommunicate or absolve
according to the wishes of the royal council or the chancery.
By means of these widespread usurpations of ecclesiastical
jurisdiction, under various pretexts and with great cleverness,
a kind of ecclesiastical power is given to the king and his
ministers, and thus the two distinct jurisdictions are confused,
to the disturbance of the order established by God, and with
great danger of separation from the Holy See. Such vio
lations of ecclesiastical liberty have always marked the first
beginnings of heresy, as had been seen in the case of France.1
Philip II. replied to these complaints2 by saying that he
must, before everything else, obtain more exact information
before arriving at any decision. On May ist, 1568, Castagna
reported that the government had asked for information as
to the use made of the Monarchia Sicula, so that it might
decide whether any reform was called for in that connexion.3
To the perplexities which all these things occasioned for
Castagna, fresh ones were soon added. By an edict of Novem
ber ist, 1567, 4 Pius V. had issued a general prohibition of
1 The memorial was first made known by Lammer (Zur Kir-
chengesch., 134 and Melet. 220 seqq.} from the Cod. 33-E-3 of
the Corsini Library, Rome. Lammer wrongly attributes it to
Acquaviva, which is impossible on the score of chronology alone.
That it was presented by Castagna is clear from the latter's report
of March 2, 1568 ; it is also to be found among his papers. See
HINOJOSA, 186; Corresp. dipl., II., 315.
2 Cf. Corresp. dipl., II., 350.
3 Ibid. 357 (with wrong date March i).
4 See Bull. Rom., VII., 630 seq. Cf. Corresp. dipl., II., 247.
See also Vol. XVII. of this work, p. 207.
34 HISTORY OF THE POPES
bull-fights, which had already been forbidden1 in the Papal
States ; those who took part in them were excommunicated,
and no one who lost his life in them might receive Christian
burial. As the forbidden sport had also spread to Portugal,
the nuncio was called upon to publish the prohibition there
as well,2 but, however justifiable it was, the ordinance met
with the greatest opposition. The Spanish grandees, as soon
as they heard of it, at once lodged a protest, and even the
king undertook the defence of the threatened national sport.
In this case once more, as was his custom, he sought for
complaisant theologians, who did not fail to provide proofs
that bull-fights were not sinful.3 On account of their de
pendence on the government, the Spanish bishops did not
dare to publish the Papal prohibition, so that Castagna had
to publish the bull himself.4 Unfortunately, the evil custom
still found defenders, among them even a Franciscan, against
whose written defence Pius V. took stern measures.5 The
nuncio also met with opposition when he tried, in accordance
with a request made by Pius V. in a letter of January 25th,
1568, to abolish the quite unchristian custom that existed
in Spain of refusing viaticum to those condemned to death.8
Lastly, Castagna, acting on the express orders of the Pope,7
1 See Corresp. dipl., II., 30, and the collection of the Editti, I.,
191 in the Casanatense Library, Rome.
* See Corresp. dipl., II., 272.
3 See the reports of Castagna of January 27, and March 8, 1568,
Corresp. dipl., II., 299, 322 seq. Cf. the letter of Zufiiga of April
21, 1568, Colecc. de docum. ined., XCV1L, 439. In letters of
January 24 and April 21, 1568, Cardinal Bonelli insists on Castagna
having the bull put into force. Corresp. dipl., II., 322, n. ; 350.
4 See the reports of Castagna of ApriL 13 and May 14, 1568.
Corresp. dipl., II., 349, 366.
5 See ibid. IV., Ix. Castagna hoped ('report of June 17, 1568,
Papal Secret Archives) to be able gradually to stamp out the
bull-fights.
8 See LADERCHI, 1568, n. 200 ; Corresp. dipl., II., 321, 349.
Cf. GAMS, III., 2; 197 seq.
7 *Da parte di N.Sre con mons. 1* arcivescovo di Rossano nuntio
in Ispagna, in Varia Pojit, 82, 431-434, Papal Secret Archives.
THE BULL /AT COENA DOMINI. 35
again and again called attention to the abuses which existed
in the West Indian Colonies, not only by insisting on the
respect due to ecclesiastical jurisdiction, but also on a more
humane treatment of the natives, and their conversion to
Christianity. Philip II. promised to issue the necessary
orders to his officials, but neither he nor Cardinal Espinosa
would hear of the appointment of a nuncio for the Colonies.1
In the meantime Pius V. had taken an important step
towards the re-establishment of the ecclesiastical liberties,
jurisdiction and immunities which were in various ways
infringed or resisted, both in and out of Spain. Hitherto
the validity of the censures inflicted on certain determinate
and grave crimes, which were reserved to the Pope, and were
enumerated in the bull In.coena Domini, had been dependent
on the condition that the bull should be solemnly promulgated
each year on Maundy Thursday. The form of the bull
which was read on Maundy Thursday, 1568, April I5th,
contained for the first time the clause that it was to remain
in force until the promulgation of a new bull. Moreover,
on this occasion the bull contained a number of additional
clauses directly aimed against the abuses and usurpations of
the civil authorities m ecclesiastical matters which were at
that time to be found in many different countries.2 For
1 See Corresp. dipl., II., 350, 382, 390, 471 seq.
2 For the additions of 1568 see App. nn. 2 and 3. The violent
polemics of the Old Catholics raised by Dollinger on the occasion
of the Vatican Council, against the bull In coena Domini, which
is quite erroneously put forward as an ex cathedra decision, were
tilting at a wind-mill, since the In coena, like the other disciplinary
bulls of earlier times, entirely lost its binding force in virtue of
the constitution Apostolicae Sedis moderations issued by Pius IX.
on October 12, 1869. In his edition of " Janus," Friedrich
carried on the dispute unshaken. Concerning the effect of the
bull, and the history of the cases reserved therein, an excellent
account is given (p. 102 seqq), in the work of HAUSMANN which
was crowned in 1861 by the theological faculty of Munich, of
which Dollinger was also a member, Cf. also PHILLIPS, Ver-
mischte Schriften, II., 377 seq.
36 HISTORY OF THE POPES
example, excommunication was now inflicted upon all those
who, whatever their position, appealed from the Pope to an
ecumenical council. The clause directed against those who
ill-used ecclesiastical dignitaries also covered the banishment
of Cardinals, bishops, legates and nuncios. The most im
portant addition concerned laymen of all classes who took
criminal proceedings against ecclesiastics, it being made clear
that all contrary Papal privileges, even if granted to kings,
princes or other authorities, were henceforth annulled and
revoked. Lastly, the bull laid it down that every priest
having the care of souls must have a copy and study it dili
gently, so that in the confessional he might well know what
cases were reserved to the Pope for absolution.
On April 2Oth, 1568, the bull began to be sent out to all
the bishops, with orders to make it known solemnly, because
many people did not know that they were excommunicated
by acting against the prohibitions contained in the bull.1
It was evident that the bull, which rested entirely upon the
medieval conception of canon law, was a condemnation of
the cesaropapalism which had grown up, especially in Spain
and Venice.2 As early as 1566 it was made evident to
what a pitch things had come in Spain when the bishops
there refused to publish the bull In coena Domini, when it
was issued in that year, without the permission of the royal
council, although the Pope had definitely directed them to
do so in a brief of April 20th.3 A quarrel was avoided on that
1 See Arm. 44, t. 12, n. 66 : " Compluribus episcopis," of April
20, 1568, Papal Secret Archives. Cf. LAZZARESCHI, 13 ; Corresp.
dipl., II., 409, n. i ; the brief of Pius V. to Charles Borromeo in
BERTANI, 84 seq. bears the date April 28.
2 For the state absolutism of the Venetians see Vol. IV. of this
work, pp, 95 seqq. On April 24, 1568, Cusano "reports that
Pius V. was specially complaining of Venice, which was not
observing the bull and had imprisoned the abbot Lipomano.
State Archives, Vienna.
3 The brief of April 20, 1566, is printed in Corresp. dipl., I.,
196 seq. The Imperial ambassador Arco also deals repeatedly
with the bull in his *reports, but he was insufficiently informed
THE BULL IN COENA DOMINI. 37
occasion because Philip II. realized that the bull was not
substantially different from those which had gone before,
and did not invalidate those " customs of Spain " which had
hitherto been recognized by the Popes.1 This time, however,
principally because, in his kingdom of Naples, by appealing2
to the bull In coena Domini, there had been several refusals
to pay taxes, Philip adopted another attitude, although the
Pope repeatedly pointed out to him and his government that
he excluded any intention of limiting the royal authority and
jurisdiction, or of revoking former privileges by the bull ;
all that he must avoid were unjust extensions and abuses of
these privileges, - and thus ensure the good of souls and the
welfare of the people. Pius V. added a warning against
putting his trust in those persons who sought to persuade the
princes that he had any designs against the state in publishing
the bull.3
In Rome the principal exponent of such ideas was the
on the subject. On May n, 1566, he announces that it is said
that the Pope had sent the bull In coena to all the nuncios in
order that they might communicate it to the princes " ma fino
a hora ella dispiace a tutti ;" opposition was to be feared from
the princes, especially where it was taken literally. On June 8
Arco maintains that the Pope was putting off the publication
of the bull out of consideration for the princes " perche senza il
consenso loro i vescovi non ardirebbono publicarla ne in Spagna
ne in Francia, il medesimo converrebbe che facessino gli vescovi
di Germania essendo cosa di tanta consideratione." On June 22
Arco wrote that the bull had been " secretly " sent to the bishops
in Spain and Portugal. Finally on July 6 he reports that it is
not yet known whether the bull has been published in Spain or
even in one single city in Italy. " Molti nondimeno dubitano che
non venga un giorno fantasia al Papa di farla publicare." In
1567 Arco had to announce on March 29 that the Pope had pub
lished the bull as usual and ordered that all the archbishops,
bishops and parish priests should have a copy. State Archives,
Vienna.
1 See Corresp. dipl., I., 191.
2 Cf. ibid. III., Ivii seq.
8 See ibid. II., 373, 444, 451, 503.
38 HISTORY OF THE POPES
Venetian ambassador, Paolo Tiepolo. He had promptly
made a report to the Signoria making out that by his action
the Pope intended to assume the decision, not only of spiritual
and semi-spiritual matters, but also of those that were purely
civil. Tiepolo entirely misunderstood the situation, for he
even thought that the Pope's action was due to ill-disposed
and unconscientious advisers who, in looking about for the
necessary means to re-establish the authority of the Church,
wished to embroil him in disputes with the civil authorities.1
At first Zuniga, the representative of Spain in Rome, adopted
a more cautious attitude. It is true that he too held the
erroneous view that the entourage of Pius V. were trying to
distract the Pope's attention from reforms in Rome by involving
him in quarrels with the princes ;2 he wished, however, that
Tiepolo should be the first to take steps in the matter.
Zuniga formed a truer estimate of Pius V. in another respect.
He realized that it was no use to deal with him by the methods
hitherto adopted, and he therefore advised the concession of
the privileges for Bosco, and the pension for Ghislieri in such
a way that the Pope should not see in them an attempt to
win him over by such acts of concession, for in that case
everything would be hopelessly ruined.3 The Spaniard
chiefly had the Cruzada in view, though it did not escape him
that under the existing circumstances it was becoming more
and more difficult to obtain it, because to the angry disputes
about the state of affairs at Milan, fresh quarrels had been
added on the subject of the wide privileges granted to the
Order of St. Lazarus.4 All this increased Zufiiga's great
anxiety (infinite cuidado) about the bull In coena Domini,
and at last he came to the conclusion that the discussion of
this thorny question had better be put off until the winter.6
Other views prevailed in Madrid. On July nth, 1568,
1 P. Tiepolo, Relazioni di 1569, p. 179 seq.
aZum'ga to Alba from Rome, May 8, 1568, Colecc. de docum,
ined., XCVII., 467, 469.
•Zufiiga to Requesens from Rome, May 8, 1568, loc. cit. 469.
4 Cf. Corresp. dipl., II., 138 seqq. 198 seqq. ; III., 41 seq.
* Zufliga to Requesens from Rome, May 19, 1568, loc. cit. 477.
THE EXEQUATUR IN NAPLES. 39
Castagna was able to report that the Spanish government
was putting every possible obstacle in the way of the publica
tion of the new bull. The nuncio had received it on May 26th,1
and had sent it to the Spanish bishops with the Papal brief
and a covering letter, asking them to publish it and to give
the necessary instructions to confessors. But not one of the
Spanish bishops had so far dared solemnly to promulgate the
bull, from fear of the government. Castagna consequently
found himself obliged to arrange himself for the publication
of the bull, by communicating its contents to the religious
Orders and to confessors. He received information of the
king's attitude from Cardinal Espinosa, according to whom
Philip was afraid that the Pope wished to deprive him of
rights to which he had a good title, a thing which annoyed
him all the more because he had expressly promised to remove
the abuses in the Kingdom of Naples. Espinosa said that
though he was being at that time pressed on every side, His
Majesty would not recognize such " novelties " as he intended
to stand up for his sovereign rights and not be a " dummy
king."2 Nor did the Spanish ministers make any secret of
the fact that the government would not tolerate the publica
tion of the bull in the Kingdom of Naples without its exequatur,
because it never had been published there, but only in Rome,
and the additions made by Pius V. were directed, not only
against the exequatur, but were directly aimed at the Monarchia
Sicula, against which the appointment of the nuncio Odescalchi
to the Two Sicilies was also directed. The ministers also
made complaint of a number of other claims which the Pope
made, both in Spain and Naples, and especially of the brief
directed against all those persons in Naples who had stolen
or otherwise wrongfully alienated ecclesiastical property ;
they also complained of the publication of the bull relating
to physicians without its having received the exequatur,
xThe original "letter from Bonelli to Castagna, dated Rome,
April 28, 1568, has the note " Ric. 26 maggio 1568 " Nunziat di
Spagna, VI., Papal Secret Archives.
*See the report of Castagna of July n. 1568, Corresp. dip!.,
II., 408 sea.
40 HISTORY OF THE POPES
because this affected laymen, who were the subjects of His
Majesty ; another complaint was made of the summons
issued against Marcello Caracciolo concerning a castle which
his family had held for 120 years as a fief of Naples, and not
of Benevento ; lastly they complained of the bull dealing
with the Knights of St. Lazarus. On all these matters,
reports Castagna, there are heated discussions, and Requesens
will certainly be sent to Rome to lodge a complaint.1
Under these circumstances the nuncio thought it best to
seek an audience of the king in person, and he frankly and
strongly urged him not to let himself be led by his ministers
to take any rash and dangerous action. He must not suppose
that by giving his support to the infringements of ecclesiastical
jurisdiction, he was in any way acting for the advantage of
his kingdom, as at first sight he might appear to be doing ;
such action on the contrary would be the ruin of his kingdom.
It was for that very reason that the Pope was trying to keep
the king from doing any such thing, because he loved and
valued him as being almost the only one among the sovereigns
who still defended the Catholic religion. Before allowing
himself to be angry with the Pope, His Majesty ought to assure
himself of the latter 's real intentions, a subject on which his
ministers imagined all manner of things, which had never
even entered the mind of His Holiness.2
Philip excused himself from entering into the details of
Castagna's explanation, but gave him clearly to understand
that he did not think much of it. Never before, Castagna
reported to Rome, had the king complained with such bitter
ness as on this occasion, especially concerning affairs at
Naples. " He had tears in his eyes — whether from anger or
grief I do not know — when he said that even if the Pope had
not interfered, he would on his own account have defended
and maintained the rights, privileges and customs handed
down to him by his ancestors."3
1 See the 'report of Castagna of July 28, 1568, Papal Secret
Archives.
1 See Corresp. dipl., II., 424 seq.
3 See ibid. 425.
THE MISSION OF REQUESENS. 4!
Castagna could only account for the excitement of the king
by the intrigues of his ministers, who had persuaded him that
the bull In coena Domini would cause a revolution in the
Spanish dominions. It was with, terror and anguish that he
saw the imminent danger of a breach between the Pope and
the king, a breach which could not fail to have disastrous
consequences for the Church. My hopes at present, he wrote
on July 28th, are centred in the Pope, rather than in the king,
who relies too much upon his ministers.1
How earnestly Pius V. tried to remove the distrust of
Philip II., and aimed at an understanding is seen from the
instructions which he sent to Castagna on August I7th, 1568.
In these instructions it is stated that the Pope did not in the
least intend any innovation by the bull, nor at doing away
with the exequatur, nor at limiting the jurisdiction of the
king, but only at safeguarding the authority of the Holy See
in the interests of the Church. Although it was only right
that a prince should have knowledge of the things being done
in his territories, the Pope nevertheless could not approve of
the high-handed way in which the royal authorities acted in
this respect, not only preventing the execution of salutary
Apostolic bulls, but not even vouchsafing to give their reasons.
Pius V. further asked that Philip II. would send a special
envoy empowered to discuss the Monarchia Sicula, because
in that matter the abuses had reached such a pitch that some
thing must certainly be done about it.2
When these lines were written, Philip II. had already
decided to send Requesens to Rome ; he was a persona grata
with Pius V., and he was instructed to lay the point of view
of the Spanish government on the matters at issue before the
Pope.3 Castagna, it is true, would rather have seen Cardinal
Espinosa entrusted with this mission, as he was well versed
in canon law, but he was not able to obtain this.4 How little
fruit had been borne by his own explanation of the aims of
1 See ibid. 425-426.
* Ibid. 445.
3 See ibid. 428 seq.
4 See the report of Castagna of October i, 1568, ibid. 470.
VOL. XVIII.
42 HISTORY OF THE POPES
the Pope in publishing his new version of the bull In coena
Domini was shown by the prohibition to promulgate the bull,
which was sent by Philip II. on July i6th, 1568, to the Spanish
provincials of the religious Orders.1
While the politico-ecclesiastical situation was thus in a
state of obscurity, a tragedy occurred in the royal family of
Spain which in spite of all research is not yet entirely cleared
up.2 On January i8th, 1568, Philip II. had given orders
for the arrest of his son, Don Carlos. The unhappy young
man was kept in strict imprisonment, and died on the morn
ing of July 24th.
Philip II. preserved so mysterious a silence about the
arrest and its reason that the most conflicting rumours sprang
up concerning it. Don Carlos, it was said, had plotted to
kill his father and had been in league with the rebels in the
Netherlands. The idea also got about that the son of the
Catholic King had embraced Protestant beliefs.3 When the
nuncio in Madrid, Castagna, applied for information to the
Grand Inquisitor, Espinosa, the latter answered him in the
king's name that he had been forced to order the arrest solely
and entirely " for the service of God, and for the safeguarding
of religion, his realm, and his subjects." If he had not acted
as he had done, and sacrificed his only son, he would have
been unfaithful to God. When the nuncio alluded to the
rumour that the Infante had even conspired against his
father, he received the mysterious reply that " If that had
been the only danger, it would have been easy to avoid it,
but there had been an even worse reason than that, if such
were possible." For two years past the king had made
every effort to win Don Carlos from his " evil courses."4
Castagna, who reported these statements to Rome on January
24th, adds in a letter of February 4th that the Infante had
1 See ibid. 451, n. i.
2 Not even the latest monograph by V. BIBL, Der Tod des Don
Carlos (Vienna, 1918) in spite of all the research employed therein,
has arrived at any definite conclusion.
3 Bibl, loc. cit. 265 seq., 271 seq.
4 See GACHARD, Don Carlos, 663 seq.
THE CASE OF DON CARLOS. 43
not received Communion at Christmas because the friars of
the Hieronymite convent had refused to give him an un-
consecrated host, and Castagna adds that he looked upon
it as certain that the Infante would be excluded from the
succession to the throne, and would never again be set at
liberty1.
The news of the Protestant leanings of Don Carlos, which
had only been hinted at by the nuncio, reached Rome in a
more definite form from other countries.2 According to the
report of Cardinal Delfino to Maximilian II. on March 6th,
the Pope, when he received the news, lifted his arms to heaven,
exclaiming, " My God ! My God ! There is 'but too good
reason to believe it, for We knew that this prince had no
love for priests or monks, and had shown no respect for any
ecclesiastical dignity."3 The Mantuan envoy also tells us
that the Pope was terribly distressed by what had happened
at Madrid, and adds that a special messenger had been sent
to Spain.4
In vain did Zufiiga, the Spanish ambassador in Rome,
seek to satisfy Pius V. by describing the rumours as to the
Protestant leanings of Don Carlos as an invention of the
Huguenots, but as not even the ambassador could furnish
more exact particulars, the Pope in his anxiety demanded
to know the truth from the king himself.5 Philip II. could
not refuse to comply with this demand, and did so in a letter
of May gth. " Often," this letter states, " I have looked upon
1 See ibid. 665 seq.
2 See BIBL, loc. cit. 273 seq.
3 See ibid. 274.
4 B. Pia to C. Luzzara from Rome, March 6, 1568 : " *Questo
gran moto delle cose di Spagna et prigionia del prencipe hanno
infinitamente travagliata S.Stdr> la quale questi di e stata intenta
a spedire corriere in Spagna. Fra 1' altre cose questa occasions
par che habbi sopito ogni pensiero di promotione, parendo neces-
sario che s' habbi da star a vedere a che parerk cosi gran moto,
et che fine havranno molte consequenze che s' attendono di tante
rivolutioni." Gonzaga Archives, Mantua.
5 See GACHARD, loc. cit. 551 ; BIBL, loc. cit. 274 seq.
44 HISTORY OF THE POPES
the burden which God has laid upon my shoulders in the states
and kingdoms, of which He has called upon me to undertake
the government, as being laid upon me in order that I might
keep safe therein the true faith and subjection to the Holy
See, that I might maintain peace and justice there, and
after the few years that I still have to pass in this world,
might leave these states in good order, and in that security
which would guarantee their continuance. All depends in
the first place on the personality of my successor. But now,
in punishment for my sins, God has been pleased to inflict
the prince with so many and such grave defects, both of
prudence and of character, as to render him unfit for the
government, and to give reason to fear in the future the gravest
dangers to the stability of the kingdom should he succeed
to the throne." After watching him for a long time, experience
had convinced the king that all remedies were useless, and
that very little or no improvement was to be looked for in
Don Carlos, nor was there much reason to hope that time would
remove the evils he had every reason to fear, so that the im
prisonment of the prince had seemed necessary in order that
he, the king, might have time carefully to consider the situa
tion, and obtain his purpose without exposing himself to
any kind of blame. The Pope must preserve a complete
silence as to these confidences of the king, no matter what
rumours might get about concerning the imprisonment of
the prince. Don Carlos was not guilty either of revolt or
heresy, and the truth would be made clear in course of time.
Every provision had been made for the temporal welfare of
the prince ; he had every comfort and amusement suitable
to his state, and he was abundantly supplied with all that h,e
required. At the same time nothing was left undone for the
welfare of his soul, and his confessor would give him every
spiritual assistance.1
If we may believe Zuniga's report of June 25th, this reply
1 See GACHARD, loc. cit. 650 ; BIBL, loc. cit. 275 seq. On p. 28$
seq. Bibl alludes to the singular circumstance that nothing is here
said of his Easter communion, which the prince should have
received a. short time before.
THE CASE OF DON CARLOS. 45
eased the mind of Pius V. The Pope, the ambassador re
ported, has deeply sympathized with the difficult position
in which the king finds himself, but admires his determination
for the reason that the safety of Christendom makes it desir
able that Philip's reign should be as long as possible, and that
he should have a successor who will follow in his footsteps.1
After the death of Don Carlos the nuncio at Madrid re
ported that the dead prince had himself asked for a confessor
before his death, and had passed to the next life a Christian
and a Catholic.2 For this reason the Pope had no hesitation
in giving orders for a solemn funeral service, which took
place on September 5th. It is mentioned as a great innovation
that he assisted in person at this function, since hitherto this
had only been customary at the obsequies of princes who were
kings.3 It would appear that at first the Spanish ambassador,
Zufiiga, did not intend to assist at the function, and that
he only decided to do so when he heard that the Pope would
be present. From the reports of Niccolo Cusano, the secret
agent of Maximilian II. in Rome, it would seem that the
most sensational rumours were current concerning the tragedy
at Madrid, among others one that the Spaniards had " brought
about the death " of the Infante because he was in league
with the insurgents in France and Flanders.4 It may be
considered as an established fact that Giulio Aqua viva, who
was sent to convey the Pope's condolences to Spain, was in
structed to make further inquiries concerning the tragic event.5
1 See GACHARD, loc. cit. 536.
1 See Gachard, loc. cit. 695.
8 See the *reports of Arco of September 4 and n, 1568, State
Archives, Vienna. Cf. BCDINGER, 109 seq. See Corresp. dipl., II.,
354* n. i.
4 See BIBL, loc. cit. 349, 353.
6 See the *letter of Bonelli to Castagna from Rome, September
18, 1568, Nunz. di Spagna, VI., Papal Secret Archives. So far
the reports of Acquaviva have not been found. The Lettere alia
corte di Roma contained under his name in the Cod. 33-E-3 of the
Corsini Library, Rome, are only a poor copy of the register of
Castagna. See GACHARD, Bibl. Corsini, 46; HINOJOSA, 186.
46 HISTORY OF THE POPES
Aquaviva left Rome on September igth, 1568, and reached
Madrid on October 13th.1 As Philip II. had also lost his
wife on October 3rd, he was able to offer the Pope's condo
lences to the king for this second loss.2 On December loth
the Archduke Charles, brother of Maximilian II., arrived in
Madrid, and Aquaviva accordingly put off his departure
until December 3Oth, because there was reason to fear that
the Archduke wished to persuade the king to come to terms
with the insurgents in the Netherlands.3 During his stay in
Madrid Aquaviva displayed great prudence and tact, so that
Castagna was able to send a very laudatory report of him to
Rome.
In the meantime Requesens had presented to the Curia
a note which gave rise to great anxiety there.4 In this note
Philip II. complains especially of the innovations, according
to which the bull In coena Domini had been published in
his dominions, and especially in Naples, without the exequatur
being asked for, the more so as the Pope had warned con
fessors not to give absolution for violations of its enactments.
The bull, it was pointed out, contained many additions which
were not to be found in the previous issues, either of Julius
III., Paul IV. and Pius IV., and which were very burdensome
and would cause confusion among the people, on account of
the summary condemnations which they contained, and
the very general terms in which they were expressed. Philip
was very angry at the prohibition, which however had been
included in previous issues of the bull, of the introduction of
new taxes and imposts, a thing which he said was bound to
disturb the public peace, because several cities would be
1 See the *report of Castagna of October 13, 1568, Papal Secret
Archives.
•See Castagna in GACHARD, Bibliotheque de Madrid, 114 seqq.;
Corresp. dipl., II., 473 seq. The funeral service for the Spanish
queen took place in Rome on November 15, 1568 ; see Firmanus,
*Diarium in Miscell. Arm., XII., 31, Papal Secret Archives.
•See GACHARD, Bibl. de Madrid, 116 seq.; HINOJOSA, 187.
4 See Corresp. dipl., III., 2, n. Cf. CATENA, 87 seq. and LOPEZ,,
Hist, de la bula In coena Domini, Madrid, 1768, 94.
DISPUTES WITH PHILIP II. 47
certain to refuse to pay such taxes. As to the question of
jurisdiction, the king appealed to ancient Apostolic privileges,
and to immemorial custom, and in the case of Sicily to the
Monarchia Sicula. In connexion with the latter he renewed
the complaint that when, in February, 1568, the Pope ap
pointed Paolo Odescalchi in the place of the nuncio at Naples,
Pallavicini, who had been sent to the Viceroy, he had ap
pointed him for the Two Sicilies. Other complaints con
cerned the acts of Odescalchi in affairs relating to ecclesiastical
property at Naples, the privileges of the Order of St. Lazarus,
and the Milanese controversy.
Philip's words left no room for doubt that he, in common
with the other Catholic governments, especially that of Venice,1
intended to hold firmly to all his claims over ecclesiastical
political affairs, without paying any attention to the bull
In coena Domini. The things which the Spanish king called
customs were, as Cardinal Bonelli shrewdly pointed out,
nothing but abuses whereby the bishops and other ecclesiasti
cal authorities were treated in a worse manner in the Spanish
dominions than even in Germany.2
With regard to the Order of St. Lazarus, Bonelli had pointed
out on August lyth, 1568, that its privileges had not been
added to by Pius V., as the king supposed, but rather cur
tailed and reformed, and that there was good reason for the
existence of a Papal military order in Spain, as well as the
four royal ones ; as to the settlement, so long deferred, of
the affair at Milan, he had threatened to take action in
dependently of the Pope.3 In a letter of September ist, 1568,
Bonelli brings out the fact that it was entirely alien to the
Pope's intention to attack the king's authority and juris
diction by the bull, and that all he aimed at was the removal
of abuses. Alluding to the usurpations of ecclesiastical
jurisdiction on the part of the king's ministers at Naples,
1 For the opposition of Venice and the negotiations with Pius V.,
see CECCHETTI, I., 448 seq. Cf. also MUTINELLI, I., 81 seq. and
REUSCH, I., 79.
2 Letter of December 20, 1568, Corresp. dip!., II., 5-23.
3 See Corresp. dipl., II., 445.
48 HISTORY OF THE POPES
and to the Milanese dispute, he remarks that the Pope's
patience is nearly exhausted. The nuncio must implore
the king in the name of His Holiness definitely to provide
the necessary redress, for otherwise he would be obliged to
make use of those means which the Church is wont to employ
against her recalcitrant sons.1
From a report of the nuncio, dated August 2ist, 1568,
according to which the Viceroy claimed that the permission
of the government must be obtained, even for the printing
of Papal briefs dealing with purely ecclesiastical matters,
as for example, processions, it is clear how far-reaching the
interference had become, especially in Naples.2 Philip II.
clung to the exequatur all the more tenaciously because he
saw in it the best way of keeping in check the national as
pirations of the clergy in Naples.3 On August 3oth, 1568,
a royal pragmatic forbade, under grave penalties, the publi
cation of any Papal rescript, brief, or other ordinance with
out the customary royal exequatur.* At the beginning of
October Philip declared that he would rather renounce his
crown than suffer himself to be stripped of anything which
had been possessed by his predecessors.5 With regard to the
abuses he did not cease to give assurances that he would
give every consideration to the Pope's grievances as soon
as he had sufficient information, but that the grievances
were based upon the reports of the very people who were
guilty of them !fl The king would have been delighted if
the discussion of the disputes concerning ecclesiastical political
affairs could have been entirely dropped, because he felt on
the one hand the justice of the Pope's complaints, and on
the other the harm which these controversies were doing
to his purpose of providing for his financial difficulties by
means of the much-desired concession of the Cruzada and
1 Corresp. dipl., II., 451 seq.
* See ibid. 452, n. i.
3 Cf. ibid. III., xlii.
4 *Lett. di principi, XLII., 167, Papal Secret Archives.
6 See Corresp. dipl., II., 470.
« See ibid.
LETTER OF PIUS V. TO PHILIP II. 49
other ecclesiastical levies. Since Pius V. had not had time
to consider the reply he should make to the petition pre
sented to him by Requesens, Philip had high hopes of obtaining
the desired concessions. His representative was instructed
to be very careful to avoid touching upon the question of
jurisdiction.1 The Pope was strongly urged in many quarters,
especially by the Spanish Cardinals and the Florentine am
bassador, to treat the champion of the Catholic religion
against the heretics with all possible consideration.2
On account of the important effect of the attitude of Spain
upon the sorely pressed Catholics in France, England and
Germany, Pius V. lent an ear to these exhortations. In
order to show his good-will, at the beginning of November,
1568, he appointed a special congregation of Cardinals to
examine the objections which had been raised to the bull.3
The outcome of this was a detailed note, which deals with all
the claims of Philip II.4 In its introduction the Pope states
that he has thought it his duty to reply, not because he con
siders himself bound to give reasons to the princes for what
he does, but in order to show the king that he has been de
ceived in the reports of his informants, whose only object
was to justify their own abuses. The things objected to are
then dealt with one by one, and answered as follows : Even
though the bull, which it had been customary, according to
1 See ibid. 523.
2 See Legaz. di Serristori, 456 seq. The matter is also looked
upon as certain in the letter of Cardinal Correggio to Pius V.,
without date and printed in the 1712 edition of CATENA, p. 339,
but is attributed to too late a date. The letter is in any case
anterior to the mission of Giustiniani.
3 See the letter of Bonelli to Castagna from Rome, November 7,
1568, Corresp. dipl., II., 502. In his *report from Madrid, Decem
ber 29, 1568, Castagna praises this decision of the Pope. Papal
Secret Archives.
4 *Resposta alia instruttione data al signer commendatore
maggiore ambasciatore al Re Cattolico (no date) in Varia Polit.
101 (now 102) p. 395-402, Papal Secret Archives, now printed
from another copy in the same place, in Corresp. dipl., III., I seqq.
50 HISTORY OF THE POPES
very ancient practice, to publish on Maundy Thursdy, had
been in the past issued only in Rome by several Popes, it
had nevertheless, like all other universal constitutions, been
binding upon the whole of Christendom. This is clear from
its general tenor, and from its solemn publication on one of the
most important festivals in the Church's year. Therefore,
all conscientious Christians, great and small, who had acted
in defiance of the prescriptions of the bull, had sought absolu
tion from the Pope. In all the indulgences, jubilees, letters
of confession, including the Cruzada, which had been at one
time granted to the King of Spain, the bull had been spoken
of as of obligation, not sometimes but always, and the bishops
had received orders to publish it. Having learned that this
had not been done in certain kingdoms, and that men had
incurred the penalties laid down by the bull by acting in
defiance of it, the Pope had considered it his duty, as a watch
ful shepherd, to insist on its publication, not only in Spain,
but in every country, even Germany, and to insist that the
clergy who had the care of souls should be made aware of it,
in order that confessors should know how to act.
Additions to the bull had been made by Martin V., Clement
VII., and Paul III., when such had been found to be necessary.
Secular princes were accustomed to make new laws from time
to time. If appeal is made to some royal privilege of assent
to its publication, it can be replied that the same argument
could be applied to the preaching of the Word of God, and
that spiritual enactments cannot be hampered by any per
mission on the part of the temporal authority, and that to
ask for such is as undignified as it is unlawful. The usual
promulgation on Maundy Thursday could not be put off
until the answer to the Pope's demands, sent to Madrid by
Requesens, had arrived ; four months had already elapsed
without any reply having been received from the Spanish
government.
The bull contained ordinances dealing with taxes and cus
toms duties, because these had been contravened ; they had
been imposed by persons who had no right to do so, or had been
demanded from those who were legally exempt, as for example
LETTER OF PIUS V. TO PHILIP II. 51
from ecclesiastics and persons in whose case there was no
legal claim. This by no means prevented lawfully constituted
princes from levying just and reasonable taxes from their
subjects. If the bull contained a general prohibition of the
raising of new taxes, the reason was that there was no need
for further levies ; as a matter of fact, in the case of customs
duties there was no call for any such levies, as the matter
had long since been regulated by ecclesiastical law. There
was no reason therefore to fear popular disturbances or revolt
as the result of the constitution ; these were much more
likely to be caused by excessive taxation on the part of the
rulers. The Pope's intention was rather to point out the way
in which the people could be kept in a state of tranquillity and
subjection to their prince. If he should hear of any prelate
misinterpreting or acting contrary to his intentions, the Pope
would at once take steps to prevent it.
The warning given to confessors that they had no power
to absolve from transgressions of the bull was but the duty
of a true and lawful pastor, who was bound to see that they
knew how to distinguish sin from sin, and to form a just
judgment upon sins reserved to the Pope. The accusation
that the Pope was abusing the sacrament of penance is
answered in these severe words : Such language befits the
new heretics. Let the king with his sound Catholic sense,
beware of counsellors who put such ideas and such poisonous
expressions into his mind.1
1 In spite of the opposition of Spain and Venice Pius V. did not
change the form of the bull, which was published in exactly the
same terms in 1569 and 1570 (see App. nn. 2 & 3). At Naples, where
Philip II. forcibly prevented any further publication of the bull,
the Pope caused it to be conveyed to regular confessors by means
of their Generals ; in 1569 he allowed at Milan that Borromeo
should only publish the bull in the presence of parish priests and
confessors, for the reason that in the preceding year its publication
had given occasion to all kinds of interpretations (see BERTANI,
88 seq,, and REUSCH, I., 78 seq., where further information is
given as to the fate of the bull in Catholic countries). It is clear
from RAPICIO-SCARLICHIO, Document! in onore di Enea Silvio
52 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
As to the controversy about jurisdiction, Pius V. asked
to be shown the privileges to which Philip II. appealed. . The
abuses and scandals in this matter are so obvious that the
Pope feels himself bound in conscience to provide against
them. To issue spiritual ordinances is what is to be looked
for from the Pope, as Vicar of Christ, and not from princes
and their ministers, because it was not to them that the
words " Feed my sheep " were addressed ; nay, they too are
sheep, and subject to the pastoral office of St. Peter, by
whom they must be guided in all spiritual matters if they
do not wish to be cut off from the flock, and to destroy the
whole hierarchical organization of the Church under the pre
text of privileges. This is all the more necessary since no
authentic or definite privilege can be adduced by Spain.
The Pope hopes of so Catholic a king as Philip II. that he
will be the first to recognize this, especially in the case of
the so-called Monarchia Sicula. Even granting the existence
of this, such a privilege abounds in abuses. For the rest,
no Pope could grant a privilege which would deprive future
Popes of the power given them by God. That the legatine
power of the Kings of Sicily does not exist is shown by the
repeated mission of Apostolic legates to that country. Even
granting that the Monarchia Sicula exists in the sense which
Philip supposes, the Pope can always withdraw such a privi
lege, since it is only a case of a favour, which in practice has
led to many abuses. The lawfulness of the appointment of
Odescalchi as nuncio to the Two Sicilies was beyond dispute,
for nuncios and collectors had been sent to the island several
times in the days of Charles V. ; if this had not been done
since then, the Pope nevertheless has the right to do so when
the exigencies of the care of souls make it necessary.
With regard to the Knights of St. Lazarus, who had been
Piccolomini, Trieste, 1862, that in 1568 even the Archduke Charles,
in other respects a good Catholic, wished for the suspension of
the publication of the bull. Braunsberger has been the first
(Pius V., 46 seq.) to throw light on the notable concession made
by Pius V. for Germany in connexion with the bujl In coena
THE REMONSTRANCES WITHOUT EFFECT. 53
granted privileges by Pius IV., Pius V. appealed, not only
to the rights of the Holy See, but also to the need of providing,
by means of that Order, the protection for the coasts of the
Papal States which Philip II., in spite of his obligations,
had so far failed to give. In the Milanese controversy the
Pope took his stand purely on his rights.
At the end of this note Pius V. again repeats that he had
had no end in view except the reform of the Church, and
the removal of evident abuses, and he concludes by clearly
emphasizing the distinction between the temporal and the
spiritual powers : " Render therefore to Caesar the things that
are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's."
The Pope's remonstrances were without effect, principally
because the Viceroy of Naples, the Duke of Alcala, used all
his influence to strengthen Philip II. in his opposition to the
publication of the bull In coena Domini.* The Viceroy, like
his advisers, Villani and Revertera, knew well that their
tyranny in ecclesiastical matters would be broken if the bull
should take effect -in the Kingdom of Naples. All their
efforts, therefore, were directed to the prevention of this.
The bishops thus found their position very difficult in Naples.2
Similar disputes were avoided in Spain because the canonists
there were able by means of ingenious legal quibbles to reconcile
the prohibition of the placet contained in the bull with its
continued use in that country.3 Philip II. would gladly have
seen the dispute at Naples brought to an end, and at the
beginning of December, 1568, an agreement seemed probable,4
but the attitude taken up by the Duke of Alcala very soon
destroyed all prospect of it. In the middle of January, 1569,
things had come to such a pitch that in Rome it was thought
1 See GIANNONE, IV., 146 seq.
2 See ibid. The " Relazione di pregiudizi che ha potuto recare
il concilio di Trento alia giurisdizione temporale di S. M. Cattolica
nel regno di Napoli per cui non fu dato il regio Exequatur," by
Villani, in Cod. A. 6 of the Boncompagni Archives, Rome.
8 Cf. FRIEDBERG, 545, n. 2.
4 See the *reports of Cusano of December 2 and 6, 1568, State
Archives, Vienna.
54 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
that the Pope would excommunicate the Viceroy,1 but the
latter did not let himself be dismayed by any such threat, and
he continued to fight against the bull by every means in his
power. He had all the copies of it which were in the book
shops suppressed, and confiscated the temporalities of those
bishops who published it, punishing with the greatest severity
all attempts to put its prescriptions into practice.2
The Viceroy also laboured unceasingly to prevent Philip II.
from paying any attention to the Pope's complaints about
the exequatur and the controversy about jurisdiction.3 Thus
Castagna's fourth year as nuncio became extremely difficult.
He never ceased, however, to defend the cause of ecclesiastical
liberty, both in word and writing. At the beginning of
February, 1569, he summarized in a memorial intended for
the king the principal abuses which were going on in Naples,4
dwelling especially on the extension of the exequatur. This
custom, which had originally been granted by the Popes in
order to prevent unworthy persons from obtaining bishoprics
and benefices at a time when the kingdom was split up by
factions, had not only been continued after the coming of
more settled times, though the reason for it had disappeared,
but had even been extended, so as to apply to the visitation
of convents, and to indulgences, and had become an intolerable
burden, as the officials demanded large payments for granting
it. The memorial also made complaint of other usurpations
on the part of the civil power in the Kingdom of the Two
Sicilies. The bishops there were summoned before lay judges
for the smallest reason, and they were forbidden to oblige the
people to the observance of Sunday, or to punish open con-
cubinists. The nuncio was forbidden to take proceedings
1 See the *report of Cusano of January 15, 1569, ibid.
1 See GIANNONE, IV., 149 seq. ; AMABILE, I., 293 seq.
* See ibid. 166.
4 See the *Memoriale in Fondo Borghese I., 607, pp. 14-19,
Papal Secret Archives, attached to the report of Februrary 9,
1569, Corresp. dipl., III., 40 seq. Cf. ibid. 64 seq. another memorial
' ' sobre abuses contra la jurisdiccion ecles," composed by Odes-
calchi.
EVASIVE REPLIES OF PHILIP II. 55
against traffickers in indulgences who were using forged
Papal bulls. A new law had been issued ordering the bishops
to submit their spiritual ordinances to the civil power for
examination before they printed them, thus preventing them
from exercising the power entrusted to them by God, and
from holding provincial synods and punishing offenders.
The more urgently the Pope pressed iot the removal of the
impediments placed in the way of spiritual jurisdiction in
Naples, the more were they added to by the royal officials.
At length Castagna declared that no notice had been taken of
all his remonstrances, and that not even his proposal that an
official commission should be sent to Rome to effect a settle
ment had been considered.
Even now Philip II. only made evasive replies, intended
to put off a decision. It was still insisted that His Majesty
must first receive detailed reports from the Viceroy, and that
if there really should prove to be abuses, a remedy would be
provided. But the Viceroy's reports denied the existence of
any abuses. If the king at any moment showed himself
disposed to meet the Pope's wishes, it was the Viceroy himself
who dissuaded him. The Duke of Alcala knew very well how
to make official play with the exequatur, making his master
believe that it was the very foundation of his royal jurisdiction,
and the most important privilege which he possessed in the
kingdom, and one which he must not give up on any account.1
Philip II. believed in the fancied danger to the inalienable
rights of the crown, the more so as there were not wanting
servile canonists in Spain who made it appear that these
controverted matters were quite lawful claims on his part.
In Rome the situation was perfectly clearly understood.
In February, 1569, the nuncio Odescalchi was recalled, but
even this act of condescension on the part of Pius V. did not
bring about any improvement. Odescalchi's successor, Cesare
Brumano, had to fight against the same difficulties.2 On May
1 Cf. GIANNONE, IV., 1 66.
* See CAPECE GALEOTA, Nunzii apost. di Napoli, 36. Cf,
GIANNONE, IV., 172 seq.
56 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
28th, 1569, acting on special instructions from the Pope,
Bonelli wrote to Castagna that the daily increasing abuses at
Naples came rather from the local officials than from any
ill-will on the part of the king ; that the infringements of
spiritual jurisdiction in that kingdom had reached such a
pitch that one day the Pope would be obliged to take strong
measures ; violent hands were even laid upon the bishops,
and their property had been confiscated merely because they
carried out the Pope's orders, and had published the bull
In coena Domini without an exequatur. Some officials had
even gone so far as to destroy the copies of the bull which had
been posted in the churches. The nuncio was urged to make
strong remonstrances to Philip II., because in the end the Pope
would have to place the Kingdom of Naples under an interdict.1
So as not to leave anything untried, Castagna sent a second
memorial to Philip II. on June 2oth, concerning the way in
which the affairs of the Church were being treated in Naples,2
dwelling especially on three matters, for which he demanded
immediate redress. The first was the unworthy treatment
accorded to the prelates and even the bishops, whom the
Viceroy received in bed, or with his head covered, or whom he
placed after all the civil officials, and made to wait in the
outer ante-camera among the common people. The second
was the obstacles placed in the way of the bishops' jurisdiction.
If a bishop wished to inflict a fine upon a layman for usury,
concubinage and the like, he was forbidden to do so ; no
course remained open to him but the refusal of Christian
burial and excommunication, but the latter penalty, according
to the prescriptions of the Council of Trent, was only to be
inflicted in extreme cases. Moreover, even the infliction of
this form of punishment was made impossible for the bishops
because any excommunicated layman could have recourse to
the civil power, which, without going into the case, would
order the cancellation of the penalty, and take the decision
of the matter into its own hands. Bishops who refused to
1 Corresp. dipl., III., 85 seq.
1 In *Fondo Borghese, I., 607, p. 7i-75b, Papal Secret Archives.
CASTAGNA AND PHILIP II. 57
accept this were forced to do so by the confiscation of their
property, and by other acts of violence. Castagna's third
point dealt with the exequatur. This had formerly been
exercised by the presentation of the Papal edicts to a compe
tent official, the cappellano maggiore, who, having satisfied
himself that the document contained nothing contrary to the
royal prerogative, gave it his approval. But now the Pope's
ordinances had to pass through the hands of a number of
officials, a thing which not only added considerably to the
cost, but often prevented the carrying out of the decree, by
giving the guilty party time to escape. Formerly the exequatur
had only applied to enactments which might be prejudicial to
the royal prerogatives, or other rights of the government,
but now it was made applicable to the smallest and most
trivial orders of the Pope, and even to matters which were
purely spiritual, such as indulgences. Even in the case of the
nuncio himself, they were no longer satisfied with the mere
presentation of his credentials, but he was prevented from
exercising his office until the exequatur had been given.
When Philip II. returned to Madrid at the beginning of
July, 1569, Castagna sought an audience. This time he only
brought up the affairs of Naples, namely, the three matters
spoken of above, adding a fourth complaint concerning the
imprisonment of the vicar-general of a bishop, which had
been ordered by the Viceroy because he had published the
bull In coena Domini. With all frankness Castagna declared
that if things went as far as that, His Holiness would be
forced to place the whole of the Kingdom of Naples under an
interdict, a thing which would have been done already if the
Pope had not been convinced that these acts of violence did
not come from His Majesty, but from his representatives.
At this Philip broke out into lamentations that by means of
these controversies about jurisdiction, and on other pretexts,
the devil was sowing dissension between himself and His
Holiness. But even now, as was his wont, he did not give a
definite reply,1 which was only sent to the nuncio on July I7th
1 See the report of Castagna of July 13, 1569, Corresp. dipl.,
III., no seq.
VOL. XVIII.
58 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
by Cardinal Espinosa. This reply stated that the king had
written to his Viceroy, telling him to satisfy the Pope's de
mands.
Castagna could not feel satisfied with so vague an answer
to complaints which had been categorically stated, and he
therefore tried to get from Espinosa a more definite statement.
Espinosa assured him that as far as the position of the bishops
was concerned the Pope's demands would be completely
satisfied, and also that the exercise of their spiritual jurisdiction
would be in some way guaranteed, but that it was quite
useless to think of the exequatur being done away with ; the
most that could be done would be to remove the abuses
connected with it. Full particulars would be sent to the
Pope himself. The threat of an interdict had not alarmed
the king. As far as Castagna could learn, Philip had declared
that if the Pope took that extreme step, he, in defence of his
ancient privileges, would do that which it was the right of
Catholic princes to do, by which he undoubtedly meant an
appeal to a general council. The nuncio was less anxious on
the score of the imprisonment of the bishop's vicar-general,
for he thought that, if it had not already been done, he would
soon be set at liberty. As to the other matters he reported
to Rome that Philip was obsessed by the fear that in conse
quence of the bull In coena Domini his subjects would resist
the payment of taxes, and might even rise in rebellion. And
since he was determined to resist any encroachment upon the
privileges granted to his predecessors, Philip would never
allow the formal promulgation of the bull.1
Further heated discussions took place between Castagna
and Philip II.. at the beginning of August, 1569. News of
the protest made by the Pope when he received the feudal
homage of Naples on the feast of St. Peter and St. Paul,2
1 See the report of Castagna from Madrid, July 17, 1569,
Corresp. dipl., III., 114 seq. Cf. ibid. 115, n. i, the instructions
of Philip II., of July 17, to the Viceroy of Naples on the treatment
of the bishops and the use of the exequatur, with which he hoped to
satisfy the Pope.
* Cf. Corresp. dipl., III., 97 seq., 102.
OBSTINACY OF PHILIP II. 59
had thrown the king into an easily understood state of excite
ment. Castagna tried in vain to justify the head of the
Church by suggesting the following ideas : The king must not
let himself be led to think that the Holy Father had any
temporal ends in view, or that bad counsellors were inciting
him to these disputes with the princes ; he was acting solely
in accordance with his duty as chief pastor. The reason for
the dispute was the order which had been sent from Madrid
to Naples to offer a strenuous resistance to all the ordinances
of the Hoh'' See which were directed against the Spanish
" privileges and customs." This had inflamed passions at
Naples, so that the abuses increased from day to day. The
plain fact was that no longer was obedience paid to the Pope
in Naples, while the whole discipline of the Church was set
aside ; if the manifest abuses were continued, the difficulties
could not fail to increase and become more serious. Lastly,
Castagna once more strongly insisted that the Pope was not
pursuing any temporal ends, but was aiming solely at main
taining the jurisdiction conferred by God upon His Church,
and without which it was impossible that souls could be
properly cared for.
The nuncio could say what he liked, but the king, who was
in a very excited state, remained fixed in his contention that
the Pope was to blame for the whole business, and that his
exaggerated insistence on ecclesiastical jurisdiction was the
cause of all these controversies. Castagna replied that the
fault lay with whoever had allowed these usurpations, and
not with him who was demanding what was his right. In
the course of the conversation, which became more and more
heated, Philip said that if the Pope persisted in his " extreme "
views, he would know how to defend his own jurisdiction
by the means which were at the disposal of Catholic princes.
It was in vain for Castagna to remind him that they were
not discussing temporal jurisdiction, but that which was
spiritual. Philip, who could not deny this, broke off the
audience saying that he had expressed his own point of view,
and that was sufficient.1
1 See the report of Castagna of August 12, 1569, ibid. 132 seq.
60 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
In October the king gave way, at any rate on the question
of the status of the nuncio at Naples, and ordered that he was
to be treated like the nuncios in all his other dominions,
namely, given the first place, but with the express proviso
that this was not to involve any prejudice to his own juris
diction.1 In all the questions of principle, Philip, acting
on the advice of his ambassadors and ministers,2 continued
to hold tenaciously to his cesaropapistical claims.
The questions at issue between Madrid and Rome, as well
as the Milanese question, which was still unsettled, led Pius
V., in October, 1569, to send to Spain the General of the
Dominicans, Vincenzo Giustiniani.3 Before the latter could
begin hL negotiations, Philip II., in a royal pragmatic of
November 30th, 1569, had declared in favour of retaining
the placet,* Cardinal Bonelli had charged Giustiniani to
point out, in the case of the Milanese controversy, that civil
jurisdiction would be destroyed together with the spiritual.
The ultimate object of the Milanese, so he wrote to him from
Rome, is undoubtedly to make themselves masters of all
ecclesiastical affairs.5 In a memorial on the subject of the
1 See MEISTER in Histor. Jahrb., XIV., 82. Cf. Corresp. dipl.,
HI.. 143.
*C/. Corresp. dipl., III., 182 seq.
•The credential brief of October n. 1569 in TEDESCHIS 264 ;
eight other *briefs of October n, relating to the mission of Gius
tiniani in Arm. 44, t. 14, p. 25ob, Papal Secret Archives. Cf.
Corresp. dipl., III., 162 seq. So far the reports of Giustiniani
have not been found. The documents in the Papal Secret Archives
contain their equivalent, Borghese I., 632 (instructions from
Bonelli to Giustiniani) and Spagna II. (see HINOJOSA, 193) ; in
the former codex the letters of Castagna. Cf. Corresp. dipl., III.,
xxxvii seq, Ixi, and MORTIER, Hist, des Maitres g^neraux de
1'ordre de St. Dominique, V., 490 seq.
4 See Tomo primero de las leyes de recapilaci6n, Madrid,
1772, i. i, tit. 10, ley 12.
•Bonelli to Giustiniani from Rome, November 2, 1569, in
Borghese, I., 632, p. 66b, Papal Secret Archives. Cf. HINOJOSA,
195.
MEMORIAL OF GIUSTINIANI, 6l
Milanese question,1 Giustiniani demanded the formal with
drawal of the scandalous edict2 of the governor of that city.
He also presented memorials on the Monarchia Sicula and
the abuses and acts of violence of the royal officials in the
Two Sicilies.3
The memorial on the Monarchic* Sicula* showed that, in
spite of careful inquiries, it had not been possible to produce
a single lawful concession nor a single legal custom which
could satisfy the conscience of the king and his ministers.
The only thing that could be brought forward as an argument
in its favour reduced itself to four words in a diploma at
tributed to Urban II., which was justly suspected of being
a forgery, and which could more easily be shown to be an
interpolation The king, therefore, cannot rely upon that
document, all the less so because no established custom can
be proved which could run counter to the supreme pontifical
power. The Holy Father too, now that he has been in
formed of the facts, thinks that he cannot with a clear con
science sacrifice ecclesiastical jurisdiction to the civil power,
especially as it can be proved that the predecessors of the
king themselves had scruples about putting forward any
such claims. If he now brought forward the matter so
strongly, the reason was that of late the abuses which had
occurred on the score of the Monarchia Sicula had been in
credibly numerous and intolerable in their scope, and had
grown from day to day. In proof of this last assertion a
list of the abuses and acts of violence was attached to the
memorial.
Giustiniani, who arrived in Madrid in the last week of
November, 1569, was not wanting in zeal,5 but he very soon
discovered that the Spanish government had no real intention
1 *Borghese I., 607, p. 148 seq., loc. cit.
2 *Bonelli to Giustiniani from Rome, January 10, 1570, ibid.
p. 102 seq.
8 See HINOJOSA, 193, 196.
4 Printed in TEDESCHIS, 246 seq. Cf. SENTIS, 119 seq.
5 See the report of Castagna from Madrid, November 26, 1569,
Corresp. dipl., III., 191 seq., which corrects HINOJOSA, 193-196,
62 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
of settling the disputes. His complaints about the Monarchia
Sicula were submitted to the council of state for Italian affairs
with a request for the reports of the governors. In the mean
time he discovered that the government was secretly and
assiduously engaged in examining all the ancient briefs and
bulls, in the hope of finding support for its pretensions.1
In the affair of Milan the declarations of Philip II. were
such that the Pope's representatives believed, at the end of
1569, that it would be possible to arrive at a satisfactory
solution.2 When, in January, 1570, the king went to Cordova,
Giustiniani followed him first, and then Castagna.3 Both
of them remained in Andalusia until the summer, when they
returned to Madrid.4 As they continued to work loyally to
discharge the duties entrusted to them, they were met with
the greatest difficulties. The king's journeys and the war
against the Moors,5 which were occupying the attention of
1 See the report of Castagna of January 8, 1570, Corresp. dipl.,
III., 215 seq. The king had already caused a search to be made
in the archives in this connexion ; see *Memoria para la busca y
remision de todas la bulas y breves concedidos a Su M. en punto
de patronato de materias consistoriales, el origen de estos y otros
puntos, dated Madrid, December 3, 1567, in Cod. i. 9, of the
Archives of the Spanish embassy in Rome.
2 See Corresp. dipl., III., 210 seq.
3 On January 14, 1570, Castagna wrote from Madrid that
Giustiniani had set out for Cordova and that he would follow him
shortly (Corresp. dipl., III., 218). From February 5 onwards
his reports are dated from Cordova. On March 2 he *announces
that the negotiations about the affair of Milan are going well and
that he hopes for a satisfactory result. The war against the
Moors is going badly, and there is a great lack of funds. Papal
Secret Archives.
4 On June 14, 1570, Castagna *announces that he is starting
" to-day " on his return to Madrid ; on July 6 he * writes that
Giustiniani too had arrived there several days before. Papal
Secret Archives.
6 Cf. PHILIPPSON, Westeuropa, 2, 159 seq. ; LEA, The Moriscos
of Spain, London, 1901 ; BORONAT Y BARRACHINA, Los Moriscos
espanoles y su expulsion, 2 vols. Valencia, 1901,
" NO SETTLEMENT INTENDED." 63
Philip in an increasing degree, were already the cause of
anxiety to them, and still more the way in which the govern
ment managed to drag on the negotiations without giving
any definite reply. It became more and more evident that
no settlement was intended. When he left the Spanish
capital on October 5th, Giu^tiniani, who had been made a
Cardinal on May I7th, 1570, was bound to admit to himself
that he had accomplished very little during his six months'
legation.1 In the affair of Milan he had only succeeded in
getting the king to send a feeble request to the Duke of
Albuquerque to arrange the matter amicably.2 In the
Neapolitan and Sicilian disputes Philip remained firm in his
contention that he must first receive fuller information from
his officials, to whom in the meantime he gave the advice,
as he had done before, not to overstep the limits of their
authority, recommending them to remove abuses in certain
cases, which, however, only meant that his representatives
in Italy, knowing that these general directions were only
intended to free the king from the difficulties of the moment,
continued their former mode of acting.3
At this critical moment, the attention of the Pope, who had
been somewhat reassured by Giustiniani,4 was distracted
from these political-ecclesiastical controversies by the need
of doing all he could to meet the dangers which were threaten
ing Christianity from the east at the hands of the Turks. As
early as March, 1570, on learning of the great preparations
being made by the Turks, he had attempted to arrange an
alliance between Venice and Spain, and had sent Luis de
Torres to the latter country for that purpose.5 The Turkish
question led to a political rapprochement between Madrid
1 See the "reports of Castagna of October 4, 1570, to Cardinal
Borromeo and Cardinal Rusticucci, used by HINOJOSA, 197.
The *Cifra which is missing in Hinojosa shows that Castagna
could not hide his disappointment. Papal Secret Archives.
8 See the letter of September 28, 1570, in HINOJOSA, 197, n. 2,
8 See SENTIS, 120. Cf. GIANNONE, IV., 183.
4 See Corresp. dipl., IV., 20, n. I.
$ Cf. infra, Chapter IX,
64 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
and Rome, and this in its turn exercised a favourable influence
upon the settlement of the ecclesiastical differences. But
however much he was occupied with the Crusade, Pius V.
by no means lost sight of these important questions. On
February gth, 1571, Castagna delivered to the king a mem
orial l which was chiefly directed against the exequatur at
Naples which had now been extended to the smallest Papal
ordinances so much so that even the most needy beneficiary
was not able to obtain his benefice without first paying the
fees for the royal placet. At the end of June 1571 Cardinal
Michele Bonelli was sent as legate to Spain. Besides the
question of the Crusade, the marriage of the King of Portugal
to Margaret of Valois and the question of the title of Cosimo
de' Medici he was instructed to renew the negotiations about
the Monar cliia Sicula and the controversy about jurisdiction
at Naples.2
Pius V. might have expected to meet at length with some
satisfaction on these questions since, on May 2ist, 1571, on
account of the alliance which had lately been made with
Venice and Spain against the Turks, he had not only extended
for another five years the sussidio levied upon the Spanish
clergy, but had also granted the Cruzada for two years, and
the so-called excusado for five.3 This extraordinary gener
osity on the part of the Pope, who had hitherto been so
reluctant, was brought about by the fact that Philip II.,
who was already engaged in fighting the Calvinists in the
Low Countries, and the Moriscos in Spain, could only be
1 See *Cod. 33-E-I2 of the Corsini Library, Rome, whence is
taken a passage in LAMMER, Zur Kirchengesch., 134 seq.
8 See Corresp. dipl., IV., 355 seq. ; cf. Carte Strozz., I., I,
224 seq.
3 All these concessions were made on May 21, 1571 : see *Indice
de las concessiones que han hecho los Papas de la Crusada, Sub-
sidio y Escusado, Archives of the Spanish embassy in Rome.
Cf. *Borghese I., 145-147, p. 35 seq. Papal Secret Archives. See
also Corresp. dipl., IV., 295-296. For the excusado (LADERCHI,
1571, n. 31, with a wrong date) see Annuaire de I'univ, de Louvain,
1909, 388 seq.
AMAZING CONDUCT OF PHILIP II. 65
drawn into the Turkish war by opening out to him fresh
and considerable sources of money. All the doubts which
Pius V. had entertained, especially about the Cruzada, were
silenced by the need of saving Christendom. How little the
Pope's magnanimity was appreciated at the Spanish court
was shown by a disrespectful remark of the king's confessor,
the Bishop of Cuen£a, to Castagna,1 and still more by the
conduct of the king himself. As soon as the bulls concerning
these great financial concessions had been happily secured,
the representative of Spain at the Curia changed his tone.
In the first week of June he appeared before the Pope, and
stated that he had received orders to protest in the name of
his king against the conferring of the title on Cosimo I. !
Pius V. was all the more amazed because hitherto Philip II.
had adopted a waiting attitude in that matter. Re taxed
the ambassador with the deceitfulness with which Spain,
on the strength of the league, had wrung great concessions
from him, yet now was putting him into a great dilemma
about the Duke's title. This protest, which had been in
readiness for a long time in Madrid, was made on June Qth,
but only in the presence of four Cardinals.2 It was quite in
keeping with this proceeding that Philip continued to pay
no attention to all the complaints of the Holy See about
Spanish cesaropapalism. Cardinal Bonelli gave expression
to these complaints at his second audience on October nth.3
They were not a few : In the first place there was the Monarchia
1 According to L. Donate (ALBERI, I., 6, 380) the words of the
bishop which directly referred to Pius V. were : " que los estiticos
mueren de cameras ! "
2 See Corresp. dipl., IV., 87, 131, 223 seq., 328 seq. and BIBL,
Erhebung, 118 seq. The text of the protest in PALANDRI, 240 seq.
On June 16, 1571, Arco "reports on the strict secrecy about the
protest ordered by the Pope. State Archives, Vienna.
*Cf. the letter of Bonelli to Rusticucci of October 12, 1571
(in TEDESCHIS, 267 seq., CARUSO, 88 seq., and also in Corresp. dipl.,
IV., 480 seq.) and the summary report of November 17, 1571, used
by SENTIS, 121 seq., almost contemporaneously published by
GACHARD, Bibl. Corsini, 152-161.
66 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
Sicula, then the exequatur in the Kingdom of Naples and all
the abuses which had crept in there, then the dispute at Milan,
which had not yet been decided as a matter of principle, and
lastly the confiscation of the revenues of the archbishopric
of Toledo. Castagna, who was present at the audience,
bears witness that Bonelli set forth his case in the ablest way,
and that he exposed, in a detailed and intensely illuminating
memorial, the cesaropapistical Spanish rule as shown in the
incurable abuses which were occurring in the Kingdoms of
Naples and Sicily. With regard to the Monarchia Sicula
he specially made it clear that, even granting the genuineness
of the diploma of Urban II., the legation, according to the
very terms of the privilege, could not extend further than
the sons of Count Roger, as even the royal officials had ad
mitted in 1512 and 1533. The memorial also complained
that the Council of Trent had not been respected, and that
the carrying out of the Pope's edicts had been prevented in
every possible way, while in the exequatur there existed an
abuse which the king was bound to remove in virtue of the
oath which he had taken at the time of his investiture. The
Pope had been waiting for an answer to the memorial de
livered by Giustiniani for more than a year ; the improve
ments which had in the meantime been made, but which
were very small, did not touch the kernel of the question of
jurisdiction, namely, the non-observance of the prescriptions
of the Council of Trent. Lastly he reminded the king that
it was a matter for his conscience to provide a remedy, and
that to do so would also be to his own interest, since wherever
ecclesiastical jurisdiction and the authority of the Pope were
set at naught, and they were almost destroyed in Sicily and
interfered with in various ways in Naples, heresies were sure
to spring up sooner or later.1
1 The memorial, which was known to CATENA (p. 171) and of
which TEDESCHIS (p. 264) gives a passage, was published in its
entirety by LAMMER, Melet. 226 seqq. from the Cod. 505 of the
Corsini Library, Rome, though with the wrong date October 21 ;
the " giovedi " in 1571 fell on October n. It also escaped the
notice of Lammer that the document had already been published
by Caruso (p. 86 seq.}, though with the wrong date, October 12.
BONELLI IN MADRID. 67
The king's reply was as before quite vague, and the decision
now lay with the ministers. Bonelli therefore sought to
bring pressure to bear on them through his friends, especially
Francis Borgia. At first he hoped to be able to carry on the
negotiations with Cardinal Espinosa and Ruy Gomez alone,
but he very soon was forced to realize that the whole of the
so-called Council of Italy, which looked upon it as its special
duty to defend anything that affected the jurisdiction of the
state, was involved.1 The reply which he received on Novem
ber 3rd still further damped Bonelli 's hopes. This definitely
rejected the contention that the Monarchic* Sicula no longer
existed as a matter of right, by an appeal, not only to the
bull of Urban II., but also to immemorial possession. With
regard to the various matters complained of, the reply was
partly a denial, partly an evasion, and partly an admission,
in so far that the removal of unfitting practices was at least
premised.2 That Philip himself looked upon the privileges
of the Monarchia Sicula as excessive, and that he was troubled
with scruples of conscience on the subject, was shown by the
strange demand which was laid before Bonelli by Cardinal
Espinosa : with regard to the Monarchia Sicula and the
exequatur at Naples the Pope was asked to agree to them in
such a way that his scruples of conscience might be entirely
removed ; in other words the Pope was asked to confirm the
Spanish cesaropapalism ! 3
Under these circumstances Bonelli realized that further
negotiations gave no grounds for hope, and that his further
stay in Madrid was impossible without loss of his authority.
1 See the report of Bonelli of November 17, 1571, in GACHARD,
Bibl. Corsini, 155. Cf. SENTIS, 121, and Corresp. dipl., IV., 522
seq.
* See *Cod. N. 2, p. 6a of the Vallicella Library, Rome. Cf.
LADERCHI, 1571, n. 261 seq., and SENTIS, 121. See also HINOJOSA,
203, where the date of the document in Nunziat. di Spagna, II.,
150, is wanting ; it belongs to October 30, 1571. Cf. also Corresp.
dipl., IV., 522, n. i.
8 See the report of Bonelli of November 17, 1571, in GACHARD,
loc. cit. 156. Cf. SENTIS, 29.
68 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
He held a consultation with Castagna, and then drew up a
new memorial on the Monarchia Sicula, which he sent to the
king on November loth, 1571. In this memorial he very
ably refuted the pretended existence of any legal title, by
showing that not even the longest immemorial possession
could give grounds for such a right, because, failing an express
concession on the part of the Pope, the princes as laymen were
incapable of possessing or exercising spiritual authority ; the
lack of this absolutely essential concession could not be
supplied by any actual exercise of the right, no matter how
long this might have been done, nor could any right to its
exercise be grounded upon it. The privileges claimed by
the king were such as to do away with the primatial power of
the Popes, and it was therefore impossible that the Popes
should ever have granted them.1
Any lingering hopes which might have been based upon
certain expressions used by Espinosa vanished with the final
answer received by Bonelli on the morning of November I2th.
On the following day he had his farewell audience, and in the
course of it obtained something which neither Castagna nor
Giustiniani had succeeded in getting, namely the promise of
the king that he would at least resume the negotiations
in Rome, especially with regard to the Monarchia
Sicula.2
On November i8th Bonelli went to Portugal in connexion
with the matrimonial question already mentioned, and he
returned to Madrid on December 28th. On that day Philip II.
issued rescripts to the authorities at Naples, with reference
to certain special questions, in which he forbade them to mix
themselves up in ecclesiastical matters. These orders, how
ever, did not bring about any practical change, because the
1 See the text of the * Replica in Cod. 505, p. 24 seq. of the
Corsini Library, Rome, used by SENTIS, 121 seq.
1 See the report of Bonelli of November 17, 1571, loc. cit. 156.
P. Giannone (II tribunale della Monarchia di Sicilia, ed. A. PIER-
ANTONI, Rome, 1892, 124) is also obliged to recognize the import
ance of the promise.
THE WORK OF CASTAGNA. 69
authorities knew how to evade them,1 while Philip himself
clung firmly to his claims in all essentials, especially the royal
exequatur, the Monarchia Sicula, and his opposition to the
bull In coena Domini.2 In January, 1572, the legate con
tinued his journey to France. On the occasion of the birth
of Prince Ferdinand, which took place on December 4th,
1571, he had conveyed the Pope's congratulations to Philip II.,
while Pius V. also sent a special envoy in the person of his
chamberlain Casale, to present the Golden Rose to the queen.
Casale was also charged to seek for a remedy for the disputes
at Milan, where the president of the senate was trying to
" befool the archbishop."3 He arrived in Madrid at the
beginning of June, where news of the death of Pius V. had
preceded him. Castagna was still occupying his difficult
position, and he looked upon it as a release when, in the late
autumn, Gregory XIII. at last yielded to his requests and
recalled him. A great deal of the credit for the fact that a
complete breach between Madrid and Rome had been avoided
was due to this distinguished man. He clearly saw how
necessary this was in the interests of the whole Church, and,
with great ability, shielding as much as possible the king
himself, had be~en able to throw most of the blame for the
disputes4 of an ecclesiastical-political nature which were
continually arising on the royal authorities.6
This idea, which was certainly not entirely justified, but
which rested upon the undoubtedly sincere attachment of
1 See TEDESCHIS, 269 seq. \ CARUSO, 283 seq. ; SENTIS, 122.
Cf. HINOJOSA, 204. Sentis rightly remarks (he. cit.) that those
authors who speak of a " concordat " are altogether in error.
Cf. LADERCHI, 1571, n. 279 seq.
*Cj. GIANNONE, IV., 185.
* See HINOJOSA, 205 seq.
4 This was certainly the case in many ways, but to absolve the
king from all complicity, as Laderchi does (1566, n. 495) is not
possible.
* Besides the more important differences mentioned there were
several minor disputes. Giannone (IV., 175 seq., 180 seq.} speaks
of these in a very partisan spirit, as he does in other matters.
70 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
Philip II. to the Catholic faith, and his declared hostility to
all religious innovators,1 was also shared by Pius V. Both as
a religious and as a Cardinal, Pius had taken up a favourable
attitude towards the Spaniards. Consequently, in his sketch
of the Sacred College in 1565, Requesens had described him
as a desirable candidate for the tiara.2 As an Italian Ghislieri
would certainly rather have seen his country governed by
Italians, but he preferred the Spanish rule to that of any
other foreigners. No less a person than Philip's representative
in Rome, Juan de Zuniga, testifies that at the beginning of
his pontificate Pius was firmly resolved to maintain the good
relations which he had hitherto had with Spain. Zuniga
explained to the king the attitude adopted by the Pope, in an
extremely important letter of February 23rd, 1571. 3 At the
beginning of his pontificate Pius V. had been entirely well-
disposed towards Spain, though he had at once shown his
strength of character, and had given proofs of his intention
of maintaining his own authority. Zuniga then describes
the first disagreements, which had been specially occasioned
by the conduct of Philip in the affair of Carranza, and he
bears witness in favour of the Pope, thai he had entered into
the jurisdictional controversies with a holy and a good inten
tion, and had always shown a great personal affection for the
king himself,4 being convinced that it was his officials who
were responsible for the controversies. His entourage had
confirmed him in this view, and had painted the conduct of
the Spanish officials in matters concerned with ecclesiastical
jurisdiction in such dark colours that he had put forward very
drastic demands. The reason why the negotiations had
become so acrimonious was not only the strong character of
Pius V., but also the fact that His Holiness was convinced
that the ambassadors, in order to prove their zeal, had insisted
1 How fully Pius V. appreciated this attitude of Philip is
attested by Granvelle ; see Corresp. de Granvelle, II., 169.
1 See DOLLINGER, Beitrage, I., 579. Cf. Vol. XVII. of this
work, p. 13.
8 Published in Docum. d. Arch. Alba, 261-263.
4 This is also attested by P. TIEPOLO, Relazione, 188.
THE ACCOUNT OF ZUNIGA. 71
upon some of the matters at issue more strongly than they
had been instructed to do. At the end of his account Zufiiga
expresses his conviction that the Pope, who had always led
an exemplary life, was actuated by the holiest intentions,
and was so determined to uphold his principles, and to dis
charge his duty, that he would not have allowed any offence
to be committed against God, even though the whole world
were to fall in ruins. Perhaps, so Zuniga thought, this led to
even worse disturbances than those caused by other Popes ,
who pursued more worldly ends.
Although the grasp of the controversies concerning ecclesi
astical politics which is revealed in these words may fall short
of the truth, yet Zuniga's statements are a splendid testimony
to the purity of the zeal with which Pius V. was animated.
CHAPTER III.
THE BEGINNING OF THE REBELLION IN THE Low COUNTRIES.
THE powerful movement which cut off from Spain the northern
part of the Low Countries, and set up there the rule of Pro
testantism, bore at first a political and national character
rather than a religious one. If at first Philip II. followed in
the footsteps of his father in the Low Countries, and made no
change in the ancient privileges of the 17 provinces, his
accession to the throne nevertheless brought about a complete
change in the situation. While Charles V. had been looked
upon as half a Netherlander, Philip II. was purely a Spaniard,
and showed as little liking for his subjects in the Netherlands
as they did for him. Their ruler was no longer the diplomatic
Emperor, who had conversed in a friendly way with the
Netherlanders in their own language, had favoured them, and
treated them with great discretion, but the stern, laconic and
inaccessible King of Spain, whose personality as well as his
method of government was of quite another kind. Philip II.
looked upon the Low Countries, not as a separate state, but
merely as one of his " possessions " which, like Milan and
Naples in the south, were to minister to the Spanish rule as a
starting point and base of operations in the north ; his rigid
absolutism was bound to be opposed to any aspirations on
the part of the Netherland provinces to political individuality
and national independence.1 This critical state of affairs was
made worse by Philip's habit of reflecting and taking counsel
instead of acting at moments of crisis. Thomas Perrenot
stigmatizes this habit of indecision in bitter words in a letter
to Granvelle : " the only decision the king comes to is to be
for ever undecided."2 Aggravating circumstances were the
1 See PIRENNE, III., 455 seqq. ; BLOCK, II., 395 seq.
' See WEISS, Papiers d'etat du card. Granvelle, IX., ,568,
72
UNREST IN THE NETHERLANDS. 73
incapacity of Margaret of Parma, who had been appointed
Governess-General by Philip II., and the wretched state of
the finances. The Low Countries, into which, on account of
their trade and their industries, wealth flowed from all parts
of the world, had been made, more than any other country,
to bear the expense of Charles V.'s wars in France, Italy and
Germany ; in like manner Philip II. waged his war against
France in a special way with Netherland money. The conse
quences of this were shown in a complete financial exhaustion
in that country which the Venetian Soriano had described as
the Indies of Spain.1 The material condition of this territory
held by Spain on the North Sea was also far worse in other
ways than is commonly recognized ; the frontier provinces
especially had suffered from the devastating effects of the
war with France. But the gravest source of danger was the
change that had taken place in social conditions. A new
class of great industrial magnates and capitalists had come
into being, side by side with a large body of workers, whose
condition grew steadily worse on account of the continual
rise of prices.2
This state of affairs, added to the feeling that they were
being drained in favour of a policy which was foreign to their
own interests, gave rise to a deep-seated unrest among all
classes of the liberty loving population of the Netherlands.3
Philip II. was well aware of the danger of the situation when,
on August 25th, 1559, he set out for Spain after a long stay
in the Low Countries. He realized that he could not- count
with any certainty on the Governess and the all-powerful
councillor, Granvelle. It was with great disquietude that
he saw the revolutionary tendencies, which had begun to
show themselves even in the time of Charles V., and he was
made specially anxious by the efforts that were being made
to secure a joint agreement of the members of the States
1 Cf. GACHARD, Relations des ambass, Venitiens, 102 scq. ;
MARX, Studien, 60 seqq.
a See PIRENNE, III., 345 seqq.
1 See MARX, loc. cit. 83 seqq,
VOL. XVIII. 7
74 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
General, and above all by the Protestant propaganda, to
which the country was peculiarly exposed on account of its
position and its commercial relations. He made what arrange
ments he could to meet the danger : above all, before he left,
he urged the governess, the governors, the courts and the
bishops to be very much on their guard. In taking his solemn
farewell of the representatives of the provinces assembled at
Ghent, he urged the strict enforcement of the severe edicts
issued by the Emperor against the sectarians, since past
experience had shown that no religious change could take
place without a corresponding political revolution.1
Philip's anxiety concerning the state of religion in the Low
Countries was fully justified. Even though, as far as the
great majority was concerned, in the very mixed population of
those provinces, mixed both in nationality and customs,
remaining firmly attached to the ancient religion, there was
an undeniable weakening of religious feeling.2 The lower
classes were still filled with genuine piety, and continued to
frequent the churches as before,3 but the fatal influence of the
writings of Erasmus was making rapid strides both among
the educated people and the clergy. Like Erasmus himself,
those who had come under his influence sought indeed to
avoid any external separation from the Church, but as far as
their private opinions were concerned they had departed
from her principles in more than one respect.4 Such a state
of indecision, which left them free to enjoy life happily and
without restraint, suited the easy-going character of the
people of the Netherlands, although it was evident that it was
1 See MARX, loc. cit. 41 seq. ; RACHFAHL, II., i, 19 seq.
* See PIRENNE, III., 414.
•What A. de Beatis had written on this subject in 1517 (see
PASTOR, Reise des Kard. d'Aragona, 73) was again stated by
Badoero in 1557 ; see ALBERI, I., 3, 291.
4 See the excellent considerations put forward by RACHFAHL,
I., 448 seq., 464. The ideas of Erasmus had been popularized
by G. Cassander, who was much esteemed in the Low Countries.
For the latter cf. PASTOR, in Kirchenlexikon of Freiburg, II.8
2017 seq.
WILLIAM OF ORANGE. 75
not calculated to their moral advantage, and a survey of the
moral' state of the country reveals a gloomy picture indeed.
Unrestrained lust, drunkenness, and immorality were common,
and not least among the numerous and powerful nobles.
Unsettled and feeble in their religion, a large part of the
aristocracy of the Netherlands led a luxurious and immoral
life, and squandered their property in splendid banquets,
extravagant gambling and wild orgies.1
The first place among the nobility of the Netherlands in
every sense was held by William, Prince of Orange. Gifted
with great qualities of intellect, strong in will and firm of
purpose, a master of the art of summing up men and winning
their hearts, and full of ambition, this coldly calculating man
had a keen eye for anything that could advance or interfere
with his aims. Morally, Orange was a man of licentious life
and made no secret of it ; at the Diet of the princes at Frank
fort in 1558 he openly declared that adultery was no sin.2
He was so addicted to the national vice of drunkenness as
even to endanger his vigorous constitution.3 Being filled
with purely worldly ideas, he entirely ignored the super
natural ; it is certain that very little remained in his mind
of the Lutheran training which he received until his eleventh
year. When, at that age, he had to become a Catholic in
order to receive the rich inheritance of his cousin Re'ne', he
was given an education in accordance with the views of
Erasmus. It is no wonder then that he fell into the state of
indifference that was prevalent among the aristocracy of the
Netherlands.4 How much he looked upon religion as a mere
1 Cf. MARX, Studien, 112 seq. ; RACHFAHL, I., 273 seq. See
also PIRENNE, III., 498 seq.
* See RITTER in Histor. Zeitschrift, LVIIL, 410, n. 2.
•See MARX, loc. cit. 116.
4 See RACHFAHL, I., 153 seq. PIRENNE (III., 495) well says
that at that time Orange was " as much a Catholic as later he
was a Lutheran, and later still a Calvin ist, that is to say without
any enthusiasm or deep convictions. . . . His attitude towards
religion was nothing but the expression of the political position
which he held for the moment."
76 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
political consideration was shown by the negotiations which
took place in 1561 before his marriage to Anne, the daughter
of the Protestant Elector Maurice of Saxony. While he was
assuring Philip II. that he had made it a condition that his
wife should profess the Catholic faith, and intended that she
should live a good Catholic, he informed the Elector Augustus
of Saxony of his own secret but strong leaning towards Pro
testantism, which, however, he was unable for the time being
to profess publicly ; his wife, however, should be free to live
in her Lutheran faith, and his children should be brought up
in that religion.1 A letter from Orange to Pius IV. belongs
to the same year, 1561 ; in this he assures the Pope that he
desires the extirpation of the " pest of heresy " in his princi
pality of Orange, and that he had given orders to that effect
to his officials.2 William retained this mask of Catholicism
for five years longer, because it was useful to his purpose.
Proof of this is to be found in the two letters which he ad
dressed to Pius V. in 1566. In the first, dated May I3th, he
declared : " It is my desire and intention to be all my life
the very humble and obedient son of the Church and of the
Holy See, and to persevere, as my ancestors did, in that
intention, devotion, and obedience." In the second letter,
dated June 8th, he promised that he would take every pains,
as was his duty, for the preservation of the ancient Catholic
religion in his principality of Orange, as in the past.3 All
1 Cf. JANSSEN-PASTOR, IV. 18-l«, 267. See also KOLLIGS, W.
v. Oranien, Bonn, 1884, 8-20 ; RACHFAHL, II., i, 91 seq., 100 seq.
1 See GROEN VAN PRINSTERER, Archives de la maison Orange-
Nassau, I., 72. Cf. KOCH, Unstersuchungen liber die Emporung
und den Abfall der Niederlande, Leipsic, 1860, 9 seq. Pius IV.
was much comforted by the behaviour of Orange in his princi
pality ; see A. CAUCHIE and L. VAN DER ESSEN, Invent, des
archives Farnesiennes, Brussels, 1911, xxi., and BROM, Archi-
valia, I., 191 seq.
* Cf. ALLARD, Des zwijgers godsdiensten in Studien op Gods-
dienstig, Wettenschappelijk en Letterkundig Gebied, ami 13.,
Utrecht, 1880, II., 65-90, where the oiiginal text of the letter
preserved in the Barberini Library is given for the first time.
THE NETHERLAND BISHOPRICS. 77
through the following summer he behaved as a Catholic, but
in November, 1566, in a confidential letter to the Lutheran
William of Hesse, he wrote that at heart he had " always
held and professed " the Confession of Augsburg.1
Such was the man who, though he was the vassal and
councillor of state of Philip II., used all his abilities to thwart
the policy, both at home and abroad, of his king. All the
malcontents of the Spanish government gathered round him,
while those who had Protestant leanings were in close league
with him.2 Philip II. himself assisted his plans by continuing
to postpone the removal of the three thousand hated Spanish
soldiers, as he had unwillingly promised to do before he left
the Low Countries. When their withdrawal had at last been
obtained fresh subject for discontent was at once found in
the new delimitation and increased number of the Netherland
bishoprics, which Paul IV., in accordance with the wishes
of Philip II., had arranged shortly before his death.3
This arrangement, which had been called for by a very proper
recognition of the insufficiency of mere measures of repression
for the stamping out of religious innovations, in view of the
manifest unsuitability of the old conditions, was altogether
necessary and at the same time of great assistance to the
spiritual needs of the population ; it also had, however, a
political bearing. The Pope was obliged to grant the Catholic
King the right of nomination in the case of the fourteen new
bishoprics, as with Utrecht, Tournai and Arras. Not satisfied
with this increase in the power of the king, the commission
which had been appointed by Philip II. in 1559 to put into
effect the bull relating to the new bishoprics, in order to solve
the difficult question of the endowment of the new dioceses,
1 See GROEN VAN PRINSTERER, loc. cit. II., 997. Cf. also BLOK,
Willelm de eerste (Amsterdam, 1919), who believes (p. 62) that
Orange only really became a Calvlnist after 1572.
»C/. RITTER, I., 335 seq.
* For this, besides what has been said in Vol. XIV. of this work,
p. 321, see also MARX, Studien, 51 seq., 194 seq., and RACHFAHL,
II., i, 20 seq. See also CLAESSENS, Sur 1'etablissement des
eveches dans les Pays-Bas in Rev. cathol., 1859.
78 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
proposed to unite the abbeys situated in the neighbourhood
to the new sees. By this expedient the government obtained
possession of further docile votes, because in most of the
provinces the clergy formed an important part of the assembly
of the states.1 Philip II. accordingly declared himself well
satisfied with the proposal,2 which, under the influence and
advice of Granvelle, was decided upon.3 Since, however,
this involved a departure from the original scope of the bull
of Paul IV., it was necessary to ask for the consent of his
successor, but for some reason or other the preparation of the
bulls of erection of the new sees met with many difficulties.
The blame for the sudden delay lay not only with the wretched
question of money, the payment of the customary fees, and
the cautious procedure of the Curia, but also in the strained
relations between Pius IV. and the Spanish ambassador,
Vargas, and the opposition of those prelates from whose
dioceses important territories would be cut off. The Curia
was literally flooded with protests. Like the Bishops of
Cambrai, Liege, Tournai, and the chapter of Utrecht, so too
the Archbishop of Cologne and Cardinal Guise as Archbishop
of Rheims protested against the bull which defined the new
boundaries of the dioceses in the Netherlands, on the ground
that it injured their material and jurisdictions! interests.4
In spite of the insistence of Philip II., the supreme authority of
the Church could not refuse to make an investigation of these
complaints. The king had every reason to be satisfied with
the final decision ; Pius IV. upheld the proposed arrangement,
as being fully in accordance with the interests of religion.
In a bull of March 7th, 1561, he approved the new scheme
for the endowments, confirmed the bishops nominated by
1 See MARX, Studien, 203 ; RACHFAHL, II., i, 131 seq.
* See WEISS, Papiers d'e"tat du card. Granvelle, VI., 58 seq.
* See RACHFAHL in Westdeutsche Zeitschrift, XXIX., 369.
4 Cf. Dj2 RAM in Annuaire de I'univ. de Louvain, 1851, 302 seq. ;
Af chief van het aartsbisdom Utrecht, XII., 434 seq. ; BROM, Archi-
valia, I., 792 ; STEINHERZ, Nuntiaturberichte, I., 320 seq. ;
HOLZWARTH, I., 77 seq. ; Corresp. de Granvelle, e"d. PIOT, IV.,
3 n. ; MARX, Studien, 196 seqq. ; RACHFAHL, II., i, 132 seq.
FEAR OF THE SPANISH INQUISITION. 79
Philip, and further took steps to see that those bishops who
had suffered any loss were indemnified.1
While the foreign prelates were thus forced to give up their
opposition, this broke out with all the greater violence in the
Low Countries themselves, starting principally with the
nobility. To the long-standing secret dislike of the Netherland
aristocracy for the whole scheme, and the arbitrary proceedings
of Philip II., there was added a deep discontent with the
solution of the problem of the endowments, which strengthened
the royal power, and made it difficult for the sons of the
nobility to obtain bishoprics and canonries.2 Completely
disregarding the true interests of the Church, and short
sightedly thinking only of their own advantage, even the
abbeys, where they were affected by the bull, allowed them
selves to be drawn into the opposition raised by the nobility.3
By stating, which was altogether untrue, that it was intended
by means of the erection of the new bishoprics to introduce
the Spanish Inquisition, which was mortally hated by the
Netherlander, they succeeded at length in drawing the
masses of the population into the movement. Not only those
elements which were already inclined to the new religion, and
which had every reason to fear an increased vigilance on the
part of the bishops, but also those who were faithful to the
Church were rendered anxious at the supposed attempt to
subject them to a Spanish institution at the expense of their
own local rights.4 The states of Brabant especially made
violent resistance, declaring that the incorporation of the
abbeys was aimed at their principal privilege, the joyeuse
entree.5 The devils of Brabant, as Philip II. called them,
soon found imitators in the other provinces, and in many
1 See RAYNALDUS, 1561, n. 69; Archief cit., IX., 314 seq. ;
XII., 444 ; STEINHERZ, loc. cit. I. 321 ; RACHFAHL, II., i, 135 ;
BROM, loc. cit. 718 seq.
* See MARX, Studien, 207 seqq. ; RACHFAHL, II., i, 147 seq.
* Granvelle said that Douai like Brussels had as it were fallen
into a trap. See HOLZWARTH, I., 80 seq.
4 See MARX, Studien, 218 seqq.
* See RACHFAHL, II., i, 151 seq., 155.
8o HISTORY OF THE POPES.
places they went to extremes. Granvelle himself had to
behave with great circumspection before he could make his
solemn entry into Malines as archbishop. Several of the new
bishops were unable to take possession of their sees at all,
while others could only do so after more or less prolonged
disputes.1
Granvelle, who had been made a Cardinal on February 25th,
1561, took a decisive part in the unfortunate solution of the
question of the bishoprics.2 This earned for him the hatred
of the opposition party of the nobles headed by Orange, all
the more so because the latter saw in him, quite rightly, the
most sagacious representative of the monarchical tendencies,
and Philip's principal supporter. The fall of Granvelle then
became his chief aim, and the " lords " found in him a powerful
ally in the Calvinistic movement which was spreading from
France into the Low Countries. The people were stirred up
in every possible way ; works in French and Flemish mocked
at the Cardinal as " the red devil " who wanted to destroy
the liberty of the country by means of the Inquisition and the
new bishoprics, and hand it over to the " Spanish swine."
Orange and his supporters among the nobles kept up the war
against the hated Cardinal by every means in their power,
but only attained their object when even the regent deserted
Granvelle. 8
Philip II. had once said that he would rather risk his
possessions in the Netherlands than sacrifice the Cardinal.4
There was only one way to save Granvelle, namely
the personal appearance of the king in the Low Countries ;5
1 In more than one place their lives were hardly safe, says
HAVENSIUS, Comment, de erectione novorum in Belgio epis-
copatuum, Cologne, 1609, 26 seq. Cf. HOLZWARTH, I., 85 seq. ;
RACHFAHL, II., i, 235 seq.
2 See RACHFAHL in Westdeutschen Zeitschrift, XXII., 87 seqq. ;
XXIX., 368 seq.
8 See PIRENNE, III., 506 seq. ; RACHFAHL, II., i, 248 seq.t
252 seqq., 288 seqq.
* See WEISS, Papiers d'etat du card. Granvelle, VII., 102.
4 See Corresp. de Granvelle, ed. POULLET, I., Ixvti.
THE SITUATION BECOMES WORSE. 8l
indeed, the journey to Flanders was seriously urged upon
him by all far-seeing men, but the irresolute monarch
could not bring himself to the point, and instead, on
January 22nd, 1564, gave his conge to his faithful servant,
Granvelle. The regent then fell entirely into the hands of
the opposition nobles, who made use of their triumph in the
most disastrous way, so much so that a state of anarchy
prevailed.1
The struggle about the bishoprics grew even more furious
when there was added to it the opposition to the acceptance of
the Council of Trent, and the situation grew worse than ever.2
While Philip II. showed a certain amount of concilia toriness
in these two matters, he remained all the more fixed in his
resistance to twro further demands of the opposition, namely,
the assembly of the States General, and the alteration of the
edicts in force against the religious innovators. It was the
common opinion in the Low Countries that these edicts would
be modified, and even the Bishops of Ypres, Namur, Ghent
and St. Omer gave expression to this view in June, I565,3 but
Philip would not hear of it. Royal ordinances, issued at the
park of Segovia in the second half of" October, 1565, definitely
rejected the demands of the opposition ; the edicts were to be
enforced even' more rigorously, the Inquisition was to remain
unchanged, and the States General were not to be summoned.
At first the regent did not dare to publish this decision, and
submitted the matter to the council of state, at which Orange
obtained the publication of the royal decrees. He himself,
on January 8th, 1566, issued a severe edict in favour of the
1 See PIRENNE, III., 511; RACHFAHL, II., i, 421 seq. ; II.,
2, 517-
1 Cf. RACHFAHL, II., i, 446 seqq., 451 seq. See also HOLZ-
WARTH, I., 215 seq. and DE RAM, De promulgatione concilii
Tridentini in Belgio. In the Franche Comte the Archbishop of
Besan9on who had not yet received investiture, put oft the
publication of the decrees until 1571, for which reason Pius V.
took proceedings against him : see Revue Hist., CIIL, 227 seq.,
238 seq.
1 See KERVYN DE LETTENHOVE, I., 264.
82 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
Inquisition to the provinces of Holland, Zeeland and Frisia
which were subject to him.1 Sure of his success he declared :
'' Now we shall see the beginning of a tremendous tragedy."
And indeed he very soon saw what he had hoped for come to
pass, the outburst of a storm of revolution, which was to clear
the way for his own schemes.
As early as the summer of 1565, Count Louis of Nassau, the
brother of Orange, who did not disapprove of his Protestant
leanings, had started secret negotiations for the formation of
a league of the nobles. At the beginning of December, 1565,
there was drawn up in complete secrecy at Brussels the so-
called compromise of twenty nobles, which was directed against
the continuance of the edicts, and the introduction, which was
stated to be intended, of the Spanish Inquisition. The draft
of this compromise carefully avoided the use of any expression
offensive to Catholics, and this explains the fact that, among
the large number who joined the league, there were many
Catholics, who had no idea of separating themselves from the
ancient Church, and only wished to resist the system of govern
ment pursued by the crown.2 The authors of the compromise,
however, had from the first much more far-reaching aims ;
they had conceived the idea of a revolt against the sovereign.3
Some of the conspirators wished to make their attack at once,
but their leader, Orange, did not think that the fitting moment
had yet arrived. In order to bring strong pressure to bear, he
first drew up a mass petition ; on April 5th, 1566, under the
leadership of his brother, Louis of Nassau, and Brederode,
400 nobles appeared at the castle of Brussels and presented to
the regent a " petition " which, in order to prevent a revolu
tion, demanded the suspension of the edicts and the Inquisition,
until the States General, which the king must assemble, should
make other arrangements.4 The governess gave way before
1 Published in ALLARD, Een Plakkaat des Zwijgers ten gunste
der Inquisitie, Utrecht, 1886, 5 seq.
' See PIRENNE, III., 557 ; RACHFAHL, II., 2, 547 seqq., 560
seq., 565.
» See RITTER in Histor. Zeitschrift, LVIIL, 426.
4 See BLOK, III., 341 seq.
DEMANDS OF THE NOBLES. 83
this demonstration, and promised the modification of the
edicts, a contributory cause of her decision being the fact that
the demands of the nobles, or gueux, as they were called, were
almost universally approved of. That almost the whole
countr}^ took the part of the nobles was to a great extent the
result of an agitation which was as skilful as it was unscrupulous,
which by means of pamphlets and broad-sheets enormously
exaggerated1 the number of the victims of the Inquisition
and, concealing the true facts, represented as certain — a thing
which threatened the well-being and liberty of the country —
the immediate forcible introduction of the Spanish Inquisition.2
In order to understand the general state of excitement which
this produced we must remember that even those who were
loyal to the ancient Church, with very few exceptions, were
altogether opposed to any violent punishment of the religious
innovators, some because they were indifferent on religious
questions, some because they had adopted the ideas of Erasmus
and Cassander, some because they feared the injury that would
be done to the commerce of the Netherlands, and all because
in the Inquisition, in the form given to it by Charles V., and
as it existed in Spain, they saw a grave threat to the liberties
and local privileges which they clung to so jealousy. In this
1 On the basis of the data given by William of Orange in his
apologia, and a sentence used by Hugo Grotius the number of
those executed by the Inquisition in the Low Countries was
estimated at 50,000 or even 100,000. Modern researches have
rectified this to the effect that at the highest estimate not more
than 2,000 persons were put to death for obstinacy in heresy.
See W. WILDE, Merkwaardige cijfers betreffende de Geloofs-
vervolgingen in Nederland tijdens de i6e eeuw, Utrecht, 1893,
37 seq. ; CLAESSENS, L'inquisition dans les Pays-Bas, Tumhout,
1886, 259 seq. ; v. D. HAEGHEN, Du nombre des protestants
execute's dans les Pays-Bas, 1889 ; RUTGERS, Calvyns invloed
op de Reformatie in de Nederlanden, 141 seq. ; HOOG, Onze
Martelaars in Nederl. Arch, voon boekgesch., I., Leyden, 1889,
82 seqq.
* See RACHFAHL, II., 2, 554 seq. ; cf. ibid. 560 concerning the
statement that Philip II. did not wish to introduce anything new
but only to enforce rigorously the existing edicts.
84 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
sense even the Catholics of the Netherlands were gueux, and
these at that time formed the great majority of the population,
but only political gueux, with political ends in view, as dis
tinguished from the religious gueux or Calvinists, who aimed
at absolute freedom in the practice of religion in itself, but at
the same time at the complete suppression and extirpation of
the Catholic religion, for which they felt a mortal hatred as
being " Roman idolatry." If the regent had adopted a course
of vigorous resistance, the leaders of this minority, the Calvinist
preachers, would have been completely scattered,1 but
Margaret was so panic-stricken that she did not dare to offer
any sort of resistance ; she remained entirely passive before
the movement, which every day became more dangerous.
The weak behaviour of the regent, who tried to win over
the religious gueux by modifying the edicts, only spurred on
the Calvinist preachers to bolder action. As the result of an
assembly held at Antwerp a vigorous propaganda in favour
of Protestantism was set on foot throughout the country. A
favourable field for this had long been ready in those districts
where the great merchants and traders were in the ascendant,
namely Antwerp and other ports, and the industrial districts
of west Flanders, where there was to be found a large body of
workmen, who, together with a number of unemployed, vaga
bonds and idlers, partly from a love of opposition, and partly to
obtain alms, joined the new movement.2 At the same time the
doctrines of Calvin had their supporters among the upper
classes, especially among the rich merchants, lawyers, magis
trates and nobles, who made up by their fanaticism and daring
for what the movement lacked in numbers. What very
shallow roots the new religion had. was shown by the fact that
in 1563 the mere arrival of troops was enough to restore the
1 See BLOK, III., 46 seq. ; PIRENNE, III., 542 seq., 551, 558,
565. In the opinion of an Italian Catholic, the architect March i,
there were not 20 persons in the whole country who really wished
for the continuance of the Inquisition ; see CAUCHIE in Analectes
pour servir a 1'hist. eccles. de la Belgique, XXIII. (1892), 26.
1 See PIRENNE, III., 530 seq. ; RACHFAHL, II., 2, 525 seq.,
53° seq.
OUTBREAK OF THE REBELLION. 85
old order of things at Valenciennes, Tournai, and on the sea-
coast of Flanders.1 Those who were most deeply involved
had then gone into exile, but now they returned in shoals,
while many preachers came from Geneva, France, Germany
and England in order systematically to win over the masses
of the people. After the end of May, 1566, " savage sermons "
against the " Roman idolatry " were preached in the open air
in the presence of thousands of people, who were for the most
part armed. At the same time endless pamphlets, libels and
calumnies were distributed in the cities and villages against the
Church and even against the king. The foreign preachers
were joined by native ones, who were sometimes apostate
Catholic priests, but also shoemakers and tailors, all banded
together to stir up the people against the " imposture " of
the ancient Church. The frightened authorities allowed this
to go on, and even in Brussels Calvinist sermons were allowed
in two places. Even the provinces of the north succumbed to
the movement, the principal centres being Antwerp and the
whole of Flanders. At Tournai the innovators tried to force
the Catholics by threats to listen to their insulting sermons.
Every means was made use of ; in the villages of south
Flanders demagogues displayed letters bearing the forged
seal of the king, inciting people to sack the churches, and
secret lists were drawn up containing the names of those who
were ready to join in an open warfare on behalf of the new
doctrines.2
In August, 1566, the inflammable matter that was every
where to be found, burst into open flame. On August loth,
at the instigation and under the leadership of the preachers,
all the horrors of iconoclasm broke loose in the industrial
districts of west Flanders, where Calvinism had long had
many supporters. Both in cities and villages infuriated bands
broke into the churches in order to destroy the " idolatry "
against which the preachers had so heatedly inveighed. The
horror-stricken Catholics saw their churches sacked, and even
1 See PIRENNE, III., 538.
8 See PIRENNE, III., 559-570, and especially RACHFAHL, II.,
2, 636 seq., 643 seq.t 646 seq., 673 seq., 703 seq.
86 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
the Most Holy Sacrament trampled under foot. Thus was
revealed for the first time in the district between Dunkirk,
Ypres and Armentieres, the true spirit in which the masses of
the people had been led. The movement spread like an all-
devouring conflagration through Flanders ; only Bruges,
Cambrai and Douai were spared in the destruction, and that
because the Catholics had recourse to armed resistance. From
Flanders the hurricane spread even as far as Zeeland, Holland
and Frisia, everywhere with the same terrible scenes of
destruction. Artistic treasures which could never be replaced
fell victim to the storm ; with cries of " Long live the gueux "
the iconoclasts, among whom were to be seen educated persons,
convinced that they were doing a work that was pleasing to
God in destroying the " Roman idols," passed from church
to church and from convent to convent. With mad fury
they maltreated priests, monks and nuns, destroyed statues,
pictures, stained glass, chalices, monstrances, and sacred
vestments, burned books and manuscripts, and even profaned
graves. Only a few among the confederated nobles, such as
the journalist, Philippe de Marnix, approved of this work of
destruction. Count Culemburg took part in it, and with his
band of followers sat down to table in a church which had
been " purified " at his orders, and to amuse them fed a parrot
with consecrated hosts. Orange, who kept away with some
anxiety from this mad exhibition of democratic Calvinism,
with which he could not be in sympathy, but who secretly
favoured the Lutherans, even though he still took part in
Catholic worship, prudently kept in the background. Ant
werp therefore remained quiet so long as he remained there ;
it was only when he went to Brussels on August igth for a
meeting of the Knights of the Golden Fleece, that the same
horrors took place in Antwerp as had occurred elsewhere.1
1 J. KAUFMANN (tFber die Anfange des Bundes der Aderligen
und des Bildersturmes, Bonn, 1889, 36 seq.) tries to prove that
an assembly held at Antwerp in July, 1566, had decided upon the
war against images, but that its execution was left to the people.
RACHFAHL (II., 2, 713 ; cf. App. n. 74) rejects this view as not
in accordance with the sources, but at the same time be quite
ICONOCLASM AT ANTWERP. 87
In all the large cities not a church, or chapel, or convent or
hospital remained unharmed. The damage done to the
cathedral, the most beautiful and sumptuous church in the
country, was estimated at 400,000 gold florins. By August
27th the number of churches and convents devastated in
Flanders alone was 400. In the greater part of the country
Catholic worship had completely come to an end, the only
provinces that were spared being Namur, Artois, Hainault
and Luxemburg.1
The news of these atrocities and sacrileges reached Rome
long before the court of Spain. It confirmed Pius V. in his
absolutely correct idea, shared by all who knew the true facts
of the case, that the only efficacious remedy for the conflagra
tion that had broken out in the Low Countries was the personal
appearance of the Spanish king in the disturbed provinces.
He had scarcely been elected when he expressed this view
definitely makes it appear that " they were the fruits of the preach
ing against idolatry, which at that time was reaching its height,
and thus the war against images was the result of Calvinism, and
of the spiiit which the teaching of the Geneva reformer planted
with irresistible force in the hearts of his followers. It was not
the result of a decision which had long been taken and was of
universal application, but the idea was, as it were, in the air.
The idea had been played with for a long time, but it was only
at the meeting at St. Trond that it had" been again discussed.
Then it began to be put into practice seriously."
1 See PIRENNE, III., 570 seqq. ; BLOK, III., 58 seq. ; RACHFAHL,
II., 2, 709 ; KRONEN, Maria's Heerlijkheid in Nederland, VII.,
Amsterdam 1911, 78 seq. See also the full bibliography collected
by PIOT in the notes to Renom de France, I., 131 seq. The sacri
lege of the Count of Culemburg is attested by several witnesses
(see Corresp. de Philippe II., I., 471, 480) ; it is not therefore just
to say with RACHFAHL (II., 2, 716) that the co-operation of indi
vidual members of the league of the nobles is not proved. A
list of the churches and the incalculable treasures of art destroyed
in RATHBERGER, Annalen der niederlandischen Malerei, Gotha,
1844, 196 seqq. In Allgem. Zeitung, 1900, Beil. n. 161 Weizsacker
brings out the loss inflicted on our knowledge of the beginnings
of the art of Jan van Eyck.
HISTORY OF THE POPES.
to Philip II. in a letter of February 2ist, 1566, and he repeated
the same thing even more strongly to Requesens in March.1
In April, 1566, the distinguished Archbishop of Sorrento,
Stefano Pavesi, a Dominican, was sent to the Low Countries,
in order to obtain definite tidings of the state of religious affairs
there.2 In accordance with his habitual temporizing and
hesitation, Philip II. at first tried to prevent this mission, but
gave way when it was decided in Rome to make it as un
obtrusive as possible. Pavesi's prudence and caution satisfied
the king. The archbishop gathered exact details of the
religious state of affairs not only from the regent and her
adviser, Viglius, but also from Morillon, the vicar-general of
Granvelle, the theologians of Louvain, the bishops, and other
leading ecclesiastics. He even had a conversation with
Orange, which appeared to be quite satisfactory, because at
that time that political trickster was still wearing his mask
of Catholicism. While Pavesi was at Brussels (May 2ist to
June 1 6th) the followers of the new doctrines kept very quiet.
The regent tried to prove to the envoy that under the cir
cumstances she had done all that was possible for the cause of
religion.3 Pavesi, however, was under no illusions as to the
gravity of the situation, and from May onwards Pius V.,
1 See Corresp. dipl., I., 131, 157.
1 The credentials of Pavesi to the regent, of Mar. 18, 1566, in
LADERCHI, 1566, n. 465. Similar briefs to Charles of Lorraine
and many bishops, in the original minutes, in the British Museum
Addit. 26865. At first Pavesi was to have gone to Maximilian II. ;
see App. n. 68, Vol. XVII. the *briefs of March i and 21, 1566.
The nuncio did not start till April. For his mission cf. Corresp.
de Philippe II., I., 422 n. ; Corresp. de Granvelle, ed. POULLET,
I., 245 n. ; HOLZWARTH, I., 328 seq., 459 ; CAUCHIE, Sources
manuscrites de 1'hist. beige & Rome, Brussels, 1892, 43 seq. ;
BROM, Archivalia, I., 197, 827 ; RACHFAHL, II., 2, 630 seq. ;
Corresp. dipl., I., 149, 156, 189, 194, 229, 246, 263 seq., 280, 290,
302, 369 ; DENGEL, V., 94. For Pavesi see CAPECE, 30 seq. and
MALDACCA, Storia di Sorrento, II., 188. In a *letter from
Delfino to Maximilian II., Pavesi is praised as " huomo molto
dotto e di buona vita." State Archives, Vienna, Hofkorresp., 6.
1 See RACHFAHL, II,, 2, 630 seq.
THE POPE WARNS PHILIP II. 89
through the nuncio in Spain, urged Philip to undertake the
journey to the Netherlands,1 and in every audience impressed
upon Granvelle the necessity of that step.2 Fired by the report
from Pavesi, and the news he had received from other sources,3
in a conversation with Requesens in July, he declared in the
strongest words and with all possible emphasis that the situa
tion was far more dangerous than they imagined in Madrid, and
that the delay in the king's departure would have the worst
possible consequences for religion.4 On July I2th Pius V.
wrote a strong letter to the king himself,5 and on August 3rd
he wrote to the nuncio in Spain that Philip II. would one day
have to render an account for the loss of so many souls, since
nothing but his personal presence would be of any avail.6
By way of reply to this, Requesens was ordered on August
1 2th, 1566, to explain to the Pope that his master felt himself
quite free from blame, that as far as the journey was concerned
His Majesty's intentions coincided with the wishes of the
Pope, but that if a real success was to be obtained, the king
must go there with an army, not only for the protection of his
person, but also in order that he might show a strong front
before the Netherland insurgents, and their friends in France,
Germany and England. Such an armed expedition required
time, but above all there was the lack of the necessary funds,
which the Pope could supply by granting ecclesiastical sub
sidies. As soon as all the necessary preparations had been
made — so Philip told Requesens to assure the Pope most
definitely — His Majesty would start for the Low Countries
1 See Corresp. dipl., I., 233.
1 See Corresp. de Granvelle, ed. POULLET, L, 318.
1 See LADERCHI, 1566, n. 470.
4 See Corresp. dipl., I., 279 seq.
5 In LADERCHI, 1566, n. 471. Cf. Corresp. dipl., L, 279 n.
for the date. From a comparison with the *briefs of Pius V.
in the Papal Secret Archives, Arm. 44, t. 12, n. 96, it appears that
in Laderchi after " illic " the words " in extreme discrimine
versatur. Sed si religio catholica, etc.," have been omitted.
Further instead of " perpessa " we find " oppressa."
8 Corresp. dipl., I., 299. Cf. also BROM, Archivalia, L, 197,
VOL. XVIII. K
QO HISTORY OF THE POPE.
without any thought of the dangers which might threaten him.
The Spanish king expressed himself in the same sense to
Castagna, who for his part urged him on in every way and
reminded him of the proverb : " While they were taking
counsel in Rome, Saguntum fell," but he could learn nothing
as to the date of the king's departure.1
There can be no possible doubt that Philip II. fell into a
fatal error with regard to the Netherlands in not looking upon
his personal presence there with the same urgency as did the
Pope, who would have had him give this matter precedence
over all others. After the news came of the iconoclastic
horrors that had taken place, Pius V. could consider himself
justified in declaring that he had sent his exhortations and his
timely warning to no purpose.2 While he was still feeling
the effects of the terrible news he made up his mind to the
mission of Pietro Camaiani to Spain, which occasioned such
a stir.
Camaiani was instructed once more to urge the king to make
the journey, and to say that the sending of an army, no matter
how large, would be of no avail without the personal presence
of the king. In the instructions for the nuncio it is stated
that Philip II. was responsible for all the evil consequences
that would result from any further delay, since not only would
the Low Countries be lost to the Church and to Spain, but
there would be even worse effects upon the state of religion in
France and England.3
The quarrel which ensued between Philip II. and Pius V.
was not caused only by the brusque behaviour of Camaiani,
but, altogether apart from other disagreements between Rome
and Spain, by the fact that the king was deeply hurt by the
doubts expressed by the Pope as to the insincerity of his
intentions to undertake the journey.4 This is proved from
the emphatic way in which the king assured the Pope of his
readiness to go in person to the Low Countries. The truth
1 See Corresp. dipl., I., 301, 318 seq.
1 See LADERCHI, 1566, n. 474.
• See Corresp. dipl., I., 357 seq.
4 See RACHFAHL, II., 2, 839.
THE POPE WARNS PHILIP II. QI
was that he had no more idea of setting out than he had of
paying any attention to the Pope's exhortations that he
should once more try the effect of gentle methods with the
Netherlanders before he had recourse to armed force. In
December, 1566, a year full of great events, Philip came to the
determination that Alba must wipe out the crimes of high
treason against God and the king in the Netherlands with
blood and iron, though he still kept up the pretence that he
intended to go there himself and show mercy, and that Alba
was merely being sent beforehand to prepare for the coming
of the king.1 On January nth, 1567, Requesens received
instructions to communicate the king's intentions in this sense
officially to the Pope.2
In the meantime a fear had grown up in Rome that the
Spanish council only intended to subdue the Low Countries
politically, and that for the time being the religious changes
would be tolerated. Pius V. made a strong protest against
any such mode of procedure,3 pointing out the consequences
which had followed upon similar action by Charles V. in Ger
many. The Pope who, from the first, had only had the
religious aspect of the disturbances in the Netherlands in view,
was of the opinion that this should take precedence of every
other consideration, that the strongest measures must be
taken, and that this must be done by the king in person.
Nobody else could take his place since in such undertakings
it often happened that the most important decisions had to
be made at a moment's notice, and since the sovereign him
self would have to be on the spot, in order to grant pardon or
inflict punishment, there was nothing to be gained by sending
a representative beforehand, because in that case people would
no longer believe that the king was coming, and the boldness
of the insurgents would be only increased.
The Pope clearly saw what an important effect a victory of
the religious innovators would have upon the course of affairs
in France, England and Germany, For this reason he never
1 Cf. ibid.
* See Corresp. dipl., II., 16,
* Cf. ibid., 25 seq.^ 52 seq.
Q2 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
tired of urging Philip to go in person and at once to the threat
ened provinces, and above all, in order that he might crush the
heretical movement, and restore Catholic worship everywhere.
By so doing he would best serve the political interests of the
Spanish rule in the Low Countries, since it was the religious
changes which fed the flames of the rebellion.1
Philip replied that this was his view as well. He entirely
rejected all thought of tolerating Calvinism, but at the same
time he did not wish the religious question to be set in the
first place in the same way as did the Pope. He also remained
firm in his intention to sending Alba before him. He therefore
announced that his own journey to the Low Countries was
decided upon, though he still evaded any definite naming of a
date.2 Thus the whole of May, 1567, passed by, and June
found the king still in Spain, in spite of further pressure from
the Pope in a brief of May i7th, 1567. The preparations for
his journey were still going on. On June 23rd Philip II.
wrote to Granvelle in Rome that people there who did not
believe in his journey would soon see that they were wrong, in
spite of the reports which had so maliciously been spread about.
In July a courier left Madrid for Rome to announce the immedi
ate departure of the king. When the nuncio asked whether
he should remain at Madrid or accompany the king to the
Low Countries, Philip replied that he would be very pleased
to have him in his company.3 On July I5th the king renewed
the orders to hasten the preparations for his departure, and
six days later, in publishing the decrees of the Cortes, he
declared that the conduct of the Netherlanders obliged him
to go to that country.4
Nevertheless those people were right who from the first had
1 See ibid. 47.
a Cf. supra p. 14.
3 Cf. GACHARD, Corresp. de Philippe II., I., cliv, 550, 564, and
Bibl. de Madrid, 100 seq. ; HOLZWARTH, II., i, 31 seq. In Holz-
warth there is also an explanation of the reasons why Philip II.
did not wish to go to the Low Countries. Cf, on this subject
Corresp. di^l., II., Iv. seq.
4 See RANKE, Hist.-biogr. Studien, 522.
PHILIP II. ABANDONS HIS JOURNEY. 93
doubted whether Philip would really go in person to the Low
Countries. Even Castagna had to report on August nth,
1567, that no one in Madrid now counted any longer on the
king's journey, for which nevertheless all the preparations
had been made down to the smallest detail. At the begin
ning of September the nuncio expressed to the king, though
with all due respect, his great disappointment at this change
of intention, and spoke of the sorrow felt by the Pope, and the
unfavourable impression which would be made upon the
world. On September 2oth there came an official notification
that the journey had been put off until the following spring,
and instructions were sent by courier to Requesens to explain
to the Pope the reasons which had led to this decision. Assur
ances were given in Madrid that the king adhered to his purpose
of undertaking the journey, and Cardinal Espinosa told the
nuncio that in the following March nothing but his death or
the end of the world would prevent His Majesty from
going.1
The Pope who, even in August, 1567, had prayed daily at
mass for the successful journey of the king, and had ordered
the whole clergy of Rome to pray for the same purpose,2
was cut to the heart by the abandonment of the expedition,
in which he saw the only chance of saving the Low Countries,
as well as the hope of an improvement in the position of the
Catholic cause in France and England. He said quite openly
to Requesens that the king, who had written to him with his
own hand, had deceived him ; face to face with the threat to
religion the king ought to have put every other consideration
on one side, because in the end it is God who guides all things.
Requesens and Granvelle excused the king as best they could,
1 See the reports of Castagna in GACHARD, Bibl. de Madrid
100-105 and Corresp. dipl., II. t 177 seq., 184 seq., 189 seq., 203 seq.,
205 seq.
2 See the *report of Arco of August 23, 1567, State Archives,
Vienna. On August 2, Bonelli had written in cypher to Castagna
that it was the wish of Pius V. that Philip should start as soon
as possible, and he once again set forth the reasons. Corresp.
dipl., II., 175 seq.
94 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
but the Pope remained very angry.1 On July I5th, on the
strength of the king's promised action2 in the Low Countries, he
had granted him the so-called excusado.3 Was he not therefore
justified in thinking that Philip's promises had only been made
in order to wring this important concession from him ?4 The
friends of Spain in the Curia might say what they liked, but
Pius V. continued to believe that he had been cheated by
Philip. Nothing but Alba's strong action in the Low Countries
was able to pacify him, and gave him cause to hope that
Catholic interests had not been ruined by the putting off of
the king's journey.5
Pius V. clearly recognized what a mistake Philip had made,
first in postponing, and then in definitely giving up his personal
appearance in the Low Countries, which was so dreaded by the
adherents of the new religion,6 but he quite failed to see that
the mission of Alba was a far worse one. The Duke, who
was heart and soul a Spaniard, and had not the least under
standing of foreign susceptibilities, was especially hated in the
Low Countries, so much so that Philip II. himself at one time
thought of revoking his appointment. If in the end he did
not do so, this was to a great extent due to the party at court
1 See the *reports of Arco of Sept. 6, 13, and 20, 1567, State
Archives, Vienna, and the letter of Granvelle of Sept. 16,, 1567*
Corresp. de Philippe II., I., 577. Cf. Corresp. dipl., II., 198.
1 The bull in Corresp. dipl., II., 524 seq. PHILIPPSON, 310, must
therefore be amended, as must GAMS, III., 2, 519.
8 The " excusado " was an impost, by which in every parish
the king received from every third house the tithe which other
wise those houses would have paid to the Church, and from which
payment to the Church they were then held exempt (excusado}.
Cf. DESDEVISES DU DEZERT, L'Espagne de 1'ancien regime : Les
institutions, Paris, 1899, 370.
4 In 1566 Requesens was of opinion that the " excusado val-
dria un Peru " (Colecc. de decum. in&l, XCVIL, 376). Cf. the
report of Dietrichstein in KOCH, Quellen zur Gesch. Maximilians.
II., Leipsic, 1857, 200.
6 See Corresp. dipl., II., lix seq., 191, 198, 200 seq., 204 seq., 212,
216 seq., 253. Cf. Corresp. de Philippe II., I., 580 seq.
e See Corresp. dipl., II., xlviii.
ALBA IN THE LOW COUNTRIES. 95
that was opposed to Alba, and wanted to have him as far away
as possible. At that time Ruy Gomez exercised a great in
fluence over Philip II. , a thing that made itself felt in Rome
as well as in the attitude taken up by Cardinal Pacheco.1
While the army of Alba was assembling in upper Italy,
Pius V. expressed a wish that on their- march towards the
Low Countries they should make an attack on Geneva, the
head-quarters of Calvinism, but Philip II. refused to make
this side attack ;2 nor would he hear of a second proposal
made by the Pope. Pius wished to send with Alba a pleni
potentiary to look after ecclesiastical matters,3 or else to send
a nuncio to the Netherlands.4 Neither one plan nor the other
was approved by the king, who did not wish for any inter
ference from Rome in his own plans, which were aimed not'
only at the punishment of the heretics but also at the destruc
tion of the tiresome privileges of the Low Countries, and at
making that country into a Spanish dependency. The aboli
tion of privileges, the substitution of royal officials for the
civic authorities, the building of fortresses at Antwerp, Valen
ciennes, Flushing, Amsterdam and Maestricht, the confisca
tion of property, the imposition of taxes without the consent
of the states, such was the programme which Philip, as far
back as May 3ist, 1567, had sketched out for the regent.5
Alba was the very man to carry it into effect.
In August, 1567, Alba appeared with the picked troops of
his army in the Low Countries, where, after the attack on the
images, the Catholic nobles, realizing their mistake, had with
drawn from the compromise, and where, in many of the cities,
1 See ibid, xlvii. seq.
a Cf. CRAMER, I., 165 seq, ; II., 208 seq. Later exhortations
to an attack on Geneva on the part of Pius V. were equally
unsuccessful. See ibid. II., 219 seq., 223.
3 See the "report of Arco of July 19, 1567, State Archives,
Vienna.
4 See ibid, the *report of Arco of August 23, 1567 : the nuncio,
with the powers of a legate, must discharge all his business
gratuitously.
8 GACHARD, Corresp. de Philippe II., I., 542.
96 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
a reaction against the religious innovators had set in.1 It is
true that even after the suppression of the Calvinist revolt
which had broken out at the beginning of 1567, the peace of
the country left a good deal to be desired, but a wise policy
would have been content with the punishment of the ring
leaders, the granting of pardon to those who had been led
astray, and an attempt to rally the elements that were loyal
to the king. That was why Pius V. so insistently urged
Philip to go there in person, and, before he had recourse to
armed force, to make one more attempt to win back the
offenders by kindness to a better frame of mind. Alba, on
the contrary, was sent with the object, not only of suppressing
the religious innovations, but also of introducing a system
of government which would destroy political liberty, and was
bound to make everybody, even the Catholics who remained
loyal to the king, enemies of Spain. Alba's soldiers, who
behaved as if in a conquered country, completed the work of
driving the people to desperation, and filling them with hatred
of Spain. At first, it is true, every other consideration gave
way to terror of the captain-general of the Spanish king, and
the regent took her departure at the end of 1567. But the
Duke surpassed the worst expectations ; on the imprisonment
of Egmont and Hoorn there followed the setting up of an
extraordinary tribunal, the " council of blood," and the
opening of legal proceedings against Orange and his con
federates who had fled to Germany and openly professed
Lutheranism ; in February, 1568, there were wholesale exe
cutions and confiscations ; thousands of people took to flight.2
Orange and his brother took up arms in defence of their cause,
relying upon the help of the Lutheran princes of Germany,
the leaders of the French Huguenots, and the Queen of England,
with whom they had been in communication for a long time
past. Alba retaliated on June 5th, 1568, by the execution of
Counts Egmont and Hoorn. He then took the field against the
rebels. He defeated Louis of Nassau on July 2ist at Jemgum
1 See RACHFAHL, II., 2, 769 seq., 801 seq.
2 See PIRENNE, IV., 10 seq.
TYRANNY OF ALBA. 97
on the lower Ems, and then turned against William of Orange,
who in September, as the champion of " the liberty of his
country " made an attempt to force his way with an army
from Treves along the Meuse into the Low Countries, but Alba
manoeuvred so skilfully that the enemy was forced to retreat
in wild disorder.1 Orange fled to Dillenburg, and only the
gueux of the sea-coasts remained under arms. Alba's triumph
seemed to be complete ; even Elizabeth of England congratu
lated Philip II. on his victory over the rebels.2 Alba reported
to Madrid that peace reigned everywhere, but he nevertheless
continued his campaign of terror and bloodshed, as though it
were his purpose to infuriate even the loyal supporters of the
king and the old religion. He set himself definitely " & tout
reduire au pied d'Espagne."3 By imposing taxes that were
both exorbitant and unjust in form and kind,4 he made even
the Catholics his enemies, who were forced to realize by the
confiscations of their property that " care for souls did not
come into the matter at all."5 When some of the Jesuits
protested against the imposition of the tithe as a manifest
injustice, Alba wanted to banish them all from the Low
Countries.6 He treated the bishops arrogantly when they
took up the cause of the poor people.7 His whole system of
government, a military dictatorship, weighed equally heavily
upon all ; so far from pacifying the country, he only exasper
ated it more and more.
It was of great importance to the Spanish government that
the Roman court should see in the disturbances in the Nether-
1 Cf. BOR, Lodewijk v. Nassau, 160 seq. ; FRANZ, Ostfriesland
und die Niederlande, Emden, 1875, 24 seq. ; TEUBNER, Der
Feldzug Wilhelms von Oranien gegen Alba im Herbst 1568,
Halle, 1892.
2 See BLOK, III., 96.
3 Morillon to Granvelle, April 28, 1572, Corresp. de Granvelle,
ed. PIOT, IV., 207.
4 See PIRENNE, IV., 28 seq. ; BLOK, III., 101 seq.
5 Corresp. de Granvelle, ed. PIOT, IV., 292.
6 See ibid. 155, 157.
7 See PIRENNE, IV., 9.
98 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
lands nothing but a demonstration on the part of the Calvinists.
It was easy for it to promote this idea in Rome as it was
extremely difficult to form a just appreciation abroad of the
complicated state of affairs in the Netherlands, or to realize
the political and national elements which from the first had
exercised a decisive influence upon the whole movement.
Even Alba's actions in the Low Countries were set forth by
the Spanish ambassador in Rome in such a way as to make
it appear that religious considerations were of greater weight
than political ones. In this way the Spaniards hoped that the
Pope would give his approval to yet further ecclesiastical
imposts, a thing that they had sought in vain so far, for so
praiseworthy a purpose as the destruction of the Calvinists.1
Since Philip II. had refused the appointment of a nuncio
for the Low Countries, Pius V., except for private information,
could only rely upon the reports of the Spanish government ;
Requesens, as well as Zuniga after him, kept him well supplied
in this respect. Events in the Low Countries were treated by
the Spaniards with so much secrecy that the wildest rumours
were current.2 The words of the official representatives of
Philip II. were therefore listened to all the more eagerly in
Rome, and their descriptions were so convincing that, in
forming his judgment upon affairs in the Netherlands, Pius V.
found himself entirely under the influence of Spanish ideas,
and looked upon the expedition of Alba as a kind of crusade
against the heretics, which would have the effect of keeping
their co-religionists in France and Germany in check.3 More-
1 See Corresp. dipl., II., 437.
2 Thus a rumour was spread of a decree of Philip II., drawn
up on the authority of the Spanish Inquisition, and condemning
to death the greater part of the Netherlanders. PRESCOTT,
Philipp II., II. (1867), 105 had already expressed doubts as to
this statement, which was taken without scruple from de
Thou and Meier. More recently BLOK, in Bijdragen van vader-
landsche Geschiedenis, 4th series, VI., 3, has justly pronounced
against the genuineness of this decree.
8 Cf. especially the report of Zuniga to Philip II. from Rome on
July 21, 1568, Corresp. dipl., II., 414.
THE POPE MISLED BY SPANISH REPORTS. 99
over, from the reports of Johann Straetmann, a Dominican
who was living in Brussels, and, who, on February 22nd, 1568,
sent horrible particulars of the murder of twenty-five Catholic
priests which had been committed by the Calvinists near
Ypres, Pius V. was driven to the conclusion that it was a case
of existence or non-existence for the Catholics in the Low
Countries.1
Alba's report to the Pope of the execution of Egmont and
Hoorn was explained by Zuniga and Pacheco in such a way
that Pius V. could not but give it his entire approval.2 He
had no suspicions of the injustice of the punishment of Egmont ;
in fact the sentence of death on the two counts, as reported to
him by Alba, made it appear that they had been convicted of
rebellion and high treason, in having supported the heretics
and joined in the conspiracy of Orange. The Pope was further
confirmed in this view, that they had justly paid the penalty
of their crimes, by the fact that a sovereign who was so much
under suspicion in religious matters* as Maximilian II. dis
approved of Alba's action.3 When, after this, Louis of Nassau,
in alliance with the sea gueux, and William of Orange, who
had now openly left the Church, took the field with his army of
German Lutherans, French Huguenots, and Netherland
Calvinists, Pius feared, in the event of Alba's forces being
defeated, a butchery of the Catholics in the Low Countries.
At their first appearance, indeed, the savage followers of
Louis of Nassau had begun to sack the churches and kill the
priests. News of these events, and of the composition of the
army of Orange were bound to confirm the conviction of
Pius V. that Alba was above all fighting against the enemies
of God and the Church, and only secondarily against the
rebels against his king, and that he was therefore fighting the
1 See LADERCHI, 1568, n. 173. For the correspondence of
Straetmann with Cardinal Bonelli see Anal. p. s. a I' hist, eccles.
de la Belgique, XXV. (1895), 55 seq.
" See Corresp. dipl., II., 402, 403 seq. ; Legaz. di Serristori,
452.
3 See Corresp. dipl., II., 4^14 seq. ', 498 ; Legaz. di Serristori,
452.
TOO HISTORY OF THIC POPES.
battles of Our Lord for the restoration of the Catholic
religion.1
The Pope followed the course of events with an anxiety
that can easily be understood. In the evening of August 4th,
1568, Alba announced his victory over Louis of Nassau. The
Pope ordered fire-works and processions,2 to thank God and
to implore His continued help, since the Church was still
threatened with grave danger from Orange, whose troops were
everywhere sacking churches and convents. On August 2qth
Pius made the pilgrimage to the Seven Churches in supplica
tion for the protection of religion in the Low Countries.3
His anxiety was increased when news came that the German
and French Protestants were helping Orange.4 On October
29th he repeated this pilgrimage to the Seven Churches, and
prayed for Alba's success.5 On November i8th the faithful
were summoned, by the publication of a jubilee, to pray for
the destruction of the enemies of the Church in France and
Flanders.6 At length December 7th set the Pope free from
his great anxieties ; Alba had put Orange to flight ; the joy
in Rome was all the greater as earlier rumours of the victory
1 In the briefs to Alba (LADERCHI, 1568, n. 179 ; BROGNOLI,
I., 266) the matter is stated very clearly.
2 See, besides Firmanus, Diarium in BONANNI, I., 301, the
*report of Arco of August 7, 1568, State Archives, Vienna, the
letter of Zufiiga of August 13, 1568, in Corresp. dipl., II., 437,
and the "report of B. Pia from Rome on August 14, 1568 (prayers
ordered everywhere in thanksgiving for " buoni successi di
Fiandra contra Ugonotti) Gonzaga Archives, Mantua. The
report of Alba to Pius V. on July 25, and the briefs of congratula
tion from the Pope, dated August 7 and 26, 1568, in LADERCHI,
1568, n. 178-179.
3 * Report of B. Pia of August 30, 1568. Gonzaga Archives,
Mantua.
4 See Corresp. dipl. II., 457.
6 See FIRMANUS, *Diarium in Miscell., Arm. XII., 31, Papal
Secret Archives. For the great anxiety of Pius V. as to the
course of events in the Low Countries, see "report of B. Pia of
November 6, 1568, Gonzaga Archives, Mantua.
• See FIRMANUS, *Diarium, loc. cit.
AMNESTY IN THE NETHERLANDS. 101
had not been confirmed.1 In the following year the Duke
was honoured with the bestowal of the blessed hat and sword,
while his wife received the Golden Rose.2
After Alba's victory, Pius V. as well as many other persons
had urged the granting of a general amnesty. He himself
gave the necessary faculties to cut short all the formalities
which might have delayed the re-admission to the Church of
the Protestants who had repented.3 Philip II. also recognized
the need for an amnesty, but with his customary dilatoriness
it was only on November i6th, 1569, that he signed the docu
ment, which even then included several limitations. Alba
still withheld the publication of this decree and of the Papal
bull until July, 1570 !4 He was not the man to show mercy.5
The assistance which the Duke afforded in carrying into
effect the complete organization of the new dioceses helped
to maintain the good opinion of Alba which was held in Rome.
In this matter the Pope's wishes were in full accordance with
those of the Spanish governor. In July, 1564, Philip II. had
yielded to the opposition so far as to give up the erection of
a bishopric at Antwerp, and the incorporation of the abbeys of
1 See ibid, the *report of B. Pia of December 8, 1568, according
to which Alba announced his victory in a letter of November
25, 1568. Pia says : " The Pope is full of joy, and does nothing
but pray and make others pray to God " (Gonzaga Archives,
Mantua). See also the brief to Alba of December 12, 1568, in
Documentor del Archive Alba, Madrid, 1891, 183 seq.
2 With LADERCHI, 1569, n. 204, and BROGNOLI, I., 271, cf.
also FIRMANUS, *Diarium, loc. cit. p. 78b, Papal Secret Archives,
the *Avviso di Roma of March 21, 1569, Urb. 1041, p. 38, Vatican
Library, and an *Avviso di Roma of March 26, 1569, in the State
Archives, Vienna.
3 Cf. the *report of Cusano of February 19, 1569, State Archives,
Vienna.
4 See GACHARD, Corresp. de Philippe II., II., 68, 680 ; HOLZ-
WARTH, II., i, 398 seq. ; Renom de France, I., 392 seq. Cf.
ALBERDINGK THIJM, in Histor. Jahrb., VII., 284 seq. and GOSSART,
L'etablissement du regime espagnol dans les Pays-Bas, Brussels,
1905, 293.
6 Cf. his letter to Pius V. in Corresp. dipl., III., 73 n.i.
102 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
Brabant, in consideration of the payment of a fixed and per
manent revenue. The Holy See had never given its consent
to this forced agreement, but the matter had been put on one
side in consequence of the disturbances which had afterwards
broken out. After the " restoration of order " this matter
had to be definitely settled with Alba's help. Acting in agree
ment with Philip II. the Duke decided outwardly to support
in Rome the petitions of the states of Brabant for the con
firmation of the former agreement, but in secret he advised
the Pope to the opposite effect.1 Alba's secretary, Hernando
Delgadillo, was entrusted with this task in October, 1568, and
he met with all the less difficulty from Pius V. because the
Pope, when he was a Cardinal, had belonged to the com
mission for the formation of the new dioceses, and was per
suaded that it was necessary to carry into effect completely
the arrangements which had then been made. Further delay
occurred, however, when Alba, in consequence of the excite
ment caused by the taxes which he wished to levy, withheld
for a time the bulls concerning the bishoprics. It was only
after he had obtained the consent of the provincial states to
the tenth and the twentieth, that he gave his placet to the
bulls. The difficulties which still arose were of a secondary
importance, and were overcome. At last, in December, 1570.
the following arrangement was arrived at : the incorporation
of the abbeys and the installation of the bishops was
carried out in those cities where this had not hitherto been
done.2
Great care had been taken in the choice of the new bishops.
Their orthodoxy and manner of life left nothing to be desired,
and all of them were ready to carry out the reform decrees of
the Council of Trent. But most of them were men of learning
rather than of action. Intimidated by the difficult situation
in which they found themselves they did not dare to proceed
1 See MARX, Studien, 405.
1 See GACHARD, Corresp. de Philippe II., II., 40 seq., 50, 65,
73, 79, 84, 105 seq., 122, 133, 150, 163, seq. ; BROM, Archivalia,
I., 721 seq.
THE GOVERNMENT OF ALBA. 103
with all the resoluteness that was called for,1 so that on
July 2nd, 1571, Pius V. addressed to them a letter of warning.2
The only exception was Lindanus, who had been labouring
with great zeal as Bishop of Ruremonde since 1569, 3 but he
was not in a position to fill the gap left by the departure of
Granvelle, the natural leader of the Netherland episcopate.
The despotic government of Alba, too, was harmful to the
religious activity and reforming zeal of the bishops ; the
hatred felt for the Spanish government was also aimed at them,
for men saw in them the instruments of Philip II. and the
Duke.4 Yet it was the bishops especially who courageously
urged Alba to proceed with greater leniency. The iron Duke
paid no attention to their words, and said that the bishops
understood nothing about the matter.
In ecclesiastical matters as well as political Alba was the
uncompromising supporter of the system of Philip II., which
made ecclesiastics the employe's of the state rather than the
servants of the Church. He made ruthless use of the placet
for Papal bulls without paying any attention to the fact that
he was thus putting obstacles in the way of the salutary efforts
of Pius V. to reform' the clergy of the Netherlands.5 A char
acteristic instance of Alba's cesaropapistical ideas was the
demand which he made in 1570 that a member of the grand
council should assist as royal commissary at the discussions
of the first provincial synod held at Malines.6 Alba's open
1 See PIRENNE, IV., 483 ; HOLZWARTH (II., I., 536 seqq.)
gives minute particulars of each of the bishops and their reforming
activity.
8 See LADERCHI, 1571, n. 34. An earlier letter, of July 5,
1568, calling for reform, in GOUBAU 91 seq.
8 See A. HAVENSIUS, Vita Lindani, Cologne, 1609 ; FOPPENS,
Bibl. Belgica, I., 410 seq. ; Annuaire de I'univ. de Louvain, 1871 ;
Katholik, 1871, I., 702 seq. ; II., 89 seqq., 442 seqq., 659 seqq.
* See PIRENNE, IV., 33, 484.
5 See HOLZWARTH, II., i, 368.
6 Cf. DE RAM, Synodicon Belg., I., Malines, 1828 ; HOLZWARTH,
II., i, 368 seqq. When the Archibishop of TreVes wished to make
a visitation of the archidiaconal district of Longuyon in I57°»
104 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
hostility for the Jesuits came from the same cesaropapistical
system,1 as did a decree of Philip II. in 1571, which inflicted
the penalty of banishment for the publication of Papal bulls
without the permission of the governor.2
Alba and his master were blind, not only to the injuries
which their cesaropapalism was inflicting on the Catholic
cause, but also to the fact that their system of government by
violence was the best weapon they could put into the hands of
Orange and all rebels. On April ist, 1572, the sea gueux,
who were in close touch with Orange, succeeded in obtaining
an important base of operations, by the capture of the strong
city of Briel in south Holland. In accordance with true
Calvinist principles, the churches of Brielle were sacked, and
the priests murdered. The sea gueux committed similar
crimes wherever they could.3
Nothing but Alba's armed forces afforded any protection
against such atrocities. Without heeding the usurpations
which he and his master allowed themselves in ecclesiastical
matters, Pius V. found himself forced by stern necessity to
rely upon Spanish arms. The ecclesiastical levy granted to
Philip II. in May, 1571, was expressly given on account of the
king's expenses for the maintenance of the Catholic religion
in the Low Countries and " in other places "4 an expression
which referred to France and England.
a representative of Alba intervened at a meeting of the visitation
commission ; see HEYDINGER, Archidiaconatus tit. S. Agathes
in Longuiono descriptio, Treves, 1884.
1 See Imag. primi saec. Soc. lesu, Antwerp, 1640, 745 ; PIRENNE,
IV., 496. Cf. CAPPELLETTI, I Gesuiti e Venezia, Venice, 1873,
40. Alba was confirmed in this dislike by his confessor ; see
Corresp. de Granvelle, ed. PIOT, IV., 604.
2 See VAN ESPEN, Opera Omnia Canonica, VI., 86.
3 See ALTMEYER, Les Gueux de mer et la prise de la Brielle,
Brussels, 1863 ; HOLZWARTH, II., i, 497, 505 seq. ; JANSSEN-
PASTOR, IV., lft-16, 337 ; GAUDENTIUS, 152 ; Corresp. de Gran
velle, 6d. PIOT, IV., 603.
4 See LADERCHI, 1571, n. 31 (in placa of May n read May 21).
CHAPTER IV.
PlUS V. AND THE ClVIL AND RELIGIOUS WARS IN FRANCE.—
THE BEGINNINGS OF THE CATHOLIC REACTION IN FRANCE.
Pius V. saw the salvation of France in opposing heresy with
the extremity of rigour, in the removal of the soil which
nourished it by the reform of ecclesiastical abuses, and in
giving renewed vigour to the Catholics. The objects of
Catherine de' Medici were exactly the reverse. Indifferent
herself to the religion which she professed, she endeavoured,
according to her wont, to play off, one against the other, the
interests of the bitterly opposed parties, and to use them both
in turn in order to secure her own rule and that of her -son,
Charles IX.1
Such a policy was bound to be most displeasing to a Pope
like Pius V. who was all on fire with zeal for the preservation
of the Catholic religion. His point of view appears clearly
and concisely in the instructions which he drew up for the
new nuncio to France, Count Michele della Torre, Bishop
of Ceneda, on April 6th, 1566. In these he gives expression
in heartfelt words to his anxiety concerning the turn of events
in France. The nuncio must strongly urge the king and his
mother to put aside all human considerations in order to safe
guard the purity of their subjects' faith. He was especially
charged to urge the publication and enforcement of the decrees
of Trent, and to press for the removal of the scandal being given
by Cardinal Odet de Chatillon, who had been deposed on
account of heresy, but who, although he was married, still
wore the purple. In doing this the Pope told him to intimate
that he would not confer the dignity of Cardinal on any French
prelate until this demand was satisfied. Delia Torre was
1 See BAUMGARTEN, Bartholomausnacht, 25, and v. BEZOLD
in Histor.-Zeitschrift, XLVII., 561 seq. Cf. Vol. XVI. of this work,
p. 203.
VOL. XVIII. . 105
106 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
further instructed to remind the king that before he could
exercise his right of patronage in Provence and Brittany he
must ask for a fresh privilege from the Holy See, and give up
the abuses in the granting of offices and ecclesiastical bene
fices.1 Special instructions contained injunctions with regard
to Avignon, where the legate, Cardinal Bourbon, left a good
deal to be desired in the matter of zeal in preventing the
introduction of heresy ; if things were not improved there, the
nuncio must give the king to understand that the Pope would
have to deprive the Cardinal of his legation.2
There is no doubt that the appointment of della Torre as
nuncio in France was principally determined by the fact
that he had already occupied that position under Paul III.
and at the beginning of the reign of Julius III.,3 and was
1 *Instruttione per il nuntio di Francia (the Bishop of Ceneda) in
Varia Polit., 81 (now 82), 319 seq., p. 322, and again p. 510-513,
Papal Secret Archives. Cf. CATENA, 58 seq. and BROGNOLI, II.,
27 seq. The controversy about the right of nomination in Brit
tany was not yet settled in 1571 ; see the *report of A. Zibra-
monti from Rome, September 29, 1571. Gonzaga Archives,
Mantua. Arco announces the appointment of a new nuncio
in France as early as his *report of January 19, 1566. State
Archives, Vienna ; this took place on March 25, 1566 ; see
BIAUDET, 119.
2 See in Varia Polit., 81 (now 82) in the Papal Secret Archives,
p. 32213-327 and again p. 514-518 ; *Instruttione per il medesimo
nuntio intorno alle cose d'Avignone. The danger was stated to
be especially due to the " principato d'Orangeo " which was
surrounded by the Papal territory. Moreover, the attention
of Cardinals Bourbon and Armagnac was to be called to the fact
that " alcuni ministri loro " favoured the heretics, special cases
being mentioned. From his report of July 24, 1566, in Mel.
d'archeol., XXII., 116 seq., it appears that Cardinal Armagnac,
as co-legate with Bourbon, tried to meet the Pope's complaints.
For Armagnac cf. Revue des quest, hist., XVI., 566 seq. His
letters in Revue hist., II., 529 seqq.
3 See Vol. XIII. of this work, p. 85. Cf. the "brief to Charles
IX. of March 25, 1566, in App. n. 68, Vol. XVII, Archives of
Briefs, Rome.
DELLA TORRE NUNCIO IN FRANCE. 107
therefore familiar with the state of affairs in that country.
A further reason lay in his friendly relations with Catherine
de' Medici.
The new nuncio was preceded by urgent letters of
exhortation from the Pope ; others, addressed to Charles IX.,
Catherine, and the bishops, followed him. In these Pius V.
above all pressed for the publication and enforcement of the
decrees of the Council, especially the observance of the duty
of residence, the erection of seminaries by the bishops, and
the removal of the great abuses in the conferring of eccles
iastical benefices, which, owing to the unscrupulous behaviour
of the government, had frequently fallen into the hands of
women and Protestants. These exhortations were not with
out effect, and many of the bishops tried to put into force
the reform decrees of the Council. The government, however,
refused to accept the decrees officially, though it encouraged
the publication of the Roman Catechism, which was trans
lated into French, and also issued a circular on the observance
of episcopal residence.1 On the other hand further exhorta
tions were necessary in order to remove the scandal given by
Chatillon.2
Many other reasons for complaint were given to the Pope,
especially by Catherine cle' Medici. In a letter to the nuncio
on August I7th, 1566, Pius complains that Catherine had
surrounded herself almost entirely by heretics, that she even
conferred ecclesiastical benefices upon them, and helped them
in many other ways. In a brief which he addressed to her,
he begged her no longer to justify herself by words alone, but
by her Catholic behaviour.3 In spite of these disagreements,
externally, at any rate, friendly relations were still main
tained with the French court ; Cardinal Tournon, who was
sent to Rome in the autumn to pacify the Pope and make the
1 See CATENA, 59 seq. Spain too urged the acceptance of the
decrees of the Council ; see Corresp. dipl., I., 150, 181.
2 See the *report of Arco from Rome, August 17, 1566, State
Archives, Vienna.
3 Cf. PHILLIPPSON, Die romische Kurie, in.
108 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
obedientia, was received very courteously,1 and at the end of
November the Pope sent presents to the French royal family,2
though his private conversation's showed how greatly he
doubted the orthodoxy of the queen-mother, whose council
was three-quarter Huguenot. In the spring of 1567 great
fear was felt in Rome lest the feeble Charles IX. should
embrace Protestantism and marry a German Lutheran
princess.3
Pius V. especially grieved at the attitude adopted by the
French government in support of the bishops who had been
proved guilty of heresy, against whom Pius IV. had already
taken proceedings.4 Without paying any attention to the
fact that in this matter the French court was aiming at up
holding Gallican liberties, Pius V., at a consistory held on
December nth, 1566, pronounced the definite sentence which
deprived of all their dignities as proved heretics six of the
accused bishops : Jean de Chaumont of Aix, Jean de Montluc
of Valence, Louis d'Albret of Lescar, Charles Guillart of
Chartres, Jean de St-Gelais of Uzes, and Claude Regin of
xWith the Lettres de Cath. de Medicis, II., 388, 392, cf. the
"report of Fr. Strozzi to Maximilian II. from Rome, September
28, 1566, State Archives, Vienna. The * reply to the speech of
Tournon for the " obedientia," composed by A. Fiordibello,
dated October 10, 1566, in Arm. 44, t. n, n. 118; ibid. n. 119,
a *brief to Charles IX. of October 17, 1566, concerning the
" obedientia." Papal Secret Archives.
* The presents consisted of splendid rosaries in lapis lazuli
see the *report of Strozzi, November 29, 1566, State Archives,
Vienna.
* Cf. Legaz. di Serristori, 431; HERRE, Papsttum 148;
PHILIPPSON, loc. cit. Cardinal Santa Croce, who returned to Rome
on August 28, 1566, made a detailed report on the state of affairs
in France (see *letter of C. Luzzara from Rome, August 28,
1566, Gonzaga Archives, Mantua). How displeased the Pope
was from the first at the attitude of the French government
towards religious matters, is clear irom the reports of Requesens in
Corresp. dipl., I., 325, 370 ; II., 191.
4 Cf. Vol. XVI. of this work, p. 189 segq.
AIMS OF THE HUGUENOTS. IOQ
Oloron.1 Only the Bishop of Aix resigned his office ; in the
case of the others the sentence remained without effect because
the French government, and of course the Queen of Navarre,
treated it as non-existent, so that there was no question of its
being carried out. The deposed bishops showed by their
subsequent conduct how fully justified the sentence of Pius V.
had been.2
The great indulgence shown by the French government
to the Huguenots was far from satisfying them. They com
plained of the non-observance of the edict of Amboise, which
they did not themselves respect, and perfected their strong
political-military organization.3 Their ultimate purpose
aimed at something much more than toleration or equality.
They intended that the royal power should become subject
to them, and that thus their own supremacy should be defin
itely established. A favourable opportunity seemed to offer
itself when the French government lent its assistance to the
Huguenots in their precautionary measures on the occasion
of the march of Alba towards the Low Countries. The Hugue
nots hoped that this time the supreme command of the army
would fall into their hands, so that they could then declare
1 See LADERCHI, 1566, n. 425 ; Corresp. dipl., L, 435 seq. ;
DEGERT, 99 seq. Cf. the "report of Strozzi of November 30,
1566, State Archives, Vienna, and *that of Luzzara of December
n, 1566. Gonzaga Archives, Mantua. A draft of a brief bearing
on this question, " *Capitulis quibusdam Franciae : Deposito
propter nefandum haereticae pravitatis crimen eo, qui vester
quidem episcopus dicebatur, sed commissi sibi gregis erat desertor
et proditor " we exhort you to devote yourselves at once to the
administration of the diocese. Arm. 44, t. 12, n. 97, Papal
Secret Archives.
2 See DEGERT, 101 seq., where there are fuller details of each
of the deposed. Degert has failed to notice two briefs on this
subject. The *first, to the Archbishop of Sens, July 30, 1567,
asks him to take proceedings against the heretical Bishop of
Chartres (Archives of Briefs, Rome,) the *second, of November
*9, 1569, see in App. n. 6, Papal Secret Archives.
3 Cf. CORRERO, 183 seq.
110 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
war upon the King of Spain, even though Philip II. should
not allow himself to be drawn into any act of hostility or
interference with the domestic affairs of France.1 But
Catherine de' Medici, who did not intend to be dominated by
anyone, thwarted their plans. Thereupon, seeing their hopes
disappointed, and fearing an alliance between the govern
ment and Spain, the Huguenots tried to attain their end in
another way, by joining with Orange and England. At the
end of September, 1567, they formed the plan of taking the
court by surprise at its place of residence at Monceaux near
Meaux by means of a coup de main, such as had been attempted
many years before against Francis II., of getting possession
of the persons of the queen and the king, and of making their
enemies, especially Cardinal Guise, powerless. The whole
plan was carefully thought out, and was kept absolutely
secret.2 No one at the royal court had any suspicion that a
rising of the Huguenots all over the country was imminent,
least of all Catherine, who had spurned all warnings to that
effect ; she was completely taken by surprise. Not even the
chancellor, L'Hopital, would believe in a rising of the Hugue
nots. It was therefore almost a miracle that, at the last
moment, the royal family succeeded in escaping to Meaux and,
guarded by six thousand Swiss who had been summoned to
their aid, in reaching Paris on September 29th, i$6j.3
It was now that the religious and civil war in France broke
out for the second time. The king was shut up in his capital,
and the Huguenots rose in revolt throughout the provinces.
The fate that awaited the Catholics was shown in the horrible
occurrence at Nimes, known as the michelade, when the
Huguenots, on St. Michael's Day (September 29th, 1567)
1 See SEGESSER, Pfyffer I., 420. Cf. MARCKS, Bayonne, 290.
2 Cf. CORRERO, 183.
3 Cf. ibid. 182 seq. ; Lettres de Cath. cle Medicis, III., ix. seq.,
61 seq. ; SEGESSER, Pfyffer, I., 421 seq., 436 seq., 447 seq., 472
seq. ; SOLDAN, II., 257 seq. Cf. MARCKS, Bayonne, 291 seq.,
294 ; GEUER, M. de L'H6pital, 49 seq. ; H. DE LA FERRIERE,
La seconde guerre civile, in Rev. des quest, hist., XXXVII., 125
seq. ; THOMPSON, 319 seq.
THE SECOND WAR OF RELIGION. Ill
killed out of hand eighty of the most prominent Catholics
there, and threw their bodies down a well.1
Both parties sought allies and friends outside France. In
its straits the court sent Annibale Rucellai to Rome to ask for
immediate help. The tidings brought by Rucellai were
received with horror by the Curia,2 and in view of the grave
danger of the French Catholics, Pius V., as can easily be
understood, promptly offered his assistance, though he could
not refrain from making strong remonstrances through the
nuncio. He reminded him that he had foretold this action
on the part of the rebels, and had pointed out that they must
be met with unflinching courage. If now they were again
to put any trust in men who had betrayed their God, they
would soon witness the passing of the royal house and the
ruin of the kingdom. In a letter to the queen he declared
that the time was now come to remove from the court all the
Huguenots, who were nothing but spies and rebels. She
must not trust either the chancellor, L'Hopital, nor the two
Montmorency, and he said that those who had advised her
to send away Cardinal Guise had advised her badly.3
But however frankly he condemned the policy hitherto
followed by the French government, Pius V., now that open
war had broken out, was very ready to give ample help him
self, and obtain it from others. In his letters to the queen he
1 A terrible model for the assassinations of September, 1792,
says SOLDAN, (II., 275). Cf. POLENZ, III., 705 seq. ; MESNARD,
Hist, de Nimes, vol. V. ; ROUQUETTE, Les Saint Barthelemy
calvinistes, Paris [1906]. See also GRATIANI Epist., 309.
8 According to Firmanus (*Diarium p. 197, Papal Secret
Archives) Rucellai reached Rome " die sabbati n dicti mensis "
(October, not September, as states LAMMER, Zur Kirchengesch.,
141) and made a report of the conspiracy of Amboise. " Ex
isto malo novo maximus terror fuit incussus omnibus in curia."
Prayers were at once ordered. According to GRATIANI Epist.,
312, Rucellai only arrived on the I3th ; the remarks of BONELLI,
injra p. 112, n. 2, agree with this, as does Corresp. dipl., II., 226 seq.
3 Cf, PHILIPPSON, Die romische Kurie, in, seq.', Corresp.
dipl., II., 225 ; CATENA, 65 seq
112 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
promised to place at once at her disposal 3,000 infantry,
and on October i6th, 1567, he wrote to the nuncio that he
was endeavouring to double that number.1
The French government needed above all things financial
help. Rucellai asked for no less than 300,000 scudi. The
Pope was ready to give all possible help, but only on the
condition that they should not at once come to terms with
the insurgent heretics.2 It was very difficult for him to get
together the money, as his treasury was already greatly
drained by the preparations for the Turkish war,3 and he was
1 See the "letter quoted in following note, translated in PHILIPP-
SON, loc. cit. 112.
* In an ""instruction from Bonelli to M. della Torre on October
1 6, 1567 (" per corriere espresso ") we read : in letters which
came from Lyons on the nth, the Pope received news cf the
general plot against the Catholics and the king ; he had been in
a state of the greatest anxiety until the arrival of Rucellai on
the 1 3th " con lettere di loro Maesta," announcing the safety
of Charles IX. "A richiesta di esso A. Rucellai havemo concesso
che si possino essigere la meta de frutti di tutti i benefici etiandio
di cardinal! ; ne adimandava anchora di potere alienare parte de
beni mobili delle chiese, ma ricordandosi che per 1' altra risolu-
tione furono alienati in notabile somma e parso di non concederlo
se prima non vediamo che S. M. Christ01* facci da dovero perch e
in tale caso venderessimo anco la propria persona." Papal
Secret Archives, Nunciat, di Francia, 282, p. 4 seq. ; ibid. *letter
of October 18, 1567, with which was sent the " bolla della meta
de frutti di tutti i benefici eccci, and with an addition made by
the Pope himself : " *V. S. sia ben' avvertita d' intendere se vi
fusse speranza d' accordo dico di S. Mtdi con i ri belli et in tale
caso ne espidirete un corriero a posta ne gli darete essa bolla ;
ma quando siate chiaro, che si facci da dovero non solo li darete
la bolla, ma riscuoterete 25m scudi." Cf. further Corresp. dipl.,
II., 229 seq. Rucellai started back on October 19. He vainly
sought for help from Venice (see Corresp. dipl., II., 239 seq.).
On October 25, 1567, Arco reported that the Pope had given
Rucellai a letter of exchange for 50,000 scudi " per quanto
s'intende."
3 Cf. the brief to L. Gonzaga of October 16, 1567, in GOUBAU,
54, and LADERCHI, 1567, n. 139.
PIUS V. ASSISTS THE GOVERNMENT. 113
most reluctant to impose taxes upon his subjects. He was,
however, resolved to get together the necessary sum, and
to do everything in his power to help. During October and
November he sought to raise money by means of a special
tax in the Papal States, and by contributions from the religious
houses in Italy,1 while at the same time he tried to get help
elsewhere. He addressed pressing letters to Philip II., the
Duke of Nevers, to Ludovico Gonzaga, who was in Piedmont,
and to Duke Emanuele Filiberto of Savoy.2 Piersanti was
sent as special envoy to Lorraine to ask that the frontier
should be closed against the troops of the Calvinist Elector
Palatine, John Casimir, who was coming to the assistance
of the Huguenots.3 Pietro Dona to Cesi, Bishop of Narni,
went by the Pope's orders to the governments of the Italian
states to urge them strongly to give immediate and effective
assistance. His instructions described the rebellion of the
Huguenots, their sacrileges and ill-treatment of the Catholics,
the dangerous position of Charles IX., and the peril which
would be the consequence of a Calvinist victory in the king
dom of France. The very geographical position of France,
surrounded by Spain, England, the Low Countries, Germany
and Italy, showed that it was there that the fate of Europe
would be decided, not only from the religious point of view,
but also politically. Should the Calvinists with their revolu
tionary aims attain to the supreme power, then political
1 See *Avvisi di Roma of October 19 and 25, Nov. i and 8,
1567, Urb. 1040, p. 452, 454, 458b. Vatican Library. Cf. the
•"report of Serristori of October 17, 1567, State Archives, Florence,
Medic. 3287.
2 See GOUBAU, 50 seq. Cf. Corresp. dipl., II., 243, 252.
3 Cf. the *Instructio data d. Petrosancto iur. utr. dr. a S.D.N.
ad ill. princip. Carolum ducem Lotharingiae destinato, dated
Rome, November 8, 1567, in Varia Polit., 81 (now 82), p. 398-
401, and again p. 564-567. Papal Secret Archives. On the back
of p. 567 we read : *Instruttione consignata a m. Piersanti . . .
a 10 di Novembre, 1567 ; on p. 568 an *Aggiunto : if the Cardinal
of Lorraine is in the neighbourhood, he is to visit him and com
municate the instructions to him. Cf. LADERCHI, 1567, n. 156.
114 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
subversion of the neighbouring states would follow. Even
Italy was threatened, and therefore the Italian states were
bound to lend their assistance in a matter of such great
importance.1
It was entirely characteristic of Pius V. that he sought
refuge in prayer, and on October i6th, 1567, he ordered a
universal jubilee,2 which opened in Rome in the last week of
October with three great processions in which he himself took
part on foot. These processions started from St. Peter's,
going on the first day to S. Maria sopra Minerva, on the second
to S. Girolamo degli Spagnuoli, and on the third to S. Luigi
de' Francesi.3 But that, side by side with this spiritual help,
the Pope did not omit the temporal, is clear from the steps
which he took at the same time. Thus, at a congregation of
Cardinals he decided upon a general impost upon the Papal
States.4 At the beginning of December the annual payment
of 2,000 scudi which had hitherto been made to the poorer
Cardinals was suspended, with the exception of five Cardinals
who were absolutely poor.5 Of the money which was hastily
collected 25,000 scudi were assigned to Ludovico Gonzaga
1 See CATENA, 68 seq. ; LADERCHI, 1567, n. 144 ; BROGNOLI,
II., 39 seq., 46 seq., 49 seq., 54 seq. The Venetian Correro (p. 193
seq.) and A. Contarini (p. 252) formed an exactly similar opinion
of the dangers involved by the Calvinist victory in France. For
Cesi see GARAMPI, 298.
1 See the bull " In eminent! " in *Editti, Casanatense Library,
Rome. p. 222. Cf. BONANNI, I., 301.
8 See the "reports of B. Pia from Rome, October 19 and 25,
1567, Gonzaga Archives, Mantua. In his *report of November
I (he. cit.) Pia speaks of the great concourse of people at these
pious exercises. Cf. GRATIANI Epist., 313.
4 With the *report of B. Pia of November I (loc. cit.) see the
*Avviso di Roma of the same date, Urb. 1040, p. 4566, Vatican
Library, and the brief of October 28, 1567, to Barthol. Barrottus
Thesaur., in *Editti, Casanatense Library, Rome, loo. cit. Cf.
also GRATIANI Epist., 322 seq. ; LADERCHI, 1567, n. 141.
5 See *Avviso di Roma of December 6, 1567, Urb. 1040, p.
457b, Vatican Library.
ANXIETY OF PIUS V. 115
and 10,000 to the Duke of Savoy.1 From the first the nuncio
della Torre was ordered to pay over the subsidies to the
French government only when he was sure that there was no
underhand attempt being made to come to an arrangement
with the Huguenots.2 This anxiety, which haunted the Pope
as early as October, increased to such an extent that on
December 25th Pius wrote to the nuncio to be on his guard
against any conciliatory move on the part of the French
government, because Catherine never acted loyally to God
and the Catholic religion, and put her trust rather in her own
cleverness than in the divine help.3 The same view of the
situation was also held in Madrid, as Castagna reported on
December 2ist.4
It was soon made clear how much justification there was for
Pius V.'s hesitation5 about paying a subsidy to the French
government, and his distrust of its policy.6 On March 23rd,
1 See CATENA, 65 ; GOUBAU, 56.
2 See supra, p. 1 1 1 .
3 See the "instructions of Bonelli to M. della Torre of December
22, 1567, as well as those of October 18, 1567, Nunziat.
di Francia, 282, p. 9. Papal Secret Archives. The instruction^
of December 25, 1567, is translated in PHILIPPSON, Die romische
Kurie, 113.
4 See Corresp. dipl., II., 279.
5 Cf. the *report of Arco from Rome, January 3, 1568, State
Archives, Vienna, and Corresp. dipl., II., 304. On November
10, 1567, Charles IX. had written from Paris to Cardinal Ricci :
*" Vi prego di fare le piu vive istanze presso il S. Padre afin che
il soccorso promesso non sia solo in parole, ma in effetto." Cather
ine de' Medici also wrote on November 10, 1567, in similar terms
to Cardinal Ricci ; both letters in Ricci Archives, Rome.
6 •« *jri Papa ha cosi poca buona opinione del governo delle
cose di Francia ch' essendo entrato 1' ambasciatore nelle due
ultime audienze che ha havute in voler giustificare le actioni
et il procedere del Re et della Regina con lunghe et spetiose
parole S. S1^ non gli ha da to mai altra risposta se non che ha
sorriso sempre." The Pope refused a small favour to the king's
sister. " L' ambasciatore sta mezzo disperato " (report of
Cipriano Saracinello to Cardinal Farnese, Rome, March 6} 1567,
State Archives, Naples, C. Farnes, 763). Cf. Corresp. dipl.,
n.t 309, 326,
Il6 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
1568, at Longjumeau, after a war that had been carried on
very half-heartedly, for the second time a peace was concluded
which sacrificed a situation which, from the military point of
view, was far from unsatisfactory.1 The truth was that
Catherine did not wish for a decided victory of the Guise and
the Catholic party. Short-sightedly seeking her own interests,
she aimed at a balance of power between the parties. By the
peace of Longjumeau, which she concluded in spite of the
opposition of the nuncio and the Spanish ambassador, the
Huguenots obtained the renewal of the edict of Amboise,
which was so much in their favour, binding themselves in
return to restore to the king the cities which they held, a
condition which in the end was never complied with. The
Huguenots had just as little intention of giving up their under
standing with England and the rebels in the Low Countries.
On the other side too the government infringed the treaty in
various ways, and were able to do so because they were sup
ported by popular opinion. The Huguenots indeed, by their
rebellion and their continued acts of violence had so roused
the masses of the people against themselves that at last the
supporters of Protestantism became visibly less, while the
Catholics roused themselves to a vigorous resistance. As had
already happened in 1562-1563, and again in 1567, so now new
confederations were formed by the nobles and the clergy for
the preservation of the Catholic religion.2
1 The official news of the peace, which was not yet to hand on
April ii (see GRATIANI Epist., 382), arrived on the following
night see FIRMANUS, *Diarium in Miscell., Arm. XII., on April
12, 1567, Papal Secret Archives. For the sorrow and anxiety
of the Pope at the possibility of a Huguenot invasion of Italy
see Colecc. de docum. ined., XCVII., 426 ; Corresp. dipl., II.,
337 seq., 351.
2 See ' Serment des associes de la ligue chrestienne et royale
de la Champagne " of January 25, 1568, in Journal de Henry
III., III. (1744), 31. Cf. CAPEFIGUE, Ligue, II., 374 seq. ; PHILIPP-
SON in Weltegschichte of Flathe, VII., 372 ; RANKE, Franzos.
Geschichte, I., 276 seq. ; LAVISSE-MARIEJOL, VI., i, 101 seq. ;
THOMPSON, 354 seq. (cf. 212 seq. and 352 seq. on earlier agreements
of this kind, which were forerunners of the league).
HOSTILITIES RECOMMENCED. 117
A decisive factor was that both Catherine de' Medici and
Charles IX., who had not forgotten the attempted surprise
of 1567, henceforward showed themselves openly hostile to
the Huguenots. Cardinal Guise regained his influence, while
on the other hand the chancellor, L'Hopital, who had always
been the champion of compromise, was dismissed.1 His fall
was connected with the conditions which Pius V. had attached
to the granting of permission for the sale of ecclesiastical
property which the French government had obtained by
means of Annibale Rucellai and Charles d' Angenrtes, Bishop
of Le Mans, who had succeeded Tournon as French ambassador.
When the Pope, by a bull of August ist, 1568, gave his consent
to such sales, to the annual amount of 150,000 francs, he laid
it down that this money should only be used for the defence
of the king and the Catholic religion, and until it was effectively
applied to that purpose should remain in the hands of some
trustworthy person.2
The recommencement of hostilities took place in August
with the attempted capture of Conde and Coligny at Noyers,
where they weie trying to set up a headquarters of Protestant
ism in order to help Orange. They both fled to the safety of
La Rochelle, where they gathered together a strong force ;
the Huguenots soon rose in their support in many parts of
the country. The court retaliated with the edict of September,
which enacted that since the Huguenots had not availed
themselves of the favours granted to them, henceforth all
worship except the Catholic was forbidden, under pain of
death and confiscation ; the Protestant preachers were given
fourteen days in which to leave France.3
1 Cf. ANQUETIL, 183 seq. ; D'AUMALE, Hist, des princes de Conde,
II., Pieces et docum., 349 seq. ; SEGESSER, Pfyffer, I., 499 seq.
2 Cf. Legaz. di Serristori, 451 seq. and CHARRIERE, III., 34.
The bull of August i, 1568, in LADERCHI, 1568, n. 165. An
*Avviso di Roma of July 17, 1568, Urb. 1040, p. 459, Vatican
Library, announces the departure of Rucellai from Rome. For
his negotiations see the *documents in the Papal Secret Archives,
in App. nn. 4 and 5.
8 See SERRANUS, IX., 222 ; THUANUS, i, 44 ; THOMPSON, 366.
Il8 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
The joy of Pius V. at this definite stand was all the greater
since the weakness displayed by the French government at
the Peace of Longjumeau had left little hopes of any such
development.1 The Bishop of Cajazzo, Fabio Mirto Frangi-
pani, who was to succeed della Torre as nuncio, was entrusted
with the delivery of the bull of August ist, 1568. 2
The third civil and religious war,3 which was carried on by
both sides with the greatest cruelty and violence,4 was waged
at first without any important engagement, because the oppos
ing forces were of approximately equal strength, and each of
them only wished to give battle in circumstances favourable
to themselves. The position of the Huguenots was soon
improved in consequence of the help that was sent to them.
Elizabeth of England sent large sums of money as well as
ships of war, while on the Rhine Duke Wolfgang of Deux-
Ponts got together a strong auxiliary force. Under these
circumstances it was highly characteristic of the French
government and of its constant fear of the influence of
Philip II., that, in spite of the difficulties in which it found
itself, it was only willing to accept Spanish help in a very
limited degree, and instead, besides the 10,000 Swiss who
were in its pay, obtained the help of 5,000 German cavalry.5
After a short interval occasioned by the extraordinary
cold of that winter, the war was recommenced at the end of
January, 1569, by Henry of Anjou and the Marshal de
Tavannes. Probably no one realized how much depended
upon the result of the war as Pius V., but after his experiences
1 Cf. Legaz. di Serristori, 448 seq. ; TIEPOLO, 188.
2 See LADERCHI, 1568, n. 166. *Brief recommending Frangi-
pani to Cosimo I., whom he was to visit, dated August 2, 1568,
in State Archives, Florence. The * brief recalling della Torre,
August 12, 1568, in Arm. 44, t. 13, p. 24yb, Papal Secret Archives.
8 See the detailed account in GIGON, La troisieme guerre de
religion, Paris, 1911. Cf. also Mel. d'Archeol., XXXIII., 245
seq.
4 Cf. ANQUETIL, 223 seq.
6 See SEGESSER, Pfyffer, I., 529 seq., 548 seq. Cf. JANSSEN-
PASTOR, IV. i*-1*, 292 seq.
THE BATTLE OF JARNAC. 1 19
with the French government, he was very cautious about
giving his assistance. The money, which he had the greatest
difficulty in collecting,1 was to be actually used for the war,2
and not, as had been the case before, devoted to other pur
poses. A body of auxiliary troops was also raised for service
in France,3, and the Pope would not let himself be distracted
from this task even when a courier brought news of the victory
which had been won by the Catholics at Jarnac on March I3th.4
In his opinion these auxiliary troops should now be used
against the Duke of Deux-Ponts.5 The young Count Sforza
1 Cf. *Avviso di Roma of Sept. 4, 1568, Urb. 1040, p. 574,
Vatican Library.
8 See Legaz. di Serristori, 454, and CORRERO 208. An *Avviso
di Roma of November 6, 1568, announces the sending of 100,000
scudi to France (Urb. 1040, p. $9jb, Vatican Library). Another
50,000 were taken from the treasury in the Castle of St. Angelo
at the end of Feb., 1569, of the pay for the auxiliary troops
(ibid.). Cf. the facsimile of the Pope's order in LICHATSCHEV,
Una lettera di papa Pio V. allo Zar Iwan il terribile, St. Peters
burg, 1906 (in Russian), tav. 5. For the continued distrust of
Pius V. see CHARRIERE, III., 35, n.
3 Besides the *report of Cusano of January 22, 1569 (State
Archives Vienna) see the *Avvisi di Roma of January I and 29,
February 5 and 26, 1569, Urb. 1041, p. ib, n, i8b, 22, Vatican
Library. See also the letter of Pius V. of January 30, 1569, in
LICHATSCHEV, loc. cit. tav. 12.
4 The news arrived in Rome on March 27, " hora 17 " ; see
FIRMANUS, *Diarium in Miscell., Arm. XII., 32, p. 79b ; ibid.
p. 81, the " Orationes dictae pro gratiarum actione pro victoria
regis Franciae " (Papal Secret Archives). Cf. LADERCHI, 1569,
n. 102 ; CHARRIERE, III., 43. See also the *report of B. Pia
from Rome, Apr. i, 1569 (Gonzaga Archives, Mantua). For the
battle of Jarnac see WHITEHEAD, G. de Coligny, 204 seq. and the
monograph by GIGON in Bullet, de la Soo. hist, de la Charente, 1896.
6 See *Avviso di Roma of April 2, 1569, Urb. 1041, p. 49b,
Vatican Library, and Lettres de Cath. de Medicis, III., 232.
See also the letter of M. Soriano of April 2, 1569, which mentions
the rumour that Pius V. was meditating an expedition against
Geneva (CRAMER, II., 223). In April, 1569, Anjou was sent a
blessed hat by the Pope ; see Lettres de Cath. de Medicis, X., 254.
I2O HISTORY OF THE POPES.
di Santa Flora was placed in command of them ; there were
4,000 infantry and 500 cavalry.1 In the middle of April,
after the Duke of Savoy had given permission for them to pass
through his territory, Pius V. gave orders for their immediate
departure ;2 they were to be joined in Tuscany by another
1,000 infantry and 100 cavalry, furnished by Cosimo I. at the
request of the Pope.3
In the meantime, on April 23rd, there arrived in Rome
twelve Huguenot standards which had been captured at
Jarnac, and among them the two white ones of Cond6 and
Navarre. Pius V., surrounded by the whole College of Cardi
nals, received these trophies of victory in the Hall of Con-
stantine, and weeping with joy declared that the gift of the
Most Christian King was the most precious that he could have
made to religion, the Holy See, and to himself ; he prayed to
God that in a short time the remaining standards might be
sent as well, and that all the enemies of His Majesty might be
1 See Corresp. dipl., III., 38 (where 1568 should be 1569) and
*Avviso di Roma of February 26, 1569, Urb. 1041, p. 22, Vatican
Library. From a "letter " ex Urbe 5 martii " we learn the
reason for the delay in sending the troops : " Expectatur adhuc
responsio ducis Mantuae et gubernatoris Mediolanensis status
circa concessionem loci in quo milites mittendi in Galliam con-
gregari debeant, qua habita mox sonabunt timpanae." Archives
at Wittingau, Hist. 4751.
2 *Avviso di Roma of April 16, 1569, Urb. 1041, p. 54, Vatican
Library. A brief of March 6, 1569, announced to Charles IX.
the dispatch of an auxiliary force, and at the same time exhorting
him to punish the Huguenots most severely (see GOUBAU, 148
seq.}. On receipt of the news of the victory, further briefs to
the same effect were sent on March 28 to Charles IX. and Catherine
(in GOUBAU, 151 seq.} as well as *briefs " duci Andegav." and
" duci Nivern." (Arm. 44, t. 14, p. 48^49, Papal Secret Archives),
followed on April 13 by briefs to Catherine, Henry of Anjou,
the Cardinal of Lorraine, Charles IX. (in GOUBAU, 156 seq.}
and various nobles who had taken part in the victory. These
latter briefs, which are still unpublished, are in Arm. 44, t. 14,
p. 60 seqq. Papal Secret Archives.
3 See ADRIANI, XX., 4 ; PALANDRI, 120.
PIUS V. AND THE VICTORY. 121
brought back to their obedience and to the Catholic faith.
The standards were then taken to St. Peter's, where the
Patriarch of Jerusalem, after a service of thanksgiving, placed
them in the chapel of the Kings of France.1
Pius V. had already, on receiving the first news of the
victory near Jarnac, sent his congratulations to the French
king, urging him to seize the fortified places in the Kingdom
of Navarre, and to carry on the war until the Huguenots
were destroyed. It was his duty, so this letter stated, to
destroy the roots, and even the offshoots of the roots of evil.
Similar exhortations to fight boldly and freely against the
enemy until he was destroyed were addressed to Catherine de'
Medici, the two Guises, the Duke of Montpensier, and the
Duke of Nevers.2 When the nuncio had sent him further
particulars of the victory,3 fresh letters were sent on April I3th
to Charles IX., Catherine de' Medici, Henry of Anjou, the
two Guises, and the Duke of Montpensier.4 They contained
exhortations to execute strict justice on the rebels and heretics
in prison, and to carry on the work until they were completely
destroyed. Again and again these letters contain the warning
that they must not follow the example of Saul who, despite
the command of God, spared the Amalakites, arid therefore
was deprived by Samuel of his kingdom, and at last lost his
life.5
It is clear with what bitterness the war was carried on ;
1 Besides Firmanus in BONANNI, I., 302, and in LAMMER, Zur
Kirchengesch, 142, see the reports of the French ambassador
in CHARRIERE, III., 44 seq., ZUNIGA in Corresp. dipl., III., 61
seq., the two *Avvisi of April 23, 1569 (Urb. 1041, p. 6ob, 66b,
Vatican Library, where there is a list of the " insegne " cap
tured), and the *letter of Cusano, April 23, 1569, State Archives,
Vienna.
2 See GOUBAU, 151 seq., 154 ; LADERCHI, 1569, n. 103 seq.
Cf. as to this the description of TURKE, 17.
* See the report of the nuncio in BROGNOLI, II., 60 seq., where,
however, the date is wrong.
4 See GOUBAU, 156 seq. ; LADERCHI, 1569, n. no seq.
* See the passeges in GOUBAU, 152 seqq., 157 seqq., 168.
VOL. XVIII. I0
122 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
on neither side was there any question of mercy.1 In Rome
it was seriously feared many times that the Huguenots would
turn upon Italy,2 and to this fear was added indignation at the
sacrileges and atrocities which the followers of Calvin were
guilty of everywhere, for wherever they could they destroyed
the images, crucifixes, altars, churches and convents, they even
dug up the bodies from the graves, and killed with all the refine-
1 See CATENA, 75. Cf. RANKE, Papste, II.1, 43.
* The fear of a Huguenot invasion of Italy was specially great
in the spring of 1568. On March 13 Arco reported : *since, in
consequence of the recent peace with the Huguenots, the latter
are in a position to turn against Rome, they are proposing to
complete the fortifications of the Castle of St. Angelo and the
Borgo (State Archives, Vienna). Cf. the report of Arco of March
20, 1568, in SCHWARZ, Brief wechsel, 105, the letter of Zufiiga of
April 7, 1568, in Corresp. dipl., II., 337, and the report of B. Con-
cini from Rome, April n, 1568, in PALANDRI, 117 seqq. Rome
had been in a state of anxiety at an earlier date, in consequence
of other designs on the part of the Huguenots. An *Avviso di
Roma of January 10, 1566, speaks of the imprisonment of two
Huguenots who had confessed under torture that they had in
tended to kill the Pope (Urb. 1040, p. 167, Vatican Library).
In March 1568, Pius V. was again on his guard against a plot
of the Huguenots (see Corresp. dipl., II., 316). An *Avviso di
Roma of January i, 1569, announces that at the Casaletto, the
villa of Pius V., a " fuoruscitc " had been arrested with two
" archibugi " ; it was thought that this was connected with a
Huguenot plot (Urb. 1041, p. i, Vatican Library). It was also
thought that the baker's boy, who had tried to make profit by
declaring himself to be the son of Pius V., had been urged to
this course by the Huguenots. The youth was convicted of
calumny and condemned to the galleys for life (see CATENA, 139
seqq., and the Ricordi di Filippo Edoardo Fugger, extract from
Archivio stor. ItaL, 5 ser., XLIL, 10). For the fears felt in Rome
of Huguenot plots during the summer of 1568 see Corresp. dipl.,
II., 367 seq., 369, 374, 376, 379, 392, 411. Correro expressly
states (p. 194) that the Huguenots themselves boasted of their
friends in Italy. A. Zibramonti *reports on January 10, 1571,
that the " ribelli di Montorio " were in league with the Huguenots.
Gonzaga Archives, Mantua.
THE BATTLE OF MONCONTOUR. 123
ments of cruelty, the priests, monks and even defenceless
nuns. x
The Papal auxiliary forces had, on May I4th, 1569, joined
the Florentine troops in the neighbourhood of Massa, and
marched by way of Turin to the Gulf of Lyons, which was
reached on June and. They pushed on on the 4th, but the
troops made but slow progress owing to the scarcity of pro
visions in that war-stricken country ; soon sickness relaxed
their discipline, while no sight of the enemy was obtained.2
After the auxiliary force had joined up with the royal army
near Tours, it took part with success in the defence of Poitiers,
and on October 3rd in the decisive battle near Moncontour.
This great battle, in which the Papal-Florentine troops especi
ally distinguished themselves, ended in the complete rout
of the Huguenots, who left about 10,000 dead upon the
field.3
Pius V., who had watched the course of the war in France
with all the more anxiety4 because Avignon was threatened by
1 In the briefs to Henry of Anjou, Cardinal Bourbon, and
Charles IX. (GouBAU, 160, 163, 166) Pius V. expressly mentions
these atrocities, as to which cf. GRATIANI Epist., 314, 332, 357 ;
PICOT, I., 15 seqq. ; GAUDENTIUS, 108 seqq,, 119 seqq.
2 The information contained in the letters from the Jesuits who
accompanied the troops as military chaplains, in FOUQUERAY,
I., 625 seq., is substantially completed by the *Narratione della
guerra di Francia 1569, in the Cod. Barber. 5040, p. 77 seq.,
which has not hitherto been made use of ; in this the march of
the auxiliary troops is described in diary form. This codex
contains, at p. i. seq. and 15 seq., two *Vite di Sforza conte di
S. Fiora. Vatican Library,
3 See DAVILA, i, 5. THUANUS, i, 45 ; SEGESSER, Pfyffer,
I., 580 seq. ; 585 seq. ; THOMPSON, 388 seq. ; for the behaviour
of the Italians, see, besides ADRIANI, XX., 4, Petrucci in DES-
JARDINS, III., 603, and Amodei in FOUQUERAY, I., 627 ; see also
SERENO, 45. Guzzo di Guzzi of Faenza distinguished himself ;
see BERNARDINO AZZURINI, *Libro de fatti moderni occorsi nella
citta di Faenza dal 1546. Library at Faenza.
4 Cf. CHARRIERE, III., 48 seq., 50. seq. ; Corresp. dipl., III.,
139.
124 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
the Huguenots,1 and because he feared a fresh volte face on
the part of the French court,2 breathe more freely when the
first news of this splendid victory reached Rome. At first
he refused to believe the news, until it was confirmed by further
reports, but on October iyth, 1569, a secretary of the nuncio
arrived with circumstantial reports. The Pope went at once
with the Cardinals to St. Peter's to give thanks to God. For
three days he caused all the bells of Rome to be rung,
the cannon resounded from the Castle of St. Angelo, and
bonfires were lit everywhere. On October 22nd a great
procession passed from S. Maria sopra Minerva to S.
Maria Maggiore, on the 23rd from the Aracoeli to St. John
Lateran, and on the 24th from St. Peter's to S. Luigi de'
Francesi.3 As visible proofs of the effects of the Pope's
1 The fears for Avignon, which had already caused the Pope
great anxiety in the preceding year (see LADERCHI, 1568, n.
171), increased in 1569 (see ibid. 1569, n. 176 seq.}. In his *in
structions of March 9, 1569, Santa Fiora received the special
charge to protect Avignon. A * brief " communitatibus comit.
Venaissini " of May 2, 1569, exhdrts them to persevere in the
Catholic faith ; their loyalty is being tested like gold in the
furnace, but the dangers are great ; let them take heed lest
heresy enter. We think always of the salvation of your souls.
and prav for you. Arm. 44, t. 14, p. 88, Papal Secret Archives.
* See the report of A. Medici from Rome, August 3, 1569, in
PALANDRI, 121. This explains the briefs of August i, in LADERCHI
1569, n. 145 seq. refusing further aid.
8 See the *letter of A. Medici from Rome, October 18, 1569,
State Archives, Florence, and the *reports of B. Pia from Rome,
October 17, 18, 22 and 29, 1569, Gonzaga Archives, Mantua. In
the report of October 18 we read : *" JL'allegrezza in che S.S.tA
si trova e tale che confessa di non haverla mai piu havuta simile
et tutta questa corte giubila." Cf. also Firmanus in LADERCHI,
1569, n. 166 ; BONANNI, I., 302 ; Corresp. dipl., III., 175 seq.
and the *Avvisi di Roma of October 19 and 22, 1569, Urb. 1041,
p. 167 and 179, Vatican Library. The defeat of the Huguenots*
was also celebrated elsewhere, e.g. at Venice ; see the letter in
the congratulatory publication of the people of Breslau to the
University of Basle (i86c ), p. n.
THE POPE'S CONGRATULATIONS. 125
prayers1 and of the bravery of his soldiers there were 37
standards captured from the Huguenots ; these were sent
to the Lateran and placed on the walls under a marble
tablet with a commemorative inscription.2
In the letter of congratulation which he sent to Charles IX.
on October 2oth, 1569, Pius V. warned him that he must not
again find place for misplaced compassion, or waver between
the two sides, for nothing was more cruel than compassion
for the wicked and for those who had deserved death. On
November 5th the Pope sent congratulations to the king and
sent him the necessary dispensation for his marriage with the
daughter of the Emperor Maximilian II.3 He thought the
occasion an opportune one for warning Charles IX. that he
must no longer interest himself on behalf of the heretical
bishops of Chartres, Valence and Lescar, but rather nominate
to their sees men who were sound Catholics ; this exhortation,
however, had no result.4
It had already been evident after the battle of Jarnac how
1 The Pope, reports an *Avviso di Roma of July 23, 1569,
has for some days past, recited special prayers for France after
Mass. Urb. 1041, p. Ti8, Vatican Library.
2 See Avviso di Roma of January 7, 1570, in LANCIANI, IV.,
28. Cf. Firmanus in LADERCHI, 1570, n. 165 seq. and BONANNI,
I., 3«»2 ; CATENA, 74 seq. ; FORCELLA, VIII., 37. The inscrip
tion, which is still preserved, in SPEZI, 78. One of the standards
is still to be seen in the transept of the Lateran. Cf. C. MAES,
Le bandiere degli ugonotti a S. Giovanni in Laterano, Rome,
1885.
3 See the text in GOUBAU, 240 seqq., 247 seq. A *brief of
November 7 to the Duke of Anjou is the reply to the congratu
lations which he had sent on the victory. A * brief of November
9 praises the Duke of Guise for his bravery against the Huguenots
besieging Poitiers, and exhorting him to continue. A similar
*exhortation was sent on the same day to the Archbishop of
Sens, Nicolas de Pelleve, whose zeal and prudence in advising
the king during the war are praised. Arm. 44, t. 14, p. 283 b-
285, Papal Secret Archives.
4 See the * brief of November 19, 1569, in A pp. n. 6, Papal
Secret Archives.
126 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
little intention the French government had of making real
use of the victories which it had gained, and now it allowed
the great day of Moncontour to pass without making real use
of it. When they made urgent representations to the queen-
mother that she should profit by the favourable circumstances,
the representatives of Pius V. received the reply that her
son was old enough not to need the advice of foreign princes.1
So what did Charles IX. do when some of his own advisers
urged him after the victory of Moncontour to carry on the war
vigorously ? Jealous of his brother Anjou, who had held the
chief command at Moncontour, instead of destroying the
remains of Coligny's army, he decided on a policy of blockade,
and on December 3rd he surrendered St.-Jean-d'Angely to
him, and dispersed his own forces.2 The Italian troops,
which had had much to endure from the jealousy of the French
from the first,3 and had been greatly reduced in numbers
both in battle and from sickness, had been ordered to return
at the end of October by Pius V., but they started back home
before that date.4 Charles IX. could look for no further help.
1 " Quanclo dopo la battaglia ultima di Moncontor essendo il
tempo apparito proprio del venire a dar castigo a chi lo meritava,
come ricordavano li ministri di N. Sre per parte sua che era tempo
di fare et ne mostravano il modo, fu risposto loro dalla Reina
propria con parole assai espresse, come il Re si ritrovava in eta
d' autorita et con forze et prudentia di sapere governare lo stato
suo da se senza havere a pigliare consiglio ne legge da principi
esterni, onde meritamente da quel tempo in qua e parso a S. S^
di volerc andare un poco piu consideratamente non giudicando
che se li convenisse di dovcrsi ingerirc in cosa di altri piu oltre
cli quel che fosse grato alii padroni." Thus Frangipani in the
memorial quoted infra, p. 135, n. I.
" See SEGESSER, Pfyffer, I., 607.
3 See the report of Petrucci in DESJARDINS, III., 60 1.
4 The Count di Santa Flora had sent a message to Charles IX.
on October 6, asking to be allowed to let th'e troops go, now that
the victory was won. The king wished still to retain them,
but Santa Fiora personally pointed out to him that the auxiliary
force was obliged to return by reason of its losses and disease.
On this occasion Charles IX. expressed his hope of receiving
THE NARRATIVE OF SANTA FIORA. 127
In his memorial the nuncio Frangipani states that after
Catherine's reply the Pope could only adopt an attitude of
further help from the Pope, at the same time acknowledging
that the auxiliary force had been of great assistance to him.
Santa Fiora, who was himself suffering from fever, then took
his leave " Malissimo sodisfatto della natura de' Francesi, onde
dipoi diceva spesso che mai piu tornarebbe in Francia con gente,
perche il proceder de' Francesi e stravagante tanto in le osser-
vationi militari, che conosceva che 1' huomo che li serve corre
del continue grosso pericolo in la dignita et in 1' honore, perche,
se le cose succedono bene, vogliono esser stati loro li essecutori,
et se male, ogni cosa buttano volentiere adosso al compagno,
et in somma guerreggiano di maniera, almeno di presente, che
del continue si sta piu per perdere che guadagnare ; et se 1' ammir-
aglio fosse stato soldato di altra natione che francese, Dio sa
come le cose fossero passate. . . . Quando il sigr conte si cognobbe
in stato col male che non posseva caminar con la gente, ordino al
vescovo di Fermo comissario generate che, condotta la gente a
Lione, la pagasse del mese di novembre, et in tanto desse aviso
al Papa per corrier proprio in diligenza [di] quanto che passava,
et chiedesse ordine a Sua StA di quel che s' havesse per ]' inanzi
da far con la gente, la qual si condurebbe per il Delfinato alle
spese del re. Ma inteso poi il sigr conte dal detto suo segretario
come il Papa intendeva pagar la gente sino fosse condotta in
Italia, scrisse al vescovo non ispedisse piu al Papa, et che lo at-
tendesse in Lione et sollecitasse il far pagar la gente di gia con-
dutta in Lione, dove ne moriva assai et di dove ne partiva assai
per la strada diritta della Savoia, non curando d' aspettar paga
alcuna ; talmente a molti fra venuto a noia il tardar piu in quelle
bande, dove non si vedeva che mallatia e morte." On account
of his illness Santa Fiora was not able to carry out the command
to protect Avignon. On the last day of February, 1570, he in
formed Pius V. by word of mouth of all that he had witnessed.
I gather all these particulars, hitherto unknown, from the *Narra-
tione della guerra di Francia, in Cod. Barb., 5040, p. 167 seqq.
Vatican Library. From the account in FOUQUERAY, I., 627 seq.
it appears that the Pope looked after the troops on their return,
and the Jesuits of the sick who remained at Lyons. According
to ADRIANI, XX., 4, only a third part of the auxiliary force
returned home.
128 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
great caution, and that many people had long since told him
that the help which he had bestowed on France in money
and troops had been thrown away.1 While Guise and
Tavannes retired from the court and the army, the influence
fell back into the hands of the " cautious and cold politicians,
who, devoid of either principle or conviction, lived only for the
exigencies of the moment."2 Thanks to them, proposals for
peace were already being made at La Rochelle by the end of
1569. The Catholics once more found themselves in danger
of seeing their interests sacrificed to the advantages of the
moment, without any guarantee as to the future. In theory
the court seemed to have the conditions of peace in its own
hands because the battle of Moncontour had made a lasting
impression, and at that time the Huguenots had not much
hope of help from abroad. This was especially the case from
Germany, where only the reformers were in favour of armed
intervention, while the Lutherans held back. In more than
one place, as for example Ernestine Saxony, the people were
told from Lutheran pulpits that the Huguenots, like thegueux,
were rebels, sacramentarians and iconoclasts, who deserved
to be extirpated.3
When the rumours that a peace was at hand grew more and
more insistent, the Pope had recourse to the king himself
in a letter of January 2Qth, 1570, in which he says : Our duty
and our paternal solicitude do not allow us to fail to give
warning to Your Majesty ; give heed to it then and think well
concerning that which is about to be done. Whereas we see
well that between Your Majesty and your enemies there can
never be a peace which will be favourable to the cause of the
Catholic religion, or which, however it be expressed, will secure
tranquillity to your country which is so exhausted by long
wars, we, for our part, shall certainly not forget the office which
we hold, nor shall we be so blind to our duty as to fail to use
1 Cf. the memorial already quoted.
2 Opinion of BAUMGARTEN, Bartholomausnacht, 26.
3 So reported William of Orange to Louis of Nassau on December
29, 1569. GROEN v. PRINSTERER, III., 334 ; SOLDAN, I., 380.
THE POPE'S LETTER TO CHARLES IX.
all our zeal and all our authority to bring it about that peace
shall be concluded as soon as possible. But since we are well
aware, and Your Majesty has experienced the same a thousand
times, that there can be no harmony between light and dark
ness, and that in matters of this sort there can be no agreement
but such as is illusory and full of dangers, we must of necessity
tremble for your own person as well as for the general good of
Christian society, and the preservation of the Catholic faith.
Similar letters were sent to Catherine de' Medici and Henry
of Anjou.1
So as to leave no means untried, Pius V., in April, 1570,
sent to Henry of Anjou, the favourite son of the French queen,
the blessed sword and hat on Laetare Sunday, by the hands of
Count Jerome de Rozdrazow.2 Rozdrazow was instructed to
express, either by himself or together with the nuncio, the
Pope's sorrow at the continued negotiations for peace with
persons who were in open rebellion against God and the French
crown. If the king were to be willing to share his kingdom
with rebels he would expose himself to ruin and personal
contempt. Lastly Rozdrazow was ordered to dissuade the
king from any sort of agreement with the Turks, and to re
mind him of his duty in the matter of filling the vacant
bishoprics.3
When it was reported at the end of April that peace had
been concluded with the Huguenots, Pius V. addressed a
1 See GOUBAU, 266 seqq., 269 seq., 272 seq. ; LADERCHI, 1570,
n. 168 seq. Cf. in Lettres de Cath. de Medicis, III., 306 seq. how
Catherine sought to ease the Pope's mind.
2 See the "brief to Henry of Anjou of March 30, 1570, Arm.
44, t. 15, p. 50, Papal Secret Archives; ibid. p. 48b-49b *briefs
on this subject of the same date to Charles IX. and Catherine
de' Medici. Cf. GRATIANI Epist., 459. For G. Rozdrazow (the
same as the Rasdrakhoif in SCHWARZ, Briefwechsel, 77) see
JUNGNITZ, M. Gerstmann, Berlin, 1898, 41 seqq., 60 seq., 65 ;
CANISII Epist., IV., 367.
8 *Instruttione per Francia al conte Hieronimo Rosreshof
[sic] a 27 di Marzo, 1570, in Varia polit., 81 (now 82), p. 463
seqq., Papal Secret Archives.
130 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
severe letter to the king, putting him on his guard
against evil counsellors.1 Catherine de' Medici and Car
dinals Guise and Bourbon also received briefs to the same
effect.2
All these efforts were as ineffectual as those made by
Philip II. for the same purpose. The French court persevered
in the way upon which it had embarked, not only because
financial straits and a military situation which had now
become unfavourable pointed to peace, even on unworthy
terms, but also because such an agreement was the only one
suited to the policy of compromise which Catherine de' Medici
continued to pursue, while an additional reason was her old
fear of the King of Spain, who was interesting himself so much
on behalf of the French Catholics, and to whom the continua
tion of the war would have been advantageous. If the actual
conclusion of the peace was still delayed for some time, the
reason was that the more impatient the court became, the
more obstinately the Huguenots held out.3
On August 8th, 1570, Charles IX. laid down his arms before
his enemies at St. Germain. The conditions of peace were
more favourable than ever for the Huguenots, who obtained
full amnesty and liberty of conscience, the free exercise of
their religion in the territories of the nobles and a number of
cities, with the exception of Paris and wherever the court
happened to be from time to time ; they further obtained
the right to fill all the offices of state, as well as the right to
object to six judges in each parliament ; finally, they were
given four places of safety for two years, La Rochelle, La
Charite*, Montauban and Cognac. In this way a veritable
state within a state was formed.4 In a secret article Charles IX.
promised compensation for the two million livres expended by
1 Brief of April 23, 1570, in GOUBAU, 274 seq, and LADERCHI,
1570, n, 177.
"All dated April 23. Arm. 44, t. 15, p. 94b, 96b, 98, Papal
Secret Archives.
3 See BAUMGARTEN, Bartholomausnacht, 16.
4 See SOLD AN, I., 396 seqq.
A SHAMEFUL PEACE. 131
the Huguenots and Germany in the hire of their mercenaries ! l
Pius V. was convinced that this " shameful peace which had
been dictated to the French king by the conquered enemies
of God " would bring about in France even worse disturbances
than those which had gone before.2 His grief was all the
greater because he at that time looked upon Avignon as being
threatened.3 The nuncio was instructed to make strong
remonstrances.4 Moreover, Pius V. resolved to send at once
to France a special envoy in the person of the Papal notary,
Francesco Bramante, to make an attempt to get the recent
events annulled.5 The instructions for Bramante were
dictated by the Pope himself on August i4th, while he was
still under the impression created by the news of the peace ;
they were afterwards recast on September iQth, and were only
handed to the nuncio on the 25th. By these instructions
Bramante was, with all proper moderation and prudence, to
remind the king of the glorious age of his ancestors, who en
joyed the obedience of their subjects, the tranquillity of their
country, and the glory and power of their realm so long as
1 KERVYN DE LETTENHOVE, II., 209. A. Contarini well brings
out the disgraceful side of the peace (p. 249 seqq.). Cf. the views
of the French and German nuncios in Corresp. dipl., IV., 4, n. i.
8 Besides the ""instructions for Bramante (infra p. 132, n. i)
and Lettres de Cath. de Medicis, III., 330 n., cf. the briefs of
complaint to Cardinals Guise and Bourbon of August 17 and
September 23, 1570, in GOUBAU, 276 seqq., 282 seqq. See also
the *brief to Cardinal Guise of September n, 1570, Arm. 44,
t. 15, p. 2i2b, Papal Secret Archives; ibid, similar *briefs of
September 23, 1570, to Cardinals Strozzi, Pelleve and Armagnac.
Cusano *reports on November 8, 1570, how the Pope deplored
the peace as " damnosa et vituperosa " for Charles IX. State
Archives, Vienna.
8 Cf. Corresp. dipl., IV., 41.
4 Cf. the *notice in Cod. Barber. 4698, p. 205, Vatican Library.
8 The mission of Bramante has remained unknown to all
historians until now. The * briefs accrediting him to Charles
IX. and other personages in France in Arm. 44, t. 15, p. 23ob,
237-251, Papal Secret Archives.
132 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
religious unity was unbroken. The arrangement arrived at
at St. Germain, which bore the beautiful name of peace, had
destroyed that unity, and would therefore soon bring about
the ruin of France, because the treaty had no regard for
religion, weakened the power of the king, and increased the
boldness of his enemies, who, before long, would only return
with greater zeal than ever to their former schemes. It was
inconceivable that people who wished to deprive their king
of his life and authority could ever be his friends, or that men
who had hitherto always broken faith could keep it in the
future. The Pope who on account of his youth did not wish
to blame the king for what had happened, was still of opinion
that he had only agreed to the peace in order to disarm the
rebels, and in order that later on he might proceed against
them at his discretion. If this should turn out to be
Charles IX. 's plan Bramante was to encourage him in it,
reminding him of the example of his father and his predeces
sors in their treatment of heretics who were a danger to the
state, and assuring him of the help of the Pope. Everyone
knew, so the instructions went on, that the Huguenots, who
pretended to be the reformers of religion, had in view the ruin,
not only of religion but of the state as well. At the present
moment they were despoiling the churches of France in order
to enrich their adherents. Since their object was the destruc
tion of religion and the monarchy, they must be opposed in
every way, in order that the king might still be king.1
A special duty that was laid upon Bramante concerned the
troops who had been sent in the previous spring under the
1 The *Instruttione prima a Monr Bramanti a 14 d' Agosto
1570 dettata da N. S1"6, consegnata a 25 di Settembre 1570 in
den Varia polit. 81 (now 82) p. 264 to 269. And p. 266 : *Instrut-
tione seconda a Mons. Bramanti dettata da N. S76, consignata a
25 di Settembre, and p. 267-268 "changes and additions to this
ordinance ; p. 269 : *Instruttione terza a Mons. Bramanti a di
19 di Settembre, rescritta et consignata a 25 Settembre 1570 ;
p. 269b : *Aggiunta alia terza Instruttione. Papal Secret
Archives.
THE POPE'S REMONSTRANCES USELESS. 133
command of Torquato Conti for the defence of Avignon.1 He
was to explain that, as the danger had been so pressing, it
had not been possible to give the king warning of this, and
that therefore the latter 's desire that the troops, who had only
been sent for purposes of defence, should now be withdrawn,
was as impracticable as was the toleration of the religious
innovations at Avignon. Lastly, the envoy was to express
the hope that France would join the projected league against
the Turks.2
The remonstrances of the Pope, his nuncio,3 and Bramante4
were absolutely without effect, principally because after the
Peace of St. Germain the anti-Spanish attitude of the French
court developed more and more. As early as July this frame
of mind, which rested upon various causes, had almost led to
an open breach, and Charles IX. and Catherine de' Medici
-had made the most violent attacks upon Philip II. The
reasons for this attitude were dynastic ambition, hurt feelings
and French hopes of splendid conquests.5 Estrangement
from Spain inevitably led to a rapprochement with the leaders
of the Huguenots, the rebels in the Netherlands, and Elizabeth
1 Cf. as fo this *Avviso di Roma of April 8, 1570, Urb. 1041,
p. 257b, Vatican Library,; LADERCHI, 1570, n. 195 seq. ; CATENA,
64. See also Arch. d. Soc. Rom., XXXI., 481 ; MAROCCO, XL,
35. For the Pope's anxiety see CHARRIERE, III., 54 seq. The
*Instruttione al S. Torquato Conti, Aprile, 1570, in Varia polit.,
81 (now 82), p. 270 seq. Papal Secret Archives.
* See Varia polit., 81 (now 82), p. 419 seq. Papal Secret
Archives.
8 See the *Ultimi ragionamenti (undated) havuti con le MMtA
Cristme in Cod. Barber., 4698, p. 205-212 (cf. PHILIPPSON, loc.
cit. 113) and the **Cifra di Francia di 30 Agosto 1570, in Nunziat.
di Francia, IV., 33, Papal Secret Archives. Cf. in DESJARDINS,
III., 637, how Catherine deluded the nuncio into thinking that
the Catholic religion could not fail to gain by the peace. See
also the Venetian reports in Histor. Zeitschrift, L., 386 seq.
* For the negotiations of Bramante see the * notices from the
Papal Secret Archives in App. nn. 8 and 9.
5 See BAUMGARTEN, Bartholamausnacht, 27 seqq.
134 HISTORY OF THE TOPES.
of England. Scruples on this subject had no place in the mind
of Catherine de' Medici, who even allowed herself to make
disparaging remarks to the Papal nuncio. " What would you
say," she said to the Pope's representative in October, " if you
were soon to see Cardinal Chatillon here in his Cardinal's
dress ? " Such talk about an apostate, who had been deprived
of his dignity by the Pope on account of his open apostasy,
was bound to destroy all hopes of Catherine in the mind of
the nuncio. This queen, he said, does not believe in God,
nor do any of those who are her friends or those of the king.1
It was about this time that Frangipani drew up a memorial
on the state of affairs in France, which is noteworthy in several
respects. He was of opinion that some attempt must be made
to open at least the eyes of the king ; the Huguenots would
always be his enemies, because the offender never pardons.
They were only trying to hoodwink the king, and at the first
favourable opportunity would try to stir up a conspiracy or a
revolt. There was still time to anticipate their action ; the
forces of the Catholics were larger than those of the Huguenots ;
the king could get as much military help as he liked from
.Switzerland and Italy. The first thing to be done, however,
was to remove from his entourage the traitors who wished
to involve him in a war with Catholic Spain. Should this take
place the Pope would have to do his duty and form a league
against Huguenot France. It was quite obvious that no con
fidence could be placed in Catherine de' Medici, who was a
foreigner and a woman. Should the king prove a broken reed
1 Report of the Spanish ambassador Alava of October n,
1570, in BAUMGARTEN, loc. cit. 33 seq. Cf. the Cifra di Francia
of September 30, 1570, which states : " Per mio giuditio excettuato
solamente il re, che io lo ho per un buon giovane, se bene hoggi
non ha ne discorso ne valore ne cuore di re, tutti li altri sono a un
modo pieni di ogni sorte di passione et intcresse del mondp et
vacui di ogni religione, della quale io per me credo, che cosi li
heretici, come quelli che si dicono cattolici, dico de nobili, se ne
servano solamente per pretesto, ma che in verita non hanno
religione." Nunziat. d' Francia, IV., 52, Secret Archives of the
Vatican.
MATRIMONIAL PLANS OF CATHERINE. 135
they would have to fall back on the Catholic nobles, who were
in a position to force the king to see the error of his ways.
The Catholic nobles could, just as the Huguenots had done,
form a league among themselves, and alliances between the
governors of the provinces, who would be controlled by some
trustworthy leader, dependent upon the Pope. If this were
not done, the Huguenots would certainly attract the whole
kingdom of France to themselves.1
The danger grew visibly nearer with the matrimonial projects
which Catherine was forming at that time for her children.
Her favourite son, Henry of Anjou, was to marry Elizabeth of
England ; her daughter Margaret, contrary to the Pope's
wishes, was to marry, not the King of Portugal, but the Hugue
not prince, Henry of Navarre.2 The Protestants attached
great importance to the marriage of Elizabeth with Anjou.
The English minister, Cecil, already foresaw the fall of the
Papacy, and the English ambassador in Paris was counting on
the conversion of Charles IX. to Protestantism.3 In any case,
1The memorial, at the end of which Frangipani suggests
the sending of confidential agents to Charles IX. and to Philip
II., bears the title " Discorso sopra gli humori di Francia di
Monsignor Nazaret." RANKE ^Franzos. Gesch., I.a, 301 seq.)
only extracted one passage from this dealing with the Catholic
associations. He made use of a codex in the Barberini Library,
and rightly gives 1570 as the date of its composition. The copy,
however, must be later, since Frangipani only received the bishop
ric of Nazareth on November 5th, 1572. Ranke dpes not give,
as is often the case, the designation of the codex ; I at last found
it after long research in Cod. Barber. 5269, p. 63 seq., Vatican
Library. There is another *copy in the Library at Karlsruhe,
Cod. Durl. 44, p. 173 seq. I am aware that later on Thompson
published the memorial in Appendix p. 548 seq. according to the
Barberini codex, but without establishing its authorship more
exactly ; moreover, in his text he only makes use of the passage
in Ranke already mentioned.
* Cf. SOLDAN, I., 408 seq., 413 seq. ; BAUMGARTEN, loc. cit.
41 seqq., 60 seqq. ; TANZIN, Le mariage de Marguerite de Valois
in Rev. des quest, histor., LXXX., 446 seq.
3 See KERVYN DE LETTENHOVE, II., 270.
136 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
if this marriage should take place, Mary Stuart and the English
Catholics would be at the mercy of their mortal enemies.
No less serious injury to Catholic interests was threatened
by the mixed marriage with the son of the Queen of Navarre,
who had distinguished herself by her violent persecution of
the Catholics.1 To all this was added the fact that on Septem
ber I2th, 1571, Coligny, who a year before had been banished
as guilty of high treason, and had been hanged upon the
gallows in effigy,2 made his appearance at the residence of the
royal court at Blois, and very soon regained a greater influence
than ever.3
It is no wonder that these events gave rise to the gravest
anxiety. The Pope declared that so long as Henry of Navarre
was a Huguenot he would under no circumstances grant him a
dispensation from consanguinity for his marriage with the
Princess Margaret. It now seemed that the fears he had long
entertained, lest the young king, surrounded as he was by
Huguenots, should be wavering in his faith, had become a
certainty.4 It had been reported to the Pope that the man
to whom Catherine wished to give her daughter had threatened
with death all opposition to Protestant preaching,5 and had
profaned the^ Most Holy Sacrament and the crucifix in the
most opprobrious way.6 Of Coligny it was said that he had
1 Cf. the remarks in DUBARAT, Le protestantisme en Beam,
Pau, 1893.
1 See SOLDAN, I., 365. The strongly worded briefs of Pius V.
of October 12, 1569, in GOUBAU, 231 seqq. refer to this.
* Cf. SOLDAN, I., 420 seq. \ I^AUMGARTEN, loc. cit., 87 seqq. ;
KERVYN DE LETTENHOVE, II., 331 seq.
4 See TIEPOLO, 188 ; CATENA, 176; PALANDRI, 153 seq.;
cf. Arch. d. miss, scientif., 2 series, II., 444 seq.
6 Cf. Intermediaire des chercheurs, December 15, 1901 ; MERKI,
Coilgny, 390, n. i.
* *" E bene stato affermato per vero a S.S A chel figlio della
regina di Navarra ha fatto gettare per terra il santo sacramento
dell'Eucharistia e ha fatto strascinare per terra un crocifisso
con la corda all collo." *Report of Arco from Rome, May i,
1568, State Archives, Vienna.
THE INFLUENCE OF COLIGNY. 137
quite recently at Angouleme gone to the horrible lengths of
copying the living torches of Nero.1 Yet this man was loaded
by the king with gifts, and even with ecclesiastical benefices,
and taken back into the royal council. He had a great in
fluence over the young king, who eagerly listened to his
grandiose plans. These aims were an alliance with England
and war with Spain. For this purpose he had emissaries
in England, in Protestant Switzerland, and in Germany, as
well as at Constantinople and among the leaders of the Moors
in Spain. He not only planned to give help to the enemies of
Philip IT. in the Low Countries, but also to tap the sources of
Spanish wealth in the West Indies. Charles IX. was already
dreaming of great conquests ; it is no wonder then that under
these circumstances the news of the great victory of Lepanto
was but coldly received at the French court.2
For Pius V. his great success against the Turks was a fresh
incentive to leave no stone unturned to save the Catholic
cause in France from further loss. He redoubled the efforts
which he had hitherto made to prevent the marriage with
Navarre. For her part Catherine used every artifice to obtain
the Papal dispensation for the marriage, but Pius V. remained
firm even when he was threatened with the total apostasy of
France from the Church. He would, he said, in some sense
cease to be Pope if he were to ,show favour to an obstinate
heretic. He would not grant the dispensation even though a
French army were in Rome, and if in spite of everything the
marriage took place, he would pronounce the children of it
illegitimate. In spite of this, Catherine still flattered her
self with the hope of being able to induce the Pope to change
liis mind by holding out the prospect of the accession of France
to the league against the Turks if the Pope would grant the
dispensation.3 In doing this she knew well how much at heart
the noble Pope had the defence of Christendom.
1 See Corresp. dipl., II., 372.
2 See SOLDAN, I., 423 ; KERVYN DE LETTENHOVE, II., 326,
331 seq. ; BAUMGARTEN, loc. cit. 96 seqq. ; BLOK, III., 116 seq. ;
JANSSEN-PASTOR, IV. 16-i6. 331 seqq.
3 See the reports of Petrucci in DESJARDINS, III., 695, 702 seqq.,
VOL. XVIII. II
138 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
In the middle of December, 1571, Pius V. had sent to France
as nuncio extraordinary1 Antonio Maria Salviati, who was
related to the French royal house on the side of Medici, and had
already stayed at the French court in the spring of 1571 in
connexion with the imprisonment of Giovan Galeazzo San-
severino, who had been accused before the Inquisition.2
Salviati was instructed in the first place to induce Charles IX.
to join the league against the Turks.3 At the same time he
was to express the great displeasure of the Pope at the fact
that the king had just at that moment sent the Bishop of Aix,
who had been disposed for heresy, to Constantinople, to the
enemy of the Christian name, a thing which destroyed the
hopes of the poor Christians in the Turkish Empire of being
delivered from its insupportable tyranny as a consequence of
the victory at Lepanto. The nuncio was also to make com
plaint of the continued attempts to marry Henry of Navarre
to Margaret, on the plea that he might be brought back to
the Church, which was certainly an empty hope. Lastly he
714 seqq., 719 seqq., 723 seqq., 730, 735 seqq., 740 ; BAUMGARTEN,
loc. cit. 113 seqq. ; PALANDRI, 162 seqq. Cf. also Histor. Zeit-
schrift, L., 389 seq. After the night of St. Bartholomew, Catherine
joked about their having believed in Rome in her accession to
the league against the Turks. See THEINER, Annales, eccl.,
I-. 332.
1 See LADERCHI, 1571, n. 135 ; GARAMPI, Osservaz., 315.
2 See the *Instruttione per Mons. Salviati, dated Rome, Feb
ruary 5, 1571, in Varia polit., 81 (now 82), p. 117 seq. ; cf. ibid.
277 seq., 638 seq., 640 seq., £apal Secret Archives. For the
successful efforts of Chailes IX. and Cardinal Rambouillet (then
Bishop of Le Mans and ambassador in Rome) to set free Count
G. G. Sanseverino, who had been imprisoned by the Inquisition
while in the service of France, see the *report of Arco, February
17, 1571, State Archives, Vienna. Jean de Vivonne, who was
sent at that time to Rome, played an essential part in this suc
cess ; cf. GUY DE BREMOND, J. de Vivonne, Paris, 1884, 27
aseq. ; Iso AMABILE, I., 303 seq.
3 F. Bramante had already negotiated about this ; see his
*Cifra of November 8, 1570, Nunziat. de Francia, IV., 73, Papal
Secret Archives.
THE MISSION OF SALVIATI. 139
was to say that the Pope was very much surprised that Coligny
had been again given so much power, and that Charles IX.
had allowed the Huguenots to propagate their errors in the
Marquisate of Saluzzo, since this was contrary to the Peace
of St. Germain.1
On his way to France Salviati visited Florence, Lucca,
Genoa, and the Duke of Savoy, in which places, by the Pope's
orders, he treated of the holy league.2 In January, 1572, he
reached the French court, which was then at Blois ; he was
assisted in his mission by briefs of exhortation to Charles IX.,
which, in spite of all that had happened, were expressed in
terms of paternal kindness.3 A little later, on February 7th,4
he was followed by the Cardinal legate, Bonelli, who in Dec
ember had obtained in Lisbon promises from King Sebastian
with regard to his entry into the league and his marriage
to Margaret of Valois.5
1 See the "Instructions for Salviati, dated Rome, December
15, 1571, in Varia polit., 33 (now 34), p. 49 seq. See ibid. 81
(now 82), p. 283 seq. the first draft cf. ibid. 116 (now 117), p. 49
seq. Papal Secret Archives. See also the letter from Pius V.
to Catherine of December 15, 1571, in CATENA, 301 seq. and
Corresp. dipl., IV., 549 seq., 551 seq. In his *report of November
3, 1571 (State Archives, Vienna) Arco mentions an earlier letter :
*" II Papa si duole grandemente della regina madre del re come
quella che principalmente favorisse 1'ammiraglio et ha 1'animo
volto del continuo a diverse novita et perci6 Sua Sanita gl'ha
scritto un breve in colera."
1 See the letter of the Doge of Genoa to Pius V. in GOUBAU,
436 seqq. Cf. the important remarks of LADERCHI, 1571, n.
135, as against GRAZIANI (Epist., 465).
8 Brief of January 25, 1572, in GOUBAU, 439 seq. (cf. as to this
TURKE, 22) and of February 6, 1572, in CATENA, 298 seq.
4 See the *letter of Bonelli to Cardinal Rusticucci, dated Blois,
February 9, 1572, Cod. 33-0-24, p. 576, Corsini Library, Rome.
6 Cardinal Bonelli, who made his entry into Lisbon on Decem
ber 3, 1571, reported thence on December 5 and 13, 1571, con
cerning the general promises made by the king as to the league
(see the *letter of Bonelli in Cod. 33-0-24, p. 34 seq., Corsini
Library, Rome). In the *letter of December 13 he speaks of
140 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
The Cardinal, who, as he travelled across France, had every
where seen the ruins of the churches which had been destroyed
by the Huguenots, had no illusions as to the difficulties which
lay in the way of his being able to arrange those matters with
which he was charged to deal at the French court ; these were,
to ask for the marriage of Margaret to the King of Portugal,
the entry of France into the league against the Turks, and the
prevention of the defensive alliance which Elizabeth of Eng
land had recently proposed to the French government. On
February gth there also arrived at Blois the General of the
Jesuits, Francis Borgia, who, armed with special instructions
from Philip II., was to support the legate. Neither the one
nor the other left any room for doubt that the Pope would
never grant the dispensation for the marriage with Navarre.
They fought against that match just as strongly as they urged
the Portuguese marriage, but all their efforts remained with
out any measure of success. With regard to the league against
the Turks all that Bonelli could obtain was a promise that
France would not hinder the crusade. With regard to the
alliance with England he received the assurance that this was
only aimed at the maintenance of friendly relations with that
kingdom, and that there was no idea of any hostile action
against Spain.1
the " buona dispositione " of the king concerning the marriage
with Margaret of Valois which Pius V. so much desired : " mi
disse voler per dote dal Re di Francia ch'entri ancor esso in lega !
Bonelli, who presented a memorial to the king on December n
(in LAMMER, Zur Kirchengesch., 135), left for Madrid on the i4th,
and thence for France. At Miranda he received a letter from the
Portuguese king for Pius V., dated December 20, 1571, con
taining the purely general promise that the king intended to
fight against the Turks, Saracens and Lutherans (Corpo dipl.
Portug., X., 427).
1 See the *letters of Bonelli addressed to Cardinal Rusticucci
from Blois on February 9, 19 and 22, 1572, followed by one from
Rome to Philip II., March 30, 1572, in Cod. 33-0-24, p. 57b,
Corsini Library, Rome ; extracts given in GACHARD, Bibl.
Corsini, 52 seqq. Cf. BAUMGARTEN, Bartholomausnacht, 118
THE LETTER OF BONELLI. 14!
seqq., 126, and PHILIPPSON, Rom. Kurie, 116 seq., where use is
also made of the statements of the Spanish, Florentine, and
Venetian ambassadors, and of Francis Borgia. A long contro
versy arose out of a passage in the letter of Bonelli to Cardinal
Rusticucci from Lyons on March 6, 1572, where Tie says that he
has not been able to meet with any success with regard to the
league 01 the marriage with Navarre, but " con alcuni particolari
ch'io porto, dei quali ragguaglier6 Nostro Signore a bocca, posso
dire di non partirmi affatto mal expedito."
RANKE, who was the first to bring this passage to light, in his
Histor. -polit. Zeitschrift, II., 598, very precipitately concludes
from this that " even if it was not absolutely told him, at least
hints were given " to the legate " of a secret scheme in favour of
the Catholics." SOLDAN (Histor. Taschenbuch, 1854, 219) says
on the other hand : " All that can be admitted is that this does
not refer, as Ranke supposes, to the night of St. Bartholomew.
What could be more natural than that as Gabutius states, the
legate should have been led on by hopes of the conversion of the
bridegroom ? The Pope himself had already spoken in this
sense." In spite of this Ranke maintained his view (Franzos.
Geschichte, I.* [1856] 320). On the Catholic side in 1856 GANDY
in the Revue des questions histor. and again in the Civilth Cattolica
(6 series, vols. 8-n) made a definite protest against the assertion
that the massacre of the Huguenots on St. Bartholomew's eve
had been a long predetermined act, and that Pius V. had been
informed of it in advance. Instead of refuting these solid and
learned researches, an intimate friend of Dollinger, Lord Acton,
when the controversy concerning the definition of Papal infalli
bility had become acute, revived the accusation which, a year
earlier Michelet (Hist, de la revolut. franc. I. 36) had represented
as being proved, and tried to bolster it up with full authorities
(North British Review, October, 1869, n. 101, trans, by GAR,
La Strage di S. Bartolomeo, Venice, 1870). In his vehement
excitement Acton swept aside all the arguments on the other
side. Another friend of Dollinger, Giov. Huber, did the same.
HERGENROTHER (Kirche und Staat, 656) protested against both.
Nor were contradictions on the part of learned Catholics wanting
(see FUNK in Literar. Rundschau, 1880, 169) when WUTTKE
(Vorgeschichte der Bartholomausnacht [1879], 177) tried to
represent as " incontestable " the complicity of Pius V. in the
massacre of St. Bartholomew. Two years later a strongly Pro-
142 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
testant scholar, BAUMGARTEN (Bartholamausnacht 130 seqq. ;
cf. the supplement in Histor. Zeitschrift, L., 396 seq.}, in a calm
and objective account of the affair, showed the untenability of
the case established by Acton and Wuttke ; he was supported by
v. BEZOLD (Hist. Zeitschrift, XLVII., 563), SCHOTT (Allgem.
Zeitung, 1882, Beil. n. 67), PHILIPPSON (Rom. Kurie, 116 seqq.},
and ALFRED STERN (Der Ursprung der Bartholomausnacht in
Monatshefte of Westermann, 5 series, vol. 4).
But Baumgarten, as well as Philippson and Stern, have com
pletely overlooked the fact that at the end of 1880 another Pro
testant scholar, Karl Tiirke, in a dissertation published at Chem
nitz, had gone into the questions under discussion in a way that
was as thorough as it was accurate. The conclusion arrived at
by Tiirke is that Pius V. " must in any case be acquitted of any
direct participation in any treacherous plan for a massacre of
the Huguenots, even supposing that any such thing had been
planned in a definite form." (p. 15). The remarks of Tiirke,
with which Schott in Zeitschrift fur Kirchengeschichte, V., 114
seq., agrees, retain their authority even by the side of those of
Baumgarten, as for example the following conclusion : " even
though the hatred which Pius V. felt for the heretics left nothing
to be desired " his very character excludes " participation in
intrigues which were entirely idealistic and pertaining to the realm
of fiction." Equally pertinent is the remark that the strained
relations between Pius V. and the French court, especially in the
time that followed, are quite incompatible with so important
a secret agreement between them (p. 15-22). As to the " alcuni
particolari " of which Bonelli, according to his letter of March
6, 1572, intended to give fuller details by word of mouth, Tiirke
thinks that these refer to the acceptance of the Tridentine decrees
and similar matters ; that they certainly do not refer to important
secrets, and that the exceedingly leisurely return journey of the
legate is quite inconsistent with any such theory (p. 23-25).
Other considerations put forward by Tiirke (p. 26 seq.} concerning
the mission of Bonelli, the letter from Cardinal d' Ossat of Septem
ber 22, 1599, the codex 164 of the Marchese Capponi, used without
any attempt at criticism by Acton, all complete and confirm the
conclusions of Baumgarten against the supporters of the theory
of premeditation. Concerning the things stated in the Capponi
codex Alfred Maury remarked as early as 1871 (Journal des
Savants, 422) that, even if they were the work of the man who
PIUS V. AND FRANCE. 143
All this, however, was nothing but empty words, as were the
assurances of devotion to thePope contained in the letters sent
to Pius V. by the king and the queen on February 22nd, 1572. l
By April iQth the alliance between England and Charles IX.
had been concluded ; a little earlier the marriage contract
between Margaret and Henry of Navarre had been signed
without taking into consideration whether the Pope gave
the dispensation or not. At the same time there were rumours
of secret preparations which pointed to an enterprise against
Philip II.2 While he was trying to deceive the Spanish king
by assurances of friendship, and to pacify the Papal nuncio
when he showed signs of distrust, Charles IX. was writing on
May nth to his representative at the Porte : " All my thoughts
are turned to resisting the might of Spain ... I have fitted
out in my ports a good number of ships with a force of from
12,000 to 15,000 men, which by the end of this month will be
ready to take the offensive, nominally to protect my coasts
against the pirates, but in reality to harass the Catholic King
and to encourage the gueux in the Low Countries to advance,
as indeed they have already done, and have seized the whole
of Zeeland, -and greatly shaken Holland. I have concluded
an alliance with the Queen of England, and have sent thither
later on became Clement VIII., who accompanied Bonelli on
his journey, it must be remembered that the French court was
aiming by its promises and mysterious hints at winning over the
Pope to the dispensation (cf. what we have said supra p. 136). In
other ways too there are no safe grounds for the assertion put
forward by Acton and his disciples. Cf. TURKE, 34 seq., where
the accounts of Catena and Gabutius are critically examined.
It must be added that in 1884 KERVYN DE LETTENHOVE (Hugue
nots, II., 43) brought to light a dispatch from the Spanish am
bassador in Rome, of May 19, 1568 (cf. infra, p. 154, n. 4), which
shows how wrong was the estimate formed by Acton, and how
true that of Tiirke, of the Pope's character, and his attitude
towards such projects as the massacre of St. Bartholomew.
1 Printed in the second edition of CATENA, 1587, p. 343 seq.
* See KERVYN DE LETTENHOVE, II., 364, 366 seq. ; BAUM-
GARTEN, loc. cit. 144 seq., 146 seq.
144 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
my cousin the Duke of Montmorency, a thing which has
filled the Spandiards with wonder and jealousy, as have my
friendly relations with the princes of Germany."1
The tendency of French policy towards the Huguenots
and their allies involved serious danger to the Catholics of
France. At the same time they had no cause for despair, since
during the desperate struggle which they had had to carry
on for their very existence, the foundations of their spiritual
renewal had been laid.
Pius V. had intervened in this matter as well with apostolic
zeal. Not only was he unceasingly careful for the maintenance
of purity of faith in France,2 but also for the renewal of
Catholic life, and the removal of ecclesiastical abuses. From
the beginning of his pontificate he had urged the carrying out
of the Tridentine decrees, and the conscientious use of the
right of nomination to episcopal sees granted to the French
government by the concordat. At Avignon he himself gave
an example of the way in which the reforms of the Council of
Trent should be enforced.3 In common with all well-informed
persons he recognized that in the end violence and bloodshed
would be useless without the removal of the hopeless con
ditions which were above all the result of the abuse of the
1 KERVYN DE LETTENHOVE, II., 354 seq. DE NOAILLES,
Henri de Valois, I., Paris, 1867, 9.
* With regaid to the action taken against the heretical bishops,
of which we have spoken on p. 108, besides the briefs given by
LADERCHI (see especially 1567, n. 160, 169), there must be taken
into the consideration the *following unpublished briefs : Card1
Crequy of July 17, 1566 (Arm. 44, t. 12, n. 96), Honorato de
Sabaudia, comiti Tendae of August 7, 1566 : against heresy in
French Savoy (ibid. n. 99), Card, de Armeniaco of February 10,
1568 (ibid. t. 13, p. 147), Communit. cornet. Venaissini of May 2,
1569, Episc. Vertudonesi of May 7, 1569 (ibid. t. 14, p. 107),
Comiti Tendae of December 30, 1569 (ibid. p. 320), Papal Secret
Archives. In February, 1572, A. Contarini gives the following
summary of the spread of heresy in France (p. 242) : " the most
infected districts are Guienne, Gascony and Poitou, the least
are Champagne and He de France."
' See CIACONIUS, III., 1020.
ABUSES IN FRANCE. 145
powers granted by the concordat.1 In order to extirpate
heresy, the Pope wrote to Charles IX. and Catherine de' Medici
on March 8th, 1566, it is above all necessary that the episcopal
sees should be wisely filled, and that their holders as well as
all others having the care of souls should observe the duty of
residence in conformity with the decrees of the Council of
Trent.2 It seemed for the moment that Charles IX. had
taken to heart the words of the Pope, but it soon became
evident that, in spite of further exhortations, he was short
sightedly persevering in the old way which was so convenient
and offered so many material advantages. In his report for
June, 1569, the Venetian ambassador, Giovanni Correro,
described with biting sarcasm how the offices and property
of the Church were left at the disposal of the king's cupidity.
It is very pleasant to His Majesty, he says, to be able to dis
pose of 1 06 bishoprics, 17 archbishoprics, from 600 to 700
abbeys and as many priories, and in this way, without opening
his purse, to pay his debts, reward his grandees and dower his
daughters. The abuse has become such and has reached such
a pitch that at the French court they deal in bishoprics and
abbeys as they do elsewhere in pepper and cinnamon. The
evil is so obvious that everyone is writing about it and owns
that here is the root of all the trouble. All the promises made
by the queen to do away with the abuse are shown to be mere
empty words.3
Similar promises were again made in 1572 to Cardinal
Bonelli, but no change was effected. As he was bound by the
concordat, and as the situation could hardly grow worse, the
1 Cf. especially the views of G. Correro (p. 189 seqq., 192), who
makes it clear that in this respect things were as bad as ever
(see Vol. XI I L of this work, p. 168). Correro rightly remarks that
if they did not see to having good bishops, who would teach
reform by word and example, everything would be useless, even
though they were to proceed with fire and sword. See also
A. CONTARINI, 243.
* See the *brief from the Papal Secret Archives in App. n. i.
8 See CORRERO, 192 seq.
146 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
Pope could do nothing but wait.1 When, however, he could
make a protest with any prospect of success, he refused to
confirm some nominee of the king.2
That no help was to be expected from the French court
for the interior renewal of the Church of France, was shown
even more clearly by the protection it afforded to the bishops
who had been disposed for heresy, as well as the former Cardinal
Chatillon, who had openly joined the Calviiiists and taken
a wife on December ist, 1564. 3 The Pope's action against
these prelates who were so forgetful of their duty was so fully
justified from the Catholic point of view that he had every
right to expect the assistance of the eldest son of the Church.4
But to the king the so-called liberties of the Gallican Church
and his own political aims were of far greater importance, and
he ignored all the Pope's remonstrances. Pius V., however,
did not relax his efforts. Again in a brief of October I4th,
1570, he deplored the " opprobrium " that Jean de Montluc,
who had been deposed in 1566, should still be holding his
bishopric of Valence.5 The nuncio Frangipani plainly told
Charles IX., in reference to the part he played in favour of
Chatillon, that he was running the risk of being known as the
schismatic king.6
To the terrible injury inflicted on the Catholic Church in
France by this attitude of the government were to be added
the enormous material losses which it had incurred in the
religious wars. In the opinion of an ambassador, it would not
be possible to restore in ten years the great number of churches
1 Cf. A. CONTARINI, 251, 267 ; TtfRKE, 24.
* An example in LADERCHI, 1569, n. 149.
8 Cf. MERKI, Coligny, 342.
4 Opinion of POLENZ (II., 301).
'This ** brief, which is in the Papal Secret Archives, escaped
the notice of DEGERT (p. 105).
9 *" In quel di Ciattiglione mi sono aperto a dime amore-
volmente al Re insino al pericolo che incorre di acquistarsi nome
di Re scismatico in vece di quel che ha di Christianissimo."
Letter from Paris, September 30, 1570, Nunziat. di Francia,
IV., 48. Papal Secret Archives.
BEGINNING OF A REACTION. 147
that had been destroyed, and which still excited wonder in
their ruins. According to Correro the clergy were ruined,
because, apart from the ecclesiastical property which had been
sold by the order of the Pope, since 1561 they had had to pay
more than twelve million scudi, and that this was nothing
compared to the losses which had been inflicted on them by
the soldiery, whether friends or enemies.1
Nevertheless these terrible experiences had had their advan
tage for the French Catholics. Even during the first religious
war the acts of violence and misdeeds of the Huguenots had
brought about a change ; the sight of the ruined churches
and the dismantled altars, the spoliations and murders, carried
out in the name of the new religion, of helpless priests, monks,
and nuns, had driven many into resistance who had allowed
themselves to be blinded by the appearance of greater strict-
ness and piety in Calvinism, and had opened out to them the
way of return to the Catholic Church. The second religious
war had had the consequence that, in spite of the conventions
of the Peace of Longjumeau, the more important cities would
no longer tolerate the Calvinist preachers. The Catholics
were beginning to take up their own defence vigorously.2
Before this, says Correro, they had been full of fears, not
1 See CORRERO, 186. Cf. H. FURGEOT, L 'alienation des biens du
clerge sous Charles IX. in Revue des quest, histor., XXIX., 448 seq.
8 Cf. the memorial of Frangipani mentioned on p. 135, n. I ;
A. CONTARINI, 244 ; BAUER, Th. Beza, II., Leipsic, 1851, 611 ;
PICOT, I., 15 seq. 19. To this day traces may still be seen of
the devastation, to which innumerable works of art fell victim.
Among the libraries that were destroyed, the most valuable
was undoubtedly that of Cluny. For the changed mood of the
people cf. Chanson populaire centre les Huguenots (1566) in
Bullet, de la soc. d'hist. de France, I., 2 (1834), 165 seqq. Of the
Franciscan Order alone about 200 martyrs are mentioned by
name in France for the years 1560 to 1580 (see GAUDENTIUS,
no). In reality the number was far greater, since whole con
vents were frequently destroyed — there were about 100 — and
their inmates put to death without their names being recorded
(see HOLZAPFEL, 480).
148 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
because they were fewer in number, since of the common
people only a thirtieth part at the outside were Huguenots,
and a third part of the nobility, but because the Huguenots
were splendidly organized and united, while the Catholics
were divided and carelessly left everything to the government.
Now that they had been disillusioned by the deplorable attitude
of the court, they had begun, like men roused from sleep, to
unite and show a bold front to the enemy. The conduct of
the war itself had deprived the Huguenots of their moral
preponderance, apart from their loss of Conde*, Andelot,
Wolfgang of Deux- Fonts, and other leaders.1 The Huguenots,
too, who even in civil matters were cut off from the national
life, stood instinctively opposed to that tendency to unity
which is so deeply rooted in the French character.2 The
change in public opinion, too, was profoundly affected by the
fact that Pierre de Ronsard, the founder of French classicism,
definitely took the part of the ancient Church, and in his
writings openly opposed the Huguenots as the destroyers of
Christianity and the enemies of the state.3
The shrewd Correro also made another observation with
regard to the changed attitude of the French Catholics towards
1 CORRERO, 186 seq. The numerical data ot Correro naturally
have only a relative importance. However, Frangipani also
states (memorial quoted supra p. 135, n. i) : " Per due Ugonotti
che siano nel regno si ode calcolare che si ha da contrapoire
piii di otto cattolici."
1 Cf. ELKAN Die Publizistik der Bartholomausnacht, Heidel
berg, 1905, 141 seqit and PLATZHOFF in Preuss. Jahrb., CL., 54
seq.
9 See specially his Remonstrance au peuple de France, 1563.
BAUMGARTNER, Gesch. der Weltliteratur, V. 265, ; PERDRIZET,
R. et la r^forme, Paris, 1903. There is a celebrated passage in
which Ronsard makes Beza responsible for the terrible devasta
tion asking him how he dares to preach :
Un Christ tout noircy de fumee
Portant un morion en teste et dans la main
Un large coutelas rouge de sang humain.
See KERVVN DE LETTENHOVE, I., 79.
CATHOLIC REACTION IN FRANCE. 149
the Pope, who, he said, had gained more than he had lost
during the recent disturbances, because, before the schism
in religion, attachment to Rome was but weak among the
French people, who looked upon the Pope rather as a great
Italian prince than as the head of the Church and the universal
pastor, but no sooner had the Huguenots come to the fore
than the Catholics began again to venerate him and recognize
him as the true Vicar of Christ, and this feeling had become
stronger and stronger the more violently they were harassed
and attacked by the Calvinists. Even that vast number who
did not give much thought to religion, but only wished to be
counted loyal servants of the king, now honoured the Pope
much more than of old, in order to show their hostility to
the Huguenots. The life and conduct of the reigning Pope, too,
had contributed in an extraordinary way to the increased
authority of the Holy See. The reforms which had been intro
duced in Rome gave more than ordinary satisfaction ; Pius V.'s
reserve towards his relations was admired as something un
heard of for many years, and men were delighted when he would
not make them counts, or marquises or dukes, but left them in
their lowly state. This alone was enough to make him appear
to the people as a saint, who was not aiming at his private ends,
but only at the common good, and whose thoughts were fixed
exclusively on the extirpation of heresy, the removal of abuses
from the Church, and at bringing back priests to a simple and
praiseworthy manner of life. Even the Huguenots could
find nothing to condemn in such a Pope, and were wont to say
that His Holiness had a good conscience. The impression
made by his purity of life was so great that he won the praises
even of his enemies.1
This revival of Papal authority, as well as the slow renewal
of life in the Catholic Church in France, was closely linked
with the quiet but efficacious labours of the new Orders.2
1 CORRERO, 207.
2 RANKE (Papste II.8, 95 seq.) and POLENZ (II., 287 seq.)
have already called attention to this. Cf. also BAUDRILLART
in La France chret., Paris, 1895, 363. Of the older Orders Pius
ISO HISTORY OF THE POPES.
Together with the Capuchins, who were trying to get a footing
in France in 1568, l this was true above all of the Jesuits, who
had the great advantage of possessing in Edmond Auger,
Antonio Possevino and Olivier Manaraeus men who devoted
themselves with extraordinary success to missionary work.
The accounts of their labours show that even many of those
who had most strongly fallen under the influence of the
religious innovations, flocked to their sermons and were easily
led to place themselves under instruction. Auger was in
vited by the authorities to Toulouse in 1566 ; the most dis
tinguished men of that city and about 1,000 students of the
university, who all leaned in various degrees towards Calvin
ism, followed his conferences with rapt attention ; the univer
sity wished to make him a doctor, and the civic authorities
invited him to return for the following Lent.2 He met with a
similar success in Paris ; the churches were crowded at his
sermons ; he was invited to preach before the court, and the
most exalted personages in the country accepted the dedica
tion of his works.3 By the help of English influence Protest
antism had obtained the complete mastery of Dieppe. All
the churches there had been ruined with the exception of
one, in which the altars, crucifixes and images of the saints
had been broken in pieces. In spite of this, as the result of
the sermons of Possevino in 1570, 2,500 Huguenots within a
few days pressed to be received into the ancient Church, while
Possevino's successor, Manaraeus, was able to receive 4,000
V. specially sought to reform and renew the Dominicans ; see
his *brief to Charles IX., in which he begs him to give his assist
ance to the General of the Dominicans in his activities in France.
Arm. 44, t. 16, p. 183, Papal Secret Archives.
1 See Documents pour servir a 1'hist. de 1'etablissement des
Capucins en France, 1568-1858, Paris, 1894, i seqq. The Titre
de fondation du couvent des Capucins de la rue St. Honore" de
Paris, dated September 4, 1568, in Bullet, de la Soc. d'hist. de
Paris, November-December, 1889.
8 FOUQUERAY, I., 533 seqq.
'.Ibid. 535.
THE JESUITS IN FRANCE. 151
Calvinists ; within a few months these two preachers had
entirely changed the religious aspect of the city.1
A thing which contributed a great deal to this success was
the fact that Posse vino and Auger not only possessed a pro
found theological training and a knowledge of the classical
languages, which was so much appreciated at that time, but
also that their whole conduct and their zeal for religion
gave great edification, and especially that their care for the
poor and sick and desolate showed that they were filled with
the true spirit of Christianity. At Paris Auger preached for
choice in the prisons and hospitals.2 At Lyons, where he
converted about 2,000 Huguenots, he founded a body of
two hundred ladies who went twice a week to the hospitals
to serve the poor.3 A little later he undertook the office of
military chaplain with the troops of the Duke of Anjou.4
Possevino, who preached in the Cathedral at Marseilles in
1568, at the same time visited the orphanages and instructed
the children in the elements of religion. It also gave special
edification when he there took charge of those condemned to
the galleys, who were entirely neglected.5 Auger rendered a
lasting service to Catholic France by his two catechisms,
which attained in his own country an importance similar to
that of Canisius in Germany.6
The learned Maldonatus also left his chair in the Jesuit
college in Paris in order to preach and catechize with five
companions in Poitou, one of the principal centres of the
Huguenots. We have special accounts of his labours,7 which
1 Ibid. 545 seqq.
1 Ibid. 535-
•Ibid. 536-
• Ibid. 537.
5 Ibid. 543 seq.
• See F. J. BRAND, P. Edm. Augerius, Cleves, 1903 ; Idem,
Die Katechismen des Edm. Augerius, S. J. Freiburg, 1917.
'Maldonatus to Borgia, March 29, 157°. in PRAT> Maldonat,
577 ; to the college of Clermont, April i, I57°» ibid- (582 se<W- >
to the Cardinal of Lorraine, April 18, 1570. #w*« 585 seqq. i to
Possevino (?), May 10, 1570, ibid. 588 seqq.
152 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
give a surprising insight into the spiritual state of the 'great
Protestant organizations. In the opinion of Maldonatus
Calvinism was so wide-spread in the capital of Poitou, simply
because, owing to the neglect of the clergy, religious instruction
was almost wanting ; the people were Huguenots because
they knew nothing about either religion.1 It was looked upon
as a proof of Catholicism to be present at mass, but while they
were there they said the prayers which were taught them by a
Calvinist preacher in the dress of a Catholic priest. The
religious conferences which two of the Jesuits gave every
morning and evening at Poitiers, as well as the two daily
lectures of Maldonatus for the more learned and for the
students, attracted great crowds, and produced an " incredible
effect " on the opinion of the whole city. Often the preachers
heard it said that the churches had not been so full for ten
years past. In Holy Week so many people crowded to con
fession that the Jesuits could not have dealt with them even
if there had been fifty of them. Many returned to the ancient
Church, several of them with such good will that it was quite
clear that they had only been heretics for lack of instruction.2
The commandant at Poitiers helped the general good will by
certain ordinances in favour of the ancient religion, but, in the
opinion of Maldonatus, many of the Huguenots were so weary
after the wars that, especially among the common people,
many of them were only waiting to be forcibly commanded
to become Catholics.3
Of even greater importance than the labours of the Jesuits
to the revival of Catholic life in France would have been the
carrying out of the reform decrees of Trent, but it was out of
the question to think of this on account of the attitude of the
1 " Son hugonotes porque no entienden la una religion, ni lo
otra." To Borgia, loc. cit. 578.
2 " que se vee claramente que eran herejes por falta de aver
quien les enseflase." Ibid.
* " ut omnes haeretici, praesertim populares, nihil aliud optare
videantur, quam ut compellantur intrarc," to the Card, of
Lorraine, 18 April, 1870, ibid. 586.
RENEWED CATHOLIC LIFE. 153
government. Where Pius V. had only to issue his orders,
as at Avignon and in the Venaissin, he set to work with all
zeal to introduce the Tridentine decrees. By his wish the
archbishop, Feliciano Capitone, held provincial councils at
Avignon in 1567 and 1569, 1 and made a visitation of the whole
district.2 In order to reform ecclesiastical abuses the Pope
,even threw himself into the midst of the disturbances of war.3
The war had hardly ended in 1570 when the Papal nuncio
demanded the summoning of provincial councils in accordance
with the Council of Trent, pointing to the example of Italy
and Spain.4 By the autumn of 1570 Frangipani could send
encouraging reports to Rome from Paris concerning the
development of Catholic life, and the much greater zeal of
preachers and theologians for the defence of the Catholic
religion and the repression of heresy ;5 the people too attended
the churches in much greater numbers, as had been clearly seen
on the feast of St. Denis.6 When the jubilee was celebrated at
Paris at the beginning of November, the churches had never
been so full. The number of those who received the sacra
ments of penance and of the altar was so large as to make it
seem like Easter. Parish priests declared that the people
1 Copy of the *Atti in the municipal Library, Avignon.
2 Cf. the *brief to the Archbishop of Avignon of July 17, 1569,
Arm. 44, t. 14, p. 150, Papal Secret Archives.
8 Cf, the briefs in LADERCHI, 1567, n. 161 seq. ; 1569, n. 192.
4 Cf. the *report of Frangipani to Cardinal Rusticucci from
Paris, August 16, 1570, Nunziat. di Francia, IV., 18, Papal Secret
Archives.
5 " *Si vedde hoggidi nei nostri padri et predicatori et theologi
tutti un zelo et un animo grande nella difesa della religione
catholica et in detestatione di heretici, non solo della dottrina,
ma della pace et commertio con essi, tanto che per esperienze,
che n'ho fatto in alcuni contrarii, che vi son occorsi, che per
gratia di Dio sin qui si son superati tutti, io vi ho trovato tanta
constanza, che dico certo, che se il re istesso, volesse, non bastar-
ebbe superarla che veramente si vede esser opra di Dio." Letter
from Paris, October 3, 1570, loo. cit. 54.
* See the *letter of Frangipani of October 8, 1570, loc. cit.
VOL. XVIII 12
154 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
had never shown so great piety in the memory of man.1 The
same was seen in other places as well, as for example at Soissons.
On a journey which he made in November from Paris to
Me*zieres, Francesco Bramante observed everywhere the
reduction in the number of the Huguenots ; for every thou
sand Catholics there were at that time, he thought, only four
heretics.2 Bramante's hopes increased when Cardinal Pelleve*
told him in secret that Charles IX. was thinking of putting to
death Coligny and certain other Huguenot leaders, and that
the consequence of this would be the disappearance of all
their followers within three days ! This remark, he wrote on
November 28th, pleases me much, but I shall not rest until the
shameful Peace of St. Germain is revoked, and the heretics
have been burned as was done in the days of the ancient kings
of France.3
Pius V. too wished that the strongest action should be taken
against the heretics, but he did not desire the removal of their
leaders by wrongful means. The Spanish ambassador Zum'ga
reported in May, 1568, that he had heard from the Pope that
the rulers of France were proposing the perfidious assassination
of Conde* and Coligny, and that the Pope had made no secret
of the fact that he could neither approve nor advise this, nor
find it in his conscience to do so.4
1 " *Et per fare un poco di piu dolce fine, non voglio di mancare
di dire a N.S. per sua consolatione che nell' altra settimana, che
si e fatto qui il giubileo, si e visto una devotione et una frequenza
di popolo cosi grande in tutte le chiese in processione et oratione
et confessarsi et communicarsi che e parse veramente la settimana
santa e il di di Pasqua, et i preti parochiali mi ban detto di non
haver di cento anni memoria di una frequenza et divotione cosi
grande di popolo." Letter from Paris, November 6, 1570,
loc. cit. 72.
1 See in App. n. u, Papal Secret Archives.
* See the *report in cypher in App. n. u, Papal Secret Archives.
4 " Una cosa que el no podia aprovar ni aconsejar, ni aun le
parecia que en consciencia se podia hacer." Report of Zum'ga
from Rome, May 19, 1568. Corresp. dipl., II., 372 (in KERVYN
PE LETTENHOVE, II.. 43, an£ in Lettres de Cath. de
THE POPE DISAPPROVES ASSASSINATION. 155
IV., xxvi., wrongly assigned to 1567). Without paying any
attention to the evidence of Zuniga printed in 1884, and com
pletely ignoring the bibliography given supra p. 140, n. i, the ex-
Jesuit HOENSBROECH in his book Das Papsttum (I., Leipsic,
1901, 204), writes : " Pius V., who had included assassination
among the proper instruments of the Papacy, had already taken
a great part in the preparations for the Paris massacre [St. Bart
holomew]." By way of proof Hoensbroech refers to the letters
which we have mentioned in describing the third religious war,
from Pius V. to Charles IX. and Catherine de' Medici, on March
6, April 3, and October 20, 1569, concerning the destruction of
the French heretics. But to these letters there also belongs
one to Catherine of March 28, 1569, in which Pius V. exhorts
her to an open and free opposition to the Huguenots (" apertei
et libere " ; GOUBAU, 155), so that all idea of a plot is excluded.
The Protestant Tiirke had already called attention to this in his
dissertation which was naturally quite ignored by Hoensbroech,
saying very rightly : " finesse and diplomatic subterfuges were
evidently not his [Pius V.'s] bent ; he was wont to attain his
ends by direct means." (p. 17). It is a consolation to know that
Hoensbroech met with no support among serious Protestant
scholars. G. Kriiger, for example, speaking of the dissertation
by VACANDARD, Les papes et la Saint-Barthelemy (printed in
Etudes de critique et d'hist. relig., Paris, 1905, 217-292) in the
Theolog. Literaturzeitung of Harnack, 1906, 382) writes : " I
do not know if it is necessary once more to refute the accusation
that the Popes had anything to do with the preparations for the
massacre of St. Bartholomew. Vacandard himself adduces the
view of Soldan, that the sources show that the events of August
24 took place quite independently of the influence of the Curia,
and it will be difficult for him to ignore an histoiian who must be
reckoned with so seriously, and who is in a position to contradict
him."
CHAPTER V.
THE STATE OF RELIGION IN SCOTLAND. MARY STUART AND
ELIZABETH.
A VIVID light is thrown upon the state of oppression under
which the Catholics of Scotland were living by an event that
occurred at the last Easter before Pius V. ascended the throne.
A priest was seized at Edinburgh while he was saying mass ;
dressed in the sacred vestments, and with the chalice in his
hands, he was fastened to the cross in the public market place,
and pelted by the people with mud and other " Easter eggs."
It was not until the following day that he was interrogated
and sentenced. The prisoner was then made to stand again
at the market cross for four hours ; again he " was given ten
thousand eggs " and when at last he was taken to prison, a
band of three or four hundred men would have killed him
with cudgels had not the provost interfered by force. The
infuriated populace were filled with indignation when Mary
ordered that the two Catholics who had assisted at the mass
should be pardoned, and they were in consequence condemned
to the forfeiture of their property.1
After her victory over the insurgents Mary had resolved
to put an end to this state of things, and to restore to the old
religion its former position, at anyrate to the extent of giving
it equal rights with Protestantism. When Pius V. ascended
the throne he thought that she had already restored the
Catholic religion throughout the kingdom, and in the letter
in which he announced his election to the Scottish royal couple,
1 Alexander Clerk to Randolph, April 22, and Bedford to
Cecil, April 28, 1565, in STEVENSON, VII., n. mi, i ; n. 1123, 2 ;
FLEMING, 350 seq. " There is now greater rage amongst the
faithful than ever the writer has seen since her Grace came into
Scotland." Clerk, he. cit. p. 341. Cf. BAIN, n. 169, 171-
156
THE CONSPIRACY OF DARNLEY. 157
he exhorted them to carry on the work they had begun.1
Before this letter reached Mary's hands, an envoy from the
Cardinal of Lorraine arrived on January 27th, 1566, who ad
vised her to confiscate the property of the rebels and once
more to have recourse to the Pope with a request for financial
help.2 The queen then charged her former envoy, Chisholm,
Bishop of Dunblane, to go to the Eternal City. In the creden
tials which were given to Chisholm3 it was stated that the
conditions in Scotland were not desperate, but very danger
ous, and that the queen's enemies were in exile or in her power,
though anger and poverty were driving them to extremes.
Chisholm had gone but a little way upon his journey when
news reached him of further terrible events in Scotland. On
March 7th, Mary had opened the Parliament, and had laid
before it two proposals ; the one to permit the bishops and
parish priests the full exercise of the old religion, and the other
demanding the punishment of the rebels.4 The rebel lords
sought to prevent the threatened loss of their possessions by a
fresh conspiracy to overthrow the queen, and they found a
ready tool among those nearest to Mary. The youthful,
incapable and quite inexperienced Darnley had been severely
touched in his pride because Mary had not bestowed upon
him the so-called matrimonial crown, which would have made
him the equal of his wife in the exercise of the royal power.5
This headstrong youth allowed himself to be induced by a
promise of the conspirators to make him their hereditary king,
to ally himself with the very men who had recently taken up
1 Letter of January 10, 1566, in PHILIPPSON, Regne de Marie
Stuart, III., 483 ; cf. POLLEN, 232 seq.
2 POLLEN, ci.
8 Of January 30, 1566, in LADERCHI, 1566, n. 366 ; LABANOFF,
VII., 8.
4 " One allowing the bishops and rectors of churches the full
exercise of their ancient religion, and the other punishing the
leaders of conspiracy." Leslie in FORBES-LEITH, 108.
6 For the importance of the matrimonial crown see BROSCH,
VI., 508.
158 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
arms against him. The first step in the crime they had planned
was the murder of the queen's secretary, David Rizzio, to
whom they attributed the queen's friendly attitude towards
the Catholics.1 Without thought for his wife or the son
whom she had borne in her womb for six months, the un
natural father and husband on the evening of March gth,
1566, introduced the conspirators into the queen's chamber,
where she was sitting at table with Rizzio and several friends.
There the conspirators seized the secretary, who had taken
refuge behind his sovereign, and struck at him with their
swords over Mary's shoulder, while one of the ruffians levelled
his pistol at the breast of the queen herself. Rizzio was
carried outside and killed, and Mary was made a prisoner
in her own apartments. The exiled lords returned to
court.
As was her custom in moments of danger, the queen now
displayed great courage and sagacity. Immediately after
this bloody crime Darnley found himself in danger from his
savage accomplices, and returned to the queen whom he had
betrayed, and she, with his help, succeeded in evading the
guards and escaping. Once free her cause was saved, and
the conspirators again took to flight.
What had really happened was sufficiently terrible, but it
was inevitable that the rumours which got abroad should be
far worse. It was said that Darnley had killed the queen
1 It has not been proved and it is very improbable that Rizzio
was an " agent of the Pope " (BEKKER, Maria, 12) ; the Vatican
Archives contain no letter from him or to him (POLLEN, ciii).
Certainly " it :s unquestionable that . . . the Protestant lords
longed for Rizzio's murder as Mary's zealous adviser in her
efforts to restore the old religion " (BAIN, II., xv.). Among
the accomplices in the murder there appear Knox and the preacher
Craig (BAIN, loc. cit. and n. 363, p. 270). One cannot speak of
" the fine singer Rizzio." According to all the accounts he was
ugly, and according to almost all — the single exception, LABANOFF,
VII., 86, may be attributed to a copyist's error — was already
well advariced in years. Particulars of the conspiracy in
CARDAUNS, 5-19.
CHISHOLM IN ROME. 159
and had become a Protestant.1 Therefore Bishop Chisholm
stopped for some days on his way to Rome at Lyons, until
he received authentic news of the safety of the queen. He
reached Rome at the end of April, and in a long interview
informed Pius V. of the dangers in which his sovereign was
placed, begging him to send her substantial help.2
In Rome Chisholm found the ground prepared for his
mission by the recent events.3 Pius V. shed tears when he
heard of the queen's pitiful position, which he himself had
not the means to relieve.4 Yet he did all he could ; he cut
down the expenses of his own household, and even his table ,
in order that he might have the consolation of helping Mary
by his personal sacrifice.5 On May 2nd and 5th he wrote to
the kings of Spain and France to obtain assistance for Mary.6
1 Alava to Philip II., dated from Moulins, March 26, 1566,
in POLLEN 473. Requesens to Philip II., April 18, 1566, Corresp.
dipl., I., 1 88. C. Luzzara also reports from Rome to Mantua
concerning the apostasy of Darnley, April 17, 1566, Gonzaga
Archives, Mantua.
* POLLEN, civ. The speech in BELLESHEIM, II., 448 seqq,
(with wrong date April n). Cf. also Corresp. dipl., I., 253
and the *report of Arco (with Avviso attached) dated Rome,
April 27, 1566, State Archives, Vienna.
3 According to a "report of Arco of May 18, 1566, his efforts were
supported by the Cardinal of Lorraine. State Archives, Vienna.
4 " . . . dicen que suspiraba y le salian las lagrimas de los
ojos, y diciendole alguno que Su Santidad no se fatigase
tanto, respondiole, como quereis que no me fatigue viendo en
tal estado aquel reyno y no teniendo la manera que querria para
poderle ayudar." Polanco from Rome, April 30, 1566, in Anal.
Bolland., VII. (1888), 55 ; cf. Requesens to Philip II., May 31
and July 4, 1566, Corresp. dipl., I., 254, 281.
6 Polanco, June 17, 1566, in Anal. Bolland, VII., 59.
•LADERCHI, 1566, n. 369. The letter to Philip II. has the
wrong date in the reprint of Laderchi (POLLEN, 236). On April
1 8, 1566, Pius V. had caused the Spanish ambassador Requesens
to write to Philip II. in the same sense. The brief of May 2
was sent to the nuncio Castagna at Madrid with a covering
letter from Bonelli (ibid. 228). It arrived there on May 2\
l6o HISTORY OF THE POPES.
If they had complied with his wishes the two great Catholic
powers would have joined together against Elizabeth, or at
least have forbidden their subjects to trade with England,
and thus struck at the life of the northern kingdom.1 In
a brief of May I2th, 1566, he told Mary of what he had done
with regard to Charles IX. and Philip II., adding that he
would shortly follow this up with financial assistance, which,
however, could not be so large as he would like because, since
the Turks were about to attack the Emperor by land, and
Malta by sea during the coming summer, he had been obliged
to utilize his financial resources to meet these dangers.2
(ibid. 258) and as he announces on that day (ibid. 261) was de
livered by Castagna on June 7. Philip promised to do all that
he could (ibid.).
1 Tiepolo to the Doge, May 4, 1566, in POLLEN, 236. Already
for a long time past there had been spread " by general report
in all Europe " rumours of the existence of a league of the Catholic
powers against Protestantism (§USTA, I., 255). The only truth
in this was that both Pius IV. and Pius V. had wished for such a
league. Under Pius IV. it fell to the French nuncio Gualterio
to propose on September 8, 1561, a league for the defence of the
Catholic religion in France (ibid. 252, 255 seq.}. Pius IV. also
at one time spoke of holding out the hope of the crowns of both
kingdoms to the Spanish king in the event of the excommunica
tion and deposition of the sovereigns of France and England
becoming necessary (ibid. 280). For the attempt of Pius V.
to unite the Catholic princes against the French Protestants,
cf. CATENA, 68 seq. Anything more than such desires and sug
gestions, however, is not to be found in the political corres
pondence of that time, and since this correspondence is now
published so extensively it may be looked upon as certain that
at that time they never arrived at any definite conclusion of a
Catholic league, and that the acceptance of any such thing on
the part of several recent historians is based upon an error.
Cf. POLLEN, xxxviii.-xliii., and The Month, XCVII. (1898),
258 seqq. ; RACHFAHL, II., i, 190. There is no trace existing
of the accession of Mary to any such league. HOSACK, I., 124-
129; PHILIPPSON, loc. cit.t III., 117 ; cf. FLEMING, 124, 379.
* LADERCHJ, 1566, n. 370.
A PAPAL ENVOY TO SCOTLAND ? l6l
It was soon seen, however, that the danger from the Turks
was not so great as had been thought, whereupon Pius V.
at once promised to send to Mary the whole sum that had been
destined for Maximilian II. and the Knights of St. John.1
At the end of May Chisholm returned to Paris.2 In the
expectation that a great dignitary of the Church would be
more likely to receive considerable sums of money, he had
suggested the sending of a nuncio to Scotland, and Pius V.
had held out hopes of this to the queen in his letter of
May 1 2th.3 In her reply4 Mary expressed her joy at the
Pope's decision, but it is permissible to doubt whether, in
view of the disturbed condition of Scotland, a Papal envoy
would have been quite pleasing to her. Even Manaraeus,
the provincial of the Jesuits, whose subjects, Edmund Hay
and Thomas Darbishire, were destined to accompany the
nuncio, ventured to send his doubts to Rome.5 In his
opinion Mary had great need of wise and deeply religious men
as her advisers, but they must be men of Scottish birth and
not foreigners, and least of all men sent from the Holy See,
which was hated like the devil in Scotland. He thought that
it would be well to send back to Scotland Mary's ambassador
in Paris, Beaton, Archbishop of Glasgow, who would be able
1 The Emperor complained of this : cf. LADERCHI, 1566, n.
275 seqq. ; SCHWARZ, Briefwechsel, 23, 30. The reply of the
Pope, July 12, 1566, ibid. 33.
J POLLEN, 239.
* LADERCHI, 1566, n. 370. Arco *wrote to Vienna on June
15, 1566, that Laureo would start for Scotland on the I7th " piu
per mostrare chel Papa tien conto di quella Regina, che per
aiutarla con effetti contra gli ribelli." Another reason for his
mission was the news that the queen had pardoned a great num
ber of the rebels. State Archives, Vienna.
4 From Edinburgh, July 17, 1566, in LABANOFF, I., 356. On
July 21, 1566, Darnley and Mary wrote together to the Pope to
propose Alexander Campbell for the bishopric of Brechin. BAIN,
II., n. 414. POLLEN, 262.
•MATSTARAEUS to Francis Borgia from Paris, June 26, 1566, in
POLLEN, 497 seq.
I&2 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
to exhort the bishops and Catholic nobles to loyalty to God,
the Church and the queen ; some Jesuits could be sent- with
him as companions and counsellors until the time came for
wider activities. About the same time1 Hay too expressed
his fear that the Papal intervention would cause but little
satisfaction in Scotland on account of the discouragement and
weakness of the Catholic party ; it was to be feared that the
money would fall into wrong hands and that the nuncio would
be kept in France or would return to Rome without having
accomplished anything.
The promised nuncio, Vincenzo Laureo, Bishop of Mondovi,
arrived in Paris on August loth, 1566, where a letter from
the Queen of Scotland was awaiting him. In this letter Mary
expressed her desire that the nuncio should not come until
after the baptism of her son, who had been born on June igth.
It was her intention that the sacrament should be administered
to the future successor to the throne solemnly and with the
full Catholic ritual, and if the nobles and people agreed to this,
then the coming of the nuncio could hardly meet with further
opposition. At the same time the queen urgently asked that
either the whole or part of the Pope's subsidy should be sent :
Beaton and Chisholm proposed that part of the sum should
be paid, but Laureo replied that according to the instructions
which he had received, he could only hand over the whole sum
in a case of necessity, but that otherwise the payment was to
be made in five monthly sums. The necessity was already in
existence, he was told, but Laureo thought it best first to ask
the advice of the Cardinal of Lorraine before he gave a definite
promise.2
In a note attached to the account which he gave the Secretary
of State of his conference with Beaton and Chisholm, Laureo
describes the difficult position of the queen.3 Elizabeth of
England, he says, is more suspicious of her than ever since
the birth of an heir to the throne, and will in future give her
4 Hay to Borgia from Paris, July 2, 1566, in POLLEN, 499.
* Laureo to Cardinal Bonelli, August 21, 1566, in POLLEN, 269.
3 Ibid. 270 seq.
LAUREO IN PARIS. 163
assistance to the Scottish rebels more willingly than ever ;
the queen is at variance with Darnley, who is aiming at the
independent possession of the crown, and this forces her to
seek for support from the Protestants. An improvement in
the situation might be brought about if Philip II. were to go
to Flanders with a large military force, and if Mary were to
proceed with stern justice against the leaders of the insurgents ;
if six of these were to be condemned to the death which they
had deserved, the Catholic religion would very soon and with
out difficulty be re-established. It would seem that Laureo
had been led to this view by the Scottish exiles in Paris, who
were not sufficiently acquainted with the true state of affairs
in their native land.1 The six whose punishment Laureo
demanded were Murray, Argyll, Morton, Lethington and the
influential government officials, Bellenden and MacGill ; not
one of the preachers is included, not even Knox.
Since the Cardinal of Lorraine favoured the payment of
part of the money which the Pope had sent to the assistance
of Scotland, Laureo gave the Scottish ambassador 4000 ducats,
with which his brother left Paris on September gth, reaching
Stirling on the 2ist.2 The departure of the nuncio himself
for Scotland, however, was continually delayed. The baptism
of the young prince, for the added solemnity of which it was
thought desirable to await the arrival of the foreign ambassa -
dors, had not yet taken place. On October 6th the Privy
Council of Scotland voted the necessary sum for its being
celebrated with all possible solemnity ; the the same time
the nobles declared their willingness that the nuncio should
come,3 and shortly after this the queen ordered Stephen
1 Cf. ibid. ex.
2 Laureo to Cardinal Bonelli from Paris, September 9, 1566,
in POLLEN, 279. On the same date *the Pope recommended
his nuncio to Charles IX. " Vincentium Montisregalis episcopum
negotiis reginae Scotiae deputatum, quern et secum de eiusdem
reginae angustiis fortiter sublevandis oretenus acturum fore
indicat et orat sub faveat," British Museum, Additional 26865,
p. 421.
8 Instructions for Wilson n. 2, in POLLEN, 327 ; cf. ibid. 324.
164 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
Wilson, who had accompanied Chisholm on his journey to
Rome, to go to Paris and Rome, to invite the nuncio to Scot
land, -to thank the Pope, and to make apologies to him for the
delay in announcing the birth of the heir to the throne,1 but
Wilson's departure was delayed, and towards the end of the
month the queen fell seriously ill at Jedburgh, which made
everything once more uncertain.2
Faced with death, Mary received the sacraments of the
Catholic Church, expressed her inviolable attachment to the
faith of her youth, and her regret that she had not done more
for the service of God and religion. Laureo's belief in Mary's
good intentions then revived, whereas before this, on account
of the long delays in his journey, it had been not a little shaken.
The nuncio too had entertained the suspicion that the advice
to invite him to Scotland had been given to the queen with
the purpose of supplying the great penury in the royal
treasury.3 In order to obtain further light upon the true
state of affairs, as soon as news had arrived of Mary's recovery,
Bishop Chisholm and the Jesuit Hay were sent to her, the
latter being instructed to return as soon as possible and make
a report as to the real sentiments of the queen.4
The idea had also gained ground in Rome that Mary's
religious zeal had been rated too high. On September i6th,
1566, Pius V. had had a letter written to the nuncio to say
that if his departure was delayed any longer, he was not to go
on paying the subsidy, and if, on his arrival in Scotland he
should learn that the money that had already been sent had
not been employed for the service of religion, Laureo was to
stop the payments altogether.5 Later, on September 3oth,
he wrote to him that if his departure was put off indefinitely
he was to return in the meantime to his diocese of Mondovt6
1 Ibid. A letter from Mary to Morone of October 9, 1566,
ibid. 324 seq.
* POLLEN, 328. FLEMING, 539.
8 Laureo, November 12, 1566, in POLLEN, 311.
* Ibid. 313.
• Ibid. 284
• Ibid. 286.
MARY'S STRANGE LENIENCY. 165
Before these last instructions reached the nuncio, Laureo
had an interview with the Cardinal of Lorraine.1 He sub
mitted that the favourable moment had now come to under
take something on a large scale for the betterment of religion in
Scotland, and that Pius V. could do a great deal with Philip II.,
while the help which the Pope had given of itself afforded
in the opinion of Beaton and Chisholm, sufficient grounds for
taking more decisive action. The Cardinal at length agreed
with Laureo, and the two decided that a noble, chosen from
among those who were most in the Cardinal's confidence,
should be sent to the Queen of Scotland to try and persuade
her to re-establish the Catholic Church.2 In the opinion of
the Cardinal himself, of Bishop Chisholm and of Edmund
Hay, the best course to pursue would be to take rigorous steps
against the leaders of the rebels, as the nuncio had already
advised. The noble who was to be sent, would arrive in
Scotland before Wilson started ; if then the queen summoned
the nuncio to Scotland for other motives than real for religion,
there would still be reason to hope that his arrival and the
recollection of the illness from which she had just recovered,
would make her more ready to listen to the salutary and
prudent advice of the Cardinal.
There was indeed something strange in Mary's leniency,
which gave so much scandal to Laureo and the Scots who were
living in Paris. While she was still in the hands of the murder
ers of Rizzio, Mary skilfully evaded the demand for an immedi
ate pardon of the guilty parties.3 On March igth, 1566,
Morton, Ruth of Lindsay, and 67 others were summoned to
appear within six days before the king and queen, to answer
for the murder of Rizzio and the imprisonment of the queen.4
But one by one all the guilty parties received a pardon. By
the end of April Murray and Argyll were already back at court,
while decrees in the case of other rebels were issued on May nth
1 Laureo, November 12, 1566, in POLLEN, 312.
1 Nothing further is known about this mission.
* NAU, 25 seqq. FLEMING, 392 seqq., 403 seq.
4 FLEMING, 131.
l66 HISTORY OF THE POPES
and June 8th. During June, July, September and October
further pardons were granted,1 followed on Christmas Eve,
1566, by a general pardon for Morton and 75 others.2 By
the end of the year half the queen's Privy Council was com
posed of pardoned conspirators, and it was easy to foresee
that at the first opportunity these people would use the power
she had given them against herself. However strange this
may seem, the position is to some extent explained by the
insistence of Elizabeth on the pardon of those who were guilty
of high treason,3 by Mary's purpose of working for peace
and conciliation above all things, and of putting an end to
the disturbances which were so sorely wounding the country.4
Moreover, Mary had no one among those about her who com
bined political experience with loyalty to the sovereign. She
therefore was obliged as best she could to manage the con
spirators so that they might not turn their schemes against
their sovereign.
It was therefore natural that Mary should have rejected
the advice of the nuncio, which was also impracticable for
other reasons ;5 she declared that she would not stain her
hands with the blood of her subjects.6 The nuncio for his
part remained all the more firmly fixed in his ideas because
it seemed to him that the terrible events of the last few months
lent weight to his contention. As a result of her too great
goodness and kindness, he wrote, the queen is in the greatest
danger of becoming the slave and prey of the heretics, and
of losing her life.7
1 Pollen in the Month, XCVI. (1900), 243. FLEMING, 406, n. 19.
* Printed in FLEMING, 502-504.
8 FLEMING, 131, 403.
4 " I hear she seeks now all means to quiet her country and
will ' irabrace ' such as are fitted for her council. It is thought
she will rot deal so hardly ' with these noblemen ' as she was
minded." Randolph, April 2, 1566, in BAIN, II., n. 368. Thus
she reconciled Murray with Bothwell, Murray with Huntly,
Atholl with Argyll. HOSACK, I., 147.
8 Laureo, December 3, 1566, in POLLEN, 321.
• G. Thomson, in POLLEN, 406.
7 Laureo, March 12, 1567, in POLLEN, 363.
THE MURDERERS OF RIZZIO. 167
The men in power, whose punishment Laureo was demand
ing, .were not only at heart filled with hostility towards the
queen, but they were also highly incensed against her husband,
the discredited Darnley, to whom they attributed the fact
that after the murder of Rizzio the attempt on Mary had
failed. It had been he. who after that bloody deed had pre
vented the pardon of the assassins which Mary had at once
suggested, and he had continued to oppose it. He had again
incurred the hatred of the murderers in exile when with in
conceivable short-sightedness he had taken the mad risk of
solemnly disclaiming before the Privy Council any respon
sibility for the murder of Rizzio, a statement which was
publicly promulgated at the market-cross of Edinburgh on
March 2ist, 1566. In view of the savage and unrestrained
habits of the Scottish nobles it was only to be expected that
the allied lords would take a bloody vengeance upon him
at the first opportunity. In the meantime they replied to
Darnley's declaration of his innocence by sending the queen
the document in which her husband had allied himself with
the conspirators, and which he had signed with his own hand.
Mary was quick to realize the vile treachery of the man to
whom she had so short a time before given her love.1
Even at the time of their escape from the murderers of
Rizzio Darnley had behaved most disgracefully and un-
chivalrously towards the queen,2 and the information now
furnished by the conspirators was not calculated to dispel
her distrust of him.3 It was true that she had forgiven him,
and reconciliations between the two had been of frequent
occurrence,4 but Darnley had never given up his hopes of
possessing the crown independently of her, and when this
ambition had not been satisfied the discontent of the foolish
young man had shown itself in a way that recalls the sulks
of a spoilt boy. He did not attend the opening of Parlia-
1 HOSACK, I., 145. FLEMING, 128.
1 NAU, 29.
8 Examples of her distrust in FLEMING, 132,
4 Ibid. 132, 134, 135, 137.
l68 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
ment in 1566, he even kept away from the baptism of his son,
and at last he declared that he would leave Scotland altogether.
Mary then, on September 3oth, 1566, in the presence of the
French ambassador, Ducroc, and her Privy Council, asked
Darnley to give an account of his conduct. Ducroc describes
what happened : she took him by the hand and implored
him in God's name to say whether she had given him any cause
for acting as he proposed to do ; let him speak openly and
not spare her feelings. Darnley replied that she had given
him no cause whatever, but nevertheless took his leave with
the following words : " Farewell, Madam, you shall not see
my face again for a long time to come." He did not, how
ever, for all that, leave Scotland.1
Darnley 's confession that he had no fault to find with the
conduct of his wife throws some light upon Mary's relations
at that time with a man2 who had already attained to great
influence at the royal court, and was soon to take a most un
happy part in the destinies of the queen. James Hepburn,
Earl of Bothwell, had left Scotland in 1562 under an accusa
tion of the attempted assassination of Murray,3 but after the
rebellion of the nobles in 1565 he had obtained permission to
return,4 and had taken a leading part in the suppression of
the revolt.5 Since he was the only Scottish noble who, in
spite of his profession of Protestantism, had always been loyal
to the king, it is easy to understand Mary's partiality for a
1 HOSACK, I., 153. FLEMING, 138. On the same day, Septem
ber 30, the lords of the Privy Council exhorted Darnley to thank
God for having given him so wise and virtuous a wife (FLEMING,
J37 seq.). On October 15, 1566, Ducroc wrote that he had
never seen Mary so much loved, valued and honoured as now,
and that thanks to her wise attitude there was complete harmony
among her subjects. HOSACK, I., 157.
* Fleming too (loc, cit.) recognizes that the Lords of the Privy
Council at that time knew and believed nothing of certain scan
dalous stories of the Book of Articles.
8 HOSACK, I., 82.
4 Ibid. 104, 1 20, 143.
9 LABANOFF, II., 33. FLEMING, 115, 118, 369,
CONSPIRACY AGAINST DARNLEY. 169
man, who, however rough, headstrong, violent and immoral,
was at anyrate not a hypocrite or a traitor.1 In a short time
Bothwell's influence had become so great that he was the
most hated man in Scotland, and a conspiracy had been formed
for his destruction.2
The plot was not carried out at that time ; on the con
trary a fresh conspiracy was formed, this time, to all appear
ances, in Bothwell's favour. By the invitation of Huntly,
Argyll and Lethington, hitherto his enemies, Bothwell allied
himself with them for the destruction of " that young cox
comb and haughty tyrant " Darnley, who was to be removed
at all costs.3 Bothwell had allowed himself to be drawn into
this alliance with his enemies by the promise that he himself
should take the place of Darnley and become the husband of
the queen.4 It would seem that Bothwell did not perceive the
trap that was being laid for him, since, as the murderer of
the king, he could not hope long to retain his place on the
throne he had usurped. It was easy to foresee that he must
involve the queen in his own ruin, and that thus the attempt
already twice made to dethrone Mary would at last be crowned
with success.
While the net was thus being spread for Darnley, that
" young coxcomb and haughty tyrant " under the influence
of his ambitious and imprudent father, Lennox, was forming
1 HOSACK, I., 152.
1 Bedford, August 12, 1566, ibid.
8 This conspiracy was only known from the memorial of the
queen of June, 1568 (LABANOFF, VII., 315 seqq.) and by the
confession made by Lord Ormiston on December 13, 1573, before
he was executed ; he had been invited to take part in it. HOSACK,
162 seq. ; FLEMING, 423, n. 90.
4 They (the repatriated exiles) retained the strongest resent
ment against Darnley for having betrayed their plans to the
Queen, and they anxiously sought an opportunity of vengeance.
In a short time they disclosed their design to Bothwell, urging
him to murder the King, and promising that if he consented
they would persuade or compel the Queen to give her hand to
him. Leslie to Forbes-Leith 117. Cf. BEKKER, 28, 99 seq.
VOL. XVIH. 13
170 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
fresh plans for obtaining that matrimonial crown which he
had so long aspired to.1 At the end of December he left his
wife, and soon afterwards news reached Edinburgh that he
was lying sick of small-pox at Glasgow. At the end of January ,
1567, Mary visited him, and persuaded her sick husband to
return with her to Edinburgh, where he was removed from
the influence of the Earl of Lennox. Contrary to the original
plan of the queen he took up his abode in a private house,
situated in a healthy district outside the city, but adjoining
the southern part of the city walls.2
It was not long before the nuncio received terrible news
from Scotland. The French ambassador in Edinburgh, Ducroc,
had arrived in the capital of France on February igth, 1567 ;
before he embarked at Dover a courier from the French am
bassador in London sent him the terrible news that on the
morning of Quinquagesima Sunday Darnley and his father
Lennox had been found dead and stripped in the public street.3
This first communication was soon amended and amplified
by further news. Messages from the Scottish queen reached
Beaton and the French court, and lastly one for Laureo him
self. According to the later reports the queen had visited
her husband incognito in the evening of Quinquagesima
Sunday, and had bidden him farewell a little before midnight
in order to attend the wedding of one of her courtiers. Two
hours later the sound of an explosion had brought the citizens
of Edinburgh who lived near the city walls from their beds.
Darnley 's house had been blown up ; the body of the king
was found in a garden near the house ; one of his ribs was
broken and his body torn and crushed by the violence of the
fall. At the same time an unsuccessful attempt was made
on Darnley 's father at Glasgow.4
1 RIESS in Hist. Zeitschrift, 3rd series, XIV. (1913), 272 seq.
* Description of the house in BEKKER, 377-380.
• Letter of February 22, 1567, in POLLEN, 348 seq.
4 Letters of Laureo of Feb. 23 and 27, Mar. 8, 12 and 27, 1567,
in POLLEN, 352-371. These reports of the nuncio are among the
earliest notices of the murder. Some of the particulars given in
the text are to be found only in Laureo. Cf. POLLEN, cxx.
THE MURDER OF DARNLEY. 171
Scotland was accustomed to regicide ; of 105 Scottish kings,
according to a contemporary estimate,1 56 had been killed.
But this last crime, carried out as it had been in so horrible
and disgraceful a way, and which became the universal subject
of talk throughout Europe,2 was looked upon as an outrage
by the whole country. At the same time the authors and
instruments of the terrible deed were hidden in absolute dark
ness. It was little guessed that all the most powerful officers
of state, the chief justice Argyll, the secretary of state, Lething-
ton, and the chancellor of the kingdom, Huntly, were all con
cerned in it. It was therefore natural that suspicion, especi
ally abroad, should fall upon the ill-fated queen,3 and that
she should bear the blame if the inquiry into and the dis
cussion of the affair became the merest farce.
On February I2th, 1567, the Privy Council announced that
the queen had offered a reward of two thousand pounds sterling
and other great inducements to anyone who would reveal
the name of the author of the crime.4 In spite of this no
public denunciation was made, but on the i6th papers were
found affixed to the principal buildings of Edinburgh naming
Bothwell and three others as the murderers and accusing the
queen of connivance in the crime ; during the night angry
cries resounded through the streets accusing Bothwell. Pic
tures of Bothwell were circulated bearing the inscription :
This is the murderer of the king.5 Darnley's father, Lennox,
took up the matter, and in a letter of March I7th, he declared
that Bothwell and three others were the authors of the crime.8
The case could hardly have been placed in less suitable
hands. On March 28th, after Lennox's accusation, April i2th
was fixed by the Privy Council for the inquiry into Bothwell 's
guilt, but instead of any inquiry being held into the crime
1 Diary of Birrel, in HOSACK, I., 280 n.
•Beaton to Mary, March n, 1567, in HOSACK, I., 280 seq. ;
FLEMING, 151.
8 Beaton, loc. cit.
4 FLEMING, 439.
'FLEMING, 153.
•HOSACK, I., 283.
172 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
at the place where it had been committed, Lennox gathered
together 3000 armed men in lieu of proof, and set out with
them towards Edinburgh. At Stirling, however, his courage
failed him, and on April nth he wrote to the queen that he
was ill, and requested that the guilty men should be im
prisoned until his arrival, and that he should be given a free
hand to arrest suspects. At the request of Lennox Elizabeth
supported these strange demands, which, however, were not
granted.1
On the following day the comedy of the inquiry was begun.
The foreman of the jury was a close relation of the accused,
and the president of the court was Argyll, BothwelTs fellow
conspirator ; accompanied by another accomplice, the secre
tary of state, Lethington, and many of his adherents, the
accused man repaired in great pomp to the place of the inquiry,
which, however, in spite of everything, he faced with con
siderable qualms. As not even one witness was produced by
the unskilful prosecutor, it seemed clear that the inquiry
must end in his acquittal. The suggestion put forward by
the other side that the inquiry should be put off was negatived,
on the ground that Lennox himself had wished that the trial
should be made as short as possible.2 Four days later Parlia
ment was opened ; "on account of his great and various
services " the representatives of the country confirmed Both-
well in his office of commandant of the castle of Dunbar, thus
indirectly acknowledging his innocence.3 Moreover, the
same Parliament took active steps to secure to the members
of the great nobility, such as Huntly, Morton and Murray,
their possession of the rich properties which the queen had
already bestowed upon them. It must be remembered that
in the coming December Mary was to complete her twenty-
fifth year, and that before she reached that age she had the
power to revoke such gifts, unless a parliamentary decree
had confirmed them. The lengthy documents in which this
1 Ibid. 283, 285, 288.
1 Ibid. 291 seq.
* FLEMING, J55.
MARY'S MARRIAGE WITH BOTHWELL. 173
confirmation was given throw much light upon the motives
for the murder of the king, since Darnley, if he had still been
alive, would certainly not have given his consent to the granting
of such rich possessions to those nobles, who were his mortal
enemies.1 The same Parliament also abolished all those legal
disabilities which were still in existence against the Protest
ants, and secured to every Scotsman the freedom to live
according to his own religion.2 In order that the Catholics
might not draw any profit from this " liberty," all the royal
permits in favour of any particular form of religion were
annulled on May 23rd, when Bothwell was already married
to the queen.3
The evening alter the closing of the Parliament, April igth,
1567, Bothwell gave a banquet to the great nobles at the inn
of Ainslie, and there induced nine earls and twelve barons to
sign a document in which these nobles declared that they con
sidered Bothwell innocent of the murder of the king, and their
readiness to defend him against all such calumnies. If Mary,
it went on to state, should choose him for her husband, they
were resolved to defend him against anyone who sought to
prevent or impede his marriage.4 On the very next day
Bothwell made the queen an offer of marriage, which, how
ever, was definitely rejected.5
Then the events which were to drag down Mary to her ruin
followed fast upon each other. On April 2ist the queen
went to Stirling to visit her son ; on her return, on April 24th,
she was carried off by Bothwell and pressed by him until she
consented to marry him, although he was already married.
Thereupon the first marriage of the future king had to be
hurriedly dissolved. His first wife, who was a Catholic,
pressed her case before the Protestant assembly, while the
Protestant Bothwell did the same with the Catholic arch
bishop. The marriage was dissolved by the Protestant
1 HOSACK, Iv 294 seq.
1 BELLESHEIM, II., 73.
3 Ibid. 83. Pollen 395 n.
4 BAIN, II., n. 492. Cf. FLEMING, 155 ; BEKKER, 97 seq.
8 LABANOFF, II., 37. NAU, 45 seq. BEKKER, 101.
174 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
consistory on the ground of the adultery of Both well, while
it was declared invalid by the archbishop's court on the
ground of the close relationship of the parties, although the
archbishop himself had granted the dispensation from any
such impediment.1 On May I5th, three months after the
assassination of Darnley, Mary gave her hand to her violent
suitor in that unhappy union, which was contracted before
the apostate bishop of the Orkneys.2 The better part of the
1 The document of the dispensation of February 17, 1566,
was discovered by John Stuart (A lost chapter in the history of
Mary Queen of Scots recovered, Edinburgh, 1874). The question
may be raised whether at the process of the divorce it was pre
sented or suppressed, and if the suppression took place with the
knowledge of the archbishop, whether the dispensation was
valid, if Mary knew of its existence. In the brief by which
Pius V. ordered a fresh trial of the case (July 15, 1571), it is
stated that the dispensation was suppressed ; that Bothwell
dared " violenter aggredi " his sovereign " eamque rapere in-
vitam et nihil minus cogitantem et captivam ... in arcem de
Dumbar in carcerem detrudere, eamque ibi ac deinde in arce
Edimburgensi per aliquod temporis spatium invitam similiter
ac reluctantem retinere, donee processum quendam praetensi
divortii inter ipsum comitem lacobum eiusque uxorem praedictam
instituit, ac subtracta furtive dispensations apostolica supra
narrata iniquissimam desuper sentemtiam dicti matrimonii
rescissoriam omni iuris ordine ac dictamine postposito praeci-
pitanter fulminare curavit . . . et in continenti omni mora
postposita praedictam Mariam reginam lugentem ac renitentem ad
comparendum coram schismatico, ut dicitur, episcopo Orchadensi
et apostata ad consensum praetenso matrimonio cum eo tune
de facto contrahendo praestandum per vim et metum iniuriose
compulit." (Hist. Jahrbuch, VI. [1885], 157). The statements
in the brief are naturally founded upon the account sent by
Mary. But if the brief is valid, the substantial account of the
facts must be based upon the truth. The distinguished canonist
Bellesheim in his history of the Catholic Church in Scotland,
II. (1883), 127 seq., speaks in favour of, and in Hist.-polit. Blatter,
CXII. (1893), 579, against the validity of the marriage of Both-
well with Jane Gordon.
8 BELLESHEIM, II., 80.
MARY S MARRIAGE WITH BOTHWELL. 175
kingdom, that is to say, all the great nobles, approved the
marriage, either by acclamation, or at least by silence.1
How Mary was led to take this fatal step will perhaps always
remain an unsolved mystery for history. According to the
declaration of her enemies, Mary had had adulterous relations
with Bothwell, while her second husband was still living, and
it wa$ she who was principally responsible for the death of
Darnley. However, not only was Mary's youth stainless,
but from the very first years of her sojourn in Scotland not
even the hate-sharpened eyes of Knox and his followers had
been able to find any fault with her on the score of morals.
Moreover, she was of high and noble character ; this was
shown by her courage in danger, her fortitude in sorrow, and
the loyalty with which she clung to her religion, even when
to do so was opposed to all her own interests. It seems quite
impossible to explain the psychology of her sudden fall to the
very depths of moral turpitude. The Dominican, Roch
Mamerot, her confessor, assured the Spanish ambassador in
London in July, 1567, that, until the events which led to her
marriage with Bothwell, he had never seen a lady of greater
virtue, courage and honour, and that he was prepared to
affirm this on his solemn oath.2
On the other hand it cannot be denied that at anyrate
appearances were against Mary. Her quarrel with Darnley
was known to all, as well as the favour enjoyed by Bothwell,
and in marrying him she seemed to give grounds for the
gravest suspicions. Still, not even this justified the gravest
of those suspicions. Her quarrel with Darnley had been very
far removed from mortal hatred, she always remembered
that she was his wife, and continually held out the hand of
reconciliation to him, while there is no certain proof that
she had any erotic passion for Bothwell. Her marriage with
the latter was certainly a tremendous mistake, but her act,
even though it cannot be justified, can nevertheless to some
1 Words of the preacher Craig, who openly disapproved of the
marriage. Ibid. Si.
* Guzm&n de Silva to Philip II., July 26, 1567, Corresp. de
Felipe II., II., 518 ; cf. POLLEN, 520.
176 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
extent be understood in a woman who found herself com
pletely in the hands of a violent man, and who saw no chance
of help anywhere, to say nothing of the fact that she was
broken in body and spirit by her troubles.1
A judgment is made all the more difficult by the campaign
of calumny which was ruthlessly carried on against Mary by
her enemies ; it is beyond dispute that they fought against
her, so to speak systematically, with lies and falsehoods.2
1 HOSACK, I., 275 seq. On March 15, 1567, Alava, the Spanish
ambassador in Paris, wrote to Philip II. that Mary was thinking
of leaving Scotland and taking up her residence in France. Ibid.
276. POLLEN, 477.
"The accusatory document brought forward against Mary
at the Conference of Westminster in 1568, the Book of Articles
(in HOSACK, I., 522-548) is full of the grossest calumnies (ibid.
426 seqq. ; cf. also FLEMING, 137), to which the Detectio of Buchanan
gave the widest publicity. At Westminster there were also
brought forward the depositions of Nelson, the only one of
Darnley's servants who saved his life in the explosion, and that
of Crawford. Nelson tried to create the impression that in his
last illness Darnley was badly looked after, but he is confuted by
the inventory of his house which is still preserved (HOSACK, I.,
253 seq. ; an insufficient observation to the contrary in Fleming
434) and Darnley himself attests the good treatment he received
from his wife (m RIESS in Histor. Zeitschrift, 3rd series, XIV.,
[1913] 283). The deposition of Crawford on the interview be
tween Darnley and Mary at Glasgow is in such close agreement
with one of the Casket Letters, that one of the two documents
must have been copied from the other (BEKKER, 360 seq.). Some,
who look upon the Casket Letter as the original, cf. as to this
B. SEPP, Tagebuch der ungliicklichen Schottenkonigin Maria
Stuart, II., Munich, 1883, 19 seqq. ; RIESS, loc. cit. 258 seq. —
think to excuse Crawford by saying that he saw the letter " in
order to refresh his memory" (RiESS, loc. cit. 256). But any
such " refreshment " would obviously be a dishonest act, and
Crawford did not refresh his memory but copied. Among the
depositions made in the years 1568 and 1569 at the inquiry into
the death of Darnley, the evidence of Hay, Hepburn and Paris
is falsified at anyrate in the matter that they are made to agree
in saying that the powder, by which the king was to be blown
THE CASKET LETTERS. 177
This fact gives ground for thinking that they were unable to
do her much harm by telling the simple truth, so that it is
necessary to accept with a great deal of caution all that her
enemies adduced in the way of proof or of documentary evi
dence. This applies to the so-called casket letters, or letters
without address or signature which Mary is supposed to have
sent to Both well from Glasgow before the murder of Darnley,
and from Stirling before she was carried off. If they are
genuine these letters would put Mary's guilt beyond doubt,
but there are such good reasons for doubting their genuineness
and authenticity, and the people who adduced them are
proved so guilty of falsehood, that the conscientious historian
cannot take them by themselves as proof of her guilt,1 in spite
into the air, was stored immediately under his room, in the
queen's room, whereas none was found except in the cellar.
This falsification was necessary in the first place in order to
blacken Mary's name, and also in order to put the responsibility
for the explosion and the murder of Darnley upon Both well,
by making it out that Bothwell directed the explosion inside
the wall of the city by a door leading through the wall in the
cellar, but the body of Darnley was found outside the city (BEKKER,
54 seqq.). For the deposition of Paris, which was not used even
by Buchanan, cf. HOSACK, I., 246 seqq. ; II., 82. — Forgeries too
are the two contracts (HOSACK, I., 555 seqq.} in which Mary, a
few weeks after the death of Darnley, promised Bothwell marriage
(ibid, 278). — The consprators had already transferred the assault
on Rizzio to Mary's room in order to spread the I4e that Darnley
had surprised Rizzio in adultery and had therefore killed him
(memorial to Cosimo de' Medici, in LABANOFF, VII., 72). After
the fact Cecil spread the calumny in the foreign courts (letter
of the French ambassador Paul de Foix to Cecil, of March 23,
1565, in HOSACK, II., 79), although he very well Tmew the true
motives (ibid. Preface p. ix. seqq.}. For the evidence offered
by Murray cf. BELLESHEIM, II., 108.
1 Fleming too, who is a declared enemy of the Scottish queen,
and of the " Mariolater," in his book which we have frequently
cited, completely leaves on one side the Casket Letters. A
second volume on Mary Stuart which is promised by him,
and in which he may have made up his mind as to those letters,
178 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
of all the attempts made to show the genuineness of the casket
letters.1
Probably the question of her guilt may be answered by
saying that Mary can be acquitted of all connivance in the
murder of Darnley, but that the marriage with Bothwell must
be looked upon not only as a blunder, but as a false and blame
worthy step. Apart from her deadly enemies, the party of
the nobles, this was the opinion of Catholics of the time, who
certainly were well acquainted with the facts. Her con
fessor, Mamerot, who explicitly acquitted her of any share
in the murder of Darnley, left her, after having vainly pro
tested against the marriage with Bothwell.2 Similar un
favourable judgments of her third marriage came from
Moretta, the ambassador of Savoy, from Ducroc, the French
ambassador, and from others.3 It must, however, in fairness
be remembered that the marriage which was condemned by
Mary's confessor, was approved by three bishops.4 At Pente
cost, May i8th, a few days after the marriage, the queen, in
order to remove the scandal which had been given by her
Protestant marriage, publicly received the sacraments accord
ing to the Catholic rites.6 If she had looked upon her marriage
with Bothwell as invalid, such an act would have been an open
outrage to all Catholic ideas.
Knowledge of all the terrible events in Scotland was not
has not yet appeared. Morton's declaration on December 9,
1568, on the discovery of the Casket Letters (published by
Henderson in 1889, and reproduced in Histor. Jahrbuch, XX.
[1891] 778 seqq.} does not decide the question and is also itself
liable to suspicion of being a forgery. Cf. B. SEPP, Die Losung
der Kassettenbrieffrage (against Riess), Ratisbon, 1914, 8 seq.—
Reprint of the Casket Letters in BAIN, App. II., p. 722 seqq.,
and of Morton's declaration, ibid. p. 730 seqq.
1 The last attempt to prove the complete genuineness of the
Casket Letters was made by RIESS, loc. cit. 237 seqq.
2 Pollen 519, 521.
8 Ibid, cxxix. seqq.
4 BELLESHEIM, II., 81.
6 Leslie in FORBES-LEITH, 123.
LAUREO RETURNS TO ITALY. 179
needed in order to settle the fate of Laureo's nunciature. At
the first news of Darnley's death, the nuncio had still thought
it possible that Mary would at least now follow his advice, and
hand over the leaders of the Protestant party to justice.1
But it was soon evident that it was not even worth his while
to await the return of the envoys he had sent to Scotland,
Bishop Chisholm and the Jesuit Hay. Four days after Easter
he thought it best in any case to obey the Pope's orders to
return home.2 A little while after he had announced this
intention to Rome, however, Hay returned to Paris with the
Savoyard ambassador, Moretta, bearing conflicting tidings.
Both were of opinion that, in view of the power exercised by
the Protestants, and the terrible state of excitement in Scot
land, the nuncio could do no good there. The queen, how
ever, had the idea of sending the Catholic Lord Seton with
three ships to fetch the nuncio, and had promised the bishops
that she would be guided by the advice of Laureo ; the bishops
were ready to bear the expense of the voyage and the reception
of the nuncio, but for all that the journey was by no means
advisable.3
In Rome the nuncio's mission was looked upon as doomed
after the death of Darnley.4 In deference to Beaton's in
sistence that he should at least await the return of Chisholm ,
Laureo again postponed his departure, but the reports of
fresh arrivals from Scotland dissipated his last hopes. In
the middle of April he set out for Italy, but not before he had
once more, before he started, put in a word with the Pope
in favour of Mary, saying that she was a woman and had
allowed herself to be guided by political considerations, but
that she was a Catholic and wished to be considered as such,
and that perhaps at some future time she might be able to
restore the Catholic religion in Scotland.5
1 Laureo, March 8, 1567, in POLLEN, 360.
2 Laureo, March 12, 1567, ibid. 362. Laureo received the
Pope's orders of February 17 on March 10 ; ibid. 348.
3 Laureo, March 16, 1567, ibid. 367 seq.
4 Letter of Bonelli to Laureo of March 17, 1567, which reached
Paris on April 7, ibid. 372.
5 Laureo, April 8, 1567, in POLLEN, 378.
180 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
In her difficulties after the death of Darnley Mary showed
much greater anxiety to have Laureo by her side, than ever
she had done in the days of her greatest power. Upon her
plan of summoning the nuncio to Scotland, there followed,
after he had gone, a request, sent by the hands of Ducroc,
that Laureo would send her someone who was in his con
fidence, who could advise her.1 After her unhappy marriage
with Both well she complained to the Cardinal of Lorraine
that the nuncio had gone back to Italy too soon ; if only he
had come to Scotland she would have been saved from many
disasters.2
It was natural, seeing how slowly news travelled in those
days, that the marriage with Bothwell should only have been
known in Italy long after the event. Hay received the sad
tidings in Paris on June 5th, and at once sent it on to Laureo
at Mondovi,3 and the latter in his turn immediately reported
to Rome on July ist that the queen in the end had not been
able to refrain from showing her undue affection for Bothwell,
and that thus things had come to this pass, which was so
contrary to God's honour and her own.4 On June i8th, when
Laureo thought it well to satisfy Mary's request for an adviser,
he had no less characteristically written to her that though
he was sending Edmund Hay, if the queen found her
self spurned by the Pope, she should bear in mind that she
had married Bothwell, a thing which it seemed implied apostasy
from the Catholic faith, since Bothwell was a married man.5
1 Laureo, June 18, 1567, ibid. 387.
* Instructions of Chisholm for his mission to Lorraine, ibid.
399.
» Ibid. 394-
4 " La Regina finalmente non s' e potuta contenere di mostrare
la troppa affettione che porta al conte di Boduel con questo ultimo
atto contrario al honor di Dio et di Sua Maiesta." Laureo, July
I, 1567, ibid. 392.
' " S'aggionge a questo ch' ella per molti respetti potria dubitare
di non essere in buona opinione di Nostro Signore, talche entrando
forse in sospetto d 'essere disprezzata et abbandonata da Sua
Santita pigliasse qualche strana delibberatione, verbi gratia, in
THE POPE'S DOUBTS OF MARY STUART. l8l
Although Laureo sent at the same time an autograph letter
from the queen, which ended with the assurance that she
wished to die in the Catholic faith, and for the good of the
Church, the Pope's reply to Laureo was extremely short. So
far, he caused the Secretary of State to write, His Holiness
has not shut his eyes to the truth, and thinks it well at present
not to mix himself up in so important a religious question.
As far as the Queen of Scotland herself is concerned, his wish
is to have no relations with her at all, unless in the future
she gives more satisfactory evidence than she has done in the
past of her conduct and religion.1 Thus all relations between
Rome and Scotland were broken off. Even after Mary's fall,
Pius V. did not wish to charge his nuncio at Madrid with taking
any steps on her behalf, as he was not clear in his mind which
of the two queens was the better, Mary or Elizabeth.2 Some
time elapsed before Mary recovered the confidence of Cath
olics. On January 2ist, 1569, Edmund Hay wrote to Francis
Borgia to order prayers for Mary, in order that the circum
stances of that sinful woman might change for the better,
so that she might in the end accomplish a good work, even
though she had not so far listened to good advisers.3
maritarsi con il Conte di Boduel ; et massime che questo stimolo
pu6 troppo nelle donne giovani et libere, il qual matrimonio non
si potria eseguire senza dispreggio et forse abbandono (quod
absit) della Santa Religione Cattolica etc." POLLEN, 387.
1 Bonelli to Laureo, July 2, 1567, in POLLEN, 396. " Toda
la buena voluntad que el Papa tenia & la Reyna de Scocia se
le ha pasado, y est£ della muy mal satisfecho, pareciendole que
despues de la muerte de su marido ha contemporizado mucho
con los herejes." Requesens to Philip II., May 31, 1567. Corresp.
dipl., II. , 122 ; cf. 192 ; " La tiene agora aborres9ida." Cf.
also Tiepolo in ALBERI, II., 4, 188.
* Bonelli to Castagna, August 17, 1568, Corresp. dipl., IL, 444-
Moreover, Pius at that time hoped for the conversion of Elizabeth.
POLLEN, English Catholics, 125.
8 " Fieri enim protest, ut illi peccatrici omnia in bonum ali-
quando cooperentur, et fiat postea magnorum operum effectrix,
quae olim noluit sanis consillis acquiescere." In POLLEN 507.
1 82 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
Though she had erred, Mary Stuart was soon given the
opportunity for a bitter atonement. The least part of this
was that from the very day of her marriage,1 and during the
whole time that that marriage endured, she was profoundly
unhappy.2 The nobles who had so long plotted her ruin, now
thought that their time was come. Under the pretext of
rescuing their queen from the hands of Bothwell, they got
together an army and met the troops of Bothwell and Mary
near Carberry Hill. No battle was fought. Probably because
she considered her own army too weak, and wished to avoid
bloodshed, Mary decided to disband her troops on condition
of their being allowed to withdraw unmolested, and to come
to terms with the rebels.3 Bothwell was allowed to escape
unharmed ; the leaders of the nobles, Hume and Morton, were
in fact his accomplices, and their pretended motive for the
campaign, the punishment of the murderer of the king, was
nothing but a pretence.
Once in the hands of her enemies, the queen was nothing
but a prisoner, and cut off from all help. On her arrival,
she was met with the cry, as though from a single voice, of
the angry army : " Burn the adulteress ! "4 She was then
taken to Edinburgh ; on a banner, carried before her, was
shown her murdered husband, and with him her son, with the
prayer on his lips : " Judge and avenge my cause, O Lord ! "5
In her capital Mary was again met by the crowds with savage
cries, demanding her death at the stake or by drowning.6
During the night between June i6th and lyth, 1567, she was
transferred to the castle of Lochleven, strongly built in the
middle of a lake, and on July 24th she was made to resign
1 This is attested by Ducroc, to whom she said on that day
that she only wished to die (in HOSACK, I., 322), and by the
memoirs of Melvil (ibid.) and Leslie, who on the day of the
marriage found her weeping bitterly (FORBES-LEITH, 123).
1 FLEMING, 463, n. 21.
8 HOSACK, I., 331.
4 " Burn the whore ! " FLEMING, 164.
* Ibid. BAIN, II., n. 519.
• FLEMING, 466, n. 37.
MARY IMPRISONED AT LOCHLEVEN. 183
her throne in favour of her thirteen months old son, who was
crowned on the agth. In the sermon which he preached on
this occasion Knox demanded Mary's execution for adultery
and the murder of her husband.1
The enemies of the unhappy queen had won a sweeping
victory. During the minority of James V. and his daughter
Mary the nobles had been able greatly' to increase their power,
and now the reign of an infant opened before them the alluring
prospect of two decades of undisturbed development of that
power.
In spite of the strict watch kept over her at Lochleven,
Mary, with the help of good friends, was successful in escaping
on May 2nd, 1568, and in getting together an army. But on
May i6th, the fortune of war was against her at Langside.
While Mary was in prison, Elizabeth of England had whole
heartedly and with surprising decision embraced her cause.2
Trusting in the help of her " good sister " Mary crossed the
Solway Firth on May i6th, and set foot on English soil ;
she thus entered upon a new phase of her life of sorrow.
With the imprisonment of Mary at Lochleven, Catholic
worship in Scotland lost the last place where it could be
publicly carried on. Accompanied by armed retainers Lord
Glencairn burst into the chapel of Holyrood Castle and broke
to pieces everything he found ; not even the furniture, dresses
and jewellery of the queen were spared.3 Murray had not
been regent for three weeks before he began to persecute
the Catholics. On September 8th, 1567, Chisholm, the Bishop
of Dunblane, was put on trial for having administered the
Calendar of State Papers, Foreign Ser., 1566-1568, p. 291,
293-
3 BROSCH, VI., 516-522. Lethington understood this zeal so
little as to give expression to the suspicion that by her exhorta
tions and threats Elizabeth was aiming at nothing else than to
irritate the Scottish nobles to such a degree that they would
relieve her of all further trouble by killing Mary (ibid. 521).
But perhaps Elizabeth's aversion for all rebellious behaviour is
sufficient tc explain her conduct.
8 BELLESHEIM, II., 86. HOSACK, I., 348.
184 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
sacraments and for his relations with the Pope, and on Novem
ber 22nd he was deposed and his revenues were forfeited.1
Moreover the Privy Council summoned before itself all the
leading Catholic ecclesiastics on the charge of having cele
brated mass or assisted thereat ; those who could not purchase
their liberty or find a place of refuge, had to leave the country.2
In 1569 four priests who had said mass were condemned to
death; the regent commuted the death sentence to exile,
but all four had to stand at the market -cross in their vest
ments and with the chalice in their hands, where they were
pelted with filth by the people for an hour. Similar scenes
were enacted in other cities of Scotland/3
At first Elizabeth made a pretence of intending to intervene
on behalf of the fugitive queen,4 but about a month after
Mary's arrival in England a decision was arrived at by the
Privy Council,5 according to which the Scottish queen was
to be removed from Carlisle, which had so far been her place of
residence, to Bolton Castle, that is to say, much further into
England : Elizabeth was to go more fully into the matters at
issue between the Scots and their queen. Until her cause
had been thoroughly gone into there must be no question of
assistance, restoration, personal interview with the English
queen, or of departure from England. Mary for her part
must submit to a kind of judicial inquiry, and it was but an
apparent withdrawal of this strange demand when at length
the object of the proposed inquiry was stated to be, not that
the Queen of Scotland, but that her enemies should justify
their proceedings, since even in that case, the regicide and
the complicity therein of Mary were bound to be the principal
points at issue.*
1 BELLESHEIM, II., 92, 94.
1 Ibid. 92 seq
* Ibid. 121 seq. HOSACK, I., 477.
* HOSACK (I. 383 seq.) believes in the loyalty of Elizabeth, but
ef. BEKKER, Maria, 194.
•Of June 20, 1568; see HOSACK, I., 384; LINGARD, VIII.,
20 ; of. BAIN, II., 708, 709.
•LINGARD, VIII., 21.
THE CONFERENCE OF WESTMINSTER. 185
After her removal to Bolton Mary could no longer flatter
herself with any illusions as to the hostile intentions of Eliza
beth.1 In spite of this, however, she yielded to the force of
circumstances and agreed to the proposed conferences, which
were begun at York on October 8th, 1568, and transferred to
Westminster at the end of November.2
From the purely legal point of view Mary's position before
her accusers was a favourable one. The matter adduced as
proof by her enemies, such as the two pretended matrimonial
pacts with Bothwell, the so-called book of the articles, and
the casket letters, to a great extent, at anyrate, rested upon
false statements, or lay under the grave suspicion of being
forgeries.3 She could, moreover, turn the charge of regicide
against her accusers, who beyond all doubt had been deeply
involved in the murder of Darnley. Although Murray was
himself present in York, he was in no hurry to present his
proofs. Before the discussion began, he sent a copy of the
casket letters to the English government, and asked in con
fidence whether they were of any value as a proof of Mary's
guilt.4 When, at the beginning of October, the conference
at York was opened with the charge brought by Mary against
her half-brother and his party of having imprisoned their
sovereign and usurped the government, Murray replied evas
ively, defending his conduct, not upon Mary's share in the
murder, but upon her obstinate attachment to Bothwell, and
1 BEKKER, 211. Already in a letter which she sent to the
Spanish ambassador in London on June 4, 1568, she says : " No
dubdo que si ellos me meten adentro en este reyno contra mi
voluntad, me podran quidar la vita." In KERVYN DE LETTEN-
HOVE, Relations, V., 725.
1 In the interval between the two conferences an attempt
was made to induce Mary to renounce her throne voluntarily.
BEKKER, 246.
8 Cf. supra, p. 1 77. Two other documents were presented at
York only, but afterwards they disappeared altogether. HOSACK,
I., 401 seq., 413.
4 June 22, 1568; see BAIN, II., n. 711; HOSACK, I., 389;
BEKKER, 205, 244.
VOL. XVIII. i A
l86 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
endeavouring surreptitiously to learn the opinion of the judges
as to the probable value of the casket letters.1 Since Mary's
guilt would have been proved beyond doubt if these letters
had really been written by her and addressed to Bothwell, by
this secret inquiry he was admitting that the genuineness
of the letters was not above suspicion. As for her attachment
to Bothwell, the queen could easily justify herself, since it
was her accusers themselves who had urged the marriage upon
her.
If Murray at that time was not averse to coming to a friendly
arrangement with his royal half-sister, Elizabeth held quite
other views. The representatives of the captive queen might
it is true have got the impression that in this conference she
had nothing in view but Mary's restoration,2 but in reality
the inquiry was intended to blacken the good name of Mary,
and to furnish the Queen of England with a weapon against
her hated rival.3 For a time Mary behaved towards Elizabeth
as though she was unaware of her ill-will, but at the same time
she was secretly exposing the manoeuvres of Murray to the
foreign princes,4 and trying to secure their intervention on
her own behalf.5 It was only when, after the conference had
been transferred to Westminster,6 Murray was publicly received
by Elizabeth, while the Scottish queen was not allowed to
come near the capital, that she changed her attitude. She
at once wrote to her representatives that she wished to have
1 HOSACK, I., 394 seqq. Later on Murray himself admitted
that his reply had not been serious (LINGARD, VIII., 23 n.).
For the conference of York cf. BAIN, II., n. 839 seqq.
f Instructions to the ambassadors of Elizabeth, in HOSACK,
I., 404.
3 " Pensaba [Elizabeth] en lo de la justificaci6n hacer de
manera que aquello quedase en dubio." De Silva, August 9,
1568, in BEKKER, 207.
4 Memorial to all the Christian princes, in LABANOFF, VII.,
315-328.
6 Mary to Charles IX., July 27, to Elizabeth of Spain, Septem
ber 24, 1568, in LABANOFF, II., 138, BEKKER, 212 seq.
6 BAIN, II,, n, 895 seqq.
THE CONFERENCE OF WESTMINSTER. 187
the opportunity of justifying herself in public in the presence
of the queen, the whole of the nobility, and the foreign am
bassadors. If Elizabeth would not accede to this request,
it was her intention that all negotiations should be at once
broken off.1
But at this point Mary's representatives, Bishop Leslie and
Lord Herries, made a grave mistake. Instead of insisting
upon an immediate and clear reply from the English govern
ment, and, in the event of a refusal, of at once and with all
possible publicity declaring the conference at an end, they
allowed themselves to be kept in suspense by the equivocal
statements of Elizabeth,2 and discussed with Cecil and
Leicester proposals for settling the matter amicably,3 although,
only a short time before, on November 26th, Murray had
finally and explicitly accused his sister of the assassination of
her husband, as well as of the attempted murder of her only
son.4 On December 6th they made a protest against the
discussions, but Cecil rejected this on the ground of some pre
tended error in its form,5 and when, on December gth, Leslie and
Herries returned with the protest in an amended form, the
crafty secretary of state had had time to persuade Murray
to present his proofs, namely, the book of the articles, the
deposition of Mary by the Scottish Parliament, the casket
letters, and the various depositions of the witnesses.6 Then
Mary's representatives withdrew from the discussions, which,
however, were continued in their absence, just as though noth
ing had happened.
The final sentence was reserved to a meeting of six of the
greatest nobles at Hampton Court.7 The proofs were again
1 Letter of November 22, 1568, to Leslie, Boyd, Herries and
the Abbot of Killwinning, in LABANOFF, II., 232-237 ; HOSACK,
L, 415 ; BEKKER, 239.
a HOSACK, L, 416 seq.
8 Ibid. 419. BEKKER, 242.
4 BAIN, II., n. 913. HOSACK, L, 418.
8 HOSACK, L, 420 seq.
•HOSACK, L, 422-443.
7 Jbid. 447 seqq. BAIN, II., n. 921,
l88 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
subjected to examination for two days, but on this occasion
not in that careful manner which is absolutely necessary in
order to detect skilful forgeries.1 The final sentence of the
judges did not concern itself with Mary's guilt or innocence,
but merely stated that as things stood at present it could
not be considered fitting that Elizabeth should allow the
Queen of Scots to appear in her presence.2 It would seem
that the judges were not aware that Mary had claimed to
present herself solemnly before the queen, the nobles and the
ambassadors.
Although, at Bolton Castle, she was far away from the place
of the conference, and cut off from all her friends, Mary was
nevertheless able to hit upon the proper reply to the behaviour
of her enemies. From the defensive she took the offensive.
A reply to the accusations of Murray and his associates which
Mary sent to her representatives on December igth,3 not
only denies in the clearest terms all knowledge of the murder
of Darnley or any complicity therein, but makes the same
terrible charge against her accusers.4 In consequence of this
Murray and Morton were publicly accused of regicide before
the queen's council on December 24th, 1568. In a further
letter5 Mary approved this step on the part of her defenders,
whom she charged to obtain copies of the documents ad
duced against their sovereign, so as to be able to refute them
in detail. Elizabeth declared that she thought this request
1 Description of the examination held by Cecil, in HOSACK,
I., 448 ; BEKKER, 253 seqq.
1 BAIN, II., n. 921, p. 581 seq.
•LABANOFF, II., 257-261.
4 " They have falselie, traitourouslie, and meschantlie lyed ;
imputing unto us maliciouslie the cryme quhairof thameselfis
ar authouris, inventeris, doaris, and sum of thame proper execu-
teris " (LABANOFF II., 258 ; HOSACK, I., 928). To the charge
that she had intended her son to follow his father Mary replied
that such an accusation was sufficient in itself to pass judgment
on all the other accusations made against her, since the natural
love of a mother for her son refuted it (ibid.).
•LABANOFF II., 262-264.
END OF THE CONFERENCE. 189
" very reasonable " and expressed her joy that her " dear
sister " was willing to defend herself, but at the same time
she took very good care not to accede to this very reasonable
request.
Mary's case, however, had to be settled in some way, and
Elizabeth tried to do this by means of a compromise.1 Sir
Francis Knollys, to whom the custody of the royal prisoner
had been entrusted, had, together with Lord Scrope, won her
confidence. A plan was formed according to which Knollys,
as a friend who wished her well, was to induce her to recognize
Murray as regent, whereupon all the accusations which had
been brought against her were to be buried in perpetual
oblivion. Should she ask for further advice Lord Scrope was
to speak in the same sense, and in the third place Bishop
Leslie, who had allowed himself to be won over, was to throw
all the weight of his authority into the balance in favour of
the proposal,2 which was then to be further recommended
in an autograph letter from Elizabeth. But Mary's clear
judgment saw through the wicked subterfuge which was
intended to inveigle her, oppressed and deserted by all her
friends as she was, into the sacrifice of her good name. The
last words she would ever speak in this life, she wrote after two
days' reflection, would be as Queen of Scotland,3 and a re
newed attempt to induce her to resign the crown was definitely
rejected by Leslie, since Mary had spoken her last word on
the subject.4
The embarrassment of the English politicians thus became
very considerable, as Mary still had many friends even in
England, who were very resentful of the violence which had
been offered to her. Thus the conferences came to a quite
unexpected end. On January loth, 1569, Murray was
1 HOSACK, I., 454 seqq. BEKKER, 260 seqq.
1 It had already been said to Leslie that Mary would be found
guilty, whether she were or not (BEKKER, 244). This perhaps
explains why he allowed himself to be won over.
8 " La derniere parole que je ferai en ma vie sera d'un Royne
d'Ecosse." January 9, 1569, HOSACK, I., 460 ; BAIN, II., n. 946.
4 HOSACK, I., 463.
HISTORY OF THE POPES.
summoned to Hampton Court, and was there told that no
charge had been proved against him which was prejudicial
to his honour, but that on the other hand there was no charge
against Mary which could lead Elizabeth to form an unfavour
able opinion of her good sister ; Murray therefore could retire
in peace to Scotland.1 On the following day Mary's repre
sentatives were also summoned, and asked whether they wished
to accuse the opposing party of the murder of Darnley. They
replied in the affirmative, because they had an express com
mand to that effect from their sovereign, and they further
declared that they were charged to reply to the calumnies of
Murray ; this reply was hardly likely to lead to their being
given copies of his documentary evidence.2
On January I2th, 1569, Murray received formal permission
to depart ; 5,000 pounds sterling were assigned to him as a
reward.3 Mary's representatives, for their part, made
various other attempts to obtain a sight of the casket letters
and the other documentary proofs. They worked for this end
until January 7th,4 and renewed their demand on the nth of
the same month, the day after Murray's departure, com-
1 " On the other part, there had been nothing sufficiently pro
duced nor shown by them against the queen their sovereign,
whereby the queen of England should conceive or take any evil
opinion cf the queen her good sister for anything yet seen."
HOSACK, I., 465.
1 Ibid. 467 seq. — Already in the instructions of September
29, 1568, which Mary gave to her representatives who went to
York, it is stated (n. VII) : "If they maintain that they have
writings of mine, which contain things harmful to me, you must
ask to have the original produced, and that I myself may see
them, and be able to justify myself. You must therefore in
my name give the assurance that I have never written anything
to anyone on this subject ; and that if there be any such writings
they are false and forged, contrived and invented by themselves
in order to disgrace and calumniate me. There are many persons
in Scotland, men and women, who can imitate my hand."
LABANOFF, II., 202 seq.
1 HOSACK, I., 467, 468.
4 Ibid. 462.
MARY STILL A DANGER TO ELIZABETH.
plaining at the same time that the Scottish regent had been
allowed to go at the very moment when he was accused of
regicide.1 Cecil replied with evasions, whereupon Mary, on
January 2oth, made a fresh and final attempt with Elizabeth
herself, through the French ambassador, de la Mothe Fe'nelon.
In reply to the latter's remonstrances Elizabeth actually
promised that she would send the wished for papers on the
following day, but when on the 3oth of the month Fe"ne"lon
reminded her of her promise, Elizabeth replied by expressing
her anger at the fact that Mary, in a letter written to Scotland,
had accused the English queen of partisanship.2 The English
government itself, however, had justified for all time the
suspicions entertained of the genuineness of these documents.
After the conferences at York and Westminster, Cecil and
his sovereign could feel a sense of triumph in the consciousness
of having carried out a masterly move. Elizabeth's rival,
whom she feared so much, and had so long fought against,
was a prisoner in an English fortress, and in the conferences
which had just come to an end she had ready to her hand
plentiful materials for destroying everywhere and for ever
Mary's authority and influence. But it soon became clear
that even as a prisoner Mary was a very dangerous enemy. In
Scotland there was a powerful party devoted to her cause,3
and this party gained strength more and more4 in proportion
as the government of the regent Murray made itself hated.5
As for England, Mary's presence was a constantly recurring
danger. Among the great masses of the people there was still
too strong a sense of justice to make it possible for them to
put up with the ill-treatment of an anointed and crowned
queen without a feeling of irritation. The nobles were still
in varying degrees animated by the chivalrous feelings of the
Middle Ages, to which it was natural to hazard both life and
property on behalf of a queen and a defenceless woman.
1 Ibid. 468.
8 Ibid. 469 seq.
3 Ibid. 382 seq.
4 Ibid. 479 seqq.
6 Ibid. 379 seq.
IQ2 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
Moreover, besides the fact that, in the opinion of many people,
Mary should have been wearing the crown instead of Elizabeth,
in any case she was, after Elizabeth, the lawful heir to the
English throne, and far-seeing patriots looked to her for the
union of the two kingdoms of Great Britain, a thing long seen
to be necessary and ardently desired, while the many who were
discontented on the score of religion looked to her for the
restoration of the old religion. Mary's hereditary rights, as
well as her attachment to the ancient faith were the very
reasons why her return to Scotland was being prevented by
force,1 but this tyranny proved itself to be by its consequences
a grave political error. For nineteen years conspiracy after
conspiracy, and revolt after revolt on behalf of Mary followed
in quick succession, for nineteen years the original act of in
justice against a helpless princess constrained the authorities
to further acts of violence, until at last no other way out of
an intolerable state of affairs could be found than the murder
of the defenceless prisoner.
It was especially in the northern counties of England, which
were still for the most part Catholic, that Mary could count
upon many supporters. There her escape from Lochleven
was celebrated with bon-fires ; after she had set foot on English
soil the nobles flocked to Carlisle to offer her their homage.2
After the conference at Westminster, Mary's chief enemy,
Murray, judged it to be dangerous to his life to' dare to pass
through northern England on his way back to Scotland.3
He knew, however, where to look for help. Towards the end
of the conferences at York, Lethington had put forward a
proposal for the marriage of the Queen oi Scotland to the
greatest of the English nobles, the Duke of Norfolk.4 The
Duke, who was one of Elizabeth's representatives at the
York conferences, eagerly welcomed the proposal, and through
him Murray obtained a letter from Mary warning her friends
1 POLLEN, English Catholics, 120 seq.
* BEKKER, 195. BAIN, II., n. 668, 670.
* HOSACK, I., 473.
4 Ibid. 410.
PROPOSED MARRIAGE OF MARY TO NORFOLK. 193
in the north of England to allow Murray to pass unmolested.1
Murray had hardly reached the border when he informed Cecil
that his sister was in no sense his friend, and that it was
never so necessary as now to take care that she was kept
safely in prison.2
But if Murray did not seriously entertain thoughts of the
fresh marriage of his sister, the project was all the more
ardently put forward by the other side.3 Cecil's behaviour
towards the Queen of Scotland, which was so little in keeping
with all ideas of honour, had caused much scandal among many
of the greater nobles, by whom the Secretary of State was
regarded with much dislike as an upstart. Now the Duke of
Norfolk and the Earls of Arundel, Pembroke, and Leicester
joined together to withstand him and to arrive at a final
settlement of the burning question of the succession to the
English throne ; they aimed at seeing Queen Mary restored
to her own throne, and at having her hereditary right of suc
cession to that of England assured to her ; since, however,
the marriage of the exiled queen to a foreign prince would
have meant danger to England, she was to be betrothed to
Norfolk. The preparations for this marriage were already
well advanced. A decision of the Privy Council had urged
the marriage of the Queen of Scotland " with an English
noble," the Earls of Bedford and Shrewsbury, as well as the
two Catholic Earls of Northumberland and Westmoreland,
had agreed to the plan, and not even Cecil dared openly to
oppose it. For her part, Mary had replied in a dignified but
satisfactory sense to the proposal ; the breaking off of her
ties to Both well did not appear to offer any serious difficulties,
and only awaited the assent of the Scottish Parliament and
the approval of the English queen ; it was hoped that this
would be obtained by the influence of the crafty Lethington,
* So Murray himself relates. HOSACK, I., 473 seq. ; cf. LINGARD,
VIII.. 35.
2 Leslie in HOSACK, I., 475.
3 Cf. for what follows HOSACK, I., 479 seqq. ; LINGARD, VIII.,
35 seqq. ; POLLEN in The Month, 1C (1902), 135 seqq.
IQ4 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
who had already begun to identify himself with the party of
Queen Mary.
But the plan met with a skilful adversary in Murray. By
his influence the Scottish Parliament rejected the English
proposals, and the very men who, a short time, before, had
taken up arms to separate Mary from Bothwell, now would
not hear of the breaking off of the marriage with Bothwell
when Mary asked the opinion of the Parliament on the subject.
The regent prevented his enemy Lethington from taking action
on behalf of Mary by accusing him of the murder of Darnley ,
and Lethington was obliged to withdraw for the time being ;
the commandant of Edinburgh Castle, the Laird of Grange,
who had also joined Mary's party, saved him by force from
imprisonment.
In the meantime the whole plan had been made known to
Elizabeth. Norfolk had to submit to a sharp reprimand from
the English queen, and when, a little time afterwards, his
conduct appeared to be suspicious, and Murray who, a short
time before, had offered his assistance to the duke in favour
of the marriage, furnished the English government with
materials for a charge against him, Norfolk was thrown into
the Tower on October gth, and his three friends, among them
the Earl of Leicester, were forbidden to appear at court, while
the Bishop of Ross was thrown into prison. The inquiry into
the case, however, showed no grounds for accusing Norfolk
of high treason.
Even before the imprisonment of Norfolk a further move
ment on behalf of the captive queen had been set on foot, which
was fraught with all the more danger because it rested to a
great extent upon the religious discontent which was so widely
spread in England.
CHAPTER VI.
Pius V. AND ELIZABETH. — THE BULL OF EXCOMMUNICATION. —
IRELAND.
IT was perfectly natural that the oppressed English Catholics
should turn their eyes with hope to Mary, as their fellow-
Catholic and the lawful heir of Elizabeth. It was true that
it was not very likely that, the rights of a Catholic to the
throne would meet with much consideration,1 but in March,
1563, de la Quadra was of opinion that the Catholic party,
which wished for Mary's succession, was stronger than the
Protestant party opposed to it ; her marriage to Darnley,
who had so direct an hereditary right to the English throne,
could not but increase the probability of her accession. The
enthusiasm for the Scottish queen was, it is true, damped
after the murder of Darnley and her marriage to Bothwell,
but it revived again when, in spite of several apparent defec
tions, Mary did not change her religious convictions,2 and when
in the opinion of her friends, the conferences at York and
Westminster had ended in her acquittal.
Before long the attitude of Pius V. towards the English
question threw new weight into the scales in Mary's favour.
1 When in October, 1562, it was feared that Elizabeth would
die, the name of Mary was not mentioned among the heirs to
the throne who were seriously considered (KERVYN DE LETTEN-
HOVE, Relations, III., xxiv. ; cf. Quadra to Margaret of Parma,
October 17, 1562, ibid. 167). For the attitude of the English
Catholics towards Mary up to the time of her flight to England,
cf. POLLEN in The Month 1C. (1902), 54-57 ; English Catholics,
in seqq.
* BEKKER, 212, 215. Cf. the letters of Mary to Queen Elizabeth
of Spain, of September 24, 1568 (LABANOFF, II., 185) and to
Philip II., of November 30, 1568 (ibid. 239 seq.).
195
IQ6 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
Like his predecessor,1 it would seem that at first Pius V. had
cherished some hopes of Elizabeth's conversion ; he gave his
full encouragement to the plans and proposals made to him
for that end,2 but it was not long before he found himself
unable to pursue any longer this hopeless quest. Moreover,
as a consequence of her continued attacks upon the liberty
of conscience of her subjects, and upon the peace of other
countries, Elizabeth had become in his eyes nothing better
than a crowned criminal, who had usurped the throne. On
May 2nd, 1566, he spoke of her in a public brief as one " who
pretended to be Queen of England,"3 and a little later he
described her in the plainest terms as the author of the wicked
conspiracies against the life and throne of the Queen of Scot
land.4 Moreover, it was notorious that the English queen
could no longer be looked upon as a member of the Catholic
Church ; according to the medieval idea none but a member of
the Church of Christ could rule over a Christian people, and
in those days of transition medieval ideas still swayed many
people even in England. Under these circumstances Pius V.
was more and more inclined to follow that course which had
long been feared in London, and long expected by the Catholics,
and to declare by a public bull that Elizabeth had incurred
excommunication and had forfeited the throne.5 Alba, whose
genius as a soldier was held in great admiration by the Pope,
seemed to be the very man to carry out the Papal sentence.
But the condemnation of Elizabeth was very far from imply
ing in the eyes of Pius V. that the cause of her rival of Scotland
was worthy of his support, especially after the marriage with
1 Cf. Vol. XVI. of this work, p. 218.
2 POLLEN, English Catholics, 143 seq.
3 " quae se pro regina Angliae gerit." Letter to Philip II.,
in LADERCHI, 1566, n. 369.
4 To Mary Stuart, May 12, 1566, ibid. n. 370.
5 What sort of things the Pope looked for from Elizabeth is
shown by the fact that he imprisoned the colonel, Megliorino
Ubaldini, on the ground that the queen had sent him to oppose
the Catholic religion. *Avviso di Roma of October 2, 1568,
Urb. 1040, p. 590, Vatican Library.
PIUS V.'S LETTER TO MARY STUART. 197
Bothwell, and even after Mary had set foot as a fugitive on
English soil, the Pope, in spite of her influential advocates,1
maintained at first a very cold and reserved attitude in her
regard.2 Her firm adherence to the Catholic faith, however,
gradually won back for her her former good repute, even in
Rome. In December, 1568, Pius V. still expressed himself
rather doubtfully about her ; Mary's ambassador in Paris
was urged to strengthen his sovereign in the faith, as the
Pope was at times haunted by the idea that under the pressure
of acts of violence she might become weakened in her former
attachment to the Apostolic See.3 But on May gth, 1569,
a letter was sent from Rome to Archbishop Beaton saying
that Mary was in as high favour with the Pope as she herself
could have wished.4 Her good relations with Rome were
comp'etely restored when, in a brief of January gth, 1570*
the Pope replied to a letter from the Scottish queen, dated
October I5th, 1569, holding out hopes of his being able to
work on her behalf with the kings of Spain and France, and of
affording her help in other ways as well. He stated that he was
convinced that her misfortunes had come upon the queen
simply because -she maintained and protected the Catholic
faith ; let her then take comfort, because Christ says that
they are blessed who suffer persecution for justice sake.5
1 Queen Elizabeth of Spain, Mary's playfellow in her child
hood, when she heard of the latter's escape from Lochleven, as
sured the nuncio in Madrid that Mary " aveva riconosciuto il
suo erroce ed era diventata pia e cattolica " (Castagna to Bonelli,
June 5, 1568, Corresp. dipl., II., 383). Already, on February 6,
1568, Archbishop Beaton had written to Lorraine that (at Loch
leven) Mary had begun to serve God better, with more devotion
and greater diligence than she had been wont to do for some time
previously, which is a great joy to me." In POLLEN, Negotiations
cxxxiii. and The Month, XCL (1898), 588 seq.
2 Cf. supra p. 181.
3 Bonelli to Beaton, December 4 (?) 1568, in LADERCHI, 1569,
n. 284. The letter certainly belongs to 1568.
4 POLLEN, Negotiations , cxxxiii. seq.
5 GOUBAU, 263 seq.
IC)8 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
In the meantime Mary had again written to the Pope on
November 3Oth, 1569, professing herself once more to be the
devoted and obedient daughter of the Catholic Church, and
again asking for his intervention with the Christian princes,
so that by their means the Queen of England might be induced
to restore to her her liberty, and allow the free exercise of the
Catholic religion. There was no truth, Mary remarks, in the
report that had been written to Philip II. that she was wavering
in the Catholic religion.1 It was true, since she was not
allowed to attend Catholic worship, that she had, thinking
it no wrong, listened to the prayers said by a Protestant
preacher ; if she had sinned in so doing, she was ready to
receive the penance assigned to her by the Pope.2 Even
though, immediately after the marriage with Both well, such
protestations no longer met with full credence in Rome, now
every reason for distrust had disappeared. On July I3th,
1570, Pius V. wrote to Mary that he was certain that no
threats or inducements would be able to detach her from the
communion and obedience of the Catholic Church.3 In his
last letter to her, dated May 8th, 1571, he expressed himself
in the same sense. 4
Now that the Pope's confidence in Mary's Catholic senti
ments was restored, his plans for bringing back England into
the bosom of the Church could take a tangible form. When,
on March 2ist, 1569, he sent Alba the blessed hat, together
with a brief, he at the same time consulted him as to whether,
with the help of an alliance between France and Spain, it
would not be possible to effect an invasion of England. Alba
replied that it was no use to hope for the co-operation of France,
and that the only way would be for Philip II. either to conquer
1 Knollys, for example, had on July 28 and September 21,
1568, expressed to Cecil the hope that Mary had changed her
faith. BAIN, II., n. 743, p. 466; n. 821, p. 510. C/. POLLEN,
English Catholics, 122 seq.
2 LABANOFF, VII., 16 seq.
9 GOUBAU, 366. Here Pius V. was replying to a letter from
Mary of April 30, 1570.
4 POLLEN in The Month XC1. (1898), 576.
THE POPE SEEKS SPANISH HELP FOR MARY. IQ9
England for himself, or else to confer that kingdom upon a
Catholic noble, who should marry Mary Stuart.1 Pius V.
expressed to the Spanish ambassador the opinion that the
campaign could be carried out in the name of the Pope, who
had ancient feudal rights over England.2
Pius V.'s enthusiasm received a fresh incentive when, at
the beginning of November, vague rumours reached the
Eternal City concerning the attempts of the Duke of Norfolk
to secure for the captive Queen of Scotland the succession to
the English throne. This movement was taken as meaning a
revival of activity on the part of the Catholic party, and
on the strength of Venetian reports it was supposed that the
whole of England would rise against Elizabeth.3 Thereupon
Pius V. at once wrote to Alba (November 3rd) that he ought
to protect the Catholic religion in England with all his might,
and if possible help the captive Queen of Scotland to recover
her throne ; the Duke could do nothing more pleasing to
God than to free Mary from the hands of the heretics.4 On
the same date the nuncio in Madrid received instructions to
obtain from Philip II. assistance for England,5 and the
Spanish ambassador in Rome was also ordered to have
recourse to his royal master in the same sense. It was
incumbent on them, the Pope pointed out, to help with both
money and troops a noble English Catholic who might perhaps
marry Mary Stuart, and then receive England as a fief from
the hands of the Pope.8
Philip, who at first was angry that Pius should have written
to Alba without mention of the king, was appeased by the
diplomatic skill of the nuncio,7 and replied in a friendly way,
1 Zufiiga to Philip II., June 13, 1569, Corresp. dipl., III., 91.
2 Ibid.
3 Ibid. November 4, 1569, III., 188.
4 In LADERCHI, 1569, n. 285 ; Colecc. de docum. ined., IV.,
514 ; KERVYN DE LETTENHOVE, Huguenots, II., 386.
6 Bonelli to Castagna, November 3, 1569, Corresp. dipl., III., 186.
6 Zufiiga to Philip II., November 4, 1569, ibid. 188.
'Castagna to Bonelli, January 14, 1570, ibid. 218. Bonelli (to
Castagna, March L 1570 ibid. 258 seq.) justifies the brief to Alba.
200 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
but his letter contained nothing more than a decision to leave
the whole affair to the judgment of Alba.1 The latter had
already in a letter sent to Rome excused himself on the ground
of the alleged want of money, and his consideration for
France.2 Pius V. comforted himself for this reply by saying
that in such matters he must trust to the judgment of Alba,
and that he had confidence in the Christian feeling and pru
dence of the Duke that he would not let this opportunity slip
of winning back England.3
It is difficult to attribute much importance to the activities
of Norfolk's party in estimating the efforts of the English
Catholics ; already for some time past a really Catholic move
ment, which had taken its origin in nothing but religious
motives had been in preparation. The adherents of the
ancient faith in England were beginning, not without the help
of the Pope, to rouse themselves from the inactivity which
they had hitherto preserved. While he was still Inquisitor
General, Pius V. had in the time of his predecessor armed four
priests, among them Sanders and Harding, with faculties to
readmit the English schismatics to the Church,4 and thereafter
the care of souls among the Catholics of England had been
carried on with greater effect and care. Before this, no other
condition had been demanded for the admission of laymen to
the sacraments of the Church than that they should abstain
1 Philip II. to the Pope, January 20, 1570, ibid. 226. Cf.
Philip II. to Zuniga December 18, 1569, and Castagna to Bonelli,
December 22, 1569, ibid. 205, 208.
* Alba to Zuniga, December 5, 1569, in MJGNET, II., 508 seq.
8 Zuniga to Alba, January 7, 1570, Corresp. dipl., III., 214.
4 Harding and Sanders to Morone, June n, 1567, in MEYER,
412 scqq. Similar faculties were granted by a * brief of May,
1 8, 1570, to William Allen, John Marshall and Nicholas
Sanders for England and Scotland (Archives of Briefs, Rome).
On June 9, 1568, Bonelli wrote to Castagna that except for the
faculties to absolve granted at the request of certain Jesuits
and the alms which were sent each year to Lou vain for the English
Catholics, there were no relations between the Pope and the
English. Corresp. dipl., II., 387.
CATHOLIC REACTION IN ENGLAND. 201
from the Protestant Eucharist ; now it was further required
of them that they should not attend heretical worship at all.
The effects of this greater strictness were very good. On
June nth, 1567, Harding and Sanders wrote from Louvain
to Morone1 that the confusion and wavering had been put a
stop to, that men refused to attend the Anglican services more
than before, that the faith was openly professed even before
the judges, and that men endured imprisonment and chains
with joy. It was true that certain Catholics still maintained
that so long as the aforesaid four priests appealed to faculties
which had only been orally given, they were not obliged to be
lieve them on that point, and might therefore continue with the
usage which they had formerly adopted,2 but Harding and
Sanders obtained a Papal brief of August I4th, 1567, which
put an end to all such doubts.3
Disquieting news soon reached the Protestant commissioners
for the visitation of churches. Many members of the lesser no
bility, so men wrote from Chester in Dec., 1567, have bound
themselves by oath not to receive the Protestant communion
any more so long as Elizabeth reigns.4 In January, 1568, a
number of letters drew the attention of the Protestant com
missioners for the visitation of churches to attempts to alienate
the people " from loyalty to the queen and from unity of
worship " ; a month later an order was issued for the imprison
ment of certain deprived priests who still carried on their
ministrations in private house, among them being Vaux and
Allen.5 At the end of 1567 private houses were searched and
those who dwelt there were called upon to give an account of
their religion and of their participation in Anglican worship,
while those who had heard mass at the Spanish embassy were
1 In MEYER, loc. cit.
2 Ibid.
8 FRERE, 140. At that time Laurence Vaux was especially
active in England itself in the interests of the Pope ; Dictionary
of National Biography, LVIIL, 191.
4 FRERE, 141.
5 Ibid. 142.
VOL. xviii 15
2O2 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
forced to take the oath of supremacy. l From that time the
number of those imprisoned for hearing mass continued to
increase ; in February, 1569, the prisons were filled with
Catholics,2 and at the end of May the persecution was more
violent than ever.3
If under these circumstances the Catholics of the older
generation could flatter themselves that as far as they them
selves were concerned they would always remain true to the
faith of their fathers, no one could fail to see that, granted
the suppression of regular Catholic instruction, their children
must little by little fall under the influence of the heretical
teaching. Moreover, after May , 1568, they could not fail
to see how unjustly the lawful heir to the throne was being
treated, and that a principal motive for this was her firm
attachment to the Catholic faith. They did not dare to rebel
openly, after the example of the French and Scottish insur
gents, but little by little the grievous evils under which they
lay brought them face to face with the question whether
in conscience and before God they were bound to remain
silent spectators of such acts of oppression, which called to
heaven for vengeance, and whether further passive inaction
was altogether compatible with their ideas of honour and
chivalry. " We can bear witness," later on wrote Nicholas
Sanders from Lou vain,4 "how eagerly the English nobles turned
to us to know whether the Apostolic See had not yet issued
1 Thus wrote de Silva to Philip II., Corresp. de Felipe II., II.,
564 ; MEYER, 104.
2 " Sicel . . . afflige bravamente a los cat6licos, encarcelando
a muchos, y casi tiene todas les carceles llenas." Guerau de
Spes to Alba, February 29, 1569 (according to KERVYN DE LETTEN-
HOVE, Relations, VI., 301, February 20), Corresp. de Felipe II.,
III., 191 ; cf. 232.
3 Spes to Philip II., May 23, 1569, ibid. 239. The increased
severity of the persecution was anterior to the rising of 1569,
and cannot be looked upon as its consequence, as it is by MEYER
(105).
4 *A. M. A. Graziani, 15 Cal. martii 1570, Graziani Archives,
Citta di Castello, Instrutt. ,1., 26.
A CATHOLIC RISING PROJECTED. 203
some decree against the queen, and further whether, even in
the absence of any such decree, they might not with a clear
conscience dare to take steps to free themselves from such
tyranny. To the first question we made answer that, as
far as we here were aware, nothing of the kind had been made
public, while as to the other question the best theologians
were not of one mind. Some had no doubt whatever that,
even without any authority from the Roman See, it was lawful
to defend the Catholic religion in those doctrines which are
the common Christian inheritance, while others thought
it necessary, or at any rate safer, to wait for a Papal
decision."
Recent times had shown plenty of instances of religious
risings in France and Scotland which had been crowned with
success. The English Catholics certainly did not lack the
necessary number of malcontents for success, even though they
had not the unscrupulous determination of their Scottish
neighbours. The carrying into effect of a rising was much
discussed, but they could not arrive at any working plan.
In the course of 1568 Ridolfi, a Florentine banker resident in
London, conferred with the Spanish ambassador, Guerau dc
Spes, on the subject of obtaining help from Philip II. The
ambassador was favourably disposed towards the Florentine's
request, but Alba did not agree with him and the negotiations
came to nothing.1 In the spring of 1569, Nicholas Morton, a
former prebendary of York, and at that time penitentiary of
St. Peter's in Rome, who had been sent by tl. : Pope, arrived
in England ;2 he was charged to find out what sort of reception
the excommunication of Elizabeth would be likely to meet
with in England. From him the malcontents learned Pius V.'s
views of the queen, but he was not able to inform them of
any Papal decision which would have removed the objections
to an armed rising, though his report of the state of feeling
1 LEE in Dictionary of National Biography, XLVIII., 290.
LADERCHI, 1569, n. 270.
2 The brief recommending him to Alba, February 13, 1569,
in LADERCHI, 1569, n. 270.
204 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
in England on his return confirmed Pius V. in his determina
tion to take proceedings against Elizabeth.1
There can be no doubt that at the beginning of 1569 the
circumstances were very favourable for a rising, in that since
December, 1568, Elizabeth had been involved in a serious
quarrel with Spain. Spanish ships, carrying a rich cargo of
gold for Alba's troops in the Low Countries, had taken refuge
in the harbour of Southampton, in order to escape from
pirates, and the English vice-admiral, Arthur Champernowne,
had at once informed the secretary of state that the treasure
amounted to no less than 400,000 pounds sterling, and was
therefore " very convenient for His Majesty."2 It meant
nothing to the queen that she was in the eyes of the world
incurring the stigma of theft : anything that could be stolen
from the cursed Spaniards was to the advantage of England.3
It seemed therefore that war with Philip II. was imminent,
and in the opinion of the Spanish ambassador in London its
result could hardly be doubted. Now, he thought, Elizabeth
could be driven from her throne by making use of the adherents
of Mary Stuart,4 and the favourable moment had come for
restoring the Catholic religion in England, and thus bringing
about peace in Flanders.5 Many anonymous letters expressed
1 LINGARD, VIII. , 44. Pollen in The Month, 1C. (1902), 140,
and English Catholics, 143 seqq. Sanders in SPILLMANN, II.,
94. For the relations of Morton with Northumberland of. the
interrogatory of the latter in GREEN, Addenda, 1566-1579, p.
408, and F. Norton to Leicester and Burghley, April 2, 1572
ibid. 390.
* " therefore most fytt for Her Majestic " (letter of December
19, 1568 ; cf. KERVYN DE LETTENHOVE, Relations, V., 197). The
amount of the money is variously estimated. BROSCH, VI., 535.
8 KERVYN DE LEITENHOVE, Relations, V., x. The vice-admiral
wrote on January I, 1569, to the Privy Council that the money
had been sent by the Pope for the war against the Protestants ;
ibid. 205.
4 To Alba, December 30, 1568 ; ibid.
6 " Agora ay muy buen forma de reduzir este reyno a la fee
cat61ica." To Alba, January 9, 1569, KERVYN DE LETTENHOVE,
Relations, V., 228.
HOPES OF SPANISH HELP PROVE VAIN. 205
the conviction that as soon as the standard of Spain was raised
all the Catholics would rise in rebellion.1
Mary Stuart herself at the end of 1568 thought she could
safely say that if Philip II. would lend his aid, she could at the
end of three months be Queen of England ;2 in July, 1569, the
enthusiasm for her as the lawful heir to the throne had grown
to such an extent that Elizabeth jealously complained that
it reminded her of the revolt of Absalom against David.3
In the north of England some parts of the community had
already begun to drive out the Protestant preachers.4
Very soon, however, all these high hopes were shattered.
The forces of Spain were entirely occupied with the revolts
of the Moors and of the Low Countries, and although English
privateers, with the secret approval of Elizabeth, were harrass-
ing the Spanish trading vessels, and the correspondence of
the Spanish ambassador was confiscated and his house in
London kept under surveillance,5 Spain did not dare to draw
the sword against England. In the Low Countries Alba, to
whom Philip II. had left the decision, was definitely opposed
to a war with England, and refused to hear of any encourage
ment being given to Elizabeth's Catholic subjects.6 Guerau
de Spes, moreover, had counted too highly on the feelings of
the English Catholics ; many of them openly said that they
had no intention of taking up arms in order to conquer England
for the King of Spain, nor, speaking generally, did they wish
to have anything to do with that country. 7
xTo Alba, April 2, 1569, ibid. 536. Cf. Spes to Philip II.,
April 2, 1569, ibid. 358 : " Muchos cat6licos me escriven cartas
secretamente, que, en viendo banderas de V. M. en este reyno,
se lebantaran todos."
* Spes to Philip II., January 8, 1569, Corresp. de Felipe II.,
III., 171 ; of. 280.
8 Spes to Philip II., July 25, 1569, ibid. 266.
4 Spes to Philip II., July 14, 1569, ibid. 259.
8 Spes to Alba, January 9, 1569, in KERVYN DE LETTENHOVE,
Relations, V., 227 seq.
6 Cf. ibid. xv. seq.
7 " Car ne veulent, a ce qu'ils disent, combattre pour con-
que"rir ce royaulme au roy d'Espagne, ny rien avoir a faire avec
ceste nation la." De la Mothe Fenelon, August 17, 1569, ibid. xxi.
2O6 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
In spite of this, however, during the summer of 1569 Mary
Stuart received many offers from the English nobles who were
ready to sacrifice their property and their lives to regain for
her her freedom. By the advice of Norfolk she refused these
offers, but when the Duke had been thrown into the Tower,
and she herself feared for her life, Mary secretly sent word to
the Earl of Westmoreland, whose wife was Norfolk's sister,
and the Earl of Northumberland, and through these two to all
those who had already placed themselves at her disposal.1
If, instead of submitting to the queen, Norfolk had called
them to arms, the nobles would certainly have obeyed his
summons, and thus strengthened the band of his adherents.
But the summons did not come, and very soon, before the
preparations for a rising had been made, the leading Catholic
nobles, the Earls of Northumberland and Westmoreland,
found themselves suddenly faced with the necessity of coming
to a definite decision.2 The Earl of Sussex was actually
ordered by the government to summon them to York, to
imprison them and to send them to the court. Thus Northum
berland and Westmoreland had to decide whether they in
tended to share the fate of Norfolk or to take up arms. On
November yth they turned to the Pope for assistance, and on
the I4th they once more unfurled the ancient standard
bearing the cross and five wounds which had already been
displayed in 1536 under Henry VIII. in the so-called Pil
grimage of Grace, and on the following day an appeal to the
people was issued. Northumberland, who was highly re
spected and a man of deep religious feeling, a typical noble of
the olden times and ideas, who had hitherto spent his life far
from the court among his vassals and tenants, and who was
not in the least fitted to be an agitator or political intriguer,3
had from the first discouraged the idea of open hostilities.
1 LINGARD, VIII., 43 seq.
2 For the Northern Rising see CUTHBERT SHARPE, Memorials
of the Rebellion of 1569, London, 1840 ; GREEN, Addenda
1566-1579, passim ; LINGARD, VIII., 44 seqq. ; POLLEN in The
Month, 1C. (1902), 136 seqq., and English Catholics, 118-141.
3 For a character sketch of him see HOSACK, II., 124 seq.
THE NORTHERN RISING. 207
The real leader of the rising was Richard Norton, named by
the people the father of the revolt. It would seem that it
was to a great extent due to a woman and a Protestant, the
Countess of Westmoreland, that the inflammable material
of discontent which had been so long smouldering at last
broke into flame.1
On November I5th the Earls issued an appeal to the people,
in which they began by asserting their loyalty to Elizabeth,
and declaring that they had taken up arms for the honour and
safety of the queen, the nobles and the kingdom, and that their
undertaking was aimed only against the queen's counsellors,
who were plotting the destruction of the ancient nobility, we re
urging the queen to a false policy, and had introduced a new
made religion which was contrary to the word of God.2 This
appeal, however, produced the desired effect as little as did
several others which followed it, and many of the Catholic
nobles oven joined the royal army under the command of the
Earl of Sussex.3 In other ways too the insurgents were
dogged by ill-success. It would have been a great advantage
to them if they could have set Mary Stuart free and taken her
to their head-quarters ; her liberation was the principal
object of the rising, yet the Earls could not make mention of
this in their appeal, nor refer to it without endangering Mary's
life. When, on their march southwards, they sent eight
hundred horsemen to Tutbury, where Mary was at that time
imprisoned, they learned on the way that the Queen of Scots
had been removed to Coventry.
Everything pointed to the necessity of the quick delivery
of a master stroke, the success of which would have brought
many supporters to the standard of the insurgents ; it was
probably for that reason that Sussex avoided a pitched battle.
When, however, the rising had failed to spread during the first
1 Pollen in The Month, 1C., 136 seq.
2 LINGARD, VIII., 45 seq. GREEN, in. Cf. the proclamation
of November 19, 1569, to the same effect, in SPILLMANN, II.,
97 seq. ; GONZALEZ, 343.
3 Sadler, November 26, 1569, in GREEN, 123 ; LINGARD,
VIII., 47^
208 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
eight days, and the hope of receiving the expected assistance
from Alba had almost disappeared, while the Earl of Warwick
was advancing from the south with an army, Northumberland
and Westmoreland fell back to their fortresses and territory
in the north. In the new appeals which they then issued
they no longer spoke of restoring the old religion, but dwelt
only on the need of settling the succession to the throne ;
they declared that the efforts of the old nobility were directed
to this end, and that their efforts were being opposed by certain
upstarts in the queen's Council ; therefore they were obliged
to take forcible measures.1 The studied inaction of the Earl
of Sussex made it possible for the two Earls to win some small
successes. But when Warwick and his army were not more
than a day's march away, Sussex also pushed forward, where
upon the insurgents began to disperse. Disagreement between
the two leaders completed the breaking up of the whole force,
and Northumberland and Westmoreland sought safety over
the Scottish border. Sussex had reinforced his army in the
Catholic north, so that the Catholics were scattered by their
own co-religionists. Cecil could boast that the queen had
found supporters among all classes of her subjects, without
any distinction of religion.2
The suppression of the rising had cost no bloodshed, but
all the greater was the toll of human life taken by Elizabeth
in revenge after her victory. In ordei to strike terror into
the people the queen proceeded with the extremity of rigour.
All those of the insurgents who were possessers of property
were brought to judgment, while the poorer folk were hanged
wholesale. About 900 persons were thus put to death during
the course of the judicial proceedings ; in the county of
Durham alone Sussex condemned three hundred and fourteen
persons to the gallows. Elizabeth wished to employ the ordin
ary tribunals against others who had shared in the rising, but
she gave way before the objection raised by the crown lawyers
that if she did so there were some places which would be
depleted of the whole of their population. Those who were.
'LlNGARD, VIII., 48.
2 HOSACK, I., 494.
TERRIBLE REPRISALS OF ELIZABETH 20Q
spared, however, were forced to take, not only the oath of
loyalty, but also that of supremacy.1 In spite of this terror
ism, however, the rising still had an after effect. In February,
1570, Leonard Dacre, a scion of a noble family, called to arms
the wild inhabitants of the Border, but his three thousanp
followers were defeated in a bloody battle ; Dacre fled to
Scotland, and afterwards to Flanders.2
Dacre's attempt was on the point of being crushed, the rising
of 1569 had long been suppressed, and yet it would seem that
the news of events of the last few months had not even reached
Flanders, so that on February I4th, 1570, Nicholas Sanders
had recourse to Rome from Louvain for help for the insurgents.3
Two Catholic Earls, Jie wrote,4 together with a number of the
nobility, have taken up arms in the Catholic cause, in the
expectation that Rome will not abandon them. The help
1 LINGARD, VIII., 51. SPILLMANN, 11., 99 seqq. On February
9, 1570, Spes wrote to Philip II. that the number of those who
had been hanged was certainly more than 700 ; on the 25th of
the same month he reported that the executions were still going
on (Corresp. de Felipe II., III., 333, 337). On December 28,
1569, the Earl of Sussex wrote to Cecil : " I guess the number
will be 600 or 700 that shall be executed of the common sort,
besides the prisoners taken in the field. I trust to use such
discretion as that no sort shall escape from example, and that
the example shall be very great." (GREEN, Addenda, 1566-
I5.79» P- J69). BROSCH, (VI., 554) gives the following opinion :
this " act of repression, carried out by the express orders of the
queen " must " be considered as the darkest stain upon her
character, and the most shameful of all her acts." On March
31, 1570, in pardoning some of the more prominent insurgents,
Elizabeth wrote that she was only sparing four of them because
their lives might be useful to her. GREEN, 266 ; cf. 183, 188.
2 LINGARD, VIII., 52 seq.
8 At that time " the English ports were so strictly watched
that the English Catholics in the Low Countries for a time were
quite out of touch with their country." MEYER, 105.
4 *A. M. A. Graziani, Lovanii 15 Cal. mart. 1570, Graziani
Archives, Cittk di Castello, Istrutt. I. 26. See the text in App.
n. 7.
2IO HISTORY OF THE POPES.
that they look for to Rome consists only in this, that they may
be released from their obedience to the queen, and may thus
be able to convince everyone that they have taken up arms,
not as rebels, but as loyal sons of the Church. No reply had
come from Rome as to this, and in consequence many questions
had reached Louvain as to the lawfulness of armed resistance.1
In this state of doubt 4,000 had gone to Scotland, and were
there awaiting the Pope's decision ; for three months they
had been waiting there for the Pope to take action against
Elizabeth. Many of the English were prepared to follow
their example. If the Pope would allow them to retain posses
sion of the Church property which they had obtained unlaw
fully, then the whole of the nobility, with very few exceptions,
would take up the Catholic cause, because nothing was holding
them back but the fear that the restoration of the Papal
authority would involve the loss of their possessions ; other
wise they were almost all Catholics. Six or seven of the great
earls and barons could be safely counted upon, and more than
a thousand of the gentry. Heresy had only infected five or
six of the earls, and for the rest, the heretical party was made
up of a few effeminate courtiers and of artisans ; the peasants,
by far the greater part of the populations, were all Catholics.
Two things then had to be done in Rome ; the Pope must
openly take part against Elizabeth, and encourage the English
nobility to stand up for the faith, promising them that they
would not have to restore the Church property. Then, in the
opinion of the far-seeing, not only all the Catholics to a man,
but also all those who were wavering, and even some of the
schismatics themselves, would take up arms. The Pope had
made a good beginning by sending Nicholas Morton to England,
but he must not desert the Catholics now. A letter had arrived
from Spain, from the Duchess of Feria, stating that Philip II.
intended to help the English Catholics.
Sanders' letter reached Rome on March 2ist ; Graziani's
reply, dated March 29th,2 shows that there too they were
not fully informed as to recent events in England. As a
1 See supra p. 203.
2 In MAI, Spicel. Rom., VIII. 456 seq.
THE POPE AND THE TWO EARLS. 211
matter of fact, the appeal for help sent to Rome on November
7th, 1569, by Northumberland and Westmoreland, a week
before the rising, only arrived there on February i6th, 1570,
and had not been answered until February 22nd.1 In his
letter the Pope exhorted the two earls to be constant and
loyal, because it might be that God had chosen them to restore
unity between England and the Apostolic See. If they were
called upon to shed their blood for the defence of the faith and
the authority of the Pope, it would be better for them to pass
to eternal life by means of a glorious death, than to continue to
serve in a shameful life the caprices of a woman who was the
slave of her passions, and forfeit the salvation of their souls.2
Pius V. had already made an attempt to support the English
rising. On February 3rd, 1570, he had recommended to the
Duke of Alba those English nobles who, for the restoration of
the Catholic religion, had taken up arms in a war which was as
religious as it was just, and were prepared to sacrifice both
property and life for the cause of God.3 He had recourse to
Philip II, in the same sense before he issued the bull of ex
communication.4 He further gave orders to Ridolfi to assist
the earls with money.5
1 LADERCHI, 1570, n. 384. GOUBAU, 590 (with date February
20). News reached Rome in the middle of January of a rising
of the Catholics, and fervent prayers were made to God for the
success of the insurgents : *" Per 1'aviso della solevatione delli
catholici in Inghilterra so fanno qui di continue oration! accio
Idd\o augment! le forze a quelli buoni spiriti." Avviso di Roma
of January 14, 1570, Urb. 1041, p. 2iyb, Vatican Library.
2 LADERCHI, 1570, n. 384.
3 LADERCHI, 1570, n. 383. GOUBAU, 373 seq. (with date
February 4).
4 February 21, 1570, LADERCHI, 1570, n. 316.
5 Letter to the two earls of February 20, 1570, in GOUBAU, 293.
Pius V. had promised the English Catholics a sum of 100,000
ducats (Zuniga to Philip II., March 7, 1570, Corresp. dip!., III.,
249) : he sent them 12,000 scudi as an instalment by Ridolfi
(Zuniga to Philip II., February 28, 1570, ibid. 246). On May
I3> I57°> Ridolfi inquired of Spes how he could send the Pope's
money to the two earls (KERVYN DE LF.TTENHOVE, Relations.
212 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
As had been the case with Sanders, the Pope also received
advice as to the best way to bring back England to the Church
from other English exiles,1 some of whom, like Goldwell,
Bishop of St. Asaph, and Richard Shelley, Prior of the Knights
of St. John, were resident in the Eternal City, and were asked
for their advice on English affairs.2 But all these had been
out of touch with their country for over ten years, and Pius V.
would not let himself be decided by their advice alone to take
steps against Elizabeth. When, however, Morton, whom he
had himself sent to England, declared on his return that the
moment for action had come, and when letters received from
England stated that the Catholics there were only refraining
from taking up arms against Elizabeth because she had not
as yet been declared a heretic and deposed by the sentence of
the Apostolic See,3 Pius no longer delayed in opening the
proceedings in due form against the " pretended " Queen of
England (February 5th, I57o).4 Twelve refugees who were
V., 653 seq. : cf. Spes to Philip II., on the same date, Corresp.
de Felipe II., III., 352). Alba replied to the question of Spes
(KERVYN DK LETTENHOVE, loc. oil., 655), that he was writing
on the subject to Philip II. and that in the meantime the am
bassador must not mix himself up in the affair (ibid. 657).
1 Thus "Caligari wrote to Commendone from Pieve on Decem
ber 6, 1567, that a young Englishman had sent him a document
in which he had explained what the Pope could do for England.
Someone must be sent quite secretly to England (Papal Secret
.Archives). Cf. *Discorso fatto a Pio V. dal priore d'Inghilterra
Cav. Hierosolymitano [Shelley] sopra la riduttione di quel regno
in Cod. Ottob., 2432, p. 160-178, Vatican Library, Shelley's
discourse is also in Cod. 6820, p. 199 seq., Court Library, Vienna.
1 Graziani to Sanders, March 29, 1569, in MAI, Spicil., VIII.,
457 seq. A Scottish noble who had been exiled on account of
the faith was also in Rome in 1569, and received 300 scudi from
the Pope as well as recommendations. *Avviso di Roma of
June 29, 1569, Urb. 1041, p. 102, Vatican Library.
8 On several occasions Pius V. stated that he had been led to
issue his bull of excommunication by the insistence of the English
Catholics. Cf. infra p. 214.
4 In LAPERCHI, 1570, n. 332-345-
INQUIRY OPENED IN ROME. 213
living in Rome wore summoned and questioned as to whether
they could testify that Elizabeth had assumed the position
of he'ad of the Church of England,1 that she had deposed and
imprisoned Catholic bishops and given their office to schis
matics and laymen, exercised the right of making the visitation
of churches, and introduced an oath and laws directed against
the Apostolic See ; further, whether by her authority heresy
was preached, and she herself lived as a heretic, and had it
in her power to suppress heresy. These questions, related to
things which were known to all, but the obtaining of proofs
1 " Utrum regina Angliae usurpaverit auctoritatem capitis
ecclesiae Anglicanae " In the acta of the inquiry it is main
tained that Elizabeth had taken upon herself the title of " head
of the church." In the deposition of Shelley it is stated that
the oath of supremacy insisted on the recognition of Elizabeth
as " principem et gubernatricem rerum tarn ecclesiasticarum
quam profanarum " (LADERCHI, 1570, n. 329). Bishop Goldwell
was only asked whether Elizabeth had assumed the " authority "
of head of the church and he testified that the Catholic bishops
would not agree to her being called " gubernatricem summam
ecclesiae particularis " and that they had accordingly been
deposed (ibid. n. 332). In the Pope's final sentence it was stated
that the oath of supremacy insisted that no one should be accepted
except the queen as " supremam gubernatricem tarn in spirituali-
bus et ecclesiasticis quam in temporalibus, " and this is the exact
expression of the title claimed by Elizabeth (cf. Vol. XIV. of this
work, p. 407). It cannot therefore be said (with MEYER, 68)
that they did not know in Rome what ecclesiastical title was borne
by the Queen of England, and Protestant polemics go too far
(MEYER, 69) when they take as a usurpation of the title of " head
of the church " the passage in the bull of excommunication :
" supremi Ecclesiae capitis locum in omni Anglia eiusque praeci-
puam auctoritatem atque iurisdictionem monstruose sibi usurpans."
They had the formula of the oath of supremacy in Rome
(LADERCHI, 1570, n. 325). Elsewhere, in a letter to Philip II.
of March 8, 1570 (in GOUBAU, 305) it is stated of Elizabeth :
" Ipsa se . . . Anglicanae ecclesiae caput appellavit." It was
maintained at that time (June, 1571) even by the Protestant
party, that Elizabeth had the same power as the Pope ; see
GREEN, Addenda, 1566-1579, p. 353.
214 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
was carried out in full accordance with the requirements of
the law. On February I2th the inquiry came to an end, and
on the 25th a bull solemnly pronounced sentence on Elizabeth .
In this bull, on the ground of his duty of preserving from cor
ruption all those who belonged to the one true Church and of
punishing apostates, and in virtue of the supreme powers
conferred upon him, the Pope declared Elizabeth to be guilty
of heresy, and of encouraging heresy, to have incurred ex
communication, and therefore to have forfeited her " pretended
right " to the English crown ; her subjects were no longer
bound by any oath of loyalty to her, and under pain of ex
communication could no longer yield her obedience.1
Pius V. frequently assured the Spanish ambassador that he
had issued the bull of excommunication in response to the
requests of the English Catholics, who had scrupled about
taking up arms against Elizabeth so long as she was not
declared to be a heretic and deposed by the Pope ; that his
intention had been to encourage them, and that since the
English Catholics had asked for sentence against Elizabeth, he
could not in conscience refuse it.2
1 Bull. Rom., VII., 810 seq. A photograph of the bull in
POLLEN, English Catholics, p. 150.
8 Thus in many letters from Zuftiga to PhiJip II. : " Dixome
que ellos mismos se lo pedian porque estavan en escrupulo de
no tomar las armas contra ella hasta que S.S. la huviesse declarado
y privado de su reyno." (April 10, 1570, Corresp. dipl. III.,
291). " Esta confiado de que los catholicos de Inglaterra han
de hazer grande levantarmiento este verano ; y para darles
animo ha ya declarado a la Reyna de Inglaterra y pribadola
del reyno, aunque no lo ha publicado aqui. . . . No le pare$i6
que podria dexar de hazer [the declarations against Elizabeth] por
la instancia que los ca tholicos de aquel reyno le hazian, afirmandole
que havia muchos que tenian escrupulo de levantarse contra la
reyna no estando declarada por S.S." (April 28, 1570, ibid 307
seq.). " Assegur6me mucho . . . que solamente se havia movido
por una carta firmada de muchos catholicos de Inglaterra, los
quales le prometian, etc." (June 10, 1570, ibid. 397)
" que havia hecho esta declara9ion a instan9ia de muchos catholicos
de Inglaterra . . . y que no le pare9ia que con su cons9ien9ia
THE BULL OF EXCOMMUNICATION. 215
This makes it easy to understand why the Pope did not
publish the bull in the customary form, but only took steps
to have it made known in England. By a brief of March
3oth, 1570, copies of the bull were sent to Alba, in order that
he might have it displayed in Flanders, especially in the
sea-ports ;l on account of the great trade carried on by English
merchants in the Flemish ports the news of the Papal sentence
would be bound very soon to make its way across the channel.
For the same reason the bull was also sent to France ;* other
reasons led to the fact that the nuncio in Poland also received
orders to publish it on April 29th.3 In order to make the bull
known in England the banker Ridolfi was used as an inter
mediary, and about eighty copies of the bull were sent to him
to distribute.4 In Rome itself, on the other hand, the bull
podia dexar de hacer justicia pidiendosela los catholicos . . ."
(August n, 1570, ibid. 499). Cf. Arco to Maximilian II., May
6, 1570, in SCHWARZ, Briefwechsel, 160.
1 LADERCHI, 1570, n. 377. BROM (Archiv., I., 207) dated
the brief March 3.
1 Zuniga to Philip II., June 10, 1570, Corresp. dipl., III., 396.
From Ridolfi Spes received a copy sent by the French nuncio
(Spes to Alba, May 10, 1570, in KERVYN DE LETTENHOVE, Rela
tions, V., 652). Alba gave Spes instructions to deny, if neces
sary, all knowledge of the bull (May 25, 1570, ibid. 657).
* *Nunziatura di Polonia, I., 64, Papal Secret Archives.
4 " *Affine che li catholici con maggior fervor dessino aiuto
all' impresa di detto duca ""[Norfolk] e Regina di Scotia ; e a
questo effetto spedi corriero a me Ridolfi con forse ottanta di
dette bolle parte in stampa e parte in penna, con ordine espresso
che per quanto desiderano il servitio suo e della Sede Apostolica
e di tutta la cristianita facessi opera che subito le dette bolle si
spargessino e publicassino in Inghilterra senza haver rispetto.
a qualsi fussi raio interesse, perch e mi prometteva che la Sede
Apostolica mi ricompensarebbe, e che del continue tutta la cris
tianita, come diceva, faceva orazione per me, accioche conducessi
a perfettione cotanta impresa ; il che da me [sic !] con quel zelo
maggiore che fusse possibile, fu esegiuto, havendone di notte
appicata una alia porta del vescovo di Londra et altra lassata
a casa di un gentilhomo Inglese, quali la mattina riempiernono
2l6 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
of excommunication was kept almost entirely secret. As late
as April the Pope spoke of proceedings against Elizabeth as
being only imminent,1 and on April I5th the Imperial ambassa
dor, Arco, reported it as being a matter of hearsay.2 It was
only in May that the bull appeared in Rome in printed form,
but was at once withdrawn from sale.3 The usual formalities
which in other cases were looked upon as essential for the
promulgation of pontifical enactments, were never complied
with in the case of the bull of excommunication.4
la detta citta et tutta la corte con le copie che ne furono fatte di
tanto spavento e romore, che con le altre appresso che havevo
che furono lassate cadere in diversi luoghi del Regno, che poco
manc6 che non seguisse de fatto una gran sollevazione. II che
intesosi per detto duca di Northfolch e Regina di Scotia solleci-
torno per mezzo mio la conclusione de le pratiche, e cosi in pochi
giorni convennono e del parentado infra di loro e de la lega, della
quale desiderandone per li aiuti che si promettevano la confer-
matione, e dal Papa e dal Re catholico, parve a detta Regina
di Scotia e al duca di spedire me medesimo a S. St6> e Maesta
cattolica." Ridolfi to the Pope (Gregory XIII.) s.d. Chigi
Library, Rome, Miscell., t. 48, p. 39 seqq.
1 Zufiiga to Philip II., April 10, 1570, Corresp. dipl., III., 291.
2 * State Archives, Vienna.
3 SCHWARZ, Brief wechsel, 160.
1 A document containing questions and answers concerning
doubts of conscience felt by English Catholics, drawn up in Rome
in the time of Gregory XIII., mentions in the first place that
several maintained, against the validity of the bull, the difficulty :
" quod non fuerit hie [in Rome] more aliarum in Campo Florae
et alibi promulgata." (English Historical Review, VII., 1892,
84). Objections to the legal validity of the bull were raised by
Protestants like Camden, and by de Thou (see LADERCHI, 1570,
n. 366 seqq.), by Gallicans, like Noel Alexander, and recently by
Meyer (p. 66 seqq.). But there is no force in the objection that
according to canon law a prince can only be excummunicated
after previous warning, and that between the excommunication
and the deposition a year must elapse, and that consequently
the bull against Elizabeth was contrary to law, since in no case
would the omission of such formalities render the excommunica
tion invalid. According to Catholic principles the Pope can
PUBLICATION OF THE BULL. 217
The means chosen by Pius V. for the promulgation of the
bull did not serve their intended purpose. Through the
Spanish ambassador in Rome Alba protested strongly against
its publication,1 and the King of France as well could not be
induced to publish it.2 In spite of this, however, the bull
found its way to England.3 On the morning of May 25th,
1570, it was found affixed to the doors of the Bishop of Lon
don's palace. Suspicion for this bold act fell upon John
Felton, a respected and wealthy gentleman of South wark,
who at once confessed to it, and until his terrible death at the
hands of the hangman he continued to recognize the validity
of the Papal sentence.4
That the bull was intended merely to enlighten the English
Catholics, and that there was at first no thought of enforcing
it by the arms of a foreign power is especially proved by the
fact that the King of Spain, to whom the execution of the sen
tence would obviously fall, was not informed of the Papal
sentence. It is true that Arco wrote on April I5th, 1570,
to Vienna that, according to the common report, the Pope
had sent the bull only to Spain,5 but even on July I7th the
either completely annul and change the law prescribing or recom
mending such formalities, or dispense them in any particular
case. Moreover, any such law refers to an excommunication
which is to be inflicted in the future, whereas Elizabeth had for
a long time past, and quite manifestly, incurred excommunica
tion. How, for that matter, could a warning be given to her
if a Papal nuncio was not to be received in England ? Cf. against
N. Alexander DOM. BERNINO, Historia di tutte 1'heresie, VII.,
Venice, 1724, 524 seq.
1 Alba to Zuniga, May 18, 1570, in GONZALEZ, 415-419; cf.
MIGNET, II., 509 seq. ; Corresp. dipl., III., 396.
2 Rusticucci to Castagna, August u, 1570, Corresp. dipl.,
III., 509-
3 An Irish bishop and abbot who came to Rome had copies
(Spes to Philip II., May 13, '1570, Corresp. de Felipe II., III.,
352). A month after the issue of the bull Mary Stuart had a
printed copy. LABANOFF, IV., 52 ; cf. SPILLMANN, II., 109.
4 SPILLMANN, II., 109 seqq.
5 *State Archives, Vienna.
VOL. XVIII.
10
2l8 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
nuncio at Madrid only knew by hearsay that a decree against
Elizabeth was in existence, and that a copy had reached Spain
from England.1 The Spanish ambassador, whom the Pope
informed of his plans against Elizabeth in April, at once
raised serious difficulties : they must not dare to attempt
any such thing until everything was in readiness for the carry
ing into effect of the Papal sentence, since otherwise all that
they would obtain would be the stirring up of the queen to
the destruction of her Catholic subjects. He repeated the
same thing on a subsequent occasion.2 Philip himself was
very angry that he, who knew more about English affairs
than anyone else, had not first been asked for his advice, and
he remarked : It would seem that the Pope thinks that his
own zeal is a guarantee of success, but it is to be feared that
this hasty step will make the position of the Catholics in
England very much worse.3 On July I5th Zufiiga was told
to protest to the Pope ; the fact that no mention was made in
the bull of Philip's name would be taken as a sign of favouritism
for France, but the King of Spain would never allow France
to set foot in England.4 Philip wrote to Elizabeth that no
act of the Pope had caused him so much displeasure as the
bull of excommunication ;5 and he did not even recall his
ambassador from London, though the latter was soon after
wards forcibly driven out by Elizabeth.
1 Castagna to Bonelli, July 17, 1570, Corresp. dipl., III., 465.
MEYER, 415.
* Zufiiga to Philip II., Apr. 10 and 24, 1570, Corresp. dipl.,
III., 291, 308-
3 Philip II. to Spes, June 30, 1570, Corresp. de Felipe II.,
III., 367. The copies sent to him by Spes of the bull and of the
brief to Northumberland and Westmoreland, are, as he states,
the first which he has seen " porque, en efecto, Su San ti tad ha
tornado esta deliberacion sin decirme ni comunicarme cosa
alguna." Philip attributed the bull to the influence of the
Caidinal of Lorraine. KRETZSCHMAR, Invasionsprojekte, 27.
4 Zuniga to Philip II., August u, 1570, Corresp. dipl., III.,
499 ; cf. ibid, 493, the report of Castagna to Bonelli of August
4, 1570, concerning his audience with Philip II.
6 MEYER, 64.
SPAIN AND THE BULL. 2IQ
In June, 1570, Zuniga began to try and get the Pope to
mitigate or withdraw the bull of excommunication. Pius V.
went so far as to approve of Alba's withholding its publication
and in view of the reluctance shown by Alba and France,
he seemed to be not altogether sorry if the Papal sentence
did not come to the knowledge of Elizabeth. The Pope,
however, would not agree to Zuniga's other proposals, the
suspension of the bull, and merely releasing Elizabeth's
subjects from their oath of allegiance to her by means of a
brief, saying that at the utmost they might omit the words
in the bull which inflicted excommunication upon those who
obeyed the English queen. l
Alba's remonstrances in August, 1570, were just as in
effectual. Experience had shown, so the Duke wrote, that the
excommunication of the queen had not had the desired result,
but had even brought grave injuries upon the Catholics. A
solid reason had been given for the persecution, and since
loyalty to Elizabeth was threatened with excommunication
the Catholics had no other course open to them than to
abandon their country, which of itself implied the end of the
Catholic religion in England. It seemed to the Pope, however,
that not even these reasons justified him in withdrawing the
bull once it had been issued. Nor could he approve of Alba's
other proposal of at least suspending the penalties inflicted
on the Catholics by means of a brief, it being sufficient, in his
opinion, that Alba should make it known to the English
Catholics that if they remained in their own country they
would not be held to be excommunicated by the Pope. Alba
retorted that he did not consider this expedient satisfactory,
since he could not get into touch with the whole of the English
Catholics and that no one in England would be bound to believe
his statement.2
About this time a proposal was put forward by an Italian
merchant as to how the bull of excommunication could be put
1 Zuniga to Philip II., June 10, 1570, Corresp. dipl., III.,
396 seq.
2 Zufiiga to Philip II., August n, 1570, ibid. 500.
220 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
into force without having recourse to arms. Let it be pub
lished in Spain, Flanders arid France, and then, on the strength
of the Papal sentence, let the kings of France and Spain be
forbidden all trade with England ; this maritime blockade
would force Elizabeth to give way. It would seem that this
suggestion recommended itself to Pius V., and he ordered the
Spanish ambassador to write to Philip II. Zuniga considered
the plan quite impracticable,1 and Philip II., to whom it was
submitted by Castagna, was of the same opinion.2
The bull was not without its dangers for the English govern
ment. Even though, politically speaking, it had hardly any
effect, yet, after the rising of the previous year, there was still
much unrest among the people. It is true that externally
but little resistance was offered to an order issued to the
magistrates obliging them to the rigorous enforcement of the
law compelling attendance at worship, but the Protestant
Bishop of Durham, after his visitation of the summer of 1570,
had to report that the greater part of the people was secretly
and eagerly seeking an opportunity for fresh disturbances.3
Grindal of York made the same complaint : in his opinion the
greater part of the nobility did not entertain friendly feelings
towards the true (Protestant) religion.4 In Lancashire the
people were very hostile towards Protestantism, and as a
result of the bull, the leading men of the county had abandoned
the Anglican divine worship and had openly welcomed priests
from Lou vain.6 Henceforward the bull awakened among the
1 Ibid. 500 seq. Cf. *Avviso di Roma of July i, 1570, Varia
polit., 100, p. 175-177, Papal Seciet Archives.
* MEYER, 72, 417.
3 FRERE, 151.
4 " The greatest part of our gentlemen are not well affected
to godly religion." (FRERE, 151). Cf. the opinion of Sadler
of December 6, 1569 (in GREEN, 139 ; LINGARD, VIII., 46) :
in northern England there are not ten nobles " that do favour
and allow of her majesty's proceeding in the cause of religion."
6 " All things in Lancashire savoured of open rebellion ... in
most places the people fell from their obedience and utterly
refused to attend divine service in the English tongue. . . . Since
ELIZABETH AND THE BULL. 221
Catholics the consciousness that they could not be excused
for attendance at Protestant worship on the plea of obedience
to the queen.
Although she pretended to despise the Papal sentence,
Elizabeth nevertheless brought pressure to bear on the Pope
through the Emperor Maximilian II. for the withdrawal of
the bull.1 But not even now would Pius V. agree to this. If,
he replied, the queen attributes any importance to the bull,
why does she not return to the Church ? If she attaches no
importance to it, why does she make an uproar about it ?
Elizabeth's threats could do him no harm : if he could ex
tinguish her hatred by shedding his own blood, he would
find greater joy in so doing than he found in the possession
of the Papal dignity.2 Elizabeth therefore was forced to
reply in some other way to the Papal sentence. Above
all, she tried to win over public opinion ; pamphlets, to a
great extent " in the coarsest and most vulgar tone," did their
best to drag the Pope and his sentence through the mire of
ridicule.3 Next there came from the Parliament, which had
Felton set up the bull, etc., the greatest there never came to any
service, nor suffered any to be said in their houses, but openly
entertained Louvanists massers with their bulls." (Bishop
Barnes of Carlisle to the Earl of Sussex, October 16, 1570, in
GREEN, 321 ; cf. FRERE, 152). Cf. the letter of the Countess of
Northumberland to Alba (end of October, 1570 ?), in KERVYN
DE LETTENHOVE, Relations, VI., 8 ; especially in Lancashire
some " apres qu'ils ont eu congnoissance de l'excomniunication
faicte contre la personne de la Royne d'Angleterre " have restored
the Catholic worship in their houses and parishes.
1 Maximilian II. to Pius V., September 28, 1570, in SCHWARZ,
Briefwechsel, 159 seq.
* January 5, 1571, in LADERCHI, 1570, n. 381 ; SPILLMANN,
II., 132-134-
3 MEYER, 69 seqq. On June 12, 1570, Spes wrote to Philip
II. that the Protestants were providing themselves with arms
against their enemies and with books against the bull. (Corresp.
de Felipe II., III., 353). Bullinger's confutation. A Confuta
tion of the Pope's Bull, London, 1572, which Burghley, Parker,
Grindal and Cox caused to be printed, deals in part with the
222 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
assembled on April 2nd, 1571, a series of laws, which were
partly aimed against the risings of recent years, but partly
also against Catholics as such.1 Henceforward he must be
held guilty of high treason who, while the queen lived, claimed
any right to the crown, or who asserted that the crown
belonged to anyone but the queen, or that she was a heretic,
schismatic, tyrant or infidel, or that she had usurped the
throne ; the same thing applied to those who denied that the
succession to the throne was settled by the decision of Parlia
ment. One year's imprisonment was to be the punishment
for the first offence, and the penalties of the statute of prae-
munire for the second, for anyone who in writing or in print
spoke of any definite person as the heir to the throne, even
though he should be the natural successor of the queen.
The penalties of high treason applied to anyone who obtained
or made use of a Papal bull or the like, or who on the strength
of such documents gave or asked for absolution, with the
penalties of praemunire for his accomplices and for anyone
who introduced into the country or received objects blessed
by the Pope. A further projected law, making it obligatory
to receive the Protestant communion, was allowed to drop.
Seventy years later, when the Spaniards demanded of
Urban VIII. that he should inflict excommunication on Riche-
question whether the deposed Catholic bishops were treated kindly
or cruelly by Elizabeth (cf. Vol. XVI. of this work, p. 235 seq.}.
On p. 60 of Bullinger we actually read : " Moreover it is impudently
and untruthfully asserted that the Catholic bishops were worn
out by their sufferings in prison and ended their days in misery.
. . . On the contrary the papist bishops were treated kindly and
far better than they deserved." On p. 47 on the other hand it is
admitted that the bishops " ended their days miserably in prison,"
though this was entirely owing to their perversity. In the
first-named passage (p. 60) the printed version is due to the fact
that Bullinger's manuscript was altered in England, whereas
they forgot or omitted to alter the second passage on p. 47 in
the same sense. Cf. BELLESHEIM in Histor polit. Blatter,
CXXXVI., (1905), 894.
1 LINGARD, VIII., 69 seq.
EFFECT OF THE BULL IN ENGLAND. 223
lieu and Louis XIII. on account of their alliance with the
Protestants, the Pope rejected the demand by pointing to the
uselessness of such proceedings in the case of Henry VIII.
and Elizabeth.1 Since then the Holy See has never again
pronounced a sentence of deposition against a reigning
prince.
While Catholic writers defended the bull as being in accord
ance with ancient law,2 Protestants waged a violent war
against it. These polemical writers did much to sharpen
and embitter for many centuries to come the religious differ
ences between the members of the same nation ; it was only
too easy to represent as a claim, the renewal of which even
under the totally different conditions of later times was a thing
to be feared, and as importing a continued menace to the
safety of princes, a right which the Pope possessed in the Middle
Ages with the full consent of the nations, and which he thought
it his duty to exercise once more in the transition period of
the XVIth century. For more than a century the struggle
against the bull of excommunication formed a stock part of
Protestant polemics, and an excuse by which to justify any
violation of justice at the expense of Catholic subjects and
fellow-countrymen.3
As far as the English Catholics were concerned, the bull,
with its prohibition of obedience to the queen, led to doubts
and scruples, and consequently to various interpretations of
the Papal prescriptions, as well as to divisions and disagree
ments.4 Even worse was the fact that with the bull of ex
communication and the laws which followed it there opened
a new period in the story of the persecution of the English
Catholics. Felton and Storey, who was especially hated by
1 PIEPER in Histor. polit. Blatter, XCIV. (1884), 481. CAUCHIE
ET MAERE, 237.
2 See HERGENROTHER, Staat und Kirche, 679.
3 Cf. MEYER, 70 seq.
4 Cf. English Historical Review, VII. (1892), 84 seqq., for the
questions and answers published by " Petriburg." (i.e. Creighton,
Bishop of Peterborough),
224 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
Cecil, had already become its victims.1 Several left their
country and thus forfeited all their property, which was either
given or sold for a large sum to the queen's adherents. Of
those who stayed, the so-called " recusants," that is to say
those who refused to take part in Protestant worship, were in
daily and hourly expectation of the moment when the denun
ciation of some ill- wisher would drag them before the courts,
with the inevitable consequence of large fines and imprison
ment, or, in the case of converts, with the loss of their pro
perty and imprisonment for life. During the reign of Eliza
beth, both secret and public ordinances, often repeated, and
urging their strict enforcement, ensured that the laws should
not fall into abeyance.2 A proclamation of July ist, 1570,
had made the profession of priest-hunter and spy a profitable
undertaking.3 In England as elsewhere the XVIth century
stands out as a time of the worst possible religious tyranny.
The watchful care of the Pope and the fear of his punishments
were things of the past, while on the other hand the excessive
tyranny had not yet taught the oppressed to unite together
to defend themselves by legal methods, and thus bring pressure
to bear on the caprice of the oppressor. Looked at from this
point of view the bull of excommunication of Pius V. throws
a strong light upon the religious conditions of the XVIth
century.
Mary Stuart, for whose sake the nobles had risen, and on
whose behalf to some extent the Pope had issued the bull, did
not derive the smallest advantage from it. John Knox, who
as early as August, 1569, had accused " mad Scotland " of not
1 SPILLMANN, II., 109. On July 31, 1570, Antonio de Guaras
wrote from London that many persons were, persecuted on account
of the excommunication (Corresp. de Felipe II., III., 381). On
August 12 he describes the zeal with which those who had re
ceived notice of the excommunication were being proceeded
against as marvellous : many were in prison and some in danger
of sharing the fate of Felton (ibid. 393).
2 LINGARD, VIII., 138 seq,
3 MEYER, 74 seq.
THE TREATY OF CHATSWORTH. 225
obeying the " mouth of God," and of having failed to punish
as she deserved the " wicked adulteress and cruel murderess
of her husband,"1 after the victory over the two Catholic earls
exhorted the secretary of state to strike a blow " at the roots,"
for otherwise " the branches " would very soon and very
vigorously begin to shoot again.2 On the same day Murray
also wrote to the English secretary of state concerning " the
dangerous branches of the rebellion " : since Elizabeth had the
origin of all the disturbances in her power, it would be her own
fault if she now failed to deal with the evil.3 As a matter of
fact negotiations for the handing over of Mary to her half-
brother in Scotland were already being carried on,4 when
Murray himself fell a victim to the private revenge of a noble
whom he had offended.5
After the death of the regent Mary's party in Scotland was
once more in the ascendant. Elizabeth therefore sent troops
across the Border on the pretext of punishing the wild in
habitants of that district for their crimes, but in reality to
hamper and paralyse Mary's supporters ; once again fire and
sword were let loose over the unhappy country ; 500 villages
were burned in the valley of the Tevipt and the countryside
was laid waste. Further military expeditions against Scotland
followed, until at length the strong protests made by Mary
in France and Spain caused Elizabeth to abandon the enter
prise.6 Moreover, when the negotiations for the marriage of
the English queen to the Duke of Anjou were in progress in
1570, Cecil, at a personal interview with Mary, concluded with
her on October i6th, 1570, the Treaty of Chatsworth, by the
terms of which the Queen of Scotland was to be restored to her
throne. Naturally, hard terms were imposed : among others
she had to agree that her son should be educated in England
1 HOSACK, I., 503.
* Knox to Cecil, January 2, 1570, ibid. 500.
8 Murray to Cecil, January 2, 1570, ibid. 501.
4 Ibid. 502.
8 January 23, 1570. Cf. LINGARD, VIII., 53.
•HOSACK, II., 3 seqq. LINGARD, VIII., 54.
226 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
until his fifteenth year.1 In a letter to Pius V.2 Mary excused
herself by saying that owing to the pressure of necessity she
could not act otherwise, and that in spite of everything James
would receive a Catholic education.
The agreement with Mary Stuart was not kept ; even before
all hopes of its being observed had vanished Mary informed
Elizabeth through Leslie that she intended to ask for the help
of the foreign princes to effect her restoration.3
Probably at this time Mary had already lent an ear to the
proposals of the Florentine banker, Ridolfo Ridolfi, who even
before this time, when the Catholic rising was in preparation,
had taken a hand in the affair4 and who, in the autumn of
1569, had fallen under suspicion of having assisted the rising,
but had been taken back into the favour of Cecil and Walsing-
ham after a short term of imprisonment. When the negotia
tions about the Treaty of Chatsworth had disappeared in
smoke, he persuaded Mary no longer to put any confidence in
Elizabeth, and to turn for help to the Catholic princes.6 By
the advice of her trusted minister, Leslie, Bishop of Ross, and
the Spanish ambassador, Guerau de Spes, Mary accepted this
suggestion and tried to win over to its support Norfolk, who had
been released from the Tower in the previous autumn. The
duke had then been made to promise that he would no longer
think of a marriage with Mary without the consent of Elizabeth,
but in spite of this he eventually consented to a secret meeting
with Ridolfi. The Florentine told him that Spanish troops
1 HOSACK, II., 17 seqq.
1 Of October 31, 1570, in LADERCHI, 1570, n. 403 ; cf. LABANOFF,
VII., 19-23.
8 " Quherfor our said good sister must aperdone ws, if we se
na furtheiaunce to be had at her hand, nether for our restitution
nor for the relief of our saidis good subjects, that we solicit and
ayde thame to procure thair support at other princes our frendis
allyes " (Mary to Leslie, February 6, 1571, in LABANOFF, III.,
175). Mary was already thinking of sending Leslie to the Pope
in 1570 ; her instructions in LABANOFF, III., 57 seq.
* See supra, pp. 203, 215.
* HOSACK, II.. 34.
PLAN FOR AN INVASION OF ENGLAND. 227
under the command of Federigo di Toledo, Alba's son, were
to be landed in England, and that with their help Mary was
to be set at liberty. Norfolk did not give a formal consent to
the plan, but Ridolfi left him with the impression that the duke
intended to put himself at the head of the troops in order to
set Mary free.
It was probably Leslie and the Spanish ambassador who gave
currency to a detailed document,1 in which Norfolk charged the
Florentine to get into touch with Philip II., the Pope and Alba.
They were to send from six to ten thousand men to England,
whereupon Norfolk would furnish 20,000 infantry and 3,000
cavalry. If Mary were still kept in captivity, the duke would
offer battle, and make an attempt to liberate Mary by force,
and at the same time get possession of the person of the English
queen, so as to have in her a hostage for the Queen of Scotland.2
In this document the duke avowed himself a secret Catholic
who had been obliged to conceal his real convictions solely
in order that he might the better serve his country and the
whole of Christendom. He declared that his principal object
was not so much his marriage to the captive queen as the
union of the whole island under one ruler, and the restoration
of the old religion ; for the rest, he had always been the
defender of the Catholics, and his servants and the tutors of
his children were Catholics.3 A list of the English nobles was
1 March, 1571, in LABANOFF, III., 234-239 ; a short epitome
in GONZALES, 463.
2 " Sorio risoluto di voler tentare la fortuna di una battaglia,
et far forza di cavarla di qua per forza, et insignorirmi a un
tempo della propria persona della Regina d'lnghilterra per
assicurarmi di quella della Regina di Scotia." LABANOFF, III., 245.
8 " E. dove N.Sre et il Re Catholico fino a hora havessino
havuto alcun dubbio di me per non mi essere dichiarato, anzi
piu presto mostromi protestante, gli significehrete, che non e
stato per mala volunta che io habbia havuto verso quella S.Sede,
ma per potere quando il tempo et la occasione si appresentassi
. . . fare quel relevato servitio a tutta questa isola et general-
mente a tutta la christianitk che lo effetto stesso dimostrera."
Ibid. 238.
228 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
attached, with a description of each one's opinions ;l according
to this list forty of the nobles were ready to unsheathe their
swords with Norfolk. Mary Stuart also gave the Florentine
special instructions for his visit to the foreign courts.2 In
these Mary explains the difficult postition of the English
Catholics, whose only hope lay in her ascending the throne,
and she goes on to describe her own situation, which compelled
her to appeal for help to the foreign princes, especially the Pope
and Philip II. No fears need be entertained about Norfolk
on account of the attitude which he had hitherto adopted with
regard to religion ; this had been inevitable in the face of his
wicked adversaries ; when the Protestants had advised her
to change her religion he had urged her to stand firm ; Norfolk
enjoyed the confidence of the Catholics, but in the meantime
he could not disclose his real sentiments. Finally she begged
the Pope to examine and to annul her marriage with Both-
well.3
Armed with these instructions, Ridolfi, in the spring of
1571, first repaired to Brussels to the Duke of Alba.
Mary had for a long time past been in treaty with Alba in
order to obtain his help against her enemies in Scotland.4
On November 3rd, 1569, when the gueux in Flanders seemed to
be permanently broken up, when the Huguenots in France
had been defeated, and after the seizure of the Spanish treasure5
had afforded just cause for a war with England, a call to
intervene in English affairs had also reached him from the
Pope.8 But Alba remained inactive. He sent the Scottish
queen some subsidies in money, but for the rest his reply to
Mary's entreaties took the form of a warning not to trust too
1 Ibid. 251-253.
* Ibid. 222-233 • GONZALES, 463-467 (Spanish translation).
9 Cf. supra, p. 173 seq.
4 Cf. her letters to Alba of April 23 and 30, May 16 and July
8, 1569, in KERVYN DE LETTENHOVE, Relations, V., 371, 377,
385, 426.
*See supra, p. 204.
•See supra pp. 211, 219.
THE SCHEME OF RIDOLFI. 22Q
much in her advisers.1 Mary replied that she hoped soon to
be able to submit to Alba definite proposals, the carrying out
of which would involve in everlasting gratitude to the King of
Spain -and the duke, not only herself, but the whole island,
and that she was making these proposals not in her own name
alone.2 Thus was heralded the mission of Ridolfi, whom
Norfolk as well provided with a letter for the King of Spain of
the same date.3
A short time afterwards the Italian presented himself in
person to the duke at Brussels , Alba received him and his
proposals somewhat coldty. The Florentine banker, with his
lack of experience of military matters seemed to the expert
soldier " a great babbler "4 and his plan for conquering
England a castle in the air.
From Brussels Ridolfi went to Rome. His name was not
unknown in the Curia ; he had already laid the designs of
Norfolk before the Holy See,5 and had rendered important
1 Letter of February n, 1571, in KERVYN DE LETTENHOVE,
loc. cit., VI., 55. Cf. Alba to Spes, July 14, 1569, ibid. V., 429 :
" De Francia me han hoy avisado que se destruye enteramente
la Reina de Escocia con las platicas que sus criados tienen con
Vuestra Merced, los quales jamas entran en su posada que no
sea espiandolos, y podriale costar a la Reina la vida. ..."
* Mary to Alba, March 20, 1571, ibid, go ; LABANOFF, III., 216.
8 Letter of Norfolk in KERVYN DE LETTENHOVE, loc. cit.,
90 seq. Kervyn doubts its authenticity (ibid. p. iv.) and looks
upon Ridolfi in general as a charlatan (Huguenots, II., 387,
n. 5). LINGARD (VIII., 81) has the same opinion of him. POLLEN
(The Month, 1C., -1902, 147 n.) looks upon this view as exag
gerated, and thinks that Ridolfi was substantially honest, and his
papers reliable on the whole.
4 " un gran parlanchin (GONZALEZ, 359) ; un hombre muy
vacio " who did not know how to keep a secret, is what Alba
calls him, September 5, 1571 (GACHARD, Corresp. de Felipe II.,
II.. 198).
'Three letters from Ridolfi (of April 18, 1569, July i, and
September i, 1570) are preserved in the Papal Secret Archives ;
their contents are in POLLEN, loc. cit. 144. A memorial of Ridolfi,
of February 6, 1571, concerning the Pope's inclination to help
Mary, in HOSACK, II., 502 seq.
230 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
services to the Pope. A letter from Alba to Zuniga, the
Spanish ambassador in Rome, had put the latter very much on
his guard against the Florentine, and had also wrung from the
Pope the declaration that nothing could be done in the matter
against the opinion of Alba, but Zuniga rightly thought that
the letters from Mary and Norfolk might win the Pope over
to their point of view.1
Pius V., who flattered himself that he might now see the
bull of deposition carried into effect, gave the intermediary a
letter of recommendation to Philip II. ; in this letter it was
stated that Ridolfi wished to lay before the king certain matters
which were closely connected with the honour of God and the
good of the Church : he urgently begged the king to trust him,
and to lend him his assistance for the carrying out of his plans
in every possible way.2 As he wrote on the same day to Mary,
the Pope had received Ridolfi with joy, and his mission with
even greater joy ; he must, however, leave the rest to the
prudent judgment of the Spanish king and his greater experi
ence of such matters. For his part he would support the
plan with all his power. He exhorted the queen to patience
1 Zuftiga to Philip II., April 30, 1571, Corresp. dipl., IV., 258
seq. The letter of Alba was of April 8 (ibid. 259 n.). In a con
versation with Zuniga on April 30 Ridolfi represented the enter
prise as being easy " como suelen hazer los que vienen con seme-
jantes invenciones " (ibid. 258).
1 Letter of May 5, 1571, in LADERCHI, 1571, n. 6 ; cf. Bonelli
to the nuncio in Madrid, Castagna, May n, 1571, Corresp. dipl.,
IV., 274 seq. " II Sommo Pontifice ha gradito ed accettato tutto
ci6 che e state concluso tra V.M. e rillustrissimo signor Duca
di Norfolk ed altri nobili del regno, ha lodato le istruzioni che
gli ho mostrate, e comprovato il loro disegno ; e siccome sa che
ogni grazia e bene precede da Dio, non si puo dire con quanta
calde orazioni questo Santo Pastore favorisce i loro desideri ed
il buon fine dell'impresa, ed e meraviglia con quanta inclinazione
e veramente paterno animo, abbraccia e desidera il bene e il
comando di V. M. e dei suoi amici confederati." Ridolfi to
Mary, in FRANCESCO FABERI, S. Pio V. Studio storico, Siena,
1893, 107.
RIDOLFI AND PHILIP II. 231
if during the summer it should still be necessary to wait before
any steps were taken.1
At the end of June Ridolfi reached Madrid, and on the 28th
he presented to the king the Pope's brief, together with the
latters of receommendation from Mary, Norfolk, and the
Spanish ambassador in London.2
Ridolfi found a zealous supporter of his plans in the Spanish
nuncio, Castagna, who had already sought Philip's inter
vention in English affairs. In Castagna's opinion, Ridolfi
had come at exactly the right moment ; he at once spoke
to the king on the subject, and through his influence the
Florentine was able to lay his proposals before the sovereign
on July 3rd, 1571, and to all appearances met with a favourable
reception.3 It seemed indeed that at that moment Philip
was willing to strike a blow at England. He spoke at greater
length on the subject with the nuncio, and with more warmth
than was usual with him, declaring that it seemed to him that
the moment had come to bring back England to the true
faith for the second time, that the Pope had promised all
possible help, and that the hesitation of France would be
removed once the enterprise was embarked upon in the Pope's
name, and on the ground of the bull of excommunication
against Elizabeth. Ridolfi assured him that the Pope would
agree to this, and accordingly Philip even took the preliminary
steps. On July I2th a courier set out -to Alba and to the
Spanish ambassador in London, to convey the news to Norfolk
and the Queen of Scots, while the king repeatedly sent for
Ridolfi in order to learn fuller details.4 On August 23rd
1 LADERCHI, 1571, n. 9. Ridolfi also presented a letter from
Norfolk; ibid.
* Philip II. to Spes, July 13, 1571, Corresp. de Felipe II.,
III., 477. The recommendations from Spes for Ridolfi to Philip
II. and Zayas, of March 25, 1571, ibid. 444 seq. Ridolfi left Rome
on May 20. Corresp. dipl., IV., 338 n.
* Castagna to Ruscticucci, July 3, 1571, Corresp. dipl., IV.,
380.
4 Castagna to Rusticucci, July 9, 1571, ibid. 381 seq. Zayas to
Zufiiga, July 17, 1571, ibid. 389.
232 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
Castagna wrote : all are in favour of the English enterprise,
with one exception1 — but this one exception has much of
importance to say. The nuncio had already hinted at this
when he wrote that the affair would certainly have been
carried out if Alba had not held the king back.2
Long before Ridolfi's arrival in Madrid a detailed statement
ef his plan had been received from Alba.3 The experienced
commander looked upon the proposals of the amateur soldier
as impracticable in their present form. Spain could not land
troops in England without bringing both France and Germany
into the field against herself. The Florentine's plans were
only practicable supposing one condition were fulfilled. At
that time Elizabeth was suffering from an ulcer in the leg,
which was thought to be cancer.4 Alba wrote that if the
Queen of England were to die " by a natural death or in some
other way," or if she were to fall into the hands of the Duke
of Norfolk,5 the jealousy of the other nations would not be
aroused if Mary Stuart's claims to the English throne were
supported by armed force.
At the bottom of his heart Philip II. himself did not attach
great weight to Ridolfi's original proposals, and on July 7th
a conference was held on the suggestions of Alba, and especially
on the question whether an attempt ought to be made " to
kill " the queen, "or to capture her."6 The outcome of this
1 To Rusticucci, ibid. 413.
2 Corresp. dipl., IV., 390 n. : " Se de la parte del Duca d'Alba
non viene raffredato, io tengo per certo che la impresa serk posta
in opera."
8 Of May 7, 1571 (reached Madrid May 22), in A. TEULET,
Relations politiques de la France et de 1'Espagne avec 1'Ecosse,
V., Paris, 1862, 74-87 ; MIGNET, II., 510-518.
4 POLLEN in The Month, XCIX. (1902), 145.
* " Pero en caso que la reina de Inglaterra huviesse muerta o
de muerte natural o de otra, o que ellos se apoderassen de su
persona, sin que V. Md se huviesse entremetido en esto, entonces
no hallaria yo difficultad." In MIGNET, II., 516.
6 We only have meagre accounts of this consultation, in MIGNET,
II., 518-521, which for the most part are so difficult to understand
PIUS V. AND RIDOLFI. 233
discussion is furnished in a memorial drawn up by Ridolfi :
the whole enterprise is left in the hands of the Duke of Alba ;
he will decide the favourable moment for putting it into
execution, and he will come to an arrangement with Nor
folk and Spes for simultaneously obtaining possession of
the queen, the Tower of London and the English fleet at
Rochester.1
The condition which the king asked for, and which Ridolfi
had declared to be satisfactory to the Pope, namely that the
campaign against England should be carried on in the name
of the Pope, and on the ground of the bull of excommunication,
had in the meantime spontaneously been suggested to the king
by Pius V. The entire direction of the enterprise, however,
was to remain in the hands of the king, but if it were thought
to be desirable the Pope was ready to confer upon the corn-
that, e.g., the purpose of Velasco is understood by MIGNET (II.,
162) and KERVYN DE LETTENHOVE (Relations, VI., 5) in quite
a contrary sense. The accounts begin with the proposition :
" Que convenia comenzar por ellos y matar 6 prender la reina.
Que de otra manera luego se casaria y mataria a la de Escocia."
GONZALEZ (p. 361) understands " matar 6 prender " as capture
and kill. Several later historians followed him. But according
to the sources published so far, more cannot be stated as to the
Spanish plan than is stated by HERGENROTHER (Kirche und
Staat, 680) : " there was an intention of obtaining possession,
in any case, of her person, and only in the case of extreme emer
gency of killing her." Cf. POLLEN, English Catholics, 176.
If it was intended to capture Elizabeth by a coup de main the
possibility of her losing her life mast have been taken into con
sideration.
1 KERVYN DE LETTENHOVE, Relations, VI., v. On June 12,
1571, Spes had written to Philip II. : " if on the landing of I2,ootf
to 15,000 soldiers, with a corresponding force of cavalry, the
English should obtain possession of the queen, the enterprise
would have half succeeded. It would also be well at once to
capture Cecil, Leicester and Bedford, as well as the fleet at
Rochester." This bold but visionary undertaking seemed to the
ambassador quite easy : " todo lo qual es harto facil." Corresp.
4e Felipe II., III., 354.
VOL. XVIII. 17
234 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
mander appointed by Philip the title of pontifical general.1
At the same time Pius V. regretted the fact that the actual
help which the Pope could give would be but small ; the under
taking was of the greatest importance for the service of God
and the welfare of the Church ; in spite of his poverty he
would do all that he could, and if necessary would not grudge
even the chalices from the altars and the pontifical vestments.2
The Pope would allow him to employ against England a part
of the ecclesiastical revenues which had been set aside for the
enterprise against the Turks.3
The royal council, however, rejected the proposal to under
take the expedition in the name of the Pope, from a reluctance
to acquiesce in the slightest degree in the claims of the Apos
tolic See over the crowns of England and Ireland.4
The Duke of Alba showed himself but little pleased with
the fresh task laid upon him by his sovereign, and made
serious objections.5 In the event of ill-success, he remarked,
Philip's intervention would make enemies of England, France
and Germany, would perhaps lead to a war with France, and
inflict serious injury in the Low Countries on the very religion
he was trying to protect in England ; the Venetians too might
lose confidence in the king and withdraw from the league
against the Turks.6 The undertaking, moreover, was in very
untrustworthy hands. Norfolk had neither resolution nor
courage,7 Guerau de Spes was blinded by his enmity for
1 Rusticucci to Castagna, August 12, 1571, ibid. 409. Philip
II. to Alba, July 14, 1571, in Gachard, Corresp. de Felipe II.,
II., 187.
1 Ibid. 185.
* Rusticucci to Castagna, September 24, 1571, Corresp. dipl.,
IV., 441.
4 Philip II. to Alba, July 14, 1571, in GACHARD, loc. cit., 187.
The Grand Inquisitor spoke at the council on July 7, in
favour of the Pope's proposal, and Feria against it. MIGNET,
II., 162.
6 KRETZSCHMAR, Invasionsprojekte, 37 seqq.
•August 3, 1571, in GACHARD, loc. cit. 188.
7 " Tengole por flaco y de poco animo " ; ibid. 189.
ALBA OPPOSED TO RIDOLFI. 235
Elizabeth,1 Ridolfi was a frivolous man, who knew so little
how to keep a secret that the merchants at Antwerp were
openly discussing his plans,2 and lastly, the national pride
of the English would not easily put up with succour which
came from abroad.3 Alba scoffed at Ridolfi 's idea that it
would be possible to launch an expedition to capture Elizabeth,
and another at the same time to seize the Tower and burn the
English ships in the Thames ; even if Elizabeth herself were
in alliance with Philip all this could not be carried out as
Ridolfi suggested.4 For these reasons Alba was of the opinion
that help could only be given to the conspirators after they
had secured possession of the person of the queen.5 The king,
for his part, adhered to his view that Alba should declare
himself for the conspirators, and go to their assistance as soon
as the force which he was to raise should be sufficiently large.6
He took the view that for higher motives, especially those of
religion, it was possible to make light of these difficulties,7
and he remained of the same opinion even when he learned
that Elizabeth had received information of Ridolfi 's plans,8
and news had come of Norfolk's imprisonment.9 In his letter
of September I4th, however, he at last left the decision of the
whole question to the judgment of Alba. The Spanish ambas
sador in London had received, on August 4th, and again on
the 3oth, instructions to act in the matter only in accordance
with the orders of Alba.10
At length orders did come from Alba, but they were to the
effect that the Spanish ambassador was not to let the world
1 August 27, 1571 ; ibid. 193.
1 September 5, 1571 ; ibid. 198.
1 August 27, 1571 ; ibid. 193.
4 Ibid. 194.
5 August 3, 1571, ibid. 188 ; August 27, ibid. 194.
•To Alba, August 4, and 30, and September 14, 1571, ibid.
191, 196, 200.
7 To Alba, September 14, 1571, ibid. 198 seqq.
8 To Alba, August 4, 1571, ibid. 191.
•To Alba, October 17, 1571, ibid. 205.
10Corresp. de Felipe II., III., 482, 494.
236 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
know in any way, either directly or indirectly, that he was in
possession of letters to Mary, Norfolk and Leslie.1 A few
weeks later Alba urgently recommended him to burn every
thing he possessed bearing on Ridolfi's mission.2 Towards
the end of the year he wrote that he must leave the English
Catholics and their sufferings to God.3
While Alba v/as hesitating, the English government had
gathered all the threads of the conspiracy into its hands.
The story of its discovery4 affords a characteristic picture in
miniature of the low morality of political life at that time.
First of all there fell into the hands of the government a packet
of letters from Ridolfi to Leslie with the address in cypher, but
by means of his agents Leslie was able to substitute innocent
letters for the incriminating ones. Torture, however, wrung
from the bearer the confession that a landing in England was
intended, and that Alba had approved of the plan. Soon
afterwards Philip II., who was generally so cautious, betrayed
himself. One of the founders of England's maritime power,
the buccaneer John Hawkins, who has won for himself an ill
name as being the first Englishman who, with the connivance
and help of Elizabeth, carried on the slave-trade,5 had lost
some of his men as prisoners of war to the Spaniards. In
order to liberate them from their prison in Seville, he hit upon
a cunning scheme. With Cecil's approval, he went to the.
Spanish ambassador in London, declaring himself to be a
Catholic6 and a partisan of Mary Stuart, and that he was ready
1 Alba to Spes, July 30, 1571, in KERVYN DE LETTENHOVE,
Relations, VI., 157.
* August 19, 1571, ibid. 163.
* Alba to Spes, November 12 and 15, 1571, ibid. 216, 218.
In the meantime Ridolfi had by Alba's wish started for Flanders
on September 9 (Castagna to Rusticucci, September 9, 1571,
Corresp. dipl., IV., 435). On November 19 he reappeared in
Rome (Zufiiga to Philip II., November 27, 1571, ibid. 542).
4 HOSACK, II., 55-56 ; BROSCH, VI., 565-568 ; LINGARD, VIIL,
78 seq.
6 LINGARD, VIII., 259.
* KERVYN DE LETTENHOVE, loc. cit.t 434.
TREACHERY OF HAWKINS. 237
to hand over the ships he commanded to the Spaniards. In
return for this he demanded a sum of money and the liberation
of his imprisoned comrades. The Spanish ambassador
referred Hawkins to Alba, but when the latter refused to have
aynthing to do with the matter, Hawkins sent one of his
officers, Fitzwilliams, direct to the King of Spain, with a letter
from the Spanish ambassador. Philip received the envoy
kindly, but before he would enter into any negotiations he
wished for a letter of recommendation from Mary Stuart.
Thereupon Fitzwilliams obtained from the Duke of Feria,
whose wife was an Englishwoman, a letter to Mary, and on
the strength of Feria's letter the queen, who suspected no
treachery, was induced to write to the King of Spain begging
him to release the English prisoners. Philip's doubts were
thus dispelled and he informed Fitzwilliams that it was
intended to effect a landing in England in the autumn, and
that Hawkins would assist in this enterprise with his ships.
An agreement to this effect was signed on August loth by
Feria and Fitzwilliams as the representatives of Philip and
Hawkins. Fitzwilliams returned to England bearing the
title of Grandee of Spain for Hawkins and 50,000 pounds
sterling.
The Spanish plan was thus for the most part disclosed to
the English government, and the only thing that was still
uncertain was the identity of the Englishmen who were pre
pared to assist the Spaniards in their undertaking ; and as
to this an imprudent act served to put the secretary of state
on their track. Mary Stuart wished to assign part of her
allowance as a widow of France to the garrison of Edinburgh
Castle, which had always remained loyal to her, and she sent
the sum by the hands of a retainer of Norfolk named Higford
to Bannister, who was in touch with Norfolk as his adminis
trator. The messenger, who had been told that he was carry
ing silver, surprised at the weight of his package, opened it,
found gold and a letter in cypher, and at once reported the
matter to Burghley. Higford was made to interpret the
cypher, and Bannister and Barker, Norfolk's secretary, were
arrested and confessed all they knew ; Barker knew a great
238 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
deal, because it was he who had been the intermediary between
Leslie, Ridolfi and Norfolk.
Thus the conspiracy was brought to an end ; Ridolfi took
good care not to set foot again in England ; Norfolk was again
thrown into the Tower on September 7th, 1571, and ended
his days on the scaffold on June 2nd in the following year.
In vain did Leslie appeal to the privileges of an ambassador
in order to escape imprisonment, and he only escaped torture
by making a full confession. The Spanish ambassador was
driven out of the country, and Burghley in mockery caused
him, while still quite unsuspicious, to be escorted to Calais by
Hawkins.1 During the whole journey the crafty buccaneer
took a cruel pleasure in amusing himself at the expense of
the victim of his schemes by assuring him of his boundless
devotion to the Spanish king.2
It was natural that the man who directed English political
affairs should not let slip the opportunity of dragging the good
name of the Pope in the dust. Cecil, on whom at the beginning
of the year the title of Lord Burghley had been conferred, saw
to it that the news of what had happened should be spread
as widely as possible, with all the needful embellishments.
On October i3th the news was communicated to the Lord
Mayor and aldermen of London, who then assembled the
masters of the city corporations, and they in their turn spread
the news among the citizens. In order to excite the populace
still more the whole affair was published in printed sheets, so
that the streets rang3 with the story of the schemes of Alba
and the Pope against the city of London and the queen.
1 Documents relating to this in KERVYN DE LETTENHOVE,
Relations, VI., 226 seqq., 242, 258, 260, 275, 283, 288, 294, 298, 337.
1 HOSACK, II., 88.
8 " de sorte que les rues ne re"sonnent ici autre matiere " (M.
de Sweveghem to Alba, October 16, 1571, in KERVYN DE LETTEN
HOVE, VI., 187). It has recently been maintained that Pius V.
also knew of " the proposals to murder Queen Elizabeth " and
the conspiracy of Ridolfi (DOLLINGER-REUSCH, Die Selbstbio-
graphie des Kardinals Bellarmin, Bonn, 1887, 307; cf. ibid, in
the summary on p. vi. : " The plan to murder Elizabeth of Eng-
MARY STUART S POSITION MADE WORSE. 239
It was probably Mary Stuart who suffered most bitterly
from the consequences of the failure of the conspiracy.1 Her
very life was in extreme danger. All her servants, at first
with the exception of sixteen, and then of ten, had to leave
her service, and the princess, who had been accustomed to ride
abroad freely and continually, found herself confined to her
own apartment, and when she was ill was not even allowed to
see a doctor. She herself looked upon this treatment as fore
shadowing her execution and asked for a priest, which request,
however, was refused.
For the moment, however, Burghley was content with dis-
land, approved by Pius V." LORD ACTON, letter to the Times,
November 24, 1874, in GLADSTONE, The Vatican Decrees, 1875).
But there is no proof that Ridolfi spoke to the Pope about any
plan to kill Elizabeth. The instructions for Ridolfi (supra p.
227 seq.) contain no mention of this. To Norfolk and Mary
Ridolfi proposed that Elizabeth be left on the throne (HOSACK,
II., 53 seq.). See supra p. 154, how Pius V. rejected political
assassination as unlawful. MEYER (p. 228) says : " there is
nothing to show that he [Pius V.] approved of or even spoke of
the assassination [of Elizabeth] as a praiseworthy act." The
passage in GACHARD, Corresp. de Philippe II., II., 185 (from
the letter of Philip to Alba of July 14, 1571) : " the progress of
Elizabeth to her cities in August and September serait une
occasion de se saisir de sa personne ET de la tuer " (DOLLINGER-
REUSCH, p. 310) proves no more against Philip than the passage
quoted supra p. 232, n. 6, because the progress actually offered
an occasion for either. Cf. in the same letter (loc. cit. 186) :
" de tuer OU de prendre." An ambiguous passage in the life
of Pius V. by GABUTIUS (Acta Sanct., Maii I., 661), to which
Acton appeals, is taken from Catena, and is in his opinion quite
harmless (POLLEN, English Catholics, 125). The French am
bassador at Brussels, Mondoucet, reports on December 26, 1571,
that two Italians had been sent to poison Elizabeth or otherwise
take per life (Bulletin de la Commission d'hist., 3rd ser., XIV.,
341). Kervyn de Lettenhove, who seems to attach importance
to this in Les Huguenots, II., 388, speaks quite otherwise in
Relations, VI., vi.
1 HOSACK, II., 66 seqq.
240 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
gracing his enemy in the eyes of the world. At the end of
1571 Mary received, as a birthday gift, a little book, the book
which later on became celebrated under the title of the
Detectio, by the humanist Buchanan, who had once been in
Mary's service, and had sung her virtues.1 In this book there
appeared, clothed in classical Latin, the calumnies contained
in the Book of the Articles, which had been presented at
Westminster. Burghley saw to it that the book was trans
lated and spread abroad. For centuries to come, and down
to our own days, Buchanan's calumnies have coloured men's
judgment of the unhappy Queen of Scots.2
Just a year before Elizabeth too had received a precious
gift from her favourite, Leicester. This was a small picture
showing Elizabeth seated in sadness upon a lofty throne, with
Mary Stuart in chains before her, and begging for pardon,
while the neighbouring kingdoms of Spain and France were
covered by the waves of the sea, and Neptune and other gods
paid homage to the Queen of England.3 It was true that so
far Elizabeth had defeated her rival both in power and in
cunning ; the future was to decide with which of them the
moral victory would lie.
Although, in spite of the bull of excommunication of 1570,
no military expedition was launched against the Queen of
1 Ibid. 80 seq. Six months before Leslie had published a
defence of Mary in which, as HOSACK (II., 82) remarks, two
statements are specially worthy of attention : in the first place
that the casket letters are false, and in the second place that
Paris, who had conveyed the letters to Bothwell and is the only
witness who directly accuses Mary of the murder of her husband,
declared to the people immediately before his execution that he
had never carried any such letters and that Mary was innocent :
" that he never carried such letters, nor that the queen was par
ticipant." Buchanan made no reply to these two statements.
" BEKKER, 276 seqq.
* Spes to Zayas, January 9, 1571, Corresp. de Felipe II., III.,
428. Spes did not fail to add that it was thus they flattered a
princess " que fuera dello vive en harta mos soltura que las Jonas
de Napoles, ni otras tales."
ENGLISH RULE IN IRELAND. 241
England, either from Rome or Madrid, attempts te withdraw
the neighbouring island of Ireland from Elizabeth's yoke were
not laid aside during the pontificate of Pius V.1
The violence of the English rule in Ireland had gradually
brought about there an intolerable state of affairs. In 1569
the southern Irish had sent to Philip II. the Archbishop of
Cashel, Maurice O'Gibbon, with a memorial signed by four
archbishops, eight bishops, and twenty-five Irish nobles, in
the name of the bishops, gentry and cities, showing how for
more than a thousand years the Irish had been devotedly loyal
to the Apostolic See, and filled with the deepest hatred of
their English rulers, who, ever since the time of Henry VIII.,
had sacked the churches and convents, banished the bishops
and religious, and thrown everything into confusion. They
begged the King of Spain to send them a sovereign of his own
house.2 On March ist, 1570, O'Gibbon also wrote to the
Pope, who did not show himself averse to the plan, but at once
insisted on the view, which became a fundamental part of
the Papal policy with regard to Irish affairs, that Ireland
was a Papal fief, and that the Irish could only therefore
obtain a new feudal lord with the previous consent of the
Holy See.3
So far Philip's policy had been friendly towards Elizabeth
and rather the reverse towards her rival, Mary Stuart, because
the accession of the francophile Queen of Scots seemed to him
to mean an increase in the power of France, and consequently
1 POLLEN in The Month, CI. (1905), 69-85. BELLESHEIM,
Irland, II., 161 seqq., 697 seqq. KRETZSCHMAR, Invasionspro-
jekte, 52 seq. ; report of Sega ibid. 194-212.
1 MORAN, Spicil., I., 59 seq. BELLESHEIM, II., 158.
8 BELLESHEIM, II., 160. Both Philip II. and Mary had recog
nized the rights of the Holy See over Ireland, since they had
accepted the bull of Paul IV. of June 7, 1555, in which the Pope
says of Ireland : " . . . illius dominium per Sedem praedictam
[the Apostolic See] adepti sunt reges Angliae " and then raises
Ireland to be a kingdom " sine praeiudicio iurium ipsius Romana
ecclesiae." Bull. Rom., VI., 489 seq.
242 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
a danger to Spain.1 But now France was weakened by in
ternal wars ; England had roused Philip to fury with her
buccaneers and her seizure of Spanish gold,2 and his policy
was gradually taking another direction. He did not fall in
with the proposals of O' Gibbon, although the archbishop on
July 26th, 1570, urged him to haste, pointing out to the king
that later on he would not be able to accomplish with 100,000
men what he could now easily do with io,ooo,3 but at the
same time a sign of his changed attitude was to be seen in
the favour shown by Philip to an adventurer at the Spanish
court, with whom O'Gibbon as well had relations, but whose
fantastic schemes proved fatal, not indeed in the time of Pius
V., but later on, to Ireland, and indirectly to the Catholics
in England.
Thomas Stukely, the son of a Devonshire knight, a man
without morals or religious principles, had up to this time
wandered about the world, travelling and seeking adventures ;
he had placed his services at the disposal of almost all the
Christian princes, he had accommodated himself to all the
changes of religion in England, and had always been able in
the cleverest way to obtain money for his extravagances and
excesses, for Stukely was a man who had the gift of winning
people over at sight. For a time he carried on the profitable
business of a pirate on the coasts of America ; he was captured,
but escaped the hanging he had deserved by the intercession
of Shane O'Neill, and, backed by recommendations from Cecil,
Leicester and Pembroke, resumed his former manner of life
in Ireland. At first Elizabeth showed him favour, but when
she ceased to patronize him, Stukely at once made up his mind
to set sail for Spain in order to devote his sword to the liberation
of Catholic Ireland in the service of Philip.
Philip had no idea of conquering Ireland, but Elizabeth's
continued outrages were like so many pin-pricks to him, and
he was therefore much inclined by way of retaliation to kindle
a small or a great conflagration in Ireland. He therefore
1 Cf. Vol. XVI. of this work, p. 223.
8 Cf. supra, p. 204.
* BELLESHEIM, II., 159.
THOMAS STUKELY. 243
summoned Stukely to Madrid and loaded him with money
and favours. It was not long before they began to feel the
effects of this in London, so much so that Philip thought it
well to pacify the queen by a letter from his secretary Zayas,
and to send Stukely with Don Juan against the Turks. There
the hot-headed adventurer was in his element ; he distin
guished himself at the battle of Lepanto, and thus won himself
a good name in ecclesiastical circles. Thereupon Rome
seemed to him to be a place where he could turn his talents to
advantage ; he there made a pilgrimage bare-footed to all the
principal sanctuaries, and whereas before he had vainly
attempted to obtain from Pius V. absolution from the ex
communication which he had richly deserved for his earlier
life, he now soon found himself in as high favour as he had
previously been with Elizabeth and Philip. On December
ist, 1571, the Cardinal Secretary of State wrote to Bonelli
at Madrid that the Pope had looked with favour upon Stukely 's
schemes, but that the responsibility for the undertaking must
be left entirely to the King of Spain ; that the Pope would raise
no objections, if anyone should undertake it in his name, if
the king did not wish to be called its author.1 Philip rejected
the proposal. As previously, in the reassuring letter from
Zayas to Elizabeth, he had questioned the capacity and the
knowledge of the adventurer for the Irish undertaking,2 so
he now described the schemes of Stukely as impracticable.3
For the rest of the life of Pius V, the Irish undertaking lay
dormant, only, to be renewed seven years later in a most
unfortunate way.
1 POLLEN, loc. cit., 74, and English Catholics, 192 seqq.
* POLLEN in The Month, 1905, 72 seq.
* Castagna, January TI, 1572, ibid. 74.
CHAPTER VII.
Pius V. AND MAXIMILIAN II. — CATHOLIC REFORM IN GER
MANY. — THE WORK OF CANISIUS.
Pius V/s attitude towards religion, as well as his whole
character, were radically opposed to those of the Emperor,
Maximilian II. A man of clear and definite views, the sworn
enemy of all pretence and disloyalty, and profoundly convinced
of the truth of the Catholic religion, the Pope looked for
salvation solely from that faith, and he therefore watched with
unbending sternness over the preservation in all its purity
of that supreme good. A convinced Catholic, any kind of
compromise in matters of dogma was impossible in his eyes.
The Emperor on the other hand, a skilled politician and
experienced in all the arts of a shifty diplomcy, had very
confused ideas on religious matters, and was vacillating and
undecided.1 In his anxiety for the pacification of his domin
ions he completely lost sight of the fact that a man who rejects
even one single doctrine of the Church ceases to be a Catholic.
It was true that Maximilian assisted at mass, and for a time
retained the good Catholic Martin Eisengrein as the court
preacher, but when the latter ended a sermon with an invo
cation of the Mother of God and the Saints the Emperor
rebuked him, saying that such things were not in keeping with
the spirit of the times.2 It is certain that Maximilian had as
little respect for the binding force of the dogmas defined at
Trent as he had for the consequences of the oath which he
had taken at his coronation. He entirely departed from the
Catholic stand-point when he dreamed of being able to reconcile
1 Cf. JANSSEN-PASTOR, IV. 15*16, 210 seq,, where the recent
bibliography concerning the religious attitude of Maximilian II.
is collected and criticized.
' See PFLEGER, Eisenfrein, 63.
244
RELIGIOUS POLICY OF MAXIMILIAN II. 245
opposing doctrines, in the vain hope of wearing down and at
last putting an end to religious strife by such expedients. If
in political questions affecting the Empire he made more
than one concession to the Catholic states, this was merely
a matter of policy. This monarch, who was not greatly gifted
intellectually,1 had no grasp of dogmatic truth ; to him all
religious questions seemed to be useless. Strict Catholics
were as unwelcome to him as the most rigid Calvinists. His
ideal continued to be a " religion " built up of Lutheran
and Catholic principles, the acceptance of which would put
an end to the disputes which were so harmful to the welfare
of the various states. But the times in which he lived were
particularly unsuited for any such schemes of reunion after
the promulgation of the decrees of Trent, while equally hope
less was the Emperor's other plan of satisfying the Protestants
in his dominions without openly offending the Catholics by
granting them under certain conditions the freedom to profess
the Confession of Augsburg of 1530. According to his own
statements, in so doing he was only aiming at reunion in the
same way as Charles V. had done a generation earlier. But
what had been in some ways comprehensible then, was now
doomed from the first to be ineffectual, when the Council had
definitely stamped as Catholic the controverted doctrines,
and the schism had taken permanent root among the Pro
testants.
It was evident that a man like the new Pope could never
be won over to the confused and fantastic schemes of the
Emperor, for Pius V. had ever fought in the most uncom
promising way for the purity and inviolability of the Catholic
faith.2 Maximilian, therefore, was far from pleased at the
1 See Goxz in Histor. Zeitschrift, LXXVII., 198, who very
rightly rejects the name of " Catholicism by compromise/' and
passes^as severe a judgment as Janssen on the hypocrisy of Maxi
milian.
* How different Pius V.'s point of view was from that of Maxi
milian appears clearly among other things from the discussions
in the consistory of June 81, 1571, concerning Madruzzo's pro
posal to invite the Protestants to join the league against the
246 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
election of Pius,1 but realizing how important the Pope's
good-will was for obtaining help against the Turks, he bought
to keep on good terms with him. In his first letter to Pius V.,
dated January 24th, 1566, and sent to Rome by a special
messenger, Maximilian makes the following protestation :
' There shall never be wanting on our part filial obedience
towards Your Holiness, nor those services which are to be
looked for from the protector and defender of the Church ;
we shall omit none of those things which are due from us in
virtue of our imperial office, or which can be done for the advan
tage and welfare of Christendom."2
Such words could only be of practical value when backed
up by corresponding acts. There was already good ground
for suspicion in the fact that Maximilian up to the last moment
tried to prevent the mission of Cardinal Commendone, who had
already been appointed legate for the Diet of Augsburg in
I566.3
Commendone was a distinguished personality in every
respect. All contemporaries agree in praising his great
qualities of intellect and character. He had a full knowledge,
from his own personal experience, of the ecclesiastical and
political conditions of Germany, he was a personal friend of
the house of Hapsburg, and "he was deeply convinced of the
Turks, a thing against which Pius V. definitely declared : " et
quantum ad eos qui sunt Confessionis Augustanae, Sanctitas
Sua credit cum b. Augustino esse magis vitandos et periculosos,
qui in aliquibus nobiscum conveniunt, ut in fide Trinitatis et
similibus, et in ceteris dissentiunt, quam qui in omnibus dissentiunt
veluti infideles seu haeretici perditissimi, ut est Palatinus, sacra-
mentarii, impii trinitarii et anabaptistae. Nam isti non tantum
nocere possunt, cum ab omnibus vitentur veluti qui impii et
manifeste infideles existimantur ; sed illi, qui in aliquibus sunt
haeretici, plus nocere possunt, ex eo quod nobiscum in pluribus
ritibus conveniant." Studi e docum. XXIII., 339.
1 See SCHWARZ, Briefwechsel, 2-3 ; HILLIGER, 151 ; BIBL,
Erhebung, 21 ; DENGEL, V., 33, 34, 35.
•See SCHWARZ, loc. cit. 41.
8 See ibid. vii. ; HOPFEN, 131, 232 seq. ; DENGEL, V., 413.
THE GERMAN CONGREGATION. 247
necessity of the maintenance of good relations between the
Emperor and the Pope j at the same time he was a man of
strict ecclesiastical views, and moreover was not one of those
ambitious men who might set their own ends before those of
the Church.1
From the very beginning of his pontificate Pius V. had turned
his attention to German affairs, and on January i2th, 1566,
had charged Cardinals Morone, Farnese, Borromeo and Delfino
to examine them. On the igth he decided to form a special
congregation, composed of these Cardinals, together with
Galli, Mark Sittich, Madruzzo and Reumano, as well as
Truchsess, who had arrived in Rome on the i6th. This con
gregation decided upon the renewed appointment of Commen-
done as legate for the Diet of Augsburg, and Pius confirmed
this at the consistory of January 23rd.2 A brief to Maximilian
two days later pointed out as Commendone's special duty that
of seeing that in the Diet nothing should be done concerning
matters the decision of which belonged to the Apostolic See
alone, and that moreover no steps should be taken with regard
to the decrees of the Council of Trent, which were binding upon
all Catholics. On the other hand he was to negotiate concern^
ing a league against the Turks, which the Pope promised to
promote and help in every possible way.3
On January 25th Pius V. sent urgent letters to the Arch
bishops of Mayence and Treves, inviting them to go in person
to the Diet, and to prevent ecclesiastical matters being dis-
*A biography of Commendone would be a very valuable
work. Plentiful materials for this are to be found in the Papal
Secret Archives, and especially in the Graziani Archives at Citta
di Castello. It is upon the material there that is based the Vita
Commendoni of A. M. GRATIANI, Paris, 1569 (translated into
French by FLECHIER, Paris, 1694, and Lyons, 1702), which,
though a noteworthy publication for the time, is not sufficient
for modern requirements. A *version of the Vita Commendoni
of Gratianus, which is different from the printed edition, is in the
Graziani Archives.
* See SCHWARZ, loc. cit., 4 ; .DENGEL, V., 40 seq.
8 See SCHWARZ, loc. cit. 6 seqq. ; DENGEL, V., 36 seq.
248 HISTORY OF THE POPES,
cussed there, or any other attack being made upon the rights
of the Pope or the bishops. Similar letters were sent to the
whole of the German episcopate.1
Though he had but little liking for the difficult and responsi
ble mission assigned to him, Commendone at once obeyed the
Pope's command, which was awaiting him on his return from
his legation in Poland. On February i;th, 1566, he reached
Augsburg, where the Emperor had been since January 2Oth,
and was awaiting the arrival of the States of the Empire, who
only arrived by slow degrees.2 On February 2oth he had an
audience with Maximilian II., and the latter gave him satis
factory assurances as to the religious questions. It was very
useful to the legate that the Emperor desired as much help
as possible for the Turkish war, a matter of which Johann
Khevenhuller, who had been sent to Rome to convey the
Emperor's congratulations, was to treat.* Commendone at
once realized how useful this question of assistance against
the Turks would be for gaining influence over the Emperor
in religious matters.4 Even more than the exhortations of
the legate, and the indifference of the Protestant princes, did
this consideration cause Maximilian to abstain from any
discussion of a religious compromise when this was put forward
as a subject for consideration at the assembly of the Diet.
The tenor of the proposals laid before the Diet on March 23rd
shows that Maximilian had let this matter drop ; nothing
further was asked for than the discussion of the detestable
1 See LADERCHI, 1566, n. 222 and 223.
1 Cf. ROBSAM, N. Mameranus iiber den Reichstag von 1566
in Histor. Jahrbuch, X.t 356. The *original register of the reports
of Commendone of his legation of 1566 was found in the Graziani
Archives at Citta di Castello by Professor Dengel, who has begun
its publication with a full commentary in the Vth vol. of the
Nuntiatuvbtrichte of Pius V. To Dengel belongs the credit of
having opened to historical examination the hitherto inaccessible
Graziani Archives.
'See SCHWARZ, Briefwechsel, p. xji., 14, 20; DENQEL, V.,
$3 W
4 See DENGEL, V., 74,
MISSION OF COMMENDONE, 249
fecti which were opposed both to the Catholic and the Lutheran
religion, which everybody understood to refer to -Calvinism,
which the Emperor hated.
In the meantime Commendone had received detailed in
structions as to his mission on March I3th, 1566. The bearer
of the§e wai Scipione Lancellotti, who was to assist him as his
canonist. Count Melchior Biglia, whom Pius IV. had
appointed nuncio to the Imperial court on August 3ist, 1565,
and whom Pius V. had confirmed in that office,1 also now
appeared at Augsburg. The Pope had also seen to it that
the legate should have experienced theologians to help him
as his advisers in ecclesiastical questions, such as the Jesuits
Nadal, Ledesma, and Peter Canisius, and the Englishman
Sanders.2
The instructions for Commendone, which had been decided
upon in the cardinalitial congregation appointed by Pius V.,
had been drawn up by the man in Rome who was best
acquainted with German conditions, Cardinal Morone, who had
availed himself of an opinion drawn up by Truchsess.3 These
instructions kid down as his principal duties the exclusion of
all religious discussion at the Diet, the publication and carrying
out of the decrees of Trent, a radical reform of ecclesiastical
conditions in Germany, and finally the promotion of a league
against the Turks.
As to the first point the Pope's instructions were very clear.
Commendone was fearlessly to oppose any attempt at the
Diet to treat of religious questions, either directly or in
directly ; it was not the province of the laity to do so, and
experience had shown that such discussions did not lead to
unity, and thus things were made worse than before. The
legate was to be equally zealous in obtaining the assistance of
tii" Kmpcroi for the publication and ob iervan< c of the Tridcn
tine decrees. If he should not be able to secure this for the
1 See ibid, i seq., 50 seq.
' See BRAUNSBERGER, Pius V., 6.
' See SCHWARZ, he. cit. 6. The instructions, dated February
27, 1566, in DENC;EL, V., 56 seq. For the faculties of Commendone
»ee ibid. 42 seq, Cf. CANISII Epist., V., 576.
VOL. XVIII. l8
25O HISTORY OF THE POPES.
whole of the Empire, Commendone was to insist that the
decrees should at any rate be published in the dioceses of
Salzburg, Constance, Eichstatt, Augsburg, Freising, Passau,
Brixen and Trent, and to induce all the ecclesiastical princes
to observe them.
Further instructions were added to the effect that he must
obtain from Frederick von Wied, the archbishop-elect of
Cologne, the oath and profession of faith prescribed at Trent.
Commendone was further charged to see that if, as was ex
pected, a vacancy occurred in the episcopal sees of Magdeburg
and Strasbourg, these should not fall into the hands of the
Lutherans.
The remainder of the instructions show what far-reaching
plans Pius V. had in mind for the renewal of ecclesiastical life
in Germany. All the bishops were to be urged to the reform
of the clergy, both secular and regular ; those who were not
yet consecrated must repair this defect. The bishops were to
be asked to make a personal visitation at least once a year
of their dioceses, to prevent the introduction of heretical
books, to promote in every way the spread of Catholic litera
ture, and to establish seminaries for the clergy.
In order to carry out these tasks, which formed, as it were,
the Pope's programme for dealing with the ecclesiastical
situation in Germany, the legate was advised to win over the
Emperor's advisers, and to enter into close relations with the
Catholic Duke of Bavaria and the Spanish ambassador.
Commendone accordingly treated the Catholic princes and
the bishops with the greatest courtesy ; this he did especially
in the case of Albert V. of Bavaria, who was a fervent Catholic.1
In other ways, too, the legate let no opportunity slip of carrying
out the Pope's commands. It was natural that his principal
care should, before everything else, be devoted to the dis
cussions at the Diet.
In consequence of the latest form of the proposals laid
before the Diet useless discussions of the Catholic faith and a
mixture of religions had been, it is true, excluded, but even
1 See BRAUNSBERGER, Pius V., 8.
THE DIET OF AUGSBURG. 251
so the danger had not been entirely removed. It did not
escape Commendone that this time too the Protestants were
seeking to obtain concessions in religious matters on the
strength of the help which they were asked to give against
the Turks. Vigilance and circumspection, qualities in which
the legate was not lacking, were called for, and he entered
into close relations with the Catholics, especially the Arch
bishop of Treves and the Duke of Bavaria.1
In spite of the great differences which existed between the
Lutherans and the Calvinists, in the memorial, at once a peti
tion and a complaint, which was presented by the Protestants
to the Emperor, they made a pretence of being united in faith ;
in their territories those sects which the Emperor wished to
see abolished had no weight ; all such sects were the work of
the devil and the Papists. In order to do away with the
" abominations and idolatries of the Papacy " they demanded
the convocation of a national council under the presidency
of the Emperor ; until such a council was held Maximilian
should grant to those subjects of Catholic states who were
willing to accept the Confession of Augsburg the free exercise
of their religion and the abolition of the ecclesiastical reser-
vatum.2 If this latter, by which an ecclesiastical prince who
should pass from the Catholic religion to Lutheranism for
feited his office and his revenues, were to be removed, the
followers of the new doctrines might reasonably hope to be
able to take further steps for the complete extermination of
the " abominations and idolatries of the Papacy " in the
Empire.3
1 Commendone showed prudent foresight in abstaining from
delivering the brief of February 13, 1566, addressed to the Em
peror and all the states of the Empire, including the Protestant
ones, which exhorted them to unity of faith on the basis of the
Tridentine decrees (see SCHWARZ, Briefwechsel, 7-9 ; HOPFEN,
241). The legate was also successful in averting the danger of
the affair of the oath of the Archbishop of Cologne being brought
before the Diet. Cf. POGIANI Epist., IV., 301.
1 See JANSSEN-PASTOR, IV., 15'16; 224 seqq.
1 Cf. KLUCKHORN, Briefs, I., 520, 529 seq.
252 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
In the meantime such disquieting news of the Emperor's
religious attitude had reached Rome that it was feared there
that he would adopt the Confession of Augsburg. For this
reason on April 6th orders were sent to Commendone that,
should this occur, he was to leave the Diet after making a
protest. Commendone did not share these fears of Maxi
milian's apostasy, but he had from the first clearly foreseen
the likelihood of a general confirmation of the so-called
religious peace of Augsburg of 1555 which, being re
jected by the Calvin ist states, was for that reason all the
more ardently supported by the Emperor, as well as by the
ecclesiastical princes, who feared fresh spoliations if the
agreement were broken.1 Commendone 's position was thus
extremely difficult, and he asked for furthei instructions as to
the course which he should follow. When these instructions
arrived at the end of April he found himself in a position of
even greater embarrassment, for the Pope ordered him to
lodge a protest and leave the city if in the Diet any decision
of any kind were arrived at which was contrary to the dogmatic
decrees of the Council of Trent.2
Pius V. condemned the religious peace of Augsburg as
decisively as Paul IV., his predecessor, and a man of close
spiritual affinity with himself,3 but undei the existing circum
stances it was inevitable that that peace should be confirmed,
since even the Catholics at Augsburg supported it in order to
save themselves from fresh dangers. A protest on the part
of the legate would have led, to the great joy of his enemies,
not only to a quarrel with the Emperor, but also with the
Catholic states.
In this difficult situation Commendone had recourse to his
ecclesiastical advisers, especially Canisius. To the principal
question which he addressed to them, whether the peace of
1555 and its confirmation was in contradiction to the dogmatic
1 See the "report of Commendone of April 22, 1566, Graziani
Archives, Cittk di Castello.
* Cf. NADAL, III., 99 ; CANISII Epist., V., 252 ; BROGNOLI,
II., 190.
* Cf. Vol, XIV. of this work, p. 343.
QUESTION OF THE RELIGIOUS PEACE;. 253
decrees of the Council of Trent, the Jesuits answered that it
was not, as it was a peace that was concerned with political
affairs and not with dogma ; it had been nothing but an ex
pedient and a provisional armistice. The Holy See it was true
could not openly approve it, but it could tolerate it until better
times should come. The legate therefore was not obliged to
lodge a protest. Since, however desirable it might be, it
was not to be expected that at the present Diet the Catholic
states would make a profession of the Council and its decrees,
the said states should at least, in some way or other, declare
their acceptance of the Tridentine decrees.1 Sanders agreed
with the views expressed by the Jesuits. Lancellotti on the
other hand declared that the religious peace of Augsburg and
its renewed confirmation were irreconcilable with the Council,
and insisted on a protest being made by 'the legate.2 Cardinal
Truchsess and the Spanish ambassador, as well as Biglia,
feared that in that case the Diet would be dissolved and a war
begun, which would destroy all that still remained of Catholic
ism in Germany.3
Under these circumstances Commendone, who realized
Pius V.'s strictness in all that concerned the faith, resolved
to do nothing without making further inquiries in Rome,4 and
he sent thither his auditor, Caligari, to make a verbal report
and obtain further instructions.5 If in the end these took the
1 See LADERCHI, 1566, n. 233-235 ; NADAL, III., 88-104 »*
CANISII Epist., V., 229 and 253 ; DUHR. I., 828, n. i.
* See LADERCHI, 1566, n. 232, 233 ; BRAUNSBERGER, Pius
V., 10.
3 See LADERCHI, 1566, n. 230. Truchsess had gone, with finan
cial help from Pius V. from Rome to Augsburg on February 23,
1566 ; see *Avviso di Roma of March 2, 1566, Urb. 1040, p. 188,
Vatican Library.
4 See the *letter of Commendone to Pius V. of May i, 1566,
and the report of Biglia of May 3, 1566, which are to be printed
by Dengel in his Vth volume. A letter addressed by H. Corboli
to Sirleto, dated Augsburg, April 27, 1566, describes the dangerous
state of affairs on all sides ; see LAEMMER, Analecta, 57, 125 seq.
6 See BROGNOLI, II., 191 seq.
254 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
form of the Pope's leaving everything to the judgment of the
legate, who was thus able to avoid making a protest, much
of the credit for this belongs to the General of the Jesuits,
Francis Borgia, whom the Jesuits at Augsburg had begged
to intervene.1
In the meantime at Augsburg the Catholic states toad calmly
but definitely rejected the memorial presented by the Pro
testants, declaring with regard to the demand for the abolition
of the reservation, and for freedom in religious matters, that
they intended to adhere literally to the terms of the religious
peace of 1555.2
Commendone then proceeded to devote his attention to the
other two tasks laid upon him by Pius V., the one that the
Catholic states should bind themselves expressly and openly
to the decrees of Trent, and the other the removal of ecclesi
astical abuses. On May 23rd he held a conference at his
lodgings, at which there assisted Cardinals Truchsess and Mark
Sittich, the three ecclesiastical Electors, the Dukes of Bavaria,
Cleves and Brunswick, and the representatives of the Catholic
states. In accordance with the instructions which he had
received, Commendone urged in eloquent terms the publication
of the decrees of the Council and the carrying out of the
necessary reforms. The answer made in the name of those
present by Daniel von Brendel, Archbishop of Mayence and
arch-chancellor of the Empire, was to the following effect :
the Catholic states accept the decrees of the Council of Trent
in all that concerns dogma and divine worship ; as to dis
ciplinary matters they would like certain facilities suited to
their peculiar circumstances, especially with regard to pro
vincial synods.3
Commendone had every reason to be pleased with his success.
Even if this declaration did not comply, with all he had
asked for, both with regard to its limitation and its form,
1 Cf. NADAL, III., 96 seqq., 130 seqq. ; BROGNOLI, II., 197
BRAUNSBERGER, Pius V., 10 seq.
• See JANSSEN-PASTOR, IV. 11-56, 228 seqq
8 See GRATIANUS, III., 2. Cf. NADAL, III., 147, 152. See
also SCHWARZ, Visitation, p. xxxiii.
CLOSE OF THE DIET OF AUGSBURG. 255
it was nevertheless a distinct advance upon the state of affairs
in the time of Pius IV., who had never been able to obtain
a satisfactory answer from the ecclesiastical princes in this
matter.1 It was a further triumph that at the dissolution of the
Diet on May 3oth no mention was made of further conferences,
of a national council, or of religious freedom. Thus for the
first time for many years a Diet came to an end without any
loss to the Catholics, who on this occasion left Augsburg with
renewed courage and hopes. The Pope was especially gratified
at the acceptance of the Council on the part of the Catholic
states ot Germany, and declared that his expectations had
been surpassed.2
By the advice of Commendone, who did not trust the
Emperor, the subsidy granted by the Pope against the Turks
in April, to the amount of 50,000 scudi, was not paid until after
the close of the Diet, whereupon, on July loth, 1566, the
legate started back for Rome.3
The Diet had granted to the Emperor 24 Roman " mesi,"
that is about 1,700,000 florins, and eight " mesi " for each of
the following three years. Philip II. contributed 200,000
crowns.4 Under these circumstances Pius V., whose finances
were already deeply involved in other directions, did not comply
with the request made to him by the Emperor for further sums.5
As a matter of fact Maximilian had a sufficient sum in hand
to enrol 14,000 infantry and 10,000 cavalry in Germany.
Help also reached him from other sources, especially from the
Italian princes ; moreover, he had 12,000 men from Lower
Austria and Croatia, 6,000 from Hungary, 5,000 from the
commander-in-chief Schwendi, so that altogether there were
more than 60,000 men under arms. It was only after all these
troops had been gathered together that Maximilian joined the
expedition in the middle of August.6 In September there
1 Cf. RITTER, I., 289.
2 Cf. NADAL, III., 159; BRAUNSBERGER, Pius V., n.
* See GRATIANUS, III., 3 ; SCHWARZ, Briefwechsel, 20, 23 seqq.
4 HUBER, IV., 256.
6 SCHWARZ, loc. cit. 23 seqq., 30, 33 seqq.
6 See HUBER, IV., 256 seqq. ; TURBA, III., 334 seq.
256 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
also arrived at the head-quarters of the Emperor the nuncio,
Biglia, who, during the Diet at Augsburg, had been quite
thrust into the background by the personality of Commendone,
who overshadowed everybody else.1
The aged Sultan Suleiman who, accompanied by the prayers
of his court poets, assuring him that " cypress-branches would
wave him on to victory/'2 had in the meantime advanced as
far as Sziget, which was bravely defended by Nicholas Zriny.
In spite of this the fortress, which was indeed little more than
a mass of smoking ruins, fell into the hands of the Turks on
September yth, Zriny himself meeting with an heroic death.3
During the siege of Sziget the Imperial army had remained
completely inactive. Like his brother, the Archduke Ferdin
and, Maximilian was no soldier ; he was full of good intentions,
but committed fatal blunders. The fear felt for the Turks was
so great that any serious engagement was avoided. While
the army was maintaining a mere policy of observation,
Hungarian marsh fever broke out among the troops to which
thousands succumbed. Bad food, want of money, and deser
tions completed the work, and when the Turks retired the
Imperial army also broke up at the end of October.4 For
tunately the spirit of the Turks was completely paralysed by
the death of the Sultan, which occurred on September 4th,
and the beginning of winter interrupted the war, which was
continued in the following year with varied success. As
early as the end of June, 1567, the Emperor had begun negotia
tions for peace, which, however, did not reach a formal
conclusion until February lyth, 1568. On that date a peace
of eight years was concluded at Adrianople, on the basis of
the status quo and the continuation of a payment of a " present
of honour " by the Emperor to the amount of 30,000 ducats.5
1 Reports of Biglia in THEINER, Monum. Slavor. merid., vol. II.
1 See HAMMER, III., 751.
1 See ibid. 447 ; HUBER, IV., 260 seqq. ; TURBA, III., 350 seq.
* See WERTHEIMER in Archiv fur osterr. Gesch., LIU., 84 seqq. ;
HIRN, II., 291 seqq.
6 See HUBER, IV., 263 seq
FRIENDLY RELATIONS OF POPE AND EMPEROR 257
After the Diet of Augsburg, in addition to the Turkish war,
the Emperor keenly interested himself in religious questions;
both in the Empire and in his hereditary territories. The
Pope's representative, Melehior Biglia, did not cease to address
exhortations to him, so that he might, in his conduct, take
into consideration the wishes of the Catholics,1 and it was of
great advantage to the nuncio that political considerations,
especially the hope of obtaining great help from the Pope in
securing his country against the Turks, showed the Emperor
the desirability of cultivating friendly relations with the Holy
See. Consequently the nuncio was able to report not only
fair words on the part of the Emperor, but also reassuring
acts : for example, in March and July, 1567, action was taken
against the heretical preachers, and in September there was
an edict against the Calvinists in Hungary. Biglia was also
quite satisfied with the behaviour of Maximilian in the affair
of Cologne. He was also rejoiced at the efforts made by the
Emperor to prevent the rebels in the Netherlands from receiv
ing help from German troops. The hopeful reports which
Biglia sent to Rome, where Morone and Commendone were
endeavouring to cultivate friendly relations between the
Emperor and the Pope, aroused the highest hopes there, which
were shared by Pius V.,2 who could not fail to be filled with joy
at the fact that, on December 5th, 1567, Maximilian warmly
1 In the Papal Secret Archives there is preserved only a small
part of the ""reports of Biglia (Nunziat. di Germania, 66 and 67).
For the full reports of the nuncio search must therefore be
be made elsewhere. In 1847 SCARABELLI showed in Arch. stor.
Ital., App. IV., n. 17, p. 61 seq., that the Alfieri Archives at Asti
contained reports of the nunciature of Biglia for the years 1568
and 1569. Mgr. Ratti [now Pope Pius XI.] and Prof. Dengel
found those of 1565 and 1567 in the Trotti Archives, Milan (now
in the Ambrosiana), so that the greater part are in readiness
for Dengel's edition.
2 See the ""instructions of the secretariate of State for Biglia,
dated Rome, February 8, March i, 8, and 22, April 5, June 14,
July 19, 26, September 6, 12, December 6, Nunziat. di Germania
67, Papal Secret Archives.
258 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
supported a request made by the Jesuits in Vienna.1 For
the Emperor's sake he forgave Cardinal Delfino, who had been
deprived of his right to vote on account of grave disobedience,2
and he overlooked the arbitrary action taken by the Emperor
in the reform of the monasteries and chapters of Austria which
had fallen into a very bad state.3
The Pope, however, was not disposed to satisfy all Maxi
milian's demands, because, in his eyes, ecclesiastical principles
always came before all political considerations.4 But in that
matter which was Maximilian's chief preoccupation, namely,
help against the Turks, he showed himself willing to do all
that lay in his power. He did not adhere to the arrangement
originally made of setting aside for this purpose large sums
of money only in the case of actual war ; in April. 1568, in
spite ot his many other expenses, he promised a contribution
for the fortification of the border territory, though he insisted
that the money should be used for that purpose alone. In
July he allowed the Emperor to levy a subsidy of 45,000
florins from the abbots and priors of Lower Austria, and in
August he gave his consent to the payment in Venice during
the following month of 20,000 scudi for the fortification of
the border territories which were threatened by the Turks.
In September he increased this sum to 30,000 scudi and pro
mised to do even more in the future.5 He also complied with
the Emperor's request that he would help his brother, the
1 See LADERCHI, 1566, n. 205 ; SCHWARZ, Briefwechsel, 77
seq. ; BRAUNSBERGER, Pius V., 37.
1 See SCHWARZ, loc. cit. 45, 56. Cf. ibid. 176 for the subsequent
quarrel of Delfino with Pius V.
8 Cf. WlEDEMANN, I., 187-202 ; SCHWARZ, IOC. tit. 96-99.
4 Cf. SCHWARZ, loc. tit. 63-73, 88 ; BRAUNSBERGER, Pius V.,
42 seq.
6 See SCARABELLI, loc. tit. 65 ; SCHWARZ, loc. tit., 101, 104,
107 seq. ; TURBA, III., 403, 458, n. ; HOPFEN, 266 seq. In Arm.
64, t. 6, p. 84 seq., the Papal Secret Archives contain a memorial
of 1568 with the title *Nonnulla media quibus Germania hoc
tempore invari possit, with proposals for the protection of Hun
gary against the Turks.
CONCESSIONS TO THE PROTESTANTS. 259
Archduke Charles, in assuring the safety of the boundary of
Styria. The Archduke received permission to levy for five
years a half of all the ecclesiastical revenues of his territory,
with the promise that this permission would later on be ex
tended for another five years.1
After all this condescension on the part of the Pope, and the
news received in Rome in July, 1568, of the steps which had
been taken by Maximilian against the heretics in his domin
ions,2 an absolutely paralysing effect was produced by the
receipt from the Imperial ambassador Arco on September
I3th of a letter dated September 3rd from Maximilian to
Pius V., authorizing the ambassador to disclose the great
concession of August i8th which allowed the Protestant
nobles and gentry of Lower Austria the free exercise of their
religious beliefs in accordance with the Confession of Augsburg
of I53O.3 The validity of this religious concession was, it
is true, limited by certain conditions : in the first place the
Catholics were no longer to be attacked or interfered with,
and in the second place a commission which was to be ap
pointed, halt by the Emperor and half by the States of the
Empire, was to draw up for the adherents of the Confession
of Augsburg fixed rules concerning divine worship, ecclesias
tical organization and teaching.4
This surprising step on the part of Maximilian came entirely
from his own initiative immediately after the opening of the
Diet at Vienna, which was asked to deal in a favourable way
with the Emperor's heavy debts. Besides Maximilian's own
confused ideas on religion, a decisive contributory cause was
his consideration for and his fear of Protestant opposition.
To the nuncio Biglia, who made a strong protest, Maximilian
appealed expressly to his own constrained position, saying
1 SCHWARZ, Brief wechsel, 113-115.
2 See the letter of Cardinal Mula of July 24, 1568, in HOPFEN,
267.
8 SCHWARZ, Briefwechsel, 116 seqq. Cf. SUDENDORF, Regis-
trum, III., 297.
4 Cf. HOPFEN, 144 ; OTTO, 23 seq., 43 seq. ; BIBL, Organisation,
123 seqq., 125 seqq.
2&0 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
that in his dominions there were so many sects that the only
remedy was to tolerate the Confession of Augsburg ; that if
a revolution should break out, as had been the case in the Low
Countries, he would find himself without any means of defence
against the States ; that he had six sons, and how were they
to live if the hereditary provinces were ruined P1
When, on September I3th, 1568, the information was
received from the Imperial ambassador that Maximilian was
on the point of giving way to his Protestant nobles, and of
granting them a territorial church system within their own
provinces, Pius V. was deeply stirred. His grief was so great
that he could not restrain his tears. In his complaints to
the ambassador he said that he saw clearly that God intended
to punish Christendom, and that religion was falling into ruin
because the Emperor was so light-heartedly giving way before
the claims of the Protestants, and setting the worst possible
example to France and the Low Countries ; he did not know
how, under these circumstances, he could maintain his friendly
relations with the Emperor. At a second audience on Sep
tember 1 5th Arco tried to persuade him to give a less uncom
promising reply, but, as was only to be expected, the Pope
persisted in his condemnation of the concession that had been
made. In a brief which was drawn up on the same day he
adjured Maximilian to give up his purpose, which was the
cause of so great scandal. Cardinals Morone, Truchsess and
Colonna, who were all adherents of the Emperor, and the
Spanish ambassador, expressed themselves in similar terms.
It was thought in the Curia that Biglia would be recalled,
because he had not been able to prevent this step on the part
of Maximilian.2
When the Imperial courier who had brought Maximilian's
1 Venez, Depeschen, III., 459 seq. Bibl (p. 141) is wrong in
saying that the Emperor laid his ideas before Commendone.
•See the report of Arco of September 17, 1568, in HOPFEN
276 seqq. Cf. Corresp. dip]., II., 462 seq. The brief of September
15, 1568, in SCHWARZ, Briefwechsel, 119 seqq. Cf. also SCHWARZ
in Festschrift zum Jubildum des Camposanto of Ehses, Freiburg,
1897, 238 seqq.
THE POPE CONDEMNS THE CONCESSIONS. 26l
letter of September 3rd left on the lyth, he took with him
the Pope's reply and a detailed report from Arco on the situa
tion. The courier had hardly started when the Pope took
definite action. In a suddenly assembled consistory on
September iyth he appointed Commendone, who, with Morone,
was the best acquainted with German affairs, as legate extra
ordinary to Maximilian, with instructions to induce him to
turn back from the extremely dangerous course upon which
he had embarked.1
The mission of the very man who had proved his power at
the Diet of Augsburg was extremely unwelcome to the
Emperor. If a Cardinal was to be sent, a thing which he would
most gladly have avoided, he would have been far better
pleased with an ambitious and accommodating man like
Delfino.2 His indignation was so great that he spoke of this
sudden and determined action on the part of the Pope as
" mad monkish zeal " ; he was resolved, he told the Venetian
ambassador, that as far as he was concerned, he would make no
change ; he then broke out into those expressions which have
ever been used by those who have known themselves to be
unmasked by Rome : the Pope is ill-informed ; he would
inform him better and show him that what had been done
had been done with the intention of bringing back the Pro
testants to the Church.3
The Emperor was gravely deluding himself in thinking that
they were not well informed in Rome and perfectly aware of
the gravity of the situation ; what had been granted to the
nobility of Lower Austria could not be for long refused to the
cities and marts ; in a word, the final result must be the
destruction of the Catholic religion. All efforts therefore to
prevent the mission of Commendone were in vain.4
1 See the report of Arco of September 18, 1568, in HOPFEN,
282 seq. and Corresp. dipl., II., 463.
2 See the report of Eisengrein of October 9, 1568, in HOPFEN,
291,
1 See Venez. Depeschen, III., 461, n. i.
4 See SCHWARZ, Briefwechsel, 123. Corresp. dipl., II., 464.
482.
262 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
When Commendone received the Pope's commands he was
at his abbey of S. Zeno at Verona. Accompanied by his
secretary, Anton Maria Graziani, and by Giovanni Delfino,
Bishop of Torcello, he at once set out for the north. On the
Brenner pass, the legate, who was not properly equipped, was
overtaken by a snowstorm which lasted three days ; in spite
of this, Innsbruck was reached as early as October I3th.
There Commendone met Albert V. of Bavaria, who was staying
with the Archduke Ferdinand, and went carefully into the
situation with him.1 The remainder of the journey, which
was carried out on the river Inn, could not be undertaken until
the i6th, through want of boats, and took him by Passau and
Linz to Vienna, which the legate reached in the evening of
October 28th. The nuncio Biglia, who had been made ill
by the excitement of the discussions, had not been able to
carry out his plan of going as far as Passau to meet the
Cardinal.2
Commendone had a first audience with the Emperor on
October 3ist and a second on November 3rd.3 Maximilian
sought to justify as far as possible the concession made to the
nobles of the free exercise of their religion in accordance with
the Confession of Augsburg, by pleading his good intention
of preventing on the one hand the spread of the Protestant
sects, and on the other of bringing back the Lutherans to the
Church, as Charles V. and Ferdinand I. had already aimed at
doing, adding that it seemed to him that the Confession of
Augsburg, which was in many points in accordance with
Catholic doctrine, was the best means to this end.
Commendone replied that the Emperor's intentions were
1 Cf. GRATIANI Epist., 390 seqq. ; CANISII Epist., VI., 223 seq.,
588 seq. Schwarz has published in the Festschrift mentioned on
p. 260 the advice of the Bavarian chancellor, S. Eck, against the
official toleration of Protestantism in Austria, which took its
origin in the conferences held at Innsbruck.
1 Cf. GRATIANI, Epist., 390 seqq., Colecc. de docum. ined.,
CIII., 23, and the letters of Biglia in the account given by MAYR,
p. 391, quoted infra, p. 268, n. i.
8 See Venez. Depeschen, III., 461. Cf. GRATIANUS, III., 4.
COMMENDONE AND THE EMPEROR. 263
no doubt very praiseworthy, but that it was certain that he
would not gain his end because the means he was using were
unlawful and harmful. The profession of the Catholic faith
must be maintained in all its purity and integrity ; the ex
periments of Charles V. and Ferdinand I. with the adherents
of the Confession of Augsburg had shown how vain were all
hopes of reconciling them with the Church. Moreover, they
had been dealing with powerful princes, whereas now the
Emperor proposed to allow his subjects to impose upon him
shameful conditions. Further, it was never lawful to do
evil that good might come. The followers of the new doc
trines would never be led back to the Church by the way of
concessions, but only confirmed in their opinions. Commendone
frankly pointed out how dangerous to the good name of the
Emperor was the statement which the Lutherans were -making
that they had bought religious liberty for money, but worst
of all was the fact that in making a concession in a matter of
religion the Emperor was taking upon himself a power which
belonged to the Pope alone ; such audacity was bound to
draw down upon him the punishments of God.1
The lengthy and weighty remarks of Commendone were
backed up by a strong letter from Albert V. to Maximilian,
which the legate had brought with him from Innsbruck. A
decisive factor was the intervention, brought about by Pius V.,
of the Spanish king, who, in an autograph letter of
October ijih, and again later on, adjured the Emperor to
give up the course he had entered upon in defiance of God
and religion. The remonstrances of Philip II. made all the
greater impression upon Maximilian because he was proposing
to marry his eldest daughter to the King of Spain. Philip
insisted, as a preliminary step towards such an arrangement
that there should be a cessation of all signs of favour towards
the Netherland insurgents and the Austrian Protestants.
1 See GRATIANI Epist., 390 seqq. The "reports of Commendone
on his legation of 1568-1569 are in the Graziani Archives, Cittk
di Castello. Den gel is to publish these in his edition of the
Nuntiaturberichte.
264 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
Commendone at once realized the importance of this dynastic
question. By his advice the Spanish ambassador warned the
Emperor that a Papal dispensation in the matter of relation
ship would be necessary for the proposed marriage, and that
Pius V. certainly would not grant this so long as Maximilian
remained at the beck and call of the Austrian Protestants.1
The Emperor could not resist the united attack of the Pope,
Spain, and Bavaria, the more so as he, in whose eyes Protest
ants and Catholics were of equal importance,2 had no idea of
exposing the interests of his house to serious dangers for the
sake of religion. He very quickly gave way, and in a most un
dignified manner, in reality as far as the Netherland rebels
were concerned, but only in appearance in the case of the
Austrian Protestants.3
After the long and heated discussions which had taken
place4 Commendone was as surprised as he was rejoiced when,
at an audience lasting two hours on November 1 8th he received
from the Emperor a completely satisfactory declaration,
which he at once reported to Rome and Munich. My in
tention, so Maximilian declared, has always been to further
the Catholic religion, and especially after the urgent and
paternal exhortations of the Pope have I prayed God to
enlighten me, and the day before yesterday I decided to give
up all further meetings of the religious commission, and not
allow any religious discussion at the Diet at Linz. In support
of this declaration he informed the legate that he had com
municated this decision to the members of the commission,
that he had dismissed them, and had sent word to those who
had been summoned from other places not to come, because
there would be no further negotiations. He then said that
he wished Commendone to be made aware of all this in order
that he might send the news to Rome, and bear witness there
1 See RITTER, I., 402 seq. ; HOPFEN, 289 ; Venez. Depeschen,
III., 464, n. i. Colecc. de docum. ined.., CHI., 28 seq. ; Corresp.
dipl., II., 464 seq., 492.
* The opinion of Huber (IV., 229).
* See RITTER, I., 403.
4 Cf. GRATIANI Epist., 396,
DECEITFUL BEHAVIOUR OF MAXIMILIAN. 265
that as a loyal son he wished to comply absolutely with the
wishes of so good a Pope, wrhom he sincerely loved. When
Commendone asked whether it would now be necessary for
him to go to Linz, Maximilian replied that it was not neces
sary, since there would certainly be no discussion of religious
matters there ; he could assure the Pope that the Emperor
was resolved to serve God and the Catholic religion whole
heartedly.1
One who was well acquainted with the court of Vienna,
Martin Eisengrein, had, a short time after the arrival of
Commendone, expressed the fear that an attempt would be
made to deceive the eminent diplomatist " with fair words,
until they succeeded in sending him away."2 Eisengrein 's
view was fully justified ; the Emperor had no real intention
of meeting the wishes of the Pope, and adhered firmly to his
resolve to abide by the promise which he had made on August
i8th to the adherents of the Confession of Augsburg, though
he did not intend to make any concessions beyond that. He
deceived the legate in that he concealed from him the fact
that before he dissolved the Diet he had promised the nobles
that until the conclusion of the religious discussions they
should not be disturbed in their profession of the Confession of
Augsburg within their dominions. The Diet of Upper Austria
next received from the Emperor on December 7th information
that they as well were entitled to the religious liberty allowed
in Lower Austria, and that in the meantime they were not
to be disturbed so long as they did not go beyond the limits
of the Confession of Augsburg. The meetings of the com
mission for drawing up a new ecclesiastical liturgy and
constitution were not entirely suspended, as the Emperor
1 So much does Commendone announce in a *letter of November
1 8, 1568, to Cardinal Bonelli (Graziani Archives). Cf. further
the *report of Biglia of November 18, 1568 (Aliieri Library, Asti,
now in the State Archives, Turin). Prof. Dengel will publish
both accounts. The letter to Albert V. of November 20, 1568,
in HOPFEN, 300 seq. See also that to Hosius in CYPRIANUS,
485 seq, Cf. also Venez. Depeschen, III., 461 seq.
* Letter of November 5, 1568, in HOPFEN, 296.
VOL. xvin. 19
266 JHISTORY OF THE POPES.
led the legate to suppose, for Maximilian had merely dis
missed Camerarius, who was not to the liking of the
States, and had summoned in his place from Mecklenburg the
Lutheran theologian David Chytreus. When the latter arrived
in January, 1569, Maximilian was careful to keep his presence
hidden from the legate, and in the retirement of the little
city of Spitz on the Danube Chytreus was able to devote him
self quietly to the drawing up of the new ecclesiastical pro
gramme and constitution.1
In a brief to the Emperor on December ist, 1568, Pius V.
had expressed his joy at the fact that Maximilian, according
to the statements of Arco and Commendone's reports, was
willing to make no further concessions as far as the Confession
of Augsburg was concerned, and had forbidden the religious
discussions which had been begun, to which steps he was
indeed bound in virtue of his Imperial office and the oath
which he had taken.2 On January 2oth, 1569, at the very
moment when he was keeping the Protestant theologian
Cytreus concealed at Spitz, Maximilian replied to this brief
in an obsequious letter saying how glad he was that the Pope
had so cordially welcomed the prohibition of the religious
discussions arranged for St. Martin's Day, upon which the
whole of his policy of agreement with the nobility had rested ;
he said that he had never wanted to offend the paternal heart
of the Pope, that he felt the greatest filial affection for him,
and that in conformity with his duty as Emperor he would
leave nothing undone " for the maintenance of the Catholic
faith, and the defence of the dignity of the Church."3
The presence of Commendone was very inconvenient for
the dishonest double game which the shifty Emperor was
1 See RITTER, I., 404; OTTO, 22 seq. ; WIEDEMANN, I., 361.
Cf. Colecc. de docum. ine"d., CIII., 33, 64 ; Venez. Depeschen,
HI., 465.
1 See LADERCHI, 1568, n. 86. For the discussion on the oath
of Maximilian cf. the report of Arco of October 2, 1568, in HOPFEN,
290.
* See SCHWARZ, Briefwechsel, 130 seq.
COMMENDONE LEAVES VIENNA. 267
playing at that time ;l he breathed more freely when, at
the end of January, 1569, the legate started on his journey
for Rome.2 As the Venetian ambassador bore witness,
Commendone left a splendid reputation behind him in Vienna,
and had left nothing undone which could contribute to the
edification of the people.3 His departure had been delayed
because he had received from the Pope the further charge of
taking advantage of his presence to make a visitation of the
churches and convents of Austria. When the necessary
faculties for this had arrived at the beginning of January, and
the Emperor had given his consent, the legate began his
visitation with the city and dioceses of Vienna. On his re
turn journey he continued his work in spite of the inclement
weather. In addition to the churches and convents on the
great military road, he also visited others lying at a consider-
1 It would appear from his *report to the Pope of November
24, 1568, for which I am indebted to the courtesy of Prof. Dengel,
that Commendone was not quite free from anxiety as to the
carrying out of the Emperor's decisions. He mentions that
while the Catholics at Augsburg were rejoicing over the part
played by the Emperor, the Protestants looked upon it as a mere
postponement, and remained fixed in their hopes of attaining
their end in time. Before he set out for Linz the Emperor had
definitely promised that the religious question should not be
treated of there. Under the actual circumstances they must be
content with what had been accomplished. His mission had
been to prevent the actual concessions of religious freedom, or
the discussion of the question by the commission. This much
had been granted. If for greater security a written promise,
signed by the Emperor, should be desired in Rome, namely that
he would not in future grant any similar demands by his subjects,
they must wait for a suitable moment, namely, when the dispensa
tion for the marriage of the Emperor's daughter to Philip II.
was asked for. Graziani Archives, Citta di Castello.
1 See GRATIANI Epist., 434 seq. ; Venez. Depeschen, III., 465.
Cf. HOPFEN, 146 seq. for an opinion as to the double game being
played by Maximilian. Ritter too (I., 406) says that Maximilian
was " playing with " the Catholic powers.
* See Venez. Depeschen, III., 465.
268 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
able distance, such as Gaming and Kremsmunster. Com-
mendone devoted particular care to the visitation of Upper
Austria. In the last week of February he was at Passau,
and then visited several convents in the district of Salzburg.
Everywhere he laboured to enforce and inculcate the decrees
of the Council of Trent. If he did not obtain more lasting
results,, this was principally because of the short time at his
disposal. It could only have been by long and continued
labours that the abuses which had crept in in the course of
centuries could have been removed.1
With the departure of Commendone, the relations with the
Holy See were once more in the hands of the ordinary nuncio,
Biglia. The efforts of this diplomatist to maintain reasonably
good relations between the Emperor and the Pope were
rendered all the more difficult because the attitude of Maxi
milian towards the States of Lower Austria was in direct
contradiction to the declarations made on November i8th,
1568, to Commendone. Pius V/s annoyance at this was so
great that he regretted the help he had given Maximilian
against the Turks.2
The relations between the Emperor and the Pope were
again seriously disturbed when, in August, 1569, Pius V.
suffered himself to be persuaded to make Cosimo I. Grand
Duke of Tuscany. At first the Medici prince, with the help
of Pius IV., who was under great obligations to him, had tried
in 1560 to obtain the title of king, but, as at that time Philip II.
1 For the visitation of the monasteries and churches made by
Commendone in Lower Austria see STARZER in Blatter dcs Verein
fiir Landeskunde fiir Niederosterreich, XXVI. (1892), 156 seqq. ;
for the visitation in the dioceses of Passau and Salzburg see MAYR
in Studien und Mitteil. aus dem Benediktiner-und Zisterzienser-
orden, 1893, 385 seqq. Cf. also HOPFEN, 312 seqq.
* Cf. TIEPOLO, 187. From his report of July 2, 1569, in HOPFEN,
323 seq., it may be seen how Arco sought to pacify the Curia.
Cf. ibid. 152, 154 seq. for the deceit practised by the Emperoi
on the Catholic princes and the Pope. From the report of Zuniga
of July 28, 1569, Corresp. dipl., III., 118, it is clear what judgment
Pius V. had formed of Maximilian.
THE AMBITIONS OF COSIMO I. 269
had resolutely opposed this, the plan had been abandoned.1
A second attempt to obtain the title of Archduke or Grand
Duke had been made five years later, and this time the cir
cumstances had seemed to be more favourable. -The negotia
tions, which had been carried on with the greatest secrecy
on account of Spain, had already made great progress when the
death of Pius IV. had brought the whole affair to a standstill.2
This second shipwreck of his plans did not discourage
Cosimo from further attempts, to which he was urged, not
only by ambition, but also by the wish to end in his own favour
the controversy about precedence which had long been pending
between himself and the Duke of Ferrara.3 When at length,
after many difficult negotiations, the Medici prince realized
that he could look for no favourable decision of this contro
versy from the Emperor, he transferred the negotiations to
Rome in June, 1569. The task of carrying out this task in
favour of Cosimo was entrusted to the lawyer, Domenico
Bonsi, who at once got into touch with Onofrio Camaiani,
Cosimo's trusted agent. There did riot seem to be any likeli
hood of a decision in Cosimo's favour because in the College of
Cardinals Ferrara had as strong a following as Florence.4
As far as the Pope was concerned, however, things were
very different. Ferrara 's relations with Pius V. were very
strained, both on account of quarrels of a temporal nature,
such as the importation of salt, and on account of Ferrara's
attitude towards religious questions. In this respect it would
seem that Alfonso had inherited some of the opinions of his
mother, Re* nee, the friend of Calvin ; he had absolutely refused
to admit the Inquisition in his territories, or to comply with
1 See MAFFEI, n seq. Cf. Vol. XV. of this work, p. 100.
' Cf. MAFFEI, 29 seq. ; BIBL, Erhebung Cosimos, 1 1 seq.
3 BIBL, loc. cit., 15, rightly brings this out. For the con
troversy about precedence cf. Arch, star, Ital., 2nd ser., VII.,
2, 93 seq. ; Atti d. deput. Ferrarese di storia patria, IX., Ferrara,
1-897 ; MONDANI, La questione di precedenza fra il d. Cosimo
I. e Alfonso, II., Florence, 1898 ; GRIBANDI in Riv. di scienze
stor., 1904-1905 ; PALANDRI, 122 seq.
* See BIBL, loc. cit. 43 seq.
270 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
the Pope's request that he should help the French Catholics.
The Duke's uncle, moreover, Cardinal Este, was especially
in bad odour with Pius V. on account of his schemes to obtain
the tiara. In the spring of 1569 the Venetian ambassador,
Paolo Tiepolo, considered the relations between the House of
Este and the Vatican as being so strained, that he feared a
complete breach.1
Cosimo I., on the other hand, had in every possible way
shown his loyalty to the Pope during the whole period of the
latter's reign. He had carried into effect all the promises
he had made at the beginning of the pontificate concerning the
support of the Inquisition and ecclesiastical reform.2 The
handing over of Carnesecchi to the Roman Inquisition, the
assistance he had given the Emperor in the Turkish War of
1566 and the great help he had recently given to the French
Catholics in the third Huguenot War, were all things cal
culated to win for the Medici prince in a high degree the con
fidence and love of Pius V.3 Camaiani and Cardinal Ferdin
and de' Medici, who was working with him, therefore met
with no great difficulties when they proposed that, as a reward,
the question of precedence, which had now been pending
for a generation, should be settled in favour of Cosimo by his
elevation to the rank of Grand Duke, as had already been the
intention of Pius IV. Such a proposal was all the more pleas
ing to Pius V. since, saturated as he was with medieval ideas,
he could thus argue with himself : if a Pope could confer on
Charlemagne the title of Emperor, all the more fittingly can
1 TIEPOLO, 189. Cf. E. Manolesso in ALBERI, II., 2, 415;
BIBL, loc. cit. 26.
* Cf. Legaz. di Serristori, 419.
* See TIEPOLO, 189 ; GALLUZZI, 66 seq., 95 seq. ; MAFFEI,
60 seq. ; HERRE, Papstwahlen 159, seq. ; PALANDRI, 124 seq.
In 1568 Pius V. had undertaken the office of god-father at the
birth of the daughter of Cosimo ; cf. the * brief to " Johanna
principessa Florentiae " of Jan. 28, 1568 (mission of Cardinal
Ricci), State Archives, Florence. A little later the wife of
Cosimo was honoured with the Golden Rose ; see LADERCHI,
1568, n. 59.
COSIMO I., GRAND DUKE. 271
I bestow the title of Grand Duke on a prince who has deserved
so well of the Church.1
On August 27th, 1569 a bull -was drawn up in the following
terms :2 the Pope, who has been placed by God over the
nations of the kingdoms, and invested with the supreme power
in the Church militant, is in duty bound to turn his eyes upon
those who, more than others, have rendered faithful service
to the Holy See and the Catholic faith. In this respect the
sovereign prince of Tuscany has especially distinguished him
self. But recently he has magnanimously assisted the Catho
lics of France and has founded the Order of the Knights of
St. Stephen lor the honour of God and the propagation of the
true religion. Since these services call for some recognition
the Pope, in virtue of his Apostolic power, declares him here
ditary Grand Duke of Tuscany in so far as that country is
subject to him as sovereign, without thereby infringing
the rights of the Emperor or other kings. As a precedent
for this grant of a title the bull appeals to similar acts by
Popes Alexander III., Innocent III. and Paul IV., in the
case of the rulers of Portugal, Bulgaria and Walachia, as well
as of Ireland..3 As an external mark of the title now con
ferred upon him Cosimo was given the right to bear the royal
crown heraldically described in the bull. Thus was his right
of precedence over Este assured to him. The arrival of the
news of the victory over the French Huguenots to which
Cosimo had so materially contributed,4 seemed to Pius V. to
afford a favourable opportunity for promulgating the bull
which had hitherto been kept secret. On December 7th,
1569, he sent his nephew Michele Bonelli to Florence, where
1 See GALLUZZI, 89 seq. ; BIBL, loc. cit. 45 seq. For the work
by Laurentius Belus, *De summa pontificia potestate creandi et
destruendi saeculares potestates, etc., see Vol. XVII., p. 131, n. i.
* Bull. Rom., VII., 763 seq.
* In his negotiations with Maximilian II. Commendone also
adduced other examples drawn from the medieval ideas, but
which to some extent will not stand the light of historical criti
cism ; see GRATIANUS, Vita Commendoni.
*Cf. Corresp. dipl., III., 228, n. i.
272 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
five days later the delivery and reading of the bull took place
with great solemnity in the Palazzo Vecchio.1
While Florence was keeping high festival, Cosimo set all
the devices of his diplomatic skill to work, gradually to recon
cile the powers, and especially the Emperor, to this occurrence,
and prevent them from taking any steps to oppose it. In
flagrant contradiction to the truth he assured them that he
had never taken any steps to obtain the dignity which the
Pope had conferred upon him of his own initiative, and added
that he intended to go to Rome at the beginning of the follow
ing year in order to express his gratitude in person. He care
fully concealed from the Emperor that the real object of this
journey was that he might be crowned by the Pope. When,
however, as the result of rumours which reached him, Maxi
milian learned the truth, he abandoned the attitude of reserve
which he had hitherto maintained, and demanded to be in
formed in the first place of the terms of the bull.2
On February I3th, 1570, Arco received by special courier
from the Emperor orders to make in the first place private
remonstrances to the Pope against the proposed solemn
coronation of Cosimo, and if this was not sufficient, to make
formal protest against such a step, as being injurious to the
rights of the Emperor. Arco had an audience on February
I4th. When, in the course of the discussion, Pius V. re
marked that the Duke of Florence was free and acknowledged
no overlord, and that moreover on many occasions the Popes
had appointed men as kings, as for example the Kings of
Portugal and Navarre, Arco replied that those cases had not
affected the Empire. This touched the real point at issue :
the Emperor looked upon Florence as a fief of the Empire, and
even though this might be open to question, it was certain that
Siena had been received as a fief from the Spanish king, and
was indirectly a fief of the Empire. It would seem that the
Pope already realized that Cosimo had put him in a false
1 See GALLUZZI, 103 seq. ; LAPINI, Diario Florentine, ed.
Corazzini, Florence, 1900.
* See BIBL, loc. cit. 47 seq.
PROTEST OF THE EMPEROR. 273
position. In spite of this, he did not consider himself justified,
for the sake of his own authority, in withdrawing the distinc
tion as Arco demanded,1 and as a matter of fact the question
had already gone too far.2 On February I5th, 1570, Cosimo
arrived at the gates of Rome with a splendid retinue, and
dismounted at the villa of Julius III. On the i8th he made
his entry with great pomp and was received in the consistory.
Even Arco was present at this ceremony, which took place in
the Sala Regia. When the consistorial advocate proclaimed
the new title of Cosimo, Arco declared to the Pope that he
protested against this infringement of the rights of the Em
peror, and that he reserved a more formal protest. Then,
when Cosimo was introduced with great pomp, he left the
Sala in an ostentatious way. All the attempts of both the
Pope and Cosimo to induce the Imperial ambassador to
change his attitude failed.3
On March 5th, Laetare Sunday, Arco renewed his solemn
protest in the Pope's private apartments, in the presence of
Cardinals Morone, Chiesa and Bonelli. While he was leaving
the Vatican Pius V. repaired to the Sistine Chapel for the
coronation mass. Cosimo took his place between the two
junior Cardinal-Priests. He was attired in a long robe em
broidered with gold, and over it a red mantle, trimmed with
ermine, and he wore the ducal cap. After the epistle he took
1 See ibid. 53 seqq.
* For the preparations in Rome for the arrival of Cosimo,
see *Avvisi di Roma of January 25, February 8 and IT, 1570 ;
mention is there made of a present from Cosimo to Pius V.,
" un calamaro d'argento dorato con un horiolo dentro " of the
value of 250 scudi. Urb. 1041, p. 223, 223b, 224b, Vatican
Library.
3 See SCHWARZ, Briefwechsel, 156 ; BIBL, loc. cit, 55 seq. Cf.
also MUTINELLI, I., 88 seq. ; DE MAGISTRIS, 13 seq. ; Corresp.
dipl., III., 234 seqq. Interesting particulars on the arrival and
entry of the new Grand Duke in the *Avvisi di Roma of February
15 and 1 8, 1570 (Cosimo was lodged in the aparUnents of Car
dinal Bonelli " parate di velluto cremesino con broccato d'oro "},
Urb. 1041, p. 226b, 22gb, Vatican Library.
274 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
the oath of fealty, and then the Pope placed on his head the
precious gold crown which had been made in Florence, and
handed him the silver sceptre. At the conclusion of the
ceremony the new Grand Duke offered as gifts a golden chalice,
and rich vessels and liturgical vestments ; when the Pope
returned to his apartment he carried his train. Lastly,
Cosimo was honoured with the golden rose which had been
blessed on that day.1
It is quite certain that it was very far from the wishes of
Pius V. to do anything prejudicial to the rights of any prince
by the extraordinary honour which he had conferred on
Cosimo ; his declaration that it was merely his intention
to reward the great services of the Medici prince to the Holy
See may be taken quite literally.2 All the more painful then
was his surprise when he saw what wrong motives were attri
buted to him and what strong opposition his action had
aroused among almost all the powers.3 The only exception
was the French government, which hailed Cosimo's elevation
with joy, knowing well that the Hapsburgs had done all they
1 There are various accounts of the events of March 5, that of
Arco, with his protest, in SCHWARZ, Briefwechsel, 156 seq.t BIBL,
60 seq. the report of the Venetian ambassador in MUTINELLI,
I., 89 seq., that of the French ambassador in DE MAGISTRIS, 15
seq., that of the ambassador of Savoy in SAGGIATORE, IV. (1845),
33 seq. Firmanus gives a very detailed account of the ceremony
of the coronation, in MORENI, Delia solenne incoronazione del
duca Cosimo Medici in granduca, Florence, 1819. Cf. also the
*Avviso di Roma of March 5, 1570, where, among the presents,
special mention is made of a gold " bacile " weighing 9 pounds,
with 7 figures " con miracolosa arte ; fede, speranza e carita "
supporting the vase at the foot of which are the four Evangelists
with the arms of Pius V. and Cosimo. Urb. 1041, p. 242b, Vatican
Library.
* HERRE (I., 59) rightly brings this out.
3 Besides Ferrara, Savoy, Mantua and Venice, amoner the
Italian states, refused to recognize the title. See BIBL, 70, Cf.
Arch. ster. Ital., App. III., 158 seq. ; Venez. Depeschen, III.,
498 n.
ATTITUDE OF PHILIP II. 275
could to prevent it taking place.1 It was indeed true that
they had been continually urged to do so by the Duke of
Ferrara.2
From the first Philip II. of Spain had maintained an attitude
of reserve. From the point of view of principle his view was
the same as that of the Emperor ; he saw in this act of the
Pope an extremely serious and dangerous interference in
temporal affairs, and he looked upon it as an insult that he,
Cosimo's feudal lord as far as Siena was concerned, had not
been informed of it beforehand. An additional motive for
indignation lay in the fact that the King of Spain could not
willingly allow the Duke of Florence to become more powerful
than he already was. At the same time, for various reasons
Philip was not at first inclined to adopt so brusque an attitude
towards the Pope as was done by Maximilian, who, under the
influence of Arco, had become the close friend of the Este.3
On March 29th, 1570, the Emperor once again solemnly
repeated his protest, and sent for this purpose his three coun
cillors, Gabriel Strein, Baron von Schwarzenau and Dr.
Andreas Gail, who arrived in Rome on April loth, and had a
private audience on the i6th, followed by a public one on the
24th. On the latter occasion the protest was read, and a
copy of it delivered. The Pope promised to give his reply
after he had maturely considered the matter.4
1 See DE MAGISTRIS, u seq. ; HERRE, I., 60. Cf. PALANDRI,
126.
1 Cf. BIBL, 79 seq., 89 seqq.
* See HERRE, I., 60, 77 ; MAFFEI, 81 seq., 89 seq. ; BIBL, 70,
78, 87 seq. Philip II. only made his protest against Cosimo's
new title after the conclusion of the league against the Turks,
which brought Spain the Cruzada (see infra, Cap. IX., and supra
p. 64). In consequence of the Spanish protest the Pope gave
way so far as to give Cosimo secret powers to enter upon negotia
tions for a compromise upon the basis proposed by the Emperor,
which the Medici prince at once did. BIBL, 119.
4 See the *report of B. Pia of April 25, 1570, Gonzaga Archives,
Mantua ; Avvisi di Roma of April 19 and 26, 1570, Urb. 1041,
p. 265b, 267, Vatican Library ; LADERCHI, 1570, n. 115 ; Corresp.
276 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
That in the face of this unexpected opposition, and in view
of the doubly unfortunate consequences to the much desired
league against the Turks of the conferring of the title, Pius V.
to some extent repented of having satisfied the desires of the
crafty Cosimo, and that he would like to have acted other
wise, is shown by the fact that at the great creation of Cardi
nals on May I7th, 1570, he passed over Camaiani, though he
was warmly recommended by Florence. Such an attitude
was also urged upon him by the fact that Cosimo did not
hesitate to throw the responsibility for the whole affair upon
the Pope.1
In Rome a special congregation of Cardinals discussed from
the end of April the reply that should be made to the Emperor's
protest. Opinions were very divided. Some thought that a
reply of any kind was undesirable, because an exchange of
letters would only add fuel to the flames. On the other hand
it was rightly urged that to refuse to reply at all would be
taken as an insult by the Emperor.2 A decision was made
all the more difficult by the fact that there was reason to look
forward with some anxiety to the Diet which had been sum
moned to Spires for May 22nd.3 It seemed certain that the
question would be raised there,4 since, in spite of the attempts
dipl., III., 311 seq. ; GRATIANI Epist., 466 seq. Cf. Venez.
Depeschen, III., 497 ; SCHWARZ, Briefwechsel, 157 ; BIBL, 63
seq. ; DE MAGISTRIS, 17 seq., 20 seq. Cf. also CARCERERI, Cosimo
dei Medici e il titolo di Granduca di Toscana, Venice, 1906, 12
seq. The *Oratio habita in consistorio Sanctmi coram 19 car-
dinalibus ab oratore Caesaris et copia instrumenti protesta-
tinis S. Caes. Mtte, in Varia polit., 85 (now 86), 99 seq. ; ibid.
112 seq. ; *Responsio S. D. N. ad oratores Caesaris, Papal Secret
Archives.
1 See BIBL, 76 seq.
1 See ibid. 85.
* The * Imperial convocation, dated Prague, February i, 1570
(not at the beginning of the year, as in HABERLIN, VII., 145), in
Reichstagshandlung de anno 1570, II., 181 seq., City Archives,
Frankfort a/M.
4 For this reason Biglia had advised the sending of a legate
even before the opening of the Diet (see BIBL, 80). It was
THE DIET AT SPIRES. 277
of the nuncio to dissuade him, Maximilian had submitted
all the business of the grand-ducal title to the Electors, and
had asked an opinion from them for the safe-guarding of the
sovereignty of the Empire.1 In view of the opinions of the
greater part of the Lutherans and Calvinists of Germany, it
was beyond doubt that they would support the Emperor in
his quarrel with the Pope, and that they would be ready " to
give the coup de grace to Antichrist " even in open war.2
Under these circumstances a middle course was adopted in
Rome, by withholding the reply at least until the proposal
had been laid before the Diet. Pius V.'s reply, which was
dated July 24th, reached Spires in the middle of August, and
aimed at keeping the question open and gaining time so
that Cosimo might in the meantime come to an understanding
with the Emperor.3
The state of affairs at Spires remained for a long time very
threatening. A breach with Rome on the part of the Emperor
seemed to be imminent, and many of the Protestants would
have joyfully joined in this. The Pope therefore in August
sent the knight, Jost Segesser, the captain of his Swiss guard,
to the Catholic cantons, in order to obtain from them the
promise of the assistance of four or five thousand men in the
event of attack being made upon the Holy See.4 On Septem
ber I7th, 1570, the English ambassador reported irom Spires
that Maximilian had spoken to him of the rash interference
already being said in Rome that either Commendone or Orsini
had been chosen for this purpose (see the *report of B. Pia from
Rome, April 5, 1570, Gonzaga Archives, Mantua). On June
24, 1570, B. Pia says : *" Madruzzo parti due di sono per la dieta
di Spira, qualche effetto potra fare nelle cose che bollono essendo
prudentissimo et destrissimo." The Emperor was opposed to
the sending of a legate, because it would give rise to too much
talk in Germany ; see Venez. Depeschen, III., 496 n. i.
1 See Venez. Depeschen, III., 498, n. i. ; BIBL, 80.
1 See JANNSEN-PASTOR, IV. 15-1(}, 316 seq. ; BIBI,, 98 seq.
8 See BIBL, 84 seq., 86 seq.
4 See Schweizer Abschiede, IV., 2, n. 364, p. 454; LUTOLF,
Schweizergarde, 76. For the fear in Rome, of. SERENO, 52 seq^
278 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
of the Bishop of Rome, and had also said that things would
never be any better with the clergy until the}' made up their
minds to live as the Apostles had done ; that if he decided to
march against Rome he knew of many who would go with him,
and that the German princes had told him that Rome was the
lawful and original capital of the Emperor, and that they
wished to take him there.1 Under these circumstances it was
very difficult for the nuncio Biglia to discharge his office, but
fortunately he had the Spanish ambassador to stand by him
in his efforts to moderate the Emperor's conduct, and to
prevent the Electors from interfering in the controversy. In
Florence they were of opinion that Biglia did not take a strong
enough line of action, and that he was better fitted to inspire
love than respect.2
At length in the middle of December Biglia was set free
from his perplexities ; he was able to report to Rome that
the matter would remain in the hands of the Electors, and
that the Emperor would make known his claims to the Pope.3
In the Curia they were congratulating themselves that the
worst had been averted when the Emperor, after the close
of the Diet, resumed his attack. On December 26th he for
bade the Cardinals and German princes, as well as those
Italian states which were subject to the Empire to give
Cosimo I. his new title. At the same time he sent his reply
to the Pope's last communication, and in a letter to Pius V.
demanded a settlement of the controversy which would satisfy
his own rights and those of the Empire. Arco made it quite
plain that what his master demanded was the withdrawal of
the title.4 On February 24th, 1571, Pius V. made his reply ;
this was very restrained in its form, while in its matter it
was in no way derogatory to his dignity ; he said that his
conscience told him that he had in no way intentionally in-
1 See Calendar of State Papers. Foreign. Elizabeth. 1569-
1571, ed. by A. J. Crosby, London, 1874, n. 1267.
1 See BIBL, 88 seq., 91 seq., 93 seq.
9 See ibid. 96.
4 See SCHWAFZ, Briefwechsel, 163 seq. ; J3iBL, 100 seq.
THE POPE S REPLY TO THE EMPEROR. 279
fringed upon the rights of the Empire and the Emperor in
conferring this title upon Cosimo, but that he intended to
submit the question to a thorough and impartial examination
in the light of Maximilian's remarks, and to settle the dispute
in a way that would be acceptable to the Emperor. In order
to lead Maximilian to a conciliatory frame of mind he pointed
out to him that the attack of the Turks which was at that
moment threatening Venice might become dangerous to him
as well ; all disunion and discord was therefore to be avoided.
Biglia was warned to speak in the same sense,1 but the action
taken by the nuncio satisfied neither party. In Rome they
found fault with him because he had made too favourable a
report in December, while ifi Florence they thought he had
not been sufficiently resolute, and, since in the matter of the
Turkish war as well, with regard to which the Pope had held
out hopes to the Emperor of a monthly subsidy of 40,000
ducats so long as Italy itself was left undisturbed, he was
unable to obtain any success, his position was looked upon as
being considerably undermined.2 It was generally thought
that his recall had been decided upon when, at the end of
April, 1571, he succumbed to a malignant disease, the spotted
fever which was at that time raging at Prague.3
In Florence they would have been glad to have seen Arch
bishop Verallo appointed as his successor, whereas the Em
peror's chief care was that no partisan of Cosimo's should be
1 See SCHWARZ, loc. cit. 169 seq, ; BIBL 105 seq. How deeply
anxious the Curia was about the controversy is shown among
other things by the letters and views sent to the Pope on the
conferring of the title in Varia polit. 79 (now 80), p. 7 seqq. Papal
Secret Archives. Very full is the manuscript entitled : *Discorso
sopra 1'autoritk del Papa fatto in tempo che P. Pio insignl col
titolo de Granduca di Toscana Cosimo de Medici, in Cod. Urb.,
852, p. 219 of the Vatican Library, and Inf. polit., XII., p. 244
seq. of the Berlin Library. In Carte Strozz., I., i, 250 seq. there
is a list of the writings on the subject in the State Archives,
Florence.
2 See BIBL, 106 seq.
8 See SCHWARZ, Brief wechsel, 171,
280 HISTORY OF THE POPES. .
sent.1 The Pope's choice fell upon the Bishop of Torcello,
Giovanni Delfino, who had accompanied Cardinal Commendone
upon his legation to the Emperor in 1568, and who was now
recommended by that Cardinal. Before Delfino started for
his new duties, Pius wished to see him personally in order to
explain to him by word of mouth the task that lay before
him.2 The written instructions, which are dated June 5th,
1571, command Delfino above all to persuade the Emperor
of the importance and value of his coming to a decision to
favour the Catholic religion frankly and openly, and to protect
the churches and convents, with special reference to the
question at issue between the Archduke Ferdinand and the
chapter of Trent concerning temporalities.3 With regard to
1 See BIBL, 114, n. 5 ; SCHWARZ, loc. cit. 177.
'See SCHWARZ, loc. cit. 177; ibid, the credential briefs to
Maximilian II., the Archdukes Ferdinand and Charles, and Duke
Albert of Bavaria, dated May 24, 1571. The *credentials to
Johann Jakob Khuen, Archbishop of Salzburg, Rome, June i,
1571, recommend Delfino as " virum ab egregiam suam pro-
bitatem doctrinamque suam valde nobis probatum." Original
in the Consistorial Archives, Salzburg.
* Cf. the detailed account of HIRN : Der Temporalienstreit des
Erzherzogs Ferdinand von Tirol mit dem Stift Trient, Vienna,
1882, and Erzherzog Ferdinand I., 292 seq. On account of his
encroachments in ecclesiastical matters, Pius V., on December
31, 1568, threatened the Archduke with excommunication
(LADERCHI, 1568, n. 77), which caused a great stir; see CANISII
Epist., VI., 245. The only reason why they remained calm in the
Curia was that a settlement was shortly expected through the
mediation of the Emperor (cf. the brief in GOUBAU, 122 seq.} ; see
HIRN, 124. A counterpart to this was the dispute about tem
poralities with the monastery of Neustift ; see HIRN, I., 316
seq. In a *brief of May u, 1570, to the " Praeposit. S. Mariae
de Novacella O.S.A." Pius V. praises the resistance and the
defence of their rights and ecclesiastical liberties offered by the
monastery to the officers of the Archduke Ferdinand, and ex
horts them to persevere (Arm. 44, t. 15, p. 107, Papal Secret
Archives). In this controversy the civil power was victorious,
but in the end had to give way over its plans for secularization
as far as Trent was concerned,
THE NEW NUNCIO DELFINO. 28l
the two burning questions of the moment, Cosimo's title
and the league against the Turks, the instructions gave de
tailed directions. With regard to the Florentine question
Delfino was to act in agreement with the Tuscan ambassador,
Lodovico Antinori, Bishop of Vol terra, and to urge a policy
of conciliation by calling attention to Cosimo's services to
religion, and to his relationship with and loyalty to the Em
peror. If the absence of any reply to the Emperor's demands
was raised, the nuncio was to say that after carefully examin
ing the statements drawn up by the theologians and lawyers
the Pope had refrained from making any written reply because
this could not have been satisfactory to Maximilian, and
would only have led to a further exchange of correspondence,
and that this would only have afforded pleasure to those who
would be glad to see discord between the two heads of Christen
dom. The Pope hoped that a settlement of the dispute would
result from the sending of a legate, which was intended as soon
as possible. With regard to the league against the Turks
the nuncio was instructed formally to invite the Emperor to
join the league which had been formed with Spain and Venice.1
Delfino, who had started from his episcopal see for Rome
on May lyth, 1571, left the Eternal City on June 5th, travel
ling slowly and stopping at Florence, and for a few days with
Commendone at Verona in order to get further particulars
concerning the mission with which he had been entrusted ;
he did not reach Vienna until July 22nd.2 His first audience
with the Emperor passed in an exchange of compliments.
At the second, on July 3oth, the nuncio brought forward a
definite request, by granting which the Emperor would be
1 See SCHWA RZ, Brief wechsel, 177 seq ; Ibid. 180 seq. the letter
of Pius V. to Maximilian of June 17, 1571, saying that Delfino
would communicate to the Emperor the reply to his complaints
about the Papal brief to the Duke of Ferrara of April 9 (main
taining that he, as a feudatory of the Holy See could never call
upon the Emperor to settle the dispute about precedence ;
LADERCHI, 1571, n. 64) as well as the reply to the proposal of
Arco.
* See SCHWARZ, loc. cit, 179.
VOL. xviii. 20
282 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
bound to show that he took his office of protector of the
Church seriously ; Delfino asked him to prohibit a certain
Protestant liturgy, in the German language, which was being
sold to the nobility in Vienna, on the understanding that
Maximilian had approved of it. Since it was also being main
tained that the Emperor had granted the nobles the use of
the Confession of Augsburg, Delfino was of opinion that
His Majesty could not better prove his real sentiments than
by a prohibition of the said liturgy.1
The Emperor, who had listened very calmly to the nuncio,
first praised in the highest terms the Holy Father's zeal for
religion, and then went on to deplore the sad religious state
of Germany, assuring him that in the future, as in the past,
he would leave nothing undone to remedy this state of affairs.
The evil, however, was so deeply rooted that it was necessary
to proceed with the greatest circumspection, and to implore
the assistance of God. As to the liturgy in question
Maximilian declared that he had already prohibited it, and
that it would no longer be sold ; for the rest it was out of the
question in that country to have recourse to punishment so
easily as was desirable, but that he would nevertheless take
other steps to prevent the sale of prohibited books in Vienna.2
At first Delfino had no suspicion that that very programme
had been approved by the Emperor after long negotiations
which had carefully been kept secret, and had been printed
with his permission ;3 nor had he had the least idea that on
January I4th, 1571, Maximilian had given the nobles and
knights of Lower Austria a written " assurance " concerning
the religious freedom promised to them in I568.4 Delfino
1 See the "report of Delfino from Vienna, July 30, 1571, Nun-
ziat. di Germania, 64, Papal Secret Archives.
1 " "Circa al libro dell' Agenda mi ha detto havendo prohibito
et che piu non si vendera, ma che in questi luochi non si poteva
procedere cosi facilmente al castigo, come sarebbe conveniente,
et di piii promise di far provisione, che in Vienna non si venderanno
libn prohibiti." Nunziat. di Germania 64, Papal Secret Archives,
* See BIBL, Organisation, 143 seqq., 149 seqq., 180.
4 See ibid. 161 seqq.
DELFINO AND THE EMPEROR. 283
must also have been confirmed in his belief in the Emperor's
good faith by the fact that he found confirmation of another
assurance which he had given at the beginning of August ;l
at the Diet of Bohemia, Maximilian, appealing to his corona
tion oath, had rejected the demand of the Protestant states
for the free use of the Confession of Augsburg, to which the
archbishop, the cathedral chapter, and the Utraquist con
sistory were opposed.2
When, at the end of August, 1571, Delfino learned the true
state of affairs with regard to the liturgy, he tried to
bring pressure to bear on the Emperor by means of the Duke
of Bavaria, Albert V., who had come to Vienna for the marriage
of his daughter Mary to the Archduke Charles, at the same time
taking the opportunity .of begging Albert to make sure that
his son-in-law should remain true to the Catholic party.3
To the Archduke Charles himself Delfino delivered two briefs
from the Pope, and in giving them to him set him on his
guard against allowing to the Protestants those concessions
which the Emperor had made in the case of the archduchy Of
Austria. The Archduke gave him the fullest assurances,4
but Delfino did not conceal from himself the fact that the
1 " "Circa le cose di Boemia S. Mtd> mi discorse lungamente
della petitione che le fu fatta della confessione Augustana et
della negativa data con parole molto vehementi et piene di
religione, dicendo che non era per conceder mai cosa alcuna con
gl'Hussiti, ma bene per i capitoli giurati, quando fu eletto re
di Boemia, era astretto a lasciarli vivere nella sua vecchia heresia.
Ho parlato poi con molti di questa corte et Giesuiti et altri,
quali tutti m'hanno afifermato, che in Praga S. MtA nelle cose
della religione s'ha portato tanto bene, quanto si puo desiderare."
Report from Vienna, August 6, 1571, loc. cit.
1 Cf. HUBER, IV., 240.
* See the "report of Delfino from Vienna, September 3, 1571,
in Nunziat. di Germania, 64, Papal Secret Archives. For the
marriage of the Archduke Charles see HURTER, I., 174 seqq.
4 See the "reports of Delfino of September 3 and 7, 1571,
loc. cit. For the briefs to the Archduke Charles see LADERCHI,
1571, n. 55-57,
284 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
danger was not thereby entirely removed.1 It was true that
the Archduke Charles loyally entertained true Catholic opin
ions,2 as had been shown among other things by his behaviour
when, in 1568, Pius V. had withdrawn the concession of the
chalice to the laity, because it had entirely failed to have the
desired effect,3 while in other ways as well Charles had sup
ported the Pope's efforts for reform,4 but on account of his
financial straits he was bound to take the states into con
sideration, and these, in Styria, as well as in Carniola and
Carinthia, were for the most part inclined to Protestantism.
When he was faced, therefore, with their request for the free
exercise of their religion, the Archduke found himself in a
difficult position. It did not satisfy the Protestant majority
in the Styrian states that he was prepared not to interfere
with the nobles in questions of religion, and in November,
1571, they asked the Archduke to allow the preachers of the
new doctrine into the cities and marts, for the abolition of
" idolatry," for otherwise he would have done nothing for
them. In the end the Protestants had to remain content
with the vague assurance of the Archduke that he would
1 On November i, 1571, Delfino reported from Vienna : *" In
Gratz ho dato ordine alle Giesuiti at alii padri di S. Domenico
che intendendo essi alcuna novita nella religione me ne debbano
dare immediate avviso anco per huomo a posta." Nunziat.
di Germania, 64, Papal Secret Archives.
* See the report of Girol. Lippomano of 1567 (Relaz. al Senate
Veneto, published by V. JOPPI, Udine, 1882, Nozze publication),
Steiermdrkische Geschichtsblatter of ZAHN, III. (1882), 194.
8 See the brief to the Patriarch of Aquileia in RUBEIS, Monum.
eccl. Aquil., 1091. Cf. HURTER, I., 66 seqq. The expressions
he used to the Venetian ambassador (in TURBA, III., 443 seq.)
show Maximilian's annoyance at this withdrawal.
4 On August 9, 1568, Pius V. thanked the Archduke Charles
for his readiness to help in the reform of the clergy in his part
of the diocese of Aquileia, and recommended to him Bartolomeo
a Porzia, who had been appointed visitor ; see Steiermdrkische
Geschichtsblatter of ZAHN, I. (1880), 69 seq. Cf. LADERCHI, 1568.
n. 82 seq. ; 1569, n. 222.
COMMENDONE AGAIN IN VIENNA. 285
leave religious matters as they were and promote Christian
mildness and gentleness.1
In the meantime, on September i6th, 1571, Commendone
had come to Vienna on the business of the league against the
Turks. He was also charged to come to some arrangement
concerning the title conferred on Cosimo I.2 During his stay
of two months at the Imperial court Commendone showed no
want of zeal, but he was not destined to meet with success in
either matter. He did not however give up all hopes of
accomplishing something on his return from Poland, for which
country he set out on November 22nd.3
Soon after the departure of Commendone the Emperor was
seized with a grave attack of his former ilhiess, gout and heart-
disease. In a report of December I2th, 1571, Delfino ex
pressed the view that God had sent this illness to Maximilian
in order to lead him to live, as far as his religion was con
cerned, in a manner befitting a Christian Emperor ;4 he also
expressed the hope that this would be the case, though the
future had quite another tale to tell ; the Emperor continued
to the end very vacillating in religious matters, so that no
one really knew for certain whether he was a Catholic or a
Protestant.6
In the meantime the state of the Catholic Church in Austria,
1 See HURTER, I., 127 seqq. ; LOSERTH, Reformation, 158 seq.
The * briefs of Pius V. to the Bishop of Gurk, and the Archbishop
of Salzburg of September 15, 1571, are directed against the
demands of the Styrian states. Archives of Briefs, Rome.
2 The instructions for Commendone, of June 15, I571* in
SCHWARZ, Brief wechsel, 184.
* See BIBL, Erhebung Cosimos, 123 seqq., 126. Cf. TORNE,
Gallic, TO 2.
4 See "Cifra del Nuntio di Germania di 12 di Dicembre, 1571.
in Nunziat. di Germania, 64, Papal Secret Archives.
6 See JANSSEN-PASTOR, IV. 15'16, 496. The discussion of the
Grand Duke's title continued. Again on March 15, 1572, Maxi
milian charged his ambassador in Rome to demand satisfaction,
in the matter in accordance with the rights of the Emperor and
Empire. SUDENDORF, Registrum, III., 351.
286 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
which Delfino endeavoured to help to the best of his ability
by promoting reform in accordance with the prescriptions of
the Council of Trent,1 was going from bad to worse, because
the Protestant nobles, without the least restraint, went far
beyond the limits fixed for them by the Emperor's " assur
ance." Not content with the free exercise of their religion
granted to them and their subjects, they also tried in every
way, even by violence, to extirpate " papistical idolatry "
and did not shrink from revolting acts of cruelty. The
Catholics were so intimidated that many of them no longer
dared to express their opinions.2 How far the truculence of
the Protestants at the expense of the Catholic minority went
may still be gathered to-day from the caricatures which they
caused to be executed in 1571 in the palace of the States of
Lower Austria, where there may still be seen a hog with a
rosary in its mouth !3
Not even the Protestants, however, were quite satisfied
with the Emperor's ecclesiastical policy. Many preachers
drew up memorials and polemical writings against the new
ritual, and every preacher exercised his talents in this way.
Maximilian's religious policy was therefore a complete failure ;
all that he had obtained was the incurable disturbance oi his
dominions.4
While, in the Emperor's hereditary possessions, to use his
own expression, everything threatened to go to rack and ruin,
in the Empire the efforts on behalf of reform and a Catholic
restoration were making slow but steady progress. These
efforts were inspired and supported in every way by Pius V.
A short time after he had assumed the reins of government,
the Pope had exhorted the German bishops to carry out the
reform decrees of Trent, and above ah1 to see to the establish-
1 Information on this subject is given in the *reports of Delfino
in the Papal Secret Archives, which will be published in the Nun-
tiaturberichte of Prof. Dengel.
» See HUBER, IV., 238.
3 MAYER, Niederosterr. Standehaus, 38.
4 See HUBER, IV., 240; JANSSEN-PASTOR, IV. 15-16, 452 seqq.
THE GERMAN BISHOPS. 287
ment of seminaries,1 urging them in June, 1566, to undertake
a far-reaching reform ot morals among the clergy by means of
visitations of their dioceses.2 Cardinal Commendone had also
received special instructions to this effect. It was this dis
tinguished representative of the Holy See who, at the Diet
of Augsburg in 1566, had organized the Catholic party for
the purpose of the acceptance of the decrees of the Council
by the Catholic states of the Empire,3 and had thus laid the
solid foundations of the reform of Germany in the Catholic
sense, though it was soon seen how far removed the acceptance
of the decrees in principle was from their being carried into
effect.
One of the first difficulties was connected with the making of
the Tridentine profession of faith, which the Pope demanded
of the new bishops. On account of the unhappy financial
straits in which they found themselves Pius V. at once made
concessions in the matter of the annates ; subordinating all
temporal considerations to the spiritual, he contented him
self in the case of Treves with a fifth, while it would seem that
he was willing to condone them entirely in the case of the
church of Cologne. But it was Frederick von Wied, the
archbishop-elect of Cologne, who refused to take the oath,
even after the Archbishop of Treves, Jakob von Eltz, and
Frederick's suffragans, Johann von Hoya, Bishop of Osna-
briick and Miinster, and Gerard Groesbeck of Liege, had taken
1 See LADERCHI 1566, n. 222. In Laderchi the brief to the
Bishop of Wiirzburg is dated January 23, 1566, but in Arm. 44,
t. 12, n. 14 of the Papal Secret Archives, it is dated January 22,
and this fits in with the fact that the original of the corresponding
brief to the Bishop of Bamberg is also dated January 22. On
February n, 1566, a similar brief was also sent to the primate
of Hungary ; see GOUBAU, 6 seq.
* See LADERCHI, 1566, n. 252 ; REMLING, Urkunden der
Speirer Bischofe, Mayence, 1853, 615 seq. ; KELLER, 359 seq. ;
SCHWARZ, Visitation, p. xxix. The *original of the letter to the
Bishop of Strasbourg is in the Departmental archives at Stras
bourg, G. 149.
3 See supra p. 254.
288 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
it. In the end Frederick preferred to resign his see.1 At
the election of his successor, Count Salentin of Isenburg,
the cathedral chapter of Cologne included in the election
capitulation a resolution that the archibshop must make the
profession of faith of the Council of Trent if the Pope required
it. When, in spite of this, Salentin refused to comply, the
Holy See withheld its confirmation.2
Pius V. was equally determined in insisting that; in con
formity with the decree of his predecessor, the Tridentine
profession of faith should also be made by Catholic professors.3
The severity with which the Pope acted in this -matter shows
how well he understood German conditions. There the
Church was threatened with the gravest danger on the part
of those waverers who, although they retained a certain
attachment for old Catholic practices, were -nevertheless
alienated from the true spirit of the Church and from many
of her doctrines. It was from these feeble half-Catholics
that arose those complaints of the imprudence and excessive
zeal of the Pope, of which Maximilian II. made himself the
spokesman, when he said that this Pope was starting some
thing fresh every day, and turning everything upside down.4
Catholics of this kind were specially numerous at Cleves, at
the court of Duke William. They watched Pius V. in a spirit
of criticism and ill-will, saying that his reforms were not
suited to Germany. With the good intention of saving the
Church in Germany, they went to extremes in yielding Cath
olic principles and institutions to the innovators. " If these
men had succeeded in getting the direction of affairs into
their own hands, German Catholics would have remained for
a long time what they had already been for ten years as far
as the majority of them was concerned : united by the slender
est of ties to the centre of Catholic unity, and therefore weak
and without energy."5
1 See Forschungen zur deutschen Geschichte, XIII., 358 seq. ;
LOSSEN, 4 seq.
2 See LOSSEN, 27 seq. ; SCHWARZ, Briefwechsel, 143 seq.
3 See BRAUNSBERGER, Pius V., 13 seq.
4 See Venez. Depeschen, III., 443.
6 See BRAUNSBERGER, loc. cit., 105 seq.
CANISIUS IN GERMANY. 289
How wide-spread discouragement was among the German
bishops, and what difficulties were met with in the attempt to
enforce the Trfdentine reforms, has been related in a striking
way by Peter Canisius. In a letter of July 23rd, 1567, the
second apostle of Germany describes the state of affairs in that
country to the General of his Order. This letter was occas
ioned by a visit paid by him to Erasmus von Limburg, Bishop
of Strasbourg, an infirm prelate, very anxious about his own
health, who indeed recognized the necessity of at once nomi
nating a capable co-ad jutor, but was unable to make up his
mind to act. It was in vain that Canisius told him of many
of the canons of Strasbourg who were inclined to the new
doctrines, and who could not be entrusted with so important an
affair, and promised him help from Rome. It was in vain that
he reminded him of the fate of the bishoprics in Saxony, and
called his attention to his avaricious neighbours who were only
waiting for his death in order to take possession of the diocese.
As the same conditions prevailed in other cathedral chapters
besides Strasbourg, Canisius drafted a number of reform
proposals. He was quite right in seeing the principal reason
for the great increase in the number of heretical and suspected
canons in the education of the German nobles, who formed
the greater part of the chapters, which was adapted for the
profession of arms rather than for ecclesiastical office, while
what this man who was so filled with the zeal for the faith
has to say in his letter on the subject of the monasteries and
the secular clergy is equally distressing. At the end of the
letter he deals with the reasons on the strength of which the
German bishops excused themselves for their failure to carry
out the decrees of Trent. It is fear, he says, which they dis
play : " our pastors lack confidence and firmness because
they consider the fate of the Catholic Church in Germany to
be hopeless, and they can see hardly any, or perhaps no single
prince upon whom they can rely." He concludes his gloomy
account with these words : "we are in a state of sore distress,
and we cannot bear our sorrows any longer ; yet we shrink
from the remedy."1
1 See CANISII Epist., V., 515 seq.
HISTORY OF THE POPES.
It is clear that such a state of affairs could not be remedied
in the course of a single pontificate, but it is beyond question
that Pius V. did all that he could to evoke and further
among the Catholics a movement of reform and self-defence,
so as to remove the worst evils, and above all to set up a barrier
against the further intrusion of the followers of the new religion
into the great offices of the Church. It was he who charged
the Jesuits Hoffaeus and Canisius to translate the Roman
catechism into German, and who urged Canisius to combat the
centuriators of Magdeburg.1 In 1568, being seriously anxious
to work for the welfare of Germany, he ordered the formation
of a special congregation of Cardinals to deal with German
affairs ; this was bound to put an end to such mistaken ideas
as had been current at the beginning of the pontificate with
regard to the religious attitude of Duke William of Cleves.2
The most recent research has shown how baseless is the
accusation that Pius V. interfered in German affairs with
excessive severity. It is true that in certain matters, as for
example, the celibacy of the clergy and the chalice for the
laity,3 he was quite inflexible, and rightly so, but with regard
to several other ecclesiastical duties he showed a wise modera
tion. Even with regard to the bull In coena Domini he made
a great concession orally, which seemed to be called for by the
1 See BRAUNSBERGER, Pius V., 20 seq., 57, 62 seq. On August
24, 1570, the nuncio Biglia received "orders to see that the
cathedral chapters were purged of evil members : see Nunziat.
di Germania, 67, p. 148, Papal Secret Archives.
* See SCHWARZ, Briefwechsel, p. xii. ; Hist. Jahrbuch, XVIII.,
404 seq. BRAUNSBERGER, Pius V., 27 seq. ; CANISII Epist.,
VI.. 582.
• Cf. the letter of Pius V. to the Bishop of Passau, Urban von
Trennbach, May 26, 1568 ; in no case were those who asked for
the chalice for the laity given what they wanted (see GOUBAU,
83 seq. ; of. App. Vol. XVII., n. 68). Cf. WIEDEMANN, I., 316
seq. and WIDMANN, Gesch. Salzburgs, III., 97, for the conse
quences of this controversy. The experience of the granting of
the chalice to the laity so far was all in favour of the decision
of Pius V, See also BRAUNSBERGER, Pius V., 53 seq.
MEMORIAL OF NINGUARDA. 2QI
desperate position of the Catholics in Germany.1 Moreover,
taking into consideration the special conditions of that country,
he in some cases departed from the strict letter of the Tri-
dentine decrees. The Council had forbidden the accumulation
of benefices, but now, in order to prevent the spread of Protest
antism among the chapters of northern Germany, Pius V.
allowed the holding of several capitular benefices.2 In con
sideration of the assistance which Albert V. of Bavaria had
given to the Church he allowed the appointment of his not
yet twelve year old son Ernest as administrator of Freising ;
he would not, however, entertain the proposal that Ernest
should be appointed co-adjutor of Hildesheim in order to
make that chapter safe against the Protestants.3
But, gloomy though the general religious situation in
Germany was, there were not wanting gleams of light nor
the seeds of better things in the future. As early as 1567
Pius V. had the satisfaction of seeing two provincial synods
held in Germany as the result of his efforts. His attention
had especially been called to the need of these by the Domini
can, Feliciano Ninguarda, who, having been summoned to
Rome by the Pope, had passed the winter between 1566 and
1567 there, and had drawn up a memorial upon the conditions
of the Church in Germany, and the steps that must be taken
to improve them. In this memorial, besides the importance
of provincial synods, he had pointed out that capable theolo
gians and commissaries should be attached to the weak bishops
in order to enforce the Tridentine decrees as soon as possible.4
In 1567 Ninguarda was sent by the Pope to act as commissary
at Salzburg in order that the decrees of Trent might be accepted
in that important ecclesiastical centre by means of a pro-
1 See BRAUNSBERGER, loc. cii.t 41 seq., 46 seq., 53 seq. Cf.
KRATZ in Hist. Jahrbuch, XXXIV., 360.
* See BRAUNSBERGER, loc. oit., 45 seq.
8 See LOSSEN, 69 seq., 124, 130 seq. ; GOETZ, Beitrage zur Gesch.
Albrechts V., 621, n. i. TIEPOLO (p. 187) brings out the importance
of the concession made as to Freising.
4 See *Istruzione per la Germania, in Miscell., Arm. I., t. 2,
p. 60-74, with supplement p. 55-58, Papal Secret Archives.
HISTORY OF THE POPES.
vincial synod. In the meantime two German bishops who
were Cardinals had already in that same year held diocesan
synods, at which it was decided to adopt the decrees of the
Council, both as to dogma and reform ; these were Otto von
Truchsess at Dillingen,1 and Mark Sittich von Hohenems at
Constance.2
But what was this when compared with the many other
bishops and archbishops, who continued to delay ? Canisius,
who deplored the fact in a report to his General on April 5th,
1568, further states that those bishops who were filled with
good intentions, such as those of Augsburg and Eichstatt,
met with difficulties instead of help, from the chapters when
they tried to set their hands to the much needed establish
ment of seminaries.3 A typical example of the canons who
were thus animated by worldly ideas was Gebhard, the nephew
of Otto Truchsess, the zealous reforming Cardinal, who, in spite
of all exhortations, attended neither church nor chapter, and
gave serious scandal by his drunkenness and immorality.4
The metropolitan of the great ecclesiastical province of
Salzburg, Johann Jakob von Khuen-Belasy, had in 1566
suggested to Commendone the idea of promulgating the de
crees of Trent in a provincial synod, and the suggestion had
been approved by the Pope.5 It was not however until
1 See Decreta synodalia dioecesis Augustanae Dilmgae mense
Iimii A° 1567 promulgata, Dillingen, s.a. Cf. Kirchenlexikon
of Freiburg I.*, 1653 seq. ; CANISII, Epist., V., 635 seq. ; SPECHT,
63 seq.
8 C/. HARTZHEIM, Cone. Germ., VII., 419 seq. ; Freib. Diozesan-
Archiv, XXI. (1890), 49 seqq. ; Zeitschrift fur Gesch des Ober-
rheins, N.S. XXIV., 553 seq. ; WYMANN, 74 seq.
8 See CANISII Epist., VI., 181.
4 See ibid. 365 seq., 379 seq.
* In the * brief of May 24, 1560, we read : " Quamvis autem
non admodum necessarium existimemus sponte currentem
incitare, nostri tamen officii partes esse duximus, te ita egregie
animatum ad ipsum adeo eximium omnipotentique Deo accepta-
bile opus primo quoque tempore aggrediendum atque percifiendum
accendere, prout te omni nostri animi aflfectu ut id quamprimum
SYNODS IN GERMANY, 2Q3
March 1569 that a synod was held at Salzburg, which afforded
a solid basis for ecclesiastical reform in accordance with the
decrees of Trent.1 Pius V. gave high praise to the Arch
bishop of Salzburg, and also addressed himself to his suffragan
bishops, of Brixen, Chiemsee, Freising, Gurk, Lavant, Passau,
Ratisbon and Seckau, and to many of the chapters urging
them all to the carrying into effect of the salutary decrees.
At the same time he implored the secular princes in whose
territories these bishoprics were situated, to afford all the
help they could to this work, which was as necessary as it was
useful.2 At the beginning of 1572 he exhorted Daniel Brendel,
Archbishop of Mayence, to hold a synod of his huge ecclesi
astical province.3
Besides this revival of synodal activity, the carrying out of
visitations in the parishes was also due to the exhortations
of Pius V., who, in his ardent zeal for reform, left no means
untried in order to remove the great evils that existed by
bringing strong pressure to bear upon the prelates who were
responsible.4 In June 1568 the Archbishop of Salzburg and
all his suffragans were asked to make a visitation of their
dioceses, and in July the Archbishop of Prague was urged to
give effect to the decrees of Trent by means of a provincial
synod and visitations.5 When, in the autumn of the same
divino fretus auxilio efficias, etiam atque etiam suademus ac
studiose adhortamur." Original in the Consistorial Archives,
Salzburg, where there is also much correspondence on the subject
of the synod of 1569. The brief exhorting to a reform of morals,
dated June 17, 1566, which was read at the synod, is in Arm. 44,
t. 12, n. 76, Papal Secret Archives.
1 See HARTZHEIM, Cone. Germ., VII., 290 seq. Cf. WIEDE-
MANN, I., 258 seq. SCHWARZ, Briefwechsel, 169 ; HUBNER in
Deutsche Geschichtsbldtter, XII., 112 seq. For the examination
and confirmation of the decrees on the part of the Holy See see
SCHELLHASS, Nuntiaturberichte, sect. 3, Vol. III., xv.
8 See LADERCHI, 1571, n. 66 seq.
3 See THEINER, Annales eccl., I., 1572, n. 6.
4 See SCHWARZ, Akten der Visitation, xxxiii.
8 See LADERCHI, 1568, n. 92, 95.
294 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
year, he asked for the help of the Spanish king to hold Maxi
milian II. back from capitulating to the Protestant nobles,
the Pope also had recourse to the three ecclesiastical Electors.
In briefs addressed to them he not only urged the erection
of seminaries according to the prescriptions of the Council of
Trent, but also the carrying out of a visitation of the parishes.1
In the visitations which he had himself made in Austria, Passau
and Salzburg,2 Commendone had shown the procedure to be
adopted in such matters. The first of the bishops of western
Germany to reply to the Pope's request was the Elector of
Cologne in 1569 ;3 he probably wished in so doing to placate
the Pope, who was thinking of taking stern measures because
Salentin was refusing to make the Tridentine profession of
faith or to receive priest's orders.4 At the same time Jakob
von Eltz, Archbishop of Treves, held a visitation of all the
parishes in his principality ;5 like the Archbishops of Mayence
and Prague,6 he earned high praise both from the Pope and
the nuncio Biglia on account of his strictly ecclesiastical
1 See SCHWARZ, loc. tit., xxxiv.
*C/. supra, p. 268.
8 See SCHWARZ, Die Kirchliche Visitation des Westes Reck-
linghausen in Westfdl. Zeiischrift, XX., Miinster, 1911.
* See LOSSEN, 53 seq. ; SCHWARZ, Briefwechsel, 166 seq.
* See HCLLEN, Erste tridentin. Visitation im Erzstift Trier
in Trier er Archiv 9 and 10. The protocols of the visitation in
the archdeaconry of Longuyon (1570) in HEYDINGER, Archi-
diaconatus tit. S. Agathes in Longuiono, TreVes, 1884. Briefs
of praise and encouragement to Eltz, September 23, 1569, in
LADERCHI, 1569, n. 226.
8 See the *letter from the Secretary of State to Biglia of August
16, 1570, Nunziat. di Germania, 67, p. 129, Papal Secret Archives ;
the Pope's joy at the action taken by the Archbishops of TreVes
and Mayence ; ibid. *report of Biglia from Spires on August 17,
1570, concerning the intention of the Archbishop of Prague to
reform the convents. In a * brief of June 24, 1570, Pius V.
praised the pastoral zeal of the Archbishop of Prague and ex
horted him to persevere (Arm. 44, t. 15, p. I57b, Papal Secret
Archives). The Pope had urged action in Prague as early
as 1568 ; see LADERCHI, 1568, n. 95.
VISITATIONS. 295
conduct in the matter of the Tridentine reforms.1 His ex
ample soon found imitators in the north-west of Germany ;
on July ist, 1571, Johann von Hoya, Prince-Bishop of Minister,
who was loyally attached to the Church, arranged for the
visitation of all the clergy in his diocese.2 It was about the
same time that the visitation of the diocese of Constance
which had been ordered by Cardinal Mark Sittich was begun.3
All this was undoubtedly a beginning of great promise,
but how much hard work still remained to be done is best
shown by the deplorable state of affairs which these visita
tions revealed. A whole ten years was to elapse, and a new
generation had to spring up before the ideals which Pius V.
had before his eyes could be realized. Knowing well that
everything depended upon the formation of a good clergy,
the Pope never ceased to urge the establishment of seminaries,
a necessity which was particularly well understood by Otto
Truchsess and William Russinowsky, Bishop of Olmutz ;
Russinowsky placed the seminaries which he set up in Olmutz
and Briinn under the cares of the Jesuits.4 In some places
the colleges of that Order served as preparatory schools, and
in others, under certain conditions, were equivalent to
seminaries.
The Jesuits were supported and recommended by the Pope
in every possible way.5 On many occasions he praised the
1 See *Nunziat di Germania, 67, p. 129, 179, 233, Papal Secret
Archives. For the reforming activity of the archbishop and his
action against Protestantism in his archdiocese see MARX, Gesch.
des Erzstift Trier, I., Troves, 1858, 388 seq.
1 See SCHWARZ, p. xxxvi. seq. of the introduction to his ex
cellent edition of the acta of the visitation of the diocese of Miinster
in 1571-1573. For Hoya see SCHWARZ in Westfdl. Zeitschrift,
LXIX., 1 6 seq.
8 See Zeitschrift fiir Gesch. des Oberrheins, N.S. XXV., 129 seq.
* See THEINER, Bildungsanstalten, 146.
5 See BRAUNSBERGER, Pius V., 35 seq., 82 seq. For the spread
and activity of the Order of the Jesuits in Germany see JANNSEN-
PASTOR, IV.15'16, 414 seq. and DUHR, I. When we treat of
Gregory XIII. we shall return to the revival of Catholic life in
296 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
services which they were rendering to the Church in those
stormy times, not only by their educational work, but also by
their piety, their charity and their blameless lives.1
The Society of Jesus found its greatest development in
Bavaria, upon the Duke of which country the Pope had every
reason to look with special love.2 Even in the time of Pius IV.
Albert V. of Bavaria had slowly entered upon the ways of
Catholic reform, and he proceeded more and more definitely
along the same way during the pontificate ol Pius V., and in
so doing he found great help in the concessions which had been
made by the Holy See to the Bavarian government in the
XVth century, by means of which the civil power was able
to exercise great influence even in ecclesiastical matters,
especially in the matter of particular visitations. Such visi
tations, as well as special missions and mandates were now
employed in order to purge the duchy of all religious suspects.
Anyone who proved obstinate was forced to go into banish
ment ; this was actually in conformity with the religious
peace of Augsburg, from which hitherto hardly any but the
Protestant princes had profited. The penalty of banishment
also fell upon ecclesiastical concubinists, a thing which the
Catholic reforming activity of Albert V. made to serve a
double purpose ; not only was Protestantism to be stamped
out in Bavaria, but at the same time abuses within the Church
were to be removed, and new life infused into the almost ex
hausted Catholic spirit. Since experience had shown that
the concession of the chalice to the laity had brought various
difficulties in its train, it was abolished in 1571. The efforts
of the government to bring back unity of faith and to reform
the clergy were crowned by a rigorous censorship of books
south Germany, a subject as to which plentiful material is to be
found in the correspondence of Peter Canisius, so splendidly
edited by Braunsberger.
1 See LADERCHI, 1568 n. 106.
2 Pius V. praised Albert V. as early as 1566 ; see PFLEGER,
Eisengrein, 50. The powerful chancellor of the Duke received
a brief of praise in 1567 ; see GOUBAU, 24 seq.
CATHOLIC RESTORATION IN BAVARIA. 297
and zealous care for ensuring sound Catholic instruction.
At the head of this great system of Catholic restoration there
was placed a special vigilance committee, a commission of
ecclesiastics, to which many theological advisers were at
tached.1 The victory of Catholic restoration in Bavaria was
practically ensured even in the life time of Pius V.
The Archduke Ferdinand II. in the Tyrol2 and Lower
Austria3 acted in a similar way to Albert V., as did several
bishops of south Germany such as Otto Truchsess of Augs
burg,4 Urban of Passau,5 Martin of Eichstatt,6 and Frederick
of Wiirzburg.7 At the beginning of the seventh decade of the
century a change in favour of Catholicism was also to be seen
at the court of Cleves.8 It was of great importance when,
stirred by the example of Albert V., the Prince- Abbot of
Fulda, Balthasar von Dernbach, immediately after his election
on January 25th, 1570, resolutely proclaimed himself a cham
pion of Catholic reform.9 About the same time, with the
1 See RITTER, I., 300 seq. ; RIEZLER, IV., 544 seq. ; JANNSEN-
PASTOR, IV.15'16, 464 seq.
* Cf. HIRN. Erzherzog Ferdinand I., 159 seq., 210 seq., 262 seq.
Additions in Vol. VI. of Canisii Epist. In 1568 Pius V. honoured
Ferdinand by sending him the blessed hat still preserved in the
Court Museum, Vienna ; see BOHEIM, Album der Waffensammlung
des Kaiserhauses, Vienna, 1894, 7, tav. 27, i.
9 Cf. GFRORER, Die kathol. Kirche im osterreich. Elsass unter
Erzeherzog Ferdinand II., in Zeitschrift fur Gesch. des Oberrheins,
N.S. X., 481 seqq.
4 Cf. BRAUN, Gesch. der Bischofe von Augsburg, III., 469 seq. ;
SPECHT, 63 seq., 68 seq. ; Allgem. deutsche Biographic, XXIV.,
634 seq. By a "bull of July 9, 1560, Otto was appointed " legatus
in ecclesia et dioec. August." : Cod. Vatic. 7160, p. 230 seq. ;
Vatican Library.
6 See SCHMIDLIN, 191 seq.
6 Sec ibid. 263 seq.
7 See BRAUN, Gesch. der Heranbildung des Klerus in Wiirzburg
I., Mayence, 1897, 124 seq., 151 seq.
8 See KELLER, 36 seq.
9 For B. von Dernbach see a future volume of this work,
VOL. XVIII. 21
298 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
direct co-operation of the Duke of Bavaria,1 the restoration
of the Catholic Church in the margravate of Baden was also
brought about.2
As had been the case in Bavaria, so in Fulda and Baden as
well, an essential part in the work of carrying out Catholic
reform fell to the Society of Jesus, the members of which dis
played a truly Catholic activity in every way, especially in the
pastoral office and in giving instruction.3 They had a great
share in restoring the authority of the Papacy which had been
so seriously shaken in Germany ; as the archduchesses Mag
dalen, Margaret and Helena reported to Pius V. from Inns
bruck, the Jesuits were entirely devoted to the Holy See.4
In this respect no one did more than the humble religious,
Canisius, who had firmly established the Society of Jesus at
Prague and Ingolstadt in 1556, at Munich in 1559, at Inns
bruck in 1562, at Wiirzburg in 1567, at Halle in 1569, and had
also arranged in 1563 that the university at Dillingen should
be entrusted to it. His catechism was in itself a bulwark
against all the enemies of the Papacy. The letters, discourses
and sermons of this holy priest, who, fully conscious of the
gravity of the situation, devoted all his strength to unwearied
apostolic labours, all breathe the deepest love and reverence
for the Holy See. " That power," Canisius wrote, " which,
Christ in unmistakable words conferred on the Apostle Peter
is the greatest that can be given to anyone on earth. It is our
intention to recognize this, and to hold this power in great
honour. He who does not take his stand upon this rock, may
be a reed, but he is not a true Christian."5
1 See the * brief of Pius V. to the Bishop of Spires, dated Febru
ary 2, 1572, Archives of Briefs, Rome.
* Cf. ScHftpFMN, Hist. Zahringo-Badensis, III., 53 seq. ;
THEINER, Annales eccles., I., 1572, n. 5 ; VIERORDT, Gesch. der
evangel. Kirche in Baden, II. (1856), 45 seq. ; DUHR, I., 402 seq.
3 Cf. especially DUHR, I. See also RIEZLER, IV., 561 seq. ;
VI., 254, 285 seq.
4 See LADERCHI, 1566, n. 317.
5 See CANISII Epist., III., 331. For the sermons of Canisius
about the Pope see BRAUNSBERGER, Pius V., 54 seq.
THE WORK OF CANISIUS. 299
In 1568 Pius V. had the intention of rewarding the loyalty
and self-denial with which Canisius had worked for so many
years, by conferring upon him the purple, but he abandoned
the idea at the request of the humble religious. From a record
found later on it is clear that if he had been granted longer life
the Pope would certainly have obliged " the apostle of Ger
many " to accept the high dignity.1 In many documents
Pius V. gave recognition to the services which the Society of
Jesus had rendered by its unwearied zeal to the salvation of
souls. In a brief of May 2ist, 1568 he declares that in those
stormy times he looked upon the Order as a work of the
special providence of God.2
1 See BRAUNSBERGER, loc. cit. 100 seq. Cf. CANISII Epist., VI.,
73-1 seq.
1 See LADERCHI, 1568, n. 74. Cf. DUHR, I., 843 seq.
CHAPTER VIII.
RELIGIOUS CONDITIONS IN POLAND AND SWITZERLAND. —
FOREIGN MISSIONS.
HOWEVER much the state of religion in Germany and France
occupied the attention of Pius V., he did not, in his pastoral
care, lose sight of the dangers threatening the Church in the
eastern part of Europe.
In the great kingdom of Poland separation from the Church
and the establishment of a national Polish church had been
averted by the acceptance by the king of the decrees of the
Council and the temporary prevention of the divorce of Sigis-
mund Augustus, but the religious crisis had by no means been
averted. While the followers of the new beliefs were stirring
up a strong agitation, many of the bishops and priests con
tinued in their policy of inaction, and many of them were
leading lives that were not only unspiritual, but also un-
ecclesiastical. In many places there was a scarcity of priests.
The possibility of the king's divorce still hung like a threaten
ing cloud over the Polish Catholics, who, owing to the weak
ness of the government, found themselves as much exposed
as ever to every kind of insult and attack.1 Thus the task
1 Cf. EICHHORN, II., 237 seqq., 337 seqq. ; BERGA, Skarga, 141.
For M. Cromer cf. EICHHORN in Zeitschriftfur Gesch. Ermlands, IV.
(1868), i seqq. and THIELUI Kirchenlex. of Freiburg, III., 1195 seqq.
The Polish envoy for the obedientia (cf. GRATIANI Epist., 254, 259)
did not dare to bring forward the question of the divorce. Pius V.
mentioned this circumstance to Arco, saying that otherwise he
would have given him an answer " che mai piii il Re havrebbe
avuto ardire di muoverne parola." (*letter of A/co of February
22, 1567, State Archives, Vienna). M. A. Mureti Oratio ad
Pium V. nomine Sigismundi Augusti Poloniae regis, made on
January 15, 1567, was printed in Rome in 1567.
300
THE NUNCIO RUGGIERI. 30 1
which fell to the lot of the distinguished Giulio Ruggieri,1
who had been appointed nuncio in Poland by Pius IV., and
immediately confirmed by Pius V., was no light one. Rug
gieri had first to go to Augsburg to consult with the Cardinal
legate, Commendone, who was so well informed in Polish
affairs, concerning the questions at issue, especially the king's
divorce.2
The instructions given to Ruggieri in March, 1566, warned
him to bear in mind always how many enemies the Pope had
in Poland ; his representative must therefore be very careful
to behave very prudently himself, and to see to the exemplary
conduct of his suite. The principal duties entrusted to the
nuncio by Pius V. were : to remind the king of the promise
he had made to Commendone to take action against the
heretics at the end of the war, and to revoke the decree of
1563 restricting the liberties of the Church ; to see to the carry
ing out of the decrees of Trent, and lastly to undertake a
reform of the monasteries. In everything Ruggieri was to take
counsel, not only with Commendone, but also with Cardinal
Hosius and the learned Martin Cromer. Pius V.'s zeal for
ecclesiastical reform runs through the whole of the instructions.
The nuncio was ordered very particularly to urge the bishops
to adopt the reform decrees of Trent, and to induce them
personally to visit their dioceses, and to take action against
heretical books ; with regard to the duty of residence they
must not overstep the two years' limit which had been allowed
by Pius IV. Ruggieri must always bear in mind that, sent
as he was to help the Catholic religion, he was bound to see
that the decrees of Trent were carried out, and not to allow
the introduction of the least change in religion, or in ritual
and ceremonial. Pius V. expressly declared that he would
never allow communion under both kinds or the marriage of
1 Cardinal Madruzzo praises him as " virtuoso et buono " in a
letter to Commendone of March 25, 1566, Lett, di princ., XXV.
67, Papal Secret Archives. Confirmation of his appointment
followed on March 2, 1568 ; see Vol. XVII. App., n. 68.
* Cf. ElCHHORN, II., 247; BlAUDET, 112.
302 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
priests. The nuncio was further exhorted to get into touch
with all personages of distinction and with learned Catholics,
whom the Pope would gladly recompense.1
Ruggieri, who reached Poland in the middle of June, 1566,
was a witness of the deplorable want of unity among the
Polish episcopate at the stormy Diet of Lublin. It was not to
be wondered at that no advantage was taken of the divisions
among the Protestants, and that the Diet came to an end
without any gain to the Catholic cause.2 In consequence of
this Ruggieri and Hosius first devoted themselves to healing
the acrimonious dispute between Archbishop Uchanski of
Gnesen and Bishop Wolski of Cujavia, as well as to the holding
of a provincial synod for the carrying out of the reform decrees
of Trent.
Both these questions were matters of great concern to
Pius V. Since, in view of the shifty character of Uchanski,
there was reason to fear that the provincial synod might
develop into a national council, the Pope, in December, 1566.
appointed Hosius his legatus de latere for that assembly and
for the whole kingdom of Poland.3 The dispute between the
two prelates was eventually settled, but the holding of the
synod had to be postponed.4
In the summer of 1567 an event occurred which caused much
harm to the Catholic cause in Poland. The Bishop of Funf-
kirchen, Andreas Dudith, who had been appointed Imperial
ambassador at the court of Sigismund Augustus, and had
already drawn attention to himself at the Council of Trent
1 The terms of the instructions in the Papal Secret Archives,
Varia polit., 81 (now 82), p. 295-301, and in the Graziani Archives
at Citt& di Castello.
• See EICHHORN, II., 241 seqq.t 247, 249, 251. The briefs of
Pius V. to the Polish bishops in relation to the Diet in THEINER,
Mon. Pol., II., 723 seq.
3 See LADERCHI, 1566, n. 342 ; EHRENBERG, 231 seq. ; EICH
HORN, II., 279 seq. ; cf. 289 seq. for the plenary powers of Hosius,
and the difficulties he met with.
* Cf. LADERCHI, 1566, n. 342 ; THEINER, Mon. Pol., II., 726
seq. ; EICHHORN, II., 251, 254.
REPORT OF RUGGIERI. 303
by his great eloquence, and his unecclesiastical views, broke
his vows, married one of the court ladies of the Queen of
Poland, and embraced Protestantism. Pius V. did not delay in
taking action : he issued a monitorium, pronounced excommuni
cation on the apostate, and demanded his recall from Poland. '•
The nuncio Ruggieri, whose duty it was to present and press
this just demand of the Pope, found himself involved thereby
in many difficulties and anxieties. When he was recalled at
the beginning of 1568, he drew up for the Pope's information
a full report, which, after the manner of the Venetian reports,
contains a detailed description of the kingdom of Poland,
and an interesting account of its political, economic and
religious condition.2
1 Cf. the "instructions for Ruggieri of August 23 and 30, 1567,
Nunziat. di Polonia, I.k 31, 34 seqq., Papal Secret Archives ;
POGIANI, Epist., IV., 199 seqq., 249 seqq. ; EICHHORN, II., 255 seqq.
See also STIEFF, Versuch einer Geschichte vom Leben und den
Glaubensmeinungen A. Dudiths, Breslau, 1756.
8 *Relatione data al S.S.N.P. Pio V. da Mons. Giulio Ruggieri
prot. apost. etc. 1568, Corsini Library, Rome, 35 B. 9, p. 165^225
(cf. LAMMER, Zur Kirchengeschichte, 145) ; the manuscript is
also to be found fairly frequently elsewhere, as in the Vatican
Library, Vatic. 5914, p. 275 seq., Ottob. 2433, p. 178 seq., and
3184, p. 40 seq., Urb. 823, p. 247 seq. and 855, p. 326 seq. ; Casana-
tense Library, Rome (see FABISZA, 161) ; National Library,
Florence, Bibl. Magliabecchiana (see CIAMPI, II., 37) ; Ambrosiana
Library, Milan, Q. 120, p. i seq. ; National Library, Naples,
X.G. 15, p. I seq. ; Court Library, Vienna, 6519, p. no seq.
(extract) ; Bibliotheque Nationale, Paris (see MARSAND, I.,
664 seq.) ', ibid. (St. Germain, 280) a *Discorso di Msgr. G.
Ruggieri intorno agli aiuti di Poloma a favore della s. lega contro
il Turco, addressed to Pius V. The Polish translation of Rug-
gieri's report in Relacye, I., 165 seq. is incomplete : the clause is
missing in which Ruggieri says that he will report other matters
to Pius V. orally, which shows that Pierling's statement (Rome
et Moscou, 64), that the report was written in Rome after his
return, is erroneous. There is also an extract from the report in
JORGA, Actes relat. a 1'hist. des Roumains, I., Bucarest, 1895, 14.
Cf. also GRATIANUS, De scriptis invita Minerva, II., 172.
304 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
Ruggieri's opinion of the king's attitude towards religion
is anything but favourable. It was true that Sigismund
Augustus had not departed in any single point from the
Church, but at the same time he left a good deal to be desired
in the matter of his reception of the sacraments, and his
attendance at sermons and mass ; a greater zeal on his part
for the honour of God and the salvation of his subjects would
have been well in his case.
In his minute account of the religious conditions in the
Polish kingdom Ruggieri shows that only one province, that
of Masowien, had been kept free from heresy, and was indeed
as Catholic as Italy. In all the other provinces the new religion
had made headway, although, especially in the case of the
common people, the number of the Catholics was greater than
that of the Protestants. Nor were there wanting among the
Catholics many who remained firmly attached to the old faith
with the loyalty for which at one time Poland had been dis
tinguished. Ruggieri compared the varied conglomeration
of sects in Poland to the confusion of tongues in Babel. Every
error in the world was being preached there, the fugitives from
Italy, Germany and Geneva all found refuge there. Lutheran-
ism was specially rife in Greater Poland and Prussia, but was
now beginning to wane ; Calvinism had always been most
widely spread in Little Poland and Lithuania, although both
Lutherans and Calvinists were being driven out by other sects,
especially the Antitrinitarians and Anabaptists.
In accounting for the reasons for the religious changes
Ruggieri puts in the first place those which had also opened
the way to Protestantism in other countries. Besides the
greed of the laity for Church property, he names above all
the negligence and bad example of the higher clergy, and the
decline of monastic discipline. Ruggieri refuses to accept the
excuse offered by the king that he had not sufficient authority
to deal with the powerful nobles, because, in Lithuania, where
this was certainly not the case, things were even worse than in
Poland. The nuncio rightly attaches the greatest importance
to the habitual inobservance throughout the kingdom of the
existing laws, so much so that there was a proverb to the effect
REPORT OF RUGGIERI. 305
that they only lasted for three days. To this were to be added
the continual wars with Russia, which completely absorbed
the king's energies, his political consideration for the nobles
who had adopted the new religion, and his natural disinclina
tion for any kind of severity.
Ruggieri's suggestions as to the means to be adopted to
restore the Catholic Church in Poland are very interesting.
In the first place he shows how necessary it was that there
should always be at the court a representative of the Pope,
who should exhort the king to do his duty for his own ad
vantage. It was because this had not been the case that
the religious innovations had made such rapid strides. When
Paul IV. had remedied this by sending Lippomano, the move
ment towards apostasy had gradually come to a standstill.
It was therefore very necessary that there should always be a
nuncio in Poland, and to fill that office only the best men
should be chosen, men who, themselves completely disinter
ested and upright, could stand forth as solid walls of the house
of God, reminding the king and the prelates of their duty,
and promoting the Catholic religion in every way. With
regard to benefices, Ruggieri warns the Pope to be very carefu
only to give them in future to worthy and deserving men
this applied especially to the canonries of Cracow, since the
greater number of the bishops were drawn from that chapter.
In this connection Ruggieri urged that the greater number of
the sons of the nobles should be taken to Rome to be educated,
so that they might afterwards become a leaven in their own
country.
Ruggieri did not fail to realize how much the restoration of
the Catholic Church depended upon the king. It was there
fore necessary, he thought, to insist that Sigismund Augustus
should nominate as candidates for the episcopal sees men
who were not only Catholics, but also zealous Catholics, and
in every way suitable for the office, and that he should bestow
all the great offices of the kingdom on men of proved Catholic
views, and at the same time remove from among his entourage
all the adherents of the reformed religion. The bishops, more
over, must in quite a special degree be a light to their flocks
306 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
by their good example ; it was in their power to exercise an
infinitely great influence by the formation of a new generation
of young and worthy ecclesiastics,1 and by giving their help
to zealous pastors, preachers, teachers and writers.
Ruggieri was convinced that in this way a complete revival
of the Catholic Church was possible, and that this would lead
to the complete suppression of heresy, since the movement
towards apostasy had passed its zenith, even though it had not
as yet come to an end. During the period of his nunciature,
which had only lasted a year and six months, at least ten
thousand persons had returned to the Catholic faith,2 while
the breaking up of the Protestants into sects, all quarrelling
with each other, was increasing from day to day. It was with
satisfaction that Ruggieri could point to the restoration of the
Catholic religion at Elbing and Dantzig which had been
effected during his nunciature with the king's help. The
sermons of the Dominicans were in great request at Dantzig,
while the Jesuits were very active at Elbing. In other places
as well the Jesuits were exercising a useful influence, as for
example at Braunsberg, where the first Jesuit college in the
kingdom of Poland had been established in 1565, which had
been followed, besides that at Elbing, by those at Pultusk
(1566), Jaroslaw (1568) and Wilna (isyo).3 The activities of
so extraordinarily vigorous an Order filled the nuncio with
joyful expectations. He mentioned the fact, which is also
confirmed from other sources, that even Protestant parents
entrusted their sons to the educational establishments of the
Jesuits, and he very rightly built great hopes for the future
on the youth who were there being educated in a strictly
1 Hosius had already established a seminary at Braunsberg
in 1567 ; see EICHHORN, II., 297.
* Among those who were rescued for the Church were the four
sons of Nicholas Radziwill, in which conversion the famous
preacher Peter Skarga had a great part ; the latter entered the
Jesuit Order in 1568. See Kirchenlexikon of Freiburg, XI.2, 388,
and Rom. Ouartalschrift, XXV., 57* seq. ; cf. BERGA, Skarga,
163 seq.
8 See ZALESKI, I., i, 150 .r :., 169 seq., 175 seq., 212 seq.
RUGGIERI SUCCEEDED BY PORTICO. 307
Catholic spirit. Negotiations were even going on, he adds, for
the establishment of another college at Posen, and it was to
be hoped that other cities would follow this example, to the
salvation of the kingdom and the Catholic faith, which would
certainly have a brighter future, if only the necessary steps
were taken.1
Ruggieri's suggestions entirely coincided with the ideas of
Pius V., who never wearied of encouraging the Polish bishops
to the observance of the decrees of Trent, and especially to the
reform of the clergy, the holding of provincial synods, and the
establishment of ecclesiastical seminaries.2
Vincenzo de Portico was appointed nuncio to Poland in
succession to Ruggieri.3 This diplomatist, who reached
Cracow at the beginning of July, 1568, had been specially
instructed to press for the assembly of a provincial synod in
accordance, with the prescriptions of Trent ; he soon, however,
found himself obliged to desist from his efforts owing to the
shifty behaviour of Uchanski.4 As representative of the Pope,
1 *Relatione etc., see supra p. 303, -n. 2. For the activity
of the Jesuits see SACCHINI, P. III., i, i, n. 106 seqq., i. 4, in
176 seq., I, 6, n 101 seqq. ; DUHR, I., 179 seqq., 434 seqq. ; ZIVIER,
I., 770 seq. ; ZALESKI, I., i, 375 seq.
2 See the briefs in GOUBAU, 123 seq., 214 seq. and THEINER,
Mon. Pol. II., 725, 726, 730, 735. The letter of Stanislaus Carri-
covius, Bishop of Cujavia, to Pius V. concerning the acceptance
of the Tridentine decrees by his clergy, and the erection of a
diocesan seminary, in LADERCHI, 1568, n. 19. On June 12, 1570
*instructions were sent to the nuncio in Poland to take care that
the bishops of the kingdom observed the decrees of the Council
of Trent ; see Nunziat. di Polonia, I., 72, Papal Secret Archives.
3 Cf. LADERCHI, 1568, n. 148 ; THEINER, Mon. Pol., II., 728
seq. ; EICHHORN, II., 343. Ruggieri had already asked for his
recall in April 1567 ; see Relacye, I., 216 seq. Reports of Portico
in THEINER loc. cit. 770 seqq. He too drew up a report of his
nunciature ; see PIERLING, Rome et Moscou, 64. Ibid, his
instructions. A letter from Pius V. to Hosius, of February 18,
1568, says that he had told Portico to trust the advice of Hosius ;
see EHRENBERG, Ostpreussen, 39 seq.
4 See LADERCHI, 1568, n. 148.
308 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
Portico was present at the Diet of Lublin, which was opened
in December, 1568, and at which, by the request of the Pope,1
Hosius also was present in February, 1569. The Pope had
spared no efforts in seriously exhorting the king and the
bishops not to make any concessions to the Protestants, and
to defend the cause of the Church.2 Cardinal Hosius took a
leading part in the discussions of the Diet, and as long as he
was present the Protestants did not dare to make any move.
It was only after his departure that they put forward their
demands, but even then they did not meet with any success.3
On August i8th, 1569, Portico was able to report to Morone
the results of the Diet, at which the union of Lithuania to
the crown of Poland had been brought about.4 Nothing had
been said about ecclesiastical matters at the Diet, so that no
decision had been come to, either by way of concession to the in
novators, or with regard to the holding of a national council.5
Cardinal Hosius left the Diet before its close, in order to
go once more to Rome. After placing the administration of
his diocese in the hands of his learned and energetic friend
Cromer, in August, 1569, he began his journey to the Eternal
City, where he arrived on November 8th.6 The Cardinal was
1 THEINER, Mon. Pol., II., 735.
* See LADERCHI, 1569, n. 235 seq., 245 seq. ; THEINER, Mon.
Pol., II., 732, 735 seq,
8 See EICHHORN, II., 343 seq., 347.
4 Pius V.'s congratulatory letter on this event, of July 22, 1569,
in LADERCHI, 1569, n. 264 ; ibid. 266 seq. briefs concerning the
conversion of two eminent Poles. The protest made by the
nuncio by command of Pius V. against the investiture of Prussia
which had been conferred on the son of Albert of Brandenburg,
in THEINER, loc. cit. 470; cf. CATENA, no.
6 Relayce, I., 218-219.
•See EICHHORN, II., 360 seq., 366. On November 15, 1569,
Hosius was received in the consistory ; cf. KORZENIOWSKI, 115.
The unaccustomed climate of Rome did not suit the Cardinal ;
in the summer of 1570 he suffered much from fever. Cf. the
*letters from Hosius to Commendone, dated Rome, July 12,
August 12 and 24, and September 23, 1570. Graziani Archives,
Citt& di Castello.
CARDINAL HOSIUS. 309
not destined to see his diocese again, but even at a distance he
had every care for its welfare. The principal object of his
journey to Rome had been to arrange, at the request of King
Sigismund Augustus, the disputes of the latter with Philip II.
concerning the rich inheritance in south Italy of his mother,
Bona Sforza, a matter which had already engaged the atten
tion of Pius V.1 Hosius was no diplomatist, and so it is not
surprising that he did not meet with much success in that
difficult business.2
His letters show what a lively interest Hosius took in the
religious condition of the Polish kingdom while he was in
Rome. As the Lutherans, Calvinists and Bohemian Brothers
had joined together in a federal union at Sandomir in April,
1570, the Catholic party were awaiting with the greatest
anxiety the coming Diet at Warsaw, and indeed that assembly
resulted in stormy discussions.3 The Protestants claimed
religious liberty for all, but were met by the strong opposition
of the senate, which was for the most part Catholic. No
decision was therefore arrived at.4 The danger, however,
was not removed, since the dissolution of the Diet, after
arriving at an ambiguous resolution, left the way open for
iurther demands. Hosius bitterly condemned this ambiguity
in a letter to Uchanski. Why not openly declare, he said,
that they intended to remain true to the faith of their fathers,
and that they were ready to sacrifice their blood and their
lives, rather than deviate by a finger's breadth from it ? Such
language on the part of the king and the Catholic senators
would stifle all disturbances in a moment. Instead of that
they preferred to talk about religious concord, as though it
were possible to come to an agreement with men who were
quarrelling among themselves like the heroes of Homer.
Uchanski should therefore advise the king openly to profess
1 See Corresp. dipl., II., 30, 146 seq., 466. For the Sforza
inheritance cf. BIAUDET, Le Saint-Siege et la Suede, L, Paris,
1907, 5n seq. ; EICHHORN, I., 315.
* Cf. EICHHORN, II., 369 seq., 403 seq., 407 seq.
'See ZIVIER, I., 766 seq. ; BERGA, Skarga, 175.
4 ZIVIER, I., 767 seq.
310 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
the faith of his fathers, and give his representatives at the
Diet instructions to allow no discussion of religious questions,
since the decision of such matters belonged to the Pope alone. J
Hosius also had recourse on this subject to the magnates
of the Kingdom of Poland and to the king himself, adjuring
them to defend the Catholic religion. His letter to Sigismund
Augustus is certainly not wanting in courage. In it he com
ments on the king's inclination to hold a national council, and
tries to dissuade him from this by pointing to events in France.
Then he goes on to urge the king again and again to entrust
the great offices of state to none but tried Catholics. On
September gth, 1571, in grave words, he calls the king's atten
tion to the harm which a policy of concession to the religious
innovators had done in France, and points out how signs
of a similar revolt against the royal authority had already
made their appearance in Poland.2
The anxiety and fears for the future of the kingdom which
comes out in these letters were more than justified in the event.
Affairs in Poland were visibly taking a more and more
dangerous direction. From the spring of 1571 onwards in
creasingly definite rumours were spread in Italy to the effect
that King Sigismund Augustus had again taken up his former
design of breaking off his marriage with Queen Catherine, who
was said to be suffering from epilepsy. Later it was stated
that the king intended to have his marriage declared null by
the coming Diet, and then, in order to give his declaration the
appearance of legality, to change his religion. According to
other accounts the King of Poland flattered himself with the
vain hope that the Pope would dissolve his marriage. Where
as hitherto the Catholic Poles had maintained an attitude
of hostility towards the project of a divorce, they now dared
make no opposition. The nobility, however, who were
adherents of the new religion, in the hope of obtaining religious
liberty, promised the king not only their own support but
also that of the Protestant princes of Germany. It was
1 See EICHHORN, II., 411 seq., 414.
' Ibid. 418 seq.
WEAKNESS OF PORTICO. 311
uncertain how far the king had already compromised in this
matter. In any case there was the greatest possible danger
that, thanks to the divorce, he would rush headlong into
Protestantism.1
The state of affairs was made even worse by the conduct of
Portico, who was by no means fit for his difficult office, and
sought to cover up his own weakness by sending optimistic
reports. By his easy-going courtiership he had succeeded in
winning the favour of the king to such an extent that the
latter on several occasions endeavoured to obtain the purple
for his favourite. The same thing was aimed at in Portico's
accounts of the improved state of affairs in Poland, accounts
which were by no means in accordance with the truth. The
king's interposition was of no use to Portico ; their informa
tion was good in Rome and they were well aware how danger
ous the state of the kingdom was, and that the king was leading
an immoral life, and was pressing forward his divorce plans
more than ever.2
Under these circumstances it was fortunate that the Pope
should have been able to entrust the care of matters in Poland
to a man of such experience and with such a knowledge of
1 Nicholas Cromer had already pointed out grave causes for
anxiety on April 20 and May 27 in letters to Martin Cromer
(EICHHORN, II., 420). These were confirmed in a *letter from
M. A. Graziani to Commendone, dated Padua, May 21, 1571,
Graziani Archives, Citta di Castello. Other and more definite
information in the Venez. Depeschen, III., 519 seq., where there
are also particulars of the mission of the Jesuit L. Maggio, who
prudently kept back the brief published in CATENA, 309 seq.
See further the *reports of Commendone to the Bishop of Torcello
and to Cardinal Rusticucci, both dated November 27, 1571,
Graziani Archives, Citta di Castello.
2 Cf. EICHHORN, II., 421 seq. Portico had on his own initiative
entered into negotiations with Sweden, where Queen Catherine
was a Catholic. A Jesuit was to have been sent there ; of.
LADERCHI, 1570, n. 273 seq. But Pius V., knowing that the
queen communicated " sub utraque," ordered Portico to break
off all relations ; see BIAUDET, 27.
312 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
conditions in that country as Commendone.1 On November
27th, 1571, the legate crossed the Polish frontier. Travelling
through districts that were plague stricken, and by frozen
roads, he hastened at once to Warsaw, which he reached on
January 7th, 1572. 2 The king, who was suffering from gout,
received him honourably and graciously. The legate at once
brought forward the question, not only of the league against
the Turks, but also of the rumours that were current about
the divorce. In eloquent words he set before Sigismund
Augustus the sanctity of the marriage bond, and told him
how impossible it was that the Pope should agree to the
divorce. The author of the whole business, as Commendone
quickly realized, was the faithless Archbishop of Gnesen,
Uchanski, who had not changed his character.3
At Commendone 's request Portico, who had great influence
with the king, endeavoured to move the sovereign from his
fatal purpose, but in vain. On March 3rd, 1572, Commendone
reported to Rome that, although he had several times spoken
with all possible frankness to the king about the divorce, the
latter adhered to his plan, and that as the time of the Diet
was now at hand, when the matter would in all probability
be discussed, he had renewed his remonstrances and had en
deavoured especially to deprive the king of any excuse for
saying that he did not know that the Pope could not grant
the divorce. In clear words he told the king to his face that
his marriage was a true sacrament and was quite indissoluble,
and that neither the Pope nor anyone else could alter that
fact. He must give up the idea of the divorce as something
unattainable, and must not plunge his kingdom into incalcul
able difficulties. In his interview Commendone reminded
the king of the case of Henry VIII. of England, who after
his divorce had never had an hour's peace, nor children in
1 Cf. BERGA, Skarga, 177.
*See Venez. Depeschen, III., 501, n. 2 ; GRATIANUS, III., 9.
* See the "reports of Commendone to Cardinal Rusricucci,
dated Warsaw, January 16 and 24, 1572 (the latter in cypher).
Graziani Archives, Citta di Castello. For the conduct of Uchanski
cf. also ZIVIER, I., 781 seq.
COMMENDONE IN POLAND. 313
spite of all his wives. Sigismund Augustus replied that he did
not wish to become a Henry VIII., and still less a heretic, and
that in all probability the matter would not be brought up
for discussion at the Diet ; to this Commendone objected that
it was not in His Majesty's power to prevent it.1 The nuncio
united his remonstrances to those of the legate. Suddenly
and unexpectedly the whole state of affairs was changed by
the news that Queen Catherine had died at Linz on February
29th, I572.2 Even more surprising than the grief shown by
Sigismund Augustus at this news was the fact that hence
forward he said no more about his second marriage, which had
now become possible. It still remain* uncertain whether this
change of view was due to his own inconstancy, or to his
attachment for a young lady of the court.3
The negotiations concerning the league against the Turks,
which at first Commendone pressed forward with the greatest
zeal, were referred by the king to the Diet, where opinion
was most unfavourable to it. Commendone, however, still
hoped for success. He employed all his eloquence in personal
interviews with the members of the senate, but received the
reply that so long as neither the Emperor nor the Empire
were disturbed, Poland could not declare herself against the
Turks without exposing herself to the greatest possible danger.4
During the discussions at the Diet, anti-Catholic views came
to the front again, and if things did not come to a crisis, this
was principally due to the prudent conduct of Commendone.5
In the meantime the condition of the king, who was suffer
ing from a wasting fever and arthritis, became steadily worse.
Ths unhappy man was himself shortening his life by riotous
living. All true patriots, and Commendone with them, looked
1 See the cypher "report of Cardinal Commendone to Rusticucci
of March 3, 1572, Graziani Archives, Cittk di Castello.
* See Colecc. de docum, in&L, CX., 418 seq.
8 See Venez. Depeschen, III., 520, n. ; GRATIANUS, III., 9.
4 See Venez. Depeschen, III., 501, n. 2 ; GRATIANUS, III., 10 ;
cf. THEINER, Mon. Pol., II., 763 seq.
* Cf. the draft referring to May, 1572, *Negotii di Polonia,
Miscell., Arm. II., 117, p. 384, Papal Secret Archives.
VOL. XVIII. 22
314 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
with anxiety to the future, for since Sigismund Augustus was
the last of the Jagellon stock, it was to be feared that the
various parties which had already for many years past threat
ened the peace of the kingdom, would come to open hostilities
over the election of the new king.1
Just as in Poland, in spite of all the defects of the clergy,
the great mass of the population remained firmly attached
to the Catholic faith, so also was this the case, according to the
testimony of Borromeo,2 in those parts of Switzerland which
had remained Catholic. It is true that the Cardinal has many
faults to find with the laity ; that they are obstinate in their
feuds, that the administration of justice is venal, that ecclesi
astical jurisdiction is almost ignored, that usury is common,
that the frequentation of the sacraments is neglected, that
people eat all day and drink at all hours, but that nevertheless
the majority of the people are good and worthy. The Swiss
are honest in business and moral in conduct, and are loyal
and easy to lead if they are treated in a friendly spirit. It is
safe to pass through the streets without danger of being robbed ;
blasphemy is visited with severe punishments ; the people do
not give themselves up to gaming, but on festival days amuse
themselves with shooting matches. The feasts of the Church
are carefully observed ; no matter how much money is offered
no one will be found on those days to cany a traveller's bag
gage ; great importance is attached to divine worship ; if
anyone has missed mass once, he is looked upon as lost and
no longer a Christian. The people assist at the sacred offices
with great devotion, the men separate from the women, while
their devotion to the dead is unparalleled ; sacred images
may be seen everywhere about the streets ; they are so much
attached to the Catholic religion that they would gladly
embark upon a new war against the Protestant Cantons in
order to purge them of heresy. No one who has failed to
receive the sacraments at Easter, or is living in open concubin-
1 See EICHHORN, II., 425. For the king's concubinage see
ZIVIER, I., 781 seq.
1 Report of September 30, 1570, in REINHARDT-STEFFENS,
Nuntiatur von Bonhomini, Dokumente, I., 6-17.
CATHOLIC LEADERS IN SWITZERLAND. 315
age, is tolerated among them, while the modesty and decorum
of the dress of the women is specially worthy of praise.1
It was also a great advantage to the Catholics of Switzer
land in their resistance to the Protestant party that many men
of tried capacity both in political and military matters, men,
too, who were endowed with wealth and were of weight both
at home and abroad, had devoted themselves to the Catholic
cause with a devotion and zeal that seemed miraculous when
compared with bye-gone times.2 At their head was a man
who must be considered the organizer of Catholic Switzerland,
Ludwig Pfyffer, the syndic and chief magistrate of Lucerne,
who in 1567 had had the good fortune to rescue the French
king when he was on the point of being taken prisoner, and
had taken him to Paris through the midst of the Huguenot
forces, and who, in several of the battles of the religious wars
that followed, had greatly distinguished himself, and had even
dealt the decisive blow. From 1569 he had devoted the whole
weight of " his great energies to the cause of his country, and
to the Catholic party in the Swiss Confederation."3 Another
who also contributed in a marked degree to the revival of
Catholic Switzerland, was Melchior Lussy of Unterwalden,4
1 Cf. Borromeo to Ormaneto, November 5, 1567 ; " Non voglio
lasciar di dire, d 'haver rice vu to grandissima consolatione in trovar
li popolo tanto catholici divoti et semplici, che se in proportione
fussero tali li sacerdoti, ce ne potremmo contentare. " In WYMANN
161, n. 3.
8 Opinion of DANDLIKER (II.3 647). " It was the obvious and
great advantage of this party, that they had at their disposal
men who, while they in every way made the Catholic reaction a
powerful factor, had military experience, personal influence, and
experience in dealing with worldly matters." DiERAUERt III., 330.
* DlERAUER, III., 330. Cf. HURBIN, II., 225, 26I ,' DANDLIKER,
II.8, 649, and especially SEGESSER, Ludwig Pfyffer, two vols,
1880-1883. See also MEYER VON KRONAU in Allg. Deutsche
Biographie, XXV., 727 seqq.
4 DIERAUER, III., 330. G. v. WYSS in Allg. Deutsche Biographie,
XIX., 637 seqq. Cf. RICHARD FELLER, Ritter Melchior von
Lussy von Unterwalden. Seine Beziehungen zu Italien un sein
Anteil an der Gegenreformation, two vols, Stans, 1906 and 1909.
316 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
who, as his country's representative at the Council of Trent,1
as her ambassador in Rome, Venice, Milan, Turin and Madrid,
and as provincial landammann of his own canton, devoted
his energies for forty-eight years to the affairs of state, and
stood out as the confidant of the Holy See. Love for the
Church and deep piety were the principal motives of all his
thoughts and actions.2 Other men of a similar stamp were
the prudent Walter Roll of Uri, who had relations with almost
all the courts of Italy,3 Hans Zumbrunnen of Altdorf, a man
" of strong character and the most noble sentiments "4
Christopher Schorno of Schwyz, and others.
In virtue of the permanent constitution of December I7th,
1533, the Catholic cantons were closely bound to each other,
to the Bishop of Sion, and to the Confederation of the Valais,
while there was no such bond of union among the Protestants.6
Moreover, the Swiss Catholics commanded a majority of the
votes in the Confederation, since, when Soleure had joined
them, there were seven Catholic cantons against the two mixed
ones and the four entirely Protestant ones. On the other
hand, however, the reformed cantons had a larger population ;
Berne alone was able to place 32,000 armed men in the field,
or more than the Four Cantons together.6
The Bernese made use of their preponderant strength in
order to spread the new beliefs, and the success of the religious
changes in western Switzerland was due to them. Without
the support of the Bernese, William Farel would never have
been able to introduce the new religion into the cantons of
Vaud and Neuchatel.7 It was the intervention of Berne in
the struggle between Savoy and Geneva which made possible
the establishment of Calvinism, and those far-reaching con
sequences for the whole of Europe which followed upon the
1 See Vol. XV. of this work, p. 271 ; XVI., p. 206.
«C/. DANDLIKER, II.3, 648.
*WYMANN, Borromeo, 174.
* DIERAUER, III., 333.
* Ibid., 205 seq.
•Ibid., 278.
7 Ibid., 219, 220 seq.
THE CATHOLIC CANTONS. 317
rise of Calvin.1 In the territory of the upper Saane, which
Freiburg and Berne had bought from the creditors of the
Count of Greyerz, who was overwhelmed with debt, the
Protestant republic had at once obliged the reluctant popula
tion to embrace the new religion.2 The same thing occurred
in the Canton of Vaud ; in 1536 the republic on the Aar had
made an attack on Vaud and annexed it ; at the treaty of
Lausanne in 1564, Savoy had been obliged to accept an ar
rangement, in spite of the peace of Cateau-Cambre'sis, abandon
ing the territory to the Bernese, and therefore to the new
doctrines.3
Although the Catholic cantons were very far from acting
with the same decision as the followers of the new religion,
they were nevertheless able, on account of their close unity,
to exercise a great influence upon the new religious movement
in Switzerland. After the success of the Catholic arms at the
battle of Kappel in 1532 a restoration of the old religion took
place at Bremgarten and Mellingen in Aargau, in certain dis
tricts on the Linth, and in the prefecture of Sargans,4 while in
the lordship of Rheintal in Thurgau, at St. Gall and Toggenburg
the Protestants only partly returned to the old Church.6
The Protestant community at Locarno, alone of the Ticino,
was broken up by the pressure of the Catholic cantons in 1555,
and the 116 who remained obdurate departed for Zurich.*
The rights of the old religion were also safeguarded at Glarus
by a treaty which was confirmed in 1564. 7 The independent
1 Ibid., 228 seqq.
* Ibid., 296 seq.
1 Ibid., 236 seqq., 315 seqq., 322.
4 Ibid., 189 seqq.
* Ibid., 193 seqq.
6 Ibid., 298 seqq. Cf. FERD. MEYER, Die evangel. Gemeinde
in Locarno, Zurich, 1836.
'DIERAUER, III., 309. MAYER, Konzil, L, 6, 126. If things
did not come to armed intervention on the part of the Catholic
cantons over the affair of Glarus, this was due to the Pope, who
was ready to help them if they acted in self-defence, but not if
they were attacking. FELLER, I., 42.
3l8 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
magistracy in the canton of Aargau was forced by a treaty in
1568 to obey the five cantons and never again to abandon the
faith.1 The resolute attitude of the historian Gilg Tschudi
had especially contributed to the success won at Sargans,
Locarno and Glarus .2 " if we only had in the confederation
another two or three Tschudis " wrote his master Glareanus,
" its cancer, heresy, would be healed."3
After the affair at Glarus Tschudi retired from political life in
order to give himself up entirely to study. A greater man than
he then took upon himself the office of adviser and promoter
of the Catholic confederation, Cardinal Borromeo, though the
activities of this champion were not directed so much to
politics as to the real religious revival of Catholic Switzerland.4
By his appointment to the archbishopric of Milan Borromeo
had become not only the near neighbour of Switzerland, but
bishop of three of the Swiss valleys, Livina, Riviera and
Blenio. Moreover the Catholic cantons had, in their first
embassy to the newly -elected Pius IV., asked for the new
secretary of state and powerful nephew of the Pope as their
Cardinal Protector.5 It fell to Melchior Lussy, as the repre
sentative of his country, to make this request, and he might
well feel sure of its being accepted, for the Swiss, in spite of the
smallness of their country, were looked upon as people of
importance as the guardian of the Alpine passes, and on
account of their acknowledged skill in war.8 Moreover, the
1 DIERAUER, III., 313. What is said, ibid., 312, concerning
the Valais, is incorrect ; cf. MAYER, I., 105-117.
1 DIERAUER, III., 193, 301, 309.
9 Ibid., 301.
4 Cf. DIERAUER, III., 332 seq. ; ED. WYMANN, Kardinal Karl
Borromeo in seinen Beziehungen zur alten Eidgenossenschaft,
Stans, 1910 ; PAOLO D'ALESSANDRI, Atti di S. Carlo riguardanti
la Svizzera e suoi territorii, Locarno, 1909 ; ROSETTI in Bollett,
star, della Svizzera ital., 1882 (acta of the Swiss visitation by
Borromeo in 1567-1571) ; cf. ibid., 1895 (acta of 1571-1580) ;
SALA, Docum. II., 306 seqq.
• REINHARDT-STEFFENS, Einleitung xxvii. ; WYMANN, loo. cit.,
77 seqq.
• WYMANN, loc. cit.t 81.
VISITATION OF BORROMEO. 319
friendship of the new Pope for the Swiss was so well known
that even some of the Protestant cantons joined in the letter
of congratulation on his election.1
On the occasion of his first pastoral visitation of the three
valleys Borromeo found things in a very bad state, especially
among the clergy.2 There was no educational establishment
for the young clerics, and therefore the priests combined a
great lack of learning with considerable moral laxity.3 The
benefices in the mountain districts were very poor, while in
addition in many cases half the first year's revenues had to be
paid over to the civil governor, and the whole of it at Locarno.
The result of this state of affairs was that ecclesiastics gladly
accepted invitations to banquets, joined in the hunt, and
tried to make money by means of trading or by acting as inn
keepers.4 The conferring of ecclesiastical offices belonged, in
accordance with an old custom, not directly to the archbishop,
but to four canons of Milan ; as time went on ecclesiastical
jurisdiction had been reduced to a mere shadow, and had
been almost entirely usurped by the civil authorities.5
In view of the great importance of the civil power, the
Cardinal had asked for its co-operation in his pastoral visita
tion. Uri accordingly sent its treasurer, Hans Zumbrunnen,
Nidvvalden, Melchior Lussy, and Schwyz a certain Johann
Gasser.6 Accompanied by these men, Borromeo travelled
through the three valleys during the month of October making
inquiries, issuing exhortations and inflicting punishments.
After the visitation was finished, he called the whole ol the
clergy together at Cresciano and strongly reminded them of
their duties ; then Hans Zumbrunnen also made a powerful
speech, and assured him that no one would get any support
from the civil power against the ordinances of the archbishop.
Then there followed the acceptance of the decrees of Trent
REINHARDT-STEFFENS, Einleitung xxvii.
WYMANN, loc. cit., 155-173. BASCAPE, i. 2, c. 3, 32-34.
WYMANN, loc. tit., 166.
Ibid., 162 seqq.
Ibid., 155 seqq.
Ibid., 170.
320 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
and of the profession of faith laid down by the Council.1 So
as clearly to separate the ecclesiastical and civil powers,
Borromeo later on sent a scheme for an agreement, which was
discussed at Brunnen on December 29th, 1567. The Cardinal,
however, did not accomplish very much by this scheme ; on
account of his holy life, and his paternal regard for them, they
were prepared to agree to his demands so long as he lived, but
the Cardinal was not satisfied with this.2 He had more reason
to be satisfied with his success in another matter. As early
as September 8th, 1568, Bartholomew Bedra, the bishop's
vicar-general at Chiggiogna, was able to boast that the
people of the Livina were at one in saying that for two hundred
years past they had never had so excellent a body of clergy
as they now had.3
Borromeo visited the Ticino at least ten times altogether.4
He combined his second visit, in August, 1570, with a visita
tion of German Switzerland.6 His protectorate extended to
the whole of the Swiss nation, and he thought that he might
be able to arrange a solution of the question of jurisdiction in
the three valleys by means of personal interviews with those
who were responsible for the government of the Catholic
cantons. In order that his journey might attract less atten
tion, he combined it w.ith a visit to his sister Hortensia at the
castle of Hohenems in the Vorarlberg. On August 2ist, 1570,
Borromeo stopped at the home of Walter Roll at Altdorf, and
on the following day with Melchior Lussy at Stans ; the room
which he occupied is still shown in the so-called house of
Winkelreid. After a visit to the tomb of the venerated hermit,
Nicholas of Flue, he visited Lucerne, Zug, Einsiedeln and St.
1 Ibid., 190. BASCAP£, i. 2, c. 3, p. 33.
1 WYMANN, loc. cit.t 171 ; cf. 185.
'WYMANN, loc. sit., 170. " Omnino spatio mensis adeo
profecit, ut eius ecclesiae tota pene facies immutaretur." (BAS-
CAPE, i, 2, c. 3, p. 33). Another favourable account in WYMANN,
loc. cit., 170, n.
'Ibid., 169.
6 REINHARDT-STEFFENS, Einl. cccx seqq. ; WYMANN, loc. tit.
174-243.
REPORT OF BORROMEO. 321
Gall, where he delivered a discourse to the abbot, Othmar
Kunz, and his monks. On his way back from Hohenems he
visited Schwyz, and at the invitation of Egidius Tschudi,
went to Altdorf. On September 6th the Cardinal returned
to Milan.
Borromeo sent a detailed report to Rome, by Cardinal
Burali, of his journey,1 which can best be described as a
reconnaissance of the country,2 in which he gives an account
of the conditions in Switzerland, and of the best means of
remedying the evils in the Church there. In the first place,
he says, the Pope should send a nuncio to Switzerland, who
should not occupy himself with political matters, but devote
himself entirely to spiritual affairs. He ought skilfully to
remind the Swiss nobility that, in spite of their reiterated
expressions of respect for the Council they were not observing
its decrees as far as benefices were concerned ; perhaps he
might be able to bring it about that they should content them
selves with the right of nomination to benefices and recognize
that the right of conferring them belonged to the ecclesiastical
authorities. As far as the clergy was concerned it was only
from the younger ecclesiastics that any radical change could
be looked for though it should be easy to put an end to such
disorders as were externally manifest.3 A uniform method
of procedure in all parts of Switzerland was absolutely essential,
since, so long as a reform was only introduced in individual
districts, incorrigibles could always escape it by taking refuge
in some other part of the country. It was, however, necessary
to take strong action, even at the risk of some going over in
desperation to the heretics, because it was best in the end for
the sake of the common good to be quit of such people. An
other means of paving the way for a better state of affairs
1 Of September 30, 1570, in REINHARDT-STEFFENS, Dokumente,
6-17 ; cf. Einl. cccxxiii. seqq.
2HURBIN, II., 228.
3 A year before Borromeo 's visitation the council of Lucerne
had sent to the Franciscans of that place a *reproof for their
scandalous life ; see Ratsprotokolle, xxvii., 493b, State Archives,
Lucerne.
322 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
would be the establishment of a seminary for Switzerland
which could easily be maintained by the rich abbeys, and
should be entrusted to the Jesuits : the best place for this
would be Lucerne. Lastly, a college under the direction of
the Jesuits should be set up at Constance.
These proposals were proved in the future to be of the
greatest importance, but for the time being there were in
superable difficulties in the way of their being carried into
effect.1 In the first place the Pope could not find anyone
suited for the post of nuncio in Switzerland. In April, 1571,
Lussy proposed to Cardinal Borromeo that Pius V. should
address a brief to the seven Catholic cantons on the subject of
the sending of a nuncio, in order to learn their views. The
brief was sent,2 but the seven Catholic cantons made no reply,
though in November, 1571, they sent an envoy to Rome, in
consequence of whose statements Pius V. gave up the idea
of sending a nuncio.3 In the same way the negotiations
for the establishment of an institute for German Switzerland
were very protracted.4 The Pope had to be satisfied for the
moment in having a certain number of young Swiss educated
in Italian seminaries at the request of the Catholic cantons.6
Bishop Laureo of Hondo vi was interesting himself at the
same time as Borromeo in the question of a nuncio for Switzer-
1 REINHARDT-STEFFENS, Einl. cccxxx. seqq.
* Of June 9, 1571, ibid., Dokum. 49.
'Alciati to Borromeo, February 9, 1572, in REINHARDT-
STEFFENS, ibid., 53 ; " S.StA essendosi avveduto molto bene
della loro intrinseca voluntci et del fine, al quale tendono, m'ha
detto essersi risoluta di non mandarli per hora Nuntio alcuno "
because if there were a nuncio in Switzerland, it would no longer
be possible to pass over the usurpations of the Swiss.
4 REINHARDT-STEFFENS, Einl. cccxxxvii.
6 Cf. the briefs to Borromeo of May 9, 1566, to the five cantons
of July 12, to the Swiss bishops of June 12, to Cardinal Mark
Sittich of May 18, 1566, in LADERCHI, 1566, n. 204-208 ; brief of
August 23, 1566, in WIRZ, 386, of May 17 and June 12, 1566, to
Borromeo, in SALA, Docum. I., 175, 180 ; Abschiede, IV., 2, 348,
350 ; REINHARDT-STEFFENS, Einl. clxxix.
THE QUESTION OF GENEVA. 323
land, whose mission, however, on this occasion, was to be
primarily for political purposes ; above all, he was to prevent
the admission of the Genevese into the confederation. Geneva,
after it had shaken off the authority of its bishop and of the
Duke of Savoy, was inevitably bound to seek union with the
Swiss cantons for purposes of defence against Savoy. But
since the city of Calvin had bectime more and more the centre
ol a wide-spread religious movement, the Popes had been
driven to support the cause of Savoy with all their power, and
to seek to alienate Switzerland from Geneva. Paul IV.
promised his assistance to Duke Emanuele Filiberto, the
victor of St. Quentin, when the latter, in accordance with the
terms of the peace of Cateau-Cambre'sis, sought to get back the
territory occupied by the French and Bernese, and at the
same time his rights over Geneva.1 Pius IV. made every
effort to induce the Kings of France and Spain to support
the Duke.2 There was nothing more to be hoped for from
France after the outbreak of the Huguenot wars, but the
Pope repeatedly urged Philip II. to order Alba, after he had
subdued the Low Countries, to march against Geneva, the
place of refuge of all the rebels in the dominions of the Catholic
King, as well as from France, Savoy, and Germany.3 Savoy
obtained from Pius V. money concessions levied upon ecclesi
astical property,4 while the nuncio in Savoy worked for the
1 DIERAUER, III., 317.
2 Briefs of June 14, 1560 (to Francis II.) in Raynaldus, 1560,
n. 29, WIRZ, 376 (with date June n) and of June 13, 1561 (to
Philip II.) in WIRZ, 377. Brief to the Swiss nuncio of June 14,
1560, in RAYNALDUS, 1560, n. 29, WIRZ, 379 (with date July 13).
In the brief of June 14, Geneva is held responsible for the con
spiracy of Amboise : "id est fons, unde perditissima baud dubie
consilia superioribus diebus manarunt, ad tumultus et seditiones
in regno tuo excitandas."
8 Bonelli to Castagna, April 29, 1567, Corresp. dipl., II., 95 se(l-
cf. 132 n., 133, 166 ; Zuniga to Philip II., August 17, 1568, ibid.,
444.
4 The ambassador of Savoy in Rome, Vincenzo Parpaglia, to
the Duke, June 17, 1569, in CRAMER, 229.
324 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
formation of a league between the Duke and the Swiss Catho
lics.1 The Pope could not expressly declare himself against
an agreement with Geneva on the part of the Swiss who re
mained firm in the ancient faith, because this was rejected
by the Catholic cantons, but in 1571 the news of a rapproche
ment between Geneva and Savoy was received with much
anxiety in Rome.2
The friendly offices of Borromeo proved far more effective
than these fruitless negotiations, even in the case of those
parts of Switzerland which he did not visit in person. This
was the case in the Grisons. On his journey to Hohenems,
as well as on his way back, Borromeo had an interview with
the most zealous champion of the old religion in the Grisons,
Christian von Castelberg, the abbot of Disentis.3 Castelberg
had brought back new life to his monastery, when it had fallen
into complete decay, by admitting young and worthy monks,
and had also restored it from an economic point of view, by his
energetic administration. Castelberg also worked with great
zeal for the consolidation of the old religion : " with unwearied
zeal, he preached missions in the various villages of the region,
passing from one mountain district to another, celebrating
mass and exhorting the people to persevere in the faith of
their fathers."4
The religious state of the Catholics in the Grisons was lament
able. Even before the appearance of the reform there had
been difficulties with the Bishop of Chur, whose civil rights
they wished to restrict. For this reason the Grisons had
proved a favourable soil for the new doctrines ; this was
especially the case in the episcopal city, which aimed at becom
ing the bishop's heir. On the other hand, in spite of having
been stripped of its exterior splendour, the episcopal residence
1 Laureo to Rome on April 21, 1571, ibid., 264.
* Rusticucci to Laureo, July 16, 1571, ibid., 269. For the
proposals made by Geneva cf. the discussions of March 25, June
24, and September 30, 1571, in Abschiede, IV., 2, 467, 476, 483.
* Cf. IOH. CAHANNES in Studien und Mitteilungen aus dem
Benediktiner-und Zisterzienserorden, XX. (1899), 89-101 ; 212-234.
* REINHARDT-STEFFENS, Einl. p. cccix.
RELIGION IN THE GRISONS. 325
of Chur remained a desirable possession for the ambitions of
the nobles of the district, many of whom for this reason wished
for the preservation of the bishopric. At the moment of the
election of Pius V. the party of the arch-priest of Sondrio,
Bartholomeo Salis, was engaged in a struggle with the canoni-
cally-elected bishop, Beato a Porta, and after he had been
obliged to evacuate the episcopal residence by the intervention
of the Pope, the Emperor, and the Catholic cantons, he
harassed his bishop by putting every possible obstacle in his
way, so that at length the latter might resign.1 On the other
hand the exceedingly democratic constitution of the Grisons
had a favourable side for the Catholics. Whereas at Zurich
and Berne all subjects were forced, whether they liked it or no,
to adopt the religion prescribed by the government, in the
Grisons the decision was left to each community. It thus
came about that there belief varied from one district to an
other, and that of the three leagues of the territory, the
principal league, or Grey League, was still to a great extent
Catholic, while the League of God's House and the League of
the Ten Jurisdictions followed the new doctrines.2
Bishop Beato a Porta and the judge of the Grey League
also took part in the second meeting between Borromeo and
Christian von Castelberg. The Cardinal found in Bishop
Beato plenty of good- will, but even more of fear and hesitation.
He endeavoured to encourage him to make a tour of visitations,
and to reform the clergy, all the more so as the judge of the
province promised him the help of the secular power ; he
did not, however, succeed in accomplishing very much, or in
dispelling the bishop's fear of a popular rising, and the loss of
his revenues and his episcopal see.3
How easily the Protestants in the Grisons were stirred up
against the Catholics was shown in these very times by the
1 Detailed account, ibid., Ixxxvii-xcviii, cclxxvii-cccix. Cf.
LADERCHI, 1566, n. 261 seq.
2 For the constitution of the Grisons and its influence upon
religious conditions cf. SCHIESS, xlii seq.
8 Cf. the information sent by Borromeo on September 30, 1570,
in REINHARDT-STEFFENS, Dokumente 15 seq.
326 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
sad fate of the most powerful of the lay representatives of the
ancient Church, Giovanni Planta. In two briefs of September
9th and I5th, 1570, Pius V. had authorized him to recover
for the Church two provostships in the Valtellina belonging
to the suppressed Order of the Humiliati : a bull of February
28th, 1571, extended this faculty to all the unlawfully alienated
benefices in the dioceses of Chur and Como. In one solitary
instance Planta made use of this authorization in favour of
one of his sons. But the preachers at once stirred up the
people to such an extent that Planta was dragged before the
courts and executed in 1572. l
A mortal hatred for the ancient Church, and above all for
those who tried to defend and propagate its doctrines was
the special mark of Calvinism in the days of Pius V. Even in
the case of the missionaries, who left the comforts of their
native land in order to carry the first rudiments of Christianity
to degraded savages in the countries beyond the seas, their
undertaking was looked upon as a crime deserving of death.
A promising field of labour for the missions lay among the
Indians of the forests of Brazil, who were, it is true, a degraded
race, but docile and receptive of instruction ; this field had
been cultivated with much success by the Jesuits since I549-2
When in 1566 the General of the Order, Francis Borgia, ap
pointed visitors for the various provinces of his Order,3 he
sent to South America the zealous Portuguese, Ignazio di
Azevedo, who was definitely to introduce among the mis
sionaries the constitutions and laws of the Order, hitherto
unknown out there, and to report to Rome concerning the
progress of their labours.
In his reports to Borgia4 Azevedo points out in the first place
1 M. VALAER, Johann von Planta, Zurich, 1888; SCHIESS,
xcviii-cxii. Excuses for the preachers and for the capital sentence,
ibid., ex seq.
*Cf. Vol. XIII. of this work, p. 184.
3 SACCHINI P. III., i. 2, n. 18. Cf. G. CORDARA, Istoria della
vita e della Gloriosa morte del b. Ignazio de Azevedo, Rome, 1854.
4 Of November g, 1566, and March 2, 1569, S. FRANCISCUS
BORGIA, IV., 341 seqq. ; V., 27 seqq.
THE MISSIONS IN BRAZIL. 327
that the principal need of the mission, which was very flourish
ing and promising, was that they should have greater working
power, and that the small number of the Jesuits in Brazil,
and their isolated and scattered condition, involved danger
to the missionaries themselves. It was, however, impossible
to supply this need from the Indians and Mestizos, for it was
a proved fact that the latter were not suited to the ecclesiastical
and religious state. In the same way little could be hoped
for from the Portuguese immigrants, whose thoughts were
entirely occupied with their plantations and commercial
interests. Several of the missionaries, moreover, who had
been sent from Portugal had not fulfilled expectations. There
was, therefore, only one remedy : to enlist young men
in Europe and train them in Brazil itself in knowledge of the
Indian tongue and the work of the missionary. Artisans,
too, such as sculptors and carpenters, would be very welcome
in a country which was extremely lacking in workers of that
kind.
At the same time Azevedo had confidence in the enthusiasm
of the Portuguese youth for the missions, nor was he dis
appointed. At the beginning of 1569 he returned to Europe
and went to Rome, where Pius V. at once issued briefs in
favour of the Brazilian mission to the Bishop of Bahia, and
to the viceroy-elect, Fernan de Vasconcellos.1 When, after
that, Azevedo, armed with a letter of recommendation from
Borgia,2 visited the Jesuit colleges in the Iberian peninsula,
his burning words stirred up a storm of enthusiasm.3 From
the number who placed themselves at his disposal for the
Brazilian mission he was able to recommend about thirty
1 Both of July 6, 1569, in LADERCHI, 1569, n. 340 seq. The
bishop was " revocare (the Indians) a ferino victn atque cultu ad
mitiores mores civilemque vitae rationem." They must specially
be urged to dress decently, and for this purpose the bishop must
get into touch with the civil authorities.
2 To the Spanish provincials, July 4, 1569, S. FRANCISCUS
BORGIA, V., 115.
8 SACCHINI P. III., i. 6, n. 295 seq.
328 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
for reception into the Jesuit Order ; thirteen Jesuits from the
Spanish colleges, and twenty-seven from the Portuguese
province obtained permission to join him, while many artisans
offered to accompany him, from whom Azevedo chose six
teen.1 Embarking in three ships, they weighed anchor on
June yth together with the small fleet which was taking
to his destination the new governor of Brazil, Fernan de
Vasconcellos.2
Until now the Jesuit Order had never sent out so imposing
a body of missionaries.3 But of the sixty or so Jesuits only
one reached Brazil, and he merely because he fell sick on the
way and was forced to remain behind for the time being.4
Near Madeira the fleet was forced to make a long stay in order
to wait for favourable winds. The ship in which Azevedo
and about forty of his companions were, made a detour for
trading purposes to one of the Canary Islands, and there fell
into the hands of the Huguenot vice-admiral, Jean Sore.5 The
crew of the captured vessel, even those who had just been
fighting against the enemy, were spared by Sore, but he con
demned the Jesuits to death as heralds of Papist superstitions.
After being ill-treated in various ways they were thrown into
the sea alive or dead. Only one was spared, and he it would
seem, had volunteered to act as cook ; the son of the Portu
guese captain voluntarily took his place, put on the habit of
1 Azevedo to Borgia, March 16, 1570, S. FRANCISCUS, BORGIA V.,
319; cf. 155, 1 88, 191, 236.
1 SACCHINI P. III., i. 6, n. 220. Azevedo to Borgia, Belem,
June 2, 1570, S. FRANCISCUS BORGIA, V., 410.
8 SACCHINI P. III., i. 6, n. 219.
4 Ibid., i. 7, n. 201.
6 Ibid., i. 6, n. 222 seqq. IAC. AUG. THUANI Historiarum sui
temporis, i. 47, Leyden, 1626, II., 659. Sacchini calls the Hugue
not " lacobus Soria, perduellium ex factione Admiralii [Coligny]
vicarius ; " in de Thou he is called " loannes Sora, praefecti
maris legatus," which in the register (Nominum propriorum
. . . index, Coloniae Allobrcgum, 1634, s.v.) is reproduced
as " Sore, Viceamiral." In de Thou Coligny is " praefectus
niaiis,"
MASSACRE OF THE MISSIONARIES. 329
one of the murdered Jesuits, and joyfully underwent death
for the Catholic faith with the rest.1
The remaining ships failed to reach Brazil owing to con
trary winds. After an Odyssey of fifteen months the fleet
was so reduced by death or desertion, that one ship was suffi
cient for their return to Europe ; of the thirty companions of
Azevedo still remaining, half were released to return home.
Near Terceira, one of the Azores, this last ship was captured
on September I2th, 1571, by the Huguenot, Cadaville. Vas-
concellos fell in the battle, while of the fifteen Jesuits three
were killed immediately, and the eleven others thrown into
the sea. Owing to a lack of provisions the corsairs also threw
into the sea some of the captured crew, and among them the
last of the Jesuits, who had taken off his habit in order to
escape notice.2
Not all of the Huguenots approved of the conduct of Sore
and Cadaville in the case of the unfortunate priests and youths,
many of whom were not more than sixteen or seventeen years
of age, and some only fourteen or fifteen. On the arrival of
Sore at La Rochelle, the Queen of Navarre caused the crew of
the captured Portuguese ship to be set at liberty, including
the one Jesuit still surviving, though without giving them any
money for their journey.3 Of the victims of Cadaville, two
of the Jesuits, thanks to a calm that befell, were able to make
their way by swimming to the ships of their enemies, and
under cover of the darkness were even at length taken on
1 SACCHINI P. III., i. 6, n. 235 seqq. DESJARDINS, III., 605.
Two of the Jesuits who had remained at Madeira wrote a report
of the occurrence from information they had received : Pedro
Diaz on August 18, and Miguel Aragones on August 19, 1570 ;
cf. SOMMERVOGEL, Bibliotheque de la Comp. de Jesus, I., 495 ;
III., 40. AUG. CARAYON gives a list of the other writings about
Azevedo, Bibliographic historique de la Comp. de Jesus, Paris,
1864, 212, n. 1492-1500.
2 SACCHINI P. III., i. 7, n. 187 seqq. The earliest report of
these events is that of Fr. Henrique^, of December 5, 1571 ; see
SOMMERVOGEL, IV., 273.
3 SACCHINI P. III., i. 6, n. 263.
VOL. xvin. ?q
330 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
board and concealed by compassionate foes.1 Such events as
the death of Azevedo bring out in the clearest way how, after
the rise of Luther and Calvin, there were to be found in Europe,
two fundamentally different and bitterly opposed ideas of
Christianity, and that not only from the doctrinal point of view.
That it was the duty of Christianity to take the gospel to the
pagan world was for the time being an idea completely foreign
to the scheme of the followers of the new religion, and the
attempt to do so in Brazil could not be taken seriously by them.
In the old Church, on the other hand, this idea still lived on,
and spurred men again and again to new and greater sacrifices.
In all his efforts and schemes for obtaining new missionaries
for Brazil, the fear that none would offer themselves for a
purpose involving such great sacrifices, was the least of
Azevedo's anxieties. Many, he wrote to Borgia,2 would
gladly get together, by their own efforts, the cost of the long
sea voyage, so long as they had the prospect of admission
to the Order beyond the seas. In the then growing city of
Rio de Janeiro Azevedo was able in 1567 to lay the founda
tions of a great Jesuit college at the expense of King Sebastian,3
since the rulers of the Spanish and Portuguese possessions
watched over the missions with zealous care, and looked upon
the spread of the gospel in the pagan world as the duty of a
king, and one to which they were constantly being urged
by the Popes.
In this connexion Pius V., not long after his elevation to
the throne, had sent to his nuncio in Madrid instructions con
cerning the treatment of the Indians of America.4 In these
1 Ibid., i. 7, n. 200.
1 On October 19, 1566, S. FRANCISCUS BORGIA, IV., 342.
3 SACCHINI, P. III., i. 3, n. 263. Cf. Azevedo to Borgia,
February 20, 1567, S. FRANCISCUS BORGIA, IV., 411.
4 Corresp. dipl., I., 437 seqq. ; cf. CATENA, 93. Serrano places
these instructions in 1566, but they contain mention and praise
of the missionary work in Florida, concerning which nothing
could have been known in Rome in 1566. Most probably the
document is identical with the instructions, concerning which
Castagna wrote to Mula on November 20, 1568 : " Ha dado la
THE POPE AND THE MISSIONS. 331
he says that the Spanish kings had been granted the right
to conquer the lands beyond the seas, on the condition of
their planting the Christian faith there. It was therefore
the duty of the king to see that there were good preachers and
priests in those countries, and that the civil authorities sup
ported them by means of taxes. Baptism must only be con
ferred on the natives after they had received sufficient in
struction in the Christian religion. For those who had already
been baptized, and especially the children, teachers must be
provided, who should form them into good Christians and
citizens, and not undo by their example what they were teach
ing them in word. The centres of instruction must be spread
about in such a way as to be convenient for the Indians.
Where the natives lived scattered about in the mountains,
they should be united in villages for that purpose. In this
way, moreover, justice would be more easily administered,
and crimes could be punished with that gentleness which the
weakness of the new converts demanded.
In cases where Christians and pagans dwelt together, the
pagan sanctuaries should be destroyed on account of the
danger to the former, and so as not to allow anything which
should be a hindrance to Christian worship. The older
Christians should be exhorted to give a good example to the
neophytes and live in peace, with them, and for the sake of
peace all feastings where the drinking of wine was concerned
should be prudently done away with. Even the pagan
Indians should at least be taught to reverence the sanctity
of marriage so far as to give up polyandry. The Indians were
not slaves, and must not be oppressed by excessive taxation ;
even the officials and gentry must show respect to the priests
and missionaries ; the Spaniards in the New World must set
a good example, and visitors should be sent from time to time
to inspect the judges and officials. Wars against the pagans
instruccion sobre Indias al Rey " (Corresp. dipl., II., 472 n.). A
review of the decrees of Pius V. concerning the missions (accord
ing to CYRIACUS MOREL S.J., Fasti novi orbis Venice, 1776) in
STREIT, 505, n. 113-136.
332 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
must not be lightly undertaken, and must never be carried
on in a cruel way. The way in which an attempt was being
made to introduce the gospel into Florida, might be taken
as an example by other countries.
All that was thus detailed in these instructions Pius V.
also repeated from time to time in letters to the Spanish and
Portuguese governments. When in 1567 and 1568 Kings
Sebastian and Philip II. sent out new officials to the colonies,
a whole series of briefs was issued in this sense, in order to
remind the kings and their officials of their duty.1 King
Sebastian, so the Pope wrote to Cardinal Henry of Portugal,2
should instruct the viceroy and the council of the Indies to
protect the neophytes from the tyranny of the soldiers, and
to remove scandals which might stand in the way of their
conversion. The honour of Portugal and the consolidation
of their dominion in the Indies was involved, he told the
council of the Indies.3 He therefore exhorted the Portuguese
viceroy to protect the missionaries, to deal in a friendly spirit
with the new converts, and to admit them to public office
and status.4 The letters to the King of Spain and his officials
are to the same effect. The Pope desires the avoidance of
all violence ; with a good government, and good example
on the part of the priests, the yoke of Christ can be rendered
light to those Indians who have already been converted,
while the tribes that are still pagan can be attracted to the
faith in a loving and skilful way.5 The exhortation to admit
1 To Cardinal Henry of Portugal, October 9, 1567, in LADERCHI,
1567, n. 252 ; to the Council of the Indies, October u, 1567,
ibid., n. 253 ; to the Portuguese viceroy, December 25, 1567,
ibid., n. 254 ; to the viceroy of Mexico, Marchese de Falces,
October 8, 1567, to Philip II., August 17, 1568, ibid., 1568, n. 206 ;
three briefs to Cardinal Espinosa, the viceroy of Peru, Francisco
di Toledo, and the Spanish council of the Indies, all of August 18,
1568, ibid., n. 206. Cf. MARGRAF, Kirche und Sklaverei, Tubingen,
1865, 146 seq.
2 LADERCHI, 1567, n. 252.
3 Ibid., n. 253.
4 Ibid., n. 254.
6 To Philip II., ibid., 1568, n. 206.
THE POPE AND THE MISSIONS. 333
tne natives into public employment occurs again in 1571 in a
brief to the King of Portugal, in which the Pope, far in ad
vance of his times, recommends the taking of steps for the
formation of a native priesthood, since Europe could not for
long provide the necessary supply for the missions.1
It is not surprising that the Papal letters on behalf of the
missionary territories were specially directed to the civil
authorities. The Church of the Indies had been placed
entirely in their hands by the bull of Julius II. of July
28th, 1508. 2 " It is difficult to imagine," says of Mexico
one who is well acquainted with the ecclesiastical history
of that country,3 " a system of control more absolute than
1 " *. . . non enim fieri potest, ut aliunde semper illuc mittan-
tur, qui populis illis spiritualia ministrent ; sed sicut nascentis
ecclesiae temporibus apostoli ex eorum numero, qui fidem christ-
ianam receperant, aptiores et magis idoneos ministros eligebant,
sic etiam nunc dare operam oportet, ut fides ipsa Christiana apud
eas nationes sic radices agat ac propagetur, ut recedentibus vel
decedentibus eius auctoribus non continue exarescat, sed habeat
illic natives cultores, quorum piis laboribus atque industria niti
atque augescere possit. Non enim tantum est in hominibus ad
Christum convertendis lucri, quantum in eisdem, postquam
christiani facti sunt, negligendis detriment!." To King Sebastian,
January 4, 1571, Arm. 44, t. 15, p. 28ob, Papal Secret Archives.
* Printed from Colecc. de docum. ined. de Indias, XXXV., 25,
in G. BERCHET, Fonti italiane per la storia della scoperta del
nuovo mondo, I., Rome, 1892, 24 seq. For the pontifical docu
ments concerning the two Indies cf. J. PEREIRA DE SOLORZANO,
De Indiarum iure, Madrid, 1629 (STREIT, n. 443). Cf. also Vol.
VI. of this work, p. 441.
8 C. CRIVELLI in The Catholic Encyclopedia, X., New York, s.a.
(1911), 260 seq. Cf. A. FREYTAG in Zeitschrift fiir Missionswis-
senschaft, III. (1913), n seqq. " Probably in no European state
was the Placetum regium used so widely, or so strictly and for so
long a time, as in Portugal and its colonies. . . . Without the
exequatur of the cabinet, neither ordinance of bishop nor decree
of Pope, whether dogmatic or disciplinary, had any validity in
law which was recognized by the state within the Portuguese
dominions. The publication of any act which was not pleasing
334 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
that which the kings of Spain, either in person, or through
the council of the Indies, and the viceroy or governor, exercised
in all ecclesiastical matters," and what is true of Mexico
applied even more fully to the Indies. No church could be
built, no religious Order could be set up, no religious founda
tion take place, without the consent of the king. He had the
right of nomination to all the bishoprics. Ten days after
the king's wishes had been made known to the bishops, they
were bound to see to the conferring of ecclesiastical benefices :
if they refused without some lawful reason, some other bishop,
chosen by the candidate, was to see to the benefice being
conferred. The right of presentation to all abbacies and
regular prelacies as well as to every ecclesiastical benefice
belonged to the king.1 He fixed the boundaries of all the new
bishoprics, sent the religious where he liked, and decided
when they were to be transferred from one province to an
other. Religious establishments were under the superin
tendence of the Council of the Indies, and in order that this
superintendence might be properly carried out, the office of
commissary -general was established. The religious pro
vincials were nominated by the General of the Order, . but
they had then to inform the commissary-general of his choice,
and until the council of the Indies had given its approval,
the appointment remained in suspense. All decrees by which
religious provinces were abolished, or new ones founded,
as well as the sending of visitors, etc., had to be submitted to the
council of the Indies. All Papal bulls and briefs, and all
instructions from Generals of Orders or other superiors, passed
through the hands of the council of the Indies, without whose
seal they could not be put into force ; the same thing applied
to the decrees of provincial councils in the colonies, and the
decrees of the chapters of religious orders. If there were a
question of the foundation of new missions, or of religious
to the authorities became physically impossible." A. JANN,
Die katholischen Missionen in Indien, Cina und Japan, Paderborn,
1915, 112 seq,
1 Julius II. had already granted all this. BERCHET, loc. cit., I., 24.
POWER OF THE CIVIL AUTHORITIES. 335
provinces or seminaries, a commissary had first of all to be
appointed, who had to submit the matter to the viceroy or
governor, to the audiencia of the district, and to the bishop.
Armed with their opinions the commissary then set out for
Spain and laid his petition before the commissary-general
of the Indies. The latter then took the matter, together with
all the opinions, before the council of the Indies, whereupon
the council or the commissary-general decided upon the pro
vinces from which the necessary religious were to be drawn.
Accompanied by these he could then return to the Indies
where, after further reports to the officials who had sent him,
the matter was at length brought to a conclusion. If he
wished to leave the Indies again, a regular could not, according
to a royal decree of July 29th, 1564, even appeal to permission
from the Pope ; he must obtain permission from the council
of the Indies, though, in certain definite cases, the approval
of the bishop was enough.
The Spanish government had assumed some of these rights
on its own authority, but most of them rested upon conces
sions granted by the Holy See. The kings had endowed
almost all the churches of the New World with revenues :
they bore the travelling expenses of the missionaries and
bishops, and they provided the churches with wax, oil, and
all the things necessary for divine worship. The building of
new churches and the foundation of new missions depended
to a great extent upon the support of the king ; if repairs were
necessary in any church, they had to be made at the charge
of the royal taxes. Alexander VI. had granted the king the
right of receiving tithes in the Indies on condition of his
equipping the churches and bearing the expenses of divine
worship.1 The kings, however, but rarely made use of this
right, but made over the tithes to the bishops, the clergy, the
churches or the hospitals. For the most part the bishops
1 By a bull of September 25, 1493, printed from SOLORZANO, I.,
613, in BERCHET, I., 15 seq. Cf. the brief of Julius II. of April 8,
1510 (published by F. FITA in the Boletin de la R. Academia de la
historia, 1892, 261 seqq.) ibid. 230 seq.
33^ HISTORY OF THE POPES.
nominated by the king, such as Giuliano Carets of Tlaxcala,
Zumarraga of Mexico, or Vasco de Quiras of Michoacan, were
learned and capable men. In spite of the endless delays in
setting up monasteries, there was a large number of them,
while the hospitals and the churches could hardly be counted.
On the whole, therefore, owing to the deep religious feeling
of the Spanish people, the royal right of superintendence was
favourable to the Church.
In the time of Pius V., however, it once happened that in
the Mexican diocese of Oaxaca the seminary, which had al
ready been established, had to be closed, because the revenues
had been withheld from the bishop ; the Pope made complaint
of this to the King of Spain.1 For the rest, however, even at
that time the colonies and missions were liberally assisted by
the Spanish government. An example of this occurred during
the reign of Pius V. in the foundation of the religious province
of the Jesuits in Peru. Philip II. had himself in 1567 asked
for missionaries for the Indians of that country, and Francis
Borgia had allowed him two from each of the four Spanish
provinces of the Order, who were so abundantly provided by
the king with all that was necessary that they were able to
refuse many generous offers made to them privately.2 The
royal instructions concerning the provision made for the Jesuits
who were sent to Mexico to found a province of the Order in
1571 are still preserved,3 and give details of what was to be
given to each one.
King Sebastian of Portugal did not fall behind the Spanish
sovereign in this respect. In accordance with his proposal for
establishing several seminaries for the training of missionaries,
Pius V. allowed him to make over monasteries which had
fallen into a state of decay to the mendicant Orders, as for
1 Three letters, to Castagna, Philip II., and the Bishop of
Oaxaca (Antequera), all of April 2, 1570, in LADERCHI, 1570,
n. 424, 426, 427.
2 ASTRAIN, II., 307. SACCHINI P. III., i. 3, n. 280. For the
call of the Jesuits to Peru cf. S. FRANCISCUS BORGIA, IV., 619,
631, 641, 658, 678 seqq. ; ASTRAIN, II., 304 seqq.
3 Of August 6, 1571, in ASTRAIN, II., 300 seq.
THE MISSIONS IN PERU. 337
example the Dominicans and the Jesuits, on the condition
that they should every year send some missionaries to the
Indies.1 The king further wished that houses should be
established in the Indies for the catechumens, where those
pagans who wished to embrace Christianity could be in
structed for a time before their baptism.2 Pius V. gave his
support to this plan by granting indulgences to those who
contributed to such foundations, and those who gave them
selves to the service of the catechumens in these houses.3
The Pope's exhortations to the King of Spain had immedi
ate results in the Spanish part of South America, the vice-
royalty of Peru. When in 1568 Philip II. sent Francisco
Toledo there as his new viceroy, he specially recommended
him to look after the spiritual well-being of the Indians,4
and the matters in which Toledo brought about an improve
ment were almost identical with those which Pius V. had in
sisted upon in his instructions to Castagna.
At the time of the conquest of Peru the country had been
divided up into a number of small districts, and in each district
the duty of seeing to the conversion of the Indians had been
entrusted to a Spaniard, together with that of the civil ad
ministration. It was the function of this so-called commenda
tory to appoint a parish priest from among the secular or
regular clergy, whose maintenance was provided for by an
annual payment in money from the commendatory, together
1 Brief of October 27, 1567, in LADERCHI, 1567, n. 248.
2 Brief of October 4, 1567, ibid. n. 251.
8 Cf. a report from Toledo immediately after his arrival in
Peru, from which a Relation sumaria is printed in Cotecc. de
docum. iried. para la historia de Espana, XCIV., 255-298 aCnd the
Memorial which he drew up thirteen years later on his return
to Europe, ibid., XXVI., 122-161. A short review of the state
of affairs in SACCHINI P. III., i. 8, n. 315 seqq.
* " Una de las casas que principalmente por V.M. me fu<£
manda y dada instruxion para ello cuando V.M. me mand6 que
fuese al gobierno de aquella tierra, fu£ la doctrina y conversion
de los naturales della y su gobierno y sustentacion." Toledo in
the Memorial, loc. cit., 134.
338 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
with gifts in kind and service from the natives. If on the one
hand the commendatory was often unwilling to pay the parish
priest his stipend, on the other it was not infrequently the
case that the Indians could only be induced by force to make
their contributions. Relations were rendered more strained
owing to the fact that the parish priest also had judicial autho
rity over the Indians even in civil matters, with the result
that he himself, as well as the commendatory and Christianity
itself became objects of hatred.1
The cruelty with which the conquerors repressed all revolts
on the part of the Indians, and the harshness with which
they employed their power, were by no means calculated to
induce the natives to accept the situation. The Dominican,
Gil Gonzalez, himself an eye-witness, in a memorial drawn
up in defence of the Indies, expressed the view that they were
treated far worse than slaves, because, loaded as they were
with regulations and other burdens, they had to make a road
of twenty or thirty leagues in length before they arrived at the
place where they were to work : from their youth they were
burdened with toil, so that from the time of their birth to that
of their death they never knew a happy hour.2 Another monk,
Rodrigo de Loaisa, who had been a witness of the state of
affairs in Peru for thirty years, wrote in 1586 that many of
the Indians took their own lives in order to escape their
troubles, and that if the priests told them that suicide was a
sin that would take them to hell, they replied that they did not
wish to go to heaven if there were any Spaniards there, be
cause even there they would torment them worse than the
devils in hell.3 There was but one feeble excuse for the op-
1 SACCHINI, P. III., i. 8, n. 315.
f " Relaci6n de los agravios que los Indies de las provincias
de Chile padecen," in Colecc. de docum. ine"d,. XCIV., 77.
* " Memorial de las cosas del Pirti tocantes £ los Indies " c. 48,
in Colecc. de docum. ine"d., XCIV., 589. It would seem that the
author was an Augustinian, since, according to p. 571 c"7- the
Order to which he belonged was " la mas moderna en aquellas
partes " and of the four earliest Orders in Peru, the Franciscans,
Dominicans, Mercedarii, and Augustinians (Memorial, c. 21,
THE MISSIONS IN PERU. 339
pressors, that the Indians were possibly even worse treated by
their own caciques than by the foreigners.1
The instructions in Christianity which the Peruvians re
ceived were in many ways quite insufficient. There was a
great scarcity of priests, and where they had any they had
no knowledge of the language of the Indians, or looked upon
their office principally as a means of enriching themselves.
Of the stations which the viceroy, Toledo, visited in his first
tour of inspection, seventeen were without a priest at all ;2
in the diocese of Quito, in a district forty-two miles in length,
there was only one priest.3 In the archdiocese of Lima forty
Indian parishes were vacant.4 Several Indians complained
with tears to the viceroy that they could not understand their
masters, and were not understood by them ;5 they knew the
Christian prayers, but only so as to say them like parrots
without understanding them ;6 the interpreters of whom the
parish priests of the Indians made use, were very inaccurate.7
The reasons why the Pope had insisted so strongly with the
Spanish government upon the necessity of instructing the
Indians were only too clearly illustrated by statements such
as these ; the Indians in Peru were Christians in name, but
not at heart ; often it happened that even those who had
been baptized fell back into the secret practice of their former
worship of idols.8
To the honour of the Spanish government in the colonies it
must be said that it set itself seriously to remove or reduce
the abuses. Toledo ordered that from that time forward no
P- 569) the three former had already sent missionaries to Peru
with the first conquerors. Cf. the Relation of Pedro Ruiz Naharro
in the Colecc. de docum. ined., XXVI., 248, 255.
1 LOAISA, Memorial, c. 47, loc. tit., 587.
1 TOLEDO, Relaci6n sumaria, n. 9, p. 256.
* Ibid., n. 10, p. 256.
4 Ibid., n. 30, p. 263.
•TOLEDO, Memorial, n. 3, loc. tit., XXVI., 126.
•TOLEDO, Relaci6n n. 15, p. 258.
7 Ibid.
8 Ibid, and Memorial, n. 4, p. 127.
340 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
monk or priest should be appointed to an Indian parish unless
he knew the language of his future flock ; those priests who
were already in office were not to receive their full stipend
until they had given proofs of their knowledge in this respect.
A special chair was set up in the University of Lima for the
study of the language most widely used in the Indies, and
those who sought appointments to Indian parishes had to pass
an examination before this faculty.1 Toledo could also boast
that during the time of his government the number of those
in charge of souls among the Indians had been increased by
more than four hundred, whose maintenance was provided from
the taxes.2 Toledo saw in a measure which had already been
recommended by Pius V. the principal means of providing
organized spiritual care of the Indians : this was to gather
together into settlements those natives who were scattered
far and wide in the mountain districts, and who were often
quite inaccessible, and to assign a priest to each group of four
or five hundred natives. These settlements were to be placed
in the best situations in the territory, and provided with public
buildings, such as hospitals, prisons and municipal offices ; the
Indians themselves were to have a seat on the council of each
colony, and to have a voice in the decision of their own affairs.3
Before the Peruvians who were not yet baptized were made
Christians, care must be taken that they should first become
men of good behaviour, and for this purpose he began at
Cuzco and Lima the erection of two colleges, where the sons
of the caciques and curaques could be instructed and educated,
with the idea that the other Indians would be guided in all
things by the example of their chiefs.4 Toledo took special
credit to himself for his reorganization of justice among the
natives ;5 he boasted that now every Indian had the courage
to ask for justice against the Spaniards, against the priests
1 TOLEDO, Memorial, n. 3, p. 126.
* Ibid., n. 1 8, p. 142.
8 Ibid., n. 18-19, P- 141 seqq.
4 Ibid., n. 4, p. 127.
6 Ibid., n. 8 and 20, p. 129 and 143 seqq.
ABUSES IN PERU. 341
and the commendatories, and even against their own caciques.1
He also boasted that by his orders the Indians had been repaid
a million and a half of goods of which they had been defrauded,2
that hospitals had been erected and endowed for them at
Guamanga, Cuzco, La Paz, Chuquisaca, Potosi and Arequipa,3
and steps taken to protect them from the pillaging and ravag
ing of their territories.4
Fray Loaisa says in forcible terms that the viceroy and the
great officials of Peru had done all they could to heal the many
evils, but that the same thing had happened in their case
as in that of the tinker who, in stopping up one hole had made
four new ones.5 Loaisa also passes an unfavourable judg
ment in many ways upon the steps which had been taken by
Toledo. Thus, it was quite proper that on account of the
abuses involved, the parish priests among the Indians should
no longer have the right of inflicting whippings and similar
punishments, but in several places the corregidor did not
perhaps put in an appearance for more than two days in a
whole year, so that if the priest was unable to take any action
against drunkenness or concubinage, these offences could
prevail unpunished and unrestrained.6 Many evil results
also" flowed from the fact that the priests in charge of the
natives could no longer obtain their maintenance, as far as
contributions in kind were concerned.7 Above all, the taxes
which Toledo imposed upon the Indians were too heavy :
they had to work all through the year, or go to Potosi to work
in the mines in order to earn no more than the money which
they had to pay in taxes.8
In spite of all his complaints Loaisa had to admit that some
of the priests among the Indians were capable and conscien-
1 Ibid., n. 8, p. 130.
2 Ibid., n. 17, p. 140.
3 Ibid., n. 14, p. 138.
* Ibid., n. 21-22, p. 146 seqq.
5 Memorial, c. 27, p. 573 seq.
6 Ibid., c. 20, p. 658.
''Ibid., c. 13, p. 564 seq.
8 Ibid., c. 49 seqq., p. 590 seqq.
342 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
tious men, who did not impose arbitrary taxes upon their
subjects, and did much good.1 At Quito the Franciscans
distinguished themselves by their missionary labours, and
among their number the founder of that mission, Josse Ricke
of Marselaer died in 1570 in the odour of sanctity.* In spite
of this, however, there was a danger of the Indian settlements
being taken away from the Franciscans ;3 in other districts
the regulars themselves were anxious, an account of the many
inconveniences involved, to be allowed to hand over their
work to secular priests ;4 the Jesuits, who arrived in Peru in
1568 and 1569, hesitated for a long time before they would
undertake parishes among the Indians, and their refusal at
first was a constant source of trouble to them.5
Although the Spanish conquerors and their immediate
successors cannot escape the blame of harshness and cruelty
towards the natives, it would nevertheless be unjust to make
the Spanish government responsible for their excesses, or
to speak of the abuses of those early days as typical of the
whole Spanish administration of the colonies. On the con
trary, no European nation has shown on the whole greater
care and anxiety for the welfare of the native populations than
the Spaniards. Whereas under English rule the Indians of
North America were left in their savagery, and attempts were
even made to drive them out and destroy them, in the Spanish
possessions in America the principle had been accepted, even
in the time of Isabella of Castille, of treating the Indians as
1 " Otros hay de gran virtud y verdad entre los Indies que
tienen gran cuenta con sus conciencias y con no agraviar a estos
miserables " ^Memorial c. 13, p. 565). " Es verdad que hay
grandes siervos entre ellos [among the curates who came from
the monastic orders], y hacen gran provecho entre aquellos (ibid.,
c. 24, p. 571)-
•MARCELLING DA, CIVEZZA, Storia universale delle Missioni
Francescane,, VII., 2 Prato, 1891, 87 seqq.
* Ibid., 89.
4 E.g. the Augustinians and the Franciscans. LOAISA, Mem
orial, c. 24, p. 571 seq.
•ASTRAJN, II., 313 seqq.
THE POPE AND THE MISSIONS. 343
free subjects, enjoying the same rights as Europeans.1 "A
system of legislation for the Indians was in force, the profound
humanity and penetrating foresight of which far surpassed
the treatment accorded to the Indians by France, to say
nothing of that of England ; and it was a significant fact that,
at the end of the eighteenth century the Creoles complained
that the government did everything for the Indians, but very
little for them."2 Moreover, there were Las Casas and the
religious already mentioned to make grave remonstrances in
the case of various abuses, and the very fact that they were
able to speak in words of such bitter blame is a striking proof
of the goodwill of the government, and of the state of public
opinion in Spain. What the viceroy Toledo did for the
Indians of Peru was certainly deserving of all praise, but he
was by no means alone in his efforts, and it may be said that
the whole of the Spanish legislation for the colonies was
animated by the same spirit.
That matters did not turn out differently was due in large
measure to the Papacy. The Popes had consented to the
subjection of the Indians on the condition that they should
be brought to a knowledge of Christianity, and again and
again they reminded the rulers of Spain of the obligation
which they had undertaken in conquering the New World.
But the conversion of the nomadic Indians was impossible
unless they were gathered together in permanent settlements,
and raised to a higher degree of civilization. The exhorta-
1 DAENELL, 73.
8 DAENELL, 75. "If the colonial administration of Spain is
looked at from the point of view of its laws, these display in
every sense an extraordinary degree of prudence and care. Some
of them, such as the special legislation for the Indians, have
never so far been equalled by any other nation which possesses
colonies. Everywhere we find deep moral motives, which have
given rise to the laws." (ibid., 78). " The singular fact of the
rapid expansion and the secure government shown in the case
of the Spanish colonial empire, proves in a high degree the capacity
of the Spanish race, and the sagacity and humanity of the Spanish
rule." (ibid.t Si).
344 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
tions of Pius V. to Philip II. are an example of the way in
which the efforts of the Popes for the civilization of America
were not without success, and if, even after several centuries,
all that was to be desired had not yet been attained, the
difficulties of the undertaking must not be lost sight of.1
The Pope himself was certainly not satisfied with the
progress made with the work which he had encouraged in Peru,
but consoling reports reached him from several other missions.
On March 2ist, 1569, the Bishop of Michoacan in Mexico
wrote that the Indians there had embraced the faith, and
that moreover some of them were preaching to their fellow-
countrymen in their native tongue ;2 about the same time the
archbishop of the capital3 announced that he had baptized
five thousand pagans with his own hands. Pius V. replied
to the archbishop expressing his joy and urging him to instruct
the Indians well in the faith before baptizing them.4 The
necessary precautions with regard to this matter were taken
in the provincial council of Mexico in I57O.5 Pius V. had
previously recommended to the Archbishop of Mexico the pro
tection of the Indians against the violence of the soldiers.6
The territory adjoining Mexico, Florida, at that time pos-
1 " If the progress which they [the Indians] made under Spanish
influence in a work of civilization extending over three centuries,
seems to be but small in the end, we must not forget that it was
a case of lifting up hundreds of thousands from the deepest
paganism, the most primitive organization, from sloth and the
civilization of the stone age to Christianity, autonomy, thrift and
individualism based upon a pecuniary economic system. The
task was in itself an enormous one, and the spiritual and bodily
feebleness of the race helped to make the task more difficult."
DAENELL, 78.
2 Cf. the brief to the bishop, April 2, 1570, in LADERCHI, 1570,
n. 428.
3 March 30, 1569 ; cf. the brief to the archbishop, April 2, 1570 ;
ibid., n. 416.
4 Ibid.
* Ibid., n. 420.
6 Brief of October 7, 1567, in LADERCHI, 1567, n. 262.
LOUIS BERTRAND. 345
sessed in Menendez de Aviles a governor after Pius V.'s own
heart. Menendez looked upon his office, not as an opportunity
for enriching himself, but as a definite call to look after the
well-being of the Indians, by making them good Christians.
In March, 1565, he applied to Francis Borgia for mission
aries.1 The labours of the Jesuits among the rude Indians,
however, were almost fruitless. Believing that the harshness
and bad example of the Spaniards were the causes of their ill-
success, eight missionaries tried to found a settlement in the
midst of the savages and far away from all Europeans, but
they were all killed in February, 1571, and in consequence
gave up their fruitless work in Florida.2 The Jesuits founded
instead a province of the Order in Mexico in 1571. 3
In New Granada the Dominican Louis Bertrand (Beltran)
preached the gospel to the Indians with extraordinary success
from 1562 to I56Q.4 He, too, was much hampered in his good
work by the bad example of the whites, and their cruelty to
the natives. He was able, however,, to win a great name for
himself, above all by his almost incredible austerity of life.
1 S. FRANCISCUS BORGIA, III., 762 seq. The letter also shows
how very imperfect the geographical ideas of America still were,
almost half a century after the discovery of the Pacific Ocean.
Aviles thought that Florida was joined on to China, or was only
separated from it by an arm of the sea. A letter of Aviles of
August 6, 1568, loc. cit., IV., 697 ; a letter to him of March 7, 1568,
ibid., 577. For Menendez cf. DAENELL, 47 seq.
2AsTRAiN, II., 284-298.
3 Ibid., 298-303.
4 The Dominican, Vincenzo Giustiniani, Antist., described the
life of Bertrand, partly from personal knowledge, in 1581, and the
Dominican, Bartolomeo Avinones, in 1623, on the basis of the
acta of his canonization ; both are printed in Acta Sanct., October
5, 292 seqq., 366 seqq. BERTRAND WILBERFORCE wrote a new life,
London, 1882, which was translated into German by M. v. WIDEK,
Graz, 1888. Bertrand (died 1581) was canonized on April 12,
1671. For the missionary labours of the Franciscans in New
Granada at that time, cf. MARCELLING DA CIVEZZA, loc. cit. 27.
The Franciscans made an attempt to establish themselves per
manently jn the island of Trinidad in 1571 ; ibid., 36.
VOL. xvill.
34^ HISTORY OF THE POPES.
Armed with nothing but the Holy Scriptures and his breviary,
bare-footed and without provisions, sometimes even without
guides, who would not stay with him, he made his long mission
ary journeys through impassable forests or under a burning
sun, adding to the scarcely bearable hardships of this life
voluntary fasts and hard penances. It was the belief of all
that he had the gift of miracles ; he must have won for the
Church more than twenty thousand Indians, all well instructed
in Christianity.
A more detailed description of the labours and successes
of this great missionary is rendered impossible by that same
difficulty which so often confronts the historian of the pro
pagation of the faith. While Ignatius of Loyola laid upon his
subjects the duty of making regular reports of their labours,
because he saw in this a means of exciting fervour and advanc
ing the work,1 the opposite was the case with the other Orders.
The earliest biographer of Louis Bertrand2 relates that he
highly praised the zeal of the Jesuits in this respect and blamed
the neglect of his own brethren, but that he was nevertheless
unwilling to follow the example of the Jesuits, and made
evasive replies when he was asked about his own work. The
result is that we have not even one letter belonging to the
time of his missionary labours.
In Africa all the hopes of the mission to Abyssinia which
had been undertaken with such high expectations seemed
to have vanished in the time of Pius V. The patriarch,
1 Constitutiones, P. VIII., c. i, n. 9 (Inst. S. J., II., Florence,
1893, 115, 117).
* " Utque laudabat ille plurimum diligentiam patrum lesui-
tarum, qui memoriae prodiderunt labores, quos sui subierunt in
Japonia, China, aliisque oris, in quibus Evangelium praedicarunt,
ita improbabat negligentiam nostrorum, qui cum sui in Indiis
occidentalibus et orientalibus, Taprobana multisque aliis in
regnis tantopere laboraverint hactenus a Pontificatu Alexandri
VI., ac in multis oris Guineae iam inde a tempore Innocentii
VII . . ., vix ullus repertus fuerit, qui curaverit litteris consignare
afflictiones ac martyrium nostrorum patrum." ANTIST, Vita
n. 8 1 : Acta Sanct. V., 324 ; cf. n. 62, p. 320.
THE MISSIONS IN ABYSSINIA. 347
Nunez Barreto, had died at Goa in 1562 without having ever
set foot in his diocese Pius V. hoped to make better use in
Japan of Oviedo, who had been hitherto his coadjutor, and of
whose presence in Abyssinia Pius IV. had made use in 1561
to invite the Negus Minas to the Council of Trent.1 Oviedo,
however, begged to be allowed to remain with the few Catho
lics of Abyssinia.2 Pius V. also gave orders to the second
coadjutor of the patriarch Barreto to go to Japan and China,3
but he never reached those countries and died at Macao in
I595-4 Other attempts by the Jesuits to penetrate into
Africa in 1560 also remained without result, both on the west
coast in Angola, and on the east coast among the negroes
south of the Zambesi.5 No renewal of these attempts took
place in the time of Pius V. In order to protect the Abys
sinian mission the Pope tried to obtain the armed intervention
of Portugal against the Turks, whose fleet in the Red Sea
was devastating that country.6
The Pope received more consoling news from the East
Indies. From King Sebastian he received tidings that the
Franciscans, Dominicans and Jesuits were preaching the
gospel to the Indians, both courageously and successfully.7
1 Brief of August 20, 1561, in BECCARI, X., 125 ; covering
letter of August 23, ibid., 130.
1 Brief to Oviedo, February 2, 1566 (Portuguese translation),
ibid., V., 424 ; Oviedo's reply, June 15, 1567, ibid., X., 215.
8 Brief to Melchoir Carneiro, February 3, 1566, ibid., 187.
4 Ibid., 331, n. i.
5 L. KILGER, Die erste Mission unter den Bantustammen
Ostafrikas, Miinster, 1917. For Angola (1560) cf. SACCHINI, P.
II., i. 4, n. 203 ; for the expedition on the Zambesi, ibid., 210 seqq.,
i. 5, n. 219 seqq., i. 6, n. 158. What Sacchini reports concerning
the principal rivers of Africa (i. 4, n. 224) is not without interest.
He knew that the White Nile flowed out of a lake and that the
Congo (Zaires) flowed first to the north, and then turned to the west.
6 Briefs to King Sebastian and Cardinal Henry, both of Decem
ber 17, 1569, in LADERCHI, 1569, n. 337 seq.
7 Brief to the Archbishop of Goa, January i, 1570, ibid., 157°.
n. 429,
348 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
All the neighbourhood of Goa had gradually become Christian,
and in 1560 the Jesuits alone counted 12,967 baptisms.1
Among the bishops, the Dominican, Enrico Tavera of Cochin,
distinguished himself especially by his zeal in instructing
and converting the natives ; Pius V. praised him in a special
brief.2 The native priest too, Andrea Vaz, who was the son
of a Brahmin, worked with great success among his fellow-
country-men.3 The viceroys, Constantino di Braganza and
Antonio di Noronha, supported the missionaries with all their
power.4 The council which met at Goa in 1567 in order to
promulgate the decrees of Trent, also made regulations con
cerning the Indian missions.5 On October 7th, 1567, the
Pope addressed to the Archbishop of Goa, Gaspare de Leao
Pereira, who had held this council, a brief of encouragement,
in which he dissuaded him from his plan of laying down the
burden of the episcopate, and gave him faculties to dispense
from matrimonial impediments of a merely ecclesiastical
nature in the case of the neophytes. Leao nevertheless re
signed after the council.6 In those districts where access
to a bishop was difficult, the Jesuits were given in December,
1567, the same faculties to dispense, and at the same time
received a splendid tribute to their missionary activity.7
1 MULLBAUER, 82. SACCHINI, P., II., i. 4, n. 255.
3 Of January 7, 1570, in LADERCHI, 1570, n. 430.
3 MULLBAUER, 81.
4 Ibid., 79, 86.
5 Cf. Bullarium Patronatus Portugalliae in ecclesiis Africae,
Asiae atque Oceaniae curante Levi Maria Jordao de Pavia Manso,
Lisbon, 1868 seqq., App. I. ; SACCHINI, P., III., i. 3, n. 225.
' LADERCHI, 1567, n. 247.
7 " Cum gratiarum omnium largitor Altissimus vestris cordibus
tantum honoris sui amorem tantumque salutis animarum studii
impresserit, ut ex Societate vestra plurimi propagandae religionis
christianae et homines gentiles idolorumque cultores ad sui
Creatoris ac Salvatoris cognitionem adducendi cupiditate flag-
rantes, non itinerum, non navigation um laboribus aut periculis
territi ex his Europae parti bus in Aethiopiam, Persidem, Indiana,
usque ad Moluccas ct Japoniam ac alias Orientis insulas et regiones
PIUS V. AND THE MISSIONS. 349
Christianity also made satisfactory progress in Japan, as was
shown in the pontificates of the successors of Pius V.1
As may be seen from the facts here mentioned, Pius V.
devoted incomparably greater activity to the missions than
his immediate predecessors. Whereas, for example, Paul IV.
or Pius IV. had occasionally addressed a brief of exhortation
or instruction to the heralds of the faith or sent briefs in their
favour to the kings and bishops, their successor hardly ever
let an opportunity pass of doing so. Pius V., moreover,
aimed at bringing the missions into more immediate relations
with the Holy See, and at making them more independent of
the influence of the secular princes. At first he thought of
sending to the Indies some suitable person, who should be
dependent upon the Holy See alone, and could intervene with
all the authority of a nuncio.2 This plan, however, was
allowed to lapse, because Philip II. did not wish for a nuncio
overseas.3 On the other hand, a second plan was carried
into effect, with happy results : at the end of July, 1568, the
Pope set up two congregations of Cardinals in order to promote
and propagate the faith ; one was to take for its sphere of
activity the countries inhabited by heretics, the other the
countries overseas and the missions ;4 the first beginnings of
alias a nobis remotissimas et in extreme orbe terrarum positas
adire non debitent, etc." (Litterae apost., quibus institutio,
confirmatio et varia privilegia continentur Societatis lesu, Romae,
1606, 13).
1 A more detailed account in volume xix. of this work.
2 Bonelli to Castagna, April 21, 1568, Corresp. dipl., II., 350 seqq.
3Castagna to Bonelli, June n, 1568, ibid., 390 ; of. 392. On
October i, 1568, Castagna reported to Bonelli, that the king had
caused a discussion to be held as to the best way to prevent
cruelty to the Indians and as to whether a hereditary viceroy should
be appointed and a patriarch (once more) nominated for the
Indies. This latter question was decided in the negative as the
patriarch might be tempted to rebel against the king and the
Roman Church. Ibid., 472.
*CANISII Epist., VI., 581 seqq. Borgia to Nadal, August 2,
1568, NADAL, III., 625. SACCHINI, P., III., i. 4, n. 129, whence
js drawn LADERCHI, 1568, n. 206.
35° HISTORY OF THE POPES.
the Congregation of Propaganda, which afterwards developed
activities of such extraordinary usefulness, may thus be
traced back to Pius V. It was Francis Borgia who, at an
audience of May 2oth, 1568, suggested the congregation for
the conversion of the infidels.1 The Pope appointed as its
first members the four Cardinals, Mula, Crivelli, Sirleto and
Carafa ; several of the papal briefs mentioned above were the
result of their zeal.
It is very significant that in all these briefs it is insisted
again and again that the missionaries must labour to give as
full an instruction as possible to the converts. Hitherto it
had been thought sufficient to have only wandering mission
aries. The few heralds of the faith who, for example, found
themselves faced in South America by a population like the
sands of the sea, directed their efforts to bringing no more than
the most essential Christian ideas to the knowledge of the
greatest possible number of persons ; thus we often hear of
thousands and tens of thousands of baptisms, but, except in
certain exceptional cases, such as Mexico, there is no mention of
real Christian communities under the care of permanent pastors
of souls. Moreover, in their great zeal, several of the mission
aries looked upon their office too much from the point ot view
of their own sanctification. According to the maxims of the
gospel there could be no greater work of charity towards our
fellow men and God than to care for the spiritual salvation of
one's neighbour, especially if this was accomplished at the cost
of heroic personal sacrifice. But for souls ot a generous nature
there was a danger of the missions being looked upon principally
as an opportunity for self-sacrifice, and for extraordinary
sufferings and even martyrdom, as the supreme proof of the
love of God ; the self-sacrificing activity of the wandering
missionary was more attractive to such souls than the quiet
work of a permanent priest in a small community of converts.
These facts must be kept in mind if we would form a true
judgment of the insistence of Pius V. upon making the work
as solid as possible.
1 Testimony of Polanco, who was present at the audience.
NADAL, III., 626 n. ; cf. SACCHINI, loc. ctt.
INSTRUCTIONS OF FRANCIS BORGIA. 351
It was of great importance for the future that one of the
recently established Orders which had from the first included
the propagation of the faith in the pagan world among its
objects, put the maxims of Pius V. into practice in every
respect. The instructions of Francis Borgia to his subjects
are drawn up entirely in this sense. Wherever our members
go, he wrote in March, 1567,! their first care must be for the
Christians who have already been converted, and they must
use every means to preserve them in the faith, and to further
the salvation of their souls. Only when that is done should
they turn their attention to the conversation of others who are
not yet baptized, but even then let them proceed prudently
and not take upon themselves more than they can accomplish.
They must not think it a gain to wander about here and there
in order to convert pagans whom they cannot afterwards
watch over ; let them rather proceed by degrees, and con
solidating their gains, since it is the wish of His Holiness, as he
has told our people, that more should not be baptized than
can be maintained in the faith.2 They should not expose
themselves to great risk of life among peoples not yet won over,
since, although it may be for themselves an advantage to give
up their lives in the service of God, this is not serving the
common good, when we have so few labourers in the vineyard,
and the Company can with difficulty send others to take their
place. The same exhortation to maintain in the first place
what had already been won, and only then to proceed further,
is again repeated to the visitor of the Indies, with a further
appeal to the wishes of Pius V. " This is the will of the Pope :
it does not seem to him to be any good to make Christians who
cannot be preserved in the faith ; in his opinion what has
been gained must be consolidated, and only then a further
advance made."3
xTo P. Ruiz del Portillo and his companions, S. FRANCISCUS
BORGIA, IV., 420.
2 " La intenci6n de S. S., como a nosotros lo ha dicho, es que
no se bapticen mas de los que se puedan sostener en la fe." Ibid.
3 " Y. esta es la mente del Papa, al qual no pare9e se hagan
xpianos los que no se pueden conservar, y aconseja fortificar lo
352 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
The same bre.idth of view which is expressed in these in
structions for the welfare of the pagan world, was shown by
the great Pope no less in his relations with the eastern peoples
nearer home. He knew what deep roots had been taken there
by attachment to those forms of worship which had been
retained from time immemorial as a sacred heritage from
antiquity, and that nothing would prevent reunion with Rome
so much as the suspicion that the Popes were endeavouring
to abolish those rites. Pius V. therefore expressly forbade
what in certain cases some of his predecessors, Papal legates,
or Grand Penitentiaries had allowed : namely that Greek
priests should celebrate according to the Latin rite, or Latin
priests in the Greek rite,1 since this was contrary to the ancient
constitutions of the Church and the decrees of the Fathers.2
Proof of his love for the Slav peoples was given by his order
that twelve youths of Illyrian stock should be sent to Rome,
to be educated there for the priesthood.3
ganado, y despues pasar adelante." Indiarum inspectori, on
January TO, 1567, S. Franciscus Borgia, IV., 386.
1 " ne deinceps presbyteri graeci, praecipue uxorati, latino
more, vel latini graeco ritu . . . missas et alia divina officia
celebrare vel celebraii facere praesumant." Brief of August 20,
1566, Bull. Rom. VII 473, Collectio Lacensis, II 450.
2 " hoc ab antiquo catholicae Ecclesiae institute et SS. Patrum
decretis deviare considerantes " (Coll. Lac., loc. cit.}. Cf. Gregory
the Great to Augustine (Ep. 64, n. 3, MIGNE, Patr. Lat., LXXVII.,
n87-can. 10 dist. 12) ; Leo IX. to the patriarch Michael (Ep.
100, n. 29, ibid., CXLIII., 764).
3 *Avviso di Roma of June 14, 1567, Urb. 1040, p. 406, Vatican
Library.
CHAPTER IX.
PlUS V. AND THE LEAGUE, AGAINST THE TURKS;
Pius V. shrank from nothing so much as taking up arms, yet
strangely enough, it fell to his lot to be frequently engaged in
wars. This was forced upon him in the first place by the
unsettled conditions of the Papal States, secondly by the
oppression of the French Catholics by the Huguenots, and
lastly by the pressing danger from the Turks. To meet this
danger became for Pius V. a principal object of his anxieties
and efforts during the whole of his pontificate, and in this
question he was from the first guided by the true principle
that a decisive success was to be obtained, not by means of
attacks delivered by individual powers, but only at their being
united together in a common league.
At the very beginning of his reign Pius V. wrote to Philip II.
to this effect, while to the Imperial ambassador he spoke of
his intention of forming a league of the Christian princes
against the Turks.1 His idea that the Ottoman power could
only be broken by means of a common crusade was shared by
the Grand-Master of the Knights of St. John, La .Valet te,
who had so heroically defended Malta in the time of Pius IV.2
Pius V. at once took in hand the safe-guarding of this advance-
post of the Christian world in the Mediterranean, which was of
the utmost strategic importance.3 In February and March,
1566, he exhorted the King of Spain and the governess of the
Low Countries to assist in the rebuilding of the fortifications
which had been destroyed during the siege of 1565, and to
1 See HERRE, Europ. Politik, I., 36 ; SCHWARZ, Briefwechsel, 38.
2 See Vol. XVI. of this work, p. 367. Cf. JURIEN DE LA
GRAVIERE, La guerre de Chypre et la bataille de Le"pante, Paris,
1888, 4.
8 Cf. SERRANO, Liga, I., 29 seq.
353
354 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
help the Knights with money and troops.1 A bull describing
in clear terms the Turkish peril, which had become doubly
dangerous in view of the religious dissensions of Christendom,
is dated March gth, 1566. It was only, he said, by the faithful
doing penance that the anger of God could be appeased, and
His strong help looked for. For this end the Pope had pub
lished a jubilee indulgence, for the gaining of which, in addi
tion to prayer and fasting, the reception of the sacraments
was enjoined and the giving of alms for the purposes of the
war against the Turks.2
The Pope was not a little dismayed by the news that the
Grand Master of the Knights of St. John, on account of the
imminent danger of an attack by the Turks, intended to take
refuge in Sicily and to leave Malta, which did not seem to him
sufficiently secure. In a letter of March 22nd, 1566, he ad
jured La Valette to give up this idea. Pointing out the
danger of southern Italy being laid open to the depradations
of the enemy, and of his own Order being destroyed if he were
to carry out his design, he exhorted him to go on courageously,
and promised him his own support.3 In accordance with this
promise he sent 15,000 ducats to Malta, as well as some troops
to assist the Knights, and begged Philip II. and the viceroy
of Sicily to give them help.4 At a consistory on April 2nd,
JThe "brief to the " gubernatrix Flandriae " of February n,
1566, in Arm. 44, t. 12, n. 27, Papal Secret Archives ; ibid., n. 44
the brief to Philip II. of March 22, 1566, printed in LADERCHI,
1566, n. 176, and n. 58 the ""brief to the same of March 27, 1566 ;
this last concerns the plan of employing floating capital for Malta
from the Papal monopoly on lights, for which purpose Ces.
Fontana was sent to the Low Countries.
2 The bull " Cum gravissima " in Arm. 44, t. 12, n. 33, Papal
Secret Archives, printed in LADERCHI, 1566, n. 171 (with the wrong
date, March 8), and in Bull. Rom., 431 seq.
3 See GOUBAU, 8 seq.
4 See CATENA, 44. Mention is made by C. Luzzara of the 3,000
men whom Pius V. wished to enlist for Malta, in his *report of
March 30, 1566, Gonzaga Archives, Mantua. See also the *letter
of Carlo Stuerdo to the Duke of Parma from Rome, April 20,
SUCCESSES OF THE TURKISH FLEETS. 355
1566, he spoke strongly of his desire to employ all his powers
for the protection of Christendom.1 How much this thought
filled his mind is also shown by the fact that it is mentioned
even in briefs dealing with the reform of morals among the
clergy. " I am taking up arms against the Turks," he says,
" but the only thing that can help me in that is the prayers
of priests of pure life."2
The failure of the attack by the Turks on Malta in 1565,
led the Sultan to attempt in the following year to conquer
the Greek archipelago. Since not only Venice, which was
directly threatened, but Spain as well,3 had made evasive
replies to the Pope's exhortations, the enemy found this an
easy task. On April I5th, 1566, the Turkish admiral, Piali,
captured the island of Chios, bringing the rule of the Giustin-
iani to a bloody end. In the same year the duchies of Naxos,
Andros and Ceos also fell into the hands of the insatiable
enemy.4 In May, 1566, Turkish ships made their appearance
in the Adriatic, and threatened Ancona, to which place Pius V.
at once sent troops and artillery.5 Later on he not only under
took the strengthening of the fortifications there, but in the
short space of twenty days formed a mobile force of four
thousand men for the defence of the coast.6
Besides such temporal measures Pius V. never ceased to
implore the aid of heaven for the protection of Christendom.
1566, State Archives, Naples, C. Fames. 763, and the *Avviso
di Roma of April 27, 1566, Urb. 1040, p. 2i7b, Vatican Library.
See also POLANCI Epist. in Anal. Bolland., VII., 49, 54.
1 See the *report of C. Luzzara from Rome, April 3, 1566,
Gonzaga Archives, Mantua.
* See LADERCHI, 1566, n. 251.
3 See SERRANO, Liga, I., 34.
4 Cf. ibid., 159 seq. ; HOPF in Enzyklopddie of Ersch, I.3,
sect. 86, p. 171 seq. JORGA, III., 109 ; Byzant. Zeitschrift, VIII.,
365 seq.
6 See *Avvisi di Roma of May n and 18, 1566, Urb. 1040,
p. 225, 229, Vatican Library.
6 See the "report of Firmanus (under August 3, 1566), Papal
Secret Archives, Miscell., Arm. XII., 31 ; CATENA, 46.
356 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
On July 2ist, 1566, the jubilee for the success of the war
against the Turks was published.1 Eight days later, on
July 28th, the Pope was seen taking part in person in the first
procession which was made in Rome to avert the Turkish
peril. He had tears in his eyes as he walked along, praying
fervently all the while. A second procession was made on
July 3ist, and a third on August 2nd, in which four thousand
people took part.2 Pius V. was successful in dissuading
La Valette from his purpose of abandoning Malta, and in
obtaining abundant means for the Knights for the fortifica
tions of the island.3 On the other hand insurmountable
difficulties stood in the way of his plans for the formation of
an anti-Turkish league. Venice, which was so strong at sea,
had adhered strictly to a policy of armed neutrality after the
unfortunate peace of 1540,* On account of her commerce in
the Levant and her distrust of the Hapsburgs, the Signoria
had held firmly to this policy, which was so costly and so
embarrassing, even at the time of the threat to Malta in 1565.
Even now she nervously avoided any disturbance of her
relations w.ith the Turks. When their fleet appeared near
Ragusa durlng the summer of 1566, she withdrew her ships
in all haste.5 Nor did the King of Spain at that time show
himself at all inclined to the league suggested by the Pope.
1 *Bando of July 21, 1566, Bandi, V., T, p. 159, Papal Secret
Archives.
* See FIRMANUS, *Diarium, loc. cit., p. loyb, Papal Secret
Archives. Cf. LADERCHI, 1566, n. 291 (with wrong date, July 14).
8 The King of Portugal sent a fairly large sum of money (satis
magnam pecuniam), as Pius V. mentions with words of praise
in a *brief sent to him on August 17, 1566, pointing out that with
the erection of the new fort on the heights of S. Elmo there would
be " Oportunuissimum ad versus Turcos et predones Afros totius
Christiani populi propugnaculum ; " Arm. 42, t. 12, n. 98, Papal
Secret Archives. There also is a brief of August 19 to La Valette,
which allows work for that purpose on Sundays and festival days
(printed in LADERCHI, 1566, n. 178).
4 See Vol. XI. of this work, p. 296.
5 See HERRE, Europ. Politik, I., 37,
THE POPE S EFFORTS TO FORM A LEAGUE. 357
In this Philip II. was guided by consideration for the Low
Countries and his fear of the German Protestants.1 In Ger
many the religious disputes in the Empire stood in the way
of the plan for a great international league, towards which
Maximilian II. seemed to be seriously inclined in the spring
of 1566. 2 The Papal legate, Commendone, was forced to
realize at the Diet of Augsburg that Maximilian thought before
all else of obtaining assistance for the protection of Hungary,
for which purpose the Diet voted a large sum of money, while
the Pope gave 50,000 scudi and obtained military help for
the Emperor from the small Italian states.3
At the end of autumn, 1566, the Pope, who had been
seriously perturbed by the fall of Sziget,4 made fresh efforts
to form a great anti-Turkish league. In order to bring this
about he appointed a commission, of which Cardinals Morone,
Farnese, Granvelle, Commendone and Mula were members.
On November 4th he recommended the matter in a pressing
letter to the Emperor, the Spanish sovereigns, Charles IX.
and the regent of France.5 But the state of political affairs
was then even less favourable than at the time of the first
attempt. Very little was to be hoped for from the Emperor,
or from the intriguing woman who was controlling the destinies
of France. The renewed outbreak of religious wars in France
then completely paralysed the resources of that kingdom.
At the same time Philip II. saw all his strength absorbed by the
disturbances in the Low Countries and by his war against the
1 See ibid., 37 seq. ; SERRANO, Liga, I., 36 seq.
2 Cf. BIBL, Korrespondenz Maximilians II., I., 448 seq.
3 Cf. supra pp. 247, 255.
4 " *I1 Papa ha sentito tanto dispiacere della perdita di Seghetto
che subito havuto la nuova si retir6 in Araceli et per tutto quel
giorno non attese ad altro che a deplorare la mala fortuna de'
christiani alia quale se potesse col sangue suo remediar la faria
volentieri," thus reports an Avviso di Roma of September 28,
1566, Urb. 1040, p. 291, Vatican Library. Cf. the *report of
Strozzi of September 29, 1566, State Archives, Vienna.
5 See SCHWARZ, Briefwechsel, 37 seq. ; HERRE, loc. cit., I.,
38 seq. The briefs in LADERCHI, 1566, n. 309 seq.
358 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
Moors, and it was not without some bitterness that the King
of Spain pointed out at what an inopportune moment the
Pope's suggestion had come. It was quite true that Philip II.
could not think of any foreign expedition while there was an
understanding between the rebels in the Low Countries and
the Huguenots, and his finances were completely exhausted.1
Although the plans for the league had to remain in almost
complete abeyance for two years,2 the Pope nevertheless did
all that he could to support the Emperor while the war in
Hungary lasted,3 to help the Knights of Malta,4 and to protect
the coasts of the States of the Church from attacks by the
Turks and by pirates.
1 See HERRE, loc. cit., 40 seq.
1 Cf. SERRANO, loc. cit., 38 seq.
9 Cf. supra, p. 255.
4 On October 12, 1566, *Strozzi reports that the Cardinals had
been summoned to take counsel to obtain help for Malta (State
Archives, Vienna). In February, 1567, Pius V. enlisted 3,000
men who were intended for Malta under the command of Pompeo
Colonna and Ascanio della Corgna (*report of B. Pia, dated Rome,
February 15, 1567, Gonzaga Archives, Mantua). At the end of
1567 the island was again threatened by the Turks. La Vale'tte
then sought help from the Duke of Anjou (see his letter of Novem
ber 3, 1567, in FILLON, n. 2499) ; France did nothing, but Pius V.
ordered a jubilee on October 28, 1567 (Bandi, V., i, p. 160, Papal
Secret Archives), and even before the messenger from the Knights
reached Rome on December 19 (*report of B. Pia of December 20,
J567, loc. cit.) provided for their help in various ways (see the
*report of B. Pia, dated Rome, November 29, 1567, Gonzaga
Archives, Mantua, and the *bull of December 18, 1567, Arm. 44,
t. 13, p. i lib, cf. p. 113 seq., Papal Secret Archives ; also the
briefs to Philip II., Charles IX. and the Doge of Venice, of Decem
ber 8, 12, and 19, 1567, in GOUBAU, 59 seq., 61 seq., 63 seq.). An
*Avviso di Roma of February 28, 1568, announces that the Pope
has authorized the enrolment of 1,500 men in the States of the
Church, and is providing part of their pay (Urb. 1040, p. 483^
Vatican Library). For the new fortification of S. Elmo in Malta
Pius V. gave 3,000 scudi in the following year (*Avviso di Roma
of July 30, 1569, Urb. 1041, p. I25b, loc. cit.).
DEFENCES OF THE COASTS. 359
Special provisions in the latter respect were all the more
necessary since the Papal fleet had been destroyed in the time
of Pius IV. at the battle of Jerbeh. As early as August, 1566,
steps had been taken for the protection of the coasts of the
Marches and Paolo Giordano Orsini had been placed in com
mand of four thousand men.1 The then imminent danger
from the Turkish fleet once again decreased, but Pius V. did
not discontinue his precautions. In June, 1567, he acquired
three galleys from Andrea Doria, as the one that remained was
obviously not enough to defend the coast.2 Besides this the
Pope planned to strengthen the fortresses of Ancona3 and
Civitavecchia,4 and to hurry forward the construction of watch
towers along the coast,5 which had already been begun under
1 See Corresp. dipl., I., 321, and GNOLI, Vitt. Accoramboni, 54.
8 See the "report of B. Pia, dated Rome, June 4, 1567, Gonzaga
Archives, Mantua.
3 *" Si da ordine di fortificare Ancona e Civitavecchia " (Avviso
di Roma of April 3, 1568, Urb. 1040, p. 499, Vatican Library).
M. A. Colonna inspected the fortifications of Ancona and gave a
good report of them ("Avviso di Roma of April 23, 1568, ibid., 511).
"Assignation of 50,000 scudi for the fortification of Ancona
(ibid., 526b). Cf. also MAROCCO, XII., 77 ; LEONI, Ancona ill., 296
seq. Payments to Giacomo della Porta for fortification works at
Ancona and Camerino in "Deposit., a. 1570, State Archives, Rome.
4 Cf. ANNOVAZZI, 280 seq., 298 seq. ; CALISSE, Storia di Civitavec
chia, Florence, 1898, 422 seq. The arms of Pius V. are still to be
seen on the gate.
6 Cf. GUGLIELMOTTI; Fortificazioni, 433, 441 seq., 472 seq.;
SCHRADER, Campagna, Leipzig, 1910, 148 seq. ; TOMASSETTI,
Campagna, I., Rome, 1910, 181 seq. ; the same, Le torri della
spiaggia romana nel a 1567, in Scritti di storia, di fil. e d'arte,
Naples, 1908. The plan for building the tower at Porto is men
tioned in the "Avviso di Roma of October u, 1567, Urb. 1040,
p. 448b ; ibid., 1041, p. 66, an "Avviso of April 23, 1569 : "La
tone che S.Std fa fabbricare alia foce del Tevere sopra le ruine
della Mole Traiana e reduta a buon termine per diffender la
spiaggia da Corsari dove presto se mandera artiglieria." In
Vatic. 6533, p. 145 seq. : "Offerta a Pio V. per la fabrica della
torre a Ostia. Vatican Library.
360 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
Pius IV. These served to watch for the Turks and pirates
and to give the alarm to the inhabitants in the neighbourhood
of a threatened attack. The largest of these buildings, the
tower of S. Michele at the mouth of the Tiber at Ostia, the
design for which had been sketched by Michelangelo, still bears
the inscription of Pius V.1 The part which the Pope took in
all these works may be seen from the fact that he visited them
in person.2
The building of these towers, which to-day form so pictur
esque a feature of the shores of the Roman coast, involved
considerable expense, and the provision of the necessary funds
led to no small difficulties. How dangerous the situation was
was shown by an attack by pirates on Nettuno, which took
place in May, I568.3 On several occasions it was feared
that the enemy would appear before Rome itself, where,
especially in the Borgo, Pius V. undertook considerable fortifi
cation works. Here too the Pope assured himself of the
progress of the works by making personal inspections.4
The Ottoman Empire had reached the height of its splendour
and power under Suleiman the Magnificent ; the death of the
sultan, which occurred in September, 1566, during the siege of
Sziget, was the beginning of it decline. Christendom and its
supreme head breathed again.5 As is often the case in history,
so now it was seen how limits are set to the triumphs of every
conquering state by the fact that great capacity for rule is
1 See GUGLIELMOTTI, Colonna, 153 seq.
2 See the "report of C. Luzzara of November 19, 1566, Gonzaga
Archives, Mantua, and *that of Strozzi of November 23, 1568,
State Archives, Vienna.
* As to this cf. the *Avviso di Roma of May 22, 1568, in the
" Romana " of the State Archives, Vienna. An *Avviso of
July 6, 1569, reports the capture by corsairs of several vessels on
their way to Rome. Urb. 1041, p. io5b, Vatican Library.
4 The inspection of the works in the Borgo and at the Castle of
St. Angelo (cf. supra Vol. XVII. , p. 126) is announced in an
*Avviso di Roma of May 8, 1568, Urb. 1040, p. 5i4b, Vatican
Library.
6 See the *report of Strozzi of October 26, 1566, State Archives,
Vienna.
THE SULTAN SELIM II. 361
not always hereditary. The decline of the Turkish power
would have been even more evident if the capable grand
vizier, Mohammed Sokolli, had not acted as a counter-poise
to the unworthy and foolish sovereign who now ascended the
throne.
Contemporaries draw a repulsive picture of the coarse,
undersized and corpulent Sultan, Selim II., whose red face
betrayed the drunkard.1 Long before his accession to the
throne a Jew named Jose Miquez, who had come from Portu
gal, and had become very wealthy by means of financial
speculations, had succeeded in getting great influence over
Selim by encouraging the debauchery of the prince in every
way, and his fondness for choice wines and food. Immedi
ately after his succession to the throne the Sultan conferred
on his favourite the duchy of Naxos, in return for a small
tribute.2 Hoping to get Cyprus into his hands in the same
way, the avaricious Jew urged the Sultan to make an expedi
tion against that island, which, on account of its natural riches
and its important stragetic position, was one of the most
treasured possessions of the Republic of St. Mark.3 After the
conclusion of peace with the Emperor and the conquest of
Arabia nothing st<_ xi in the way of this plan except the grand
vizier Sokolli, who was opposed to any breaking off of relations
with Venice, and who would have preferred to give support to
his co-religionists in Spain, the Moorish rebels.4 Jose Miquez,
or, as the Turks called him, Josef Nassi, found powerful support
for his designs in the admiral, Piah-Pasha, and the vizier
1 See A. BADOERO in Alberi, I., 360 seq. ; ZINKEISEN, III., 55
seq. ; JORGA, III., 163.
2 Cf. BADOERO, loc. cit. ; CHARRIERE, III., 86, 88 n., 646 n. ;
ROMANIN, VI., 270 seq. \ ZINKEISEN, ' III., 56 seq., 373 seq. ;
BALAN, VI., 530 ; HERRE, Europ, Politik, I., 12 seq. ; Rev. hist.,
LXXVII., 310 seq. ; see also LEVY, Don Josef Nasi, Herzog von
Naxos, Breslau, 1859.
8 See the report of Bernardo Sagredo in MAS LATRIE, III.,
540 seq., 555 seq. Cf. HAMMER, II., 405 ; HERRE, I., 10.
4 Cf. BROSCH, Geschichten aus dem Leben dreier Grosswesire,
Gotha, 1889, 7 seq. ; HERRE, I., 14 seq.
VOL. xvili. 25
362 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
Lala Mustafa, Selim's tutor. The Mufti associated himself
with them, and told the Sultan that he would be able to recover
from the Venetians the money required for the great mosque
at Adrianople, which was being built, and that Selim, as the
heir of the rulers of Egypt, had a right to the possession of
Cyprus. Venice, so he said in the hearing of the Sultan, had
been guilty of a breach of faith by favouring the piracies of
the brigands of Uscocchi, on the borders of Dalmatia, and by
offering shelter to the Maltese corsairs in the harbours of
Cyprus.1
The party which had raised the standard of war against
Venice had everything its own way when news reached Con
stantinople that the arsenal of Venice had been destroyed by
fire on September I3th, 1569, 2 and that Italy was threatened
with famine in consequence of a bad harvest. Rumour exag
gerated the damage done to the Republic, and Selim II.,
thinking that Venice had lost her fleet,3 resolved to break the
peace which had been concluded with the Republic in 1540.
Knowing full well that the great Christian powers were ham
pered by internal difficulties and were in a state of discord
among themselves, he only waited for the most favourable
moment to launch his attack and rob the Venetians of their
" jewel, Cyprus, the last bulwark of Christendom in the
Levant."4 On February ist, 1570, a Turkish plenipotentiary,
named Cubat, was sent from Constantinople to Venice, to
deliver the ultimatum to the Signoria : the surrender of
Cyprus or war. The Porte had already on January I3th, on
1 See HAMMER, II., 401 seq. ; BROSCH, loc. cit., 17 seq. ; HERRE,
I., 12 seq.
2 Cf. ROMANIN, VI., 267 seq. ; BALAN, VI., 531 ; HERRE, I., 15
seq. ; Tosi, Dell'incenclio dell'arsenale di Venezia, Florence, 1906.
3 In a *Lettera di Roma of December 23, 1569, it is stated :
it is reported from Venice that the Turk, who is harassed by the
" Tartari " and the " Son," cannot send any fleet against us.
Doria-Pamnli Archives, Rome.
4 HERRE, Mittlemeerpolitik im 16. Jahrhundert, in Deutsche
Zeitschrift fur Geschichtswissenschafl, IX. (1906), 358. For the
importance of Cyprus to Venice see also SERRANO, Liga, I., 42 seq.
THE REPUBLIC OF VENICE. 363
flimsy pretexts, confiscated all Venetian property, together
with the merchant vessels of the Republic which were in the
harbour of Constantinople.1
The Republic of St. Mark, which for a generation had main
tained friendly relations with the Porte with the greatest self-
restraint and caution, and even at the expense of its political
good name,2 and which had schooled itself, for the sake of
its commercial interests, to cling to the hem of the Sultan's
garment,3 restricting itself to a defensive attitude, was not a
little taken by surprise by the attack which was now suddenly
threatened. Trusting to the benevolent attitude of the grand
vizier, it had too long brushed aside the warnings of its am
bassadors.4 Since they were all aware in Venice of the strength
of their enemy and his almost inexhaustible resources, they
were under no illusion as to the gravity of the danger, and took
precautions on a grand scale. It was but natural that they
should turn their thoughts towards help from outside. As
France and Germany were completely occupied with internal
disturbances, they could for the moment only turn to Spain
and the Pope ; with these two powers, however, Venice was
not on very good terms. Spain, the greatest power in Europe,
had such great influence in Italy that the States of the Church
and the Republic of Venice could only with difficulty maintain
their independence. Spanish viceroys ruled at Naples, in
Sicily, in Sardinia, at Milan and in Lombardy. Savoy, Genoa
and Tuscany were dependent upon Madrid. It had been
made evident in many ways that in Spain they looked with a
jealous eye on the freedom and power of the Republic of
St. Mark, as well as upon that of the Holy See. The arbitrary
way in which Venice had been accustomed to act in ecclesiasti
cal questions, and the scant courtesy she had shown in matters
of ecclesiastical politics in connexion with the Roman In
quisition, a thing which was very near to the heart of Pius V.,
1 Cf. BROSCH, loc. cil., 14 ; CHARRIERE, III., 102.
2 The Venetian diplomatists themselves recognized this ; see
ALBERI, III., i, 83, 160.
3 See ALBERI, XIII., 95 ; cf. JORGA, III., 248.
4 See HERRE, I., 19.
364 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
had led to various misunderstandings,1 but the common danger
which threatened Christendom caused the noble-hearted Pope
to put all such considerations into the background, since from
the moment of his election he had never lost sight of the
dangers hanging over Christendom on the part of Islam.
Far more difficult was it for Venice to find common ground
with Spain, whose interest in the Turkish question centred
rather in the north of Africa than in the east. How great was
the jealousy between Venice and Spain was made clear when
the Papal nuncio in Venice, Antonio Facchinetti, who, in
accordance with the wishes of the Pope, had always pressed for
a Christian coalition against the Turks, urged the Signoria
to form an alliance with Philip II. On February 22nd, 1570,
Facchinetti had to report to Rome that he plainly saw that the
Signoria still shrank from the idea of the league, because they
did not wish to bind themselves to protect the property of
Spain when the Turkish fleet was attacking, not the posses
sions of Venice, but those of Philip II.2 The Venetians there-
1 With regard to the Inquisition see Vol. XVII., p. 316, and GRATI-
ANUS, De bello Cyprio, 51 seq., and especially TIEPOLO, 191 seq.,
and GOTHEIN, 526 seq. See also Corresp. dipl., I., 128. For the
opposition of Venice to the bull " In coena Domini " see CEC-
CHETTI, I., 448 ; cf. GOTHEIN, 538 seq. ; Corresp. dipl., III., 242.
The disgraceful disputes occasioned by the brief of June 27, 1566,
on the union of the parish of Desenzano with the monastery of
S. Salvatore at Brescia, to which Venice refused its ' exequatur,"
are described in detail, but in a partisan spirit, by U. PAPA (Un
dissidio tra Venezia e Pio V., Venice, 1895). Cf. also Corresp.
dipl., II., 161. For the mistrust felt by Venice for Pius V. see
ALBERT, II., 4, 239. For Pius V.'s opinion of the Venetians and
their pride see the note of the Papal Secretary of State in 1572,
in Varia polit., 117, p. 385 seq. ; **Negotii di Venezia, Papal
Secret Archives.
2 Facchinetti 's letter is published in VALENSISE, 40-41. This
edition, made in 1898, of the important and interesting reports
from the nuncio at Venice concerning the league escaped the
notice of HERRE (Europ. politik im Cyprischen Krieg, I., 1902),
who in other respects had made very complete use of the vast
amount of literature on the subject.
VENICE FORCED TO AGREE TO THE LEAGUE 365
fore sought to obtain from the Pope, not a league, but money,
provisions and troops, because they still deluded themselves
with the hope that the news of their extensive military prepara
tions would at the last moment prevent the Turks from attack
ing their possessions in the Levant.1 The Signoria was quite
prepared, indeed, that the Pope should give military assistance
to Venice with the help of the other Catholic powers, and
especially of Spain, but it would very much rather have had
that help without being bound by any strict alliance with its
rival, Spain, and thus finding itself committed to undertakings
which could not serve any directly useful purpose for itself.2
Pius V. was very ready to give direct help to the Republic,
but at the same time he insisted that the Signoria must ally
itself with Philip II. and the small Italian states against the
Turks. Thus, after her first hesitation, Venice found herself
at length obliged to agree to the league urged by the Pope
and his nuncio, since she could not in other ways count upon
the help of the other Christian states.3
On March 8th, 1570, the nuncio Facchinetti sent to Rome the
following significant report : in view of the apparent inevit
ability of war the Venetians are now desirous of joining the
league, but if the Turks should leave them in peace they would
not be displeased ; His Holiness, therefore, must try and
bind them as closely as possible to the league. He, the nuncio,
would work for the same end, in such a way that the Signoria
would find itself so tied that it would be unable to withdraw
without incurring the deepest disgrace.4
In the meantime Cubat, the bearer of the ultimatum, was
nearing the city of the lagoons, where lively discussions were
1 See the report of Facchinetti, dated Venice, February 25, 1570,
in VALENSISE, 43 seq.
* See the excellent account by HERRE, I., 49 seq. Cf. SERRANO,
Liga, I., 48 seq.
* See HERRE, I., 50. As early as March 13, 1568, Facchinetti,
in a letter to the Secretary of State of Pius V. had expressed the
hope that Venice would in the end seek safety in the league.
VALENSISE, 38.
4 See VALENSISE, 46.
366 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
being held as to the attitude they should take up. At the
council of the Pregadi three views had been put forward :
the first, that Cubat should be received in secret, was nega
tived ; the second, that he should not be allowed to enter
Venice at all, but should be at once sent back, also failed to
secure a majority ; it was resolved in the end to accord the
envoy a public reception, but to refuse his ultimatum uncon
ditionally.1 In conformity with this decision, instructions
were also drawn up and sent to Ragusa, to the Venetian
representative, Aloisio Bonrizzo, who was accompanying
Cubat.2
When the Turkish ambassador arrived in the harbour of
Venice on March 27 th, 1570, he was forbidden to land in the
city. Guards accompanied him on the following morning to a
full assembly of the Signoria, which was held with closed doors,
and lasted only a quarter of an hour. Cubat there delivered
his ultimatum ; the reply which had been already prepared
was a definite rejection " in cold and dignified terms/' It
pointed out that without any reasonable excuse the Porte
wished to break the peace which had been ratified by oath
only a short time before. The Republic would defend itself
against the attack which was now to be expected, trusting
in the justice of God, and would defend Cyprus, its lawful
possession, by force of arms.3
Although at that moment Venice seemed to be firmly
resolved to engage in a struggle with the Turks, trusting in
1 See the report of Facchinetti of March 17, 1570, in VALENSISE,
48.
* See YRIARTE, La vie d'un patricien de Venise au i6e siecle,
Paris, 1874, 171.
8 The above is in accordance with the report of Facchinetti of
March 29, 1570, in VALENSISE, 50 seq. The later historians,
PARUTA (Hist-Venet., II. ; Guerra di Cipro, I., 50 seq.}, FOLIETA
(De sacro foedere, I., i), and GRATIANUS (De bello Cyprio, 40 seq.)
have described in detail the events of those days, but as HERRE, I.,
22, n. i, points out, in some cases embellishing their accounts
with legendary matter. For the reply that was prepared see
LONGO, Guerra, 13 seq., 14, and YRIARTE, 152.
PHILIP II. STILL HOLDS BACK. 367
its sea power, nevertheless doubts were freely entertained as
to the sincerity of the Signoria, and it was thought that the
skilful diplomatists of the Republic were only ' trying to
frighten the enemy, and to come to an understanding with the
Porte favourable to themselves, by which the allied Christian
powers would be left empty handed. It is easy to understand
this mistrust in the light of previous events ; above all, the
representatives of Philip II. in the Curia, Zufiiga and Gran-
velle, were led by it to hold back, as well as by political con
siderations. In order to enhance as much as possible the
value of the accession of the power of Spain, these diplomatists
made it appear that the king had no idea of joining the league.1
That the Spaniards were dealing in subterfuges had already
been made clear when the Pope in his enthusiasm for the
protection of Christendom spoke of the Turkish peril at a
consistory of February 27th, 1570, and in burning words
urged Venice to rise in all her might. Among the Cardinals
there was but one opinion as to the reality and imminence of
the danger, and no one was blind to the fact that Cyprus must
fall into the hands of the Sultan before the princes cf Europe
could respond to the Pope's appeal for help. The best way to
prevent such a disaster seemed to be the immediate inter
vention of Philip II.
It was true that the King of Spain was in a position at once
to send from his Sicilan harbours sufficient help to hold back
the first attack of the Turks, but Cardinal Granvelle declared
himself so strongly against any such course that he adjured
the Pope and the College of Cardinals not to precipitate his
king and the Church into so dangerous and hazardous an
undertaking. Granvelle did not hesitate to declare openly
that the faithless Republic of St. Mark was not deserving of
immediate help, that for the time being it could be left to
its fate, and that it would be time enough to come to its
assistance when disaster had forced it to realize that it could
1 See the fully justified remarks of HERRE, I., 67 seq., who was
the first to make use of the reports of Granvelle and Zufiiga in the
Archives at Simancas.
368 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
not do without its neighbours ; he, the Cardinal, believed that
God had exposed that proud state to the attack of the infidels
for the purpose of punishing its selfishness, and forcing it to
realize that even the Signoria might find itself in the position
of having to beg for protection and help.
Cardinal Commendone, who was held in great esteem by
Pius V., vigorously opposed this declaration of Granvelle.1
He recalled the services of Venice to Christendom and the
Holy See, and sought to defend the Signoria from the charges
of faithlessness and selfishness as far as he could. With bitter
reference to the Spaniards he remarked that he marvelled
at mention being made of the late war, and the peace that had
then been concluded with the Turks, since the Venetians
had then been treated by their allies in such a way that they
preferred not to speak of it. Commendone called attention to
the proposal which the Pope had had in his mind from the first,
namely that they should send help as quickly as possible,
since it was not only Venice, but the whole of Italy that was
involved, as well as the good name and well-being of Christen
dom. The majority of the Cardinals then decided in the sense
suggested.2
While the Pope, after this consistory, made provision for a
large subsidy in money by granting a tenth upon the Venetian
clergy up to 100,000 gold scudi, which was intended to be used
only for the defence of Cyprus,3 he at the same time took
i Cf. Vol. XVII. of this work, p. 81.
8 For the consistory of February 27, 1570, which strangely
enough is not mentioned in the *Acta concistorialia in the Con-
sistorial Archives at the Vatican (now included in the Papal
Secret Archives), see the report of Facchinetti of March i, 1570
(VALENSISE. 44) the letters of Granvelle and Zufliga to Philip II.
of February 28, 1570 (State Archives, Simancas), used by HERRE,
I., 48, as well as FOLIETA, I., 996 seq., and GRATIANUS, De bello
Cyprio, 52 seq., which, for purposes of criticism, should be com
pared with LADERCHI. 1570, n. n.
8 The money was therefore " venire in mano dei ministri di
S.StA ;" see VALENSISE, 44. Cf. for the concession the ""report
of B. Pia, dated Rome, March, 4, 1570, Gonzaga Archives Mantua.,
NEGOTIATIONS WITH PHILIP II. 369
definite steps to induce Philip II. to come to the assistance
of Venice, and to enter into an alliance with the Republic.
When the Venetian government placed in his hands the
carrying out of the negotiations,1 Pius V. entrusted the con
duct of this most difficult business to one of his most skilful
and capable officials in political affairs, and one who by his
Spanish descent was bound to be in sympathy with Philip II. ;
this was Luis de Torres, a cleric of the Apostolic Camera.2
The *bull concerning the Venetian tithe (the effective value of the
100,000 gold scudi was 180,000 ; see CECCHETTI, II., 74), dated
Rome, April 10, 1570, is in Archives of Briefs, Rome. On the
same date Pius V. published a " iubilaeum ad divinum auxilium
implorandum contra infideles " ; BANDI, V., i, p. 162, Papal
Secret Archives.
1 *" A 27 di Febraro del 1570 rendendo conto alia St&l di Pio V.
il cl. Michele Suriano, ambasciatore de Venetian! appresso S.St&
degli apparati di guerra che faveva il Turco " the Pope begged the
ambassador to write home to stipulate for a league with Philip II.
Soriano sent a messenger to Venice the same day. The reply of
the Signoria to this placed the matter in the hands of the Pope,
" accio che con I'autorita sua si trattasse et concludesse et data
questa risposta sabbato 4 di Marzo lunedi a sei mand6 a chiamare
me D. Luis de Torres, chierico di sua Camera Apostolica et mi
disse di volermi mandar in Spagna per tal effetto raggionandomi
nella forma seguente : Monsignore, vi havemo mandate a chia
mare per dirvi che siamo risoluti mandarvi in Ispagna et la causa
vi diremo : " league between Venice and Spain, refer to instruc
tions. There is further another business to be treated of, which
the nuncio had already opened with Philip 1 1., " che abbracci le
cose d'Inghilterra aiutando li sollevati " (cf. supra, p. 209 seq.).
Torres declared his readiness to accept the mission. Thus the
*Giornale de' trattati segreti et pubblici di diversi ministri con
il S. P. Papa Pio V. (ex bibl. card. los. Renati card118, Imperialis),
Add. Ms. 20052, p. 2, British Museum, London. Cf. also the
accounts drawn from the Spanish reports in HERRE, I., 70.
2 For L. de Torres, who was Archbishop of Monreale from 1573,
and died December 31, 1584, see LELLQ, Hist. d. chiesa di Mon
reale, Rome, 1596, 122 seq. ; SERENO, 383 seq. ; GARAMPI, Osser-
vaz., 304 ; FORCELLA, IV., 335. The Archives of the Marchese
de Torres (Dragonetti) at Aquila contain important documents
370 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
The two duties imposed upon him are clearly and definitely
expressed both in his instructions and in the brief accrediting
him to Philip II., dated March 8th, 1570. After a vivid
description of the danger to Christendom, and the expression
of his own sorrow, the Pope said that he was convinced that
no monarch in Christendom could by his own power resist
that of the Turks, but that the Christian princes united to
gether could do so. It was however absolutely necessary that
they should ally themselves together in order to fight the
common enemy, and the first place in this glorious under
taking belonged to the King of Spain, both on account of his
great piety, and of the might of his empire. The Pope would
joyfully support his efforts and was prepared to drain the
resources of his own dominions. At the same time the letter
pointed out the necessity for immediate military help. The
King of Spain was adjured in the name of God's mercy at once
to send a strong fleet to Sicily in order to protect Malta, should
the Turks launch an attack there, as well as to keep the seas
free for the Christian troops which were to be sent to the
assistance of Cyprus. In this way the plans of the Turks
would be completely foiled.1
In the three instructions which were given to Torres his
duties were detailed and explained even more fully.2 The
alliance between Venice and Spain must be both defensive
and offensive, and should be concluded either permanently
or for a definite period as should appear most advisable
from those left by Torres. I went to Aquila in October, 1903,
to see them, but could not do so owing to the absence of the
proprietor.
1 See GOUBAU, 202 seq. ; LADERCHI, 1570, n. 21.
* The three instructions taken from the Archives of the Marchese
de Torres (Dragonetti) at Aquila by SERENO, 427-431, have the
dates March 12, 5, 12, 1570, while the copies in the Papal Secret
Archives and in the Chigi Library, Rome (see HINOJOSA, 188 ;
HERRE, I., 89) as well as Cod. 6334, p. 342 seq. of the Court Library,
Vienna, have March 15 instead of 5. In the codex in the British
Museum, London, cited on p. 369 n. i, the instructions are dated
(P- 5b, 7 and 10) as in Sereno.
THE INSTRUCTIONS TO TORRES. 371
Above all, the king should be induced, as Venice already had
done, to entrust the negotiation of the question to the Pope,
and at once to send full powers for this purpose to Rome,
where everything would be done with the fullest justice, and
in such a way that no one could feel injured. Torres was
specially instructed to point out that Venice was quite unable
by herself to withstand an attack by the Turks,1 while the
two powers together would be quite strong enough at sea
both for the defensive and the offensive. Torres was more
over to explain more fully the manifest advantages of the
alliance, and to insist that it should be both definite and firm.
The King of Spain must therefore entertain no suspicions of
Venice, nor Venice of the king. All the suspicions which had
hitherto existed must disappear before the common danger.
It was obvious that neither power without the help of the other
could withstand the Turks, and therefore in their own interests
they must not break the alliance. Granted good- will, it
ought not to be difficult to arrange the terms of the league,
especially as the Pope was an impartial mediator and arbitra
tor. But before there could be any question of the division of
the funds contributed and the territory conquered, or of the
admission of x>ther powers, it was the duty of the King of
Spain, in view of the pressing nature of the danger, to send help
at once by immediately ordering his fleet to Sicily to help the
Venetians, as the Pope requested.
After Torres had also been given letters of recommendation
JThe correspondence of Torres has not been lost, as Herre
supposed (i., 93, n. 7), but is preserved in *Add. Ms. 20052, p. 2ob,
of the British Museum, London ; the first letter to Cardinal
Bonelli is dated from Siena, March 18, 1570, the second from
Barcelona, April 8. There also are to be found the replies of
Cardinal Bonelli, the letter of Torres to the " segretario " of
Pius V., Girol. Rusticucci, and his replies, as well as the corres
pondence of Torres with other Cardinals, and finally his reports
from Portugal. The study of these documents must be kept for
a special publication. SERRANO (Corresp. dipl., I., xxv.) does
not know of them, but quotes instead the *copy of the letters of
Torres in Cod. Urb. 841 of the Vatican Library.
372 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
to Cardinal Espinosa, the chief minister of Spain, to Rtiy
Gomez and other Spanish grandees and nobles, as well as to
Don John of Austria,1 further instructions were given to him
orally by the Pope at a farewell audience on March I5th, 1570.
He set out on the following day.2 With the means of trans
port then available a whole month elapsed before he reached
the Spanish court at Cordova. His reception by Philip II.
left nothing to be desired as far as marks of honour were con
cerned, but on account of the strained relations between
Madrid and Rome the negotiations were carried on with diffi
culty. Torres understood very well how to justify the attitude
of the Pope towards Philip II. ; as he was a Spaniard by birth,
certain outspoken expressions were accepted from him, which
the haughty grandees would never have taken from a foreigner.
Any definite reply on the subject of the league was at first,
in keeping with the Spanish habit of mind, postponed. On
the other hand, the king promised, when Torres pressed him,
to order Doria to sail at once for Sicily, and there await further
orders ; in the meantime the Spanish authorities in Naples
were to assist the Venetians with provisions and munitions.
Torres next followed the court to Seville, but there too, at an
audience on May 4th, the only reply that he could get con
cerning the league was framed in the vaguest possible terms.3
1 The brief to Cardinal Espinosa in LADERCHI, 1570, n. 24
the date March 2, in Laderchi is wrong ; it should be 12 ; see
*Brevia Pii V. in Arm 44, t. 15, p. 36b, Papal Secret Archives.
Ibid., p. 37b seqq., similar *letters to " Gomez princ. Ebuli," to
" Johanna principessa Portugaliae " (see LADERCHI, 1570, n. 25),
to the " dux Feriae," to the " episc. Conchensis, Ant. de Toledo."
According to *Varia Polit., 100, p. 8 seq., these letters were sent
on March 8 ; Don John is also named in them. According to the
above mentioned (p. 369, n. i) *codex in the British Museum
the briefs were dated March 12.
* See *Giornale de' trattati segreti, loc. cit., British Museum.
Cf. Facchinetti in VALENSISE, 57.
* See the report of Torres to Cardinal Bonelli, dated from
Seville, May 16, 1570, Lettere dei princ., III., 260-264 (on P- 2^°»
4 lines from the bottom read 26 instead of 16 ; on p. 264, 10 lines
PHILIP II. APPOINTS REPRESENTATIVES. 373
Nevertheless the Spanish council of state weighed the pros and
cons of the matter in no less than eleven meetings.
What greatly influenced Philip II. and his advisers in decid
ing to enter into the negotiations for a league, in spite of their
deep distrust of Venice, and to appoint Granvelle, Pacheco
and Zuniga as their representatives, was the hope of at last
obtaining what Spanish diplomacy had hitherto vainly tried
to extort from the strict Pope : the concession of the cruzada
and excusado, and the continuance of the sussidio.1 Besides
appointing his representatives for the negotiations concerning
the league in Rome, Philip II. renewed the promise which he
had made at Cordova, to assist Venice with provisions and
munitions, so that if the league were decided upon, the fleet
could immediately set sail.2 On May i6th, 1570, the full
powers for Granvelle, Pacheco and Zuniga were drawn up.3
With this a notable step forward had been taken. Luis de
Torres was able to leave the Spanish court and proceed to
Portugal, where he was to urge King Sebastian to a marriage
with Margaret of Valois, and to work for the accession to the
league oi that kingdom, which was small indeed, but of great
importance on account of its colonial empire. A Papal letter
from the bottom read 1570 instead of 1571). Cf. HERRE, L, 101.
See also Corresp. dipl., III., 295 seqq., where, on p. 297 seq. two
reports from Torres to Rome, of April 24, 1570, are published,
and on p. 324 seq. his memorial addressed to Philip II. about the
league against the Turks, of May 4, 1570.
1 See the letters of Philip II. to Zuniga and his plenipotentiaries,
May 1 6, 1570, Corresp. dipl., II., 335 seq., 350 seq. Cf. SERRANO,
Liga, I., 58 seq.
* See the report of Torres of May 16, 1570, loc. cit., 263 seq.
Cf. HERRE, L, 105 seq. See also HABLER in Histor. Zeitschrift,
XCIL, 496. For the efforts of Spain to obtain the concession of
the " Cruzada " see supra, pp. 8, 29. FOLIETA also states that
this question was at that time very acute (I., 967).
8 Philip II. announced this to the Pope on the same day ;
see GOUBAU, 312 seq. The Spanish original of the authority in
Corresp. dipl., III., 330 seq. ; ibid., 339, 346 seq., the secret in
structions of the king concerning the negotiations of the league.
374 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
of March I3th, which had been entrusted to Torres, urgently
begged the King of Portugal to attach his ten galleys to the
Spanish fleet. The king declared that any immediate assist
ance was out of the question, but promised it for the following
year.1 Torres was even less successful in the matter of the
king's marriage, which was all the more painful to Pius V.
because he was growing more and more anxious about the
danger of the marriage of Margaret with the Protestant Henry
of Navarre.2 How much he had this danger in his mind was
shown by the fact that on August 6th he again had recourse
to the Portuguese king, and sent back Torres once more to
Portugal after he had returned to Madrid ; but on this occasion
the Pope's representative was even less successful than before.
The king not only absolutely declined, though in the most
courteous terms, to marry Margaret, but also declared that it
was impossible for him just then to give any assistance at sea
against the Turks, as he had to protect the coasts of his own
kingdom against the Huguenot corsairs, and defend himself
from the threatened attack of the King of Morocco ; in the
following year, however, he would attack the Turkish empire
from India.3
Pius V. was anxious to draw, not only Spain and Portugal,
but also France, into the war against the Turks, concerning
which matter he held discussions lasting many hours with the
Capuchin, Girolamo da Pistoia, whom he held in the highest
esteem.4 In view of the state of affairs in the kingdom of
France, and the long standing friendly relations between that
country and the Porte, there was, it is true, very little likeli-
1 See GOUBAU, 337 seq., 339 seq. ; LADERCHI, 1570, n. 45 seq. ;
Corho dipl. Portug., X., 364 seq., 370 seq. ; HERRE, I., 132 seq.
Pius V. had already in 1567 sent the King of Portugal the blessed
hat and sword ; see MACSWINEY, Le Portugal et le St. Siege, I.,
Paris, 1898, 46 seq.
8 See supra, p. 135.
8 See GOUBAU, 342 seq. ; LADERCHI, 1570, n. 50 seq. ; Corpo
dipl. Portug., X., 391 seq. ; HERRE, I., 134 seq.
4 Cf. the report of Tiepolo in MUTINELLI, I., 92 seq. For G. da
Pistoia see Rocco DA CESINALE, I., 76 seq.
CHARLES IX. REJECTS THE LEAGUE. 375
hood of success. Nevertheless Pius V. made an attempt to
enter upon the subject personally with the young king,
Charles IX., employing all authority, and sending him on
March I3th, 1570, a letter expressed in burning words. In
this letter he deplored in touching terms the sorrows of
Christendom which were now coming to a climax with the
danger from the Turks. The king was therefore implored
to join the league against the common enmey. To the cold
and terse refusal of Charles IX. the Pope replied on June i8th
by another and very serious letter. If the king, this letter
says, will not give up his old friendly relations with the Porte,
in order that he may be able to render services to Constanti
nople in other ways, he will find himself upon an entirely
false road, as it is not lawful to do evil that good may come.
Besides this, the king is deceiving himself if he thinks that he
will be able alone to maintain his friendship with the enemy
of all Christian princes, whom he ought rather to avoid like
the plague. But lately, Venice has experienced the true
value of the Sultan's friendship. The letter ended with an
exhortation to follow the example which France had given
in the former days of her glory and greatness.1 But the words
rf Pius V. fell on deaf ears. French diplomacy did not even
shrink from directly opposing the league by attempting to
bring about an agreement between Venice and the Porte.2
Truly those days were far distant, when zeal for the Crusades
filled the whole of Christendom ! This was also shown in the
fact that Pius V., though he was urged to do so from many
quarters, did not dare to have recourse by letter to the man,
to whom at one time the eyes of the Popes had turned first of
all in similar circumstances ; this was the Emperor. The latter
had no idea of withdrawing from the peace which his ambassa
dors had purchased for him in 1568 for a period of eight years.3
1 GOUBAU, 295 seq., 298 seq. LADERCHI, 1570, n. 61-62. The
date " Mar. 14 " in Laderchi is wrong ; see *Brevia Pii V. in
Arm. 44, t. 15, p. 44b, Papal Secret Archives.
2 See HERRE, I., 161.
8 Cf. supra, p. 256.
376 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
Besides this, the relations of the Pope with the holder of the
supreme secular dignity in Christendom had been seriously
impaired, not only by the attitude of Maximilian II. towards
religious questions, but also by the elevation of Cosimo to the
grand dukedom of Tuscany.1 At the same time the relations
between Philip II. and the Emperor were very strained.2
To the Venetian ambassador, when news first arrived of the
threat to Cyprus by the Turks, Maximilian had, it is true,
declared that a league could easily be formed, not only bet
ween himself, the German Empire, the King of Spain and
Venice, but also with the Muscovites and the Persians, but
it very soon became known that the grandiloquent monarch
had made up his mind to go on paying his tribute to the Sultan,
and all the efforts of the Venetian ambassador to prevent the
sending of his " gift of honour " were in vain.3
The same fate befell the attempts of the Pope and Venice
to interest Poland and Russia in the common struggle against
the Turks. The rivalry existing between these two powers of
itself stood in the way of any such plan, and this became
apparent at the first attempt of the Venetians to win them
over to the league.4 Pius V., however, did not give up all
hopes of attaining his end. The optimism which he felt
with regard to Russia is explained on the one hand by the
ignorance which prevailed throughout the whole of the west of
conditions in that immense empire, which was still sunk in the
deepest barbarism, and of its cruel and despotic ruler, and on
the other by the hope which still lingered on the Curia, that
the Muscovite empire would accept the Catholic faith, and join
with the other nations in the common struggle against the
Turks. Pius V. was still so strongly under the impression
made by the negotiations which had been carried on in the
1 Cf. supra, p. 271 seq. *B. Pia reported from Rome on August
5, 1570, that the Emperor would only be drawn into the league
after the disputes about the question of Tuscany had been settled.
Gonzaga Archives, Mantua.
2 See HERRE, I., 141, 149 seq.
3 See TURBA, III., 490, n. 2. Cf. supra p. 256.
4 See HERRE, I., 155 seq.
PIUS V. AND THE RUSSIAN CZAR. 377
time of Julius III., and by the hopes held out by Ruggieri, at
that time nuncio in Poland, that Ivan IV., as the enemy of
the Lutherans, would not be averse to reunion with Rome,
that the participation of the Muscovite empire in the war
against the Turks seemed to him to be quite practicable.1
He was also encouraged in his hopes of being able to draw the
powers of eastern Europe into the struggle against the infidels
by the nuncio in Venice.2
In August, 1570, Portico, the nuncio in Poland, received
orders to go to Moscow to make an attempt to bring this about.
The instructions which he received are characteristic of the
Pope's idealism and energy. Pius V. refers to the negotiations
which Ivan IV. had entered into with Julius III. in order to
obtain the title of king, in return for the promise to submit
to Rome as far as the Church was concerned. The nuncio
was instructed to find out how far these negotiations, which
had then been interrupted, had been meant seriously. If a
favourable disposition still prevailed, the Pope was ready to
send priests and bishops to Moscow. Portico was advised
only to enter into religious controversy if Ivan himself touched
upon the subject. He was to point out in the first place the
danger from the Turks, and to urge the Czar to oppose them
together with the Emperor and the King of Poland, and by
this attack by land to support that of the Christian fleet in the
Mediterranean. In an appendix in cypher, the title of king,
which Ivan so much desired, is expressly dealt with.3 A
letter from the Pope to Ivan which was sent to the nuncio,
1 See CATENA, 183 seq. and PIERLING, Russie, I., 383 seq. For
the negotiations in the time of Julius III. see Vol. XIII. of this
work, p. 236, n. I.
2 See VALENSISE, 71 seq. In an *Avviso di Roma of June 2,
1571, it is said that the Jesuits stated that the Muscovites had
asked for some " patres " from them (Urb. 1042, p. 71, Vatican
Library). An *Avviso of June 8, 1571, in the State Archives,
Vienna, makes the same announcement, but with the addition
" which, if it is true, is of great importance."
3 See the text of the instructions of September, 1570, in PIER-
LING, Rome et Moscou, 140 seq.
VOL. XVIII. 26
HISTORY OF THE POPES.
and dated from Rome, August gth, 1570, contained, in addi
tion to a vivid description of the danger from the Turks
which threatened all the princes, a fervent appeal to join in
the war against the infidels. If the Czar, he says at the end,
will put into practice his ideas of reunion, the Pope will prove
his gratitude in every possible way.1
Ivan was not blind to the dangers which threatened the
Russian empire from the Turks, but he hoped to avert them,
not by any warlike enterprise, but rather by peaceful means ;
but Portico never obtained an inkling of this. It was taken
for granted from the fact of his mission that the King of
Poland had already given his consent, whereas the latter had
made conditions which ill concealed his dislike for the Pope's
proposals.2
The more hopeless the efforts of the Pope to organize a
grand crusade became, the more warmly did he insist upon
an alliance between Venice and Spain. But even in this he
was met by almost insuperable difficulties. As had often been
the case before, so now it seemed that it was only the Holy See
which fully realized the danger which threatened Christendom
and the whole civilization of the west, and was really pursuing
a disinterested policy in promoting the league with all its
power, whereas those in whose interests it was being formed,
allowed themselves to be guided by nothing but their own
individual interests, and haggled over the conditions of their
common undertaking like traders bargaining about their
merchandize.3
To the selfishness which was paramount on both sides was
1 See GOUBAU, 360 seq. ; LADERCHI, 1570, n. 64 ; THEINER,
Mon. Pol., II., 748 seq. A reprint of the Papal letter from the
original in N. LICHATSCHEV, Una lettera di Papa Pio V. allo
zar Iwan il terribile : Studio sulla diplomazia pontificia. Peters
burg, 1906 (in Russian), p. 2-5 and Tav. I. ; cf. as to this R. G.
SALOMON in Archiv fur dltere deutsche Geschichte, XXXII. (1907)'
461 seq.
2 See PIERLING, Russie, I., 389 seq.
8 See the opinion of Cardinal Rambouillet in his letter of Novem
ber 5, 1570, in CHARRIERE, III., 126 ; cf. HERRE, I., 69, 71.
MUTUAL DISTRUST OF SPAIN AND VENICE 379
added a mutual distrust, it was above all Philip II. who
feared that Venice had a secret understanding with the Porte,
and that Spain would be left alone to face a Turkish attack.
He was strengthened in his mistrust, which at times attacked
even the Pope, by the obstinacy with which Venice tried to
draw advantages for itself from the situation. Not satisfied
with Pius V. having granted the Republic a tithe, and other
help in money, troops and provisions,1 she wanted the Pope
further to take part in the naval expedition by placing a
certain number of galleys at her disposal. The Spanish am
bassador not unreasonably concluded from this that they
wished to prevent the supreme command of the fleet from
being given to a Spanish admiral.2 So as not to offend the
Spaniards, Cardinals Morone, Farnese, Orsini and Madruzzo,
when they were consulted by the Pope, advised the formation
of an independent Papal fleet, and recommended further
money subsidies. Since Venice in the meantime had declared
that she would only agree to a common expedition if it con
tained Papal ships and a Papal admiral, the Pope had to agree
to this, although it was very difficult for him to raise the money
and the troops for the promised fleet of twenty-four galleys.3
Encouraged by this success the Signoria then sought to have
the supreme command entrusted to a man who was wholly
1 See the *report of B. Pia, dated Rome, April 5, 1570, Gonzaga
Archives, Mantua, Cf. *Avviso di Roma of April 5, 1570,
Urb. 1041, p. 255b, Vatican Library.
* See the report of Zuniga of April 10, 1570, in HERRE, L, 75.
According to Granvelle (ibid. 78, n. 2) Venice had at first asked
for 30 galleys ; they then contented themselves with sending
24 empty ones to Ancona, where the Pope was to arm and equip
them ; see the *report of B. Pia of April 25, 1570, Gonzaga
Archives, Mantua, and the *Avviso di Roma of May 3, 1570.
Urb. 1041, p. 269, Vatican Library. Cf. also Corresp. dipl.,
III., 288 seq., 376, n. 2.
8 See FOLIETA, I., 969 seq. ; HERRE, I., 78 ; cf. also POMETTI,
67 seq. BIBL, Erhebung, 69 seq., 72 seq. shows how Cosimo I.
made use of the prosecution of the Turkish war to further his
schemes for obtaining a higher dignity.
380 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
devoted to their interests, Cardinal Cornaro. Pius V. skil
fully evaded this proposal on the ground that an ecclestiastic
was not suited to such a position.1 If attention were only
paid to the number of ships the supreme command would fall
to the Venetians, but it was certain that the powerful master
of Spain would never place himself under their orders. As
the Papal ships formed a link between the two rivals, Pius V.
thought of solving the problem of the supreme command by
appointing for them an admiral who would be above all sus
picion.2 With great cleverness he chose for this office a man
whose capacity for, war was beyond question and who would be
acceptable, not only to Venice but also to the Spanish king ;
this was Marcantonio Colonna. He was the most prominent
among the Roman barons, and though barely thirty-five years
of age, had already fought with three galleys of his own on
the coasts of Africa, and had helped in the capture of Pen6*n
de Velez.3
At the end of May, 1570, a courier sent by Torres arrived in
Rome with the news that Philip II. was prepared to go at once
to the assistance of Venice, as well as to begin negotiations
for an alliance. The Pope was filled with delight.4 On June
3rd he made public the appointment of Colonna as generalissimo
of the Papal auxiliary fleet.6 On Sunday, June nth, Marcan
tonio Colonna, clad in splendid armour, and surrounded by
Roman nobles, went on horseback to the Vatican, where he
took his oath in the Papal chapel after a Mass of the Holy
1 See VALENSISE, 59. It is clear from the *Avviso di Roma
of April 29, 1570, Urb. 1041, p. zbgb, Vatican Library, that
Commendone was suggested as well as Cornaro.
1 See the important report of Fachinetti of March 29, 1570, in
VALENSISE, 51 seq.
8 See GUGLIELMOTTI, M. A. Colonna, i i seq. Additions to
the biography by Guglielmotti are given in L. VICCHI, M. A.
Colonna : Appunti biografici con doc. rari. Faenza, 1890, and
TOMASSETTI, Su M. A. Colonna il Grande, Rome, 1909.
4 See the report of F. Gondola in VOINOVICH, 560.
5 See *Avviso di Roma of June 3, 1570, Urb. 1041, p. 283,
Vatican Library. Cf. Corresp. dipl., III., 376.
MARCANTONIO COLONNA. 381
Ghost. Conducted by Paolo Giordano Orsini and Michele
Bonelli, he then approached the steps of the Pope's
throne in order to receive from the hands of Pius V.
the baton of command and the standard of red silk, on
which was to be seen the Crucified between the Princes
of the Apostles, the arms of Pius V., and the motto : In hoc
signo vinces.1
In Rome as well as in Venice there was general satisfaction
at the appointment of Colonna. Only the Spaniards were
displeased, although they had every reason for satisfaction,
since Colonna had always been loyally devoted to the cause of
Spain. lie had proved this by his conduct in the time of
Paul IV. The noble-hearted Pius V. had completely passed
over the part played at that time by Colonna in the war of
Spain against the Holy See. How deeply hurt he must then
have been to learn that such a man did not seem to be accept
able to the representatives of Philip II. in the Curia ! Zuniga
told Colonna to his face that he need not suppose himself to be
generalissimo, and that there was no such thing as a league.
Granvelle openly blamed him for having accepted the com
mand of the Papal galleys without having first consulted
Philip II.2
That Pius V. had chosen the right man in Marcantonio
Colonna was shown by the energy with which he took in hand
the preparation of the galleys, the number of which, owing
to the impossibility of providing any more, had been reduced
1 See Firmanus in GENNARI 61 seq. ; *Avvisi di Roma of
June 14 and 17, 1570, Urb. 1041, p. agob, 293b, Vatican Library.
The date (May n) in SERENO, 46 and CATENA, 153, is wrong.
The brief to Colonna, of June n, 1570, in GUGLIELMOTTI, Colonna,
8 seq. The standard given by Pius V. to M. A. Colonna was
made over by him to the cathedral of Gaeta ; there it serves as
the picture of the High Altar, and is still well preserved ; see
P. FEDELE, Lo stendardo di M. A. Colonna a Lepanto (Nozze
Hermanin-Haussmann), Perugia, 1903 ; S. FERRARO, Mem.
religiose e civili di Gaeta, Naples, 1903, 193, and the pictures in
Cosmos illustr., 1904, So.
* See the reports of Zufiiga and Granvelle in HERRE, I., 82,
382 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
to twelve. Colonna found among the Roman nobles the
greatest eagerness to take part in the glorious enterprise.
The first under whose command galleys were fitted out were
Fabio Saritacroce and Domenico de' Massimi ; he appointed
Pompeo Colonna, the Duke of Zagarolo, as his lieutenant.
Paolo Francesco Baglioni was named commissary general,
while the artillery was placed under the care of the architect,
Jacopo Fontana.1 Special chaplains were also appointed to
look after the soldiers.2 The camerlengo at once -paid over
to Colonna 10,000 scudi, and he was to receive 12,000 more
from Venice, for which place he set out on June i6th.3
At Loreto Colonna recommended himself and his fleet
to the protection of the Madonna, and then went on to
Ancona and Venice for the fitting out of the twelve
Papal galleys, a task in which he had to overcome serious
obstacles.4
In the meantime the negotiations for the alliance between
Spain and Venice had been begun in Rome, after a courier
sent on June I4th had brought to the representative of the
Republic in Rome, Michele Soriano, the authority from the
Signoria.5 After several preliminary conferences6 the real
negotiations were begun on July ist, 1570, by an allocution
1 See GUGLIELMOTTI, Colonna, 13 seq., 16 seq. In a * brief
of August 3, 1570, Pius V. recommended Pompeo Colonna to the
" General! classis Venetae," Arm. 44, t. 15, p. 184^ Papal Secret
Archives.
2 Venice had proposed for this purpose from 8 to 10 Jesuits :
the Pope wished that there should be an ecclesiastic in every
galley (see VALENSISE, 52, 57) ; at length he chose the Capuchins ;
see *Avvisi di Roma of June 17 and 24, 1570, Urb. 1041, p.
293b, 2Q8b, Vatican Library. Cf. Rocco DA CESENALE, I.,
77 seq., 475 seq.
3 See *Avviso di Roma of June 17, 1570, loc. cit. The "brief
to the Doge, accrediting M. A. Colonna, is dated June 8, 1570 ;
Arm. 44, t. 15, p. I36b, Papal Secret Archives.
4 See GUGLIELMOTTI, Colonna, 22.
6 See HERRE, I., 164 ; cf. VALENSISE, 61.
* See Corresp. dipl., III., 404 seq.
THE TREATY OF ALLIANCE DRAFTED. 383
from the Pope, which was full of burning zeal for the crusade.1
Among the replies made by the ambassadors that of Soriano
was noteworthy, as dwelling upon the necessity of at once
taking the offensive against the Turks. When the ambassa
dors left the Vatican Soriano proposed that they should act
as had been done in 1538, and immediately, at the first meet
ing, declare the league formed and begin to put it into force,
afterwards proceeding to discuss the various points. Gran-
velle on the other hand declared that he wished first to hear
the various proposals.2
On July 2nd the representatives of Spain and Venice
received from the Pope the draft of a treaty of alliance,
modelled upon that of the league of I538,3 so that they might
discuss it with Cardinals Bonelli, Morone, Cesi, Grassi and
Aldobrandini, who had been appointed for that purpose.
On July 4th the representatives met for the first conference at
the Papal secretariate of State. The discussions, which after
1 See CATENA, 155 seq. ; FOLIETA, II., 1000 ; PARUTA, 122
seq. ; LADERCHI, 1570, n. 90 seq., where, however, the date is
wrong.
2 Cf. the protocol of the negotiations drafted by M. Soriano,
first in Tesoro Politico, I., Milan, 1600, 510 seq., and then in an
" old copy " in Du MONT, V., i, 184 seq., and in LUNIG, Cod. Ital.
dipl., VI., 262 seqq. and incompletely in the appendix to SERENO,
393 seq. The dates and figures are very faulty in these editions,
therefore two copies in the Papal Secret Archives have been
consulted, Leghe contro il Turco and Varia polit. 115, n. 16
(cf. POMETTI, 70, n. i). Copies of this protocol are also frequently
to be found elsewhere, as in the Court and State Library, Munich
Ital. 6, p. 24 seq. ; in the Library at Berlin, Inf. polit. 17, p. i. seq.
in the Vatican, cod. 7484, p. 132 seq., and Barb. lat. 5367, n. 15
in the Classense Library, Ravenna ; in the Library at Siena
and in the Addit. Ms. 18173, British Museum, London. The
reports of the representatives of Philip II., which complete
Soriano's work, are in Corresp. dipl., III., 404 seq., 417 seq.,
421 seq., 435 seq., 439 seq., 444 seq., 466 seq., 474 seq., 486 seq.,
495 seq. ; ibid. 501 seq. the comprehensive report of Rusticucci
to Castagna of August u, 1570.
8 See Corresp. dipl., III., 414 seq.
384 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
that were held almost every day, and at which Cardinal
Rusticucci represented Bonelli, who was ill, were by the Pope's
command, kept absolutely secret.1 As a matter of fact the
negotiations were from the first rendered very difficult by the
mutual mistrust and the divergent interests of the Spaniards
and Venetians.2 That they did not altogether fail was due
to Pius V., who never wearied of calming their passions and
smoothing over their differences, and curbing with much
strength of will his own ardent disposition.3
Both the Spaniards and the Venetians were determined to
look after their own interests and to gain as much advantage
for themselves from the alliance as possible. The greatest
determination in this respect was shown by the representatives
of Spain, and especially by Granvelle, who, paying no attention
to the reduced resources of Venice, insisted upon demands
which a great and powerful empire like that of Spain could
easily have foregone.4 It was therefore supposed in Venice
that Philip II. did not so much wish to deal a decisive blow at
the Turks, as to obtain a lasting defensive alliance in order to
find support in the good opinion of his allies, to bind the
1 See *Avvisi di Roma of July 8 and 15, 1570, Urb. 1041,
P- 3°7» 3°9» Vatican Library, and ibid. 294 and 296 the *Avvisi
of June 17 and 28, 1570. For the Cardinals chosen and the
removal of Santa Croce from the commission by the influence
of the Spaniards, see Corresp. dipl., III., 401 seq. Cf. also the
*report of B. Pia, dated Rome, July i, 1570, Gonzaga Archives,
Mantua. Morone took the place of Santa Croce (Corresp. dipl.,
III., 404 seq.), and Rusticucci acted as substitute for Bonelli
(cf. CHARRIERE, III., 115). After della Chiesa's death his place
was taken by Grassi (see FOLIETA, II., 1001). For the secrecy
cf. Gondola in VOINOVICH, 569 and CHARRIERE, III., 116.
a As early as July 15, 1570, an *Avviso di Roma announces that
a happy issue of the negotiations is earnestly hoped for ; another
of July 26 says that the " lega " must come to " buonissimo
termine " (Urb. 1041, p. 309, 312, Vatican Library). B. Pia
*announced from Rome on August 5, 1570 : " La lega s'ha per
conclusa." (Gonzaga Archives, Mantua).
8 This is rightly brought out by HAVEMANN (p. 123).
4 $ee SERRANO, Liga, I., 93,
HEATED DISCUSSIONS. 385
Republic of St. Mark to himself, and make it dependent upon
him, and lastly to tap a permanent source of revenue from
the Pope by means of the cruzada and tithes.1 In Madrid,
however, they feared that the peace party in the city of the
lagoons would be ultimately victorious and would enter into
an agreement with the Porte. Such mutual mistrust was
bound to render the negotiations in Rome for a league against
the Turks very difficult.
At the very first meeting on July 4th Cardinal Granvelle
raised a number of objections to the proposals for an alliance
put forward by the Pope. At the discussion of the objective,
towards which the alliance was to be directed, he maintained
the view of Philip II., that the league should not be aimed at
the Turks alone, but at all infidels. Soriano replied : " We
have been summoned hither and authorized to treat of nothing
but a league against the Turks ; anyone who wishes to include
other infidels is departing from our main purpose ; instead o£
quarrelling with them, we should rather seek to attach them
to ourselves in our struggle with the Turks." Morone agreed
with him, mentioning in particular Persia. Granville, how
ever, held firmly to his opinion, maintaining that the Persians
and the Moors were but tools in the hands of the Turks. The
league must also be directed against the Moorish rebels in
Spain, and the occupation of Tunis, and not made to serve
only the interests of Venice. The discussion became very
heated and protracted, as Soriano defended his opinion with
much energy. Morone then proposed, by way of compromise,
that neither the Persians nor the Moors should be mentioned,
nor Algiers, Tunis and Tripoli, so as to avoid the appearance
of Venice being unwilling to help Spain. But Soriano would
not agree to this, so that the decision of this question had to
be postponed.
The meeting on July 5th was devoted to the division of the
expenses ; Granvelle regretted the financial exhaustion of his
king, but said that Philip II. was nevertheless willing to bear
half the cost ; Soriano spoke to the same effect ; his declara-
1 Cf. PARUTA, 126 seq. ; LE BRET, Gcschichte Venedigs, III.,
1380 seq.
386 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
tion that the Signoria could only bear a fourth part of the cost
caused general dismay. Morone refused to accept this state
ment of the financial exhaustion of the Republic, saying that
financially speaking it was in a better condition than the other
states. The outcome of the long discussion that followed was
that Soriano declared that Venice would bear a third part of
the cost. Further difficulties arose with regard to the share
to be taken by the Holy See, which in 1538 had undertaken a
sixth part of the expenditure, which, however, was now out
of the question since the revenues of the Church were now less
by 400,000 scudi. Cardinal Aldobrandini estimated that, of
the 600,000 monthly cost of the war the Pope could only make
himself responsible for 30,000 or 35,000 at the utmost, and that
the rest would have to be shared by Spain and Venice. Soriano
refused to accept this, while Granvelle made his consent
dependent on the condition that the Pope should grant to
Spain the cruzada and other taxes upon the clergy, without
which his king would be unable to make any contribution
towards the league.
Soriano was not present at the meeting on July 7th, as he
had a private audience with the Pope in order to justify the
attitude which he had so far taken up, and was successful in
so doing. In the meantime the Pope's representatives treated
with the Spaniards concerning the cruzada and the other
demands of Philip II. Pius V. still resisted the concession of
the cruzada, but was inclined to grant the excusado and the
continuance of the sussidio. The Venetians accordingly put
forward further demands concerning the taxation of their
own clergy. They would have liked to have made this a
permanent arrangement, but the nuncio in Venice would not
hear of this, maintaining that the concession should only be
made for a year, so that its removal might "be made dependent
upon the energy with which they carried on the war.1
The rivalry between Spain and Venice came to a head at the
meeting on July 8th, when the question of how many ships
Venice and Philip II. should respectively contribute to the
enterprise was discussed. As no agreement could be reached,
» See VALENSISE, 62, 68.
QUESTION OF THE SUPREME COMMAND. 387
the decision of this matter had to be postponed. The same
fate befell the discussion on July loth. The Spaniards
proposed that the league should at any rate be directed against
Algiers, Tunis and Tripoli ; Soriano, however, was of opinion
that it should be merely stated to be against the Turks and
their tributary states, as otherwise it would be necessary to
draw up a list of all the Turkish possessions. The Spaniards
on the other hand pointed out that by their instructions they
had been expressly told to insist that their king should be
helped by the league in his undertakings against Algiers and
other places in Barbary. If this was not agreed to Spain could
not take part in the league.
At the meeting on July nth, the difficult question was
raised of the supreme command, which Spain claimed for
herself. Soriano argued against this that in eastern waters
the Venetian fleet would have a greater influence, especially
in inducing the Christians in those parts to revolt against the
Turks. It was decided to refer the matter to the Pope, and
in the meantime to postpone any decision. Morone remarked
on this occasion to Soriano that Don John of Austria, the
half brother of Philip II.,1 who had made a name for himself
in the war against the Moors, was likely to be appointed gen
eralissimo. It was also unanimously decided at this meeting
that the Pope should invite the other princes to join the
league, especially the Emperor, and that none of the allies
should make peace or come to any arrangement with the Turks
without the consent of the others, and lastly that the Pope,
as supreme arbiter, should decide all questions connected
with the league.
On July I3th it was first discussed what share should be
taken by Spain and Venice of the contribution which had been
asked for from the Pope. Opinions were so violently opposed
as to this that the negotiations almost came to an end. Gran-
1 Cf. for him, besides the monographs by HAVEMANN (1865)
and STIRLING-MAXWELL (2 vols., London, 1883) the older work,
only recently edited by PORRENO : Hist, del ser. S. Don Juan
d'Austria, Madrid, 1899.
388 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
velle permitted himself to speak in such a way as to provoke
even so moderate a man as Morone to a bitter retort. Then
a fresh dispute arose, as to whether the conquest of Algiers,
Tunis and Tripoli was to be counted as one of the objects of
the league. Soriano insisted that the proposed league was
not only for the advantage of Venice, but for the protection
of the whole Christian world. The Spaniards on the contrary
contended that what they were doing was principally for
the advantage of the Republic, and demanded something by
way of compensation. At length Soriano declared his readi
ness to make greater concessions than were authorized by his
instructions. All seemed to agree to the appointment of
Don John of Austria as generalissimo, though they insisted
that he should act in connection with the commanders of the
Venetian and Papal forces.
On July iyth the Pope's representatives laid before them
a detailed draft of the terms of the alliance, with regard to
which Morone pointed out that these were definitely what the
Pope desired. The Spaniards wished first to send the scheme
to their king in order to receive his instructions, and when
Soriano objected that in view of the Turkish preparations any
further delay was dangerous, and that the whole world was
expecting from them a definite decision, they replied to him
that they had only been meeting for fourteen days, whereas
the negotiations concerning the league in the time of Paul III.
had lasted from October, 1537, to February, 1538.
During the course of the negotiations Soriano had several
times insisted on the junction of the Spanish fleet with those
of the Pope and Venice. The Spaniards replied that as to
that they must await the orders of Philip II., which, however,
would have arrived before the feast of St. James. The
negotiations were therefore postponed until that date. On
July 22nd it was learned that the Venetians had consented to
the appointment of Don John of Austria as generalissimo of
the armada,1 and on the 26th they were able to lay before the
1 See the "report of Arco of July 22, 1570, State Archives,
Vienna,
FURTHER DISCUSSIONS. 389
Pope his scheme for the league modified in several respects.
Pius V. had not given up hopes of a successful issue, although
even now a number of difficulties still remained unsolved.
For example the Spaniards insisted that in the following years
they should meet in the autumn and decide whether the war
was to be continued in the coming spring, and what forces
were to be employed. The Republic opposed this because
it was suspected that in this Philip II. was aiming at keeping
an eye upon Venetian policy. Moreover an agreement had
not been reached as to the sum to be contributed by the Pope,
nor as to how much of this sum was to be taken by Venice and
Spain respectively. Another question which still remained
undecided was whether the league was to be merely an offensive
one, or whether the allies were to count in general upon the
help of the others in each one's undertakings. The Spaniards
too were still awaiting definite orders from their king as to
who was to represent the generalissimo at sea in his absence.
For the land forces Soriano had suggested Sforza Pallavicini
as commander in chief, but the Spaniards were also waiting
for definite instructions as to this. They also asked for time
to consider how conquered territory should be divided.
Lastly, there was a difference of opinion as to whether ecclesi
astical censures were to be incurred by those who betrayed
the league. Soriano wished first to discuss this matter with
the Pope, remarking that the man who had no sense of honour
and deserted the league would certainly not be afraid of
censures. By his opposition in this matter he encouraged the
distrust felt by the Spaniards. The nuncio was of opinion
that in the end the Signoria would give way on the question
of censures ; at the same time he reported how firmly it was
believed at Venice that Philip II. was opposed to any attack
upon the Turks.1
The status of Ragusa caused special difficulties with regard
to the league. This little republic, which was much in favour
with Pius V. on account of its strong Catholicism, had suffered
a great deal in the war of the league in the days of Paul III.,
because the allies had not bound themselves to guarantee the
1 See VALENSISE, 71.
3QO HISTORY OF THE POPES.
neutrality of Ragusa by the terms of the treaty. The republic
therefore now wished for a guarantee of its neutrality and
the integrity of its territory. Venice, which was jealous of
the commerce of Ragusa, sought to avoid this ; the republic,
she said, must be forced to join the league so that it could be
occupied by troops on the pretext of protecting it against the
Turks. In the diplomatic contest as to this matter which
ensued between Venice and Ragusa, not only the Pope, but the
representative of Spain as well, were on the side of the little
republic.1
On July 2yth a Spanish courier at last arrived with the
decision of Philip II. that Doria's fleet should be united to that
of Vencie and placed under the command of Colonna.2 Great
was the joy of the Pope, who at once held out definite hopes
of the concession of the cruzada, the excusado, and the con
tinuance of the sussidio* since he could now hope that his
unceasing prayers for the success of the expedition would be
realized.4
But what a bitter disillusionment the Pope was now to
experience ! The Venetian fleet under the command of
Girolamo Zane numbered 137 galleys, to which were added
the 49 of Gian Andrea Doria and the 12 of the Pope under
Marcantonio Colonna. The artillery amounted to 1,300
1 Cf. VOINOVICH, 504 seq., 514 seq., 535 seq. The " Confir-
matio litt. praedecess. vigore quarum Ragusei possint libere
et licite mercari aim infidelibus," issued on December 17, 1566,
by Pius V., in MAKUSCEV, Mon. Slav, inerid., I., Warsaw, 1874,
501 seq.
"See Soriano in Du MONT, V., i, 192; cf. CHARRIERE, ir8;
VALENSISE, 69 seq.
3 See Corresp. dipl., III., 479.
4 See CATENA, 154. The jubilee bull, dated April 6 (in LADERCH,
1570, n. 15) did not at first seem to the Pope to have been ex
pressed in sufficiently clear terms : it was corrected ; see *Avvisi
di Roma of April 15 and 22, 1570, Urb. 1041, p. 263b, 26yb,
Vatican Library. Jbid. 273b *Avviso of May 13 on the extra
ordinary part taken by the people in the jubilee. Cf. also
Firmanus, *Diarium in Miscell. Arm., XII., 32, p. 124 seq.
THE FALL OF NICOSIA. 39 1
cannon, and the soldiers were as many as 16,000. This large
military force, however, succeeded in accomplishing nothing.
The reason for the complete failure of this first attempt at
concerted action by Venice, Spain and the Holy See, must
•undoubtedly be found, in addition to a lack of preparation, in
the inexcusable behaviour of Andrea Doria, who had been
appointed by Philip II. to the command of his forces. Dis
pleased from the first at the appointment of Colonna and the
formation of a separate Papal fleet, and anxious to spare his
own ships, Doria could not be induced to take any decisive
action. His procrastination was doubly disastrous : not only
was no advantage taken of a favourable position of affairs,
but the capital of Cyprus, which had been besieged by the
Turks since July 22nd, was not relieved. Doria would not
hear of making any* attack.1
While Doria was holding back the Venetians and Colonna on
various pretexts, the heroic defenders of Nicosia had been
obliged to capitulate on September Qth. The Turks broke
the terms of the capitulation and twenty thousand men fell
victims to their lust for blood.2 The defenders of Famagosta
may well have been dismayed at this orgy of bloodshed. The
place was commanded by the noble Marcantonio Bragadino,
who was determined to defend it to the last. There were none
found to come to his assistance, as the Venetians, at first
hindered by Doria, and then disgracefully deserted by him,
1 See SERRANO, Liga, I., 68-84. Cf. MANFRONI, Marina,
462 seq. ; POMETTI, 71.
8 See *Nestore Martinengo, Relazione della perdita di Nicosia,
1570, Capilupi Library, Mantua. Cf. *Particolare ragguaglio
della perdita di Nicosia, in Varia polit., 62 (now 63), p. 199 seq-
Papal Secret Archives. Cf. *Cod. F. 18 of the Boncompagni
Archives, Rome, and the *reports in the State Archives, Florence,
which FULIN quotes (Una visita all'Archivio di Stato in Fjrenze,
Venice, 1865, 10). Of recent authors see HAMMER, II., 412 seq. ;
ZINKEISEN, II., 926, 929 ; BIANCONI, Piccolo Archivio storico-
artistico Umbro, a. 1866-1867, Perugia, 1867. See also G.
CASTELLAN i, Una lettera di Franc. Palazzo, colonello dei Vene-
ziani a Nicosia, Venice, 1916 (nozze publication).
392 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
did not dare to launch an attack. Marcantonio Colonna also
retired with them to Corfu. Storms destroyed some of the
ships and Colonna reached Ancona with but four galleys.1 He
sent Pompeo Colonna to Rome to break the news to the Pope.
The sorrow and anger of Pius V. at the ineffectual return of
so great a fleet were beyond words.2 Cyprus was abandoned to
its own resources until the spring of 1571, and it was very
doubtful whether Famagosta could hold out till then.3
Although the Spaniards did all they could to justify the
action of Doria,4 the true state of affairs was soon realized in
Rome. While Pompeo Colonna received an honourable
welcome, Marcello Doria, who had been sent to justify Andrea
Doria, did not succeed in obtaining an audience.5 The facts
of the case were too obvious. Even the moderate Cardinal
Morone publicly complained, saying that it would have been
better if Doria had never joined the Venetians, since he had
hindered them far more than he had helped them.6 At the
end of October the Pope sent Pompeo Colonna to Madrid to
make complaint to Philip II., and at the same time to urge
him to conclude the alliance.7 Pius V. had laboured for four
hours, together with Cardinal Rusticucci, on the letter which
Colonna took with him.8
It was inevitable that the behaviour of Doria should
1 See GUGLIELMOTTI, 101 seq., 104 seq. Cf. BALAN, VI., 540.
8 Cf. Gondola in VOINOVICH, 583 ; VALENSISE, 86 seq.
* See the report of the French ambassador of November 5,
1570, in CHARRIERE, III., 124 seq.
4 See Corresp. dipl., IV., 63 seq.
6 See the *Avvisi di Roma of November 4 and u, 1570, Urb.
1041, p. 365b, 368b, Vatican Library. In the latter Avviso
it is stated that the audience was refused " per il sdegno che
ha S.S.td> che una tanta armata sia ritornata senza haver fatto
alcun profitto." Cf. Gondola, loc. cit.
6 FR. LONGO, Guerra, 20.
7 See Corresp. dipl., IV., 66 seq. ; cf. Gondola, loc. cit. 584.
8 See *Avviso di Roma of October 28, 1570, Urb. 1041, p.
3&3b, Vatican Library. Cf. the *report of Cusano of November
4, 1570, State Archives, Vienna.
THE NEGOTIATIONS RESUMED. 393
have the worst possible effect on the negotiations about the
league in Rome.1 These were resumed on July 26th, but were
suspended on August 4th, it having been decided to wait for
further instructions from Venice and Madrid.2
While Pius V. was redoubling his prayers and on several
occasions making processions in Rome,3 his nuncio in Venice
was making every effort to break down the opposition being
made by the Signoria to the imposition of ecclesiastical
censures on those who should violate the alliance, but all the
remonstrances of Facchinetti were in vain.4 The Signoria
refused even to hear such a thing spoken of. As the attitude
of Soriano in this and other questions did not seem to them
to be sufficiently firm, his recall was discussed. Facchinetti
strongly defended Soriano, but was unable to prevent Giovanni
Soranzo being associated with him as second ambassador, and
orders being given that neither could decide anything without
the other. Fearing lest the Signoria should withdraw entirely
from the negotiations, Pius V. promised the Venetians to use
his influence with Philip II. to persuade him not to insist any
longer on the infliction of censures.5
1 See the report in CHARRIERE, III., 125 seq.
* See Tiepolo in MUTINELLI, I., 93 ; cf. Corresp. dipl., III.,
474 seq., 486 seq., 495.
3 Firmanus gives an account of the processions on August
15 and September 13-16 (*Diarium in Miscell., Arm. XII., 32,
p. I25b, Papal Secret Archives). Cf. the *report of Arco of
September 16, 1570 (State Archives, Vienna) and the *Avviso
di Roma of the same date for the great concourse of people at
the processions : " orando S.Sts< quando disse quelle parole :
Ne tradas bestiis animas confitentes Tibi, venne in tanta devotione
et compuntione di cuore che due volte coram populo lacrimava "
(Urb. 1041, p. 346b, Vatican Library). According to an *Avviso
di Roma of September 2, 1570, Michele Bonelli started on the
Wednesday to inspect all the fortifications near Rome (ibid.
333b).
4 See his reports in VALENSISE, 73 seq.
5 See VALENSISE, 80 seq. The mandate for Soriano and Sor
anzo, of September 8, 1570, in LADERCHI, 1571, n. 230. The
charge laid on Soranzo in Arch. Veneto, 1901, 376.
VOL. XVIII. 27
394 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
Soranzo had arrived in Rome on September 2oth. Nothing
was now wanting but the arrival of the Spanish courier, who
brought the instructions of Philip II. to his representatives
on October 17th,1 in order to resume the discussions, which
was done on October 2oth, though without Soriano, who was
absent through ill-health. Both parties protested their
willingness to conclude the alliance, but this was not borne out
by the opening scenes of the conference. Soranzo begged the
Spaniards to inform them of the king's decision in his own
words, but Granvelle replied that it was rather the duty of the
Venetians to put forward their difficulties and doubts. To
this Soranzo made answer that as they had awaited for three
months the king's reply, they had the right to know the terms
of that document now that it had arrived. Granvelle then
rebuked the Venetians for having in the meantime treated
directly with Philip II. and complained of some of the terms
arranged. After a stormy discussion the Spaniards read the
memorandum which the Republic had sent to its ambassador
at the court of Philip.2 In this memorandum complaint was
made of the proposal that the campaign for the following
spring should only be decided upon every autumn, of the
article dealing with the help to be given to a Spanish expedition
to north Africa, of the ecclesiastical censures, of the status of
Ragusa, and of the contribution of the Pope towards the
expenditure. Further the Republic expressed a wish to
appoint the generalissimo for the land forces. Granvelle
then declared that the Spanish representatives had sufficient
authority to settle all these matters ; let the Venetians then
obtain similar powers.
Then there came, on November 2nd, the news of the fall of
Nicosia and of the strange behaviour of Doria. The blow at
1 According to the "report of B. Pia from Rome, October 21,
1570 (Gonzaga Archives, Mantua) the Spanish messenger had
arrived four days earlier, i.e. on the 17. The date in the report
of Soriano in Du MONT, V., i, 194 (October 28), must therefore
be altered. The instructions of Philip II. of September 24,
1570, in Corresp. dipl., IV., 21 seq.
*Now published in Corresp. dipl., IV., 22 seq.
THE DISCUSSION CONTINUED. 395
once had its effect upon the attitude of the Venetian envoys.
Soranzo reminded the meeting of the disloyal conduct of Spain
in the )^ear 1538. x Fortunately there came on November 4th
the instructions from the Signoria to press forward the negotia
tions, which had at last been obtained owing to the remon
strances of Facchinetti,2 and were dated October 28th. With
out any further difficulties an agreement was arrived at con
cerning the military force that was to be prepared. It was
definitely decided that by March they were to have ready 200
galleys, 100 transports, 50,000 infantry, and 4,500 cavalry,
together with artillery and munitions. A long disc'ussion
followed on the article providing that every autumn the
campaign for the following spring was to be decided upon in
Rome in the presence of the Pope. The discussion of this
matter was continued on the following day, Granvelle declaring
that he had express orders from the king to uphold this pro
posal. The Venetians asked for another ten days to make
up their minds, and in the meantime to go on to the other
articles. Their offer to fit out 24 galleys, of which the Pope
was to bear the expense of eight, and Spain of sixteen, was
accepted, as was the decision that each of the allies who should
do something over and above what he was bound to do should
receive compensation in some form from the other side.
Such violent altercations arose over the question of the supply
of grain from Naples for Sicily and Venice that it was feared
that the negotiations would have to be broken off. The
Spaniards at first demanded a sum considerably greater than
was usual in years of an average harvest, but at last agreed to
accept a lower price ; as, however, no agreement could be
come to it was decided to abandon it.
At the meeting on November 8th the Pope's representatives
made large concessions in order to obtain Sicilian grain. The
Spaniards asked for twice or three times the Papal price, and
once again the discussions were without result. At length
the Spaniards said that they would ask for further information
from the viceroy of Naples as to this. In the meantime they
1 Cf. Vol. XI. of this work, p. 295.
* See VALENSISE, 88 seq.
HISTORY OF THE POPES.
discussed a future expedition against Algiers, Tunis and
Tripoli, for which the Spaniards demanded fifty Venetian
galleys to assist them. Soriano and Soranzo demanded
similar help for their own future enterprises. After a long
discussion this was agreed to, with the condition that the
Venetians should first help the king, and then Philip the
the Venetians. The proposal to appoint Don John of Austria
as generalissimo met with general approval. But there was a
difference of opinion as to the proposal that the Papal com
mander was to take his place in his absence. The Venetians
made no objections to this, but the Spaniards thought that
Don John ought to appoint his own lieutenant. Sforza
Pallavicini was again proposed by the Venetians as commander
of the land forces. Entry into the league was always to be
open to the Emperor and the other princes ; it was to be the
Pope's duty to urge them to do so. With regard to conquered
territory an agreement was arrived at : Spain was to have
Algiers, Tunis and Tripoli, as well as anything that had
previously belonged to her ; Venice in the same way was to
have her own former possessions, as well as Castelnuovo,
Valona and Durazzo. Captured artillery and munitions were
to be divided among the three allies in proportion to their
contribution to the expenditure. With regard to the decision
to prohibit under pain of censure all negotiations for peace
or any agreement with the Turks without the knowledge and
consent of the other allies, the Pope's representatives declared
that they would agree to whatever should be decided by the
others. The Spaniards still insisted upon their demand for
the censures, while the Venetians wished this to be entirely
omitted. From what was said by Soriano, however, it was
still thought possible to induce the Spaniards not to persist
in their demand. And this was actually the case ; at the
request of the Venetian ambassador in Madrid Philip II.
consented to withdraw the demand for censures.1
When the expected reply from Naples had arrived on
November 2oth Morone was able to arrange an agreement
concerning the supply of grain by means of mutual conces-
1 Cf. the letter of Morone in Corresp. dipl., IV., 314.
THE DISCUSSIONS CONTINUED. 397
sions. On the following day the price to be paid for the grain
from Naples was definitely fixed.1 In Rome it was now hoped
that an end of the negotiations for the league would soon be
reached,2 and the Pope pushed them forward energetically.3
The Venetians had, at the Pope's request, given way to the
Spaniards on so many points, that the Pope felt sure of a
happy issue to the negotiations. But the question of who
was to supply the place of the generalissimo in his absence
led, on account of the attitude of the Spaniards, to so many
complications and differences of opinion that the attainment
of the wished for end was once more postponed.4
The Venetians, on account of the great position of Philip II.
and the great reputation of the Emperor's son, Don John, had
agreed that the latter should have the supreme command of
the forces of the league ; but with regard to the question who
was to take his place, it did not seem right to them that in the
absence of Don John, the Venetian and Papal leaders should
be placed under the orders of the Spaniards. At last they
decided that in such a case the Papal commander, Marcantonio
Colonna, should assume the supreme command. Pius V.
had with difficulty induced the Venetians to agree to this
1 Here the notes of Soriano come to an end. We have in their
place for the negotiations that followed not only the reports of
the Spanish representatives (Corresp. dipl., IV., 76 seqq., 83 seq.,
88 seq.f 121 seq., 125 seq.), but also the very important letter
of Morone to Ruy Gomez of December 15, 1570 (ibid. 134 seq.}.
*C/. the *reports of B. Pia of November 18 and 22, 1570,
Gonzaga Archives, Mantua. See also the *Avvisi di Roma
of November n and 25, 1570, Urb. 1041, pp. 368b, 369b,
Vatican Library.
8 See *Avviso di Roma of November 22, 1570, ibid. 374.
4C/. the letter of Morone cited above, n. i. An *Avviso
di Roma of December 5, 1570, Urb. 1041, p. 377, Vatican Library,
states that the negotiations were being kept strictly secret. On
December 6, 1570, B. Pia "reports that " La lega e sul fine."
(Gonzaga Archives, Mantua). An *Avviso of December 9,
1570, announces that on the day before there had been a great
dispute on the question whether Colonna or Doria should be
Don John's lieutenant. (Urb. 1041, p. 380, loc. cit.}.
398 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
proposal when suddenly, just when it was thought that the
negotiations were completed, the Spaniards entered a protest.1
At Venice they now thought that the faithless Doria might
be appointed as lieutenant, but the Pope took up the cause of
the Venetians, and many distinguished Cardinals declared that
Marcantonio Colonna was the man best suited for the office.2
The disputes on this matter became more and more em
bittered, and many harsh things were said. Cardinals Gran-
velle and Pacheco thought that the Venetians were behaving
as though it was the Spaniards who were being besieged at
Famagosta- The French ambassador, on the other hand,
declared openly that the representatives of Philip II. were
trying to make as much profit as possible out of the difficulties
of the Republic of St. Mark, and were therefore keeping every
thing in suspense.3 Pius V., who followed the negotiations
with infinite patience, and had frequently intervened with
success, was deeply grieved. On December gth he addressed
an autograph letter to Philip II.4 In this he made bitter
complaints : scarcely had the more serious difficulties
with the Venetians been overcome, when lo ! the Spanish
representatives declared that they could not come to any
decision until they received instructions as to the lieutenancy
of the supreme command. The Pope characterized such
procedure as both strange and suspicious. Threatening to
break off the negotiations he asked for an immediate decision
from the king, leaving no room for doubt as to his own firm
1 Besides the reports of Facchinetti of November 27 and Decem
ber 6, 1570, in VALENSISE, 95 seq., see the letter of Morone of
December 15, 1570, cited supra 397, n. I. Cosimo I. would have
been very glad to have obtained the command for his son, and
had recourse for that purpose to Cardinals Morone and Pacheco ;
see *Medic. 616, fasc. 33, State Archives, Florence.
* See Corresp. de Granvelle, 6d. POULLET, IV., 51 ; *Avviso
di Roma of December 20, 1570, Urb. 1041, p. 385, Vatican Library.
Cf. FOLIETA, II., looi seq. ; Corresp. dipl., IV., 127.
8 See CHARRIERE, III., 128.
4 See the letter of Bonelli to Facchinetti on December 9, 1570,
in VALENSISE, 97 seq. Cf. Gondola in VOINOVICH, 587 seq.
BITTER COMPLAINTS OF THE POPE. 399
determination to help Venice against the Turks with all his
power.1
The nuncio in Madrid, who was to deliver this letter,
received instructions to make the following declaration in the
event of Philip still hesitating : the king, in consequence of
the concession of the sussidio, was bound to place sixteen
galleys at the Pope's disposal, and any attempt to evade this
obligation would constrain the Pope to withdraw the con
cession.2 It was in vain that Zufiiga tried to pacify the Pope,
who complained bitterly of the conduct of the Spanish repre
sentatives, and who was specially indignant with Granvelle.3
Indignation at the behaviour of the representatives of
Philip II. was very great in other quarters as well. Facchinetti
feared that the negotiations about the league would break
down altogether, and that the Venetians would come to terms
with the Turks.4 Fears of the same sort also took possession
of Pius V., and even when the Spanish representatives showed
themselves more accommodating, he no longer trusted them.
The general view of Philip II. was that he really cared for
nothing but to obtain the cruzada.5
While the negotiations were thus suspended, they were
anxiously awaiting in Rome the reply of the King of Spain,6
and thus the year came to an end with but gloomy prospects,
after the negotiations had been going on for six whole months.
1 Corresp. dipl., IV., 118 seq. Cf. VALENSISE, 97 seq. ; Gondola,
loc. cit.
1 See Corresp. dipl., IV., 119 seq.
* See ibid. 138 seq. Cf. SERRANO, Liga, I., 94.
4 Cf. his reports in VALENSISE, 99 seq.
1 See the report of the Spanish representatives of December
29, 1570, Corresp. dipl., IV., 153. *Arco also gives similar
information on the same date. (State Archives, Vienna).
* The decision of Philip II., which was expected on December
20 (*Avviso di Roma of December 20, 1570, Urb. 1041, p. 385,
Vatican Library), had not arrived even on December 30 ; see
the *report of B. Pia of December 30 1570, Gonzaga Archives,
Mantua, Cf. Corresp. de Granvelle, ed. POULLET, IV., 59.
CHAPTER X.
THE VICTORY OF LEPANTO AND AFTERWARDS.— DEATH OF
Pius V.
IT was Pius V. who had begun the negotiations for a league ;
he alone had pushed them forward in a disinterested spirit,1
and he had carried them on in spite of all the difficulties
arising from the selfishness and distrust of the Spaniards and
Venetians. Keeping his eyes steadily fixed upon the great
end he had in view, he had displayed the most admirable
patience.
While the Pope was awaiting month after month the
decision of Philip II.,2 the Turks were besieging Famagosta,
and threatening Corfu and Ragusa.3 If the alliance is not
soon concluded, the Papal nuncio Facchinetti reported from
Venice on February 2ist, 1571, there is a danger of the Signoria
making peace with the Porte, even at the cost of losing
Cyprus.4
In the meantime Philip II. 's reply, which they had been
waiting for ever since the December of the previous year, had
at last arrived in Rome on March 2nd, I57I,5 where the whole
extent of the danger threatening the whole of Europe from
Islam was alone fully understood.6 It seemed likely to
1 Cf. the opinion of Gondola in VOINOVICH, 527. See also
ADRIANI, XXL, 2, 3.
* See Corresp. dipl., IV., 172 seq., 194. Cf. the *report of
Cusano of February 23, 1571, State Archives, Vienna.
8 See the reports in VOINOVICH, 589.
4 See VALENSISE, 107. The troubles of Facchinetti coincided
with the mission of Giacomo Ragazzoni, for whose work cf.
DALLA SANTA in Archivio Veneto, 1901, 376.
5 Corresp. dipl., IV., 213.
6 *" In gens enim ingruit bellum atque is hostis quocum nobis
non de dignitate coritentio, sed pro communi salute, pro libertate ,
400
DANGER OF THE WITHDRAWAL OF VENICE 401
facilitate the successful conclusion of the negotiations. On
March 7th Cardinal Bonelli wrote to the nuncio at Venice that
the discussions which had been held on that day, the feast of
St. Thomas Aquinas, after a High Mass in the Church of the
Minerva, in the monastery adjoining, and under the presidency
of the Pope, had gone so smoothly that there was reason to
believe that in three or four days it would be possible to con
clude the business and proceed to the solemn promulgation
of the league.1 On March i6th Cardinal Bonelli ordered the
nuncio at Madrid to ask the king to make ready his galleys
and troops, as the Pope looked upon the league as settled, and
was only waiting for the decision of Venice. This arrived two
days later. What its tenor was could plainly be seen from the
sad and indignant look of the Pope when he appeared at the
consistory on March igth.2
The fact was that such serious disagreements had arisen
between Venice and Spain concerning the help they were to
give each other as to cause Facchinetti to fear that the Republic
of St. Mark would agree to a peace with the enemy of Christen
dom. The Pope's representative Employed all the resources
of his eloquence to prevent that. From the vague and involved
reply which- was handed to him on March I5th he felt that he
could only conclude that Venice had already made up her mind
to come to terms with the Porte, and that she wished to force
Philip to concur in this. Venice could not, so the Signoria
declared, put any trust in the promises of Spain for an offensive
and defensive war, nor, since Crete was being threatened by
the Turks, could she furnish the ships asked for by Philip.3
At a meeting held in the presence of the Pope on March
2oth an attempt was made to find a way out of the difficulty.4
pro religione, pro incolumitate omnium djmicatio est " wrote M.
A. Graziani to Nic. Tomicio, dated Romae 1571, xhi. Cal. febr.
Graziani Archives, Citt& di Castello.
1 See Corresp. dipl. IV. 219, n. i.
2 See ibid. 224.
2 See VALENSISE, 117 seq.
* See the letter of Bonelli to Facchinetti of March 20, 1571,
in VALENSISE, 120 seq. Cf. CHARRIERE, III., 145.
4O2 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
Facchinetti at once and with great urgency laid before the
Signoria the suggestions made at this meeting, which he had
received on March 23rd. The attitude of the Venetian govern
ment on this occasion showed only too clearly how they wished
to put off coming to a decision. Every day there were fresh
difficulties and fresh excuses. One day there would be a
festival which prevented any meeting being held, on the next
day perhaps the doge would be ill. There could be no doubt
about it that there was a strong party, guided principally by
commercial considerations, which was working with all its
might against the league, and urging the government to accept
the proposals for peace which had been put forward by a
French agent in the sultan's name.1 The same party also
made quite baseless complaints against the Pope. Under
these circumstances, thought Facchinetti on March 28th, he
could do nothing but to continue to insist, exhort and accuse.
He advised that the Republic should be won over by means of
further concessions. When on March 3oth he asked the doge
firmly for a definite reply, the latter answered that since the
Spaniards had discussed the matter at such length, it was only
right that Venice too should maturely consider so important
a question. In the course of the conversation Facchinetti
frankly remarked that the behaviour of Venice was bound to
give rise to the suspicion that they were trying to profit by
the negotiations in order to bring pressure to bear on the
Turks to obtain more favourable terms.2
There were two parties in Venice ; one aimed at an agree
ment with the Porte, the other at the conclusion of the
alliance, but without the conditions demanded by Spain.
Facchinetti reported to Rome on April 4th, 1571, that if
Spain would not give way there was reason to fear that the
Signoria would come to terms with the Turks, to the great
harm of Christendom, as well as to that of the Republic
itself.8
1 Cf. SERRANO, Liga, I., 95.
* See the reports of Facchinetti of March 24 and 28, 1571, in
VALENSISE, 122 seq., 128 seq.
* See ibid. 134 ; Corresp. dipl., IV., 244.
COLONNA SENT TO VENICE. 403
Great despondency took possession of the Pope at this
state of affairs.1 But he did not lose heart, nor did Morone,
who now became the guiding spirit of the negotiations.2
In order to back up the remonstrances of Facchinetti, on
April 6th, by the advice of Commendone, he sent a special
envoy to the city of the lagoons in the person of Marcantonio
Colonna, who was much loved in Venice.3 Colonna reached
Venice on April nth,4 and set to work with all his energy,
but he met with the same difficulties as the nuncio.5 Both
were unwearied in their efforts, while the Pope in Rome
was exercising all his authority, and threatened the Republic
with the recall of Colonna if the Signoria did not make up
its mind before May 8th.6
An attempt on the part of the French ambassador in Venice
to bring about a further delay was frustrated.7 On the other
hand, the remonstrances of Colonna and Facchinetti, sup
ported by Paolo Tiepolo, at length proved effectual. Their
efforts were successful in removing the principal difficulties,
and Venice was to receive guarantees of the indemnification
of her expenses.8 On May nth Colonna returned to Rome,
1 See the *report of A. Zibramonti, dated Rome, April 14,
1571, Gonzaga Archives, Mantua.
8 See CHARRIERE, III., 147 ; cf. Corresp. dipl., IV., 256.
8 See *Avviso di Roma of April 7, 1571, Urb. 1042, p. 46,
Vatican Library. Cf. GRATIANUS, 118 ; PARUTA, 147 seq. ;
LADERCHI, 1571, n. 221 ; CHARRIERE, III., 147 ; Corresp. dipl.,
IV., 240, 244. For the reputation of Colonna see the report in
VOINOVICH, 589.
4 See the report of Facchinetti in VALENSISE, 141.
5 See the reports of Facchinetti, ibid. 141 seqq., and Corresp.
dipl., IV., 250. Cf. GRATIANUS, 118 seq.; SERENO, 93 seq. ;
GUGLIELMOTTI, Colonna, 134 seq.
6 Thus *reports Arco from Rome, May 5, 1571, State Archives,
Vienna.
7 See VALENSISE, 147 seq.
8 See GUGLIELMOTTI, Colonna, 144 seq. Cf. GRATIANUS, 123
seq. ; BROSCH, Gesch. aus dem Leben dreier Grosswesire (1899),
404 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
where he was at once received by the Pope.1 The subsequent
negotiations2 were, like those that had gone before, kept
absolutely secret, but in spite of that the rumour spread
through the city that the igih of May had been decided upon
for the definite conclusion of the alliance ; particulars were
even known as to the names of those who were to command
the Papal galleys.3
This rumour had a basis of truth. The evening of the day
mentioned actually witnessed the coming into existence of
the triple alliance, after, even to the last moment, the whole
thing had been in danger of shipwreck because the Venetians,
to the great anger of Pius V., insisted upon the quite secondary
condition of the league being obliged to pay the increased
garrisons in Venetian territory, a thing which the Spaniards
refused to accept, though an agreement was eventually
come to, that this and all other questions which might un
expectedly arise, should be referred to the decision of the
Pope. After that, on the following morning, the ambassadors
of Spain and Venice signed the treaty.4 The price which
Pius V. had to pay took the form of large financial concessions
to Philip II. ; on May 2ist, 1571, Spain obtained the con
tinuance of the sussidio levied on the clergy for another five
1 See *Avviso di Roma of May 12, 1571, Urb. 1042, p. 6ib,
Vatican Library.
8 Cf. the reports of the Spanish representatives of May 1 7 and
21, 1571, Corresp. dipl., IV., 277 seq., 285 seq.
8 *" Dicono che sabbato fu conclusa la pratica della lega,
la quale conclusione non e successa senza voler divino et molta
consolazione di S,S. et di tutta la gorte." The terms nevertheless
are kept secret. Then are enumerated the " ministri dell'armati
ecclesiastic! " (Avviso di Roma of May 23, 1571, Urb. 1042,
p. 64^65 Vatican Library). Cf. the *report of A. Zibramonti
of May 19, 1571, Gonzaga Archives, Mantua.
* See LADERCHI, 1571, n. 232 seq. ; GENNARI, 65 ; BROSCH,
loc. cit. 16 ; VOINOVICH, 531, 591 ; CHARRIERE, III., 149 seq. ;
VALENSISE, 150, 152 ; POMETTI, 69 seq. ; Corresp. dipl., IV.,
283 seq. Severe expressions used by Pius V. about Venice,
May 18, 1371, in Carte Stroz., I., i, 159.
THE ALLIANCE AT LAST CONCLUDED. 405
years, the so-called excuspdo for -a like period, and lastly,
the long desired cruzada for six years.1
At a consistory on May 25th the articles of the treaty were
read, approved by all the Cardinals, and then sworn to by
the Pope and the ambassadors of Spain and Venice.2 On
Sunday, May 27th, the solemn announcement of the happy
event was made in St. Peter's.3 After a High Mass celebrated
by Cardinal Truchsess, Monsignor Aragoriia preached a sermon
and published the details of the league.4 This, which had
been formed between the Pope, the King of Spain and the
Republic of Venice, was to be lasting, was to be both offensive
and defensive, and was to be directed, not only against the
sultan, but also against the states of Algiers, Tunis and
Tripoli, his vassals. The triple alliance was to furnish 200
galleys, 100 transports, 50,000 Spanish, Italian and German
infantry, and 4,500 cavalry, as well as the necessary number
of cannon. The fighting forces were to be ready each year
at the latest in March and April. Every year an agreement
was to be come to in Rome as to the campaign for the follow
ing year. If nothing were then decided each power was to
be free to act as it chose, but in that case Venice must help
the King of Spain with 50 galleys against Tunis, Algiers and
Tripoli, unless they were prevented from doing so by a strong
Turkish fleet ; Philip II. was bound to give similar help
in the event of Venice being attacked in the Adriatic. The
1 Cf. supra, p. 64. From the Corresp. de Granvelle, ed. PIOT,
IV., 40, it is clear how much the Spaniards made their entry
into the league dependent upon financial concessions.
8 See Firmanus and Acta consist, card, S. Severinae in LADERCHI,
1571, n. 225-226 (see also Studi e docum., XXIII., 334 seq.). Cf.
GENNARI, 65 seq. ; SERENO, 417 seq., and the *report of Arco of
May 26, 1571, State Archives, Vienna.
8 See *Avviso di Roma of May 31, 1571, Urb. 1042, p. 68b,
Vatican Library, Cf. LADERCHI, 1571, n. 236, and the *report
of A. Zibramonti of June 28, 1571, Gonzaga Archives, Mantua.
4 See LADERCHI, 1571, n. 227 seq. Cf. Du MONT, V., i, 203
seq. : LtfNiG, Cod. dipl., IV., 305 seq. ; POMETTI, 69 seq. ; Corresp.
dipl., IV., 299 seq.
406 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
Pope made himself responsible for a sixth, Spain for three
sixths, and Venice for two sixths, of the cost of the war.
If the Pope should find himself unable to fulfil in their entirety
the obligations which he had taken upon himself, Spain and
Venice were to make up that which was wanting. Venice
was to supply the 12 galleys which the Pope was to fit out
with their equipment and provisions. If the Turks attacked
one of the allies, the others were bound to come to his assist
ance. The generalissimo Don John was to take counsel with
the captains of the Venetian and Papal ships, and the majority
of their votes was to be decisive. Don John's lieutenant
was to be Marcantonio Colonna. Entry into the league was
open to the Emperor and the other Christian princes, and the
Pope was to invite them to do so. The division of conquered
territory, with the exception of the African possessions of
Philip II., was to proportionate to the expenses borne by
each of the allies, and the Pope was to adjust their differences ;
none of them might of himself conclude a peace or armistice
with the Turks. In a special article the allies guaranteed
the neutrality and integrity of the republic of Ragusa.1
The joy of Pius V. at the final realization of the triple
alliance was very great. He caused a medal to be struck
to commemorate the important event,2 and published a
universal jubilee in order to draw down the blessing of the
God of battles on the Christian armies.3 He took part in
person in the processions, the first of which was made in
Rome on May 28th, the second on May 3oth, and the third
on June ist.4
On May 23rd and 24th Pius V. had expressed to the King
of Spain and Don John his satisfaction at the conclusion of
1 Its neutrality was afterwards placed under the control of
the Holy See ; cf. VOINOVICH, 497 seq.
* See BONANNI, I., 295 ; VENUTI, 124 seq.
1 Cf. LADERCHI, 1571, n. 237; *Avviso di Roma of May 23,
1571, Urb. 1042, p. 64b, Vatican Library.
4 Cf. *Avvisi di Roma of May 30 and June 2, 1571, ibid. 68,
7ob, and the *report of A. Zibramonti, June 2, 1571, Gonzaga
Archives,
VENICE STILL DELAYS. 407
the alliance, exhorting them to carry it into effect as soon as
possible. Three days later they both received from the
Pope further letters begging them to send the auxiliary
Spanish fleet with all possible speed.1
Since it was impossible to make the preparations to the
extent agreed upon in the treaty during the current year,
it had been arranged on May 2oth that Spain should furnish
only 80 galleys and 20 other troop ships, and that the Venetians
should be indemnified by Philip II. for the additional ex
pense which they would incur ; at the same time a definite
arrangement had been come to as to the powers to be exercised
by Marcantonio Colonna as Don John's lieutenant, powers
which he was only to have as the Pope's commander. These
decisions were ratified in the room of Pius V., on June nth,
whereupon the Pope urged them to carry their decisions into
effect quickly.2
Yet once more Venice put the patience of Pius V. to a
hard test by needlessly postponing the solemn publication
of the league. The nuncio Facchinetti insisted in every
possible way, but they put him off week after week. He
very soon saw that the Signoria did not trust Spain and
wished to make use of the favourable opportunity in order
to extort further financial concessions. It was only after
the Pope had granted the Republic an annual contribution
of 100,000 gold scudi from the revenues of the clergy for
five years and the duration of the war, that the solemn publi
cation of the league took place in Venice on July 2nd.3
1 See Corresp. dipl., IV., 297 seq. ; LADERCHI, 1571, n. 240.
* Corresp. dipl., IV., 281 seq., 312, 343. Cf. POMETTI, 70
n. i. ; Libri commemoriali, VI., 325 ; JORGA, III., 150.
1 Cf. VALENSISE, 153 seq., 155, 157, 159, 160, 162, 163 ; LONGO,
Guerra, 24. The brief concerning the financial concessions to
Venice is dated June 7, 1571 ; see Miscell. di Clemente XI.,
t. 213, p. 227, Papal Secret Archives; Libri commem., VI., 324.
In consequence of the delay of Venice the instrument of the
league was only sent at this time by the ambassadors ; see the
*letter of A. Zibramonti from Rome, July 7, 1571, Gonzaga
Archives, Mantua. On June 9, 1571, Cusano *reports concerning
408 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
Very characteristic of Pius V.'s zeal for the crusade were
his efforts for the extension and strengthening of the barely
concluded league between Spain and Venice by obtaining
the accession thereto of other great powers. For this end
the Pope had recourse on May 3ist by means of special letters,
to the Emperor and the Kings of France and Poland.1 At a
secret consistory on June i8th he appointed Cardinal Com-
mendone as legate to the Emperor, the Catholic princes of
Germany and the King of Poland, with the object of winning
them over to the league ; at the same time Cardinal Bonelli
was sent as legate to Spain and Portugal.2 As far as Philip
II. was concerned, Bonelli, in addition to the settlement of
political and ecclesiastical controversies, was to press for the
opening of the league's campaign for the following year, and
to seek the assistance of Spanish diplomacy to induce the
Emperor and the King of France to join the league. His
mission to Portugal had as its object, besides the question of the
league, the marriage of King Sebastian to Margaret of Valois.3
a disgraceful incident with Cardinal Comaro. There had come
into the hands of the Pope a letter from this Cardinal, in which
Cornaro urged the Venetians to make peace with the Turks
and abandon the league. Pius V. was very indignant " et gli
ha detto che non e degno di esser cardinale " (State Archives,
Vienna). The ratification of the league, which was completed
by Philip II. on August 25, 1571, did not take place at Venice
until October 15, and the exchange of ratifications at Rome on
November 19; see Corresp. dipl., IV., 309, 311, 313; Libri
comment., VI., 327.
1 See LADERCHI, 1571, n. 245 seq. ; SCHWARZ, Brief wechsel,
179 seq. ; the legations had been decided on May 25, 1571 ;
see Corresp. dipl., IV., 315.
8 See Acta consist, card. S. Severinae in LADERCHI, 1571, n.
251, and better in Studi e docum., XXIII., 338 seq., with character
istic expressions used by Pius V. concerning negotiations with
the German Protestant princes. Cf. also SCHWARZ, loc. cit.
183 seq. For the consistory see also the *report of A. Zibramonti
of June 23, 1571, Gonzaga Archives, Mantua.
*The instructions for Bonelli, of June 25, in Corresp. dipl., IV.,
355 seqq. Cf. supra, p. 64 for the duties entrusted to Bonelli.
THE LEGATES COMMENDONE AND BONELLI 409
The two Cardinal legates set out at the end of June ;
Commendone from Verona,1 and Bonelli from Rome.2 As
the nephew of the Pope and until now head of the secretariate
of state, Bonelli had a suite in keeping with his dignity, to
which, however, Pius V. attached strict religious and ecclesi
astics drawn from the entourage of Borromeo.3 The in-
The credential briefs of June 20 and 21, 1571, in LADERCHI,
1571, n. 254, and TEDESCHIS, 263 seq. Cf. also HINOJOSA, 198
seq. ; Corresp. dipl., IV., 357 n.
1 In a *letter dated Verona, June 27, 1571, Commendone an
nounces his legation to the Doge, saying that he is ready to go
much further and to sacrifice his life for the Church and for his
country (Letter de' card. n. 5, State Archives, Venice). For
the proposal that Cropper should accompany the legate see
SCHWARZ, Brief wechsel, 183. According to an *Avviso di Roma
of July 7, 1571, it was said that P. Toledo was also to accompany
the legate (State Archives, Naples, Carte Fames, 763).
2 See the *letter of A. Zibramonti from Rome, June 30, 1571,
Gonzaga Archives, Mantua. Cf. *Avviso di Roma of June 30,
1571, Urb. 10, 1042, p. 82, Vatican Library, and Firmanus,
*Diarium in Miscell. Arm. XII., 32, Papal Secret Archives.
8 See *Avviso di Roma of June 22, 1571, Urb. 1042, p. 77,
Vatican Library, and Corresp. dipl., IV., 373 seq. For the
part taken by Francis Borgia in the embassy see S. FRANCISCUS
BORGIA, V., 581 seqq., 665 seqq., 684 seq., 691. Cardinal Rusti-
cucci was charged with the direction of the secretariate of state ;
besides TORNE, 50 seq. see the *Avvisi di Roma of July 20 (" Nel
card. Rusticucci si riposa hora summa rerum del Pontificato nel
quale con maniera incredibile satisfa al universale et monstra
di non far cosa alcuna facendo il tutto "), August 8 (Rusticucci
is very slow to make any change in the arrangements of Bonelli),
and October 6, 1571 (the Pope had ordered Rusticucci to assist
at all the audiences of the ambassadors ; Urb. 1042, p. 87b,
96b, 129, loc. cit.) a thing which displeased them (see Corresp.
dipl., IV., 465 seq.). Rusticucci had previously taken Bonelli's
place during the latter's absence in June, and also during the
illness of the nephew from August to December, 1570 ; see
*Avvisi di Roma of June 21, July 12, August 16, September 6,
and December 9 and 20, 1570, Urb. 1041, p. 292b, 304, 327,
337» 38°' 3&5b, loc. cit. Cusano, who reports all the gossip of
VOL. XVIII. 2$
410 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
structions given to Bonelli with regard to his behaviour on
the journey and. at foreign courts are very characteristic of
the ideas of Pius V. Neither the Cardinal himself nor the
members of his suite were to accept any presents ; they were
to limit their visits to what was strictly necessary, they
were to have no part in banquets, hunting parties or plays,
they were to dress simply and eat simply, they were to ask
for nothing fc>r themselves, and were to grant freely the
favours that were granted freely in Rome. So as to edify
men by his example, the Cardinal was to say mass every day,
and his suite were to communicate.1
Bonelli left Rome on the last day of June ; after passing
through Savoy he went by Barcelona and Valencia to Madrid,
where his solemn entry took place on September 30 th, and
the negotiations concerning the war against the Turks were
at once begun.2
Rome, repeatedly (July 7 and 15, 1570, June 23, 1571) reports
that Bonelli was leading an immoral life. It is extremely doubtful
whether there is any justification for this, as in the first place
Bonelli was much hated by the Imperialists on account of his
partisanship for Cosimo I; (see the *report of Arco of June 2,
1571, State Archives, Vienna) and in the second place Bonelli
left behind him in Spain, where he had been removed from the
strict supervision of Pius V., a very good name on account of
his " sainte vie " (see DOUAIS, Depeches de M. de Fourquevaux,
II, 413).
1 See the text of the " Ricordo " for Bonelli in Corresp. dipl.,
IV., 357 seq. ; cf. *Avvisi di Roma of June 20 and 30, 1571,
Urb. 1042, p. 73, 82. Vatican Library.
1 *Lettere et negotiati del sig. card. Alessandrino, legato in
Spagna, in Portogallo et in Francia scritte al card. Rusticucci
et ad altri negli anni 1571 et 1572, in Cod. 33 — G — 24 of the
Corsini Library, Rome, used by LAMMER, Zur Kirchengesch.,
164 seq. in GACHARD, Bibl. Corsini, 46 seq., 152 seq., and HINOJOSA,
199 seq. The *Viaggio del card. Alessandrino in Spagna, men
tioned by the latter, in Cod. 33—6 — 16 of the Corsini Library,
is, as GACHARD (loc. cit. 55 seq.} shows, a later compilation.
Hinojosa has completely overlooked the *contemporary descrip
tion, which is of great interest for the history of culture, of the
PREPARATIONS IN ROME. 41!
Even before the departure of the legate the Pope had done
all he could to hasten his own preparations for the coming
war at sea, in which task he was effectually assisted by Cosimo
I.1 Although he met with the greatest difficulties when the
time came to get together the necessary money and to find
and fit out the galleys, his energy enabled him to overcome
them. A special congregation dealt with the provisions that
were necessary.2 A report from Rome on May 30th, 1571,
tells us that the Pope had taken 40,000 scudi from the treasury
of the Castle of St. Angelo for the war, and that in the city
there was nothing to be seen but soldiers.3 Other sums were
raised by taxing the benefices of the Cardinals and by the
formation of the Mom religionis on June I2th.4 Cosimo de'
journey of Cardinal Bonelli, composed by his secretary G. B.
Venturino of Fabriano, in Cod. F. 128, p. 299 seq., of the Library
at Dresden, of which use has been made in Corpus Inscr. lat.,
II., Suppl. Ixxxi. seq., in NUNZIANTE, Spigolature sopra una
relazione inedita di G. B. V. da Fabriano, Florence, 1884, and in
Vol. V. of the Panorama Portuguez (see Rev. Hisp., III. [1896],
31). This *Narrazione del viaggio fatto dal card. Alessanchino
is also in Cod. Urb. 1697 °f the Vatican Library. Cf. also,
FARINELLI in Rivista critica de historia y literatura espanolas,
III., Madrid, 1898, 174 ; D. SANTAMBROGIO, Di un'epigrafe poco
nota della Certosa di Pa via, in Boll. d. Soc. Pavese, I., 2 (1901) ;
SERRANO, Liga, I., 165. For the departure of Bonelli from Rome
and his arrival at Madrid see also Corresp. dipl., IV., 372 seq.,
447 seq.
1 See MANFRONI, Marina, 471 seq.
2 See *Avviso di Roma of June 16, 1571, Urb. 1042, p. 75,
76b, Vatican Library. Cf. Acta consist, card. S. Severinae, in
Studi e docum. XXIII. 323, 324, 330.
8 See *Avviso di Roma of May 30, 1571, loo. cit. 69.
4 For the imposition of taxes on the Cardinals see the article
by HEWEL in the English Hist. Review, 1915, July. The decree
on the " Mons religionis " (see Vol. XVII., p. 106) was printed by
A. Bladus in 1571. An *Avviso di Roma of July 7, 1571, announces
that every day meetings were held at the house of Cardinal
Ricci for the purpose of raising more money : as it is difficult
to obtain this without laying a heavy burden on the people, it
412 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
Medici and Marcantonio Colonna gave effectual assistance
in the equipment of the twelve galleys.1 On June I3th
Colonna went to Civitavecchia to make the final preparations,
and on June 2ist the Papal fleet was able to weigh anchor.2
It sailed first to Naples, where it was to await the arrival
of the Spanish ships under Don John. As early as May 2yth,
1571, Pius V. had, in a letter written in his own hand, im
pressed upon Philip II. the necessity of Don John's coming
as soon as possible, as otherwise a favourable opportunity
would be lost, and there would inevitably be complaints from
the Venetians.3 The Spanish ambassador in Rome, Zufriga,
sent similar advice.4 It was all the more unfortunate, there
fore, that Don John's arrival was long deferred, and Pius V.
ordered Colonna to sail alone to Messina, which was the
appointed place of assembly for the whole of the fighting
forces of the league.8 He arrived there on July 2oth.6
The Papal fleet was thus the first to arrive at the rendez
vous : it had reached Naples on June 23rd, and had proceeded
is possible that the Pope might " ad tempus " set his hand to
" regressi " (Urb. 1042, p. 85, Vatican Library). See also the
*Avviso di Roma of July 7, 1571, in Carte Fames., 763 of the
State Archives, Naples. The *Avviso di Roma of August 8,
1571, Urb. 1042, p. 96, he. cit., mentions further consultations
for the purpose of raising money. Cf. also ADRIANI, XXL, 4.
1 Cf. LE BRET, VIII., 237 ; GUGLIEI.MOTTI, Colonna, 148 seq.,
151 seq. The *pact with Cosimo I. concerning galleys for the
Turkish war, of March, 1571, in Varia polit., 81 (now 82), p. 642
seq., Papal Secret Archives.
8 See *Avvisi di Roma of June 16 and 22, 1571, Urb. 1042,
p. 75, 77b, Vatican Library, Cf. CARINCI, 17 seq.
8 Corresp. dipl., IV., 320.
4 Ibid. 315 seq., 317.
6 See ibid. 349. The Grand Master of the Knights of St. John,
who had already, in a *brief of March 16, 1571, been urged to
lend his galleys, received, in a *brief of May 24, 1571, orders to
take them to Messina by June 20. Arm. 44, t. 16, pp. 36b, 104,
Papal Secret Archives.
•SEPENO, 117. The date in MOLMENTI, Veniero, 81 (July
30) is wrong.
DELAY OF DON JOHN. 413
thence to Messina. On July 23rd the Venetian fleet arrived
under the command of the aged Sebastiano Venier. But the
Spaniards were still being waited for, when there was no time
to be lost in attacking the Turks, who were besieging Fama-
gosta, and menacing Crete, Cythera, Zante and Cephalonia.1
Pius V., greatly alarmed at the news of efforts being made
by the Turks,2 and suspicious of the delay on the part of the
Spaniards, did all he could to induce Don John to sail at once
for Messina. After having, on June 2gth, 1571, even before
he had received a reply to his letter of May 27th,3 sent a
pressing summons by means of a special envoy,4 he sent
another messenger to the same effect on July 7th.5 A con
sistory on July 2oth was occupied solely with the question
of what was to be done6 in view of the delay of the Spaniards,
which was universally deplored.7 On July 26th a pressing
brief was sent to Don John,8 and this was followed on August
4th by a courier bearing yet another brief.9
1 See SERENO, 122 scq., 125 seq. ; GUGLIELMOTTI, Colonna,
163 ; BALAN, VI., 551 ; MANFRONI, Marina, 472.
2 Cf. the "report of A. Zibramonti from Rome, July 7.. 1571,
Gonzaga Archives, Mantua.
8 In his reply of June 18, 1571, Don John tried to excuse his
delay ; see Corresp. dipl., IV., 345 seq.
4 See LADERCHI, 1571, n. 358.
5 *" La Sta> di N Sre hoggi ha spedito un corriere a Geneva,
credesi per sollecitare il passaggio di D. Giovanni ch'aspetta
d'hora in hora a Geneva acci6 che con 1'armata sua vadi a trovare
la Venetiana." The Papal fleet was waiting at Naples (letter
of Stuerdo to G. B. Pia from Rome, July 7, 1571, Carte Fames.
763, State Archives, Naples). Cf. also the brief to Don John
in LADERCHI, 1571, n. 363. See also Corresp. dipl., IV., 384 seq.
6 See Corresp. dipl. IV., 395.
7 *" Luni nel concistoro non si fece altro che pailare della
Tardanza del Sor Don Giovanni." Avviso di Roma of July 20,
1571, Doria-Pamfili Archives, Rome.
8*Brief to " Joh. ab Austria," Rome, July 26, 1571, Archives
of Briefs, Rome.
9 See * Avviso di Roma of August 4, 1571, Urb. 1042, p. 93b,
Vatican Library. The *brief for Don John of August I, 1571*
414 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
Don John had left Madrid for Barcelona on June 6th,
arriving there on the i6th. As had been the case with the
nobles of Rome, so the greatest enthusiasm for the crusade
prevailed among the grandees of Spain, and many of the
Spanish nobles had taken ship at the beginning of June.1
Don John was detained for a longer period by the preparations
which he had to make ; in consequence of the war against
the Moors, added to the proverbial diJatoriness of the Span
iards, he had great difficulty in getting together the required
squadron.2 It was only on July i6th that he set sail with 46
galleys for Genoa, where he stayed at the palace of Gian
Andrea Doria, and received a visit from Cosimo I., who
thus assured himself of the baselessness of the report spread
abroad by the French that the Spanish force was really directed
against Tuscany.3
From Genoa Don John sent Moncada to Venice and Her-
nando de Carillo to Rome ; the former was to assure the
Venetians that he would very soon be at Messina, while
Carillo was to convey to the Pope his thanks for his appoint
ment, and his excuses for the delay in his coming.4 When,
on August 7th, Carillo took his leave of the Pope, the latter
charged him to tell Don John that he was setting out upon a
war for the Catholic faith, and that God would give him
victory. At the same time Pius V. gave to the envoy the
sacred standard of the league.5
in the Archives of Briefs, Rome. Ibid. *briefs for Granvelle,
the Viceroy of Sicily, Marcantonio Colonna, and others, all of
August i " ut curent omnia parata ad instruendam classem."
1 See CHARRIERE, III., 158, n.
* SERENO, 131. Corresp. dipl., IV., 384 seq. Cf. ADRIANI,
XXL, 4. In the Library at Basle, Cod. AA. VI., 30, there is a
"Relatione fatta alia MtA Catt01 in Madrid alii 15 di luglio, 1571,
di tutta la spesa ordinaria die occorria per la lega. For this
detailed reckoning, which is also preserved in vol. 62, p. 9, of the
Collect. Faure in the Library at Geneva, cf. POMETTI, 72, n. 7.
8 See ADRIANI, XXL, 5.
4 See HAVEMANN, Don. Juan, 129; GUGLIELMOTTI, 171.
6 See *Avviso di Roma of August 7, 1571, Urb. 1042, p. 96,
Vatican Library. Cf. the *report of A. Zibramonti from Rome,
DON JOHN IN NAPLES. 415
Don John, who remained at Genoa until the end of July,1
reached Naples 'on August 8th, where the viceroy, Cardinal
Granvelle, gave him a solemn reception on the following day.2
On August I4th there took place in the church of S. Chiara
the delivery to Don John of his commander's baton and the
sacred standard. Tne latter was of blue silk damask, having
embroidered at the top in the centre a large representation
of the crucified Saviour, at whose feet were the arms of Pius
V., with those of Spain and Venice on the right and left.
These shields were linked by gold chains, from which hung the
arms of Don John. In the presence of a large number of
nobles, and the princes of Parma and Urbino, Granvelle
delivered it to Don John before the high altar. The people,
who were deeply moved, answered : Amen, Amen.3
While Don John was thus tarrying at Naples, the impatience
of the Pope, who was deeply troubled by the news of the
advance of the Turkish fleet, became greater and greater.
On August I7th he sent Paolo Odescalchi to Don John with
August ii, 1571, which describes the banner minutely (Gonzaga
Archives, Mantua). Cf. also Corresp. dipl., IV., 402, n. 2.
1 From thence he again wrote on July 30, and on August I
from Portofino ; see Lett ere di D. Juan d' Austria a Giovan A.
Doria, Rome, 1896, 18 seq.
2 See CHARRIERE, III., 159; HAVEMANN, Don Juan, 130.
3 See Colecc. de docum. ined., XXXIII. , 237 ; CARACCIOLO,
I comment, d. guerre fatte co' Turclii da D. Giovanni d' Austria,
Florence, 1581, IT. The Latin *report of Granvelle to Pius
V., dated Naples August 14, 1571, which Guglielmotti (p. 173
seq.} saw in the Gaetani Archives, Rome, and published in an
Italian translation, must have been removed from thence, because
in 1900 the firm of dealers in antiquities, Gilhofer-Ranschburg of
Vienna, put just such a document on the market. The great
standard of the league, which is often confused with the banner
of Colonna (see supra, p. 381), which is equally important in
itself and because of its historical interest, is now in the cathedral
of Toledo ; see F. DURO, L'e"tendard de la Sainte-Ligue a la
bataille de Le"pante, in Revue de I' art chret., 1889, 411 seq. (with
picture) and FEDELE in Arch. stor. Napolit., XXXIV., 547 seq,
The standard was evidently copied from an ancient model.
416 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
a letter in his own hand, in which he again implored him to
set out at once,1 which he at length did on August 23rd. On
the following day he arrived in the straits of Messina, where
he had been so long eagerly expected by the admirals of the
Pope and Venice, Colonna and Venier. Messina gave a
splendid welcome to the son of the Emperor, who was then
scarcely 24 years of age. A type of manly beauty, Don
John, with his blue eyes and fair hair, won the hearts of the
excitable Sicilians.2
At the first council Don John excused his delay, which
had been caused by the necessary preparations, at the same
time giving proofs of his warlike spirit and his confidence of
success. Philip II., in his caution and jealousy, had from
the first viewed with ill-will the youthful ardour of his young
and ambitious brother, and had therefore sent with him in
Requesens a man who was instructed to curb his zeal as much
as possible, and in the event Requesens proved himself a
master at raising captious difficulties with the object of
preventing a bold attack.3 To the opposing interests and
the old mistrust between the Spaniards and Venetians, were
now added the inadequate equipment of the Venetians,4
the very varied composition of the forces, and the deeply
1 See *Lettera di Roma of August 17, 1571, in the Doria-
Pamfili Archives, Rome. Cf. also LADERCHI, 1571, n. 370,
and Corresp. dipl., IV., 410, 420. The *instructions for Odes-
calchi in Miscell. Clemente XL, t. 21 1, p. 15, Papal Secret Ar
chives ; cf. P&METTI, 71. The characteristic head of Odescalchi
on his tomb in S. Girolamo della Carita is reproduced in Cosmos
illustr., 1904, 87. The " istruzione data dal card. Farnese ad
un suo mandato a Civita Vecchia a visitare il sig. D. Giov.
d' Austria quando pass6 con 1'armata " was printed in Rome in
1888 per nozze Ferrata-Faiella.
2 See CARINCI, 43 seq, ; HAVEMANN, 130 seq. ; GUGLIELMOTTI,
174 seq.
3 See BALAN, VI., 556 seq. ; HAVEMANN, 133 ; GUGLIELMOTTI,
176 seq.
* Cf. Colecc. de docum. ined., III., 15 seq, ; Corresp. dipl.,
IV., 420, n. SERRANO, Liga, I., 113,
THE FLEET SAILS FROM MESSINA. 417
rooted fear of the invincible Turkish navy. All this for a long
time quite paralysed any decisive action. Even when, on
September 2nd, the fleet was reinforced by 60 Venetian
ships and the twelve galleys of Doria,1 the disputes still
continued. At a review of the three fleets which was held
on September 8th, it was clearly seen that the Venetian ships
were not sufficiently equipped with sailors and rowers. This
defect had to be made good from the Spanish fleet ; Venier
objected to this, but Colonna was successful in making him
give way.2
After the discussions had been carried on for more than
three weeks, the departure of the fleet from Messina at last
took place on September * i6th. Divergent opinions and
quarrels still made themselves felt among the commanders,
but all felt that a decisive battle was at hand, and the fleet
prepared itself by receiving the sacraments from the Capuchins
and Jesuits who were attached to the expedition.3
Divided into four squadrons, the fleet sailed towards Corfu,
and then reassembled in the harbour of Gomenitsa on the coast
of Albania. There, as the result of the arbitrary action
taken by Venier against one of the Spaniards, a quarrel
broke out with Don John, which, but for the wise intervention
of Colonna might have had the most serious consequences.
It was settled that Agostino Barbarigo should take the place
of Venier. In the meantime scouts had brought information
that the Turkish fleet was in the harbour of Lepanto, the
ancient Naupacto, and the following days were spent in
watchfulness. Then there came the news of the fall of Fama-
gosta, which had taken place on August ist, of the shameful
breach of their promises by the Turks, and their cruel murder
of the heroic Bragadino. The Turks had flayed the un
fortunate man alive, stuffed his skin, and dressing it in the
1 Doria had left Civitavecchia on August 24 ; see the *letter
of A. Zibramonti from Rome, August 25, 1571, Gonzaga Archives,
Mantua.
8 See GUGLIELMOTTI, 179 seq., 185 seq. ; BALAN, VI., 557 seq. ;
MOLMENTI, Veniero, 150 seq.
3 See SERENO, 191 ; HAVEMANN, 134 ; GUGLTEMOTTI, 190.
418 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
Venetian uniform of his office, dragged it through the city !
The news of these atrocities spread quickly, and the whole
fleet thirsted for revenge.
Having made all ready for battle, the fleet set sail in the
night of October 6th, in spite of an unfavourable wind, and
hugging the rocky shores of the islands of the Curzolari,
known to the ancients as the Echinades, made towards the
open gulf of Patras. When, on the following morning, it
had entered the gulf by way of the narrow straits between
the island of Oxia and Cape Scrofa, Don John, after a hurried
consultation with Venier,2 gave the signal to prepare to attack
by firing a cannon, at the same time hoisting to the mast
head of his own ship the standard of the Holy League.3 The
1 Cf. SERENO, 250 seq. ; HAMMER, II., 414 seq. ; BALAN, VI.,
555 se(l- » GUGLIELMOTTI, 1 95 seq. ; A. PODOCATARO, Relazione
de' successi di Famagosta p.p. A. Tessier, Venice, 1876 ;
AGOSTINO, La perdita di Famagosta, Venice, 1891 ; CATIZZANI,
Narrazione del terribile assedio e della resa di Famagosta da
un ms. del capitano Angelo Gatto da Orvieto, Florence, 1887.
See also the monograph on the life of Bragadino by Rio trans
lated by K. Zell, 2nd ed. Freiburg, 1874. His country erected
a monument in its Pantheon of great men, SS. Giovanni e Paolo,
to the hero, who had borne his martyrdom with Christian forti
tude. For the siege money coined by Bragadino to pay the
defenders of Famagosta see LAZARI, Monete de' possedimenti
Veneziani di oltramare e di terrafirma, Venice, 1851.
1 Cf. MOLMENTI, Veniero, 311.
8 There is for tne battle of Lepanto plentiful material in original
documents, TVimphlets and various narratives ; cf. the biblio
graphy in CICOGNA, Bibl. Venez., Venice, 1847, 118 seqq. ;
SORANZO, Bibl. Venez., ibid. 1885 seq., 81 seq. ; MANFRONI,
Marina, 438 seq. ; MOLMENTI, Veniero, 163 seq. ; D'AYALA,
Bibl. milit., 312 ; DURO, Tradiciones infundadas, Madrid, 1888,
633 seq. ; STIRLING-MAXWELL, Don Juan II., App. n. 6, sec. 3a,
completed in Zeitschrift fur Bucherfreunde, IV. (1900-1901),
191 seqq. Concerning a hitherto unknown pamphlet on Lepanto
see Katalog 500, 2nd and 3rd part, Frankfurt, 1907-08, by J. BAR.
The richest collection of contemporary writings on Lepanto is
to be found in the Library of the Museo Correr at Venice ; cf.
THE OPPOSING FLEETS. 419
priests attached to the fleet gave the general absolution ;
there followed a short and fervent prayer, and then the cry
was heard from thousands of voices : Vittoria I Vittoria !
Viva Christo !l
The opposing forces were very considerable, and approxi
mately equal. The Turks had 222 galleys, 60 other vessels,
750 cannon, 34,000 soldiers, 13,000 sailors, and 41,000 slaves
as rowers ; the Christians had 207 galleys (105 Venetian,
8 1 Spanish, 12 Papal, and 3 each from Malta, Genoa and
Savoy), 30 other vessels, 6 great galleys or galleons which
" seemed like castles," 1,800 cannon, 30,000 soldiers, 12,900
sailors and 43,000 rowers.2
In accordance with the tactics of the time Don John had
divided his fleet into four squadrons, approximately equal,
and distinguished by the colour of their standards. The six
Venetian galleons, which were commanded by Francesco
Serapeum., 1858, 275. Among recent works the following are
outstanding : HAMMER, II., 420 seq. ; ROSELL, Hist, del combate
naval de Lepanto, Madrid, 1853 ; GUGLIELMOTTI, 213 seq. ;
JURIEN DE LA GRAVIERE, La guerre de Chypre et la bataille de
Lepante, II., Paris, 1888 (cf. GOTTLOB in Liter. Rundschau, 1889,
49 seq.) ; MANFRONI, Marina (1897), 487 seq. (cf. Riv. stor., 1898,
346 seq.} ; DURO, Armada espanola desde la union de los reinos
de Castilla y Arag6n, II., Madrid, 1898 ; MOLMENTI, Veniero,
and in Riv. Marittima, 1898 and 1899 ; JAHNS, Handb. der
Gesch. des Kriegswesen, Leipsic, 1880, 1281 seq. ; SERRANO,
Liga, I., 133 seq. Cf. also GAVOTTI, La tattica nelle grandi
battaglie navali, I., Rome, 1898, 182 seq., and NORMANN-
FRIEDENFELS in Mitteilungen aus dem Gebiet bes Seewesens,
XXX., Pola, 1902, i seqq. Among the curiosities in the State
Archives at Simancas is a chart with a plan of the battle from
the hand of Don John.
1 See SERENO, 191 ; *Lettera mandata dall'armata christ.
sotto di 8 di ottobre 1571, Doria-Pamfili Archives, Rome ;
CARINCI, 52.
2 Just as the estimates of contemporaries were very various,
so are the statements of later writers ; see GUGLIEMOTTI, Colonna,
211 seqq. ; MANFRONI, Marina, 478 seq. ; SERRANO, Liga, I,,
119 seq., 130 seq.
420 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
Duodo, formed the advance guard, and were intended, with
their superior artillery to frighten the Turks and throw
them into disorder.1 Behind them in line abreast came the
three first squadrons, the left wing under the command of the
Venetian admiral Agostino Barbarigo, the right under the
Spanish admiral Doria, and the centre under Don John.
On either side of his flagship came Colonna and Venier. The
fourth squadron, under Alvaro de Bazan, Marquis of Santa
Cruz,2 formed the rear-guard.
The left wing of the Turkish fleet was under the command
of the Calabrian renegade Uluds AH (Occhiali),3 Pasha of
Algiers, the right wing was commanded by Mohammed
Saulak, governor of Alexandria, and the centre by the com-
mander-in-chief, the Grand Admiral, Muesinsade Ali.
About noon the wind, which had been favourable to the
Turks, dropped. While the sun shone out of a cloudless
sky, the two fleets met, the one under the standard of the
Crucified, the other under the purple standard of the sultan,
with the name of Allah embroidered in letters of gold. The
Turks endeavoured to outflank the enemy at both ends of the
line. In order to prevent this, Doria extended his line in
such a way as to leave a gap between the right wing and the
centre, through which the enemy could easily pass. While
at this point the battle took a dangerous turn, and Doria,
by the skilful seamanship of the Turks, was driven with 50
galleys towards the open sea, on the left wing it was developing
more successfully, There the Venetians were fighting
against a superior force with equal bravery and success,
although their leader, Barbarigo, was struck in the eye by an
arrow, and fell mortally wounded.
In the centre the fight was more evenly contested. There
Don John, who had on board his ship 300 veteran Spanish
1 Each galleon had 36 large cannon and 64 smaller pieces to
throw balls of stone ; see G. MOLLI, Le navi di Lepanto, in Cosmos
illust. 1904, 179.
1 For de Bazan of. MARTIN FERNANDEZ DE NAVARETTE in
Revista general de la Marina, special number, Madrid, 1888.
8 For Occhiali cf. JORGA, III., 226, and POMETTI, 19, n. i.
VICTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN FLEET. 42!
soldiers,1 made straight for the flagship of AH, which carried
400 janissaries. Close to him the galleys of Colonna, Re-
quesens, Venier, and the Princes of Parma and Urbino, took
a vigorous part in the bloody struggle, which for a long time
hung in the balance. The death of the Turkish Grand Ad
miral Ali, whose rich galley was carried by storm by the
soldiers of Don John and Colonna, decided the battle at about
four in the afternoon. When the Turks realized that their
centre was broken, their left wing also gave way, and in con
sequence Uluds had to break off his struggle with Doria, and
think of his own safety, managing to retire, though with heavy
losses, towards Santa Maura and Lepanto with 40 galleys.2
Although the exhaustion of the rowers, and the springing
up of a violent storm, prevented a protracted pursuit of the
enemy, the victory, of the Christians was nevertheless com
plete. Debris of ships and dead bodies covered the sea
far and wide. About 8,000 Turks were killed and 10,000
taken prisoners ; 117 of their galleys fell into the hands of the
Christians, and 50 were sunk or burned. The victors lost
12 galleys and had 7,500 killed, and as many more wounded.
Numerous trophies, such as purple standards with inscrip
tions in gold and silver, and stars and the moon, and a great
1 For the galley of Don John at Lepanto see BEER in Jahrbuch
der kunsthistor. Samml. des osterr. Kaiser hauses, XV., I seqq.
8 In the Christian fleet the right wing had suffered the most, a
thing which the Venetians attributed to the leadership of Doria,
nor would they accept his justification of himself, seeing in him
a traitor, Among modern writers GUGLIELMOTTI (p. 228 seq.)
and BALAN (VI., 561 seq.) pass judgment on Doria with great,
and excessive, harshness. Nevertheless, the apologia for Doria
made by B. VEROGGIO (Gianandrea Doria alia battaglia di
Lepanto, Genoa, 1886) is not convincing (cf. NERI in Arch. stor.
Ital. 5th Series, I., 273 seq. ; see also MANFRONI, Lega, 355 seq.
and Marina, 494 seq.) ; the same holds good of the defence (see
MANFRONI in Rassegna naz., CXX. [1901], July l) attempted by
GAVOTTI (Le battaglie navali della republ. di Geneva, Rome,
1900). Even though Doria's conduct was not actually traitorous,
it nevertheless did great harm to the Christian armada.
422 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
part of the enemy's artillery, fell into the hands of the
Christians : 42 of the prisoners belonged to the most dis
tinguished Turkish families, among them the governor of
Negropont and two sons of the Grand Admiral Ali. The
most valuable prize was 12,000 Christian slaves who had
been forced to serve in the galleys, among the number 2,000
Spaniards, who owed their freedom to the victory.1
Much noble blood had been spilt. While the Spaniards
had to grieve the loss of Juan de Cordova, Alfonso de Cardena,
and Juan Ponce de Leon, the Venetians had lost twenty
members of the first families of the Republic. Fabiano
Graziani, the brother of the historian of the war, had fallen
by Colonna's side on one of the Papal galleys. Among the
wounded were Venier, and a genius as yet unknown to the
world, the poet, Cervantes.2
As was the case with Spain and Venice, the nobles of Naples,
Calabria, Sicily, and above all, the Papal States, had covered
themselves with glory. Together with Alessandro Farnese,
Prince of Parma, and Francesco Maria della Rovere, Prince
of Urbino, there were among the combatants Sforza, Count of
Santa Fiora, Ascanio della Corgna, Paolo Giordano Orsini
of Bracciano, Virginio Orsini of Vicovaro, Orazio Orsini of
Bomarzo, Pompeo Colonna, Gabrio Serbelloni, Troilo Savelli,
Onorato Caetani, Lelio de' Massimi, Michele Bonelli, and the
Frangipani, Santa Croce, Capizuchi, Ruspoli, Gabrielli,
Malvezzi, Oddi, and Berardi.3 It is with justifiable pride
that Italian history recalls the glorious part taken by repre-
1 When certain avaricious men wished to treat these Christian
prisoners as slaves, Pius V. forbade it under pain of excom
munication ; see BERTOLOTTI, La schiavitu in Roma, 42 seq. ;
cf. MARGRAF, 209.
1 See HAVEMANN, 139 ; GUGLIELMOTTI, 253, 255 ; MANFRONI,
Marina, 4^8 seq. The names of the more "distinguished prisoners
in THEINER, Annal. eccl., I., 462. Cf. Rosi in Arch. d. Soc.
Rom., XXL, 141 seq.
8 The account of Guglielmotti (loc. cit.) has been completed in
various respects by recent researches : see MONTECHIARO, La
Sicilia nella battaglia di Lepanto, Pisa, 1886 ; MULAS, I Sardi
ANXIETY OF THE POPE. 423
sentatives of every part of the Appenine peninsula in that naval
battle which was the greatest in the memory of man.1
Pius V. had kept his eyes fixed on the east with indescrib
able anxiety. His thoughts were ever with the Christian
fleet, while his hopes far outstripped it. Day and night
he recommended it to the protection of the Almighty in
fervent prayer. As soon as he had received news of the
arrival of Don John at Messina, the Pope redoubled his
penances and alms. He had a firm belief in the power of
prayer, and especially of the Rosary.2 At a consistory on
August 27th the Pope asked the Cardinals to fast one day
in the week, and to give extraordinary alms, as it was only
by penance that they could hope to obtain the mercy of God
in such a time of anxiety.3 His Holiness, so the Spanish
a Lepanto, Cagliari, 1887 ; FOSSATI, La Riviera e la battaglia
di Lepanto, Sal6, 1890 ; CONFORTI, I Napolitani a Lepanto,
Naples, 1880 ; ARENAPRIMO, La Sicilia nella battaglia di Lepanto,
Messina, 1892 (cf. Arch. stor. SiciL, XVIII., 157 seq.) ; DE
LORENZO, Monografie Reggione e Calabresi, Siena, 1 896 ; TOMAS-
SETTI, I Romani a Lepanto, in Cosmos illustr., II., Bergamo,
1908, 78 seq. ; MOLMENTI, I Veneziani a Lepanto, ibid. 93 seq. ;
CONFORTI, I Napolitani a Lepanto, ibid. 109 seq. ; POMETTI,
I Calabresi a Lepanto, ibid. 133 seq. ; for the part taken by
Lucca see LAZZARESCHI, 14 seq. ; for that of A. Farnese see
Tosi in Arte e Storia, XXIX., Florence, 1910, and CAPELLI in
Arch. Farm., II., 1-2; cf. Quellen und Forsch., XVI., 182. For
O. Caetani, besides CARINCI, Lettere, cf. GIANNELLI in Rassegna
naz., 1913, June. A new weapon, a kind of Greek fire invented
by Gabrio Serbelloni, did good service in the battle ; see the
"report of C. Capilupi concerning the fleet of the league, which
he sent to his brother Alessandro on October 3, 1571, in Cod.
105 of the Capilupi Library, Mantua.
1 See Adriani XXL, 5.
1 Cf. GRATIANUS, 230 ; CATENA, 34 ; Corresp. dipl., IV., 415 ;
FALLOUX, Pie V., chapt. 22.
8 See Ada consist, card. S. Severinae in LADERCHI, 1571, n. 379,
and in Studi e docum., XXIV., 87 seq. Cf. the "report of A.
Zibramonti from Rome, September i, 1571, according to which
the Pope desired the Cardinals to say at least two masses a week
for victory. Gonzaga Archives, Mantua.
424 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
ambassador reported on September 26th, 1571, fasts three
days a week, and spends many hours every day in prayer ;
he has also ordered prayers in all the churches.1 In order
to make Rome safe from an unexpected attack by Turkish
corsairs, the Pope had ordered, at the beginning of
September, that the fortifications of the Borgo should be
completed.2
It was but rarely that any news was received of the Christian
armada, and the Curia all the time remained in painful sus
pense. It came, therefore, as a relief when they heard at
last at the beginning of October of the arrival of the fleet
of the league at Corfu.3 When the news came, on October
I3th, that the Turkish fleet was at Lepanto, and that that of
the league had sailed on September 3oth,4 there could be no
doubt that the encounter was at hand. The Pope, although
he had the strongest confidence in the victory of the Christian
arms,5 ordered that extraordinary prayer should be made
day and night in all the monasteries of Rome, and himself
set the example to all by doing so himself.6 His prayer was
at last to be heard. In the night between October 2ist and
22nd, there arrived a courier who had been sent by the nuncio
in Venice, Facchinetti, who brought to Cardinal Rusticucci,
who was in charge of the secretariate of state, a letter from
the nuncio containing the news brought to Venice on October
1 9th by Gioffre Giustiniani of the great victory that had been
1 Corresp. dipl., IV., 442.
1 *" S.St& ha dato ordine che sia finita la fortificazione di Borgo."
Report of A. Zibramonti from Rome, September 5, 1571, Gonzaga
Archives, Mantua. Cf. Vol. XVII., p. 126.
8 See *Avviso di Roma of October 6, 1571, Urb. 1042, p. I28b,
Vatican Library. Cf. Corresp. dipl., IV., 450.
4 See *Avviso di Roma of October 13, 1571, Urb. 1042, p. I32b,
Vatican Library.
5 See the report of Gondola in VOINOVICH, 598.
6 See I. A. GUARNERIUS, De bello Cyprio, in LADERCHI, 1571,
n. 420 ; WERRO in Zeitschrift fiir schtveis. Kirchengesch., 1907,
JUBILATION IN ROME. 425
won at Lepanto under the skilful command of Don John.1
The Cardinal had the Pope woken at once, who broke out
into tears of joy, saying the words of the aged Simeon : Nunc
dimittis servum tuum in pace. He at once got up to thank
God on his knees, and then returned to bed, but could not
sleep from excitement and joy.2 On the following morning
he went to St. Peter's for renewed prayers of gratitude, and
then received the ambassadors and Cardinals, to whom he
said that they must now strain every nerve during the coming
year to carry on the war against the Turks.3 On this occasion,
in allusion to the name of Don John, he cited the words
of Holy Scripture : Fuit homo missus a Deo, cui nomen erat
loannes.
All Rome shared the jubilation of Pius V. The holy
Pope was in a state of exaltation.4 The Romans were not
slow to celebrate the victory with salvos of artillery and
fire-works, even though Pius V. thought that the expenditure
might have been better employed in having masses said for
the souls of the fallen ; instead he granted a special indul
gence. On October 23rd a courier from the Venetian govern
ment brought detailed reports of the great battle.5 " The
Turks " Cardinal Mula wrote in jubilation, " will not get
1 See the *report of Vine. Matuliani of October 24, 1571, State
Archives, Bologna, the *report of Arco of October 27, 1571,
State Archives, Vienna, the letter of Facchinetti in VALENSISE,
171, and that of Zuniga in Corresp. dipl., IV., 488.
2 See the *Avvisi di Roma of October 24 and 27, 1571, Urb.
1042, p. 137, I37b, Vatican Library. Cf. Tiepolo in MUTINELLI,
I., 98 seg.
8 Corresp. dipl., IV., 489.
4 See GRATIANUS, 230.
5 See *Avvisi di Roma of October 24 and 27, 1571, loc. cit.
*" To-morrow morning the Pope will celebrate a mass of thanks
giving," A. Zibramonti announces on October 27, 1571, Gonzaga
Archives, Mantua. An *Avviso dated Venice, October 22,
1571, which deals solely with Lepanto, is in the Doria-Pamfili
Archives, Rome, together with a full collection of Avvisi dealing
with the Turkish war, 1560-1571 (Cod. 76, 21).
VOL. XVITI. 29
426 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
over this blow, and the Christian fleet is mistress of the seas."1
On October 28th Pius V. celebrated a solemn High Mass of
thanksgiving in St. Peter's. He had intended also to ponti
ficate at a requiem for the fallen or the following day, but
was so exhaustied that he had to leave it to Cardinal Otto
Truchsess.2
On October 22nd the Papal chancery had begun to send
news to all parts of the world of the great event. The three
admirals of the Christian fleet received enthusiastic letters of
congratulation, while, by the express command of Pius V.,3
the Catholic powers were urgently implored to profit in every
way from " the greatest victory ever won against the in
fidels " ; all must have a share in it. Letters in this sense
were sent to the Emperor, the Kings of Spain, France, and
Poland, to the Italian states, and to the ecclesiastical and
secular princes of the German Empire.4 The Emperor received
1 *" Si pu6 dire che il Turco non restaurera mai piu armata
marittima et ha perduti li migliori soldati . . . L'armata
Christiana e padrona di tutto il mare." Mula to Maximilian
II., from Rome, October 27, 1571, State Archives, Vienna, Hof-
korresp., fasc. 7.
1 See the *letter of a Jesuit in Rome to one of his colleagues in
Germany, December n, 1571, in Cod. 1237, P- IO5> of the Muni
cipal Library, Troves, which says : " Sequenti vero die illustris-
simus cardinalis Augustanus cecinit missam pro defunctis classis
christianae cum magna solemnitate, eamque cantaturus fuisset
Pontifex, sed forte senio et fatigatione praepeditus facere non
potuit, ut et alias Pontifex, quandocunque impeditur, sacri
cantandi munus illustrissimo cardinali Augustano committere
solet, indicium certe amoris ac benevolentiae singular! illustr.
cardinalis pietati ac religioni debitae."
* See Tiepolo in MUTINELLI, I., 100.
4 The *briefs to Philip II. and Charles IX. in vol. 26 of the
Archives of Briefs, Rome, are dated October 22, 1571, and those
to the Italian states October 23 ; ibid, the *brief to Venice of
October 24. The original of the brief to Philip II. in the Archives
at Simancas bears the date October 25 ; see Corresp. dipl., IV.,
492 ; ibid. 493 seq. another, autograph, brief to Philip II., in
Italian, dated October 28. The brief to the King of Portugal,
THE POPE'S FAR-REACHING HOPES. 427
three ; ' the first dated October 24th, and the second and
third November ist and loth. In these letters Maximilian
was directly invited to join the league, a matter which
Fernando Mendoza was sent to discuss with him in a special
mission.1 What far-reaching plans filled the mind of Pius
V. may be seen from the fact that on November I7th he sent
to the King of Portugal letters to be forwarded to the Shah
of Persia, the King of Ethiopia, and the sheik Mutahat,
prince of Arabia Felix.2 If he could but succeed in winning
over these rivals of the Ottoman Empire, there seemed to be
a possibility, not only of entirely driving the hereditary enemy
of Christendom out of Europe, but even of winning back the
Holy Sepulchre.
A necessary preliminary to such action on the part of the
eastern nations, however, was the complete unity of the
Christian west, and especially of the nations which had
entered the league. After all that had gone before, it was
easy to foresee serious difficulties in this respect.
While fresh particulars of the battle continued to arrive,3
the Pope was waiting, with an impatience that can well be
understood, for exact details of the fruits of the victory
won by the fleets of the league on October yth. At first it
was reported that the fleet would go on to the Morea, where
it was said that the Christian population was ripe for rebellion.
Others thought that an attack would be made on the fortresses
near Lepanto, or on the important island of Negroponte,
which was not well defended. On November 5th, it was
learned that none of these things had been done. Letters
of October 26, 1571, in LADERCHI, 1571, n. 459. According to
t. 26 of the Archives of Briefs, Rome, on the same date "letters
were sent to Don John, Venier, M. A. Colonna, and Genoa, and
on the 27 to the German princes. For the brief to Albert V.
of Bavaria see JANNSEN-PASTOR, IV.15"1(i, 327.
1 See SCHWARZ, Brief wechsel, 187 seq., 189 seq.
2 See GOUBAU, 414-426; LADERCHI, 1571, n. 462 seq. ; Corpo
dipl. Portug., X., 424.
8 Cf. the "report of A. Zibramonti of November 3, 1571, Gon-
zaga Archives, Mantua.
428 HISTORY OF TJIE POPES.
dated October 2yth from Corfu announced that the fleet of
the league was on the point of dispersing ; Don John was going
to Sicily, the Venetians, partly home and partly to Crete,
and Colonna to Rome, where the allies intended to make their
plans for the campaign of the following year. This, it was
said, was due to the fact that it had been found impossible
to come to an agreement about the division of the future
spoils of war, and especially of the Morea. The French am
bassador in Rome spoke scoffingly of the division of the bear's
skin which had not yet been won.1
Soon afterwards it was learned in Rome that Don John
and the Venetians had not been able to come to terms even
about the Turkish nobles captured at Lepanto, a question
which involved the payment of large ransoms, and that they
had decided to refer the matter to the Pope for arbitration ;
Marcantonio Colonna would shortly arrive in the Eternal City.2
The arrival of the Papal admiral was still delayed for a
time. He had first sent to the Pope, in order to give him a
full report, Pompeo Colonna and the knight, Romegasso,
who were received at a long audience on November ist.3 On
the I4th there arrived Alessandro Farnese and Santa Fiora,
and on the following day many others who had taken part
in the battle ; Michele Bonelli arrived on the 2oth.4
1 See CHARRIERE, III., 191 seq., 193. Later on Marcantonio
Colonna described to the Venetian ambassador in Rome the
disgraceful quarrels after the victory ; see the latter's report
of November 26, 1571, in MUTINELLI, I., 103. Cf. BROSCH,
Drei Grosswesire, 22 seq. ; SERRANO, Liga, I., 139 seq.
* See CHARRIERE, III., 194. The more distinguished Turkish
prisoners came to Rome on March 8, 1572 ; see Rosi in Arch. d.
Soc. Rom., XXI., 141 seq. ; XXIV., 7. For the plans made by
Venice to kill the prisoners and the Sultan see LAMANSKY, Secrets
d'e"tat de Venise, Petersburg, 1884, 83 seq., go. Cf. GRATIANUS, 226.
8 See *Avviso di Roma of November 7, 1571, Urb 1042, p.
i46b, Vatican Library.
4 Cf. *Avvisi di Roma of November 14, 17 and 24, 1571, ibid.
I43b, 149, I54b. Michele Bonelli had been appointed "capitaneus
generalis omnium legionar. status eccles." by a *brief of September
J5» *570 (Editti in the Casanatense Library, Rome).
THE RETURN OF COLONNA. 429
The coming of Colonna, which was definitely expected on
the iyth was put off, principally because, in spite of his
refusal,1 the Romans insisted upon according him a solemn
triumph, to prepare for which time was required.2 This
desire of the Romans was very understandable, for the noblest
youth of the city had taken a glorious part in the battle,
and a scion of one of its most famous families had commanded
the Papal fleet at Lepanto, and had contributed materially
to the victory ;3 such things brought strongly to their minds
the glories of ancient Rome. It was suggested that Colonna
should make his entry in the guise of an Emperor of ancient
times, in a gilt chariot, and crowned with laurel, but this
roused the jealousy of certain persons who pointed out that
such an honour could only belong to the commander-in-chief,
Don John. At the same time it did not commend itself to a
Pope like Pius V. and to others of similar views that there
should be this revival of an ancient triumph, and this led
to the alteration of the original programme,4 which never
theless remained a very splendid affair, as Pius V. hoped
that the honour paid to Colonna would incite his other feuda
tories to equally loyal and chivalrous service of the Church.5
1 See *Avviso di Roma of November 21, 1571, loc. cit. 145,
and the "report of Arco of November 24, 1571, State Archives,
Vienna.
2 For the consultations and deliberations see the acta in tne
Historical Archives of the Capitol, used by GNOLI in Cosmos
illustr., 1904, 147 seq. See also RODOCANACHI, Capitole 115.
8 In a *letter to Pius V. of November 3, 1571, Don John praised
the bravery of Colonna. Varia polit., 89 (now 90), p. 107, Papal
Secret Archives.
4 Cf. GRATIANUS, 231 ; SERENO, 229 seq. ; CHARRIEUE, III.,
195 ; LADERCHI, 1571, n. 449 ; GNOLI, loc. cit. See also the
*Avvisi di Roma of November 22 and 24, 1571, Urb. 1042, p.
I55b seq., 160, Vatican Library, the *Avviso of November 30,
1571, in the Doria-Pamfili Archives, Rome, and the "reports
of Arco of November 24 and December i, 1571, State Archives,
Vienna.
5 See *Avviso di Roma of November 22, 1571, loc. cit.
43O HISTORY OF THE POPES.
Since, on account of the necessary preparations, Colonna's
entry had been postponed until December 4th, on November
22nd the Pope caused his commander to come from Marino
to Rome, where he took up his abode in the Vatican until
the next day.1 There was much excitement and stir in the
Eternal City at that time ; every day more of those who had
fought in the battle of Lepanto were arriving with prisoners
and booty, especially Turkish standards, pieces of which
were exposed as relics.2
1 See *Avviso di Roma of November 24, 1571, loc. cit., and the
*report of Arco of the same date, State Archives, Vienna.
1 See the *Avvisi di Roma of November 3 and 22, 1571, Urb.
1042, p. 146, i59b, Vatican Library. In several places in Rome
there are still preserved Turkish standards captured at the battle
of Lepanto, e.g. in the choir of S. Maria Maggiore, the choir of
S. M. Araceli, and near the High Altar of S. M. della Vittoria
(the latter has since the restorations of 1888 been enclosed with
five Christian standards in a case) ; cf. Mem. stor. d. mirac. imag.
d. Mad. d. Vittoria, Rome, 1881. One of the captured standards
was sent by Pius V. to Sutri to the church of S. Tolomeo (at one
time the church of the Dominicans, but now that of the seminary).
Standards captured by the Venetians adorn the " Sala delle
armi " at the Arsenal in Venice (cf. G. DE LUCIA, La sala d'armi
nel Museo dell' arsenale di Venezia, in Riv. Maritt., 1908). The
banner of the contingent of the Duke of Savoy at Lepanto is to
be found in the church of the convent of S. Domenico at Turin
(see dell' Acqua, 82), that of the " archibugieri " of Sardinia at
Cagliari (see Arch. stor. Napolit., XXXIV., 544.) For the standard
of M.A. Colonna at Gaeta see supra, p. 381. According to GRE-
GOROVIUS (Wanderjahre, IV., 362) M. A. Colonna placed trophies
of the Turkish war in the castle of the Orsini at Avezzano. The
beautiful cross given by Pius V. to Don John when he set out for
the war is now in the sacristy of S. Severino at Naples. The
church of S. Pietro a Maiella at Naples has the picture " S. Maria
succurre miseris " to which Don John had recourse during the
battle. This picture is to be seen in the sky in the interesting
representation of the battle which is there, and shows the moment
when Don John sank the ship of Ali Pasha (see the illustrations
in Cosmos illustr., 1904, 125-130). The Knights of St. Stephen
(whose archives are now in the State Archives, Pisa) adorned with
TRIUMPH OF COLONNA. 431
All Rome was in a stir when the bright and sunny day of
December 4th dawned.1 Thousands of people had gathered
Turkish trophies and a painting of the battle of Lepanto, the
roof of their church of S. Stefano ai Cavalieri, which was built at
Pisa, 1565-1596. The battle of Lepanto in the convent of the
Dominicans at Mondovl is reproduced in LAZZARESCHI, 17. In
the Court Museum, Vienna, may be seen the state sword of Don
John and the cuirass of A. Barbarigo, and in the naval arsenal
at Pola several Turkish banners captured at Lepanto. The best
relics of the great naval battle are to be found in Spain ; cf.
ROSELL, Combate (passim] and DURO, Tradiciones infundadas,
Madrid, 1888. The standard of the league at Toledo has been
described on p. 415 ; until 1616 it was at the Escorial, where in
the church is still shown the private door, by means of which
according to tradition a messenger announced the victory to
Philip II. while he was assisting at vespers. Among the relics
of Don John preserved in the palace of the Escorial, some repre
sentations of the battle which are important both from the point
of view of naval matters and of costume, are specially noteworthy.
Of the same kind is the picture which came from the Dominican
convent at Malaga, and is now in the Sala de la marina hist6rica
of the Museo Naval at Madrid. Other relics are preserved in the
Santa Cruz palace at Madrid. In the principal hall of the armoury
at Madrid may be seen several Spanish standards from the battle
of Lepanto, together with the arms and garments of the Turkish
Grand Admiral, Ali Pasha, with a Turkish banner and other
trophies. A Turkish banner captured at Lepanto is still in the
church of the monastery at Montserrat. An ancient fresco
representing the battle is on the great staircase of the archbishop's
palace at Alcala (now the archivium). Six standards from the
galleys of Don John came to the Czartoryski Museum at Cracow,
from the possessions of the Duke of Osuna. For the Turkish
banners at Lucerne see App. n. 12 (January 10, 1572).
1 For the triumphal entry of Colonna cf. FRANC. ALBERTONIO,
L'entrata che fece 1'ecc. sig. M. A. Colonna in Roma, Viterbo, s.a.
[1571], with variants and an addition in CANCELLIERI, Possessi,
112 seq. See also Tiepolo in MUTINELLI, I., 104, and the full
*Avviso di Roma of December 5, 1571, Urb. 1042, p. 1570-158,
Vatican Library, with the remark, which can be accounted for
by the curtailment of the original programme : " Questo spetta-
432 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
along the Via Appia, where, near the basilica of St. Sebastian,
Girolamo Bonelli and the Swiss Guard, the Senator and the
Conservatori, awaited the arrival of Colonna, who was to
come from Marino. Unarmed, and with no decoration but
the Golden Fleece, Marcantonio rode upon a white horse
given him by the Pope ; a black silk mantle lined with fur
covered his tunic of cloth of gold, and on his head he wore
a black velvet cap, with a white plume fastened with a pearl
clasp.
Amid scenes of extraordinary rejoicing, the clash of trum
pets, and the firing of guns, the cortege was formed, in which
were to be seen the gaily coloured banners of all the city
corporations, and the 13 Rioni of Rome. As can easily be
understood, the chief interest was excited by the 170 Turkish
prisoners, dressed in red and yellow, in chains, and guarded
by halbardiers. In front of them rode a Roman in Turkish
dress dragging the standard of the sultan in the dust. At
the side of the prisoners walked a hermit, who had taken part
in the battle, and whom the people, by whom he was greatly
loved, called Fate bene per voi, from the words which he was
always saying.1 The standard of the Church was borne by
Romegasso, and that of the city of Rome by Giovan Giorgio
Cesarini, with whom rode Pompeo Colonna and Onorato
Caetani, and the two nephews of the Pope, Michele and
Girolamo Bonelli ; then came Marcantonio Colonna, who was
rapturously acclaimed by all, and was followed by the Senator
of Rome and the Conservatori, and a large number of his
friends and comrades. The Papal light cavalry brought
the procession to an end.
As Charles V. had done 35 years before, so Marcantonio
Colonna, entering the city by the Porta S. Sebastiano, and
colo era piu in opinione che non e riuscito infatti." Cf. BERTO-
LOTTI, La schiavitu, 7. Among recent writers see GUGLIELMOTTI,
Colonna, 265 seq. ; RODOCANACHI, Capitole, 115 seq.
1 An *Avviso di Roma of December i, 1571, loc. cit., p. 154,
informs us that on the previous day " il fate bene per voi " with
a turban on his head, had taken to the Pope some " pezzi delli
stendardi " taken at Lepanto.
COLONNA RECEIVED BY THE POPE. 433
passing the Baths of Caracalla, and under the triumphal
arches of Constantine and Titus, climbed the hill of the
Capitol, and came to S. Marco, passing thence along the Via
Papale to the Bridge of St. Angelo. On the way he came
to the statue of Pasquino, which was gaily decorated ; in
the left hand was the head of a Turk, with blood pouring
from the mouth, and in the right a drawn sword.1
After praying in St. Peter's at the tomb of the Prince of
the Apostles, and offering, in allusion to his own name, a
column of silver, Colonna proceeded to the Vatican, where
the Pope received him, accompanied by 25 Cardinals, with
the greatest honour. He exhorted the victor of Lepanto
to give the glory to God, Who, despite our sins, had been so
kind and merciful.2
When in the evening Colonna returned to his palace near
SS. Apostoli, the streets of the city, which were illuminated
as for a festa, were thronged with exultant crowds. During
the day the Romans had read with pride and hope the highly
significant inscriptions which had been placed on the Arches
of Constantine and Titus, those ancient memorials of the
subjection of the east by the west. The inscription on the
Arch of Titus, the monument of the subjection of Palestine,
called Jerusalem to rejoice because a Roman Pope had freed
the city which a Roman Emperor had placed in fetters.
Of the three inscriptions at the Arch of Constantine, that on
the right recorded the victory at Ponte Milvio, that on the
left the victory won af Lepanto by the Pope in conjunction
with Philip II. and Venice, while that in the centre expressed
the hope that now the way lay open to the conquest of Con
stantinople.
On this occasion there was a complete absence of all traces
of pagan antiquity, such as had been used on similar occasions
in Rome throughout the period of the Renaissance down
to the time of Julius III. How different was the spirit which
now prevailed in the Eternal City was also shown on the
1 See *Avviso di Roma of December 5, 1571, loc. cit., pp. I57b-
158, Vatican Library.
2 See ibid.
434 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
occasion of the reception which was given to the victor of
Lepanto by the senate at the Capitol nine days later. This
was entirely confined to the church of S. Maria Araceli, on
the great door of which, all decorated with Turkish standards,
could be seen the following inscription, composed entirely
in accordance with the spirit of the Catholic restoration :
' The thanksgiving for their successes which of old the pagan
sages offered in their madness on the Capitol to the idols,
the Christian hero who to-day comes to the Araceli, now gives
with pious devotion in return for his splendid victory, to the
true God, to Christ the Redeemer, and to His most glorious
Mother."1 The one trace of Renaissance days were the
magnificent tapestries of Cardinal Este in the church, repre
senting the victory of Scipio over Hannibal. At the mass
of thanksgiving Colonna offered as an ex voto Christo victori
a silver rostral column about four feet in height. At the close
of the celebrations dowries were given to 75 poor girls. This
had been asked for by Colonna in accordance with the wishes
of the Pope. The money which would have been expended
on the customary banquet was to be devoted to works of
Christian charity.2
The celebrated latinist Marc Antoine Muret, in the sermon
which he preached in S. Maria Araceli on December I3th,
described the victory of Lepanto as the result of the tears
and prayers of the Pope, adding that while the Holy Father
like Moses had been imploring the assistance of heaven, an
other Josue had overcome the Amalakites. Muret called
1 " Quas olim gentiles doctores idolis pro re bene gesta in
Capitolio stulte agebant, eas nunc ad Coeli aram Christianas
victor ascendens vero Deo Christo Redemptori eiusque gloriosis-
simae matri pro gloriosa religiose et pie agit haberque gratias."
* See *Avvisi di Roma of December 12 and 15, 1571, Urb. 1042,
pp. 162, i62b, 436, Vatican Library. A picture of the rostral
column in CASIMIRO, Aracoeli, 329, and MAES, II primo trofeo
della croce eretto da Costantino nel Foro Romano, Rome, 1901, 58.
Cf. L. CENTURIONI, Columna rostrata seu plausus triumphales
M. A. Columnae, Rome, 1633. For the Este tapestries see
Kunsthistor. Jahrbuch des osterreich Kaiserhauses, XXII., 195.
DISCUSSION OF FURTHER PLANS. 435
upon Colonna to liberate Greece, Constantinople and Jeru
salem from the yoke of the Turks, so that Rome, the centre
of the empire of the world and of the faith, might under the
pontificate of Pius V., and by the help of a Roman hero, add
new laurels to its standards.1
Both Colonna and the Pope were well aware how far off
they were as yet from the attainment of their grand purpose
of the destruction of the Ottoman power, and both of them
were so closely in agreement as to the steps to be undertaken,
that Pius V. associated his experienced admiral with the
Cardinals who had been appointed to deal with the question
of the league, who, from December loth onwards almost
every day held two meetings2 with the representatives of
Spain, Requesens and Pacheco, and the envoys of Venice,
often lasting five hours.3 Under pain of excommunication
reserved to the Pope everything was kept absolutely secret,
as the sultan had sent Italian speaking spies to Rome.4
In the course of the consultations held by the Pope's orders
during the months of October and November, the problem of
providing the necessary funds had been all-important ;6
1 The discourse was often reprinted ; e.g. it is in MAFFEI, Vita
di Pio V., Rome, 1712, 360 seq.
2 Cf. the *Avvisi di Roma of December 12, 15, 22 and 29, 1571
(loc. cit. p. 162, i62b, i64b, 169, 462b), which bring out the secrecy
of the discussions. See also POMETTI, 73.
8 See *Avvisi di Roma of December 17, 1571, and January 30,
1572, Urb. 1042, p. 437b ; 1043, p. 17, Vatican Library.
4 See the *report of A. Zibramonti from Rome, January 27,
1572, Gonzaga Archives, Mantua. Cf. the *Avviso di Roma of
January 30, 1572, loc. cit.
6 These conferences as well were kept as secret as possible ;
sometimes the Pope presided at them ; they were held very
frequently, for the most part at the house of Morone. Cf. *Avvisi
di Roma of October 20, November 10, December I and 8, 1571,
LTrb. 1042, pp. I35b, 140, 151, I53b, loc. cit. ; *report of Arco
of December i, 1571, State Archives Vienna. The outcome of
the conferences was the bull of December 3 1571 (in LADERCHI,
1571, n. 469), and the mission of Odescalchi to the Italian princes
(see CATENA, 210), who, in *briefs dated December 27, 1571,
436 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
but now they were concerned principally with the extent of
the campaign to be undertaken in the following spring ;
and with regard to this the representatives, both of Spain
and Venice, made little attempt to conceal the jealousy and
dislike which they entertained for each other. The private
interests of the two allies came out so strongly that almost
any concerted action became problematical. The Venetians
wished to make use of the league, not only to recover Cyprus,
but also to make fresh conquests in the Levant. Philip
II., on the other hand, who was averse to any strengthening
of the Republic of St. Mark, ordered Requesens to declare
that the first duty of the league was to take action against
the Berber states of Africa, in order that these might come
into the possession of Spain. The Venetians saw in this
proposal a trap to prevent them from recovering Cyprus,
as well as to expose them to the risk of losing Corfu as well,
while their fleet was engaged in fighting against the Berber
states on behalf of the King of Spain.1 At Venice it was
looked upon as certain that Philip II. intended to get as much
use as possible out of the league for his own ends. It cannot
be decided with any certainty how far the complaints which
they made to this effect were justified. In order to pass a
just judgment on the King of Spain we must not lose sight
of the attitude of France, whose government had been shame
less enough, immediately after the battle of Lepanto, to
propose to the sultan a direct alliance against Spain. Philip
II. was well informed of the negotiations which France was
carrying on, not only with the sultan, but also with the
were invited to give their assistance against the Turks ; see
Arm. 49, t. 19, p. 583 seq., Papal Secret Archives. A * Brief to
Lucca, of December 3, 1571, in the Archives of Briefs, Rome ;
another, of December 16, 1571, is mentioned by LAZZARESCIII, 19.
1 See GRATIANUS, 243 seq., who is very well informed on this
point. Cf. Tiepolo in ALBERI, II., 4, 234 ; GUGLIELMOTTI,
297 seq. ; MANFRONI, Lega, 356 seq. The " Commissione data
dal doge A. Mocenigo a P. Tiepolo, ambasc. straord. a Roma li
15 November, 1571, in proposito della lega " was published by.
Cicogna at Venice in 1845.
AIMS OF THE POPE. 437
Huguenots, the leaders of the revolt in the Netherlands,
and Elizabeth of England. He had therefore to take into
account the possibility of a simultaneous attack on the part
of a French, Netherland, English and Turkish alliance. It
certainly was not only jealousy of Venice which influenced
the Catholic King.1 At the same time Don John admitted
that it was contrary to the terms of the league that they
should give up the war against the sultan in favour of an
expedition in Africa.2
In contrast to the opposing interests of the Spaniards
and Venetians, Pius V. continued to keep before himself a
grand and absolutely disinterested plan ; he dreamed of
the liberation of Jerusalem, which was to be preceded by
the capture of Constantinople.3 But, as Zuniga wrote to
Alba on November loth, 1571, an effective blow at the heart
of the Ottoman power would only be possible by the delivery
1 Cf. JANSSEN-PASTOR, IV. 15'16, 328 ; MANFRONI, Marina, 507 ;
Rosi in Arch-, d. Soc. Rom., XXI., 146, n. 2. GOTTLOB (in Histor.
Jahrbuch; XVI., 394) is of opinion that the least straightforward
policy in connexion with the Turkish question is to be found on
the part of Philip II., but refers by way of proof to the *apologia
against the attacks of the Venetians issued in 1573 after the
Venetian treaty, from a pen in the close- confidence of the King
of Spain ; the two documents, the attack and the defence, are
in Cod. Vatic, lat. 5299, p. i seqq., 45 seqq., Vatican Library.
The documents which have recently been brought to light by
the learned Spanish Benedictine Serrano in Corresp. dipl., IV.,
554 seq., 562 seq., 593 seq., 606 seq., 615 seq., 626 seq., 636 seq.,
644 seq., 647 seq., tell in various ways in favour of Philip II.,
whose conduct Serrano has also endeavoured to justify in many
respects in his work, La liga di Lepanto, I., Madrid, 1918. More
over, in February, 1571, Pius V. assured the Spanish king of his
support in the event of a French attack on North Italy.
8 See GUGLIELMOTTI, 299, n. 8.
8 On December 22 . 1571, *Arco reports that on the previous
Saturday the Pope had written to Philip II. to dissuade him
from the enterprise against Algiers, and that Pius V. wished
Don John to move as soon as possible with all his fprces against
the Dardanelles. State Archives, Vienna,
438 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
of a simultaneous and unexpected attack by land and sea.1
Hence came the continued efforts of Pius V. to arrange a
European coalition against the Turks. Although nothing
was to be hoped for from France,2 which had sent an ambas
sador to Turkey in July,3 he nevertheless still hoped to win
over to his purpose certain other powers, first the Emperor,
and then Poland and Portugal. In spite of all the disap
pointments he had met with hitherto, he continued to try
and effect his purpose by means of his legates and nuncios.4
Pius V. tried to turn even the smallest sign of good will to
advantage in this matter. Thus, he took the opportunity of
some general expressions made use of by Maximilian II. in
assuring the Pope of his readiness to assist the Christian
cause, to hold out to him hopes of the allies being ready to
help him with 20,000 infantry and 2,000 cavalry. On January
I5th, 1572, the Emperor thanked him for his offer, but re
gretted that he could not at once make up his mind on so
important a matter.5 The Duke of Urbino made it clear
1 See ROSELL, Combate, 220 ; HAVEMANN, 148. In December,
1571, Marcantonio Colonna advised Don John first to capture
Rhodes and Negroponte and then advance on Constantinople ;
see MOLMENTI, in Rassegna naz., 184 (1912), 289 seq.
J The imploring requests of Pius V. to Charles IX., Catherine de'
Medici, and the nobles of France to join the league against the
Turks are dated December 12, 1571 ; see GOUBAU, 401 seq. ;
LADERCHI, 1571, n. 466 seq. Cf. supra, p. 138 seq., the efforts
made by Salviati and Bonelli. On January 26, 1572, Pius V.
wrote to Charles IX. that it would earn him eternal infamy if
he remained out of the league ; see GOUBAU, 439 seq.
8 Cf. Rev. d'hist. diplom., XVI., 620 seq.
4 For the work done by the envoys of Pius V. in Poland see
supra, p. 312 seq.
8 See SCHWARZ, Brief wechsel 192 seq., 196. An *Avviso di
Roma of December 12, 1571, says that the rumour was current
that Marcantonio Colonna would be sent to the Emperor on the
business of the league, and an *Avviso of December 15 announces
that this mission would be entrusted to P. Odescalchi (Urb. 1042,
pp. 162, 163, Vatican Library). Cf. the *report of Arco of Decem
ber 8, 1571, for his own conversations with Pius V. with regard to
the entry of the Emperor into the league (State Archives, Vienna).
THE POPE ORDERS THE FLEETS TO PROCEED. 439
in Rome that very little was to be expected from Maximilian,
and nothing at all from the German princes, especially from
the Protestants. In a memorial submitted to the Pope in
January, 1572, he maintained with good reason the view
that the war would have to be carried on where the army
and the fleet could work in conjunction, and where " we are
masters of the situation," that is to say principally by means
of the fleet in the Levant. If the Turks could be attacked
in Europe by the Emperor and Poland, so much the better,
but the great thing was to attack at once, because simply to
stand on the defensive was not to fight, and he who wished to
make conquests must push forward resolutely. The fleet
should therefore be sent against Gallipoli, and thus force the
Dardanelles.1
But for any such undertaking as this an understanding
between Spain and Venice was absolutely essential, whereas
their representatives had been quarrelling in Rome for months
in the most disgraceful manner. When at last the Venetians
made the proposal that, in conformity with the terms of the
treaty of the league in May, 1571, the Pope should decide the
points at issue, even Spain did not dare to object. Pius V.
accordingly decided that the war of the league must be carried
on in the Levant, that in March the Papal fleet was to join
the Spanish fleet at Messina, and rendezvous with the Vene
tians at Corfu, whence the three were to proceed together
under the orders of their admirals ; the allies were to increase
1 *Discorso del diica di Urbino 1572 gennaio in Cod. Otto.,
2510, p. 205 seq., Vatican Library. C/. JANSSEN-PASTOR, IV. 15"16,
327. Cf. also in this connexion the * Letter of Camillo Capilupi
from Rome, September 28, 1571, " al sig. duca d'Urbino sopra
il modo del continuare la s. lega l'a°. 1571," in Cod. K. 19, p. 56
seq. in the Library at Siena (which is also frequently to be found
elsewhere, e.g. in Cod. Barb. lat. 5367, n. 16, and Perugia Library,
A. 42). Other ""memorials on the subject in the Papal Secret
Archives and the Corsini Library, Rome, are pointed out by
POMETTI (p. 73) and SERRANO (Liga, I., 178 seq.). A *" Discorso
per 1'acquisto di Costantinopoli dalli collegati " in Cod. 675,
Corsini Library, Rome.
440 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
the number of their galleys, when they could, to 250, and
provide, in the proportion laid down in the treaty, 32,000
soldiers and 500 cavalry, besides the necessary artillery and
munitions, and at the end of June there were to be 11,000
soldiers assembled at Otranto (1,000 Papal troops, 6,000
Spanish and 4,000 Venetian). Each of the allies was to pro
vide provisions for seven months.1 These agreements were
signed on February loth, 1572. 2 On the i6th Pius V. warned
the Grand Master of the Knights of St. John to have his
galleys ready at Messina.3 The preparations in the Papal
States, the money for which was obtained principally by
means of the Monte della Lega,* were hurried forward so fast
that on the same date it was possible to send 1,800 men to
Otranto.5 Three galleys were in readiness at Civitavecchia
and others were expected there from Leghorn.6
1 Besides Corresp. dipl., IV., 656 seq. see GRATIANUS, 249 ;
Tiepolo in ALBERI, II., 4, 234 ; SERENO, 266 ; ROSELL, Combate,
241 ; GUGLIELMOTTI, 300 seq. ; MANFRONI, Lega, I., 151 seq.
Pius V. asked even more eagerly than the Spaniards for the
removal of Venier, who was at length replaced by lacopo Fos-
carini ; see ROSELL, loc. cit., 215 ; Corresp. dipl., IV., 586, 631 seq.
Since he wished for the continuation of the war, Pius V. deplored
the fact that the allies freed and sold their prisoners and made
possible for them their return to their own country, as they would
thus reinforce the ranks of the enemy with their experience and
tried courage ; see GUGLIELMOTTI, 263, and A ch. d. Soc. Rom.,
XXI., 146. Cf. BRANDI, II Papato e la schiavitu, Rome, 1903,
32 seq. Pius V. absolutely disapproved of the killing of the
prisoners which was suggested by the Venetians (cf. supra, p. 428,
n. 2) ; see Corresp. dipl., IV., 571.
1 See Corresp. dipl., IV., 659 seq., 667 seq., 670.
* See Arm. 44, t. 16, p. 2i5b, Papal Secret Archives.
* Cf. *Avviso di Roma of February 2, 1572, Urb. 1043, p. 24,
Vatican Library, and the *letter of A. Zibramonti of February 2,
1572, Gonzaga Archives, Mantua.
5 See *Avviso di Roma of February 16, 1572, loc. cit., p. 39. At
the end of 1571 the enrolment of 5,000 men had been ordered ; see
*Avviso of December 29, 1571, Urb. 1042, p. I7ob, Vatican Library.
U6 See *Avvisi di Roma of January 5 and 12, and March 5, 1572,
rb. 1043, pp, 2b, 8, 48, ibid. \ MANFRONI, Marina, 132 seq.
HOPES OF THE POPE. 441
The Pope's mind was full of the thought of the crusade ;
he lived and moved in the plan, of which he alone had from
the first been the moving spirit. For ten years, so he said
to Cardinal Santori, it would be necessary to make war on the
Turks by land and sea.1 The bull of jubilee, dated March
I2th, 1572, granted to all those who themselves took up arms,
or fitted out another to do so, or provided the funds for that
purpose, the same indulgences as had been granted to the
Crusaders of old ; the property of those who were taking
part in the war was to be under the protection of the Church,
and was not to be injured by an}'one ; all their lawsuits
were to be held over until their return, or until their death
had been ascertained, and they were to be exempt from every
kind of taxation.2 From a report of March I5th, 1572, it is
clear how much the matter occupied the Pope's attention ;
in that week no less than three meetings were held con
cerning it at the Vatican.3 In order to rouse the
enthusiasm of Don John, the sword and hat blessed at
Christmas were sent to him at the end of March, with special
marks of honour.4
Pius V. looked to the future with renewed hopes ; fortun
ately for his peace of mind he was spared the realization that
the glorious victory of Lepanto had been deprived of any
immediate strategic or political results by the jealousy and
selfishness of the Spaniards and Venetians, who, ever since
February, 1572, had been quarrelling about the cost of the
1 See Vol. XVII, App. 67, the *" Audientiae " of Cardinal
Santori, under February 5, 1572, Papal Secret Archives.
2 *Bandi V., i, p. 165, Papal Secret Archives. Cf. BRAUNS-
BERGER, PlUS V., 113.
* See *Avviso di Roma of March 15, 1572, Urb. 1043, p. 54,
Vatican Library.
* Cf. *Avviso di Roma of December 29, 1571, Urb. 1042, p. i68b,
ibid., and THEINER, Annal. eccles., 1572, n. 2. The sword, with
the inscription : " Christus vincit, Christus regnat, Christus
imperat " (cf. LACROIX, Vie milit. et relig. au moyen-age et a
1'epoque de la Renaissance, Paris, 1873, 294), is now in the Museo
Naval at Madrid ; see Gaz. des Beaux Arts,. 1895, 403.
VOL. XVIII. QO
442 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
expedition of the previous year.5 All the greater, however,
were the indirect effects of the victory. How greatly shaken
the power of the Sultan had been may be seen from the unrest
among his Christian subjects. The hopes of a rebellion, of
which the back-bone would have been the Christian population
of Constantinople and Pera, amounting to 40,000 men, were
not altogether without foundation.2 To this had to be added
the actual loss of the great fleet, which at a single blow had
been destroyed, together with all the artillery and equipment
which would be very difficult to replace. Even though, as
the result of the elaborate organization of the empire, and
the extraordinary energy of Occhiali, another equally large
fleet was actually formed, the future was to prove that from
the battle of Lepanto must be dated the slow but total decline
of the naval power of Turkey ; a barrier had been set up
against its further advance, and the nightmare of its in
vincibility had been for the first time destroyed.3 The
Christian world instinctively realized this and breathed more
freely, and to this may be traced the boundless joy which ran
through every nation.4 "It was like a dream to us all,"
wrote Luis de Alzamara from Madrid to Don John on Novem
ber nth, 1571, " and we seemed to see in it the direct inter
position of God."5
5 See Corresp. dipl., IV., 678 seq., 684 seq., 687 seq., 691 seq., 720.
•See CHARRIERE, III., 211 seqq. ; JORGA, III., 271, cf. 278.
See also LONGO, Guerra, 27 seq.
3 See LONGO, Guerra, 29 ; RANKE, Osmanen2, 53 seq. ; ZIN-
KEISEN, III., 288, 322 ; PHILIPPSON, Philip II., 165 ; JORGA,
III., 154, 225 seq. Histor.-pol. Blatter, XCL, 719 ; CIPOLLA in
Riv. stor. Ital., XXIV., 184 ; NORMANN-FRIEDENFELS in Seetechn.
Mitteilungen, XXX., 77.
4 For the joy of the Venetians at the victory see the report in
YRIARTE, Vie d'un patricien de Venise, Paris, 1874, 208 seq .
For the celebrations at Madrid see Corresp. dipl., IV., 509 seq.,
and for those at Innsbruck-Wilten CANISII Epist., VI., 629 seq.,
637 seq.
5 See ROSELL, Combate 207. Marcantonio Colonna expresses
the same idea in his *letter to Philip II. of October 28, 1571 ;
see Inf. polit. XIX., 259, Library, Berlin.
THE FEAST OF THE ROSARY. 443
The churches of every Catholic • country resounded with
the Te Deum, the hymn of thanksgiving.1 Above all others
did Pius V. raise his mind to heaven ; on the commemorative
medals which he had struck, he placed the words of the
Psalmist : " The right hand of the Lord hath wrought strength;
this is the Lord's doing."2 Since the battle had been won on
the first Sunday in October, the day on which in Rome the
Rosary confraternities held their processions, Pius V. saw
the source of the victory in the mighty advocate, the merciful
mother of Christendom, and ordered that every year on the
anniversary of the battle a feast should be kept in thanks
giving, " as a commemoration of Our Lady of Victory."3
On April ist, 1573, his successor, Gregory XIII., ordered that
in future the feast should be kept as the Feast of the Rosary
on the first Sunday of October.4
In Spain and Italy, the countries most threatened by the
Turks, there soon arose churches and chapels dedicated to
" Our Lady of Victory."5 The Venetian senate placed under
1 Cf. VERANCII Epist., 315 seq., 322 seq., 327 seq.
2 " Dextera Domini fecit virtutem " (Ps. 117, 1 6) ; "A Domino
factum est istud " (ibid., 23). BONANNI, I., 297 ; VENUTI,
125.
8 The consistorial decision of March 17, 1572, in CARINCI, Att.
concist. dal 20 maggio 1570 al 18 dicembre 1604, Rome, 1893, 9-
Cf. LADERCHI, 1571, n. 447 ; LAZZARESCHI, 16. The statement
in the Roman Breviary (on May 24) that Pius V. added the title
" Auxilium Christianorum, " to the Litany of Loreto cannot be
maintained ; cf. A. DE SANTI, Les Litanies de la S. Vierge, Paris,
1900, 224. In all probability the addition was due to the soldiers
returning from the victorious war against the Turks, many of
whom on their way home passed through Loreto. The invocation
was therefore a " vox populi," an expression of gratitude
for the assistance of Mary in the struggle ; see KATHOLIK, 1898,
L> 3?o-
* See Bull. Rom., VIII., 44 seq.
6 See HAVEMANN, 146; Cosmos illustr., 1904, 131. The last
of these churches is that of the Madonna recently erected at
Patras. In various places foundations for masses were also made,
e.g. in the cathedral at Toledo ; see, CARINI, Spagna, I., 205.
444 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
the representation of the battle in the Palace of the Doges
the words : " Not our power and arms,. nor our leaders, but
the Madonna of the Rosary helped us to victory."1 Many
cities, as for example Genoa,2 painted the Madonna of the
Rosary over their gates, while others introduced the image
of Mary standing on the crescent moon into their coats of arms.
The great impression made upon contemporaries by " the
greatest victory ever won by Christian arms "3 is also shown
by the fact that very few victories have been so widely ex
tolled and described as that of October yth, 1571. Pamphlets
in every tongue spread through every country the news of the
great event.4 Historians and orators, poets, musicians5
and artists, vied with each other in celebrating the day, which
Cervantes called the most beautiful of the century. Among
the descriptions by Italian historians6 the most notable are
For an inscription upon a cross in the cathedral at Tarento see
G. BLANDAMURA, Un cimelio del sec. vii esist. nel duomo di
Taranto, Lecce, 1917, 46.
1See dell' Acqua, 80.
1 See ibid., 82.
8 Thus does G. B. Campeggi, " episc. Maioricensis, " style the
day of Lepanto, in his *letter of congratulation to Pius V., dated
Bologna, " sexto cal. nov." in Cod. L. III., 66, Chigi Library,
Rome. Alba expressed himself in similar terms ; see GACHARD,
Bibl. de Madrid, 126.
* For the German pamphlets see the article spoken of supra,
p. 418, n. 3, in the Zeitschrift fur Bucherfreunde and Nagl-
Zeidler, Deutsch-osterr. Literaturgeschichte, Vienna, 1899, 548 n.
Many of these pamphlets, especially the Italian ones (cf. catalogue
87 of ROSENTHAL, n. 360-372) give pictures of the arrangement
of the fleet and of the battle, others give allegorical pictures.
One of the latter is a beautiful engraving of 1572 by Niccol6
Nelli : in a galley are seen the Pope with the Doge of Venice,
Don John, St. Mark, St. Peter and St. John, who are dragging
the whole Turkish fleet behind them in a great net. Cf. NORMANN-
FRIEDENFELS in Seetechn. Mitteilungen, XXX., 36, 48, 52, 63.
6 Cf. AMBROS, III., 533 ; URSPRUNG, Jacobus de Kerle, Munich,
1913, 80.
6 Cf. MOLMENTJ in Riv. Maritt., XXX. (1898), 233 seq.
POEMS ON LEPANTO. 445
those of Folieta and Paruta.1 Among the commemorative
orations, side by side with that of Muret must be placed
that delivered by Silvio Antoniano -in the presence of the
Pope and Cardinals.2 At the thanksgiving service held by the
Archduke Ferdinand at Innsbruck, the sermon was preached
by Canisius, who in noble words reminded his hearers that
the victor of Lepanto was a Hapsburg, who, cross in hand,
had spurred on his heroic followers in the battle.3 The ser
mon preached by the Tyrolese Franciscan, Johann Nas, was
also a splendid discourse of its kind.4
The number of the poems which the day of Lepanto called
forth was very great. In this respect the Spaniards surpassed
the Italians. We looked in vain among Italian poems for a
hymn of victory as enthusiastic as that composed by Fernando
de Herrera, or so classic a description as that written by
Alonso de Ercilla in his " Araucana."5 Among the many
long and short poems by Italian authors which Pietro Gherardi
published at Venice in 1572, in a volume of 500 pages,8 there
1 Cf. FOLIETA, III., 1060 seq. ; PARUTA, 244 seq.
8 Printed in " Silvii Antoniani card, vita a Josepho Castalione
eiusdemque Silvii Orationes XIII.," Rome, 1610, 119 seq. To
their number also belong IOH. VOLLARI, Oratio Romae pro insigni
victoria c. Turcas obtenta, Naples, 1571 ; SEE. QUIRINUS, Oratio
pro felic. victoria navali, Cesena, 1572 ; LUIGI GROTO, Orazione
per 1'allegrezza d. vittoria, etc., Venice, 1571. For the discourses
of Giambattista Rosario and Paolo Paruta at the requiems in
Venice see Arch. star. Ital., 5 Ser., XXIII., 424, and LISIO, Orazioni
scelte del sec. xvi., Florence, 1897, 285 seq.
3 See BRAUNSBERGER, Pius V., 112 seq. Cf. supra, p. 442, n. 4.
4 Cf. HIRN, Erzherzog Ferdinand II., I., 254 n. Attention
should also be given in this connexion to AUG. NESER, Eine newe
Catholische Predig auf der Tiirken Niderlag, Munich, 1572.
6 See TICKNOR, Gesch. der schonen Literatur in Spanien,
translated into German by N. H. Julius, new ed. Leipsic, 1867.
II., 104 seq., 140 seq. ; F. DE HERRERA, L'hymne sur L^pante,
publ. et comment^ par A. Morel Fatio, Bordeaux, 1894.
6 The collection dedicated to Cardinal Sirleto bears the title :
" In foedus et victoriam contra Turcas iuxta sinum Corinthiacum
nonis octobris partam poemata varia," Venice, 1572. Before
446 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
is not one that is worthy of the event ; in the Latin ones
one is wearied by the strange mixture of Christian and pagan
ideas, while all of them display an empty rhetoric and a bad
taste which foreshadows the seicento. The prolixity of some
of these poets, one of whom, Giambattista Arcuzio, produced
20,000 lines, is intolerable. The best are the poems in
dialect.1
Italian art was far more successful than poetry in cele
brating the great event.2 In this respect Venice takes the
lead. The Republic adorned the entrance to the arsenal, from
which had sailed the fleet which had defeated the Turks on
the feast of St. Justina, with a statue of that saint, executed
by Girolamo Campagna. Domenico da Sal6 modelled a
this there had been published at Venice the " Raccolta di parii
poemi latini e volgari fatti da diversi bellissimi ingegni nella
felice vittoria riportata da Christiani contra Turchi. In Venezia
appresso Giorgio Angelieri, 1571." A similar collection, preceded
by a description of the battle, bears the title : " Trofeo della
vittoria sacra ottenuta contra Turchi nell'a. 1571 rizzato da i
piu dotti spiriti de nostri tempi . . . raccolte da Luigi Groto,
In Venezia, 1572."
1 See MASI, I cento poeti della battaglia di Lepanto in Nuovi
studi e rilratti, Bologna, 1894, I., 494 seq. ; MAZZONI, La battaglia
di Lepanto e la poesia politica nel sec. xvi, in La vita ital. del
Seicento, II., Milan, 1895, 191-207 ; D. CIAMPOLI, I poeti della
vittroia in Cosmos illustr., 1904, 157-174. Cf. also GENNARI, 76
seq. Giorn. stor. d. left. Ital., XIX., 450 ; XXXIV., 434 seq. ;
Arch. stor. Ital., 5 Ser., XXIII., 425 seq. ; BAUMGARTNER, VI.,
444 seq. ; BELLONI, Seicento, 137 seq., 483 ; INTRA, Capilupi,
Milan, 1893, 12 ; REINHARDSTOTTNER in Zeitschrift fur rom^
Phil., XI., 3 ; SOLERTI, Vita di T. Tasso, I., Turin, 1895, 156 seq. ;
MANGO, Una miscell. sconosciuta del sec. xvi., Palermo, 1894 ;
A. TENNERANI, Canzone di G. A. dell' Anguillara, Rome, 1894 ;
VACCALLUZZO in Arch. stor. per la Sicilia orient., VI., 2-3 ; PETRIS,
Di un cantore della battaglia di Lepanto in Pagine Istriane, VI.,
11-12 ; SECEGNI, Le lettere a Vicenza a tempo della reazione
catt., Vicenza, 1903, 51 seq.
2 Cf. G. SECRETANT, L'anniversario della battaglia di Lepanto,
in Emporium, 1913, n° 214, with numerous illustrations.
COMMEMORATIVE PAINTINGS. 447
beautiful relief of the Holy Family for the church of St. Joseph.
The Confraternity of the Rosary built a special commemorative
chapel at SS. Giovanni e Paolo, which was adorned with many
works of art, among others two statues of St. Justina and
St. Dominic by Vittoria. When this chapel was destroyed by
fire in 1867, the picture of the battle painted by lacopo Tin
toretto and his son Domenico also perished. The same fate
also befell another picture of the battle painted by lacopo
Tintoretto in the palace of the Doges, and was replaced by
the great painting by Andrea Vicentino. Paolo Veronese
also devoted two paintings, magnificent in their colouring, to
the battle of Lepanto : one, representing Venier received
into heaven as the reward for his victory, is now to be found
in the Accademia at Venice ; the other, which is in the palace
of the Doges, is a votive picture : above is Christ in glory,
and at His feet are Venier, Barbarigo, St. Mark and St. Justina,
with allegorical figures representing Faith and Venice.1 The
greatest of the Venetian painters, the ninety-five year old
Titian, executed for Philip II. a splendidly-coloured allegorical
painting, which now adorns the Gallery at Madrid.2 The city
of Messina honoured Don John by a statue, which was re
cently much damaged in the great earthquake.3 The autho-
1 Cf. SORAVIA, Le chiese di Venezia, Venice, 1822, in seq. ;
F. LANOTTO, II palazzo dncale di Venezia, III., Venice, 1860, tav.
175 ; HAMMER, II., 424 ; MOLMENTI, Veniero, 135 seq. ; Cosmos
illustr., 1904, 100 seq. ; BETTIOLO, Un altare votivo della chiesa di
S. Giuseppe di Castello a Venezia, in Arte crist., I., Milan. 1913, 10.
* See CROWE-CAVALCASELLE, Tizian, II., Leipsic, 1877, 677 seq.
A votive picture relating to Lepanto which is in the Museum at
Osnabriick, and comes from the neighbouring house of the Knights
of St. John, has not yet been reproduced. In this may be seen
Religion dressed in red, with an azure corslet and a helmet on
her head. In her right hand she holds a rosary, she is scattering
golden coins, and in her left hand she holds a red banner with a
white cross and a streamer bearing the motto : " Pro fide." At her
feet are Turkish prisoners, and in the background galleys at sea.
8 Cf. the article by ARENAPRIMO in Arch. stor. Sicil., XXVIII.,
1-2 (1903). CRINO treats in Arch. stor. Messinese, VI., 1-2 (1905)
HISTORY OF THE POPES.
rities in Rome added to the consular fasti in the Capitol an
inscription in perpetual memorial of the triumph of Colonna
on December 4th, 1571. They also placed in the church of
S. Maria Araceli a wooden coffered ceiling, decorated with
trophies and adornments, with suitable inscriptions : the
gold employed in this work came from the booty captured in
the war. In 1590 the city also placed in the church, over the
main door, a large inscription in marble, and five years later
erected a marble statue of Colonna in the Palazzo de' Con-
servatori.1 The huge pine-tree which tradition says stood for
three centuries in the Colonna Gardens, on the Quirinal, in
memory of Lepanto, has disappeared. The throne room in
the adjoining palace contains a naval chart belonging to
Marcantonio Colonna, and the diploma of honour conferred
upon him by the Senate. In the great gallery of the palace
the paintings on the ceiling by Coli and Gherardi represent
Lepanto. Far more valuable than the last-named are the
contemporary paintings at Paliano, the castle belonging to
the Colonna. There on the ceiling may be seen two paintings
of the battle and of the consistories held by Pius V. about
the league. The frieze shows the triumph of Colonna on
December 4th, 1571, and the wall the visit which he made
to St. Peter's on that day, with an interesting view of the old
church and the Vatican.2 An interesting counterpart to
of the " Mappe geograi. della battaglia di Lepanto a Messina nei
prospetti del basamento della statua di Don Giovan d' Austria."
In the Pope's native place, Bosco, the church of the convent of
S. Croce has a picture of the battle of Lepanto by G. Cossal ; see
// Rosario, Mem. Domenicane, XXII., 433 seq.
1 See GNOLI in Cosmo, illustr., 1904, 149, 150 seq. ; cf. the
illustrations 84 and 85.
2 The well preserved frescoes are mentioned by MAROCCO
(IX., 151 seq.), and TOMASSETTI (Campagna, III., 556) ; they are
not easy of access as the castle is now a penitentiary ; they are
in every way worthy of being reproduced. In the collegiate church
at Paliano is the simple tomb of M. A. Colonna. The fountain
erected at Marino in 1642, with four chained Moors, records the
part taken by M. A. Colonna in the victory of Lepanto.
THE VISION OF PIUS V. 449
these is afforded by the precious tapestries, also contemporary,
in the Doria Palace, which represent the different stages of the
battle more systematically.1 The great deeds of the Holy
League and the famous victory are also immortalized in great
frescoes in the Sala Regia of the Vatican ;2 Pius V. entrusted
these to Giorgio Vasari in February, 1572. 8
The earliest biographers of the Pope, Catena and Gabuzzi,
relate that at the moment when the decisive battle between the
Cross and the Crescent off the Greek coast ended, Pius V.,
who was engaged in transacting important business with his
treasurer-general, Bartolomeo Busotti, suddenly rose to his
feet, opened the window, and for a short time stood looking
up to heaven, rapt in deep contemplation, and then turned
round saying : " This is not the moment for business ; make
haste to thank God, because our fleet this moment has won ?
victory over the Turks."4 The Imperial ambassador Arco,
in his report on October 6th, 1571, speaks of a vision which a
Roman Franciscan had had concerning a victory on Septem
ber 29th, but he does not say anything of the same thing
having occurred in the case of Pius V.5 On the other hand
1 Published for the first time in Cosmos illustr., 1904, 107, 123,
146, 155-
8 Vasari himself described them in his letter of February 23,
1572, in GAVE, III., 307. The inscriptions in CHATTARD, 23 seq.
Cf. LANCIANI, IV., 36 ; PLATTNER, II., 241 seq. A small repre
sentation of the battle is also to be seen in the Gallery of Maps
in the Vatican.
3 *" S.Std ha ordinato che sia finita la pittura della Sala dei
Re et che nell'-altra sala [sic] sia dipinta la vittoria del anno
passato." Letter of A. Zibramonti from Rome, February 16,
1572, Gonzaga Archives, Mantua. Cf. the *report of Arco of
February 16, 1572, State Archives, Vienna.
4 CATENA, 195. Gabutius, 179. Cf. Lord Bacon of Verulam,
Opera, Hafniae, 1694, 962.
6 See the *letter of Arco from Rome, October 6, 1571, State
Archives, Vienna. Pius V. also spoke of this vision on December
4, 1571, to Cardinal Santori (see Vol. XVII., App. 67). If he
said nothing about his own vision, this may have been due only
to his own modesty.
450 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
the Imperial envoy, Cusano, on May 6th, 1570, that is to say
about a year and a half before the battle, reports a -conversa
tion between Cardinal Cornaro and the Pope, and says that
Pius V. had told the Cardinal of the inspiration he had had
about a victory of the Venetians over the Turks, remarking at
the same time that he had frequently had such experiences when
he was praying to God about some very important matter.1
According to this report there can be no doubt that Pius V. had
long foreseen the victory of Lepanto. Once it had been accom
plished, he had not long to live ; his mission was completed.
Although he never took any care of himself, Pius V. enjoyed
to the end of his life great vigour both of mind and body.
When at the beginning of 1569 men spoke despondently of his
state of health, he laughed at them and said he never felt
better.2 A year afterwards it was learned that his health
had not been so good as it had been since, by the advice
of the doctors, and because of his chronic tendency to stone,
he had altered the arrangement of his meals which he had
hitherto adopted,3 but that directly he reverted to his former
1 *" . . . ch' e solito suo quando prega Dio con tutta quella
sincerity suol' far' quando gli occorrono cose importantissime "
(letter of Cusano from Rome, May 6, 1570, State Archives, Vienna,
Fabrizio de' Massimi, a disciple of Philip Neri, attested on oath
that Pius V. foresaw the victory, not on the day of the battle,
but long before ; see the Processus canoniz. Pii V. in LADERCHI,
1571, n. 419. What great prudence must be employed in using
the argumentum ex silentio is shown by HERRE (I., 190), who
considers the prediction of the victory a legend " perch 6 le corris-
ponderize diplomatiche tacciono completamente in proposito."
* According to the *report of Arco, of January 22, 1569 (State
Archives, Vienna) the expression made use of to the Cardinals was
" che quei tali sono pazzi et che sta meglio che sia stato ancora."
* " *S. S. per quanto s' intende non gode la buona sanita di
prima che solea godere, et con questa mutatione de usanza de
vivere, mangiando hora la mattina, alle 12 hore et la sera a i hora
et meza di notte, non avanza ne megliora della infermita sua di
non ritenere 1* urina, la qual & molta consideration, ancora che
S. S. s' afiatica al solito." Avvisadi Roma of January 21, 1570,
Urb. 1041, p. 221, Vatican Library.
THE POPE'S HEALTH. 451
custom in the spring of 1570, he felt as lively as ever, and said
that he did not intend to seek the advice of doctors any more.1
The great historical events, the war and the victory over
the Turks, which had been accomplished, thanks to his vigor
ous action, then contributed not a little to bring about an
almost youthful revival of his bodily strength.2 All the
reports concur in saying how active and vigorous the Pope
was in the years 1570 and 1571, which were so full of anxieties
and disturbances.3 Even in the spring of 1571 he was able
to continue to devote himself to business without making any
change in spite of the cure of asses' milk which he was under
going.4 In July, without heeding the great heat, he went to
his little villa. In the September Zufiiga reports the good
state of the Pope's health.5 On Sunday, October 28th, the
Pope celebrated the mass of thanksgiving in St. Peter's for
the victory of Lepanto, on the Monday he was present at the
requiem for the fallen, and on the Wednesday made the pil
grimage to the seven basilicas of Rome.6
1 See *Avvisi di Roma of April i and 8, 1570, ibid., 251, 258.
* HERRE rightly brings this out (Papstwahlen, 150, 187). Cf.
the "reports of A. Zibramonti of January 13 and February 10,
1571, Gonzaga Archives, Mantua. His tendency to stone,
however, continued to make itself felt : see the ""report of Ces.
Speciano to Charles Borromeo of January 27, 1571, Ambrosian
Library, Milan, F. 44 Inf.
8 Cf. the *Avvisi di Roma, one of which for July 22, 1570 (Urb
1041, p. 316, Vatican Library) brings out how well the Pope was.
On April 27, 1571, Zufiiga wrote to Philip II. : " S.S. ha estado
todo este invierno con tanta salud che me parescia que era demas-
ciado de temprano hablar en sede vacante " : for two days only
the reappearance of the stone caused the Cardinals a little anxiety ;
Corresp. dipl., IV., 253.
4 See *Avvisi di Roma of May u and 19, 1571, Urb. 1042, p. 56b,
62b, Vatican Library. By the advice of the physicians Pius V. did
not say mass on Corpus Domini in 1571, because he would be very
tired carrying the Blessed Sacrament on foot ; see ibid., p. 75.
9 See Corresp. dipl., IV., 431.
•See the *Avvisi di Roma of July 18 and October 31, 1571,
Urb. 1042, pp. 90, 141, he. cit.
452 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
The winter between 1571 and 1572 also passed at first in a
satisfactory manner. At Christmas Pius V. assisted at the
midnight mass, said two low masses, gave Holy Communion
to his household, and finally pontificated in St. Peter's.1 On
January 8th, 1572, there was a recurrence of his former malady,
the stone,2 but the danger passed. In the middle of March
it suddenly returned very violently.3 The Pope sought relief
in a treatment of asses' milk, and this remedy, which had often
helped him in the past, brought about a slight improvement,
but so injured his stomach that he was not able thenceforward
to digest any food. It must be added that the Pope fasted
too strictly in view of his age and wore himself out too much
in the discharge of the duties of his office.4 This naturally
resulted in great weakness. At the end of March most of the
physicians were of opinion that the Pope could at the outside
only live for a few months.6 Only his most intimate friends,
especially Rusticucci and Bonelli, who had returned from
his legation on April 4th, now had access to the sick
1 See the *Awisi di Roma of December 29, 1571, Urb. 1042,
p. i68b, ibid.
1 See Corresp. dipl., IV., 609.
* In my account of his illness and death I have left out of
account all subsequent embellishments and have confined myself
to the reports of contemporaries, and especially of the ambassa
dors. From one of these is drawn the Relatione written on May 3,
immediately after his death, " sull' infermita et morte di Pio V.,"
published by VAN ORTROY in Anal. Holland., XXXIII., 200 seq.,
from the Varia polit. of the Papal Secret Archives. Other copies
of this " Relatione," ibid, in Cod. Bolognetti, 107, and in Cod.
Vat. lat. 7484, p. 142 seq., Vatican Library, in the Library, Berlin,
Inf. polit. 26, in Cod. ital. 203 of the Biblioth6que Nationale,
Paris, in Cod. 507, p. 2 seq. of the Library, Toulouse, and in Cod.
6325 of the Court Library, Vienna. The many *reports of the
Bolognese envoy, Vincenzo Matuliani, in the State Archives,
Bologna, are very full.
4 See the 'report of V. Matuliani of March 26, 1572, State
Archives, Bologna.
* See the reports of Zuniga of March 29 and 30, 1572, Corresp.
dipl., IV., 711, 718.
FAILING HEALTH OF THE POPE. 453
man,1 who was quite unable to assist at the Pontifical mass at
Easter (April 6th). He wished, however, though he was in great
pain, to give the solemn blessing to the Roman people. On
hearing this an innumerable crowd assembled in the piazza.
of St. Peter's, wishing once more to see the face of the holy
pontiff, and great was the wonder of all when he pronounced
the words of the blessing in tones that were clear and audible
by everyone. Many wept with joy, and began to hope that his
precious life would be spared.2 After this the Pope felt better
for several days.3
But it was impossible to say that there was any real im
provement in his state of health.4 His stomach absolutely
failed him, and at the same time there was a steady increase
in the pain of his malady, which the Pope bore with the great
est patience. An operation which was suggested by the
physicians was refused by the Pope, probably from motives
of modesty.6
To his bodily pains were added those of the mind. Above
all the conduct of the great Catholic powers weighed heavily
upon him. Philip II. bore him malice on account of his
attitude in the affair of Archbishop Carranza, and the am-
1 Cf. the "report of Arco of April 5, 1572 (State Archives,
Vienna), who tells of all the lotions with which they sought to
relieve the sick man. See also the "letter of Zibramonti of March
29, 1572, Gonzaga Archives, Mantua. For the anxiety at the
court of Florence see PALANDRI, 165 seq.
1 See the "report of A. Zibramonti of April 12, 1572, Gonzaga
Archives, Mantua.
* See the "report of V. Matuliani of April 5, 1572, State Archives,
Bologna, and the brief to William of Bavaria of April 8, 1572,
in THEINER, Annal, eccles., I., 5.
4 See the report of Zufiiga of April 10, 1572, Corresp. dipl., IV.,
723-
6 See the "report of Arco of April 12, 1572, State Archives,
Vienna. Cf. the "letter of Zibramonti of April 30, 1572, Gonzaga
Archives, Mantua, and Corresp. dipl., IV., 731, n. i. His physician
relates that on one occasion he had let himself be examined while
he was a Cardinal, but that he would not allow this when he was
Pope ; see MARINI, II., 321.
454 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
bassador of the Catholic King was also threatening a breach
of diplomatic relations should the Pope grant the marriage
dispensation for Henry of Navarre, which the French am
bassador was trying to obtain by threats of the withdrawal
of the obedience of France. To all this had to be added the
quarrel with the Emperor on account of the elevation of
Cosimo de' Medici to the grand duchy of Tuscany.1 It was
the ardent wish of the Pope to be able to make once more the
pilgrimage to the seven basilicas of Rome which was so dear
to him ; vainly did the physicians and his most intimate
friends try to dissuade him from it, but on April 2ist, although
a strong wind was blowing off the sea, he undertook the long
pilgrimage, during the course of which he went more than an
Italian mile on foot. On the way to St. Paul's he met a
shepherd, who gave him a lamb, while another person offered
him some quails. At the Scala Santa he met some English
exiles, whose names he caused to be taken, in order that he
might send them some help, and looking up to heaven cried
out : " My God ! Thou knowest that I am ready to shed my
blood to save that nation." He gave his blessing kindly
to the crowd which thronged about him in thousands, and
they were filled with renewed hopes at seeing how vigorously
the sick man moved about.2
This was the last time that the Pope's strong will was able
to make his feeble body obey him. During the days that
followed he was no longer able to deal with current business.3
On the evening of April 26th he was seized by a sudden collapse,
from which, however, he quickly recovered, and was able
on the following morning to give an audience to the Prince of
Urbino ; in the evening there was a second, but less serious
1 See the "report of Cusano of May '24, 1572, State Archives,
Vientia. Cf. Vol. XVII., 365, and infra, p. 456, n. 4.
2 See the "report of A. Zibramonti of April 26, 1572, Gonzaga
Archives, Mantua. Cf. also the "letter of Arco of April 26, 1572,
State Archives, Vienna. The episode of the English in CATENA,
215-
8 See the report of Zufliga of April 24, 1572, Corresp. dipl., IV.,
729.
THE DYING POPE. 455
collapse. On the following morning Pius V. attempted to say
mass, but his weakness prevented him from having this con
solation, though he managed to assist at mass and to receive
communion. Towards mid-day he had a further collapse
which was so serious that his attendants thought him dead.
All the gates in the Vatican were closed, all precautions were
taken and the Cardinals were summoned, though soon this
order was countermanded, as the Pope had rallied, though
his condition was now hopeless.1
Pius looked forward to his dissolution with joy. While his
attendants were sobbing and weeping, he was quite calm,
and even tried to comfort them, saying that if it were neces
sary the Lord God could raise up from the stones the man of
whom the Church had need in those difficult times. Of the
prayers which he had read uninterruptedly even during the
night, Pius loved best the seven penitential psalms and the
history of Our Lord's Passion. Every time the name of
Jesus occurred, he reverently uncovered his head, or at least
made the attempt when his hands no longer permitted him
to do so.2 The defence of Christendom against Islam occupied
his mind to the end ; he repeatedly urged those about him
to carry on the crusade against the Turks. His last act of
government was to make over to his treasurer a casket con
taining 13,000 scudi, from which he had been accustomed to
take what he needed for his private alms, saying that it had
done good service for the league.3
On April 3oth the Pope felt that his end was near. So that
1 With the Relatione 201 quoted on p. 452, n. 3, see also the
"report of Cusano of April 28, 1572, State Archives, Vienna. Cf.
also the *letter of A. Zibramonti of April 30, 1572, Gonzaga
Archives, Mantua, and the "reports of V. Matuliani of April 27
and 30, and May i, 1572, State Archives, Bologna.
a See CATENA, 216. Cf. also the report of A. Zibramonti of
May i, 1572, in Anal. Bolland., XXXIII., 202, n. 4.
8 See the Relatione, ibid., 203. One of the last *briefs relates
to the Turkish war ; it is dated April 27, 1572, and decrees the
appointment of Michele Bonelli as " capit. generalis classis
S.Stl8," Archives of Briefs, Rome.
456 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
he might die a simple religious he had himself clothed in the
habit of St. Dominic. In the evening the sacristan admin
istered Extreme Unction. As he was suffering from a violent
cough, he had to forego the consolation of receiving Viaticum.1
" The Pope/' Aurelio Zibramonti, reported on April 3oth, " lies
motionless with his hands joined ; none but a few penitenti
aries are kneeling by him, and he is continually racked by
violent pain."2 When he came to himself for a moment, he was
heard to say in a low voice : " Lord, increase my pains, but
increase my patience too."3 It was amid such heroic acts
that Pius V. gave up his holy soul to God in the evening of
May ist, 1572.* He had reached the age of sixty-eight years,
and had occupied the chair of Peter for six years, seven months,
and twenty-three days.
From the first day of his reign to the last every effort of
Puis V. had been devoted to the protection of the Church
against the enemies of the Catholic faith, to her purification
from every abuse, to her spread in the lands beyond the seas,
1 See Anal. Holland., XXXIII., 201 seq.
* * Letter in Gonzaga Archives, Mantua. Arco as well, in his
*report of April 19, 1572 (State Archives, Vienna) speaks of the
great pain which the Pope was constantly enduring.
* This expression, which is recorded by CATENA (p. 212) is also
attested in the letter of A. Zibramonti of May i, 1572 (Anal.
Holland., XXXIII., 202, n. 4) and by other reports (see Corresp
dipl., IV., 731, n. i).
4 See FIRMANUS in Anal. Holland., loc. cit., n. 2 ; cf. ibid., n. 4,
the letter of A. Zibramonti, as well as the two "reports of Arco
and Cusano of May i, 1572, State Archives, Vienna. See also
the letter of Gerini in GROTANELLI, Fra Geremia da Udine, Florence
J893. 25 seq. At the autopsy the physicians found three black
stones ; see the report of Giov. Franc. Marenco d'Alba in MARINI,
II., 321 ; cf. Corresp. dipl., IV., 731. It is beyond question that
Pius V. succumbed to stone. In his "report of May 24, 1572
(State Archives, Vienna ; cf. supra, p. 454, n. i) Cusano compares
the three stones found in his bladder to the " tre ultre pietre "
which had troubled him more than these, namely, his dislike
for the affair of Carranza, the marriage dispensation of Navarre,
and the disputes over the nomination of Cosimo as Grand Duke.
THE WORK HE HAD ACCOMPLISHED. 457
and to the defence of European Christendom against the
attacks of Islam. It was only because cf the shortness of his
pontificate that he had been unable to attain full success in
all these things, but nevertheless the holy Pope had accom
plished wonders. His successors reaped, in many ways,
what he had sown. During the period which immediately
followed men realized more and more clearly the importance
of his unwearied and far-reaching activity, not only in the
cause of Catholic reform, but also of Catholic restoration. His
contemporaries were quick to realize the grave loss that had
come to the Church with his death, and it was the common
opinion that a saint had left this world. In Rome above all
was it seen what a great impression the life of the Pope had
made. The inhabitants of the Eternal City, where perfect
peace prevailed,1 flocked in thousands round his body when
it lay in state in St. Peter's. Everyone wished to possess as a
precious relic something that had belonged to the dead Pope,
so that at last the guards had to check the exaggerated eager
ness of his devotees. Those who could not obtain a relic
at least tried to touch the bier with their rosaries and other
objects of piety.2
1 See the "reports of V. Matuliani of May i and 3, 1572, State
Archives, Bologna.
2 See the Rslatioiie in Anal. Bolland., XXXIII., 204. Cf.
CIACONIUS, III., 194; LANCIANI, IV., 45; Zeitschrift fur schweiz.
Kirchengesch., 1907, 220. Payments for the catafalque of Pius V.,
in *Mandata, 1572, p. 22b, State Archives, Rome. A detailed
description of the relics of Pius V. at St. Mary Major's (among
others the red ' camauro," the breviary, etc.), is given by G. B.
NASALLI ROCCA, S. Pio V. e le sue reliquie nella Basilica Liberiana1,
Rome, 1904. The original wooden coffin is preserved in the
underground chapel of the " praesepium, " the silk mozetta of
Pius V. at S. Maria in Vallicella, and other relics in the Saint's
cell at S. Sabina. The " sedia gestatoria " used by him is now
in the so-called octagon of St. Gregory in St. Peter's. For the
relics of Pius V. in the chapel of the Collegio Ghislieri at Pavia
see DELL' ACQUA, 101. An Agnus Dei blessed by the holy Pope
(very large, with the Saviour and the instruments of the Passion
on the reverse) is in the Schniitgen Museum at Cologne.
VOL. xvm. 31
458 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
One who was intimately acquainted with the Curia was oi
opinion that with the death of Pius V. the Church had lost a
shepherd who was indeed pious and holy, a strong defender of
religion, a stern punisher of vice, and a priest who was un
surpassed in his vigilance and unwearied in his labours, and
who had devoted all his powers to the glory of God and the
exaltation of the holy faith.1 What so ascetic and strict a man
as Charles Bbrromeo had said in 1568, namely that for a long
time past the Church had had no better head,2 had indeed been
verified.3
The provisional burial of the mortal remains of Pius V.
took place in the chapel of St. Andrew in St. Peter's,4 whence
1 See the Rdatione in Anal. Bolland., XXXIII., 202. In a
contemporary note at the head of the *litterae sede vacante post
obitum Pii V. (Papal Secret Archives) the Pope is extolled as
" vir singulari vitae sanctitate, vitiorum omnium, sed preacipue
haereticae pravitatis vindex acerrimus, ecclesiasticae disciplinae
restituendae audiosissimus." Poems in praise of the Pope., among
them one by Sirleto, in CATENA, 219 seq. One by Commendone in
MAI, Spicil., VIII., 487. It can be no matter for surprise that the
strictness of Pius V. should also have given occasion for pasquin
ades which are full of venom ; see MASIUS, Briefe, 483 seq.
1 The undated *letter addressed to Lod. Antinori, Ambrosian
Library, Milan, F. 40 Inf. p. 27.
8 " He was the holiest of the Popes," says Camaiani in his *letter
from Rome, May i, 1572, State Archives, Florence, Medic. 656,
p. 501. See also the opinions of Folieta and Mureto in CIACONIUS,
III., 1000, 1009 seq. ; WERRO in Zeitschrift fur schweiz. Kir-
chengesch., 1907, 219, and the opinion of the physician of Pius V.
in MARINI, II., 321-323. Cf. also SANTORI, Autobiografia, XII.,
352, and the Vita di Pio V. in Anal. Bolland., XXXIII., 215.,
Moreover, Lord Bacon of Verulam in his Dialogus de bello sacro,
after speaking of the victory of Lepanto, " quae hamum inseruit
naribus Ottomanni usque ad diem hodiernum," makes one of the
characters say : " Quod opus praecique instructum et animatum
fuit ab eximio illo Principe Papa Pio V., quern miror successores
inter sanctos non retulisse." (Opera, Hafniae, 1694, 1299).
4 The original inscription in *Mandata, 1572, p. 219, State
Archives, Rome.
CANONIZATION OF PIUS V. 459
they were to be removed to Bosco, his humble birthplace, to
the church of the Dominicans, which he had built there ;
such in his humility, had been the wish of the dead Pope.1
But Sixtus V. wished to retain in the Eternal City the earthly
remains of the man whom he had so much venerated, and he
erected for the purpose a magnificent monument of the chapel
of the Presepio, which he had built in St. Mary Major's.2 The
translation of the body from the chapel of St. Andrew to the
Liberian basilica took place on January gth, 1588, with great
solemnity, and in the presence of great crowds ; and as
Marc Antoine Muret had done on the occasion of his funeral,
so this time did Antonio Boccapaduli deliver a discourse
which won universal admiration.3
It was also Sixtus V. who introduced the process for the
canonization of Pius V. On account of the great care and
caution with which Rome is wont to proceed in such matters,
it was not brought to a conclusion until the latter part of
the seventeenth century ; on May loth, 1672, Clement X.
pronounced the beatification of Pius V., and on May 22nd,
1712, he was placed among the number of the saints by
1 See the Relatione, 204, cited supra, p. 457, n. 2.
1 Cf. CATENA, Lettere, Rome, 1589, 8 seq. ; DE ANGELIS,
Basilica S. Mariae Mai., Rome, 1621, 173 ; KRAUS-SAUER, II., 2,
622 ; ESCHER, Barock und Klassizismus, Leipsic, 1910, 106 seq. ;
ORBAAN, Sixtine, Rome, 47.
8 See the report of P. Galesino in THXINER, Annales eccles., I.,
7 seq., Acta Sanct. Mali i, 697 seq., and GATTICUS, 480. In 1904
the 4OOth anniversary of the birth of Pius V. was specially cele
brated in Rome and Pavia. On March 10 in that year, in the
presence of Cardinal V. Vannutelli, Archpriest of the basilica, and
of the chapter, the sarcophagus of Pius V. was opened. The
skeleton, which was in a perfect state of preservation (re
production in the work of Nasalli Rocca mentioned on p. 457,
n. 2), was then clothed in new vestments and the head
enclosed with a silver mask made from the original cast
preserved in the Manzia family, a change that can hardly be
considered an improvement by anyone who knew it in its former
state.
460 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
Clement XL, who also assigned his feast to May 5th.4
Every year on that day an altar is erected before the tomb
of Pius V., the last of the Popes to be canonized so far, at
which priests offer the holy sacrifice of the Mass. Then the
tablet of gilt bronze, which encloses the front of the sarco
phagus, is removed, and behind the glass may be seen the body
of the fifth Pius in his Pope's robes ; lit up by the rays of
many lamps, and surrounded by the many-coloured glory of
May flowers, and amid clouds of fragrant incense, there is
nothing about it of the terrors of death. All day long Romans
and foreigners, priests and laymen, rich and poor, gather there
to venerate in fervent prayer the man to whom the Church
owes so much.
4 See THEINER, loc. cit. 9 ; Acta Sanct. Mali I, 621, 715 seg.
The beautiful " Officium Pii V." in JOYAU, Pie V., 371 seq. Cf.
Acta canoniz. Pii V., etc., Rome, 1720.
APPENDIX
OF
UNPUBLISHED DOCUMENTS
AND
EXTRACTS FROM ARCHIVES
APPENDIX.
i. Pius V. TO KING CHARLES IX. OF FRANCE.1
[Roma]. 8 March, 1566.
" Optaremus tranquilliorem esse regni tui statum," .ma
per le turbolenze hai occasione di conquistarti merit! per la
religione. Hai represso nel tuo regno Teresia. " Ad earn
plane tollendam et Francorum inclytae nationi pristinam ex
religionis orthodoxae cultu gloriam restituendam incumbe,
quaesumus, toto pectore, ut facis." £ inoltre specialmente
necessario " ut ecclesiarum regimen, quas vacare contigerit,
viris lectissimis semper et vitae honestate ac divini honoris
zelo praestantibus committatur, et ut episcopi et alii, qui
curae animarum praesunt, in suis ecclesiis, sicut Sacrum
Concilium statuit, residentes ovibus suis pastoralem vigilan-
tiam ac solicitudinem praestent regio tuo favore praesidioque
muniti."
[Arm. 44, t. 12, n. 31. Papal Secret Archives.]
2-3. THE BULL " IN COENA DOMINI " OF 10 APRIL, 1568."
In order to understand the lively controversies which
arose on the subject of this document, it is necessary to point
out the additions made by Pius V. in 1568. In his work
" Pragmatische Geschichte der so berufenen Bulle In Coena
Domini und ihrer furchterlichen Folgen fur den Staat und
die Kirche " (Ulm, 1769 ; 2nd. ed. Frankfurt, 1772), which
serves polemical party purposes, and not historical truth,
LE BRET has not considered it necessary to read the original
form. Moreover the Old Catholic writers, HUBER and
D&LLINGER, who in " Janus "8 made use of the bull for an
impassioned attack on the Papacy, which was soon afterwards
learnedly refuted by HERGENROTHER, paid no attention
to the exact sense which Pius V. gave to the bull in 1568.
It is even more surprising that a scholar who had had such
detailed experience of bibliography and original sources as
1 See supra, p. 145, n. 2.
• See supra, pp 35, n. 2 ; 51, n. 1.
• Der Papst und der Kouzil, Leipsic, 1869, 408 seq.
463
464 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
REUSCH, who devoted a special chapter to the bull, should not
have known of the text of 1568. M. HAUSMANN in his work,
which is in other respects so careful, " Geschichte der papst-
lichen Reservatfalle " (Ratisbon, 1868), merely remarks (p. 101)
that by the clause " Volentes praesentes nostros processus ac
omnia quaecunque his litteris contenta, quousque alii huius-
modi processus a nobis aut Romano Pontifice pro tempore
existente fiant aut publicentur, durare suosque effectus omnino
sortiri," Pius V. raised the bull to be a general ecclesiastical
law, which was to be binding and which was to last until
future Popes should issue further instructions. Further
(on p. 373) he remarks concerning the additions made with
regard to the decrees of the Council, that difficulties were to
be found in the clause, but he does not pay any attention to
the additions which provoked the opposition of Spain and
Venice. It is evident that he, like HINSCHIUS (V., 648),
had not before him the text of the bull of 1568. Yet it was
to be found in many places, e.g. in the State Archives, Modena.
The first to call attention to the original copies of the bull
In Coena Domini of the time of Pius V., which are to be found
in the Papal Secret Archives, was GOLLER, in his fundamental
work on the Penitentiaria (II., 204) ; he, however, refrains
from speaking about it " thinking that its contents and its
history will have been dealt with by others. " To the references
pointed out by GOLLER : Instrum. Miscell. for the year 1566 ;
Arm. 8, caps, i for the years 1566, 1571, 1572 ; Arm. 9,
caps. I, n. 58, for each year with the exception of " a.V."
(1570), must be added : Miscell. Arm. 4, t. 24, where there
are copies of the bull of 1566, 1568, and 1569. The report of
1570, which GOLLER says is missing, is published in MUTINELLI,
I., 223 seq.t according to the edition of A. Bladus, which was
attached to the dispatch of the Venetian ambassador in
Rome, oi April 8, 1570, in the State Archives, Venice.
Professor POGATSCHER had the kindness to compare the
bulls of 1566 and 1568 with the copies in Miscell. Arm. 4,
bringing out the following points of difference (he has paid
no attention to minor variants or to the inversion of the order
of some of the paragraphs) :
Paragraph i, " In haereticos" in 1568, is followed by : ac eos,
qui in animarum suarum periculum se a nostra et Rom. Pont,
pro tempore existentis obedientia TV 'tinaciter subtrahere seu
APPENDIX. 465
quomodolibet recedere praesumunt. Item excommunicamus
et anathematizamus et interdicimus omnes et singulas personas
cuiuscumque status, gradus seu conditionis fuerint universi-
tatesque, collegia et capitula quocumque nomine nuncupentur,
ab ordinationibus, sententiis seu mandatis nostris ac Rom.
Pont, pro tempore existentium ad universale futurum Con
cilium appellantes vel ad id consilium, auxilium vel favorem
dantes. — In the paragraph, In eos, qui manus iniciunt in
patriarchas, archiepiscopos, episcopos has in 1568 become :
S. R. E. cardinales, extendentes C. Foelicis1 cum omnibus
poenis in eo contentis ac patriarchas, archiepiscopos et episco
pos Sedisque Apostolicae nuncios vel legates aut praefatos
nuncios et legates e suis terris seu dominiis eiicientes. — All
new in 1568 in the paragraph, In laicos se intromittentes in
causis capitalibus seu criminalibus contra personas eccle-
siasticas, this is followed by : Item excommunicamus et
anathematizamus omnes et quoscumque magistrate, sena-
tores, praesidentes, auditores et omnes alios quoscumque
iudices quocumque nomine vocentur at cancellarios, yice-
cancellarios, notarios, scribas at 'quoscumque executores et
subexecutores, omnesque alios quoquo modo se intromittentes
in causis capitalibus seu criminalibus contra personas eccle-
siasticas, illas capiendo, processando seu sententias contra
illas proferendo vel exequendo, etiam praetextu quorum-
cumque privilegiorum a Sede Apostolica concessorum quibus-
cumque regibus, ducibus, principibus, rebuspublicis, monarchis,
civitatibus et aliis quibuscumque potentatibus quocumque
nomine censeantur, quae nolumus illis in aliquo sufTragari,
revocantes ex nunc, quatenus opus sit, praedicta privilegia
per quoscumque Rom. Pont, praedecessores nostros et Sedem
Apostolicam sub quibuscumque tenoribus et formis ac quovis
praetextu vel causa concessa, illaque irrita et nulla ac nullius
roboris, vel momenti fore et esse decernentes. — New also in
1568 is the paragraph : Praecipimus autem et mandamus in
virtute sanctae obedientiae at sub poena indignationis omni-
potentis Dei at beatorum apostolorum Petri et Pauli et nostrae
universis, et singulis patriarchis, archiepiscopis et episcopis
caeterisque locorum ordinariis necnon quibusvis aliis curam
animarum exercentibus et aliis presbyteris saecularibus seu
quorumvis ordinum regularibus ad audiendam confessionem
quavis auctoritate expositis sive deputatis, nede huiusmo di
aC. 5, 1. 5, tit. 9 in VI. «
466 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
reservatione praetendere valeant ignorantiam, ut transumptum
harum litterarum apostolicarum penes se habere easque legere
diligenter et attente studeant.
The Bulls of the following years agree with that of 1568.
4-5. NEGOTIATIONS OF A. RUCELLAI CONCERNING THE
ASSISTANCE TO BE GIVEN TO FRANCE BY PlUS V., 1568. l
In Varia polit. 81 (now 82) of the Papal Secret Archives
the following original documents on this subject are preserved :
I. A minute of the ""instructions " data al Sor Rucellai,
di Roma a 9 aprile 1568 " ; pp. 424-425 ; if the king wishes
to purge his kingdom of heretics, the Pope is ready to give
him every assistance. The king asks for 300,000 scudi.
After the conclusion of the peace with the Huguenots the
Pope cannot give money in such a way as to pay heretics. —
A document to the same effect refers to this matter, p. 628 seq.
at the head of which is written : "13 d 'aprile in Francia 1568."
It is evident that the things written on pp. 630-632 are con
nected with the above : " *Favori che si fanno a Hugonotti
in pregiuditio de catholici e della religione," and on p. 633 :
" *Capi del editto non osservati in pregiuditio de catholici."*
II. " *Instruttione per il Sor Hannibale Rucellai, gentil-
huomo ordinario de la camera del Re nel viaggio che fa a
Roma per servitio di S.M*V June 13, 1568, p. 636 seq. ;
Rucellai is to report as to the conditions in France after the
peace, and is to ask for assistance since in consequence of the
war the king has not the means to maintain his state and the
Catholic faith. Proposals as to the means by which it will
be possible, with the Pope's permission, to get together the
needful financial help for the king.8
6. POPE Pius V. TO CHARLES IX., KING OF FRANCE.*
1569, November 19, Rome.
Charissimo in Christo filio nostro Carolo Francorum Regi
Christianissimo.
Pius Papa Quintus.
Charissime in Christo fili noster salutem et apostolicam
1 See supra, p. 1 17, n. 2. The letters of Catherine to the Pope relating ti the
mission of Rucellai, dated March 1, 1568, in Lettres de Catherine de' Medicis,
III., 129.
1 For the Mission of Rucellai, see also, Corresp. dipl., II., 343.
* For the arrival of Rucellai in Rome and his negotiations see, Ccrresp.
dipl. IL, 405, 411.
4 See supra, pp. 109, n. 2 ; 125, n. 4.
APPENDIX. 467
benedictionem. Lectis litteris Maiestatis Tuae, quibus Carolum
Guillart Carnutensem quondam episcopum, propter nefandum
haeresis crimen ab episcopatu depositum nobis accuratissime
commendat, praeterire non potuimus quin pro nostra paterna
erga te benevolentia, nostrum ex tali commendatione susceptum
animo dolorem Maiestati Tuae libere significaremus. Nos enim,
si ulli ex christianis catholicisque regibus, quos aeque omnes,
ut debemus, tanquam charissimos in Christo filios nostros
diligimus, satisfactum cupimus, tibi certe, quantum cum
Domino possumus, morem gerere commendationibusque tuis
satisfacere maxime cupimus : veruntamen publicos haereticos
a sancto inquisitionis haereticae pravitatis officio et a foelicis
recordationis praedecessore nostro in sacro consistorio damna-
tos ac depositos nobis a te commendari, praeterquamquod
commendanti tibi haud satis decorum est, nos id praeterea
sine magna animi perturbatione pati non possumus. Ac
Maiestatem Tuam nos quidem scimus tales nobis homines
commendaturam non fuisse, nisi de illis bene existimaret
bonosque et catholicos esse putaret : sed hoc tamen dolemus
in ea re, quae officii cognitionisque nostrae propria est, te
aliorum potius opinionibus moveri quam nostro praedecessor-
umque nostrorum iuditio acquiescere. Multos in isto regno
Maiestas Tua Ugonotos reperiet, qui et missarum solemnibus
intersint et multis aliis eiusmodi inditiis catholicorum speciem
prae se ferant, quos tamen illis, qui haec ipsa palam aversantur*
multo peiores nequioresque esse pro certo habemus. Illi
enim suam qualencunque persuasionem, quamvis falsam,
pertinaciter tenent ; hi vero, quia neque Deum esse neque
aeternam vitam credunt, omnia sibi licere arbitrantur, in-
sipientes, corrupti, abominabiles, qui, dummodo commodi-
tatibus suis obsequantur et quicquid volunt obtineant, nihil
pensi habent utrum catholicorum an haereticorum instituta
moresque sectentur. Quorum fictam pietatem ob earn quoque
causam cavere studiosius debes, quod qui Deum non timent,
eos ne homines quidem ac propterea nee Maiestatem Tuam
reverituros esse verisimile est. Quam quidem nos rogamus,
ne, recentissimum proxime sibi ab omnipotenti Deo concessae
victoriae beneficium oblita, tales posthac homines nobis
commendare velit, sed potius in eius, quem nobis commendat,
ob nefandum, ut diximus, haeresis crimen depositi, locum
virum pium, catholicum apostolicaque confirmatione dignum
468 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
quamprimum nominet. Quod idem etiam de aliis duabus
ecclesiis, Valentina et Uceticensi, Maiestatem Tuam monemus,
quarum quondam episcopis loanne Monlutio et Ludovico de
Albret, ob eandem causam ab episcopatu depositis, in eorum
locum viros catholicos et tanto muneri fungendo idoneos nom-
inari decet. Est enim valde indignum et in tanta haereticae
pravitatis peste periculosum, tales tres ecclesias, propriorum
pastorum solatio destitutas, tandiu vacare ; quibus nos, pro
nostro iure, quos vellemus episcopos praeficere potuissemus,
nisi Maiestatem Tuam, cuius est nominatio, officio suo et
saluti illarum animarum aliquando consulturam esse spera-
vissemus. Quod ut quamprimum faciat utque in ea re et
omnipotenti Deo, cui multa debet, inserviat et nobis, qui
earn paterne diligimus, obsequatur vehementer in Domino
rogamus.
Datum Romae apud Sanctum Petrum sub annulo Piscatoris,
die decima nona novembris MDLXIX, pontificatus nostri
anno quarto.
[Arm. 44, t. 14, p. 292b-294. Papal Secret Archives.]
As late as 1571 Pius V. complained that Catholics had
dealings with the deposed bishop of Valence ; see LADERCHI,
1571, n. 127 seqq.
7. NICOLAS SANDERS TO M. A. GRAziANi.1
Louvain, 14 February, 1570.
" De rebus Angliae quod querar habeo, quod cum gaudio
scribam non habeo. Duo catholici comites et alii nobiles
non pauci arma pro causa fidei catholicae sumpserunt hac
spe, ut saltern S. S^m illis affuturam non dubitarent. Nee
aliud fere praesidium ab ea postulabant quam ut ab obedientia
reginae palam absoluti primum eo modo et suis domi et aliis
qui foris sunt persuadere possent se non tanquam perduelles,
verum tanquam ecclesiae filios arma sumpsisse." Nothing is
done in Rome. " Interim tamen .nos testes sumus, quanta
cum diligentia nobiles ex Anglia ad nos miserint, ut scirent
turn an Sedes Apostolica quicquam adhuc promulgasset contra
reginam, turn an sine illius auctoritate quicquam possent
salva conscientia conari ut se ab ista tyrannide liberarent.
Quoad primum respondimus nihil esse hie publicatum quod
nos sciremus, quoad secundum theologi gravissimi dissen-
1 See supra, p. 209, n. 4.
APPENDIX. 469
serunt, aliis non dubitantibus, quin absque authoritate
apostolica posset defend! catholica religio in iis articulis, qui
sunt alioquin notissimi, aliis autem esserentibus, vel neces-
sarium vel tutius esse, ut expectaretur S. Pontificie sententia."
In this uncertain state of affairs 4,000 went to Scotland to
await there the Pope's decision. They have been there for
three months and are waiting for the Pope to take action
against the queen. Many Englishmen will follow them.
" Ergo si S. Stts tantum inciperet palam agredi hanc causam,
optimi quique catholici, qui proculdubio multi sunt et satis
potentes, pro fide arma sumerent. Verum si et hoc S. S^8
attendendum iudicaret, ut quicunque pro catholica fide arma
sumerent, ii fundos et agros ecclesiasticos inique acquisitos
post poenitentiam legitime actam retinere salva conscientia
possent et a restitutione liberari, fallimur, si nota nobilitas
(exceptis paucissimis) fidem catholicam non propugnarent.
Nihil enim eos perinde retardat ab ea re quam quod timent,
ne si obedientia Sedi Apostolicae restituta fuerit, a suis praediis
excidere cogantur. Alioquin enim sunt catholici pene omnes,
quamquam ad rem suam nimium affecti. Sed quibus merito
queas confidere, sunt ex comitibus et baronibus fere 6 aut 7,
ex equitibus et aliis nobilibus inferiorum ordinum supra mille.
Haeresi autem non nisi 5 aut 6 comites infecti sunt, reliqua
haereticorum multitudo tota constat ex paucis delicatis
aulicis et sedentariis opificibus ; nam rusticana turba, quae
et longe maxima est et sola in telure praeclarissimam opem
navat, tota catholica est.
Duo igitur sunt apud vos procuranda. Unum ut Sua Stas
in reginam Elisabetham aliquid publice moliatur, alterum ut
excitet nobiles ad fidem catholicam defendendam ea con-
ditione, ut si earn propugnaverint, poenitentiamque de fundis
iniuste partis agant, a restitutione liberentur. Quae duo si
fierent, viri prudentissimi iudicarent, non modo catholicose
ad unum omnes, sed praeterea omnes neutros et quosdam
etiam ex schismaticis pro catholica fide arma sumpturos."
Gratianus communicated the state of affairs to Hosius and
Commendone. The Pope should proceed against Elizabeth
especially as Philip II. had broken off relations and France
is only waiting for the Pope to act. Let the Pope launch the
excommunication at once.
" Faxit Deus ne amicos Romae inveniat haeresis, quos non
470 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
invenit fides catholica. Quis det cardinalibus nostris spiritum
intelligentiae, consilii et fortitudinis," in order that they
should not allow the Pope to delay any longer.
" Inceperat [the Pope] bene, quum poenitentiarium summum
in Angliam misit, et nunc re semel inchoata non est com-
mittendum, ut deserantur catholici ab ipso Papa, pro quo
pugnant." The Pope must assert his personal authority.
[Autograph P.S.] " lam nunc litterae ex Hispania per-
scriptae sunt a ducissa de Feria, in quibus significat," that
Philip II. will help the English Catholics. " Ergo
favebunt alieni, non favebit iisdem catholicis apostolica
sedes ? Obstupescent coeli super hoc." The force of the
excommunication will be great.
[Copy. Graziani Archives Citta di Castello, Istruz. I., 26.]
8-9. AVVERTIMENTI SOPRA LI MANEGGI DI FRANCIA DEL
BRAMANTE [AUTUMN, 1570.] 1
Under this title there are preserved in the Papal Secret
Archives, Varia polit. 82, pp. 287-294, minute accounts of the
negotiations of Bramante with Catherine de' Medici, which
took place in the presence of Charles IX. and Anjou. To the
complaints made by the nuncio that the queen retained
suspected persons among her confidants, that she treated the
Catholics badly and favoured the Huguenots, and that she
was in close relations with the heretics, Catherine declared
that all these things were " gross lies." She expressed her
sorrow that the world should have so bad an opinion of her
religious convictions, and gave her assurance that she wished
to be the most obedient daughter of the Holy See. When
Bramante deplored the agreement come to with Coligny,
even though the latter was at the end of his resources and
had no hope of help from Germany, the king, who would not
allow Catherine to speak, remarked that the Pope was wrongly
informed. There then arose a long discussion as to the motive
why the French government, after the victory of Moncontour,
had not taken vigorous action against the Huguenots. Here
again the answer was made that the Pope had been given
false information by other persons. The king further com
plained of the imprisonment of Galeazzo San Severino, which
gave Bramante the opportunity of making a long reply :
1 See supra, p. 133, n. 4.
APPENDIX. 471
" Poi mi soggionsero [le Mt& loro] con un mestissimo et
addolorato animo le tante persecution! loro et maledicenze
et malignita di ametterli in disperatione et darsi in preda
alii nemici di Dio, li quali li fanno mille offerte ; il che mai
loro faranno, havendo speranza in Dio che li aiutara.
Mi soggionse anco che Sua StA per amor di Dio non 1'aban-
doni, che li sono buoni et obedienti figli, et che non creda a
tante malignitk che si dicano di loro, che della lega dava la
sua parola a Sua Stdi secondo io le scrissi.
Quanto alii synodi et residentia de' vescovi, che giudicavano
essere necessaria, et Sua St& havesse scritto un breve al re
accio havesse prestato il suo braccio seculare per la essecutione
di quanto sopra ci6 havesse ordinato et specialmente in privar
quelli che non ressedano, eccettuando quelli che non stanno al
servito di quella corona, che saranno due 6 tre : et cosi che
li vescovi debbiano dare tutte le loro ressolutioni, che faranno
nelli sinodi, al re, per mandarle a Sua St4, circa che potni.
considerar bene Sua Stdi quello che li torni piti a proposito, che
non si habbig a far qualche preiuditio alia Sede apostolica.
Monsr di Angiu mi disse che facessi fede a Sua StA come la
regina sua madre et lui erano catolici et devoti di questa
St& Sede et di Sua Stdp, et che per la defension di essa era per
mettere la vita, come ha fatto sin' hora, et che era mentita
quanto li era stato detto in contrario et pregava Sua Std> a
marchiar quelli tali.
II re et la regina mi dissero il medemo et pregavano Sua Std>
che per 1'avenire, se nessuno le veniva a dire simili cose, che
lo sequestrasse, et poi se ne informasse et, se si trovava esser
vero, che loro Maesta, si sottomettevano ad ogni censura di
Nro Sigre ; quando fusse stato altrimente, che havesse castigate
quei tali.
Di piu mi dissero che assicurassi Sua StA che hoggidl non
si vedono piu heretici a canto et che tutti li caccia via ne fa
loro buona cera.
Delle cose d'Avignone mostrorno gran desiderio di dar
ogni aiuto, acci6 quel luogo fosse spurgato da heretici, et
che aspettava Danvilla per pigliar provisione, acci6 si levasse
da Oranges quel trattato.
Del gran duca di Toscana mi dissero che si erano mostrati
obedienti a Sua StA in dargli il titolo di gran duca ; il che
hanno recusato fare duchi d'ltalia, vassalli di Sua Stdt ; et
472 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
che per degni rispetti hoggi non sarebbe fatta altra .resolutions
circa alia precedentia del duca di Ferrara, con tutta la graride
instantia che le ne facci 1'imperatore, il quale non e per obedirlo
etiam che desse sententia contro il gran duca.
Che loro sicome per il passato hanno messa la vita et per il
regno et per la religion cattolica et per il mantenimento della
Santa Chiesa ; che cosi faranno per 1'avenire et che, sapendo
questo Sua StA, la prega voglia esser contenta amar quella
corona et non patir che sia cosl distratiata et disperata da
metterla in disperatione con pericolo di perderla.
Pregava Sua Sld> che, quando le manda nuntii, sia contenta
mandarle persone non appassionate, amorevoli et ben viste
da lor MMtA, et non persone appassionate et rotte, come era
il gia vescovo di Viterbo.
Che Sua StA sia certa che nel regno sono piu interessi et
inimicitie che heretici.
Che tuttavia questi capi di heretici vanno mancando da se,
et spera in Dio che le cose si reduranno nel stato pristino
avanti queste calamita causate per essere il re putto et da
1'interessi et inimicitie de' principi di quel regno et da I'ambitio
loro di regnare."
10. BRAMANTE TO CARDINAL RusTicucci.1
M6zieres, 28 November, 1570.
In questo viagio da Parigi a Misers2 per tutto dove allogia-
vamo si e fatta diligentia de intendere la quantita de Ugonoti
che vi si ritrovavano, et in San Martino, loco de Memoransi,
dove allogiassimo la prima sera intendessimo, che in quattro-
milia anime che ivi erano non vi si trovavano quattro Ugunoti
li quali stavano quieti et attendevano a fare il fatto loro.
Ms. Nuntio adimando si Memoransi nella rocca vi teneva
alcuno Ugunoto, et le fu resposto di non, ma che bene al
tempo della guerra ivi si erano ritirati certi per salvarsi.
In villa Cutre,8 loco della regina madre, dove allogiassimo
la 2da sera intendessimo il medemo. In la citta de Sueson,4
dove fumo la 3° sera, si intese che vi erano da quaranta case
de Ugunoti tra mille case che erano in quel loco, ne questo
era maraviglia per esser questa citta stata in poter de Ugunoti
'See supra, p. 151, n. .'.
1 M6zieres.
• Villere-Cotterets.
4 Solssons.
APPENDIX. 473
nove mesi. Si intese ch' el vescovo hora attendeva al debito
suo et che nel continue le chiese erano piene de cattolici si alle
messe come a le prediche. Non per questo il vescovo e degno
di scusa, che dovea dal principio non lassar inverminir questa
piaga. II quarto giorno fussimo a Lan,1 citta de grande
importantia et ivi intendessimo che solo vi erano quattro
case de Ugunoti. II quinto giorno fussimo Moncorneto,3
villagio del principato de Conde et ivi intendessimo che non
vi era nessuno Ugunoto, il simile intendessimo in Ubigni,
villagio de li canonici di Renzo et altre tanto si e inteso qui
in Misiers ; a tale che si fa giuditio che per mille catholici non
vi sono quattro Ugunoti et non si ha da desperare che dandosi
hora ch' 1 male e fresco quella medicina che si spera da la
misericordia de Dio che questa regno si potrebbe vedere
purgato de questi inimici de Dio.
[Orig. Nunziat. di Francia, IV., 94b. Papal Secret Archives.]
ii. REPORT IN CIPHER OF BRAMANTE TO CARDINAL
RUSTICUCCI.8
1570, November 28.
II revmo Pelue mi ha detto che il Re ha humore con far
carezze a qualch' uno di questi Ugonotti confidenti dello
admiraglio et alii altri per captivarseli et per denari et altre
gratie fargli ammazzare lo admiraglio et altri capi et cosl
fargli estinguere da loro medesimi ; che, come siano levati
questi capi, li altri si estingueranno in tre giorni. II discorso
mi piace, quando scgua lo effetto ; bisogna raccommandarsi
a Dio quia res sua agitur. Ma io mai me ne quietarei, fin che
fussero revocati et annichilati li capituli di questa obprobriosa
pace et che li heretici si abbrusciassero, come al tempo delli
re passati, et come si deve fare con arbori senza frutto et
pecore contaminate.
[Orig. Nunziat. di Francia IV., 77. Papal Secret Archives.]
12. THE CAPTAIN OF THE GUARD, JOST SEGESSER, TO THE
COUNCIL OF LUCERNE.*
January 10, 1572.
A detailed report on the fate of his 25 guards who took
part in the battle of Lepanto as halberdiers of Marcantonio
1 Laon.
' Moncornet.
* See aupra, p. 154, n. 3.
4 See supra, p. 431.
VOL. XVIII. 32
474 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
Colonna. " Es hat ouch der unseren einer von Kriens,
genampt Hans Nolle zwei zeichen oder fendli wie man gewonet
in galeen zu gebruchen erobert und si mir geschenckt so ins
turcken obersten galeen gsin. Selbige ich uch bi zeiger diss,
Misser Bernarden von Castanova zuschicken, die wolle uwer
streng ersam wysheit gnedigklichen von ime und mir emp-
fachen."1
[Letters of the Guard. State Archives, Lucerne.]
1 The two triangular banners of the same size, in red cloth, with white cloth
bands sewn upon them, on which there is painted in black a sentence of the
Koran, are now preserved in the historical museum at Lucerne (n. 627-28).
Information kindly supplied by Dr. Robert Durrer of Stans.
INDEX OF NAMES IN VOL. XVIII.
AGUILAR, Marquis (Spanish
obedientia envoy), 7.
Alava (Spanish ambassador to
France), 134 n. I, 176 n. i.
Alba, Duke of, 13 seqq., gi seq.,
94 seqq., 97-104, 198 seqq.,
204 seq., 208, 211, 215,
217, 219, 227-237, 323.
Albert V. (Duke of Bavaria),
250 seq., 254, 262 seq.,
280 n. 2, 283, 291, 296 seqq.
Albret, Jeanne d' (Queen of
Navarre), 109, 136, 329.
Albret, Louis d' (Bishop of
Lescar), 108, 125, 468.
Albuquerque (Governor of
Milan), 17, 21 seqq., 26 n. 6,
63-
Albuquerque, Bernard (Bishop
of Oaxaca), 336 n. i.
Alcala, Duke of (Viceroy of
Naples), 53-57.
Aldobrandini, Giovanni (Bishop
of Imola, grand-peniten
tiary), Cardinal, 383, 386.
Alessandrino, Cardinal, see
Bonelli, Michele.
Alexander VI., Pope, 335.
Allen, William (afterwards
Cardinal), 201.
Altemps, Cardinal, see Hohen-
ems.
Alzamara, Luis, 442.
Andelot (Huguenot), 148.
Angennes, Charles d' (Bishop
of Le Mans, French envoy
in Rome), 117.
Anjou, see Henry of Anjou.
Anne (daughter of William of
Orange), 76.
Antinori, Lodovico (Bishop of
Volterra, Tuscan envoy in
Rome), 281, 458 n. 2.
Antoniano, Silvio (latinist, pro
fessor at the Roman univer
sity), 445.
Aquaviva, Giulio, Cardinal, 33
n. i, 45 seq.
Aragones, Miguel (S.J.), 329
n. j.
Aragonia, Mgr., 405.
Arco (Imperial envoy in Rome),
15, 31, 36 n. 3, 106 n. i,
122 n. 2, 139 n. i, 216,
260 seq., 266, 272 seq.,
275, 300 n. i, 449.
Arcuzio, Giambattista (poet),
446.
Argyll, Earl of, 163, 165, 166
n. 4, 169, 171 seq.
Armagnac, Cardinal, 106 n. 2,
131 n. 2, 144 n. 2.
Arundel, Earl of, 193.
Atholl, Earl of, 166 n. 4.
Auger, Edmond (S.J.), 150 seq.
Augustus of Saxony, 76.
Aviles/Menendez de (Governor
of Florida), 345.
Azevedo, Ignatius (S.J.), 326-
330.
BACON OF VERULAM, Lord, 458
n. 3.
Baglioni, Paolo Francesco
(Papal commissary -general)
382.
Bannister (retainer of duke of
Norfolk), 237.
Barbarigo, Agostino (Venetian
admiral), 417, 420, 447.
Barker (Duke of Norfolk's sec
retary), 237 seq.
Barreto, Nunez (Patriarch of
Abyssinia), 347.
475
476
INDEX OF NAMES.
Baume, Claude de la (Arch
bishop of Besan9on), 81
n. 2.
Bazan, Alvaro de, Marquis of
Santa Cruz (Spanish
admiral), 420.
Beaton (Archbishop of Glas
gow), 162, 165, 170, 179,
197-
Bedford, Earl of, 193, 233 n. i.
Bedra, Bartolomeo (episcopal
vicar in Chiggiogna), 320.
Bellenden, 163.
Beltran, see Bertrand.
Berardi, Family of the, 422.
Bergis, Max. de (Bishop of
Cambrai), 78.
Bertrand [Beltran], Louis (O.P.)
St., 345 seq.
Beza, Theodore, 148 n. 3.
Biglia, Melchior, Count (nun
cio), 249, 253, 257, 262, 268,
276 n. 4, 278, 290 n. i, 294.
Boccapaduli, Antonio (latinist),
459-
Boncompagni, Cardinal, 2.
Bonelli, Girolamo (nephew of
Pius V.), 432.
Bonelli, Michele (O.P., nephew
to Pius V.), Cardinal [Ales-
sandrino], 4, 9 n. 2, 19,
20 n. 2, 26 n. i, 29 n. 5,
34 n. 3, 47, 56, 64-68,
93 n. 2, 139 seqq., 145, 162,
181, 200 n. 4, 243, 273,
349, 371 n. i, 383 seq.,
401, 408 seqq., 452.
Bonelli, Michele (envoy to
Florence), 271, 381, 422,
428, 432, 455 n. 3.
Bonrizzo, Aloisio (Venetian sec
retary), 366.
Bonsi, Domenico (envoy of
Cosimo I. in Rome), 269.
Borgia, Francis (S.J.), St., 67,
140, 181, 254, 326 seq.t
330, 345, 350 seq.
Borromeo, Charles, Cardinal,
2 n. 3, 13, 17-26, 31,
51 n. i, 63 n. i, 69, 247,
314, 315 n. i, 318-322,
325, 409, 458.
Bothwell, James Hepburn, Earl
of, 166 n. 4, 168 seq.,
171-178, 180 seqq., 185 seq.,
186, 193 seq., 195, 197 seq.,
240 n. 3.
Bourbon, Cardinal (Papal
legate), 106, 130.
Bragadino, Marcantonio (de
fender of Famagosta), 391,
417, 418 n. i.
Braganza, Constantino di (Vice
roy of the Iiidies), 348.
Bramante, Francesco (Papal
notary, envoy to France),
131 seqq., 138 n. 3, 154,
470, 472 seq.
Brederode, 82.
Brendel, Daniel (Archbishop of
Mayence), 247, 254, 293.
Brumano, Cesare (Neapolitan
nuncio), 55.
Brus von Miiglitz, Ant. (Arch
bishop of Prague), 293 seq.
Buchanan, 176 n. 2, 240.
Burali, Paolo (Theatine, Bishop
of Piacenza), Cardinal, 321.
Burghley, William Cecil, Lord,
135, 187, 191, 193, 209 n. i,
224 seqq., 233 n. I, 236
seqq., 240, 242.
Bussoti, Bartolomeo (papal
treasurer), 449.
CADAVILLE (Huguenot naval
captain), 329.
Caetani, Onorato, 422, 432.
Caligari (auditor to Commen-
done), 212 n. i, 253.
Camaiani, Onofrio (agent of
Cosimo I.), 269, 270, 276,
458 n. 3.
Camaiani, Pietro (Bishop of
Fiesole, then of Ascoli,
Spanish nuncio), 10-14, 90.
Camerarius (Imperial council
lor), 266.
Campagna, Girolamo (sculptor),
446.
Campbell, Alexander, 161 n. 4.
Canisius, Peter (S.J.), 151, 249,
252, 289 seq., 292, 298 seq.,
445-
Capitone, Feliciano (Archbishop
of Avignon), 153.
Capizuchi, Family of the, 432.
INDEX OF NAMES.
477
Caracciolo, Marcello, 40.
Carafa, Antonio, Cardinal, 29,
350.
Carafa, Mario (Archbishop of
Naples), ii.
Cardena, Alfonso de (killed at
Lepanto), 422.
Carillo, Hernando de (envoy
of Don John in Rome), 414.
Carlos, Don (son of Philip II.)
42-54.
Carncovius, Stanislaus (Bishop
of Leslau [Cujavia]), 307
n. 2.
Carnesecchi, Pietro (heretic),
270.
Carranza, Bartolome" (Arch
bishop of Toledo), 5 seq.,
8 seq., ii seq., 14, 70,
453-
Casale, Alessandro (Papal
envoy), 10 n. i, 69.
Cassander, 83.
Castagna, Giov. Batt. (Arch
bishop of Rossano, nuncio
in Madrid), 2-6, 9, 12 n. I,
13-16, 24 n. i, 25, 31-34,
39-43, 45 seq., 49 n. 3,
54-59, 62-66, 68 seq., 90,
93, 115, 159 n. 6, 199,
231 seq., 330 n. 4, 337, 349.
Castanova, Bernard, 474.
Castelberg, Christian von (abbot
of Disentis), 324 seq.
Catena (biographer of Pius V.),
449.
Catherine (queen of Sweden),
311 n. 2.
Catherine (wife of King Sigis-
mund Augustus of Poland),
310, 311 n. 2, 313.
Catherine de' Medici (queen-
regent of France), 105,
107 seq., .no, 115 seqq.,
121, 129 seqq., 133, 137,
145, 438 n. 2, 470.
Cecil, see Burghley.
Cerralbo, Marquis of (Spanish
envoy in Rome), 22, 29,
31 n. 5.
Cervantes (poet), 422.
Cesarini, Giovan Giorgio, 432.
Cesi, Pier Donato (Bishop of
Narni), Cardinal, 113, 383. ;
Champernowne, Arthur (Eng
lish admiral), 204.
Charles (Archduke of Austria),
10 n. i, 46, 52 n., 259,
280 n. 2, 283 seq.
Charles V. the Emperor, 10,
13, 52, 72 seq., 83, 91,
245, 262 seq.
Charles IX. (King of France),
105, 107 seq., H2 n. 2,
113, 115 n. 5, 117, 120 seq.,
125 seq., 128-135, 137 seqq.,
143, 145 seq., 154, 159,
163 n. 2, 217, 357, 375,
408, 438 n. 2, 463, 466, 470.
Chatillon, Odet de, Cardinal,
105, 134, 146.
Chaumont, Jean de (Bishop of
Aix), 108 seq., 138.
Chiesa, Giov. Paolo della,
Cardinal, 19, 29, 273, 384
n. i.
Chisholm, William (Bishop of
Dunblane), 157, 159, 162,
164 seq., 179, 183.
Chytreus, Joh. (lutheran theo
logian), 266.
Clement VII., Pope, 23, 50,
143 n.
Clement X., Pope, 459.
Clement XI., Pope, 460.
Coli (painter), 448.
Coligny, Admiral, 117, 126,
136, 154, 328 n. 5.
Colonna, Cardinal, 260.
Colonna, Marcantonio, 359 n. 3,
380 seqq., 390 seqq., 397
seq., 403, 406 seq., 412,
414 n., 416 seq., 420 seqq.,
428-435, 438 n. I, 448.
Colonna, Pompeo (Duke of
Zagarolo), 358 n. 4, 382,
392, 422, 428, 432.
Commendone, Cardinal, 246-
256, 257, 261-268, 280 seq.,
285, 287, 294, 301, 312 seq.,
357, 368, 403, 408 seq.,
458 n. i.
Cond6, Prince of Bourbon, 117,
120, 148, 154.
Contarini, A., 114 n. i, 144 n. 2.
Conti, Torquato, 133.
Cordova, Juan de (killed at
Lepanto), 422.
478
INDEX OF NAMES.
Corgna, Ascanio della (Papal
commander), 358 n. 4,
422.
Cornaro, Luigi, Cardinal, 380,
408 n., 450.
CorreggiO) Cardinal, 49 n. 2.
Correro, Giovanni (Venetian
envoy in Rome), 114 n. i,
145, 147 seq.
Cosimo I. (Grand-duke of Tus
cany), 64 seq., 120, 268-
279, 281, 285, 376, 379 n. 3,
398 n. i, 410 n., 411, 414,
454, 4?i-
Covarruvias, Did. de (Spanish
canonist), 4 n. i.
Cox, 221 n. 3.
Craig (Scotch preacher), 158 n. i
Crawford (servant to Darnley),
176 n. 2.
Cr^quy, Cardinal, 144 n. 2.
Crivelli, Cardinal, 2, 350.
Cromer, Martin (administrator
of bishopric of Ermland),
311 n. i.
Cromer, Nicholas, 301, 308,
311 n. i.
Croy, Charles de (Bishop of
Tournai), 78.
Cubat (Turkish envoy to
Venice), 362, 365 seq.
Culemburg, Count, 86, 87 n. I.
Cusano, Galeazzo (Imperial
agent in Rome), 450.
Cusano, Niccol6 (Imperial
secret-agent in Rome), 2
n. 3, 45-
DACRE, Leonard, 209.
Darbishire, Thomas (S.J.), 161.
Darnley, Earl of Lennox (father
of Henry Darnley), 169-
172.
Darnley, Henry (husband of
Mary Stuart), 157 seq.,
159 n. i, 161 n. 4, 163,
167-171, 173-180, 185, 188,
190, 194, 195.
Delfino, Giovanni (Bishop of
Torcello, nuncio), 262, 280-
286.
Delfino, Zaccaria, Cardinal, 43,
247, 258, 261.
Delgadillo, Hernando (secretary
to duke of Alba), 102.
Dernbach, Balthasar von
(prince-abbot of Fulda),
297.
Diaz, Pedro (S.J.), 329 n. i.
Dollinger, I. I. von, 35 n. 2.
Doria, Gian Andrea (Spanish
admiral), 359, 372, 390
seqq-, 394, 398, 4*4, 4*7,
420 seq.
Doria, Marcello, 392.
Ducroc (French envoy in Scot
land), 168, 170, 178, 180,
182 n. i.
Dudith, Andreas (Bishop of
Fiinfkirchen), 302.
Duodo, Francesco (Venetian
admiral), 420.
ECK, Simon (Bavarian chan
cellor), 262 n. i.
Egmont, Count, 96, 99.
Eisengrein, Martin, 244, 265.
Elizabeth (queen of England),
96 seq., 118, 133, 135, 140,
143, 160, 162, 166, 172,
181, 183-194, 195-200, 203
seqq., 207 seq., 210, 212
seqq., 218-223, 225 se(l->
231 seq., 240-243, 437, 469.
Elizabeth (queen of Spain),
197 n. i.
Eltz, Jakob von (Archbishop
of Troves), 103 n. 6, 247,
251, 287, 294.
Emanuele Filiberto (Duke of
Savoy), 113, 115, 120,
139, 323-
Erasmus, 74 seq., 83.
Ercilla, Alonso de (poet), 445.
Ernest of Bavaria (administra
tor of bishopric of Freising),
291, 293.
Espinosa, Diego de, Cardinal,
19 n. 2, 29, 35, 39, 4* seq.t
58, 67 seq., 93, 332 n. i,
372.
Este, Family of the, 275.
Este, Alfonso d' (Duke of
Ferrara), 269, 275, 281 n. I,
472.
Este, Ippolito d', Cardinal, 270.
Eyck, Jan van (painter), 87 n. I.
INDEX OF NAMES.
479
FACCHINETTI, Giov. Ant.
(nuncio to Venice, later
Pope Innocent IX.), 364
seq., 393, 395, 399, 400,
402 seq., 407, 424.
Farel, William (Swiss reformer),
316.
Farnese, Alessandro, Cardinal,
2 n. 3, 247, 357, 379.
Farnese, Alessandro (Prince of
Parma), 415, 421, 422,
428.
" Fate ben per voi," the Hermit,
432.
Felton, John, 217, 223.
F&i&on, De la Mothe (French
envoy to England), 191,
205 n. 7.
Ferdinand I., Emperor, 262 seq.
Ferdinand II. (Arch -duke of
the Tyrol), 256, 262, 280,
297, 445-
Ferdinand (son of Philip II.),
69.
Feria, the Duke of. 234 n. 4,
237-
Feria, the Duchess of [Jane
Dormer], 210.
Figueroa (president of the
Spanish state-council), i.
Fitzwilliams (an officer of
Hawkins), 237.
Folieta (historian), 445, 258 n. 3.
Fontana, Ces. (Papal envoy to
the Netherlands), 354 n. I.
Fontana, Jacopo (architect),
382.
Foscarini, Jacopo (Venetian
admiral), 440 n. i.
Francis II. (King of France),
no, 323.
Frangipani, Family of the, 422.
Frangipani, Fabio Mirto
(Bishop of Cajazzo, Nuncio
to Fiance), 118, 127, 134,
135 n. i, 146, 148 n. i, 153.
Friedrich [Janus], 35 n. 2.
GABRIELLI, Family of the, 422.
Gabuzzi, Giov. Ant. (biographer
of Pius V.), 141, 449.
Gail, Andreas (Imperial coun
cillor), 275.
Galli, Tolomeo, Cardinal, 247.
Garc^s, Julian (Bishop of Tlax-
cala), 336.
Gasser, Johann, 319.
George of Austria (Bishop of
Liege), 78.
Gherardi (painter), 448.
Gherardi, Pietro, 445.
Ghislieri, Paolo, 38.
Girolamo da Pistoia (Capuchin),
374-
Giustiniani, Family of the, 355.
Giustiniani, Gioffre", 424.
Giustiniani, Vincenzo (General
of the Dominicans), Car
dinal, 22 n. 5, 26 n. i,
49 n. 2, 60-63, 66.
Glareanus, 318.
Glencairn, Lord, 183.
Gold well (Bishop of St. Asaph),
212, 213 n. i.
Gomez, Ruy, 67, 95, 372.
Gonzaga, Lodovico (Duke of
Nevers), 113, 114, 120 n. i,
121.
Gonzalez, Gil (Dominican mis
sionary), 338.
Gordon, George (Earl of
Huntly), 1 66 n. 4, 169,
171 seq.
Gordon, Jane (wife of Both well),
174 n. i.
Grange, the Laird of, 194.
Granvelle, Cardinal (Viceroy
of Naples), 15 n. 4, 22,
27 seq., 31, 48, 70 n. i,
72 seq., 78, 79 n. 3, 80 seq.,
88 seq., 92 seq., 357, 367
seq., 373, 379 n. 2, 381,
385, 394 seq., 398, 414 n.,
4*5-
Grassis, Carlo de (Bishop of
Montefiascone and Corneto,
governor of Rome), Car
dinal, 383.
Graziani, Ant. Maria (secretary
to Commendone), 210, 262,
468.
Graziani, Fabiano (killed at
Lepanto), 422.
Gregory XIII., Pope, 69, 216
n. 4, 443-
Greyerz, Count of, 317.
Grindal (protestant bishop),
220, 221 n. 3.
480
INDEX OF NAMES.
Groesbeek, Gerhard (Bishop of
Liege), 287.
Gropper, 409 n. i.
Grotius, Hugo, 83 n. T.
Gualterio, Sebastian (Bishop of
Viterbo, nuncio to France),
i 60 n. i.
Guaras, Antonio de, 224 n. i.
Guillait, Charles (Bishop of
Chartres). 108, 109 n. 2,
125, 467.
Guise, Charles de, Cardinal of
Lorraine, 78, 88 n. 2,
no seq., 113 n. 3, 116 seq.,
121, 130, 157, 159 n. 3,
162 seq., 165, 180.
Guise, Henri de, Duke, 121,
125 n. 3, 128.
Guzzo di Guzzi (of Faenza),
123 n. 3.
HAMERICOURT, Gerard (Bishop
of St. Omer), 81.
Harding, 200 seq.
Hawkins, John (English pirate),
236 seqq.
T, E
Hay, Edmund (S.J.), 161 seq.t
164 seq., 179 seqq.
Henry VIII. (King of England),
223, 241, 312.
Henry of Anjou, 118, 119 n. 5,
121, 125 n. 3, 126, 129,
135, 151. 225, 358 n. 4,
470.
Henry, Duke of Brunswick,
254-
Henry of Navarre, 120, 135 seq.,
*38, M3. 374. 454-
Henry of Portugal, Cardinal,
332.
Herrera, Fernando de (poet),
445-
Henries, Lord, 187.
Higford (tenant of the Duke
of Norfolk), 237.
Hoffaeus (Jesuit), 290.
Hohenems, Hortensia von
(sister to Card. C. Bor-
romeo), 320.
Hohenems, Mark Sittich von,
Cardinal [Altemps], 247,
254, 292, 294-
i Honorat II. (Count of Tenda),
144 n. 2.
Hoorn, Count, 96, 99.
Hosius, Stanislas, Cardinal,
301 seq., 308 seqq.
Hoya, Johann von (Bishop of
Osnabriick and Miinster),
287, 294.
Hume, Lord, 182.
Huntly, see Gordon, George.
Hus, John, 32.
IGNATIUS of .Loyola, St., 346.
Isabella of Castille, 342.
Ivan IV. (Czar of Russia),
119 n. 2, 377 seq.
JAMES V, (King of Scotland),
183.
Jansen, Cornelius (Bishop of
Ghent), 81.
John Casimir (elector palatine),
113-
John of Austria, Don, 243,
372, 387 seq., 396 seq.,
406 seq., 412-421, 423,
425, 428 seq., 437, 438 n. i,
441 seq., 447.
Julius II., Pope, 333.
Julius III., Pope, 10, 46, 106,
273. 377, 433-
KHEVENHCLLER, Johann (Im
perial envoy in Rome),
248.
Khuen-Belasy, Joh. Jakob von
(Archbishop of Salzburg),
280 n. 2, 292 seq.
Knollys, Sir Francis, 189.
Knox, John, 158 n. i, 163, 175,
183, 224.
Koelderer, David (Bishop of
Ratisbon), 293.
Kunz, Othmar (abbot of St.
Gall), 321.
LALA Mustafa (tutor to Selirn
II.). 362-
Lancellotti, Scipione (canonist),
249, 253.
INDEX OF NAMES.
481
Las Casas, 343.
Laureo, Vincenzo (Bishop of
Mondovi, nuncio in Scot
land), 161 n. 3, 162-167,
170, 179 seqq., 322.
Leao Pereira, Caspar de (Arch
bishop of Goa), 348.
Ledesma (Jesuit), 249.
Leicester, Earl of, 187, 193 seq.,
233 n. i, 240, 242.
Leitao, Pedro (Bishop of Bahia),
327 •
Lennox, see Darnley.
Leslie (Bishop of Ross), 182 n. I,
187, 189, 194, 226 seq.,
236, 238.
Lethington, Earl of, 163, 169,
171 seq., 183 n. 2, 192 seqq.
Leyen, Johann von der (Arch
bishop of Troves), 247, 251.
L'Hopital (French chancellor),
no seq., 117.
Limburg, Erasmus von (Bishop
of Strasburg), 289.
Lindanus (Bishop of Roer-
mond), 103.
Lindsay, Lord, 165.
Lipomano (abbot), 36 n. 2.
Lippomano (nuncio to Poland
under Paul IV.), 305.
Loaisa, Rodrigo de (missionary
in Peru), 338, 341.
Lorraine, Cardinal of, see Guise,
Charles.
Lorraine, Charles, Duke of,
113 n. 3-
Louis XIII. (King of France),
223.
Louis of Nassau, Count, 82,
96, 99 seq., 128 n. 3.
Lussy, Melchior (of Unter-
walden), 315, 318 seqq.
MACGILL, 163.
Madruzzo, Cristoforo, Cardinal,
245 n. 2, 247, 293, 301 n. i,
379-
Magdalen of Austria (arch
duchess), 298.
Maggio, L. (S.J.), 311 n. i.
Maldonatus (S.J.), 151 seq.
Malvezzi, Family of the, 422.
Mamerot, Roch (O.P., confessor
to Mary Stuart), 1-75, 178.
Manaraeus, Oliver (S.J.), 150,
161.
Marchi (architect), 84 n. i.
Margaret of Austria (arch
duchess), 298.
Margaret of Parma (governess
of the Netherlands), 73 seq.,
84. 95, 195 n. i.
Margaret of Valois, 64, 135 seq.,
138 seqq., 143, 373 seq., 408.
Marmx, Philippe de, 86.
Marshall, John, 200 n. 4.
Martin V., Pope, 50.
Mary Stuart (Queen of Scot
land), 136, 156-194, 195-
199, 204-207, 215 n. 4,
224-232, 239 seqq.
Mary of Bavaria, 283.
Marselaer, Josse Ricke von
(Franciscan missionary),
342.
Martin V., Pope, 50.
Massirni, Domenico de', 382.
Massimi, Fabrizio de', 450 n. i.
Massimi, Lelio de', 422.
Matuliani, Vincenzo (Bolognese
envoy in Rome), 452 n. 3.
Maurice of Saxony, 76.
Maximilian II., Emperor, 31,
43, 45 seq., 88 n. 2, 99, 125,
161, 221, 244-252, 255-269,
275-283, 285 seq., 288,
357 seq., 375 seqq., 387,
396, 427, 438 seq.
Medici, see Catherine ; Cosimo.
Medici, Ferdinand de' (son of
Cosimo 1.), Cardinal, 270.
Melvil, 182 n. i.
Mendoza, Fernando, 427.
Michelangelo, 360.
Minas (Negus of Abyssinia),
347-
Miguez, Jose [Josef Nassi], 361.
Moncada (envoy of Don John
of Austria to Venice), 414.
Mondoucet (French ambassador
in Brussels), 239 n.
Montepulciano, Cardinal, see
Ricci.
Montluc, Jean de (Bishop of
Valence), 108, 125, 146,
468.
Montmorency, Duke of, in,
144.
482
INDEX OF NAMES.
Montpensier, Duke of, 121.
Montusar, Alfonso de (Arch
bishop of Mexico), 344.
Morales, Ant. de (Bishop of
Michoacan), 344.
Moretta (envoy from Savoy to
Scotland), 178 seq.
Morillon, Maximilian (vicar-
feneral of Card. Granvelle),
8.
More, Cristobal de, 30.
Morone, Cardinal, 201, 247,
249, 257, 260 seq., 273,
308,357, 379, 383, 384n. i,
385-388. 396, 398 n. i,
4°3> 435 n. 5.
Morton, Earl of, 163, 166, 172.
178 n., 182, 188.
Morton, Nicolas (penitentiary
at St. Peter's), 203, 204 n. i,
210, 212.
Muesinsade Ali (Turkish com
mander at Lepanto), 420.
Mula, Cardinal, 30 n. 4, 259 n. 2,
350, 357. 425.
Muret, Marc Antoine (latinist),
300 n. i, 434, 445, 458 n. 3,
459-
Murray, see Stuart, James.
Mutahat, Scherif (Arabian
chief), 427.
NADAL, Jerome (S.J.), 249.
Nas, Johann (Tyrolese Fran
ciscan), 445.
Nassi, see Miquez.
Navarre, see Albret, Jeanne
d' and Henry of Navarre.
Navet, Ant. (Bishop of Namur),
81.
Nelli, Niccol6 (engraver), 444
n. 4.
Nelson (Darnley's servant), 176
n. 2.
Neri, Philip, 450 n. i.
Nicholas of Flue, 320.
Ninguarda, Feliciano (O.P.),
291.
Nolle, Hans, 474.
Norfolk, Duke of, 192 seq.,
194, 199 seq., 206, 215 n. 4,
226-239.
Noronha, Antonio di (Indian
viceroy), 348.
Northumberland, Earl of, 193,
204 n. i, 206, 208, 211.
Norton, Richard, 207.
OCCHIALI, see Uluds Ali.
Oddi, Family of the, 422.
Odescalchi, Paolo (nuncio), 39,
47, 55 n. 4, 55, 415, 416
n. i, 435 n. 5.
O'Gibbon, Maurice (Archbishop
of Cashel), 241 seq.
O'Neill, Shane (Irish chieftain),
242.
Orange, William, Prince of,
75 seq., 80-83, 88, 96 seq.,
104, no, 117, 128 n. 3.
Ormiston, Lord, 169 n. 3.
Orsini, Fulvio, Cardinal, 379.
Orsini, Orazio (of Bomarzo),
422.
Orsini, Paolo Giordano (of
Bracciano), 359, 38l» 422-
Orsini, Virginio (of Vicovaro),
422.
Ossat, d', Cardinal, 142.
Oviedo (coadjutor of the
Patriarch of Abyssinia),
347-
PACHECO, Francisco, Cardinal,
22, 27 seq., 31, 373, 398,
435-
Pallavicini (nuncio in Naples),
47-
Paris, 176 n. 2, 240 n. i.
Parker, M. (protestant arch
bishop of Canterbury), 212
n. 5, 221 n. 3.
Parpaglia, Vincenzo, 323 n. 4.
Paruta, Paolo (historian), 445.
Paul III., Pope, 13, 50, 106,
388 seq.
Paul IV., Pope, 46, 77 seq.,
241 n. 3, 252, 305, 349,
381.
Pavesi, Stefano (O.P., Arch
bishop of Sorrento), 88 seq.
Pelleve, Nicolas de (Bishop of
Amiens, Archbishop of
Sens), Cardinal, 125 n. 3,
131 n. 2.
Pembroke, Earl of, 193, 242.
INDEX OF NAMES.
483
Peregrin!, Giov. Angelo (Bishop
of Gravina), u.
Perrenot, Thomas, 72.
Persico, Peter (Bishop of
Seckau), 293.
Petrus Sanctus, see Piersanti.
Pfyffer, Ludwig (syndic of
Lucerne), 315.
Philip II. (King of Spain), 1-15,
17, 19, 21 seq., 25-33, 35,
37, 39-40, 5i n. i, 52-70,
72 seqq., 77-81, 83 n. 2,
88-98, 101-104, no, 113,
118, 130, 133, 137, 140,
143, 159, 163, 165, 198509.,
203 seqq., 210 seq., 217 seqq.,
227-237, 241 seqq., 255,
263, 268, 275, 309, 323,
332, 336 seq., 344, 349,
353 seq., 356 seqq., 364 seq.,
367, 369-373, 376, 379
seqq., 384 seq., 386-399,
400 seq., 404-408, 412, 416,
433, 436, 447, 453, 4^9-
Pia, Bernardino (Mantuan
envoy in Rome), 43, 101
n. i, 114 n. 3.
Piali-Pasha (Turkish admiral),
355, 361-
Piersanti (Papal envoy in Lor
raine), 113.
Pilkington (protestant bishop
of Durham), 220.
Pius IV., Pope, 1-4, 46, 53, 78,
108, 160 n. I, 255, 268 seq.,
296, 3OI« 3l8, 323, 349,
359-
Pius V., Pope, vol. XVIII.,
caps, i to end.
Planta, Johannes (Landamann
of the Grisons), 326.
Ponce de Leon, Juan (killed
at Lepanto), 422.
Porta, Beato a (Bishop of
Chur), 324 seq.
Porta, Giacomo della (archi
tect), 359 n. 3.
Portico, Vincenzo de (Polish
nuncio), 307 seq., 311 seq.,
377 seq.
Porzia, Bartolomeo, 284 n. 4.
Possevino, Ant. (S.J.), 150 seq.
Priuli (Doge of Genoa), 18
n. 2.
QUADRA, de la (Spanish am
bassador in England), 195.
Quiras, Vasco de (Bishop of
Michoacan), 336.
Quioroga, Gaspar de (Bishop
of Cuenca), 65.
RADZIWILL, Nicholas, 306 n. 2.
Ragazzoni, Giacomo, 400 n. 4.
Rambouillet, Charles d' An-
gennes de (Bishop of Le
Mans), Cardinal, 138 n. 2.
Randolph, 166 n. 4.
Regin, Claude (Bishop of
Oloron), 108.
Re" nee (mother of Alfonso d'
Este), 269.
Reinoso, Franc, de (major-
domo to Pius V.), 8 n. i.
Requesens, Luis de (Spanish
envoy in Rome), 6 seqq.f
12 n. i, 15 n. 5, 16, 21,
27 seq., 40 seq., 46, 49 seq.,
jo, 88 seq., gi, 93, 94 n. 4,
98, 159 n. 6, 421, 435 seq.
Reumano, Cardinal, 3, 247.
Revertera (advisor of the vice
roy of Naples), 53.
Ricci, Cardinal [of Montepul-
ciano], 115 n. 5, 411 n. 4.
Richelieu, Cardinal, 222.
Ridolfi, Ridolfo (Florentine
banker in London), 203,
2ii n. 5, 215, 226-239.
Rithovius, Martin (Bishop of
Ypres), 81.
Rizzio, David (private secretary
to Mary Stuart), 158, 165,
167, 177 n.
Roger, Count, of Sicily, 66.
Roll, Walter (Swiss catholic),
316, 320.
Romegasso, 428, 432.
Ronsard, Pierre de (French
humanist), 148.
Rosario, Giambattista, 445 n. 2.
Rovere, Francesco Maria della
(Prince of Urbino), 415,
421 seq.
Rovere, Guidobaldo della (Duke
of Urbino), 438.
Rozdrazow, Hieron. de (Count),
129.
484
INDEX OF NAMES.
Rucellai, Annibale (French en
voy in Rome), in seq.,
ii 7, 466.
Ruggieri, Giulio (Polish nuncio),
301-307, 377-
Ruspoli, Family of the, 422.
Russinowsky, W. (Bishop of
Olmutz), 295.
Rusticucci, Girolamo (private
secretary to Pius V.),
Cardinal, 63 n. i, 141,
371 n. i, 383 n. 2, 384,
392, 409 n. 3, 424, 452,
472 seq.
SAINT-GELAIS, Jean de (Bishop
of Uzes), 108.
Salentin of Isenburg (Arch
bishop of Cologne), 288,
294.
Salis, Bartolomeo (arch-priest
of Sondrio), 325.
Salo, Domenico da (artist), 446.
Salviati, Ant. Maria (nuncio
to France), 138 seq.
Sanders, Nicolas, 200 seqq.
209 seq., 253, 468.
Sanseverino, Giovan Galeazzo
(Count), 138, 470.
Santa Croce, Family of the, 422.
Santa Croce, Cardinal, 384 n. I.
Santa Croce, Fabio (Papal com
mander), 382.
Santa Fiora, see Sforza.
Santori, Cardinal, 441, 449
n. 5.
Saracinello, Cipriano, 115 n.
6.
Saulak, Mohammed (Governor
of Alexandria, Turkish
admiral), 420.
Savelli, Troilo, 422.
Schaumburg, Martin von
(Bishop of Eichstatt), 297.
Schlattl, Christoph. (Bishop of
Chiemsee), 293.
Schorno, Christoph (Swiss
catholic), 316.
Schwarzenau, Baron von (Im
perial councillor), 275.
Schwendi (German general),
255-
Scrope, Lord, 189.
Sebastian (King of Portugal),
64. 135, 139 seq., 330,
332 seq., 336, 347.. 356 n. 3,
373 seq., 408, 427.
Segesser, Jost (commander of
the Papal Swiss guard),
277, 473-
Selim II., Sultan, 361 seq.
Serbelloni, Gabrio (captain of
the Papal guards), 422,
423 n.
Serristori (Florentine ambassa
dor in Rome), 49.
Seton, Lord, 179.
Sforza, Bona (mother of the
King of Poland), 309.
Sforza di Santa Fiora (Count),
119, 126 n. 4, 422, 428.
Sforza, Pallavicini (General),
389, 396.
Shelley, Richard (Prior ot
Knights of St. John), 212,
213 n. i.
Shrewsbury, Farl of, 193.
Sigismund Augustus (King of
Poland), 300, 302, 304 seq.,
309-314, 377, 408.
Simancas, Diego de (Bishop of
Badajoz), 9.
Sirleto, Cardinal, 350, 458 n. i.
Sixtus V., Pope, 459.
Skarga, Peter (S.J.), 306 n. 2.
Sokolli, Mohammed (grand-
vizier), 361.
Soranzo, Giovanni (Venetian
envoy in Rome), 393-396.
Sore, Jean (Huguenot admiral),
328 seq.
Soriano, Michele (Venetian
envoy in Rome), 73, 369
n. i, 382 seq., 385-389, 393,
396, 397 n. i.
Souchier, JeYome, Cardinal, 29
Spes, Guerau de (Spanish envoy
in London), 202 seq., 205,
209 n. i, 215 n. 2, 226, 234,
240 n. 3.
Storey, 223.
Straetmann, Johann (O.P.), 99.
Strein, Gabriel (Imperial Coun
cillor), 275.
Strozzi, Cardinal, 131 n. 2.
Stuart, James (Earl of Murray,
half-brother to Mary
INDEX OF NAMES.
485
Stuart), 163, 165, 1 68,
172, 183, 185 seq.t 188-194,
225.
Stukely, Thomas (adventurer),
242 seg.
Suleiman II., the Sultan, 256,
355, 360.
Sussex, Earl of, 206 seqq.,
209 n. i.
TAVANNES (French Marshal),
118, 128.
Tavera, Enrico (O.P., Bishop
of Cochin), 348.
Tiepolo, Paolo (Venetian envoy
in Rome), 38, 270, 403.
Tintoretto, Domenico (painter),
447-
Tintoretto, Jacopo (painter),
447-
Titian (painter), 447.
Toledo, Francisco (Viceroy of
Peru), 332 n. i, 337,
339 seqq.
Toledo, Federigo da (son of
Duke of Alba), 227.
Toledo, P., 409 n. i.
Torre, Michele della (Bishop of
Ceneda, nuncio to France),
105 seqq., 116, 118.
Torres, Luis de (Clerk of the
Apostolic Camera, envoy
to Spain), 63, 369-374, 380.
Tournon, Cardinal, 107, 117.
Trennbach, Urban von (Bishop
of Passau), 290 n. 3, 293,
297-
Truchsess, Gebhard (nephew of
the Cardinal), 292.
Truchsess, Otto, Cardinal, 249,
253 seq., 260, 292, 295,
297> 4°5-
Tschudi, Gilg (historian), 318,
321.
UBALDINE, Megliorino (colonel),
196 n. 5.
Uchanski (Archbishop of
Gnesen), 302, 307, 309,
312,
Uluds, AH [Occhiali], Pasha of
Algiers, Turkish admiral,
420 seq.
Urban II., Pope, 61, 66 seq.
Urban VIII., Pope, 222.
Urban of Austria (Bishop of
Gurk), 293.
VALETTE, La (Grand-master of
the Knights of Malta),
353 seq., 356, 358 n. 4,
412 n. 5, 440.
Vargas (Spanish ambassador in
Rome), 78.
Vasari, Giorgio (art-historian),
449-
Vasconcellos, Fernan de (Vice
roy of Brazil), 327 seqq.
Vaux, Laurence, 201.
Vaz, Andreas (missionary), 348.
Venanzio da Camerino, 2 n. 2.
Venier, Sebastian (Venetian
admiral), 413, 416 seqq.,
420 seq., 422, 440 n. i, 447.
Venturino da Fabriano (secre
tary to Card. Bonelli),
411 n.
Verallo (archbishop), 279.
Veronese, Paolo (painter), 447.
Vicentino, Andrea (painter),
447-
Viglius (councillor of Margaret
of Parma), 88.
Villani (advisor of the Viceroy
of Naples), 53.
Vivonne, Jean de (French envoy
in Rome), 138 n. 2.
WALSINGHAM (English secretary
of State), 226.
Warwick, Earl of, 208.
Westmoreland, Earl of, 193,
206, 208.
Westmoreland, Countess of,
206, 207, 211.
Wied, Friedrich von (Arch
bishop of Cologne), 78,
250, 287 seq.
William, Duke of Cleves, 254,
288, 290.
486
INDEX OF NAMES.
William of Hesse, 77. I
Wilson, Stephen (Scottish
envoy to Paris and Rome),
164 seq.
Wirsberg, Friedrich von (Bishop
of Wiirzburg), 297.
Wolfgang, Duke of Deux-Ponts
(Count-palatine), 118 seq.,
148.
Wolski (Bishop of Leslau)
[Cujavia], 302.
ZANE, Girolamo (Venetian
admiral), 390.
Zayas (Spanish secretary), 243.
Zibramonti, Aurelio (Mantuan
envoy in Rome), 456.
Zriny, Nicolas, 256.
Zumarraga (Bishop of Mexico),
336.
Zumbrunnen, Hans (Swiss
catholic), 316, 319.
Zufiiga, Juan de (Spanish envoy
in Rome), 7 n. 4, 28 seqq.,
38, 43 seqq., 70 seq., 98 seq.,
154, 199, 214, 218 seq.,
230, 268 n. 2, 367, 373,
379, 381, 399, 412, 437,
451.
,'
PASTffi, L. BQX
AUTHOR
rhe history of the ,P3
v IB
TITLE Popes.
DATE
BORROWER'S NAME
ROOM
NUMBER
*P5 1899 v-18
the cose oftiddle
Live Music Archive
Librivox Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland Museum of Art
Internet Arcade
Console Living Room
Books to Borrow
Open Library
TV News
Understanding 9/11